Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
utopia or 1984 (discussion of social engineering)
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
utopia or 1984 (discussion of social engineering)
|
| Author | Topic: utopia or 1984 (discussion of social engineering) |
| korn469 |
posted 07-19-99 07:57 PM ET  
ok what i had a though, what would it be like to live under the various forms of social engineering. i'm not talking about from a players perspective i'm talking about from a citizen's perspective what would be utopia and what would be orson well's 1984 and why? utopia: democratic-you would have an equal voice in the affairs of state and high civil liberties planned-society would see that every member of society was cared for and had all of their needs met. in the context of a democracy/utopian vision we could achieve a consensus on the needs of society and move to produce exactly what was needed for the maximum utility of everyone knowledge-the free flow of ideas and the dogged pursuit of new methods to make society a better place. knowledge could be the ultimate expression of free speech. knowledgeed used by a wise society could help to alleviate mankinds problems eudimonic-always striving for universal maximum utility and complete end to bitterness and hate. a society that seeks to make sure every member of society is happy and well adjusted (what exactly are the factors that define a eudiamonic society?) over all: a society that cared for each of it's members. making sure everyone needs are met at a physical, emotional, spiritual, and artistic level 1984 police state: people are merely tools for the state. the state can destroy those tools at will. free market: a complete free market with the only regulations making sure the industrial base can churn out weapons at will. a few master lord over the slaves. no labor unions, no environmental restriction only the survival of the fitest. in the context of a police state the economy would function more like a factory at a concentration camp in world war two where the SS provided slave labor for profit rather than the us economy of today with all of its regulation power: for this society only force of arms could ward off enemies. violence could be used to settle all problems. don't wanna work in horrible conditions? join the army. rigorous brutal training. the best arms money could buy and a need to subjugate all ideas that oppose the party thought control: a dissadent speaks out against the party? well the ministry of truth will fix his attitude. he will come back from the ministry filled with praise for the condition of the state. everything he said before was merely misguided. whatever the state says IS TRUE! overall: totalitarianism at its worst. the state has practically banished individualism. people are nothing more than cogs in a giant machine. the state must survive and all other states must perish just like civil rights and individual freedoms did so long ago were those the best/worst forms of social engineering? what would society be like with different forms? am i misguided? what are your thoughts on this, please feel free to voice your opinions. korn469 |
| walruskkkch |
posted 07-19-99 08:13 PM ET
Just a small point of order. 1984 was written by George Orwell not Orson Welles. Too much to digest in your post now to offer a reply. I'm going to try and respond later. There are some interesting points of discussion here. |
| korn469 |
posted 07-19-99 08:32 PM ET
wal you're completely right...i'm an idiot i haven't read the book in five years so please overlook the mistake korn469 |
| Natguy |
posted 07-21-99 02:36 AM ET
I had a message typed, but then MSIE crashed. ::SIGH:: At least you didn't spend half an hour in Barnes and Noblt trying to figure out why they didn't have 1984 when you were looking in the "W" section... I think that your SMAC representation is correct, although in my view I would change the 1984 from FM to Planned, to further increase the aura of an all- controlling govenrnment. Ugh...I can't think and everything looks blurry. I had a good one before but I just can't duplicate it now. I'll come back tomorrow. (Later today, actually) |
| korn469 |
posted 07-21-99 05:25 AM ET
Natguy sorry about your vision. when i said 1984 what i actually meant was a distopia(sp?) or to invoke a doublespeak the most ungood kind of society possible. the society laid out in 1984 is quite hellish and that's why i used it as an example. here are some thoughts i've had. how much carry over does each factor (government, economy, values, future society) have on the other? and what social engineering values would be reletively equivalent to governments we know? from my assumptions governments and economies goes hand in hand and the order of effect on peoples lives would go in this order. future societies would have the largest effect on an individual citizens life, then governments, then economies, then values. the basic governemnt/economies mixes would be the basis for a society. then future societies would "perfect" that society, and values would define it. but i think we have to start with the governments/economy mix and rate them on overall utility for people: police state/free market-not a very good society to live if you are a common person. nothing protects you from depredations of the powerful and while there is some free will any one who rocks the boat will be