That the shiplords prefer to let life develop and only curate it when it grows too advanced is interesting, yes. They must think the risk is worth it for some reason.

Perhaps they fear Uninvolved action should they attempt a sterilization?
No, it's the religious reverence for the Consolat and the Secrets. Anyone is allowed to exist before they access a Secret because they're not treading on the Consulat's gift. Citation:
Consider the core Shiplord belief that the Consolat gave their lives to create the Secrets. Somewhere along the way in their formalisation of the Tribute system, they started to see what they did in first contact as a twisted form of payment. Our friends died to give reality this, so now you have to prove that you're worthy of their gifts.
The Shiplords don't do what they do when they do because they've done a utilitarian calculation and determined that this is the best way to keep the universe going. They do what they do when they do because cults gonna cult.
I do wonder about Practice sometimes. I wonder if it's truly energy from nothing or if the power will one day run out. If it's reliable over the scale of millennia then that's great.
Technically it's possible, inasmuch as the universe is finite, but I wouldn't worry. We're many, many orders of magnitude away from exhausting the well that all souls draw from.
 
Last edited:
That the shiplords prefer to let life develop and only curate it when it grows too advanced is interesting, yes. They must think the risk is worth it for some reason.

Perhaps they fear Uninvolved action should they attempt a sterilization?

I do wonder about Practice sometimes. I wonder if it's truly energy from nothing or if the power will one day run out. If it's reliable over the scale of millennia then that's great.

If it requires semi-regular willing sacrifice to maintain, that's it's own set of problems.
Well, we now know that the most similar thing to Practice is the Consolat's grand act of rewriting the laws of physics to build in the Secrets. And that was ten million years ago or so, and there's no sign of the batteries running down on the Secrets. So I'm cautiously optimistic that this kind of thing is self-powering or otherwise stable.

Do we actually know that much about what sorts of alien psychologies are most common?

The only people around with the relevant statistical data would be the shiplords and the Uninvolved I think.

How average is the human perspective I wonder.
Not very, but that's because the human perspective in-setting has specifically been soul-edited extensively.

Which is, in fact, a viable alternative to the Shiplord Tribute system. And one we could probably develop because it has strong precedents in things humanity has already done to itself. Roll up to new species and make them an offer. Either they can submit to soul-editing that will specifically, exclusively remove their collective species-wide capacity for suicidal-omnicidal will-to-destroy-the-universe, or they can deal with the reality that we'll be keeping a close eye on them to keep them from building universe-breaking weapons.

Is it coercive and creepy? Yes! But it's inconceivably, unutterably, transcendentally better than the abomination that is the Tribute system. SO MUCH better, and I just thought of it in a few minutes of trying.
 
Another problem with the shiplords is the reverence they pay to tribute fleets personnel.
She tapped something on the tablet held between you, bringing up a hologram of the Tribute Fleet.

"If they're right, Amanda, every single member of that fleet was a volunteer. We're working with very bare bones, but the Insight Focused on Alexandria believe that Tribute Fleet personnel are among the most respected in Shiplord society. The oath of service is bound up in that, and though we already knew it was something the Shiplords who fought us deeply believe in, this speaks of a much wider dedication."
Where are the people lining up to try and patch the secrets? Has shiplord society grown so nihilistic that the concept of patching the secrets would be viewed as a direct attack on their waifu?
As a bag in our toolbox that's better than genocide? Sure, but I really don't think that it should ever be used. If a species is freakish enough to demand soul editing then they probably shouldn't have the tech base to stack rocks stop another.
 
Then yes, it's very possible that Practice-assisted surveillance could be reliable enough for this sort of thing. More research is needed, but that might be part of the answer.

The Shiplords don't do what they do when they do because they've done a utilitarian calculation and determined that this is the best way to keep the universe going. They do what they do when they do because cults gonna cult.
It might not be their real reason, but it is their excuse.

If we can take away their excuse, they'll have to capitulate or face that real reason.

Where are the people lining up to try and patch the secrets? Has shiplord society grown so nihilistic that the concept of patching the secrets would be viewed as a direct attack on their waifu?
I got the impression that they just don't think it's possible for a shiplord to do, and they don't trust any non-shiplord to do it right.
 
