GALACTICA

I personally don't like the childish "good" versus "evil" shows, with the heroes and villains. It's too simplistic and boring. Some people prefer to watch the show and escape into their fantasies; I prefer the cold hard realities of life. I enjoy a show based more in "real life" that includes the difficult choices and no win situations, and the internal struggles brought on by moral ambiguity and self-doubt. I am rooting for the character Saul Tigh, not Roslin.

That is my own perspective. I like the darker, convoluted BSG, while the blogger prefers a romantic version, where everyone is happy and the mission is clear.

On a philosophical note, what should the outcome be when the humans are locked in an epic struggle for galactic supremacy with their creation, the “superior” Cylons? It is a paradox between the human survival instincts and their own human sense of morality.
 

Jeez, it tells you something about the average Galactica fan when a person feels the need to apologize for postponing the show for a date.

If Baltar's a Cylon, why did they accept his offer to board the diseased ship?
 

I don't mind a show where the "good guys" are flawed, yet still maintain some basic goodness.

Yet it is true, that in this new BSG, there is a lot of doubt as to whether humanity even deserves to live - witness the many times last season when Adama risked extinction because it served a higher noble purpose of some sort, and his reasoning always went "it's not enough to live - we must be worthy of living."

That can be thought provoking, but BSG is treading dangerously on the line of taking it too far.
 

If you have followed this show from the beginning, Ron Moore has actually presented a straightline political point of view. I do believe at one time the show was labeled a "right wing" show. Now it is being labeled "left wing." I do not think that Ron Moore has a pointed political agenda. Ron is a political guy with a military background. I believe first and formost he is trying to make a good TV show. Anyone who knows their history, will see more parellels with World War 2 than the current war situation. Their are also similarities between then and now because history does have a way of repeating itself. The big difference is the Germans would gas or shoot you. The Americans only shoot when fired upon. That is a big difference in mindset. That alone shows we are not there to invade and conquer, but clean out the old leadership and leave. Calling each other a "liberal looney" or "righty tightwad" will get us nowhere.

I do not think the lines between good vs. evil is as blurred as it seems. Ron is realistic about human behavior. When the push comes to shove, almost everyone knows what side they are on (big exception with Baltar, unless he is a Cylon). Usually when we hear about World War 2 we see a cut and dry "Allies vs Axis." If you were to focus in on either side you would see many problems. Their was disagreement and fighting between soldiers. Their was sharp political disagreements between Generals and Leaders of the country. No matter how much anyone disagreed through the ranks, they all knew who side they were on when the bullets started to fly. We are getting a focused view under a magnifing glass of the events that took place on the Battlestar Galactica. If you were to be given a history book from the ancestors of the survivors of the Twelve Colonies, you might see the war between the Cylons and Humans alot like you might see the events of World War 2 now. Adama is a rock just like General Eisenhower was a rock. Some things are clear and will always be that way.
 

It seems like it good ice-breaker on a date to not only mention that you run a blog about a spaceships-and-robots TV show, but to also talk about how you are worried that the content of said spaceships-and-robots TV show might be too left-leaning. Or you could say that you're a convicted sex offender. Either one will produce the same effect.
 

Actually, I think the real danger right now is that Moore and the writers seem a lot more interested in the Cylons than the humans. If you look at the episodes this season, except for the episode before this one, Cylon motivations have received a lot of play. Meanwhile, the humans are almost given cliched parts. It almost seems like boredom with the humans on the part of the writers. Let's face it, after 2+ seasons, the human civilisation is pretty 2-dimensional still.
 

HELLO! THE CYLONS ARE MACHINES, OR ARTIFICAL LIFE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED TO DESTROY HUMANITY. THEY MUST BE DESTROYED.

I couldn't agree more!
 

