Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Interplanetary treaties

11 posts / 0 new

Last post

Tue, 2010-12-07 15:15

root

Interplanetary treaties

root@Interplanetary treaties [hr] As has been pointed out in threads on space combat in Eclipse Phase, one of the habitat-cracking threats is any object sufficiently accelerated and placed to intersect the habitats orbit. The best way to combat this is to have a dense and distributed sensor network extended as far as possible in every direction possible. Leaving the claimed space of another polity empty of sensors is an invitation to go kaboom, so there must be treaties in place to share surveillance information. This leads to the question of how to define borders in 3-space? Is it everywhere that you can plant a spime broadcasting your flag? Is it limited to the vectors into which you can project deadly force? Or is it considered to cover all of transhumanity with varying levels of influence depending on interconnectedness? Physical distance exists, but movement through it takes so goddamn long compared to telecasting and living in x60 simulspaces that the informational projection of any group far exceeds their physical footprint. That said, eventually all power must come down to control of physical spaces, as physical realtime is the single common denominator for all power groups. How does this get solved? How are transgressors punished? How is power projected through the Pandora Gates? Most importantly for most players in Eclipse Phase: how the fuck do I get out from underneath the jackboots of calcified power interests from old Earth?

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Tue, 2010-12-07 15:30

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Re: Interplanetary treaties

The problem isn't sensing range so much as effective weapons range. We can see the space shuttle from Pluto right now. In EP, it's almost certainly orders of magnitude greater. However, just knowing where something is only half the battle, as it were. A cluster of habitats offering mutual defense helps reduce this, because if the projectile is approaching Hab A, but passes through Hab B's defensive net, Hab B can destroy that projectile a lot more easily than A could (and similarly, B can attack A a lot more easily than most other enemies could. So being neighborly is important.) In regards to the reach of political power - it reaches as far as your guns do. The PC can claim everywhere out to the belt, because they have destroyers to back it up which are only realistically contested at a few spots (such as Venus). But a lot of places are too far to be economically worthwhile to control, so they'll shout at you for misbehavior, but aren't likely to do anything without a positive ROI. The Jovians probably won't put up with so much trouble because they depend more on their rep as the big, tough military people. If you're a little hab though, you own your little corner as long as someone with a bigger gun doesn't tell you otherwise.

Tue, 2010-12-07 17:23

Axel the Chimeric Axel the Chimeric's picture

Re: Interplanetary treaties

root wrote:
How does this get solved? How are transgressors punished? How is power projected through the Pandora Gates? Most importantly for most players in Eclipse Phase: how the fuck do I get out from underneath the jackboots of calcified power interests from old Earth?

I think the biggest of these (How do you control places, and how are punishments enforced) was just answered, but I'd like to take a stab at the others. The Pandora Gates are fairly simple: If you're using any of the PC gates, you own whatever you find/build there, unless contracted otherwise (which, given the expense, most venturers probably are). The autonomist gates, on the other hand, are basically based on whoemver has the most guns making the rules. Power is projected through them in the same way all power is projected: With words backed by firepower. As for how to get out from underneath the power interests of old, the two easiest ways are to make yourself very much unnoticeable or not worth really paying attention to (such as is done by the Scum and outer system habitats), or by getting very, very far away (as is also done by both factions, to one degree or another, and by gatecrashers). The third option is to have more guns than they do and/or to destroy them utterly, though that is considerably more difficult than either of the other two.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
The Jovians probably won't put up with so much trouble because they depend more on their rep as the big, tough military people.

Which is probably why they shoot every poor bastard who doesn't pay their Gravity Tax....

