Your aversion SE settings in real life?

Hippi · November 16, 2003, 14:49

What social engineering you would never ever do in real life? Much like how Morgan wouldn't use planned economics because he thinks it's uncool.

This time the poll is about politics

gwillybj · November 16, 2003, 18:46

Police State. Big Brother, mind your own business.
Others:
Free Market and Wealth. The rich get richer while the poor get dead.
Power and Thought Control. All [humans] are created equal. No one has any right to impose his will upon another.

SynthetGod8 · November 16, 2003, 21:08

everyone loves democracy... that is, until you're made a leader of the world (or you seize it). Then why should you give it up?
I'd rather live under a fundamentalist regeime that a facist one. At least you can try to fit in with the fundamentalists.

sammy1339 · November 16, 2003, 22:14

I couldn't fit in with the fundamentalists. Why would it be harder to fit in with fascists than fundamentalists anyhow?

CEO Aaron · November 17, 2003, 02:52

There's too few choices. To be honest, many of the SE settings would be pretty horrible to live under. My most hated, in order of vileness:

1. Thought Control.
2. Fundamentalism.
3. Police State.
4. Planned Economy.

johndmuller · November 17, 2003, 03:15

I think I would rank 'Survival' and 'Frontier' right down there with the least pleasant of them to have to experience in the real world. Would you really want to have to deal with fending off dangerous wildlife in your backyard, wonder where your next meal is coming from or live in a wild-west world where everyone is packing pistols or clubs and acting a little crazy?

Jamski · November 17, 2003, 07:45

It would be exciting anyway

I can't stand any kind of religious nut-heads, so I have an aversion to Fundy. I have never used this SE setting, and have never played as the Believers. I don't care if you think its good, I simply can't use it.

-Jam

Marid Audran · November 17, 2003, 16:58

My aversions are gwillybj's own, verbatim.

Actually, most of what gwillybj has so say whenever he chimes in mimicks my own feelings.

It's nice to be well represented.

TimeTraveler · November 18, 2003, 01:41

I'd like to announce my complete aversion to Fundamentalism on behalf of my believing that everyone should be able to believe what they want to, and not what they don't want to.

Nubclear · November 18, 2003, 03:00

Why is thought control such a bad thing? At least we'd enjoy ourselves

Fundy, Survival, Democracy, Police State (but I repeat myself), Frontier

johndmuller · November 18, 2003, 03:20

Quote:

Originally posted by TimeTraveler
I'd like to announce my complete aversion to Fundamentalism on behalf of my believing that everyone should be able to believe what they want to, and not what they don't want to.

Sounds like a Believer to me

.

Enigma_Nova · November 26, 2003, 01:36

Depends on what you're Fundy towards, IMO.
And I believe it was said that Police States need not neglect civil liberties?

I'm a pro-thought fanatic, (You WILL question my teachings!

) so I have to share something with the Fundys.

Jethro83 · November 26, 2003, 06:12

Major aversions:

Fundamentalism: Blind faith and fanaticism retards the intellectual process. Any clergy that turns into a government (or as powerful as a government) tend to become hypocrites. And why should I renounce Buddha as my god when...

1. Buddha is NOT a god (or creator)

2. Buddha doesn't demand blind faith or worship.

3. I actively CHOSE to be Buddhist just as Christians and Muslims choose to be of their faiths. They can be what they are, only when they force it down the throats of others does it become a problem.

Free Market: This system can be summed up with one word: EXPLOITATION!!!!

- Exploitation of the lower classes
- Exploitation of the emotional and moral weakness of decadent, corrupt politicians
- Exploitation of the resources of a VERY fragile ecosystem

Wealth: See above.

Thought Control: Like fundamentalism, thought control forces an opinion on others. And when contrary opinions are suppressed, the intellectual process is retarded, and politically, socially and economically speaking, we cannot evolve any further.

As for minor aversions:

Police State: I am an extreme privacy freak. The concept that Big Brother is watching, and 'removing' anyone who thinks for themselves is a very scary concept in my books.

Planned: < Homer_mode > "In theory, Communism works..." < /Homer_mode > I used to think a planned economy would mean jobs for all. I used to think it would mean a utopia where all are equal. I realize now that if everyone was equal no matter what, people would tend to slack off and reduce the collective work ethic. It can only work in a brutal dictatorship that's no better than the corporations that exploit people across the globe on a daily basis.

