Neutrals are in trouble!

[Bionitrous]

Just going off on a tangent.

A little bit of generalized spoiler material from the novel to explain my musings:

The Omegas were a group of immortal humans helped by a 'higher being (Devil?)'. They destroyed civilization entirely through genetic virus/nanotech virus/nuclear warheads.

They waited out the nuclear winter underground and re-emerged to take leadership of the now totally uncivilized remnants of humanity. Basically cavemen again.

Well, like all good stories, these cavemen (now called Solitus) with the apparent assistance of some higher force (God?) rebelled and defeated the immortal Omegas. The surviving Omegas hid again.

Their next plan was to start a hypercorporation that would infuse itself into every nook and cranny of society. Since these people are immortal, they figured they would take as much time as they needed. This company was Omni-Tek.

The head Omega is underground right now on Rubi'Ka monitoring events and the goings on in Omni-Tek. That's kinda where the novel ended.

My tangent was to whether or not the Mutants were created to prevent the kind of upheaval the enslaved Solitus caused for the Omega the first time around.

[Centurion3]

oh well, I still have faith in Omni-Tek and its dealings. IC: Bah, Omega's, just some myth :-P

OOC: The devil? god? ooook...

[Praecautus]

Rubi-Ka was a lifeless rock before colonization and subsequent terraforming. Omni-Tek have created and released all the speices you see before you. they have evolved and adapted to rubi-ka and the other species. Omni-Tek obviously own the rights to the genomes of the creatures when they were first released. BUT after generations of mutation/selection/evolution do they now own them? and where is the line drawn?

a chimpanzee shows a high degree of similarity to the human genome (well a certain subset of genes, but the argument can be extended to the genomes as a whole at a 'low resolution') but is very obviously a different species. can the same argument be applied to the current 'crop' of flora and fauna that surrounds us? there are tremendous selective pressures on Rubi-Ka, not to mention the effects of notum, i doubt very much the genomes (which OT have patented) are identical to the genomes of those species now.

[Centurion3]

That is philosophical indeed. My, oh so humble opinion, is that as long as they are not sentient they are still property of Omni-Tech. If the mutants are considerd sentient or not I dont know, I have talked to one or two, but they seem to just know a few lines of speech, like an parrot.

[Praecautus]

i was told by a leet to "phear me" and a reet warned me "I'll get my main"

[Centurion3]

The ability to speak doesnt make you inteligent... as you can read on these forums.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Centurion3
What about sharks, panthers and birds of prey? Are they any less natural because they are dangerous? Everything that survives has its place

These weren't intentionally (or accidentally) created as part of a human being's experiment.

[Bionitrous]

Ya can't say the Rhinomen are not sentient. That's for sure. One of 'em was even featured in and interview on the Story site.

[Jynne]

One problem I think that O-T of Rubi-Ka is having with its researchers performing irresponsible mutations and experiments is that they basically can do anything with nano technology, including creating creatures that just don't make sense and actually don't fill much in the way of an ecological niche. I know Ragnar posted something to this effect the last time the mutant issue came up around here.

I also see 'the mutant problem' OOC, as game design issues conflicting with good storyline backing. People need a variety of creatures to hunt; they need to have enough density of creatures to hunt. And these creatures need to be placed in areas that are scaled to a reasonably similar level of difficulty. So you end up with a lot of 'top predators' like sandworms and eremites in the same habitat and very near each other, because they can't be wandering in newbie areas and need to be thick enough on the ground in high level areas for high level characters to hunt them.

[Centurion3]

Originally posted by Jynne
These weren't intentionally (or accidentally) created as part of a human being's experiment.

What difference does that make? Should an creature be judged because of its original mutantion? Are we all apes? If we are able to mutant forth an eagle starting from human genetics, does it make it any less of an eagle?

[Centurion3]

Originally posted by Bionitrous
Ya can't say the Rhinomen are not sentient. That's for sure. One of 'em was even featured in and interview on the Story site.

Ok then, if they are sentient then they are not property of anyone

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Centurion3


What difference does that make? Should an creature be judged because of its original mutantion? Are we all apes? If we are able to mutant forth an eagle starting from human genetics, does it make it any less of an eagle?

Because at least to some extent a creator is responsible for his/her creations, particularly if they are not sentient free-willed creations and/or if they were created for a purpose that was willed by the creator. In other words, if you build something, you are responsible for it. If an actor has intent, which is an essential feature of human nature (meaning all humans have intent behind their actions), then that actor can be judged on the morality of their intent.

Another way to look at it that is simpler: parents are responsible for the actions of their children. Omni-Tek is the parent of the mutant and monster species on Rubi-ka.

And to look at it from a specifically corporate perspective, at the risk of cheapening the fact that we're talking (theoretically) about human beings (yes, technically, claw mutants, eye mutants, lifebleeders, babyfaces, brieflabbs, etc are HUMANS), but to look at it from a corporate standpoint... if a corporation makes a defective product, is that corporation not liable for the harm their product causes? So Omni-Tek (corporation) makes a defective product (failed or shoddy genetic experiment). Aren't they liable for it?