—

[img]http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/982/exhumanbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/4473/scumbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/1396/gatecrasherbar.jpg[/img] [code][@-rep +1, f-rep +2][/code]

Tue, 2010-12-07 18:20

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: Interplanetary treaties

There are definitely sensor networks spread around the solar system, but the information is not shared that much - would the AA really waste their expensive qubits to help the Junta? And space is absurdly big: it is hard to place enough sensors to detect small or quiet things efficiently. An accelerating Destroyer or big transport is pretty obvious, but once a ship turns off the big engines and just uses small hydrogen bursts it becomes a fairly tricky thing to see. It can be seen, but you need to be looking at the right spot. Hence most sensors will focus on protecting key habitats rather than trying to blanket the solar system. I think there are a few interplanetary treaties of note, but not that many: On page 59 the Treaty of Uniform Security is mentioned, but even that is not signed by the JJ and a bunch of habitats. There is no uniform code of justice or recognized police force, and even the PC doesn't have a unified military as far as I remember Sunward. I would expect some pre-Fall traffic control treaties are still honoured practically everywhere. Things like not putting antimatter craft within a certain radius of habitats, approved communications protocols and trajectories, handling of debris etc. Another set of treaties that are widespread deal with egocasting integrity. But beyond that it is up to every polity to decide. It is a multilateral multilateral world.

—

Tue, 2010-12-07 18:30

root

Re: Interplanetary treaties

root@Interplanetary treaties [hr] Given that I am a cynical pessimist, I need to remind myself constantly that the worst never happens because most people aren't utterly selfish. Groups work together for the common good out of an altruism that is enforced at a darwinian level, and I'm allowed on occasion to just smile because I feel like it. Right. So let me reframe my gloomy totalitarian state with altruism in mind and see what we get. The argument about force projection and sensor networks from neighboring polities is good. Especially with the massive distances involved, it doesn't cost much for a state to warn another that a big kaboom is headed their way and will show up in a few weeks. They might even trade diplomatic kudos points for helping out and knocking it down before it shows up. So different states have reason to be friendly and work together. Gun ranges for groups like the Jovian Republic are interesting to think about. Sure, the Jovians could go on a crusade and give most of the system a big helping of blam, but it wouldn't be cost effective, and even the leaders are likely to think that it would just be plain wrong to do so. So the hulking gunships that can crack planets are mostly for show and blockading. Small smuggler ships have an enormous number of options where routes are concerned, and even if they are recorded there is simply too much data being recorded to effectively search, so they get through just fine. I do have a problem with the concept of getting away from the old power structures being restricted to getting far, far away, or staying very, very quiet. What if I don't feel like hiding, and feel like I have a right to the place I was born? Does that option exist anymore? I imagine that it exists, as long as your actions don't threaten anyone, but how far do my rights extend when they can cause harm to others? And what is "harm" in this case?

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Tue, 2010-12-07 19:15

Axel the Chimeric Axel the Chimeric's picture

Re: Interplanetary treaties

root wrote:
Groups work together for the common good out of an altruism that is enforced at a darwinian level, and I'm allowed on occasion to just smile because I feel like it. Right. So let me reframe my gloomy totalitarian state with altruism in mind and see what we get.

Saying altruism and Darwinian in the same sentence sort of boggles my mind. Altruism is acting without thought to oneself, but no naturally arising (and persisting) behaviour is entirely selfless. For example, sacrificing oneself for the good of one's nation/religion/tribe allows one's genetic line and/or memes to persist. Even altruism is selfish, and greed can be a very powerful motivator for cooperative action. Case in point: Every corporation in the world.

root wrote:
I do have a problem with the concept of getting away from the old power structures being restricted to getting far, far away, or staying very, very quiet. What if I don't feel like hiding, and feel like I have a right to the place I was born? Does that option exist anymore? I imagine that it exists, as long as your actions don't threaten anyone, but how far do my rights extend when they can cause harm to others? And what is "harm" in this case?

To be frank, as much as I believe in human rights, you have to remember that a right is a concept and, like love or friendship, their only physical components are chemicals in your brain. You can argue rights until the cows come home, and be entirely correct in all your logic, but no argument in the world will prevent a bullet from piercing your skull unless it convinces someone else not to pull the trigger. In other words, if you don't feel like running or hiding, your only choice is option three: Out-competing them in a contest of arms. You might very well have the right, but this is the only way you're going to be able to assure you can enforce it. Otherwise, you're always going to be at the mercy of the Powers That Be, whether they try to influence you or not.

