I wrote that griefing actions are liberating the griefer from social norms and helping him become a more efficient person, citing the Goons as example who are the most obnoxious griefers and also important members of the most successful EVE player group. The most common counter-argument was "they are just members of another social group, following their norms". Of course this can be ignored as merely semantic argument since it doesn't question that anti-social acts make one more effective, it merely claims that the gain appears on the group and not individual level.
However Dark Segura on the goblinworks channel found a much better counter-argument: the Goonswarm is a group existing in the reality and their acceptance/support for griefing is real. On the other hand the "large-society" is not a really existing entity as it does nothing. I mean if you are a Goon griefing someone, other Goons will act positively towards you. If you give donation to a poor player to help him out, "the people" will not do anything for you. "The carebears", "the l33t PvP-ers" are characteristics and not social groups. There are many people with brown eyes, yet they don't know each other, don't support each other, don't do actions together because of this characteristic.
Some of the objects of our World are people or groups of people. If you bump into people on the street with the idea that "I'm asocial, I refuse to care for people", you are an idiot. Just like you avoid collision with street lamps you shall avoid collision with people. Not because they have feelings, but because they have mass and velocity. Being social is trying to get the respect and liking of others. These aren't measurable, "real" things. Seeking them is stupid. However seeking benefits and avoiding harm coming from people is just as rational as doing the same with other objects.
Social people are bots. You should treat like them. Using social skills isn't social. Actually it's part of the defining criteria of psychopathy: superficial charm, lying, cunning, manipulative. If you do X and in turn other people do Y, than you shall consider Y the natural consequence of X, just like you'd do in an inanimate environment. I've never suggested ignoring social skills. They are practically the programming language of the social bots. The problem comes when someone is not programming these bots but being them. When interpersonal actions are not based on goals but "moral", "doing the right thing", "getting karma", "being a nice guy".
If there would be a Highsec Vigilantes alliance who actively hunt known gankers, scammers, trolls then being a "nice carebear" could be a rational action: "I don't want to be ganked by HV so I don't misbehave". There are other rational ways of being "nice": "I want to join a miner corp and they take no one with negative sec status" or "I want incursions but they kick me if I'm in war so I stay away from deccing corps".
The big difference between the Goons and the socials is that the Goons have a real social group, while the random socials do not. The Goons receive rewards for acting the way they do from this group, while random socials receive nothing from their imaginary group. So Goons are not in a social group like the others. They are in a social group unlike the others who has an imaginary group "the people" and hope that if they are nice and friendly with randoms, "the people" will love and respect them.
You can join trading discussions on the Goblinworks channel.
Thursday morning report: 95.3B Ouch, negative daily record! (1.5+0.5B spent on main accounts, 1.3 spent on logi, 1.0 on Ragnarok, 0.5 on Rorqual, 0.9 on Nyx, 1.3 on Avatar, 2.6B received as gift).
However Dark Segura on the goblinworks channel found a much better counter-argument: the Goonswarm is a group existing in the reality and their acceptance/support for griefing is real. On the other hand the "large-society" is not a really existing entity as it does nothing. I mean if you are a Goon griefing someone, other Goons will act positively towards you. If you give donation to a poor player to help him out, "the people" will not do anything for you. "The carebears", "the l33t PvP-ers" are characteristics and not social groups. There are many people with brown eyes, yet they don't know each other, don't support each other, don't do actions together because of this characteristic.
Some of the objects of our World are people or groups of people. If you bump into people on the street with the idea that "I'm asocial, I refuse to care for people", you are an idiot. Just like you avoid collision with street lamps you shall avoid collision with people. Not because they have feelings, but because they have mass and velocity. Being social is trying to get the respect and liking of others. These aren't measurable, "real" things. Seeking them is stupid. However seeking benefits and avoiding harm coming from people is just as rational as doing the same with other objects.
