Civilization critique and gaming

[Janos Biro]

This comes from this topic.

Sunny Penguin,

I sense a major cognitive dissonance happening here. First of all, I was not angry at all. Maybe you imagine me angry because you feel I'm attacking something you value. I don't follow conspiracy theories, ufology, mysticism or apocalyptic madness. I've read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and I consider myself quite balanced between skepticism and wonder.

If you really wanted to take the high ground what you should have done was answer my questions intelligently with arguments that empowered your views instead of brushing everything I said off as 'laughing at you' and not worth your time - I was being deadly serious and your attitude is insulting. If you are not going to answer this properly, then don't bother answering at all. I do not want to waste more of my time.

I think we are having a big misunderstanding, or maybe a language barrier, but I swear I was trying to answer you the best way I can. I tried to be funny just to avoid being too boring, but I was not joking. I understand that it may look like a joke to you. I may be challenging some very strong assumptions you have. But I never thought my attitude would be considered insulting, really!

I read about civilization critique since 1998, and I discuss it since 2002. It took me 4 years just to take it seriously. I had a lot of long discussions about it. Your reaction is absolutely normal, I've seem questions like yours many times. But I feel that we can talk about this for pages and pages, and still wont be enough to make you comfortable with that idea. Its just a VERY unusual and delicate subject that I would rather not discuss in here. If you are really curious about it we can open another topic. Don't take this as an insult, please.

I'm very much aware of paleoanthropology. Sure, I know it looks crazy to talk about 100.000 to 200.000 years if we usually mark 50.000 as the beginning of symbolic culture and 10.000 as the beginning of agriculture and sedentary settlements. It is very distant from what you expected (ten years, twenty years). But I said that to imply that I believe civilization is something that is within us since the beginning of the "modern man".

We usually think of human history in a very small scale. Suggesting that something went "wrong" right in the beginning of humanity sounds absurd. But it is exactly what the myth of the Fall of Adam tells us. This idea have been around for a long time.

The question is not what I would change. Yes, I'm only human. And we developed these amazing skills that allow us to be reasonable, even if in the end we may reason about reason itself and realize it was all vanity.

You cannot survive without money, IN THIS CULTURE. But people certainly can survive in another culture, if we don't kill them to take their resources, of course. The fact that you compare money to oxygen and water is a symptom that this way of life is as important to you as life itself. So maybe you will fight to death to defend it. But there is no money in bartering cultures. Its a HUGE jump from one thing to another. The idea that you can have a fixed exchange rate for things was not always obvious, it is very recent. Even bartering is very recent, because it demands surplus. The selling of entertainment services and full-time entertainers are even more recent. It all depends in the scale of time you use.

But that means nothing, since we are here and now. I only said that you can make games without having nothing to do with the game business. There is nothing WRONG with being paid for doing what you like. It's not a right and wrong question, it is just that you need enough people doing the hard work for you so it becomes possible to live as an artist or a philosopher... That's why civilization is based on slavery. Slaves can be substituted by machines, but it is not that simple. We are still trying to make it work.

I understand making a game is very hard and so you want to be paid for doing it. But you also have to understand that your game have to be worth of my time and my work too. How will you make sure it will sell if you are making a game YOU would like to play, but not sure if anyone is quite like YOU? To reduce the risk, your best option would be to follow popular trends. But that's very restricting, people would get bored soon, so let's do like other industries did in the past: let's diversify production by categorizing consumers in different sets of "individual tastes". Segmentation. The media made a good job convincing people they should all consume different things because they have different personalities. But the problem now is that the offer is growing much faster than the demand. Don't worry, we have a thing called consumerism. We make sure people will pay absurd prices for games just like they pay for clothing brands; they will buy games they will never play; they will buy disposable mass produced games, hate them, and then buy handcrafted indie games just to feel better; they will fund games; and they will spend money on game related events and merchandise. Now everybody is happy and gaming is growing fast and healthy, just like any business that is about to crack. But, don't think about it, enjoy while you can.

No, really, I know how it sounds, but the reason why we think so differently is that we have different visions about capitalism. I have nothing against you, I just looking at it from my own point of view, and something doesn't seem right.

You seem to quote all the theories to arm yourself with more ammunition but do you honestly think that these figures would all agree with each other? You appear to have a mish-mashed view of the world. These are just theories - it's time to get your own opinions. AGS forum does not require essays at the level of a doctoral thesis, where you have to substantiate everything you say by quoting someone more established than you. It is staring to look quite  desperate the way you argue with people.

I see... Well, you think I'm fighting for superiority, but I'm just answering you calmly and patiently. I'm not desperate at all. I'm sorry if this is not the place, but I just don't know how else I could express my thoughts. My world view cannot be easily summarized. Sure it's just theories. I don't discuss opinions, I discuss reasons.

You imply that ancient cultures are bad: "there is no "trial and error" and no "constant improvement".

No! You imply that "trial and error" and "constant improvement" is good, so the lack of it is bad. Not at all. Those are very modern values.

Let me rephrase: Civilization did a great job diminishing the problems itself created, as long as it can continue creating even worse problems.

That's life and there is nothing we could change about it.

Sorry, are you saying civilization is hierarchically superior to other ways of life? Like an alpha culture? Or are you saying social inequalities are comparable to natural hierarchy? And what about using the concept of profit to talk about nature? What do you mean?

If humans are not creative, then what is the point of literature, music, dance and games?

Really, what's the point? Ask different cultures, and you will get different answers. I was only showing the distance between our culture and those that would say that all those things are divine, they connect us with a higher level of existence, they are transcendent. So it doesn't really comes from us, we are just allowed to participate. Be thankful for that! If this is a very hard concept to grasp, sorry about even mentioning it here... I did cause I wanted to show how big games can be.

what is your perfect world?

I don't see the relevance of this question, but there is no perfect world. There are the things that will last enough to be part of this world, and the things that will fall before. Civilization, so far, in my view, has not earned a place in this world. All I know is that we can live in a very different way.

[Retro Wolf]

I'm a big fan of Sid Meier's work.

[Janos Biro]

I always thought Sid Meier's Civilization to be very deterministic, like every human culture was destined to become like this culture. Like this culture is superior and more advanced than all others.

[Intense Degree]

I think the Civ series mirrors real civilisation in that however much you like the previous iterations, once the new one is upon you you can't live with the old ones any more and if you try you will face deep disappointment.

I mean everyone knows that units being able to swim across rivers and the sea is cheating but now there is no going back!

[Retro Wolf]

[Cassiebsg]

There really only 3 choices... assimilation, ignoring or annihilation...

If you are technologically superior to other cultures/civilizations/whatever, then you can choose to share your knowledge with others and help them come up to your level (assimilating that culture);  do nothing and let them alone (ignoring) or take advantage of your advantage and annihilate the,....

Don't think there are other choices there...

[Scavenger]

But that means nothing, since we are here and now. I only said that you can make games without having nothing to do with the game business. There is nothing WRONG with being paid for doing what you like. It's not a right and wrong question, it is just that you need enough people doing the hard work for you so it becomes possible to live as an artist or a philosopher... That's why civilization is based on slavery. Slaves can be substituted by machines, but it is not that simple. We are still trying to make it work.

Everyone does something for everyone else. If the artist did not contribute anything of value, then there would be no artists. The people doing the "hard work", the farmers, the doctors, the builders, all find value in what the artist does. Being an artist is no easier than being any other job. It's just hard in other ways. Would you say the same for any other job?

You benefit from civilisation, have benefited, since birth. You are using a machine that required many thousands, millions, of hours of work (that could have been used gathering food), to deliver your ideas to others across the globe. Without the concerted effort of civilisation, culture would be relatively stagnant, people would devote more time to individually surviving and less to thriving. Would you want that?

Would you want to deny people access to boundless knowledge? In the age of the internet, I could learn pretty much anything I wanted to. In the age of nomads, I would be stuck with an infinitesimally smaller amount of knowledge. The knowledge of 100 people, tops.

Civilisation isn't perfect, but it sure beats the alternative.
(the alternative is that we spend more time and energy gathering food and less time on gathering knowledge)

Really, what's the point? Ask different cultures, and you will get different answers. I was only showing the distance between our culture and those that would say that all those things are divine, they connect us with a higher level of existence, they are transcendent. So it doesn't really comes from us, we are just allowed to participate. Be thankful for that! If this is a very hard concept to grasp, sorry about even mentioning it here... I did cause I wanted to who how big games can be.

To be honest, I find this incredibly insulting, on an almost visceral level. It implies that humans are pointless, useless, completely devoid of any creative thought without some greater thing giving them it out of pity. It takes all of our achievements, personal or grand in scale, and takes them away from us, instead giving them to some invisible, ineffable non-entity. In externalising achievements, by taking away the agency of humans and praising the intangible, it stops curiosity, and development, and everything that makes us human, and reduces us to mere puppets of greater beings.

