General Zod : The military wanker’s wet dream

[mr friendly guy]

Warning : if the title isn't obvious enough, this story is a parody, so there is no excuse like last time I posted a parody because the explanation was not clear enough to one person who lacked basic English.

Takes place during Superman II, ie in 1980. And yes I borrowed some continuity from the comics with reference to Brainiac.

General Zod : The military wanker’s wet dream

The man giving the speech on live television was nothing to look at. He was a middle age man who had risen the ranks of power through the process known as democracy. To the onlookers he appeared flustered and nervous. Naturally, given he had just surrendered America’s sovereignty to General Zod. The President of the USA was about to give his last speech. He may have surrendered, but he was far from beaten.

“My fellow Americans. Today General Zod and his kryptonians have sent us a message. That they can take whatever they want…and no one can stop them. Well we will send them a message. You spread this to the four corners of the world. To the walls of the Kremlin, and the parliaments of Western Europe. To the ears of Superman. You tell them that the President calls to them. And we will show Zod that he cannot take whatever he wants. Because this is our land.”

Those were the last words he got out before Ursa’s heat vision disintegrated his head. “He was disobeying your orders General.”

Zod nodded in agreement. “But I am curious, who is this Superman?”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“The son of Jor El?” Zod savoured the thought of torturing his greatest enemy, long dead and burned with Krypton’s destruction. If he could not destroy the man, then he will destroy his son.

“Yes, he goes by the monicker Superman.” Lex Luthor muttered the name in a whimsical tone.

“How do we find this Superman,” Zod asked.

“Well I hear he likes the Daily Planet.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“Her. Lois Lane. He has something for her. Grab her and you get him.” Luthor pointed to a young brunette. Immediately Non moved to grab her.

“Let me go you freak.” Lois screamed.

“I believe you were looking for me General.” Everyone including the 3 kryptonians turned towards the voice. Standing there was Superman. “Why don’t we take this outside.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The fight had been going on for the better part of an hour. Despite his best efforts, Superman could only match the 3 kryptonians.

“Why do you fight for these humans Kal-El?” Zod taunted.

“He has lived among these primitives so long, he has lost touch with real culture.” Ursa added. “Or perhaps its because the human whore spreads her leg for him.”

“Indeed Ursa,” Zod chimed in. “He has lost touch with his culture. The great Kryptonian philosopher Sar-Evok would describe humans as primitives. They have crime. They do not even have a methodology to look after the sick properly. Their technology does not even have planet wide information network. In short the lives are no better than the animals that live in their own excrement.”

“The primitives as you call them Zod, choose not to live under your tyranny Zod.”

“The fact that they choose to live their live this way, does not mean that their lives are anything but SHIT.” Zod was screaming now, quoting the words of the Kryptonian philosopher Sar-Evok. “This world is essential for the survival of our race.”

“Brainiac considered us primitives too, but you would have fought with your all to defend Krypton Zod. Your hypocrisy is sickening.” Superman was giving as good as he got in this verbal joust.

“The Kryptonian general A-Dam-Griff would say there is no absolute right or wrong. However if we are attacked, expect us to defend ourselves.”

“In other words, might makes right. The justifications of thousands of conquerors before you Zod. Like those people you will be defeated.” So saying Superman flew…away.

“He flees,” Ursa remarked. “What cowardice.”

“No. He means to lure us into a trap.”

“What you order General,” Non asked.

“We create our own trap. And Kal-El has given us the means to do it. After all might makes right.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ursa and Non began pushing the moon. Slowly but inexorably the moon began creeping closer to Earth. First the nations of the Pacific noticed the tides had changed and a tsunami swept Asia. Superman roused by the disaster flew away from the fortress of solitude to stop the Kryptonians. However Zod had anticipated the plan and before Superman was anywhere close Zod had intercepted him. The two Kryptonians fought with Superman finally gaining the upper hand and knocking Zod out the way. However by then it was too late, as the moon impacted the earth with more energy than the asteroid which wiped out the dinosaurs.

“No,” Kal-El shrieked.

“Should we finish Kal-El off,” Ursa asked.

“No. The one called Luthor told me that Kal-El does not kill. How pathetic. He will no longer fight us. His precious humans are dead. There is nothing more to protect. I suppose he will travel to other worlds, but for now let us savour our victory.”

“Why we didn’t throw big rock into Earth in first place?” Non asked.

“As a great Kryptonian playwright remarked, then there would be no story.” Zod laughed as his own joke.



Notes : Superman managed to push the moon and cause an eclipse in Superman 4. Thus I figure two kryptonians would be able to push it closer to the Earth and let gravity do the rest.

