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



## Truth Seeker (Nov 10, 2006)

[imagel]http://galacticastation.com/Gallery/Episode/se3/300/306.gif[/imagel]





*"A Measure of Salvation"*








Original airdate:  Nov 10th 2006
# Production Number: 306
# Executive Producers: *R.D. Moore, David Eick*
# Co-Executive Producer*: Paul Leonard*
# Producer: *Harvey Frand*
# Associate Producer: *Trisha Brunner*
# Written by: *Michael Angeli*
# Directed by:* Bill Eagles*

*Starring*: *Mary McDonnell, Edward James Olmos, Jamie Bamber, Katee Sackhoff, James Callis, Tricia Helfer, Grace Park.*

Co-Starring: *Michael Hogan,  Alessandro Juliani, Tahmoh Penikett, Kandyse McClure, Aaron Douglas, Nicki Clyne.*


Admiral Adama and President Roslin debate the morality of deploying a potentially genocidal biological weapon against the Cylons. Meanwhile, Baltar is tortured by D'Anna, who is intent on determining who is responsible for creating the deadly virus that has imperiled the Cylon population.​
No good, no good...of leaving such a dangerous thing around.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 11, 2006)

Yeah, that deadly virus? It's a cold. Too bad your entire race has never had to deal with diseases, Martians!

The episode was entertaining, but man, I got used to watching 2 seasons in a week, with 4 or more episodes a day. This one a week thing ain't cuttin' it.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 11, 2006)

Woahness.

I am disappointed by the lack of genocidal tendencies in future humans.  Pansies.  It's an eye for an eye, people.  They kill a couple billion with nukes, you kill a couple billion with rat phlegm.

I was actually hoping for a bit of negotiation: "Stand back, Cylon, or I'll sneeze on you!"

I'm thinking this season may be the best so far.

(Note to the prop master/Lee Adama: Elcan called, and they want their M145 back.)


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Nov 11, 2006)

Mwaha! Chalk one up for the Grumpster! I called it in a post on last week’s episode. The plague was something simple, an accident and not a weapon. Someone just sneezed…

I wished they would torture Baltar even more. Even if there are no coincidences and all is part of Gods plan, that does not mean we mere mortals are privy to those plans. Mostly they just fall on us and we work our pitiful way through them as best we can. The assumption that Baltar did know about the plague was an irrational response on the part of the Cylons.

The cruel Apollo is cool.

Helo and Athena’s relationship has screwed things up in a major way. People will do anything and justify any crime or treachery, all for the sake of a good orgasm.

However, given what they now know about the plague it is possible they can try to deliberately infect the Cylons in the future. They won’t but I can dream…


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 11, 2006)

I'm honestly a little horrified that you guys are in favor of genocide. I don't think Helo did what he did to impress his wife. He did it because he's had his eyes opened that the enemy are people too. Now true, there's a risk of a slippery slope, that he might be hesitant of working on _any_ aggressive action against the Cylons, but I think Helo has a good enough head to tell the difference between winning tactical conflicts against directly hostile Cylons, and genocide.

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


----------



## shilsen (Nov 11, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm honestly a little horrified that you guys are in favor of genocide.




I'm not, but only because I realized a long time ago that humans are a pretty lousy bunch. 

No wonder the Cylons want to exterminate them.


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 11, 2006)

1. It does not seem that Cylon civilians exist.  Against humans, there is a difference between genocide and destroying the enemy's military.  Against cylons, no such distinction exists.

2.  Nuclear doctrine is generally that if a nation uses nuclear weapons against another who also has nclear weapons, that first country will be annihilated with nuclear weapons in response.  This is necessary for deterrance to truly work.  The cylons tried to destroy all of humanity with WMD.  Thus, it is fair play to respond in kind.  I seriously doubt that any earth nation would hesitate to use the virus.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Nov 11, 2006)

The genocide of the Cylons is the only way they will ever be stopped.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 11, 2006)

I dislike the senseless techno element that somehow says a virus travels to the resurrection ship, and the extended idea that this somwhow infects the entire cylon civilization, and the idea that they can't cure it and none of them is immune. Way too many stretches of scientific credibility for my taste.

I like the conflict of the episode. Genocide is bad. It's sort of a Hiroshima situation where you ask if saving your own lives is worth it. I couldn't do it. I'm not a murderer.


----------



## Trickstergod (Nov 11, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> The genocide of the Cylons is the only way they will ever be stopped.




Well that, or, you know. Breeding until the distinction between humanity and cylon no longer exists. 

Of course, that situation is problematic to say the least. But it's certainly a better solution than genocide and, for that matter, gets around that whole, "If we just leave you alone, you'll resupply to come back and murder our faces off at a later date."


----------



## Steel_Wind (Nov 11, 2006)

Helo and Sharon both go out the airlock - just to be sure.

Sorry boys and girls - this is for the species. It's not about vengeance or eye for an eye or dressing any of the BS up as justice. 

It's not about any of those things: this is about survival of the human race.

You do it in a blink of an eye.  If you spend more than 3 seconds contemplating the downside, you spent two seconds more than you should have.

Helo and Sharon both - out the airlock - dead. No appeal. Only way to be sure.


----------



## MadWand (Nov 11, 2006)

I'm a pretty peaceful person, but I wouldn't hesitate committing genocide against the Cylons. Helo was a fool. The Cylons committed genocide against the humans first, and appear to want to continue to do so. Survival of the human race overrides any moral considerations, just as a Viper pilot need have no moral concerns about shooting down enemy Cylon pilots. Both are murder in self-defense, just on different scales.

Helo lost all my respect that episode. Athena gained a bit of respect for her understanding of the situation, and not freaking out.

Were I Adama, I would try to capture more skinjobs, infect them, and try the plan again. It's by far the best weapon the humans have found so far.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 11, 2006)

Ahnehnois said:
			
		

> I dislike the senseless techno element that somehow says a virus travels to the resurrection ship, and the extended idea that this somwhow infects the entire cylon civilization, and the idea that they can't cure it and none of them is immune. Way too many stretches of scientific credibility for my taste.




That was what the Cylons _believed_.  Important distinction.  As we saw with Three torturing Baltar, the Cylons are very inflexible with regards to their beliefs.  I'm not just talking the fate discussion either.  They assumed, instantly, that Gaius was the cause, that he was lying.  Nothing he could do or say would dissuade them of that.  Heck, I don't think they believe him still, after all the torture.

Personally, I don't think downloading would have done anything anyway... and I'm a little disappointed they didn't go that way.  I think it would have been more satisfying if the plan wasn't stopped by Helo and to have it fail anyway.  Maybe it's the biochemist in me, but this way, the door is still open for biological weapons - just get some rats off the other ships!  For that matter, any other virus Humans may be immune to can be used.

Overall, I wasn't too thrilled with the episode.  It was good, a far stretch from _Black Market_, but definitely the low point of the season for me so far.

I don't agree with the genocide decision, for the sole reason that Galactica has made it this far, with their only major screw up being New Caprica.  The Humans have adaptability on their side, something that we've seen very little of from the Cylons.  At this moment, the moral evil of genocide doesn't make up for the possible total destruction of Humanity.  There may come a time when that isn't true, but that time is not now.  There was also no guarantee that the Cylons wouldn't have been able to cure it, especially with Hera in their possession, who is also presumably immune.

However, both Athena and Helo have shown repeatedly that they can not be trusted.  At the very least, Adama should remove them both from Galactica, and it may even be justifiable to airlock them.  They certainly shouldn't be on Galactica at all.  It was a cop-out at the end of the episode, with Adama refusing the investigation.  Perhaps he realized that biological weapons are a Cylon weakness, perhaps not.  It still felt like a cop-out on the writers' parts.  Hopefully we see some stuff go down with him next week.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 11, 2006)

I have to wonder why the Cylons want Earth, anyway.  It's not like they don't have 12 (well, 13 with New Caprica) freshly-cleansed planets to live on.

The Cylons won't stop, and there will be no such thing as peace.  Apply the same solution as the Albigensian heresy, since the Cylons seem to have this philosophy themselves: "Kill them all.  God will know his own."  Save the species, save the moral arguments for afterward.

Helo's too close to a Cylon and has gotten squeamish.  Athena should definitely go out the airlock -- before she gets it in to her head to tell the other Cylons that she's immune due to her antibodies.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Nov 11, 2006)

The rules are always the same, everywhere and all the time. If humanity cannot afford trials for collaborators now and genocide against an enemy is the best option now and absolute martial law is the best way to operate now, then that is the way things will always be. The belief that things will change or improve does not reflect realty.

The democratic society of the colonies – that reflection of America the writers made – failed, but they all kept acting like it did not. They need to grow up, get rid of their moral squeamishness.

There are similarities between the Aenied and Battlestar. At the end of the Aenied, the refugees from fallen Troy conquer parts of Italy, setting the stage for the creation of Rome later.

I hope the writers and producers have the Battlestar crew at least attempt to conquer Earth.

Edit: Something occurred to me about the “missing’ five Cylon models. 

What if there are only a few individual specimens of those models, or for that matter what if those models are “unique” individuals?

We seem to be assuming that there will be gobs of those missing models simply because there are gobs of the known seven models. However, that might not be the case. 

If there is only a single unit of, say, Model Eight, active at a time and copies are kept around incase the live unit dies, and other Cylons are not programmed to recognize them…

Then anyone might be a Cylon.


----------



## Chimera (Nov 11, 2006)

This whole thing is a serious can of worms.  I don't necessarily like the "resurrection transmission of the virus" angle, but I'm going to have a serious problem if this is a one-off that they ignore from here on out.

*Biological Weapons Program*

Step 1:  Create multiple samples of this virus and store them in un-registered and un-recorded locations so as to prevent mass-sabotage from destroying the program.

Step 2:  Begin large scale production of the virus.

Step 3:  Simultaneous Covert Introduction of the virus to all fleet ships.  This will flush out the remaining 'skin jobs' and, if lucky, introduce the virus to any resurrection ships in range.  If not and you uncover a few of them, you once again have subjects for the "get in range of a res ship and kill them" plot.

Step 4:  Seed the 14 Worlds (12 Colonies, Kobol, New Caprica) with virus spores.  This will prevent their occupation by Cylon 'skin jobs'.  True enough, it won't prevent their controlling the space around them or sending down 'bullet heads', but it too offers the danger of mass infection of the new Cylon race.  (It also gives any surviving Humans on those planets a chance.)

Step 5:  Realize that you just gave the Cylons every reason in the Universe to get to Earth ahead of you.

*Earth*

_Life began out there..._

If life began on Earth, then moved to Kobol, then moved back...  We now have at least two cycles on Earth, with a coming third.
1>  Initial growth, reaching the point of FTL to depart Earth for Kobol.
2>  Return of "The 13th Colony" to Earth.
3>  Return of the meager survivors of the 12 Colonies to Earth.  "3,000 years" after the supposed 13th Colony mission.

I'm going to find it very difficult to accept a Modern Era Earth at the end of the series, by this time-line.  There also has to be the issue that Kobol seems to be quite a distance from Earth, so you would expect some explanation for this.  In other words, either the original Kobol group was intentionally sent a rather extreme distance for some unknown reason, or it was a 'lost' group that unintentionally traveled too far, or ???


----------



## Dingleberry (Nov 11, 2006)

Chimera said:
			
		

> Step 3:  Simultaneous Covert Introduction of the virus to all fleet ships.  This will flush out the remaining 'skin jobs' and, if lucky, introduce the virus to any resurrection ships in range.  If not and you uncover a few of them, you once again have subjects for the "get in range of a res ship and kill them" plot.



My only real complaint about the episode is that none of the crew brought this up.

Well, that and it's similarity to the ST:TNG episode "I, Borg".


----------



## Steel_Wind (Nov 11, 2006)

The more I think about this episode, the more I think this one was a mistake.

They just introduced too many plot hooks here that they are going to have to distatstefully ignore in that "Star Trek way" in future episodes. 

It's not as if the virus has gone away. If it can last for 3,000 years in frozen snot particles on a probe amidst background radiation in deep space, it sure as hell can last a few years in a petri dish or a frozen cylon body (or 5) in the morgue.

You just can't put this bio-weapon genie back in the bottle. Baltar needs to find a cure for this thing, or the Cylons need to find a way to make sure the "electrical bio feedback" can't transmit to a resurrection ship so this armageddon weapon is  an arrow removed from the Galactica's  Big Quiver.

The idea of circulating the virus to make sure there are no more hidden cylons on the fleet is also a good idea. Though - at this point - the idea of hidden cylons among the known models in the fleet appears to be a dead plot thread. 

BSG is a show that provokes debate by posing question and letting the viewer decide the answer. It's a brave political slant to the show and is one of the things that sets it apart from all other dramas. 

But sometimes this fascination on the part of Ronald D Moore can go a little too far and introduce a question in the show that for reasons of technical consistency, just does not lightly go off screen never to be re-examined again.  This is something the human RTF should be looking to exploit again.

I do think that this episode is the beginning of the end for Helo. It says a lot about this character that when push comes to shove, he's willing to TAKE for himself a decision that was not his to make.  I don't think the audience is going to forgive Helo for this - I don't think his crewmates would - I don't even think they SHOULD.

There are going to be deaths this year on BSG and I expect the events of last night's episode are going to lead to Helo's dpearture from the series. This character is not going to make it to Season 4.


----------



## Gunslinger (Nov 11, 2006)

Helo and "Athena" are both weak, and now Helo is a traitor too.  You can't leave someone in the fleet who willfully disobeys orders, especially when he puts the entire race in danger by doing so.  They cylons will not stop until they achieve complete annihilation of the human race; genocide is the only way to stop them.


----------



## Aesthetic Monk (Nov 11, 2006)

Gunslinger said:
			
		

> Helo and "Athena" are both weak, and now Helo is a traitor too.  You can't leave someone in the fleet who willfully disobeys orders, especially when he puts the entire race in danger by doing so.  They cylons will not stop until they achieve complete annihilation of the human race; genocide is the only way to stop them.




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


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 12, 2006)

Aesthetic Monk said:
			
		

> Seems like RDM's failure as a dramatist here was to assume that viewers would have a reflexive revulsion at the thought of genocide.




While, as I said above, I don't agree with the genocide, that is an interesting statement to make.

I wouldn't say the failure was to assume people would diagree with genocide, far from it.  The failure was to build up a scenario where genocide is a serious moral quandary, both for fictional crew and for the viewers at home.  At this point in time, the Cylons have destroyed not one, but twelve Earth-like planets, the majority of whom were likely civilians.  The Cylons then hunted the remaining fleet, sabotaging and terrorizing them with the sole purpose of destroying them.  When the Cylons did feel like talking, what we got instead was a glorified concentration camp called New Caprica.  So I can completely understand why the supposed moral quandary really isn't much of one - the BSG staff have made the Cylons completely and utterly unsympathetic.

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


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 12, 2006)

But see, that's exactly the problem Aesthetic Monk was bringing up (or at least I am): I thought it wasn't much of a moral quandary either, but because it was utterly and without question _wrong_ to commit genocide. And so, with such strongly-held and differing opinions, it potentially becomes interesting.

(Probably except for the part where a good chunk of the pro-genocide people consider the anti folks weak and stupid, and a good chunk of the anti-genocide people consider the pro folks barbaric and idiotic, not making for all that great of a conversation topic.)

I've already lost a lot of respect for Roslin over the seasons, but she sealed the deal here.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Nov 12, 2006)

Don't forget the late President Adar - who precided Roslyn - _tried_to surrender to the Cylon's, and they responded by using more nukes than they had already. We're not talking a Braves v. Texas Rangers thing here or even a Russians v. U.S.A. We're talking about totemic opposition. 

How do you think this will be resolved, aside from the destruction of one side or the other? Or will it simply go on forever and ever and ever?

Genocide is underrated tactically and stratigically and over condemned morally and ethically.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 12, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Don't forget the late President Adar - who precided Roslyn - _tried_to surrender to the Cylon's, and they responded by using more nukes than they had already. We're not talking a Braves v. Texas Rangers thing here or even a Russians v. U.S.A. We're talking about totemic opposition.
> 
> How do you think this will be resolved, aside from the destruction of one side or the other? Or will it simply go on forever and ever and ever?



Ideally it will be resolved with the humans and the cylons finding a way to peacefully coexist. We've already seen the cylon philosophy mutate a great deal, repeatedly. There's no reason to believe that they'll never change.



> Genocide is underrated tactically and stratigically and over condemned morally and ethically.



LOL, well, clearly we come from very different philosophies, as I can't imagine a more incorrect statement.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 12, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> But see, that's exactly the problem Aesthetic Monk was bringing up (or at least I am): I thought it wasn't much of a moral quandary either, but because it was utterly and without question _wrong_ to commit genocide. And so, with such strongly-held and differing opinions, it potentially becomes interesting.




Ah, see, I read it differently.  If I got it wrong, I apologize AS!

The problem with this episode is that it _is_ a black and white issue, when I think that the purpose was probably to present a shade of gray.  It's not like other issues they've presented, where there's middle ground.  Here, because of the situation they've created, either you are for the use of the biological weapon or against, there isn't a middle moral ground that they force you to look at.  That's the problem with this episode.  Without that, basically, we're either morally for it or morally against it, and that's really it.  Honestly, there's not that much more to discuss about it other than to state what side we're on.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Nov 12, 2006)

Aesthetic Monk said:
			
		

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




Actually, EN World is one of the most reasonable places to discuss BSG on the net. Signal to noise is extremely high here.

The fundamental problem with the _genocide as a moral wrong _ argument for me is:

1 - The Cylons have actively taken steps to annihilate the human race in a premeditated, deliberate, unprovoked, sustained and concerted effort over the course of *years* at genocide. From 12 billion humans down to 42,000.  The Cylons are 99.996% of the way to their goal and they are not letting up.

This is not the time to measure ones blows.  Nor is the reasoning here in the least motivated by some analogy to the Reich. This is not a hate- filled final solution scenario carried out on innocents.

There are no Cylon innocents. Not a single one of them.

2 - You ascribe to the Cylons a status as a "race" that I would not willingly grant them so lightly. They are machines. Created, not born. That cannot even procreate on their own.

_Mr. Smith voice on_: "We have a name for an organism on this planet that cannot procreate on its own. It is called a_ virus_."

Call it wrong, call it evil..call it whatever you want. I call it necessary for the survival of the species. Against this, no argument or resort to ethics is of much consequence. Given the prisoners dilemma the RTF finds itself in, "us or them?" It's them. Every. Single. Time.

The above points re: "they played the genocide card first" and "lack of racial status" are just icing on a well baked and presented cake.

I'm a liberal and I don't believe in capital punishment. (Edit - not an invitaiton to discuss further). Point is, I am not presenting some  twitchy right-wing reaction here. I have a deep and abiding serenity concerning the correctness of using the virus as a weapon in this instance. 

I am genuinely suprised people are having difficulty with it at all.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 12, 2006)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> There are no Cylon innocents. Not a single one of them.
> 
> 2 - You ascribe to the Cylons a status as a "race" that I would not willingly grant them so lightly. They are machines. Created, not born. That cannot even procreate on their own.




Actually, I'd say those two points are where the decision of whether you are for or against it are.

The innocence of the Cylons is debatable, especially since there are 5 models we know NOTHING about. For all we know, they are, in fact, innocent.

And as for calling something a race or not...well, again, there is obviously a line somewhere. Cylons are created, yes, but they seem to procreate, even if its not in the same form as humans. Hell, they survived for 50 years without any humans, so they seem to have the process of living down just fine. 

And that's the thing, they are ALIVE. We know that. They go to great lengths to BE alive and to prove it. Maybe its not in the same sense as for humans, but why should it be? Is all life exactly the same?

The other thing that I see as a big thing against genocide is roughly along the same lines as what Helo said. The Cylons are bad, yes. But is turnabout really fair play? Does one species really have any right at all to destroy another? The Cylons thought so, obviously, and Roslin does, too...but does this make the humans as bad as the Cylons? THAT, I think, is the question being posed in this episodes.

Are we really that different?


----------



## shilsen (Nov 12, 2006)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> There are no Cylon innocents. Not a single one of them.




It's a little difficult to be absolutely sure about that. And for some people, whether there are any innocents among them or not doesn't matter.



> 2 - You ascribe to the Cylons a status as a "race" that I would not willingly grant them so lightly. They are machines. Created, not born. That cannot even procreate on their own.




Again, this is a matter of definition. For some people, the fact that they are sentient beings is much more important than whether they can procreate on their own or not.



