Interceptor's idea was a good one. The offer generated a lot of interest with me and I am still very much interested. However Endeavor and Ashnod got me to thinking. We should be doing this for ourselves first and the world second. Why? Because if we do something such as this we have to be able to sleep at night. We must be able to operate outside of the laws of nations for the greater good of the Earth. I say Earth not Mankind because Mankind should not be the only priority.

Is it possible that what we do would lead us into conflict with the petty desires of corrupt governments? Yes. Would it make us outlaws and outsiders to Human society? Yes, but many of us are now anyway. I won't try to fool any of you what I propose is dangerous. I would daresay even more so than proclaiming yourself a Terat. Why? Because saying you are part of the One Race is one thing. Saying "I will fix this planet despite you." is something else entirely.

Some of you already know this is where Utopia fails. They have done great things to help the planet yet still creep on tip toe with the U.N. Humans and Nova can work together I have no doubt of that. We can make this world a better place despite those who would ruin her.

What am I doing? A call to arms? Maybe. I'd rather think of it more as a movement than a team. Do what you feel is right despite those who would stop you or oppose you. The Karma we can begin is worth the price we would have to pay.

No.

I'm sure Mal agrees with you but I say no.

While a terse response isn't always the most informative I would say that agreeing to things that seem vague and idealistic is often dangerous. You don't really know what you're agreeing to.

Tangent: We're not sure if "Mal agree with you" or not, but could you put what you're saying in practical terms?
Not a dig, just requesting a clarification.

It's not a suprise that I get that kinda response. Basically all I am saying is when someone can do the right thing you should do it. You see someone getting mugged in an alley you stop it. You see a whaling ship butchering a fellow sentient species you stop it. You see a country relaxing it emissions standards to give it an unfair global economic advantage you stop it. It is all a matter of scale.

These are just common sense ideas nothing that say Team Tomorrow wouldn't do on it's own. But the difference is this. You know it is wrong and you choose to act on your own. Not on what your handlers advise or stop because this country has used leverage to get away with what they are doing. Do not get me wrong Tag Even if Portman or any other Nova was out doing something I opposed I would oppose them. This isn't about being a Nova or being a Baseline.

Think of it as Activism at the next level. Groups like GreenPeace & GreenWar do what they feel they need to. They weigh the consequences and decide to act. I think we can all do the same. Maybe it'd lead to anarachy but maybe it would be a better way.

Tangent
For obvious (and some not so obvious) reasons, I can see some pitfalls in your idea.

Although Mr. Stewart here has touched on who's responsible for only part of the what you're talking about, I believe only some of your why would conincide with what you're saying. But I digress.

What you're describing, Tangent, is following the idea of "natural law" or "law of the jungle" to its fullest extent. Might makes right if it's backed up with what you believe is good intentions. While the vast majority of people in the world would applaud, say, Cestus Pax for using his powers to get kittens out of trees or rescuing orphans from a burning building because he thinks those acts are the right thing to do, life isn't always that simple. Why Pax would think they're the right thing to do wouldn't matter; his actions are acceptable or even desireable. But as the situation changes so do the results and the problems arise.

To expedite this academic narrative, I'll skip to a more polarizing example. Pax uses his quantum powers to smash a group of five men (baseline or nova, doesn't matter) in the street, killing them instantly. Now, some people will immediately disagree with what he did no matter his motivation. If he did it because the men were carrying a weapon that was about to destroy the world and killing them was the only way to stop them, then most people would accept his action. If he did it because they were escaping from a bank robbery they committed, weren't threatening anyone's life, and he felt death was the best punishment for them, Pax would find himself with even less supporters. If Pax squashed them just because they looked at him funny and made him angry, then you can bet many people would reject his actions. And if Pax killed them just because he thought it'd be a fun thing to do, then the vast majority of the population would most likely call for some form of justice against Pax.

What this boils down to is each person has their own set of values that governs their choices. Some things are relatively general (rape is bad) while others are not (capital punishment is bad). So if we follow natural law and people act only in the way they think is right, we'll start running into situations where one ungodly powerful person offends another ungodly powerful person and there will be a large conflict until one wins. Or maybe an ungodly powerful nova quashes a weak nova for disagreeing.

What if the weak nova had several friends that agreed? What if those novas band together to strike back at the ungodly powerful nova, using their combined powers to take down the offending nova? From there it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that those novas would stay together, giving each other protection and support through numbers. From here, we can see how other novas will band together out of fear over the group, to stop the group, or just because they've been inspired by the example of the group. Slowly but surely, novas would band together into groups, forming their own set of unspoken rules to govern their performance. Then as conflicts might arise in the group, some basic rules get set up within, like "No killing anyone in the group" or "Always help one of us." As time goes on, some novas become clear leaders in the groups, using the rules to maintain their position and order, ensuring that the group only acts within the most general of intent shared by everyone. Obviously, you can see I'm leading this to the idea of societies and governments.

So what's my point? You're talking about why we do what we do, be it conscious or subconscious. There's no anarchy here or revolution in how the world will turn out, it's just an acknowledgement of how we arrive at our decisions. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

I have a vision of what the world should be and the power to force that vision into reality.
Is this what you are saying?

Now, marrying vast power to a moral vision is always an interesting concept, but it rarely gains universal acceptance.
It really boils down to how many eggs you are willing to break.