Social people are bots. You should treat like them. Using social skills isn't social. Actually it's part of the defining criteria of psychopathy: superficial charm, lying, cunning, manipulative. If you do X and in turn other people do Y, than you shall consider Y the natural consequence of X, just like you'd do in an inanimate environment. I've never suggested ignoring social skills. They are practically the programming language of the social bots. The problem comes when someone is not programming these bots but being them. When interpersonal actions are not based on goals but "moral", "doing the right thing", "getting karma", "being a nice guy".
If there would be a Highsec Vigilantes alliance who actively hunt known gankers, scammers, trolls then being a "nice carebear" could be a rational action: "I don't want to be ganked by HV so I don't misbehave". There are other rational ways of being "nice": "I want to join a miner corp and they take no one with negative sec status" or "I want incursions but they kick me if I'm in war so I stay away from deccing corps".
The big difference between the Goons and the socials is that the Goons have a real social group, while the random socials do not. The Goons receive rewards for acting the way they do from this group, while random socials receive nothing from their imaginary group. So Goons are not in a social group like the others. They are in a social group unlike the others who has an imaginary group "the people" and hope that if they are nice and friendly with randoms, "the people" will love and respect them.
You can join trading discussions on the Goblinworks channel.
Thursday morning report: 95.3B Ouch, negative daily record! (1.5+0.5B spent on main accounts, 1.3 spent on logi, 1.0 on Ragnarok, 0.5 on Rorqual, 0.9 on Nyx, 1.3 on Avatar, 2.6B received as gift).
40 comments:
Goons are some of the ultimate socials. Their shared experiences away from EVE allow them to deal with each other as people and treat the game as a game. A Goon isn't out for tears. A Goon is out to show those tears to other Goons who will give him a pat on the back. Failing that, its back to the SA forums to hang out with those same pilots in a non-EVE setting.
Given that, the Goons, like any other Alliance that has a bonding element outside of EVE, is much harder to defeat in the "will to fight" category. They'll just keep coming because its one more weapon to collect tears from the enemy to show your friends. . .friends you talk with about non-EVE things.
Tme Mittani made some excellent points in his Ten Ton Hammer column about this. Short form - groups with a shared bond beyond EVE are much stronger than ones that are picked up within the game. Whether its Redditors, SA, or being the only Hungarian corp in the gang, that stronger bond reinforces the will to fight when its time. Its also why you'll see these Alliances taking what they can hold and holding it essentially forever.
I think you are veering off into the lunatic fringe here. "Do not bump into people, not because they have feelings, but because they have mass and velocity." So the only reason not to inflict pain on people is because you might get hurt in the process? How about, don't do things to other people that you do not want them to do to you.
The reason humans can live together in millions, while chimps, for example, start to slaughter each other after numbers get too high, is due to the methods we have worked out to live together peacefully. So do not scorn these methods.
Have you truly considered what the world would be like if people stopped trying to act moral and being nice to each other. It would be a hellish place. Right now, you are just the immoral freeloader in a moral world. I suspect you would not enjoy a Gevlon filled world nearly as much.
I would LOVE to have lot Gevlons running around. And if you care about morality and niceness, don't read the Monday post. Tomorrow post neither.
You missed the new blog logo image. I believe that the world can be made a better place by being nasty and abusive with the useless M&S.
>if you are a Goon griefing someone, other Goons will act positively towards you. If you give donation to a poor player to help him out, "the people" will not do anything for you.
http://www.eve-tribune.com/index.php?no=5_1&page=3
http://benefactors.eveuniversity.org/
If you randomly gank some guy who shouts at you for a line or two in local the goons won't care. But if you produce reams of pubbie tears from a massive number of ganks, the goons will hold you in high esteem.
Same for altruistic actions. If you give some random noob a few million isk, nobody cares. But if you spend a huge amount of time providing services to the community free of charge, all kinds of people who usually won't care at all about random strangers will come together to kick serious ass on your behalf, or give you all manner of free stuff.
@Gevlon:
I'd really like to see a post (or a series of posts) about how you actually imagine an M&S free society. I've been following your blog for years now, I understand your concept of "M&S" and "goblins", however it's very hard for me to picture a working society where the M&S crowd doesn't exist.
