Qianweilian

My position, maybe overstated, is that the philosophy in the books is shallow. Opinions can certainly vary on that, and if someone finds more of that in the books than I do I respect it. The issue is that we're talking about the moral state accomplished by a Shard's direct control (still underdefined, but we can probably continue to do passably well without nailing it down). The OP's assertion that we are evaluating is whether or not a morally excellent, benevolent Shard's direct control will result in better ethical states than any other possible arrangement. Upthread you suggested that Cultivation is not doing this as much as she ought to, with the assumptions made in the OP, which makes this comment confusing to me-- if less interventionist Shards still count as equally dominating as a micromanaging, constantly intervening Shard then I start to lose track of what we're talking about. It seems like a shift from earlier discussion, maybe I'm not thinking of it from the right angle. Its origins don't matter much to its use as a moral dilemma. It's not a thought experiment, it's a vehicle for thinking about what defines goodness in a framework of action, inaction, and constrained outcomes. The emergency room triage example I provided should abolish any doubt about the legitimacy of the dilemma or its ability to be related to concrete situations. I absolutely agree that ethical decisions are not tidily reducible. But if we aren't able to compare ethical states to one another then how can the question in the OP be evaluated or approached? The rub in this is that the end states described in the OP (the direct results of the Shard's direct intervention) are asserted to lead to more-than-alternatives-can-produce happiness and human flourishing, else they wouldn't be the things the Shard pursues. To my initial (maybe incorrect) reading the things the Shard enforces are presented as inseparable from the "true" ends. If the connection between those is weakened (to account for variation in human behaviors, uneven participation in the conditions the Shard enacts, or other things) then would we not have to question the value of the Shard's direct, constant intervention? If human happiness and flourishing is the end we value, why is it unacceptable to consider whether or not maximal Shardic control (or the methods which achieve it) cuts against those things? I didn't say that Shardic intervention is inherently immoral, I stated that there are ways of thinking about these topics which suggest that domination may itself be undesirable, have unethical qualities along with anything else they produce, be unable to produce specific outcomes or states, or otherwise introduce complications which detract from the goal in the OP. I gave a specific example of this when asked, the bedridden world case, which accomplishes every state described as "good" in the OP while maximizing the use of unique abilities of a Shard as well as direct Shardic intervention. That is, I described a situation in which a Shard could intervene as much as possible, in ways no non-Shard could, to achieve the things the OP lays out as desirable, but is not necessarily better than the states achievable by other agents. As the question is whether or not it is certainly better to live under Shardic domination this seems to me to be exactly relevant: it is not, as scenarios like this one are possible and valid under the assumptions but are not better. I think I've been pretty forward in sharing my thoughts and disagreements, and the reasons for them, with the assertion presented in the OP and have spent considerable time and effort to express those in good faith and engage honestly in discussion. I'm not copping out on anything, and my reticence to get into specifics is because I have suspected you will dismiss them out of hand or decline to evaluate them in the context in which they were given, which was the case here ("obviously I don't mean that"). This is one of the reasons I perceive so much circularity in the original question and the considerations you've presented around it: specific examples which are problematic to the premise are discounted by appealing to abstraction, and in the process define out anything besides the premise itself. That may not be an accurate description (maybe things are being lost in translation or I am otherwise just not getting it), but it is sincere. In any case I'm not sure there's much to be gained from continuing in this thread (me, that is, there are robust discussions with others still underway). I do not see that constant, direct intervention by a morally excellent and benevolent Shardic tyrant is necessarily better at achieving ethically desirable states (or the underdefined "human flourishing") than any other possible arrangement-- Taravnagian is not right. After a good deal of back and forth I am more convinced of this than before, and find the arguments for the assertion in the OP to be weaker and less convincing than at the outset. It's fine for anyone to disagree with that conclusion. Hey, I think you duplicated this. Edit: I have no idea why the text bunches up in the middle.

Yeah, I'd prefer we don't get stormlight adapted into something like the wot show.

