The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Secession? Hell no, if people don't like it here they can leave.
What if say 90% of the people of Vermont or say Quebeck or Kosovo ( ) voted that they wanted to seceede, what possible fascist reason could you have to force them to stay?
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Why is this crap? Are not global market pressures in favour of free movement of labour? Is censorship not employed across Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Africa to keep a lid on ethnic conflicts? Don't most states embrace a universalist ideology? Are you saying that most Western and other "diverse" states aren't ruled disproportionally by mostly people from a few ethnicities?
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Yes but how does society deal with this? First off we allow the state a monopoly on violence to suppress violence among individuals. Secondly with the exception of all but the radical left, we accept that individuals have different drives, abilities and desires.
What the **** are you talking about? Since when did the radical left think all humans are clones?
We all agree that fundamentally we deserve legal equality and on the margins we even redistribute wealth a bit. However we accept massive material inequality because we know the market just doesn't need everybody equally and sure as hell can't pay everbody equally for their different services and products. Also some people sit in the oval office, others clean streets and we are fundamentally ok with that.
Yet any statistical differences that show up among ethnic groups, must be because of evil rassism or past injustice deserving reparations! I reject this pseudo Stalinist forced equality that squashes individual achievement indirectly because of some statistical pattern observed among millions.
I also reject a empire where some ethnic groups rule and eventually out compete others.
I'm a comunitarian anarchist. I don't think we need a society to manage different ethnic groups, like we need a society to manage different people to work together. What we need are many different societies. I propose that global voluntary Balkanisation is achievable and desirable since it will allow more freedom and the ability for humanity to experiment with many different kinds of laws, evolutionary strategies, economic policies and values without it being a simple Darwinian race kept at bay by unlimited sovereignty of a territory whose preservation is the only admissible and legal goal of any transcontinental or even global bodies beyond trade.
I don't know why you're so obsessed with race. If you don't like affirmative action, fine, I can understand that. But I don't see what's so evil about multiple ethnic groups living in one country.
Last edited by Heraclitus; November 23, 2010, 20:19.
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
What the **** are you talking about? Since when did the radical left think all humans are clones?
Infinite malleability of the human mind is a pet hobby of feminists for starters. Also the radical left seeks to equalize outcomes thereby implicitly ignoring the values of those that don't see this as the ideal in their imagined ideal state.
I don't know why you're so obsessed with race. If you don't like affirmative action, fine, I can understand that. But I don't see what's so evil about multiple ethnic groups living in one country.
Nothing evil about it if they consent to it and have a guaranteed right to separation should they choose to do it.
Many people are ok being atomized individuals, however some people need to feel connected to their people and don't feel comfortable in a multi-ethnic system where their ethnicity has no protection from being out competed by others to the point of going extinct.
I'm proposing a major shift in view, letting people have radical self determination while vigorously reinstating unlimited sovereignty to individual states, but keeping for the most part free commerce and some international organizations with the sole purpose of enforcing sovereignty. Thus the more cosmopolitan inclined can pursue economic success or ideological fantasy in their states while others build small nation states for their families.
The system would even be ok with nonhumans (such as a superhuman AI that would value sovereignty) and transhumans being introduced into a global quilt of nations without treating human existance.
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
where their ethnicity has no protection from being out competed by others to the point of going extinct.
Holy ****. And you claim to not be a racist.
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Infinite malleability of the human mind is a pet hobby of feminists for starters. Also the radical left seeks to equalize outcomes thereby implicitly ignoring the values of those that don't see this as the ideal in their imagined ideal state.
They don't think everyone has identical drives, abilities and desires. Just admit you were wrong.
Nothing evil about it if they consent to it and have a guaranteed right to separation should they choose to do it.
Many people are ok being atomized individuals, however some people need to feel connected to their people and don't feel comfortable in a multi-ethnic system where their ethnicity has no protection from being out competed by others to the point of going extinct.
Basically "many people are not racist, however some of are." This doesn't justify racism. Also I don't see how someone else's success makes it impossible for someone to reproduce- for example you've made the claim that stupid people are reproducing more than smart people.
I'm proposing a major shift in view, letting people have radical self determination while vigorously reinstating unlimited sovereignty to individual states, but keeping for the most part free commerce and some international organizations with the sole purpose of enforcing sovereignty. Thus the more cosmopolitan inclined can pursue economic success or ideological fantasy in their states while others build small nation states for their families.
What does "radical self determination" mean? If someone decides they want their house to be an independent country is that permitted?
