StarDestroyer.Net BBS

MarshalPurnell wrote:Well, Muhammed Ali didn't modernize Egypt singlehandedly, or even with significant Egyptian participation. He brought in European advisers to train his army, establish manufactures, and provide technical education. Heaven seems to be a lot nicer than Hell, so I'd imagine that headhunting among the more recently dispatched would be a viable strategy if it comes under new management.

Egypt was "modernized" in the sense that it is not an entirely primitive backwater. But it still can't compete with the high-tech industrialized nations in any sense, and that's with far more advantages than Michael would have.

Darth Wong wrote:The fact that people can be willfully foolish or irrational about certain things does not mean they are not being foolish or irrational.

Your line of argument reminds me of people who react to statements like "smoking is stupid" by pointing out that some otherwise intelligent people engage in the practice. That may be true, but it does not change the fact that smoking itself is stupid. It is, in fact, something rather akin to an Appeal to Authority, in which it is believed that something cannot possibly be stupid if <insert respected name here> engaged in it.

I think you've misunderstood where my line of argument is going.

I'm not arguing "X isn't stupid because intelligent people do it!" I'm arguing that of "doing X" does not guarantee or require that a person be stupid overall. Smoking is self-destructive, so it can reasonably be called a stupid activity. But that doesn't mean that knowing that a person smokes is sufficient evidence to prove that they are stupid in a general sense.

Or if it does, than nearly everyone is stupid in a general sense, because nearly everyone engages in at least some behaviors that they would be hard pressed to defend or explain to an unsympathetic outside party. You can make a good case that nearly everyone is stupid, especially in the Cipollan sense But if you do, then the utility of the term "stupid" declines, because while it indicates a lack of intelligence it no longer indicates an unusual lack. It becomes rather like saying that someone is a biped- clearly true, but unremarkable.
_______

I was replying specifically to the remark "Durr... boy, we iz stupid angel-peoples. We'ze believe wif'out no proof." To my eyes, the implication of that is that they must necessarily be stupid because they believe in their boss's cause. I would argue that this is a serious overgeneralization, and a dangerous one to make about an enemy. Over the years, a lot of people with what can only be called 'faith' have shown competence, insight, or other traits commonly associated with intelligence. It seems unreasonable to say that these traits notwithstanding, the faithful are automatically stupid by definition.

You can call the faithful stupid if you like, but don't bet anything you don't care to lose on their stupidity. As Surlethe said:
_________

Darth Wong wrote:Egypt was "modernized" in the sense that it is not an entirely primitive backwater. But it still can't compete with the high-tech industrialized nations in any sense, and that's with far more advantages than Michael would have.

On the other hand, Michael has some advantages Muhammad Ali did not. For one, Heaven can be quite a nice place to stay when the management isn't being willfully negligent about your living conditions. It's going to be a lot easier to convince people to move to Heaven to offer technical advice than it was to convince them to move to Egypt.

Simon_Jester wrote:I'm not arguing "X isn't stupid because intelligent people do it!" I'm arguing that of "doing X" does not guarantee or require that a person be stupid overall. Smoking is self-destructive, so it can reasonably be called a stupid activity. But that doesn't mean that knowing that a person smokes is sufficient evidence to prove that they are stupid in a general sense.

No, but it does prove that their judgment is less reliable than would otherwise be the case, because the kind of personality deficiencies which lead to that behaviour can lead to others.

You can call the faithful stupid if you like, but don't bet anything you don't care to lose on their stupidity.

Unless you're an advertiser or a politician, in which case it must be pointed out that vast fortunes and lofty political careers have been built on their gullibility. Again, an unyielding faith is not an outlier; it is indicative of deeper problems. Those problems may have other manifestations.

Obviously, one does not want to (for example) plan a military campaign or even a political one around the assumption of the other side's incompetence. But that's just good risk management, not a rebuttal to the notion that there's something intellectually wrong with the faithful.

Darth Wong wrote:Egypt was "modernized" in the sense that it is not an entirely primitive backwater. But it still can't compete with the high-tech industrialized nations in any sense, and that's with far more advantages than Michael would have.

On the other hand, Michael has some advantages Muhammad Ali did not. For one, Heaven can be quite a nice place to stay when the management isn't being willfully negligent about your living conditions. It's going to be a lot easier to convince people to move to Heaven to offer technical advice than it was to convince them to move to Egypt.

For the technologically sophisticated, places are more or less pleasant to visit based primarily on their social environment, not their physical environment. Physical living environments can be improved through judicious use of technology and money. Social environment is a much bigger problem. Heaven has a horrendous social environment: it's filled with mindless drones who have been enthralled to Yahweh for thousands of years. Don't tell yourself they will suddenly become westernized liberal free-thinkers if you kill Yahweh.

As for issues with Highlander, Connor MacLeod and there being ONLY ONE(!) maybe Stuart can still refer to the SDnetter by just switching the names. Leod MacConnor sounds pretty cool for a name.

According to the banner at the bottom, Jesus loves me

Our keywords are so messing with the ad software.

On the other hand, Michael has some advantages Muhammad Ali did not. For one, Heaven can be quite a nice place to stay when the management isn't being willfully negligent about your living conditions. It's going to be a lot easier to convince people to move to Heaven to offer technical advice than it was to convince them to move to Egypt.

Not really. At least Egypt had money. What does Heaven have to offer?

Samuel wrote:Not really. At least Egypt had money. What does Heaven have to offer?

Stuart wrote:Headquarters, League of the Holy Court, Eternal City, Heaven
The Eternal City, the heart of Yahweh's great empire was a gleaming translucent rectangular pearl that dazed the eyes of newcomers with its rainbows of refracted light. The buildings were made of vast sheets of precious and semi-precious stone

We're probably going to blow up a lot of those buildings, which will free the stones up for other purposes. Monetary purposes. What buildings are left would probably make for great tourist attractions. Heck, even if we demolished all of the buildings, it's Heaven. The place will be a tourist trap no matter how much we blow up (well, maybe if we set off the volcano, it won't).

Darth Wong wrote:No, but it does prove that their judgment is less reliable than would otherwise be the case, because the kind of personality deficiencies which lead to that behaviour can lead to others.

Granted. If you draw a plot of intelligence distribution, I'd expect you to be able to break it down into a double Gaussian based on whether people do or do not do any given stupid thing. Statistically speaking, the people who do the stupid thing are going to have a lower average, and will form a separate population that you can identify by curve fitting to the population as a whole.

I suspect, though, that the difference between the mean "intelligence"* of the true-believers and the faithless is not overwhelming compared to the standard deviation of intelligence in the population as a whole. The double bell curve is going to look like two mountains close together, maybe with a valley in the middle; it's not going to look like two peaks that are miles apart.

*here defined as an aggregate of things like mental flexibility, the ability to realize when someone is trying to cheat you, the ability to persuade and coordinate others, and the ability to come up with appropriate plans for a complex situation, as applied across the board to one's entire life.

You can exploit a statistical difference like that when manipulating large groups for personal gain, and it was wrong of me not to admit it before. But that doesn't mean that you can look at a given person and say "they are stupid because they don't question the boss." There are a lot of reasons why a person who is intelligent by any overall standard might be unreasonably loyal to a specific person or idea.
_______

For the technologically sophisticated, places are more or less pleasant to visit based primarily on their social environment, not their physical environment. Physical living environments can be improved through judicious use of technology and money. Social environment is a much bigger problem. Heaven has a horrendous social environment: it's filled with mindless drones who have been enthralled to Yahweh for thousands of years. Don't tell yourself they will suddenly become westernized liberal free-thinkers if you kill Yahweh.

Hey, bringing in foreigners to help set up the technological infrastructure despite the fact that the locals were mostly poorly educated peasants locked in a religious hierarchy worked for Dubai.

