WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

[Arioch]

The very concept of civilian deaths by bombing as "collateral damage" is fundamentally dehumanizing. That's not giving people unsightly tattoos, that's rendering them as part of the landscape. As less than cattle.

Accidental civilian deaths as the result of attacking a strategic or military target are termed "collateral damage" to distinguish them from cases in which the civilians were specifically targeted, such as in the firebombings of London, Dresden and Tokyo. If the term offends you, substitute any term you like. The distinction won't mean much to the dead, but it certainly should mean something to the living.

If accidental civilian death due to military action is totally unacceptable, then it is impossible to conduct warfare. All the enemy has to do is cover himself and his assets in human shields, and that's it; you lose.

And argument could be made that this indicates a flaw in the fundamental makeup of loroi culture. That the appearance of such deviancy from what regular loroi would consider 'good morality' makes for disastrous stewards of the conquered, while at the same time the Umiak appear more as a species whose entire line of morality is fundamentally different on a biological level, but not actually morally flawed, since that would require them to hold to a morality that we share, which they seemingly don't.

If you're saying that the existence of a deranged or evil Loroi individual in a position of power means that all Loroi are evil, that doesn't make much sense. Humanity has had some pretty deranged, evil individual members who rose to great power and did great evil. Does that mean that there is a flaw in the fundamental makeup of human culture?

The nature of interstellar travel in Outsider means that local commanders have to have a great deal of autonomy to act, because sending a message to headquarters and waiting for a response could take weeks or even longer depending on the location. If a local commander goes General Ripper, it could be some time before HQ even knows it happened, much less being able to do anything about it. In the military I'm legally responsible for what my subordinates do, but saying that I'm evil because one of my subordinates cracked and committed war crimes lacks... a certain nuance.

I'm not absolving the Loroi of guilt in the Mannadi massacre, I'm just pointing out the fact that it was not official policy. The Umiak liquidation of Loroi in the Steppes was official policy. Just putting that out there.

If I had wanted to paint the Loroi as saintly and without fault, I wouldn't have invented such a bloody history for them. The fact that I gave the heroes some flaws and the villains some virtues seems to be confusing people, but I don't see why it should.

Maybe I don't understand the story correctly, but my understanding was that branches of loroi military and intelligence were continuing to operate on conquered worlds while remaining hidden in the civilian population. I thought the point of the law is supposed outlaw these sorts of efforts precisely because they make retribution against civilian populations necessary to either enforce compliance in the military assets or cause the civilian population to defect out of desperation.

On the contrary, the criteria in the Third Geneva Convention for a resistance fighter to qualify for treatment as a prisoner of war specifically require "that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates." There is no prohibition against this person being military or in or out of uniform. As far as I'm aware, there is no prohibition against members of the military fighting out of uniform, only against them fighting in enemy uniform. A combatant is a combatant. Unfortunately, neither the Hague nor Geneva conventions define what an "unlawful combatant" is, only the criteria that must be met to earn POW status and protections, which doesn't make you immune from prosecution under local law. In WWII the French resistance definitely had both French and British military officers directing them and operating with them, and I expect that this was also the case in Poland and occupied Russia and pretty much everywhere that resistance movements have been operating since the industrial age.

Which I'm not sure could ever truly apply in a war against aliens as different from us as the umiak. I mean, imagine if we were at war with some kind of race of space-spiders. Just saying the word just caused a shiver to run down my spine, but somehow I'm supposed to see the humanity, or some fellow sentient kinship while staring into the multi-eyed face of a giant arachnid?

Again, if you prefer a different word, feel free to substitute it. A species-agnostic synonym for "humaneness" didn't leap to mind.

And the example is a great place where moral intuition breaks down. In one moment you're dropping 50 tons of liquid fire on a chinese town with the push of a button, causing a firestorm that will kill hundreds of people. In the next you're strangling a chinese woman to death. Somehow the second act is more inhumane because we're seeing the face of the one person we're murdering and in the previous we don't even see the bombs hit, our superior officers only read the casualty estimates after the bombing run is over.
I suppose that just shows that humans, and our morality, are evolved to function on a personal level, and not on a button-pushing one.

As I said in the previous post, I'm talking about the humaneness of the perpetrator, not the act. A dead person is a dead person. There are lots of people who can stomach piloting an aircraft and dropping bombs on people they never see, but not that many that can work as a guard in a death camp and look their victims in the eye. You may not think there's any difference, but I'm betting the concentration camp guards have a lot more trouble sleeping at night.