Seems like we're on our way out of "philosophy" territory heading straight towards Aspergers-land.
I don't see the qualitative distinction you try to make between relatively tightly-knit social groups like Goonswarm and more varied groups such as the entirety of high-sec carebears.
Of course social feedback and reinforcement will always be more important in a small & homogenous group than in a large and varied one - compare living in a small village to living in a big city. But that's a gradual difference and could be applied to a huge alliance such as goonswarm just as well: there's not much room for giving each special snowflake the attention he deserves in an 9000man alliance, not every ganker, scammer, ... will get his personal pat on the back.
There are enough carebear corporations and alliances in which members reinforce each others risk-averse views in very similar ways as goons do the opposite.
The difference is in my opinion tight groups vs loose groups, not "ghoon philosophy" vs "the world".
Discarding any idea of altruism by saying "they just do this because they expect positive feedback from their peer group - but in high-sec they'll never get it so they are morons" is a little short-sighted.
The goon who sends some shobon newbie 50m ISK to "reimburse" his Rifter loss (and is probably accompanied by ten other people doing the same) will not get anymore of a shoutout or recognition than the high-sec player doing the same.
Yet he still does it because newbies are cute and helping other people is feels good.
i don't get your argument.
what makes goons "real social" compared to any other corp/alliance?
why are goons a real social group,
while Veto, Raiden., Pandemic Legion, the ex-northern coalition corps and many more aren't?
You missed the new blog logo image. I believe that the world can be made a better place by being nasty and abusive with the useless M&S.
You truly believe that? Wow. Lets all hope you never get in any sort of position of real power in the real world with an attitude like that.
There is a huge difference between griefing people in a video game and having the same attitude towards the real world. The Mittani himself has said this on many occasions - he is proudly an asshole in a video game where being an asshole is rewarded but is by all accounts a functioning member of society in real life.
You are now advocating taking a cut throat mentality which exists in a video game by design and suggesting it be applied to the real world. Wow. Just Wow.
There is a reason why The Mittani couldn't burn down Jita...
Don't forget to check out the Monday post!
Gevlon, instead of imagining a perfect world full of purely self interested psychopaths, maybe you should try to answer the question of why it isn't awash in them already. Most estimates put their numbers at only somewhere around 1% of the population. Even if you boost it to 5%, that's still quite the minority.
Why did humans evolve to become social creatures instead of psychopathic ones, if the latter of the two offers far more advantage?
@Dioxin: as an anti-social you must understand physics well to avoid a car accident. If you miscalculate the acceleration emerging in a curve, your car slips off the road, probably to your doom. The social doesn't need the same knowledge, as he blindly obeys the speed limit sign carefully placed before the curve.
Not all rules are irrational. Excluding Hitler and some alikes, the societies were sustainable and their rules guaranteed the survival of the underdogs. They also guaranteed their oppression and exploitation, but kept them alive.
The anti-social person who don't follow rules blindly must be informed enough to make the decision if a certain rule is good or oppressive. Making a mistake can be fatal, as the nature cannot be defied.
Since the knowledge of people before our age was very low, blindly following the rules was much-much safer than seeking your own road. For example both Jews and Muslims disallow eating pork. Was it a superstitious nonsense, or a smart rule to follow 1000-3000 years ago in the middle East?
(smart, the pork is much more prone to infestation than chicken or fish in the heat)
A good explanation for a question I didn't ask. I'm not asking about how idiots can survive without knowing why rules exist. I'm asking why the world is overrun by socials while psychopaths remain such a tiny minority.
Judging by how you insist psychopathy is advantageous when applied against socials, here should be a lot more of them growing fat off the toil of the clueless masses. Yet there aren't. Why is that?
Because most of the anti-socials broke the wrong rules and died while the socials lived.
"The big difference between the Goons and the socials is that the Goons have a real social group, while the random socials do not."
