As to the aliens negotiating, it could be becaue they're smart and realize that 10% is a farmable amount -- they can come back later and get another 10% either of what's left or humanity's restored children. Take 'em all, and we'll either be extinct when they run out or we'll be that much more motivated to find a solution to the aliens.
And to be fair to Jack, it's not clear that modern-day people are really people to him. Imagine you found yourself on the savannah, surrounded by, say, H. Habilis. You would certainly want to avoid their extinction, and you might grow fond of some of them, but would your moral stance against killing fully extend to them?
There wasn't really an indication on the alien's part that they were trying to set up a long-term tithing kind of a thing. Because yes, this way there are humans left, but by forcing the governments to kowtow, none of these administrations will be in power in the future. Had they made another camouflagable demand, then they could keep dealing with the same people and use secrecy as leverage. With such a big demand, they've made it much harder for them to get anything if and when they come back. I'm still going with the "they're high and not thinking straight" explanation. Though I did love the alien drug dealers angle, which seems so much more possible than the evil alien overlords of most shows
( ... )
Jack is the anti-thesis of your normal sci fi hero. The opposite of John Sheppard on SGA, who has repeatedly shown that he will allow the galaxy to get fucked over to save one teammate. But both extremes--Sheppard making decisions that lead to the deaths of millions to save the cast members, Captain Jack chosing to sacrifice cast members to save millions--aren't really viable models for heros on a tv show in the long term. Because both make it impossible to continue to sympathize and care about the character over the course of a series.
Before I get into a longer response here, let me at least address this. I agree with you about Jack, but I would not agree with you on the opposite side. I don't know SGA, but the ethical decision, when one is told to make the awful choice--10% or everyone--is to kill everyone. It's not necessarily the easy choice, but it's the ethical one because it does not presume inherent superiority of people. The Doctor could have killed the Daleks, once, twice, many times over. He never did. Nine could have
( ... )
I agree with you about Jack, but I would not agree with you on the opposite side. I'm not sure I quite parse that... My problem with SGA is that the characters routinely make decisions that adversely effect millions of people for purely selfish reasons. Often to save people who were reckless when they got into their current situation. What they are doing, as one episode pointed out, is unilaterally making decisions that affect the lives of everyone in the galaxy--a galaxy they are visitors in--without consultation. Which makes it hard, after all, to buy them as heroes.
you are willing to kill for the greater good, what would be left is not worth saving. Better that all should die. I see that you're one of the ones that would walk away from Omelas.
I didn't explain myself well. I meant, that if it's a choice to save a friend versus millions, the right thing to do is save the friend in many circumstances. Recklessness, obviously, is right out, as is duty or voluntary sacrifice. I see now, with more background on the situation that you're right about SGA--if it's done willy-nilly, it's hard to find that heroic. (That's what Jack did in his "I'm going to stop you...somehow!" plan that got all of Thames House killed. Noooo! My Spooks!!!)
I see that you're one of the ones that would walk away from Omelas. I don't understand the reference. I did say, however, that the better all should die solution is the ethical one (where the one/few to die for the many are not volunteers), not the one that I would be able to make necessarily.
That's a gorgeous story, but I suspect LeGuin gives herself too much away. She never makes Omelas half so wonderful to justify half so much horror as a child abused and neglected and unloved. Like I've been saying about this series, you don't come back from hurting, much less killing, a child.
And to be fair to Jack, it's not clear that modern-day people are really people to him. Imagine you found yourself on the savannah, surrounded by, say, H. Habilis. You would certainly want to avoid their extinction, and you might grow fond of some of them, but would your moral stance against killing fully extend to them?
Reply
Reply
Before I get into a longer response here, let me at least address this. I agree with you about Jack, but I would not agree with you on the opposite side. I don't know SGA, but the ethical decision, when one is told to make the awful choice--10% or everyone--is to kill everyone. It's not necessarily the easy choice, but it's the ethical one because it does not presume inherent superiority of people. The Doctor could have killed the Daleks, once, twice, many times over. He never did. Nine could have ( ... )
Reply
I'm not sure I quite parse that... My problem with SGA is that the characters routinely make decisions that adversely effect millions of people for purely selfish reasons. Often to save people who were reckless when they got into their current situation. What they are doing, as one episode pointed out, is unilaterally making decisions that affect the lives of everyone in the galaxy--a galaxy they are visitors in--without consultation. Which makes it hard, after all, to buy them as heroes.
you are willing to kill for the greater good, what would be left is not worth saving. Better that all should die.
I see that you're one of the ones that would walk away from Omelas.
Reply
I see that you're one of the ones that would walk away from Omelas.
I don't understand the reference. I did say, however, that the better all should die solution is the ethical one (where the one/few to die for the many are not volunteers), not the one that I would be able to make necessarily.
Reply
The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. LeGuin
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment