Is Solomani evil?

[SanDragon]

Originally posted by leadhead:
Mormonism is less than 200 years old and is the wealthiest religous body in America (virtually controlling the state of Utah and having influence across the USA and the world).

Really?!!? Where's my women?!!? Where's my huge bank account?!?!? Where's my fraggin' mansion in the hills?!?!?

Most days, thanks to my mild and casual demeanor, I find such assumptions most amusing.

Then, a little cynicism sneaks in and must bow to the fact that far too many people I meet of late seem only happiest when they have something to complain about.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is our name, thank you very much.

Mormon was a prophet in Ancient America.

Last I heard, the Catholic church was still the weathiest church.

Salt Lake City, the most populous, last I heard was only about 1/3 LDS.

Wow, what a powerful minority we are!

 

[mike wightman]

All of those things would be possible at our TL if we could borrow the patents from a TL15 Imperium

 

[mike wightman]

Oh, and when talking about homo sapiens, remember that we ar not homo sapiens, we are homo sapiens sapiens.

Homo sapiens may have been around 400,000 years ago...

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

 

[jatay3]

In any case I repeat my point. A state cannot be evil because a state is a machine-it is no more capable of evil than a tool-box. A person can be evil. And an ideology can be evil if it's doctrine encourages evil action but a state can't be evil. Or rather it cannot be evil independantly of those who weild it's power.
Thus the Solimani Confederation would not be evil but the Solimani Cause(or Solikazes as I call them) can be depending on YTU.

 

[jatay3]

Religion is a touchy subject in gaming; to be honest, it is often better ignored in science fiction. If you choose to include it, treat it respectfully, and tactfully, and it can be a rewarding tool.
-----------------------------
I agree. I think the canon did it badly-most of the religions given are unbelivable: not unbelievable in the sense that I can't belief their doctrine-but that I can't belive their existance as a religion, even in the sci-fi sense of "belief". The Aslan Code is an exception to this, it is not hard to imagine there being someone who holds to it.
If however, as has been theorized earlier, most Imperials(that is "intersteller citizens" I.E. Nobles and flunkeys, traders, etc as opposed to planetary provencials)maintain the sort of tolerance-from-indifference*("whatever pleases your dear little heart") that is indeed a common trait in the powerful, than canon may have it right because that would be how it would look to them. I do get the suspicion sometimes though that the writers either don't know enough about the subject to be convincing, or are understandably shy.


*not real tolerance which is the ability to be courteous to those one dissaggrees with-the same people are often not very tolerant about something they care about.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by leadhead:
Yes, Traveller implies they are interfertile but this seems unlikely

Canon doesn't imply that they might be interfertile; it flat-out states that they are.

As for 'canon' proof, I don't really need any as the Sollies are allegedly US and monotheism is the dominant religious paradigm on Earth.

In "Western" society, the dominant religious paradigm arguably is "I don't care too much one way or the other".

Lawrence Trinoch the director of SolSec referenced the Holy Bible as a justification of a humano-centric government for the Sphere.

Nope. Desmond Trinoch, the Chairman of the Solomani High Council, used a story from the Bible (1 Kings 3:23-28) to illustrate his opinion that Dulinor and Lucan were power-hungry, selfish fools.

The vitriol of Hans' response suggests a personal hostility to Western religion which,

I dunno. I would rather guess it's hostility at people spinning yarns without any solid base in canon.
I can understand that to a degree. I mean, it's fine when your TU varies, but don't go claim compliance with canon while clearly contradicting it.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by leadhead:
Ignoring the junk science argument that Homo Sapiens is really 300,000 years old...

Junk science? Have you actually researched the subject? I have. I've had my hands on a university textbook that presented the 300,000 y.a. date as a serious possibility. Not the only possibility, but a possibility.

It's not as if the date you propose has any incontestable proof to support it, its it?

the Vilani are NOT the same species as Terrestrial humanity. Yes, Traveller implies they are interfertile...