Do you have some specific definition of "real social group"? If not then how is a random other corp or alliance full of socials not "real"? Where I'm sitting, the big difference is that the Goons are culturally homogenous before they come to EVE, in particular with the mindset "Goons rule, pubbies suck". The same applies to other alliances that are simply the EVE facet of an existing out-of-game group. In the case of non-SA Goons joining Goonswarm, non-Redditors joining TEST etc the overwhelming cultural force of thousands of homogenous players will either convert or drive off any much smaller groups with different cultures.
In contrast, a normal alliance has to recruit members from all sorts of different backgrounds, viewpoints and cultures and try and homogenize them to its own viewpoint without that huge wall of culture coming from thousands of already-homogenous members. Because of this it’s rarely as successful, and alliance cultures are often a bland mish-mash of their larger member corps (additionally most alliances have problems from CEOs wanting to retain their own corp’s culture so their members view themselves as corp members ahead of alliance members). How well an alliance succeeds in homogenizing their members around their shared culture plays a large part in how well they succeed in Nullsec; it keeps players fighting in spite of losses because they view themselves as personally connected to the success/failiure of the Alliance, and generally makes them more resistant to fail cascades. In particular, note that the point where the process flips from “a series of unfortunate events” to “dude, where’s my Alliance?” is when a single corp or group of corps leave, which opens the floodgates for the rest to follow suit; in a completely homogenous alliance where individual corporation made absolutely no difference, this wouldn’t happen because there wouldn’t be that first corp leaving; this is largely the position Goonswarm is in, which is why they’ve survived things like losing all their space and then getting effectively disbanded by their former leader.
Finally, doesn’t your line that I quoted above contradict your original point that Goonswarm was effective specifically because their members were asocial? That was why that post received so many comments pointing out that the Goons are actually incredibly social players in the first place.
If anti-socials are at constant risk of breaking the wrong rules, and apparently suffer a very high mortality rate because of it, doesn't that mean psychopathy is not an overall advantage?
@Dioxin: no it's not. Just like being a doctor is not overall better than being a janitor. For example janitors are rarely sued for malpracticing someone into their death, nor have to study years before earning their first $.
@Hivemind: yes, they are a social group. No, I never said they are asocials, actually I wrote they are closer to it. I don't think you'd doubt the statement "A goon is more anti-social than a carebear".
I wonder when will be the day that you understand that altruism is resource-positive, just like trading.
And that positive feedback loops.
@Anonymous: altruism is indeed resource positive. Just like the cap-chain of Guardian logis. Each logi is stronger by sharing.
Too bad it does NOT loop, as the morons and slackers act as a /null device here.
Trying to be altruist in the real world is just as smart as trying to build a cap-chain between a gang where half of the Guardian spots are taken by AFK-mining hulks.
@Eaten by a Grue
""Do not bump into people, not because they have feelings, but because they have mass and velocity." So the only reason not to inflict pain on people is because you might get hurt in the process? How about, don't do things to other people that you do not want them to do to you."
Aren't the two things the same? I mean i don't start shooting other persons for anoying me because its more comfortable to ignore them then to start a race of arms.
Btw, in my experience People always used the first on people outside their group and th later on people inside that group.
I altrusim is positive as long as people admit they are doing it to gain "standing" amongst their peer group for the purpose of gaining influential nodes in their business network.
Although I suppose that isnt altruism in its truest sense.
@Gevlon: “No, I never said they are asocials, actually I wrote they are closer to it.”
Your point was, and I quote, “The acts of griefing, scamming, trolling forces one to permanently reject the judgement and morals of the social herd” and you attributed the success of Goonswarm to that forced asociality and built the post around that. Instead it’s more accurate to say that both the Goons’ success and griefing come from the same point, that their culture is wholly independent of EVE and they are all very heavily invested in this culture. They succeed because they are very social, not because they’re asocial, which seems to be what you’re now saying in this post.
“I don't think you'd doubt the statement "A goon is more anti-social than a carebear".”
