|
Post by Philip on Jan 1, 2005 14:01:56 GMT -5
I think Destecado is getting into the same mind space with this; The design may have originated from a sociological system called an ortegrity. The Ortegrity is a “mind-brain” compatible system of organizing humans. It can be used by a small group of individuals or a giant corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees. The Ortegrity is a “system of human organization that creates a conflict-free environment for decision making and action implementation”. This is an environment that strives to increase the efficiency and productivity of the organization or society. efficiency under such a system is predicted to increase 10 to 1000 times. Colonists arriving on a new world will have a limited amount of resources. It is therefore in their best interest to maximize these resources to their full potential. It would be possible to input the relavent planetary data and then the STC would produce the "best" design for the job. But it is only one of the building blocks of the whole system.
As a side note: I have a huge problem with the current image of humanities conquering of the stars, on the one hand we are talking about the ‘Golden Age of Technology’ when human civilization was at its utmost peak: yet all colonies of this time are portrayed as no more than some kind of backward ‘farmstead’. The idea that colonisation wasn’t planned and controlled as part of a much larger civilisation as a whole doesn’t ring true, it sounds very wrong.
I don't see colonials STCs having technical or engineering plans for building a star ship (Why would the colonists have need of these)? Because one day they would be a seed world too, and being an advanced society probably thought that backup was a good idea?
As a whole, I think the idea of a world developing it own tech during this time is ‘simplistic’ all worlds where part of a greater galaxy civilization: if a person grew up on a newly colonised world and was brilliant at science and wanted to actually create new STC (and was good enough) they would leave their home world and head back to the human civilization's equivalent of the big city, worlds where the corporations R&D where based. The purpose of the STC, is that anything you want is already figured out and is at its utmost pinnacle of design - brought about by the collaboration of thousands of worlds by the greatest minds humanity has, an ‘new colony’ just couldn’t compete. Any design they could come up with on their own would be trumped a thousand times over just by firing up the STC, even advanced singular worlds could complete compared to the galaxy spanning corporations - and anyone who was truly brilliant on a rim colony would have left long ago, so worlds wouldn’t really have R&D as there was not point. In discussing the STC I think the problem isn’t so much the STC as figuring out the civilization that made it. In order to understand the STC, you have to understand the civilization that made it, and how it functions and is integrated into the whole. I've noticed that arguments levelled against the STC are usually from our modern point of view, that in the Golden Age an ‘Earth’ similar to ours with our ideals and systems could have existed, I think this is a mistake, during the time of the STC our system of society was well and truly obsolete.
Planets like our Earth only turn up well and truly after the Age of Strife, once worlds where cut off from the Mega-Corporations, when they had to stand on their own two feet in isolation. Depending how far they fell during the Age of Strife, would determine how much STC they retained, however I think any human civilization that could recover did - and their first priority was to get the STC (and support industry-complex) up and running. There would be no reason to start from scratch unless the world really had too. If there was a surviving STC the people of that world would use that. The STC was designed to colonise worlds, so would have no problem putting a world back together (to re-colonise) no matter how badly damaged (just change the parameters!).
As for the Ad-Mec I think they are after military STC, I think this is one area where a colony world may not have had all the plans available as the Mega-Corps probably controlled the military (just another ‘department’). In many ways I think the blueprint of the Imperium is the Ghost of the ancient Mega-Corporations, and the Ad-Mec may be a very old dinosaur indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 1, 2005 18:52:17 GMT -5
I think Destecado is getting into the same mind space with this To be fair we're all roughly on the same page, it's just how you read that page which is in question. As a side note: I have a huge problem with the current image of humanities conquering of the stars, on the one hand we are talking about the ‘Golden Age of Technology’ when human civilization was at its utmost peak: yet all colonies of this time are portrayed as no more than some kind of backward ‘farmstead’. I have more of a problem with the premise of a 'bake and shake' colony as described, i.e. colonisation requires the setting up of a huge infrastructure in the first place. That is arguably too expensive in terms of imposition... it is always easier to 'bootstrap' then to impose. The idea that colonisation wasn’t planned and controlled as part of a much larger civilisation as a whole doesn’t ring true, it sounds very wrong. Planning and control are two hugely different concepts. Real life shows that if nothing else. As a whole, I think the idea of a world developing it own tech during this time is ‘simplistic’ all worlds where part of a greater galaxy civilization... The problem here is that we're getting into conflicting imagery. There is the simplicity of the concept of the STC, which in itself is partially unrealistic, the 'realism' of colonisation, and