For some reason I'm reminded of a passage from The Adventures of Baron Munchausen:
Vulcan: This is our prototype. RX Intercontinental, radar-sneaky, multi-warheaded nuclear missile.
Baron Munchausen: Ah. What does it do?
Vulcan: Do? Kills the enemy.
Baron Munchausen: All the enemy?
Vulcan: Aye, all of 'em. All their wives and all their children and all their sheep and all their cattle and all their cats and dogs, all of them. All of them gone for good!
Sally: That's horrible!
Vulcan: Ah. Well, you see, the advantage is you don't have to see a single one of them die. You just sit comfortably thousands of miles away from the battlefield and simply press the button.
Berthold: Well where's the fun in that?
Vulcan: Oh... we cater for all sorts here. You'd be surprised.

[boldilocks]

Accidental civilian deaths as the result of attacking a strategic or military target are termed "collateral damage" to distinguish them from cases in which the civilians were specifically targeted, such as in the firebombings of London, Dresden and Tokyo. If the term offends you, substitute any term you like. The distinction won't mean much to the dead, but it certainly should mean something to the living.

If accidental civilian death due to military action is totally unacceptable, then it is impossible to conduct warfare. All the enemy has to do is cover himself and his assets in human shields, and that's it; you lose.

With the rise of total war, civilian deaths aren't so much accidental as they have been reclassified as strategic. I'm not offended by the term, I just recognize that it is implemented today in order to assuage moral guilt from deaths that are anything but accidental.
You don't accidentally kill civilians with bombs when you drop those bombs in areas where civilians are. They are deliberately dropped. You may have preferred not to have to kill civilians but it is still an actual decision made.
My position is that there isn't a distinction. Militaries kill civilians either through strategic targeting or through a cost-benefit analysis of the value of destroying a military target versus the moral cost of killing civilians at the same time.

If you're saying that the existence of a deranged or evil Loroi individual in a position of power means that all Loroi are evil, that doesn't make much sense. Humanity has had some pretty deranged, evil individual members who rose to great power and did great evil. Does that mean that there is a flaw in the fundamental makeup of human culture?

The nature of interstellar travel in Outsider means that local commanders have to have a great deal of autonomy to act, because sending a message to headquarters and waiting for a response could take weeks or even longer depending on the location. If a local commander goes General Ripper, it could be some time before HQ even knows it happened, much less being able to do anything about it. In the military I'm legally responsible for what my subordinates do, but saying that I'm evil because one of my subordinates cracked and committed war crimes lacks... a certain nuance.

Yes, the flaw in human nature is that we are not able to live by the moral laws we write down. It's not clear to me that the umiak have the same defect, possibly because I haven't seen examples of umiak who are spend-thrifts or lazy.
That is, we are seeing umiak actions as immoral, but this is parsed through human morality (and probably through loroi and the different loroi client states), but unless I'm misunderstanding umiak culture I'm not sure why they would consider their actions immoral at all. They tried occupation, it was inefficient, so they switched to a more efficient method of extracting resources from conquered worlds.

I'm not absolving the Loroi of guilt in the Mannadi massacre, I'm just pointing out the fact that it was not official policy. The Umiak liquidation of Loroi in the Steppes was official policy. Just putting that out there.

That's what I mean. The umiak has liquidation as official policy and their subjects obey. This is a people acting according to their moral guidance (insofar as umiak official policy is a continuation of their moral views), which means the umiak are acting morally while the loroi commander who committed similar atrocities acted immorally (by loroi moral views).
If, for example, there was a group of umiak who rebelled against their rulers due to moral outrage at umiak atrocities, and this group practiced a morality closer to human morality, which would be the true morality of the umiak? Are they, as a species, largely unmoved by deliberate destruction of life? By their insider description they sort of seem like it.
In that sense, the umiak atrocities don't come across as moral failings, rather the umiak themselves come across as a dragon to be slayed. But then, that concept is itself grounded in human moral sensibilities.

Again, if you prefer a different word, feel free to substitute it. A species-agnostic synonym for "humaneness" didn't leap to mind.

