Reistance v. Founders (Security)

(tokamak) #81

That’s okay! They can think that, and they can vote that way, but that also means that they need to accept their country going to hell in a handkerchief as that one is on them as well.

(Seyu) #82

Which brings us back to square one. :tongue:

(tokamak) #83

Like I said, accountability it is the bottom line.

(Shadowcat) #84

@Sayu:
The original statement that we got in a debate over was in response to this:

I thought you were defending his claim.

(tokamak) #85

No I’m not.

(Seyu) #86

[QUOTE=Shadowcat;282515]
I thought you were defending his claim.[/QUOTE]
I was defending military action against the Resistance as well as saying that the Security has no ideology other than that of following orders.

(Seyu) #87

Relating this to Brink’s setting, if you say that the refugees deserve whatever treatment they receive from the founders, which implies that the founders are better than the guests on moral grounds?

How do you justify that?

(Nail) #88

it’s their house ?

(tokamak) #89

The founders were visionaries that took it into their own hands to strive for a sustainable future. The ark was a prototype meant to show off the ways in which humanity could mitigate and adaptate to global warming. They deserve all the credit here.

(Seyu) #90

Isn’t that because they were billionaires and had money through around? Anyway, it hasn’t been made clear whether the founders are the folks who invested in the project or that the Ark was government funded project with the scientists and CEOs calling the shots now. With their investments in fossil fuels and non-renewable sources of energy, it seems odd to me that the rich would want something like the Ark.

(Nail) #91

oooh, maybe all those scientists predicted the flood ?

(Cankor) #92

Scientists predict the flood but no one listens (it’s all just part of the normal cycle), so they orgainze venture capital (the provide the smarts and others put up the $). New privately held corporation is formed and everyone boogies out there when things start looking bad. Then the naysayers start showing up.

Where have I heard this story before…something about a grasshopper and an ant or a pig in a brick house or something? :tongue:

(Nail) #93

Aesop’s Fables, the bible without religion

(tokamak) #94

All derived from little red hen.

Anyway, it hasn’t been made clear whether the founders are the folks who invested in the project or that the Ark was government funded project with the scientists and CEOs calling the shots now.

Everything points to a private enterprise. The luxury residencies, the airport built specifically for private jets and a container bay full with personal belongings.

Government funded projects don’t display such extravagance.

With their investments in fossil fuels and non-renewable sources of energy, it seems odd to me that the rich would want something like the Ark.

They’re philanthropists, they’re the Warren Buffets, Bill Gates and Andrew Caranagies. Obscenely rich people that want their money to serve humanity and the planet. Google recently poured billions into a ground breaking solar farm project, just because they could.

(obliviondoll) #95

So everyone managed to miss my post on page 2 about the current state of the discussion…

“You’re assuming all the people with all their different accents, including those who were born and raised on the Ark, grew up in a stable democratic society.”

Time to play “spot the flaw”

How many of the refugees have had children since coming to the Ark, who have grown up and been on the wrong side because they aren’t old enough to be given a choice yet?

How many of the refugees themselves are from uncertain origin? How many of them could have come from nearby Pacific Islands without large enough economies to develop something like the Ark? And how many of the Pacific Islands are likely to retain a population long-term? They have minimal land in the first place, when the water starts rising, they’d be the first to need new homes.

“Well, we could try swimming to America/Australia/some other place that still has land. But that fancy space-age boat-thing is just a couple of miles offshore at the moment. Lets head for that instead. They can probably get in touch with someone who can help us.” Logical, yes?

And how many of those people REALLY had the opportunity to do something about climate change? And how many of them did anything to really contribute to it? Many of those islands have negative carbon footprints. They’re all trees and grass and beaches, and less than half the population have their own cars.

(tokamak) #96

No place inhabited by humans has a negative footprint. I think what you mean is below the average sustainable footprint per head. Which is a fair point to make.

James Garvey wrote a book ‘The Ethics Of Climate Change’ which delves into these issues.

But it goes further than that. The issue on how much someone else is responsible for someone else is something philosophers have battled with for centuries, millenia even.

The issue you (and Seyu) dug up doesn’t exclusively exist in a fictional universe, it exists right here and right now and we’re all a part of it.

The reasoning goes like this:

Say you’re on your way to a party in a thousand euro costume with some expensive and wrong tapir-leather shoes and on your way you walk past a dirty pond and you see a little girl drowning.

