What faction would you join in?

[timotheus4]

Yeah. Right. Go be with Zakharov, end up as a drone and a subject for one of his experiments.

I'd be with Miriam but she's catholic and I'm christian. So i'd be with morgan instead.

[swillwater]

Originally posted by timotheus4
Yeah. Right. Go be with Zakharov, end up as a drone and a subject for one of his experiments.

I'd be with Miriam but she's catholic and I'm christian. So i'd be with morgan instead.

Roman Catholics ARE Christian
In any case, it is not at all clear that Miriam is Catholic (The Sister in her title does not imply that she is a Roman Catholic nun)

[N35t0r]

Originally posted by timotheus4
Yeah. Right. Go be with Zakharov, end up as a drone and a subject for one of his experiments.

The drones are those who are against the lack of ethics, and i can't say i'm in that group. Besides, most of the subjects would be those who contribute less to the group, such as those with certain disabilities... (either physical or mental).

and there are always POWs.

[dacole]

Wow I can't believe the number of people who are willing to live in a world with unethical experiments (shiver) sorry though I am a scientist I can't see myself experimenting on people in ways I know is going to cause them pain and death simply because they were born retarted ect. The true goal of all real science is to improve the human condition. Can't see the Hive as anything but stalin ish remember it comes from chinese communism moa was not at all a nice person. The spartans seem do much like a crazy milita with the shoot first ask questions later idea. Liveing in the southern part of the united states, I've had enough of that already. I can't see how anyone could live in miriams world. Sorry though I am religious the God I believe in doesn't hate anything like hers or the Southern Babtists which is what I've always seen her as (can you imagine being 16 and ending up pregent out of wed lock in that society shiver) Morgan is to much like the 1920's of America for me. Rich get richer poor get poorer rich don't have to follow the laws can and do rape and murder with impunity. (He got on board the ship by breaking the law remember?) So that leaves the gians and the peacekeepers. Now I am an environmentalist even on earth where the planet isn't conscious but I do shower, so if they are reasonable and use technology to have a normal life without destroying the enviornment (solar cars ect) I'd go there however if they never showered, never really worked (as most of the hippes I know don't) and were incredibly anti science (again as most of the hippes I know are) I'd run quite quickly to lal.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by dacole
The true goal of all real science is to improve the human condition.

Science is merely another form of evolution - ideological evolution.
Who's to say that the human condition should not (and indeed will not) be changed by science for the sake of something better?
(SEE: Neural Grafting, Homo Superior, Self-Aware Machines, Ascent to Transcendence)

In this instance yes we are playing gods by presuming what we should evolve into... but Evolution Proper will destroy those that stuff up.

We often forget that DEEDEE IS NOT A HIPPIE! She is an ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONALIST. '>_<'

[swillwater]

> Science is merely another form of evolution - ideological evolution.
Who's to say that the human condition should not (and indeed will not) be changed by science for the sake of something better?


Fine- but that does not and cannot excuse conducting experiments on human beings merely for the sake of science or knowledge. Nazi Germany did that- and that is hardly a regime to emulate.

Science cannot have all the answers. This is a logical statement, due to Godel. It says thats no matter what analytical framework you have, there will always be conjectures that cannot be proven one way or the other.

If there is a genuine need to experiment on living humans it must be:
1) Clearly essential to the betterment of the human condition (e.g. a cure for a disease)
and/or (usually and)
2) With the consent of the test subjects or if that is not an option the guardian of the test subjects in which case 1) is necessary.

Anything less is tyranny.

Strange though it may seem, most scientists I know (and I know several as a graduate student in math) would agree with the above.

[G'Kar]

Lady Deidre, she promises the most peaceful, loving world; and Jamski had a good reason too...hippies are known for putting out.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Capitalism baby. Show me the money!!

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by G'Kar
Lady Deidre, she promises the most peaceful, loving world; and Jamski had a good reason too...hippies are known for putting out.

But she'd a great Lady of Planet and you might not be. What if you were a Drone (which every faction has; think about it)? If you stared at her for too long, they'd probably surgically (or non-surgically) blind you!

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by swillwater
Fine- but that does not and cannot excuse conducting experiments on human beings merely for the sake of science or knowledge.

Why not? If it is for the betterment of knowledge and thus for the betterment of the species, I can't see the problem.
People are replacable, and out of thousands you'd hardly miss twenty.
Of course, such people may have other uses: As soldiers, scientists, economists etc., so you'd not waste useful people on experiments.