so forth. Any design they could come up with on their own would be trumped a thousand times over just by firing up the STC... It's not about origin of design, but having the infrastructure to be able to produce that design regardless of the origin of that design. Again, though, this is the conflict of imagery. ...and anyone who was truly brilliant on a rim colony would have left long ago... You are of course partially tongue-in-cheek about this. What if they didn't know that they were brilliant? What if there was no capability of them moving...? so worlds wouldn’t really have R&D as there was not point. Manufacturing industries are not delivered by mechanised storks. Cargo culture only goes so far! I've noticed that arguments levelled against the STC are usually from our modern point of view...I think this is a mistake, during the time of the STC our system of society was well and truly obsolete. LOL. This is how people interact with fictional universes and it has to be dealt with. Merely making 'stuff' up and saying, "Hell, it's a more advanced society" only goes so far. Depending how far they fell during the Age of Strife... But they had this magical STC which made everything possible without any form of inter-relationship! While it might be considered a 'bad thing' to start with the real world as a point of reference, I would also suggest that it is a horrendous mistake to consider STC as a magic 'fix-it-all'. It is suggested that things be taken in context. Let us do that and instead of putting the STC on an incontrovertible dias of imagery and generic statement, consider how it really would work. And, of course, just what level of 'suspension' of disbelief you're willing to accept.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 2, 2005 9:30:51 GMT -5
You are of course partially tongue-in-cheek about this. What if they didn't know that they were brilliant? What if there was no capability of them moving...? No I really wasn’t tongue in cheek, we just look at 40K very differently To answer your questions: I see the civilization during the GAoT as elitist, this means that all citizens are tested to discern their cognitive ability (computer based test/ simulations), those who are ‘exceptional’ are offered a university place run by the corporations (exclusive contract/ heavy student loan). The corporations are only interested in performance, so anyone with ability can make it big in the GAoT (and those that don’t stay on the rim). As for travel, during the GAoT I think travel was relatively easy for those who could, and I think the corporations really wanted those bright sparks to join them and would make every effort to make sure they ‘acquired’ those ‘assets’. Dealing with corporation is like doing a deal with the Devil, you think you’re getting a better life (and in many ways you are) but at the end of the day they own you.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 2, 2005 10:03:47 GMT -5
Not as different as you might seem to think by viewing things on the outside. For the most part we would both like to see a more consistent and elaborate background, we just come from two different perspectives. When people have similar rough goals and the other - damn them! - just doesn't see the obvious 'truth' of your own approach, it's down right annoying! If one were to see the entirety of the G/DAoT revolving purely around science and scientists I can see where you would be coming from. Of course, talk to many people and they bring up the whole <Mineral> Man concept and how science wasn't that big a deal. After all, it was the 'Golden Age'. They had already achieved what they set out to achieve and then, unsurprisingly for the 40k mythos, there was very little advance. There is also, as always, the problem of the origins of the adeptus mechanicus whose starting point is arguably at a variance for an academic elite. E.g. if they were already elite why the somewhat tacky mysticism of technology. (There is, of course, a much better solution to this that involves how people work and not the STC concept, which is as always a red herring.) With that said I can see the idea of academic testing, although if the society was as elitist as you're implying (which is fine) then the boundaries for the 'truly exceptional' are going to be significanty shifted in the upwards direction. If the entire society is predicated upon 'truly exceptional' then you're going to want the best of the best, not just the mental retards with a sub-200 IQ (or whatever). Also, if you're basing society upon a megacorporation-type system then it is not the scientists that are in control, but rather the scum-sucking parasites of the earth (read: business consultants and lawyers! ). Of course, this does not prevent a gradual replacement of the aforementioned parasites with 'enlightened science', but then one would have to question the existence of corporations in the light of this power transition! <snicker> Ultimately we all have a fairly good and consistent idea with what STC is and how it operates. It is just the lengths that it is taken to in 'integrating' things that might be considered a problem. It is the 'golden age' mythos that, I suppose, I have the greatest problem with. The idea that 'everything was better back yon' premise, a pseudo-utopia where everything is blandly sterile and similar but which is the height of society. I can understand it from the perspective of the 'now' since 'golden age' mythos is so horrendously common, the idea that it must have been better back then since it sucks right now. But representing the mythos as the truth just strikes me as wrong as anything else that might be suggested. Regardless of native wit, intelligence and education, as the saying goes "People are stupid". In the immortal words (yeah right) of Wesley Snipes, "You can't take away peoples' right to be as*holes."
