![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article says that the Pak built the Ringworld—is that really the case, or did they just populate it? The article Ringworld is no help, and I don't recall when the identity of the builders was conclusively revealed. Also, I don't remember the Pak having either the technology or the teamwork skills necessary to create the Ringworld. —No-One Jones (m) 01:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Niven states in 'down in flames' that the tnuctip are too scared to attack the Ring, another clue that it is a Pak artifact. Reason to believe that Pak could have built it would come if you consider the fact that Phssthpok could figure out easily where to look for a Pak colonisation mission - any other Pak would rapidly make the same conclusions he did as to where the best place to go would be. Such a mission would only include a small 'family' group of Pak - a group that small could easily collabarate on the construction. Major hostilities between bloodlines could not break out after construction of the Ring because major acts of vandalism would involve too many Breeder Deaths (in line with Protector behaviour explained in the series). In that respect perhaps look upon the construction as work on a 'safe house' for trillions of breeders - endless lebensraum, and a protector would know that it would be safe from the worst depredations of other protectors. Brennan1 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The introduction contains a statement that I find hard to accept:
"The most accepted hypothesis with regard to their origin is that they are a dichotomy brought about by the Tnuctipun's breeding policies and the plant known as Tree-of-Life."
There is no trace of a hint in anything that Niven wrote that suggests that the protectors are a anything to do with Tnuctipun policy. They're just descended from food yeast like the rest of us. My brother came up with a theory that expands on the evolution of life from food yeast, but even this does not go so far as to imply that protectors are a deliberate result. I'm removing this sentence as there is no reference or justification for it. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"Another part of this protection is to prevent mutations from surviving (thus rendering Darwinian evolution impossible). A mutant breeder will smell "wrong" and soon die without a protector to look after it." I disagree with this; if a protector weeds out those that are unlike him, he is in fact speeding up the selection process. This is close to artificial selection, even, but I think that since it's based on whether or not the subject in question smells like a certain protector, it's natural selection, like a bird that would kill young that are not like it. I'm going to remove this line. 68.55.232.197 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a problem with the Addendum section where it talks about how life can't exist on Mars and that is why Niven had to kill off the Martians? Though it is a nice look into Niven's writing process, it has little to do with the actual article and hurts the suspension of disbelief of the internal consistancy of his writings. ZPS102 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In RINGWORLD'S CHILDREN, Persephone explains that the childless protectors in charge of the colonization mission realized that the bloodline-obsession was a flaw and deliberately bred it out of the crew, replacing it with a devotion to the Ringworld. Thus later generations of protectors were able to cooperate in building the Ringworld. Once it was built, and there were no distractions, some sense of rivalry did resurface, but the fights were over the Ringworld and not bloodlines.
Louis also suggests that a protector who was intelligent and civilized before the change (such as Tunesmith) is able to recognize the bloodline-obsession as a flaw and surpress it in himself or herself.
Incidentally, the Protectors seem to me an example of the Selfish Gene theory taken into to extremes -- a species that CONSCIOUSLY promotes the survival of the genes via their descendants. CharlesTheBold 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Protector-Niven-cropped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Protector-Niven-cropped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the second of User:Kjoonlee's edits. The change in protector psychology is a key thematic point in Protector, is very well attested in the books and supplemental materials. I don't see any basis for calling it "unsourced" or speculative when the paragraph gives clear examples from the source text. The discussion of changes in moral outlook by Roy Truesdale also explicitly supports the paragraph.
Wellspring 03:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Protector article will need to be tweaked as well. -- Kjoon lee 20:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Look both User:Timholman and I have offered to work with you (on this page) to produce some text that everyone can agree on. We're eager to address your critique, but you're instead repeatedly reverting back to your original deletions. Revert wars are unhelpful and "not good enough" isn't an appropriate response when Tim and I are trying to approach this in good faith. I'm putting the paragraphs in question below. Let's attempt to get wording that we can all agree on. I'm returning the article (once again) to its original state before any of us touched it. I'm also adding the POV tag to reflect Kjoonlee's concerns.
