Late to the argument (as usual), but a couple rebuttals:
CovenantJr wrote:I suppose the reason Mr Revan and I agree on this is because Holt Fasner is not entirely different from Darth Revan (the character) in some respects. Specifically, both Fasner and Revan see the big picture clearly enough that they can see morals and ethics must take a back seat to the greater good, and they possess sufficient ruthlessness to be able to switch off any conscience they may possess.
I'm not familiar with Revan, but Fasner did not possess conscience, morals and ethics (neither did Hashi, but he wasn't interested in power). He believed only in himself, and when another person (Vertigus) opposed him, he did what it took to make them ineffectual, to the point of squashing them. Ruthlessness is a vice, unless countered by selflessness, as it was in Warden.
CovenantJr wrote:Holt is similar (though his motives were, of course, far more self-centred than Revan's); Holt was able to see what sacrifices must be made in order to counter the greater threat, and he was detached (or perhaps amoral) enough to go through with it.
A more important point is that Holt
seemed to sponsor the good of humanity, but as we saw with the anti-mutagen drug, that was not the case. It's argued that putting it out at that time would have pushed the Amnion toward open war--which is why Warden went along with quelling it--but Holt wanted to destroy the research altogether (does that sound like foresight?), and only Warden persuaded him otherwise.
Warden, not Holt, possessed foresight. How many times in the Gap were we reminded that Warden continued to work for Holt because he knew that Holt must be stopped?
Holt only cared for himself and his precious immortality, and anything that kept the Amnion from trade, and being able to offer him that perfect, deathless existence must be crushed. And how much do you think the Amnion would have asked for, and Holt given up, for that?
It has been argued that only Holt knew how to
deal with the Amnion. Frankly, I think that argument underestimates Holt's greed and obsession. I'd suggest you ask Lorna, if that were possible. She'd likely tell you that Holt was waiting for the proper time to defect. Take a look at Milos, who only wanted to survive, but did not have the power that Holt did to achieve it.
The argument that the loss of Holt dooms humanity speaks to our belief in a leader--any leader--as better than none. Most of us realize how hard it is to lead, and, however much we want to be heard, don't want to lead.
Just because there is no leader, doesn't mean one won't surface.