Gantolandon wrote:

Edit: The whole PC intervention arc is one of my biggest grit with EP anarchists - not only it prematurely ended a major source of conflict, but doesn't make much sense in hindsight. Why would the Consortium bother with destroying Locus exactly, given that they are probably the lest threatening member of the Alliance? Why not deal with Titan instead? Why not Extropia, which is much closer and provides competition to the Consortium hypercorps, sucking credits out of their economy? Why not seize another Pandora Gate from themselves? If anything, Locus is a greater threat to the Jovians and they were the ones who rushed to its defense.

Because it theoretically could have been an easy target AND is a den of intellectual property thieves. A den of underarmed, military-industrial complexless hippies who are continually ruining the bottom line by stealing profits based on IP? An easy target. In fact, I think there was a part about how the Jovians even helped in the Second Battle of Locus, which sort of implies that PC outguns the Commonwealth, thus the Outer System is the way it is because of the villainous Jovians and not because of magic-space-elves anarchists, who frankly don't seem that utopian to me. Sure, they have all of their lovely freedoms but they are materially poor and isolated. They don't use money because they are so distant to other habitats that trade is useless. Sure, they lack major wealth disparity, but only because its a lot of isolated habitats that resemble twenty hippies living in the ass end of no where on their own. Self-sufficient but only just.

Your reasoning is correct. I was not much of a fan of transhumanist science fiction until I read Eclipse Phase's books. I'm still shaky on transhumanism- while immortality is probably impractical if not impossible, I am all for reducing human suffering. My taste for Elizer Yudowsky has also soured over the last few years, independent of anything you have wrote. The AI box experiment really is a silly thing… Mr./Mrs. Space Cynic, I would be more inclined to agree with your opinions if you were not so aggressive and openly jeering at people who disagree with you. Catching more smart flies with superhoney than hypervinegar, as they say on Mars. I love to debate with other rational people, since rationality is a scare resource, especially among people who claim to be rational. The thing is, the mocking tone I see in your posts just makes other people shut down and become defensive. And no, I am not citing a logical fallacy to make you shut up. I [i]want[/i] to hear what you have to say, without the stupid useless emotional perception filters that pop up when people get insulted. I don't want to see a fight and/or a moderator ban. I want to think clearly. That being said, I'm glad you joined the forum. It's unusual to see someone who is either trying to be Alone from The Last Psychiatrist blog or some sort of nega-Shadowdragon, but people who disagree are always more helpful then those who blindly agree.

I can get behind that. A tabletop gaming setting has to be fundamentally broken, so that the player party has something to fix. And this isn't something like [i]SLA Industries[/1] or [i]Dark Heresy[/i] where the antagonists are effectively indestructible, infinitely large entities. The Jovian Republic, Locus, the PC, the LLA, the Ultimates… they all have glaring weak points in one manner or other. Even the TITANs (who DO have infinite power) are hampered by not giving enough of a shit about humanity to use even one percent of that power. The "something to fix" part of it is the important part, though. It's clear that nothing works and everything causes suffering in one manner or another. Life itself is suffering, even in a total hedonistic lifestyle. Total happiness is impossible. Hope is, as you say, false. But really everything is false. Nothing has meaning except that we declare it to have meaning. The only thing that is real is yourself, and you are but a shade. You might as well be a nice shade and not an assbutt. Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey can stuff it*, I happen to like other people. They make and do interesting things sometimes. Yes Space Pig Man, I saw that you said you did not want to debate. This is more for everybody to think about. People of the EP forums, when you go about your daily business and you feel the urge to spoil someone else's day, consider if you have anything to gain from that other than fleeting satisfaction followed by pain. Just be a bro, it's easier. *I know Ayn Rand is dead. She can reconstitute her body, dig out of the ground, stuff it, and lay down again.

Space Cynic wrote:

Why? Because of the logical fallacy of generalization from fictional evidence. (See, a Yudkowsky link! That should give me a bit of rep from at least some transhumanists, no?)