What I'd like to do is fix the text here and then when we have text we're all happy with, we can move it to the original document. I agree that the text needs to be reworded, but the revert war is making this impossible to do. If you aren't comfortable with working together on this and continue your edit war, then we can use the formal dispute resolution system. I think you'll be happier if you work with us on this.
Wellspring ( talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Because of his vastly increased intelligence, a protector will always see the best answer to any question for a given set of conditions. If that answer results in an advantage for his breeder descendants, he will instinctively act upon it. In effect, protectors have little free will as humans would think of the term. Consequently, Pak Protectors are by nature xenophobic and warlike, inherently incapable of holding abstract moral principles and ruthless beyond measure towards all Paks who are not their own descendants or - in the case of the most "broadminded" Protectors, i.e. those who adopted the entire Pak species - to members of all other species. Pak Protectors from different families will only cooperate in a shared goal until one family sees some advantage in betraying the rest, and thus the Pak homeworld is in a constant state of war.
A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates all Martians as a completely disproportionate retaliation to a minor, long-forgotten incident in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to be eliminated. Brennan is equally ruthless to the Human settlers on Home, a planet which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus in order to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)
I'm not trying to annoy you, although I must admit I am annoyed and have been keeping away from this article (and Wikipedia itself) in order to cool my head. I have tried to move forward with my edits, but if you revert everything, that's a major step backward, IMHO. -- Kjoon lee 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that at Wikipedia, the burden of proof is always on the person who wants to include something. Let's take a look at the latest diff.
Previous:
A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned
Protector, commits genocide and exterminates all Martians. To Brennan as a Protector, it is evident that the Martians' continued existence is a potential threat. Brennan also led to the downfall of Human settlers on Home, a planet where his genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus was used to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an
invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)
Current:
A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates all Martians as a completely disproportionate retaliation to a minor, long-forgotten incident in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to be eliminated. Brennan is equally ruthless to the Human settlers on Home, a planet which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus in order to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)
Is hot-blooded genocide possible? Is it up to the writer to decide what's completely disproportionate? It should be up to the reader. NPOV clearly states that the prose should provide no clues whether the writer approves or disapproves. Who says it's minor, and who says it's long-forgotten? Is it true that only a handful of humans were ever killed by Martians? Why say eliminated? Ruthless is equal to cold-blooded. Home wasn't destroyed; it was resettled, remember? And I don't have the book with me at the moment, but what's the source for the population of Home? -- Kjoon lee 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
_________________________
Certainly genocide could be "hot-blooded", i.e. arising from passion or prejudice. Brennan doesn't think that way - he thinks like a protector. Martians killed humans, so the Martians must die. He did not kill them out of hatred, but because a Protector would do nothing else, and he does it after long planning and preparation. From the novel:
There must have been dozens of slits in the dome material. Nick found twelve dried bodies within. Martians had murdered the base personnel over a century ago. They had killed Miller the same way, after Miller had reinflated the dome.
Later in the novel:
Brennan: "In two days we learned each other's language. His is much faster than mine and fits my mouth better, so we used it. He told me his life story. We discussed the martians, working out the most efficient way to exterminate them--"
Garner: "*What*?"
Brennan: "To exterminate them, Garner. Hell, they've killed thirteen men already!"
(Also, in checking the novel I find that the Martians killed 12 men in one incident, and 1 man in another nearly a century later.)
So I argue that "cold-blooded" is an appropriate adjective, as is "ruthless". They describe perfectly how a protector makes such decisions; not out of emotion, but out of remorseless logic coupled with the instincts of the protector mind.
Home (the planet) was not destroyed, but the colony was. I agree that this should be changed.
As to the population of Home, in the novel it is given as 3,200,000. According to Truesdale: "A mean trick to play on a defenseless colony. Such a virus probably would not restrict itself to the right age limit. It would kill anyone who wasn't between-- assuming broad limits-- forty and sixty. Home would have ended as a world of childless protectors, and Brennan would have had his army." Therefore, a statement of "hundreds of thousands" of colonist deaths is justifiable. Given normal age distributions, Brennan almost certainly killed between 1 to 2 million people on Home at a minimum.
