Life on Alpha Centauri

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by redazncommieDXP


The thing about Alpha Centauri is that the goals are whatever you set the goals of the faction, so they are. The goals are purposefully left pretty open.

For the players, yes. But we're talking about Yang as if he were a real human being. I suppose a very good Hive player could go for an economic victory, but that doesn't mean Yang will realisticly try to corner the energy market.

I agree wholeheartedly with your idea of his reforming humanity, but he's up to a little something more, too.

Really? Please, enlighten me. What 'little something more' would that be?

[redazncommieDXP]

Discussions of Yang and the Hive can take place in another threat or privately, which I'd be glad to talk to you about. In this case, though, it's about all the other factions, so I think it's time I made some sort of update on how I thought the other factions lived.

Angel Drones: Likely to be ignored or simply walked on. Insignificant. Perhaps appeased in small ways, but nothing spectacular. In large numbers, they are likely to be isolated from information, wealth, and power, and left to starve and die.

Believer Drones: Likely to be taken into specific facilities and to have reform attempts made. Should these reform attempts fail, perhaps a jail sentence or execution (if a crime has been commited). If there is no crime, only malcontentedness, then the drone will probably be released back out.

Consciousness: Reprogramming.

Free Drones: Most likely to do their best to accomodate them.

Hive: Jails, censorship, perhaps public execution for the figureheads of anti-Hive movements.

[redazncommieDXP]

Originally posted by WotanAnubis

For the players, yes. But we're talking about Yang as if he were a real human being. I suppose a very good Hive player could go for an economic victory, but that doesn't mean Yang will realisticly try to corner the energy market.



Really? Please, enlighten me. What 'little something more' would that be?

I couldn't resist, this guy popped up while i was writing the other post.

The little something more I was talking about is just saying that the communal utopia he's building may not be an end in itself, though now that I think about it, it seems more and more likely that it is.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by redazncommieDXP
To be ruthless is an important quality of a leader. One must be able to cold-heartedly make decisions for the best of the entire faction/country/company without being hindered by emotion and sentimentality. To be ruthless isn't to be "mean" or "cruel", but rather to be able to see the clearest path from point a to point b.

Not true.
What you notice is that most people presume their emotions are true and justified, and make decisions as such.
Consider your feelings as factors in an equation rather than an absolute truth, and it's okay to make decisions with them.
Whether leading yourself or others, emotions are a part of the equation and as such should be considered.

Also, I've always thought of Yang's "properly control our followers" as less of control for the sake of control, and more of control for the sake of direction. More like a father making sure his children are on the right track.

Fathers controlling their children? You mean influencing.
Parents don't have the power they think they do.

Unquestioning Loyalty: Thinking about it, just about every state values unquestioning loyalty, even the United States, at least in the military branches. To not value loyalty would tear down the foundation of a society.

True in particular, false in general.
Loyalty isn't the only way to know what people are doing and have the power to enact your decisions.

Every country is involved in brainwashing

Every person is involved in brainwashing;
we attempt to spread our opinions to others.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by redazncommieDXP
Angel Drones: Likely to be ignored or simply walked on. Insignificant. Perhaps appeased in small ways, but nothing spectacular. In large numbers, they are likely to be isolated from information, wealth, and power, and left to starve and die.

Do I agree with this... hmm... no.
While drones in the Data Angel faction are probably amongst the lower rungs in society just like they are in every other faction, it is important to remember that the Angels pride themselves for not having rungs.
There are two kinds of anarchism. One is chaos where the strong rule the weak, the other is chaos where everybody is deemed equal. The Angels appear to belong to the second kind and their fondness for Democracy and disdain for Power, at least, appears to mean that they encourage altruism.
In short, Angel drones are not ignored, forgotten or trampled. And because drones are workers too, they are likely to have some kind of income that, presumably, is enough to support themselves. Of course, the drones will never make it to a real comfortable lifestyle, but they most certainly won't "starve and die".

[Natalinasmpf]

Remember, drones are created because they openly express dissent and are unsuppressed, and are not content, not because they dissent and society rejects them.

Basically, people don't ignore drones because they are drones, people ignore them (ie. lack of proper living conditions), they are unhappy, they BECOME drones.

Reasons for dissent can be outrage of offensive war while you are being oppressed (ie. Free Market) and also seen as (hey, the base is weak, low security, organise unrest!), to overcrowding, etc.

Remember, the Angels also have -1 Police...

[Royale]

Angels: Pretty much Anarchy, oppose a centralized government. Very liberal.

Pirates: Possibly Anarchy, but they see the need for a strong Navy to protect there assests. Can build up industrys very quickly due to water bonus.

Drones: Democratic Socalist, they have political freedoms, but have equal oppertunity in there socity.

Cyborgs: Could be Democratic Socalist, but the thing that seperates this faction from the others is the fact that they are lead by a computer program downloaded into a human.

Cult: A father knows best state, or a Dictatorship, one of the other, but simple they follow a strict dogma and are lead by there leader, extremly aggressive and push there ideas to convert the infidels.

Pretty much these factions(XSMAC) are Anarchy in a sence due to the fact that very likely they are splinter groups of the main 7 factions and could be considered rogue nations to the main 7, but they could have there own planetary consule or agreements that rival the main 7.

