Qouth the Wizard one Los by Name:
> >** Clone them at 20. If we have a high level of anagathic tech, we
People
> who are cerebrally dead waste away in beds in hospitals all around the
> world; microcephalic foetus have a 99.99% abort rate etc etc. So how
> Especially since the establishment of neural pathways have nothing to
) with
> replicating ( where you would, say, put Mr Spok through the teleporter
Actually, it would in the terms I'm speaking in. If I can map a brain enough
to identify those pathways and connections and how the cells interrelate
physically, electically, chemically.... and presumably this *is* enough to map
the human mind.... then I sure imagine I can create this situation by growing
the brain the way I want to. And as for remapping it.... it might be as simple
as a nanite injection to remap an area of the brain by altering its physical
structure. All the tools to grow brain cells an connections exist within the
brain (as I imagine due contrary operations) and we'd just need to be able to
activate these and control them. This would be a requirement to "update" a
stored clone.
You know, I wish I could be around 200 years from now just to see it. Or 2000
years. If we don't do ourselves in, you just may be able to go into Recall
Corporation ("Blue Sky on Mars...") and get a bad memory flushed. Or get a
good trip memory installed.
It might never happen. I just don't find this particularly more unbelievable
than the control of gravity which is as likely to be science fiction as
anything even in 2200... simply put.... I think that the brain isn't well
understood, but it seems likely we will one day understand it. Quantum
barriers may give us a pain as may Heisenberg. But antigravity involves
controlling particles or properties of waves or fields that don't even exist
(ie we have no proof of any sort of oppositional counterforce to gravity)
today. So it seems (unless something has changed in the last 4 or 5 years
since I cared enough to look) we're pretty unlikely to do this. But AG tanks
and inertial compensators are a staple of the GZGverse. Seems to me that
remapping the human brain is a joke by comparison. YMMV.
> >** Sort of my point. Imagine what they were talking about in 1880 and
> >what we could do in 1980... I'll bet they would not even have come
> This argument always gets tossed out in these types of debates like
Buddy, I don't think jackbooted thugs with cattleprods could eliminate YOUR
skepticism:)
(Or my own.... skepticism is a good thing - I think it has evolved in
our nature as a good defence against the perils of optimism...)
> .Of course in 1945-55 it was a given
Hmmm. Seems to me science is doing lots of wazoo stuff.
> like flying pan am clippers to space for business/vacation,
Look for this one in about 10 years. It's coming... it's just been slowed up
by costs. But I've seen the prototypes.
having a functioning
> moon base (with Martin Landau in control),
This one's real. I've seen it on TV. TV never lies. How could it?
<grin???>
Seriously, this one was a tad hopeful, though I don't think it was a technical
thing that stopped this. There just was very little point to it and better
ways to spend our money.
operating a the vaunted International
> Rescue, blah blah blah,
That blah blah blah turns out to include things like: Prediciting the world
full of interlinked computers in which we can shop at home, communicate with
each other using voice and video, etc. Hmmm that one seems to have happened.
Flying around the world really fast. Not yet, but their are some nice projects
in later stages of developments that may realize this in the next 10 or 20
years. Amazing progress in biosciences. Gee look... they're growing corneas
now. Pretty spiffy to me. Amazing progress in physics. Gee. We have Nuclear
Power. We have designs for bomb rockets and other kinds of nuclear engines to
take us to the stars. We can utterly destroy our world on a whim. I'm pretty
impressed.