[Centurion3]

Define 'failed', the way I see it there is no such thing as failed specie, those that can survive deserv to do so... We're responsible for their genetical material (at least their original) but we're not responsible for their actions. Lets say we breed wolfs because they are becomming endangerd, then we release them into the wild, we're not to be held responsible if they kill an sheep. errr... or leet..

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Centurion3
Define 'failed', the way I see it there is no such thing as failed specie, those that can survive deserv to do so... We're responsible for their genetical material (at least their original) but we're not responsible for their actions. Lets say we breed wolfs because they are becomming endangerd, then we release them into the wild, we're not to be held responsible if they kill an sheep. errr... or leet..

Remember this is an OOC forum, at least, I am posting on it as such.

Actually, morally speaking (and if AO were reality), O-T would be responsible for the actions of the mutants they created. Moreso even than parents are morally responsible for their children - parents can't pick and choose genetic traits. And they would be responsible for future mutations of those creatures if said mutations could be reasonably demonstrated to result from poor craftsmanship in the original genetic manipulation.

People are responsible for what they do, including if not especially when what they do is the creation of other living things.

Let me put it this way. If you're injured by a Ford Explorer whose tires blew out and caused a rollover, would you say that the vehicle is at fault but not the company that designed and built it?

Edit: I define 'failed' in this context to be the making of something that does not meet the goals it was intended for. I personally believe that many of the large, dangerous critters and freaky humanoids were not intended to turn out the way they did. But only Ragnar can answer which of the mutants and monsters were meant to be how they are, and which of them were screw-ups.

[Centurion3]

I'd blame myself for not looking out, the driver for not being carefull and watching over his vehicle, the ones who created the vehicle and the ones who created the tires.

If an mutant kills an neutral its not an act of war of Omni-Tek. They are now part of the eco system and should be treated as such. Just like any other creature on Rubi-Ka. The fact that they where failed for use of Omni-Tek, like an failed Nanomage experiment or whatever, doesnt neccesairly its completely useless as part of the eco system.

[Bionitrous]

Well, one such example is the Blubbag which was supposed to gobble up rocks and transport them and then regurgitate them. I don't see them marching in and out of mine shafts. And on occasion, I know a Monolith Blubbag has caused some harm to various of my characters.

Now, whether or not this creature is a 'failure' is open to interpretation. Obviously it no longer serves its intendend purpose. What is Omni-Tek's responsibility? Neuter all living specimens? Ensure they have a proper environment to live in. Let them starve to death? Kill 'em all? or the worst moral choice at all: ignore the situation completely.

[Centurion3]

Originally posted by Bionitrous
or the worst moral choice at all: ignore the situation completely.

I dont think thats such an bad alternative, since they have survived for this long in the wild should prove them worthy enough to survive dont you think?

[Bionitrous]

No, the question was timed for when the Blubbags were taken out of commission. At this point in time, the decision to ignore the situation might be valid. It wasn't when they changed from Blubbags to machinery and/or Atrox.

You are supposed to clean up after yourself. At least I think that's what civilization expects.

As to whether or not any of this is evil, I don't think that argument is as strong. Uncivilized? You got a good shot at convincing more people than the 'evil' angle.

Then there's the question of inherently evil versus meditated evil. Kid pulls the wings off all the butterflies he finds and lets them be to crawl on six legs. Evil?

Doesn't it depend on why he did it?

I think the only thing you'll really convince me of is that Omni-Tek is inherently evil. That is, they are spawned and sponsored by the authors of all we consider dark throughout history. Those who sponsored Roland Drake will be revealed at one point and then I and a lot of others can make our allegience calls.

Till now, I see little different on Rubi'Ka than I've seen in so many two-sided political or religious squabbles during Earth's history. You can argue both sides, so arguing is futile unless you are on one of the two sided. We got the Roleplaying Forum if you want to blow one of the trumpets.

As for here in the Story Forum, I can only state my opinion that Omni-Tek is 'evil' because it just is.

[Jynne]

The point though is that these creatures which were made as 'tools' or as 'by products' of experiments working towards a different goal may be surviving themselves, but they are harming human beings in the process.

And I never said there was another vehicle involved in the Explorer accident. The tires blew out and it rolled. No other driver, and not much you could have done to watch out for it. That's more along the lines of what it's like when you run over a hilltop and find yourself face-to-huge-gaping-jaws with a sandworm

Edit: Basically, if O-T had cleaned up, or at least tried to clean up, their failed/decommissioned experiments and kept control of the environment they were creating then my argument would be non-existent on the grounds we've been exploring.

But I am saying that since O-T hasn't even tried to clean up any of these things, like Blubbags, it indicates an intentional corporate policy of using living creatures as tools and then discarding them without a care when their purpose is served or if they do not meet expections, including human beings (such as atroxes, let alone intentional human mutations such as Shades). The most logical reason according to Occam's Razor is that it would cost more to clean up the mutants than it would to just let them wander around and hurt random passers-by.

And that policy is why I consider it morally wrong, if not indeed outright evil, not just the mere acts of genetic experiments themselves.

[Centurion3]

ah point taken, although I think we're getting to far into symbolics for any of this to make sence anymore...

Oh and as for the blubbags, after they had finished their purpose for Omni Tek, they where given an chance to adapt and survive in nature outside. Where's the harm in that? Seems like an humane thing to do, letting them live free and adapt if possible.