Last edited:
As a bag in our toolbox that's better than genocide? Sure, but I really don't think that it should ever be used. If a species is freakish enough to demand soul editing then they probably shouldn't have the tech base to stack rocks stop another.
Well, I'm trying to be generous to @Enthusiast#117 and posit that the basic argument given is correct- that there is a realistic danger of universal destruction from isolated individuals deciding to blow up reality and that stopping this is worth paying nearly any price.

I don't think soul editing would be needed, because I don't think the Secrets would ever realistically permit the creation of handheld devices capable of blowing up the universe as the result of some one individual's work. And/or I expect to fix them so they don't anymore.
 
If we can take away their excuse, they'll have to capitulate or face that real reason.
They've got millions of years of experience doing neither.

If nothing else, how can they trust us? If we can edit the Secrets to make reality bombs impossible, we could edit them to make reality bombs easier! Nobody except the Shiplords can be allowed that much power.
 
They've got millions of years of experience doing neither.

If nothing else, how can they trust us? If we can edit the Secrets to make reality bombs impossible, we could edit them to make reality bombs easier! Nobody except the Shiplords can be allowed that much power.
I mean, if that's their response, then it's war to the knife I suppose.

War to the knife would suck hard for everyone though, so it's better to at least give them the chance to break out of that rut they're stuck in.
 
I don't particularly think a galactic surveillance state or blasting cultures in the soul with Practice are necessary components of a better galaxy. I also don't think we should accept the Shiplord presumption that we want those things. Or even that those things suffice for the stated goal in any case.

At a certain point we have to accept the possibility of failure. That we're never going to have certainty. That it's going to take a lot of effort and probably some sacrifice to shape a better galaxy. That we might, in fact, mess up at some point in the future and our galactic community will fall apart and perhaps face vacuum collapse.

And that's fine. After all, we're not replacing a system of certainty under the Shiplords either, despite them being a far more advanced surveillance state that does mass cultural alterations. Certainty is NEVER on the table.

And in that case, I'm willing to accept a bit more risk in some respects, take into account that there's probably going to be some notable risk reduction when hopefully someday not every culture will be forced to be traumatized and militarized and in a state of war with the great galactic power (great move, Shiplords, definitely not backfiring literally right now), and just try to make something better.

The Shiplord system as we know it today is in no way the result of necessity - though I'm sure their Authority would sooner engage all kinds of fallacies into their rhetoric than admit it. They merely use the trappings of logic as a shield for a feelings-driven crusade.
 
The Uninvolved are entire species who commit collective suicide.
This isn't exactly true. Suicide comes from the intent to no longer exist. A species that goes Uninvolved does so with the intent to continue existing while escaping a world they can no longer accept living in. The cost of doing so is enormous, as the individuals of the species do in fact die, but they die to ensure that some part of themselves lives on instead of being completely annihilated.
 
Well, I'm trying to be generous to @Enthusiast#117 and posit that the basic argument given is correct- that there is a realistic danger of universal destruction from isolated individuals deciding to blow up reality and that stopping this is worth paying nearly any price.

I don't think soul editing would be needed, because I don't think the Secrets would ever realistically permit the creation of handheld devices capable of blowing up the universe as the result of some one individual's work. And/or I expect to fix them so they don't anymore.
I wasn't really envisioning a handheld device.

People already fantasize about being one-man industrial complexes - see Supreme Commander SI jumpchain fics - if the technology exists for one person to command a fleet of drones, and they have the knowhow to bootstrap themselves up to spacestation-level construction drones from there, then presuming they're in an isolated system with the right resources, all that's really missing is the right knowledge and the right motivation.
 
There's no fundamental reason why civilizations have to make it a God-given right to be a Supreme Commander 'commander' capable of acting as a one-man industrial complex, if they are also worried about the possibility of such a one being so persistently nihilistic that their project goal is a universe-ending bomb.

If nothing else, you just make it a necessary condition of that kind of hardware that you accept periodic check-ins or something.

But ultimately, the problem here is that you can spend literally forever thinking of "but you can't be SURE this will NEVER happen" exceptions, and it just doesn't fucking matter, because the existing Shiplord system can't be SURE this will NEVER happen either, and it makes everyone miserable and galactic society horrible and slaughters countless trillions along the way.

At some point the correct response is to say "fuck it" and either find a different solution to the problem (and we have already suggested several) or just give up and do your best without some kind of galaxy-warping master scheme.
 