Your point is the guys in the 50s predicted some disney world happenings and
technologies, and we don't seem to have them. My point is the things we do
have are pretty darned amazing and not that far off from the stuff of the
1950s. In fact, most of the stuff predicted in 1950s for 2000 could be viable
and ongoing by 2050. I think they just didn't allow for human lack of vision,
human laziness, and the many other priorities of life. But most of the stuff
they talked about we aren't that far from doing. Again, YMMV. But I think if
you look at what we can do, many times it is 1000 times more impressive than
what they thought would
happen. They suggested things like us having aircars to fly to work -
I've seen a design for one recently. It actually works. I think it would make
the FAA nervous as hell to have all of us in the air, but the design was
viable and it might happen yet. They didn't suggest the Internet exactly as it
is today, and we've only grabbed a smidgeon of its potential. They may have
suggested wireless, but nothing on the order of the magic we'll do with
wireless in the next 20 years.
your arguments are just as easily turned on their head
> with the same number of supporting arguments that we can look back and
Au contraire, mon frere! We're near accomplishing much of what the 50s
suggested (including robot maids... I've also seen designs for such things or
dirt cleaning nanites) and we've realized in many cases the
ideas were as fanciful as childs fantasy - not useful. If the idea is
useful, you can bet it'll probably happen (the one exception being stardrive
which I'm not sure we're nearer to). In most cases, we could have done what
they suggested if we'd had the money and will, and in many cases we are doing
it slower but it is being done and will eventually be nearly what they
envisioned. In some cases, they thought of stylish things that were useless if
you thought about it, and they probably won't happen in that form. And they
pretty much missed the boat on some areas. But overall our techonology
development rate is amazing *AND* it is increasing. There are a lot of things
that will transform the world fundamentally in the next 100 years. Technology
is probably number one.
In fact
> it seems that most sci fi or future history prediction seems to be
Or not so wildly.
Keep in mind in this whole thing I'm merely airing out the possibility of
something, not commenting on whether it will happen. Ethical issues may
prevent us from cloning life or cold storing spare parts. We may find a
quantum level problem. Their may just be some undefineable human spirit. One
way or the other, I can't know the future. But neither can I endorse Mr.Ludd
and his movement. I think it is far too easy to point to today's digerati (or
digital cognozenti or intelligentsia) and suggest that they have not heralded
in the Golden Age of Humanity just yet. Well, maybe not. But maybe that's not
too far off in some ways (technically... its a ways off culturally and
psychologically). And maybe just maybe our accomplishments to date are pretty
darned impressive if we weren't so busy taking them for granted.
Anyway, the whole point of the posting was to spark some thoughts, and we've
seen both viewpoints defended and attacked, and I think everyone has formed
some form of opinion on whether or not it will be feasible and whether or not
they want to include cloning and such ideas into their PSB. Some just don't
care (sacriledge!):) But one way or another, I think we've explored some of
the complexities involved and I thank Beth for her (admittedly skeptical)
contributions. Maybe I'm just a rosy eyed follower of the church of high
technology, but I'm impressed by our technical achievements. I'm far more
concerned about our ethical progress, our societal dynamics, our environmental
affairs, our individual values and education, than I am about whether we can
or can't clone.... I think that will be one of the *easy* problems to solve.
When we want a hard one, we can try global governance.....
Happy Y2K! Tom.
Los
> Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:
> Actually, it would in the terms I'm speaking in. If I can map a brain
In that case a clone has to be grown from day one with a specific "host" map
in mind. (I.e. You're not going to put Brian in a clone gron for Jerry.)
> That blah blah blah turns out to include things like:
I guess my point is for everything that we are doing now that noone thought
could be done, there is something we assumed could/would be done that
isn't! And there's a large jump between theoretical science and practical
science, be it because of funding, ethical issues, or simple making things
happen in
the field that should be able to happen in the lab.(complecity/chaos) I
don't doubt that what you are saying can happen, I just question whether it
will happen by 2180 or if it's best put into an alternate SF universe. Becasue
the level of tech your talking (to turn your argument on itself) is so
advanced that other technologies may very well have gotten to the point to
change war around so drastically that we might not even recognize it as we are
simulating it today. Seriously is we have such a masterly control
over brain technology/cloning technology and so on, what's the rationale
for having human troops in the equation anyway since the one thing that makes
them human, their selves and their thoughts can now be distilled into a
replicatable pattern. Then we should put that porgramming into something less
frail and superior performing than flesh.