[Themightytom]

It was Dumb! It was Obvious! It was Pointless! It was.... Short.
I LOVED IT!

[mr friendly guy]

Hey, it has all the elements to give military wankers erections for hours. Well everything, except Zod jacking off to the death of billions, but nothing is perfect.

Consider it had

1. Mass killing of Na'vi humans. Not just killing them with the usual way. It had a BIG FREAKING ROCK DROPPED ON THEM FROM ORBIT. Yeah that does more for the military wankers libido than viagra does for Hugh Hefner.

2. Jake Sully Superman the despicable villain who betrays his own people because he is getting it on with an alien chick. I knew Superman was a dick, but not this big a dick. I really believed Jake he fought RDA Zod because Na'vi humans have rights and should not be screwed over by maniacal corporations super powered villains. But now thanks to the wisdom of military wankers, I now know its because he just wanted to screw Neytiri Lois. And the best part. Its when Ursa points this out to Superman. Because those flaming liberals can't see that Jake Superman only did what he did because he was thinking with the wrong organ.

Give the military wankers a Nobel Prize for psychiatry already for revealing the true face of humanity <insert double entendre here>.

3. Zod proving once and for all that human are primitives with shit lives. Therefore more technologically advance people can take their stuff, because their lives are shit. As insinuated by the great RDA apologist Krytonian philosopher Sarevok Sar-Evok.

4. Zod saying unobtanium Earth is important for survival of kryptonians. Contrast with the shitty movie from James Cameron, what was it called again? I mean in that movie not once did Selfridge say unobtanium was important for the survival of humans. Thats really thoughtless of Cameron, because it means the military wankers had to buy the Avatar sourcebook desperately searching for "evidence" that unobtanium was vital for the survival of humans yet cannot ever quote page numbers when asked where it says that.

But now the military wankers no longer have to break their puny dicks budget, because Zod said EARTH IS NEEDED FOR SURVIVAL OF KRYPTONIANS. Eat that you tree hugging Na'vi hippies. Earth is needed for the Kryptonians so fuck the humans already living there. Except when fucking them leads to betrayal or your own kind, because thats just soooooooo wrong.

Mang, channelling Shroomy is fun.

[Sarevok]

I liked it.

[Darth Hoth]

In my humble opinion, the analogy does not work because Superman grew up among humans on Earth, being an American citizen and effectively a native-born such. It is much more reasonable to assume that he would be loyal to this country and race/species (which are all he know, apart from a few recordings) than to people of a culture that are entirely foreign to him and criminals there besides. None of this is true for Jake Sully, who just arrives and then converts over a couple of months or so.

The second Terminator would make a better case, perhaps . . . but then, in that story he was explicitly reprogrammed by Tech-Com beforehand.

But as the Colonel said, it was a funny little piece of writing, regardless.

[Korgeta]

I'm clearly missing something here, i assume this 'military wanker's dream' is some kind of injoke in relation to what occurred in the past on the boards. As a parody i don't see the point or what it's overall point was. Given it's zod were talking about throwing a moon on the earth defeats the purpose to rule a planet which is minimum requirement of zod's ego, also that earth was ideal given it's sun is the one that enhanced their abilities to the standards of superman. I don't know why superman points out that his people did have criminals given the phantom zone was made for a reason, to imprison kryptionian criminals like Zod.

It's ok but it's not reading so much as a parody but a 'what if' scenario but lacking themes like drama or character development or wit to give the story more meaning or deliver it's intended parody.

[Junghalli]

I'm clearly missing something here, i assume this 'military wanker's dream' is some kind of injoke in relation to what occurred in the past on the boards.

I'm pretty sure it's a dig at people who said humans will/should just drop an asteroid onto Pandora at the end of Avatar.

[Srelex]

Didn't you already do something similar with Doctor Who? Unless I'm mistaken, I think most people are past the Avatar 'morality' debates.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm clearly missing something here, i assume this 'military wanker's dream' is some kind of injoke in relation to what occurred in the past on the boards. As a parody i don't see the point or what it's overall point was. Given it's zod were talking about throwing a moon on the earth defeats the purpose to rule a planet which is minimum requirement of zod's ego, also that earth was ideal given it's sun is the one that enhanced their abilities to the standards of superman. I don't know why superman points out that his people did have criminals given the phantom zone was made for a reason, to imprison kryptionian criminals like Zod.

It's ok but it's not reading so much as a parody but a 'what if' scenario but lacking themes like drama or character development or wit to give the story more meaning or deliver it's intended parody.

