Remove ads

Ship of Fools: A Taylor Varga Omake (Complete)

Linked contents
Ship of Fools: A Taylor Varga Omake (Complete) Demons and Angels Seven Days to Skitter
Reader mode
Neruz said:
Honestly, if I had access to near-infinite alternate realities of that type, I would inevitably end up growing myself an evil goatee and giving world conquest a try at least once, if only to find out whether the end result of that path would be a net gain or loss for humanity as a whole.

As for predictable patterns; duck theory.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be an evil killbot in disguise, but it's probably a duck. If possible, seek verification of duckery, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary assume duck unless proven otherwise.
Occasionally it will turn out to be a duck-shaped killbot, but usually not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Except that risk-assessment cannot solely rely on probability of occurrence. It also has to take into account the severity of consequence. It's why we put more effort into securing our nuclear arsenal than our stock of basic military gear. Letting fifty assault rifles out into the black market is bad. Letting a single nuclear weapon out is significantly more worrisome.
 
Derek M said:
Except that risk-assessment cannot solely rely on probability of occurrence. It also has to take into account the severity of consequence. It's why we put more effort into securing our nuclear arsenal than our stock of basic military gear. Letting fifty assault rifles out into the black market is bad. Letting a single nuclear weapon out is significantly more worrisome.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which is why you assume that the swimming waterbird going 'quack' is only probably a duck, and keep in mind the small but non-zero possibility that it might not be, until you have checked.
 
The fine line defining how far you go should probably exist somewhere near the point you start shouting "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!"

EDIT: Ok, sorry that really doesn't help the discussion, but I couldn't help myself. It had to be said.
 
Last edited:
Constant vigilance is good, constant paranoia is not.

The line between the two is very thin though.
 
And if you're constantly worried that that duck sitting on the pond eating bread crumbs is actually a mongoose or killbot, you've likely crossed the line into paranoia. You also probably have much bigger things to worry about. Especially if your concern is legitimate.
 
Derek M said:
Having said that, if you just take a "nuke 'em from orbit," approach to groups like the Slaughterhouse Nine, then you run into problems when you go to evil goatee world and the same folks are heroes fighting against the evil Triumvirate, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or, for instance, Mauling Snarks, where the Nine are a therapy group, Jack's their therapist, and Crawler sacrificed himself saving Legend from the Simurgh.
 
MajorPane said:
Past a certain point you gotta start setting up self-perpetuating mechanisms for this stuff. Take all the reformed Alexandrias, give them wormhole tech, and let them sort out their alternate selves. Let them retire from self reformation and stuff so they don't get burnt out, and step in if your Council of Alexandrias start growing goatees and taking over universes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Given Worm's demonstrated incompetence of Alexandria, this is a horrible, HORRIBLE, idea. The first thing to happen would be the CoA vanishing to a far distant universe because they don't need anyone looking over their shoulders. They wouldn't ever grow goatees, they would believe they were the good side.
 
Yeah, Costa-Brown has demonstrated time and again that she either never had a moral compass or is willing to compromise her morals at the drop of a hat.
 
I was contemplating the duck cyborg with a Turing rating of about 0.8, and an anti-matter power-plant... With a self-destruct capability... Quack!

Worth recalling the seriously boosted senses of The Family, particularly their sense of smell...
 
Beware anyone talking about "great good requires great sacrifices", they're probably the -dangerous- type of crazy who believe themselves to be on the side of good, while doing all the things that evil does.
 
Lock all the Alexandria's in a single universe where the xenomorphs have won and tell them to 'have fun'
Problem solved.
 
It's impossible to resolve multiverse-level problems anyway.

The multiverse branches.

Every time you fix something all you did was create a branch where it was fixed. It split the moment before your arrival.

So, ultimately, trying to save everything just isn't possible. So you do what you can. But eventually you'll either burn out, or decide that maybe "helping" isn't really helping.
 
Byzantine279 said:
It's impossible to resolve multiverse-level problems anyway.

The multiverse branches.

Every time you fix something all you did was create a branch where it was fixed. It split the moment before your arrival.

So, ultimately, trying to save everything just isn't possible. So you do what you can. But eventually you'll either burn out, or decide that maybe "helping" isn't really helping.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But HALPING is allowable and often entertaining for all observing the attempts to HALP!
 
Byzantine279 said:
It's impossible to resolve multiverse-level problems anyway.

The multiverse branches.

Every time you fix something all you did was create a branch where it was fixed. It split the moment before your arrival.