Technically it is unneccessary, as loroi and umiak atrocities can be described as inhumane, insofar as they are in conflict with human moral sensibilitites. You could also describe them as un-loroi? Though, I suppose the loroi would have a grander sounding term like "unworthy of a warrior people" or something like that.

As I said in the previous post, I'm talking about the humaneness of the perpetrator, not the act. A dead person is a dead person. There are lots of people who can stomach piloting an aircraft and dropping bombs on people they never see, but not that many that can work as a guard in a death camp and look their victims in the eye. You may not think there's any difference, but I'm betting the concentration camp guards have a lot more trouble sleeping at night.

Right, but I assume a loroi would find it easier to stab a sleeping umiak to death than a sleeping human, or neridi or barsam (even if they weren't allied and even if the loroi and umiak weren't at war.) A human most likely would.

"Much cheaper just to press a button", as it were.

[Dorfington]

nor did they perform medical experiments on them, nor did they take them apart and put them back together and send them as meat puppets into Loroi lines to demoralize them. The Umiak have what they think are good reasons for what they do, but they routinely do things that even the "evil" Loroi would never dream of doing.

Considering where things are going, are we gonna see that in the comic? My morbid curiosity is overpowering.

[Mk_C]

SpoilerShow

This is now an applied ethics thread. Watch your step and watch your argument, stay aware of the trolley positions and velocities in all nearby trolley problems, and keep your Kant close at hand at all times. Remember - only YOU can prevent fallacious interpretations of the Hiroshima bombing!

I think I have a slightly different reading of postmodern relativism, and that's that there is no objective truth, and no right and wrong. There is only power; the oppressed and the oppressor. That the ends justify the means, because all aggrievements are morally equivalent.

I'm not a exactly an adherent of the paradigm personally (though it is fascinating), but it's evident even to me that this reading of it would be little more than a scathing caricature. The discourse stating that "There is only power; the oppressed and the oppressor" would be declaring it's central axiom of power relations as the foundation of it's philosophy, the objective truth on which everything else rests. Which is a bit far cry from "there being no objective truth", don't you think? This approach would be a presentation of yet another supposed universal grand narrative, a modernist one in this case. Certain ends decidedly justifying certain means require there being a definite and unquestionable way of weighting either against some absolute moral truth. For all aggrievements to be morally equivalent there has to be a measure by which they are equivalent, something that universally makes them matter in the same way and value, or universally and unquestionably not matter at all. Stuff rather out of Post-Marxism or something at best (and there's absolutely nothing relative or post-modern about Post-Marxism), and out of the mind of Rodion Raskolnikov and Nikolai Stavrogin at worst. That's not exactly something that Baudrillard or Derrida wanted to say - the idea is specifically in the absence of a unifying narrative and an absolute moral measure presented by such narrative, and thus admitting that it's impossible to say what is objectively equivalent or now. This does not make actions equivalent in their moral or any other quality, but rather postulates that there is nothing to judge them by but various and divers artificial moral structures developed and agreed upon by individuals - deeply flawed and frequently contradicting ones, but without a true absolute to measure them to, it doesn't make such judgements any less valid or valuable. Rather, it reaffirms that without an objective foundation, moral judgements and convictions are only more vitally important that it was thought in any pre-modernist or modernist paradigm, as there is no external truth to rely upon within the human condition, even though such convictions inevitably produce conflicts of disagreement through their subjectivity - therefore an internal, flawed, artificial not-truth is indeed vital for any effort to gain any amount of however flawed understanding, authenticity and closure.

In short - it proposes that there are rights and wrongs, a great many of them, but they all are context-dependant principles that reflect more of the human qualities of individuals and societies that made them rather than some close or distant external truth, and it's impossible to objectively judge these or those morality systems as superior to others, we have to judge them subjectively.

I feel the need to repeat that it's not my own personal conviction, but rather my understanding of the concept.

but I do get a little bit irritated when I see people condemn the Loroi while making excuses for the Umiak.

But why, though? What's irritating about it? It's not like it's actual historic revisionism that hurts actual non-fictional people, and in any case I'm yet to actually see actual unironic Umiak apologists anywhere, including the mirror. What happens is people find your stuff captivating enough to gain interest in deconstructing it's elements, producing more nuanced takes of the subjects interpretations of subjective issues within the work than perhaps you have intended. Possibly not even the ones that you personally can agree with as the author, but it's both pointless and futile to tell people how they should read a book - and as Rosa had taught us in VTMB, it matters not. What matters is that they've bought it, and not just in the monetary sense. Nobody will be able to perfectly reflect your own individual vision of the work anyway, and thank God - the differences are how something becomes infinitely bigger within minds and hearts of thousands of people, compared to what it could be within one. Being annoyed at such sentiments or opposing them is something boiling in empty space nourishing nothing revered by no one - there's no point or benefit to it, especially given that it doesn't actually contradict the postulated facts of the canon, being merely a different interpretation of those facts.