Its an in joke at those who participate in the Avatar threads. The fact that the President's "this is our land" speech was a blatant rip off from Jake's speech in Avatar was meant to give it away.

Things parodied include

1. people talking about orbital bombardment of Pandora, and how if the humans did it in the first place "there would be no story"

2. The protagonist being a "traitor" because he was having a relationship with the indigenous species, and not because he felt what the humans were doing was wrong

3. Pseudo justification via poisoning the well debating tactics, for the strong to take what they want from the weak because the weak are technologically inferior and their lives without the wonders of technological gizmos must suck. Unfortunately this type of argument isn't confined to fictional universes. I have seen letters to the editor which goes "I will rather live in country A (eg USA) than country B (cough Iraq cough)" when discussing whether the US should invade. One wonders what that has to do with the justification for invading, but I guess thats why poisoning the well is a logical fallacy.

4. Claims that unobtanium is essential for humanity's survival, which is never actually stated in the Avatar film (this is used as a justification for the humans to screw the Na'vi over), hence me having Zod blatantly state Earth is important for the Kryptonian's survival. I also couldn't help digging at the military wanker's who went and brought Avatar sourcebooks to find "evidence" that unobtanium was essential for humanity's survival. The fact that he would even need a sourcebook to find this evidence (which they never quote the page numbers), because the movie didn't provide enough evidence already raises alarm bells for me.

5. Arguments which essentially boils down to "might makes right" occurring in those Avatar threads, except when the other side is mightier, then its ok for us to defend ourselves. The banter between Zod and Superman is paraphrased from the poster who made it.

I should also point out it was Zod who points out they have crime, which would presumably be less than Krypton's given we don't see many people sent to the Phantom Zone (at least in comic continuity their numbers are not high). Moreover I am pretty sure Zod doesn't consider himself a criminal, hence he wouldn't think it hypocritical for criticising humans for having crime.

I'm clearly missing something here, i assume this 'military wanker's dream' is some kind of injoke in relation to what occurred in the past on the boards.

I'm pretty sure it's a dig at people who said humans will/should just drop an asteroid onto Pandora at the end of Avatar.

From one of those threads I sarcastically remarked maybe I should have General Zod drop the Moon onto the earth to mock those "orbital bombardment of Pandora because humans lost" crap. So I finally got to writing this fic. And in case anyone is wondering, someone did write a fan fic where humans return and orbital bombard Pandora.

Didn't you already do something similar with Doctor Who? Unless I'm mistaken, I think most people are past the Avatar 'morality' debates.

You are correct on the first count. I did a mockery of the Avatar with the tenth Doctor in another fic, but some idiot didn't seem to get that it was meant to be a parody, because the phrase in response to those "Avatar bashing fics" wasn't clear enough, hence this time I openly used the word parody to warn readers at the start. To my mind failing to get the warning is like someone getting offended because there is nudity in a movie rated X.

On the second count someone started another avatar thread to announced they are definitely making Avatar into a trilogy. Then the morality debates started again, and hence was a good time to write another fan fic.

[Korgeta]

Its an in joke at those who participate in the Avatar threads. The fact that the President's "this is our land" speech was a blatant rip off from Jake's speech in Avatar was meant to give it away.

Things parodied include

1. people talking about orbital bombardment of Pandora, and how if the humans did it in the first place "there would be no story"

2. The protagonist being a "traitor" because he was having a relationship with the indigenous species, and not because he felt what the humans were doing was wrong

3. Pseudo justification via poisoning the well debating tactics, for the strong to take what they want from the weak because the weak are technologically inferior and their lives without the wonders of technological gizmos must suck. Unfortunately this type of argument isn't confined to fictional universes. I have seen letters to the editor which goes "I will rather live in country A (eg USA) than country B (cough Iraq cough)" when discussing whether the US should invade. One wonders what that has to do with the justification for invading, but I guess thats why poisoning the well is a logical fallacy.

4. Claims that unobtanium is essential for humanity's survival, which is never actually stated in the Avatar film (this is used as a justification for the humans to screw the Na'vi over), hence me having Zod blatantly state Earth is important for the Kryptonian's survival. I also couldn't help digging at the military wanker's who went and brought Avatar sourcebooks to find "evidence" that unobtanium was essential for humanity's survival. The fact that he would even need a sourcebook to find this evidence (which they never quote the page numbers), because the movie didn't provide enough evidence already raises alarm bells for me.

5. Arguments which essentially boils down to "might makes right" occurring in those Avatar threads, except when the other side is mightier, then its ok for us to defend ourselves. The banter between Zod and Superman is paraphrased from the poster who made it.

