www.ditl.org

Golf, chricket, football. They're challenges you choose to take up. Survival is not a choice. It is a whole different league.

How exactly is banning warfare and improving the standard of living in the Third World going to affect anyone in the west on a day-to-day basis?

We can't fight wars anymore, yet man kind has done that since before recorded history, to take that away would be to take away a big part of what it is to be human.

Also its not just the third world who would be different with what seems to be esssentially free food. Why would people work if they don't need the money for food and shelter. Sure some would but much like the culture the vast majoirty would do sweet fuck all if they didnt have to.

There will always be a need for scientists.

There is no need for them since collosus is much smarter and better than any human could ever hope to be. They would spend their lives just trying to understand a fraction of what collosus already knows.


There is also the fate of certain people to keep in mind.

According to GK the head programmer at least and quite possibly more seem to live as almost total slaves. What time they get up/eat/sleep ect dictated to them.

By allowing collosus to exist you are dooming people to a life of slavery. What right does anyone have to do that?

Teaos wrote:Golf, chricket, football. They're challenges you choose to take up.

Regardless, they are challenges, and they are challenges that Collossus does not remove.

We can't fight wars anymore, yet man kind has done that since before recorded history, to take that away would be to take away a big part of what it is to be human.

And why is that a bad thing? Ask any solider whether they'd object to the end of war, and I very much doubt you'd get many saying "yes".

Also its not just the third world who would be different with what seems to be esssentially free food. Why would people work if they don't need the money for food and shelter. Sure some would but much like the culture the vast majoirty would do sweet f**k all if they didnt have to.

Who said anything about free food? Redistributing available resources so that the African continent does have regular famines is not the same is giving free food to all.

There is no need for them since collosus is much smarter and better than any human could ever hope to be. They would spend their lives just trying to understand a fraction of what collosus already knows.

Then there's a challenge for them. Not to mention the fact that a computer is only as good as its programming, still has a limited capacity (albeit far great than a human's), and can only analyse what it's given. You can't analyse moonrock without going and getting some. You can't analyse a star without looking at it.

According to GK the head programmer at least and quite possibly more seem to live as almost total slaves. What time they get up/eat/sleep ect dictated to them.

No different to the military.

Captain Seafort wrote:Regardless, they are challenges, and they are challenges that Collossus does not remove.

Not "Regardless" it is an totally different thing. The challenge thrust upon us and the challenge we choose to take are totally different.

Captain Seafort wrote:And why is that a bad thing? Ask any solider whether they'd object to the end of war, and I very much doubt you'd get many saying "yes".

I'd be suprised if you find even a single "yes". Doesnt mean its not human.

We fight wars because its what we do. To remove that is to remove a large part of being human. And just becuase the war doesnt exist doesnt mean the reasons it was waged have gone.

Who said anything about free food? Redistributing available resources so that the African continent does have regular famines is not the same is giving free food to all.

Who said redistribution? Collosus is supposed to be a super genius, it hardly seems beyond it to find ways to increase food yield and harvesting to such an extent as to elliminate cost.

Captain Seafort wrote:Not to mention the fact that a computer is only as good as its programming,

Its call AI for a reason. Artifical intelligent. It can imporve its self. It is not bound to its original programme anymore, evident by the fact that its... you know... taken over the world.

Captain Seafort wrote:No different to the military.

Funny, I thought you had the choice to join the military (yeah yeah there is the draft which isnt around in most 1st world countries anymore). and can leave it as well.

Teaos wrote:Not "Regardless" it is an totally different thing. The challenge thrust upon us and the challenge we choose to take are totally different.

It still refutes your claim that "those aren't challenges".

I'd be suprised if you find even a single "yes". Doesnt mean its not human.

We fight wars because its what we do. To remove that is to remove a large part of being human.

So?

And just becuase the war doesnt exist doesnt mean the reasons it was waged have gone.

True - however, an enforced peace is better than the alternative.

Who said redistribution? Collosus is supposed to be a super genius, it hardly seems beyond it to find ways to increase food yield and harvesting to such an extent as to elliminate cost.

So it can do the impossible eh? We've got the capacity to end food shortages now. The problem is distribution.

Its call AI for a reason. Artifical intelligent. It can imporve its self. It is not bound to its original programme anymore, evident by the fact that its... you know... taken over the world.

Point. Care to answer the rest of issues I raised?