Actually I would doubt that statement; a lot of carebears are effectively playing EVE as a single player game, running L4 missions or mining either solo or with multiboxed alts to support them. They’re in 1 man corps, or corps of just themselves and their alts, or maybe they never left NPC corps, but if so they definitely don’t talk there. They don’t read or post on the forums (Aside from possibly posting a one-off whine in C&P if they get ganked and never coming back again) or look at EN 24 articles or blogs and don’t vote for CSMs. Their only interests being how much ISK they have and how much more they can make. In contrast, the main drive for Goons is social; posting on their forums, posting on the EVE-O forums, trolling local to get tears to share with their friends, fleeting up to help their alliance take/hold space so they can collectively laugh at the pubbies. The fact that Goons are bastards towards the rest of EVE in the process of socializing with their fellow goons doesn’t make them anti-social.
If being a doctor meant you're likely to get yourself killed due to being too smart for your own good, then the world is never going to be filled with doctors.
Better to set aside the idle fantasies and accept that there will never be a world filled with only, or even mostly, psychopaths. Whether you like it or not, you're stuck in a world of socials.
That said, being a plain old anti-social who alienates others with claims about the awesomeness of psychopathy is very different than being an actual psychopath who can hoodwink socials with superficial charm. Until you can consistently do that, until you can blend in with socials and not constantly weird them out when explaining your personal philosophy, you not going to have much success changing the behaviors of others.
Setting aside whose view of society is objectively right or wrong, the fact that most people replying to your philosophy posts are arguing against you demonstrates that your current persuasive methods are clearly not working as intended.
@Dioxin: time will tell
@Hivemind: what you talk about is alienation from the society. The person is alone, but not happy alone. The magazines are full of it. If anti-social people have more social interaction with fellow anti-socials than the socials who just wish and hope while live alone is indeed weird, but theoretically irrelevant.
Social = Anti-social to those not in your group
Thus, those that are not anti-social to outsiders are not real social. This is why Goons are more social than the random social groups.
@Gevlon “The person is alone, but not happy alone. The magazines are full of it.”
I don’t know which magazines you’re referring to, but I assume they’re full of this happening IRL rather than in Internet Spaceship Land; if there are magazines that specifically discuss the social psychology of internet spaceship pilots then please let me know where I can pick up a subscription.
“If anti-social people have more social interaction with fellow anti-socials than the socials who just wish and hope while live alone is indeed weird, but theoretically irrelevant.”
But you haven’t actually given any evidence to suggest this is happening ingame. There’s a difference between a person feeling lonely and disconnected with their fellow human beings IRL where they have all sorts of demands on their time and budget and where exposure to other people involves potential risks and dangers compared to people feeling existential malaise in an internet spaceship game which they play of their own free will in their spare time and keep on playing, possibly even paying for it, which has players lining up to recruit and engage with them, or even just chat to them in NPC Corp chat, in local or in any of the hundreds of public channels. The point is, IRL socialising takes time and effort, socialising in EVE is a couple of mouseclicks and typing the word “Hi”.
There might be a very few people so socially inept, masochistic and generally damaged that they find themselves genuinely incapable of socialising in EVE and yet still desiring social contact, but unwilling or unable to quit the game and try playing another, but they definitely do not form the majority of the solo PvE players as you seem to be implying.
Gevlon, when you say "Because most of the anti-socials broke the wrong rules and died while the socials lived", I think you stumble upon some wisdom, but you do not recognize its full implication.
Modern societies have evolved to have the rules of social interaction that they have now. Morality is not some artifact of early man. It is an evolving thing, and in each society, the current state of morality is what got that society to the cohesiveness it currently has.
Look, you can look at any society's morality and probably find flaws. Usually, these flaws work themselves out. For example, Europe got itself rid of the religious values that held itself back in areas of science (Galileo, etc.). The Middle East still has some work to do on that front.
But if you drop all morality, and put in its place pure self-interest, that is quite a thing. I cannot predict exactly what will happen, I cannot see it being a positive thing at all.