I should also point out it was Zod who points out they have crime, which would presumably be less than Krypton's given we don't see many people sent to the Phantom Zone (at least in comic continuity their numbers are not high). Moreover I am pretty sure Zod doesn't consider himself a criminal, hence he wouldn't think it hypocritical for criticising humans for having crime.

The problem with the 'this is our land' comment even as it serves as a reference to Avatar, the line jake says comes from a movie that 'borrows' a lot of elements from other movies that the 'this is our land' is not a quote I see that defines Avatar. Other then the '3D' effects or that it's 'smurfs do pocahontas' then there isn't much that defines Avatar. If I said 'this is our land' people could think I'm quoting from braveheart, but if I quote or parody the lines 'I am your father' 'Do or or do not there is no try' even if not accurate everyone knows that I'm referring to not just star wars but the empire strikes back. Movies like the empire strikes back are stronger movies then Avatar as their story and quotations are more recognisable and easier sources to parody.

To be fair you could perhaps still get a story out of Avatar if the planet was bombarded, it would had started differently, resistance would had formed out differently but there still would be a story, it depends on how much of a bombardment you want it to be. For all the military angles Avatar covered I'm surprised they never covered the angle of 'tactical nukes' from orbit where in the future of time it would surely had been acceptable to use nukes on alien soil, now if the movie even said 'we can't have nukes because the radioyadyadyada would screw up the unobatanium on the planet' that would be fine but i thought the movie made it clear enough that unobatanium was essential for human society. So whoever went out to buy the sourcebooks to 'confirm it' wasn't paying much attention to the movie.

The comment on kryptionite and criminals wasn't aimed at zod, it was on why wouldn't superman point that out at zod anyway that he was tried as a criminal to which zod could had replied with some arrogant disdain at superman's claim that he should be listed as a 'criminal'.

Personally I always had the idea that Avatar should have a 'deleted scene' where the troops are about to head out into orbit reflecting how they could 'lose' to the natives till one bright spark says 'I say we nuke them from orbit...it's the only way to be sure' That's a reference out of james cameron earlier movie 'aliens' right at you..but saying that, that would probably be a old joke right about now.

Nonethless if this short story (though aimed as a parody) was fleshed out a bit i think it would make a good what if ending for a superman story.

[Purple]

I liked this, I really did. And while I understand your motivation for making it I fear that I instead liked it as a strait up story. It had a good plot, a logical composition and most importantly a logical conclusion. Most stories now a days don't have that instead opting to show the underdog win. I prefer it this way. The strong win because they can. It's sad to see humanity suffer the fallout but it's the marvel universe where the rubber band of the reset button makes all things good so I don't care much.


As for avatar I can only sit back and be confused at the whole morality angle of it. Why? Well because for me there is no morality angle. I don't mean to start a debate here but I think I must say what my own opinion of the movie is.

The way I see it the story goes like this:
The humans (members of the same species as me) come to a planet to mine or do what ever they want to do and the natives (members of a diffrent species) oppose them. Thus, there is no angle on what is right and what is wrong. My species, the humans must be right by virtue of being my species and the other guys must be wrong by virtue of opposing my species. And I would expect any of the natives to think the same (but the other way arround puting them self as the just ones).

It has nothing to do with right or wrong, emotions, technology, culture or what ever. It's simple biology. Any gain regardless of how insignificant that humanity gains means that in case I manage to reproduce my genes also benefit. And since it is in my interest for my genes to benefit and propagate I must support the only species that can allow them to do so. Anyone that stands against his species is automatically standing against his own genetic legacy and thus violating his primary biological purpose for existence.

Had it been two groups of humans fighting, than there would be questions about right and wrong, morality and such but since this is not the case there really is nothing to argue about. Like in your story. Zod is clearly the evil one not because he is killing stuff but because he is killing humans. Had it been Zod vs Martians I would have not cared one bit.

But that is my oppinion. And I seek not to convert others to it. To each his own.

[Samuel]

Here, I think this will help explain what is wrong with your reasoning:

The Americans (members of the same nation as me) come to a country to mine or do what ever they want to do and the inhabitants(members of a diffrent nation) oppose them. Thus, there is no angle on what is right and what is wrong. My group, the Americans must be right by virtue of being my species and the other guys must be wrong by virtue of opposing my group. And I would expect any of the natives to think the same (but the other way arround puting them self as the just ones).

Any gain regardless of how insignificant that humanity gains means that in case I manage to reproduce my genes also benefit. And since it is in my interest for my genes to benefit and propagate I must support the only species that can allow them to do so.

Er, no. Your genes don't benefit from gains- if your offspring are starving or if they are healthy, it matters not, as long as they breed.

