Jump to content

KrataLightblade

Member
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by KrataLightblade

  1. I think it'd require a social shift, really. People retire in their 60s in America. If people now live to 200, it's just not feasible to allow basic retirement to stay in the 60s. The society simply cannoy support the ever-growing disproportion of productive and nonproductive members. It sounds callous, yes, but it's just simple math. Assuming the the population grows at some sort of stable rate (hint: population tends to explode more than stably grow, when surpluses are readily available and the society doesn't limit it somehow), let's just assume for the sake of numbers that 100 new people enter the workforce every year, and 100 retire. People remain productive members of the workforce for approximately 44 years (simplifying, from 18 to 62 or so). Now, for the same math, let's assume people are dying around 80 on average. That's a fairly high number, but this is for the sake of arguement here. That means that from birth to age 18, then again from 62 to 80, people are generally unproductive members of society requiring support of some kind. That's a total of thirty-six years of nonprodctive life, eighteen at each end. That makes the ratio of productive years to nonproductive years 44-36, which works out to just about 11-9. That's not quite 1-1, but it favors productive years. This people people are, on average, theoretically more productive in their lifetime than nonproductive. Of course, this doesn't account for people like me who are unemployed, or criminals, or those too ill, injured, or mentally unstable to be productive in some way. This is a simplification, after all. What this essentially means, however, is that each person, on average, much supply both themselves and one other person for every day of their productive live for the system to work, plus allows for a surplus. Now, imagine that people suddenly live to even just 100 on average. That's an extra 20 years of nonproductivity. That makes the ratio of years 44 to 56, which simplifies down into 11-14. This is an over 50% increase in the amount of productivity each person, on average, MUST be responsible for to keep everything running and not come up with shortfalls. Now instead of every person being responsible for both themselves and one other person, they're responsible for themselves, one other person, and a whole third of another person, with very little margin for error. And that's just one factor to be considered. Let's assume that longer lifespans allow people to STAY productive longer. Now imagine you're trying to move up on your career. Your boss is maybe twenty years older than you, and you won't move up until he moves up, is fired, transfers, or retires. He won't move up until the guy above him does the same. In short, this means that everybody is waiting for SOMEONE to screw up, die, quit, or retire. Now make it take even ten or twenty more years for someone to retire or die. Suddenly, the waiting time to move up in your career moves up another ten or twenty years. Again, this is a simplification, but there are a lot of people who work low level crap jobs for a long time only for the hope of getting noticed and moving up the chain. It's a lot harder to do that when it takes that much longer for openings to come around. Plus, this limits the amount of new blood able to break into the business. Think politics, or business, or whatever is an old boys club (or some other appropriate metaphor) now? Give them another ten, twenty, fifty, hundred years to stagnate the hell out of things even more. Lilith above mentioned the opinion that marriage will be less attractive. I disagree. I just think divorce will be MORE attractive, right up to the possibility of marriages having term limits with possible renewal clauses. But just imagine the weirdness of having a younger brother or sister who's SIXTY YEARS YOUNGER than you. What will it do to political term limits, too? Maybe it'd be a good thing to have a turnover rate that doesn't rely on people being too old for the job, or maybe it'd just mean that you'd spend centuries with the same groups of politicians who hate anything changing rather than decades. None of these things are unsolveable problems, but they all come with a radical and dramatic REQUIRED SHIFT in societial outlooks. On another note, I'd rather enjoy living an extended lifespan. Frankly, I haven't done anywhere near as much with my life as I'd've liked, and having a few extra decades of wiggle room would be great. Sure, I'm only thirty, but that's still ten years of my life that were basically wasted. I'd love to be able to get them back when I'm old enough and wise enough to do better this time.
  2. Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Violently forcing your way of life onto other people isn't the sign of a safe or stable society. I don't know, Rome lasted quite some time as a relatively safe and stable society. Yes, it eventually fell apart, but as I mentioned above, there really isn't any way to make a case that ANY society will last forever. Quote: No, no it isn't. It was a laudable goal when there were only humans around, but that changed once other sapient beings came into the picture. Now the Shapers have to build a better world for the serviles and drayks too. Have to? Why? Because they demand it? Nevermind that they're a direct threat to the society the Shapers already built. Once again, I'm not trying to claim the Shapers were necessarily right, just that there's a very strong case to be made that they aren't the black hats of this particular setting. Their actions may not necessarily be commendable, but they are perfectly understandable, and in many cases, exactly what any other group that had gone to great lengths to gather and maintain a stable power base would take. The Awakened might have been "right" in some ways, but what they were not was practical, at least, after Geneforge 1. Certainly, the Barrier of the Winds was a good idea, except that they were relying on power they had no way of effectively controlling if any one of several points of failure fell apart. In other words, they were playing with the Shapers toys in an extremely dangerous way and proved exactly why the Shapers so tightly control their power. Being led by a man so augmented as to be an utter sociopath did not help. Were the Shapers right to act as they did? In many ways, probably not. But in equally many ways, they acted as anyone would. To protect themselves and their way of life. Were there better ways it could have been handled? Absolutely. But understanding the core reasons they acted the way they did, and admitting that they did have strong reasons for many of their laws, even some of the morally reprehensible ones, is much like admitting that Rome had a lot of good points even if they built their empire on the backs of slaves and with oceans of blood.