+2 for Yudkowsky, -1 for poor relevance. Whilst using fiction as evidence in actual debates is a fallacy, we're discussing a sci-fi setting, and sci-fi is implicitly speculative. Providing fictional “evidence” is inevitable. As such, saying that Anarchism (or any political system for that matter) can't/won't work because of a lack of RL evidence is only of limited use. No system exists in a vacuum – failure or success will always depend on the conditions surrounding that system: Anarchism has always failed IRL, but might succeed in a post-scarcity environment. As this also creates an automatic counter for those who dislike anarchism (it can only succeed in specific conditions not present IRL*), the actual plausibility of a specific system becomes nigh-irrelevant – the only appropriate arguments are those regarding inconstancies with other material in the setting, or regarding the consequences of the system as presented. *”Anarchism would work perfectly in a world where all material needs can be met for for essentially no cost whilst all pre-existing governmental bodies have been destroyed by evil robots.”

Space Cynic wrote:

Anarchism and transhumanism are no different from communism, but the same can be said of every wrong-headed right-wing nutjob ideology too.

Wait what? Why do you think transhumanism is right-wing? Or any-wing for that matter? I won't debate if you don't want to, but I'd really like to know where you're coming from here.

whitespace551 wrote:

No, seriously, it really, really isn't instrumentally rational to get into politics arguments on the internet. You won't convince anyone, because everyone who reads politics on the internet already has their minds made up, and it just gets you worked up.

Aww, but it's fun. Sure, you won't be able to actually convince anyone of anything, but you get to see new opinions and issues, refine your views, and get a handle on you're opponents' particular world view. As long as you remain cordial throughout so everyone actually listens to each other instead of getting defensive it can be one of the most interesting things you can do. It helps of course if you can suspend you're emotional investment in your particular philosophy, and remember that you're opponents opinions have equal validity to your own.

To clarify transhumanism is not a political movement or a social construct. It is a personal philosophy about surpassing what the body is naturally capable of before becoming something not human in of its self IE post human/exhuman.

Space Cynic wrote:

I happen to believe that we can learn a lot from our history, and ideas about completely free societies without authority and rulers ain't new. Marx thought a truly free society could be created thanks to the industrial revolution, and we all saw how well that turned out. Now some RPG writers are trying to tell me that some future technology will magically solve all problems with human nature and create paradise. Ain't buying it.

I think you may have it backwards. The concept of post-scarcity is pretty big in transhumanism, as is molecular manufacturing, and the consequences it/they would have on society are intensely worrying - you can find some pretty huge debates about it if you look. There are many propositions about how to deal with it... and the popular answers match up pretty well with the EP factions. Yes, the authors favor anarchism (or seem to at least :P), but they're not introducing anything really new there. They're not saying "Anarchism will be Utopia" explicitly, more "How the hell do you make a society in (potential) Utopia? We suggest Anarchism." This goes back to the issue of real world evidence, as you can't really equate "a group of genetically engineered übermenschen and AI with the ability to create anything out of raw matter by drawing it up in a 3D design program and printing it out" with "Tsarist Russia".

ORCACommander wrote:

To clarify transhumanism is not a political movement or a social construct. It is a personal philosophy about surpassing what the body is naturally capable of before becoming something not human in of its self IE post human/exhuman.

Much too specific! Transhumanism is a personal philosophy about using technology to improve the human condition.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

I think you may have it backwards. The concept of post-scarcity is pretty big in transhumanism, as is molecular manufacturing, and the consequences it/they would have on society are intensely worrying - you can find some pretty huge debates about it if you look. There are many propositions about how to deal with it... and the popular answers match up pretty well with the EP factions. Yes, the authors favor anarchism (or seem to at least :P), but they're not introducing anything really new there. They're not saying "Anarchism will be Utopia" explicitly, more "How the hell do you make a society in (potential) Utopia? We suggest Anarchism."

