 |
|
Hippi
|
|
touché.... (glares)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nakar Gabab
|
|
of Pedantic Nitpicking
May 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Why that's simple... simple. Heck, the way my life goes it's more like Frontier/Simple/None.
Barter system and Old West vigilantism all the way, baby!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gwillybj
|
 |
Eurytion Mining Colony: 165°C dayside, 165°F nightside
Mar 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Simple.
Burn all currency. It has no real value.
Share and share alike, but "If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat."
My full set would be Fundamentalist (conservative, not radical), Simple (but friendly with Green), Knowledge (I have no need for Power, and Wealth is irrelevant (you can't take it with you)), Cybernetic (but friendly with Eudaimonic).
Result: +3 Efficiency (exemplary) +1Morale (+1) -3Police (one extra drone if more than one military unit away from base) +2Planet (ecological harmony; mind worm capture 50%) +2Research (labs research speeded by 20%).
Last edited by gwillybj on 17-11-2003 at 04:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Archaic
|
 |
Washed up SMAC/X University Specialist
Nov 2001
time: 15:32
|
|
In real life, I'd most likely lean towards...
Police State (Benevolent dictator, with proper checks and balances on the system. There comes a point where a rule by the masses becomes rule by the mob. People, collectivly, are stupid. If we're talking a world government, for it to be directly elected would cause great problems.)
Free Market (No computer can predict the whims of man. We can give the people what they need perhaps, but we cannot satisfy their other desires with an economy of no material incentives)
Wealth or Knowledge (Knowledge is wealth itself, and power. It is as much of a currency as money. We should always aim to better ourselves, but people will work harder towards that with an incentive, be it by a desire for material gain, or a passion for discovery. The desire for material gain, of course, is the incentive that will drive the masses, thus why not encourage it, and bring about the discoveries quicker?)
Cybernetic (The flesh is not sacred. It is simply a tool for survival. But the body need not be flesh, and if we can improve on the body, then why not do so?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CEO Aaron
|
 |
Everything has its price. Even you.
Aug 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
My favored SE settings, in order of importance:
1. Free Market: All other economic systems are a clumsy attempt to control basic human nature, and invariably those living under them are worse off for it.
2. Democracy: While democracy can in some circumstances devolve into the tyranny of mediocrity, a Police State isn't a benevolent democracy, but a brutal regime that represses any form of dissent. Demo isn't perfect, but it's the best we've done in 5000 years.
3. Wealth: This one's a no-brainer. A society based on increasing the quality of life for it's citizens. Sign me up.
4. Eudaimonia: I am leery of even including this one, but I have to admit, a society that can give everyone something meaningful to contribute to the common good, within the scope of their talents and preferences would be the idea one, to my mind. Probably unattainable, but still worth reaching for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TimeTraveler
|
|
I'd go for a Democratic/Knowledge society. I really don't care too much how the economics and future societies are played out, as long as they end up working great.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Archaic
In real life, I'd most likely lean towards...
Police State (Benevolent dictator, with proper checks and balances on the system. There comes a point where a rule by the masses becomes rule by the mob. People, collectivly, are stupid. If we're talking a world government, for it to be directly elected would cause great problems.)
Free Market (No computer can predict the whims of man. We can give the people what they need perhaps, but we cannot satisfy their other desires with an economy of no material incentives)
Wealth or Knowledge (Knowledge is wealth itself, and power. It is as much of a currency as money. We should always aim to better ourselves, but people will work harder towards that with an incentive, be it by a desire for material gain, or a passion for discovery. The desire for material gain, of course, is the incentive that will drive the masses, thus why not encourage it, and bring about the discoveries quicker?)