There's no fundamental reason why civilizations have to make it a God-given right to be a Supreme Commander 'commander' capable of acting as a one-man industrial complex, if they are also worried about the possibility of such a one being so persistently nihilistic that their project goal is a universe-ending bomb.

If nothing else, you just make it a necessary condition of that kind of hardware that you accept periodic check-ins or something.

But ultimately, the problem here is that you can spend literally forever thinking of "but you can't be SURE this will NEVER happen" exceptions, and it just doesn't fucking matter, because the existing Shiplord system can't be SURE this will NEVER happen either, and it makes everyone miserable and galactic society horrible and slaughters countless trillions along the way.

At some point the correct response is to say "fuck it" and either find a different solution to the problem (and we have already suggested several) or just give up and do your best without some kind of galaxy-warping master scheme.
I'm not trying to say it should be a basic right, I'm just pointing out that people are legitimately motivated to pursue technologies that would enable individuals to build much larger things than handheld devices.
 
Yes, and more people are motivated to prevent the end of the universe. I'm happy with the potential risks, and if some shiplords choose to continue their galactic omnicide as opposed to trying something new them they'll be beyond saving. Our responsibilities lie with our fellow non genociders first, hypothetical good shiplords second.
 
Last edited:
I don't really see how the majority being motivated to prevent the end of the universe is relevant?
 
Because they can divert resources towards stopping the crazy ones. The more resources total in a system, the more bad that is done, sure, but there's also more resources to do good.
That's where the old SL approach of 'trust but verify' wasn't so bad at all. And there needs to be some system in place because we know about one example in game where a race pressed the big red button - without the SLs interference there wouldn't be a humanity 2.0 around - and another one went 'eat it all'. So trust only doesn't suffice.
We already brainstormed several approaches that are better than the current SL system, and if we synthesize them we'd have not a galaxy of total freedom, but one where we have a sanish equilibrium between freedom and reasonable assurance that the universe will exist tomorrow, too.
And as always, and as the SLs history showcases, one of the problems with the new system will be to put in safeguards such that it doesn't devolve into something like the current SL system that will stand the test of time (as good as we can make it, at least).
Editing the Secrets is a nice 'to have', but as Baughn(?) already mentioned, the Secrets don't allow stuff the universal laws forbid; that means inciting a false vacuum collapse is possible even without Secrets which means some sort of overview will be necessary even after an edit(*).
(*) not if we can edit the Secrets to prevent such things; however, than we need some mechanism to prevent someone else to do their own version of Secret edits.
 
The one complication is that the Shiplords probably have some kind of more controllable version of the planetary nanomass built by the Zlathbu (?), the race that ended in the Fifth Sorrow.

I'm honestly not sure how you'd put something like that down, if it were deployed in a system defense role, without a weapon capable of ending all life on a planet it was fired at.
It would be both too much and too little, frankly; what the Zlathbu were trying to do was create a star lifter, essentially a way to lift thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of planetary masses of spent fuel (helium and heavier elements; Sol for instance has ~95,000 Earths worth of spent fuel, mostly in the form of helium) from a still-burning star, enough to eventually create a Dyson Sphere. A planet-killer wouldn't be enough; a star killer would but I contend that's not an acceptable use of force in any circumstance where we're not already talking about other star killers already being deployed or evidence of imminent reality erasure.

My point is that there should be far more than a rubber-stamp committee deciding whether or not to kill an occupied star, and I'd argue that the Fifth Sorrow was a clown fiesta from beginning to end, including the decision to Lumen them, let alone the amateur hour travesty that waved through the Lumen attempt on Sol. At minimum it should be treated like a death penalty case: multiple trials, mandatory appeals, maybe a mandatory cool-down period if imminent reality erasure isn't on the table, etc.
 
Last edited:
It would be both too much and too little, frankly; what the Zlathbu were trying to do was create a star lifter, essentially a way to lift thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of planetary masses of spent fuel (helium and heavier elements; Sol for instance has ~95,000 Earths worth of spent fuel, mostly in the form of helium) from a still-burning star, enough to eventually create a Dyson Sphere. A planet-killer wouldn't be enough; a star killer would but I contend that's not an acceptable use of force in any circumstance where we're not already talking about other star killers already being deployed or evidence of imminent reality erasure.
A star lifter combined with the Fourth Secret (transmutation of the elements) and the Sixth (near-arbitrary manipulation of the matter thus transmuted) would be pretty easily weaponizable into anything you wanted, including a way to blow up stars you didn't like.