Do I believe in the power of the individual? Yes - a person's Ideas/Beliefs, Personality/Feelings, and Genetics/Body are quite unique. I'd not be eradicating strands of these like hitler did (save perhaps from trying to eliminate genetic diseases like Diabetes).

The University could have a great altruistic propaganda state which urges its members to partake in experiments. As it is consentual, then how could either of us be against it?
If it is not consentual, on what grounds do you believe that the value of the individual human wellbeing is more important than the knowledge that will result from the experiments?

The value of human life, and indeed Ethics in general, are merely the values of parents and peers passed onto a person. I don't believe that what I am told is truth merely because I am told that it is; People can be wrong.

So tell me - what do you have against a great intelligensia state? After all, is not the value of Thought and 'Truth' (lol) more absolute than the 'value' of Life?

Nazi Germany did that- and that is hardly a regime to emulate.

Anti-Nazi propaganda goes back into the Thirties. I happen to quite agree with Fuhrer Hitler; He had an idea and would not let ANYBODY stop him from pursuing it. I idolise that.

Science cannot have all the answers.

'Answers' and 'Questions' are fabrications of our minds and nothing more.
Same as anything, really...
So my response is to push towards a purer state of mind, away from these goals.
While there's not sufficient reason to believe that any particular faction has the upper hand in this area, I believe an intelligensia state is less attuned to wisdom-inhibiting presumptions.

In the short term I side with Zak because we both share a dislike of 'Ethics'.

Anything less is tyranny.

All parent-child relationships are dictatorial in nature during their early stages, yet who seems opposed to them?
Tyranny, it seems, is a nescesary part of growing up.
We live under governments, by advice of peers, and we even are Tyrants to ourselves sometimes.
Why seek to remove someting integral to our survival?

As for Guardianship, that has more fuzzy boundaries than anything. Chairman Yang asserts that no man holds sovereignty for himself, while Lady Deirdre seems to love personal freedom.
When asked who is right and who is wrong, there is no clear answer. Both factions have their followers who think their faction is right.
Who's to say that The University is not guardian of its handicapped people, thus giving its consent, and also showing reason?

Strange though it may seem, most scientists I know (and I know several as a graduate student in math) would agree with the above.

No offence, Sir, but all scientists were children, all children had guardians, all guardians are people and all people spread their ideas.
Most children are recept to the ideas of their guardians.
This creates a brainwashing conformist cycle which spreads values and beliefs.

Quite thankfully my superior intellectual integrity has made me resiliant to the bullshit of my guardians, but it seems that your scientist buddies did not have the same need (or ability) to resist that I did.

The gloves are off as Enigma defends the University

[swillwater]

>Why not? If it is for the betterment of knowledge and thus for the betterment of the species, I can't see the problem.

Who is the judge of what is for the betterment of the species?

>People are replacable, and out of thousands you'd hardly miss twenty.

Their family and friends would. Individuals are in any case not replaceble since each person is unique.

>Of course, such people may have other uses: As soldiers, scientists, economists etc., so you'd not waste useful people on experiments.

Who determines which people are surplus to requirements?


>Do I believe in the power of the individual? Yes - a person's Ideas/Beliefs, Personality/Feelings, and Genetics/Body are quite unique. I'd not be eradicating strands of these like hitler did (save perhaps from trying to eliminate genetic diseases like Diabetes).

So you'd eradicate people who are diabetic?

>The University could have a great altruistic propaganda state which urges its members to partake in experiments. As it is consentual, then how could either of us be against it?

If it was in fact consensual then I'd be for it.

>If it is not consentual, on what grounds do you believe that the value of the individual human wellbeing is more important than the knowledge that will result from the experiments?

Because, despite what Yang says, the [so-called] goals of the greater race are not transcendent in my opinion.
Every human has (or at least should have) the right to be free from persecution, especially state-induced persecution, and forced experiments are a form of persecution. I might make exceptions for those people who have violated others (i.e. criminals who were convicted in an impartial court of law), but even there my goal would be rehabilitation- not forced experimentation- where possible.

>The value of human life, and indeed Ethics in general, are merely the values of parents and peers passed onto a person.

That is simply incorrect. If it were true, values would be immutable. They're not. One generation's set of ethics is not necessarily the same as the next. Not so many generations ago, a large portion of the American population thought that slavery was a good thing. Only until recently was it thought by a majority that discrimination based on gender is inherently wrong.

In my own case, my set of ethics is different from both of my parents and even that of my wife's.