Power: I'm all for self-defence and protecting the state from warmongering neighbours, but a state where each person has enough of an arsenal in their back sheds to equip their own regiments of infantry is a bit over the top. I would be more concerned about my neighbour next door than the neighbouring state. Especially given the intellectual state of humanity at this point.

Cybernetic: What if the machines go out of control and decide that humanity is nothing more than a mere annoyance? Yes, we've seen it in The Terminator, we've seen it in The Matrix and we've seen it in System Shock. But it is a simple lesson that we are lucky enough to be able to learn before the fatal mistake is made. Can we truly learn it? (sadly, it looks doubtful)

timotheus4 · November 26, 2003, 22:46

Planned. Green. Simple. Frontier. Power. None. Thought Control.

Method · November 28, 2003, 00:16

fundamentalist

free market

power...as i don't see wealth to be the same as free market.
thought control....unless i'm the thought controller

Shai-Hulud · December 4, 2003, 03:06

I fint it very interesting indeed that people rather avert from Fundamentalism than Police State. At least in the first there is a chance for individual to survive from some brutalities of oppression but in the latter option you really don't have(as a common citizen) a chance for what we call, a life worth living for.

And, even if you're the oppressor in Police State you're liberties are restricted because of your position. Police State does not grant its upper class a freedom democracy does. Simply because you need to stay protected from countless enemies you make.

I'd rather retard my intellectual progress than retard my human nature. Because human nature, as we know it, is the enemy of Police State(freedom, individuality, emotional bonding, privacy etc.) And eventually such a system would seek to destroy such values in order to survive. Police State leads to totalitarianism...or revolts into democracy.

epicurian · December 5, 2003, 16:02

I totally agree with Shai-Hulud there. While I am not anti-religious by any means, both fundamentalist and police-state regimes disgust me, but if it was a no-other-option-pick-one-or-the-other situation, I would prefer fundamentalism, if only because you are less likely (even if only just) to end up in front of a firing squad.

Shai-Hulud · December 8, 2003, 02:43

Another point about personal security...

In Fundamentalism you are likely to be protected by some kind of perverted sense of justice. If you're "a true believer", or appear as such, the system can't just simply "witchunt" you and expect to be praised by its people. It has to follow the guidelines of faith even though not as rigidly as its citizens.

On the other hand in Police State you might be persecuted for ANY reason. It does not necessarily matter if you support the system. Wrong place at the wrong time, gazing at your groceries in suspicious ways or just wearing the wrong kind of shirt. Fundamentalism is blinded by dogmatic belief but Police State is blinded by human greed, will to power and big brother fantasies. I think there is a certain point to which the Fundamentalism develops, but Police State can go anywhere from Nazi-Germany to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

...so I would definitely not want to take my chances.

swillwater · December 8, 2003, 03:40

Quote:

Originally posted by epicurian
I totally agree with Shai-Hulud there. While I am not anti-religious by any means, both fundamentalist and police-state regimes disgust me, but if it was a no-other-option-pick-one-or-the-other situation, I would prefer fundamentalism, if only because you are less likely (even if only just) to end up in front of a firing squad.

Which explains why you have the good chairman as your avatar

My aversions: I'll ignore the initial social choices, as they are simply there until we have the resources to choose a better one. The following social choices are to my mind worse than the initial choices.

Police State (pretty much all the above reasons are given by others)
Fundamentalist (Don't force your religion on me, and I won't force mine on yours...)
Planned (Simply speaking, planned economies do not work)
Power (Just not one of my favourite goals)
Thought Control (police state part 2)

For me, the preferences are clear: Democratic, Green, Knowledge or Wealth, Eudamonic
Strangely enough, when playing the game these are my social choices for every (SMAC) faction except the Hive.

Enigma_Nova · December 8, 2003, 11:55

You can't pop boom well without Planned.

I agree with the notion of persecution for random events, under police state, and my continued existence would depend on whether the Chairman agrees with my philosophy.

Fundy, however, is an automaic no-no. While the Chairman may have use for my questioning of his policies (I could be a strategical analyst or something), Fundy denies scope for this.
I'm an obcessive questioner. While there may be a future for me in Police State, there is no future for me in Fundy.