I cannot understand your certainty as to why this would be a positive thing, and I do not see how you can produce any, beyond conjecture here. I am just glad you are in no position of any real power in the real world.
And @elbrasch, Gevlon was referring to physically bumping into people, where it hurts both of you. If he had a rifle, he would have no issue with just shooting people, as the shooter feels only a minor discomfort from the recoil.
@ Dixon: I think you do not understand Gevlon's vision correctly. Don't worry, I don't fully agree with it either... but the way I see things is not relevant here.
See, what he wants is mostly a place where there would be no morons or slackers. You should check out his definition. Now, is that truly possible? I'm not certain we can have a perfect society with all intelligent and hardworking people. There can be cripples, autists and other diseased people. Also, I've discussed people's intelligence with people, alot, and from what we have seen, there will always be people under the curve, despite them being normal in current standards. In other words, people who lack the capacity to think rationnally. I.E, their reasoning process is not sound. Some, because they are simply uncapable. Certain were not taught.
Teaching them can be hard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_%28psychology%29
(Gevlon you might find the above link interesting, too, if you have not already read about it, but do what you want)
Realistically, there is only so much he can do for his ideal, so it is pointless to blast it. However in an asocial world, everyone would be asocial and think of himself, thus seek benefits of having good relationship with people. You don't go and change the human mind so easily, but being more rational is a gain.
Don't forget Gevlon has a girlfriend and family. I do not know his situation as I am not there to see him interact with them, but my guess would be he acts nice with them, as anyone would, out of "love" or appreciation. Maybe not to be appreciated, but because of the benefits that brings. I know I do. I like my family, having good relationships with them is important, and being appreciated is somehow part of that.
I'm relatively asocial, yet I don't mind doing stuff for the people close to me, friends, family. At some point I'm getting paid back somehow, and anyway I don't think I'm doing it for free. It doesn't feel like a chore. Then again that's only me. Otherwise I work my way through school and I'm not leeching on anyone.
Gevlon may not agree with me doing stuff for free with people, then again I believe it is necessary to improve relationships- it should however never become a pain in the ass or a chore - it should stay easy.
Why can't there be pure Self Interest AND morality, Eaten by a Grue?
After all, freedom exists within the rules. A purely rational world would have rules, rational rules. It would not be anarchy - in fact anarchists are quite irrational, don't you think?
Gevlon, just as a mental exercise, I will ask what would be OK to do in this utopian world of pure self-interest. Let's say the whole world was like this, and there was a small backward country, not really worth trading with, say something like Afghanistan, but without the terrorist problems. Just a bunch of goat herders living in harsh conditions.
Then, let's say a valuable mineral was discovered there. Then, an economic analysis was done in a neighboring country as to the best way to extract the most profit from this discovery, and the analysis was that instead of trading for the mineral, it would be most economically advantageous to the neighboring country to just invade, slaughter the natives (it would cost too much to try to integrate their backward society), and just take over the land.
Would this be an acceptable course of action under your rules of pure self-interest?
I am not sure if your "bump into people" comment was deliberate or not.
During MonacleGate, there was a common reference that, for want of better words, an arrogant combative nature was part of the male Icelandic psyche.
Michaels Lewis' article in Vanity Fair was often referenced:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904-2
"but before I can finish, the man in the seat behind me reaches for his bag in the overhead bin and knocks the crap out of me. I will soon learn that Icelandic males, like moose, rams, and other horned mammals, see these collisions as necessary in their struggle for survival. I will also learn that this particular Icelandic male is a senior official at the Icelandic stock exchange. At this moment, however, all I know is that a middle-aged man in an expensive suit has gone out of his way to bash bodies without apology or explanation. I stew on this apparently wanton act of hostility all the way to passport control."
Jacklemaniac understood the main point of the post: being anti-social doesn't mean being a mindless juggernaut. For mutual interest you can have a positive relationship with people, just like the Goons have with each other.