Traveller canon doesn't imply that Vilani and Solomani are interfertile. It states it flat out. Check the library data entries for Vilani and Zhodani in the original library data compilations. They're both listed as Homo sapiens.

...but this seems unlikely though in 5000 years some way of geneering cross-breeding would be possible.

I agree that it's unlikely. But unlikely is not impossible. And we do have examples of species that paleontologists believe have remained essentially unchanged for longer timespans than that.

So weighing 'unlikely' against 'stated fact' it turns out that in the TU Vilani and Solomani (plus Zhodani a lot of Minor Human Races) are, indeed, interfertile.

As for 'canon' proof, I don't really need any...

You're right, you don't. Unless, of course, you want to have any credibility in a discussion concerning the Official Traveller Universe.

...as the Sollies are allegedly US and monotheism is the dominant religious paradigm on Earth.

Where do you get the notion that the Solomani are the US? What does that even mean?

However, in the Rebel Reporter in GDP's Traveller Digest that featured the Solomani point of view, Lawrence Trinoch the director of SolSec referenced the Holy Bible as a justification of a humano-centric government for the Sphere.

That's proof that Christianity is still present in some form and that Lawrence Trinoch is some form of Christian. However, it does not prove that monotheistic religions are the only religions on Terra, or even the dominant ones.

The vitriol of Hans' response suggests a personal hostility to Western religion...

Vitriol? You seem to have read my post as you read the Traveller canon. Let me assure you that I have no hostility to any religion (I do have a rather negative opinion of religious fanatics of any stripe, but then, I have a negative opinion about any sort of fanatic (Sports hooligans -- now, there's an animosity I could easily work up an enthusiasm for! ))

...many people have counted the Jews out (and more recently, the Christians as well) and yet they remain important players on the world stage.

No argument there, and I could easily accept that they remained important 3,000 years from now (though most likely in new incarnations). But you have no canonical proof at all (or even evidence) that Christianity and the other monotheistic religions have suppressed the polytheistic religions on Earth.

While the discovery of extra-terrestrial intelligence would spark a lot of discussion in religious circles, it would be far from a death-blow. Catholic authority has already accepted that alien intelligence could be Catholic (and thus has a soul and a place in G-d's plan).

Don't expect me to disagree.

Given this, I think its safe to assume that the Confederation remains largely Jewish/Christian/Islamic/Hindu/Buddhist

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Hinduism and Buddhism were both polytheistic. In any case it's irrelevant, because there's no evidence that religious tolerance won't be the order of the day. (Nor any evidence that Emperor Strephon isn't Christian

)

[Lot's of irrelevant stuff snipped]

Okay, enough history, so why would our star worshipping Imperials hate the monotheistic Solomani so much?

Assuming facts not in evidence: That all Imperials worship stars and that they care two bits about what religion(s) the people of Terra belong to, much less hate them for it.

Looking back at the ancient Greco-Romans upon whose empires the 3I was closely modeled,

Mixing up meta-facts and TU facts. Marc & Co. may have gotten some ideas for the Imperium from Roman history, but Cleon I certainly didn't set out to recreate the Glory that was Rome.

...we find they too weren't comfortable with the Jews and later the Christians. Why? Well, polytheism is very flexible. If there are 12 gods living on Mt. Olympus why not another 12 in Valhalla and another 12 in the Nile Valley? Besides, a lot of these gods are similar. Everyone has a sky god, a sun god, a sea god, a trickster god, a love goddess, a moon goodess, etc. But along come the Jews and say 'all the gods of the nations are vanity' which is arrogant enough but then they have a law that says they cannot make sacrifices to the gods (supremists!!!) and that they are obligated to destroy pagan altars in their territory (butchers! oppressors!) and won't worship the state (traitors!)