And it isn't in your interest to benefit your genes. You literally have no reason to care.

[Purple]

I told my self I would not respond to this but still I have to.

The Americans (members of the same nation as me) come to a country to mine or do what ever they want to do and the inhabitants(members of a diffrent nation) oppose them. Thus, there is no angle on what is right and what is wrong. My group, the Americans must be right by virtue of being my species and the other guys must be wrong by virtue of opposing my group. And I would expect any of the natives to think the same (but the other way arround puting them self as the just ones).

First, I am not American.

And second you are completely ignoring my point. I clearly explained how I do not believe that concepts like race or country are good reason for such behavior when I said this:

Had it been two groups of humans fighting, than there would be questions about right and wrong, morality and such but since this is not the case there really is nothing to argue about.

Here, I clearly explain how had it been humans fighting humans morality would have come into play.

You are instead attacking a strawman by accusing me of somehow selecting a group (in your example a nation) of the same species and that is absolutely contrary to my point.

Race and nation are irelevant becouse we are all humans. As such, when humans do evil to each other than we can, do and have to talk about morality and punish those that are evil. Why? Well becouse race, nation, religion and other such things are just arbitrary man made lines that have little or no basis in reality.

A species meanwhile has a real base in that what is good for your species is good for your genes.

Er, no. Your genes don't benefit from gains- if your offspring are starving or if they are healthy, it matters not, as long as they breed.

And if they are not starving and have better living conditions chances are they will breed more and have more viable offspring that reach breading age them self.

And it isn't in your interest to benefit your genes. You literally have no reason to care.

What is the biological purpose of life if not to breed and keep your genes going for as much and long as possible?


In other words, my whole point is that if it can't bare my children (on a genetic level) or contribute to the life of me and my future offspring I do not care about it.

[Samuel]

Race and nation are irelevant becouse we are all humans. As such, when humans do evil to each other than we can, do and have to talk about morality and punish those that are evil. Why? Well becouse race, nation, religion and other such things are just arbitrary man made lines that have little or no basis in reality.

So? Species is also irrelevant.

A species meanwhile has a real base in that what is good for your species is good for your genes.

No, it isn't. What is good for your genes is exterminating everyone else and creating a society composed entirely of clones of yourself. Heck, if you do "just" the gene pool, than murdering the elderly, the infertile and the retarded is good because it is for the good of your species. Or being against genetic engineering because, even though it would help people it would change and eliminate your genes.

And if they are not starving and have better living conditions chances are they will breed more and have more viable offspring that reach breading age them self.

False. The highest rates of growth are in third world countries. Higher living conditions only help so much until people start spending more resources on fewer numbers of kids.

What is the biological purpose of life if not to breed and keep your genes going for as much and long as possible?

Life has no purpose.

[Purple]

So? Species is also irrelevant.

No, it is not.
Unless you can provide an explanation that is adequate.

No, it isn't. What is good for your genes is exterminating everyone else and creating a society composed entirely of clones of yourself. Heck, if you do "just" the gene pool, than murdering the elderly, the infertile and the retarded is good because it is for the good of your species. Or being against genetic engineering because, even though it would help people it would change and eliminate your genes.

The elderly no, because everyone will end up being elderly and murdering them would put some serious problems into a society.
The infertile no because they can still contribute to society.
The retarded, mentally insane and others like them absolutely (well, not so much murder as just ban from reproducing and only as long as what ever problem they suffer from is genetic). I see no reason to let them pollute the gene pool of human kind. But I also see no reason to be exceptionally cruel about it either.

And how is ruining genetic diversity to the point that it will remove human kind in the long run thus removing my genes along with it good?

False. The highest rates of growth are in third world countries. Higher living conditions only help so much until people start spending more resources on fewer numbers of kids.

I guess you have a point.
Carry on than. Go natives.

Life has no purpose.

The purpose of life is to reproduce.

[Junghalli]

And how is ruining genetic diversity to the point that it will remove human kind in the long run thus removing my genes along with it good?

So instead you want to kill everybody except the smallest viable human population. Your genes are still much better off now because they are favored by founder effect.

Of course with a little genetic engineering you could kill everybody else and then save some of the diverse immune system regulation genes from the dead humans and splice them into your clones. Boom, viable society of people who are mostly genetically you, as long as they retain the cloning tech. Even better, after engineering your clones to be able to naturally reproduce asexually, there may still be enough of your DNA left that you're evolutionarily better off exterminating humanity and replacing it with this new species.

