Juka The Dumb
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 360
dierdrea and zakharov first ones...miriam last,burning in hell
Your choice for ruler of the world.
- Thread starter roidesfoux
- Start date
Gaians- environmental, ethical, democratic, humane, seeks new discoveries to be in harmony w/ Planet (98/100)
Peacekeepers- want peace, human rights (87/100)
University- knowledge, progress, not ethical (79/100)
Morganites- economic freedom, corporate greed, life is business philosophy & causes huge difference in wealth (60/100)
Believers- religious, but so fanatical they're dangerous and lose understanding of their own religion's meaining to LOVE all and treat others as you would like yourself to be treated(50/100)
Spartans- militaristic, weapon-crazy, agressive, live to fight (35/100)
Hive- good that no one is too selfish, but think having your own mind, your very humanity, is selfish, and absolutely forced way of living without happiness or hope
(1/100)
The perfect civilization would be the Gaians, BUT with equal emphasis on ethical research and non-agressive freedom spreading and enforcement as there is with harmony with nature. Sadly, there is not ONE country in the world like this with these three qualities, or even 1 of them! (MAYBE Japan or China like University, and the USA tries to be like the Peacekeepers but is too selfish, & absolutely no country like the Gaians)
Peacekeepers- want peace, human rights (87/100)
University- knowledge, progress, not ethical (79/100)
Morganites- economic freedom, corporate greed, life is business philosophy & causes huge difference in wealth (60/100)
Believers- religious, but so fanatical they're dangerous and lose understanding of their own religion's meaining to LOVE all and treat others as you would like yourself to be treated(50/100)
Spartans- militaristic, weapon-crazy, agressive, live to fight (35/100)
Hive- good that no one is too selfish, but think having your own mind, your very humanity, is selfish, and absolutely forced way of living without happiness or hope
(1/100)
The perfect civilization would be the Gaians, BUT with equal emphasis on ethical research and non-agressive freedom spreading and enforcement as there is with harmony with nature. Sadly, there is not ONE country in the world like this with these three qualities, or even 1 of them! (MAYBE Japan or China like University, and the USA tries to be like the Peacekeepers but is too selfish, & absolutely no country like the Gaians)
1. Morgan
Morgan number one cause it would be the land of opportunities. And, it sounds like a no tax, no interference government. Profit justifies. A libertarian society. It makes you feel alive, and stand on your own fleets because you’re forced to. The TV channels and culture would be like Fox News (without a conservative touch) For those not blessed with a good health, private charity organizations exist. Hopefully it won't turn bad or un-efficient, where huge monopolies hurt the economy, or if it turns out to be a speculation economy making most people gambling and fighting competitors instead of actually producing something.
2. Zakharov
Probably the most successful society, with technologies making life simple. Defiantly on the right direction speaking on human evolution. It would be more progressive than Morgan's, but I like the "**** future generations, let's party" and limiting government at the benefit of the citizens more, putting the individual in focus, and not the government.
Zakharov may have some weird genetical experiments (voluntarily I hope) everything justified by science where ethics is defined as scientific discoveries benefiting human evolution.
3. Santiago
A good third. The world has always been ruled by guns and bullets, so giving people access to this is a sound decision if you wan’t to prevent government facism in the future.
Very de-centralized, with freedom, privacy and pro gun laws. But poor on efficiency and high crime rate.
4. Lal
Oh gosh, lot's of bureaucracy and political correctness. Very much like the world we live in today. It would however have human rights and a rule by law, but progress would be slow due to an inneficient government system.
5. Miriam
Considering that Christianity is built on do what you wish others would do to you, it can’t be THAT bad. The downside is allot of regulations, high punishments and prison sentences for sins
and a puritistic world view.
6. Dierdre
Oh, hate those environmentalist-fanatics above all else. It's twisted that someone sets threes and plants above humans. I believe the world is ours to be used, and not the other way around. Still, I rather live in small hut eating carrots than..
7. Yang
Like the dictator of North Korea. A communistic oppressive regime, with torture of political opponents. Very twisted rule, where huge national amusement parks and national monuments isn’t visited since no one can afford or wants to.
Everyone are slaves for the government's desire to increase GNP and to make the dictator complete it’s vision of a communistic paradise, but he doesn't, it's stagnation and poverty makes Yang force everyone back doing the basics, farming. When that doesn't work, he get's bitter at the people, and wants to get back on them. They still worship him brainwashed as they are, making self destruction it’s only hope.