In some ways I am judging these societies on Alpha Centauri by my own set of ethics- however, at least one of the factions (The Peacekeepers) shares many of those ideals, and so I don't think that I am being completely unfair here.

> I don't believe that what I am told is truth merely because I am told that it is; People can be wrong.

Sure- as an academic I am well aware of this, especially when grading exams.

>So tell me - what do you have against a great intelligensia state? After all, is not the value of Thought and 'Truth' (lol) more absolute than the 'value' of Life?

No. One can pick up a cause like "truth" on any street corner, but one only has one life.
I think that I could find a place in Zharkov's faction, and he would probably be my 3rd or 4th choice of the original factions. I am a scientist. The dedication of a society to pure science has a certain appeal.

>Anti-Nazi propaganda goes back into the Thirties. I happen to quite agree with Fuhrer Hitler; He had an idea and would not let ANYBODY stop him from pursuing it. I idolise that.

At the cost of millions of lives, the devestation of an entire continent, and the emasculation of Germany, his adopted country. Yeah- that's worth idolising.

> 'Answers' and 'Questions' are fabrications of our minds and nothing more.
Same as anything, really...
So my response is to push towards a purer state of mind, away from these goals.

Call me limited if you must, but I don't really see how you can get to a pure state of mind without asking questions and obtaining answers. Certainly that's how mathematics works and that comes closer to pure thought than most other disciplines.

>While there's not sufficient reason to believe that any particular faction has the upper hand in this area, I believe an intelligensia state is less attuned to wisdom-inhibiting presumptions.
In the short term I side with Zak because we both share a dislike of 'Ethics'.
All parent-child relationships are dictatorial in nature during their early stages, yet who seems opposed to them?

Quite a lot of people. The relationship between children and parents, at least here in the USA and also in the UK where I'm from, has seen a lot of changes in the 3 decades that I've been alive. Some people want to see a family to be more of a partnership and less of a dictatorial system. There's a lot of fuzzy logic and pseudopsychology, but there is a debate going on.

>Tyranny, it seems, is a nescesary part of growing up.
We live under governments, by advice of peers, and we even are Tyrants to ourselves sometimes.
Why seek to remove someting integral to our survival?

I'm not sure tyranny is integral to our survival. Certainly, the most succesful societies over the past 2 centuries have tended to be the ones that were least tyrannical.
In any case, tyranny is usually undesirable for the individual, and if you start off as I do with the classical liberal (as opposed to modern american liberal) principle that the rights of an individual should where possible be unchecked provided they do not interfere with the rights of some one else, then tyranny must be avoided whenever possible.

>As for Guardianship, that has more fuzzy boundaries than anything. Chairman Yang asserts that no man holds sovereignty for himself, while Lady Deirdre seems to love personal freedom.
When asked who is right and who is wrong, there is no clear answer. Both factions have their followers who think their faction is right.

I bet that way more of Deirdre's followers think she is right, than do Yang's (of course, Yang genetically engineers his people so that they don't think at all...).
I say that Deirdre is closer to being right than Yang is; and really I cannot even see a good case for Yang. He's easily the worst of the faction leaders as far as I'm concerned.
You are free to disagree with me, but I put it to you that it is pleasanter to be a drone in Deirdre's society than a norm in Yang's.

>Who's to say that The University is not guardian of its handicapped people, thus giving its consent, and also showing reason?

That's a clear conflict of interest. It is in the interest of the government to put the good of the people first. It is the job of a guardian to put the good of the ward first. The seperation of powers helps to mitigate but not eliminate these conflicts of interest.

>No offence, Sir,

Offence taken. Would you not find it easier to refrain from giving offence rather than say something offensive and then prefacing it with "no offence"?

> but all scientists were children, all children had guardians, all guardians are people and all people spread their ideas.
Most children are recept to the ideas of their guardians.
This creates a brainwashing conformist cycle which spreads values and beliefs.
Quite thankfully my superior intellectual integrity has made me resiliant to the bullshit of my guardians, but it seems that your scientist buddies did not have the same need (or ability) to resist that I did.


Wow! You can get all that info on people you've never met and only know from a couple of impersonal sentences given by some one who disagrees with you on almost every point you've raised. That's impressive- more accurately, it's an example of fuzzy logic followed by what we in the industry call "jumping to a conclusion". So much for intellectual integrity of any kind.

[Shai-Hulud]

I'm not even going to go against every one of your arguments Enigma, swillwater has done that. But I can not resist to reply to some of your ideas...