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 2, 2005 12:47:23 GMT -5
Not as different as you might seem to think by viewing things on the outside. For the most part we would both like to see a more consistent and elaborate background, we just come from two different perspectives. When people have similar rough goals and the other - damn them! - just doesn't see the obvious 'truth' of your own approach, it's down right annoying! ;D If one were to see the entirety of the G/DAoT revolving purely around science and scientists I can see where you would be coming from. Of course, talk to many people and they bring up the whole <Mineral> Man concept and how science wasn't that big a deal. After all, it was the 'Golden Age'. They had already achieved what they set out to achieve and then, unsurprisingly for the 40k mythos, there was very little advance. I don’t see the GAoT as purely revolving around science, as an example: science is very important in our society, but scientists are hardly the highest status people in our civilization (in fact the vast majority are ‘faceless’, with very few exceptions). There is also, as always, the problem of the origins of the adeptus mechanicus whose starting point is arguably at a variance for an academic elite. E.g. if they were already elite why the somewhat tacky mysticism of technology. (There is, of course, a much better solution to this that involves how people work and not the STC concept, which is as always a red herring.) I don’t think that the Adeptus Mechanicus are purely academic, they prize knowledge and power, I have a strong feeling that the Ad-Mec are the remains of the old corporations, and the old corporations weren’t run by scientists. With that said I can see the idea of academic testing, although if the society was as elitist as you're implying (which is fine) then the boundaries for the 'truly exceptional' are going to be significanty shifted in the upwards direction. If the entire society is predicated upon 'truly exceptional' then you're going to want the best of the best, not just the mental retards with a sub-200 IQ (or whatever). About the size of it. Also, if you're basing society upon a megacorporation-type system then it is not the scientists that are in control, but rather the scum-sucking parasites of the earth (read: business consultants and lawyers! ). Of course, this does not prevent a gradual replacement of the aforementioned parasites with 'enlightened science', but then one would have to question the existence of corporations in the light of this power transition! <snicker> About the size of it and when have scientist ever been ‘enlightened’? As for GAoT lawyers with brain implants and what-nots (shudders), I’m sure they have everything sown up, though I think the role of a lawyer is very different from what it is now - more a silver tongued negotiator (criminal law is no existent – brain scan). Considering the corporations are really interlocked ‘empires’ the role of the law is ‘relative’ (the only reason it hold together is because of those behind the scenes who run everything) Ultimately we all have a fairly good and consistent idea with what STC is and how it operates. It is just the lengths that it is taken to in 'integrating' things that might be considered a problem. Yep. I must admit I put the STC everywhere as a ‘symptom’ of the civilization that created it. It is the 'golden age' mythos that, I suppose, I have the greatest problem with. The idea that 'everything was better back yon' premise, a pseudo-utopia where everything is blandly sterile and similar but which is the height of society. It was better back then because everyone is told it was better back then, and for the people doing the telling (those in power) it probably was a lot better back then for them (in the sense they had even more power). I really don’t think it is a utopia (that’s something I don’t think humans can achieve, as they always more the goal posts as things improve) or would have be considered a utopia by those who live during this time, it is a very efficient and driven society but it is not ‘fair’ - just effective. I can understand it from the perspective of the 'now' since 'golden age' mythos is so horrendously common, the idea that it must have been better back then since it sucks right now. That would be the way the Imperium’s powermongers would want people to think. But representing the mythos as the truth just strikes me as wrong as anything else that might be suggested. Because its not 100% the truth or rather it’s a lie (of a sorts), nothing that bland is ever real. I think, in effect; it was a Golden Age for those with power, but a common man/ woman would never have considered it as such.