Morgan number one cause it would be the land of opportunities. And, it sounds like a no tax, no interference government. Profit justifies. A libertarian society. It makes you feel alive, and stand on your own fleets because you’re forced to. The TV channels and culture would be like Fox News (without a conservative touch) For those not blessed with a good health, private charity organizations exist. Hopefully it won't turn bad or un-efficient, where huge monopolies hurt the economy, or if it turns out to be a speculation economy making most people gambling and fighting competitors instead of actually producing something.
2. Zakharov
Probably the most successful society, with technologies making life simple. Defiantly on the right direction speaking on human evolution. It would be more progressive than Morgan's, but I like the "**** future generations, let's party" and limiting government at the benefit of the citizens more, putting the individual in focus, and not the government.
Zakharov may have some weird genetical experiments (voluntarily I hope) everything justified by science where ethics is defined as scientific discoveries benefiting human evolution.
3. Santiago
A good third. The world has always been ruled by guns and bullets, so giving people access to this is a sound decision if you wan’t to prevent government facism in the future.
Very de-centralized, with freedom, privacy and pro gun laws. But poor on efficiency and high crime rate.
4. Lal
Oh gosh, lot's of bureaucracy and political correctness. Very much like the world we live in today. It would however have human rights and a rule by law, but progress would be slow due to an inneficient government system.
5. Miriam
Considering that Christianity is built on do what you wish others would do to you, it can’t be THAT bad. The downside is allot of regulations, high punishments and prison sentences for sins
and a puritistic world view.6. Dierdre
Oh, hate those environmentalist-fanatics above all else. It's twisted that someone sets threes and plants above humans. I believe the world is ours to be used, and not the other way around. Still, I rather live in small hut eating carrots than..
7. Yang
Like the dictator of North Korea. A communistic oppressive regime, with torture of political opponents. Very twisted rule, where huge national amusement parks and national monuments isn’t visited since no one can afford or wants to.
Everyone are slaves for the government's desire to increase GNP and to make the dictator complete it’s vision of a communistic paradise, but he doesn't, it's stagnation and poverty makes Yang force everyone back doing the basics, farming. When that doesn't work, he get's bitter at the people, and wants to get back on them. They still worship him brainwashed as they are, making self destruction it’s only hope.
1- Diedre
2- Zahkarov
3- Lal
4- Santiago
5- Morgan
6- Miriam
7- Yang
2- Zahkarov
3- Lal
4- Santiago
5- Morgan
6- Miriam
7- Yang
Midwinter
Chieftain
1) Deidre
2) Lal
3) Zak
4) Morgan
5) Miriam
6) Santiago
7) Yang
Though, really, after Deirdre and Lal, I'm not too keen on any of them.
2) Lal
3) Zak
4) Morgan
5) Miriam
6) Santiago
7) Yang
Though, really, after Deirdre and Lal, I'm not too keen on any of them.
Why just the vanilla leaders? I think AX has a few interesting characters.
As my most favourite:
Dierdre, not for her eco friendliness and all that jazz but more about how cool it would be to live in a society where empathy and psi capabilities are harnessed, I imagine gaian citizens would have a more relaxing and happy life than others.
And at the bottom:
Lal and Zakharov, I'm not too fond of political correctness, and having one governing body define the laws everyone should live by, I'd prefer to follow someone of strong conviction than a governing body more concerned about it's image internationally than committing themselves to immediate action. (Don't get me wrong though, Bush is still a ****.)
And Zakharov, living in a society where scientific progress/academic prowess defines everyone's life? No thanks, bit too egocentric for me.
As my most favourite:
Dierdre, not for her eco friendliness and all that jazz but more about how cool it would be to live in a society where empathy and psi capabilities are harnessed, I imagine gaian citizens would have a more relaxing and happy life than others.
And at the bottom:
Lal and Zakharov, I'm not too fond of political correctness, and having one governing body define the laws everyone should live by, I'd prefer to follow someone of strong conviction than a governing body more concerned about it's image internationally than committing themselves to immediate action. (Don't get me wrong though, Bush is still a ****.)
And Zakharov, living in a society where scientific progress/academic prowess defines everyone's life? No thanks, bit too egocentric for me.
1. Lal
2. Deidre
3. Zahkarov
BIG $%#^ING GAP
4. Morgan
5. Santiago
NOT SO BIG GAP
6. Yang
7. Miriam
Explaination:
Lal and Deidre seem to me to be the only two with actually noble motives. Although my personal preferences may vary slightly to theirs, I think they would do well as global leaders.
Zak, likewise, has fairly noble motives. The ethics are a bit questionable, which is why he only ranked #3. Still, global scientific utopia? Count me in!
The BIG $%#^ING GAP is to illustrate how the single ranking system fails. I wouldn't mind seeing Zak as ruler, but I would hate Morgan.
