Did Craymen agree with the role of the Mediator?

Panzer Dragoon
21

It seems like you’ve already made up your mind so I won’t bother addressing the other individual assertions here. It’s somewhat burdensome to go through them all. I’ll just say something about your general method though. It’s very easy to get wildly off topic with talk of the Soviet Union and the Romans while losing focus on the issue at hand. Those examples involve a whole swarm of complex socio-economic factors, and it’s too difficult to pin down what the root courses are. Correlation does not always equal causation, after all. People used to think that coffee was a cause of cancer. It turned out that many people were smoking in cafes at the same time when they had a coffee. Smoking was the cause, but you can see why people saw the correlation and thought “aha! it’s the coffee!”. This is the danger of loose holistic thinking rather than looking at individual cases and carefully examining them for counter examples.

As it stands, I don’t think you’ve really addressed my distinction between the (a) a system that takes away the need to work and (b) a system where people aren’t motivated to think. You keep lumping them together as if (a) neccessarily would lead to (b) and using generalities to link the two. I’ve tried to argue that they’re distinct systems and given a number of examples of where they don’t correlate. But apparantly these examples aren’t enough for you to at least reconsider the dogma that humans need a metaphorical whip behind them in order to be motivated to invent things?

Even if the examples I provided are only true in a few cases (in the world as it is now), if we consider humans as beings that are changed by their environment (which they are), then it makes no sense to consider unwillingness to think as something unchangable in human nature. If a lot of humans are unwilling to think right now, then we should be looking at what causes them to not think. What environmental factors can we take from those who do think, feeding those factors into the environments of those who haven’t found the motivation to think. Making blanket claims that we need to whip everyone (or most people) into thinking by giving them lots of work to do overlooks the complexity of human psychology, especially when examples can be given of other environmental factors which contribute.

My thoughts on a technological society: we’ll never achieve perfection (if such an ideal exists), so there will always be a need to think if we want to improve the world, in big or small ways. A world where labour is offloaded to technology isn’t a utopia, but it would free us to work on projects that really matter. Technology - in our control - has the potential to liberate us rather than enslave us. Unfortunately science fiction often paints a dark picture of technology. Panzer Dragoon Saga shows us the dark side of technological control. It could have done with more characters like Paet who use technology to willingly foster their creative thinking. The Paets of the world are out there, but unfortunately their creative energy is often wasted because they have to work for the Empires of this world, their talents used in the war between competing buisnesses and in the process squandering our environment’s precious resources.

22

Hmm, as I see it, the evidence found in the creation is something which is fixed and stable (unless it’s made by George Lucas). So it can be accessed independently of what the creator intended at a certain point in time (if indeed they had a clear idea). Whereas the creator’s mind is more like a wave. It changes shape throughout the course of the creation, and sometimes afterwards.

[quote=“The Ancient”]I agree the Divine Visitor could just as well be considered “a human” and “the mediator” for this context. But that becomes a cyclical point, the Seekers were confused about what the Divine visitor was, and that would make them just as confused about the mediator in those terms. The theme is there, it is recurring and somewhat central; as always I also see a trap in conflating the literal technicalities and those overarching themes.

In essence you have characterized the mediator as almost a metaphor, with that theory. Which is largely in line with what I’m saying as well, I think?[/quote]

The Seekers heard of the Divine Visitor from ancient records, rather than through Lagi. They were mistaken about the identity of the Divine Visitor, but they still knew that a human would be the one to decide humankind’s fate, rather than the dragon program. In either case, the mediator and the dragon program worked together as a team to destroy Sestren, and their roles were the same as what the Seekers claimed, it was just that the Divine Visitor wasn’t who they thought it was. So, it seems the basic role of the mediator is still safe from confusion, even if further attributes of the mediator (such as being or hosting the Divine Visitor) were unknown to the Seekers. The mediator appears to be a particular role, rather than a metaphor.

23

No but people are lazy. It’s both a strength and a weakness.

All I am saying is if our lives were ruled by technology and it wasn’t hurting us, learning how to use that technology would be unnecessary. I seriously doubt that many people even understand the technology used to make their mobile phones, but they still use them.

But we have specialists who understand how to use and make the technology. Perhaps because they wanted to learn how it all worked, or perhaps because it was a good career path for them.

I am not arguing that correlation equals causality. I am just saying that human beings have a fundamental character flaw. It could always change of course, but IMO, it’s something that makes people adaptable and suicidal at the same time. We find ways to make things easier.

They need motivation. It can come from many places. Necessity happens to be one of them.

I was just saying it would be unnecessary to learn when they could learn. If it was necessary, say because, they were stranded on another planet, that might change. But it might not.