quickly delt with. D (F+, C-, D+) police state/planned-the government owns everything. free will is probably non-existant. unless you are a party member you share in the equal distribution of poverty D+ (D-, C, C-) police state/green-the streets are clean and the land is pristeen. strict manditory birth control, and the state enforcing it's version of social conscious on everyone. C- (D, C+, C) democratic/free market- the government listens to the people and would make sure that there are basic safe guards to the public's well being however there would be massive cracks for people to slip through, yet this system would have the highest degree of hope. B+ (B-, A, A-) democratic/planned-the government would take on the responsibilty for providing for everyone. though the average standard of living would be lower than that in a democratic/free market, few would slip through the cracks and everyone would have access to basic needs. B (C+, A-, B+) deomocratic/green-a society with a high social conscious. volunteerism would be high and doing the right thing would be a first order priority. however there would probably be a few who wouldn't like the voluntary restraint. B (C+, A-, B+) fundamentalist/free market-a system with wide spread corruption of a greedy clergy, yet religious power would be preminant. the practice of indulgences would be common yet, and common people would have some areas of life that they could forget the dogma and go about everyday life C+ (D+, B, B-) fundamentalist/planned-god's will is in the hands of the patriarchs and they will make sure that god sees to every need. with religious officals who aren't corrupt but mere part of an inefficent buerocracy fundamentalist/green-the highest form of taking care of god's kingdom and following the commandments. officals would make sure you keep the temples of god pristeen less corrupt and more efficient clery who shepard the flocks. B- (C, B+, B) ok the values system power: would turn make the government have more national prestige and security yet make it more belligerant and the arms build ups would funnel money from social programs into the military. this would degredate an individuals life in societies who made this value choice. so take the government/economic model and subtract two points knowledge: free expression and the pursuit of technology to better peoples lives would mean more schools and collecges, knowledge would encourage happiness. so add two points wealth: a hedonistic lifestyle would be the norm, making people greedy and uncaring. yet there would be unequaled enterainment to fill the void inside of you and a generally high standard of living. so add one point. now we come to future socities "perfecting" each model. what i mean by this is even dem/green/know would be a brave new world hell-hole when coupled with thought control. where as police/planned/wealth would still seek to find happiness for each and every person. basically thought control: causes the individual to live in conditions they ordinarily wouldn't (they wouldn't neccesarily be bad conditions) and thought control would be bad eudimonic: would seek to find true hppiness for everyone so this would be good cybernetic: this kind of society would have a chaotic social element but society would operate just fine. not necessarily bad, just crazy does that seem right? add what you think. korn469 |
| korn469 |
posted 07-21-99 05:31 AM ET
i wish these forums had the ability to edit your posts. in the future society examples i meant adding eudimonic with police/planned/wealth also what makes a society eudimonic? does it just look for happiness and peace for all? cybernetic what social effects would it have? it and fundametalism are the two systems that i have the hardest time coming to grips with korn469 |
| Earthling7 |
posted 07-21-99 08:04 AM ET
It's funny that the Planned Society sounds an awful lot like Communism. Everything taken care of for everyone. It may sound beautiful in theory, and it may work in SMAC (depending on the AI) but not in real life. People start depending on the state like pets depend on their owners. Pets will never survive when released in the wild, neither will these people function if the government changes. This system doesn't work, because everyone is equal and there is no reward for being ahead, so people don't bother. Look to the former Eastern Block to see what perfect equality does. Oh, and one thing. If you think that is not perfect equality, then you're right. As long as man is as he is, there will never be a perfectly fair society. I'm not saying man is bad or evil. Absolutely not. This is just the way humans (or any other animals for that matter) function. |
| Natguy |
posted 07-21-99 11:01 AM ET
Why it appears that Earthling 7 has somehow duplicated, in less words, what I was going to say last night before the crash! Well, now, there's no need for me to write it now! Thanks, Earthling! |
| absimiliard |
posted 07-21-99 11:55 AM ET