The problem wasn't that they wouldn't worship the state, it was that they wouldn't worship the Emperor. Who was, at that point in history, considered divine. Which means that the Jews and Christians were guilty of sacriledge. Very serious stuff. In the Roman Empire, that is. But Strephon does not set himself up as a god, so that particular issue simply doesn't arise. I repeat: There's no evidence of any reason why anyone at Capital, from Strephon on down, give a tinker's cuss for what religion anyone on Terra belongs to. Nor is there any evidence that anyone on Terra cares what religion the Emperor belongs to.

... sounds a lot like the charges leveled against the Solomani.[

Could you elucidate, please? I find it difficult to understand how you can go from accusations of racial intolerance to accusations of sacriledge.

If the divide between the Vilani and Solomani is religious more than racial (and the more I think about it, the more sense it makes) the nature of the conflict is cultural and irresolvable.

Yes, because history shows us that all religious conflicts are irresolvable, right? That's why the Catholics and the Protestants are still shooting it out in France and Germany. And that's why the Swedish governement is currently engaged in ruthlessly repressing the worship of the Aesir[*], right?


(Note: The above should not be taken to mean that I think that there is any evidence of any religious conflict between Terra and the Imperium).


Hans
[*] http://www.echoedvoices.org/Sep2002/Modern_Asatru.html

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by stofsk:
This would violate suspension of disbelief.

How do you figure? 'Suspension of disbelief' means accepting something that you know, or at least strongly believe, is wrong as a true fact in an imaginary universe.

Why is it more difficult to suspend disbelief in Homo sapiens antiquus than in jumpspace, magic heat sinks, and the non-invention of the computer chip.

The Traveller universe suggests that ancient spacemen came to the Earth 300,000 years ago to transplant homo sapiens across the stars. If in our universe it is revealed that there were no homo sapiens 300,000 years ago on this planet, then by ALL rights that means the Traveller canon must be updated, since it is in error.

I disagree (see above), but even if I agreed, there's actually no proof that Homo sapiens didn't exist 300,000 years ago. Nor does there seem to be any way to prove it. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by me:

Originally posted by leadhead:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As for 'canon' proof, I don't really need any...

You're right, you don't. Unless, of course, you want to have any credibility in a discussion concerning the Official Traveller Universe.</font>[/QUOTE]I just realized that I'm in the wrong here. I hadn't considered what forum this debate is taking place in. If all you're doing is telling us how things are in your TU, then you certainly don't need any canonical proof, and I apologise for saying that you did. Somehow I got the impression that you were talking about the OTU. Sorry.


Hans

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"Agreed. The only thing that Classic Traveller canon needs to "update" are a few of the nonsensical dates."

MT did this.

TL 7 - 1970
TL 8 - 1990
TL 9 - 2010

You could also use the expanded TL subcategories from WBH (actually first appeared in CT Grand Census).

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stofsk:
This would violate suspension of disbelief.

How do you figure? 'Suspension of disbelief' means accepting something that you know, or at least strongly believe, is wrong as a true fact in an imaginary universe.

Why is it more difficult to suspend disbelief in Homo sapiens antiquus than in jumpspace, magic heat sinks, and the non-invention of the computer chip.</font>[/QUOTE]Something like Jumpspace or FTL is rationalised that "Well, in the future scientists find a way", so otherwise suspension of disbelief is not violated. Ditto for magic heat sinks or whatever.

But if something violates archeological evidence then it violates suspension of disbelief. Or in other words, if something violates what is currently known for more or less certain, then it should be corrected.

I disagree (see above), but even if I agreed, there's actually no proof that Homo sapiens didn't exist 300,000 years ago. Nor does there seem to be any way to prove it. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult.

Then the default is that they DIDN'T exist 300'000 years ago, until proven otherwise. As you said, proving a negative is difficult.

