BattleStar Galactica:Season 3.0--11/10/06--Arc 6

[Banshee16]

Eye for eye is, and always has been, a terrible doctrine. It only really works if you're in a position of tyranny already.

What do you call a situation where you've been attacked by surprise, had 95% of your population exterminated by another "species", and are currently being hunted, and systematically slaughtered by that same force?

Nature, red in tooth and claw. If the cylons are going to pull that BS, they have to expect there's going to be something coming for them, once the humans find something they can use to retaliate, and have an opportunity to strike back. Call me cruel, but I don't think I'd bat an eye.

Do you want to be the guy who decides *not* to do something that could have saved your people, and watch as the remaining survivors are murdered?

Let's not forget that the humans had achieved a "truce" with the cylons and it lasted *how* long before the cylons changed their minds and decided to enslave them?

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Well, I think this is the last time I'll stop by a BSG thread here. Obviously, this wasn't and isn't everyone's opinion, but still. Seems like RDM's failure as a dramatist here was to assume that viewers would have a reflexive revulsion at the thought of genocide.

I would suspect that most people in this thread are horrified by the idea of genocide. But the hypothetical situation in which the show takes place is something beyond anything any of us can conceive of. This isn't just religious extremists, or a totalitarian dictator. The cylons exterminated in excess of 12 billion people or more. There are what...40,000 left? That's a small town. Imagine if everyone on earth was wiped out, and it was you and your tiny town left, and you found a way to strike back. The enemy refused to negotiate, but was actively seeking to kill the rest of your town. When your people are gone, there will be *no more people*. Can anyone honestly say they'd choose differently? If they can, then by the very rules of nature and evolution, they really don't deserve to live anyways, as our most basic imperatives are to find a way to survive, evade being killed, and to produce offspring. Could you honestly say you would just let your people die?

Banshee

 

[shilsen]

I would suspect that most people in this thread are horrified by the idea of genocide. But the hypothetical situation in which the show takes place is something beyond anything any of us can conceive of. This isn't just religious extremists, or a totalitarian dictator. The cylons exterminated in excess of 12 billion people or more. There are what...40,000 left? That's a small town. Imagine if everyone on earth was wiped out, and it was you and your tiny town left, and you found a way to strike back. The enemy refused to negotiate, but was actively seeking to kill the rest of your town. When your people are gone, there will be *no more people*. Can anyone honestly say they'd choose differently?

Yes, I can. I'm fairly sure some other people can, as well.

If they can, then by the very rules of nature and evolution, they really don't deserve to live anyways, as our most basic imperatives are to find a way to survive, evade being killed, and to produce offspring.

No surprises here for me, though I'm not sure I'd use the term "deserve." I took out a fair number of my supposedly basic imperatives years ago, including the one to produce offspring. If everyone was like me, this would be the last generation of humanity. Luckily for the species, most people aren't.

Could you honestly say you would just let your people die?

Yes.

I should note, however, that I don't necessarily consider them 'my people' just because they're biologically the same species as me. I treat the average human being with way more respect than they generally deserve, not because we share a biological link, but because they are intelligent (admittedly, mostly in theory) creatures with a lot of potential. It's got nothing to do with a sense of kinship. I'd treat intelligent creatures of a different species effectively similarly.

 

[Banshee16]

I'm glad you said this Aesthetic Monk, because I think in responding to this, I've come to realize exactly why I didn't like this episode so much. There's just no tension, no drama, because there isn't any real conflict, moral or otherwise. There's perceived conflict, I think we all know what it was supposed to be. I just don't think it works, because of what I said above.

I haven't seen the episode...in fact, the only one I've seen this season was the premiere Still am not sure where to find the episodes I've missed, and now that I've missed like 5 in a row, I'm almost scared to jump in and start watching again.

In any case, by the sounds of it, I wouldn't necessarily say they failed. I would suspect they were going for the same sort of conundrum that they did in the episode where Roslin tried to rig the election. She *knew* that Baltar was a traitor and a Cylon sympathizer...possibly an agent. She knew him winning the election could have had a disastrous effect.

To what point would she continue to support her civilized, democratic beliefs with respect to due process, and the right of the people to select their leader? How many chances can be taken in a situation where the life and death of the species is at stake? We learned something about her in that episode....and her judgement, though morally sound, had disastrous effects on humanity. How many innocent people died as a result of that decision? It's almost like a "Lord of the Flies" scenario....how long do the rules of civilized society continue to influence our behaviour when people are put in situations where they can't be enforced?