> Anyway, the whole point of the posting was to spark some thoughts,
This you've done. Actually despite all my bleating this discussion has really
solidified some things I was already planning for my next story. (already
under way).
Apparently Australia hasn't collapsed into an abyss yet, but then again maybe
God is operating off of Zulu time. We'll see....
Cheers
OK, how 'bout this:
If technology exists to completely replicate a human, including personality
and ability gained from experience AND the technology can be selective about
what is reproduced, why bother
a) making mechanical robot soldiers: grow bazillions of sort-of
human
ones in big tanks a-la Matrix, and send them off to fight. Perfect
copies
of a few successful designs, available en-masse.
b) sending "real" people to fight at all. No problem with fixing broken people
'cause you can make soldiers that aren't part of the controlling faction of
society, and then who cares if they die 'cause you can just make a dozen more.
Scary social implications - a society of people who control the cloning
technology and are actual "individuals" and then vast castes of workers who do
all the unpleasant stuff. You could take these thoughts down dozens of
different paths, and get any number of unpleasant conclusions... These ideas
have been the food for all kinds of SF stories.
I don't like it, from a purely "aesthetic game play" point of view. I don't
like that kind of vision for "the future", 'cause I wouldn't want to live
there.
It seems to me that the Canon GZG history describes a world of individuals. It
feels that way, anyway.
I agree with Tom's sentiment about the potential for medical advances. And Los
(and others) have all kinds of valid "criticisms". Where does that leave us.
How about looking at this from a more "Gameplay" point of view. I don't like
the idea of mass clone armies stomping across the GZGverse, 'both 'cause I
don't like the feel of that kind of universe and 'cause I don't think the
Canon history supports it. I do think that Medtech would be WAY advanced over
what we have achieved so far.
Is it fair to say that humanity will tackle limb regrowth by 2180? I certainly
think that isn't unreasonable. Organ growth? Sure. Brain transplants? Uh,
maybe, but yuk. Complete replication of the personality and abilities of a
person? I don't think so, but more importantly I don't like that from a
Gameplay point of view. It dehumanizes the soldiers. OK
- in the end, these are little lumps of lead and paint, in a fantasy
setting that exists largely in our collective imagination, but with all
these sorts of games I always end up thinking beyond the table - I love
getting into the world setting in my imagination... Medicine will be able to
tackle most injuries, given proper treatment facilities and timely medical
intervention. But some poor squaddie who takes a round through a
lung on a colonial battlefield out in the Fringe someplace - at the end
of a LONG line of communication and left for months without resupply 'cause
that spot really isn't that important anyway - is going to die choking
in his own blood. And it's unpleasant, but it's going to happen. And it makes
the game MUCH more dramatic, and REAL. Well, to me, anyway.
There is the GW style "science"fantasy with genetically engineered
supersoldiers fighting bioengineered monsters who can just throw any living
material into big vats to make more beasties when one gets killed. That's ok
in it's own context, if you like that sort of thing (ok, nobody kneejerk
here). But this isn't that sort of context, at all. I like the idea of my
soldiers being some kind of individual. Not that I write a background for each
grunt in a SG game, but in the end, it makes gives the game more flavour and
dramatic impact if you think of the troopers as people, like us but in a
different setting, as it were.
Medical tech that, in the right circumstances, can fix most injuries is
believable and works from a dramatic point of view. But there will be lots of
times when it won't be the "right circumstances", 'cause those are the
kinds of stories/circumstances that we create.
Way more interesting, and more satisfying, than the "ok, we got a brain cell
so we can regrow him in 3 days" perfection (with all the
social/moral/ethical traps accompanying it) of Tom's initial ideas. So
the PSB in my version of the GZG universe will have zoomiemedtech (tm) but
dead is still dead, dead, dead...