Hmmmm. Okay, my two cents worth. Of course we would prefer a democracy, people prefer to believe that they are in control. I am not however sure that 'the people' know enough about governing a massive state to do it competantly. So while I agree that I would prefer to live in a democracy I am not certain that it makes for a better society. All in all I prefer absolute rule by those who are qualified to rule, a meritocracy. SMAC however does not provide such a choice. Enough on society models. Economic models. Hmmmm. I do not like a Planned economy. History shows that Planned economies suffer from human corruptibility. At the same time a Free Market can brutalize the typical citizen. Free Markets are geared to please the rich, by making them richer. Green would be ideal from my point of view. Suffering neither from the corruption of the Planned economy nor the suppression of the common man that the Free Market engenders I think Green would actually be preferable for a 'typical' citizen. Values: Power, ughhh. Wealth, ughhhh. Knowledge, ughhhh. No society that focusses on any of these is going to be enjoyable. All of the values prefer a certain type of citizen over another. Power orients everything toward the state. Wealth orients everyone towards greed. Knowledge focusses too much on the education system. Of the three I suppose Knowledge is the best. But it is definately a lesser of the evils kind of choice. Future Socities: Clearly Thought Control is not the winner. Although in its defence I have to note that the common citizen would probably be very happy doing their thought controlled tasks. From outside the system we see the flaws, from inside however you would not be able to see it since your thoughts are being controlled. I kind of like Cybernetic myself, but that is just my technophilia speaking. From the outside Eudaimonia is pretty clearly the winner however. Conclusion: From our point of view we might go with Demo/Green/Knowledge/Eudai. Debate is open over the values arena. From the point of view of the citizen though almost anything combined with Thought Control would be the best. Once Thought Control is in place the common citizen will be programmed to be happy, simply because they will work better that way. The rest of the SE settings are irrelevant if you are programmed to happiness. Tricky for us to choose. 'WE' might not like Thought Control, but it is hard to not admit that the controlled individual would be happier. Ah well. -absimiliard |
| icosahedron |
posted 07-21-99 12:22 PM ET
absimiliard, while I concur with your "best" choices (Demo/Green/Knowledge/Eudai), I do not agree that thought control would simply render citizens happy. Thought control would tend to cause negative feedback in humans at some level, maybe resulting in poorer health, lowered immunity, and social (and perhaps even genetic) stagnation. This feedback would eventually rot the system from within, and I do not think blatant thought control would be a successful long term strategy with humans. - icosahedron |
| dilbert |
posted 07-21-99 08:16 PM ET
I think one important type of economy is missing: Social Market Economy, a hybrid between socialist ideals and free market economies. Its characteristics are organized labor unions, antimonopoly legislations, unemployment benefits, environmental regulations, governmental fiscal policies(interest and tax rate), and state monopolies(Air France, Deutsch Telekom). This is the type of economy most developed countries(West Europe, Japan, Canada, and the US) are using. Many other countries are using a similar economy or are trying to implement it. Free market economy, as described in SMAC, has long been abandoned in favor of social market economy. I would give SM a social engineering scale of +1 econ, +1 eff, and -1 morale due to welfare state like condition. In SMAC term, Dem/Green/Knowledge/Eudai is clearly the best SE combo, that gives you nice numbers such as: +5 eff +2 planet +2 research +2 econ +2 ind +2 growth -2 support -2 morale -2 probe Now, what does the so called worst combo, the Police/FM/Power/Thought Control, give you? +1 support +2 econ +4 Morale +2 probe -1 police -2 eff -3 planet -2 industry The numbers are just awful, nobody would play this way. Using planned instead of FM will paralyze your economy due to inefficiency. The SMAC numbers actually come close to the reality. If one ruler sticks too long around with the worst possible SE combo, he/she will get his/her butt kicked by someone who uses the best combo. |
| MajiK6pt5 |
posted 07-22-99 12:16 AM ET
unless you kill them first... |
| Aredhran |
posted 07-22-99 03:31 AM ET
"Using planned instead of FM will paralyze your economy due to inefficiency" Unless you're Yang absimiliard, I agree with your argument there. Aredhran |
| Shining1 |
posted 07-22-99 03:44 AM ET
Actually, I kinda like the worst combo. Probe teams will make up for any economic loss quite nicely. Also, you should avoid having redundant numbers in your soc eng. +5 Effic is only useful for the PK's, everyone else gets a paradigm economy at +4. |
| korn469 |
posted 07-22-99 05:48 AM ET
actually i have been thinking about social engineering and i don't think they they have enough choices for one and for another thing i don't think they they went far enough in representing the full effects of each social engineering choice so here are some more varied and extreme representations of the economic choices you have free market free market +2 economy social market +1 economy green +3 planet communism +2 industry so what do you think? are those numbers about correct or am i totally off? korn469 |
| player2 |
posted 07-22-99 01:41 PM ET