> Call it wrong, call it evil..call it whatever you want. I call it necessary for the survival of the species. Against this, no argument or resort to ethics is of much consequence.




For you. That doesn't mean that everyone else would put the survival of the species ahead of issues of ethics or other concerns. 



> Given the prisoners dilemma the RTF finds itself in, "us or them?" It's them. Every. Single. Time.




Again, for you. Not necessarily for everyone. Not even if you use words singly and use a period after each 



> The above points re: "they played the genocide card first" and "lack of racial status" are just icing on a well baked and presented cake.
> 
> I'm a liberal and I don't believe in capital punishment. (Edit - not an invitaiton to discuss further). Point is, I am not presenting some  twitchy right-wing reaction here. I have a deep and abiding serenity concerning the correctness of using the virus as a weapon in this instance.
> 
> I am genuinely suprised people are having difficulty with it at all.




I'm completely unsurprised that people are having difficulty with either position. Is it really that difficult to fathom that some people have different (maybe even diametrically opposed) perspectives to you?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 12, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> The innocence of the Cylons is debatable, especially since there are 5 models we know NOTHING about. For all we know, they are, in fact, innocent.




The Cylons are quite aware of what they are doing, as evidenced by their decision to (temporarily) stop.  So I don't see how you can suppose they might be innocent.

Although ... suppose they are so intellectually advanced that humans cannot understand them.  If a human destroys an ant hill, or obliterates a disease, is it genocide?  Perhaps to the Cylons the humans are ants ...



> And as for calling something a race or not...well, again, there is obviously a line somewhere. Cylons are created, yes, but they seem to procreate, even if its not in the same form as humans. Hell, they survived for 50 years without any humans, so they seem to have the process of living down just fine.
> 
> And that's the thing, they are ALIVE. We know that. They go to great lengths to BE alive and to prove it. Maybe its not in the same sense as for humans, but why should it be? Is all life exactly the same?




I think this is the essence of the debate that BSG proposes -- what is the equal of humankind?  What deserves recognition as a people/species/sentient race?  Can Cylons as mechanical creations, or the descendents of mechanical creations, be the equal of humanity.  Humanity has destroyed entire species, both intentionally and unintentionally.  Is this genocide?  Certainly no one blinks an eye at the total and utter eradication of disease virii that represent a threat to humanity.  How can this be right for a virus, yet wrong for Cylons?



> The other thing that I see as a big thing against genocide is roughly along the same lines as what Helo said. The Cylons are bad, yes. But is turnabout really fair play? Does one species really have any right at all to destroy another? The Cylons thought so, obviously, and Roslin does, too...but does this make the humans as bad as the Cylons? THAT, I think, is the question being posed in this episodes.
> 
> Are we really that different?




Does it matter?  Humanity becomes the Cylons, who are themselves trying to replace humanity?

BSG is pursued by an implacable foe, that has destroyed all but the remaining 40k of the human race (in theory).  There is no evidence that the Cylons will stop short of utter annihilation of humanity.  BSG can run, but it can't hide: if it finds Earth, then what?  The Cylons destroy Earth.  End of story -- the virus has been eliminated.

The key question in my mind to assessing the right of the situation is not whether genocide is right or wrong -- that's the secondary question -- but what ethical or moral model applies in this sort of "all or nothing" situation.  What is moral?  You can take the Heinleinian argument that what is moral is that which most contributes to the survival of the species -- in which case Cylon genocide is a moral imperative. (Now, admittedly, that's a Neo-fascist moralism taken from Starship Troopers, YMMV.  But I think it's a worthy point to consider).  Consider more traditional ethical models:

1.  Kants Deontological model.  What is the rule or obligation which applies? Does it prohibit the action?  In this case, the human law against genocide would forbid the action ... but they can change the law.

2.  Consequentialism.  What will produce the greatest good? Tough to argue this one because it's easy to drift into model #3, and you can't predict the future.  Perhaps from an objective standpoint a Cylon victory and elimination of the human race produces the greatest good -- Cylon genocide is therefore an ethically wrong choice.  On the other hand, the Cylon genocidal tendencies can be seen as inherently evil, so stopping them by eliminating the Cylons produces the greatest good ... point to genocide.

3.  Situational Ethics.  There are no absolute values -- considering the situation, what is the motivation for the action, and is it good?  This argues strongly in favor of genocide -- from the human point of view, guaranteeing the survival of the human race is the ultimate form of good.

4.  Virtue Ethics (Plato/Aristotle) - what choice most reflects the decision of a person of great character?  This clearly argues against the genocidal decision.

I'm of the mind that all ethical models are equally valid, at least as long as there isn't a "higher moral authority" waiting around the corner to enforce a particular ethical model -- and religious discussion aside, there doesn't appear to be one in the case of Cylons v. Humanity.  Considering the four models above, I assess an equal case for and against, but would argue that the situational case for survival of the species takes precedence.  The virtue moralist will have a tough time making his case when the Cylons nuke his escape capsule.

To reframe the argument -- the Cylons are an implacable foe that have human form.  If they did not -- were they Fritz Leiber's Berserkers or the smallpox/AIDS/ebola virus, both equally capable of eliminating the entire human race -- would there be the same moral objection about eliminating them?  In the BSG universe, I'd argue it's hard to be pro-smallpox vaccine and anti-Cylon genocide at the same time.  Both represent a threat to the existence of humanity (and smallpox a lesser one, given that in can be prevented).


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 12, 2006)

The "eradicating a virus" analogies fail when the primary source of humanity's ego is applied to the argument, that sentience makes us special and more important than all other species. The Cylons are not a virus, not a bacteria, and as we have learned over two and a half seasons, not simple machine intelligences. They are sentient, and this makes them special, too.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 12, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Although ... suppose they are so intellectually advanced that humans cannot understand them.  If a human destroys an ant hill, or obliterates a disease, is it genocide?  Perhaps to the Cylons the humans are ants ...




You know, ever since New Caprica, I think the Cylon perspective has been a little more clear. But, to me, it seems to show that the Cylons THINK they understand humanity, but they DON'T. They went to New Caprica to attempt to 'help', but it turned into something completely different, and they just couldn't understand why the humans had a problem with any of it. The understanding of that was completely beyond them.

Now, I'm not sure its a whole ant thing with how the Cylons see the humans, but its quite clear they just plain don't understand things as well as they've convinced themselves they do. (Which is, intersetingly enough, a very human quality.)


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 12, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> The Cylons are not a virus, not a bacteria, and as we have learned over two and a half seasons, not simple machine intelligences. They are sentient, and this makes them special, too.




How do we know they're sentient and not simply machines with extremely advanced programming?  Is a Turing machine sentient?  The cognitive scientist's argument that a Turing machine is sentient is based in the assumption that the individual interacting with the Turing machine doesn't realize he's interacting with a machine.  In this case, we know we're interacting with machines.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 12, 2006)

We only know we're interacting with machines because we know the origin of the species, making a conceptual overall Turing test impossible. The test does not fail because you can't do it.

Did the BSG crew know Sharon was a machine for the years she was training with them? No. Turing test passed. D'Anna while she was interviewing them? No. Turing test passed. Six while Baltar was bedding her every day on Caprica? No. Turing test passed.

On knowing whether they're sentient or not, including whether an AI is sentient, we have no solid definition for it as humans, making it damned hard to logically point out. Self-awareness? Check. Have feelings? Check. Conscious? Well, again, no good definition. 

In the end it's like art or porn or a thousand other subjective but no-less-valid things: we know it when we see it. If you met a "skin-job" Cylon and hadn't been told it was a machine, you'd have absolutely no problem judging it to be sentient.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 12, 2006)

Aesthetic Monk said:
			
		

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




The problem with the dramatic narrative is that destroying a collection of out of control machines is not genocide. The cylons are entirely unsympathetic, and to boot, they are merely machines that have delusions of grandeur. There is no moral equivalence here. The cylons are like a cockroach infestation that should be exterminated as expeditiously as possible.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 12, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Ideally it will be resolved with the humans and the cylons finding a way to peacefully coexist. We've already seen the cylon philosophy mutate a great deal, repeatedly. There's no reason to believe that they'll never change.




The cylons are responsible for the mass murder of billions of humans, including the families and loved ones of just about every surviving human. But the "ideal situation" is for humans to learn to live peacefully with these worthless monstrosities. Right.

The ideal situation is for all cylons to be exterminated, like the vermin they truly are. The possibility that they are sentient only makes their crimes _worse_, not better. And means that they morally deserve to be anhiliated to the last toaster.

Of course, the episode falls entirely apart when you consider that the "deadly virus" is a common cold. If that is true, why did the cylons not fall deathly ill when they infiltrated human society initially?

But, leaving aside the huge plot hole, count me as being entirely on the side of those who would eliminate the cylons (and I won't say "kill", because terminating a cylon isn't killing something, it is destroying a malfunctioning machine) to the very last one. Orchestrating the death of billions of humans earns you a ticket to extinction. No ifs, ands, or buts. There is no argument the cylons can make that would change this.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 12, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> You know, ever since New Caprica, I think the Cylon perspective has been a little more clear. But, to me, it seems to show that the Cylons THINK they understand humanity, but they DON'T. They went to New Caprica to attempt to 'help', but it turned into something completely different, and they just couldn't understand why the humans had a problem with any of it. The understanding of that was completely beyond them.




I'm reminded of Agent Smith's rant from Matrix: "We build the perfect human world, where everyone was happy and no one suffered.  It failed miserably ... humans want to suffer."

Perhaps the Cylons are expecting humans to want and appreciate a Cylon-emposed utopia.  Ungrateful buggers, those humans.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 12, 2006)

The Cylons are immature. They've only been in existence as a sentience for, what, 40 years?

Uplift, man, uplift.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2006)

> Of course, the episode falls entirely apart when you consider that the "deadly virus" is a common cold. If that is true, why did the cylons not fall deathly ill when they infiltrated human society initially?



Humans have developed an immunity to the Virus, meaning that their immune system destroys it. The Virus went extinct centuries ago. 



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> The Cylons are quite aware of what they are doing, as evidenced by their decision to (temporarily) stop.  So I don't see how you can suppose they might be innocent.
> 
> Although ... suppose they are so intellectually advanced that humans cannot understand them.  If a human destroys an ant hill, or obliterates a disease, is it genocide?  Perhaps to the Cylons the humans are ants ...
> 
> ...



