Judgement Day (2022)

[Ulysian_Thracs]

Even in Star Trek some resources are scarce. Latinum is the most well known, but other compounds resist replication for plot related reasons as well. That doesn't stop it from being a mostly post scarcity society, it just pugs some soft limits on what that means. Krakoa is the same - it looks like food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and such are free, but trips back from the other side are in limited quantity, unless you want to be on a looonnnngggg waiting list.

I personally think it is 'mostly' post scarcity with little thought for the future. I don't recall if this is because Krakoa can provide for the current amount of mutants, or it is truly unlimited. But I would assume as more mutants appear, Krakoa would need to expand or the Krakoan population must be finite. And even if it does expand, expanding would eventually begin to encroach on other people's land and resources. And you only have so much Earth to expand into before there is just Krakoa and no one else on the planet. So, I think the answer is that resurrection will eventually become a Krakoan overpopulation problem at some point.

Someone else brings up the good point that there are infinite planets to terraform, but that would get into all sorts of galactic conquest and colonization that I’ve personally just never seen the X-Men as part of. And would mutants really want to leave their home planet enmass if there is land to expand (read colonize) into? It brings up all sorts of cool stories and questions to my mind.

Two more questions, however, are:

What does the value of life and a life well lived become if you can always just press the do over button? Quenten is on his 45th life trying to get it right, and who cares how crappy he’s been because he can just resurrect and try again. I really haven’t seen any of the psychological costs of dying and resurrecting or what it means to live/be human. As usual, all Xavier and the mutant leaders seem to care about is how useful the mutants they resurrect might be to their ‘dream’. I think this would've made much better stories than the X-men team throwing themselves at bad guys in frontal assaults and just getting resurrected to do it over and over again.

And the second is what about the human loved ones who will grow old and die beside the mutants? The wifes and parents and children without an x-gene. I see a really poignant Tuck Everlasting story to be told staring the Guthries or some other mixed family.

[Glio]

I'm thinking if every time an Eternal dies it actually dies a random human to resurrect it, does that count as killing a person?

The Eternals use human shield civilians by default.

[Rev9]

But even beyond that if there are dead planet we have seen in Xmen that there are mutants that can actually bring the resources back. So i would posit which would make more sense, mutants potentially reviving all dead planets and potnetially animals too as over time i would imagine things would walk out the sea again, though i assume a few time people could speed that up. So it keeps coming back to the fact that mutants could actually under their own power improve the universe and not take a single thing away from it. They could actually end up preserving life in the sol system or a completely alien one. Like let's say mutants brought back saturn next or some planets in the shiar system, or for other cultures that lost habitat to wars. If we think of it in extremes i don't see what it actually costs anyone or what system would be hurt by it unless we are going into the one above all but then one could say well what god made, we making do with. Mars wasn't just turned into a different planet the very soil was irrigated to bring back it's life.

That is on the assumption that all dead planets are no resource to other equally advanced inter-stellar civilisations..'dead' as in devoid of a biosphere or sentient life sure, but such planets could be mined by extra terrestrials to said planet for minerals that are turned into logic crystals by the Shiar. In such an event assuming those civilisations are no less technologically advanced than the mutants.It may still lead to conflict. Right now Krakoa may not be directly competing for finite resources with humans, but I doubt that will always be the case off world.

[WallStreeter]

I personally think it is 'mostly' post scarcity with little thought for the future. I don't recall if this is because Krakoa can provide for the current amount of mutants, or it is truly unlimited. But I would assume as more mutants appear, Krakoa would need to expand or the Krakoan population must be finite. And even if it does expand, expanding would eventually begin to encroach on other people's land and resources. And you only have so much Earth to expand into before there is just Krakoa and no one else on the planet. So, I think the answer is that resurrection will eventually become a Krakoan overpopulation problem at some point.

Someone else brings up the good point that there are infinite planets to terraform, but that would get into all sorts of galactic conquest and colonization that I’ve personally just never seen the X-Men as part of. And would mutants really want to leave their home planet enmass if there is land to expand (read colonize) into? It brings up all sorts of cool stories and questions to my mind.

Two more questions, however, are:

What does the value of life and a life well lived become if you can always just press the do over button? Quenten is on his 45th life trying to get it right, and who cares how crappy he’s been because he can just resurrect and try again. I really haven’t seen any of the psychological costs of dying and resurrecting or what it means to live/be human. As usual, all Xavier and the mutant leaders seem to care about is how useful the mutants they resurrect might be to their ‘dream’. I think this would've made much better stories than the X-men team throwing themselves at bad guys in frontal assaults and just getting resurrected to do it over and over again.

