Zeku wrote:. Please--please don't discuss arbitrary concepts like "peace" without at least nodding to the concept that peace must have a highly specific 'form.' It cannot be a 'goal,' because a goal must (again) have a specific form. (This is like rule #1 of goal-setting.)
Ok. Of course, that is what I did. I said he has to turn everyone in the world to the same thing ( uncroaked subjects to his Rule ) then give them, not an arbitrary concept, but a direct order. "No conflict, ever".
This isn't saying anything about "peace" being only
a goal, or an abstract concept in the real world. It is his previous stated aim in the artificial Erf-world, and if he makes it an order to his subjects, how is that abstract any more than "If you are attacked or obstructed, engage" is an abstract concept
. Or, in point of fact, any more than war is an abstract concept?. If you can dismiss "peace" as merely groups of people fooling themselves as to their philosophy and life's work, why can't I dismiss war the same way?.
Lipkin wrote:Unlead units auto-attack non-allies. This is a rule that would need to be broken to achieve peace.
If he kept fighting till everyone was uncroaked under his command, there would be no non-allies, surely?.
In a world where there was only "one" side, the skirmishes with barbarians or wild animals would not really count as "war" would it, more like attacks by nature such as storms, just natural events you would deal with like people deal with ants nests.
Edit to add, I agree however that his killing everyone and uncroaking them seems a particularly unhandy and cruel way of going about things. It isn't what I expect would happen, just how I would go about it, but then I dig ditches and build fences for a living, i don't do subtle as a rule.
I actually expect to be surprised again with the authors ingenuity and invention, and him finding a more elegant solution.