Now, that's a pat analogy that grossly oversimplifies the situation. But keep in mind that when the emirs of Dubai started modernizing their city, the majority of the population were essentially the same sort that Michael has to work with. They weren't all that educated, and they didn't have a wonderful social life to attract outsiders either. But the disparity of wealth between Western society and the average standard of living in Arabia was so favorable that anyone bringing in foreign exchange could live quite well, and the emirs went out of their way to attract the kind of people that could help them strengthen their city-state.

Michael's situation is different, but examples like Dubai provide a conceptual model for what he might try to do and how it might work.
_______

Moreover, the mere fact that Heaven has secret police should suggest that the majority of the population isn't as mindlessly enthralled as they might be. If the majority of the population supported orthodox Yahweh-glorification over any and all heresies, the secret police wouldn't be required. So Michael might find it easier than you'd expect to open his society up a little, and he's already decided it's in his interests to do so (witness the Montmartre club).

Remember that a lot of the same people who believed in Yahweh firmly enough to please the version portrayed here also believed that Heaven is a nice place. In the Salvation War setting, it's not. That creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, and I can definitely see it as the starting point for social change.
_______

The only really fundamental problem Michael has is that it's going to be hard for him to build up Heaven on a purely autarkic economic regime. He needs a negotiated peace, and he's going to be hard pressed to get one.
_______

Sute wrote:

Samuel wrote:Not really. At least Egypt had money. What does Heaven have to offer?

Stuart wrote:Headquarters, League of the Holy Court, Eternal City, Heaven
The Eternal City, the heart of Yahweh's great empire was a gleaming translucent rectangular pearl that dazed the eyes of newcomers with its rainbows of refracted light. The buildings were made of vast sheets of precious and semi-precious stone

We're probably going to blow up a lot of those buildings, which will free the stones up for other purposes. Monetary purposes. What buildings are left would probably make for great tourist attractions. Heck, even if we demolished all of the buildings, it's Heaven. The place will be a tourist trap no matter how much we blow up (well, maybe if we set off the volcano, it won't).

For that matter, Michael can dismantle some of the palaces just as easily as we could. There will be vacancies if he wins. And he can take advantage of the tourist factor too.

Assuming humans are willing to coexist peacefully with him, he's not going to have too much trouble acquiring the foreign exchange for seed money. He's got stored treasures, he's presumably got natural resources waiting to be tapped (just as Hell does), and he can sell indulgences.

Simon_Jester wrote:and he can sell indulgences.

Now wouldn't that be interesting? Yahweh selling forgiveness Pope-style.

The shit would really hit the fan if Heaven gets a Martin Luther, though.

ray245 wrote:You're talking about a minority in any society that has an active interest in geo-politics. The majority of the population won't care about Geo-politics most of the time.

That's right up there with a line quoted in a compendium of Murphy's Laws...

No matter what you do, always remember that there are approximately one billion Chinese who'll never know your name, and never know what you did, and who will never care.

Kind of puts things into perspective, don't it?

Ed.

Indulgences. Hm. I suppose that would be like passports for the undead?

Assuming he stays in control, that does indeed seem like a possibility. It would only be worthwhile if people think Heaven is nicer than hell, though. They've got a better environment, but Hell has a head start on modernization.

Baughn wrote:Indulgences. Hm. I suppose that would be like passports for the undead?

I'm sorry? Do you really think humanity is going to agree to any peace treaty which would give anything non-human any power over the end destination of human souls after death?

Michael's problems are manifold. He needs a negotiated peace to stay in control after any coup, but his conditions are likely unacceptable to humanity as a whole, and he's still on the viewpoint of outside, looking in on us. There's a fair chance he might misunderstand or overestimate his knowledge of modern human psychology. He doesn't understand us fully, but it's more akin to how two different human nations don't understand each other, as opposed to the total paradigm conflict that the demons (and most of heaven still) had.