  3. We don't see much evidence of anything outside of isolated areas and/or areas caught up in outright rebellion, though.
  4. Neither is "start a massive rebellion and murder lots of innocent people because you disagree with the treatment of other innocent people." Obviously, the most important theme of Geneforge seems to be the law of unintended consequences and how you deal with them when they come up. But I detect a hint of "sometimes, being right isn't enough, you have to be powerful, and getting power can mean doing some pretty wrong things." On the whole, Shaper society is built on a foundation of building a better world for HUMANS. That's an incredibly laudable goal. Decry their methods all you want, but they were doing a pretty good job, on the whole, putting together a safe and stable world until some of their own people went crazy or outsiders started meddling. Sure, it would have all fallen apart anyway eventually, but show me a system that won't fall apart eventually and I'll show you a person who's just a tad too idealistic to be realistic.
  5. If it makes you feel any better, I got it. But I'm new here so I don't count.
  6. For the record, Fnord and Alroel, you both make good points. And from an outsider's point of view, they make perfect sense. From our modern, third party perspective, they're good arguements. From an in-world standpoint, there is an equally good arguement to be made that fully sentient creations are a dangerous mistake that should never have been allowed and should be eliminated as a violation of the Shapers' highest laws and a potential danger to humanity... and more specifically the Shapers themselves. Rightly or wrongly, any society will defend itself if it feels threatened, and the Shapers are defending themselves from what they consider a huge threat. And if you'll note, it turns out, they're right. The Drayks and Drakons and free Serviles ARE a huge threat. The Takers don't want peace. They want the heads of every Shaper they can find on a spike. Even the Awakened are dangerous, because they shake the very foundation of Shaper society, the use of Serviles as a labor force. Some might call it abolishing slavery, others might say that the serviles were never INTENDED to be made smart enough to rebel in the first place and eliminating dangerous rogues is more like turning off a robot that isn't living up to its original purpose anymore. Mind you, once again, I'm not really defending the Shapers actions. From MY modern, safe third party standpoint, I consider their society to be moderately monstrous, built on a shaky foundation of slavery and rampant barely-controlled magical power that would inevitably spiral out of control one way or another anyway. But from the standpoint of the remarkably stable and safe Shaper society? They're doing what they feel is right. They aren't cackling cartoon villains. If anything, the rebels who overuse canisters come off that way much more than the Shapers.
  7. Well, again, let's be fair to the Shapers. Their creations are, in many cases, extroardinarily dangerous beings who the Shapers try very hard to control and keep safe. It's only in times of stress that a law-abiding and sane/reasonable Shaper would lose control of a creation so badly that widespread damage could occur. Shapers who overreach their powers and create a dangerous creation they cannot control may sound like a self-correcting issue until that creation kills a lot more people than the Shaper who made it. Mind you, I'm not defending the arrogance of the Shapers and their belief that anything and everything they make should slavishly serve them without question. But with the exception of the serviles, the Shapers go to great lengths to avoid having the issue ever come up in the first place... because they aren't supposed to be making thing smart enough to challenge them anyway. Servant Minds are smart, but their loyalty is pre-programmed to an extreme that prevents most of them from having much in the way of self-awareness, and also they can't move or defend themselves without outside assistance. Drayks are a very different thing. Look at situations in our own world where new animals are introduced into an ecosystem without any real understanding of the consequences. Ask people in Australia why they don't let animals through customs anymore, for example. Now imagine that it's not just a case of naturally occuring animals, but that one person who's just a little crazy, stupid, or irresponsible can create something extremely dangerous to normal people (like, say, a four legged doglike being that spits acid and explodes when it dies?), then let them loose to devastate an entire region. Now, to bring all this back to the point of creating independant species and then eradicating them all... look at it as a case of Shapers trying to erase a particularly dangerous mistake before it does any more damage. Looking at it from that perspective, questioning the morality of destroying a race of baby dragons that at first were rare and dangerous mistakes and later learning to SHAPE THEMSELVES and create even more dangerous versions of themselves... Let's just say I can understand the Shaper point of view. They're still arrogant pricks and the entire society could use a collective kick in their hidebound rear ends, but they have a good point when it comes to controlling their creations. This isn't really a case of a parent killing their children as much as it is a mage taking care of his mistakes. It's understandable that the children wouldn't see it this way. It's less understandable that the children respond by learning the arts that created them and then using them to murder thousands upon thousands of people whose only crime was trying to live their lives under a regime that's existed since before they were born.