[kaput]

Thanks for the reply, Janos. While I don't agree with you I can still appreciate that everyone has their own opinion and you're certainly entitled to yours. And you're right, we could argue/debate/converse until we are blue in the face about this and it would probably go on for pages and pages, but we'll probably just run around in circles, so yeah, let's just leave it there. I'll admit that you came across as angry, patronising and arrogant to me, granted, but I know you're probably a decent guy anyway, even if I might think you are misguided and too sure of your own assumptions, blind to my own or anyone else. Maybe I am wrong about you, who can be sure. I've said my peace.

I'm not 'backing out', per se, and I'm certainly passionate about all this, but this really isn't going anywhere. You know it and I know it.

[Janos Biro]

Cassiebsg,

This game reduces Civilization to a one-button game. Check it out!

But maybe there is another choice. Some say the Mayans gave up their cities and moved back to the forest... And there is Fight Club!


Scavenger,

I had no idea this subject could be so insulting to some people. To me, Humanism is just a philosophical position that spread from Europe to the rest of the world some centuries ago. Before that, people never thought much about themselves, except for popes, emperors, kings, pharaohs... Now the consumer is king. If this is insulting, I promise I won't touch it again here.

Without the concerted effort of civilisation, culture would be relatively stagnant, people would devote more time to individually surviving and less to thriving. Would you want that?

It is not about what I WANT. I would ask you what is so wrong with what humans did for 90% of their existence, but you would think that I'm joking, right?

Yeah, civilization is great. Sorry for even questioning that...


Sunny Penguin,

I'm very glad with your reasonableness. I may be misguided, but I'm not sure of anything. I just discussed this subject so many times that nothing seems new... I agree this isn't going anywhere. There nothing wrong with admitting that. So, peace!

[Cassiebsg]

This game reduces Civilization to a one-button game. Check it out!

Done, but no point instaling/runing it, can see what it is about by the screenshots, and seems pointless. If all options lead to victory, then there's really no point in playing it, you already won/finished the game... :/

But maybe there is another choice. Some say the Mayans gave up their cities and moved back to the forest... And there is Fight Club!

And some ppl also do that, some even take "followers" with them. We (our civilization" calls these "cults" and their're all over the globe. It's really up to you to decide what rules you want to follow. Serial killers, criminals, etc, they follow their own set of rules, and they work for them. It's the society in which they live that try to stop them, cause they don't follow the established rules... Is that so bad? Considering you have obviously decided to live in "our society"/civilization?

I would ask you what is so wrong with what humans did for 90% of their existence, but you would think that I'm joking, right?

Nothing wrong with survival.
However, if all your work is applied at the "simple" task of survival, then you have no time to develop, grown, enrich, etc. You'd be stuck in a stagnant civilization. And instead of using countless of hours writing essays and such here, you would be somewhere out there making your own clothes from animals you just killed to eat... 

[Ghost]

However, if all your work is applied at the "simple" task of survival, then you have no time to develop, grown, enrich, etc. You'd be stuck in a stagnant civilization.

I'd say that if I have to worry about survival only, I'd pour whatever time I have into improving my chances. We did come up with some clever things* over the past and many were born out of a) the need to get better at surviving and b) lucky chance. So at least for a while, a survivor's culture would be in dire need of NOT being stagnant.

__
Domestic animals, irrigation, metalworks, THE AQUEDUCT...

[Lasca]

However, if all your work is applied at the "simple" task of survival, then you have no time to develop, grown, enrich, etc. You'd be stuck in a stagnant civilization. And instead of using countless of hours writing essays and such here, you would be somewhere out there making your own clothes from animals you just killed to eat... 

I guess this all comes down to what you want out of life, no? Enrichment, development, growt etc. is stimulating but where does it take you in the end, and what do you do with it all? I mean from an individual point of view. If the purpose and what you seek is just being content with life, yourself and what you are, then making clothes from the animal you just killed to eat perhaps isn't so bad. Having more options and more knowledge perhaps isn't always better. Feeling "fulfilled" (in lack of better words) perhaps was easier before civilisation, when YOUR world was a smaller place. Lot's of inventions have created needs instead of satisfying them, no?
I don't know, I and appreciate most aspects of modern civlisation, but sometimes I ask myself where that love (and need) comes from.

[Janos Biro]

Cassiebsg,

Done, but no point instaling/runing it, can see what it is about by the screenshots, and seems pointless. If all options lead to victory, then there's really no point in playing it, you already won/finished the game... :/

Exactly!

So, it's really up to you to decide what rules you want to follow, but if you don't follow civilization rules, civilized people will either assimilate you, kill you or ignore you. I personally find the third option very complicated to apply when people tend to sit in lands full of natural resources.

Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins said people had a lot of free time in hunter-gathering societies, and that this idea of having to struggle constantly just to survive is a misconception. I think he is right.

[miguel]

Smart people learn how to cope with what they have. The trick is to go as far as rules go, bend them if we can and just try to be happy.
If I'm not being treated like shit, if I have a job to provide my family with enough comfort, if I have political and religious freedom and if I have time to create then why should I really be miserable and complain about society, famine and the rest?
Honestly, if I do complain then I'm just being an hypocrite. If I really care then I should just take a plane to Africa and help people in need.
Talk, talk, talk, talk. We are all the same. Sorry, Janos.

[ThreeOhFour]

I had no idea this subject could be so insulting to some people.

This is a forum of creative, passionate people. Simply dismissing their creativity and passion with an analytical train of thought that shows a complete lack of empathy for the group you're hoping to engage is going to stir people up a bit, yeah.

[Ghost]

I had no idea this subject could be so insulting to some people.

To pick up on that, it's not just your audience (I think ThreeOhFour is already spot on there) but the tone. You have knowledge, that much is clear, but you yourself seem to take cover behind the big names. To quote yourself from the other thread:

Well, if what theorists say doesn't matter... I'm sorry. I thought it was relevant.

See, they are theorists. Phrasing aside ("If you think what [intelligent people ]say doesn't matter" can be read as extremely arrogant, really) they form theories. You are here at a hobbyist game-making forum. Not a professional one, and not everyone here is a studied man. But we make games and we play games. We're living the theory without knowing about it, you could say.

Basically, what you did is entering a hall full of greasy mechanics who tinker on this heap of scrap metal and told them they should rather go and read the fine works of X. Or learn reading in the first place.

I used to think that if I could just find out what kind of ink and brush and paper Jeff Smith used I could draw stuff just like his very, very great BONE comic series. Silly, or course; tools don't make the art.
Then I thought no, I should just check out what he studied and used as reference material, because then I would understand the rules of how he made his stuff and could just be as great. Not quite as silly but stil futile.
Then I started to draw really, really many many pages full of stuff, and realised what powered ME, and got to grips with my creative sources. That made me*.

It's nice having theories to fall back on. Some are universal and some change so quickly that you can drink a healthy coffee in the morning and read how a morning coffee kills you in the evening. You need to do something with those cool theories. If only prove them wrong. And it's possible to power a fun game purely on tropes and fun without ever knowing about the finer points of human recreation. Games can be wine and caviar and exclusive candlelight. But they can also be egg and a fried slice.

And I'll leave it at that. But both all your threads have been interesting and challenging, so well played.

__
Not "made me anything". It just made me.

[qptain Nemo]

it is just that you need enough people doing the hard work for you so it becomes possible to live as an artist or a philosopher... That's why civilization is based on slavery. Slaves can be substituted by machines, but it is not that simple.

Yeah, because there is, like,  no way people can help each other out or divide their duties without slavery, right. Absolutely impossible. When I need my friends / associates to do something for me I always enslave them first and vice-versa.

Also I love how you imply that artistic work is the EASIER kind of work. That's so hilariously telling about your grasp of what you're talking about.

Just one example of just how bollocks your reasoning is.

[Janos Biro]

Basically, what you did is entering a hall full of greasy mechanics who tinker on this heap of scrap metal and told them they should rather go and read the fine works of X. Or learn reading in the first place.

Ghost, I had no idea! I take the blame. What can I do to apologize?

I have an idea: let's play a different game. A cooperative game, instead of a competitive one. Let's cooperate to understand and conciliate ideas instead of looking for contradictions and conflicting ideas. Let's try to get the best of what the other people have to say, and forgive the bad reasoning for a while. Instead of focusing in correcting each other and on what we disagree, we could focus on what we agree and what could help the other. What do you say? I know I did a lot of corrections and counterpoints, and now some of you are angry at me. But let's at least try this.

For example, instead of reading "I had no idea this subject could be so insulting to some people" as "I am so smart I insult people with my intelligence", you could read as something like "I am sorry, I had no intention". Instead of reading "If what theorists say doesn't matter" as "If you think what [intelligent people] say doesn't matter", I am sure you could have read in a much more friendly way, like: "I didn't knew bringing this subject here would be such a bad idea".

Believe me, I was trying to be nice.