Simon_Jester wrote:_______

I was replying specifically to the remark "Durr... boy, we iz stupid angel-peoples. We'ze believe wif'out no proof." To my eyes, the implication of that is that they must necessarily be stupid because they believe in their boss's cause. I would argue that this is a serious overgeneralization, and a dangerous one to make about an enemy. Over the years, a lot of people with what can only be called 'faith' have shown competence, insight, or other traits commonly associated with intelligence. It seems unreasonable to say that these traits notwithstanding, the faithful are automatically stupid by definition.

I was being a bit snark-tastic there, Simon. But I do admit that I think that "faith" in general has an effect on a people's ability to question, and that trust - in ANYTHING - tends to get you killed eventually.

My philosophy of life can be summed up in a few simple quotes, I think.

"Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness."
-- Stephen King.

"Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do and the guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."
-- Sinclair to Garibaldi in Babylon 5:"And the Sky Full of Stars"

"Trust no one. Not even me."
-- Anon.

"Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"
-- Morpheus, The Matrix

Of course, one day, with my shoes so heavily greased with pessimistic attitude and paranoia, I'll slide over the edge of the cliff of solipsism and that'll be the end of me, but it'll be one fun ride along the way...

Ed.

EarthScorpion wrote:

Baughn wrote:Indulgences. Hm. I suppose that would be like passports for the undead?

I'm sorry? Do you really think humanity is going to agree to any peace treaty which would give anything non-human any power over the end destination of human souls after death?

No. However, it's not completely unimaginable, if he manages to prevent the humans from entering heaven at all.

Baughn wrote:

EarthScorpion wrote:

Baughn wrote:Indulgences. Hm. I suppose that would be like passports for the undead?

I'm sorry? Do you really think humanity is going to agree to any peace treaty which would give anything non-human any power over the end destination of human souls after death?

No. However, it's not completely unimaginable, if he manages to prevent the humans from entering heaven at all.

They will never stop trying, and they would never accept a peace treaty which gives him access to human territory without giving them access in return.

Richard Sharpe wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:and he can sell indulgences.

Now wouldn't that be interesting? Yahweh selling forgiveness Pope-style.

The shit would really hit the fan if Heaven gets a Martin Luther, though.

I was thinking more in terms of what Michael might do if he staged a successful coup and found himself in need of foreign exchange to build up Heaven's economy. "Indulgence" was the closest term I could think of for a document saying "There's a nice little plot of beachfront real estate in Heaven waiting for you when you die in exchange for the following considerations..."

There doesn't need to be any specific moralist overtone to it, and (unlike the medieval Catholic clergy's version of the practice), there's no hypocrisy involved. When the Church sold indulgences, it was offering to sell you something that wasn't theirs in the first place. But if the Archangel Michael is running Heaven and decides to sell you an indulgence, it's just a simple real estate transaction.

This is more or less the same deal Julius Caesar is offering in Hell with the "Elysian Fields."
______

EarthScorpion wrote:I'm sorry? Do you really think humanity is going to agree to any peace treaty which would give anything non-human any power over the end destination of human souls after death?

As a business transaction... it's at least remotely possible, I think, if the war ends in such a way that the human nations no longer feel compelled to raze Heaven.

I don't think Michael's likely to pull it off, but I think it's a plausible outcome, and it's certainly the best outcome he can reasonably expect.

People will not choose Heaven period after Armag events. Death in Hell means:
1) you are apprehended by humans
2) in a place controlled by humans
3) you may choose to settle anywhere among human controlled territories in Hell

Human controlled here is the key issue.

Heaven: controlled by an Archangel (the same kind of shit as the Daemons, not so keen on torture but quite keen on mass genocide), no human access... no one would want to take chances.

Good point.

OK, what about more conventional agreements that have nothing to do with the afterlife? Something along the lines of "We're willing to pay trained electrical engineers a small pile of jewels a month and give them free lodgings in the recently vacated Palace of [insert archangel here] if they'll help us wire the Eternal City for electricity."

Or "Hey, impoverished African subsistence farmers! We'll pay construction workers first-world salaries to help us build hotels for tourists on Heaven's finest beachfront property!"