Ideally you'd also want to engineer better DNA error correction mechanisms into them so your all important genotype isn't changed by mutation. And you might want to dump them some place where they can never develop an advanced civilization - if they did they might eventually decide to modify themselves genetically and your genotype will be lost, but if they stay primitive it could potentially remain intact for a very long time.

Edit: incidentally it's apparently possible to create some kind of human-Na'Vi hybrid artificially as this is how they make Avatars. If your DNA got into the Na'Vi species that way, would moral questions suddenly apply to the situation?

[Purple]

So instead you want to kill everybody except the smallest viable human population. Your genes are still much better off now because they are favored by founder effect.

I fallow, and I like.

Of course with a little genetic engineering you could kill everybody else and then save some of the diverse immune system regulation genes from the dead humans and splice them into your clones. Boom, viable society of people who are mostly genetically you, as long as they retain the cloning tech.

How hard would this be to do? Can you elaborate further?

Even better, after engineering your clones to be able to naturally reproduce asexually, there may still be enough of your DNA left that you're evolutionarily better off exterminating humanity and replacing it with this new species.

So like make them break apart like amoeba? That would certainly cut down on the risk of one of my potential offspring becoming basement dwelling nerds and ruining my hard work.

Ideally you'd also want to engineer better DNA error correction mechanisms into them so your all important genotype isn't changed by mutation. And you might want to dump them some place where they can never develop an advanced civilization - if they did they might eventually decide to modify themselves genetically and your genotype will be lost, but if they stay primitive it could potentially remain intact for a very long time.

On the other hand, I would also want them to be sufficiently developed to be reasonably safe from natural extinction.
How about a scenario where I select a level of development that I think is appropriate and than put them into a society like in Brave New World where people don't actually do anything other that infinitely propagate the current state of affairs?

Edit: incidentally it's apparently possible to create some kind of human-Na'Vi hybrid artificially as this is how they make Avatars. If your DNA got into the Na'Vi species that way, would moral questions suddenly apply to the situation?

If it can be done so that the hybrids are viable for reproduction (they can reproduce on their own without genetic engineering either among them self or with at least one of the parent species). In that case yes, absolutely.

[Bakustra]

I'm pretty sure he meant parthenogenesis rather than mitosis. It would mean some fiddling with chromosome 23, but that's not particularly important as far as your genome goes, and will ensure much stronger genetic continuity.

[Junghalli]

How hard would this be to do? Can you elaborate further?

Probably a good bit harder than just cloning but we probably couldn't have a viable all-clone society with present day technology anyway.

So like make them break apart like amoeba?

Much more likely they would reproduce by parthenogenesis, like some lizards. You'd have to make them all female but the Y chromosome is pretty small so even assuming you're male it's no huge loss.

On the other hand, I would also want them to be sufficiently developed to be reasonably safe from natural extinction.
How about a scenario where I select a level of development that I think is appropriate and than put them into a society like in Brave New World where people don't actually do anything other that infinitely propagate the current state of affairs?

The main problem is I'm not sure if you could get a human society with the necessary stability to maintain complete cultural stasis into deep time. If feasible, the ideal solution might be some kind of caretaker AI to run things, or somehow change the brain structures of the clones so they will never desire anything better than they already have.

[Purple]

Does anyone else think this would be insanely cool for a story?

[Samuel]

Does anyone else think this would be insanely cool for a story?

I believe that is what the villian in monster versus aliens did.

The elderly no, because everyone will end up being elderly and murdering them would put some serious problems into a society.

But if people were operating based on gene fitness, than society wouldn't have problems with this, no? Ergo people use something other than gene fitness.

The infertile no because they can still contribute to society.

They can contribute as much genetically as aliens can.

The purpose of life is to reproduce.

No it isn't. It just seems that way because non-reproductive strains don't exist anymore. But that is a false conclusion- it would be like claiming the purpose of soldiers is to run away.

[mr friendly guy]

The problem with the 'this is our land' comment even as it serves as a reference to Avatar, the line jake says comes from a movie that 'borrows' a lot of elements from other movies that the 'this is our land' is not a quote I see that defines Avatar. Other then the '3D' effects or that it's 'smurfs do pocahontas' then there isn't much that defines Avatar. If I said 'this is our land' people could think I'm quoting from braveheart, but if I quote or parody the lines 'I am your father' 'Do or or do not there is no try' even if not accurate everyone knows that I'm referring to not just star wars but the empire strikes back. Movies like the empire strikes back are stronger movies then Avatar as their story and quotations are more recognisable and easier sources to parody.

I will take that criticism on board, I did have other ideas (after I had already posted) on how to make it even more blatant. The speech itself, didn't just copy "this is our land". It also included virtual word substitution for various lines. Here is the original speech, so you can see how close it was.