Wow, I just finished that book yesterday! Great story. Here's my viewpoint on similarities between the book and playstyles; builder = Utopia Builder's are primarily concerned with building the infrastructure of their empire, and also with the happiness of their people (so they can get that nice Golden Age bonus!) Conqueror's on the other hand, allocate all their resources towards war. Civilians get whatever's left after the voracious appetite of their war machine is satisfied. This is usually equivilant to the smallest ammount needed to keep the masses from revolting. Talk about an Orwellian nightmare! |
| korn469 |
posted 07-22-99 04:50 PM ET
player2 i agree with you. if you take our worst social setting and compare it to the best in a war the worst would be a formidable enemy and with one secret project the tides would turn strongly in the SE representing 1984. the cloning vats. if the distopia builds that project then they get an additional +2 industry and +2 support. there is no secret project the utopia could build to negate weaknesses in its parts (well the living refinery but that doesn't take away the -2 support from democratic that just increase overall suppoert). i think a 1984 type society would build the cloning vats where as a utopian society wouldn't. the distopia already doesn't value the individual, infact they are justs parts of the machine, parts that up until the cloning vats that were crafted one at a time, the quality of each would be a completely unknown variable. with the cloning vats it would be like introducing the ideas of the assembly line to people production. as you have read in 1984 love was outlawed. but how can you really make sure that two people who are involved so intimately won't fall inlove? and when they have a child, and they might inturn love the child, and teach it ideas that are in opposition to the fact that the child is nothing more than a living part of infrastructure of the state. with mass clonings, normal reproduction can be curtailed, genetic engineering can make better soldier and scientists and the goverment can have more control over the population. cloning would be the preferred method of new population growth. in a utopian society, cloning would be a taboo practice. why would one set of genes be replicated on a mass scale? i think taking in acount the happiness of the clones, the utopian society would decide that cloning would prevent the clones from achieving their maximum happines so they wouldn't engage in cloning. would a utopian society clone? i don't think so. what do you think? korn469 |
| Geo |
posted 07-22-99 10:01 PM ET
(from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, chapter 16) "The optimum population," said Mustapha Mond, "is modeled on the iceberg- eight-ninths below the water line, one-ninth above." Brave New World begins at the central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre - sounds like the Cloning Vats to me  Both BNW and 1984 typify, what many of us fear about technology: that as technology has progressed, the capacity for misuse of that technology by large organizations has increased (we often say governments, but there are others like corporations that wish to control us). The difference between democracy and totalitarianism quite simply is the distribution of authority. A true democracy (there are no true democracies in this day and age), is direct voting by all citizens, a popularity contest where the opinion of the mob rules (the tyranny of the majority). Despite the appeal of democracy and my voice being heard, I know that there are thousands of ignorant people would vote yes or no on a piece of legislation because of the color of paper its printed on, or what they heard so-and-so say about it. No, complete democracy is kin to anarchy, and the minority view has no say. The totalitarian (or fundamentalist) however focussed all authority in one place. You have no politicians only bureaucrats  . Those who disturb the fabric of society become road-bed material. Witness what Tito did in Yugoslavia; while he ruled ruthlessly, there was no ethnic cleansing. Consider what the Chinese think when they look at what has happened to the former Soviet Union. Why on earth would the Chinese leadership allow the same to happen to China???? Keep the peoples' bellies full and their minds' empty. But no, few of us would be happy in a totalitarian regime (you notice that we use the word regime to describe governments we don't like?). The fact is that those in power will abuse it, eliminating not just subversive thought, but even technological progress that might unseat those in power. I think that the word Utopia has taken on a meaning of an impossible society. Not every one can be happy at the same time. Societies are made up of imperfect individuals who are greedy, cruel, and self-indulgent. So if SMAC makes you happy, play it, if not play something else |
| player2 |
posted 07-22-99 10:38 PM ET
I was also going to post a reference to BNW, but it looks like Geo beat me to it! I think cloning would only be ethical if a sudden population boom was needed for some reason. I cannot think of a reason outside of disease outbreak or war (on second thought, cloning cannon fodder is pretty unethical ) The reason being that cloning artificially shallows the gene pool and cheats out evolution. |
| The Builder |
posted 07-23-99 08:24 AM ET