I propose the following paragraph:
A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates the Martian race in retaliation for two incidents in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to humanity. Brennan is equally ruthless to the settlers on Home, a colony which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)
Timholman ( talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're all victims of BPOV (breeder's POV) IMHO. If you wrote it from the PPOV you'd write it differently. -- Kjoon lee 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done with this nonsense. Kjoonlee, as far as I'm concerned your credibility just vanished with that last statement. Either you simply refuse to read the paragraphs above which contain a statement taken directly from the book I have in front of me, i.e. that the virus killed everyone outside the age range of 40 to 60 on Home, or else you are the sort of person who is incapable of admitting that he has made a mistake, and will twist arguments to ridiculous extremes to avoid doing so. The children of Home died from Brennan's virus; he had to make sure all the protectors of Home were childless. This fact cannot be any plainer. From the outset I wondered what possible objection you could have to the facts presented in the paragraph you originally deleted; I now realize that your objections were based largely on your own faulty recollection and misinterpretation of the events in the novel.
If there is anything inaccurate in the paragraph that Wellspring wrote (or the edited version I provided), then by all means please state precisely what it is, and please base your objections on specific quotes from the source material, Kjoonlee. Otherwise I vote that we replace the current paragraph with one of the revised versions above and put an end to this. -- Timholman 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty happy with where the article's going. So I figured I'd take a moment to engage in some unfounded speculation. Note that this stuff is WP:OR that is not and should not be folded into the main article.
OK so putting myself in Jack Brennan's shoes, it occurs to me that Brennan would be much better equipped to fight the Pak, not to mention defend and guide humanity, if he grabbed the amplifier helmet from the depths of Jupiter. Just a couple years before Brennan changed, Kzanol lead a merry chase to Pluto, where he was re-imprisoned. So what would Brennan know, given access to the ARM archives?
That whole Truesdale half of the story could be indirection, perhaps designed to give humans the impression that their protector controllers are long extinct in a valiant effort to save them. Consider that Brennan had plenty of access to Truesdale during his initial abduction and later when Truesdale went flying out to meet him. That plus the ARM archives, and Brennan has all he needs to fake the whole story.
Given knowledge that hyperdrive is possible, plus two hundred years, it is likely that Brennan developed it. OK so assume a Pak fleet (presumably this can be independently verified, or at least that Brennan knew the assertion would eventually be checked). Brennan (possibly with minor help) could have eliminated the Pak fleet singlehandedly, timing deadfall radan bomb attacks on each ramscoop in a "time on target" salvo. The Pak wouldn't have known they were under attack. Each wave would have been destroyed before lightspeed delays would have allowed them to know that the previous waves were destroyed.
Which raises some questions:
Once again this has no sane business in the article itself. I'm not even sure it belongs on a talk page, but I figure I've got some captive Pak fans here so why not raise the question-- it's been bothering me for a while. Feel free to delete this if you think it doesn't even belong here. Or I can move it to a subpage.
Wellspring 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding the above to the article, but I'm not sure if it fits or where to put it. Any ideas? -- Kjoon lee 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there are two stories I know, in the Man-Kzin Wars stories, which deal with Human Protectors.
The author had come up with some of his own ideas, such as saying that a breeder with the cataract genes will get polarization filters in their eyes after the transition to protector. Some of the new ideas aren't as good (IMHO), but I think the cataract thing might be worth including. -- Kjoon lee 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says that the time frame for a human to become a Protector is "estimated "generously" in Protector at 40-60 years of age". This is true, but oddly, Brennan (or Brennan-monster) also says "You were too old at fifty; it would have killed you." So, should we mention that too? 128.194.85.61 ( talk) 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
For those that havent been keeping up with the latest Niven books by Lerner, and the Niven chat itself
Destroyer of Worlds (2010) will focus on the Pak, the invading Pak fleet, Truesdale, the destruction of Home, and the recoloniztion of Home during Sigmund Ausfaller's (second!) life time. What this has to do with the Puppeteer Fleet of Worlds, we'll just have to wait and see.