And the second is what about the human loved ones who will grow old and die beside the mutants? The wifes and parents and children without an x-gene. I see a really poignant Tuck Everlasting story to be told staring the Guthries or some other mixed family.

Percy is just crappy and has reduced Quentin to a joke. Most of the writers don't have people get killed that often. It does take time and effort to resurrect people too.

[Ulysian_Thracs]

Percy is just crappy and has reduced Quentin to a joke. Most of the writers don't have people get killed that often. It does take time and effort to resurrect people too.

I started out really wanting to like QQ. An awkward bullied kid who finds great power will necessarily go too far in the other direction. There are a lot of good storytelling in that. But I’ve just never seen anything but his anger and spoiled temper tantrums. I liked him with Oya and Phoebe, but it is like he needs the validation of a good woman to actually be a decent human being, and that makes him even worse to me since he really has the capacity to be the most powerful being in that world.

I guess my problem is QQ could’ve been so much more if he was written differently, and that Hellion would’ve been a better vehicle for a lot of QQ’s rage because Hellion actually got the short end of every stick and has a right to be angry. I think all of those ‘kid acting out’ stories would have an entirely different dynamic if the kid is actually right about why he’s acting out and has a reason to hat the people in charge, as opposed to QQ’s inferiority complex masking itself as a superiority complex and just coming off (to me) as an ungrateful douche.

I’ve always thought Hellion would make a great next generation’s version of Magneto because he has the charisma, personal power, and legitimate grievances to at least color any sketchy methods in reasonableness at first glance.

But QQ has been baby gloved by everyone and given every chance to be a hero that no other kids his generation got. But he still just wants to be the most powerful so he can lord it over everyone else and if I recall correctly he has closets full of clone husks he’s been experimenting on. Truthfully, I know they’ll never write him like this, but I think he is actually the next generation’s version of Mr. Sinister or Anakin Skywalker.

[Diammandis]

yeah idk im not reading all x-books but I really don't see mutants being resurrected that often except for certain characters continuously using the protocols

[WallStreeter]

But QQ has been baby gloved by everyone and given every chance to be a hero that no other kids his generation got. But he still just wants to be the most powerful so he can lord it over everyone else and if I recall correctly he has closets full of clone husks he’s been experimenting on. Truthfully, I know they’ll never write him like this, but I think he is actually the next generation’s version of Mr. Sinister or Anakin Skywalker.

Mr. Sinister went from A list villain to getting easily killed by everyone. So perhaps the comparison is good.

Quentin will never be the most powerful anything. He's used as a running joke. Like Sinister.

[Jv565]

But the mutants are not strictly heroes. Krakoa is a nation, and Arrako is a planet. They don't have to share, and no, they are not asking for the moral high ground. They did share on medicine, and that's it.

The XMen have their own resources in terms of cosmic and mystical connections, some of which they share with the Avengers.

They shared the meds for a price, which is understandable, but does not a hero make. And I'm not saying they're not STRICTLY heroes. I'm saying that anyone who sits on the knowledge they have and doesn't share it isn't a hero at all. Ask Spiderman to be sure, but with great power come great responsibility. If you're not willing to share your gifts for the greater good, you can be a country, you can be a planet, but you can't be a superhero. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm not saying they are or are not justified. They're not heroes anymore, and I miss when they were. That's all I'm saying.

[ARkadelphia]

Even if you are not a victim of oppression, no one exists just to help people. Helping people is fine, but there are limits and boundaries to that. The XMen are willing to save the world and share medicines with people. Try to resurrect every human that dies? That's not going to happen. I doubt Earth even has the space or the resources for that, and frankly, it's not viable.

Finally! I was waiting for somebody to bring this point up.

[ARkadelphia]

A conceptual question first:

Should anyone use resurrection methods at all?

Life requires resources that are not unlimited. Death is part of the cycle of life: beings have to die so others can live.

When you take the resources problem into consideration and you look at one particular species, if this species can reproduce, death is even more of a necessity.

--

Now, back to the comics, Eternals cannot reproduce with Eternals. They cannot increase their numbers and they cannot increase the numbers of people who have access to their resurrection method (meaning: a half-eternal can't be resurrected). Moreover, their method leads to a zero sum in terms of resources because one life is taken for another to be restored. That does not make it right by any means, it's immoral. But when it comes to resources, it's balanced.

Even if the role of the five could somehow be replicated, even if the memory storage issue was somehow solved, allowing access to resurrection to every one would be catastrophic for the all the other species who share the planet with us.

So if the Eternals method is immoral and the resurrection protocols method leads to serious problems related to resources, I guess the question is not whether or not mutants should share their resurrection method with humans, but if anyone should be using it at all.

What do you guys think?

Not zero sum; negative sum. If the 100 Eternals all die and are resurrected five times in a year, there are still 100 Eternals. But there would be 500 fewer humans now.

