Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!davidson
From: davidson@sdcsvax.UUCP (Greg Davidson)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Still more on Protectors
Message-ID: <1073@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 03:49:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.1073
Posted: Fri Aug 30 03:49:56 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Sep-85 08:56:21 EDT
References: <3412@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: davidson@sdcsvax.UUCP (Greg Davidson)
Distribution: net
Organization: EECS Dept. U.C. San Diego
Lines: 16

I don't see how a protector could take a chance that any alien might
harm any closely related breeder.  Therefore, the Grogs, etc. on the
Ringworld would have had to have been VERY well under control during
the time that protectors were still in charge.  Protectors are
irrationally protective of close relations, or (as Teela's problem
shows) large numbers of breeders.

The protectors from Home are a different case, because they are not
closely related to any specific human individuals.  They might therefore
be able to put the overall good of the human race (in terms of competitive
fitness, richness of experience, etc.) above the occasional death of an
individual, and value the existence of aliens (with themselves in the
background ready to step in should the aliens ever threaten large
numbers of humans).

_Greg Davidson			Virtual Infinity Systems, San Diego