Zerg Rush - Fan Film

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

^ Part of the problem about free will is that it must necessitate deviancy as being possible, such that the idea of there being only one logical solution that everyone must "choose" (not much of choice if there's only one way is there?) to obtain "progress" (by what does one measure this as and is the value of this the same for everyone else?) is an unrealistically idealised notion.

Starcraft shows us two ways in which a species can collectively progress through the Protoss and Zerg but that even they are limited. The former have a natural empathy towards each of their kind and although they went into massive conflict when they chose to lose this empathy, when they got it back their society was fine but actually stagnated by the time we see them in the current time instead of progressing endlessly as your idealised notion would tend to suggest. The latter has a natural hive-mind and they made great strides in their progress but that doesn't mean it can't make mistakes (it's not perfect as much as it likes to believe) or is the ideal philosophy since it does not acknowledge and/or denies the existence of other systems of progress that also work by taking them over with the only means they have at their disposal.

It's curious to note that the introduction of individualism within these two systems (the Dark Templar for the former and Kerrigan for the latter) as a way of continuing progress is met with disdain by the majority because it leads to internal and potentially bloody conflict and yet is lauded by the most progressive thinker of their species at the time (Tass for the former and the Overmind for the latter). This would seem to indicate that real and continual "progress" is only possible with conflict of some sort and at some basic level.

---

You can't use StarCraft as a example of logical violence because both species are fictional and created with the intent of conflict.

Free will and choice are the option to overrule primal base instincts with logic and reason. Thus there is a correct choice that everyone should choose: logic and reason over primal base instincts. What makes it choice is that there are still two options.

"Progress" is a vague concept, true, with many different directions. However, there is one universal goal.

I ask you: what is the most valuable thing in the universe?

Water? Gold? Knowledge? Free will? No.

The answer is obviously, simply, life itself. Because only life can attribute value to itself, other life, and the environment it lives in.

So, it necessitates that the absolute base goal of all life is the propagation and continued existence of life. In the natural world, this sometimes requires sacrifice, true. Viruses kill other creatures as they reproduce inside cells. Parents will eat their own young to ensure they can reproduce again, and that their strongest offspring flee.

Humanity has the same, innate goal. As an aside, Abrahamic religion may be wrong on many, many things, but the drive to have lots of children is not one. Its when the enforcement of that belief creates young who cannot be properly nurtured, often due to poverty, and then discourages curiosity and experimentation, that things go astray.

What mankind can choose is to limit sacrifice as much as possible. It is said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As such, sacrifices must still be made and I cannot deny that. But those are in extreme survival circumstances, emergencies.

They do not include war. War is not sacrifice, it is greed. Someone wants something - land, resources, power. Instead of coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement through trade and unity, they choose division and death so they can acquire said thing and not share it. For war to be sacrifice, it would have to be against a foe that is not capable of logical discourse - unsapient, or so completely alien that both sides cannot ever understand eachother.

Which brings us back to StarCraft. 3 alien species, fighting over resources. If they could not communicate, then perhaps war is truly inevitable. But that is not the case. All 3 species could communicate with each other, sapient, possessing of logic and filled with free will. They could of held discourse. They could have found a solution that benefitted everyone. They chose not to, and I will forever maintain that was the wrong choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

You can't use StarCraft as a example of logical violence because both species are fictional and created with the intent of conflict.

---

Why not? The notion of human society having the capability to become a true eudamonia is just as fictional and idealised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Free will and choice are the option to overrule primal base instincts with logic and reason. Thus there is a correct choice that everyone should choose: logic and reason over primal base instincts. What makes it choice is that there are still two options.

---

The point of free will and having a "choice" is independent on whether that choice is ultimately deemed good or bad. If there is only one proposed way for progress/correct answer, it's not really a choice is it? One shouldn't lament others making so-called "bad choices" that limit progress yet in the same vein praise free will as being the answer because part of having free will means that any choice is potentially equally justified/unjustified. As such, "being logical and reasonable to progress" is not really a choice for one to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I ask you: what is the most valuable thing in the universe?

---

The problem is not the question itself but the bolded part. You can wax lyrical and claim something to be universally logical, but everyone deems themselves logical...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

So, it necessitates that the absolute base goal of all life is the propagation and continued existence of life. In the natural world, this sometimes requires sacrifice, true. Viruses kill other creatures as they reproduce inside cells. Parents will eat their own young to ensure they can reproduce again, and that their strongest offspring flee.

---

You're almost right. The goal of life is propagation and continued existence of me and mine, not life in general or in all it's variety/splendour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

What mankind can choose is to limit sacrifice as much as possible. It is said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As such, sacrifices must still be made and I cannot deny that. But those are in extreme survival circumstances, emergencies.

