Life on Alpha Centauri

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by redazncommieDXP


Actually, I think Yang would go for Eudaimonic. Every citizen is already encouraged to fulfill his or her potential for the sake of the greater good, already like he wants. Eudaimonic wouldn't be difficult to believe, but he seems more of a thought control kind of guy. He wouldn't want the hit to morale.

No, it encourages each citizen to fulfill his or her full potential. While I'll admit that it implies that this benefits the group as a whole, it is not the main focus of a Eudaimonic society. I'ts basically the leaders saying something like "Alright, you can go do whatever you want as long as it's not against the law and we'll support you if you need it."
Individuality is important in an Eudaimonic society, which is abhorrent to the Hive.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by redazncommieDXP


I'd forgotten to mention how the different factions deal with their malcontents, and to tell the truth, I have no idea what the feeding bay is. That always seemed more like a Planet Cult thing.

Maybe the Feeding Bays are where condemned criminals (murderers and the like) are thrown in to be torn up by big, tough animals. I dunno, though.

(snip)

and another thing entirely to denounce the Chairman and call him an "inhuman monster."

In my opinion, finding out how a faction deals with its malcontents says a lot more about said faction than how it deals with its Talents.

As for the Feeding Bay, I always imagined it as this great big area where people go daily to be fed. Like a high school cafeteria, but for an entire base.

Personally, I always find the insults to be the most telling about a faction and its leader. In Yang's case, however, the flattery isn't particularly flattering either. Yang is ruthless, his followers unquestioning, and he is out to found a society on the principles of control and security so that he can properly control his followers.
That sounds communal, yes. But an Utopia? Not really.

[redazncommieDXP]

Originally posted by WotanAnubis


In my opinion, finding out how a faction deals with its malcontents says a lot more about said faction than how it deals with its Talents.

As for the Feeding Bay, I always imagined it as this great big area where people go daily to be fed. Like a high school cafeteria, but for an entire base.

Personally, I always find the insults to be the most telling about a faction and its leader. In Yang's case, however, the flattery isn't particularly flattering either. Yang is ruthless, his followers unquestioning, and he is out to found a society on the principles of control and security so that he can properly control his followers.
That sounds communal, yes. But an Utopia? Not really.

That idea of a feeding bay doesn't seem quite right. Since a feeding bay takes the place of a rec commons, there must be some sort of entertainment value in it. Also, if there were no "cafeterias" already in place, how would the base be fed before the Bay is built?

I nerve staple my drones.

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.

To have unquestioning followers is also a big plus. Absolute loyalty and devotion is hard to inspire, but when it is inspired, the benefits are tremendous.

"Together, we shall both properly control our followers and (insert goal here)!"

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. He never struck me as the selfish type who wants power/control/riches all to himself, he seems to be using it all as a means to an end.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by redazncommieDXP
I nerve staple my drones.

Geez, remind me never to go live in a country where you rule.

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.

(snippage)

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. He never struck me as the selfish type who wants power/control/riches all to himself, he seems to be using it all as a means to an end.

Yes, sometimes you do need someone cold and calculating to do what must be done and I have no doubt that Yang has no qualms whatsoever to do what must be done.

But what is Yang's goal? Where is he going? If stripping people of their individuality to have them serve the Hive is a means, then what is the end?

Personally, I think reforging humanity into a kind of... well... hive is Yang's ultimate goal. As his quotes tell you, the ideal human is not an individual, but a small part in a greater whole.

Anyway... what were we talking about again?

[Hydro]

Red,

I respectfully disagree with just about everything you’ve said.

Feeding bay: for the Hive, this a larger area for propaganda and feeding. Think of it as a really big cafeteria, terrible food, and an atmosphere like that of 1984 – gray, lifeless, and quiet. Talking in Yang’s police state can, after all, can get you killed.

Nerve stapling: in my opinion this is used only by the weak leaders who are unprepared to deal with malcontents, or have a limited mindset for other possibilities; they kill or destroy them instead of trying to win them over. You can have their bodies, but not their minds. But then, if you’ve install a shunt you may not care. Remember the Golden Rule – do unto others…

Ruthless leader: leaders may have to make hard decisions, but they do not need to be ruthless. There are very few circumstances when atrocities are necessary; they are convenient and, in my opinion, taken by those that like easy options. The real question is whether a leader LIKES to be ruthless. If you like it you’ll be Saddam Hussein, Stalin or Mao. If you don’t you’ll be more like Roosevelt or Churchill. Each were effective in their day, but which as had their vision last longer?

Unquestioned loyalty: nice to have, but at what price? Many of the states that valued unquestioned loyalty are in the ash heap of history. When the society’s interests don’t align with the individual’s interests that society will eventually have insurmountable problems. Look around. There are precious few Stalinist or Maoist-style police states left. Cuba and North Korea come to mind, and they are worker’s paradises, right? Neither can even feed themselves, so I guess their hostage/citizens can feel the communal love as they starve to death – except for the leaders, who gorge on all the delicacies blood money can buy. Even China is changing, probably too quickly for its Gerontocracy’s comfort.