—

Wed, 2010-12-08 01:30

root

Re: Interplanetary treaties

root@Interplanetary treaties [hr]

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

root wrote:
Groups work together for the common good out of an altruism that is enforced at a darwinian level, and I'm allowed on occasion to just smile because I feel like it. Right. So let me reframe my gloomy totalitarian state with altruism in mind and see what we get.
Saying altruism and Darwinian in the same sentence sort of boggles my mind. Altruism is acting without thought to oneself, but no naturally arising (and persisting) behaviour is entirely selfless. For example, sacrificing oneself for the good of one's nation/religion/tribe allows one's genetic line and/or memes to persist. Even altruism is selfish, and greed can be a very powerful motivator for cooperative action. Case in point: Every corporation in the world.

It isn't contradictory if you think of darwinian fitness acting out at the species level, rather than the individual. Altruism is a fitness trait of societies. This is precisely why an unregulated corporate system will cyclically crash the world. The inherent lack of cooperation necessary for competition over scarce goods sends the market down evolutionary paths that aren't sustainable. It crashes like a wave over the weird topology of currency, retarded in its fall only by countercyclic pressures from social safety nets or war.

Quote:

root wrote:
I do have a problem with the concept of getting away from the old power structures being restricted to getting far, far away, or staying very, very quiet. What if I don't feel like hiding, and feel like I have a right to the place I was born? Does that option exist anymore? I imagine that it exists, as long as your actions don't threaten anyone, but how far do my rights extend when they can cause harm to others? And what is "harm" in this case?
To be frank, as much as I believe in human rights, you have to remember that a right is a concept and, like love or friendship, their only physical components are chemicals in your brain. You can argue rights until the cows come home, and be entirely correct in all your logic, but no argument in the world will prevent a bullet from piercing your skull unless it convinces someone else not to pull the trigger. In other words, if you don't feel like running or hiding, your only choice is option three: Out-competing them in a contest of arms. You might very well have the right, but this is the only way you're going to be able to assure you can enforce it. Otherwise, you're always going to be at the mercy of the Powers That Be, whether they try to influence you or not.

I agree that an empty argument of words over the idea of a "right" is great with a cup of tea, but rather useless as a deterrent from the clubs of control. However, I don't agree that the only option is to arm oneself as there is always diplomacy and the nasty dance of politics. If you can't get away from them, or hide from them, make sure that you are mutually beneficial to each other.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Wed, 2010-12-08 11:27

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Re: Interplanetary treaties

root wrote:
I do have a problem with the concept of getting away from the old power structures being restricted to getting far, far away, or staying very, very quiet. What if I don't feel like hiding, and feel like I have a right to the place I was born? Does that option exist anymore? I imagine that it exists, as long as your actions don't threaten anyone, but how far do my rights extend when they can cause harm to others? And what is "harm" in this case?

I dont' know. What sort of rights do you have right now? Does it make a difference when dealing with the local government if your claim on your property is older than the government's charter? Sure, if you live out in the wilds of Colorado you're given a certain amount of leeway, but that falls back into safety by distance and being quiet again. Ultimately, your being able to survive within the cost-effective power reach of a government depends on how nicely you two play along. Pay their taxes and follow their laws, and they probably don't care too much if you claim to be an independent state.

Wed, 2010-12-08 13:08

Axel the Chimeric Axel the Chimeric's picture

Re: Interplanetary treaties

root wrote:
It isn't contradictory if you think of darwinian fitness acting out at the species level, rather than the individual. Altruism is a fitness trait of societies. This is precisely why an unregulated corporate system will cyclically crash the world. The inherent lack of cooperation necessary for competition over scarce goods sends the market down evolutionary paths that aren't sustainable. It crashes like a wave over the weird topology of currency, retarded in its fall only by countercyclic pressures from social safety nets or war.