Anyway, it's 4am and I'm off to sleep...:)
Happy New Year to all, and I'm happy to say that my 4 year old P133 running an
old Win95 is still working just fine, and it tells me that the date is 3 Jan
2000... I had wondered what would happen when I turned it on
today... :)
> At 04:25 AM 1/3/00 -0500, you wrote:
Well by robots (if we extend the term to mean cyborgs) because you can make
better physically performing soldiers, faster shoot more accurate, stronger,
etc. This might make them more survivable. Instead of just sending hordes of
humans to get kille dover and over again. It might be cheaper.
> b) sending "real" people to fight at all. No problem with
> I agree with Tom's sentiment about the potential for medical advances.
And
> Los (and others) have all kinds of valid "criticisms". Where does that
Though they'd make great bad guys! Think about it, with the mad rush to
colonize and decentralize, who's to say Planet X, owned by Corporation Y under
the leadership of madman Bill Gates the XIII doesn't sucum to the temptation.
> getting into the world setting in my imagination... Medicine will be
This disparity happens today we don't have to go two hundred years out to see
it. It's part and parcel of my alternate line of employment that I find myself
working with third world countries, helping them to settle "issues". Now the
difference between medical care here in the US or in a US military operation
of say Desert Storm size, and what is available in say
Eritrea/Ethiopia, Phillipines, Sri Lanka etc etc, is like the differnce
between medical care today and medical care in 2183. Simple injuries which get
you a day in the ER here kill people over there all the time. It really gives
you an appreciation for the courage of some of these soldiers because they
know if they get hit, even a minor hit, and they are either going to die or
lose a limb etc, which is especially hard to take when you know that the tech
is out there to save them.
Part of the differnce is in Evac capability, part in medical technology and
resources funding available and part of it is the fact that most third world
snuffies are just not considered to be important enough tow arrant such
effort, that needs to be saved for important people (high level officers etc
etc) It's amazing stuff.
> [quoted text omitted]
Good post Adrian.
> If technology exists to completely replicate a human, including
hmmm. maybe. they'd have to be a LOT more survivable to make it worth while,
though. OR you can produce them really cheaply. But in the end, if you're
talking cyborgs, I guess you're really meaning a human mind
controlling it - and you end up with the same issues all over again...
Either it is a mass-produced "mind" that isn't valued much, or it is an
individual that is valued enough to spend lots of $$ on to soup up with the
faster/shootier/tougher bits... The latter is really like the
difference between today's "high tech" forces and today's "low tech" forces.
The low tech armies make do with numbers and commitment, and the high tech
have zoomier kit and more $$ for training, etc 'cause they don't want to take
the casualties. But if the cyborg "mind" is cheap/easy to mass produce,
we're back to what I started with...
...just a thought...
> b) sending "real" people to fight at all. No problem with
And
> Los (and others) have all kinds of valid "criticisms". Where does
Yuk! But, of course, you're quite right. Sure you've got tongue in cheek here
to some degree, but why not? Cloning tech that can produce a fighter
fast, who has very limited socialization (all s/he can do is fight, and
conduct the basics of survival ie sleep, eat)... so you run into problems
like hyper aging a-la dolly. So what. You use them up fast, and if
they die off in a couple of years, who cares. All they need to do is be able
to learn a bunch of standard battle drills and operate their personal
equipment. For intelligence you add in some "real" humans in CnC positions,
and then expend the clones like water. If some get left behind
or trapped or their mission is done and retreiving them is difficult -
who cares. Make sure you have a small FTL cutter (or something) for the
"command" caste, and then just abandon the rest.
This could be quite ghastly....
In SG terms, you could say that most squads in such a force would be "green"
'cause they're only capable of rudimentary battle drills, and they are limited
to leadership 2 at best. They might have some kind of advantage when taking
confidence checks OR perhaps slightly different rules about what the effect of
failing a confidence check is (they're socialized to fight and die in battle,
so they react differently to "real" humans). Their platoons may be led by a
"real" human commander, and perhaps a plt sgt, but if they die, the platoon
loses it's ability to conduct itself as a unit, and each squad is on it's own
(no reactivations possible from any other command level). In certain
circumstances, there MIGHT be a "real" human sgt in charge of a squad, which
could bring the squad up to "regular" quality, but if that sgt goes down, the
squad automatically becomes a green 2 or 3 unit, with no chance of maintaing
the "regular" quality.