Ben,

I never dismissed creativity! Creativity is great! I was talking about how SOME cultures see it, because I thought it would be nice to have a different perspective. Come on, let's not make such a big deal about it!


Miguel,

"If you are living comfortably in this society, it would be hypocrisy to criticize it". I came across that fallacy many times. If it were true, we would not have the right to self-criticism.


qptain Nemo,

PLEASE don't be offended by this, just think about it:

Spoiler

Which of your Congolese friends goes down the mines under them aim of a gun to collect coltan for your phone? Which of your Chinese friends assemble the phones in terrible work conditions?

[close]

When I said "hard work" I meant work that generates no satisfaction. Let's be honest, being an artist is hard, but it's not a living hell. It was it's advantages. Not every work has.

[ThreeOhFour]

I've not been offended by anything you said - just pointing out the reasons why I believe your approach is going to offend people.

I could write forever about the place of video games in culture and humanity's development as a species. I don't see the point, though, and I wouldn't be telling you things you didn't know. I don't know what your point is at all - can you sum your thoughts up in a single sentence, for the sake of clarity?

[Ghost]

Ghost, I had no idea! I take the blame. What can I do to apologize?
Believe me, I was trying to be nice.

And I do not doubt that. Personally, I tend to read the friendler interpretation anyways and this IS the internet, after all.  I just wanted to point out how it CAN be read- that's why I added your threads being both challenging (in that they offer a controversical view) and entertaining (in that you see them through and have the words to do that).

[Janos Biro]

Ben,

Thanks.

I don't think I can sum my thoughts in a singe sentence, though. Let me just try this way: Imagine that there are SOME PEOPLE who have this strange idea that maybe civilization is not such a great thing. Like this guy here. I actually met John Zerzan in São Paulo and we talked about his ideas, and although I don't agree with everything, I found it very interesting, and he seems to be a very reasonable person. In one of his talks there was a punk band, and the guitarist of this band said: "Yeah, but without civilization, there would be no guitar, so are you against punk rock?". And he said: "No, but guitars need metal. Who wants to go down a mine to get metal? It is a terrible job. But if you don't do it yourself, it means somebody else was to go so you can play your guitar". Derrick Jensen said that "if you feel your water comes from a tap, you will fight to death to defend the tap, but what you really want is water".

I always loved games. So I had this dilemma. But to discuss this is pointless, unless you feel comfortable with questioning established ideas about human cultural development, like Lasca did:

I guess this all comes down to what you want out of life, no? Enrichment, development, growt etc. is stimulating but where does it take you in the end, and what do you do with it all? I mean from an individual point of view. If the purpose and what you seek is just being content with life, yourself and what you are, then making clothes from the animal you just killed to eat perhaps isn't so bad. Having more options and more knowledge perhaps isn't always better. Feeling "fulfilled" (in lack of better words) perhaps was easier before civilisation, when YOUR world was a smaller place. Lot's of inventions have created needs instead of satisfying them, no?
I don't know, I and appreciate most aspects of modern civlisation, but sometimes I ask myself where that love (and need) comes from.

[bicilotti]

Imagine that there are SOME PEOPLE who have this strange idea that maybe civilization is not such a great thing. Like this guy here. I actually met John Zerzan in São Paulo and we talked about his ideas, and although I don't agree with everything, I found it very interesting, and he seems to be a very reasonable person. In one of his talks there was a punk band, and the guitarist of this band said: "Yeah, but without civilization, there would be no guitar, so are you against punk rock?". And he said: "No, but guitars need metal. Who wants to go down a mine to get metal? It is a terrible job. But if you don't do it yourself, it means somebody else was to go so you can play your guitar".

How does he reconcile the tearful "guitars need metal. Who wants to go down a mine to get metal? It is a terrible job. But if you don't do it yourself, it means somebody else was to go so you can play your guitar" with wearing a pair of glasses, travelling to São Paulo, having a website (i.e. speaking like a modern day Diogenes without living like Diogenes did)?
I am obviously poking him, but I am sincerely curious (and I guess my question gets asked a lot).

[kaput]

.

[ThreeOhFour]

So, the point we're examining is that "Civilization isn't that great, maybe", then?

An electrician once told me "Your world doesn't work without me - all your fancy computers, they're nothing without electricity."

There was no point behind his statement, I don't think, except... some sense of poking at me, or of superiority, perhaps? Big deal, I was working on farms at that point, and therefore was involved in the production of the food which was essential to keep him alive, unlike electricity, which I don't require to survive. I didn't feel the need to point this out to him. What would it prove?

If you're struggling with the concept of games being worthwhile, consider them as cultural expression, much like cave paintings, but whereas people have been painting in caves for over 40,000 years, we've been playing video games for around 0.1% of that time. What you're engaging in is, over the course of human history - not taking into account the history of every other species - an extremely rare thing. By playing video games, you're actually engaging in something very unique, very special and very, very rare, historically speaking. Treasure that!

[Cassiebsg]

assimilation, ignoring or annihilation...

You guys forgot about PEACE. Come on!

No I didn't... both assimilation and ignoring are acts of peace.
By sharing your knowledge with others, you turn them a bit closer to your own, until they cease to exist as they did before, and turn into something closer to what you know.
And if you ignore them, well, you leave them at peace and share nothing with them, which might be considered as egoistic by some and a blessing by others...  POV, it all depends where you stand or what you believe. There isn't a single truth, but billions (read it as: "as many as there are people on the face of the earth).

[Janos Biro]

Yeah, it gets asked a lot. But I guess the point was never to stop consuming industrialized products. Even if that was possible for someone born and raised in a city, what would be the point of doing that? You can't boycott civilization, because there is no alternative left. But this is not about a consumer choice, it's about what you think. Total abstention from industrialized products would be madness at this point, but a cultural shift is not. Living a simpler life is enough to be coherent with such ideals. The fact that we are now totally dependent on civilization is no excuse to ignore the critique. On the contrary, our technological dependency is another point to consider.

I agree it would be hypocrisy if the idea was "technology is evil, don't use it". But the idea is "this lifestyle has costs that goes beyond what you pay". We must first face those hidden costs, and them decide what to do about it. I totally agree with "do the best you can". That's what I'm trying to do.

About games, I do consider them as cultural expression. And, as such, they also can carry the seeds of the culture that made them, or the seeds of revolution. I don't like games that are the expression of a war culture, for example. So, what matters is the message, not the medium.

[kaput]

.

[Janos Biro]

Sunny Penguin,



I agree with "be the change you want to see in the world", but I don't think this is like being a vegan. After all, there are alternatives to a meat diet. Some of them are quite expensive. I don't think aiming for a radical cultural change is like doing nothing but complaining. I believe this asks for a collective change, and I don't see how it can happen without collective awareness. If everyone that comes to believe that this is a subject worth of being taken seriously drops out of public sight, never to be seen again, this is not going to happen. The only consequence would be us getting free of these boring discussions.

[miguel]

But you have no faith in people at all, Janos. Things change slowly but they do change and in my opinion for the better.
You have valuable and even noble notions of how men should be with nature and the world we live and you are obviously a educated person. What you are not is someone with the skills to lead a "radical cultural change". And maybe it is harmful to you if you believe you're that man.
Sometimes we must humble ourselves, with dignity, in order to enjoy the things that life provides.

Do your change, Janos. Just take it easy on yourself and it will show.

[Janos Biro]

Thanks for your advice, Miguel, but I don't think you know that much about me. I think you just want me to shut up, because this conversation annoys you.

[ThreeOhFour]

But the idea is "this lifestyle has costs that goes beyond what you pay". We must first face those hidden costs, and them decide what to do about it.

There we go, a clear summary.

I'd say that no ideal solution to this dilemma has emerged, but - unless my perception is very much skewed - things are on a trend for the better. Slavery is less popular than ever. We're actively aware of the destruction we've done to the planet and we're pursuing technology that means we're trying to slow this idea. 50 years ago solar and wind power probably seemed a fantasy, these days it's not uncommon (in my part of the world anyway - which counts as some change, even if it's not global). Vehicles are more fuel efficient, refrigeration doesn't rely on CFCs, conservation programs do their best to try and reverse some of the harm done. We recycle, we carpool, we cycle. We give money to the poor, to care organizations, and discrimination is less popular now than any time in written history (feel free to contest this, I'm no history buff). The voting public (in some parts of the world) starts to complain now if governments start a war.

Yes, we're still enormous assholes, a greedy, gluttonous, wasteful blight on the earth, on each other and on ourselves, who are way too invested in smartphones and hamburgers and palm oil, and none of this changes that. But there are things like this which give us some hope as a species.

[kaput]

.

[miguel]

Thanks for your advice, Miguel, but I don't think you know that much about me. I think you just want me to shut up, because this conversation annoys you.

Just thought I could help. Dumb me.

