Are you proposing C2C make a conspiracy/secret societies module? Because Civ 6 is going to release a secret societies gameplay mechanic in one of their updates latter this year.
But if we are talking about reality then no I don't think the "Transcendental Era" as it is in C2C applies to the real world. I also don't believe certain techs like FTL would lead to magitech or prove an ancient alien god (as some here would like to insist) exists. We are probably the only lifeforms in the entire universe hence disproving we are in some simulation. And even if there are other lifeforms on other planets then we probably are the oldest and therefore smartest of them all. You can't really have life on other planets evolve before us, because there were not enough heavy elements in the universe back then to form complex life. Therefore they would have to begun evolution at the same time it did on Earth and assuming intelligent life takes as long as it did here then other aliens are only in the early space stage/late civ stage. And that's for those who evolved at the same time as us, anyone latter would be much more dumb and likely only an animal or some single celled organism.
Something like secret societies or general rebelliousness would be fun thing - as simple property caused by harsher civics and various forms of inequality.
Distrust of technology/government or something like that could exist too - caused by education property and harsh civics.
Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, Information Revolution would make it stronger in effect.
I too think, that latter part of galactic era and later eras are impossible in our universe, but its fun to fantasize about unlimited technological progress and magic it can create.
So yeah, I believe, that universe is completely devoid of higher beings - if aliens exist, then they are at most early Galactic era.
Spiritual magic and gods outright require hyperspace.
Universe devoid of higher beings is good too.
Who wouldn't want solar system wide civilization at early galactic era tech level?
At this level you could colonize entire galaxy if transhumanism like in mod is possible.
It would take time, and solar systems would be like city states.
Also you could simply transfer yourself to simulated universe with higher beings
That is much more advanced versions of current adventure/RPG/strategy games (like Caveman2Cosmos).
By the way conspiracy theorist distrust of technology is about as counterproductive as looting business and destroying private property.
I was referencing Sentient Energy Fields tech in Transcendental era by this
All magic can be explained with that - in every book, movie and game.
Broken mechanics and glitches can be blamed on it, if you really don't want to break roleplaying too.
It is easy to mess with things in space if you are outside it
I found meme political compass - parody of 8 values: https://8dreams.github.io/
Essentially it massively expands political compass in 4 directions.
All moderates are centrists. All centrists have perfectly balanced views.
All extremists are moderates. All conspiracy theorists are moderates too.
USA Overton window is point, similar to Overton windows of other countries.
Self <-> Totality and Avarice <-> Altruism are the same axis, aren't they? How do you have such different scores in them?
I also don't see why anyone would have a score of less than 90 in Hedonic... just sayin'
ETA: More concerning, on further reflection, is that Dominant <-> Insular is no choice at all. What, we can't get along with people, we can only bully or ignore them?
I got 77.5 Altruism, 65.9 Insular, 60.3 Self, and 77.7 Hedonic
As a result they sort of insulted me, and then sort of apologized by admitting that the name-calling functionality was a work in progress...
I think economic is about how the system should work economically where civil is how the system should work in regards to freedom over one's actions and choices. I tend to lean more towards favoring private self-determination, while also believing that our economy should be arranged in a manner to redistribute and strongly combat wealth gaps. Power to the people but not so much that we become an absolute ship of fools - it's more about a happier world is a healthier one and vice versa and it should be possible to establish that without stripping people of basic respect and autonomy.
I'm not terribly sure what stalwart vs hedonic would mean except that I favor a world that competes less and gets along more and maybe somehow that's what that's expressing.
Apart from the Dominant-Insular false dichotomy, my main criticism is that many of the evaluatory statements were extremely convoluted, almost as if they sought to position you on all four scales with a single answer.
For example, there was a statement that thieves should be punished harshly, but it didn't say harshly, it said with long jail sentences OR the death penalty.