They get lots of troopers (maybe platoons of 5 or 6 squads) but not much
high-tech support. Few apc's, little air support, little arty, etc. No
EW at the platoon level. Maybe at company level, but only in special
circumstances.
...And they cause terror in Hand to Hand, like the Ghurkas, 'cause everyone
knows what they are...
Hmmm.
Could be a lot of fun.
> Part of the differnce is in Evac capability, part in medical technology
Maybe in a campaign setting, you account for some of this by giving the "real"
human forces a greater ability to recover numbers between battles (they have
more effort spent on evac and med tech), but much lower numbers to start
with...
In a one-off game, this wouldn't matter... but makes for good
background and scenario generation...
> [quoted text omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day Adrian,
I do like the fact you've tried to figure out a way of dealing with an SG
clone force, I just have one problem (which I guess is a major problem I'm
having with this entire conversation) and that is why should the clones think
of themselves as expendible?
These clones are genetically human in everyway, their production may not be,
but they are. We haven't figured out what it is that gives all animals the
desire to survive, but breeding a clone isn't going to remove it. I
'd
say it was an odds on bet that your clone force would revolt, maybe not the
first time a group got left behind, but eventually.
An immediate response to this point I guess would be the claim that their
"limited socialisation" has got that covered: a) they're not trained to expect
more out of life, but in counterpoint neither were the Russian peasants, for
instance, who were treated as virtual slaves for centuries but they certainly
demanded change in a rather spectacular fashion b) they're not mentally
developed enough to have such higher thoughts, these clones are grown flat out
and there's no mental room for them to start to grasp the higher and abstract
concepts which lead to independent thoughts, but in counterpoint to this I'd
have to say that they're obviouslly developed enough to take in basic field
training, so they'd be
advanced enough to have thoughts of independence - any parent of a child
that's hit 2+ will tell you independent thoughts come early, tough
(loud, and often in the middle of supermarkets and toy sotores when the word
No is
mentioned), but non-the-less early, much earlier then when they could
grasp battlefield drills.
Maybe it is my own distaste for the concept that is colouring my thoughts
here, but I really can't see a clone force as a viable longterm option,
especially if they're considered and treated as expendibles. Oppression leads
to revolution... eventually (OK maybe that's the in, SG clone force is
possible if its a recent starter as they haven't had time for the winds of
discontent to become gale force just yet).
Anyway just another 2 razoos worth;)
Beth
> G'day Adrian,
And a good one to you, all the way down there in the warm sunny south, from we
here in the cold, miserable north:)
> I do like the fact you've tried to figure out a way of dealing with an
Well, first of all - deep down I don't really like the idea of clone
armies very much. As I said in an earlier post, it just doesn't fit my
"aesthetic" view of the GZG universe. But that aside, Los raised the
interesting point "they'd make great badguys!" - which I agree with.
Thinking of themselves as expendible? Hmm. If they are socialized with a moral
structure that recognizes the idea of personal value and self worth
as an individual, then expendibility/personal value would have some
meaning. So don't let them socialize that way - starting from age zero.
Remember this human race of ours is the same one that convinced Iranian
children to walk into mine fields ahead of their troops, by promising them
a quick trip to Paradise, etc... I went to school with an Iranian guy
who was a young man during the "Revolution", and he had a few (wouldn't talk
about it much) terrifying stories of this kind of thing happening. We make
jokes about sending human waves of troops into battle with enough rifles for
just the first rank (others to pick them up as the first ones go down) but
that kind of thing REALLY HAPPENS...
Think about the assassin orphins in Romania. Ceaucescu (sp?) and his cronies
arranged for "promising" orphins growing up in state run homes to be raised as
assassins from early childhood, and to believe that they were born to be
servants of the state, that killing for the state was a good thing, etc etc
etc. Can you imagine the heck of a time Romania had trying to deal with these
people after the "Communist" gov't was turfed out?