I would suspect they were going for the same type of thing, but on the genocide issue. Most viewers (I hope) find the very idea of it abhorent. Two rights don't make a wrong. But when faced with an enemy bent on the absolute extinction of your species, and who has made great strides in doing so, does it ever become a valid choice?

Sometimes I wonder if some beliefs held by most of us in western civilization are possible/applicable only because we live in an "ivory tower" society, where by one means or another, we've managed to deal with many core threats...we've dealt with many serious threats to our survival, so we can afford to develop these principles. If some external threat to our society meant that every day was a struggle to live, just how open would our society be? What if humans had evolved on earth alongside another species who were intelligent enough to compete with us, and for whom homo sapiens was their natural prey? What would our civilization be like then? I'm sure it wouldn't be nearly as pleasant as that which many of us enjoy today.

Again, they're using a rather extreme example in order to ellicit a reaction, and at least creative thought on the question. But that doesn't mean it's not an interesting question..

Banshee

 

[Storm Raven]

It was a particular virus that humans developed an immunity to hundreds of years ago.

And? Humans should still be carriers of the virus, even if they are immune. Cylons should have fallen ill the minute they initiated contact with humanity, given the myriad of diseases that we carry around with us that we have developed immunities to. The premise of the episode is simply fatally flawed.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, I can. I'm fairly sure some other people can, as well.

That is the most foolish statement I have heard in a long time.

 

[Fast Learner]

That is the most foolish statement I have heard in a long time.

From my perspective you had about 20 of them in the last several posts that were way, way more foolish. Of course, I'm not sure that calling other people's opinions "foolish" will help the conversation any, but I guess it's worth pointing out.

I'm another of those people, btw. Neither I nor my species is inherently more deserving of survival than any other.

 

[Fast Learner]

And? Humans should still be carriers of the virus, even if they are immune. Cylons should have fallen ill the minute they initiated contact with humanity, given the myriad of diseases that we carry around with us that we have developed immunities to. The premise of the episode is simply fatally flawed.

So you're saying that every virus that anyone in humanity has ever been exposed to is being carried around by all humans? Where did you get that idea?

 

[LightPhoenix]

So you're saying that every virus that anyone in humanity has ever been exposed to is being carried around by all humans? Where did you get that idea?

Humans aren't often the true disease pools, other animals are. For example, with many of the European epidemics, it was rats that carried it, and gave it to humans living in dirty areas. Cholera is thought to live in algal blooms in the ocean, hence cholera outbreaks in warm beach climates. "Bird Flu", aka H5N1, has its disease pool in, well, birds. Heck, the regular flu came from the bird-pig-human cycle, and the common cold is thought to have come from horses. So, it's possible that the Cylons would get sick.

Of course, hopefully, the thought you're having is something along the lines of sanitation stopping infection, which is true. That doesn't mean there's not a supply of organisms that can be used... I'm sure there are rats and other animals that happen to be with the fleet. Maybe not on Galactica, but probably on a ship like the Astral Queen or the *shudder* Black Market ship, whatever it was called.

So while the original premise by Storm Raven is flawed (polio in the US, smallpox worldwide, neither have a disease pool in their respective populations, heck one barely exists anymore), there are plenty of pathogens out there that could be used. You can go and find plague and black death in rat populations today - we just don't expose ourselves to it.

It's a sloppy premise, plain and simple.

I would suspect they were going for the same type of thing, but on the genocide issue. Most viewers (I hope) find the very idea of it abhorent. Two rights don't make a wrong. But when faced with an enemy bent on the absolute extinction of your species, and who has made great strides in doing so, does it ever become a valid choice?

That's why I don't like this episode. Either your answer is yes, or your answer is no. There is no "it depends". It's trying to raise moral questions, but it doesn't work - just read the thread, almost no one here is indecisive. It especially doesn't work as a premise because the Cylons are not sympathtic at all. If we had met more than one nice Cylon, it might be, but that's not the scenario they've set up.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

They could have used the whole virus differently, too.

Imagine if they had broadcasted to the Cylons that they had found a deadly virus that could exterminate the Cylon race but decided _not_ to use it because genocide is morally wrong, imagine the discussions that would have come up among the Cylons. Sure, some would call it a bluff (believing the virus doesn't really work as effective as they first assumed), but it would have caused doubts in many of them. We already saw what happened when only 2 Cylons (Caprica-Six and Boomer) showed doubt that the Cylons plan and attempted genocide was right.

This again points out that the human-cylon relationship could be changed, that it's not either them or us, but there is a third alternative, having the sides cooperate.