The system would even be ok with nonhumans (such as a superhuman AI that would value sovereignty) and transhumans being introduced into a global quilt of nations without treating human existance.
They don't think everyone has identical drives, abilities and desires. Just admit you were wrong.
Yes they do. You seem to be confused. I am not arguing that this is the normative view, I just stated that it is present.
There literally are far left types who do claim that geniuses are completely the result of nurture or that women would if raised "properly" free of cultural baggage have personalties and interests indistinguishable from men.
Basically "many people are not racist, however some of are." This doesn't justify racism. Also I don't see how someone else's success makes it impossible for someone to reproduce- for example you've made the claim that stupid people are reproducing more than smart people.
Let me clarify, I used "outcompete" in a purley Darwinian sense. Being "successful" by Darwinian standards does not mean being "successful" as judged by my or your values. There are some utterly horrifying things happening in the natural world, the near universal suffering of animals, parasites who turn hosts into "zombies" or chew on brains or reproductive organs and plenty of horrible diseases are all products of organisms who have competed in the Darwinian sense.
Much of my thinking is coloured by the sheer utter horror of contemplating what could prove to be most "successful" as a strategy in a uncaring universe as adopted by self improving post-human beings (AIs, minduploads, genetically engineerd organisms) or what kind of values such evolution might instil in them. There are huge negative disutilites possible, especially since it currently seems likely that the first self improving intelligence will get to decide what happens to much of the material universe. I personally find Robin Hanson's argument about a ultimately Malthusian existence of our far distant descendants a grim and nearly unavoidable prophecy.
I realized only nepotism, pure unadulterated nepotism can form a basis for human survival. Only if humans prefer humans because they are humans can we hope any of our values to perpetuate themselves into the future. But since being "human" is a fuzzy concept like the colour "red" or the concept of a "son", I realized that I would need to have a function that basically reset all altruism back to kin, be they genetic or memetic. I can't rip out race out of this system no more than I can rip out species or family.
However at the same time I have no desire to title the universe with little copies of me, what I want is the survival of many different kinds of diverse sentient beings. To reconcile kin selection desires with this I needed find a mechanism that guarantees survival without constant warfare, fragmenting the universe into sovereign isolated specs seems to be a good enough answer.
But before I go overboard with this long and dull philosophical discussion...
Let me ask from a purely utilitarian perspective what is in your world view wrong with racist people holing up themselves away from people of other races? Isn't racism supposedly wrong because of its negative impact on the well being of people of other races?
Suppose one could magically teleport all racists of all races to their own planets far far away from us and each other where they would have no one to bother, would this world be a better place in your opinion? And wouldn't they ultimately be happier too?
So why would this be a bad idea?
Last edited by Heraclitus; November 26, 2010, 10:35.
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
He's a racist calling people like me apologists for imperialists. Don't even pay him any mind.
You are a imperialist of the ideological variety. You don't ultimately care about the effects of beliefs you deem wrong. Their very presence, the very existence of, lets use the example common in this thread, a mind which does not consider the upholding of human rights to be a value, is an affront to you regardless of what it entails to other people's welfare.
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Yes they do. You seem to be confused. I am not arguing that this is the normative view, I just stated that it is present.
There literally are far left types who do claim that geniuses are completely the result of nurture or that women would if raised "properly" free of cultural baggage have personalties and interests indistinguishable from men.
That doesn't give everyone "identical drives, abilities, and desires" because it's impossible for two people to be brought up in exactly the same way.
Let me clarify, I used "outcompete" in a purley Darwinian sense. Being "successful" by Darwinian standards does not mean being "successful" as judged by my or your values. There are some utterly horrifying things happening in the natural world, the near universal suffering of animals, parasites who turn hosts into "zombies" or chew on brains or reproductive organs and plenty of horrible diseases are all products of organisms who have competed in the Darwinian sense.
Much of my thinking is coloured by the sheer utter horror of contemplating what could prove to be most "successful" as a strategy in a uncaring universe as adopted by self improving post-human beings (AIs, minduploads, genetically engineerd organisms) or what kind of values such evolution might instil in them. There are huge negative disutilites possible, especially since it currently seems likely that the first self improving intelligence will get to decide what happens to much of the material universe. I personally find Robin Hanson's argument about a ultimately Malthusian existence of our far distant descendants a grim and nearly unavoidable prophecy.