The reason for the STC is quickest and easiest way of doing things, even in out society we can see the beginnings of this, but is only really becomes viable when democracy takes a nose dive. As an example: I would imagine that everyone on a colony world is under contract, and anything that a colonist may invent is considered the property of the corporation funding that colony (kinda like the way a artist working for a company, the company owns the copyright of anything produced ‘inhouse’). This is my tie in to ‘open source’, its open source but a company owns it. Individuals do not benefit from their inventions; they can only get a better job on the strength of their performance. No one can invent something truly brilliant and expect to live of royalties; the best you can hope for is to secure funding for next year.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 2, 2005 14:01:29 GMT -5
I don't see the GAoT as purely revolving around science, as an example: science is very important in our society, but scientists are hardly the highest status people in our civilization (in fact the vast majority are 'faceless', with very few exceptions). And in that regard it would appear reasonable to use a caricature of this... I don't think that the Adeptus Mechanicus are purely academic... Ah, I might have misrepresented my point. I find the origins of the adeptus mechanicus do not make sense with the current 'fluff' and that your current presentation of how the G/DAoT operates exacerbates this. I have a strong feeling that the Ad-Mec are the remains of the old corporations, and the old corporations weren't run by scientists. That's something that I don't think you'd get my vote on. For me the adeptus mechanicus was actually originated by the scientists and not the corporations. Which still leaves a significant amount of ye 'ole brain power present on a planet. About the size of it and when have scientist ever been 'enlightened'? Morally or in terms of nirvana, or whatever? Is it the research or what gets done with it? criminal law is no existent � brain scan.. If there is a technology it is amazingly how rapid a counter-technology is formed. Yep. I must admit I put the STC everywhere as a 'symptom' of the civilization that created it. An interesting use of the word. I would say that it is a product of the civilisation, not necessarily the means of that civilisation. It was better back then because everyone is told it was better back then, and for the people doing the telling (those in power) it probably was a lot better back then for them (in the sense they had even more power). It is important that the authors do not fall into the trap of actually believing that, though. ...it is a very efficient and driven society but it is not �fair� - just effective. Effective, perhaps. That would be the way the Imperium's powermongers would want people to think. That the life of yester-year is better now and there is nothing that you can do about it? As an example: I would imagine that everyone on a colony world is under contract... This presupposes that corporations run everything and are, in fact, the government. I would not imagine that this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 2, 2005 14:44:51 GMT -5
This presupposes that corporations run everything and are, in fact, the government. I would not imagine that this is the case. Perhaps in the same way the media seems to run our society, they are not supposed to but they have a huge influence, governments still exists, but its role covers ‘unions/ maintenance/ infrastructure builder’. In effect is would be fair to see ‘government’ as just another corporation (many corporations and sub companies), a corporation which represents the people (yah right!) much like a union, and it also provides the infrastructure that allows the other corporations to act. Examples of this system: Governments do not raise money by taxing individual citizens, they tax other corporations based of profits of that corporation, in effect the government is a non-removable minor shareholder. People have the right to absolutely zip, you pay for everything as you use it. 100% Employment: Corporations pay tax, but everyone they employ gives them a tax break. The tax break would be equal to about social security check (once the corporation has taken its cut). All employees’ pay is geared to performance. This means it is cheaper to employee a menial worker for such things as caretaking/ maintenance roles than buying machine to make one employee more efficient (everywhere is very tidy!) Loosing employment is about the scariest thing that can happen to an individual, as their rights evaporate with their employment. To guard against this people pay insurance, but the insurance will only get you another job. If you are unable to get a job you will loose everything, become a vagrant and be arrested and jailed, where you will be put to work the hard way. Prison: Prisons aren’t really there to punish as such, once a person is delivered into the prison system they are there for good and provide an even cheaper labour force. Prison could be considered more as a ‘workhouse’ but you can’t leave. The reason no one can leave is because a person in prison is deemed to be ‘unsociable’ and therefore can not be reintegrated into mainstream society (all prisoners undergo ‘corrective’ surgery.) They cooperation’s that run the ‘workhouses’ really own its employees.
During the GAoT you work hard like a dog, that is, unless own a company. Not exactly a utopia for all, but if you are loaded it’s a paradise.
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Jan 6, 2005 13:48:13 GMT -5
The power of a corporation or for that matter any business entity to influence a governmental system is directly proportional to they type of governmental system being used.
In a representative democracy such as the United States I would agree that corportations can exert considerable influence and pressure upon the government. This does not mean that the corporations hold any direct power. They can lobby and even "buy" politicians to vote or fight for their view point, but they are still counterbalanced by other groups that fight against the influences and the excesses of "big business".
In a representative democracy, the elected officials are suppose to vote as their constituancy (those that elected them) wishes. Of course, there are cases where once in office, the representative votes based on his own feelings on the issues or vote the postition of the corporate lobby that is paying him off.
In either case, this individual will face re-election and if he is not voting how his constituancy wishes, he may not gain re-election. An legislation that he brought forward for the company interests may face reversals in future terms, by other elceted officials.
How could this system break down...There is the issue of buying votes. If a corporation is large enough or dominates a given state or territory, it could perhaps offer a monetary incentive to employees...or even citizens not employed by the corporation to vote into office their representative.
