Anyone else hate when dystopian authoritarian shit is presented as "the nice good thing" in science fiction? This is a social credit system. For it to operate it would require constant surveilance on your personal private life, and it would disproportionately reward sociopaths who figure out how to game the system.
This is from Endless Space 2. In this game this is the power of putting Pacifists in power. The power of putting warmongers in power? Jingoist Joy: Your people love you for starting wars instead of hating you for it. Despite how hard the tooltip tries calling your people armed banner-waving loons, it is the nicer, freer option. Does anyone involved in this game see the irony?
Yeah, I hate it, but it's not exactly a new thing. In The Republic Plato calls for rather dystopian measures as a way to enforce "virtue." Rather disappointed that the developers of Endless Space 2 subscribe to this view, but there are quite a few people out there who see the world only in labels.
>>2265>technological dystopian nightmare
Well, when the home computers begun to pop up, it was predicted in 1985 in prime time TV.
>>2265>Does anyone involved in this game see the irony?
Are you sure it's not by-design? They both look dystopian to me.
It only makes sense that free people in space would hate other alien races and want alien resources more than they want alien friends. Every generation alien life spends existing is another generation where you risk someone violent and unstoppable coming to power and trying to conquer or enslave everyone or destroy the galaxy and potentially succeeding.
"Jingoist Joy", when selected, states your people are "banner-waving loons" who love war.
No coercive force to cause this is ever deployed.
No mention of "Unpersoning" insufficiently warlike people or a "Federal Bureau of Unpatriotic Action" with mass surveilance and limited power or indoctrinating people from birth with gaslighting and shaming and coercive force and the threat of violence. Not in this tooltip.
Libtards enforce their libtard orthodoxy with more coercive force than this.
"Rewarding people for being good" requires mass surveilance and a concrete definition of what goodness is and how to rank goodness if you don't want corrupt Bureau Of Goodness people reinterpreting the rules they enforce. And how the fuck would it give you the power to magically make enemy empires warring with you spontaneously declare an end to the war?
Not if those aliens are mares. You wouldn't do everything in your power to gain access to space mares? I'd sacrifice every human alive for the Imperium of Mare. A total mare cultural and diplomatic victory would be inevitable.
>>2739>want alien resources more than they want alien friends
At such a stage of interstellar exploration, most resources would be gained from asteroid mining.
Aliens would offer different kinds of capital, such as new technology and the experts and engineers to implement them, in which case you really would want alien friends.
Friendship is magic.
I, for one, welcome our alien pony overlords.
Positive authoritarianism is a shit idea. But for whatever reason, it seems to be perpetuated by either shitty writers whose only frame of reference is the TV show Person of Interest or their commie SJW social club.
But to be honest? What the fuck do you even call cyberpunk -without- Dystopic government? Sci-fi? Can a world built to be cyberpunk be (relatively) peaceful and friendly without need for an obligatory oppressive government? Hell, for some reason there are fiction authors that argue that some element of human-suffering is crucial to making a so-called-utopia, which the entire premise of is completely ridiculous, IMO.
Shit. the word "Utopia" itself basically means "non-existant city" or something like that. So, the entire idea is literally just a nothingburger that people treat as some sort of immutable law.
Honestly? I'm tired of Dystopia. I'm tired of it being used both positively and negatively. It's been too real for my tastes.
I can see where you're coming from. The tone in that description sounds positive, but think a little and it becomes depressingly cynical; making peace non-negotiable instead of genuinely fostering the sentiment.
Perhaps that's the point? I find it difficult to imagine some dude typing this out genuinely accepting the ideal, even moreso proofreading it. You'd think they'd tweak out the undertone of cynicism.
I find the issue of a utopia is they think too small. In the sheer scale they desire something of corruptible beginnings, middles and ends instead of higher beyond cosmic potentials.
At what point is too much too much?
I suppose instead of semi-realistic it's more of a paradise thought exercise. The point is there's usually a lack of something or an absence of an lack that should have been more heavily considered in detail.