What faction would you join in?

[Shai-Hulud]

Actually, Morgan seems to be very good choice for any person. In a capitalist system, freedom and liberties are well preserved and the negatives of his thinking are very common for us. So, you'd join Morganites and not make it to the top, or somewhere in between, you'd just be poor. Not heretic, not persecuted, not subject to experiments, just despised as a failior you are . Much like back home.

Lal would seem nice too, but he's little out of touch with realities. His bureaucracy just wastes valuable time and resources...and is damn annoying.

And, Morgan is such a nice optimistic person anyway. He'd make it

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by timotheus4
Yang I find to be a hypocrite. "We hold life to be sacred..." "What do I care for your suffering?..." Also, I hate communists.

"What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is simply information fed before the senses of the mind. The lesson is this: Begin to control the input, and you shall be master of the output" - Chairman Yang as quoted by Tassadar

It's not "What do I care for your suffering? ROT IN HELL!!!"

So that leaves Moigan as the lesser of fourteen weevils. True he's given to mammon, but capitalism is just the most important way of life besides the Christian one.

For maybe a billion people.
For the other 5 billion, it's an enslavement.

So, you'd join Morganites and not make it to the top, or somewhere in between, you'd just be poor. Not heretic, not persecuted, not subject to experiments, just despised as a failior you are . Much like back home.

However, the capitalists at the top will pass laws ensuring that either you:

1. Work in their sweatshops or
2. Are arrested and work in a prisoners version of a sweatshop



Capitaism corrupts those at the top which will then result in the reduction of freedoms.
It will give the people "democracy", which is really a dictatorship which fools the people into thinking they have power

[Blake]

First, eliminations.
Hive: Police state, limited freedoms.
Morganites: Capitalists
Uni: Unethical
Believers: Fanatics
Peacekeepers: Bureaucracy

Leaving the possibilities.
Lady Deirde Skye of the hippies
- There is nothing at all wrong with dancing naked through the trees. The gaians seem big on real freedom and democracy, they also seem to be pretty good at dealing with those nasty mindworm things. Trying to understand them, now theres a concept!

Colonel Corazon Santiago, Spartan Federation
- Cant go wrong with survivalists for a situtation where survival is paramount. Sure it'd be hard, if you want it easy go join morgan and get eaten by mindworms. Only problem is they are a bit tooo gun happy, which isn't a bad thing against alien lifeforms that desire to plant eggs in your brain, but versus the other factions could lead to needless trouble and suffering.
Spartans promote indepdence, strenth, loyalty and freedom in a "right to bear arms" kinda way, unfortunately the "Might makes right" mentality would also be prevailant, but that would be no different for the morganites - only more cunningly disguised!

[JustinSane]

Enigma_Nova, I wonder: Suppose the advent of human genetic engineering left you limited and nearly useless compared with the new, improved, more intelligent strain of mankind. Would you consent to an experiment, which though likely to further mankind's scientific knowledge, would require that you suffer and die in the process? If not, would you accept that it was at least the government's right, as your guardian, to choose for you?

[Enigma_Nova]

Of course I'd consent.
If I have become IMO useless, then there is no longer any point to my existence.

Chances are that I'd have applied for the 'retroviral upgrade' experiment, and be either dead or one of the ubermensch myself.

I support Zak because I've been screwed around by ethics and like to think. I have no problems of disposing of obsolete computer hardware, obsolete people, or an obsolete self.

[epicurian]

I reckon I would be with the Peacekeepers. Assuming I'm aboard the Unity, and know nothing of how the initial Mission years are likely to go, I would side with Lal simply because his is the one faction that shows any sign of sticking to the mission, rather than just abandoning it. Ethical reasons also play a part in this choice, but for me, the overriding attraction of the Peacekeepers is simply that they recognise the need to try and bring the factions together somehow. Probably a hopeless task, but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile. The faction I think actually would win are the Hive, if only due to Yangs single-mindedness of purpose, and focus on the practical.

[Snowflake]

Five month ago I would have chose Gaians for the love of nature. (And yea, dancing naked through the trees sounds like fun. )

I would have never chosen Yang for I thought he was simply a hypocrite. With more time I spend with the Hive team I came to understand more about Yang's ideology and found that his pursue of enlightment beyond the self of body, his abandoning of the "sacred", his boldness, directness and practicalness attracts me more and more. Yes I would abandon the soft Deirdre to follow Yang instead.

Plus I was in love with Yang's grandson YangTzi.

[Shai-Hulud]

However, the capitalists at the top will pass laws ensuring that either you:

1. Work in their sweatshops or
2. Are arrested and work in a prisoners version of a sweatshop

I don't really see this happening in capitalism nowadays although I completely admit that the history of capitalism is not all worth praising for. But worst is history of any other ruling system

I think the citizens must be active in politics to ensure their freedom. I'm more pro-free society than pro-capitalism, it's just that free society incorporates free markets. Capitalism doesn't work without democracy, only in free society can exist free markets. And this in turn demands certain liberties, which ensure you are not "arrested and forced to work in a prisoner version of sweatshop".