The entire concept of "replacibility of individual" is just oppression of self and fellow men. You can't make tools out of people, eradicate them for "higher" purposes and expect society to evolve. This attitude towards individual is in fact, IMHO, the worst possible hinderance for development. If we forget the individual for the good of the whole we will eventually forget ourselves and the purposes we were striving for. Also, such communitarian ideals are so well suited for oppression that there virtually is no other possibility than totalitarianism for people who choose to follow them. Altruism of this kind has an reverse effect. History has proven that, so can psychology(at least to my belief).

I think anyone can idolize the strong mindedness of Adolf Hitler. Idolizing his personage on the basis of results is a bit harder. Should we forget the ethics involved we can at least come to the conclusion that Hitler ultimately failed. And you don't sound like a person who idolizes failiors.

I also think your idea of values and ethics is a little one sided. After all...have you adopted the ethics of your parents? Doesn't appear that way. All equal men are capable of forming their own ethics. Of course, there is always this, what you might call, "debris of history" that shapes our thoughts. We can not, and should not escape the teachings of the past. We shouldn't overlook the ethics of our fathers without consideration. Often they need improvement but can also be learned from. The ethics are demanding, very high quality thinking, and passing on them, I think, is a prove of certain adulescence of thought.

I can really emphatize with your ideals because I once thought same about many things. But I don't now. And I argue that this is because of my intellectual, emotional...philosophical evolution.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by swillwater
Who is the judge of what is for the betterment of the species?

Not possible to judge that unless you make some assumptions.
As you can see, every SMAC faction has its own ideology for the betterment of the species.
None of them are absolutely right, of course.

In this instance I assume the value of thought over human life - you clearly assume the inverse, and so we disagree.
On what basis? I see no value in Life, but value in Wisdom, and while I am aware that thought does not equate to wisdom it seems to be a nescesary prerequisite.

Their family and friends would. Individuals are in any case not replaceble since each person is unique.

Of course the individual is irreplacable (at least until the Cloning Vats), but a person can be replaced. Say my professor for physics was fired. He will not be rehired, but a different professor of physics would take his place. Both would teach physics, and I would learn physics, so this person has been effectively replaced.

As for the Friends and Families thing, they'd lose people to Diseases, Mindworms, Enemy attack, Drone riots and a whole host of things. Perhaps Science can invent Research Hospitals, Hypnotic Trances, Superstring Theory and The Virtual World in order to stop these deaths.
But at what price science?
It would be nice if no-one died, but in any place we choose our poison.

Of course, people are offended by many things. I'm sure some citizens would be offended if we did not allow for the progression of research! Also, if the experimentees consent to the procedure, what reason would these people have to be upset?

... if they don't like what we do they can go join Lal or something.

Who determines which people are surplus to requirements?

Don't know this one yet. Presumably all people will be employed (at least until IndAuto), so all people are required.
But where are they required? It's a balancing act of what tasks you require to be performed.
As for who allocates the people, I do not know.

So you'd eradicate people who are diabetic?

I'd simply not let them reproduce is all.
Now if you were talking about, say, people who are highly autistic (or anyone else mentally incapable of providing for themselves) then I see no other use for them. Diabetics, of course, can still be intelligent, wise and productive.

If it was in fact consensual then I'd be for it.

So... even if there is a general opinion spread which disagrees with your own, and led to people being harmed (which you seem to disagree with), then you would allow it to happen?
Hmmm... we also differ on this point.

Because, despite what Yang says, the [so-called] goals of the greater race are not transcendent in my opinion.

I also dislike Yang in that he will not let his people question him - eliminating the possibility of him being corrected if this should ever be useful. In fact, "He has denied himself of a useful tool..."

Every human has (or at least should have) the right to be free from persecution,

Every human should have their ideas understood with open minds. I suppose we agree on this point.
It's not state-induced persecution; We're not removing people with specific mindsets (save perhaps from a suicidal mindset).

I might make exceptions for those people who have violated others (i.e. criminals who were convicted in an impartial court of law)

Criminals are not nescesarily useless. As you say - rehabilitation, but we forget that Criminals give a shining example of what people should avoid; some criminals are nescesary.

One generation's set of ethics is not necessarily the same as the next.

Oopsie... I made a fumble.
Very well... Our Ideas are influenced by the ideas of others and our own judgement.
Of course, I managed to forget that people can create their own ideas - As you have shown, this ability while shown in a minority has its effects spread to the majority.
Being wrong, I change my ideas.