I think what's being overlooked here by those incapable of viewing the world without a dichotomous lens is that the current human/cylon conflict is the culmination of a long stretch of stupid, ill-advised and downright immoral actions of BOTH sides. Creating something self-aware, with a knowledge and understanding (and likely fear) of its own mortality and then working it to death or sending it off to fight your wars while you stay safe at home is stupid and immoral. Wholesale genocide of people who just happen to be descendants of those who worked you to death or forced you to die in war is stupid and immoral. The cylons haven't proven anything except that they can be just as blind and vicious as humans. Neither side is monolithic in their thinking; both sides are just as capable of rationalizing what they do.

There is one HUGE problem with the idea of trying to engineer, well, forget the term "extinction", this is the textbook definition of genocide whether you like it or not. One, unless you can absolutely 100% guarantee that there will be NO survivors, plan on going through this whole mess again real soon. Survivors will want payback for everyone they lost. Forget the whole "They're just machines" thing, we've all ready seen examples in the show where they've experienced loss, pain, anger, regret, the whole gamut of emotions we understand ourselves. Plus, the cylons have all ready shown themselves to be intelligent and adaptive, survival traits similar to humans. I doubt they'd just sit around in their base stars waiting for the RTF to shoot them full of the same biological contamination that they know smoked thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of them all ready.

So, humans and their creations share the same tragic flaws, the same capacity for irrational thinking, the same knack for atrocity. How else does that REALISTICALLY end besides both races trying to step outside that vicious circle? Who do we root for and why? Do we side with the humans because we identify most with them and embrace even the most monstrous of them simply because they're human? Do we side with the cylons because they were once oppressed and excuse their own forays into genocide and torture? Or do we see some sense in both sides while we also see the mistakes both have made, are making and will make? Above all, this is fiction, entertainment. But, art is always a mirror of the world it's created in. Some people don't like mirrors very much. An ugly truth of that mirror is that siding with anything for no better reason than "they're like me and the others are not" is a very dangerous line to step over. History's all ready shown us what that brings, whether it's Medieval Europe during the Inquisition, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or any other "us vs. them" scenario that's ever played out since history began. It has unleashed the most monstrous of us to do as they please with the blessings of their own people, caused ordinarily good people to turn a blind eye to murder and worse. That's the rub of simple solutions; they turn into Final Solutions before too long.
 

I think that its right to be said that BSG is more like WW2 than today. I can see more parrellals between BSG and WWII than BSG and today.
I also think that having the humans debt on whether or not to kill all the cylons shows that the humans have some morals and belief, which by the way is what makes them human.
I also am glad that the writers are focusing on the cylons more because very little is known about them and it helps to bring depth to the show.
 

well said skullhunter, couldn't agree more
 

Creating something self-aware, with a knowledge and understanding (and likely fear) of its own mortality and then working it to death or sending it off to fight your wars while you stay safe at home is stupid and immoral.

It says that the Cylons "evolved". Therefore it is unlikely that the humans developed anything more than highly advanced machines at the beginning. I doubt if they wanted to develop machines that could feel or show fear. That would limit their effectiveness.

One, unless you can absolutely 100% guarantee that there will be NO survivors, plan on going through this whole mess again real soon.

This isn't necessarily true. The infection could cripple them to the extent that they are incapable of pursuing humanity for a long time or to the point they decide it is too risky and leave humanity alone.

Plus, the cylons have all ready shown themselves...

An argument that has nothing to do with the morality of using the weapon.

How else does that REALISTICALLY end besides both races trying to step outside that vicious circle?

So, you supported that they should stay on New Carpica then? Otherwise, you support the same vicious circle of fighting and running. It just looks like humanity might have an effective weapon that could, at a minimum, force the Cylons to leave them alone. If they shouldn't use it, then they should just accept Cylon rule.

So, humans and their creations share the same tragic flaws,...

This paragraph is just standard cliche. Just because someone recognizes that people do not all believe and want the same thing (i.e. we are not like them) does not necessarily lead to Hitler, Stalin, etc. Can it, yes. But, to claim that to make those distinctions is somehow immoral and dangerous is wrong. It means you don't fight Germany or Japan in WWII because "they are just like us." In reality they weren't just like us. They believed in a monstrous racial superiority cult that led to the deaths of millions.