Agree with @ParaTulip, I don't think that's what Brandon is saying here. I think experience handling strong emotions could be applicable to any shardic intent. It also goes contrary to WaT where Tanavast gets booted due to being too opposed to honor (from the power's perspective). Sorry, I don't really see your argument here? What makes you think Ati was aligned w/ Ruin before? Sorry if I missed something, this is a fairly large thread. Also, just because he volunteered to take up Ruin doesn't mean that he was aligned with Ruin. I saw it as he took up Ruin in a purely benevolent manner, wanting to limit it's intent (and mostly failing, but not completely) and stop it from going to someone like Rayse. This feels unsustainable from an investiture and intent perspective. Iirc, shards frequently get tied to planets and using lots of investiture (which would probably be necessary) could trap them there. If they try to get free, they would be weakened and risk shattering. Although I do somewhat agree with your approach to initially set up a society and then let them work by themselves, it don't think it would work with every intent. Also, you don't tell how you would deal with a shard that dislikes direct intervention (e.g. Cultivation or Autonomy). What makes you think their shard would be okay with such an intervention. You also argue that much of the interventionist shards' lunacy is due to the vessels — I don't think this is the case. Ati and Leras both seemed quite capable (at least at the beginning). There is a large issue though, shards are neither all-powerful, all-knowing, nor all-good. Any approach to build up your philosopher empire will create a flawed structure. Creating a worldwide dictatorship lead by a shard could have major issues if another shard decides to move in, especially if a large population isn't realmatically aware. Building this sort of society will also take time, it only seems to work if another shard doesn't decide to move in by the time you go mostly hands-off. A more decentralized structure would be less vulnerable to external forces. There's another issue with making a utopian world government: it will be completely incapable in matters of war and diplomacy. If you build a structure where no one fights each other, this hypothetical planet will not progress in military technology or strategy. Even if you, the shard, assists them with this, there is no feasible way to go hands off — military tech/strats constantly evolve, this world would just be stuck in time at the point you stop holding their hand. They also won't even be used to the idea of different states, peoples, or even potentially different languages (this depends on how you do it). Admittedly, while this would be resolved without serious consequence eventually after planets begin regularly interacting with each other, there is a significant risk of diplomatic and economic isolation. This would leave our hypothetical planet without allies and potentially behind on technological development for decades.

I have noticed that good endings feel decreased of late, but what makes you pick 2018 as the turnover point? I'm just curious.

Probably the same thing that gives lets them access the Dor at all far from Elantris.

Pewter and Tin would be nice for everyday life, for obvious reasons. Depending on how you view them ethically, brass and zinc are also invaluable. You wouldn't have to pay for gas nearly as often due to steelpushing. Cadmium is helpful if you are bored and waiting for something. If you can make bendalloy, you could become extremely productive.

Oh, I forgot the heightening thresholds, I thought 1k was the Fifth. I would switch my vote to lerasium so I can have stuff like Pewter and Tin. I agree. Mistborn powers would be so much more convenient for general life. Plus, I already have a heron marked blade, so while the Shardblade would be cool (really cool), I don't need a second cool sword.

Meh, it's arguable. Whatever it's called, he did attempt to kill all the nobles, which is probably deserving of being on @therunner's list of Scadrian atrocities.

You don't technically have to spoiler tag it because Dawnshard came out more than 6 months ago and the IoTE subforum includes full cosmere spoilers.

@therunner, I mostly agree with you, with some caveats. This is really hard to define and unclear, maybe human trafficking would be a better description? I don't believe Kelsier's actions against the nobles were genocide per se. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the group targeted must be one of the following to be genocide. national ethnical racial religious They are part of the same state, so I don't think national is possible. I don't think the nobles have that much of a cultural difference to be considered a different ethnicity. There is an argument that Kel was trying to eliminate a racial group, and we do know that nobles and skaa previously had different biological traits, but by the time of TFE, they have intermixed and these differences are mostly gone. You could also argue he's targeting a religious group, but Kel never really goes after obligators or skaa who believe in TLR the same way. I think Kelsier is primarily targeting the nobles, who are class and political group. Neither of these are protected categories, making Kelsier's attack on the nobles not genocide. If you do consider Kelsier's classicide and politicide to be genocide, this doesn't actually matter. He does actually kill nobles with the intent to destroy the nobility. If the nobility are to be considered one of the protected groups, then it doesn't matter if he successfully wiped them out or not. It would still be genocide, but (as you see above) I don't think it is.