For major thieves like billionaires and CEOs, I certainly do support long jail sentences. In fact, "I'd Go Further": if such thieves cannot be parted from their obscene wealth, that constitutes a continuation of their crime, and they should never be released before they stop stealing. As to the death penalty, however, "The Statement Angers Me" applied to anyone.
No, I imagine self-totality deals with how you approach or perceive moral reality through a metaphysical, cosmological or "problem of other minds" kind of framework, being 100% selfish individuals those who are epistemological solipsists or presentists and 100% totalist those who don't care about the present at all and/or don't believe in the self being a tangible thing with regard to the overall picture of the infinite Universe similarly what philosophers like Lovecraft used to think.
I guess "self" refeers here to a "carpe diem" type of mentality (or is that Hedonism) and "totality" to a "memento mori" and "nobody is an island" one without the anthropocentristic implications of those afirmations, both are skeptical of tangible reality, but extremes sometimes touch each other.
I imagine avarice relates to competition and altruism to cooperation, which again, is not a moral ideology, but a moral methodology. Or perhaps altruism relates to negative utilitarianism, that's to say, they want less pain in the world and don't care about pleasure, and avarice relates to positive consequentialism, that's to say, they want more pleasure in the world and don't care about pain, in such context, an altruist would be a vegan that wants animals to suffer less and someone who leans towards avarice would be someone who doesn't care about drug use because it increases pleasure. Really, I have no idea.
Those two axis in this test make no God-damn sense.
I could be wrong, I'm 100% sure that I'm wrong at the very least about some thing I said, but I don't particulary care. Why? Because I find these types of tests extremely dumb, overly simplistic and in certain cases datamining bullsh**.
Memeideology compass bases on those axes in original one.
Altruity <-> Avarice is Equality <-> Markets
Dominant <-> Insular is Nation <-> Globe
Self <-> Totality is Liberty <-> Authority
Stalwart <-> Hedonic is Tradition <-> Progress
This memeideology compass is work in progress, but there is some description on its main page.
Spoiler:
Altruity (Propietary)
Those with higher Altruity scores believe that all property, no matter the form or ownership, should be collectivized. This can include information, all forms of money, etc.
Avarice (Propietary)
Those with higher Avarice scores believe that all forms of property should be privatized and competed in the market. Those who are dominant within the market economy should thus gain more property.
Dominant (Mastery)
Those with a higher Dominant score tend to want their ideology spread throughout the world. They think force can be used when spreading an ideology.
Insular (Mastery)
Those with a higher Insular score tend to avoid forcing an opinion. They would use methods like convincement, propaganda, etc.
Self (Individuality)
Those with higher Self scores believe in the power of the individual. They tend to support an anarchist or egoist government. They believe Egoism is what makes humans humans, and it is impossible to avoid such thing.
Totality (Individuality)
Those with higher Totality scores believe in an absolute government. They think individuals have no power at all, and only the state should have power.
Stalwart (Prioritative)
Those with higher Stalwart scores believe that a person is what he is, and his/her characteristics can only by dictated by the strong or by the surrounding environment.
Hedonic (Prioritative)
Those with higher Hedonic scores believe that a person's personal happiness is the core value of any human. Though not always, they are usually secular or atheist, and support different types of communities standing up for their own characteristics.
There is IngSoc, Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism and other stuff.
Moderate ideologies are forms of kakistocracy - using least competent people in positions of power.
I could be wrong, I'm 100% sure that I'm wrong at the very least about some thing I said, but I don't particulary care. Why? Because I find these types of tests extremely dumb, overly simplistic and in certain cases datamining bullsh**.
Albert Einstein and Nuclear energy did nothing wrong, I guess I'll sell electricity to other countries
Also start nuclear powered space program, will switch to fusion when its available.
Also almost same questions happens in all political compasses, I guess this one decided to parody that too.
I think these aren't dichotomies, instead just what you prioritize more, but still its a meme
By the way there is no such thing as unbiased political test
This test also is satire and exaggerates stuff like using nukes against impending totalitarianism.