I recommend the curious to visit the Niven chat the first Saturday of every month, when the man himself is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.228 ( talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
One item that's never been dealt with is the gravity module he dropped on Mars. Did ARM tuck it away in a warehouse? Did ARM scientists study it and use that data to quickly produce gravity drive spaceships after news of Angel's Pencil's deadly encounter with the Kzin? Or is it still sitting buried in a Martian desert centuries later? I never have figured out why Phssthpok dropped it, that drastically reduced his ship's ability to change speed.
Re this diff, Niven is entitled to speculate about the characters and events in his own books, just as you or I can. There's nothing wrong with the statement as originally written. The fact that he is the author is irrelevant unless the statement is being made within the story, in which case it is part of the story's central conceit, plot, etc., and not a remark by the writer. kcylsnavS{ screech harrass} 01:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Humans who are beyond the metamorphosis window still find the smell of the root irresistible, but die in what appears to be a failed transition.
Didn't Brenan after becoming a protector offer a root to two humans well past the transition window while leaving mars without any problem? They are mildly curious about the smell and taste but suffered no adverse effects (I believe one was even piloting the ship at the time). They didn’t foam at the mouth or freak out like Luis Wu did on the ring world when facing Teela Brown... Was this ever explained, or is it an inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyhowitzer ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose that Tree-of-Life be merged into Pak Protector. I think Tree-of-Life does not contain any information that should not be included in the corresponding section of Pak Protector, and the Tree-of-Life plant is not relevant to any topics other than Niven's Protectors. Heffalettuce ( talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm against merging the article. Tree-of-life is enough of a concept with enough implications for Known Space that it should get its own article.
Wellspring 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
From elsewhere on Wikipedia, until Niven himself gives an explanation. This part of the overall "Tree of Life" article explains tree of life, Niven as a continuous food source/suppliment. As an added joke (Niven is a joker) old people generally have a "diet" of suppliments.
Interpretation within the Western Church
Until the Enlightenment, the Christian church generally gave biblical narratives of early Genesis the weight of historical narratives. In the City of God (xiii.20-21), Augustine offers great allowance for "spiritual" interpretations of the events in the garden, so long as such allegories do not rob the narrative of his historical reality. However, the allegorical meanings of the early and medieval church were of a different kind than those posed by Kant and the Enlightenment. Precritical theologians allegorized the genesis events in the service of pastoral devotion. Enlightenment theologians (culminating perhaps in Brunner and Niebuhr in the twentieth century) sought for figurative interpretations because they had already dismissed the historical possibility of the story.
Others sought very pragmatic understandings of the tree. In the Summa Theologica (Q97), Thomas Aquinas argued that the tree served to maintain Adam's biological processes for an extended earthly animal life. It did not provide immortality as such, for the tree, being finite, could not grant infinite life. Hence after a period of time, the man and woman would need to eat again from the tree or else be "transported to the spiritual life." The common fruit trees of the garden were given to offset the effects of "loss of moisture" (note the doctrine of the humors at work), while the tree of life was intended to offset the inefficiencies of the body. Following Augustine in the City of God (xiv.26), “man was furnished with food against hunger, with drink against thirst, and with the tree of life against the ravages of old age.”
