Base Facility: Fusion Lab

“It will happen, and it will happen in our lifetimes. Fusion Power isn’t just the future. Fusion Power is now.”

— T. M. Morgan-Reilly, Morgan Metagenics

Fusion Labs are awesome. They require the Fusion Power technology, obviously, and they multiply both energy and labs input at once. They’re basically a combination of the old Energy Bank and Network Node, all in one. This generally means that the player wants as many Fusion Labs as he can afford as soon as he can get them. The only exception to this is if the player is executing a strategy that doesn’t rely on generating any concentrated energy at all from his bases, in which case he’s probably not building any infrastructure at all.

They’re so awesome that they are accompanied by another quote that’s entirely about how great fusion power is. When the technology was discovered, the player was treated to an attempt by Lal to put the achievement into the perspective of the history of science. This quote, on the other hand, is by a Morganite executive who is presumably very excited about the multitude of profitable applications of the upcoming new technology.

Which is actually worth taking a moment to dig into. From his last name, it appears that T. M. Morgan-Reilly is Morgan’s son. And the player should be aware by now that the default list of base names for the Morganites all appear to be subdivisions or spin-offs of the headquarters company: Morgan Industries. And one of these is called Morgan Metagenics. In most games, there will be a base by that name somewhere on the map.

So this teaches us a couple of things. First, Morgan-Reilly is quite likely to be one of the first generation of children born after Planetfall, unless hyphenated names came into vogue later on. Given Morgan’s tendency to put his name on everything (even his logo), I suspect that putting both parents’ names on the kids is de rigueur among the Morganites. Anyhow, by the mid-game he has clearly risen to a position of prominence. The pattern must hold true for the rest of the factions as well. By now, the high-tiers of leadership are almost certainly occupied by people who don’t remember Earth. Outside of the faction leaders, there must be very few people left of the founding generation.

The second thing we learn is that Morgan isn’t immune to the lure of family ties. Which is quite interesting. Nowadays, there are very few stripes of radical free-market libertarianism that even seem to consider children and family as a worthy concern. People who go far enough into the Randian direction tend to up concluding that children are parasites. Considering the axioms, this is actually somewhat reasonable.

But the rest tend to put all their time and energy into envisioning and supporting a world where everyone deals with everyone else as a moral equal through voluntary exchange. And children are clearly not moral equals to adults. Nor can they be expected to handle their affairs without some form of applied coercion. On top of that, their political opponents are always crying out “But what about the children?” whenever they propose one of their favorite policies. So it’s not easy or fun for the typical radical capitalist to think about the topic.

But CEO Morgan’s not just a right-libertarian theorist. Like all the faction leaders, he’s a man of action as well as a man of ideas. Morgan’s out to build a personal empire. And that empire building instinct quite naturally extends from his family to his business holdings and from there on to the whole of Planet.


2 thoughts on “Base Facility: Fusion Lab

  1. echo

    “Nowadays, there are very few stripes of radical free-market libertarianism that even seem to consider children and family as a worthy concern. ”



    1. Nick Stipanovich Post author

      Believe it or not, this is a serious problem for right-libertarians. Both philosophically and practically.

      The philosophical angle to this issue is that they take the self-governing individual as the proper unit of analysis. Children obviously don’t qualify. So what then? Are they property of their parents? From both the Lockean and Nozickian conceptions of property, there’s a strong argument to make there. If so, you’ve brought slavery back in under the covers – and in a much more dramatic form than taxation. If not, then whose responsibility is it to care for said children? This piece from a right-libertarian site ( grants that this is a thorny issue and takes a moderate position: child abuse is wrong, but child neglect – up until starvation and death – is A-OK. After all, parents can’t be expected to have to feed their children. That’d be slavery, too, just the other way around.

      From the practical side, most right-libertarian types become right-libertarians in the first place because they’re personally reasonably responsible but have had a strongly negative experience with authority. The emotional core of the ideology is resentment at the feeling of being oppressed by mediocrities granted power by institutions. Whether it’s public school teachers, police, the taxman or the regulator, their experience of publicly-sponsored authority is that it is *in the way*. And one of the key supports that holds it in place is that “it’s for the children” argument.

      The natural response to both these concerns is to sidestep the question as much as possible. Hence the statement you called out.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s