Morgan ranks above Santiago because his brand of right-wing extremism is slightly more attractive. It's a thinking man's fight for survival against insurmountable odds, rather than Santiago's pure physical and endurance methods.
The NOT SO BIG GAP is quite a bit smaller than the first gap. It's main purpose is to show that there's practically nothing between the final two:
Yang and Miriam are, as I see it, the same application of two very different ideologies. The application in question is... not so good, so it basically comes down to who's got the better ideology. Again, there's practically nothing between them, they flip around depending on what mood I'm in.
2. Deidre
3. Zahkarov
BIG $%#^ING GAP
4. Morgan
5. Santiago
NOT SO BIG GAP
6. Yang
7. Miriam
Explaination:
Lal and Deidre seem to me to be the only two with actually noble motives. Although my personal preferences may vary slightly to theirs, I think they would do well as global leaders.
Zak, likewise, has fairly noble motives. The ethics are a bit questionable, which is why he only ranked #3. Still, global scientific utopia? Count me in!
The BIG $%#^ING GAP is to illustrate how the single ranking system fails. I wouldn't mind seeing Zak as ruler, but I would hate Morgan.
Morgan ranks above Santiago because his brand of right-wing extremism is slightly more attractive. It's a thinking man's fight for survival against insurmountable odds, rather than Santiago's pure physical and endurance methods.
The NOT SO BIG GAP is quite a bit smaller than the first gap. It's main purpose is to show that there's practically nothing between the final two:
Yang and Miriam are, as I see it, the same application of two very different ideologies. The application in question is... not so good, so it basically comes down to who's got the better ideology. Again, there's practically nothing between them, they flip around depending on what mood I'm in.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Deidre and Zahkarov and Lal at the top.
Santiago in middle.
Yang, Miriam and Morgan at the bottem.
Santiago in middle.
Yang, Miriam and Morgan at the bottem.
Empiremaker
Human Fish
1 Lal-Human rights ain't bad
2 Zakharov-Science will solve a good portion of the problems of the world
3 Deidre-Ecology is good, but dancing naked through the trees is a little too much
4 Morgan- better than the last three, and everyone has a chance in the society. He's pacifist which is good
5 Santiago-Don't like the war, but at least isn't crazy.
6 Miriam-Anyone is better than Yang
7- Yang- I wonder why?
2 Zakharov-Science will solve a good portion of the problems of the world
3 Deidre-Ecology is good, but dancing naked through the trees is a little too much
4 Morgan- better than the last three, and everyone has a chance in the society. He's pacifist which is good
5 Santiago-Don't like the war, but at least isn't crazy.
6 Miriam-Anyone is better than Yang
7- Yang- I wonder why?
1. Lal
The old world's new champion. Lal's philosophies, post-implementation, are most likely to be similar to what we already have. While it isn't always efficient, it's ethical enough, and it gets the job done in the end.
2. Deirdre
Their ecological goals, while perhaps a tad extreme, aren't all that bad, and they're fairly idealistic and ethical. There seems to be a decent amount of freedom and rights within.
3. Morgan
Morgan's views seem to not be nearly as free as they may seem -- free market inherently supports the bigger and less ethical people, and Morgan's statements in-game gradually give the idea that he isn't all that big on smaller corporations. "We have never sought to become a monopoly?" Please. Nevertheless, since Morgan doesn't particularly clash with any non-economic views, he's the next best.
4. Miriam
I'm not opposed to Miriam on *principle*, but it seems that her society portrays Catholicism more than stock Christianity, and could be most easily compared to, say, the Roman Catholic Church, which dominated western civilization for a thousand years, and genuinely did inhibit progress. I doubt that she's particularly good on freedom of religion, so that naturally makes her more of a back-up.
5. Santiago
While Spartan life isn't always easy, it works in the long run. The original Spartans prospered as a Greek power for many years. Defense can't possibly be a bad thing, and I like the idea of universal gun ownership. Of course, Santiago is also more militaristic and more inclined to focus on security -- essentially Yang Lite, which is why she slides to this position.
6. Zakharov
Zakharov's principles -- scientific development -- seem good enough on the front, but once you get down to his sense of ethics and the like, things start getting ugly.
Zakharov apparently has no problems with doing anything -- genocide, cloning, whatever -- for the sake of science. This misguided principle ensures that Zak falls behind. Who can tell who he'll get next?
Regardless, he's still better than Yang...
7. Yang
Yang, to my knowledge (it's been a while since I played), never claimed to really be a communist. He simply advocates a police state.
A benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government. But Yang is not benevolent, and thus we have a problem.