So I tried to lay out why I think the two sides' actions are not morally equivalent. You can take that or leave it for whatever you think it's worth.

But nobody even says that they are for you to disagree with it. The takes I present and see are that issue can be seen as extremely nuanced, and complicated, and contradictory, and mired in sentiment, and as such strongly resistant to an easy judgement. You know, as actual complicated issues tend to be, and seeing such complexities done well in fiction is part of what makes said fiction feel alive. We don't actually need Loroi to be eventually definitely absolved (is still flawed) and Umiak definitely condemned by the story to find the conflict good and captivating. Outsider is not exactly a Star Wars-tier escapist opera to benefit from a Galactic Empire vs. the Republic morality. If anything, being presented with a conundrum that cannot be easily resolved through superior firepower of the familiar and comfortable moral system is what contributes a ton of the charm, presenting us with questions we're not used to finding in our cosmic adventures.

I'm not suggesting that the remoteness of the act affects the morality of the atrocity, but I think it does tell you something about the humanity (or the lack thereof) of the perpetrator.

As I said in the previous post, I'm talking about the humaneness of the perpetrator, not the act. A dead person is a dead person. There are lots of people who can stomach piloting an aircraft and dropping bombs on people they never see, but not that many that can work as a guard in a death camp and look their victims in the eye. You may not think there's any difference, but I'm betting the concentration camp guards have a lot more trouble sleeping at night.

Of course, I understand. The point that me and, seemingly, Boldilocks are presenting is that concentration camp guards indeed have a lot more trouble sleeping at night, and that's a scary idea. Because both have transgressed to, arguably, the same measure yet one is judged, by both us and himself, to posses more humanity than the other. This implies that said judgement is done based not on the actions and consequences, but rather on the internal sentiment of the perpetrator. Meaning we would be seeing someone as more human or less human not for what they do and why, but for what they feel. Making the actual consequences of their action irrelevant in our judgement of how human they are. And that's positively scary and by it's own nature arguably inhuman, if still somewhat understandable emotionally.

I'm not absolving the Loroi of guilt in the Mannadi massacre, I'm just pointing out the fact that it was not official policy

Oh, but if the feelings that existed and then ceased to exist because the head that contained them went pop don't matter - then why would feelings that existed and then ceased to exist because the outcome turned to be different from expectation matter? Intention has never ever been a good excuse.



Damn, and now I want to see Alex explaining to Talon that every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance. He's just the right age to find Sartre the hottest shit ever. Although he is American, and Americans cannot into continental philosophy. Oh well.

[sunphoenix]

Eh.. sorry all.. it was NOT my intention to start such an argument. I should have just kept silent. My. bad.

[Mk_C]

Eh.. sorry all.. it was NOT my intention to start such an argument. I should have just kept silent. My. bad.

What's wrong with having such an argument? Why shouldn't we start it? It's fun, it's interesting, everyone's expressing their thoughts and opinions while being nice and respectful to each other, despite the weight of the issue. Why even have a forum if not to have this kind of discussions? Just to ask Jim about the canonical flavour of Umiak meat?

[Arioch]

Technically it is unneccessary, as loroi and umiak atrocities can be described as inhumane, insofar as they are in conflict with human moral sensibilitites. You could also describe them as un-loroi? Though, I suppose the loroi would have a grander sounding term like "unworthy of a warrior people" or something like that.

I think it says a lot about us that the word we use to describe ourselves means both "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for others" and "representative of or susceptible to the sympathies and frailties of human nature." Recognizing both that compassion is one of our core values, and that we don't always live up to those values. Sounds like a compelling and self-aware species... I'd like to get to know them.

"Loroi" essentially means "warrior" or "people." The name that the Umiak call themselves (titik-kititikik-hal-tik-ikkukhak) means "the people of the tale of the brave ones."