John Calvin (Commentary on Genesis 2:8), following a different thread in Augustine (City of God, xiii.20), understood the tree in sacramental language. Given that humanity cannot exist except within a covenantal relationship with God, and all covenants use symbols to give us "the attestation of his grace", he gives the tree, "not because it could confer on man that life with which he had been previously endued, but in order that it might be a symbol and memorial of the life which he had received from God." God often uses symbols - He doesn’t transfer his power into these outward signs, but "by them He stretches out His hand to us, because, without assistance, we cannot ascend to Him." Thus he intends man, as often as he eats the fruit, to remember the source of his life, and acknowledge that he lives not by his own power, but by God’s kindness. Calvin denies (contra Aquinas and without mentioning his name) that the tree served as a biological defense again physical aging. This is the standing interpretation in modern Reformed theology as well.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article says that the Pak built the Ringworld—is that really the case, or did they just populate it? The article Ringworld is no help, and I don't recall when the identity of the builders was conclusively revealed. Also, I don't remember the Pak having either the technology or the teamwork skills necessary to create the Ringworld. —No-One Jones (m) 01:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Niven states in 'down in flames' that the tnuctip are too scared to attack the Ring, another clue that it is a Pak artifact. Reason to believe that Pak could have built it would come if you consider the fact that Phssthpok could figure out easily where to look for a Pak colonisation mission - any other Pak would rapidly make the same conclusions he did as to where the best place to go would be. Such a mission would only include a small 'family' group of Pak - a group that small could easily collabarate on the construction. Major hostilities between bloodlines could not break out after construction of the Ring because major acts of vandalism would involve too many Breeder Deaths (in line with Protector behaviour explained in the series). In that respect perhaps look upon the construction as work on a 'safe house' for trillions of breeders - endless lebensraum, and a protector would know that it would be safe from the worst depredations of other protectors. Brennan1 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The introduction contains a statement that I find hard to accept:
"The most accepted hypothesis with regard to their origin is that they are a dichotomy brought about by the Tnuctipun's breeding policies and the plant known as Tree-of-Life."
There is no trace of a hint in anything that Niven wrote that suggests that the protectors are a anything to do with Tnuctipun policy. They're just descended from food yeast like the rest of us. My brother came up with a theory that expands on the evolution of life from food yeast, but even this does not go so far as to imply that protectors are a deliberate result. I'm removing this sentence as there is no reference or justification for it. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"Another part of this protection is to prevent mutations from surviving (thus rendering Darwinian evolution impossible). A mutant breeder will smell "wrong" and soon die without a protector to look after it." I disagree with this; if a protector weeds out those that are unlike him, he is in fact speeding up the selection process. This is close to artificial selection, even, but I think that since it's based on whether or not the subject in question smells like a certain protector, it's natural selection, like a bird that would kill young that are not like it. I'm going to remove this line. 68.55.232.197 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a problem with the Addendum section where it talks about how life can't exist on Mars and that is why Niven had to kill off the Martians? Though it is a nice look into Niven's writing process, it has little to do with the actual article and hurts the suspension of disbelief of the internal consistancy of his writings. ZPS102 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In RINGWORLD'S CHILDREN, Persephone explains that the childless protectors in charge of the colonization mission realized that the bloodline-obsession was a flaw and deliberately bred it out of the crew, replacing it with a devotion to the Ringworld. Thus later generations of protectors were able to cooperate in building the Ringworld. Once it was built, and there were no distractions, some sense of rivalry did resurface, but the fights were over the Ringworld and not bloodlines.
Louis also suggests that a protector who was intelligent and civilized before the change (such as Tunesmith) is able to recognize the bloodline-obsession as a flaw and surpress it in himself or herself.
Incidentally, the Protectors seem to me an example of the Selfish Gene theory taken into to extremes -- a species that CONSCIOUSLY promotes the survival of the genes via their descendants. CharlesTheBold 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Protector-Niven-cropped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Protector-Niven-cropped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the second of User:Kjoonlee's edits. The change in protector psychology is a key thematic point in Protector, is very well attested in the books and supplemental materials. I don't see any basis for calling it "unsourced" or speculative when the paragraph gives clear examples from the source text. The discussion of changes in moral outlook by Roy Truesdale also explicitly supports the paragraph.
Wellspring 03:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Protector article will need to be tweaked as well. -- Kjoon lee 20:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Look both User:Timholman and I have offered to work with you (on this page) to produce some text that everyone can agree on. We're eager to address your critique, but you're instead repeatedly reverting back to your original deletions. Revert wars are unhelpful and "not good enough" isn't an appropriate response when Tim and I are trying to approach this in good faith. I'm putting the paragraphs in question below. Let's attempt to get wording that we can all agree on. I'm returning the article (once again) to its original state before any of us touched it. I'm also adding the POV tag to reflect Kjoonlee's concerns.