Yang is essentially the worst aspects of every other ruler combined. Santiago's war-mongering combined with Miriam's lack of tolerance and Zakharov's lack of ethics ensure that at the end, Yang is essentially an inhuman monster.
- Bob
The old world's new champion. Lal's philosophies, post-implementation, are most likely to be similar to what we already have. While it isn't always efficient, it's ethical enough, and it gets the job done in the end.
2. Deirdre
Their ecological goals, while perhaps a tad extreme, aren't all that bad, and they're fairly idealistic and ethical. There seems to be a decent amount of freedom and rights within.
3. Morgan
Morgan's views seem to not be nearly as free as they may seem -- free market inherently supports the bigger and less ethical people, and Morgan's statements in-game gradually give the idea that he isn't all that big on smaller corporations. "We have never sought to become a monopoly?" Please. Nevertheless, since Morgan doesn't particularly clash with any non-economic views, he's the next best.
4. Miriam
I'm not opposed to Miriam on *principle*, but it seems that her society portrays Catholicism more than stock Christianity, and could be most easily compared to, say, the Roman Catholic Church, which dominated western civilization for a thousand years, and genuinely did inhibit progress. I doubt that she's particularly good on freedom of religion, so that naturally makes her more of a back-up.
5. Santiago
While Spartan life isn't always easy, it works in the long run. The original Spartans prospered as a Greek power for many years. Defense can't possibly be a bad thing, and I like the idea of universal gun ownership. Of course, Santiago is also more militaristic and more inclined to focus on security -- essentially Yang Lite, which is why she slides to this position.
6. Zakharov
Zakharov's principles -- scientific development -- seem good enough on the front, but once you get down to his sense of ethics and the like, things start getting ugly.
Zakharov apparently has no problems with doing anything -- genocide, cloning, whatever -- for the sake of science. This misguided principle ensures that Zak falls behind. Who can tell who he'll get next?
Regardless, he's still better than Yang...
7. Yang
Yang, to my knowledge (it's been a while since I played), never claimed to really be a communist. He simply advocates a police state.
A benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government. But Yang is not benevolent, and thus we have a problem.
Yang is essentially the worst aspects of every other ruler combined. Santiago's war-mongering combined with Miriam's lack of tolerance and Zakharov's lack of ethics ensure that at the end, Yang is essentially an inhuman monster.
- Bob
1. zhakarov(positive science, positive economy, neutral ethics, knowledge is power..we can control this planet)
2. morgan(uberpositive economy...greed based, situational ethics, more for everyone makes the world better,,,trickle down baby..trickle down)
3. lal(ethics over all, prosperity by cooperation, reasonable men can work things out)
4. diedre(positive environment, planet will provide, long term strategy..can you wait?)
5. santiago(survival of the fittest, conflict is inevitable so get good at it)
6. yang(individuality is waste, singularity of purpose is efficient, unity is comfort, when society becomes family the world has no orphans or misfits)
7. miriam(it was written down long ago for you. follow and become one with the body. its all divided into white and black....someone will be round to tell you what to do in a bit.....)
2. morgan(uberpositive economy...greed based, situational ethics, more for everyone makes the world better,,,trickle down baby..trickle down)
3. lal(ethics over all, prosperity by cooperation, reasonable men can work things out)
4. diedre(positive environment, planet will provide, long term strategy..can you wait?)
5. santiago(survival of the fittest, conflict is inevitable so get good at it)
6. yang(individuality is waste, singularity of purpose is efficient, unity is comfort, when society becomes family the world has no orphans or misfits)
7. miriam(it was written down long ago for you. follow and become one with the body. its all divided into white and black....someone will be round to tell you what to do in a bit.....)
Tboy
Future world ruler
1.Lal - has good human rights, not too restrictive, people are free. May be slightly inefficient, but the freedom is worth it.
2.Zakharov - wants to further humanity, great research and knowledge, ethics, while bad, are only a small bip against the other two.
Quite a big gap...
3.Deirdre - though I don't like much the idea of getting to harmony with nature (which basically means...um....do nothing
), if you destroy the planet you've got nothing to live on. Which is bad.
HUGE gap...
4.Santiago - I'm sorry, but I don't believe in universal gun ownership. I know people say 'guns don't kill people, robbers do' but how do you think the robbers kill those people? The only reason I put Santiago here is because I hate the others even more.
5.Morgan - oh yay. Big corporations. Oh look, let's make everyone work for peanuts so they're virtually dead people walking. And while we're at it, let's destroy the planet too! Just ridiculous, really. Free economy, yes, but this ain't. Not when the middle and lower classes get no real benefit.
