Political Realism in SF (was: Blue Planet)
Steve Brinich
Trying to drag this concept back in the general direction of
the newsgroup topic....
Political realism, like scientific realism, depends on the nature
of the SF setting.
In a space opera, politics can be as simple as the Civics 101
version of democracy/meritocracy/monarchy/whatever for the Good Guys[tm]
and an Evil Tyrant[tm] (the dirty-rotten kind of the honorable kind,
whichever works better for the story) for the Bad Guys[tm]. Actual
political dynamics can be ignored -- until writing this post, it
never occurred to me that Darth Vader's admirals should have been
trying to assassinate him once they noticed a pattern emerging
in _The Empire Strikes Back_.
In a setting that aims for a more realistic feel, the politics
requires more credibility. A hard-SF setting in which socialism
works as advertised (among humans as we know them -- obviously,
hive-minded aliens or reengineered humans might function differently)
will blow my suspension of disbelief just as thoroughly as a
hard-SF setting featuring argon-breathing builders of perpetual
motion machines.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Alan D Kohler
On 26 Feb 1998 09:27:07 -0500, ste...@access1.digex.net (Steve
Brinich) wrote:
> In a setting that aims for a more realistic feel, the politics
>requires more credibility. A hard-SF setting in which socialism
>works as advertised (among humans as we know them -- obviously,
>hive-minded aliens or reengineered humans might function differently)
>will blow my suspension of disbelief just as thoroughly as a
>hard-SF setting featuring argon-breathing builders of perpetual
>motion machines.
Hmmm... If the form of government was supported by the populace, I
don't see why some form of socialism couldn't work, other than the
fact that being raised in a capitalist society we are brought up to
think that it wouldn't. Unless you care to bring out some hard
sociological or economic theory that I'm not aware of that tells why
it wouldn't.
Of courese, I've never read blue planet, so I really couldn't tell you
whether or not their take on political science is flawed.
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
New on my RPG Pages: The swashbuckling South Seas campaign!
General: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
Planescape: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/Plnscp.html
World of Trinalia: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/Trinalia.html
Frank Rafaelsen
On 26 Feb 1998 09:27:07 -0500, Steve Brinich <ste...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
<snip>
> In a setting that aims for a more realistic feel, the politics
>requires more credibility. A hard-SF setting in which socialism
>works as advertised (among humans as we know them -- obviously,
>hive-minded aliens or reengineered humans might function differently)
>will blow my suspension of disbelief just as thoroughly as a
>hard-SF setting featuring argon-breathing builders of perpetual
>motion machines.
Interesting how your definition of realistic shows color :) Not that I'm
saying you are wrong, I just claim you might be wrong. Personaly Ilike
settings where socialism just might work, not because of some political
bias but because it is interesting and original. And after all sci-fi is
about what happen if so and so is true. And then you have the other side
who will feel that a working capitalistic society is unrealistic in the
long run.
But your perfectly entitled to your belief (and I might just agree with
you), but it's just a belief.
--
Frank Rafaelsen
Homo Ludens
Lizard
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:06:48 GMT, hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net
(Alan D Kohler) wrote:
>On 26 Feb 1998 09:27:07 -0500, ste...@access1.digex.net (Steve
>Brinich) wrote:
>
>> In a setting that aims for a more realistic feel, the politics
>>requires more credibility. A hard-SF setting in which socialism
>>works as advertised (among humans as we know them -- obviously,
>>hive-minded aliens or reengineered humans might function differently)
>>will blow my suspension of disbelief just as thoroughly as a
>>hard-SF setting featuring argon-breathing builders of perpetual
>>motion machines.
>
>Hmmm... If the form of government was supported by the populace, I
>don't see why some form of socialism couldn't work, other than the
>fact that being raised in a capitalist society we are brought up to
>think that it wouldn't. Unless you care to bring out some hard
>sociological or economic theory that I'm not aware of that tells why
>it wouldn't.