What I'd like to do is fix the text here and then when we have text we're all happy with, we can move it to the original document. I agree that the text needs to be reworded, but the revert war is making this impossible to do. If you aren't comfortable with working together on this and continue your edit war, then we can use the formal dispute resolution system. I think you'll be happier if you work with us on this.
Wellspring ( talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Because of his vastly increased intelligence, a protector will always see the best answer to any question for a given set of conditions. If that answer results in an advantage for his breeder descendants, he will instinctively act upon it. In effect, protectors have little free will as humans would think of the term. Consequently, Pak Protectors are by nature xenophobic and warlike, inherently incapable of holding abstract moral principles and ruthless beyond measure towards all Paks who are not their own descendants or - in the case of the most "broadminded" Protectors, i.e. those who adopted the entire Pak species - to members of all other species. Pak Protectors from different families will only cooperate in a shared goal until one family sees some advantage in betraying the rest, and thus the Pak homeworld is in a constant state of war.
A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates all Martians as a completely disproportionate retaliation to a minor, long-forgotten incident in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to be eliminated. Brennan is equally ruthless to the Human settlers on Home, a planet which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus in order to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)
I'm not trying to annoy you, although I must admit I am annoyed and have been keeping away from this article (and Wikipedia itself) in order to cool my head. I have tried to move forward with my edits, but if you revert everything, that's a major step backward, IMHO. -- Kjoon lee 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that at Wikipedia, the burden of proof is always on the person who wants to include something. Let's take a look at the latest diff.
Previous:
A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned
Protector, commits genocide and exterminates all Martians. To Brennan as a Protector, it is evident that the Martians' continued existence is a potential threat. Brennan also led to the downfall of Human settlers on Home, a planet where his genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus was used to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an
invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)
Current:
A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates all Martians as a completely disproportionate retaliation to a minor, long-forgotten incident in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to be eliminated. Brennan is equally ruthless to the Human settlers on Home, a planet which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus in order to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)
Is hot-blooded genocide possible? Is it up to the writer to decide what's completely disproportionate? It should be up to the reader. NPOV clearly states that the prose should provide no clues whether the writer approves or disapproves. Who says it's minor, and who says it's long-forgotten? Is it true that only a handful of humans were ever killed by Martians? Why say eliminated? Ruthless is equal to cold-blooded. Home wasn't destroyed; it was resettled, remember? And I don't have the book with me at the moment, but what's the source for the population of Home? -- Kjoon lee 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
_________________________
Certainly genocide could be "hot-blooded", i.e. arising from passion or prejudice. Brennan doesn't think that way - he thinks like a protector. Martians killed humans, so the Martians must die. He did not kill them out of hatred, but because a Protector would do nothing else, and he does it after long planning and preparation. From the novel:
There must have been dozens of slits in the dome material. Nick found twelve dried bodies within. Martians had murdered the base personnel over a century ago. They had killed Miller the same way, after Miller had reinflated the dome.
Later in the novel:
Brennan: "In two days we learned each other's language. His is much faster than mine and fits my mouth better, so we used it. He told me his life story. We discussed the martians, working out the most efficient way to exterminate them--"
Garner: "*What*?"
Brennan: "To exterminate them, Garner. Hell, they've killed thirteen men already!"
(Also, in checking the novel I find that the Martians killed 12 men in one incident, and 1 man in another nearly a century later.)
So I argue that "cold-blooded" is an appropriate adjective, as is "ruthless". They describe perfectly how a protector makes such decisions; not out of emotion, but out of remorseless logic coupled with the instincts of the protector mind.
Home (the planet) was not destroyed, but the colony was. I agree that this should be changed.
As to the population of Home, in the novel it is given as 3,200,000. According to Truesdale: "A mean trick to play on a defenseless colony. Such a virus probably would not restrict itself to the right age limit. It would kill anyone who wasn't between-- assuming broad limits-- forty and sixty. Home would have ended as a world of childless protectors, and Brennan would have had his army." Therefore, a statement of "hundreds of thousands" of colonist deaths is justifiable. Given normal age distributions, Brennan almost certainly killed between 1 to 2 million people on Home at a minimum.