Another HUGE gap...
6.Miriam - argh. argh argh argh. Religious extremism? We've got too much of that anyway, in ALL religions, without a government promoting it. Miriam restricts free speech against religion, and suffocates scientific research. If there is a hell, Miriam will be waiting there for me with a preaching book.
7.Yang - not much to say here really. It's disgusting that he dares call himself 'communist'.
Check a dictionary! What does communism mean? 'Freedom and complete equality'. What is Yang's society like? A police state!
2.Zakharov - wants to further humanity, great research and knowledge, ethics, while bad, are only a small bip against the other two.
Quite a big gap...
3.Deirdre - though I don't like much the idea of getting to harmony with nature (which basically means...um....do nothing
), if you destroy the planet you've got nothing to live on. Which is bad.HUGE gap...
4.Santiago - I'm sorry, but I don't believe in universal gun ownership. I know people say 'guns don't kill people, robbers do' but how do you think the robbers kill those people?
The only reason I put Santiago here is because I hate the others even more.5.Morgan - oh yay. Big corporations. Oh look, let's make everyone work for peanuts so they're virtually dead people walking. And while we're at it, let's destroy the planet too! Just ridiculous, really. Free economy, yes, but this ain't. Not when the middle and lower classes get no real benefit.
Another HUGE gap...
6.Miriam - argh. argh argh argh. Religious extremism? We've got too much of that anyway, in ALL religions, without a government promoting it. Miriam restricts free speech against religion, and suffocates scientific research. If there is a hell, Miriam will be waiting there for me with a preaching book.
7.Yang - not much to say here really. It's disgusting that he dares call himself 'communist'.
Check a dictionary! What does communism mean? 'Freedom and complete equality'. What is Yang's society like? A police state!So, is this about the ruler you would like to live under, or the ruler of the whole world, you would like to live under. There is a diffrence. some of those ideologies simply don't work as a world-empire.
So, as a stability loving person, I think those would be the best order:
Deidre: Aside from "dancing naked in the forrest", the Gayans show good political values, a liberal personal and a controlled ecological system.
Morgan: Another system, that would work, however clearly at the cost paid by the poor, that fall through the system. There would -probably- be a large scissor betweeen rich and poor but the poor would have a hard way to do something about it. A global multiconcern is just to shapeless to fight effectivly. However, the increased efficiency should provide even the poor with a good minimum.
Lal: Sure, his ideas are great, but it's less likely to work. Centralised politics are just too likely to get overthrown from inside. Lobbyists, that influence politics, politicians that lie, media that influences elections. It could work for a time, or it could work with some drifts towards any other faction.
Now, it's hard to decide between the next two:
Santiago: It will not work. No chance at all. However, the failure will be no revolution. Once the spartans control the world, have no enemy to focus on, the society will change in one of the others. The bad thing it, that with the military everywhere, Hive could be a likely exit, but morgan and peacekeeper philosophy are possible, too.
Zakarov: Drone roids. That's bad. However, the high interlectual output of this society might be able to find a way to fight the symptons (roids) other then cutting of the root (their leadership).
I would definitly like such a society, but I don't think it would work (well).
Yang: People don't like to be opressed. It's only a matter of time untill this ends in a bloody revolution.
Miriam: "We must dissent" - Someone will dissent. Nothing has caused more killing then religion. Like in the Hive, a revolution is only a matter of time. But in contrast to the hive, that can go over into anything else, Miriam will only be replaced by another Miriam of a slightly diffrent philosophy.
So, as a stability loving person, I think those would be the best order:
Deidre: Aside from "dancing naked in the forrest", the Gayans show good political values, a liberal personal and a controlled ecological system.
Morgan: Another system, that would work, however clearly at the cost paid by the poor, that fall through the system. There would -probably- be a large scissor betweeen rich and poor but the poor would have a hard way to do something about it. A global multiconcern is just to shapeless to fight effectivly. However, the increased efficiency should provide even the poor with a good minimum.
Lal: Sure, his ideas are great, but it's less likely to work. Centralised politics are just too likely to get overthrown from inside. Lobbyists, that influence politics, politicians that lie, media that influences elections. It could work for a time, or it could work with some drifts towards any other faction.
Now, it's hard to decide between the next two:
Santiago: It will not work. No chance at all. However, the failure will be no revolution. Once the spartans control the world, have no enemy to focus on, the society will change in one of the others. The bad thing it, that with the military everywhere, Hive could be a likely exit, but morgan and peacekeeper philosophy are possible, too.
Zakarov: Drone roids. That's bad. However, the high interlectual output of this society might be able to find a way to fight the symptons (roids) other then cutting of the root (their leadership).