So, ultimately, trying to save everything just isn't possible. So you do what you can. But eventually you'll either burn out, or decide that maybe "helping" isn't really helping.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

True, to an extent, but where does one draw the line? Whatever you do another universe you does the opposite and another, nothing. The same applies if you don't do anything, or do horrible things. There are infinite possibilities, but you only see so many yourself. One must choose which them they wish to be, and choose which NOW you strive for. Do what you can, leave the rest to other selves, because you can only do what you can and who can you trust more than yourself? You help nobody if you burn out and and then where will you be? Everywhere, just like before.

Logic traps, infinity and loops. Maybe I'm just rambling.
 
MirrimBlackfox said:
May I sig this? Because it is really just perfect.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Certainly, as far as I am concerned if someone wants to put a quote from me in their sig, that means I've done something right. :V

Treekin3000 said:
True, to an extent, but where does one draw the line? Whatever you do another universe you does the opposite and another, nothing. The same applies if you don't do anything, or do horrible things. There are infinite possibilities, but you only see so many yourself. One must choose which them they wish to be, and choose which NOW you strive for. Do what you can, leave the rest to other selves, because you can only do what you can and who can you trust more than yourself? You help nobody if you burn out and and then where will you be? Everywhere, just like before.

Logic traps, infinity and loops. Maybe I'm just rambling.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You draw the line wherever the fuck you want to, you can't fix the multiverse without being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Given that you are not these things (unless you are, in which case why are you listening to me?) then you cannot fix the multiverse and attempting to do so is pointless. Instead, do what makes you happy and grants you fulfillment in life: If that involves reality hopping and 'fixing' whatever problems you encounter each time, that's fine, go do that. If not, then don't.

Existence is a very big place, and you are very small. Work with what you have, don't get caught up angsting about the existential nihilism of infinity; infinity is far too busy being infinite to give a damn about you, so why should you care about it?
 
Last edited:
Neruz said:
Instead, do what makes you happy and grants you fulfillment in life: If that involves reality hopping and 'fixing' whatever problems you encounter each time, that's fine, go do that. If not, then don't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Tim Minear wrote an episode of the TV show Angel called Epiphanies in season 2. In it, Angel tells Lockley, "When nothing you do matters, the only thing that matters is what you do." I've always interpreted that as, "Don't depend upon an outside cause or objective to give your life meaning." That's probably the answer to my original conundrum of reality fatigue...and now I realize that reality fatigue is a made-up phrase that can have multiple meanings.
 
Derek M said:
Chaos theory suggests that as soon as a universe "branches," so to speak, then it will evolve in unpredictable ways.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because Taylor decided to wear her rain boots that day instead of sneakers the universe spontaneously developed a few extra dimensions, magic, hyperspace (b5 and sg1), and subspace (ST and SG1). Several parts of reality that prior to that moment did not exist. And nobody is quite sure why her choice of footwear that day was the deciding factor for a realignment if cosmic reality. Only that, for those who can see timelines, in the ones where she chose to wear her sneakers reality remained unchanged.

~chaos theory.

Vyrexuviel said:
Beware anyone talking about "great good requires great sacrifices", they're probably the -dangerous- type of crazy who believe themselves to be on the side of good, while doing all the things that evil does.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I liked dogbertcarroll's take on sacrifices for the "greater good" if the sacrifice isn't of self on the party of the person making the plan then it's not of the good.
 
Last edited:
My point, just to be clear, is that it is okay to only seek to right the wrongs in front of you. Trying to fix everything is so far beyond human I don't even think many gods could pull it off, even locally.

And self-sacrifice is only justified when the good accomplished by it outweighs all the good at you will no longer be able to do. It is so very rarely the case it is worth it, and even if it is knowing that in the moment... No, it isn't wrong to choose to save yourself, but I will never fault someone who does otherwise.

And one final note: What is wrong to one may be right to another, and yet to a neutral observer it be entirely unclear which party is in the right. Or to put it another way: Are the Wraith really evil? They have no choice as to what they eat, and while they go about things in an evil way, does that justify genocide?

Obviously we cheer the humans, being human. But if we were wraith... Well, kind of story do you think this would be for them?
 
If self-sacrifice isn't worth it then willfully planning the sacrificing of someone else isn't worth it. After all... Think of the good that person might yet still be able to accomplish.

Byzantine279 said:
...
Are the Wraith really evil? They have no choice as to what they eat, and while they go about things in an evil way, does that justify genocide?

Obviously we cheer the humans, being human. But if we were wraith... Well, kind of story do you think this would be for them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seriously? Moral relativism is your argument?

Okay so this derails quite a bit from the thrust of the main story... but, Evil is a choice, and there was at least one episode where the wraith where offered the choice to use an experimental treatment to reactivate their stomachs and deactivate their palm feeders.