[babbler]

I think that people are forgeting, for the most part, that almost all the leaders are STARK RAVING MAD!!!! There are only two resonable leaders: Zarherov and Lal. Everyone else is half way to the lunatic fringe

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by babbler
I think that people are forgeting, for the most part, that almost all the leaders are STARK RAVING MAD!!!! There are only two resonable leaders: Zarherov and Lal. Everyone else is half way to the lunatic fringe

I'm sorry, are you saying Zakharov isn't stark raving mad? Mr. "I don't care about basic human rights as long as its for the cause of science"?

Yeah, right.

[Commy]

I see this post about 14 factions has quickly turned to one, the Hive. The Hive is the last faction I would want to live in. While some people will disagree, the Hive is indirectly a society that takes what made us human and leaves simply a bunch of people that can do things effectively, efficiently, but unhumanly.

I will not disagree with the fact that the Hive is probably the most stable society. Previous societies that used communism and police states lacked one thing: ascetic virtues. The people were taught to listen to the guys with the gun, will Yang teaches them to give up what they don't need, and work to help everyone. Essentially, he is trying to naturally create the clones in Star Wars Episode Two. They do what their told, don't complain about not having fun, and will put in all their effort to be a team player. The only thing is, he is genetically altering them, although we all know he wouldn't hessitate to.

Yang's ideals are admirable, simply because so many before him have failed. And yet, taking away the freedom of people, taking away their ability to do what they want, what they wish, what the please, is not considered an ideal society. Why? After all, it is what is defined as perfect. Absolute control, no corruption, no revolting, perfect team work, perpetual obedience and loyalty, but it still takes away what humans cherich most, freedom. You can't have a perfect society with humans if you give them freedom. It is impossible. It is a fact. Why? The same reason God gave us choice. Yeah, we now have guns and knives and nuclear bombs, but we also have a thing that a 'perfect' society could never give us, a thing that Yang would never allow people to have: happiness. Happiness is different for everyone, but ultimately happiness is caused by freedom. Without freedom, people don't care what they have, all they care about is getting free.

Think of it this way. Put two birds in a cage, along with plently of water, food, bird toys, whatever. Assuming the birds like eachother, they have everything they could want, but they won't be happy because they are not free. Take them out of the cage, but take everything else away. Do they have everything they want? No, but they will be happy, because they have freedom. Different people need different degrees of freedom, but it is the same concept.

Stable? Yes. Will it work? Yes. But is it ideal? Is it really Utopia? All the Hive simply is is the garden of Adam and Eve. They had everything they wanted, everything they needed, but they didn't have freedom. It is choice and freedom that defines the living standard, not by how stable a society is because it's leader can control its citizens...

[-SafaN-]

Originally posted by babbler
I think that people are forgeting, for the most part, that almost all the leaders are STARK RAVING MAD!!!! There are only two resonable leaders: Zarherov and Lal. Everyone else is half way to the lunatic fringe

Zak would cut his own daughter open to study her intestins.
Lal would start a war believing its the way to make a democraty. He is amost as mad as the current american president.

[binTravkin]

Every person is involved in brainwashing;
we attempt to spread our opinions to others.

I see, EN has at last come to this idea..

That's good!

[Nabvrimn]

Originally posted by -SafaN-


Zak would cut his own daughter open to study her intestins.
Lal would start a war believing its the way to make a democraty. He is amost as mad as the current american president.

Your claim regarding Zak is obvious slander. Nothing insane about autopsies. A dead body is a dead body. Vivisection is another matter, but I see no evidence that Zak is a fan of human vivisection, or if he is I'm sure he limits it to condemned prisoners. This would eb cruel, but cruelty is not the same thing as insanity.

Lal is clearly insane, but not for the reasons Safan states. Lal is insane because he clings to obsolete principles of transnationalism.
Santiago, on the other hand, is sane. It is pacifism or half hearted militirisation that is insane when everyone really is out to get you, and that is clearly the case following Captain Garland's assasination.

[Natalinasmpf]

Yang's society CAN be technically considered a utopia. It doesn't matter what the truth actually is: as long as the people are not considered to be in a state of unrest (In 1984 the Party had to continously, self-suppress it through doublethink) it can be considered utopia.

Even Brave New World can be classified as utopia.

Every person is involved in brainwashing;
we attempt to spread our opinions to others.

Not just that: the final principle. The laws of relativism!

Nothing is objective, everything is subjective.

That includes truth, and the state of mind, and what is brainwashing or not.

but they didn't have freedom

Can you tyrannise someone who cannot feel pain?
Is it oppressive to restrict freedoms of people who didn't want such freedoms anyway?
Why should YOU think they shouldn't be in such a state, when they feel perfectly content.

Now if the Drones exchanged their aversion to Green for Free Market, penalised police state, then THAT truly would be utopia for me. Go communist democracies!

[Nabvrimn]

Truth is certainly objective. My truth is that you will accelerate downards at a rate equal to the mass of the body defining "down" in your locale multiplied by the universal constant of gravitation if you jump off a tall building. Your truth is exactly the same, and if you deny this you will die. Reality doesn't give a [explative] how you "feel about it". The bulk properties of humanity are just another of those little things that you can't escape any more than you can escape the unbounded trajectory of Langton's Ant.