>
The hard economic theory was already spelled out by Mises in the early
part of the 20th century, and the events of the latter part of the
20th century have shown him to be correct.
I will say that, unlike Steve, I could accept some form of socialism
functioning as a result of some serious god-tech...along the lines of
the replicators from Star Trek. If you can produce goods in excess of
even the greediest persons ability to consume them, and have a
functionally infinite source of energy to pump into this production
mechanism, and have tremendous amounts of living space coupled with a
stable population...then, you might get something close to a working
socialist system. But such a society would be so alien to us it
couldn't really be gamed in or understood. (And there's still the
issues of unique items, places, and things...matter replicators won'y
let you own the *original* Mona Lisa if your neighbor owns one, and
there's only room for one house overlooking that beautiful waterfall,
and if the woman you love loves someone other than you, no technology
in the world is going to satisfy your desire...so it probably wouldn't
work after all. Just as we no longer go to war over salt, because it
is now so easy to get, a future with godtech would still find things
to fight over...)
As a good example of this, I'm setting up a far-future superhero
campaign more than a bit based on the classic Legion Of Superheroes.
Because that genre calls for a benvolent central government with
slightly utopian/leftist leanings, that's what I've created,
regardless of the fact I don't personally believe in it. In this
world, the 'minimum standard of living' guaranteed to all good
citizens would be incredible luxury to most 20th century
Americans...but it's still poverty, *relative* to what else is
available. The welfare cases get medical care which will keep them
healthy to age 100 or so, free of cancer, AIDS, and all the other
scourges we have to deal with. The rich get anagathics and custom DNA
alterations. The poor tool about in 200mph hovercars...the middle
class cruise to the outer solar system for picnics. An unemployed
family of 4 lives in the equivalent of a 20th century luxury condo
with top-of-the-line appliances...the middle class have near-mansions,
complete with robotic servants, and the rich? The rich have private
planets.
In other words, the line keeps changing. 98% of the households in
America have telphones, 99% have TVs. Not long ago, both of these
items were luxuries or toys for the very rich. In the future, even the
poor will have computers and internet access -- but the rich will have
personal fibreoptic lines while the poor are stuck with ISDN. Etc.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Klyfix
In article <6d3u3r$a...@access1.digex.net>, ste...@access1.digex.net (Steve
Brinich) writes:
>In a setting that aims for a more realistic feel, the politics
>requires more credibility. A hard-SF setting in which socialism
>works as advertised (among humans as we know them -- obviously,
>hive-minded aliens or reengineered humans might function differently)
>will blow my suspension of disbelief just as thoroughly as a
>hard-SF setting featuring argon-breathing builders of perpetual
>motion machines.
Perhaps the "believablity" needs to be a bit tailored for the players. I'd
find a Libertarian utopia as unbelievable as a Marxist one myself, but some
players might well get off on it. Then again, who plays in utopias? A socialist
state with blemishes should be generally acceptable, as might a flawed
Libertarian state. Or go for dystopian versions; probably better to play in,
actually.
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Wafflemiesters
> In a setting that aims for a more realistic feel, the politics
> requires more credibility. A hard-SF setting in which socialism
> works as advertised (among humans as we know them -- obviously,
> hive-minded aliens or reengineered humans might function differently)
> will blow my suspension of disbelief just as thoroughly as a
> hard-SF setting featuring argon-breathing builders of perpetual
> motion machines.
>
What about B.F Skinners "Walden 2"? I'd call that "Hard science
fiction" socailism. Do you consider behavioral modification and
childhood indoctrination to be a form of re-engenreering, or do you just
completely disagree that they could ever work?
Wafflemiesters
> I will say that, unlike Steve, I could accept some form of socialism
> functioning as a result of some serious god-tech...along the lines of
> the replicators from Star Trek.
Or it can result in the grimest type of hell imaginable- Neal
stephensons "diamond age" givesan exapmle of how a society with all
needs filled by nanotech (but, of course, laking many star trek
resources) can be very unpleasent.