I would definitly like such a society, but I don't think it would work (well).
Yang: People don't like to be opressed. It's only a matter of time untill this ends in a bloody revolution.
Miriam: "We must dissent" - Someone will dissent. Nothing has caused more killing then religion. Like in the Hive, a revolution is only a matter of time. But in contrast to the hive, that can go over into anything else, Miriam will only be replaced by another Miriam of a slightly diffrent philosophy.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Hmm lets how this thread responds to a longetivity vaccine,
1. Commissioner Pravin Lal: Undoubtedly the most pleasant to live under, If he was in charge of earth, the blot that is Africa would get some serious help, food and med supplies, peacekeeping forces would stamp out (not necessarily quickly, they are guerillas after all and the PK's tend to be bureaucratic) afterwards the world would be a shiny place with lots of intellectuals and a slow but steady research into the unknown, shying away from unethical applications. The problem is they would probably find themselves gradually morphing into one of the other factions.
2.Lady Deirdre Sky: Vying with Lal for the top spot. however here lesser commitment to humanity forces her to a close second. A world that would probably be kept clean as possible long as their are humans(afterwards it would actually be clean) with a sustainable ecosystem and a tendency towards democracy(not as strong as Lal's) a good choice. The bad side would be a less activist approach to human rights and the major fact that their pacifism would lead to their not so eventual demise
And so ends the ones I would actually like to see in power.
3:Colonel Corazon Santiago: While my objection to this faction is only mild I feel they would self destruct once they actually had control of the world. After a decade or so enjoying the luxury and still keeping up their prowess they
would either A: Split in civil war. or B: Devolve into one of the other faction, with a high likelihood of becoming a Human Hive
4.Ceo Nwabudike Morgan: Hmm... Lets see the: most unethical rise quickly, mostly by stepping on thousands, a world in which for most people work will be an end unto itself, and the devil take kids, recreation, and humanity. The upside is that the few percent that make it to the top will have whatever they want except (in most cases) actual contentment. The scientific progress will be fairly brisk, and imediatley turned to make slaves out of the masses
5. Sister Miriam Godwinson: Let me clarify: I am a Christian, some would call me fundamentalist, That said I HATE these "Believers": God has to sides to him: wrath and forgiveness, She has shows him as wrath without forgiveness, who calls incessantly for all sinners to be killed, the only she got in fifth was due to her competition and the fact that I hope a scrap of the side of God she scorns would worm it's way into her society. To be fair I suppose her society would encourage biblical morals, and have active very charity programs I just wonder about the punishments to comply with such laws.
6.Academician Prohkor Zakharov: While most babble on about his scientific utopia, I ask a question: At what price? Is it worth being forced to have a machine implanted into your unwilling head inorder to see if it's possible? Is it worth sentencing dozens of people to death to see what a random gene does when you turn it on or off?
7. Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang: Like any rational person I have no desire to live in a place where I'm regarded as another tool in the hands of a dictator, who may decide this tool would be best used as a slave, and this one should be used as a slave master. etc
1. Commissioner Pravin Lal: Undoubtedly the most pleasant to live under, If he was in charge of earth, the blot that is Africa would get some serious help, food and med supplies, peacekeeping forces would stamp out (not necessarily quickly, they are guerillas after all and the PK's tend to be bureaucratic) afterwards the world would be a shiny place with lots of intellectuals and a slow but steady research into the unknown, shying away from unethical applications. The problem is they would probably find themselves gradually morphing into one of the other factions.
2.Lady Deirdre Sky: Vying with Lal for the top spot. however here lesser commitment to humanity forces her to a close second. A world that would probably be kept clean as possible long as their are humans(afterwards it would actually be clean) with a sustainable ecosystem and a tendency towards democracy(not as strong as Lal's) a good choice. The bad side would be a less activist approach to human rights and the major fact that their pacifism would lead to their not so eventual demise
And so ends the ones I would actually like to see in power.
3:Colonel Corazon Santiago: While my objection to this faction is only mild I feel they would self destruct once they actually had control of the world. After a decade or so enjoying the luxury and still keeping up their prowess they
would either A: Split in civil war. or B: Devolve into one of the other faction, with a high likelihood of becoming a Human Hive
4.Ceo Nwabudike Morgan: Hmm... Lets see the: most unethical rise quickly, mostly by stepping on thousands, a world in which for most people work will be an end unto itself, and the devil take kids, recreation, and humanity. The upside is that the few percent that make it to the top will have whatever they want except (in most cases) actual contentment. The scientific progress will be fairly brisk, and imediatley turned to make slaves out of the masses
5. Sister Miriam Godwinson: Let me clarify: I am a Christian, some would call me fundamentalist, That said I HATE these "Believers": God has to sides to him: wrath and forgiveness, She has shows him as wrath without forgiveness, who calls incessantly for all sinners to be killed, the only she got in fifth was due to her competition and the fact that I hope a scrap of the side of God she scorns would worm it's way into her society. To be fair I suppose her society would encourage biblical morals, and have active very charity programs I just wonder about the punishments to comply with such laws.