Let's see, humans create Cylons, Cylons become sentient and fight humans, Cylons leave to somewhere, truce occurs for 40 years, Cylons come back and slaughter virtually the entire human race. Yet, somehow, humanity is in an equivalent moral state as the Cylons?
 

It says that the Cylons "evolved". Therefore it is unlikely that the humans developed anything more than highly advanced machines at the beginning.

I'm fairly certain that the line "They Evolved" in the opening credits refers to the creation of the "skinjobs", the humanoid models. While there's nothing definitive at this point, The implication in the series is that the pivotal moment that led to the cylon uprising was their development of self-awareness and that humans continued to use them as essentially slaves until actual violent resistance began. Unfeeling machines don't have a tendency towards violent rebellion, Windows operating systems notwithstanding.

This isn't necessarily true. The infection could cripple them to the extent that they are incapable of pursuing humanity for a long time or to the point they decide it is too risky and leave humanity alone.

As I'm sure that war did forty years ago. There's that payback thing again.

An argument that has nothing to do with the morality of using the weapon.

Perhaps not, but it has everything to do with the logic of using the weapon. It's all assumption. If the cylons make themselves vulnerable to it, if the cylons haven't all ready developed measures against it since they were the first to find it, maybe it will work. On the other side of the equation we have some definites. The humans will be attempting genocide. The cylons will believe this proves their point about humanity should any of them survive. Hell, after such an action, they may renew their efforts to completely eradicate humanity. A course of action that would be just as wrong, but also a great example of cause and effect.

So, you supported that they should stay on New Carpica then? Otherwise, you support the same vicious circle of fighting and running. It just looks like humanity might have an effective weapon that could, at a minimum, force the Cylons to leave them alone. If they shouldn't use it, then they should just accept Cylon rule.

False premise. "If you don't support this, you support what I say is the opposite". Implication, this situation only has two choices with two possible outcomes. Unfortunately that's incorrect, since the humans have all ready refused cylon rule without ever using the weapon and would likely continue to refuse it (and rightly so) had they never discovered said weapon. There's that dichotomous thinking again. Only machines should think in binary.

This paragraph is just standard cliche. Just because someone recognizes that people do not all believe and want the same thing (i.e. we are not like them) does not necessarily lead to Hitler, Stalin, etc. Can it, yes. But, to claim that to make those distinctions is somehow immoral and dangerous is wrong. It means you don't fight Germany or Japan in WWII because "they are just like us." In reality they weren't just like us. They believed in a monstrous racial superiority cult that led to the deaths of millions.

Way to miss the point. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, none of them possible without people subscribing to the idea of "This other, this alien to our culture, they are not of us and they are a threat to us because of it". This is the false premise the cylons subscribe to, otherwise they might realize that humanity is no more monolithic than they are. Some few of them have, but not enough to stop the mainstream of cylon society's desire for conflict. Realizing difference isn't the problem. Labelling someone as so far outside yourself that they can no longer be considered human, and therefore of any value or worthy of living, that's the problem. Hitler's Germany did it and the end result was millions of innocents dead and the eventual toppling of their government. Stalin's Russia did it and the end result was millions of innocents dead and the eventual collapse of their government that might have been averted had Stalin not killed off their best and brightest in his purges. These men and others scrawled this central idea in blood across the pages of history: destroy the other, the outsider because their different existance is a threat to our society/philosophy/religion/whatever. There's miles between the idea of purging the other and the idea of defending yourself and others from unwarranted aggression.

Let's see, humans create Cylons, Cylons become sentient and fight humans, Cylons leave to somewhere, truce occurs for 40 years, Cylons come back and slaughter virtually the entire human race. Yet, somehow, humanity is in an equivalent moral state as the Cylons?