Bruce Baugh
In article <34f65879...@enews.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com
(Lizard) wrote:
>regardless of the fact I don't personally believe in it. In this
>world, the 'minimum standard of living' guaranteed to all good
>citizens would be incredible luxury to most 20th century
>Americans...but it's still poverty, *relative* to what else is
>available. The welfare cases get medical care which will keep them
"The Revolution of Rising Expectations". One of the neatest concepts
from Robert Anton Wilson's SCHROEDINGER'S CAT trilogy.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> bruce...@mindspring.com
The Codex Brucaica <*> http://www.mindspring.com/~brucebaugh
New science fiction by S.M. Stirling, rolegaming, writers' tools
Indigo
Wafflemiesters <evam...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<34F6A0...@concentric.net>...
>
> Or it can result in the grimest type of hell imaginable- Neal
> stephensons "diamond age" givesan exapmle of how a society with all
> needs filled by nanotech (but, of course, laking many star trek
> resources) can be very unpleasent.
>
Woohoo! Another person who's even heard of Neal Stephenson.
Indigo
--
____________________________________________________________
indigo(nospam)@pe.net [remove the "(nospam)", of course]
This is my .sig file. It is a good .sig file, filled with witty little
sayings or thought-provoking poetry. You just can't see any of it.
Rupert Boleyn
bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>In article <34f65879...@enews.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com
>(Lizard) wrote:
>
>>regardless of the fact I don't personally believe in it. In this
>>world, the 'minimum standard of living' guaranteed to all good
>>citizens would be incredible luxury to most 20th century
>>Americans...but it's still poverty, *relative* to what else is
>>available. The welfare cases get medical care which will keep them
>
>"The Revolution of Rising Expectations". One of the neatest concepts
>from Robert Anton Wilson's SCHROEDINGER'S CAT trilogy.
>
The concept is also found in one of Fredrick Pohl's (many) novels. It
doesn't have such a cool name there, though.
R. Boleyn <rbo...@clear.net.nz>
Palmerston North, New Zealand
"This weak, degenerate generation - even their sins are watered down.
The old pirates of my father's day could have eaten them all for
breakfast and digested their bones before lunch."
_The Warrior's Apprentice_, by Lois McMaster Bujold
Steve Brinich
Lizard wrote:
> The hard economic theory was already spelled out by Mises in the early
> part of the 20th century, and the events of the latter part of the
> 20th century have shown him to be correct.
>
> I will say that, unlike Steve, I could accept some form of socialism
> functioning as a result of some serious god-tech...along the lines of
> the replicators from Star Trek. If you can produce goods in excess of
> even the greediest persons ability to consume them, and have a
> functionally infinite source of energy to pump into this production
> mechanism, and have tremendous amounts of living space coupled with a
> stable population...then, you might get something close to a working
> socialist system. But such a society would be so alien to us it
> couldn't really be gamed in or understood. (And there's still the
> issues of unique items, places, and things...matter replicators won'y
> let you own the *original* Mona Lisa if your neighbor owns one, and
> there's only room for one house overlooking that beautiful waterfall,
> and if the woman you love loves someone other than you, no technology
> in the world is going to satisfy your desire...so it probably wouldn't
> work after all. Just as we no longer go to war over salt, because it
> is now so easy to get, a future with godtech would still find things
> to fight over...)
The best SF example I recall is James P. Hogan's _Voyage From
Yesteryear_. An interstellar colony seed-ship is sent out with
self-replicating AIs to take care of the first generation (sent in
the form of frozen eggs -- thus freeing them from a lot of cultural
baggage as well as economic constraints). The resulting society
doesn't value the usual material goods, but does value skills and
competence.
For example, there's a scene in which one of the people
arriving on the second ship from Earth (faster than the first, though still
sublight, with a conventional crew and passengers) sees one of
the locals painting a house. He's not being paid for it, but he's doing it
because the house needed painting, the occupant agreed to let him paint it,
and he likes to paint. When asked why people under these circumstances
don't just lie about all day, the painter wonders why anyone would choose to
be poor.