I propose the following paragraph:
A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates the Martian race in retaliation for two incidents in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to humanity. Brennan is equally ruthless to the settlers on Home, a colony which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)
Timholman ( talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're all victims of BPOV (breeder's POV) IMHO. If you wrote it from the PPOV you'd write it differently. -- Kjoon lee 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done with this nonsense. Kjoonlee, as far as I'm concerned your credibility just vanished with that last statement. Either you simply refuse to read the paragraphs above which contain a statement taken directly from the book I have in front of me, i.e. that the virus killed everyone outside the age range of 40 to 60 on Home, or else you are the sort of person who is incapable of admitting that he has made a mistake, and will twist arguments to ridiculous extremes to avoid doing so. The children of Home died from Brennan's virus; he had to make sure all the protectors of Home were childless. This fact cannot be any plainer. From the outset I wondered what possible objection you could have to the facts presented in the paragraph you originally deleted; I now realize that your objections were based largely on your own faulty recollection and misinterpretation of the events in the novel.
If there is anything inaccurate in the paragraph that Wellspring wrote (or the edited version I provided), then by all means please state precisely what it is, and please base your objections on specific quotes from the source material, Kjoonlee. Otherwise I vote that we replace the current paragraph with one of the revised versions above and put an end to this. -- Timholman 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty happy with where the article's going. So I figured I'd take a moment to engage in some unfounded speculation. Note that this stuff is WP:OR that is not and should not be folded into the main article.
OK so putting myself in Jack Brennan's shoes, it occurs to me that Brennan would be much better equipped to fight the Pak, not to mention defend and guide humanity, if he grabbed the amplifier helmet from the depths of Jupiter. Just a couple years before Brennan changed, Kzanol lead a merry chase to Pluto, where he was re-imprisoned. So what would Brennan know, given access to the ARM archives?
That whole Truesdale half of the story could be indirection, perhaps designed to give humans the impression that their protector controllers are long extinct in a valiant effort to save them. Consider that Brennan had plenty of access to Truesdale during his initial abduction and later when Truesdale went flying out to meet him. That plus the ARM archives, and Brennan has all he needs to fake the whole story.
Given knowledge that hyperdrive is possible, plus two hundred years, it is likely that Brennan developed it. OK so assume a Pak fleet (presumably this can be independently verified, or at least that Brennan knew the assertion would eventually be checked). Brennan (possibly with minor help) could have eliminated the Pak fleet singlehandedly, timing deadfall radan bomb attacks on each ramscoop in a "time on target" salvo. The Pak wouldn't have known they were under attack. Each wave would have been destroyed before lightspeed delays would have allowed them to know that the previous waves were destroyed.
Which raises some questions:
Once again this has no sane business in the article itself. I'm not even sure it belongs on a talk page, but I figure I've got some captive Pak fans here so why not raise the question-- it's been bothering me for a while. Feel free to delete this if you think it doesn't even belong here. Or I can move it to a subpage.
Wellspring 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding the above to the article, but I'm not sure if it fits or where to put it. Any ideas? -- Kjoon lee 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there are two stories I know, in the Man-Kzin Wars stories, which deal with Human Protectors.
The author had come up with some of his own ideas, such as saying that a breeder with the cataract genes will get polarization filters in their eyes after the transition to protector. Some of the new ideas aren't as good (IMHO), but I think the cataract thing might be worth including. -- Kjoon lee 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says that the time frame for a human to become a Protector is "estimated "generously" in Protector at 40-60 years of age". This is true, but oddly, Brennan (or Brennan-monster) also says "You were too old at fifty; it would have killed you." So, should we mention that too? 128.194.85.61 ( talk) 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
For those that havent been keeping up with the latest Niven books by Lerner, and the Niven chat itself
Destroyer of Worlds (2010) will focus on the Pak, the invading Pak fleet, Truesdale, the destruction of Home, and the recoloniztion of Home during Sigmund Ausfaller's (second!) life time. What this has to do with the Puppeteer Fleet of Worlds, we'll just have to wait and see.