6.Academician Prohkor Zakharov: While most babble on about his scientific utopia, I ask a question: At what price? Is it worth being forced to have a machine implanted into your unwilling head inorder to see if it's possible? Is it worth sentencing dozens of people to death to see what a random gene does when you turn it on or off?
7. Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang: Like any rational person I have no desire to live in a place where I'm regarded as another tool in the hands of a dictator, who may decide this tool would be best used as a slave, and this one should be used as a slave master. etc
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
NO! Yang is possibly the most powerfful original faction, If you know how to play him.
iralastorum
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 8
1 - Dierdre Sky There are several things I would wish my perfect leader of current earth to have and Dierdre pretty much complies with most of them. For one she prefers a democracy above a police state or a dictatorship. And a free society is an important thing. She wishes to preserve the planet. So we can do whatever we want and at the same time we don't damage the world and live on without somesort of apocolypse because of free capitalism and industrialism. Great huh? Besides that she's also an intellectual and will continue to let science go, aslong as it inventions don't damage the world. It's an Utopia.
2 - Lal Lal loves the stream of free information, and so do I. Internet's great right? Lal agrees. A free society is what he wants and that's just great. He's also a pacifist and we probably won't have any bloodshedding wars with him in command. Science wouldn't change much and aslong as the free market doesn't exploit people it will be fine. The only downside is that his market probably won't have to much to do with preserving the planet.
3 - Zakharov Science! It's a great thing and leads to a magnificent society. I imagine Zakharov having a relatively free world where we can go about our things but not to much because his society model is completely focused on the advancement of science and knowledge and freedom would suffer from that. He probably wouldn't care much for the planet either. Not at all even.
4 - Corazon Santiago
However you wish a leader to be. You have to survive under it. And that's exactly what she wants to. I'm not to sure how earth would be with her. If there'd be no more countries security in the form of military would be less important. Survival would be at top. And strifing for survival is not a bad thing.
5 - Shen-ji Yang
I wouldnt want to live under this guy's rule. No freedom, nothing with nature. He doesn't care aslong as the state is rich and nice. Even science gets the shaft. That said he is better then the remaining two.
6 - Miriam Godwinsen
I have great tolerance for religions. Alot of people I know are quite religious and they are great people because they don't force it upon others. Miriam is person which doesn't do that and tries to bash all un-believers. I see modern crusades already. Only a small part of the world would be as fundamentalist as her. The rest wouldnt and a large part would try to bash their religion unto others. In other words, if she be world ruler, she wouldn't rule **** because 75% of the world would be to busy killing one another.
7 - Morgan
Destroying the world is one thing. Doing it out of free will is another. Morgan unleashes human greed upon the earth and it would stop at nothing. His society would be anarchic. And the world would be ruled by mc donalds. And who would want that eh?
2 - Lal Lal loves the stream of free information, and so do I. Internet's great right? Lal agrees. A free society is what he wants and that's just great. He's also a pacifist and we probably won't have any bloodshedding wars with him in command. Science wouldn't change much and aslong as the free market doesn't exploit people it will be fine. The only downside is that his market probably won't have to much to do with preserving the planet.
3 - Zakharov Science! It's a great thing and leads to a magnificent society. I imagine Zakharov having a relatively free world where we can go about our things but not to much because his society model is completely focused on the advancement of science and knowledge and freedom would suffer from that. He probably wouldn't care much for the planet either. Not at all even.
4 - Corazon Santiago
However you wish a leader to be. You have to survive under it. And that's exactly what she wants to. I'm not to sure how earth would be with her. If there'd be no more countries security in the form of military would be less important. Survival would be at top. And strifing for survival is not a bad thing.
5 - Shen-ji Yang
I wouldnt want to live under this guy's rule. No freedom, nothing with nature. He doesn't care aslong as the state is rich and nice. Even science gets the shaft. That said he is better then the remaining two.
6 - Miriam Godwinsen
I have great tolerance for religions. Alot of people I know are quite religious and they are great people because they don't force it upon others. Miriam is person which doesn't do that and tries to bash all un-believers. I see modern crusades already. Only a small part of the world would be as fundamentalist as her. The rest wouldnt and a large part would try to bash their religion unto others. In other words, if she be world ruler, she wouldn't rule **** because 75% of the world would be to busy killing one another.