Interesting post about the different ethical models, but the last paragraph has one weakness (in my view):

Smallpox/AIDS/Ebola shows no signs of sentience/sapience. Cylons do. That makes a great difference, at least to me. (You could probably construct a scenario in where any of these viruses somehow lead to the creation of a new sentient species, meaning that destroying the viruses could mean committing genocide, too. But this might be going a bit to far)

So, can we decide whether one species is morally/ethical superior? If that would be the case, we could justify some kind of genocide.

But one important point is missing here - we all see it as a "us vs. them" that can't be changed. But the truth is that the Galactica-Universe already has 14 habitable planets. In theory, Cylons and Humans had enough space to live together. They don't have to destroy each other. They just need to find a way to make living together possible. If failed on New Caprica, but that doesn't mean such a cooperation is impossible. It just means that both sides have to work harder. 
(This can even be applied to the smallpox/ebola/AIDS-examples - we don't have to destroy the viruses - if we find a way to survive their effects and/or find a suitable host for them that wouldn't lead to a "genocide". Human and Virus could live together without having to destroy each other)

Helos actions might seem debatable in a purely "either us-or-them"-scenario, but he and Athena are the best example of a working Cylon-Human relationship that is not based on hatred and desire for mutual destruction. 
In this view, Helo and Athena are actually the moral and ethical role-models for both races.


----------



## Spatula (Nov 13, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Of course, the episode falls entirely apart when you consider that the "deadly virus" is a common cold. If that is true, why did the cylons not fall deathly ill when they infiltrated human society initially?



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


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Nov 13, 2006)

In this episode the moral quandary and its resolution were handled somewhat ineptly by a show that normally produces to-notch entertainment. It was handled in a rather pat and too easy manner.

Putting the issue of the show in another manner, if the only way to preserve human existence would be to engage in something you knew to be a sin, a sin that was not ameliorated by the fact committing it preserved humanity, would you be capable of committing that sin?

Genocide is a sin.

However, it is also in all reasonable rational probability the only way to preserve humanity with in the context of BSG.

However, owing to a failure of clarity of moral vision – a failure that masks itself as virtue – on the part of Helo, the sin was not committed. In not committing that sin, there will be further suffering, when the Cylon attack and kill people in the future. Facilitating suffering for the sake of vanity is itself a sin.


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 13, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

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




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

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

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

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

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 13, 2006)

Aesthetic Monk said:
			
		

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




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

Banshee


----------



## shilsen (Nov 13, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

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




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



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




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



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




Yes. 

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


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 13, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

Banshee


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2006)

Spatula said:
			
		

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




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


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

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




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


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 13, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 13, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 13, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

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




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

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

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

It's a sloppy premise, plain and simple.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

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




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


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 13, 2006)

They could have used the whole virus differently, too.

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

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


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 13, 2006)

The thing to do would be to use the virus, and then hang the vacination in front of the last 40,000 cylons in existence as a bargaining tool...

Even though the cylons were rather short sighted over the fact that they had the cure (Hera) with them all this time.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 13, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

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



 I aim to please 

Foolish (which, of course, is just your opinion) or not, I'm also apparently correct about others saying the same thing.



			
				Fast Learner said:
			
		

> From my perspective you had about 20 of them in the last several posts that were way, way more foolish. Of course, I'm not sure that calling other people's opinions "foolish" will help the conversation any, but I guess it's worth pointing out.
> 
> I'm another of those people, btw. Neither I nor my species is inherently more deserving of survival than any other.




Thanks for the backup. 

Comments like Storm Raven's don't bother me, since I figure that getting upset about the opinion of some random stranger on the Net would be really ... to use Storm Raven's term ... foolish.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 13, 2006)

Interesting that the crew and us are believing that this is a moral dilimma. I don't see this as genocide. This is essentially the same as recalling a few million Ford 150s because of a bad part. I still see the Cylons as torturous malfunctioning machines. Helo should be courtmarshalled for treason in my book. A bunch of machines are chasing yo uto space and they dont stop until they kill you. You kill them and they are just re downloaded somewhere else. Not to mention many more are still being manufactured. I think this episode shows that the people whom were in space really do not understand the true suffering of people on New Caprica.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 13, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

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




Completely disagreed. If you didnt find tension in this episode you weren't thinking hard enough. And am I wrong in thinking that Boomer 2.0 is that nice Cylon? Is this not the most tension feeled thread about BSG in a long time. This is the kinda of water cooler episode the show needed after occupation.

COnsidering my last message, I'll consider the genocide thing hypothetically. I think  a lot of us are coming from different directions. For those of us who have children, saving them can sometimes be the most important thing in the world, its near biological. When I"m talking about my children, hcildrens children and my families future existance, if i had  away to wipe out that threat I would. The instict to survive is far greater than whatever moral dilemmas we put on ourselves.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

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




If a strain of the common cold is a deadly killer to cylons, then they are dead on arrival. We carry dozens of significantly more deadly viruses around without knowing it. We are surrounded by dozens of deadly viruses in our every day environment. We have just built up immunities to them. Apparently, the cylons have not.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> From my perspective you had about 20 of them in the last several posts that were way, way more foolish. Of course, I'm not sure that calling other people's opinions "foolish" will help the conversation any, but I guess it's worth pointing out.
> 
> I'm another of those people, btw. Neither I nor my species is inherently more deserving of survival than any other.




The foolishness is in the sentiment. Because you join in such foolishness doesn't make it any more sensible. The first goal is survival. After that, other considerations come into play. If you don't have a survival impetus, even one that you are ignoring for some purpose, then you are behaving foolishly.

Of course, the cylons aren't a species. They are malfunctioning machines. Your premise falls apart at that point. Humans are more inherently deserving of survival than machines. No matter how sophisitcated those machines may appear to be.

Of course, humans are more inherently deserving of survival than other species as well, but that is a different argument. I favor humans. No bones about it. No questions asked.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> They could have used the whole virus differently, too.
> 
> Imagine if they had broadcasted to the Cylons that they had found a deadly virus that could exterminate the Cylon race but decided _not_ to use it because genocide is morally wrong, imagine the discussions that would have come up among the Cylons. Sure, some would call it a bluff (believing the virus doesn't really work as effective as they first assumed), but it would have caused doubts in many of them. We already saw what happened when only 2 Cylons (Caprica-Six and Boomer) showed doubt that the Cylons plan and attempted genocide was right.
> 
> This again points out that the human-cylon relationship could be changed, that it's not either them or us, but there is a third alternative, having the sides cooperate.




Or, more likely (given the way that the cylons have behaved to date), they would regard humans and their environment as disease spewing cesspools that must be exterminated to the last man, woman, or child in order to protect themselves. The cylons clearly don't believe genocide is wrong, it seems unlikely they would want to negotiate before they tried to solve the problem with the application of a couple hundred more nuclear weapons.


----------



## Falkus (Nov 13, 2006)

> Call it wrong, call it evil..call it whatever you want. I call it necessary for the survival of the species. Against this, no argument or resort to ethics is of much consequence.




If humanity must commit genocide to survive, then I say this: Humanity does not deserve to survive.



> The first goal is survival.




There are some things more important than survival. The mark of a rational man is the ability to rise above your instincts.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 13, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The first goal is survival.




As Falkus said, not necessarily so. But then that's his, and my, viewpoint. I recognize that yours is different.



> No questions asked.




I think that's one of the basic differences we're bringing to the table here. For me, there are always questions to be asked. The day I stop questioning is the day I stop being a fully functioning human being. YMMV, and apparently does.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 13, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The foolishness is in the sentiment. Because you join in such foolishness doesn't make it any more sensible. The first goal is survival. After that, other considerations come into play. If you don't have a survival impetus, even one that you are ignoring for some purpose, then you are behaving foolishly.



Why is survival the first goal. You can surely define it, but don't pretend that to be automatically morally right.



> Of course, the cylons aren't a species. They are malfunctioning machines. Your premise falls apart at that point. Humans are more inherently deserving of survival than machines. No matter how sophisitcated those machines may appear to be.



I am getting a bit tired of the claim that Cylons aren't a species or only malfunctioning machines. Cylons are biological, they can reproduce (even if they can mostly "only" clone, that doesn't mean they don't reproduce!). Even if they weren't based on organic molecules as we know them wouldn't mean you could define them as living beings. 
If humanity somehow manipulated its evolution to become non-organic (maybe human mind transfered into a robot thing, or becoming beings of pure energy), would humanities right of survival suddenly be negated?



> Of course, humans are more inherently deserving of survival than other species as well, but that is a different argument. I favor humans. No bones about it. No questions asked.



Nothing to bring up against that, that's certainly a view one (many) can have. 
I don't want to offend you, but I have to ask this question: Couldn't such a view not also seen as racist? Since humans and Cylons can procreate, it could even be argued that they aren't actually different species anymore, so it's the same as saying whites are more worthy of survival than blacks. 
Where is the difference? Can it be justified? Should there be a difference. Are we just at a point in human-nonhuman relationships that we were at white-nonwhite relationships a few decades or centuries ago? 

---

Strange. All in all, I found the episode to be relatively weak, but it still opened up interesting questions and discussions...


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Nov 13, 2006)

This conversation has become pointless. No is changing their opinion or conceding anything.


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 13, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> If humanity must commit genocide to survive, then I say this: Humanity does not deserve to survive.




So if it is the case that humanity cannot prevent the cylons from genociding them (and in that statement, you concede this point) without killing all the cylons, then the cylons have a right to commit that genocide?  

In that statement, the cylons are entirely in the drivers seat.  If they really want to kill humanity and nothing can convince them otherwise, then what you are saying is that humanity has no right to stop them.  In essense, you are saying that the cylons committment to genocide justifies the genocide.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 13, 2006)

I'm not trying to change anyone's minds. I'll just say that, in my mind, I think of the Cylons as people, not as machines. That's why I think killing them all is genocide, and thus not tolerable.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 13, 2006)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> So if it is the case that humanity cannot prevent the cylons from genociding them (and in that statement, you concede this point) without killing all the cylons, then the cylons have a right to commit that genocide?




I think you misread that.  Where in there did he say that the Cylons have a "right" to commit genocide?  He stated that if humanity had to commit genocide to survive, then they didn't deserve to survive.  They might still survive, but they wouldn't deserve it, from a moral (i.e. opinion) standpoint.