BTW, Communism and Planned Economy are not the same. Of course, communistic countries almost always have a planned economy as it fits their needs at the best. But also democratic countries have planned or very near to planned economics. In France the whole industry belonged to the state until a few years ago and the state is there still a major shareholder in every branch of industry. In Japan, the MITI (Ministery of Technology and Industy, I think) controlled everything also until a few years ago. Almost everyone had work und the japanese economy was booming. And then they started to deregulate.... you know what happend. And, one more, Social Market has not a very good efficiency, better as planned, but its pretty poor nevertheless. I must know that, Germany has one of the most expanded bureaucraty in the world. Up to the Sky! |
| dilbert |
posted 07-23-99 12:37 PM ET
I think Chairman Yang would do great with 1984 style society, along with the cloning vats. But he should use planned instead of FM. Then his settings look like: +4 Support +4 Police +2 Industry +2 Growth +2 Probe +4 Morale -2 econ That seems to be an ass-kicking conquering faction. But I think he's better off with cyber and network backbone instead of TC. Gaians also could run a perfect eco-dictatorship with police/green/power and TC(CV required): |
| edgecrusher |
posted 07-23-99 04:35 PM ET
just one critique, as i do not have time to join this discussion because i have to leave for work shortly, is that you have been spelling "dystopia" wrong. a minor thing, true, but i thought that i'd share that. more to come from the edgecrusher... "edgecrusher" ~ Spartan Probe Team 'angelis' |
| korn469 |
posted 07-23-99 08:26 PM ET
edgecrusher sorry abou that, my spelling and comma use are really bad. thanks for clarifying that i think i know the defining characteristics of a eudiamonic society...that everyone would take responsibility for the condition of the society. everyone would take a personal stake in making things as good as possible. one of the bad things about democracy is the tendancy for everyone to start talking and for nobody to listen. then the only way you can be heard is by being the loudest voice. in a eudiamonic society not only would everyone have a voice to speak but they would also take the personal rsponsibility to listen to what the others are saying. personal responsibility for your happiness and the happiness of others. i think that is what a eudiamonic society would be like. korn469 |
| Geo |
posted 07-24-99 12:31 AM ET
Korn, If I may summarize: Your description of a eudiamonic society is a system of decentralized politics (the opposite of totalitarian state) combined with personal social responsability. A social democracy then? Every government is a set of compromises. Every social order is a compromise between the wants of the individual (anarchy), and the good of many (order). Every political system is a compromise between central authority (totalitarianism), and the individual's voice ("democracy"). Every economic system is a compromise between purely market-driven capitalism (a zero regulation, "survival of the fittest" approach) and a centrally planned economy. ---------------------------- With those three variables, you can describe most governments. I believe that Karl Marx envisioned something like your social democracy (except it would be government that would be taking care of eveyone). All workers share in the collective rewards of their work, and all are part fo the decision-making process, but we know what the phrase "All power to the Soviets." Lead to. All power to Stalin. My own thinking of the perfect govenment: I can't do better than: "That government which governs best, governs least." (paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson) ---------------------------- SMAC also added Fundamentalism, which is a totalitarianism whose authority is based on religion. And Green economics are a type of planned economics, Industry is privately owned, however strict regulations are in place to promote sustainable development. Though growth suffers because the money you spend on environmental compliance today, is money you're not using to build new plants with (opportunity cost). That applies to military units as well, but I won't bend the discussion from social engineering. ---------------------------- How would I like to see the game further developed? I'm not sure if there are really any other variables that need to be added. I would focus more time on properly using those that exist. ------------------------- IMO, The AI should vary its use of the social factors depending on the situation. Be pragmatic, not ideological, much more effective. If Lal goes to war, make him use power/fundam. If Yang is at peace, let him use wealth/free market. But I do like the strictures (ie Miram will never value knowledge). |
| Stellar Lightning |
posted 07-24-99 06:36 PM ET
By the way, what kind of social engineering settings would the society described in the novel "Brave new world" use ? Police State-Planned-Wealth-Thought Control ? A citizen doesn't have any political freedom, the economy is controlled by the state and focuses on achieving a certain level of luxury for everyone. Drugs are used to keep the population happy ... |
| Stellar Lightning |
posted 07-24-99 06:39 PM ET
I think that todays communism is not purely represented by planned economics alone. It is more like police-planned-power - and if you look at it, that's a rather devastating combination (which won't work for anyone but Yang. <g> ) |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.