Now I'll, grant that the treatment as understood by the Atlantis team was a failure since the wraith involved would experience health concerns while their biology fought against the treatment. But I'll also point out that the wraith michael had a version that was successful to a point, though he still managed to be evil even with it.

And as far as we knew, the wraith quite possibly could've chosen to drain the life from mere animals instead of humans, though I believe if it was brought up at all in the show, the wraith dismissed animals as lacking the "taste" that humans have.

You may argue the point, yes, that they have a different understanding of morality where their food supply is concerned. Just there's a difference between sophants and... Livestock.

Justification isn't everything and doesnt automatically exonerate or absolve the liability for actions taken. Nor should it convey any legitimacy beyond a recognition of the factors involved in shaping a concern.

Yeah sure, the wraith are aliens, and thus alien to human expectations, thoughts and behaviors. However just because some group is alien does not instantly absolve them of responsibility for their actions and behaviors.

My point, the wraith did have options, they could've chosen to devote some of their biomancers to the task of reducing their need to feed on sophants, they didn't, instead they decided to use hibernation and periodic cullings when the population recovered enough. Hell they've been known to drain their own kind in the absence of other options.
 
Stephenopolos said:
If self-sacrifice isn't worth it then willfully planning the sacrificing of someone else isn't worth it. After all... Think of the good that person might yet still be able to accomplish.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I never suggest sacrificing someone else. Ultimately such tradeoffs are never a sure thing, I will not fault any reaction. I will say that it makes them a hero to try, but that's not really relevant.

Stephenopolos said:
Seriously? Moral relativism is your argument?

Okay so this derails quite a bit from the thrust of the main story... but, Evil is a choice, and there was at least one episode where the wraith where offered the choice to use an experimental treatment to reactivate their stomachs and deactivate their palm feeders.

Now I'll, grant that the treatment as understood by the Atlantis team was a failure since the wraith involved would experience health concerns while their biology fought against the treatment. But I'll also point out that the wraith michael had a version that was successful to a point, though he still managed to be evil even with it.

And as far as we knew, the wraith quite possibly could've chosen to drain the life from mere animals instead of humans, though I believe if it was brought up at all in the show, the wraith dismissed animals as lacking the "taste" that humans have.

You may argue the point, yes, that they have a different understanding of morality where their food supply is concerned. Just there's a difference between sophants and... Livestock.

Justification isn't everything and doesnt automatically exonerate or absolve the liability for actions taken. Nor should it convey any legitimacy beyond a recognition of the factors involved in shaping a concern.

Yeah sure, the wraith are aliens, and thus alien to human expectations, thoughts and behaviors. However just because some group is alien does not instantly absolve them of responsibility for their actions and behaviors.

My point, the wraith did have options, they could've chosen to devote some of their biomancers to the task of reducing their need to feed on sophants, they didn't, instead they decided to use hibernation and periodic cullings when the population recovered enough. Hell they've been known to drain their own kind in the absence of other options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not exactly. Moral relativism says morals are relative to culture. I'm making the argument that morality is relative to both biology and necessity. It could be taken as a kind of relativism, but it's less... wide, so to speak. Where for a given species morality wouldn't be flexible, but it is flexible across different species.

I think you looked too hard at my admittedly first-thought example, that was my bad, should I put more work into it. My point is that when you have a predator that has no choice but to kill sapient beings, is it evil to let them continue? Or is it evil to stop them? Consider it a trolley problem: No third answers allowed. And stopping them will inevitably kill them.

Utilitarianism says it would be better to stop them, since they will go on to kill many, many more. It's actually a snapshot of why I disagree with that philosophy: The most good for the most people can lead to absolutely horrible choices, when taken to extremes.

I'm trying to say when you go into the multiverse beware being an altruist. It is all too easy to become the villain of another story because you only had part of the picture, because you identified with one side instantly.
 
Last edited:
Stephenopolos said:
And as far as we knew, the wraith quite possibly could've chosen to drain the life from mere animals instead of humans, though I believe if it was brought up at all in the show, the wraith dismissed animals as lacking the "taste" that humans have
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It was brought up in the show and literally nothing but humans was viable as a food source for the wraith. It was straight out stated that the wraith were physically incapable of deriving sustenance from anything but humans.
 
girador said:
It was brought up in the show and literally nothing but humans was viable as a food source for the wraith. It was straight out stated that the wraith were physically incapable of deriving sustenance from anything but humans.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And if I recall correctly they did use the "stop needing to eat human" drugs after they were worked on some more. It mutated into a deadly virus that killed almost all of the ones using it.
 
IMO, the need to feed on humans isn't what made the Wraith evil. It was how they went about it. If given the option between a monstrous method and a humane method, they would always chose the monstrous method.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top