> These clones are genetically human in everyway, their production may
erm... maybe.
but you keep them in small enough numbers to be manageable in groups, and
don't let them communicate inter-group. and if any rebel, you cash in
their entire unit (in a really ugly way) and show footage to all the others,
telling them how the rebels were "disloyal".... etc. Propaganda, brainwashing,
controlled socialization, very limited communication, NO knowledge of anything
outside their immediate "community" etc etc etc
here's a wild thought. how about not teaching them speech. teach them what
they need to do on the battle field (remember, basic battle drills
guided by a "real" human staff) using compliance training - but don't
let them develop the sophisticated communication abilities necessary to
discuss things like rebelling amongst themselves. Keep them away from
philosophical/moral concepts like "rights", "personal value",
"individuality", etc. Keep them, as much as possible, from thinking in those
terms and talking to each other about it.
If you have to provide them with some kind of moral framework, then give them
a very basic one that justifies the kind of behavior you want out of them.
> An immediate response to this point I guess would be the claim that
um... the Russian revolution (at least if I remember my history correctly)
was conducted largely by urban dissidents - and not very many of them,
relatively speaking. Remember - Marx wrote in England, and thought his
social model would fit the English industrial working class poor - the
VAST peasant serfs "class" in Russia were not the breeding ground for a
proletariat revolution... They didn't demand change (except, perhaps, in
isolated incidents that were met with Pogrom)- they were swept along in
change that was started by an educated "elite" group of dissidents, who had
largely spent a lot of time in Exile in other parts of Europe.
...but I get your point...
so you don't let the clone troopers develop enough knowledge to be able to
compare their lives to something "better"... at least not at first. And maybe
part of the "limited lifespan" of the clone armies (not just the accellerated
aging effects of the vat grown clones) is the eventual development of enough
social consciousness to start making this kind of
value comparison. But that would take probably several campaigns - and
if you were careful how you used the clone units, and gave them plenty of
reindoctrination in between actions, you might be able to prevent it for a
while. If any natural leaders appear who "espouse rebellion" you whack them.
If any units rebel, you liquidate the whole bunch. And when they reach an
"age" (really such level of experience acting together in a "society" that
they start to develop that kind of value judgement) then you declare the
entire unit closed for business, and brew up another
bunch...
> b) they're not mentally developed enough to have such higher thoughts,
Sure. You don't want them to have NO concept of personal danger - or
they'd make useless soldiers. They would have some idea of pain - using
pain compliance training would probably be a necessary part of their
upbringing. Some sense of self-preservation would probably be required.
But it could be controlled, perhaps. (I don't like this train of
thought very much)
> Maybe it is my own distaste for the concept that is colouring my
Honestly, I have a real distaste for the concept also. In the end I don't see
how you could do it without resorting to some REALLY stomach turning
processes. That's one of the reasons I won't see them much/at all in my
version of the GZGverse...
Having said that, I wonder if given the right infrastructure and political
commitment, a nation (of bad guys, obviously) might be able to do something
like this. It would make for a really high motivation to beat them, that's for
sure. I'd have very few moral qualms about fighting if they were the
enemy...
..I'd rather not spend too much more time thinking about how to make it work,
though...
> Anyway just another 2 razoos worth ;)
I'll see your razoos and up it with my $0.02
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> Well, first of all - deep down I don't really like the idea of clone
Yeah for the record I don't like 'em either, but when someone comes up with an
idea, it needs to be run with so feasibility can be fleshed out, as well as
just for the mental exercise to be had from the discussion. The brain power on
this list is amazing to me, you guys can take a lump of clay and make anything
out of it.
Also it's very true that the clones themselves probably wouldn't put up with
the whole cannon fodder thing unless they had their minds altered in some way.
(Perhaps by enhancing certain aspects of their belief systems like duty,
honor, religion? (Adrian's example of Iranian kids) Or just implanting an
imperative to follow whatever commander X orders them to do to the letter?