Now any sane being would immediately jump in and safe the girl without a second thought (yes you can say can undress, but just assume there’s no time for that). You were just willing to put down an incredibly expensive thing to safe a life were you not? Even if it were salvageable it would cost a lot to do.

Makes sense so far? Here’s the kicker:

Every day thousands of kids die due to easily prevented diseases, malnutrition or lacking access to clean water. Vaccines against deadly diseases that wreak havoc in these countries cost less than a dollar. Yet we’re here not caring to spent anything on that.

Distance doesn’t matter, an innocent child dying is an innocent child dying. Whether it’s right in front of your eyes or far away from your bed. Yet the guy who doesn’t jump in the pond is a monster while the guy not willing to spent a single cent on dying African children is simply not a naive hippy.

You can say jumping in that pool is an emotional response and I agree. But it turns the entire act into something far less charitable. You’re willing to sacrifice a lot to save yourself from a traumatic experience of seeing a little girl drown and being haunted by a guilty conscience for the rest of your life on top of that. Once you’re not directly impacted by the consequences of your apathy the entire deal becomes much less important to you.

So is an Ark founder unwilling to let in any more refugees really a monster? Forget for a minute that according to the story they already let in as many as feasible (and indeed, more than that) and already attempted to change the projected future with their innovative ideas. Is it really unethical to deny even the first refugee access to the ark while that saved life is still more costly to them than hundreds of saved African children lives together to you?

If you don’t feel any obligation to dying children in the third world, why would the founders have any obligation to the refugees?

Be careful with who you’re judging here.

(Shadowcat) #97

I agree with most of your post, but id just like to say that farmland has a negative footprint. THey remove more carbon dioxide than they create, as well as create oxygen. If we started farming corn for ethanol, the corn could potentially remove more greenhouse gasses than the ethanol creates.

(Seyu) #98

[QUOTE=obliviondoll;282974]So everyone managed to miss my post on page 2 about the current state of the discussion…

“You’re assuming all the people with all their different accents, including those who were born and raised on the Ark, grew up in a stable democratic society.”[/QUOTE]

For the sake of carrying forward the discussion.

This could have been to generate some revenue off the venture or to net some good PR, this isn’t anything new.

They’re philanthropists, they’re the Warren Buffets, Bill Gates and Andrew Caranagies. Obscenely rich people that want their money to serve humanity and the planet. Google recently poured billions into a ground breaking solar farm project, just because they could

Like I said before, philanthropy is but a pass-time of the rich. It’s ironic that it is the superclass who pillages natural resources and screws up economies in third world countries, comes forward to offer some appetizers to the starving. Personally, I feel it is nothing more than a bid to be renowned as saints by the masses. Anyway, there are more pressing matters they could have turned their attention to rather than building some floating city.

What google is doing isn’t charity but a business investment. They are contributing less than $200 million for a $2 billion project, the positive PR being a bonus.

[QUOTE=tokamak;282990]
Is it really unethical to deny even the first refugee access to the ark while that saved life is still more costly to them than hundreds of saved African children lives together to you?
If you don’t feel any obligation to dying children in the third world, why would the founders have any obligation to the refugees? [/QUOTE]

I dislike arguments like these. Public indifference does not justify the apathy of the founders.

Still, that depends on what you define as ethical. If you believe your life has more value than those asking for help then it isn’t really unethical. Disregarding societal norms, the question is whether it’s ethical for someone to place more value to his life than that of others.

Let’s not forget though that the founders are also not allowing the refugees to leave the Ark.

(II Captain K II) #99

Lol Tokamak, a.k.a. Singer makes some good points. Proximity is surely meaningless from an ethical standpoint, although emotionally it makes a huge difference.

My view on the issue is that the damn thing should never have been built, but now that it has nobody ought to inhabit it. Humanity is one, and the apocalypse should be seen as a cleansing of the Earth. We are all in it together, and to accept ones fate in a situation like this is much more admirable than clamoring for a piece of ill-gotten salvation.

(Seyu) #100

lol What was that?

My view on the issue is that the damn thing should never have been built, but now that it has nobody ought to inhabit it. Humanity is one, and the apocalypse should be seen as a cleansing of the Earth. We are all in it together, and to accept ones fate in a situation like this is much more admirable than clamoring for a piece of ill-gotten salvation.
Why should the Ark not have been built?
Do you recommend the survivors kill themselves?