It is too early to see how the situation with the Polemistians will develop, but what is clear is that a rift has formed between the UPN and Coalition. It is not one that is noticeable from the average citizen's perspective, but for a Councilmember such as I the tension is palpable. The Coalition has ceased hearings with UPN officials for the time being, and any mandatory meetings to discuss military and domestic policies between the two powers result in less cooperation than before. I would like to say that it is in part of the humans that this rift has developed, but the truth of the matter is that they have done nothing beyond telling us what they assumed would happen and offered a solution. There is an animosity towards the humans I feel amongst the Council, one that had been hidden to me before engaging with the Polemistians. It is a feeling that I do not share, for while discovering that the humans had developed a similar technology to the Faar'Shaar had caused me to research their civilization, it was the hearing with President Pierce that truly made me want to understand them. They had approached the situation with so much certainty that I had to know what exactly made their concerns so palpable. Much to my relief, Pierce had accepted, amidst these political tensions, my entreaty for answers.

Good to see you Kota, or would you prefer Councilmember Sovil in this instance?

Kota is fine Oliver, I've never been much for titles anyways.

Good to know, I happen to be of the same mind myself, though the Council sure loves to stress such designations.

The Council can be quite... peculiar about many things, as I'm sure you know.

[Laugh] I am well aware, which is why I'm glad you contacted me in the first place. Good to know there is still some goodwill between us.

There are those in the Council that see no reason to sour our relationships with the UPN, Durah is among them.

Really? That's a surprise, I was certain he'd prefer shooting me out the airlock than listen to me ramble on.

Durah tends to be very... let us say invested, in the Council's efforts. It gives him a good connection with the people, which is generally why he represents the will of the Council, but you'd be quite surprised at how logical he is capable of being outside of public eye. I believe he was in favor of adapting most of the UPN's proposed measures for the new relocation program, but a majority of the Council opted to merely refine our current one as you know.

Yes I've received reports, but the UPN has already said its piece, what the Council decides to do is of their own volition. That is their right. But surely you called me here to discuss more than just politics?

Yes, though I suppose I should be clear that this conversation is being recorded, if that is alright with you.

So long as you do not ask about anything confidential then yes, that will quite alright. Though I must ask why you are, if you do not mind.

Not at all, consider this conversation the result of a curiosity on my part, one that I hope will clarify some of my inquiries. I'll be keeping this as a reference if anything of importance is noted.

Fair enough, though like I said, it all depends on what you want to know about.

I suppose this all boils down to humanity's frame of mind. Your species seems to possess a fairly tolerant worldview of other civilizations, but you also make no rushes to appease or appeal to any of these societies as well. What brought about this behavior?

I suppose it's because we learned to do it amongst ourselves.

How so?

What seems to be the confounding problem, and I mean no offense to you and the rest of the Council, is that the Coalition generally places humans under the category of a singular group, when the reality is that the variations amongst us can be separated down to the individual. Yes, when looked at as a collective whole there are similarities amongst us in terms of thought processes, but those similarities are the result of many generations of conflict amongst our own people.

You mean humans were not always no tolerant?

Far from it, our history is filled to the brim with cultural, political, and even economic conflict that has resulted in the deaths of countless lives. We humans tend to be fairly stubborn, as I'm sure you're aware of, but that applies to the interactions between ourselves as well. You may not be used to the exchanges between Durah and I, but in human society those are the norm. Someone always feels they have the better opinion, and in the past it went beyond mere feelings. They invested themselves into their opinions in such a way that they forgot the most crucial thing about opinions, is that they subjective in nature. By defining their opinions as objective truth, many people in the past could not see past their own biases. This of course led to arguments, which then led to fights, which then led to war. The past is rife with examples of humans portraying opinions as fact without providing a baseline of logic to their reasoning, and every single time it was always to the detriment of society. We separated ourselves into echo chambers, only associating ourselves with those that agreed with us 100% of the time. That is not the way a cohesive civilization develops, wouldn't you agree?

I am aware of the human social dynamics, but I did not realize that it came from such a history. How did you overcome such a mindset? I would assume that such bullheadedness would have been the end of your species unless there was some change.

You would be right. It is hard to say when it occurred, but at some point in our history Humanity came to the slow realization that by separating ourselves into these closed off groups and screaming at those that did not agree with us only resulted in our civilization as a whole stagnating through constant strangleholds put against each other. We became fixated on opposing others purely because of personal bias. We attacked each other's ideas, and the few solutions proposed for our societal problems had to be fully of one ideology and not the other. Compromise was seen as a weakness, and instead of pragmatism keeping ourselves stable we tried to rule purely from idealism. Eventually, however, perhaps through fatigue of how our society was or purely by chance, things started to change.