I think the utopian society that we can actually build in the future would have cleaner more infinite energy and societies would have cyclical self-sustaining growth. Then we can pursue things that we want to pursue rather than be forced into doing things we hate. But there needs to be a balance where we ensure that we aren’t controlled and remain in control.

However, the current way of life we live now is flawed for one simple reason: it’s too efficient.

Imagine the Ancients. They built automated weapons that didn’t even need human pilots. Humans would be needed to maintain them but if they became self-sustaining, humans would be redundant especially if a computer could control the technology anyway. If humans are redundant then they will become powerless if that technology was used against them.

But it’s far far too tempting to be efficient. Because there are always enemies aiming to be more efficient than us. Now imagine that we have no enemies. Why do we need to be so efficient?

Human beings need to remain in charge of their own technology because they have to be. We need to keep up somehow otherwise we will eventually be left behind. I don’t think the leaders of the Ancient Age saw it that way. I think they were happy to leave most people behind.

I’m sorry I frustrated you Chris. I don’t think I made myself clear enough.

24

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]All I am saying is if our lives were ruled by technology and it wasn’t hurting us, learning how to use that technology would be unnecessary. I seriously doubt that many people even understand the technology used to make their mobile phones, but they still use them.

But we have specialists who understand how to use and make the technology. Perhaps because they wanted to learn how it all worked, or perhaps because it was a good career path for them.[/quote]

In the case of mobile phones, so long as a subset of the population understand them, and those specialists aren’t completely centralised, I don’t think we run the risk of losing control. I would be worried if Apple controlled 100% of the mobile phone market, but thankfully that’s not the case. Since there are different groups of people who understand how mobile technology works and it’s not all centrally controlled, the risk is reduced. You can also open source the technology, for example with Android, so you have a decentralised community with access to the knowledge of how it works. If someone doesn’t like the direction of a project they can choose to fork it, although there are fragmentation issues with doing so, making it wise for developers to cooperate around some sort of leadership and project culture in order to make progress. In any case, the issue is authoritarian versus liberation approaches to technology and getting the right balance.

In that case, we agree.

By the way, “needs” can be reduced to “desires” (although those desires may not be always conscious desires). For example the need to survive is a desire to survive. So we could just talk about desires directly.

In that case, we can access whole lot of desires which can motivate. Some of these will be extrinsic, such as monetary rewards or popularity, while others are intrinsic motivations such as interest, desire to improve oneself, and autonomy. Wikipedia has some basic information about each type with references to studies if you’re interested.

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]I think the utopian society that we can actually build in the future would have cleaner more infinite energy and societies would have cyclical self-sustaining growth. Then we can pursue things that we want to pursue rather than be forced into doing things we hate. But there needs to be a balance where we ensure that we aren’t controlled and remain in control.

However, the current way of life we live now is flawed for one simple reason: it’s too efficient.

Imagine the Ancients. They built automated weapons that didn’t even need human pilots. Humans would be needed to maintain them but if they became self-sustaining, humans would be redundant especially if a computer could control the technology anyway. If humans are redundant then they will become powerless if that technology was used against them.

But it’s far far too tempting to be efficient. Because there are always enemies aiming to be more efficient than us. Now imagine that we have no enemies. Why do we need to be so efficient?

Human beings need to remain in charge of their own technology because they have to be. We need to keep up somehow otherwise we will eventually be left behind. I don’t think the leaders of the Ancient Age saw it that way. I think they were happy to leave most people behind.[/quote]

I think the issue is that the balance of authoritarian/libertarian went too far in the direction of a single authority. As opposed to things being too efficient, because you can have a very efficient decentralised technological setup. For example, decentralised agriculture is more efficient than the more centralised system we have now because food wouldn’t be required to travel as far. So you have things like the locavore movement which promotes decentralisation and efficiency at the same time. Similarly, it’s more efficient to put individual wind turbines closer to the building that needs power rather than centralising them in a wind farm (all other factors considered equal). When there’s limited resources, efficiency can even become necessary for survival (even if we have no enemies) because inefficiency can cause us to run out of resources. We just need to ensure that efficiency is applied to the things that really matter.

It’s okay. I’ve had variants of this argument a number of times and continually come across the view that humans are unchangeable. It’s frustrating. There’s a fatalistic attitude out there that the only thing we can do is leave things the way they are. But leaving things the way they are is precisely what will cause that fatalistic world view to come to pass. The fatalists cause their own fatalities.

25

That’s understandable. :slight_smile:

IMO, what I find frustrating is when society doesn’t help people. People don’t just adapt on their own. They need guidance and they might have strengths that they never knew they had. People need incentives such as money or self-respect and respect as well. By being efficient we can bring the best out of people, but only if, like you said, we are efficient where it matters.