[Janos Biro]

The general idea (in the developed countries) is that things are getting better, even if very slowly, so there is no reason to worry so much. Problems have been acknowledged and will be addressed as soon as possible, and we will have the skill, the will, the means and the resources to deal with anything. But those who have taken some time to actually study our global condition more than superficially have reasons to think that things are much more complicated than we are generally taught to believe. The first problem of talking about it is that it generates insecurity. Some people (those who are relatively comfortable) feel like having their hard earned freedoms attacked by pessimistic doomsayers. The analysts, on the other hand, feel a bit like Cassandra, being chilled down by conformists that believe its all under control and that MORE civilization is what will save us from anything that may come our way, like we were destined to greatness. To one side, all we need is MORE. MORE is the solution to everything. To the other, MORE is what created all the problem, MORE may be the problem itself, and maybe we should start considering getting LESS. This is a overall scheme of how these conversations go. Now, how should we position ourselves?

You see, on one side you have all these positive changes. But having any amount of positive changes is not enough to say that things are getting better. It is like saying that the year balance will be positive because there is some money going in. What about the money going out? But if someone tries to point all the complex negative factors, that person is "too pessimistic", "too focused on the negative", and so on... Who can make an impartial evaluation of our current state of things? Would we trust that person? Can we go on with this by simply lending our opinions?

Before saying that I have a solution, I need to understand what is the problem. Please, don't think that I'm desperate for a positive reaction, or that I'm expecting some kind of change by posting on this forum, or something like that. It's the wrong impression. I'm just trying to draw a complex picture. It was not my idea to bring this subject here, I'm doing it to quench your curiosity only. Think of it as a mimic game. I'm trying to make you see what I see, I'm not expecting neither a positive or a negative opinion. The point here is not what we "think" about civilization, in the sense of saying yes or no to it. I'm not saying this with an angry tone. I'm simply not talking about opinions.

The "hard" part of what I'm saying is: Yes, some countries solved a lot of social problems, at least within their own territory. But at what cost? Could they do it without consumerism to boost the economy, for example? Is there enough resources for all countries to develop in the same way? These are just some basic examples. Should we trust that we will be smart enough to figure everything out, like this was some kind of adventure game where there certainly is a solution, you just have to find out? There is absolutely no reason to think that way. I'm not against hope, but realistic hopes need a more solid ground than this. This is not my opinion, they just need, either you choose to accept this or not.

And please don't say I'm being arrogant or that I'm arguing just for the sake of it, because I'm really doing my best to offer something without asking anything in return. Maybe This CAN be read in a very insulting way, but how could I approach such a delicate subject without that risk? If I knew a better way to talk about this, I would choose it. You can kill the messenger or deal with the message. It's your choice.

[miguel]

Well said. I now understand the full extent of your opinions. What can I say? It's all true from your perspective witch is a much bigger  than mine.
I was thinking about the individual, the father, the worker who has basically to survive while having that bit of comfort, but who also has close to nothing chances of, well, changing anything.

When I said that clever people do the best they can with what is given to them is also a way to protect oneself psychologically. I tend to be very determined into things that I want, need or like to do, and if I was to dedicate my thoughts into the state of the world I would probably be a different person. Less happier, for sure.

But, going back to your post, I was never insulted by your comments. Again, I was thinking that you were being extremely zealous on matters far away from "games". I can see now how you relate all things and how you think.

How can people be convinced that the world is reaching a critical point if, for example, Dan Brown writes about overpopulation (reaching millions of people around the globe) and people read it like a curiosity fact. Maybe Dan Brown is a bad example and people will always read "him" like a curiosity fact    but what about music bands who address such issues, TV shows, National Geographic, etc? They all have a clear message and it's accessible to everyone.
It looks like it's cool to be "green" but people are just wearing a shirt, nothing else. Like the photo seen on this thread.
It's like Green Peace, everybody loves them, but who has actually supported them?
It leaves governments to "force" things to happen. And we all know how little pedagogical they can be. That means restrictions to what people are used to and that leads to "less freedom" for populations. It's in a sense, a step back.

Maybe we should enjoy while we can, be just a little bit more selfish with our moral side. And that's just to have brief moments of happiness.
And, Janos, thanks for bearing with me.

[Janos Biro]

Miguel,

It looks like it's cool to be "green" but people are just wearing a shirt, nothing else. Like the photo seen on this thread.

I agree. People have no reason to take any of this questions seriously, most of all because they now think as individuals, and individuals, as you stated, can't really change anything. And there is really no going back now. If you think too much about it, it will be just depressing. Ignorance is bliss. Let's just enjoy while the party is not over. Except that I can't...

But the green movement is not such a great example anyway. What is left of Greenpeace after what Patrick Moore said? They are as lost in politics and money as anyone. I don't like apocalyptic doomsayers, be it ecological or religious ones. The end of the world does not scares me. Now, the perspective that progress can go on and on indefinitely, that's what scares me! I'm kidding, but I also mean it.

All this talk about sustainability doesn't impress me. People are still only thinking about the economy. What about the sustainability of the human bonds? We have very developed countries with growing rates of suicide and depression (EDIT: and divorce, and addiction).

I believe everything can change. I believe in love, what could be harder than that? Thank you.

[miguel]

Forget about Green Peace, another bad example. But their premise and origins were noble at least. There was a big scandal in Portugal some years ago about a Aids Support Foundation called "Abraço". Money got in the way.

I guess community efforts FOR the community are easily maintained and controlled and people actually see where their money is being invested. Once it gets nation wide or bigger that's when the vile metal starts corrupting.
Individuals can make a difference (limited) if they change their habits: recycle, energy-saver lights, less plastic and so on. But it reminds me of another scandal in my country where people thought they were recycling but in the end the trash was being dumped in the same place: glass, paper, metal, etc...

I really don't know, and I'm a man of faith (literally) but I think that men have the strength to be gentle and kind no matter their social status. But stepping up the ladder of success irreversibly makes them see the bigger picture like you do. And I wonder, if you had a sudden power to control a civilization, having to deal with percentages and figures, would you make efforts to cut down on technology in order to lower resource consumption? Google spends electricity enough to provide 200,000 houses. Would you go "against" Google? Maybe it's just another one of my bad examples, but you get the point.
How much political and economical pressure crush good ideals while a man steps up that ladder?

[Janos Biro]

Miguel,

Same thing happens here. I had an active participation in a number of social movements, and it was a big disappointment. I said I believe in love and I have no faith in humanity. But I often choose to trust individuals (as opposed to organizations). Singular individuals certainly have the capacity to be good, if they have love. But humanity cannot redeem itself. If this doesn't make any sense, just ignore it.

Maybe power corrupts, but I also don't think anyone in a position of power would risk giving it to a incorruptible man.

[Mandle]

What about the sustainability of the human bonds? We have very developed countries with growing rates of suicide and depression (EDIT: and divorce, and addiction).

Interesting point:

But are these rates of suicide and depression growing because current society is causing this trend, or are they "growing" because we are recognizing and recording them better and faster because more advanced technologies (and more advanced psychology studies) are allowing this?

Are human bonds really breaking down or are we just getting better at analyzing the frequency and reasons for such?

Or is it both at the same time?

Is it like every time there is a major earthquake people freak out because earthquakes are getting more frequent, or is it because earthquakes are getting more frequent because our ability to detect them is getting better due to technology?

Basically: Has this just been the normal human condition up until now and we were simply not good enough yet at detecting it, or is it something new that we are only just detecting now because we are good enough?

Or is it a bit of both?

My opinion is that the latter statement is the most likely:

Another analogy: "Do the waves shape the coastline or does the coastline shape the waves?"

Waves erode the coastline at exactly the same time the coastline shapes the waves that erode it.

To make a point then:

Suicide rates, depression, addiction (serial killers, mass murderers) etc. is increasing because we have gotten better at recording and reporting them whereas a lot went under the radar beforehand...

AND ALSO:

Suicide rates, depression, addiction (serial killers, mass murderers) etc. is increasing because we have gotten better at recording and publicizing them whereas a lot went under the radar beforehand...

My 2 bits

[Janos Biro]

Mandle,

Suicide rates, depression, addiction (serial killers, mass murderers) etc. is increasing because we have gotten better at recording and publicizing them
whereas a lot went under the radar beforehand...

I thought about this before, so I will try to contribute. This is quite a problem for sociologists, because they are the ones who measure those things. I know this is a valid argument for violence in many places, because we have many studies about this. Sociologists call it "moral panic". But in many other cases, we can't use the "moral panic" argument, because those things are really growing. What do we do? We must refine the data collecting tools and make better researches to actually measure those things more precisely. We can't let this question aside just because we think "it is more likely" that we are just getting better at noticing it. This is just a hypothesis. It means nothing without some evidence to sustain it.

