next »

[Gnarf]

I like it when people explain the obviousness of how we get more shit done faster by fighting each other than by helping each other. I also like it when corporations put more resources into marketing in order to compete with other corporations. That way I magically get better services for less money. Magic is awesome like that.

[skrew]

2) I've never known a corporation that could operate without humans/citizens.

My point is that those people are not making decisions with themselves or the necessarily the workers in mind. They make decisions that benefit the corporation, since the corporation doesn't eat or sleep or breathe it doesn't care about the environment, its sole purpose is to produce profit. The reason that a corporation outsources its work is to make more money. Because they can, they can exploit the poor. Dump their waste in places where the risk outweighs the punishment. the bottom line is always the cashflow.

Sure you say I'm demonizing big corporations, but that's the principle they work from, some to the fullest extent and some to a lesser extent. The point is that the system is flawed.

Most corporations only started to have environmental policies over the last 10-15 years. and that is only to ease the minds of their customers and keep their public image intact.

In what way is competition good? good for the consumer? cheaper products usually means more corners are cut in the process. Or do you mean like the race to the moon kind of competition, which is just as senseless, I bet if they had worked together they would have been there in half the time. The only good competition is the competition to become more humane. But to acknowledge that is to say that you were acting inhumane in the first place.

I can see that this is going no where so I'm not going to take this much further.

[Movius]

You don't seem to have much respect for "the worker" or "the poor" or "the consumer" or "the customer." Who are apparently incapable of making judgements or decisions for themselves.

[Valter]

Yes, I'm reasonably annoyed by people who continue to think that the public is a bunch of morons. The gap between the intelligent and the comparatively stupid is closing with each day. There was certainly a time when the difference between the smartest people and the average person was enormous, but awareness and intelligence is growing in the public everyday, especially in the newest generation. The internet especially has aided in spreading knowledge to every person. Wikipedia allows for a summary of just about any topic you want to look up. Bottom line is, you can't expect the public to just react to funny advertising or clever slogans any more. People are now more than ever looking at what people are saying, not the way they are saying it.

[Paul Eres]

I agree with that, Wikipedia is making geniuses of people who would have only been average otherwise; the internet is wonderful. I was raised without the internet, and saw my youngest sibling (he's 12 now) raised with it, and the difference is like night and day in terms of knowledge of the world.

[Movius]

I agree, though it's still important to teach children to think critically and logically. So the they can tell the difference between information that is useful (1+1=2) and utter bullshit (the contents of the film 'Zeitgeist'). Instead of just accepting everything on face value.

[Paul Eres]

The internet can be good with that -- for instance, the Wikipedia article on Zeitgeist contains a lot of critical comments on it. Generally the more information and the more varied the opinions there is about something, the closer you get to the truth by taking them all in.

[Alevice]

As an illustration, imagine it's 2100, and we have self-repairing nanotechnological machines circulating in our blood which repair any damage done to us. It would then be *much harder* to kill someone. You couldn't shoot them cause their body would just repair the damage. You couldn't poison them because their nanotech machines would just neutralize the poison. It'd be nearly impossible to kill someone without special equipment and a lot of trouble. It'd still be possible, large explosives would still work, nuclear bombs would still work, but it'd be much harder to do than it is today.

Well, assuming that nanobots run their tasks through digital programs, it wouldn't take much for someone to hack one of them,, taht would eventually hack all others, so they start to destroy your flesh rather than restoring it, making them behave like bacteria, only they would be immune to most things, other than reprogramming them, and by then, it might be a little too late.

Also in 2100, there would be artificially intelligent programs protecting you: you could have a program which combs all the information you have available to you and alerts you when there is a danger to your life. For instance, the AI could detect that there's someone 50 feet from you with high explosives. Knowing that, you could take steps to make sure that they don't get anywhere near you. That's another way to prevent murder through technology.

Well, assuming the user of said system in your example is paranoid and is given than advice, he could believe the other guy carrying explosives is a terrorists, when it could be a demolition man, and might react violently against him. Worse of it all would be when it begins to spread misinformation due to insufficient data or, as the other example, is hacked.

[Paul Eres]

That just sounds like fearmongering -- the premise there is that technology never makes anything safer, since as it increases safeguards it also creates new dangers. Which is true, but I don't think the dangers increase *as fast* as the safeguards.

For instance, take computers: sure, they allow viruses and identity theft, so there's more identity theft than there used to be, but they also allow a lot more benefits than harm, the harm they cause is insignificant compared to the benefits. The same is true for most technology, even weapons.

Even nuclear weapons (an example people often use of "the dangers of technology") have likely produced much more good than evil; there haven't been any major wars between world powers since WWII, largely because of the fear of a nuclear holocaust. It's funny, but I think it's probably true that we might all be dead right now *if not* for nuclear weapons being invented.

[Movius]

The internet can be good with that -- for instance, the Wikipedia article on Zeitgeist contains a lot of critical comments on it. Generally the more information and the more varied the opinions there is about something, the closer you get to the truth by taking them all in.

But it's mostly of this form, "xxx has this opinion. whereas yyy says he is wrong." Often with little or no evidence backing up the claims.

You don't learn just by sucking up as many opinions as possible. Learning crap that is blatantly false or not applicable is of little benefit (eg. A biologist with only a base knowledge of creation myths is no worse than an equally skilled biologist who is also an expert in mythology.)