  8. I myself tend to play sounding board for a terribly intelligent friend of mine who is sadly even more impractical than he is smart. His ideas are often brilliant in their own way, but fatally flawed in some very obvious manner, and he himself has trouble with seeing those flaws. On the bright side, he's self aware enough to bring his ideas to me for analysis first. He and I are seriously considering entering a creative business partnership together. Should we do this, I would under no circumstances allow him within a thousand miles of our fans, should we acquire any. First of all he has a terrible temper, and second of all, it requires a certain amount of delicacy and diplomacy to explain to him why an idea he had isn't quite as perfect as he thought it was. Letting him anywhere near our audience would be a lot like letting a naive eight year old girl post to 4chan. That may be a slight overexaggeration, but it's a good point nonetheless. You don't want to get in the habit of firing shots back at your audience. Many of them will support indirectly you even if they claim to hate you, through free advertising about how much they hate you. I can't speak for others, but I bought copies of the Twilight novels BECAUSE of the hate, not because I cared about them myself. It led me to read a work I otherwise wouldn't have precisely because I wanted to see how anything could be as bad as I was told. And whether I liked it or not, Meyer still has my money. On the other hand, if I hear about a work because I hear about its creator being a whiny childish blowhard who is more famous for attacking his fans than for his work, I'm likely to give it a pass. I might lurk on the forums to watch the flame war, but I won't care about his work. Every medium is different, of course. But in a medium where you need your fans to appreciate you work, and not the spectacle you create, it pays to avoid situations that might trigger your berserk buttons.
  9. To be fair, the Shapers have some strong basis for their views. Look what happens when people start violating their laws willy nilly, for example. Chaos, lots of indescriminate murdering, entire regions rendered useless and full of horrible monsters, etc.
  10. Originally Posted By: Tirien You could always try too feed your insanity to the fluffy turtles like I did. Not all of us have sanity to leave at the door, after all. I'm rather fond of my particular brand of crazy. Besides, I'm not sure I could do much more than squee at the top of my lungs at fluffy turtles. Originally Posted By: Oviraptor Some antibiotics would clear those up in no time, you know. Dikiyoba. The same person who gave me plushie Chlamydia and plushie Herpes also gave me the plushie Penicillin to fix them right up. So I'm good there!
  11. Originally Posted By: A Disquieting Silence That's a dangerous resolution to make in a place like this. And it will cost you your sanity, if it hasn't already. The fluffy turtles do like their tribute, you know. But we're always happy for new blood! I've spent the last week showing off the plushie STDs I got for Christmas and sleeping next to a stuffed Cthulu head. I'm not sure I have any sanity left to steal. ...Besides. I have penguins.
  12. Become more active on internet forums in the hopes of spending more time with interesting and entertaining people.
  13. One of my favorite game quotes applies here. "There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn nonetheless for the latter. --Provost Zahkarov "Address to the Faculty" In other words, as Alroel said, science does a lot wandering semi-aimlessly, with a lot of fumbling around, usually heading towards a definite goal but trying literally whatever seems like it MIGHT get them there (since if they already knew how to get there they wouldn't need to perform the experiments). Then someone accidentally contaminates an experiment and we get antibiotics that save millions of lives.
  14. I think people underestimate the ability of children to divide fantasy from reality. I was around three when I first played Dragon Warrior, and I never once was terrified that giant skeletons were going to burst into my room and my only recourse to defeat them would be a broadsword from Garinham, for instance. That said, I think I speak for most reasonable humans when I say that there's very little in Avernum or Geneforge that would irreparably damage a child, if anything at all. Then again, I grew up on mutant turtles with attitude being threatened by a giant can opener. Maybe my generation is a bad one to ask about damaging children. EDIT: Originally Posted By: Fukuiraptor Originally Posted By: Tirien Children are evil, blood-thirsty little monsters. All the blood and killing on Geneforge probably delights most of them. This is why I child-proofed my house. Lets see them try to get in now! Children are not Velociraptors. Dikiyoba. Give my nephew another year and my sister might swear differently.
