Alloran

[voodooqueen126]

2- I don't say that killing 6 millions of Humans, even if the species is far to be destroyed, is acceptable. I would never they such a thing!
But you understood my point about species.

I think we can both safely agree that everybody on this board finds murdering 60 million is unacceptable. What am I saying is that killing 60 million humans if you still have 5.2 billion left over is not worse than wiping out a whole species of 10 million, even though more people were killed. It's more like 'which of these evil actions is worse,' kind of thing.

3- You're a little wrong about something at the end. Well, take a true example: I heard that leopards almost disappeared, thousands years ago, and even if they're still there, they're now victim of too much inbreeding. They become weaker and weaker as the time goes and will probably disappear totally one day. Now, take the same thing with a species who is almost destroyed because of the quantum virus. I know that the Hork-Bajirs were "made", but... Still, if a species is close to disappear, the last members won't have enough gene to reform a strong species. We had a question at school who could be about the beginning of Remnants (other series by Applegate): if the humanity was destroyed, you can save only 6 people, we give you 10 persons, who will you send? Some people said "the most intelligent", some other "the people who can have the more children", but I couldn't answer: to me, it was totally stupid, because 6 persons are useless to continue a species, and I couldn't decide who need to be saved! The teacher couldn't make me answer. I just can't decide.
And it's why I can't agree with you when you say that smart people must be saved more than others, or that the "stupid" people who make a lot of children are better. I don't think I can judge the other Humans like that, and who are you to judge the others?!
Something else, please think about it: "intelligence" and "knowledge" are 2 different things. Some people who are poor can be very intelligent, but don't have any way to go to school and have knowledge. Some other people are quite rich, can pay the best universities and will have a lot of knowledge, but it doesn't mean they're intelligent. To me, intelligence permit to understand the world, understand the other people and think by yourself. Knowledge comes more easily when you're intelligent, and it's also a way to improve your intelligence, but it's different.

PS: Well, it's one of my longest message on RAF, please applaud :p

Twas cheetahs and it was like 2 cheetahs are the ancestors of every cheetah on the planet. There were more Hork-Bajir left over than 2 though.
this is why I could never bring myself to read Remnants: the whole concept of the whole human race being destroyed except 6 people is just so depressing, within 4 generations or less everyone would be insane, within 8 generations or less everybody would be having horrible birth defects(unless you'r potentional survivors were screened for genetic defects which is probably how you would choose)... Same with all those post apocalyptic scenarios (like in I am legend: Will Smith and 1 lady and her son must rebreed the human race! what a happy ending!) it just really depresses me. But then what could be more depressing than having your whole species become extinct, it tortures the very centre of our beings, namely our selfish genes...
The intelligence and judgement debate is complicated and we could spend eternity debating it, but to summarise my position: these sorts of space whale wars are awful and you would have to choose and judge eventually, even if it would be immoral, it wouldn't be as bad as the results of being paralysed by your conscience and not acting to save anyone...
We applaud:)

[Dameg]

About Remnants, I think KA Applegate made an end that "cure" a little that feeling. Now, it's true that it's totally depressing, and I had the same feeling.
About the 2 cheetahs, I always had doubt about that... I think it's more a species with some members who had a mutation and give this mutation to their children and little by little the species change. Well, it isn't the subject here...

You're right, during a war you have to choose. But you can't say, before, what you'll choose, because many things will contribute to change your choice. Each case is different and you can't say that it'll be like this, that you'll do that... You can't really know.
About the 5 children and the other child, I think it'd be instinctive. You'll try to save which one(s) you think you can save in this second. You won't really think "if I save this one, then it'll be like that...". It'll be a reflex. And everybody will have a different one.

Voodoo, I don't say that everybody have to do the right things all the time, or anything. I don't say that you can't think what you think. I'm not a good example of pure virtue  But I have to tell you that some of your posts, where you judge some people, some cultures, because of their "intelligence" made me uncomfortable. So please, just be careful not to be insulting to other members. You have the right to say what you think, as did Hitler... But be careful about the consequences...

[Chad32]

Chad, I reckon Alloran who realised early on that the yeerks were a threat actually volunteered or was the only person who allowed himself to be conscripted to lead such a mission. but that it was sheer arrogance of the Andalite government that caused them to only send Alloran and a small task force.

That could be true. Maybe Alloran would have sent a larger force, but higher ups weren't taking it seriously.

On a galaxy wide scale, I guess it's the equivalent of killing the citizens of a small mcountry on Earth, in order to keep them from destroying the whole world.

But still, I maintain that it was wrong.

[voodooqueen126]

As Dameg makes the very important point, it is far worse than killing the inhabitants of a whole country...
but then as Anijen says, he didn't actually release the quantum virus: Aldrea and Dak did, ultimate proof that adults are not useless...
Having said all of this, I (and other Alloran supporters) in our efforts to distinguish Alloran from the "Quarantine" of book 54 are perhaps falling into this trap... Namely that we are seeking reasons why blowing up Earth is wrong, but quantum virus the hork-bajir is permitted, certainly what Alloran did made life easier for the Animorphs (fewer shock troops in the yeerk empire) and therefore advantaged the humans...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralMyopia
But yeah, herd animals like the andalites never needed to domesticate other animals to do hard work for them, so they don't keep pets or use animals for labour, so working with aliens doesn't come easily to them. However it shown in canon that their is less internal fighting than humans.

[yunyun]

i really dislike how Alloran used a quantum virus, shouldn't there be some other way to end the yeerks there?

[MoppingBear]

or at the very least try to tailor it to yeerks instead of hosts.

[Shenmue654]

I think there are some interesting concepts being thrown around in this thread, so I'll post. What we're arguing over here in actuality is whether morality is absolute or relative to the situation. Whether dropping the quantum virus was wrong depends entirely on what the viewer considers "most important." But first:

In my own opinion it does not matter if the Hork-Bajir were numerous or few, intelligent or non-intelligent. What matters is that they were a sentient race with a functioning and very real culture that meant a great deal to them. To question another's experiences as legitimate based on their intelligence is absurd. That's like saying the powerful religious experience of a retarded person is irrelevant because they're not very bright and have difficulty explaining what happened. So from that angle we must consider the Hork-Bajir to have the same moral weight as a planet of human beings.

From that angle, Alloran nearly exterminated a vast number of innocent people because of a war. I believe that what Alloran did was necessary: without his actions a mostly cruel and twisted enemy would have been far worse. (Especially looking at it from his perspective). However, in a way I believe he "deserved" Visser Three for his actions. If while having freedom he kills without mercy, then let him kill again without it. It's "karmic backlash" as it were. I guess we could make the General's argument in "A Few Good Men" here and say that someone had to have the blood on their hands. But if you were in his position, could you have done it? And even if you could, what would be left of you after the deed was done?