The story gets interesting when the new arrivals try, unsuccessfully, to
impose scarcity economics on the place.
Given the premeses, I found it fairly believable.
> In other words, the line keeps changing. 98% of the households in
> America have telphones, 99% have TVs. Not long ago, both of these
> items were luxuries or toys for the very rich. In the future, even the
> poor will have computers and internet access -- but the rich will have
> personal fibreoptic lines while the poor are stuck with ISDN. Etc.
Some goods are distributed in a socialist manner because the goods
are so cheap that the bookkeepping of selling them in the usual manner just
isn't worth it. As production technology advances, more things move into
that category. Because of rising expectations, few people are going to
satisfied with only those goods when they see others with better.
Steve Brinich
Klyfix wrote:
> Perhaps the "believablity" needs to be a bit tailored for the
> players. I'd find a Libertarian utopia as unbelievable as a Marxist
> one myself, but some players might well get off on it.
Well, I certainly found _The Probability Broach_ et seq. to be rather
silly, so I'll concede the general point that Utopia (of whatever stripe) is
unlikely to be convincing.
Lizard
In article <6d6mrn$1e0...@news.mindspring.com>, bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>In article <34f65879...@enews.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com
>(Lizard) wrote:
>
>>regardless of the fact I don't personally believe in it. In this
>>world, the 'minimum standard of living' guaranteed to all good
>>citizens would be incredible luxury to most 20th century
>>Americans...but it's still poverty, *relative* to what else is
>>available. The welfare cases get medical care which will keep them
>
>"The Revolution of Rising Expectations". One of the neatest concepts
>from Robert Anton Wilson's SCHROEDINGER'S CAT trilogy.
>
>
Nightshade
Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Klyfix wrote:
>> Perhaps the "believablity" needs to be a bit tailored for the
>> players. I'd find a Libertarian utopia as unbelievable as a Marxist
>> one myself, but some players might well get off on it.
> Well, I certainly found _The Probability Broach_ et seq. to be rather
>silly, so I'll concede the general point that Utopia (of whatever stripe) is
>unlikely to be convincing.
I'd tend to agree. I used to be very Libertarian, and still somewhat
lean in that direction, but I found Smith's books less and less
believeable as they went along and he developed his culture. They
seemed to require a version of humanity I'm not acquinted with to make
the result stable, and I have serious doubts that's a version that
could evolve naturally out of the ones I am familiar with.
Honestly, I'll be happy to by political structures somewhat alien to
our own, but they either have to be within certain limits, or where
the deck has been stacked to make them work...and I've seen the deck
stacking. (For example, I bought the culture in Beyond This Horizon
because Heinlein clearly stacked the deck with the eugenics program to
make the culture more credible...and went out of his way with one of
the plots of the book to show that the approach still had serious
flaws).
red
> Lizard wrote:
>
> > The hard economic theory was already spelled out by Mises in the early
> > part of the 20th century, and the events of the latter part of the
> > 20th century have shown him to be correct.
> >
> > I will say that, unlike Steve, I could accept some form of socialism
> > functioning as a result of some serious god-tech...along the lines of
> > the replicators from Star Trek. If you can produce goods in excess of
> > even the greediest persons ability to consume them, and have a
> > functionally infinite source of energy to pump into this production
> > mechanism, and have tremendous amounts of living space coupled with a
> > stable population...then, you might get something close to a working
> > socialist system. But such a society would be so alien to us it
a dyson sphere would fulfill these criteria
Klyfix
In article <34FAF72B...@access.digex.net>, Steve Brinich
<ste...@access.digex.net> writes:
>>
>> Perhaps the "believablity" needs to be a bit tailored for the players.
>>I'd find a Libertarian utopia as unbelievable as a Marxist one myself, but
>>some players might well get off on it.
> Well, I certainly found _The Probability Broach_ et seq. to be rather
>silly, so I'll concede the general point that Utopia (of whatever stripe) is
>unlikely to be convincing.