---

This, like all ideals, is fine and good. However, is it reasonable to suppose that this be universally accepted as being of the utmost priority at all times for each and every individual though? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know nor do I pretend to know better.

As to sacrifice, it kinda depends on what you define what that is. It is not always limited to do-or-die sceanrios as you suggest. There will always be a measure of this required to ensure progress since most people are happy with the way things are/dislike change and only those who are willing to create conflict can shake things up or even begin to promote change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

They do not include war. War is not sacrifice, it is greed. Someone wants something - land, resources, power. Instead of coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement through trade and unity, they choose division and death so they can acquire said thing and not share it. For war to be sacrifice, it would have to be against a foe that is not capable of logical discourse - unsapient, or so completely alien that both sides cannot ever understand eachother.

---

And yet, progress is still made despite wars (and some would say, in part, due to war).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Which brings us back to StarCraft. 3 alien species, fighting over resources. If they could not communicate, then perhaps war is truly inevitable. But that is not the case. All 3 species could communicate with each other, sapient, possessing of logic and filled with free will. They could of held discourse. They could have found a solution that benefitted everyone. They chose not to, and I will forever maintain that was the wrong choice.

---

I wasn't talking about conflict between the species but rather the progress and conflict within the species. The Protoss are a rough representation of your idealised notion of a society coming together to progress where there was a communal empathic link that should have solved all their internal problems, however, free will was there downfall because they still had a choice to become selfish. The eventual solution to this was to restrict their selfishness and become stoically stringent to a new order - which then fell apart again due to the free-will to make choices. As you can see, nothing is perfect/ideal but keep note, that progress still occurred despite those upheavals! One could say that those internal conflicts were probably good for their society as a whole in the long-run ultimately... if not for the Zerg killing them and all.

The Zerg are the ultimate solution to the problems the Protoss had in terms of continuous progression as a society since everyone amongst the Zerg are willing to work for a common good. It's just that the common good is Zerg-centred - everything else is irrelevent or soon to be Zerg and hence, they have no need to communicate with non-Zerg. This is the problem of an idealised society that promotes the agenda of a singular species as a whole - it can only be myopic to that society's needs. So instead of being selfish on an individual level, it is now selfish on a much larger level. Sure the Zerg are an extreme example, but given that people are inherently selfish on an individual level and in groups, having humanity working as a whole (if such a thing came true) would just gives us license to be more "speciest" not less.

The conflict between the races is understandable given that the root problems exist within (and perhaps always will) the races themselves. The Zerg are not negotiable and the Protoss are hardly any better than humans in terms of social evolution despite their many other outward advancements/advantages. The Terrans are just another by-product in a long-line of human society's inhumanity to each other, so there isn't much enlightenment to be had there. Negotiations will be pointless since neither of the species will trully and fully get what they each want since the only possible way for them to stop all conflicts is to stop wanting. Yeah, how reasonable is that? :p

DemolitionSquid;

I wish Vulcans existed, Demo, but we are flesh and bone. We are not computers, but rather walking chemistry sets, with vaguely malleable and definitely fallible neurons in lieu of transistors and microchips, whose currency are glutamate, dopamine, GABA, and seratonin. What you're asking for Christian Bale's world of Equilibrium.

The best we can hope for is moderation. We need to use our emotions, because at our core that is who and what we are. Take the Alzheimer's patient, take a baby. Do they think, reason, rationalize? No, because for them emotion rules. (Trust me on this, I've worked with plenty of both.) Because for them the prefrontal cortex is either in development or in recession. When you strip that particular evolutionary quirk from the human brain, Demo, you know exactly what exists for us all, deep down: the lizard brain full of fear and hope and love and hate.

The absolute best we can do is learn to moderate that. So we need to learn both rationalization, and to use our emotions in positive, nurturing ways.

We cannot divorce ourselves from emotion.



(...but if we ever do, I guess we've got gun kata to look forward to.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visions of Khas

The absolute best we can do is learn to moderate that. So we need to learn both rationalization, and to use our emotions in positive, nurturing ways.

We cannot divorce ourselves from emotion.

---

I never claimed we could, nor we should. What I've been saying is we can better choose how to act upon those emotions through logic. Its the difference between being scared to cross a bridge and thus not crossing it, and being scared to cross a bridge but still crossing it because you can logical determine the benefit of crossing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demo

Its the difference between being scared to cross a bridge and thus not crossing it, and being scared to cross a bridge but still crossing it because you can logical determine the benefit of crossing.

---

A heavy cost. I pay it gladly.

Damn, you'd never get this kind of crazy, deep, shit on B.NET.

What the fk was going on here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaiseStratosTygo

Damn, you'd never get this kind of crazy, deep, shit on B.NET.

What the fk was going on here?

---

Complete and utter boredom combined with abject cynicism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Complete and utter boredom combined with abject cynicism.

---

That should be the motto of sclegacy. That's us in every thread.