What I'm trying to get at is that unless the humans go for an absolute "no quarter given, kill all angels above the rank of cherub, we HATE YOU SO MUCH!" approach, there's going to be some basis for trade, tourism, that kind of thing. And if they do go for the absolute approach, Michael is probably screwed no matter what, so that there's really not much point in planning for what to do in that case.

But it's not completely insane for him to hold out hope that he can somehow calm humanity down to the point where they're willing to let him stay alive and in control of substantial territory. And if they do, then he'll have resources he can use to modernize his territory.

Simon_Jester wrote:What I'm trying to get at is that unless the humans go for an absolute "no quarter given, kill all angels above the rank of cherub, we HATE YOU SO MUCH!" approach

The enemy has declared war on humanity and already deployed WMDs on us. Why the hell would we not declare that we hate them so much?

there's going to be some basis for trade, tourism, that kind of thing.

That's just absurd. It's hard enough convincing Americans to get over their grudge against Cuba, which has done nothing remotely approaching what Heaven has done.

But it's not completely insane for him to hold out hope that he can somehow calm humanity down to the point where they're willing to let him stay alive and in control of substantial territory.

Only if he pulls an Abigor and openly joins their side against Yahweh.

And if they do, then he'll have resources he can use to modernize his territory.

The first humans imported into Heaven will be used as pathfinders to open portals and get human military forces in there. I don't know why you think humanity has been replaced by Care Bears.

I think it's been said before: Humanity hated the demons, but we DISPISE heaven. At least the demons were honest about things. I have a feeling the surviving former Christians are going to be ready and willing to jack heaven up and take revenge. Take me, for instance, I could've been having sex this whole time, but heaven LIED TO ME!

Someone's gotta pay for that.

Darth Wong wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:What I'm trying to get at is that unless the humans go for an absolute "no quarter given, kill all angels above the rank of cherub, we HATE YOU SO MUCH!" approach

The enemy has declared war on humanity and already deployed WMDs on us. Why the hell would we not declare that we hate them so much?

I think it could happen under some conditions (as you say, Michael might "pull an Abigor" and somehow manage to deliver Yahweh down to Earth wrapped in several miles of steel cable), but it's unlikely.

Perhaps I should make it clear: I do not consider this the most likely outcome of the story. But I think it's an interesting contingency to discuss- if Michael isn't totally screwed and doomed, what should he do and how would he do it? Obviously, if we assume that he's doomed from the outset, the question is irrelevant.

And if they do, then he'll have resources he can use to modernize his territory.
The first humans imported into Heaven will be used as pathfinders to open portals and get human military forces in there. I don't know why you think humanity has been replaced by Care Bears.

See previous; if Michael can't figure out a way to get a negotiated settlement somehow that puts (or leaves) him in power, the entire line of speculation is irrelevant. If he can, then humans don't have to be unusually nice to trade with him. If there are people who aren't actively trying to kill him, then you'd better believe he can find some of them to trade with.
________

This does not mean that I am ignorant of the anger humans in the setting feel against Heaven, or that I imagine human beings turning into teddy bears overnight. But "inevitable" wars between "natural" enemies that could "only" end with the annihilation of one side or the other have been resolved before. And it's not uncommon to find the grandchildren of the people who fought the war trading with each other.

Demons tortured your ancestors for millennia and ate babies as snacks. That probably is worse than just killing people on Earth, when they still have their "Hell lives" in reserve. No doubt Yahweh is screwed but if humans did not launch a campaign of genocide against the Demons it's hard to see the justification for doing so on the Angels. Unconditional surrender and the occupation of Heaven as a human-run, human-owned pocket realm though...

MarshalPurnell wrote:Demons tortured your ancestors for millennia and ate babies as snacks. That probably is worse than just killing people on Earth, when they still have their "Hell lives" in reserve. No doubt Yahweh is screwed but if humans did not launch a campaign of genocide against the Demons it's hard to see the justification for doing so on the Angels. Unconditional surrender and the occupation of Heaven as a human-run, human-owned pocket realm though...