And most Utopias I've seen in fiction have been unappealing; heck, the
original _Utopia_ by Thomas Moore is a fairly authoritarian state, and from
what I've seen utopian societies seem to be conformist. I did like that old
short, "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russel which had a very free,
pacifistic, and not overly materialistic society. Not a terribly _gameable_
society though. False utopias could be great for gaming though, now that I
think of it; while most people think they have a Perfect Society the PCs are
amongst those who know its flaws.
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
"You are the greatest person in the world."-A fortune cookie I got.
woodelf
> political dynamics can be ignored -- until writing this post, it
> never occurred to me that Darth Vader's admirals should have been
> trying to assassinate him once they noticed a pattern emerging
> in _The Empire Strikes Back_.
maybe they were. i don't imagine he's the easiest person to kill,
especially if you don't want anyone to find out who killed him. you know,
Jedi Knight of the Dark Side, nigh-indestructible cyborg body with battle
armor, close buddy of the Emperor, entire fleets at his beck and call,
utter lack of morals, most potential assassins trembling in fear at the
mere mention of his name, that sort of thing. ;-)
woodelf <*>
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf
If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God
doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them.
--Sinclair
woodelf
> the replicators from Star Trek. If you can produce goods in excess of
> even the greediest persons ability to consume them, and have a
> functionally infinite source of energy to pump into this production
> mechanism, and have tremendous amounts of living space coupled with a
> stable population...then, you might get something close to a working
> socialist system. But such a society would be so alien to us it
> couldn't really be gamed in or understood. (And there's still the
what, the Star Trek route of just ignoring all the impacts of such
technology on society except to "eliminate money" doesn't satisfy you
either? and here i thought they were right on the money, showing us a
society that's just like ours, but without war and crime. you've
shattered my dreams. ;-)
Wouldn't it be awful if life *were* fair, and we really deserved all the
terrible things that happened to us? --Marcus Cole
Peter M. White
woodelf wrote:
>
> In article <6d3u3r$a...@access1.digex.net>, ste...@access1.digex.net
> (Steve Brinich) wrote:
>
> > political dynamics can be ignored -- until writing this post, it
> > never occurred to me that Darth Vader's admirals should have been
> > trying to assassinate him once they noticed a pattern emerging
> > in _The Empire Strikes Back_.
>
> maybe they were. i don't imagine he's the easiest person to kill,
> especially if you don't want anyone to find out who killed him. you
> know, Jedi Knight of the Dark Side, nigh-indestructible cyborg body
> with battle armor, close buddy of the Emperor, entire fleets at his
> beck and call, utter lack of morals, most potential assassins
> trembling in fear at the mere mention of his name, that sort of thing. > ;-)
I always assumed they were, it's just a military man of sufficient
standing to matter never appears in the foreground after Tarkin is
killed in the first movie. Ever consider:
(1) Tarkin and Vader seem to be on genuinely good terms
(2) Only Tarkin refers to Vader by name. Everyone else (except the
Emperor himself) refers to him as Lord Vader.
(3) The Death Star is not well designed to fend off small fighters.
What kind of fleet is it optimized to fight against?
(4) Tarkin controls the Death Star
Points (2) & (4) indicates that Tarkin has clout to rival the Emperor
himself. Point (1) indicates either Vader is considering Tarkin as an
ally against the Emperor, The Emperor sent Vader to keep an eye on
Tarkin, or both. Point (3) could be an indication of general hubris.
An alternative explanation is Tarkin _planned_ on using the DS to fight
large fleets of _capital_ ships. Who has such a fleet? The Emperor and
a few other admirals. In fact, there are strong hints that if Tarkin
can successfully squash the rebellion he will gain such standing as to
be unassailable.
There are plenty of clues regarding politics in the Star Wars universe,
they just wisely do not let them slow down a great adventure story.
--Peter White
G. Wyckoff
In article <01bd43c1$034effe0$5a75dbcd@blade>, Indigo <ind...@pe.net> wrote:
>
>
>Wafflemiesters <evam...@concentric.net> wrote in article
><34F6A0...@concentric.net>...