[jterlecki]

That spoiler image that Arioch shared with the 'tatoos' resonates very deeply with me. My grandfather was sent to a work camp in Nazi Germany and while he was not tatooed (not jewish or part of the other undesirables), he bore emotional scars that affected him for the rest of his life. He did not tell me everything, at least, not at once. But I was able to piece together a lot from his stories. This image just brings up all the pain I saw in his eyes when he told me some of the stuff. He did not share with my brother or other cousins - I was the oldest of my generation so it was 'okay' to share with me. The simple act of tatooing people removed a lot of their humanity in the eyes of their oppressors. This is exactly what I feel when I see that image.

Good work Arioch - if you wanted to get a strong emotions from someone, you succeeded brilliantly!

[DevilDalek]

Eh.. sorry all.. it was NOT my intention to start such an argument. I should have just kept silent. My. bad.

Don't worry, it's not you, a short while a go there was almost a mass lynching due to a discussion on Loroi toasters.

[boldilocks]

Eh.. sorry all.. it was NOT my intention to start such an argument. I should have just kept silent. My. bad.

Don't worry, it's not you, a short while a go there was almost a mass lynching due to a discussion on Loroi toasters.

Almost? I believe my instructions were quite clear, gentlemen.

[Sweforce]

The concept of civilians will always complicate warfare. Civilians produce resources the enemy war machine need including recruits to become new soldiers. Civilians paricipate actively in occupation of counquerd land by moving in as settlers to displace the local population. Thease occupying civilians made be there willingly or be forced to move in there but their precence make them active paricipants of the occupation. Settlers may even come from other counquered territories and forced migrated in. As such civilians cannot really be considered a neutral part of a conflict. This is a harsh brutal reality. Civilans can indeed be used as weapons of war.

[boldilocks]

The concept of civilians will always complicate warfare. Civilians produce resources the enemy war machine need including recruits to become new soldiers. Civilians paricipate actively in occupation of counquerd land by moving in as settlers to displace the local population. Thease occupying civilians made be there willingly or be forced to move in there but their precence make them active paricipants of the occupation. Settlers may even come from other counquered territories and forced migrated in. As such civilians cannot really be considered a neutral part of a conflict. This is a harsh brutal reality. Civilans can indeed be used as weapons of war.

The only logical outcome of wars in which civilians can be considered military targets is that it is in the interest of civilians to see the civilians of other nations exterminated, because in every conflict between nations it's either genocide or be genocided.
It also renders the concept of designating terrorist attacks meaningless, since they all become military actions.
Driving a truck through a mass of people at a christmas market is in that case as viable and justified a military action as bombing a munitions warehouse or a missile site.
Of course, in a world of real-politik, the only thing that matters is power so all these considerations are moot.

[Jagged]

The whole concept of having "rules" in warfare is somewhat suspect. Any side that is pushed against a wall will fight back by whatever means they can.
And the rationale for "rules" is conceived by people sitting in warm comfy rooms by people thinking about headlines rather than people in trenches.

Personally I always thought the Geneva convention's rules against Assassination are somewhat hypocritical. Any leader that takes their country to war should be fair target imo.
But as military systems get more sophisticated and closer to weapons of assassination, nations that can afford those weapons are ignoring the rule anyway.

[dragoongfa]

The whole concept of having "rules" in warfare is somewhat suspect. Any side that is pushed against a wall will fight back by whatever means they can.
And the rationale for "rules" is conceived by people sitting in warm comfy rooms by people thinking about headlines rather than people in trenches.

Personally I always thought the Geneva convention's rules against Assassination are somewhat hypocritical. Any leader that takes their country to war should be fair target imo.
But as military systems get more sophisticated and closer to weapons of assassination, nations that can afford those weapons are ignoring the rule anyway.

The rules of warfare are there because it is ridiculously easy to kill en masse with industrial and post industrial technology; which inevitably leads all wars to become genocidal total wars if there are no rules set in place.

For example; imagine if Gas Warfare wasn't outlawed and was used at will and became standard doctrine after WW1. How bloody would the battle of Britain be if Germany had dropped Mustard gas bombs in London and the UK retaliated with throwing gas on German cities; that's a genocidal weapon which is extremely easy to manufacture.
How about biological weapons? The US scientists that were sent to inspect the Soviet Biopreparat went apoplectic when they realized that the Soviets not only had researched a weaponized form of Smallpox (after its eradication throughout the world) but had also increased it's lethality to near 100% and it's virulence to such a degree that would make the common cold seem as non existent in comparison. Bioweapons are also extremely easy to research and manufacture and it bears noticing that even that semi organized terrorist groups like ISIS or Al-Qaida are more than able to create such weapons but they haven't done so (yet) because of the retaliation that the use of such weapons will bring forth; even from those that would normally be 'friendly' to their views.