Someone was talking about using nukes against totalitarianism in this thread.
I guess there can't be global totalitarianism if there is nuclear winter and everyone is back to Medieval era.
America is at a crossroads, either we uphold the Constitution and it's 1st 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) or we become another Socialist Marxist Regime. Many fear a 2nd Civil War is coming. Outside forces (other world powers) are working to help foment this into action. And a 2nd Civil War may escalate into another World War. This time with multiple countries hurling Nuclear weapons at each other. The Death Toll will be staggering with projections of at least 1/3 of the world Population killed.
Had an interesting discussion the other day about this with someone. It seems this kind of Quakerish ideal is on the rise huh? Hooray for backwards thinking thanks to the corrupt ways we tend to move forward. I suppose society deserves it but it's just cultish confusion causing ideology more than anything it seems. From my limited perspective at least. If there's one thing I feel that all this tech tree pondering has done for me it's firmly establish the belief that the way to better is always forward. If there's a problem, going backwards isn't the way to solve it.
Had an interesting discussion the other day about this with someone. It seems this kind of Quakerish ideal is on the rise huh? Hooray for backwards thinking thanks to the corrupt ways we tend to move forward. I suppose society deserves it but it's just cultish confusion causing ideology more than anything it seems. From my limited perspective at least. If there's one thing I feel that all this tech tree pondering has done for me it's firmly establish the belief that the way to better is always forward. If there's a problem, going backwards isn't the way to solve it.
Thinking, that some technologies are more harmful than actually are is bit backward too.
For example some people are irrationally afraid of vaccines, nuclear power, microwaves and so on.
Weirdly firearms and motorized transport is reliably lethal, and no one is afraid of that. Maybe because its common.
Similarly thinking, that some parts of science is hoax is backward too.
Like theory of evolution, whatever is behind of climate change, and weirdly only here theory of relativity.
Essentially some people are partly neo-Luddite - along lines "Industrial Revolution and its consequences had nasty side effects on humankind too"
@tmv compared to most of you seems to be transhumanist lol - that is not only progress should accelerate, it should accelerate bit faster too.
Slowing down in current era would be very counter-productive.
Priorities need to be re-evaluated instead.
For any of this it's not usually the technology but the track record of the people and the systems implementing them that make them concerning. We don't give a crap about whether we poison each other or the environment with what we do so long as it makes us money, so everything really should be held a little suspect. Once we have a world that isn't driven by profit as a primary goal but for the benefit of people as a primary goal, we might be able to rest and trust a bit easier how certain techs are being applied. For example, vaccines are GREAT and incredibly useful and valuable - but when you start not caring that you are leaving a ton of mercury in the injections which many react very poorly to with sometimes lifelong psychological illness or toxic shock and ensuing death as a result, then it starts being understandable why some people begin to feel there's as much or more risk from the inoculation than the disease it guards one from.
For any of this it's not usually the technology but the track record of the people and the systems implementing them that make them concerning. We don't give a crap about whether we poison each other or the environment with what we do so long as it makes us money, so everything really should be held a little suspect. Once we have a world that isn't driven by profit as a primary goal but for the benefit of people as a primary goal, we might be able to rest and trust a bit easier how certain techs are being applied. For example, vaccines are GREAT and incredibly useful and valuable - but when you start not caring that you are leaving a ton of mercury in the injections which many react very poorly to with sometimes lifelong psychological illness or toxic shock and ensuing death as a result, then it starts being understandable why some people begin to feel there's as much or more risk from the inoculation than the disease it guards one from.
So being too capitalist caused some people to distrust science, not just governments and wealthy people.
I guess USSR was political equivalent of Chernobyl or other persistent pollution involving disaster - we wouldn't have that big plague of extremism, distrust and misinformation if it wasn't for cold war.
There were other factors too, but generally this era wouldn't be so fragile.