@Eaten by a Grue: your imaginary country is called Middle-Africa. If you have a smartphone or laptop, you are funding the enslavement and massacring of local population. Do you care?
The counter argument: read "The Sociopath Next Door" (non fiction) and then play Bioshock (fiction).
Sociopathy is a prevalent disorder, occurring in 4% of the western population. While unchecked individualism seems like it allows you to "win" at life, the common fate of the sociopath is rather grim.
Gevlon - you deflected Eaten by a Grue's question. I believe a simple yes or no is warranted.
Tbe reason asocials haven't taken over is because they keep themselves in check. Asocials aren't a homogeneous group that share a mutual philosophy or goal. The only mutual trait shared by all asocials is how they can benefit themselves.
Since life and the universe seeks an equilibrium, any asocial that is benefiting is doing so at someone's elses expense. The asocial on the short end of the stick will rally the "masses/sheeple" and try to topple the other asocial who is gaining at his/her expense. Thus asocials topple each other.
When asocials do gang up (The pre-revolutionary french aristrocy for example) they tend to squeeze the sheeple too much, thus creating a backlash which results in their own demise. And aspiring asocials take advantage of the turmoil, cloak themselves in mock patriotism/selfessness so they can surplant the current asocials in power.
Asocials are their own worst enemy. I prefer logic to asocialism. Logic and asocialism are not the same thing. Logic led to morality: " I don't want to die prematurely so killing is wrong", etc.
Logic coupled with cooperation has taken us and will take us farther than any asocial philosphy ever will.
@Eaten by a Grue
Well, your constructed scenario is constructed. First, i doubt that using military force would be cheaper than simple cultural imperialism, hey look cheap child labor for the mines!
But, that put aside, no logical self-intrest person would sign up for a military that is allowed to fight a war that is not in selfdefense, because no amount of money is worth your own life if you don't care for your group.
So, such a society would have processes and laws in place to prevent such a war for only economic benefits (mind you, that wouldn't prevent first strike against an fundamentalist enemy as a form of selfdefense, but that is another chapter).
Granted, a part of that country could and certainly will try to get that genocide solution in place, but would be fought by other factions in the country that have an intresst in not having that war (Soldiers, people from the diplomatic department who fear that other countrys could take that as an excuse to declare war on them).
But while thinking about it it ocured to me that such a society would be very brittle to attacks from equally strong, "I die for my family and my fellow soldier" states, so you need a structure were at least the right for propertie, a functional law system and stable international relations are preexisting to develope such a society.
Could be one of the reasons why we don't see something like that around (selfishness through ape-subroutines doesn't count, because we want selfishness combined with logic so that the people chouse the profitablest route, not the one which brings instant good feedback), we are the first generation that grow up without any great war in our courner of the world (Europe/Germany here).
@Anonymous, Eaten by a Grue: Slaughtering isn't my self-interest. Enslaving is to make them work in the mines.
If they work it's my interest to keep them alive and to make them more useful than manual labor - hence health care and education.
So I'd probably re-do the British Colonization.
"So I'd probably re-do the British Colonization."
BoB were the biggest renter overlords of their time, but eventually they crashed and burned once the socials, both externally and internally, could no longer stand the leadership and culture. Maybe your empire will be different, maybe not. It's all theoretical at this point. I look forward to the day that you actually start to do things in null, rather than just write about it.
Keep posting though. For a self proclaimed anti-social, you've built quite a social following. Even if most of those people are just hanging around to see how badly your best laid plans will fall apart in null, the fact that you've picked up these readers at all, and so quickly, is still rather impressive.
"I believe that the world can be made a better place by being nasty and abusive with the useless M&S."
A better place for who? Certainly not for the M&S. So what gives you the authority to make it better for yourself at their expense?
@Bristal: "equality". The M&S are leeches, they depend on us, they give us nothing, while we keep them alive. This is a one-sided relation that must be stopped.
Give you nothing? You wouldn't be making anywhere near 500m/hr if it weren't for the M&S.
Post a Comment