It's is not uncommon for the media to manipulate statistics to fit political or corporate interests. But what we know (what sociologists know), trust me on this, is that human bonds are really becoming more fragile (and suicide, depression and such are the effects of this). This is not just about numbers. I've read a lot from sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, and he is quite convincing about that. If you need a source, I recommend this book. Please don't think that I'm being arrogant. I know this is a public forum, you are used to just share opinions and personal views, but I just thought this could be a contribution.

[bicilotti]

Mandle,

Suicide rates, depression, addiction (serial killers, mass murderers) etc. is increasing because we have gotten better at recording and publicizing them
whereas a lot went under the radar beforehand...

I thought about this before, so I will try to contribute. [...] I recommend this book.

Now Mandle, you can:

• read a 176 pages, possibly pretentious sociology book which sports this cover. OR
  
• have this graph from here.

I am all for Love but I can't force this on you. Choose wisely, my friend.

[Janos Biro]

Er, bicilotti, I don't think one thing has much to do with the other.

By the way, have you noticed how suicide rates drop during war periods? Have you noticed how suicide rates grew between 1863 and 1905? Have you considered what happened there, and what happened in the last 50 years?

The data behind the graphs is very complex. And Bauman is not pretentious. There is not a single graph in his book. He talks about everyday life. He is a very good writer. Very funny, not like most sociologists. Anyway, no one needs to read to book, because I said "if you need a source". And no one here needs a source, because you all trust me, right?

[bicilotti]

Janos, it all started from:

We have very developed countries with growing rates of suicide and depression.

Apparently, in the last 50 years, at least in England+Wales, suicide rate decreased.

"The data behind the graph" is dead simple (oh, the pun): someone blowns their brain out? +1 someone jumps off a 5 storey? +1! (etc. etc.)

[Ghost]

Yeah well, but the more the discussion moves away from gaming (or what's wrong with games) to what's wrong with humanity, the less I feel a) at home here and b) able to agree with you.

I think I get your point. It's a complex point and I had to read through all three threads until I (hopefully) got it right. But I really can't share it and I'd like to offer my perspective. It's one shaped by job and life and being me, so- very subjective.

If I read you correctly, things are wrong. And that's bad and should be changed, which is frankly impossible, which means we shouldn't stop trying, but really can never make it, and that is sad. So all of us now, feel bad!

But as I see it, almost all of what we call civilisation/culture is a made-up thing. We're governed and ruled by concepts that don't exist in nature, like equality, non-discremination, justice, fairness. All of that are man-made concepts and really are "what makes us human". My neighbour has a much nicer computer than me and that I don't steal it is ensured by me abiding made-up laws. His door lock is a joke, yet I consider theft a crime and don't want to see myself as a criminal. That's what happened: My upbringing planted the idea in my head that there is such a thing as being a good guy and being a bad guy, and I want to be a good guy, even if that means my neighbour has a cooler PC. For all intent and purpose I am living really BIG LIES.

So if we already made up all these patterns, and we have to agree that we're not really perfect, why wonder that the patterns aren't perfect? And why does a small good deed seem so irrelevant? We are the only species on the entire planet asking themselves what they did wrong, yet we only do what every other species in our position would do: Whatever we want. And that includes good and bad things.

It seems as if your line of thought aims for the largest and most noble goal, to solve the problems of ALL of mankind (apparently by making less games ). That's noble. The men you quote are studied and wise and have all the numbers, but to me it all comes over as a huge litany of "we must change, but we can't, so stop having fun guys, be miserable, we cant be helped anyways."

And to that I say fukken nope, gentlemen, that's downright stupid. If all you do it showing how bad things are and how they can't be changed because reasons, then no way.
When you want to do something other than writing a book then do something. Really do something. These books are grand and great but they are statistics. Because the guys who wrote them are not butchers or clowns or caretakers or nurses or bakers or freelancing good-doers, they are fact collectors and that's all they do.

Humanity sucks? Yeah. As long as we say so.

I'm one guy and I can't change the way of the world but I can be me as hard as I can, and I chose to be a decent man and that's all there is to say. If I give a bum my spare change I don't feel bad that all the other bums didn't get my spare change. Hell if I have no spare change I offer him a cigarette and then I don't feel bad about me actually damagin' 'is 'ealth. If there's a night shift to be pulled I'll take it and I don't feel bad about being paid for it. I do my job and then I come home and then I make adventure games and release them for free, fool that I am, and maybe someone writes me an email and says, hey, your game was fun, I smiled.

I made a guy smile. How is that not awesome?

All in a day's work. Just not very sophisticated and quotable.

*shakes tiny fist*

__
edit:

And I admit I lost track of where the gaming came into all of that.

__
Double Edit:

Long story short: Don't quote! ACT! \o/

[Mandle]

By the way, have you noticed how suicide rates drop during war periods?

I guess it must feel kinda stupid thinking about killing yourself for free when someone else is putting good coin out of pocket to do it for you...

But also...

How's this for some different explanations for this data:

* There were not as many people around collecting said data on suicides at these times as they were off fighting in the war(s) or dodging bombs being dropped on their home cities...

* A lot of records were destroyed at these times by said bombs...

* A lot of the people who actually killed themselves were blown up by said bombs before their real cause of death had been noticed...

* There were so many people dying all over the place anyways that not many other people gave a tinker's cuss about people offing themselves...

All of these reasons (and I could come up with more) would result in a big dip in the statistical evidence without there actually having been one.

I still prefer my original reason at top of post though personally

[Janos Biro]

But, bicilotti, what is the logic here? Suicide rates decreased in England and Wales, therefore there is no growing rates of suicide and depression in ANY developed country? I was thinking about something like this. But there's no need to argue about suicide (or depression, or divorce, or addiction). Those are all just examples. I was really talking about something broader, not about each specific problem separately, and especially not about the statistics on those problems.

Ghost, I really wanted to discuss about games too. I'm not sure how we ended up talking about civilization, but I'm sure it's my entire fault.

If I read you correctly, things are wrong. And that's bad and should be changed, which is frankly impossible, which means we shouldn't stop trying, but really can never make it, and that is sad. So all of us now, feel bad!

LOL. Thanks for showing me how I sound. I sound really awful. But let me put this way: Things are not simply wrong. One thing is wrong. The problem is that it is exactly what we prize the most, and that's what makes it so hard to change. I said everything can change, but we can't save ourselves. Sometimes I like to be a little enigmatic, but what I meant is that we need help from something greater. So, it is impossible to us alone, but not simply impossible. I said I have no faith in humanity, but I don't despise humanity. I wish the best for all of us.

Don't quote! ACT!

Well, that's a quote too. But I think we are being active. I don't think conversations like this one are a complete waste of time.

I know I passed the wrong impression that there is no truth, justice, and so on... Like those were simply man-made concepts, like nothing really matter. Cultural values change, but those are ethical principles that exist in any culture. They are not simply invented, and they can't be perfected. They are the measure we use to perfect our cultural values. And it is based on them that we can criticize our own culture. There is no right way to eat a soup or to make games, but we can't change our nature. Ethical principles come from our nature, and are not lies. But you can't compare values like "Games must be challenging" or "Technology makes life better", with moral values such as "Stealing is wrong".

We may be the only species in the universe that really made something irreversibly WRONG. That if the myth of the Fall of Adam makes any sense to you. Anyway, if we can make nuclear bombs we have a good reason to be especially worried about our behavior.

I'm not trying to SOLVE any problem here. I'm trying to bring your attention to a problem. If what I say spoils your fun or makes you miserable, I'm very sorry, it was not my intention. I'm not miserable myself.

When you say "It's just talk. Less talk and more action!" what I read is "Shut up, you are annoying". Nothing wrong with action, I like doing stuff too. But I believe thinking comes before acting. If your thinking is flawed, your action is most likely to fail too. I believe we are trying to think about a complex subject together. But if you think we already have it all figured out, go ahead and take action! I'm personally still trying to find a viable course of action. Meanwhile, I do the best I can, but still no reason to think it is enough.

Hey, humanity is as beautiful as it is ugly. I love humanity. But I think we made a HUGE mistake, so I worry about our future. The only thing we need to give up is our dominion.

Did you notice how you felt the need to defend yourself? Like I was attacking you personally, like I was saying you are not a good person. I think we all need something else to make our life meaningful. We need "the grand scheme" to be right so our individual effort is not wasted. Maybe that's why you felt attacked? Because I questioned "the grand scheme"?

You are a valuable person. Your actions are valuable. I've played Chance Of The Dead and it made me smile. Great game! Now, if you don't want to discuss this subject, just don't do it. I'm not forcing anyone to discuss, am I?

[Ghost]

Did you notice how you felt the need to defend yourself? Like I was attacking you personally, like I was saying you are not a good person.

I was using myself as an example for the idea of doing your best. You know, for the " Changing ALL of the world is hard, being decent is easier". Funny how you misread that. But no:
* I was not feeling attacked by you, I just disagree with your point of view. As I said.
* I was not defending myself. I used myself and my actions as an example, because I usually agree with my actions and know their motivations. Talk about what you know.
So there.