Cybernetic (The flesh is not sacred. It is simply a tool for survival. But the body need not be flesh, and if we can improve on the body, then why not do so?) |
****! I agree with Archaic 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d=me
|
|
Police state for ploitics, free market for economics, knowledge for values and cybernetic for future society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sammy1339
|
|
United Nations
Oct 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
I think the problem have when they choose their preferred kind of politics is that they often confuse civil liberties with democracy. They are really two completely separate things. So, Archaic, if what you mean when you say that you would be in favor of a police state is that there should be one person in power but the people should still be granted extensive civil liberties, that is not such a bad idea in my opinion. Democracy on the scale it is on today is basically rule by random error, which is no better or worse than rule by a well-defined rigid system. The only difference is that in a democracy power changes hands often and there is (just a little) separation of power. Those things can be nice, or not, depending on the situation. However, I don't think that what the game designers meant when they wrote "Police State" was a state with a benevolent dictator. They had in mind something like the Soviet Union, or perhaps something even more extreme, on the order of 1984 or Brave New World. For all you people in favor of that, or Fundamentalism... oh, right, I can't say that on the forum, but still:
Anyway I think the game could have done alot better with the Future Thought thing, it doesn't seem right that so far in the future democracy would be the only "enlightened" system. There are plenty of solutions. For example, how about a system with no rulers? You could define your goals in some arbitrary manner and have a computer program tell you how to achieve them. They could have called that Cybernetic and absorbed it into the Politics line, and put Eudaimonia in the values line, and so on, so that every line had four or five choices, some of which were late game choices, and eliminated the Future Society line. But they didn't.
Anyway, even if you like democracy there are improvements that can be made. For example, if your goal is to get the masses genuinely involved in politics, how about having a handful of important positions chosen by drawing lots, like the ancient Greeks did? That would give representation to political minorities, whereas, for example, the only political parties that have representation in the United States are Democrats and Republicans, which almost defeats the purpose of having elections at all. The only problem is that you can get real wackos in office. The Greeks had a solution for that too: when wackos got appointed to important positions, they shot them. Here's where technology comes into play: since we have guns, and the ancient Greeks only had bows and arrows, we can shoot them better. In the future we might even have long-range wacko-detector machines to aid in the wacko-whacking process. It's a thought, anyway.
To sum up: there is not enough freedom in the politics line to make a good decision (although there is plenty of room to make a stupid decision; see above) and yet the entries of the future society line do not seem like they should be mutually exclusive. What's wrong with a Cybernetic/Eudaimonic/Thought Control society? In fact, if it were done perfectly, it would probably be the most appealing from a philosophical perspective, nad I really wish I could have it in-game, don't you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:32
|
|
Ideally, I would aim for the following:
Democratic: Yes, people are stupid. But that doesn't automatically mean that they don't deserve the right to a free will. Free will was how we were created, and so denying us all of that would be the true sin. Besides, through education, through teaching necessary skills, knowledge and basic common sense, people won't be as stupid will they?
Green: Is it really our destiny to multiply and spread across the stars like an insidious virus or cancer, raping planet after planet of all natural resources, leaving a trail of poisoned, barren, dead or otherwise destroyed and desecrated planets behind us? If this is so, then as a species, we truely don't deserve to exist. I don't oppose progress, in fact I could support it 110% if possible. I just believe that a natural equilibrium and balance between conservation and progress is an absolute necessity if we are to survive, and for other species to survive with us.
Knowledge: If it is more socially acceptable to build up your mind, to become more intelligent and wise, and to think for yourself and not just fall in 'with the mob', humanity may get a bit closer to the next phase of evolution (which I believe can only be reached through our own effort, and not the slow, painful process that whatever god (or gods) in control of nature seem to have in place). Democracy would work much better if people at least had simple common sense as well. Besides, the further we advance our collective intellect, the easier it might become to establish a safe equilibrium with the other species sharing the same planets, making a green economy more possible. If not that, then developing ways of making a free market more environmentally sound.
Eudaimonia: A prosperous society full of happy, healthy people with a sound work ethic sounds almost too good to be true. If it is achievable, it is definitely a better idea than a cybernetic society (for the reason of the many classic machines-taking-over-and-wiping-humanity-out scenarios), and thought control (which violates free-will, which is a necessary part of the intellectual process and returns the society to their old 'mob' mentality).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sammy1339
|
|
United Nations
Oct 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
I don't know that Thought Control violates free will. It defines a person's will. In that respect it is no different from the normal external sense data that defines everyone's will today. The idea of thought control is to engineer the sense data to make better, happier, more well-adjusted people, or at least people who agree on something. The problem is that you can't do it perfectly - there will always be sense data you can't control. But if you could it wouldn't be a bad idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hippi
|
|
demo/planned/knowledge/cybernetic
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2003 18:20
Most pleasant that way...
|