Jake Sully: "The Sky People have sent us a message - that they can take whatever they want and no one can stop 'em... But we will send them a message... You ride out as fast as the wind can carry you, and you tell the other clans to come... and tell them Toruk Makto calls to them! And you fly now, with me, my brothers, sisters! And we will show the Sky People, that they cannot take whatever they want!
And that this... This is our land!!!!

To be fair you could perhaps still get a story out of Avatar if the planet was bombarded, it would had started differently, resistance would had formed out differently but there still would be a story, it depends on how much of a bombardment you want it to be. For all the military angles Avatar covered I'm surprised they never covered the angle of 'tactical nukes' from orbit where in the future of time it would surely had been acceptable to use nukes on alien soil, now if the movie even said 'we can't have nukes because the radioyadyadyada would screw up the unobatanium on the planet' that would be fine but i thought the movie made it clear enough that unobatanium was essential for human society. So whoever went out to buy the sourcebooks to 'confirm it' wasn't paying much attention to the movie.

Okay. Lets go through some of this. Firstly RDA could not use nukes or any WMDs. We already knew this before the first screening. How did we know? Some of us just looked at the official website which tells a bit about the setting, characters, etc the usual things you expect such advertisement to use. It also told us that RDA was not allowed to have WMDs, and since no private company operating now can have nukes, it doesn't seem like a stretch. If you are talking about using nukes in the future, I believe thats what a sequel could address, but again not relevant to those who said "there would be no story if they just dropped a big rock on the aliens at the start."

The movie made it clear that unobtanium was important for industry, RDA's profits, but certainly not essential for human survival which is what the military wankers were arguing. Moreover it also didn't explain why they needed the large batch under the Na'vi's home, as opposed to the ones they were getting elsewhere. Oh wait they did. It was for profit. If it was that important, you would think Selfridge would not be saying "this little rock sells for $$$$ on the market" and instead be saying "the survival of humanity depends on it." So no, the movie only made it "clear" if you extrapolate ridiculous amounts, like expensive = essential, or if you are looking for a pseudo justification to take something from someone.

The comment on kryptionite and criminals wasn't aimed at zod, it was on why wouldn't superman point that out at zod anyway that he was tried as a criminal to which zod could had replied with some arrogant disdain at superman's claim that he should be listed as a 'criminal'.

Ah, fair point then.

Personally I always had the idea that Avatar should have a 'deleted scene' where the troops are about to head out into orbit reflecting how they could 'lose' to the natives till one bright spark says 'I say we nuke them from orbit...it's the only way to be sure' That's a reference out of james cameron earlier movie 'aliens' right at you..but saying that, that would probably be a old joke right about now.

As explained RDA didn't have WMDs, so "we" couldn't nuke them even if they wanted to. Now he could be meaning humans in general, however given that we know some humans back home wouldn't take too kindly to even destroying home tree, its going to be much harder to justify nukes.

Nonethless if this short story (though aimed as a parody) was fleshed out a bit i think it would make a good what if ending for a superman story.

Thanks, although I chose not to flesh it out too much since I felt most people would have seen Superman II as a kid, and it might distract from the parody aspect. But thanks for the input, I will keep that in mind.

The way I see it the story goes like this:
The humans (members of the same species as me) come to a planet to mine or do what ever they want to do and the natives (members of a diffrent species) oppose them. Thus, there is no angle on what is right and what is wrong. My species, the humans must be right by virtue of being my species and the other guys must be wrong by virtue of opposing my species. And I would expect any of the natives to think the same (but the other way arround puting them self as the just ones).

It has nothing to do with right or wrong, emotions, technology, culture or what ever. It's simple biology.

I am thinking how best to answer this, then I realise how to put this as succinctly as possible. What you have just described is a stolen concept fallacy. Look it up, then explain why your statement is one.

BTW - thanks for liking it, although I fear you liked it not for the parody it was, but praise is good all the same.

And it isn't in your interest to benefit your genes. You literally have no reason to care.

At the risk of getting side tracked, it seems like he is describing a "selfish gene" line of thought. People like Richard Dawkins will argue that selection occurs at the gene level, while the grand old man of evolution like Ernst Mayr will argue that selection occurs at the individual level. If Purple is arguing from biology, then it does make sense to care about the genes.

[Purple]

Probably a good bit harder than just cloning but we probably couldn't have a viable all-clone society with present day technology anyway.

I mean, what exactly would one have to do? I am not that good with genetics other than that I know that lack of genetic diversity can make a mess in a population in the long run.