I've played Chance Of The Dead and it made me smile. Great game!

Appreciated, thanks!

Now, if you don't want to discuss this subject, just don't do it. I'm not forcing anyone to discuss, am I?

Huh. Now that's downright blunt (especially with me stating that I was OFFERING A VIEWPOINT). Offering. To the discussion YOU started. You DO know how discussions go, yeah?
Well, still good suggestion.

[Janos Biro]

I only said that because I thought the viewpoint you were offering was something like "Shut up, you are annoying", like "Stop this useless conversation", and also like "Look, civilization has awesome things, like games! Stop saying everything is wrong because you are making me feel bad about it". But you also made some good points and helped the conversation a lot. Really. I just felt you are not comfortable talking about this. And maybe this subject is not suited for anyone. Specially if it makes you feel bad.

[Janos Biro]

I was using myself as an example for the idea of doing your best.

Hum, okay, thanks! But what viewpoint you're disagreeing with? I didn't understood that.

[Ghost]

I only said that because I thought the viewpoint you were offering was something like "Shut up, you are annoying", like "Stop this useless conversation", and also like "Look, civilization has awesome things, like games! Stop saying everything is wrong because you are making me feel bad about it".

That's what you thought I said? Have some trust into your own topic man.

Hum, okay, thanks! But what viewpoint you're disagreeing with? I didn't understood that.

You didn't get my viewpoint and then preferred to interpret something? That often goes wrong.

If I read you correctly, things are wrong. And that's bad and should be changed, which is frankly impossible, which means we shouldn't stop trying, but really can never make it, and that is sad. So all of us now, feel bad!

Here, that one. That is what I assumed you said, and what I disagreed with.

A text-only discussion is often hard, especially with a time delay. So allow me to make things clear, if only to tie up the lose threads.
Here's my post:

Yeah well, but the more the discussion moves away from gaming (or what's wrong with games) to what's wrong with humanity, the less I feel a) at home here and b) able to agree with you.

I disagree with you. And wonder a bit where the "and gaming part" comes in. The latter is, admittedly, a bit tongue in cheek.

I think I get your point. It's a complex point and I had to read through all three threads until I (hopefully) got it right. But I really can't share it and I'd like to offer my perspective. It's one shaped by job and life and being me, so- very subjective.

If I read you correctly, things are wrong. And that's bad and should be changed, which is frankly impossible, which means we shouldn't stop trying, but really can never make it, and that is sad. So all of us now, feel bad!

I find your point of view hard to understand and try summing it up as a base for the rest of the post. I mostly do this to make sure you have a chance to correct me, because I am aware of me probably misreading you. That's a basic conversation technique used to avoid getting something all wrong and making a lot of fuss about things that have not been said.

But as I see it, almost all of what we call civilisation/culture is a made-up thing. We're governed and ruled by concepts that don't exist in nature, like equality, non-discremination, justice, fairness. All of that are man-made concepts and really are "what makes us human". My neighbour has a much nicer computer than me and that I don't steal it is ensured by me abiding made-up laws. His door lock is a joke, yet I consider theft a crime and don't want to see myself as a criminal. That's what happened: My upbringing planted the idea in my head that there is such a thing as being a good guy and being a bad guy, and I want to be a good guy, even if that means my neighbour has a cooler PC. For all intent and purpose I am living really BIG LIES.

So if we already made up all these patterns, and we have to agree that we're not really perfect, why wonder that the patterns aren't perfect? And why does a small good deed seem so irrelevant? We are the only species on the entire planet asking themselves what they did wrong, yet we only do what every other species in our position would do: Whatever we want. And that includes good and bad things.

I start spreading out my (different) perspective, focussing on the fact that most of what we discuss is made-up.

It seems as if your line of thought aims for the largest and most noble goal, to solve the problems of ALL of mankind (apparently by making less games ). That's noble. The men you quote are studied and wise and have all the numbers, but to me it all comes over as a huge litany of "we must change, but we can't, so stop having fun guys, be miserable, we cant be helped anyways."

I reach the core of my disagreement: that you seem to aim for the highest possible goal and not valuing smaller goals. Which is almost opposite to what I believe: That small changes lead to large changes and are, in my mind, easier to accomplish. Since this is a direct throwback to the first part of my post I assume it's safe to insert a "seem to" as a small reminder I am still aware of the fact I might be getting you wrong.

And to that I say fukken nope, gentlemen, that's downright stupid. If all you do it showing how bad things are and how they can't be changed because reasons, then no way.
When you want to do something other than writing a book then do something. Really do something. These books are grand and great but they are statistics. Because the guys who wrote them are not butchers or clowns or caretakers or nurses or bakers or freelancing good-doers, they are fact collectors and that's all they do.

Humanity sucks? Yeah. As long as we say so.

I get a bit carried away.

I'm one guy and I can't change the way of the world but I can be me as hard as I can, and I chose to be a decent man and that's all there is to say. If I give a bum my spare change I don't feel bad that all the other bums didn't get my spare change. Hell if I have no spare change I offer him a cigarette and then I don't feel bad about me actually damagin' 'is 'ealth. If there's a night shift to be pulled I'll take it and I don't feel bad about being paid for it. I do my job and then I come home and then I make adventure games and release them for free, fool that I am, and maybe someone writes me an email and says, hey, your game was fun, I smiled.

I made a guy smile. How is that not awesome?

I finished by using my own approach to life as an example how small things can make small changes and aren't worthless. As I type it I become aware of the fact that I write emotional but see it as proof that I care about what I say, and leave it at that.

Hope that makes everything clear; I don't like leaving loose threads hanging.

_
*edited some typos

[Babar]

I'm sorry for just jumping into this conversation from nowhere, but I'm a bit confused as to what's going on.

Janosbiro, correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding:
You're saying that there is a fundamental flaw in our civilisation, and that there is a cost for things beyond the price in money we pay, and you specifically bring up the fact that there are too many games (hence Civilization critique AND gaming), and I think you gave the example "Is your extra game worth it for that guy to have to go down into that mine to dig up the precious metals that are necessary to make your game a reality in this world".

Is my understanding of your point correct?

[Janos Biro]

Ghost,

Well, I'm not used to discuss in English, I have asperger syndrome, and this subject is very complicated. This all explains why we are having difficulties to understand each other. Not only language issues, but also cultural and contextual ones.

I'm having a hard time understating your disagreement. I tried to correct the way you summed up my view. What do you think of it now?

I also said why I don't think "it's all made-up". Some things are and other are not. I don't think civilization is what makes us human. I don't think civilization is the same as culture. The problem is not that it is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. I'm not saying the small things are irrelevant. They are irrelevant relative to the "ship's course", understand? I'm not taking away the value of smaller goals. But those values are relative. You can't focus on the forest and trees at the same time. I believe you are insisting in thinking from inside civilization, while I'm trying to tell something that requires you to think from the outside. I mean, you are thinking of civilization as the context (or the background), while I'm thinking of it as the object (or the figure). Get it?

I believe small changes lead to large changes, but I think there are some necessary large changes that no amount of small changes can lead up to. Some global problems can only be fixed globally, not locally. Trying to fix them locally will only change the problem, not solve it.

Again, small changes aren't worthless, they are all we have for now, but yet, they may not be enough to change the "ship's course", no matter how important they are for a number of individuals. This may be depressing, but what can I say? It's the only realistic thing I can say.


Babar,

I'm introducing the notion of "civilization critique", because someone asked me too. According to that line of thought, we are very good at criticizing everything within civilization, but we rarely think twice about civilization itself. We take it for granted, as they say. So, one thing that we may question in civilization is the dependency on slavery, expansion, exploration and technology. Now, the bit about gaming was originally in my response to sunny penguin, but the two subjects are separated, not really mixed. Making people feel bad for consuming games was not my intention. But I'm really worried about the gaming industry, and I'm not alone in this. There is a pretty cool channel on Youtube that discuss this and other issues about gaming. I really recommend it.

[tzachs]

I also sometimes think that we're going in the wrong direction (not always though... unlike you, I'm switching between pessimist and optimist based on my mood/what I saw that day/etc), though I don't blame civilization. I mostly blame Capitalism.

it is just that you need enough people doing the hard work for you so it becomes possible to live as an artist or a philosopher... That's why civilization is based on slavery. Slaves can be substituted by machines, but it is not that simple. We are still trying to make it work.

Change the word civilization to Capitalism, and I'm on board with this statement.
Like qptain Nemo said, people can divide the work between them, especially now with more and more machines, and I think a civilization can be built around this concept.
It's Capitalism that encourages people to use their power to gain more power, since it's a free market and it will balance itself so no need to worry... Add to that the fact the power is corrupting and the general flaw in Capitalism that r>g, which basically means the gaps between the rich and the poor will only get bigger in a healthy capitalist culture, and we've got a real problem here...