Oh, sorry. It's been a while since I read TFE.

Where do they spawn? Assuming they have no knowledge of our world and they end up in many countries, they're likely to get detained. If they try to escape, then they're likely to end up shot, or at the very least, unconscious until country's head of state decides what to do. Without info, they're likely to use their powers in public (probably enough in most countries). This risk would be mitigated if in an area without heavy control by a state, but that has other risks with crime/terrorism where the Feruchemist is the only one who can speak any language from our planet and none of them know anything about the political geography. Edit: Even if they manage to get control over an area, it would be hard for them to expand or even rule.

Kal is also likely to get mixed up with Jezrein, so he'll probably exhibit some of those traits. I suspect the effect might be minimized with Kelsier while they are both distinct Cognitive Shadows. Maybe if one permanently disappeared.

I highly suspect it is. Kelsier was killed by a spear, which is also very present in the Church of the Survivor.

That's not how I see it. Yes, the original Ashynites did break their deal with the Singers, and they never really got punished for it. But that doesn't mean that the humans who live on Roshar now, them and and their ancestors, who have always lived there should be considered criminals, or even "children of Ashyn." According to the Roshar map/timeline, the Ashyn exodus was about 7000 years before the events of TWOK. That means if the first civilizations in Mesopotamia still lived to today from their estimated creation, then they would have existed for less than humanity has been on Roshar. I don't think it's fair to consider a human who was born and has lived on Roshar their entire life any less Rosharan than a singer.

We learn in TLM that the Rosharan branch (which has a significant amount of Rosharans in it) is mostly outside of Kelsier's control. A lot of the "damage" committed by the Ghostbloods has in fact been from Rosharans. Tbf, this is someone entirely unaffiliated with Scadrial directly in league with Odium. It'd be a bit like judging Rosharans based on Moash or Sadeas.

I think the reason this is such a fiery argument is that this is an argument in our world, about animal rights and ethics about industrial farming.

I agree Scadrial doesn't (currently) have to worry about an invasion, but I would disagree here. Unkeyed dor is a transportable natural resource that most Selfish don't have access to, and indeed, only the Ghostbloods and the Set have it. Chouta is an aspect of culture. It's not described as a favorite food a Ghostblood agent picked up from another planet, but as street food. This sort of thing doesn't usually happen without some migration. There are also the weird potential sky breakers who help with the boats, the Ire moving, and the camps of Unkalaki as examples of some Rosharan emigration.

When did you get back? I don't actually think this is new. In O, Jasnah wonders if Shallan is using Transformation to give her illusions mass. It might just be a light weaver resonance. (Sorry, can't find the quote rn)

Eu5 just came out and was visible on top seller lists on steam. I don't think RTS is "dead" quite yet.

Sorry, but I just don't see what you think would be that of a challenge to overcome. Ash is a significant issue, but it's not like they're trying to grow food to survive, they can receive all the shipments they want. The temperature during TFE is within the normal range and disease is less of an issue because the innate investiture of people in the cosmere limits disease (can't find the WoB for this, sorry). There's no challenging geography (most of TFE appears to be plains from the maps we have), and we haven't seen any evidence of guerilla tactics on Scadrial.

Did anyone else read that as "rithmatic theory" first? I thought we had gotten something exciting about a rithmatist sequel.

I mean, world hoppers were fine on Scadrial. I don't really see any challenge of Scadrian conditions that wouldn't be easily conquered by the greatest logistics machine of all time.

But accessing the magic is how they are distributed. Breaths being accessed plutocraticly change what members of society have access. I would disagree. It can be bought or sold, but it isn't (yet). Perhaps it could be, especially if information was tightly controlled and spikes were sold. But it isn't now; that was my main reasoning in classifying it as meritocratic.