Funny, I thought you had the choice to join the military (yeah yeah there is the draft which isnt around in most 1st world countries anymore). and can leave it as well.

Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland. All first-world countries with national service. It's not as rare as you make out.

We fight wars because its what we do. To remove that is to remove a large part of being human

So because killing people is a natural evolved instinct, we should never try and fight it? That's some fucked up logic. We have progressed into a society where murder is no unnecessary. All Collossus would be doing would be making the only "legitimate" form of killing unnecessary. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

And just becuase the war doesnt exist doesnt mean the reasons it was waged have gone.

Actualy, it does.
With a world government, there's no need to fight for resources.
With enforced peace, there will be no genocide or wars based on such beliefs.
So just what reasons for war would be left?

It seems to me that your argument basicaly boils down to "this is wrong, because we can't wage war now".

Captain Seafort wrote:It still refutes your claim that "those aren't challenges".

Very well they are challenges, so is getting dressed in the mourning, granted its a challenge I have never had the slightest problem over coming, but it is still a challenge.

My point was that self impossed challenges that are of no real worth do not messure up in terms of life challenges.

Captain Seafort wrote:So?

So? Yeah fuck it, lets just change what it means to be human, remove a large part of our culture and mentality.

It might not be a nice part of who we are but its still there and still what we are. You can no sooner remove that than you can remove our ability to love and keep us human.

Also Collosus is not removing the will to fight, only the means to do it. We still the mentality and that will still drive us.

True - however, an enforced peace is better than the alternative

In your opinion. I'd rather have the choice to live my life the way I see fit. If that includes being killed in a war we chose to fight, so be it.

So it can do the impossible eh? We've got the capacity to end food shortages now. The problem is distribution.

The impossible? Increasing farm yeild and harvesting efficency is impossible? Look at a farm in America then look at a farm in a thrid world country. See the vasty different amount of yield they produce from the same amount of land. If Collosus helped increase farm yield world wide there would be such a vast amount of food as to make it a non issue, and as per the opp. Free.

Point. Care to answer the rest of issues I raised?

Ok... This was the rest of that point.

Then there's a challenge for them. Not to mention the fact that a computer is only as good as its programming, still has a limited capacity (albeit far great than a human's), and can only analyse what it's given. You can't analyse moonrock without going and getting some. You can't analyse a star without looking at it.

Whats the challenge? They can't do the reserch because collosus will do it for them, and better than them as well.

Sure they may build the rocket or the telescope, but they will be following the plans collosus gave them, following his exact orders. Not really a challenge so much as a chore.

Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland. All first-world countries with national service. It's not as rare as you make out.

Hmm didnt know many first world countries still did that. I'll have a look after work but I'm still doubting that this national service is quite as bad as the inforced slavery of collosus. Also those guys probably get days off and to leave after a certain time frame.

Rochey wrote:So because killing people is a natural evolved instinct, we should never try and fight it? That's some f***ed up logic. We have progressed into a society where murder is no unnecessary. All Collossus would be doing would be making the only "legitimate" form of killing unnecessary. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Firstly its not removing the will to wage war, just out means to do it. From what the op said its pointing a giant gun at humanities collective head and saying "Play nice or I pull the trigger". That is hardly an ideal sollution. Would you not rather humanity strive to achive world peace on its own through its natural evolution?

Actualy, it does.
With a world government, there's no need to fight for resources.
With enforced peace, there will be no genocide or wars based on such beliefs.
So just what reasons for war would be left?

I'm pretty sure I could give everyone in the middle east all the necessities of life they could ever want and they would still blow themselves up in crowded restaurants.

It seems to me that your argument basicaly boils down to "this is wrong, because we can't wage war now".

Pretty much.

But its not quite as simple as that. Its taken away our choice to fight war. Thats what I find repugnent.

And its not just the war thing. Its the fact that we are essentially under a dictator.

Teaos wrote:My point was that self impossed challenges that are of no real worth do not messure up in terms of life challenges.

Prove it. I'd say they're greater challenges, because at any point you can say "that's it, I quit". The challenge of whether to call it a day, because you can, or to keep going.

So? Yeah f**k it, lets just change what it means to be human, remove a large part of our culture and mentality.

It might not be a nice part of who we are but its still there and still what we are. You can no sooner remove that than you can remove our ability to love and keep us human.

Also Collosus is not removing the will to fight, only the means to do it. We still the mentality and that will still drive us.