I suppose, if I agreed with the Chairman, I'd support Police State over Democracy. To a large extent, I don't trust people.
I'd have to disagree with them all, though. Only an openminded approach to everyone's ideas would appeal to me.

Demo accomodates the Majority
Police accomodates the Chairman
Fundy accomodates the Dogma
Anarchy accomodates the Charismatic (or whoever else can gather followers)

So I suppose I'd agree with none of them.

Method · December 8, 2003, 18:35

frontier != anarchy

Enigma_Nova · December 8, 2003, 20:50

Real live has other political settings than the 4 in SMAC

I don't know much about frontier

waab · December 10, 2003, 06:17

1, Free Market get rich or die
2, Fundy
3, Power
4, Though Controll

in that order...

Blake · December 10, 2003, 06:41

Quote:

frontier != anarchy

Indeed, depending who you ask it's somewhere between total chaos and the perfect society.

Anarchy I feel, is best defined as the lack of government. As such it doesn't really exist in any shape or form in SMAC, with the possible exception of the Data Angels who come close.

I don’t really have any strong aversions, they all have merits, even Fundie... not under Miriam, but I cant imagine it would be so brutal under Dee, and may be just the thing to whip the Gaians into fighting shape to save their own skins.

Yang seems to have figured out a way to eliminate the inefficiency of a police stat, perhaps it isn't so corrupt under Yangs rule.

Free Market is not inherently evil, it can be good for efficiency, it is however exceedingly dangerous when combined with ruthless capitalists, who are attracted to freemarkets like bees to honey. Free Markets are exceedingly complicated in reality, and literally by definition I dont believe true Free Markets can exist (something to do with Monopolies being the natural outcome of FM, while they also destroy FM). In any case, the SMAC FM economy setting seems to be all about exploitation for a fast buck, making it evil.

I do definitely have a strong aversion to Thought Control, although I doubt I'd feel that way in a TC society

FrosT37 · December 10, 2003, 09:00

I would say:

1. Thought control
2. Fundamentalism
3. Police state
4. Power

Shai-Hulud · December 10, 2003, 15:30

Quote:

Free Market is not inherently evil, it can be good for efficiency, it is however exceedingly dangerous when combined with ruthless capitalists, who are attracted to freemarkets like bees to honey.

Where's da honey?

Free Market is inherently 'free', so it's actually what people make of it. I think the nature of free market, or free society in that matter, tell a lot about the true human nature and about the culture of the nation.

I agree that FM in SMAC is presented as a greedy, unpleasant system of capitalist oppression. Which I think, in turn, might tell something about the political views of designers. It seems that Green economy is described in most neutral way. However, there really isn't any better definition for Planned than "fierce govermental regulation".

I've thought a lot about the possibility of truly free market system myself. It does seem that in a completely free market system big corporations can easily establish monopolies. But on the other hand I think the spirit of entrepreneurship and fierce competition will eventually lead to fall of inefficient monopolies. I'm not sure about it.

Enigma_Nova · December 10, 2003, 15:58

I've had this argument many times with Union Representatives.
In an ideal world, where people stood up for themselves, and bothered to create their own businesses, you do not need so many laws and regulations.

A Free Market then becomes correct.

However, people are Scared, Foolish and Lazy. They do not want to fight back. Even if they did, the combination of Monopoly + Conformism tends to lead people to mindless purchasing.
Just look at Valentine's day and Christmas.

Free market Can and Does work... in theory. But in practise, it becomes a monopily.

Ogie Oglethorpe · December 11, 2003, 13:46

I find it amazing in todays day and age that people get more upset about the mere suggestion of God and church and find it more abhorent than denial of all personal rights as described in a Police State.

Fundy describes an adherence to one belief. Granted thats quite an infringement on personal liberty.

Police State describes a situation where all personal liberties are at the whim of the state not just freedom of religion.

No question PS is the greater aversion for me.

Chaos Theory · December 11, 2003, 16:28

It's interesting how the feasibility of both true capitalism (unregulated free market) and true communism depend on people not being stupid ("Scared, Foolish, and Lazy" as Enigma put it).

Enigma_Nova · December 11, 2003, 19:31

There are a lot of very good systems of living. Unfortunately, most of these work more for the Vulcans than they do for us humans.