My point is that there should be far more than a rubber-stamp committee deciding whether or not to kill an occupied star, and I'd argue that the Fifth Sorrow was a clown fiesta from beginning to end, including the decision to Lumen them, let alone the amateur hour travesty that waved through the Lumen attempt on Sol. At minimum it should be treated like a death penalty case: multiple trials, mandatory appeals, maybe a mandatory cool-down period if imminent reality erasure isn't on the table, etc.
This point is kind of far afield from the context in which we were originally discussing it. The original topic was "treaty ban on weapons of cosmic destruction." Either star-destroying weapons would be banned by such a treaty, or they wouldn't. If they wouldn't, the question of what protocols would be in place to limit their use is kind of irrelevant even if it's an important subject to resolve separately. If they would, then even having a procedure for deciding to use the things (and research and build them, naturally) would entirely defeat the purpose of the treaty by raising the possibility that under the 'right' conditions we might choose to research, build, and use the other types of proscribed weapons.

If weapons like that should be banned, we're deciding to just never have them no matter what. If weapons like that should NOT be banned, because they're not in the category of a universe-breaking false vacuum device, then they don't belong in the "forbid these classes of superweapons" territory.
 
If weapons like that should be banned, we're deciding to just never have them no matter what. If weapons like that should NOT be banned, because they're not in the category of a universe-breaking false vacuum device, then they don't belong in the "forbid these classes of superweapons" territory.
We could go for the exclusive club solution where some have these weapons and make sure nobody else does ...
 
And there needs to be some system in place because we know about one example in game where a race pressed the big red button - without the SLs interference there wouldn't be a humanity 2.0 around - and another one went 'eat it all'. So trust only doesn't suffice.
You're having a different conversation than the person you're responding to. Remember how that one Shiplord said they couldn't include the Uninvolved because that would mean trusting them? That is the kind of trust being discussed. Nobody is suggesting just using the honor system for limiting superweapon proliferation. What's being suggested is that humanity doesn't have to prevent reality bomb construction alone, because most other people also want reality to keep existing and can be expected to take real, actual, sensible, productive steps towards that goal.
We could go for the exclusive club solution where some have these weapons and make sure nobody else does ...
That still puts them in a different category than vacuum collapse bombs, which nobody ever has a reason to build ever.

And, frankly, the Shiplords are the end result of such a club.
 
Last edited:
weapons like that should NOT be banned, because they're not in the category of a universe-breaking false vacuum device, then they don't belong in the "forbid these classes of superweapons" territory.
No. Star killers should be banned, operative word should. Mass casualties weapons are bad for different reasons to universe enders.

Universe enders are bad because they're universe enders. Mass casualty weapons are bad because they target civilians. The main reason I proposed a separate treaty is because the shiplords don't seem to grok the concept of "reduce civilian casualties". The universe ending treaty is something that they do seem to understand.

A treaty to reduce civilian casualties is useful in the upcoming war because it puts pressure on the shiplord civilian structure. It lets all these shiplords know that the G7 doesn't need to use RKKVs on their planets, but they will against nonsignatories. Of course, the process of signing up for the civilian casualty reduction treaty involves the handover for trial of every war criminal in your society, so it's not an easy choice for shiplords, but it's still a choice.

The reason we have to have policy on mass casualty weapons is because a non cooperative shiplord world is impossible to occupy. If everybody has a fabber, any occupying army is fucked. It needs to be a voluntary surrender, or the big guns need to come out.
 
Again, the problem I see is that just breaking into a seriously defended Shiplord star system is pretty likely to require ordnance and firepower that, if directed straight against an inhabited planet, would be an extinction-level event for that planet. In which case categorically banning the weapons means the enemy can just fortify and hold us out indefinitely; we are pretty much forced to restrict ourselves to banning the tactics of mass extermination.
 
My understanding, which I admittedly don't remember the source of, is that there's not really an "if" with Lumens. They're not like the Death Star, which can be pointed at a battleship if you feel like it, they just make the star go boom.
There is no variable yield on a Lumen, no. They're also one of the only ways that you're ever going to be able to kill Shiplord stellar convertors.

When the UPI report said that the best case scenario for a full scale war with the Shiplords was a third of the galaxy reduced to ash, it wasn't kidding.
 
Back
Top