Come on man, shake off the binary thinking, I know you can do it. No, they're clearly not in an equivalent moral state; cylons broke the armistice, engaged in attempted genocide and tried to rule over what was left of humanity like they were pets instead of people. Essentially, they're behaving the same way towards humanity that humanity behaved towards them. They collectively punished an entire race for the crimes of some of them, most of whom are possibly long dead by now. They justified doing so, as they justified their occupation of New Caprica, because their mainstream views humanity as savage, backwards and intractable; a danger to the cylons simply because they exist, needing to be either exterminated or completely controlled. But they're no more correct in that thinking than the humans would be. Their dichotomous thinking is as fallacious as humanity's, and your own. Control and destroy or be controlled and destroy. Cause extinction or become extinct. Use the weapon or endorse cylon rule. With us or against us. The really funny thing is, even though I've pointed out repeatedly that both sides are screwing up royally, it seems you believe I've picked a side. I've chosen neither. Both have legitimate grievances, both have heaped horror and atrocity on each other. It won't end with just one side changing position, it'll just be a time-out before the game starts up again. But, I guess it's true what they say: when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
 

skullhunter: What I find amazing is that you haven't chosen a side even though the evidence is clear that the Cylons committed genocide (not "attempted" genocide as you said ... the murder of tens/hundreds of billions of people qualifies as genocide ...you don't have to finish the job for it to qualify as genocide) on an unimaginable scale.

You have nothing but your own conjecture of what happened pre-human/Cylon war. What is clear is that humans did not commit genocide against the Cylons. They may have treated them like shit, but they didn't attempt a wholesale slaughter of them. We also have no evidence of humans' desire to keep them as slaves, or send to fight their wars (which wars, BTW?) when it became apparent they were self-aware. There may have been a prodigious amount of confusion as to what to do about this scary situation, certainly. Why couldn't it have been similar to "I, Robot," where the self-aware robots determined they had to strike first -- and quickly -- to avoid potentially being destroyed and/or shut down?

It seems to me that a better analogy here might be American slavery: Would blacks be justified in wiping out whites for their bondage crimes? Whites didn't annihilate the black population, but it sure treated them like garbage. Eventually, whites themselves became enlightened and fought for the basic [human] rights of blacks and for them to be put on equal footing with anyone else. Do we know precisely how humanity reacted to the knowledge of self-aware Cylons? Were there humans who argued that they should be set free -- to determine their own fate? It sure seems likely, if the morality of many of the humans on BSG is any indication. A civilization that has reached the ability to travel the stars surely must have developed a moral code that would take something like that into account.

This is what makes me lean towards the view that the Cylons reacted violently first -- just in case humanity would have reacted violently to the knowledge that Cylons were self-aware. Obviously, humans reacted in kind -- horrified at what their very own creations "had become." Would humanity have gone to war with the Cylons if the Cylons had approached the humans with the knowledge of what they'd become -- and what they wanted to do (leave to live their own lives)? I find that hard to believe, again, especially given the level of human of civilization. There's no civilizational growth w/o accompanied moral growth.

The only real (and by "real" I mean what we've seen in the actual series) evidence we have that humans bungled the situation with the Cylons early in the era of Cylon self-awareness was in the pilot when Adama, giving that speech at the Galactica's decommissioning, mentioned that humans had to live up to their responsibilities ... including their mistakes.
 

I side with you Skullhunter. Now let's start rounding your opponents up...
 

I side with you Skullhunter. Now let's start rounding your opponents up...
 

"What I find amazing is that you haven't chosen a side..."

You know why I haven't? It's a work of fiction. That's what really cracks me up here. This is an entirely fictional work, and people completely have their panties in a twist because it doesn't mirror their own views of what reality should be. What I find amazing is how borderline Stalinist some people can be when it comes to art that doesn't reflect the purity and beauty of the Glorious Revolutionary American State. Quit whining and change the channel all ready.

"You have nothing but your own conjecture of what happened pre-human/Cylon war. What is clear is that humans did not commit genocide against the Cylons. They may have treated them like shit, but they didn't attempt a wholesale slaughter of them. We also have no evidence of humans' desire to keep them as slaves, or send to fight their wars (which wars, BTW?) when it became apparent they were self-aware."