We began to develop solutions that used ideas from both sides of the spectrum. We started to debate and deliberate over our own ideologies, strengthening arguments across all viewpoints. Those that could not do so faded away, and slowly, but surely, humanity reached the frame of mind that you know today. There is still many variations among us, of course, as seen by the fact that we still consolidate ourselves into separate nations, but we do not treat this as a weakness.

Why is that? Pardon my forwardness but isn't that the opposite of what you just explained? Would not the continuous debate of ideals eventually mean that only one ideology would come out on top? Your separation into nations suggests that humans still close themselves off from beliefs that they find bothersome, and that the problem of the past still remains. A singular nation, or power, would be the natural result of this distillation of ideas among your people because eventually one set of beliefs would come out on top of other, meaning everyone would come to follow that ideology.

Why do you say that?

Excuse me?

What you seem to be suggesting here, Kota, is that there is only one singular solution, or in this case ideology, that addresses all of society's problems. The reality is that there is more than one solution to a problem. My own home nation of Britannia may solve an issue differently than the nation of America, who in turn solves their issues different than the nation of Oceana, and so on so forth. Our leaders may not always see eye to eye because of this, but what they all agree upon is the fact that these nations are free to follow what they believe to be the correct solution.

At the core of all our nations is the belief that people are free to believe and free to say what they want, and that to infringe upon anyone's right to do so is unhealthy for society. We should let people be who they want to be, unless doing so does harm to others. Of course there is more detail than just that, but to go through all those would be quite tedious, as I am sure you can imagine.

Yes... I can hardly follow what you are saying so far to begin with.

[Laugh] Yes well don't worry about that, hardly any humans can really nail down the true nature of our people. I suppose in that way we are perfectly imperfect.

Perfectly imperfect?

Yes, as individuals humans are far from perfect creatures, and even as groups we still separate into like-minded groups based on preference, though as I've said we no longer cut off those with opposing views. As a result, we are a society that is constantly in flux with one another, constantly trying new things to fix what we perceive to be problems because at our core we are imperfect beings. We strive for perfection, but in the back of our minds we realize that we will never be perfect, and that is a good thing.

How can you say that? The goal of a society is to achieve a utopian environment for its people is it not?

The problem with that is that what is utopian for some is dystopian for others.

How can... to use your own logic, that is only one perceived viewpoint of society. There must be a society that has solved all of its problems, one that has achieved a sense of affluence that is for the benefit of all its people. I am sure you are aware of the Faar'Shar. Given their technology and what we know of them, they must have been such a society

Yet why do we not see more of them then? Why do they seal themselves off in their planet, talking to no one? And let us assume that their society is, or was, in fact utopian. How do you suppose they achieved such a society? Is it due to them spontaneously believing in the same ideals, or was it the result of one ideology instilling itself as superior over the others, quashing out dissenting opinions? Perhaps you see the end result as a perfect society, but the foundation it is built on could very well be the result of totalitarianism, where everyone was forced to believe the same thing without a choice. I am not saying it is, but it is certainly possible, as such a society would be one capable of maintaining and propelling itself forward through the power of collectivism. At the same time, individualism would be sacrificed for the sake of the whole.

Is that not a worthy sacrifice for the sake of peace for all?

Is this peace an objective peace, or is it peace as perceived by you?

Pardon?

Peace is inherently a subjective subject. For you, maybe the Faar'Shar, and even many of my fellow humans, peace may be the result of everyone having the same opinion and the same way of thinking about things. It certainly would reduce conflict in a society, and everyone working together to achieve the same goals could in fact result in faster progress to solutions. Your own Coalition can be seen as the shining example of this, as the field of research your civilization focuses on has resulted in technologies that have come close to the very Faar'Shar that you research in a fairly short amount of time.

For me, and also many of my fellow humans, peace could be the result of merely respecting one another as fellow sentient beings. Doing so has resulted in many solutions to the same problem, leading to the development of our system of safety nets, creating a greater sense of security for our society, as you must have seen in your travels throughout our space. Is one society superior to one another in this case?