Of course you can't remove the drive. You can, however, prevent the harm caused by that agression. Your argument is, effectively, "I don't give a fuck how many people are killed so long as my freedom to start wars isn't infringed".

In your opinion. I'd rather have the choice to live my life the way I see fit. If that includes being killed in a war we chose to fight, so be it.

And what about the bloke on the other side, hmm? The bloke who doesn't want a war, and doesn't want to die in one, but gets killed because some little shit decides his freedom to start a war is more important than everyone else's right not to get killed.

The impossible? Increasing farm yeild and harvesting efficency is impossible? Look at a farm in America then look at a farm in a thrid world country. See the vasty different amount of yield they produce from the same amount of land. If Collosus helped increase farm yield world wide there would be such a vast amount of food as to make it a non issue, and as per the opp. Free.

Prove it.

Whats the challenge? They can't do the reserch because collosus will do it for them, and better than them as well.

Prove it. Prove that Collossus is capable of vastly increasing food yields to the point of reducing prices to effectively zero, designing rockets, space vehicles and telescopes, and analysing all the information thereby collected. "It's super intelligent" doesn't cut it.

Firstly its not removing the will to wage war, just out means to do it. From what the op said its pointing a giant gun at humanities collective head and saying "Play nice or I pull the trigger". That is hardly an ideal sollution. Would you not rather humanity strive to achive world peace on its own through its natural evolution?

That would be better. The end result of ending conflict, and thereby saving millions or billions of lives, is a great enough benefit that the minor inconvenience to those who'd be affected by Collossus' decree is insignificant.

Pretty much.

But its not quite as simple as that. Its taken away our choice to fight war. Thats what I find repugnent.

And I find that repugnace repugnant. You're saying that the lives of millions are less important than your freedom to pick a fight.

And its not just the war thing. Its the fact that we are essentially under a dictator.

A "dictator" whose actions have no effect whatsoever on the day to day lives of the vast majority of the human race.

Teaos wrote:There is also the kind of flowery arguement that with out challenges man kind will wither and die.

Collosus seems to have taken every challenge out of life. The only challenge would be to destroy it.

Living for the sake of living is pathetic. To be given everything one needs to survive takes the challenge out of life.

If you want the challenge of not knowing where or when your next meal will come from, you can have it. Or the challenge of finding someplace to sleep where you won't get robbed or killed. Or the challenge of looking at polluted water, while going delirious from thirst. Those are challenges I don't want. I'll bet there are billions of people in the world who would not have a problem with a supercomputer saying, "I will provide food, clean water, and shelter. In exchange, I expect you to work for me," and being able to back up that promise.

Proper challenges, like making new discoveries, developing better equipment to communicate, transport cargo, or look at the solar system/galaxy/universe, those are ones I would prefer. A challenge that can improve humanity as a whole is what I would prefer to have tossed at me, instead of a challenge to feed myself for one more day. At the very leaast, I can be the lab janitor, making sure it is clean so the doctor doesn't have to worry about tripping over anything while they solve a riddle. Or the trash man, who keeps the drawing board rooms clear so an engineer can get another tenth of a percent of power out of an engine. Or the guy who runs cables in cramped overheads so two programmers can communicate and develop a new computer chip.

If one person wants to go kill another person, then that is a problem. If two people each want to kill someone, I'll put them in the same room, and let one of them kill another. The survivor got to kill someone, and the loser is no longer a problem. The key is that both of them chose to want to kill someone. Repeat this among all the people that want to kill someone, and eventually you have a single happy survivor. The only ones who died are the ones that chose to take part, and the survivor got to kill lots of people. If you want to kill someone, but don't want to risk getting hurt yourself, that is pretty much being a coward.

Figure how many billions of people are simply trying to survive each day, looking for food, water, and shelter. Now you find a way to give them the food, water, and shelter, and let them grow. You see what we have developed now. Imagine what we could do with twice as many educated people who are free to think, learn, and develop. Compare scientific and technical development during the Dark Ages, vs during the Renaissance. In the first case, there were lots of challenges to survive, and people focused on surviving. In the second, there was lots more food so people weren't starving as much, meaning more people could focus on thinking.

So yes, giving up war is not a problem. Colossus is making sure that both sides are giving up war though. We can still practice for war, as I am sure there needs to be an option between tolerate and nuke, but randomly attacking your neighbor will not be allowed. A healthy, trained, coordinated group of people would be a useful tool in case of natural disaster (Katrina), so militaries would be kept (though they would practice more for disaster relief, rather than straight combat).

Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if there were actually 60 hour 'work' weeks. 12 hours of it is actual work, where it is boring, smelly, or just disgusting. No matter who you are you will do 12 hours of disgusting work. The remaining 48 hours is composed of you getting to work on something you enjoy (or just sitting back and listening to engineers talk about their pet projects, and learning from them). Technically you are working, but since you are enjoying it, it is not a problem.

Seafort picked up on the one bit that kept rattlign around in my head. Why is someone's "right" or "freedom" to start a war more important than my right to live in a world without war, or even better to not have to die in that guy's war?

Who gives a rat's ass if it's omitting a part of human nature? If so, then it's a part we shoudl have no qualms about dispensing with. 15,000 years ago, part of human nature was sticking a twig into a termite nest, licking off whatever bugs stuck, and calling it dinner. Does Teaos have an issue with the fact that we no longer do that, either?

My point was that self impossed challenges that are of no real worth do not messure up in terms of life challenges.

So you're saying that the only possible challange humanity could ever encounter is war? By that logic, you should be out encouraging war. After all, how else are we going to progress in that case?

So? Yeah f**k it, lets just change what it means to be human, remove a large part of our culture and mentality.

And why is that a bad thing? If such a mentality leads to billions of deaths, how is it possibly a benefit?

In your opinion. I'd rather have the choice to live my life the way I see fit. If that includes being killed in a war we chose to fight, so be it.

And what about being killed in a war you didn't choose to fight? Hm?
How many Iraqis were killed in a war they didn't want?
How many Europeans were killed when Hitlers forces swept across the continent?
How many people were rounded up and thrown into death camps?
How many people were tortured and murdered for simply being on the loosing side of a war they never wanted?
If, say, the US decided to flatten NZ with bombers and one such bomb killed you, would you see that as just fine? You never wanted the war to happen.

You seriously think these attrocities are a good thing?

Hmm didnt know many first world countries still did that. I'll have a look after work but I'm still doubting that this national service is quite as bad as the inforced slavery of collosus. Also those guys probably get days off and to leave after a certain time frame.

Where are you getting the idea of enforced slavery by Collossus? The OP explicitly states his actions do not interfere with normal life, it just prevents us going to war with each other.

Firstly its not removing the will to wage war, just out means to do it. From what the op said its pointing a giant gun at humanities collective head and saying "Play nice or I pull the trigger". That is hardly an ideal sollution. Would you not rather humanity strive to achive world peace on its own through its natural evolution?

As I pointed out earlier, and as you yourself pointed out earlier in that post, it's part of human nature to want to kill and gain more resources for yourself. That is never going to change, short of brainwashing the entire species.

As such, there are two options:
1) Ignore Collossus, and continue waging war and killing countless billions, possibly ending with the extinction of our race when we wipe ourselves out.
2) Agree to let Collossus regulate global politics, and let war come to an end.

I'm pretty sure I could give everyone in the middle east all the necessities of life they could ever want and they would still blow themselves up in crowded restaurants.

Individual =/= government.

Pretty much.

But its not quite as simple as that. Its taken away our choice to fight war. Thats what I find repugnent.

Why is that a bad thing? Why is the freedom to do X inherintly a good thing, even if X directly causes the deaths of billions?

And its not just the war thing. Its the fact that we are essentially under a dictator.

Yes, a dictator who only wants the best for humanity. Doesn't seem like such a bad deal to me. We've already proved that democracy is far from perfect, so I don't see why a benevolent dictator would be so bad.

Really, this is just a knee-jerk "if it's not democracy it's bad". Explain why it's bad. Humanity has already proven that it cannot govern itself competantly and objectively. Why not hand over control to something that works purely for the interests of bettering the world, and cannot be swayed by corruption of public opinion?

Ok I'm going to address this whole thing here as there are several people responding and I dont have time to respond to each and every point.

Its not just the removal of our ability to fight war that I hate. Thats just the most visible example and the one you are focusing on.

I find the idea of Collosus repugnant because its a fucking dictator. And no thats not just a knee jerk "if its not democracy its not good" reaction. Its a "Dont take away our mother-fucking free will" reaction.

You say "what right do I have to wage a war?" What right do you have to stop me.

To be human is to have free will. I'm not religious even though I was raised that way. One of the most important parts in man a gods relationship was his gift of free will.