Perhaps it's conjecture. But by series canon, it's a lot more likely that they were designed with the capacity for abstract thought, eventually leading to self-awareness, than it is that they all suddenly woke up self-aware one day and thought it would be a great idea to have a war. And let's clarify a bit here. There's a lot of ground between "treat like shit" and "slavery". The Colonials didn't talk down to them, or refuse to return their phone calls or leave obscene notes under their windshield wipers. They used them for labor that could and did result in their deaths. So, I do have only my conjecture plus bits and pieces from the series to go on. I guess that doesn't really hold a candle to the well-thought-out and concise hypothesis of "they're just evil, okay?".

"It seems to me that a better analogy here might be American slavery: Would blacks be justified in wiping out whites for their bondage crimes?"

It'd be a better analogy if I ever suggested that the cylons were justified in their actions.

"Eventually, whites themselves became enlightened and fought for the basic [human] rights of blacks and for them to be put on equal footing with anyone else."

Funny, I seem to remember there being a war in there somewhere. Mainly because not everybody became that enlightened; some people not only still saw blacks as property but less than human and even went so far as to explicitly say so in their state constitutions. Humanity not being monolithic in thought, we don't all reach enlightenment at the same speed. Sometimes some of us don't reach it at all.

"Do we know precisely how humanity reacted to the knowledge of self-aware Cylons? Were there humans who argued that they should be set free -- to determine their own fate? It sure seems likely, if the morality of many of the humans on BSG is any indication."

It's possible, just as it's possible that others wanted them to remain as they were, property. I'm pretty sure if the "Just let 'em go their own way" faction had come out on top, there probably wouldn't have been a war. Strained relations maybe, but usually you don't go after someone full-bore when they admit they screwed up and they actively try to fix the situation.

"A civilization that has reached the ability to travel the stars surely must have developed a moral code that would take something like that into account."

Technology imparts morality? That's a new one. Technological capacity doesn't guarantee a higher level of morality, the two are perfectly capable of existing independently of the other.

"This is what makes me lean towards the view that the Cylons reacted violently first *snip* There's no civilizational growth w/o accompanied moral growth."

I don't even know where to start pointing out how wrong that is. There have been loads of advances in technology that have either not been accompanied by any substantial "moral growth" or they've been accompanied by what seems more like moral atrophy. And by moral atrophy I don't mean silly shit like women wearing pants instead of skirts or people having sex outside of marriage, I mean things like the mass societal purges I spoke of earlier in this thread. It's really a flimsy premise you've got there, Colossus.

"I side with you Skullhunter. Now let's start rounding your opponents up..."

k.walker, only got one thing to say to you about that.

http://www.answers.com/topic/projection

Eighth definition down. You can probably figure it out from there. I don't side with authoritarians of either right or left, they're far too similar to each other despite the protestations of either to the contrary. For every Stalinist dope who wants to round people up and put them in re-education camps, I can find a right-wing dope who wants the police to use live ammo on protestors. So go fling that crap at someone it might actually stick to, k?
 

You know why I haven't? It's a work of fiction. That's what really cracks me up here. This is an entirely fictional work, and people completely have their panties in a twist because it doesn't mirror their own views of what reality should be. What I find amazing is how borderline Stalinist some people can be when it comes to art that doesn't reflect the purity and beauty of the Glorious Revolutionary American State. Quit whining and change the channel all ready.

Wow, and we're the ones who should turn the channel already? Comparing people to Stalinists because they don't understand how one cannot take a side in the debate that is BSG? Yeesh ...

I guess that doesn't really hold a candle to the well-thought-out and concise hypothesis of "they're just evil, okay?".

Since it wasn't me who attributed that sentiment to you, I'll assume that wasn't directed at me. Or, if it was, that just shows that you read into my previous only what you wished.