The main problem is I'm not sure if you could get a human society with the necessary stability to maintain complete cultural stasis into deep time. If feasible, the ideal solution might be some kind of caretaker AI to run things, or somehow change the brain structures of the clones so they will never desire anything better than they already have.

How about this than. Build a space cylinder and send it far away from any planet. Inside, the cylinder is perfectly sterile (all pathogens of any kind being destroyed, any species that cause allergies have not been allowed on board etc.) and has it's own self sustained ecosystem under the care of an AI. All the humans have to do is constantly farm the land for food like medieval peasants and maintain the gardens that give them O2. The rest is kept maintained by the AI and robots. All the clones are female and there is no reproduction through natural means. Instead, the clones are bread by the computer to ensure a constant population.

Do you think that could work?

But if people were operating based on gene fitness, than society wouldn't have problems with this, no? Ergo people use something other than gene fitness.

There is a point to that. After all, if I could make such a society as discussed we could have a Logan's Run like age cut off.
But there is much more to contributing than just providing children. And after all, from my point of view that is the best kind of contribution (the one where they contribute to society but do not pass on their genes, more for me)

They can contribute as much genetically as aliens can.

Hence no reason to kill them as long as they contribute more good than harm.
See the above.

No it isn't. It just seems that way because non-reproductive strains don't exist anymore. But that is a false conclusion- it would be like claiming the purpose of soldiers is to run away.

You don't seriously think the purpose of soldiers is to get killed?

The purpose for the existence of any species is to grow, expand and continue existing. But than again, unless me and you can get a private chat with some sort of flying spaghetti monster or something this is just my word against yours.

I am thinking how best to answer this, then I realise how to put this as succinctly as possible. What you have just described is a stolen concept fallacy. Look it up, then explain why your statement is one.

BTW - thanks for liking it, although I fear you liked it not for the parody it was, but praise is good all the same.

I tried looking it up, I found the closest thing I could: wikipedia
But if that is what you mean, I don't understand what you are trying to say at all.

At the risk of getting side tracked, it seems like he is describing a "selfish gene" line of thought. People like Richard Dawkins will argue that selection occurs at the gene level, while the grand old man of evolution like Ernst Mayr will argue that selection occurs at the individual level. If Purple is arguing from biology, then it does make sense to care about the genes.

Exactly.

[mr friendly guy]

I tried looking it up, I found the closest thing I could: wikipedia
But if that is what you mean, I don't understand what you are trying to say at all.

That is the correct fallacy, its essentially as wiki says "act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends." For example, "it is not possible for humans to communicate." The very fact that I just did shows that my statement ignores the fact the statement could be communicated when written down.

Or another one, "its wrong to judge others." Didn't that person just do that? For something to be wrong, it is dependent on some form judgment / assessment, yet the statement "its wrong to judge others" just refutes that. If its wrong to judge others, how do you know its wrong to do that if you can't judge anything in the first place? In this case the stolen concept is "judgment".

Or here is one harder to grasp. "Where is your evidence for evidence?" Used by Creationists in this format

sane people : evolution has lots of evidence, see here. Creationism hasn't.

Creationist : why does an idea need evidence to be valid. Where is your evidence for evidence?

The very fact that he needs evidence for something (in this case evidence itself) implies that the idea for requiring evidence to demonstrate something is valid (in this case evidence = idea being valid) is needed, yet the statement "where is your evidence for evidence" contradicts this.

In your case the stolen concept is "morality". You are saying the actions were not about morality, yet at the same time saying its right for the species. Right in this case implies some moral system to decide that, but its contradicted when you say its not about morality.

[Purple]

I think you misunderstood me than.
Right and wrong does not have to mean "morally right" and "morally wrong". What is right logically does not also have to be right morally.

For example, if you are hungry and waiting in line to get food (no shortage or anything, you are just hungry and they happen to be handing food out for free when you happen to stroll along) with a bunch of people you don't care about. You know the food might run out before you get your turn.

From a personal standpoint, the right thing to do is cut in line and get the food at what ever cost possible. After all, it is best for you that you benefit. And since you don't care about the others why give a damn if they starve.

From a moral standpoint, it is "morally right" to stand in line like a honest person. Because you know that the others are hungry as well and that it would be "morally wrong" for you to cut in line or push them aside just for your selfish gain.


My argument hence was the fallowing.
What is best for one group can at times (and in this case does) clash with what is best for the other. In such a case, each group must either apply morality or just selfishly do what is best for it self. And than taking this as a starting assumption I proceeded to explain why morality can not apply to this particular case, thus making the only reasonable course of action for either group to selfishly pursue it's own goals regardless of the costs to the other.