Obviously I'd be inclined to say ours is the superior civilization, just as you'd believe that yours is. The truth is, however, that both societies have proven themselves to be as equally effective overall, just in different aspects. What is important about this is that it shows that there is more than one solution to create a functional, prosperous civilization. That is something that would not have come about had we not allowed each other to do what they want to do.

I see... this is a lot to take in.

Oh don't get me wrong, this is all the ramblings of my own musings. Some of my constituents may wholeheartedly agree with me, but I guarantee you there will be just as much telling me what I just said was a load of bollocks.

Does that not frustrate you? To have that many people disagree with you?

Oh it does, that goes without saying. I've come close to tearing my hair out a number of times discussing policy with my Vice President, who disagrees with me with just about everything. But I am thankful for it afterwards, because usually we come to a conclusion that works for both of us. We may not be fully satisfied with it, but it works, and that's the most important part.

Would these differences in opinion among your people explain your approval rating of 53% among your people?

It's that high? Well now that some good news.

I would assume that such a number is fairly low.

Well not everyone is a fan of the UPN, such numbers tend to be a little bit higher in the individual nations, but not by much.

Wouldn't that mean that your people are dissatisfied with the way things are?

Were the ratings lower I would say yes, such a problem would exist, but the nature of democratic based governments means that not everyone is going to agree on all the issues at all times. That does not mean they aren't satisfied with how things are, but are just of a differing opinion, which is a good thing

How is that a good thing?

Because ideas need to be challenged to truly be refined. I could be in agreement with someone else concerning a problem and how to solve it, yet at the same time be critical of how the execution of the proposed solution is to come about. Were I in total agreement, I would have never said anything, and we would have not realized there was a problem in the first place. That is in effect a large portion of the driving force of humanity, the fact that we recognize our problems through criticism and rebuttal, and work to further resolve these issues.

What happens when these ideas can no longer be refined, when you come across a problem that is impossible to fix?

What makes you think that we'll run across such a problem? A thousand years ago we thought instant communication across the globe was impossible, and now people can talk to each other across the galaxy. What we see as impossible now could very well be the new normal in the future. What matters is that we challenge the very idea of impossible itself and see what comes out as a result.

How would you explain the Coalition's own success then? As you have said, the Coalition has made numerous advances in technology, but that was a result of a collaborative effort, not of the challenging of ideas you speak of.

Yes you are very correct, but what is important to note here is that the development of your technology stems from your society's reverence of the Faar'Shar. I am not of the position to say this is a bad thing, since it has brought the Coalition to new heights throughout the galaxy, but I must ask one question.

What is it?

When you finally do reach the level of technology that the Faar'Shar achieved, what comes after?

I... well... I do not know.

Yes, and therein lies the question that humans have struggled with for many millenia. "What now?" Throughout human history empires and kingdoms have risen and fallen at their height because they failed to answer that very question. I cannot say if such a thing will happen with the Coalition for Faar'Shar technology may very well be the absolute limit of scientific achievement, but if it isn't, where do you go from there? Do you hope another advanced civilization appears so you may learn from them or do you try and develop new technologies on your own? How do you develop these new technologies if everyone for the longest time is always in complete agreement with one another, not challenging each other's ideas to further development them into something plausible? Perhaps you will find a way, as the Coalition has shown much strength in dire times of need, such as when you broke from the Empire in the first place.

Perhaps... tell me, has humanity found the answer to this question?

I would say that we have found a solution, but not necessarily an answer.

...that doesn't make much sense Oliver.

[Laugh] Yes well I haven't delved too much into this myself, which is why I say it is a solution rather than an answer. Rather than answering, "What now?", we avoid it altogether with two things. Challenging the idea of impossible as I have already said, and by challenging each other. If we are doing this on a consistent basis, then in theory we should continue to develop and move forward as a people. Of course it could be as you've said, that eventually we will reach a point where we can no longer refine our own ideas and methods, and it is hard to say what will happen if we ever do reach that point.

Perhaps... tell me, do all the leaders of your nations think about these things as you do?

[Laugh] Far from it, I've far too much time on my hands if I'm being honest, gives me time to ponder such questions. Now then, do you have anything else you'd like to know?

...there is already so much to process, but while you are here I should ask, how is it that humanity seemingly has a solution for many of the problems throughout our galaxy? I am not talking about our situation with the Polemistians exclusively, but also your dealings with the Empire in signing the Treaty of Itraxy. The way President McGrath had negotiated the terms of the treaty have stabilized the galaxy throughout the last fifty years, and I cannot help but feel that the UPN was aware of what would happen when they did negotiate such terms.