This is what C2C doesn't simulate - governments going too far to destroy opposition, and corruption of elites in general.
No wonder they are happy to tear apart reality
So being too capitalist caused some people to distrust science, not just governments and wealthy people.
I guess USSR was political equivalent of Chernobyl or other persistent pollution involving disaster - we wouldn't have that big plague of extremism, distrust and misinformation if it wasn't for cold war.
There were other factors too, but generally this era wouldn't be so fragile.
This is what C2C doesn't simulate - governments going too far to destroy opposition, and corruption of elites in general.
No wonder they are happy to tear apart reality
This aspect of transhumanism is one I can get totally behind. I also have no problem with going the Cyborg / Brain uploading route provided that the "consciousness problem" is resolved first (not much point uploading your brain when it is no longer "you" who is there). But I completely disagree with the notion that "atheism = enlightenment", although I can understand the confusion when I see how badly some people represent the concept of religion. Please consider that when I refute the quoted claim, I absolutely don't claim the opposite to be true.
This aspect of transhumanism is one I can get totally behind. I also have no problem with going the Cyborg / Brain uploading route provided that the "consciousness problem" is resolved first (not much point uploading your brain when it is no longer "you" who is there). But I completely disagree with the notion that "atheism = enlightenment", although I can understand the confusion when I see how badly some people represent the concept of religion. Please consider that when I refute the quoted claim, I absolutely don't claim the opposite to be true.
Technology and science is enlightenment - in C2C there is even enlightenment human mod building in Transhuman era.
Knowing limits is part of journey too, some people simply can't accept that.
Can't go faster than light? Approach it, still you get here quickly, just more time passes at home.
Can't grow economy and population forever? Make it more efficient, use fission or fusion for electricity, go to space. Stuff in computers is part of economy too.
That is they need to be creative instead of screaming "this is not happening"
Transition costs money and energy, but its better than reverting to medieval era after running out of energy.
Spirituality and religion is fine as long as you don't do destructive things in its name.
This includes spreading misinformation too. Some people can't see that they fell for it.
So secular approach of western/northern Europe is best way to do it - let them pray in privacy.
Religion and spirituality can act as community glue when done properly, same with science and technology.
I think spirituality and religion can be used for enlightenment but that is tricky too despite having that stuff for longer.
Moderation is virtue too.
Also Overton window seems to be more like Overton ring since some time - or simply no one hears moderates, as they gave up.
Yes, of course. The problem with this is that adhering to any religion means necessarily calling all other religions false. Today, this is usually not done in an open manner, but in previous centuries, that was very different. It was also simpler in a way, because you never forgot that you were taking a stand for what you considered to be true. There is a different problem which many people fall for today, and this is to basically deny that there even is a truth, or claiming that all religions are somewhat compatible, or that religions basically only have a social role to play (the latter point is one that an atheist can make, of course, but never an adherent of a religion). This is an error that should also be avoided, for a religious person the most important role of their religion is always to represent the truth, or what they consider to be the truth. Even though this is what created many problems in the past (and some in the present). That's why we need to differentiate between knowledge and faith, because based on knowledge we can reasonably tell someone that they are wrong (politeness is a different matter), but based on faith we might be convinced that someone is wrong, but there are very few ways we can act on that conviction without becoming hypocrites (as soon as we deny the other person the right to tell us the same thing).
I wonder if that is connected to social media not having "dislike" buttons. People say something that their fans are going to like, but it doesn't matter how many people detest the post. They might respond with a post of their own, but that is not counted in the same way. Of course, a "dislike" button could bring other problems with it, like igniting massive flame wars, and that is probably the reason why they don't exist outside of Youtube (and their comment sections aren't exactly known for being calm). But "like" without "dislike" is certainly a problem, because there can be many people who disagree with your post, and it cannot be seen properly.
Don't these two contradict each other? If something is proven to be absolutely impossible by science then wouldn't claiming "this is not happening" be valid?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