I was only weighing in with the point about SoD. since I don't actually care whether or not Traveller canon violates it, it doesn't concern me. I just thought like pointing out that outright contradictions OUGHT to be corrected in future publications, but that's obviously nothing more than an opinion.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by stofsk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
But if something violates archeological evidence then it violates suspension of disbelief. Or in other words, if something violates what is currently known for more or less certain, then it should be corrected.

</font>[/QUOTE]But it doesn't violate what is currently known. Some paleontologists beleive, based on the available evidence, that Homo sapiens was already around 300,000 years ago. Other paleontologists, interpreting the same evidence differently, believes that they didn't show up until later.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I disagree (see above), but even if I agreed, there's actually no proof that Homo sapiens didn't exist 300,000 years ago. Nor does there seem to be any way to prove it. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult.

Then the default is that they DIDN'T exist 300,000 years ago, until proven otherwise. As you said, proving a negative is difficult. </font>[/QUOTE]No, the default is that either they were around or they weren't.


Hans

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by rancke:
But it doesn't violate what is currently known.[/qb/

Then there's no argument, is there?

[qb]No, the default is that either they were around or they weren't.

That doesn't make sense. Something cannot be either/or in existence/non-existence.

Default = postive claims require proof.

The claim 'homo sapiens were around 300'000 years ago' requires proof. If as you say, scientists interpret the data to come to that conclusion, then it's reasonably proven, and thus there is no argument. I took the other poster at face value when he said that the claim was 'junk science', but it apparently wasn't, and for that I'll concede (since my point wasn't concerned over that matter).

If it WAS junk science (and by that, actually proven wrong or inconsistent with real life archeology) then my point refers to a need to 'update' the canon accordingly, but since it ISN'T junk science (according to you), then there is no argument, and no contradiction.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by stofsk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
But it doesn't violate what is currently known.

Then there's no argument, is there?</font>[/QUOTE]Well, since my position is that even if there was proof positive that Homo sapiens wasn't around 300,000 years ago in the Real Universe, there's no reason why they shouldn't have been around 300,000 years ago in the Traveller Universe, there's still something we disagree about. It's just that that argument it pretty moot, since there is no such proof positive.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, the default is that either they were around or they weren't.

That doesn't make sense. Something cannot be either/or in existence/non-existence.</font>[/QUOTE]We can be unable to tell whether something is true or not. In which case all we can say that either its true or it isn't. What's so difficult about that?

Default = postive claims require proof.

The claim 'Homo sapiens were around 300'000 years ago' requires proof.

But that's not the claim. The claim is: "In the Real universe, Homo sapiens may or may not have been around 300,000 years ago. However, in the Traveller universe they definitely were".

If as you say, scientists interpret the data to come to that conclusion, then it's reasonably proven, and thus there is no argument.

What I said was that some scientists interprets the available evidence in such a way, but other scientists disagrees.


Hans

 

[parmasson]

Thread hijack: On

By Maladominus
“It is now the Year 2005. Where the hell can I buy a personal Laser Rifle??? Does anyone know? And where can I buy a tech level 10 starship? According to Traveller history, they are now widely available on planet Earth!! . . . ”

(Quote taken out of context for reasons of attempted humor.)

Sir, if you will care to notice the price for a scout/courier is about 23 million Imperial Credits. If you can produce those authentic imperial credits you can have your jump drive and laser rifle. This is the real issue here we don’t have any Imperial Credits!
Thread Hijack: Off.

 

[leadhead]

Looking at other ways to interpret the cannon, one could look at the Solomani as a fade of Star Trek.

Traveller deliberately set out on a different path than most American Sci-Fi by deliberately NOT being America in Space. That being the case, one could look at the Solomani as being the UN in space, with all the inefficiency, selective tolerance for terrorism, hostility to western values (embodied by the 3I) that this implies.

If a government with a charter similar to the UN (there is a fan-created constitution for the UFP that is a close paraphrase of the UN charter) were to exist, what would it be like REALLY? The Solomani Confederation is a lot like that.