And you lot are willing to give it up so that a giant fucking iPod can make sure we arent nasty to each other and dont go hungry.

Here's an idea. Do it your fucking self. You don't want anyone to be hungry? Sponsor a child in Africa. Can't afford it? Bullshit. Allmost anyone in a first world country can afford a dollar a day. Hell if I really wanted I could probably find $10 a day to give to charity. But then, I'm not pretending to be noble by handing over my free will in exchange for the end of world hunger.

I said a few posts back that everything collosus can give us is things we can achive ourselves.

Someone replied that while we could, we don't.

Ever consider the fact that if we can't achive it ourselves we might not deserve it?

You wanna end world hunger. When was the last time anyone of you did anything more that a token effort to help the third world? Hell we're all on here for an hour or more most days. Use that time help a charity out... nah fuck it. Lets just hand over control of our species to a ipod with a nuclear arsenal to impose its will.

A list of the Cons of Collosus:

* Frankly in my mind getting a super computer is solve all, or at least the vast majority, of our problems is doing our species a great diservice. None of these goals are beyond us, hell they're not even beyond us in most of our life times. To have humanity solve ts own porblems, even if it does take longer, is far better than have it impossed on us.

* It is hardly a kindly king from what GK said. Forceful removal of an entire islands population becuase it wanted a new home... just one example.

* The threat of nuclear armagedon if we try to destroy it. Infact it allready launched one nuclear weapon mere days after going online. I know I feel safe!

* It effectivly enslaves a certain number of people (its programmers). I dont give a fuck if its only one or two people, if you allow collosus your dooming several people to a life of slavery, none of you have that right. Which is really ironic since your giving me shit for wanting the right to fight a war even if I never exercise that right, were as you are activly going to be supporting slavery. Who's got the fucked up morals?

I'm going to make this short and sweet.

Teaos wrote:And you lot are willing to give it up so that a giant f***ing iPod can make sure we arent nasty to each other and dont go hungry.

Briefly: You bet. Especially since we're not giving up the entirety of our free will, and it was explicitly stated that day-to-day life will not change. Is it a philosophical abridgement of our true free will? Sure - but I'm willing to allow that for the practical good of the species.

Its not just the removal of our ability to fight war that I hate. Thats just the most visible example and the one you are focusing on.

I find the idea of Collosus repugnant because its a f***ing dictator. And no thats not just a knee jerk "if its not democracy its not good" reaction. Its a "Dont take away our mother-f***ing free will" reaction.

Given that that's the only freedom it's going to be taking away from us, I don't see the problem.

You say "what right do I have to wage a war?" What right do you have to stop me.

I believe that the right to life of 12 million people is far more important than Hitler's right to be a genocidal ass.

To be human is to have free will. I'm not religious even though I was raised that way. One of the most important parts in man a gods relationship was his gift of free will.

And you lot are willing to give it up so that a giant f***ing iPod can make sure we arent nasty to each other and dont go hungry

Pretty much, yeah. Given that the right to blow each other up is the only thing we're losing, I see no problem.

Here's an idea. Do it your f***ing self. You don't want anyone to be hungry? Sponsor a child in Africa. Can't afford it? Bullshit. Allmost anyone in a first world country can afford a dollar a day. Hell if I really wanted I could probably find $10 a day to give to charity. But then, I'm not pretending to be noble by handing over my free will in exchange for the end of world hunger.

Yeah, hang on a second while I go sponsor every single starving kid in the entire fucking world.

The fact is, humans are not going to do this out of the goodness of their hearts. Why? Because we're selfish bastards when it comes down to it. The only way things are ever going to change in this area is if we're made to change it.

I said a few posts back that everything collosus can give us is things we can achive ourselves.

Someone replied that while we could, we don't.

Ever consider the fact that if we can't achive it ourselves we might not deserve it?

That's the dumbest bit of logic I've seen in this entire thread. Because a few billion people aren't interested in changing things, countless billions more should be condemned to death? Why does some starving kid in Africa lose the right to live just because some politicians in Europe or America are more interested in grabbing more money for themselves? Why are these people suddenly undeserving of a comfortable life due to something they have no control or influence over?

You wanna end world hunger. When was the last time anyone of you did anything more that a token effort to help the third world? Hell we're all on here for an hour or more most days. Use that time help a charity out... nah f**k it. Lets just hand over control of our species to a ipod with a nuclear arsenal to impose its will.