Thus far, humanity hasn't had to commit genocide to survive, and they didn't have to in this episode either.

And for what it's worth, if the Cylons had to commit genocide to survive, they wouldn't deserve to survive either.


----------



## Joker (Nov 13, 2006)

What I don't understand is why they thought it would wipe out the *entire* Cylon race, most of which, I presume, is lightyears away from where the battle took place.

I mean, they would lose a rezz ship and a few basestars but their entire race?

I too thought this episode was rather weak but that may have to do with the fact that I went from watching the first two seasons and the first few episodes of the third season in quick succession to watching episodes once a week.

Which blows, I might add.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 13, 2006)

The cylons began as machines, as just robots.  Hence the epithet "toasters" to describe them.  However, now Cylons are much more advanced.  They are apparently using cloned and genetically engineered bodies that are so close to human that a detailed medical examination cannot tell the difference, only a very specialized test or exposure to high levels of radiation for hours.  Sleeper agents can even think they are human, and pass for being human for years in the human population.  They have their own religion, their own culture.  They can even sexually reproduce with humans.

That's not just a "machine", when members of the fleet start to wonder if they could be sleeper agents and not know it, your enemy is not just a machine.

It's one of the oldest tactics in warfare, to dehumanize your enemy, to make them seem less human or less civilized than you, so you can feel a lot better about killing them.  It's been going on for millennia, and it still goes on today, and it goes on in BSG.  It's easier because the original cylons were inhuman, they were just renegade machines out to destroy all humans.  Now they've become something more, something beyond normal limits of humanity.

Helo was having a moment of actual morality, it's been a recurring theme of the show, since the miniseries, of what is the real virtue of mankind.  As Adama asked at Galactica's decommissioning ceremony, what had humanity done to deserve to exist?  If mankind resorts to genocide, how are they any better than the Cylons?  Roslin is quite moral. . .with regards to humanity, but she also sees the cylons as inhuman and has no qualms about torturing or throwing them out an airlock.  Adama has gained some degree of insight from the year spent above New Caprica with Athena, hence his reluctance to go ahead with the plan, and being willing to drop the matter when Helo apparently makes a stand (perhaps realizing that in his place he may well would have done much the same).

Individual cylons apparently do have some degree of free will, hence Athena, seen as a traitor by her kind, and Caprica-Six, a huge walking scandal of a human-sympathizer among her kind.  New Caprica was a huge failure as an attempt at peace, because the Cylons understand humanity very poorly, just like apparently the humans understand the Cylons very poorly.


----------



## dravot (Nov 13, 2006)

Joker said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is why they thought it would wipe out the *entire* Cylon race, most of which, I presume, is lightyears away from where the battle took place.
> 
> I mean, they would lose a rezz ship and a few basestars but their entire race?




I saw it pretty much the same way, Joker.  The virus is a fleet-killer, or perhaps Op-Force killer, but not a genocide device.


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 13, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I think you misread that.  Where in there did he say that the Cylons have a "right" to commit genocide?  He stated that if humanity had to commit genocide to survive, then they didn't deserve to survive.  They might still survive, but they wouldn't deserve it, from a moral (i.e. opinion) standpoint.




Well, if they deserve to be genocid-ed, by the definition of deserve, the genocide-r is justified.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 13, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Of course, the cylons aren't a species.




Cylons are living, sentient, beings. Regarding them as toasters is a way for the colonists to justify killing them. That's all.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 14, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Completely disagreed. If you didnt find tension in this episode you weren't thinking hard enough.




By all rights, I should ignore everything you say from here on out, but apparently I'm not thinking now either.  I'll just say disagreeing with you doesn't mean I don't think, and I find it offensive that you should say that.



> COnsidering my last message, I'll consider the genocide thing hypothetically. I think  a lot of us are coming from different directions. For those of us who have children, saving them can sometimes be the most important thing in the world, its near biological. When I"m talking about my children, hcildrens children and my families future existance, if i had  away to wipe out that threat I would. The instict to survive is far greater than whatever moral dilemmas we put on ourselves.




We _are_ coming from different directions, I don't argue that.  My argument, with regards to the moral decision, is that there really isn't one.

The Cylons are not sympathetic.  Let's put aside the fact that the Cylons are indeed sentient (they are AI) or that they are machines, for the moment.  The Cylons, regardless of that, are completely unsympathetic, for reasons I've stated before.  It doesn't matter that they're machines, it doesn't matter that they are sentient.  That's all moot.

Genocide is _justified_ in this case, I would not argue that.  There's a difference between something being justified and something being morally right or wrong.  Because they've set up a situation where genocide is completely justified, there is no middle ground for the moral argument.  So, morally either you are for genocide, or you aren't.  That's it.

If the Cylons were presented as more sympathetic, that would be different.  Then there'd be more of an argument for justification, and thus a moral middle ground.

We're not talking about BSG here, and we never were.  Most of this thread has been all of us stating our moral position, and that's it.  There's value in discussing the show.  I don't see much value in discussing our personal morals, because there's no points to make.  Not to mention, as you handily demonstrated, that we'll take it personally, and when we do that, insults start to fly.

_That_ is the problem with this episode.  There's no middle ground to discuss, and so at least personally, I find it's not interesting at all.  That leaves out the biological weapon nonsense, which was a flawed premise to begin with.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Nov 14, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to change anyone's minds...




Then why bother talking to people? Unless you're just getting a feel for their positions so you can use that information later...

Everyone is just talking past everyone.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 14, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If a strain of the common cold is a deadly killer to cylons, then they are dead on arrival. We carry dozens of significantly more deadly viruses around without knowing it. We are surrounded by dozens of deadly viruses in our every day environment. We have just built up immunities to them. Apparently, the cylons have not.




First of all, encephalitis is hardly the common cold.  For an example, look up equine encephalitis, sometimes abbreviated EEE or Triple-E.  At least here in Upstate NY, it's very serious, and I personally knew one person who died from it.

That said... if you build an immunity to something, it is by definition not deadly.  You, I, and everyone else don't carry polio around, despite having an immunity.  Your body goes and kills it, and out it goes.

You may be thinking of strains of E. coli in our stomachs, in which case as a person you have immunity to your own E. coli, but not everyone else's.  In which case, we don't have immunity, so it can be deadly.

Anyway, maybe you can provide a specific example, because I think I'm getting the gist of what you are saying, but I'm not truly understanding.

Reasons why the bioweapon is a flawed premise:

1) Cylons have Human DNA.  In which case, Cylons _should_ be able to contract Human viruses, and would have pre-BSG.  Or,

2) Cylons have Human DNA, but a perfect immune system.  In which case, Cylons should deal with the virus no problem, since they don't get sick by design.  Or,

3) Cylons are pure machines, in which case they shouldn't contract diseases at all.  They can get sick (see the Mini), but not from biological means.  Or,

4) In theory, if Cylons are machines, viruses and bacteria could mutate to take advantage of that (degrading metal components, for example).  However, even if this were possible, a Human-borne virus would not do this the instant it hit contact with the Cylons.  It would take some time, possibly years, if it could happen at all.

We know 1) is false, due to various statements throughout the series.  We know 2) is false, because they got sick.  We know 3) is false, since Cylons and Humans can mate, and Cylons can pass for Humans.  4) is possible, but not in the timeframe of this episode.  Thus, the entire episode is based on a flawed premise.  Which is the other reason I don't like this episode.

Or, I'm too much of a biochem nerd.


----------



## Falkus (Nov 14, 2006)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> Well, if they deserve to be genocid-ed, by the definition of deserve, the genocide-r is justified.




Nobody has the moral authority to carry out a sentence like that.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 14, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Nobody has the moral authority to carry out a sentence like that.




Au contrare ... anyone with the capability to impose a sentence like that has the defacto moral authority.  Remember, history is written by the winners, who have a convenient ability to rationalize away any moral objections after the fact.

We can wail and gnash our teeth about might not making right, but the city fathers of Carthage find that cold comfort.

---

IMO, the point of these discussions is to have the discussion, to objectively consider ideas which might otherwise seem abhorrent or irrational.  Only by examining our most deeply held moral and ethical beliefs and understanding the why of them do they provide us value.  I may not agree with one or another poster in this discussion, and I certainly don't expect to change opinions  -- nor, for that matter, is every opinion I post necessarily my own.  I find value in the act of moral discourse.


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 14, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Nobody has the moral authority to carry out a sentence like that.





In what actual sense do they truly deserve death if no one can impose such a sentence.  That they deserve death contradicts the idea that no one is allowed to kill them.

In the anarchic world of BSG, there is no particular authority to be the instrament of that deserved death


----------



## Falkus (Nov 14, 2006)

Allow me to rephrase my statement:

If we had to face a choice between the survival of the species and committing genocide, the only right choice to make would be to not commit genocide. Genocide is the single most heinous crime possible.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 14, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Reasons why the bioweapon is a flawed premise:
> 
> 1) Cylons have Human DNA.  In which case, Cylons _should_ be able to contract Human viruses, and would have pre-BSG.  Or,
> 
> ...




Of course, we know 1) is almost true, because otherwise building a 'Cylon detector' would be a trivial exercise, and Hera wouldn't exist without the help of a team of genetic engineers and cyberneticists.

Whatever the people on Galactica and the Cylon basestars claim, the 'skinjob' Cylons are essentially human (or certainly closer to humans than anything else).


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 14, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Humans aren't often the true disease pools, other animals are.  For example, with many of the European epidemics, it was rats that carried it, and gave it to humans living in dirty areas.  Cholera is thought to live in algal blooms in the ocean, hence cholera outbreaks in warm beach climates.  "Bird Flu", aka H5N1, has its disease pool in, well, birds.  Heck, the regular flu came from the bird-pig-human cycle, and the common cold is thought to have come from horses.  So, it's possible that the Cylons would get sick.
> 
> Of course, hopefully, the thought you're having is something along the lines of sanitation stopping infection, which is true.  That doesn't mean there's not a supply of organisms that can be used... I'm sure there are rats and other animals that happen to be with the fleet.  Maybe not on Galactica, but probably on a ship like the Astral Queen or the *shudder* _Black Market_ ship, whatever it was called.
> 
> ...