I realized only nepotism, pure unadulterated nepotism can form a basis for human survival. Only if humans prefer humans because they are humans can we hope any of our values to perpetuate themselves into the future. But since being "human" is a fuzzy concept like the colour "red" or the concept of a "son", I realized that I would need to have a function that basically reset all altruism back to kin, be they genetic or memetic. I can't rip out race out of this system no more than I can rip out species or family.
However at the same time I have no desire to title the universe with little copies of me, what I want is the survival of many different kinds of diverse sentient beings. To reconcile kin selection desires with this I needed find a mechanism that guarantees survival without constant warfare, fragmenting the universe into sovereign isolated specs seems to be a good enough answer.
I don't see any reason to assume some self-improving super being is going to respect such a framework.
But before I go overboard with this long and dull philosophical discussion...
Let me ask from a purely utilitarian perspective what is in your world view wrong with racist people holing up themselves away from people of other races? Isn't racism supposedly wrong because of its negative impact on the well being of people of other races?
Suppose one could magically teleport all racists of all races to their own planets far far away from us and each other where they would have no one to bother, would this world be a better place in your opinion? And wouldn't they ultimately be happier too?
So why would this be a bad idea?
Racism is an ignorant attitude that at best divides people for no reason. At best the world is no worse off with racism, but in all likelihood the world is worse off. I think discouraging racism is much more practical than trying to reorganize the whole world to accommodate it.
You are a imperialist of the ideological variety. You don't ultimately care about the effects of beliefs you deem wrong. Their very presence, the very existence of, lets use the example common in this thread, a mind which does not consider the upholding of human rights to be a value, is an affront to you regardless of what it entails to other people's welfare.
Bull****. I see a racist twisting the meaning of words and using the words of Jesus in his signiture, and painting himself as a victim just like Hitler and the Nazi's did. As I said before, I'm a follower of Jesus. I obey his commands, one of which is to love everyone. I believe God has a plan for this world, so I remain faithful to him and obey him.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Bull****. I see a racist twisting the meaning of words and using the words of Jesus in his signiture, and painting himself as a victim just like Hitler and the Nazi's did. As I said before, I'm a follower of Jesus. I obey his commands, one of which is to love everyone. I believe God has a plan for this world, so I remain faithful to him and obey him.
I don't quite see where I attacked or questioned your Christianity. I don't see myself as a victim of anything. Also I resent the implicit comparison to Hitler and especially the Nazis in general (the horrible policies they endorsed cost the lives of millions and suffering on a grand scale).
As to my signature, well I keep that there more as a reminder to myself than to send any kind of message, I haven't used religious arguments anywhere in the thread. My own relationship with God is rocky and I've recently tried to rebuild it, but this is not very easy and the process is still ongoing. Just to clarify I don't think Christianity interpreted thought scripture or tradition is compatible with my current views and unlike some I don't feel it just to bastardize the word by cooking up some good feel half baked justification but perhaps not for the reasons you think.
However I'm pretty sure being a Christian does not mean one must be for example pro open borders in all circumstances or that one doesn't have special additional obligations to some people (your own children, elderly parents) but not others.
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
I don't quite see where I attacked or questioned your Christianity.
You called me an imperialist. If I were one that would be sin.
I don't see myself as a victim of anything.
Then why are you calling people imperialists who oppose you?
Also I resent the implicit comparison to Hitler and especially the Nazis in general (the horrible policies they endorsed cost the lives of millions and suffering on a grand scale).
That's because you think what you are doing is innocent, but it's not. You can't even judge Hitler because you are guilty of similar sin. To do so, is hypocracy.
As to my signature, well I keep that there more as a reminder to myself than to send any kind of message,
REALLY??? A reminder to yourself? Why not use a post it and put it on your computer screen?
I haven't used religious arguments anywhere in the thread. My own relationship with God is rocky and I've recently tried to rebuild it, but this is not very easy and the process is still ongoing. Just to clarify I don't think Christianity interpreted thought scripture or tradition is compatible with my current views and unlike some I don't feel it just to bastardize the word by cooking up some good feel half baked justification but perhaps not for the reasons you think.
Good
However I'm pretty sure being a Christian does not mean one must be for example pro open borders in all circumstances or that one doesn't have special additional obligations to some people (your own children, elderly parents) but not others.
You probably think that because people tend to impose their own image on God and not the reverse. When you choose to follow christ you must leave your entire life behind you, including your previous belief system. That's the cost of discipleship.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Tweet
) voted that they wanted to seceede, what possible fascist reason could you have to force them to stay?
Comment