In any circumstance, I want to teach people to value their own ideas and judgements, and try to be openminded to those of others. Of course, our own judgements are biased.
The idea then would be to not let past ideas be presumed as correct - that is, that each person would judge their own ethics and morals.
I can't judge creativity (two different brain areas) but these folk's morals will be influenced by the morals of those around them.
In the University, people will be more likely to take up the idea... the Ethic... that ethics are redudnant.

Hmmm... Conformism and Independence are both very useful. Perhaps a worthwhile goal is to make these two friends, not enemies.

No. One can pick up a cause like "truth" on any street corner, but one only has one life.

That's why I mocked 'truth' with a lol.
True, but Knowledge persists over many lives.
Being a scientist, I'm sure you value your ability to learn from others' thinking. Their knowledge seems to be transmitted from generation to generation, even though their lives have ended.

Life is quite impermanent, but if you make discoveries, they will live until they are forgotten or made obsolete. Einstein, Newton, even Aristotle have their ideas represented, but they are unfortunately dead.
Had we valued their lives less, they would have produced less ideas, but had we valued their ideas less, they would have persisted less.

At the cost of millions of lives, the devestation of an entire continent, and the emasculation of Germany, his adopted country. Yeah- that's worth idolising.

The part I respect was his ability to go against the grain and seize the initiative. Of course, all folk err. Some errors are more costly than others.

I don't really see how you can get to a pure state of mind without asking questions and obtaining answers.

Well Thinking is one way to Wisdom, but Thinking itself may become obsolete. After all, Thoughts are fleeting.
A mind burdened by unanswerable questions probably isn't 'pure', so there is more to intellectual enlightenment than simply Intellectual Integrity.

This is why I don't presume Zak's faction is wiser than the rest - but their lack of ethics seems to indicate their willingness to question old values, and IMHO movement from the old is required to get to the new (though I haven't proven this yet)

Some people want to see a family to be more of a partnership and less of a dictatorial system.

Me too. Just citing counterexamples is all.

I'm not sure tyranny is integral to our survival.

direction is key to our advancement, and so is movement. Whether people will move without being told or assume a coherent direction is fuzzy...
Anarchy involves the most movement, but it's all in different directions, so the system ultimately goes nowhere.
Tyranny involves a singular direction, and clear motive for movement.

If you believe that Parenthood is not tyranny, and Government is not tyranny, then your statement is correct. Unfortunately, all laws place restrictions, and in my mind a forced restriction is tyrannical.

Anarchy (the least tyrannical system) works if you can get the people to agree on an action and follow through on it. People tend to disagree, so to prevent factional strife, safeguards are required.

He's (yang) easily the worst of the faction leaders as far as I'm concerned.

Personally I hate Miriam the most.
Pleasant living natually makes people aspire to Morgan, Deidre and possibly Lal. Of course, pleasure isn't the only worthwhile goal.
I base most of my decisions on Power and Wisdom (Knowledge to be open-mindedly considered). This makes my two pet factions the Spartans and the University. You value freedom and happiness, so you go for Lal and Deidre, right?

It is the job of a guardian to put the good of the ward first.

Good of the individual, you'll find, is presumed in this case.
Who judges the 'good', anyway, and with what values?

The seperation of powers helps to mitigate but not eliminate these conflicts of interest.

Wow! You can get all that info on people you've never met and only know from a couple of impersonal sentences given by some one who disagrees with you on almost every point you've raised. That's impressive- more accurately, it's an example of fuzzy logic followed by what we in the industry call "jumping to a conclusion". So much for intellectual integrity of any kind.

After reading my words again...
I didn't make a generalisation about all people but did manage to draw a black-and-white line between conformism and individuality.

My fatal habit of dumbing things down has once again made me seem like an idiot. Perhaps I should stop doing that...

[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.

[timotheus4]

Originally posted by swillwater



Roman Catholics ARE Christian
In any case, it is not at all clear that Miriam is Catholic (The Sister in her title does not imply that she is a Roman Catholic nun)

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

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

Deidre - I hate environmentalists.

Beavers - already said.

Sparta - life with them would be very, shall we say, spartan. Not my kind of place.

Zak - my favorite faction to play with, but that lack of ethics just bothers. me I'm a christian, as I said. Also see end of my comment on Yang.

Lal - he'd be OK. Except I hate the UN.

As for the SMAX factions:

We can rule out the aliens and the Consciousness. Cult I've dealt with with dee. Free Drones - I hate labor unions. (getting a piece of my politics...) Pirates - that would be interesting, but too dangerous for me. Data Angels - now that would be fun, seeing as how I like computers, but anarchy is not my style.

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.

Just my reciprocal of $2

[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.