>>
>> Or it can result in the grimest type of hell imaginable- Neal
>> stephensons "diamond age" givesan exapmle of how a society with all
>> needs filled by nanotech (but, of course, laking many star trek
>> resources) can be very unpleasent.
>>
>
>Woohoo! Another person who's even heard of Neal Stephenson.
>
>Indigo
Sure, we're all over the place. Just quiet about it.
And to keep this relevant to the thread, I think most of his books display
a reasonably realistic political situation (even Snowcrash, which is
pretty scary if you think about it).
Jerry, who liked really liked "Zodiac" too.
red
Klyfix wrote:
> Perhaps the "believablity" needs to be a bit tailored for the players. I'd
> find a Libertarian utopia as unbelievable as a Marxist one myself, but some
> players might well get off on it. Then again, who plays in utopias? A socialist
> state with blemishes should be generally acceptable, as might a flawed
> Libertarian state. Or go for dystopian versions; probably better to play in,
> actually.
The Cyberpunk genre is very close to Marx' Class War, and represents the
Capitalist dystopia.
red
Wafflemiesters wrote:
> What about B.F Skinners "Walden 2"? I'd call that "Hard science
> fiction" socailism. Do you consider behavioral modification and
> childhood indoctrination to be a form of re-engenreering, or do you just
> completely disagree that they could ever work?
Would this not fall under the dystopia category?
John P. Raynor
Peter M. White (p-w...@accesscom.com) wrote:
: I always assumed they were, it's just a military man of sufficient
: standing to matter never appears in the foreground after Tarkin is
: killed in the first movie. Ever consider:
: (1) Tarkin and Vader seem to be on genuinely good terms
: (2) Only Tarkin refers to Vader by name. Everyone else (except the
: Emperor himself) refers to him as Lord Vader.
: (3) The Death Star is not well designed to fend off small fighters.
: What kind of fleet is it optimized to fight against?
: (4) Tarkin controls the Death Star
Another possible explanation for Point 3:
The Emperor doesn't trust his admirals. Many -- perhaps most -- of them
began their military careers before the fall of the Republic, and thus
think of themselves as professional military men, obeying the orders of
their superiors out of habit, or because they feel duty-bound to do so.
The Emperor probably purged any obvious would-be counter-revolutionaries
long before the period portrayed in the movies, but that doesn't mean he
*trusts* or *likes* the survivors. Thus, building the Death Star was the
Emperor's idea, not Tarkin's, and it was intended to keep the Imperial
Fleet frightened and obedient. Tarkin, then, isn't the Emperor's *rival*,
he's an old and trusted member of his "inner circle" (like Vader).
- J. Raynor
red
Steve Brinich wrote:
> In a setting that aims for a more realistic feel, the politics
> requires more credibility. A hard-SF setting in which socialism
> works as advertised (among humans as we know them -- obviously,
> hive-minded aliens or reengineered humans might function differently)
> will blow my suspension of disbelief just as thoroughly as a
> hard-SF setting featuring argon-breathing builders of perpetual
> motion machines.
Just as a sci-fi setting with much future for Capitalism would blow
mine. Politics is *always* relative - any ref running a politically
oriented campaign would have to take very careful stock of their players
views.
Wafflemiesters
Depends on your view. Walden 2 proposes a comune where children are
raised by the rules of behavioral therapy to enjoy thier society. Its
not evil, its notmind control- its just not teaching kids poor koping
skills. The point of the book is that we are ALL rised to participate
in society- but as it stands, we are not always taught how to ENJOY
doing so.
Some see a "walden 2" scenario a the ultimate theft of free will. Some
see toadays society the same way....
Walden 2 is no more distopian than the "foundation and empire" series.
My point was, that within the SF setting, technology is not the single,
only,or even best way to establish succesful socialism. The original
argument was that human nature would not allow socialism- I think human
natureis mutable, and not in any real sense "nature", but instead,
"nurture".