Not everyone is going to see it that way.

Decentralized systems compete with each other better too which can be healthy if it’s done for the sake of improving things. Placing more responsibility into the hands of the individual is very challenging IMO (libertarians and conservatives, I find, usually want to accomplish that by giving people hardly any help at all to force self-reliance).

26

More of a technical point, but the definition of libertarian is quite loose. Not all liberations want to force self-reliance by withdrawing help. I think you’re referring to right-leaning libertarians here, but in the broader sense a libertarian is just the opposite of an authoritarian. Conservatives are often authoritarian by favouring traditional approaches, such as the monarchy or hierarchical, patriarchal institutions which restrict liberties from the top down, whereas a libertarian advocates a minimal or no state with much of society being managed from the bottom up. But a libertarian may be left-leaning too, by promoting rights at one end, while reallocating resources at the other end through bottom up agreements. So, the definition of libertarian covers a spectrum of right and left views, from free market libertarians to libertarian socialists.

I’d like to see more consideration of the left/libertarian angle because it seems it’s often mistaken for an authoritarian position.

27

Unfortunately the definitions of conservative/libertarian have been hijacked by extremes so they have been redefined. I was very surprised when I met a left libertarian. It almost sounds like a contradiction in terms these days. Conservatives aren’t meant to be authoritarian either. They are meant to stand for limited government and self-reliance (because those things have been proven to work and are worth keeping). A real conservative for example, would not have bailed out the banks, but society has become too soft to take the pain.

It seems to me that a lot of people aren’t really true to their ideology and just use it to further their own agendas.

IMO, to get back on topic, (true) self-reliance wouldn’t be able to compete with a society that takes care of you if it’s also prosperous IMO. The kind of society I envision in the future is one like Olympus from Appleseed where resources are infinite but society is relatively small. There just always has to be a balance of power somehow. I think that the Ancients were far more efficient and ultimately too efficient for their own good.

28

I didn’t mean to imply that conservatism was always authoritarian. To be conservative is to support whatever the current (or slightly behind the current) setup is, to conserve that setup. To be conservative involves defending the existing insitutions and the power balance in place that preserves them. A few hundred years ago this might be to defend slave owners. Right now, it could be to defend large corporations from having to reduce greenhouse emissions. The pattern is that conservatives defend the status quo, regardless of whether it works for everyone. I think Panzer Dragoon’s Empire could be classed as conservative, because they continued down their expansionist path with no intention to reform their methods. Whereas Craymen saw the issues with this status quo, so could be considered more progressive.

I haven’t seen that movie, sounds interesting. Do you recommend it?

Yes, I think people would choose a society that took care you over a society where everyone was self-reliant, if those choices were presented clearly. Cooperation over competition. The danger is that system being centralised in the hands of the few.

29

Yeah it’s a good. If you see Appleseed watch the original 1988 OVA first. The main villain (the cop) is a good person so it makes you wonder who the real villains really are. The new Appleseeds expand more on the tensions between humans and biodroids who were created to serve humanity, but it’s less mature than the original OVA and Manga. The main theme of the story is that the people who tried to create a peaceful society after World War 3 underestimated the human desire for absolute freedom.

As for conservatives, there is a misconception about what they generally stand for because it’s become such a relatively extreme ideology. If something is proven to work, then conservatives will adopt it. Like traditional values, limited government and self-reliance in today’s world. That mentality can exist within different power structures and conserve different things that people feel work for them. We have to keep in mind that people tend to come from different backgrounds where they simply might not know any better. Some things are worth preserving as well.

Modern conservatives usually stand for “tough love”. Here in the UK they are a mainstream party but less popular ideas are usually resisted or shot down. Thatcher for example, forced the UK to adapt to globalization and everyone hated her for it. She was the ultimate Scrooge. Unfortunately it’s just impossible for the UK to be a truly self-sufficient country now while we are part of a global economy.

30

Sounds good, I’ll check it out.

I agree with that last part, for example the basic human rights we’ve worked hard to acquire for people are worth preserving. As a starting point, I think conservatism can work well, so long as it’s just that: a starting point. Reason-based assessment of the values and conditions of the society leading out from that starting point in combination from other considerations allows us to progress without abandoning the progress that has come before. On the other hand, to not consider those starting points as potentially revisable is dogmatism, which can be a very dangerous mentality, even if those starting values or conditions have been proven to work for many people.

I’m actually writing something on this at the moment (not for TWOTA), about how in any field of inquiry we start with some collective and intitive assumptions and then expand our thinking from those, rather than starting from scratch every time.