I never said the decision was easy.......I *think* I know that I would support releasing the virus, but given that Cylons haven't invaded Earth, it's a rather hypothetical question.  But I either believe in preserving human life, or I don't.  Given that I do believe in preserving human life as much as possible, if faced with an external threat dedicated to wiping out humanity, then I'd have to support a decision in favour of using methods we previously questioned to end the threat, if such a means became available.  I couldn't in good conscious not use those tools at hand to resolve the situation.

This is all assuming, of course, that alternative options were either not available, had been tried and failed, or couldn't be provided in a quick enough timeline to save humanity.

Of course, the person who finally made (and acted on) that decision would probably be tormented by it the rest of their life.

No situation like this has ever been faced by humanity before....it's not an easy thing to resolve, and I don't think the answer is as clearcut as you say.  Someone can say they'd vote for one or the other option...it doesn't mean that coming to that decision was easy..

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 14, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

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




Do you eat every day to keep your strength up?  Go to the doctor when you're feeling sick?  Step out of the way of oncoming traffic to avoid getting hit?  If you do any of these things, you've removed these imperatives as well as you think you have .

We all have them.  Many of them are so basic to the human existence that we really don't pay attention to them anymore.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 14, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> And for what it's worth, if the Cylons had to commit genocide to survive, they wouldn't deserve to survive either.




The problem of whether or not one "deserves" to survive is subjective......and whether or not the Cylons deserve to survive, since they're actively pursuing genocide, has no bearing on whether they will.

This almost sounds like the case for "lawful stupid", that regularly comes up in discussions regarding paladins and what they can or can't do.

I guess that's my problem with the situation.  I'm firmly against the idea of genocide, but as depicted (apparently) in the show, I don't see that there are many options.  The Cylons have backed the humans into a corner, and then they're going to be surprised when they get bitten?  Shouldn't have started the bloody war in the first place.

Banshee


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 14, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Of course, we know 1) is almost true, because otherwise building a 'Cylon detector' would be a trivial exercise, and Hera wouldn't exist without the help of a team of genetic engineers and cyberneticists.
> 
> Whatever the people on Galactica and the Cylon basestars claim, the 'skinjob' Cylons are essentially human (or certainly closer to humans than anything else).




Point 1 is false because Cylons didn't get sick, according to various people in the series.  They very much do have Human DNA (Caprica alludes to this last episode, I believe, about a common gene pool), and various almost-human components (ie RBCs without markers).  Since they don't get sick, the only explanation is that they have perfect immune systems.  Which was point 2.

I'm beginning to suspect (based on people here and elsewhere) that the reason I have such a problem with the bioweapon isn't that it was truly bad, but because I have too much knowledge on the subject, and that makes it very difficult to suspend disbelief.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 14, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> But I either believe in preserving human life, or I don't.  Given that I do believe in preserving human life as much as possible, if faced with an external threat dedicated to wiping out humanity, then I'd have to support a decision in favour of using methods we previously questioned to end the threat, if such a means became available.  I couldn't in good conscious not use those tools at hand to resolve the situation.



This and your later example about "do you eat every day" both don't work for _me_ because you're making it black and white: either you're for us or you're not. 

If you were starving to death, would you steal the food from two starving children in order to survive, if you knew they'd starve instead? You have to ask, in my opinion, "at what cost my survival?" 

If my daughter was about to be hit by a car and I could save her, but I know that I'd be hit and killed instead, her survival trumps mine, pure and simple. A kid that I don't know? I hope that I would take that risk, but I'm not certain. A school bus full of 'em? Without hesitation.

My survival does not trump all circumstances, and the same is true of the survival of my species. From what I've seen, the Cylons are not irredeemably evil, they are simply incredibly immature and confused. You can see their adolescent idiocy work itself out again and again. If I'd judged my daughter's fitness to survive based on some of the crap she pulled in early high school, she'd have been voted off the island ages ago, but today she's an amazing human being who helps the needy and is incredibly loving. 

Survival is not an automatic trump card, at least not from where I stand.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 14, 2006)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The cylons began as machines, as just robots.  Hence the epithet "toasters" to describe them.  However, now Cylons are much more advanced.  They are apparently using cloned and genetically engineered bodies that are so close to human that a detailed medical examination cannot tell the difference, only a very specialized test or exposure to high levels of radiation for hours.  Sleeper agents can even think they are human, and pass for being human for years in the human population.  They have their own religion, their own culture.  They can even sexually reproduce with humans.
> 
> That's not just a "machine", when members of the fleet start to wonder if they could be sleeper agents and not know it, your enemy is not just a machine.
> 
> ...



I dont care what version of windows they are running, they are still machines. Yes they walk, talk and slice bread, their origins are from the modern day vaccuum cleaner. Humans actually evolved from mammals and/or other living beings. That is the big difference. This is no more genocide than a person running mcafee on their computer .


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 14, 2006)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> Well, if they deserve to be genocid-ed, by the definition of deserve, the genocide-r is justified.




Who's going to do the genocide-ing?  The Cylons would be dead, as humanity would have committed genocide on them.  Someone new would have to come along and wipe the humans out.  And then, of course, those new genocide-ers would no longer deserve to survive, etc., etc.  It's a vicious circle, and I'm happy they didn't take that step this time around.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> The problem of whether or not one "deserves" to survive is subjective......and whether or not the Cylons deserve to survive, since they're actively pursuing genocide, has no bearing on whether they will.




Correct.  Just because that incompetent fool you work with gets promoted doesn't mean he deserved to get promoted.  Lot's of people get what they deserve, and lots of people don't.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I guess that's my problem with the situation.  I'm firmly against the idea of genocide, but as depicted (apparently) in the show, I don't see that there are many options.




The question is, do you think genocide is humanity's *only* option?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 14, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I dont care what version of windows they are running, they are still machines. Yes they walk, talk and slice bread, their origins are from the modern day vaccuum cleaner. Humans actually evolved from mammals and/or other living beings. That is the big difference. This is no more genocide than a person running mcafee on their computer .




I don't see why it is neccessarily important for a thing to live or come from a living being? 
In fact, we might have evolved from mammals, but if we go even further back, we evolved from molecular strings of carbon and a few other chemicals - that didn't really live until they somehow began to replicate their patterns (or whatever happened "then"). Does that really give us any rights or a moral value?

I don't think so. I think our sentience, our ability to feel emotions, or abilities to think, that is what makes us special and what makes us different from a rock or a machine, and possibly animals. But Cylons also have these features.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 14, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I dont care what version of windows they are running, they are still machines. Yes they walk, talk and slice bread, their origins are from the modern day vaccuum cleaner. Humans actually evolved from mammals and/or other living beings. That is the big difference. This is no more genocide than a person running mcafee on their computer .




Your assertion seems to be that organic and/or biological life is the only kind of life possible or that it is inherently "better" than other forms of life. That seems to be an unwinnable argument in a sci-fi context, especially considering the cyber-punkishness of the BSG human-form cylons. Plus, everyone knows that Transformers are alive.


----------



## Falkus (Nov 14, 2006)

> I dont care what version of windows they are running, they are still machines. Yes they walk, talk and slice bread, their origins are from the modern day vaccuum cleaner. Humans actually evolved from mammals and/or other living beings. That is the big difference. This is no more genocide than a person running mcafee on their computer .




They qualify as living beings under the standard definition of the term, so I really don't see what you're talking about.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 14, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> They qualify as living beings under the standard definition of the term, so I really don't see what you're talking about.



How?
They're created in a factory unlike every other living being on earth. They "download" into another body (also manufactured) when they are terminated. They may contain more organic material but are still limited by the basic logic thought structure that limits a computer. 

Are you saying that when windows oblivion is released, we should grant it the notion of life because we have managed to create them out of human tissue and get them to flush?


----------



## drothgery (Nov 14, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I dont care what version of windows they are running, they are still machines. Yes they walk, talk and slice bread, their origins are from the modern day vaccuum cleaner. Humans actually evolved from mammals and/or other living beings. That is the big difference. This is no more genocide than a person running mcafee on their computer .




I'm getting more and more of a feeling that the mechanical exterior of the raiders and centurions is the put-on that the creators of the first Cylons built in to make them less creepy; all of the Cylons are mostly bioengineered constructs, derived mostly from humans. They all bleed, think (there's no indication other than the existance of the Cylons that colonial computer technology can produce sophisticated AI, so I claim they don't have it -- the Cylons have human brains), can catch diseases, and, in the case of the 'skinjob' types, apparently can breed with humans.

I don't think this really affects the moral question at all, though; if the Cylons were just another group of humans and had done what they did (even complete with the whole slave uprising undertones), the Colonials would be pretty justified in trying to wipe them out.


----------



## Dingleberry (Nov 14, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Point 1 is false because Cylons didn't get sick, according to various people in the series.  They very much do have Human DNA (Caprica alludes to this last episode, I believe, about a common gene pool), and various almost-human components (ie RBCs without markers).  Since they don't get sick, the only explanation is that they have perfect immune systems.



Is another option that the immune systems of the "skin-job" cylons were designed to be immune to *current* biological threats, but not to, e.g., a virus that hasn't been seen in the 12 colonies for several thousand years?


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> My survival does not trump all circumstances, and the same is true of the survival of my species. From what I've seen, the Cylons are not irredeemably evil, they are simply incredibly immature and confused. You can see their adolescent idiocy work itself out again and again. If I'd judged my daughter's fitness to survive based on some of the crap she pulled in early high school, she'd have been voted off the island ages ago, but today she's an amazing human being who helps the needy and is incredibly loving.




What moral ground do the cylons occupy given that they engaged in the unprovoked murder of billions upon billions of innocent civilians? Your daughter's adolescent idiocy is one thing, adolescent idiocy that depopulates a dozen planets is entirely another. What moral claim to existence do these malfunctioning runaway machines have?

Suppose I killed every member of your family, including your daughter. Now, suppose I said you should "learn to live in peace with me" because I was just an idiot adolescent when I did it. Does that line of logic make any sense?


----------



## Joker (Nov 14, 2006)

dravot said:
			
		

> I saw it pretty much the same way, Joker.  The virus is a fleet-killer, or perhaps Op-Force killer, but not a genocide device.




It is tough being the smart minority .


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 14, 2006)

Joker said:
			
		

> It is tough being the smart minority .



Virus's are living organisms. If there was a virus ala plauge wiping out the human racea nd we had a cure to kill it, would we not hesitate to do it. 