Right, my assertion was for humans that they're in no way MORE inclined to be forgiving of heaven, and are likely LESS inclined.

I think it's worth pointing out that Abigor is not a sovereign leader in any sense of the word. He is a vassal leader. That is roughly the limit of what I think humans would tolerate from any of these creatures, angel or demon. And the longer the angels continue their offensive against humanity, the lower its tolerance will be. Tortured inflicted upon past generations are something of an abstract concept for the living (although obviously not for the dead). But the real firepower is in the hands of the living, not the dead. The more suffering humans experience on Earth, the more terrible their desire for retribution will be.

If you devastate cities and towns and wipe out hundreds of thousands of people, there is no fucking way humanity is going to let you off with your pretty city in pristine condition, never mind allowing you to start trading with them as equals.

Simon_Jester wrote:This does not mean that I am ignorant of the anger humans in the setting feel against Heaven, or that I imagine human beings turning into teddy bears overnight. But "inevitable" wars between "natural" enemies that could "only" end with the annihilation of one side or the other have been resolved before. And it's not uncommon to find the grandchildren of the people who fought the war trading with each other.

One side or another is not necessarily "annihilated", but someone generally suffers. Nobody absorbs suffering and then just say "All right then, let's be friends" without either inflicting some punishment of his own or suffering defeats to the extent that they have no choice. The only way your scenario could possibly play out is if humans lose horribly.

Darth Wong wrote:I think it's worth pointing out that Abigor is not a sovereign leader in any sense of the word. He is a vassal leader. That is roughly the limit of what I think humans would tolerate from any of these creatures, angel or demon. And the longer the angels continue their offensive against humanity, the lower its tolerance will be. Tortured inflicted upon past generations are something of an abstract concept for the living (although obviously not for the dead). But the real firepower is in the hands of the living, not the dead. The more suffering humans experience on Earth, the more terrible their desire for retribution will be.

If you devastate cities and towns and wipe out hundreds of thousands of people, there is no fucking way humanity is going to let you off with your pretty city in pristine condition, never mind allowing you to start trading with them as equals.

True. On the other hand, angels and demons are nigh-immortal. They can afford to take the long view. Abigor is a vassal ruler right now, and will remain so for decades, but who can say how much independence he'll have in two or three hundred years? I'm sure that's an important question in his mind at the moment; I know I'd be giving it a lot of thought. Look at how Abigor sends devils to help rebuild after disasters and things like that. He's taking the long view, probably with the hope of building up a good PR image in the minds of future generations.

Michael could easily be thinking the same thing. For instance, he might recall that the US was deeply angry at Japan during the Second World War, but that we reverted to a mutually beneficial trading relationship even while Hirohito was still reigning over Japan. Human bitterness and rage against Heaven will be much more intense than American anger over Pearl Harbor, but it remains finite. Just as it is not in human nature to forgive people instantly, it is not in their nature to harbor grudges for all eternity.

So if Michael can stay alive and maintain even some nominal shred of control in Heaven (in the sense that Abigor has some control in Hell), sooner or later he'll be trying to rebuild his dimension's economy along more progressive lines. At which point what he has to offer in exchange for foreign help becomes relevant.

The question is only irrelevant to Michael if he winds up dead, which he's presumably putting a lot of effort into avoiding. And it's only irrelevant in the abstract if Heaven winds up so completely destroyed that it never again has any significant economy- which seems unlikely, even given how furious humanity in the Salvation War appears to be at the angelic community's betrayal.

I have to disagree.

As much as I hate to say it, but from all appearances, there ARE grudges humanity can hold for all of eternity.

Isreal vs. Palestine? Just saying. They hated each other' guts when the Pyramids were still new, and they still kill each other on a fairly regular basis well into the 21st century. I'm sure I can dig up a few more, if I felt like getting off my lazy ass to look.

It is in our nature to harbor grudges for eternity, in some cases, and I say this case would well qualify.

Heaven will be lucky if every nuke currently in our stockpiles doesn't go through the first portal we find.