Flat Black

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by capnq

Does this parental sense of responsibilty extend to other people's children as well?

In many cases, yes. Or the responsibility is attached to a larger social group.

On the other hand there are some societies that accept that if you don't exercise care you aren't responsible for the outcomes, and raise their children all at hazard. Or which have social circumstances that don't allow anyone much control over the influences on their kids.

Who does "quality control" on the pedagogies?

In some places there is government or other social oversight. In others parents are presumed to be the best judges of the upbringing of their children.

I can imagine some real horrors resulting from "home schooling" programs designed to the customers' specs.

Yes indeed!

In the Cordwainer Smith story "Think Blue, Count Two"; one of the characters had a dirty secret: he was raised by his biological mother.

There is a similar sentiment in Brave New World: everyone is disgusted that the Savage has a biological mother.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's perfectly valid to consider them a different species. Homo imperialis? ;)

I'd say that's invalid, actually - interbreeding is certainly possible. FB is more or less "safetech" with biological human modification, barring a few odd colonies. My understanding was imperials were what GURPS would call "genefixed," have conservative stat boosts (if any), and no other significant genomic alterations.

Imperials are inhuman in some sort of fuzzy-wuzzy sense. The entire society is incorruptible at all levels, for example. One incorruptible human is a hero, a society of incorruptible humans is alien.

(There are variant human species in FB, but the Mink aren't one.)

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Brett

... From there it designed itself.

Ah! You mirror one of my own GMly aphorisms --

'A universe will design itself, if you let it.'

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by martinl

I'd say that's invalid, actually - interbreeding is certainly possible. FB is more or less "safetech" with biological human modification, barring a few odd colonies. My understanding was imperials were what GURPS would call "genefixed," have conservative stat boosts (if any), and no other significant genomic alterations.

Imperials are inhuman in some sort of fuzzy-wuzzy sense. The entire society is incorruptible at all levels, for example. One incorruptible human is a hero, a society of incorruptible humans is alien.

(There are variant human species in FB, but the Mink aren't one.)

It should have been relatively obvious that I was using a philosophical concept of 'human', not a biological one.

Sure, Imperials can be born to two non-Imperial parents and certainly they can interbreed with colonials. But they lack many of the things that distinguish the human race from a philosophical standpoint. They are not selfish, not greedy and they are capable of wielding power without being corrupted by it.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It should have been relatively obvious that I was using a philosophical concept of 'human', not a biological one.

Yet you used the term "species," and made the biological context quite clear with the proposed genus species name.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by martinl

Yet you used the term "species," and made the biological context quite clear with the proposed genus species name.

With a smiley to show that it was not a serious proposition.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Icelander

With a smiley to show that it was not a serious proposition.

Your previous post argued for philosophical vs. literal, not silly vs. serious.

Silliness I accept, although providing a straight response to a silly post is a internet tradition.

Now I am neither on topic or amusing. Um...

I wonder if there is any impulse amongst the Imperials to genetically engineer their progeny to be even better optimized for ruthless philanthropy? Surely the baseline human chassis is not the best possible one for said purpose - genetics should influence (note I did not say control) both ruthlessness and empathy.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by martinl

I wonder if there is any impulse amongst the Imperials to genetically engineer their progeny to be even better optimized for ruthless philanthropy? Surely the baseline human chassis is not the best possible one for said purpose - genetics should influence (note I did not say control) both ruthlessness and empathy.

There certainly is some eugenics going on. Minks are most likely to reproduce with other Minks or with colonials that have passed their psychological tests. If there is a genetic component for "Mink-ness" it is certainly selected for.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Sure, Imperials can be born to two non-Imperial parents and certainly they can interbreed with colonials. But they lack many of the things that distinguish the human race from a philosophical standpoint. They are not selfish, not greedy and they are capable of wielding power without being corrupted by it.

Didn't Plato cover this in the Republic already?

Bill Stoddard

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Didn't Plato cover this in the Republic already?

There exists, in principle, a possibility that I might have read The Republic.