Selection does not act on the species level, it acts on the gene. Genes (and their cuumulative effects) are what's selected for. Cooperation only arises from nature if it benefits the propagation of said genes. Species that have group cooperation and altruistic acts only do so because of those reasons. Bees, for example, have non-breeding workers who sacrifice their lives in the colony's defense, a clearly altruistic habit, but one that only arises from an intrinsic benefit for the bee's genes (which are propagated through the queen). Every society forms because there is a benefit for the individual. They wouldn't if there wasn't. Competition, meanwhile, forces new developments and ideas; think of it like genetic diversity for the mind. The rise and fall of businesses is as natural as the rise and fall of species, and potentially just as beneficial in freeing up new niches as the environment changes. Darwinian inherently means selfish, and selfish is not a dirty word.

root wrote:
I agree that an empty argument of words over the idea of a "right" is great with a cup of tea, but rather useless as a deterrent from the clubs of control. However, I don't agree that the only option is to arm oneself as there is always diplomacy and the nasty dance of politics. If you can't get away from them, or hide from them, make sure that you are mutually beneficial to each other.

Just because you're mutually beneficial or diplomatic about it doesn't mean that you're any less under their thumb. Certainly, they might all be smiles and sunshine, but, unless you can challenge them with military force and/or access to key resources that only you can get, be ready for them to say "I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it any further." The Planetary Consortium are a perfect example of this. You could be an asteroid worker, mining or herding the things, living in an autonomist habitat somewhere in the inner system. You're not a member of their society, you're trading with them, you're diplomatic... And despite any pretense of autonomy, you're under their thumb. The vast networks of the oligarchs and the PC's military arm (and those terrifying bastards that are Project Ozma) are still firmly pointed at you and anyone else who steps too far out of line. If you ever do anything they don't like, expect very swiftly to feel their influence, one way or another. Until you can realistically repel any major threat from them, be it social, military, or otherwise, they can always influence you. This doesn't mean you need to be invulnerable, but it does mean your cultural group should be at least moderately self-sufficient, and have comparable military force to whatever they can bring to bare (which is likely considerable). I'm all for diplomacy, but the power games of resources and culture are power games just as real as any war fought with guns.

—

Thu, 2010-12-09 14:04

#10

Rhyx

Re: Interplanetary treaties

Quote:
Until you can realistically repel any major threat from them, be it social, military, or otherwise, they can always influence you.

Or simply hiding will also work, especially if it's so far away that it becomes a real bother for them to come and get you. That's what the Brinkers and Isolates do, not counting the Chat Noir gate. You're not happy, you can always take the Mayflower route and step through a gate with 20,000 alpha forks of your best-est buddies. Worked for the puritans.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/A_Rep.jpg[/img] 2 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/R_Rep.jpg[/img] 7 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/C_Rep.jpg[/img] 2
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qtBZ9.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/AT25J.jpg[/img]

Sat, 2010-12-11 23:23

#11

root

Re: Interplanetary treaties

root@Interplanetary treaties [hr] One tool you are missing that can allow someone to live in peace amidst a populace they do not agree with is secrets. It doesn't even matter very much what secrets, just the possibility that there is something there that cannot be predicted. Any individual that has no method of keeping at least some private aspects to their life is completely predictable, and therefore is completely vulnerable. Most of the time having the power to keep secrets doesn't do all that much for you, as secrets can be detrimental to optimal cooperation during non sum-zero games. However, the second you are dealing with a sum-zero or sum-negative game, or a prisoners-dilemma setup with a large enough population, you had better have an advantage. This can be either a way to not play the game, a way to force the game into an arena that is more advantageous for you, a way to rain annihilation down on your opponents, or a way to keep them from having the certainty they need for their risk assessments.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]