Capitaism corrupts those at the top which will then result in the reduction of freedoms. It will give the people "democracy", which is really a dictatorship which fools the people into thinking they have power

Capitalism actually replaces corruption quite efficiently, though not perfectly, and the system we now live in are not based on true freedom of trade. The capitalist upper class of free society must be competent enough to sustain its position. Otherwise more competent will replace them and this actually takes place all the time. The reduction on freedoms does not support the power of capitalists but power of politicians. Greater freedom means greater profit and influence for capital, so capitalists do not enforce restrictions. Not, if they're halfway smart.

In democracy people have power to elect their representatives to attend matters of the state. But in truly free society all matters can not be directed by goverment. We have the free market, owned and controlled by millions of private organizations. In this way individual has the maximum power over his decisions, greater freedom is not achieved by the elimination of free markets.

[swillwater]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Note that I was considering arguments to support University policy but did not support all of them.

I, too, disagree with forced action on the basis of individual potential - but mentioned such an argument because it empowered the University to follow its agenda.

If I were to be honest I would defend AND attack the University's theories because this is the way to make impartial decisions.

EDIT: The amount of dumbing down I perform is remarkable. I edited this post many times because IMO I was being dishonest.

I must congratulate you. This post and the one immediately above it are much harder for me to pick apart then your previous ones, but I'll try since there are still some ideas that are anathema to me.
I think you're physics teacher example missed the point a little bit- individual humans can be replaced in jobs and such like, but each individual human is a unique individual with a new perspective and a different way of looking at things from any one else; thus once I am gone there will never be any one quite like me.

You say that knowledge is a prereq of wisdom; reasonable, but arguably sentience is a prereq of knowledge. Hence to maximise wisdom, it makes sense to have as large a pool of sentience as possible. In any case, one person's wisdom is another's folly; but the vast majority of humans are demonstrably sentient, despite the best efforts of some governments.

I think that you are stretching the definition of tyranny to it's breaking point, but arguably so am I, so I think I'll say no more there.

I have to admit that you are absolutely right about my 2 favourite factions, although you only had to guess one.
I wouldn't apriori dislike living with the Morgans or the University since I think that I have the skills to do well in those factions (an academic usually does in any society that has an interest in technology).

As for the good of the individual- except in very unusual circumstances (e.g. terminally ill) their continued existence would seem to be a logical immediate goal.


I'm glad you clarified some points. You are in some ways a braver individual than I am, since I would be very unlikely to volunteer for retroviral engineering experiments.

I really liked Epicurian's point about the Peacekeeper's, especially as I had not thought of it in quite that light.

[swillwater]

>Look up Conclave in dictionary. And they aren't Christians, at least not true ones.

I just did, and I see that it is essentially a Catholic practice. (As a lapsed Catholic with a good theological background I probably should have known that...). However, the Conclave Bible is from the Datalinks- it is not faction specific, although the voice sounds like Miriam's. Is there any other context where the word Conclave comes up in the game?



>So that leaves Moigan as the lesser of fourteen weevils. True he's given to mammon, but capitalism is just the most important way of life besides the Christian one.

Well, he probably wouldn't complain if you did practice your Christian lifestyle on his watch, though he'd probably try to find a way to charge you for it...

[Nubclear]

I don't really see this happening in capitalism nowadays

Capitalism actually replaces corruption quite efficiently,

The capitalist upper class of free society must be competent enough to sustain its position.

Which causes corruption.

In democracy people have power to elect their representatives to attend matters of the state.

No they don't. People elect figureheads. The real people are in the background. They cannot be ELECTED by the people, and they are permanent until death comes upon them at which point they die and someone takes their place.
That is how a democracy works. And it is effective because it both renders the people incomptent and willing to submit.

greater freedom is not achieved by the elimination of free markets.

I do not advocate the complete elimination of the free market. However there must be limits so that the balance of power remains equal and that the people benefit from it all in large ways.

I think the citizens must be active in politics to ensure their freedom.

Yes they must. However overgrowth of the free market can make them weak and fat (lest someone decide to carve you up - Colonel Santiago), and they lose interest as long as money continues to come in large quantities.

And this in turn demands certain liberties,

However again, capitalism promotes general laziness in intellectual ability. The people forget their demands and soon they are being told what exactly they were demanding.
America is a PERFECT example of this.

[knott]

Isnt the peace keepers the only faction that only exists for a better life to its own citizens, I think it makes the question quite simple . Alos one could make a divison between for example a demorcatic University and a police state University, I think it holds for most of the factions that when democractic they could be quite okay to live in.