Ya know, I hadn't thought about it like that. When you phrase it that way, it does sound much more reasonable. Huh. If you're keeping track of that kinda stuff, you can chalk up more one person on the Internet whose mind you actually changed ever so slightly. I will say two things, though. First thing: Just like branford pointed out, the setting ain't really post-scarcity. The difference between the scarcity-based economies of our society and economies of EP is more of a difference in degree than in kind. I mean, the very product we are discussing, the EP RPG, is "post-scarcity" for all intents and purposes. So the solutions in EP don't necessarily have to be brand shiny new since the limited post-scarcity environment ain't new. Second thing: It'd be nice if the writers would give alternate solutions the time o' day. As it is, certain solutions are shown merely to explain why they suck donkey balls. If the writers want to emphasize the social sci-fi aspects of the setting (as opposed to the horror sci-fi aspects, which the "dystopias all around"-approach would elicit), a more nuanced approach would give the players more to work with. I concede that the way the AA is described does not constitute simple propaganda for anarchism but rather an interesting (if not perfect, but ain't nothing perfect on Earth or in the heavens) exercise in social sci-fi worldbuilding, but I do think the way the other factions have been handled constitute a missed opportunity in more of the same. How's that sound?

[color=red]We, the moderation team, believe that Space Cynic is in fact Alkahest circumventing a life time ban from these forums.[/color] [color=red]We have taken the past few days to review and discuss the evidence and are now ready to take action.[/color] [color=red]Space Cynic is now banned.[/color] [color=red]We consider the discussion around this topic to be closed.[/color] [color=red]Thanks,[/color] [color=red]The Moderation Team[/color]

LatwPIAT wrote:

Point of clarification: what discussion is closed? Discussion of the topic with Space Cynic, discussion about points Space Cynic raised, or the discussion of this thread's topic, which were raised by Kavlrya long before Space Cynic offered their controversial opinions? Or something else?

Apologies, only the discussion about Space Cynic's Ban is considered closed.

As I'm sure is obvious I'm fairly new to the setting, but I think the explanation for why the Anarchists are popular/viewed positively is actually fairly simple and has more to do with how the setting is written than any merit (or lack thereof) of their political/economic system. They are, essentially, the "good guys" of the setting. Or at least the "least bad guys". The Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40k is a good example of this. The Imperium is oppressive, intolerant, fanatically religious, has no qualms nuking a whole planet from orbit if conventional war proves too much of a hassle, and treats most people as expendable resources rather than human beings. Its Emperor is a corpse, it doesn't understand how its own technology works, it's rife with corruption, and it only manages to survive by grinding forward with the sheer weight of its size and inertia. It's the most popular faction in 40k. Why? Well, the other factions aren't much better off, especially from the perspective of a human. The Tyranids are an all-consuming horde of overgrown insects. The Necrons are omnicidal war machines. Chaos is a bunch of demons and the cultists who worship them who would like nothing more than to slowly torture every sentient being in the galaxy to death, desecrate the body, and then torture the soul for all eternity in what passes for an afterlife in the setting. Dark Eldar are similarly bloodthirsty sociopaths, though at least they cannot follow you into the afterlife. Orks are a bunch of psychotic, axe-murdering mushrooms. Eldar are cruel, racist, stuffed-up space elves who are largely to blame for Chaos' current level of strength, and who technically paved the way for the Imperium when the implosion of their civilization screwed up space travel for the humans, destroying their golden age and plunging them into 5,000 years of isolation, terror, and genocide. Probably almost a third of what's wrong with the 40k universe is the Eldar's fault. The Imperium starts looking pretty good by comparison. For all their faults, the rest of the setting conspires to routinely put the Imperium in the role of "good guy". The Tau might possibly be the only other faction that's not straight up worse than the Imperium, but they're relatively minor players on the galactic scene, have a rigid caste system that may or may not utilize mind control, and would be considered imperialistic aggressors if they were in any other setting. In 40k though, they instead end up seeming too good to be true, which leads people to wonder what skeletons they have in their closet (plus they're not human). The Tau would be analogous to the Factors, I suppose. That's kind of what I see with the Anarchists in EP. It's not that Anarchy is awesome, it's that the writers of the setting consistently cast them as the good guys. As the post above points out, the EP anarchists are essentially best-case scenarios while any non-anarchist faction is set up with its worst-case scenarios. The Planetary Consortium for example could probably be a pretty nice place if they bothered with little things like human rights, but they don't so they aren't. tl;dr The faction favored by the writers is popular, not big surprise. I kind of like Extropia to be honest, they generally don't feel like they have the cartoon-villain flavor of the PC or Jovians, while also being cutthroat enough to lack the pie-in-the-sky Mary Suetopia feel of the outer system Anarchists.