Of course such tactics are currently illegal under outr laws, but new legislation may eventually make it possible. Another slightly less illegal method may be a change in how voting is done. Public corporations are responsible to their stock holders for keeping the company profitable. Such corporations usually hold annual meetings where diffeent policies of the company are discussed.
Any stock hold may go to this meeting and vote or stock holders may sign a proxy and assign their vote to the company to vote as they see fit (which since the company is beholdant to its stock holders will usually be in their best interest).
Overcrowding might see the rise of Archologies...these are structures that would be the forerunners of city hives. Such archologies would perhaps house the employees of a corportation, who live and work within the confines of the archology.
If each employee is a stock holder in the company (with even one share) they may be given the oportunity to sign a waiver allowing the corporation to cast their vote in the federal election. The assumption of course being that the company will cast these votes with the best interests of the stock holders in mind.
This of course is a capitalist system run amuk. There would be other groups that would rail against this and probably institute legislation in order to prevent or counterbalance this type of voting.
Another scenario might be another great depression, where the government of the country collapses and the corporation steps in to bail them out and restructures the government to run more like a corporation....a financial coup of this nature would require the proper element to come together for it to occur.
An example of how this might occur would be German after World War I. Germany suffered from hyperinflation brought on by the stagerring war reparations that France and the other countries piled upon it during the peace treaty at Versaille. Germany also lost Alsace-Lorraine to france as well as other territories.
On top of the enormous debt, german production was curtailed by the allies, which made it next to impossible for the new government to generate funds to pay reparations. This provided the perfect opportunity for Adolf Hitler to come to power. Perhaps a similar situation would allow a corporation to seize control of a government.
I hope this illustrates that given special circumstances, it is possible that a representative democracy to be dominated by a single corporation or muiltiple corporations...under general policy though, it has built in safe guards from allow this to occur.
There would be other governmental structures that would be more conducive to domination by a corporate entity. These would include oligarchies, technocracies, dictatorships.
governmental structures less conducive to corporate domination would by socialist or communist states. This is a short list, but I hope it show the possibility for multiple government structures to exist beyond those dominated by corporate entities.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 8, 2005 12:48:29 GMT -5
I thinking that by the time humans make it to Mars the governmental systems of Earth have change beyond all recognition. I do not think it will function in the same way considering the time scales I’m thinking off.
I’m think that first Mars colony is very far away, and warp-engine technology even further. Say first Mars colony attempts 2500-3000 (min), first warp technology 15000-20,000.
With time scale like that, the GAoT government systems would look nothing like those we have today, they could be very different. As different as ancient Egypt is from modern Japan and that’s with a 2000 years gap. So think of the differences in society in 15,000 years time, the technology would have a huge impact on humanity and the way humanity functions (bare in mind that future humans are just the same as they are now and removing their advanced technology will cause them to shift to a more ‘primitive’ system, and the old ways will be lost in a few generations).
The idea of ‘corporation’s was to give an idea of a monopoly power based on technology, one the interlocks into others, even the government is just another corporation.
They whole lot is run by those in power, those who own everything, and this position is only strengthened when humanity goes to the stars.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 8, 2005 16:34:41 GMT -5
Of course, one could quite readily ask what humans were doing for 500 years before Mars... Or what they were doing after that for all that time...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 10, 2005 13:03:44 GMT -5
Of course, one could quite readily ask what humans were doing for 500 years before Mars... Or what they were doing after that for all that time... Perfecting recycling systems (hydroponic systems, enclosed environments, C-Blocks), governmental structures etc. In general sorting out their business.
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Jan 10, 2005 18:43:24 GMT -5
I thinking that by the time humans make it to Mars the governmental systems of Earth have change beyond all recognition. I do not think it will function in the same way considering the time scales I’m thinking off. There will of course exist new systems of government in the future. I do not deny this, but they will not be wholly divorced from the systems that we use today. At the time of the American revolution, the idea of a representative Democracy was unique, but it did not spontaneously generate out of nothingness. The concept of a democratic state has existed since antiquity. Athens, one of the Greek city-states was a practicing democracy around 500 B.C. The Romans built upon these concepts and devised (or as some scholars believe appropriated the idea from other cultures) the system of government known as the Republic. The concepts behind the republic and democracy eventually found new experssion in the representative democracy we have today. Each system built upon the previous, usually incorporating new ideas and concepts to correct the flaws of the past forms. There is room for corporations to step into the role of government, however I do not see them monopolizing every new form of government that emerges in the future.
|
|