You need to be able to recognise the claims made and any logical fallacies (Fallacy here: False Dichotomy - The government is wrong, Zeitgeist opposes the government, therefore Zeitgeist is correct) or contradictions within them, otherwise you're not really learning anything other than the ability to parrot back whats been told to you.

[Paul Eres]

That's true, but I don't think school does any better at teaching that than, say, online essays on critical thinking.

[skrew]

You don't seem to have much respect for "the worker" or "the poor" or "the consumer" or "the customer." Who are apparently incapable of making judgements or decisions for themselves.

I dont see how I'm disrespecting these kinds of people. A large amount of "the worker"s hate their jobs and only have them to pay the bills. "the poor" are forced to make all their decisions with money in mind regardless of the consequences.

You need to be able to recognise the claims made and any logical fallacies (Fallacy here: False Dichotomy - The government is wrong, Zeitgeist opposes the government, therefore Zeitgeist is correct) or contradictions within them, otherwise you're not really learning anything other than the ability to parrot back whats been told to you.

I'm not advocating that zeitgeist is right, but I think its a step in the right direction. Zeitgeist is based on what some people would do if they had the power to redesign society, what would you do Movius?

Yes, I'm reasonably annoyed by people who continue to think that the public is a bunch of morons. The gap between the intelligent and the comparatively stupid is closing with each day. There was certainly a time when the difference between the smartest people and the average person was enormous, but awareness and intelligence is growing in the public everyday, especially in the newest generation. The internet especially has aided in spreading knowledge to every person. Wikipedia allows for a summary of just about any topic you want to look up. Bottom line is, you can't expect the public to just react to funny advertising or clever slogans any more. People are now more than ever looking at what people are saying, not the way they are saying it.

That must differ with personal experience, I find that most people i meet in the western world care little about worldly things and the ones that do are far too extreme in whatever they believe in. I had to explain to my little 8 year old brother very clearly a few years ago that everything he watches on television during the breaks is trying to sell him something. Still he wants those things, even though he knows that most of the stuff they are telling him is crap. I dont think you give advertising enough credit. In high school in one of the most prestigious schools in my city I sat through a compulsory philosophy class in my final year. 90% of the time the class consisted of me and the teacher going back and forth and most of the other students were asleep or completely dis interested. Students who got much better marks than me on their final exams.

The faith that some of you, as indie game developers, have in a system, where you wouldn't exist, if it didn't work, astounds me. How many of you make video games for the simple love of doing it? so many get disillusioned by the BS deal they get going down the career path at big studios and take the risk to make games for themselves rather than for the money. These people suggest an alternative where you could make games all day and still have living conditions equal to or better than what you have now, as long as you were willing to share and contribute. And I dont mean communism.

The strongest message i got from that movie was that change is needed, because this system clearly doesnt work. If you cant see that then I guess you are truly blind.

[battlerager]

I liked the first one better.

This one just relied on those.... like, 3 people talking waaay too much.

[Movius]

I dont see how I'm disrespecting these kinds of people. A large amount of "the worker"s hate their jobs and only have them to pay the bills. "the poor" are forced to make all their decisions with money in mind regardless of the consequences.

You mean these 'poor people' are acting with their own wellbeing in mind and for their own personal benefit?

What arrogant selfish pricks! Why should i care about them?

I'm not advocating that zeitgeist is right, but I think its a step in the right direction. Zeitgeist is based on what some people would do if they had the power to redesign society, what would you do Movius?

Certainly not force people to live the way I want them to.

That must differ with personal experience, I find that most people i meet in the western world care little about worldly things and the ones that do are far too extreme in whatever they believe in. I had to explain to my little 8 year old brother very clearly a few years ago that everything he watches on television during the breaks is trying to sell him something. Still he wants those things, even though he knows that most of the stuff they are telling him is crap. I dont think you give advertising enough credit. In high school in one of the most prestigious schools in my city I sat through a compulsory philosophy class in my final year. 90% of the time the class consisted of me and the teacher going back and forth and most of the other students were asleep or completely dis interested. Students who got much better marks than me on their final exams.

The faith that some of you, as indie game developers, have in a system, where you wouldn't exist, if it didn't work, astounds me. How many of you make video games for the simple love of doing it? so many get disillusioned by the BS deal they get going down the career path at big studios and take the risk to make games for themselves rather than for the money. These people suggest an alternative where you could make games all day and still have living conditions equal to or better than what you have now, as long as you were willing to share and contribute. And I dont mean communism.

The strongest message i got from that movie was that change is needed, because this system clearly doesnt work. If you cant see that then I guess you are truly blind.

it's not communism? is it fascism? socialism? theocracy? corporatism? mercantilism? oligarchy?

I know these are all essentially the same thing and they all match your description. But I'm curious which one you are referring to?

As for indie game developers. I'm sure everyone has their own motivations, what with being 'independent' and all. More independent than someone sitting around churning out games on the official stipend of the indie games class.

I do agree that the 'system' needs changing in many ways and there are many problems. It's just that the problems are everything you advocate.

[skrew]

Certainly not force people to live the way I want them to.

Thats the point. I would much prefer to live in a place without debt corruption and poverty, yet i cant. Because some people refuse to stop playing this game and start a new one. because they have invested too much of their lives in it for it all to count for 'nothing'.

the only things I've advocated are peace love and harmony. whats so wrong or absurd about a world without money?