Exactly my point. We aren't going to do it of our own free will. Ergo, we need a kick up the arse.

* Frankly in my mind getting a super computer is solve all, or at least the vast majority, of our problems is doing our species a great diservice. None of these goals are beyond us, hell they're not even beyond us in most of our life times. To have humanity solve ts own porblems, even if it does take longer, is far better than have it impossed on us.

Let me know when we've changed basic human nature. Until then, these things are never going to be accomplished.

* It is hardly a kindly king from what GK said. Forceful removal of an entire islands population becuase it wanted a new home... just one example.

Huh? Where does the OP say that?

* The threat of nuclear armagedon if we try to destroy it. Infact it allready launched one nuclear weapon mere days after going online. I know I feel safe

Global nuclear destruction would only result if humanity as a whole turned against it. In the event we accepted it, it would presumably set up its own police and defence forces, thus making a nuclear response to any possible future rebellions unnecessary.

* It effectivly enslaves a certain number of people (its programmers). I dont give a f**k if its only one or two people, if you allow collosus your dooming several people to a life of slavery, none of you have that right. Which is really ironic since your giving me s**t for wanting the right to fight a war even if I never exercise that right, were as you are activly going to be supporting slavery. Who's got the f***ed up morals?

Again, where does the OP state this happens?

Teaos wrote:I find the idea of Collosus repugnant because its a f***ing dictator. And no thats not just a knee jerk "if its not democracy its not good" reaction. Its a "Dont take away our mother-f***ing free will" reaction.

Free will to do what? To fight wars. It is not affecting the day-to-day life of the vast majority of the population in any way shape or form.

You say "what right do I have to wage a war?" What right do you have to stop me.

As everyone other than you seems to grasp, preventing someone from waging war does not materially affect their day to day life. Getting killed would. Therefore the "right" of bolshy arseholes to start wars is superceded by the right of their would-be victims not to get killed.

To be human is to have free will. I'm not religious even though I was raised that way. One of the most important parts in man a gods relationship was his gift of free will.

And you lot are willing to give it up so that a giant f***ing iPod can make sure we arent nasty to each other and dont go hungry.

So are you going to provide any coherent argument as to why that's a bad thing, or are you going to continue your incoherent screeching? Your argument thus far has been "because I say so".

Here's an idea. Do it your f***ing self. You don't want anyone to be hungry? Sponsor a child in Africa. Can't afford it? Bullshit. Allmost anyone in a first world country can afford a dollar a day. Hell if I really wanted I could probably find $10 a day to give to charity. But then, I'm not pretending to be noble by handing over my free will in exchange for the end of world hunger.

That's one way of doing things. It would not, however, have any effect on the wars that are largely responsible for the starvation and poverty in Africa et al. Quite apart from the fact that this is not a debate about whether world poverty could be ended without the intervention of a benevolent Skynet, but of whether said benevolent Skynet would be a good thing.

* Frankly in my mind getting a super computer is solve all, or at least the vast majority, of our problems is doing our species a great diservice. None of these goals are beyond us, hell they're not even beyond us in most of our life times. To have humanity solve ts own porblems, even if it does take longer, is far better than have it impossed on us.

Yes, that would be better. That does not in any way refute the point that Collossus' actions are beneficial.

* It is hardly a kindly king from what GK said. Forceful removal of an entire islands population becuase it wanted a new home... just one example.

Is the population of said island being maltreated in any way? If not then it's nor worse than the Ba'ku removal in Insurrection.

* It effectivly enslaves a certain number of people (its programmers). I dont give a f**k if its only one or two people, if you allow collosus your dooming several people to a life of slavery, none of you have that right. Which is really ironic since your giving me s**t for wanting the right to fight a war even if I never exercise that right, were as you are activly going to be supporting slavery. Who's got the f***ed up morals?

I've gone back over this, and it's bullshit. What Graham actually said was this:

It doesn't go around telling everyone when they should get up in the morning and when they should go to bed (although in the case of its chief programmer it does actually do exactly that, for a while).

Important bits highlighted. Said directives applied only to a single individual for a limited period of time (presumably while it was establishing its control). They were never applied to a whole group, nor on a permanent basis.

After reading everything here... I'd go with Collosus. No more wars? That's not a bad thing. Like the Organians did ti the Federation and Klingons, or Kirk did to Eminiar and the other planet who's name I can't recall.