Control: if a parent used your methods to control their child they would be thrown into prison for child abuse. Using cattle prods, frontal lobotomies, nerve stapling, beatings, and capital punishment is no longer acceptable as disciplinary measures for children in most societies. Yes, it effects control, but it is likely to cause a wee bit of resentment on the part of the child upon whom the cattle prod is being used (remember the Golden Rule again).

Hydro

[Chaos Theory]

Hydro: consider how what you've stated would apply to a society in which at least the powerful did not die of old age, as appears to be the case in Alpha Centauri. That will have a difficult to foresee effect on society, as dictators like Mugabe could not be counted on to go away.

[Hydro]

CT – good question. If a civilization stayed the same and had the same leaders (eg – the dynamics were similar) then the above mentioned despots could keep power for a very long time. But, societies do change, and leaders that don’t change with the times risk putting their societies at a distinct disadvantage as they become less competitive (ossified by old ideology); that would put those leaders in the cross hairs, as it were.

Another problem with immortal leaders is that their flaws are immortal, too. Dynastic succession can hew out the dead wood, but this would be a challenge if the leader were immortal. Imagine China and if the Cultural Revolution were still active today. It would be an economic basket case instead of a rapidly developing power. Or, consider the former Soviet Union. I would venture to guess that under Stalin it would have survived until it imploded, perhaps even sooner than it did due to Stalin’s habit of shooting competent people around him, or died spectacularly (with a few billion other people) in war.

External factors play a significant role, too. Imagine they powers of Europe 200 years ago having to deal with a rapidly developing USA. The economic and socio-political upheaval would have been hugely difficult for the old monarchies to handle, and WW1 ended many of them (and the rest became figure heads). So, external problems and developments could cause these immortal leaders to go into eclipse if they are unable to change with the times.

Some forms of government seem to be able to handle change better than others. Rigid orthodoxy (religious or otherwise) and police states don’t seem to weather change very well. Systems that adapt to or embrace change seem to fair better. With all power and guidance in the hands of a few you’d better be sure they know what they’re doing or you’re in for an involuntary regime change because 1) your people lynch you or 2) an invading power lynches you.

Within the SMAC universe one could argue that SE reflects a changing society, and for me this is part of its brilliance. This allows it’s almost immortal leader change with the times, within certain parameters, of course.

Hydro

[redazncommieDXP]

Originally posted by WotanAnubis

But what is Yang's goal? Where is he going? If stripping people of their individuality to have them serve the Hive is a means, then what is the end?

Personally, I think reforging humanity into a kind of... well... hive is Yang's ultimate goal. As his quotes tell you, the ideal human is not an individual, but a small part in a greater whole.

Anyway... what were we talking about again?

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with your idea of his reforming humanity, but he's up to a little something more, too. Well, aside from that and dominating Planet, but all of the factions want to dominate Planet.

[redazncommieDXP]

Personally, I think that firstly, Hive food isn't that bad. At least on par with University, Drone, or Gaian food. Definitely not as good as Morganite, though.

Secondly, the feeding bay can't be something as necessary as a cafeteria. It's gotta be something a little more frivolous and a litle more fun.

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.

Ruthless Leader: When the opportunity came to use the atom bomb, the president decided that thousands of completely innocent civilians had to die so that his country could be made strong. A ruthless, cold-hearted decision that went a long way towards putting the United States in the superpower status it now holds, and an even longer way towards forcing Japan into the relatively demilitarized state it is today.

Control: Yang uses various measures to control his followers, on many levels. On the absolute lowest level, reserved for the most dangerous and irreformable, is nerve stapling and execution. Right above that, dealing with base human emotions, there is intimidation and terror. Things like public beatings and executions, where people can see the consequences of various crimes. Then there is propaganda, mass-produced messages that hold common appeal and, if given at an early age, can go a long way into shaping the basic attitudes of the populace. Every country is involved in brainwashing, including the United States (look at their education system, just take a good look.) At the highest level, there's the philosophical writings and speeches, intellectual things like that. Such as Yang's books and the things he says throughout the game.

As for China, there is a pattern of liberalizations and crackdowns, the differences between the two opposites becoming smaller with every cycle. The country is changing according to plan, it will turn out as Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and the Party wants it.

[redazncommieDXP]

As for the idea of immortal leaders, reading the profiles on Yang will convince you that Yang is an extremely exceptional person. He is immensely strong, both physically and mentally. He is a DESTROYER, one of the maybe 10 greatest men in all of history (if he were real). Ranked alongside Julius Caesar and Shi Huangdi. If anyone is capable of leading a faction for 500 years in a new world, it's him.

[Hydro]

Hive food: We’ll have to disagree on this one. I find it hard to see a faction leader that espouses brutal serfdom for his people, genejacks, a police state, and almost ritualistic subjugation as having no interest what-so-ever in making food more than minimally nourishing. Think ‘fungigruel’ every day for the rest of your life and you’ve about covered it, unless you’re part of the elite. Then you buy your food from the Morganites, sip merlot, discuss philosophy, and then make up the next day’s execution lists.