Whos right is a MUCH bigger argument than I really want to get into.
Either can be useful for creating SF world settings.
Wafflemiesters
> >Woohoo! Another person who's even heard of Neal Stephenson.
No,it actually apears 2 of us are from Chicago.
> And to keep this relevant to the thread, I think most of his books display
> a reasonably realistic political situation (even Snowcrash, which is
> pretty scary if you think about it).
Snowcrash is mega rockin, and we pretty much took itsentire culture and
grafted it inot our Shadowrun game. Not the mafia franchises and the
mind cotrol stuff (doable, mind you, just not plots we wanted), but the
franchlet idea, the mneshbacks (dispplaced western anglo's), the gated
communites, etc.
>
> Jerry, who liked really liked "Zodiac" too.
Zodiac would make a really funny Gurps thing- you could use total
regualar joe characters, with maybe some science skills.
Nightshade
"Peter M. White" <p-w...@accesscom.com> wrote:
>I always assumed they were, it's just a military man of sufficient
>standing to matter never appears in the foreground after Tarkin is
>killed in the first movie. Ever consider:
>(1) Tarkin and Vader seem to be on genuinely good terms
>(2) Only Tarkin refers to Vader by name. Everyone else (except the
>Emperor himself) refers to him as Lord Vader.
>(3) The Death Star is not well designed to fend off small fighters.
>What kind of fleet is it optimized to fight against?
>(4) Tarkin controls the Death Star
Actually, I just assumed that the Death Star was generally assumed to
be operating with support craft and it's own fighters. Note that
except for Luke's paranormal targeting capability and inside
information, the fighter wing did negliable damage to it.
Nightshade
red <red_arm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Steve Brinich wrote:
Red, at the risk of punching your buttons, I should note that various
flavors of capitalism have at least managed to lurch along for
something on the order of three centuries now, which is more than
anything resembling a true socialist system has done. Of course
almost no capitalist system of any size I'm familiar with is
'pure'...but then, almost no system works quite as described.
Steve Mading
A "fleet" consisting of one big round massive rock that has
people and animals and plants on it. Otherwise known as a
"planet". (I always viewed the Death Star's main purpose as
being the platform for transporting that gigantic planet-killing
gun. In fact, I'd guess that most of the Death Star's volume was
taken up by the inner workings of the big gun. (All you see on
the surface is the 'muzzle' of the gun, so to speak.)
--
Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings
er...@earthlink.net
In Article<EpCvB...@midway.uchicago.edu>, <gwyc...@midway.uchicago.edu>
write:
> In article <01bd43c1$034effe0$5a75dbcd@blade>, Indigo <ind...@pe.net> wrote:
> >Woohoo! Another person who's even heard of Neal Stephenson.
> >
> >Indigo
>
> Sure, we're all over the place. Just quiet about it.
> And to keep this relevant to the thread, I think most of his books display
> a reasonably realistic political situation (even Snowcrash, which is
> pretty scary if you think about it).
Actually, THE DIAMOND AGE is several decades into the future
of SNOW CRASH. They, in fact, share one character.
And I'd take SNOW CRASH over 1984 any day of the week. :)
Eric the .5b
er...@earthlink.net
In Article<34FED5...@hotmail.com>, <red_arm...@hotmail.com> write:
> Wafflemiesters wrote:
>
> > What about B.F Skinners "Walden 2"? I'd call that "Hard science
> > fiction" socailism. Do you consider behavioral modification and
> > childhood indoctrination to be a form of re-engenreering, or do you just
> > completely disagree that they could ever work?
>
> Would this not fall under the dystopia category?
*points to his nose*
Along the same vein as BRAVE NEW WORLD, I'd say. I skimmed
part of that book and had no interest in it, though I thought
BRAVE NEW WORLD was pretty good.
Eric the .5b
Lizard
>In article <6d3u3r$a...@access1.digex.net>, ste...@access1.digex.net
>(Steve Brinich) wrote:
>
>> political dynamics can be ignored -- until writing this post, it
>> never occurred to me that Darth Vader's admirals should have been
>> trying to assassinate him once they noticed a pattern emerging
>> in _The Empire Strikes Back_.