  15. Personally... and don't get me wrong, I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible... I feel that the one of the greatest problems with the current Republican party is that many of its most hardcore supporters are people who are told on a regular basis that smart, educated people cannot be trusted. That means that only "salt of the earth types" are trustworthy. The problem being, of course, that most of them don't understand cause and effect on a national level because, well, they're exactly the sort of people who don't trust "them darn educated folk what think they're better'n us normal guys". Living in the dark recesses of the South, I encounter this mentality a lot. This leads to people who see knee-jerk short term solutions as not only valuable, but the ONLY viable solutions. Republican fiscal policy smacks of this attitude. I choose not to believe that my government is actively evil, just misguided and elected by people who by and large don't really understand or care about the greater issues. They hear "taxes go up" and scream about it... only because none of them understand or care that without taxes, you can't do things like fund a military, have public works projects, support the elderly, or whatever. Republican "smaller government" policy also comes with an ironic attitude of distrust. "You can't trust the dang government. You should trust rich folks who've proven they're not just apathetic but actively out to screw you instead." Seriously, I don't understand why someone would refuse to put trust in a regulatory agency because it's some monolithic faceless bureaucracy that doesn't have your best interests at heart... but will absolutely throw all their trust into a monolithic faceless corporation whose best interests are to bilk you for everything you're worth and discard you because by the time that stops working most of the people at the top will already be filthy rich and won't care anyway. A government and a corporation are similar in lots of ways. They're a way for a small number of people to collectively run a large organization that takes money and invests it into their own interests. The difference is, a corporation's interest is self-fulfilling (Get bigger, be more successful, make more money) and a (non-tyrannical) government's interest is it's people (Have a healthy, stable population of workers, thinkers, soldiers, and other useful human resources). One exists to take your money and keep it. The other exists (obstensibly) to take your money and redirect it for the greater good. Frankly, if you're going to put irrational trust into either, why make it the one whose best interests ARE to screw you over? EDIT: And wow. Throughout all of that I managed to lose my actual point! I'll get back to it now. The basic Republican philosophy that individuals are more inherently trustworthy than governments strikes me as very idealistic... but not very realistic. I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the world would be a better place if you could just trust people to do the right thing. I think the whole point of laws is that you can't, and you need a bunch of people keeping an eye on people. We need regulatatory bodies and governments watching us, and we need them looking out for the people. ALL the people, not just the rich ones. In principle I love the idea of a tiny government. In reality I recognize it is pretty much unworkable.
  16. Originally Posted By: FnordCola It is a pain about the quests, though. I think it's pretty funny that killing people and taking their stuff nets you far fewer things than buying their inventory or doing odd jobs for them. Either every shopkeeper and questgiver has a personal pocket dimension to store their stuff in, or adventurers/Empire soldiers are so lazy that they take one look at a shop full of inifite health potions and go "meh, too much to carry", then move on. I lean towards the latter. After all, it's not like everyone ELSE in the world isn't incredibly lazy. "Hey, look, the world's totally ending here, and I know you're busy and all, but would you mind terribly keeping one eye open for a tiny obscure trinket that I may or may not have lost half an underworld away, then remember to bring it to me, even if it may well be hundreds or thousands of miles out of your way, please? That'd be great... I'll give you something shiny!" Nevermind that the money you get from selling off all the weaons and armor of all the things you killed on the way to get their trinket is generaly worth enough that it has to be measured in orders of magnitude next to whatever they're offering for the quest...
  17. Capital letters also cannot be used when selecting targets for spells, as an accidental brush with a capslock key showed me earlier today. I spent a good fifteen seconds trying to figure out why in goodness name I wasn't able to target that darn Dervish before realizing my capslock key was on. The fact that it's case sensitive WOULD imply that other hotkeys are in fact case sensitive as well. Someone mentioned Shift-M and Shift-P... sounds like capital letters to me. I haven't actually tried fast casting the last spell yet, but that's mostly because training myself to use a different hotkey that saves me all of one button press wouldn't be worth the trouble. c, g (or later, k or q), abcdefgh, hear that "ugh" sound when things die.
  18. Exile/Avernum 2 are my favorite of all the Spiderweb games. E/A1 was very rough, though admittedly the feel of "you have no idea what's going on, you're new to all this" works very well. By the time 2 rolls around, there are enough interface upgrades that I was really happy with it. The fact that I played Exile 1 before any other Exile game, and Avernum 2 before any other Avernum game, doesn't hurt. Go go nostalgia. I probably had more fun with Avernum 2 than any other Spiderweb game. That is not to say the other games aren't fun; they are all excellent games in my opinion, but Avernum 2 is my favorite by far (even if I DO miss all those nifty little spells from the Exile days... God do I miss being able to cast my own barriers and the "return to fort Ganrick" spell). I think I had more fun with the Avernum 2 quests, too. Something about the three win conditions, each interweaving yet mostly seperate, really grabbed me. I also have to admit that I miss the monsterpedia from Exile 2 Back in Exile 2, you had a button that gave you a set of stats on every monster in the game... assuming you had the Arcane Lore to know what said monstrs were. Invaluable in late game. I actually wa sort of sad when the engine go changed and the overworld was eliminated. It made the whole world feel so much smaller, and even if most of that space seemed very empty, there were interesting tidbits hidden all over. It was the first game I played as a kid where I actually WANTED to explore every corner of the world just in case I'd missed something, and it has influenced me to be an obsessive explorer ever since. Also: Woo first post!
×
×
  • Create New...