Quoted By:
My interpretation of this current argument is that it seems like a dispute between maximization vs empathy.
The motion to weaponize JJ seems based on the logic that our survival is mostly determined by our combat potential and therefore all of our weapons, our body, and even our companions must therefore be optimized to deal the most damage as possible in order to win fights in order to give ourselves the best chances of surviving this ordeal.
This is approach is rational given our situation: we are trapped in a dangerous situation and surrounded by hostile creatures, which as far as we know, appear to be completely unreasonable. What allies we do have are shifty at best. If the past is any indication, our future will unfortunately and inevitably require a heaping amount of violence to move forward.
However, one of the inherent flaws in the min-max approach is that it operates in a vacuum - isolated and heavily-focused on the self. It often does not include other character's sense of agency as separate, and their feelings are ignored as factors in the planning.
As an example: for all of the time and effort placed into figuring out the best way to make JJ more combat-effective, which was all done with rigorous amounts of detail, creativity, and ingenuity, it at no point considered asking her if she would be comfortable taking on an active combat role, or being further modified for such a thing. What if she refused; would we then be comfortable forcing her to go through with it, even if we *do* have the technical authority to do so? It did not even factor internal resistance from the rest of the hive. While these concerns could be dismissed as moralism, the bias is that our control is absolute and that we have the most influence over our surroundings.
That being said, the point of this post was not to tear down that mode of thinking since I very much believe it has a place in our cognitive tool box, but to instead introduce the concept of analysis flaws in perspectives that on paper are "correct" by very measurable metrics in regards to our effectiveness, but may produce sub-optimal results due to elements not accounted for or overlooked because on the surface they seemed trivial.
We all have them, but the benefit of sharing headroom is that other people can fill in the gaps for each other. Despite the squabbling and conflicts of opinion, the range of possible solutions is one that no single-perspective organism could naturally come up with. The trick is finding the points of diminishing returns in our own processes and figuring out where we they agree and intersect.