text, un: lucina ( backdated to a day before their escape )

[tolight]

Hello, Audentes. For those of you I have yet to meet, my name is Lucina. I come bearing news.

I have spoken to a Zymandis agent. They are here, alone, and the jewelcomms are what notified her to our presence; she was willing to answer my questions, and in return, asked the same of me. The following is what I learned:

They seem believe that the Timeline is ill; the multiverse no longer has the energy to sustain itself, and will eventually meet its demise. Given this, their mission is to destroy everything, so that the Timeline will be reborn stronger. [ Those familiar with her should know there's a certain level of anger in her tone, text or otherwise. ] At least, this is what their Timeline.exe has told them— not only so, the original Timeline.exe, as well as its "update", were created by the same individual: Theodor Arbatel, their "Leader".

If anything requires clarification, I will try my best to answer them.

( ooc. the thread is here for the curious. while i've gotten a lot of info the thread is currently incomplete, so there may be delays in getting to questions from characters!! otherwise feel free to threadjack / etc. )

Comments

[ofobedience]

The implication is that the destruction of everything would enable the timeline to be reborn, that perhaps without this rebirth everything will end anyway, without the chance for renewal. That perhaps it wouldn't save the lives of anyone currently in existence, but would enable life to go on after all that. If they're right, and everyone here is really so hung up on the preservation of life at any cost, then would it really be such an unreasonable goal?

Of course, the possibility that their leader simply enjoys destruction certainly exists. But we don't have a definitive answer to that.

[scrap_metal]

There are millions of religious people who believe they will get eternal happiness in the afterlife. Yet we don't see these millions of people killing themselves to access that everlasting happiness right now. Probably because they only have belief and hope that it will happen, but no solid proof.

Without that solid proof, they will fight to protect their lives and avoid death for as long as they can.

It's similar in this case. I don't see a definite proof that destroying everything, will allow the world to be reborn. And since I'm not a man of faith, I'd rather protect those alive here and now.

[ofobedience]

And if you were presented with solid proof? What then?

[scrap_metal]

That would depend on the context of that proof, I suppose.

If that's how the cycle goes. Universes die, so the new ones can be born - there's nothing to be done, just accepting the reality. I'd still fight against the hastening of the process.

But if the worlds explicitly need to be destroyed first for the rebirth to happen...

[ofobedience]

Which is precisely my point. What if the latter is, indeed, the case? Of course, right now we have no proof either way, but for all of you so keen on the preservation of life, I would have thought it preferable to do what allows life to go on, even if it involves making some sacrifices.

[scrap_metal]

[ this reply comes a little delayed because it is certainly topic that requires some more thought ]

...if we do get a definitive proof, I'd still stand by side of my people.

If we're to die, we can as well go down fighting for our world. And if we survive, the demise is never really certain. We've conquered deadly disease in a span of less than a century. Science and medicine saves people from such grave injuries that were absolutely fatal just ten years ago.

I'd rather die trying, than give up by accepting the "inevitable" fate.

[ofobedience]

Then what you're saying is, you'd rather see yourself and those you know survive, with the off chance that something will come up to change the fate of this hypothetical situation, than to give life more generally a certain chance at continuation.

[scrap_metal]

Yes. I do think I'd be selfish like that. [ He's not proud of it or anything. He's not even certain it would be the right thing to do, but he can't imagine anything else ]

Lives of those I know and all people of my world do have bigger value to me on that scale. It's not even the first time we made such choice. We've been invaded already by different life-forms, and from my understanding, it was either their lives or ours.

We might lose eventually, but if they enact an act of war they should not expect their enemies allowing themselves to be slaughtered.

[ofobedience]

It's interesting, I suppose, to discover that your altruism only stretches so far. That only people you know matter, rather than people in general.

[scrap_metal]

The people in general will die. If they want to destroy everything for the sake of some kind of rebirth of the universe, everyone dies.

And yes, my altruism stretches only this far: I will fight against that mindless slaughter.

[ofobedience]

Everyone may die anyway, if Zymandis are correct. Which means the slaughter would not be mindless, it has a purpose, a goal. Mindless slaughter comes only for the fun of it, or for no reason at all.

And it was good to hear these views, in a way. It helps confirm that, for most, the desire to prolong life is a selfish one, quite the opposite of the way people have tried to portray it up to this point.

[It's what he'd suspected all along, and - in a sense - it makes it easier to comprehend.]

[scrap_metal]

I think most of the desires and wishes have selfish angle to it.

But back to the Zymandis point... back in my world it's been a known fact, that if humans as whole will continue as they do, we will kill the planet with pollution. And as it goes, all life along with it.

Of course the easiest option and one that would guarantee instant success would be: wipe-out humanity. That's the Zymandis way. But there is alternative: we must change our behavior as a species. We're trying, testing renewable energy sources, protecting the environment and so on. We're not there yet, we might not be for several generations. And there is still a risk that it will all be for nothing anyway, because we have no idea what future brings. But there's a bigger win to get here.

The easy way, doesn't always mean it's the best choice.

[ofobedience]

That depends on who's perspective you're viewing it from. It wouldn't be the best choice for you, as it would mean you die. But if it guarantees instant success, the easiest option is the best choice. Particularly if the alternative carries a higher risk of failure, as you say.

What it comes down to, in the end, is the selfish desire to go on living, rather than the altruism required of a true success.

[And he supposes that's what separates him from the others here, what demonstrates his lack of humanity. That lack of a desire for self-preservation at all costs. It's what comes, he thinks, of always having known he is disposable. That sooner or later, things would end badly for him. It's only ever been a matter of how, and when.

To die in a manner that suits him, with some of his memories left in tact-- it's the only 'good' outcome he could hope for.]