From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" 
Subject: RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:26:34 -0700

Matthew wrote...

> Thought just appeared out of the blue so perhaps nonsense: if humans
> volunteered [their blood] and inhumu acceded to it would it not =
create=20
> a dependence that ultimately could make the inhumu a slave race?=20

Actually, that had occurred to me also ... and immediately=20
(inevitably?), the situation wrt the US and OPEC came to mind,
with US in the r=F4le of the inhumi ...

> Potentially a solution as ethically problemtaic as the problem.

Sort of. But predators _are_ dependent upon their prey; in the=20
case of the inhumi, granted, the dependence is a little different=20
in that other prey are available but won't give them sentience=20
(and, just possibly, souls). But changing a predator/prey=20
situation to one of mutual benefit and dependency seems to me
to be as close to a purely good thing as you get in the Fallen
world.

> This would't happen if all human doners were altruistic.  But=20
> isn't our premis that they (we?) can't be so consistantly and
> universally?

Depends on what you mean by "altruistic" -- if you mean acting
from emotionally altruistic motives, your reading of the premise=20
is correct; however, it is possible to behave altruistically for=20
reasons other than altruism (this is actually one of the major
topics in current* evolutionary biology); if the inhumi were to
develop, from their human "victims," this kind of altruistic
character, it would be every bit as beneficial to both sides as
"emotional" altruism, and quite probably more so for the inhumi.

-----
* Where "current" means "long enough ago to be considered an
  exciting topic for current popular-science books.
-----

In other words, _assuming_ that we are right in believing that
their character is sufficiently susceptible to alteration by=20
the character of those they prey upon, _then_ the forging of a=20
mutually-beneficial d=E9tente would not require that it be only
saints who open their veins to the inhumi -- utilitarian/
pragmatists will do as well.

--Blattid


--