> Thinking of themselves as expendible? Hmm. If they are socialized
Well, if we go with the original premise that the clones are just having their
brains remapped to from some master imprint, which is getting updated with
each recent operation's experience you really start running into
"contamination" troubles (contamination being ideas of freedom, self
preservation, what happened to Joe and Bob to the left and right of me
yesterday, etc)
> If you have to provide them with some kind of moral framework, then
I imagine with the level of sophistication required to grow them the way you
want them in the first place, you could probably do that pretty easy.
> >b) they're not mentally developed enough to have such higher
Of course something that may be getting missed: Successful performance in
battle, particularly running a squad or anything higher, is as much an art
form as it is a technical skill. It requires sophisticated reasoning, higher
thought processes, imagination, creativity etc. etc. (It's like playing chess,
except add in the interpersonal skills needed to get people to do things they
don't want to under fire, the ability to think clearly and quickly through
fatigue, fear, pain and discomfort, and the ability to balance rational
civilized reasoning with the more baser animal functions of fight or flight to
get things done.) Civilians easily dismiss soldiers as automatons (not saying
you guys do), but that's far from the truth in many ways. Unless you have just
ridiculous
sheer numbers which has got to be cost/resource prohibitive in some way.
Well that is if you're to be successful. So our obedience process may end up
getting in the way of effectiveness. Unless you are gong to have a different
class at the squad leader and higher level..
> Having said that, I wonder if given the right infrastructure and
It's such a complex process, lots of humans, brains, sophisticated technology,
it just begs for chaos theory to get in there and fuck it all up. Then the
next thing you know all the guys in white lab coats have electrical prods
shoved up their asses and the clones are dancing gleefully around them.
(reminds me of the Ork history from 40k).
g'nite
G'day again Adrian,
> And a good one to you, all the way down there in the warm sunny south,
Well actually after a very mild winter we're having a truly atrocious summer,
its currently about 11 deg C out, biting winds and raining so hard you can't
see 3 ft in front of you... but thanks for the thought;)
I guess we both think about this in the same general way, but I wouldn't mind
expanding on a couple of points that you mention here.
> But that aside, Los raised the
Guess I agree too - after all I now have a fully fledged Dalek army
(expendible clones with attitude) - its just putting it in more human
terms starts to push my suspension of disbelief.
> Thinking of themselves as expendible? Hmm. If they are socialized
Mmmm, without socialisation of any form you may as well have size 1 units
because there's going to be NO unit cohesion, socialisation starts from the
moment you're born and insures we work together to get things done, without it
society falls apart. Individuals who are ostracised or isolated soon after
birth don't function in group situations (which a squad would be) well, if at
all. I've never been in the army myself, but from the stories I've heard my
grandfathers and Derek recount its the unit cohesion that often gets you
throigh when by all accounts you shouldn't. Same goes for Antarctic or deep
water expeditions and all manner of other events. Clones as you outline them
here would be fine as bullet catchers, but wouldn't be
able to effectively retaliate in any form - might as well give 'normal'
humans extra armour to soak up that fire, lot cheaper.
> Remember this human race of ours is the same one that convinced Iranian
Suprisingly enough there's many more Iranians, Romanians etc etc who are
horrified by what happened. There are such stories of human abuse through out
history and in every case where there's been a bit of time under the bridge
the worm has turned.
> but you keep them in small enough numbers to be manageable in groups,
Then how do you get them to operate as an integrated fighting force who can
use their numbers (the prime reason everybody gave for having them in the
first place) to adavantage?
> and if any rebel, you cash in
Propaganda,
> brainwashing, controlled socialization, very limited communication, NO
That might well all work as you envisage, I just don't think it actually
would. Often all it takes are individuals who hit upon and verbalise some
undercurrent the rest can't quite put words too and then the touch paper
has been lit - cashing in the unit may just make them martyrs...
> here's a wild thought. how about not teaching them speech. teach them
> things like rebelling amongst themselves.