Other rules are there to ensure that civilians are legally protected from military retaliation due to actions of rebels; because it's too fucking easy to gun down a few thousand civies with machineguns which would then require a 'retaliation' against enemy civilians to 'even the score' with any means at one's disposal and as we have seen in recent history it doesn't take a lot to kill hundreds of people with modern equipment provided that someone is motivated enough.

Assassinations? That sounds stupid but the rationale is extremely easy to understand. It's simply because large enough organizations are immune to decapitations, there will always be someone else to take the helm. The problem then becomes twofold as to who would take over next and how they would retaliate to avenge the assassination?
Would the successor be far more radical? Most probably yes as the people making up the organization would demand blood in response and the radical voices would sound very sweet at the time. The response? Probably radical as well, provided that the organization has the means to respond with such means.

All in all; the rules became a thing because we as a species are more than eager to kill each other en mass and if we are allowed to do that then we would probably render ourselves extinct in a manner of decades, a century at the most.

[GeoModder]

Personally I always thought the Geneva convention's rules against Assassination are somewhat hypocritical. Any leader that takes their country to war should be fair target imo.
But as military systems get more sophisticated and closer to weapons of assassination, nations that can afford those weapons are ignoring the rule anyway.

Reminds me of the USAAF 'assasination' of admiral Yamamoto during WWII.

[dragoongfa]

Personally I always thought the Geneva convention's rules against Assassination are somewhat hypocritical. Any leader that takes their country to war should be fair target imo.
But as military systems get more sophisticated and closer to weapons of assassination, nations that can afford those weapons are ignoring the rule anyway.

Reminds me of the USAAF 'assasination' of admiral Yamamoto during WWII.

Yamamoto was an officer of the Imperial Japanese Navy and as thus a combatant, assassination of government leaders who are not combatants is a warcrime. Assassinating the Prime Minister of a country you are at war with is a war crime.

Although the area is grey if the government leader in question is part of the chain of command. The minister of defense for example may be a legitimate target since they can take executive decisions for the war effort.

The President of the US may also be a legitimate target since he is the Commander in Chief.

[Krulle]

And it usually are the politicians of the government that took the decisions to go to war. So at least the aggressor's politicians are part of the chain of command. (They sent their army in)

But the rules will be written retroactively by the winner anyway.

[Jagged]

For example; imagine if Gas Warfare wasn't outlawed and was used at will and became standard doctrine after WW1. How bloody would the battle of Britain be if Germany had dropped Mustard gas bombs in London and the UK retaliated with throwing gas on German cities; that's a genocidal weapon which is extremely easy to manufacture.

It is widely believed that the reason gas wasn't dropped on London was because Britain proved they could bomb Berlin. Rules of war certainly had nothing to do with it.

[dragoongfa]

For example; imagine if Gas Warfare wasn't outlawed and was used at will and became standard doctrine after WW1. How bloody would the battle of Britain be if Germany had dropped Mustard gas bombs in London and the UK retaliated with throwing gas on German cities; that's a genocidal weapon which is extremely easy to manufacture.

It is widely believed that the reason gas wasn't dropped on London was because Britain proved they could bomb Berlin. Rules of war certainly had nothing to do with it.

Widely believed doesn't equal true, other historians argue that Hitler didn't allow the use in war fighting because he himself was gassed during WW1. Considering that the Germans didn't use gas in other, far more critical, battles later in the war and especially in the Eastern Front where it could have decided the war itself I doubt that they had planned in gassing a city at the height of their power.

[Werra]

All in all; the rules became a thing because we as a species are more than eager to kill each other en mass and if we are allowed to do that then we would probably render ourselves extinct in a manner of decades, a century at the most.

Has our history not been one long list of centuries where we could have eradicated each other, but didn't do it? Sure, there was war and there was conquest, but if no resources are in critical supply, humans tend to be remarkably peaceful left to their own devices. Organisations on the other hand are quite ruthless towards each other.