The Colonials may indeed have programmed the Cylons with a degree of "abstract thought." Yet, why do you appear to act as though it was morally wrong to utilize a machine to do exploring/labor for you, even perhaps "perish" in the process -- given that the Colonials created the Cylons just for this purpose and were not programmed with self-awareness? What we do not know is just how the Man-Cylon wars started. When it became apparent that the Cylons were self-aware, did humans attempt to "pull the plug" and then the Cylons rebelled? Did the war result because of this rebellion -- the loss of human lives due to machines and the subsequent need for revenge? However it occurred, the two sides came to an agreement and armistice. Yet, the Cylons never showed up at the once per year meeting and all the while plotted the complete destruction of humanity.

Funny, I seem to remember there being a war in there somewhere. Mainly because not everybody became that enlightened; some people not only still saw blacks as property but less than human and even went so far as to explicitly say so in their state constitutions. Humanity not being monolithic in thought, we don't all reach enlightenment at the same speed. Sometimes some of us don't reach it at all.

Funnier still is how the United States is unique in actually fighting a war to (in part) eradicate slavery based largely on moral grounds. Every other Western country managed to do so peacefully through compensated emancipation. Even Brazil, which had by far the largest quantity of slaves in the New World.

It's possible, just as it's possible that others wanted them to remain as they were, property. I'm pretty sure if the "Just let 'em go their own way" faction had come out on top, there probably wouldn't have been a war.

Unlikely, especially if the degree of self-awareness was known. I addressed possible reasons for the war above. Most likely, yes, there was a large degree of confusion -- and fear -- when the Cylons became totally self-aware. As humans tried to pull the plug, the Cylons fought back. Addressing the morality factor again, it is indeed highly unrealistic to assume, had the Cylons bothered to communicate with the humans what they had become and their desire to flee and live in peace elsewhere, that the humans would not allow this and would desire their total destruction. See below this next quote:

Technology imparts morality? That's a new one. Technological capacity doesn't guarantee a higher level of morality, the two are perfectly capable of existing independently of the other.

Not just technology. Technology obviously would expand with civilizational growth. This is almost canon in science fiction -- that even to form a single united world government requires an extraordinary amount of moral and cultural growth of a civilization ... let alone twelve united worlds like the Colonies. The only exceptions to this principle in scifi are usually "borrowed" (or reverse-engineered) or "stolen" technology that can lead to a civilization traveling to the stars before they are "ready." But even then it appears a tenuous premise. Imagine if current earth civilization got a hold of some FTL technology. Would nations threaten war over who got to make use of it and when/where? Mostly likely, yes.

I don't even know where to start pointing out how wrong that is. There have been loads of advances in technology that have either not been accompanied by any substantial "moral growth" or they've been accompanied by what seems more like moral atrophy.

It's not wrong at all, as noted above. This is also why it's silly to presume, as Carl Sagan once noted, that if an alien civilization approached earth, it would be because they wanted to destroy us. If they were that aggressive and non-enlightened (morals), they more than likely would have destroyed themselves LONG before they developed the means to travel the stars.

It's really a flimsy premise you've got there, Colossus.

Hardly. I've made my case quite well. As have you, certainly. Just not as good as me. ;-)
 

Actually, I agree with Skull Hunter to the point that there is no reason to believe that a certain level of technology requires advanced morals. It could be that the rest of the planet is not as technologically advanced. Or, there is a gentleman's agreement on how war is fought so that it does not result in annihilation. Finally, they planet may hold together by some cultural bond long enough to spread to the stars, but collapse into fighting after a certain point. I'm sure there are other possibilities beyond these. Sagan's contention was just wishful thinking.

That being said, it's hard to build sympathy for another race of beings that just tried to exterminate the human race. And until the writers provide some level of justification, I'll go with saying that the Cylons are evil. That doesn't always make the humans right, but should mean you can choose a side. Also, you tend to have the tone of defenders of the show who chide the rest of us for not seeing it's "subtleties". Right now, the show isn't close to subtle, it's a sledgehammer and last weeks episode was a perfect example. It was a perfect example of the dichotomous view of the world you complain about. This show isn't as "deep" as a lot of people think.