Once again, how do they then function as an integrated whole? I know in the
past that I've said you can have quite sentient alien races without speech,
but these communicate in other ways. Without communication (and the abstract
thought and perceptions which accompany it at even very simple levels) how am
I going to tell you to duck so I can shoot the mother of a tank behind you?
> Keep them away from
Unfortunately individuality/rights seem to be notions almost inborn in
the human psyche. Children have such temper fits because they are testing and
exploring their individuality and rights. My soon to be 6 yr old son right now
is being a right royal pain in the behind because, like all kids his age, he
thinks that he's the first to have invented questioning authority and if I can
do something or stay up late or go somewhere then why the hell can't he?
> If you have to provide them with some kind of moral framework, then
It almost seems a product of evolution to covet what others have - its
one
of the basic behaviours observed in all metacellular life - so if those
clones see that their officers have got something they don't then sooner or
later you may well have big trouble on your hands whatever you teach them.
Delving into sci-fi to try and illustrate my point here (and trying not
to
give too much away from the books concerned), the Psi-corp in Bab 5 was
originally created to protect teeps from mundanes (who went about slaughtering
something that unknown and thus frightening them), and those raised in the
corp were taught to look after each other first and foremost,
but their were dissenters even there - the one being who seems to have
followed the teaching to the letter is seen by everybody else as the arch
villian of the piece...
> um... the Russian revolution ...
OK, maybe it was a poor example, but the repeated unrest across the
countryside from the times of the many Ivans onwards would suggest that all it
took was the smallest spark regardless of where you were in Russia.
> ...but I get your point...
phew;)
> so you don't let the clone troopers develop enough knowledge to be able
Unfortunately the point I'm labouring to make (sorry about drawing this out)
is that to have enough knowledge to function on the battlefield they will have
already acquired too much not too make comparisons between "better" and
"worse"
> And maybe part of the "limited lifespan" of the clone armies (not just
Good idea, but I think it'll happen even quicker than you anticipate.
> Some sense of self-preservation would probably be required.
You're not alone there!
> Having said that, I wonder if given the right infrastructure and
That may well be another very important point Adrian. Like I said, I've never
been in an army and maybe to some extent I'm romanticising the motivations
involved, but I've always had a sense that the greatest achievements were made
and the greatest privations survived when the motivating force came form one
of humanities higher ideals (compassion, duty, honour, love etc)
Anyway better call this rambling quits before I get too carried away.
Cheers
Beth
Beth,
Good post. I have to agree with the "desire to be free" being a big motivator.
Course this would lead to some interesting scenarios...
Message from Alpha-6 Sir! The Clones are arming and heading for the
presidents residence!
Bob Magic Makowsky USCG
Support SAR. Get Lost!
[quoted original message omitted]
> Having said that, I wonder if given the right infrastructure and
Reminds me kinda of the Outer Limits episode "In Our Own Image".
Except they were using robots/automatons, not clones.
Mk
> Well, first of all - deep down I don't really like the idea of clone
Adrian and others have said they don't want to deal with this. No problem.
I'll add a revived Ismaili sect (possibly with Druze elements) to my List of
Things to Do. Since Dune had something close enough to this, and since Herbert
took a fair amount from
Arabic, we'll call them "ghola"--which is the same word, in Arabic, as
"ghoul", although it would translate as "demon" (eg the variable star
Algol, from "al-ghul", the Demon Star).
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Los wrote:
> At 04:25 AM 1/3/00 -0500, Adrian J wrote:
indeed. in fact, the word 'robot' was first used to refer to artificial
biological humanoids, which were used as labour in industry and agriculture,
and of course as soldiers, in vast, bloody wars. in that story, the robots
eventually decided they wouldn't be slaves to mankind any more, and overthrew
and destroyed him. this story is 'R.U.R.', a play by Karel Capek, written in
1920. it is, without a doubt, essential reading for anyone into SF. it's quite
short, and very good.
tom