7 - Morgan
Destroying the world is one thing. Doing it out of free will is another. Morgan unleashes human greed upon the earth and it would stop at nothing. His society would be anarchic. And the world would be ruled by mc donalds. And who would want that eh?
lintsniffer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1
Is it just me or do those two sentences side-by-side not make any sense?
All of the leaders seem to be from the different extremes of the political world. Morgan with a little Zakharov would be my pick. But here's the list.
1.Morgan
2.Zakharov
3.Santiago
5.Lal/ Dierdre
7.Yang/Miriam
Lal has good aims, but is too inefficient. Good intentions are nothing if you can't do anything with them. Dierdre seems to only care about ecology. I prefer humans. Yang is just an oppressive police-state and Miriam is too fanatical.
I love playing as Santiago and Morgan though. Lal is always the first one killed in my game (parallel to what would happen in real life?)
TROOPERBLUE
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 57
My ranking of choice, comes from my goal(s) of society, which are Transcendant. Yang, may not have the right means, and he pays for his walls, which he protects his society with, but his heart is in the right place (Transcendant).... Although, I must admit, the wonder where he says, "What do i care about your suffering, Pain is only...." That kind of scares me... but because of his philosphy, I vote for him as #1!
1. Yang (as i said above, his heart is in the right place!)
2. Santiago (I would feel safe in her society, also Oribital Spaceflight quote)
3. Miriam (Her belief in principal, conviction, makes her a good leader)
4. Morgan (although he lacks support, he makes up for it with his Economy, he is a realistic choice, but not the best choice)
5. Lal (He is a criminal, not a humanitarian, and although i may be happy some of the time, he is not a logical choice.... and is inefficient i might add)
6. Zahkarov (I dont want to be an Unhappy researcher 1/4 of the time -- Drone Riots. But, i do like the idea of research.)
7. Deidre (What!, her plants and trees, are they going to save you? -- that is not Progress, that is not Transendant)
1. Yang (as i said above, his heart is in the right place!)
2. Santiago (I would feel safe in her society, also Oribital Spaceflight quote)
3. Miriam (Her belief in principal, conviction, makes her a good leader)
4. Morgan (although he lacks support, he makes up for it with his Economy, he is a realistic choice, but not the best choice)
5. Lal (He is a criminal, not a humanitarian, and although i may be happy some of the time, he is not a logical choice.... and is inefficient i might add)
6. Zahkarov (I dont want to be an Unhappy researcher 1/4 of the time -- Drone Riots. But, i do like the idea of research.)
7. Deidre (What!, her plants and trees, are they going to save you? -- that is not Progress, that is not Transendant)
Major Scientist
Chieftain
Foreman Dormei... Oops, wrong set.
If I really, really had to think about it (and limit myself to the original 7):
1. Lal- As a person, he strikes me as a total wuss. However, he is very much for peace and democracy, can't go wrong there.
2. Deidre- A democratic hippie. Although her emphasis on enviromentalism is a little focused, at least Gaia's Landing can't be a bad place to live with it's clean air and pretty parks.
3. Santigo- Pretty much tied with Zhakarov. I hate needless military force, but her society promises stablity and security as well as frowning on the wasteful frills of a consumerism culture.
4. Zhakarov- I would have rated him higher as I do value scientific progress but if the deciding factor is how smart you are, then where's the cut off?
5. Morgan- While I do real well with him as a player, can you live in a society where your bank account is the only thing that matters?
6. Mirham- Because fanatical religious people scare me, her refusal to see technology as a mere tool without any bias infuriates me.
7. Yang- Do I even need a reason?
If I really, really had to think about it (and limit myself to the original 7):
1. Lal- As a person, he strikes me as a total wuss. However, he is very much for peace and democracy, can't go wrong there.
2. Deidre- A democratic hippie. Although her emphasis on enviromentalism is a little focused, at least Gaia's Landing can't be a bad place to live with it's clean air and pretty parks.
3. Santigo- Pretty much tied with Zhakarov. I hate needless military force, but her society promises stablity and security as well as frowning on the wasteful frills of a consumerism culture.
4. Zhakarov- I would have rated him higher as I do value scientific progress but if the deciding factor is how smart you are, then where's the cut off?
5. Morgan- While I do real well with him as a player, can you live in a society where your bank account is the only thing that matters?
6. Mirham- Because fanatical religious people scare me, her refusal to see technology as a mere tool without any bias infuriates me.
7. Yang- Do I even need a reason?