[rumagent]

I'd join the free drones cuz I'm stupid

[Enigma_Nova]

I think you're physics teacher example missed the point a little bit- individual humans can be replaced in jobs and such like, but each individual human is a unique individual with a new perspective and a different way of looking at things from any one else; thus once I am gone there will never be any one quite like me.

This is correct.
You are asserting that this is the reason to preserve (as best is possible) all individual sentient life (i.e. people), correct?
I can cite a recent example in the port of Singapore:
Their society has always defocussed itself from the individual, in favour of the organisation.
Now, they see that both thinkers and workers are needed for an effective society.

Ponder that for a moment: Thinkers and Workers.
All people are, to some extent, a bit of both. Your above argument appeals to the preservation of thinkers:
"...with a new perspective...", or in other words, with fresh views and ideas.
Thoughts are unique from person to person.
But Work is a group effort (I'm thinking of Organisational work here - not housework).
That is, if your accountant is fired, you hire a new accountant .
The old accountant will no longer offer fresh views and ideas, but the accounting will still be done.

How does this relate to my arguments?
In the University, as in all societies, there are 3 castes:
The Workers, The Thinkers and The Leaders.
Thinkers are irreplacable due to the uniqueness of their thought; all thinkers are important
Leaders are irreplacable due to the intricaces of the human mind, but one cannot have a horde of leaders; by whatever means, some Leaders are important, while others do not lead!
Workers are also irreplacable because the effort and skill of each person is unique, but in a practical sense, skills are common to many, as is effort.
As soon as two skilled Workers vie for a position (which they can't both have) one of them becomes redundant.

While all people have thinker, leader and worker aspects in them, that's not to suggest that all people aspire to be leaders or thinkers. All people have individual thought, but some value it more than others.
All people are irreplacable, but some people have a greater or lesser desire to be irreplacable.
Ultimately, (especially with MMI and you know the benefits that produces) you're going to need human subjects.

If not, science is being held back (by your arguments) to preserve individual thought. That's backwards!
SUPPOSE that no-one volunteered for Neural Grafting.
Your value judgement is not to force anyone (for their individual thought).
My value judgement is to force the least aspirational / most replacable people into such a position.
Ideally, you'd send in the people that least object to the matter; those that don't have much else to do.

it makes sense to have as large a pool of sentience as possible.

True but some people are Hydrophobic.
Not all people wish to dive into this pool of wisdom.
You may be a bit single-minded as to why you value life; you value individual sentience, but not all people value this.
Not all people value, the values by which you support their life.
Of course they support their lives for different reasons.

I have to admit that you are absolutely right about my 2 favourite factions, although you only had to guess one.

[JEDI]Let go of your presumptions, see things clearly, not through your perceptions. Use the force.[/JEDI]
Wasn't a guess. It was a deduction.

I'm glad you clarified some points. You are in some ways a braver individual than I am, since I would be very unlikely to volunteer for retroviral engineering experiments.

When one is obsolete, death is not a matter of whether you fear it or not; productive life (and hence life) is over, whether you wish it so or not.
I might fear pain, but ultimately I do not let my fear stop me from doing what I feel is appropriate. That would be counterproductive.

[Shai-Hulud]

The real people are in the background. They cannot be ELECTED by the people, and they are permanent until death comes upon them at which point they die and someone takes their place.

I do not advocate the complete elimination of the free market. However there must be limits so that the balance of power remains equal and that the people benefit from it all in large ways.

So, goverments are corrupted in their practise of democracy. You didn't surprise me on this one. But you should not look at the capitalist upper class and bureaucratic system as being one. They coexist and cooperate, many powerful men in politics are also wealthy in capital, but the real capitalists are not politicians. And they're only interest(logically thinking) should be the preservation of capitalism and greater freedom of trade. Despite of the capitalists influence on politics, they're not essentially part of the political power structure.

But, anyway, I actually have an almost equally sceptic view about the democracy of our times. However, if situation is as you've presented it then why would you want to limit the free market system? After all, free markets are something politicians and "the background" can't control. If democracy isn't working then why give more power to goverment to regulate economy? This doesn't benefit the people.

However again, capitalism promotes general laziness in intellectual ability. The people forget their demands and soon they are being told what exactly they were demanding.

I'm generally sceptical for such notions. I've been fighting intellectual elitists long enough

It might be, to some extent, true that capitalism promotes applications at the expense of theories. And in this way "promotes laziness of intellectual ability". But I don't really see this happening in a way that has a historical significance. I mean if the majority of modern times is intellectually lazy then it certainly isn't any more lazier than it was in the past. In capitalist system, intellectual thinking for the sake of pure knowledge and curiosity has been preserved. It's not pop culture, but it has never been, so...

And, the whole 'demand' concept is a tricky thing. It's hard to tell the difference between the necessity and luxury these days. But I believe that the development of man requires new demands infinently.