Now, let me offer an alternative (perhaps utopian and practically impossible, but a man can dream) civilization, based on "dividing the work" concept.
Today 50% of the world's resources are in the hands of 10% of the population. If we divide it more equally, I believe we have enough resources to sustain everybody, and the duties of the people will be to perform the work that must be performed. This will be instead of today's taxes... Let's take only the jobs we must have (producing food, city maintenance, law enforcement, health, education, etc) and ditch all other jobs that are not an absolute necessity (I include entertainment here, and with that, game development, though wait for it, I'll get back to that...)- this needs proof, but I believe the amount of work hours needed for only those must-have jobs divided by the amount of working hands in the world (times the hours) is not a large number, meaning we might be able to share all the work among us and only work, for example, 2 months a year, and have the rest of it free to do as we please. And if you take into account that we'll have no poverty, and probably less greed, we can reduce the amount of working hands needed for law enforcement, with less unhealthy foods being produced (since those are produced for profit) and more non-biased education on nutrition and sports we can cut the number of doctors in half, etc etc, we can actually work even less and less in the future.
Now what we'll we do with all that free time? Well, if we want (and some of us want) we can do the jobs that are not a must-have. We can create games, movies, whatever, but we'll do it without the survival need of providing for ourselves, because this will no longer be an issue, which I assume will lead to more quality games/movies/etc.

Sure, this suggestion is not perfect and might have many holes (what to do with hidden unemployment, people not wanting to do the dirty work, how we decide on what's important, what if people will want more, are people allowed to trade amongst themselves etc), but generally I find a world where you have to work a little and live a lot (and also, a world without adverts, YAY), a much better world to live in, and possible to achieve in theory, if enough people will agree on it.

[Babar]

Hey janos!

I'm introducing the notion of "civilization critique", because someone asked me too. According to that line of thought, we are very good at criticizing everything within civilization, but we rarely think twice about civilization itself. We take it for granted, as they say. So, one thing that we may question in civilization is the dependency on slavery, expansion, exploration and technology.

But on a whole, the bad things you mentioned are improving over the course of civilization.
Explicit slavery is now illegal in every country on earth, with not minor consequences. Other forms of slavery are illegal under other laws- involving prostitution, exploitation of women, or children labour laws, debt bondage, illegal immigration laws, etc. Our definition of slavery might become vaguer now, but then whatever comes under that new definition will be slowly stigmatised and removed.
Outright expansionism has also decreased over the course of civilisation. Colonialism is way out of favour. It is literally impossible to have something like the Ancient Roman empire now. More subtle forms of expansionism certainly exist, but everyone recognises it for what it is, and there's been a public pushback against it as well.
And I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with exploration outside of the context of expansionism that you mentioned already, or what's wrong with technology outside of its reliance on "slavery" that you mentioned before as well. If your argument is that it makes us "weaker" and less self-reliant as a civilisation, I'm not sure I agree- we've evolved with our tools, and I don't see it as a regression that on average we can no longer chase down our prey and pounce on it and rip it to pieces with our teeth and nails for food.

I'm sorry if I addressed the specific individual issues you raised as examples of a generalised theory you are weaving, but that is the way my mind works. I break things down until I understand them, and then I tackle each understandable piece on its own. If you have a more base cause for all these examples (tzachs mentioned capitalism, perhaps you'll go with greed or lust for power or something), then perhaps that can be addressed instead.

Either way, don't worry, you certainly didn't make me feel bad for consuming games, and I get the feeling no one else is either. I guess your issue with there being "too many games" would fall under the umbrella of slavery or exploitation of labour. I don't disagree that this is happening, or that its a bad thing (I remember reading somewhere that if an iPad was made in the US, it'd cost $14,000, but the only source I find now lays it at a tenth of that), but again, the trend over the course of civilisation suggests that that will improve rather than get worse.

Now you may get annoyed with how my response to everything seems to be "It'll get better in the long run", but please don't misunderstand this for a call to complacency or apathy. We need to care about these things and point them out and shout about them to get it fixed. But your initial point seemed to be different: that civilisation was broken from the start, and I'm not sure I agree with that, and I don't feel you've provided anything substantive to back that up. This broken, base component of civilisation according to you (as far as I can glean from reading your post) is money, but I'm pretty sure that some of those issues you listed up there predate money and bartering.

Now, the bit about gaming was originally in my response to sunny penguin, but the two subjects are separated, not really mixed. Making people feel bad for consuming games was not my intention. But I'm really worried about the gaming industry, and I'm not alone in this. There is a pretty cool channel on Youtube that discuss this and other issues about gaming. I really recommend it.

Apologies for bringing this back to gaming, but we are a gaming forum after all, and that'd be the one thing you'd probably find everyone here on average to be able to competently talk about . You say you are worried about the game industry and that you are not alone. I agree with you. I'm worried about it too! I know you said the two are not really mixed, but you brought up your issues with the game industry as a facet of your critique of civilisation, so do you believe that is the cause? Money or slavery or expansion or exploration or technology or something? If so, how? Again, I'd bring up my idea (not exclusive to me, judging by other responses in this thread) that there is a trend towards improvement (you can see so even in gaming's short history). And again, I don't use this as a call to complacency, just as a reassurance against doom-saying.

I watched a couple of videos from the channel you recommended...the guy seems like a less engaging Mr. Plinkett, but I don't disagree with what he says. Even in his videos (those I've seen so far), I don't see him going on about some intrinsic fault in video games, or that there are "too many" now.
He liked Morrowind, disliked Oblivion, and thought Skyrim was an improvement on that, and that gives him hope for the future of TES.
He loved Planescape: Torment, and is hesitant about the spiritual successor on Kickstarter.
He liked Fallout 3 and thought New Vegas was narratively much better.
He liked Everquest and WOW, but feels that later MMORPGs were ruined for it, but still has hopes (he mentioned Eve Online and some other MMO that made him hopeful, I don't remember the title).
He really seems to dislike the ending of Mass Effect 3, but that seems to be more about a narrative criticism of that specific game rather than a commentary on the industry.

On the whole, in most of his criticisms he is able to point to a contemporary that does it better, and the emergence of indie games and developers will only drive the industry towards an improvement in those issues he had (atmosphere, narrative, emergent gameplay, etc.), not a regression. Again, in the specific subset of this discussion geared towards the game industry, I don't see how that is wrong.

[Janos Biro]

tzachs,

I agree with everything you said. Capitalism can be blamed for all that. But before capitalism, things were not that different. Utopias like that date from Ancient Greece. Aristotle said something like that about 2400 years ago. He said that slavery/exploitation could be abolished if machines could do most of the physical work, letting all people free to do the intellectual work.

This idea was kept away during the Middle Ages, partially because of the Fall of Man dogma. This dogma implied that human nature is inherently flawed and corrupted, and there is nothing we can do change that. Based on that belief, the best to do is just to keep things the way they are: the selected few rule and the rest obeys. That's how God wanted the world to be.

But that began to change for various reasons (the Reform, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment), people began to read the classics (including Aristotle) and to welcome the scientific world view instead. In the nineteenth century, when people began to worry about the consequences of industrialization, many utopias were thought. One of them is the communist utopia.

At the heart of the communist utopia was the idea that people could cooperate and share everything equally, if they really want to. As you say, theoretically, this could work. In reaction to that idea, two guys that liked to discuss philosophy and economy began to write criticisms. Marx and Engels said there was a fundamental mistake in the communist utopia, and proposed instead a communist scientific theory, that explained, in economical terms, why capitalism would be dialectically surpassed by another kind of society, and why the "will" of the people wouldn't be enough to do that. To do that, we would need political struggle and a global revolution. Any other proposal should be opposed as a reactionary ideological strategy.

Now, let me share a curiosity. There was another movement at the time, which is called anarchism. I've studied many anarchist theorists, like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon and Goldman. And, while reading some of the answers in this topic, I get the weirdest impression that most of the people here would agree with the general view of anarchism. Maybe that's because capitalism is moving towards the direction of anarcho-capitalism, maybe it's for another reason. Allow me to demonstrate that by quoting some anarchist thoughts:

“the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear”

“all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth”

“the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.”

"For the first time in the history of civilization, mankind has reached a point where the means of satisfying its needs are in excess of the needs themselves. To impose therefore, as has hitherto been done, the curse of misery and degradation upon vast divisions of mankind, in order to secure well being and further mental development for the few is needed no more"

"All progress has been essentially increased freedoms of the individual with a corresponding decrease in authority imposed on it by external forces. This remains true in the realm of physical existence as well as the political and economic"

In other words: People have the natural capacity to govern themselves. Modern science is a tool to rebalance the scales and give power to the people.

EDIT: I forgot to state my point: What you are proposing may not be the end of capitalism, but the evolution of capitalism. Capitalism is just the last manifestation of civilization. Communism is another one, supposedly superior to capitalism. Even anarchists believe that anarchy is the evolutionary trend of civilization. None of them ever thought that civilization might be a problem. Instead, everyone thinks it's just a matter of trying harder and reducing the unexpected bad effects of progress. And all I asking is this: Is it? Really? Are we supposed to just keep trying those "theoretically possible" solutions for civilization until when? Forever? Why? Is there no other option at all? This is what amazes me.