Feeding bay: See above. Anything that isn’t minimally necessary for productivity is a waste of resources.

Loyalty: there is forced loyalty (Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Kim Jung-Ill’s North Korea) that rely on a police state to enforce loyalty, and then there are the western countries where loyalty is a bargain between the government and its people: improve our lives and we let you keep your jobs. One enforces/coerces, the other convinces. The difference is in the means. It also suggests that forced loyalty is likely to be rather thin, although not always. There are always True Believers on every side.

Ruthless leader: you are correct that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was ruthless, but kindly put that in perspective: the alternative was hundreds of thousands of dead Americans invading Japan, and probably millions of dead Japanese due to fire bombing, street-to-street fighting, and massive starvation. Or, at least that was the conviction of the time (and founded in reality based on what they had encountered to date during the island hopping in the Pacific). So, what is better: thousands instantly dead, or hundreds of thousands or millions? In this light it is not quite so ruthless. I would argue that the US made up for its guilt through enlightened self interest in helping the ever innovative and industrious Japanese rebuild, just like in Europe. A ruthless power would use virtual serfdom in conquered countries, like Russia did in Eastern Europe and its own provinces (like Ukraine). To me this shows that ruthlessness is the exception for the US, not the rule. That, of course, is my point.

Control: you made my point for me. Thank you. More enlightened powers generally stop at propaganda, and veer into other methods rarely. Yang lives and breaths these methods. The SMAC guide lists his society as ‘brutal serfdom’. I think we can take that at face value and not gussy it up saying there is anything intellectual about it. Yang may be brilliant (as all the faction leaders are made out to be), but he is amorally brilliant.

China: I’m not sure I understand you point.

Sheng-ji Yang: if you read the bios, all the faction leaders are brilliant in their own way, and which one sways you speaks loudly on what you see as valuable, ethical, wise, and necessary. So, what you say about Yang is applicable to every faction leader, all of whom rose to the occasion to promote their ideology and vision for the future.

[Nabvrimn]

Feeding bay: See above. Anything that isn’t minimally necessary for productivity is a waste of resources.

It serves teh function of a rec commons, reducing drone troubles, therefore it must be good food. Good chinese food can be a lot cheaper than other cuisines. Thing about this, chinese food as you know it if you are an american is upper middle class fare with more meat because meat is cheap in America. Allow people to get middle class food once a week and hey feel that the luxuries aren't just going to the party apparatus, reducing drone activity. Nutrigruel is for the other six days.

[redazncommieDXP]

Fungigruel is a nice word, I like it.

I don't tend to believe that Yang would corrupt his own vision by sipping merlot while the rest of the Hive works in "brutal serfdom."

The Genejacks are for the aid of the people, that they may be lifted (for the most part) above physical labor and into more specialized, intellectual pursuits. Again, for the benefit of the Hive, not so much for their own personal freedom.

Loyalty: It is difficult to coerce loyalty. Coerced loyalty is usually just submission. There is no country in the world that has ever existed by relying on coercion, one must always provide the carrot as well as the stick.

Control: I am of the opinion that Yang uses every form of control I mentioned, just like every society does to one extent or another, in order to more thoroughly indoctrinate his citizens.

I personally am a fan of Yang's morality, but maybe that's just me. He seems to take great faith in the strength of one's mind and in the ability of a person, enough that he believes that people are strong enough to ignore pain and devote themselves fully to his cause.

[Hydro]

Correction: A genejack is a person who has had their cerebral cortex atrophied and their musculature and nervous system optimized to perform physical labor. As the good Chairman says, “How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?” It has nothing to do with intellectual pursuits, or the benefit of the person who has had, for all practical purposes, their higher brain functions removed. This is the Good Chairman’s ideal Drone: compliant, diligent, unintelligent, and suitable the grueling physical labor of a brutal serfdom. You can bet your last energy credit that in almost all cases this procedure is not voluntary.

Merlot: most of the dictatorships for the ‘people’ have distributed an inordinate amount of their wealth to the top echelon. While this is also true of other societies, it is particularly galling in People’s Utopias since the people get the shaft while the top folks get an easy life. Moreover, there is less wealth to spread around, so there isn’t much left for the drones. You may be right about Yang and his austere livestyle, but he would ensure that his cadre of flunkies was loyal by supplying them with whatever they wanted.

Control: of course all societies use these methods to one extent or another. The crucial matter is to what degree. Yang errs on the side of the nightstick, cattle prod, and butt plugs.

Admiring Yang: living in the Hive’s People’s Utopia might be fun if you were in the top echelon. The other 95 percent would find life to be simple, brutish, and short. So, enjoy.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by Nabvrimn


It serves teh function of a rec commons, reducing drone troubles, therefore it must be good food.

No, I think the feeding bay does provide, well, "fungigruel" (good word that, very good word). What Hive people get to eat before a feeding bay would be ration packs, like the kind astronauts eat today: nutritional, but tasteless. Compared to that, fingigruel is an enormous treat.