I've been so busy lately that I haven't had time to write stuff in my blog and once I do have time I can't remember it all. Like I said earlier, I don't think I'll be having much of a social life this semester. I work 4 days a week with only enough time between class and work to get ready to start working. But I'll have money. I don't know if I'm going to make many new friends this year anyway, GenEd classes are pretty bad environments for meeting new people, especially if you have no time to talk to them outside of class. Well, we'll see how it goes.

I was thinking about something the other day in my psychology class: racial scapegoating is obviously a sign of unjustified fear and ignorance, and we can condemn it because it's clear to us that the allegations against whatever group being persecuted are false. They're really not conspiring against us or contaminating our society or any of the gibberish bigots try to get us to believe. But what if there actually was a group of people that, by their very nature and not necessarily out of malicious intent, was a threat to our society or our very existence? Would racism be excused then? There's no real life example, of course, but one of the things that got me thinking was a recent episode of Stargate: Atlantis. A Wraith, the main enemy on the show, asks one of the characters if he blames his species for feeding on humans. The only form of nourishment the Wraith can consume is humans, so can the Wraith be blamed for feeding on humans if the alternative is starving to death? And what is the logical conclusion of the Atlantis team's ultimate goal of defeating the Wraith? They can't simply beat them back to a single world and have them just eat the humans there; they want to liberate everyone in the galaxy from the Wraith. So does that mean eliminate the Wraith entirely? Since they mention abiding by the Geneva Convention when dealing with captured Wraith I'm guessing they're not going to adopt a policy of genocide. But the only alternative is letting all the Wraith slowly starve to death, which is ultimately a slower, indirect genocide.
Another example is from a game called Master of Orion 3 where one of the races, the Ithkul, is actually a sentient biological weapon that was designed to fight all the other races in the galaxy. When one conquers a planet the inhabitants then become members of that empire and can actually migrate in small numbers to other planets within the empire, or randomly create their own colonies loyal to the empire that conquered them, not their actual race. The alternative, of course, is to just destroy all life on the planet and recolonize it. I opt for conquering, both because it's a developed infrastructure I'm taking over but also cuz I tend to follow my own real life moral code when playing games and it just seems wrong to exterminate a planet. My only exception is the Ithkul, because if you leave the inhabitants alive when you conquer their planets the computer will treat the population of every planet equally (as a good empire-wide intelligence should) and allow them to migrate to your other planets. Once there, they start to eat the rest of the population. You see the problem, so would genocide be justified in this case?

Sci-fi though it may be, I think they're interesting ethical questions. All this can also be related back to my post on 9/20/05. Remember even if I were content to stop from wiping out the Ithkul entirely, or in the case of the Atlantis expedition the Wraith, genocide is the extermination of a race "in whole or in part". So they're still stuck in the same moral quandry.