>
>maybe they were. i don't imagine he's the easiest person to kill,
>especially if you don't want anyone to find out who killed him. you know,
>Jedi Knight of the Dark Side, nigh-indestructible cyborg body with battle
>armor, close buddy of the Emperor, entire fleets at his beck and call,
>utter lack of morals, most potential assassins trembling in fear at the
>mere mention of his name, that sort of thing. ;-)
>
In the Star Wars Newspaper comic, there WAS a prolonged story about
some of his admirals setting him up for a fall...can't remember if it
was an assassination attempt or simply an embarassing failure. Upshot
is,IIRC, he was orchestrating the whole thing to find out who among
his subordinates would willingly take part in such a coup, and, of
course, they all got the usual treatment. :)
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Lizard
>Depends on your view. Walden 2 proposes a comune where children are
>raised by the rules of behavioral therapy to enjoy thier society. Its
>not evil, its notmind control- its just not teaching kids poor koping
>skills. The point of the book is that we are ALL rised to participate
>in society- but as it stands, we are not always taught how to ENJOY
>doing so.
>
Some would argue that's essential. If everyone ejoys their society,
then, there is no change, and, ultimately, the society collapses.
People often note that pre-industrial, pre-European-conquest societies
were filled with happy, well-adjusted people as opposed to the
neurotics and psychotics who fill the modern industrial world. All I
have to say is, "Look which society conquered which". Neurotics and
malcontents change things, make things happen. A society where
'everybody is happy' would be a dead-end.
From a gaming perspective, look at how many PCs come from unpleasant
backgrounds. Parents dead, homeland destroyed, heritage stolen --
there's almost always some tragedt in their past.
Kelly St.clair
Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>Peter M. White (p-w...@accesscom.com) wrote:
>: (3) The Death Star is not well designed to fend off small fighters.
>: What kind of fleet is it optimized to fight against?
>
>A "fleet" consisting of one big round massive rock that has
>people and animals and plants on it. Otherwise known as a
>"planet". (I always viewed the Death Star's main purpose as
>being the platform for transporting that gigantic planet-killing
>gun.
Agreed. The DS is a terror weapon, pure and simple. And in more
than just the obvious, do-what-we-say-or-we'll-blow-up-your-planet
sense...
Consider that the Emperor wanted a Death Star badly enough to
build another one after the first was destroyed. This represents
a massive expenditure of resources, manpower, etc even for a
government of the Empire's scale; all for something of (as others
have pointed out) limited military use. Why?
I forget where I read this argument, but it's a great (and chilling)
one: the Death Star was an implement of the Dark Side.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force; as if millions of
voices cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I
fear something terrible has happened."
Millions, billions of people die in a few seconds as the result
of a single, deliberate act. The effect on the Force as all
those lives are snuffed out at once must be staggering. And
guess who's responsible? Guess who's sitting on his throne,
ready to suck up that massive surge in the Dark Side as his
reward for committing such evil?
So the DS is both a political tool... and a murder weapon. Mass
murder, that is.
> In fact, I'd guess that most of the Death Star's volume was
>taken up by the inner workings of the big gun. (All you see on
>the surface is the 'muzzle' of the gun, so to speak.)
Actually, two of the novels have featured "stripped-down" versions
of the old DS. The first was an empty frame with the reactor,
superlaser tunnel and dish, and maneuver drives - the prototype,
built as a full-scale test model. The second was built in the
post-Endor period by a Hutt gangster working from old plans; it
was even smaller, consisting of just the "gun" and a reactor.
In other words, a flying tube.
So apparently, the actual components of the superlaser don't
occupy more than a tiny fraction of the DS's internal volume.
Further discussion of this should probably move to one of the
.starwars newsgroups.
>Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings
We meet again. :)
--------------
Kelly St.Clair
kel...@efn.org