I recommend the curious to visit the Niven chat the first Saturday of every month, when the man himself is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.228 ( talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
One item that's never been dealt with is the gravity module he dropped on Mars. Did ARM tuck it away in a warehouse? Did ARM scientists study it and use that data to quickly produce gravity drive spaceships after news of Angel's Pencil's deadly encounter with the Kzin? Or is it still sitting buried in a Martian desert centuries later? I never have figured out why Phssthpok dropped it, that drastically reduced his ship's ability to change speed.
Re this diff, Niven is entitled to speculate about the characters and events in his own books, just as you or I can. There's nothing wrong with the statement as originally written. The fact that he is the author is irrelevant unless the statement is being made within the story, in which case it is part of the story's central conceit, plot, etc., and not a remark by the writer. kcylsnavS{ screech harrass} 01:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Humans who are beyond the metamorphosis window still find the smell of the root irresistible, but die in what appears to be a failed transition.
Didn't Brenan after becoming a protector offer a root to two humans well past the transition window while leaving mars without any problem? They are mildly curious about the smell and taste but suffered no adverse effects (I believe one was even piloting the ship at the time). They didn’t foam at the mouth or freak out like Luis Wu did on the ring world when facing Teela Brown... Was this ever explained, or is it an inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyhowitzer ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose that Tree-of-Life be merged into Pak Protector. I think Tree-of-Life does not contain any information that should not be included in the corresponding section of Pak Protector, and the Tree-of-Life plant is not relevant to any topics other than Niven's Protectors. Heffalettuce ( talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm against merging the article. Tree-of-life is enough of a concept with enough implications for Known Space that it should get its own article.
Wellspring 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
From elsewhere on Wikipedia, until Niven himself gives an explanation. This part of the overall "Tree of Life" article explains tree of life, Niven as a continuous food source/suppliment. As an added joke (Niven is a joker) old people generally have a "diet" of suppliments.
Interpretation within the Western Church
Until the Enlightenment, the Christian church generally gave biblical narratives of early Genesis the weight of historical narratives. In the City of God (xiii.20-21), Augustine offers great allowance for "spiritual" interpretations of the events in the garden, so long as such allegories do not rob the narrative of his historical reality. However, the allegorical meanings of the early and medieval church were of a different kind than those posed by Kant and the Enlightenment. Precritical theologians allegorized the genesis events in the service of pastoral devotion. Enlightenment theologians (culminating perhaps in Brunner and Niebuhr in the twentieth century) sought for figurative interpretations because they had already dismissed the historical possibility of the story.
Others sought very pragmatic understandings of the tree. In the Summa Theologica (Q97), Thomas Aquinas argued that the tree served to maintain Adam's biological processes for an extended earthly animal life. It did not provide immortality as such, for the tree, being finite, could not grant infinite life. Hence after a period of time, the man and woman would need to eat again from the tree or else be "transported to the spiritual life." The common fruit trees of the garden were given to offset the effects of "loss of moisture" (note the doctrine of the humors at work), while the tree of life was intended to offset the inefficiencies of the body. Following Augustine in the City of God (xiv.26), “man was furnished with food against hunger, with drink against thirst, and with the tree of life against the ravages of old age.”
John Calvin (Commentary on Genesis 2:8), following a different thread in Augustine (City of God, xiii.20), understood the tree in sacramental language. Given that humanity cannot exist except within a covenantal relationship with God, and all covenants use symbols to give us "the attestation of his grace", he gives the tree, "not because it could confer on man that life with which he had been previously endued, but in order that it might be a symbol and memorial of the life which he had received from God." God often uses symbols - He doesn’t transfer his power into these outward signs, but "by them He stretches out His hand to us, because, without assistance, we cannot ascend to Him." Thus he intends man, as often as he eats the fruit, to remember the source of his life, and acknowledge that he lives not by his own power, but by God’s kindness. Calvin denies (contra Aquinas and without mentioning his name) that the tree served as a biological defense again physical aging. This is the standing interpretation in modern Reformed theology as well.