Ok what if this virus was evovled, say talked and had feelings, but still was designed for one thing, our eradication. would we not hesitate to do it.

Well that's what the cylons are.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 14, 2006)

I always thought the point of show was that the Cylons are indistinguishable from humans... and that all sides are diminished, both physically and morally, during war.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 14, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> What moral ground do the cylons occupy given that they engaged in the unprovoked murder of billions upon billions of innocent civilians? Your daughter's adolescent idiocy is one thing, adolescent idiocy that depopulates a dozen planets is entirely another. What moral claim to existence do these malfunctioning runaway machines have?



Their "moral ground" is their existence as sentient beings. Their actions don't obviate their right to exist.



> Suppose I killed every member of your family, including your daughter. Now, suppose I said you should "learn to live in peace with me" because I was just an idiot adolescent when I did it. Does that line of logic make any sense?



Absolutely. And I would work very hard on learning to live in peace with you.


----------



## Joker (Nov 14, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Virus's are living organisms. If there was a virus ala plauge wiping out the human racea nd we had a cure to kill it, would we not hesitate to do it.
> 
> Ok what if this virus was evovled, say talked and had feelings, but still was designed for one thing, our eradication. would we not hesitate to do it.
> 
> Well that's what the cylons are.




Why are you telling me this?  I don't care about this yeah/nay to genocide discussion.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 14, 2006)

What's all this nonsensical talk about "cylons procreating/breeding" with humans? There's no evidence of that - in fact, all the evidence points out that the Cylons _can't_ breed, and can only manufacture themselves.

Hera has been portrayed as a freak incident - something extremely special and unique. In fact, those 'farms' that the Cylons had set up showed specifically that they were desperate to try to somehow manufacture some sort of procreation function, and so far look to have failed miserably (again, only with Athena being the successful result - and likely nothing more than an accident that the Cyclons clearly can't replicate).

Not only have the writers wasted viewers' time by not bothering to tell us how a Cylon works, but they've gone out of their way to _deliberately obfuscate_ what they are (all in a ham-fisted attempt in trying to get the viewer to ask "what is human?" blah blah blah). And then they want to play the "genocide" card? Sure, whatever.

This episode was a giant flaw in a generally flawed series.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 14, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> This episode was a giant flaw in a generally flawed series.




So, how's the fishin'?  Anyone bite yet?


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 14, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> So, how's the fishin'?  Anyone bite yet?



 I hope not - I'm hoping people just leave my little side-shots alone... Let the grump mumble to himself! 

I think the first part is reasonably legitimate, though.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 14, 2006)

Joker said:
			
		

> Why are you telling me this?  I don't care about this yeah/nay to genocide discussion.



sorry accidental quote


----------



## Joker (Nov 14, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> So, how's the fishin'?  Anyone bite yet?




You did .



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> sorry accidental quote




No problem.



			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Hera has been portrayed as a freak incident - something extremely special and unique. In fact, those 'farms' that the Cylons had set up showed specifically that they were desperate to try to somehow manufacture some sort of procreation function, and so far look to have failed miserably (again, only with Athena being the successful result - and likely nothing more than an accident that the Cyclons clearly can't replicate).




They probably could replicate it.  I mean, if all you need is love then all they have to do is figure out the right amount and type of chemicals that are produced when people are in "love."  And then they could have giant Cylon Orgies between the seven known models.

Oh dear.  Jerry Springer is gonna work overtime.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 14, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> What's all this nonsensical talk about "cylons procreating/breeding" with humans? There's no evidence of that - in fact, all the evidence points out that the Cylons _can't_ breed, and can only manufacture themselves.




Hera exists.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 14, 2006)

Joker said:
			
		

> You did .




Well, I sorta just nibbled.


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 15, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Allow me to rephrase my statement:
> 
> If we had to face a choice between the survival of the species and committing genocide, the only right choice to make would be to not commit genocide. Genocide is the single most heinous crime possible.




The problem is the "no choice" thing.  The only reason the BSG humans would have no choice is that the cylons stubbornly have chosen that they will commit genocide no matter what.  The "no choice" is not a fact of nature, it is a decision by one of the competing parties.  By this rephrase, it is nonetheless still a situation where if the cylons are dead set on wiping out humanity such that the only way to stop them is to kill them all, or at least destroy them as a people group/unit (and the rephrase still concedes this), humanity would have to let the cylons commit genocide, even though they are the aggressor.  Thus, if the aggressors are stubbornly violent enough, by your argument, the victims cannot defend themselves.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 15, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Their "moral ground" is their existence as sentient beings. Their actions don't obviate their right to exist.




Umm, yeah, they pretty much do. Being "sentient" isn't enough to claim a moral right to exist. Being sentient and then arranging the unprovoked murder of tens of billions of humans pretty much eliminates your moral right to exist.



> _Absolutely. And I would work very hard on learning to live in peace with you._




So, as a cylon, I'll be stopping by to eradicate your family then. Oh, and since I'm being a cylon, I'll hunt you for a while with the intent to kill you too. You just have to "learn to live in peace with me".

Right.

I find your moral compass to be severely flawed in this regard.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 15, 2006)

Lets remember that the humans gave up. Battlestar Galatica has been running from them for hte last three years and still the cylons chase them to eradicate them. ... relentlessly. They won't stop until the human race is killed. 

I guess the question is what extend will you go to to protect your family.


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 15, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> From what I've seen, the Cylons are not irredeemably evil, they are simply incredibly immature and confused. You can see their adolescent idiocy work itself out again and again. If I'd judged my daughter's fitness to survive based on some of the crap she pulled in early high school, she'd have been voted off the island ages ago, but today she's an amazing human being who helps the needy and is incredibly loving.




This is a good point you make.  They may not be irredeemably evil.  It might be that they're simply incredibly immature and confused.  Point taken.  But it would be foolish to let them have their "growing pains" and give them leave to "figure things out", when that process will result in the extermination of your own species.  That's where I have the problem.

Yeah, it would be great if they could live in peace.  But I remember reading a line once that said basically something along the lines of "sure, it's not his fault that he's bad.  But do you let a rabid dog bite other people and infect them, or do you kill the rabid dog before it has spread the sickness on to others"?  Something along those lines.  Unfortunately the train of experimentation and learning the Cylons are pursuing will have disastrous effects on everyone who is not a Cylon.  The humans are no longer on an equal footing, and have no way to get the Cylons to work on the same level in a peaceful manner.  Hence, some means must be taken to deal with the threat.  The situation is past the point of "playing nice".

Further, we have no proof that the Cylons are just misunderstood or immature.  All we have are a few isolated examples that they're not bloodthirsty monsters bent on the extermination of humanity.  So are you willing to bet the lives of the final 40,000 people left that the 3 or 4 out of 10 billion Cylons who display remorse or a willingness to compromise are symptomatic of a larger tendency within the Cylon population?  That's an awful risky bet to take, particularly when the consequences of being wrong are so high.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 15, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The question is, do you think genocide is humanity's *only* option?




It's something I thought about before the episode ever aired.  The humans have lost their base of operations.  They have very little access to resources to replace what they're expending, so their successful flight from the Cylons has a limited possible duration.

Their rate of replacing deaths through battle, Cylon infiltrators nuking entire spaceships, accidents etc. is much lower than the death rate on the show, as displayed by the consistently dropping numbers at the beginning of every episode.  Aside from the one time they celebrated the birth of a new human, and the discovery of the Pegasus and crew, that number has been dropping.  And at the current point in the show it's been what....a year?

Admittedly, there are further births (and deaths) occurring offscreen, which are not displayed to the viewer.  But the number is curving down slowly, or in big leaps, like when Cloud Nine was destroyed, etc.

The Cylons seemed to relent for a while, then changed their minds, and basically attempted to enslave the humans.  Let's not mince words about this either.  The Cylons were *not* peaceful collaborators or "guides" or anything.  The president of the 12 planets made a decision not to sign a document ordering the execution of a bunch of humans, and they put a gun to his head.  When one side has the guns, and uses it to coerce the other side, it is not true collaboration or peace.  It's occupation, plain and simple.

Whether or not the Cylons are alive, or actually human, is also debatable.  Sure, they can think.  But in the absence of intervention by crossbreeding with humans, which apparently has a very low success rate, they can't reproduce themselves biologically.  They can only build new bodies.  They're just silicon machines, like the replicants in Bladerunner.

Given what happened the last time they tried to live peacefully, do the humans have any reason to believe that things would go differently the next time?  Dare they take the chance of settling on yet another Earth-like planet?  What if the Cylons land again, and this time manage to take out the BSG?  It would be either slavery without end, or the extermination of humanity.

Alternatively, they can hope that there is some truth to the legends of Earth, and that the planet actually exists.  Given the apparently time that's passed since the last contact with Earth, what are the chances anything would be left in the first place?  How great are their chances of finding Earth in the first place?

Now, if they actually *do* find Earth, what will they find?  Their distant cousins, at a comparable level of technological sophistication, waiting with arms open for their brothers to return?  A burned out planet, exhausted of resources, with piddling populations of humans left, and scraping by?  Maybe a well-established population who don't *want* their brothers to come back.  Or worst case, the Cylons are simply following and driving the BSG survivors *hoping* that they return to Earth, so that the Cylons can turn around and wipe out *all* humans now that they've discovered where the homeplanet is?

Again, that's taking an awful big chance.

With the information that the crew of BSG and the survivors of the 12 colonies have at hand, I'm not honestly sure that they have many choices.  They can't defeat the Cylons in open battle, as they're seriously outgunned, and the law of averages dictates that during one of these conflicts, they won't get lucky.  And then it's over.  Because of that, they'd be foolish to try and win in open battle.  Meaning, they have to do something that catches the Cylons by surprise, and something like a superweapon, bioweapon, or whatever may be one of the only ways to achieve that surprise.

It's a choice between a horrible choice, and an even worse choice, when it comes down to it.

Banshee


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 15, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I find your moral compass to be severely flawed in this regard.



And I obviously would say the same of you, which should pretty much finish our conversation, I think.


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 15, 2006)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> Thus, if the aggressors are stubbornly violent enough, by your argument, the victims cannot defend themselves.




And this very aspect of the argument makes the humans victims twice over.

In an ordinary world, the crime of genocide is punished in courts of law, and AFAIK, in our modern world, we don't execute people convicted of it.  But they do spend the rest of their lives in prison.