The Solomani Rim War wasn't so much a Solomani rebellion as it was an Imperial drive to maintain it's hold on Terra which is as much the Imperial homeworld as the Solomani home world. Most of the Imperial nobility and a plurality of Imperial subjects are Solomani to one degree or another according to the cannon. You certainly could look at the SC this way as well.

 

[Maladominus]

I like the fact that Traveller is not Star Trek.

Star Trek is politically correct RUBBISH. It portrays a future of utopian mankind, where mankind has "cured" and eradicated most diseases and flaws by the 23rd century. It portrays a future where mankind is a perfect and just race, with the exception of a FEW bad seeds (e.g. Khan Noonian Singh and a few villains). And of course in Star Trek, the "perfect" government is nothing short of the democracy of the United Federation of Planets. Hence, the aliens are usually "The Bad Guys" (tm).

 

[leadhead]

I agree with you Maladominus. I liked the original 1960's Trek but the New Drek bored me to tears. PC, lefto-commie nonsense that thought the perfect future would be a Marxist-Leninist wet-dream.

Taking the contrarian view, Traveller seems to have ruminated on what would it be like if the Trekkies got there way and a socialist superstate came to dominate the human homeworlds. I think a tyranny like the OTU SC isn't far off.

Thing is, I don't think a Marxist state would last long enough to become a major power. The most powerful Marxist state Earth ever knew was here and gone in 70 years.

That's why I tend to think of the Solomani as something more akin to the CSA than the USSR.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
I like the fact that Traveller is not Star Trek.

Star Trek is politically correct RUBBISH. It portrays a future of utopian mankind, where mankind has "cured" and eradicated most diseases and flaws by the 23rd century.

Actually, it doesn't. There are plenty of episodes in TNG where the Enterprise has an urgent mission to get a vaccine because a plague is tearing through colonies, and where she's been ordered to ferry cargo or personnel around (she's supposed to be a ship of the line, yet she's given cargo missions...).

The thing is, you have Counselor Troi or whoever get up and say to the peons "Yes, we've eliminated disease and poverty. We're truly kickass." But it isn't true. So that makes what Troi et al have to say propaganda.

Which means ST is hardly utopian or without flaws. (forget what fanatics will tell you, they've been in love with Rottenberry and his cliche-ridden shows for decades)

It portrays a future where mankind is a perfect and just race, with the exception of a FEW bad seeds (e.g. Khan Noonian Singh and a few villains).

Not true. Picard on more than one occasion was quite content to sit back and watch an entire culture get wiped out by a planetary clataclysm thanks to his precious prime directive.

And Picard was one of the 'good' characters...

And of course in Star Trek, the "perfect" government is nothing short of the democracy of the United Federation of Planets. Hence, the aliens are usually "The Bad Guys" (tm).

Here you're definitely wrong because in so many years of Star Trek I have not ONCE seen any evidence of democratic elections take place.

The bad guys are usually aliens because humanity is dominated by a centralised bureaucracy that has a very distinct Marxist flavour. This would make the UFP Space Commies (opposite the Cardies and Rommies, who are Space Nazis, and the Klingons, who are fundamentalist Space Vikings).

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by leadhead:
Traveller deliberately set out on a different path than most American Sci-Fi by deliberately NOT being America in Space. That being the case, one could look at the Solomani as being the UN in space, with all the inefficiency, selective tolerance for terrorism, hostility to western values (embodied by the 3I) that this implies.

The 3I does NOT embody western values. The fact that it's a monarchy ought to have accounted for this, because the Emperor is certainly not elected to the post (and in some cases, he or she will take the position by force, plunging the Imperium into civil war).

Meanwhile, the UN does embody western values such as liberalism, free trade, peaceful assembly, collective security, negotiation and mediation for conflict resolution and so on. The UN was the birthchild of America let it not be forgotten, and it's principal proponents are western countries.