[Zelena]

They shared the meds for a price, which is understandable, but does not a hero make. And I'm not saying they're not STRICTLY heroes. I'm saying that anyone who sits on the knowledge they have and doesn't share it isn't a hero at all. Ask Spiderman to be sure, but with great power come great responsibility. If you're not willing to share your gifts for the greater good, you can be a country, you can be a planet, but you can't be a superhero. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm not saying they are or are not justified. They're not heroes anymore, and I miss when they were. That's all I'm saying.

The interest of comic stories is to experiment abstract concepts on fictional people: some policies are fine as long as you don’t personally the persons… If it’s your friend? Your beloved one? It’s not the same thing.

In the past, the X-men reacted with their heart. They had empathy. At a minimum, there was a tension between pragmatism and feelings.

[Gray Lensman]

I personally think it is 'mostly' post scarcity with little thought for the future. I don't recall if this is because Krakoa can provide for the current amount of mutants, or it is truly unlimited. But I would assume as more mutants appear, Krakoa would need to expand or the Krakoan population must be finite. And even if it does expand, expanding would eventually begin to encroach on other people's land and resources. And you only have so much Earth to expand into before there is just Krakoa and no one else on the planet. So, I think the answer is that resurrection will eventually become a Krakoan overpopulation problem at some point.

Someone else brings up the good point that there are infinite planets to terraform, but that would get into all sorts of galactic conquest and colonization that I’ve personally just never seen the X-Men as part of. And would mutants really want to leave their home planet enmass if there is land to expand (read colonize) into? It brings up all sorts of cool stories and questions to my mind.

Two more questions, however, are:

What does the value of life and a life well lived become if you can always just press the do over button? Quenten is on his 45th life trying to get it right, and who cares how crappy he’s been because he can just resurrect and try again. I really haven’t seen any of the psychological costs of dying and resurrecting or what it means to live/be human. As usual, all Xavier and the mutant leaders seem to care about is how useful the mutants they resurrect might be to their ‘dream’. I think this would've made much better stories than the X-men team throwing themselves at bad guys in frontal assaults and just getting resurrected to do it over and over again.

And the second is what about the human loved ones who will grow old and die beside the mutants? The wifes and parents and children without an x-gene. I see a really poignant Tuck Everlasting story to be told staring the Guthries or some other mixed family.

The terraforming question makes me think of Commander Kruge from Star Trek 3. He saw the Genesis device as a strategic weapon, able to take barren planets that would otherwise have no value and transform them into self sustaining enclaves in now strategic positions.

And of course, what is the value of life when death seems cheap?

[Habis]

Try to resurrect every human that dies? That's not going to happen. I doubt Earth even has the space or the resources for that, and frankly, it's not viable.

I want to point two things:

1.-The Reaurrection Protocols being revealed shouldn't be such a big deal (Marvel will make them to be, but they shouldn't). The technology to do it exists and is known by the public, and they aren't demanding it, because, apparently , most people don't see it a true resurrection: When Tony Stark did it there was a trial to determine if he was the same person, and he lost.

2.-If Humanity found a way to achieve true immortality, or at least eternal youth, that would put a strain on Earth resources; if that happens, everybody who applies to receive eternal youth should accept to be sterilized.

I don't think that would put Humanity in cultural stasis, it would just slow it down, which would not be necessarily bad... a small percentage of children could be allowed every year to compensate for lethal accidents, and contact with alien cultures could probably influence Terran culture enough that it would slowly change despite the lack of generational replacement.

[Grinning Soul]

Not zero sum; negative sum. If the 100 Eternals all die and are resurrected five times in a year, there are still 100 Eternals. But there would be 500 fewer humans now.

That happens because of their resurrection method: Eternal deaths lead to human deaths.

500 Eternal deaths lead to 500 human deaths. That is the account when you consider the impact of the process.

I suppose you're thinking of it in tems of 500 humans died for 100 Eternals to live. But that would imply it takes 5 human deaths to resurrect each Eternal. And that's not the case.

You see the difference?

In the end, it's really just semantics. It boils down to 1 Eternal death results in 1 human death. It means this resurrection method isn't impacting the number of people who died: it's just switching who died.

But yes, the population decreases. That's what death is supposed to do.


NOTE: Just in case someone skipped my previous post: I'm *not* saying this makes Eternal resurrection okay. It's not.

[Jv565]

NOTE: Just in case someone skipped my previous post: I'm *not* saying this makes Eternal resurrection okay. It's not.

The difference between mutant and Eternal resurrection is, of course, the intent. The Eternals don’t have any control over it. It’s something that happens to them, something they couldn’t share or edit even if they wanted to.