However, the Cylons have destroyed the courts, they've destroyed the jail system, they severely outnumber the surviving humans, and are determined to finish the job.

The "right" options have been removed by the absolute success of the Cylon assault.  If the humans want to survive, then they have the right to defend themselves.

Banshee


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 15, 2006)

Dingleberry said:
			
		

> Is another option that the immune systems of the "skin-job" cylons were designed to be immune to *current* biological threats, but not to, e.g., a virus that hasn't been seen in the 12 colonies for several thousand years?




Realistically, not really.  Viruses and bacteria are always mutating, most of the time faster than we can keep up with.  That's why every year you need a new flu shot, and why we keep getting colds.

Also, re-watching the eppy, Doc Cottle specifically says, albeit in a technobabble rant, that Cylons break down foreign RNA - that's why the cure won't work.

But as I said before, my whole problem is that I am a trained biochemist; I've been a bio-nerd since I was thirteen.  The whole biological explanation is technobabble meant to drive the story, and having devoted my life to the science at hand, it's hard for me to suspend disbelief.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Virus's are living organisms. If there was a virus ala plauge wiping out the human racea nd we had a cure to kill it, would we not hesitate to do it.




That's actually debatable.  Some believe that virsuses are not living organisms.  I personally fall into the category that believes they are, even if in the most strict, basic sense of the word.

Either way, you're deliberately ignoring the whole "sentience" part as a way to make your point.  Viruses are not sentient, Cylons are, by the very definition of true AI.  Apples and oranges.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 15, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Virus's are living organisms. If there was a virus ala plauge wiping out the human racea nd we had a cure to kill it, would we not hesitate to do it.
> 
> Ok what if this virus was evovled, say talked and had feelings, but still was designed for one thing, our eradication. would we not hesitate to do it.
> 
> Well that's what the cylons are.



No, that's not what the cylons are. Your proposed Virus has never decided that he wants to kill humans (which would be a stupid decision for a virus, since he needs humans to survive, by the way. It's just that a virus does usually not have control about how deadly he is to his host). He was made, or better, evolved to be so.  
But the Cylons decided to destroy humanity. Which is certainly not a good choice and morally wrong. But this decision isn't forever. New Caprica proved that - they decided not to destroy humanity for a while, instead they tried to control them, thinking that genocide wasn't such a great idea, after all. Unfortunately, New Caprica didn't work out (and it's certainly to a big part a fault of the Cylons that it didn't). But this means that their decision isn't made forever. They can change their decisions. 
There is chance of redemption.

Now, in a direct scenario, whole humanity surrounded by Cylon Basestars and no chance of FTL-ing out of it, I can see that it is a real "us or them" scenario, and if genocide is your only option of escape, I can accept wiping out the Cylons. It is still not a good moral choice, but at least there are really no other options between your death and their death. But in the current situation, there are more options, even if they don't look easy. Acting morally isn't about doing what is easy.


----------



## dravot (Nov 15, 2006)

I'm one of those who felt like the moral quandry wasn't presented very well.  The humans have every reason to believe that they will be hunted into extinction, and with their incredibly tiny resource base, this is one of the only ways they have to fight back and defend themselves.

*shrug*

(As I stated before, as presented, I don't see this as a genocide device anyway, but I'd still come to the same conclusion)


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 15, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> And I obviously would say the same of you, which should pretty much finish our conversation, I think.




I think I can rest comfortably knowing that my moral compass includes not excusing mass murderers for their crimes.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 15, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> It's a choice between a horrible choice, and an even worse choice, when it comes down to it.




Or, as some of us see it, a choice between a horrible choice and a really good choice. Too bad Helo rendered the really good choice ineffective.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 15, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think I can rest comfortably knowing that my moral compass includes not excusing mass murderers for their crimes.



I can rest even more comfortably knowing my moral compass excludes fictional characters, especially God-fearing space robots...


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 15, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Hera exists.



Already covered in my post.



			
				Joker said:
			
		

> They probably could replicate it. I mean, if all you need is love then all they have to do is figure out the right amount and type of chemicals that are produced when people are in "love."



I find this answer to be more intriguing... But "love"? What? If they can replicate it, why would Hera be so important, then? The show's gone out of it's way blathering about Hera this, Hera that. If it's just a chemical mix, then I can't imagine why they can't quickly and easily figure it out for themselves (and the show hasn't bothered to give any indication nor reason why it would be otherwise... for pete's sake, they can _download_ from organic bodies over relatively vast distances!). Extremely unsatisfying.



> And then they could have giant Cylon Orgies between the seven known models.
> 
> Oh dear. Jerry Springer is gonna work overtime.



Satisfaction rising!


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 15, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think I can rest comfortably knowing that my moral compass includes not excusing mass murderers for their crimes.



Yes, precisely.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 15, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Yes, precisely.




And yet, yours apparently includes "learning to live in peace with them", and excusing their planned murder of billions. And so far, none of the cylons we have seen is not guilty of this crime: we know from the episodes that the cylons act in concert, as groups of identical models. As such, they all had a hand in the unprovoked nuclear attack upon a civilization that actively sought peace with them, and continued the assault against a civilization that had surrendered. There are no innocent cylons.

Plus, killing an enemy who has attacked you with the unprovoked intent to kill you (or others) is not murder, it is self-defense. Your "moral" argument falls apart when subjected to any kind of scrutiny at all. Of course, the cylons remain malfunctioning machines, and thus, destroying them really has no more moral content than tossing out an old computer.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 15, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And yet, yours apparently includes "learning to live in peace with them", and excusing their planned murder of billions. And so far, none of the cylons we have seen is not guilty of this crime: we know from the episodes that the cylons act in concert, as groups of identical models. As such, they all had a hand in the unprovoked nuclear attack upon a civilization that actively sought peace with them, and continued the assault against a civilization that had surrendered. There are no innocent cylons.
> 
> Plus, killing an enemy who has attacked you with the unprovoked intent to kill you (or others) is not murder, it is self-defense. Your "moral" argument falls apart when subjected to any kind of scrutiny at all. Of course, the cylons remain malfunctioning machines, and thus, destroying them really has no more moral content than tossing out an old computer.



Agreed, however, now we're moving into legal terms and we all know that those in legal have no morals.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 15, 2006)

Storm Raven, not to harp on the obvious, but Cylons don't exist, which is kinda why whatever opinion you have of them is utterly meaningless with regard to your "moral compass". Or, rather, they exist in as much as they're part of a fictional work and should be treated as such.

If you look at drama from an entirely 'inside' perspective, within the context of the story, you tend to miss things, like the intended meaning. At some point you have to step 'outside', and treat the characters as metaphors, exaggerations, allegories, stand-ins for real world moral actors, etc. Sometimes you need to suspend the suspension of disbelief and adopt a more utilitarian point of view. Ask 'what purpose does this serve?'.

Otherwise you get into silly debates about how recklessly evil that hard-boiled cop was during that car chase at rush hour , or how inexcusable it was for Luke to forgive Darth since he incinerated Alderaan.

Back to BSG... I think its pretty clear the Cylons are supposed to be _us_. They live, have faith, love, fear, commit atrocities. Eminently human traits. You can even marry them (note that in the show, none of pilots have married their Vipers), which demonstrates that some of the Colonials have accepted the Cylons as people, admittedly a kind of second-rate slur-worthy foreigner. Its almost a joke, the Cylons are the Other that's indistinguishable from us.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 15, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And yet, yours apparently includes "learning to live in peace with them", and excusing their planned murder of billions.



Yes, correct. 

I don't see what you're not getting here. I'm all about forgiveness, you're all about revenge. We have completely opposing viewpoints. Why do you keep trying to dissect it?


----------



## Joker (Nov 15, 2006)

I like Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 15, 2006)

Joker said:
			
		

> I like Battlestar Galactica.



 Nuh-uh. You don't!


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 15, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Nuh-uh. You don't!




You're a ca-ca doo-doo head!


----------



## drothgery (Nov 15, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Already covered in my post.




I'm sorry, the 'Hera was a random freak accident that has no relevance for further discussion' just doesn't work for me.


----------



## dravot (Nov 15, 2006)

Joker said:
			
		

> I like Battlestar Galactica.




Let's all hold hands and sing "Kum-bay-ah".


----------



## wilrich (Nov 16, 2006)

> Being sentient and then arranging the unprovoked murder of tens of billions of humans pretty much eliminates your moral right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 16, 2006)

wilrich said:
			
		

> > To make a real-world parrallel your position is like saying that Nazis perpetrarted the Holocaust, they desrerve to die for it, therefore ALL GERMANS who lived in Germany during the 1930s-1940s deserve to die for the crimes of the Nazis.  I can make the first leap, but I can't make the second.  And, the show has strongly suggested that there are Cylons who did NOT agree to or participate in "the crimes of the Nazis."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 16, 2006)

wilrich said:
			
		

> > Being sentient and then arranging the unprovoked murder of tens of billions of humans pretty much eliminates your moral right to exist.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 16, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, the 'Hera was a random freak accident that has no relevance for further discussion' just doesn't work for me.



I don't know what you're talking about.

Edit:
Aw, crap. Godwin's Law ended the thread already.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 16, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Edit:
> Aw, crap. Godwin's Law ended the thread already.




I'm thinking Quirk's Exception applies here...


----------



## wilrich (Nov 17, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I'm thinking Quirk's Exception applies here...





My apologizes.  I am not as internet savy as some (see post count -- I had to google Godwin's law to even know what the heck people were talking about).  

To keep things moving, if it makes people feel better, please substitue "Stalin and the Communist Party" for "Nazis," "deaths during Stalin's purges and collectivization of agriulture" for "the Holocaust," and "Russians who lived in Russia during the 1940s and 1950s" for "Germans who lived in Germany during the 30s and 40s."


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 17, 2006)

wilrich said:
			
		

> My apologizes.  I am not as internet savy as some (see post count -- I had to google Godwin's law to even know what the heck people were talking about).
> 
> To keep things moving, if it makes people feel better, please substitue "Stalin and the Communist Party" for "Nazis," "deaths during Stalin's purges and collectivization of agriulture" for "the Holocaust," and "Russians who lived in Russia during the 1940s and 1950s" for "Germans who lived in Germany during the 30s and 40s."



Nah, youre good no need for change. That only applies when you're comparing individuals. This might be the first nazi hitler comparsion that actually makes sense.


----------