[Janos Biro]

Babar,

Here's a perspective: Civilization creates the problems and then sells the solutions. That means the “trend” in civilization always was to solve its own problems and then create more problems so it can keep on solving them. That's because civilization, contrary to the traditional ways of living, can't really have a balanced relation with nature (including human nature). It depends on growing complexity and instability, on things changing faster and faster. We take this as something very good and other ways of life as simply “stagnant” and very bad. And that is pretty much why civilization is fundamentally unsustainable. Everything that exists needs balance. We are fundamentally against balance, and that's what we call a “wrong” thing in civilization. But it is not morally wrong; it simply goes against the laws of nature. It simply can't go on without destroying everything else. It needs to stop eventually. I hope that helps clarifying the idea (no, it's not about money). Like in the game, civilization mistakes progress and evolution.

What is the cost of solving problems one by one? Slavery, for example, is not just an ethical problem, it is an economical problem. Civilization can only substitute slaves for a more or equally productive alternative: Industrialization, for example. But industrialization polluted the world and created poverty. Okay, let's go ecological them, and this time, unlike every other times we tried to fix the problems one by one, we will not inadvertently create more problems. Because THIS time it will be different. That's what I'm asked to believe. That's where I get a little skeptical.

What is wrong with technology, according to John Zerzan, is that it can alienate us from the natural world. A good example is portrayed in the Wall-E movie. But I won't get deep into this because it can cause too much stress.

--

About gaming, maybe we can make an analogy, because gaming is growing very fast, but this growth can't go on forever, right? We know it's going to end, because nothing lasts forever. But how can we separate doom-saying from a reasonable prediction? We need something better than opinions. We need knowledge.

I need to explain what I mean by “too many games”. I mean there is a “vulgarization” in games. When you make art, you want to make sure no one else made the same thing you are making. You don't want to simply repeat what was made in the past or what someone else makes, even if it is very good. You want to add something new to the world, not simply another product to be sold. I never said there was something intrinsic wrong in video games. I'm not saying the game industry is simply “wrong”. As far as capitalism goes, it is doing fine. But as any other capitalist industry, it needs to grow, and I think its growth is very close to the limit, and it will need to change or face the consequences. The game industry is now a relevant economic force. It means people need to keep making and buying games, or else we may have economic problems. This can trample the art, because art can't be done with schedules and risk management.

Think about the time before video games. We needed a new game being released every day? Why do we need so many games? Why do we need the game industry to be so big? Why do we need to spend so much money on games? Why do we need to spend so much time playing them? I don't think we are taking these questions seriously, that's all.

[dactylopus]

I wouldn't say we need new video games every day, but we want them.  They are a luxury.

There are many different types of people, so one game will not please everyone.  There are a lot of games to appeal to a lot of tastes.  Also, people are aspiring to make a living at making games, so new games will be made and released as a way of hoping to achieve that goal.  There is a market for almost every game.

[Armageddon]

I wish I knew how to read.

[miguel]

Think about the time before video games. We needed a new game being released every day? Why do we need so many games? Why do we need the game industry to be so big? Why do we need to spend so much money on games? Why do we need to spend so much time playing them? I don't think we are taking these questions seriously, that's all.

Smart Phones and Tablets are making new gamers every minute that goes by, even if casual players. It's only natural that people want to make a living out of game making.
In my opinion, people are very aware that every time a product is out there in big quantities there's a good chance that it's quality isn't exactly top. People are consumerism educated by now and most can tell a sleazy product from a good one.

Also, we people, just complain about everything, really. There was a time where (I'm guilty) I'd be annoyed that all I could listen in the charts were easy-listen tunes from musician with weird hair styles, but that made me look for unknown bands and musicians that I still love and listen today. More recently I admit that talent is even far away from the charts than it use to. But, again, with just a few clicks I can get whatever type of music I want along with reviews and opinions from varied critics. I can chose.
What I really miss in my town are the music stores but from what I've been reading there's a comeback from local stores on the horizon and it is starting elsewhere.

Again, times they are a changing, it's true, but we need to cope with it. 

[Babar]

Here's a perspective: Civilization creates the problems and then sells the solutions. That means the “trend” in civilization always was to solve its own problems and then create more problems so it can keep on solving them. That's because civilization, contrary to the traditional ways of living, can't really have a balanced relation with nature (including human nature). It depends on growing complexity and instability, on things changing faster and faster.

I look at it more like a pendulum's positions. At first we're very far from a perfect centre. Then it swings to the other side, and the initial problem is solved, and we're slightly closer, but we've sung to the other side with a new problem. Then we fix that and swing again, and we're at the other side again, but a little closer. The tendency being that each "fix" to put us back into balance takes us only slightly less out of balance, but in the complete opposite direction. We're tending towards a perfect centre, but even at a microscopic level, we might never reach it. We're still tending towards it.

I for one don't really believe we can be fundamentally against nature. We can't be fundamentally against nature because we're part of nature. We are part of the balance. Nature is a LOT more powerful than us. I somehow doubt we'll ever be able to significantly destroy nature. We can very easily destroy ourselves, but nature will carry on. Sure, we should do our best to be environmentally minded, but that is mostly for our own selfish benefit- so that we survive comfortably, so that we don't lose vital information from rapidly disappearing species, etc.
But if I'm causing you stress, I'm sorry. I'll stay away from this line of thought in the discussion.


As far as games go, as long as there is a demand for them, there will be a supply. If there is ever a point where there are "too many games", then they will stop being bought, maybe even create another game industry crash, and we'll start over. Or in terms of vulgarisation, if there is a period where the industry things that FPSes are the best and the way to go, there will be a period of huge numbers of FPSes released, and eventually the industry will catch on that people aren't that obsessed with FPSes anymore, and they will try something different (hmmm...I wonder when that happened before? ).

Heck, I might even argue that even if there is a focus on a specific genre in any one period, that doesn't stop those who aren't interested in it. People tell me we're just coming out of a generation of grey-brown tinted cover shooters, and I don't think I played a single game from that generation (maybe Call of Duty 2 way back in 2006, but I don't remember the cover mechanic being so much the focus). Before that, during the FPS glut, I remember playing Doom 2, then Duke Nukem 3D, and then sort of staying away from FPSes (with a short stop at Dark Forces 2 because I was a fan and Counter-Strike because of my friends). This was to my detriment, in fact, because I missed Deus Ex, Thief, System Shock (which are hard to get back into, because 3D doesn't age as well as 2D), as well as Half-Life 2 and Bioshock. Instead, I spent that time going through the adventure games I had missed out before, because they were going through a bit of a bad patch at the time.

I think we need to separate the "games as art" from "games as entertainment". Sure, the industry is going to focus more on the entertainment aspect, but now more than ever, because of the opening up of games, and the ease of creating them, indie devs can fulfil their visions of whatever games they want. In that sense, more games means more artistic visions fulfilled, not less. And again, since game journalism and critique has expanded along with the game industry, it is very easy for me to find out if that latest AAA game is yet another diluted cash-grab, and what game I should get instead of it. And if you say that game journalism is in the pocket of the industry, well, that's what you guys are here for .
If there is another game industry crash, it'll be because the industry was doing something wrong, and needs to fix it. If it is required as part of everything being rebalanced, it'll happen, otherwise things will keep going as they are as long as there is a demand for it.

Is a new game being released every day? If the market is saturated and there is no demand for it, then that'll definitely slow down. But if the market is fulfilling a need, then it'll continue. More games mean more choices and more tastes being satisfied. As far as me personally, I might be an edge case, but I certainly don't spend all that much time playing them- probably less than 10 hours a week? And last year I spent about $250 on games (and that is way above average, since I bought myself a PS2 and about 20 games...usually it is just PC games in bundles or sales).

My understanding of the world is that things work according to a tendency towards balance. If things get too heavy in one direction, they'll break, and stuff will be righted again. Some huge civilization-wide things might take longer (slavery, industrialisation, environment), while smaller things (eg. the game industry) work on a smaller scale. Again, just to be clear, I'm not saying that is license to be complacent, just that I've not seen anything to negate that view of the world, but it doesn't seem that you share it.

[Janos Biro]

dactylopus, miguel and Babar,

About gaming, I understand what all of you are saying. I agree with you: there is a market for almost any game, I want more and more games too, times are changing and the game industry works with ups and downs just like any other capitalist industry. If there is nothing wrong with the capitalist world view, then there is nothing to worry about. But don't you have the slightest doubt about it? Never? You seem to be so certain. I envy your conviction.

To be honest, I have more than doubts, but I don't want to discuss this here. So all I will say is: I seriously doubt it.

About civilization, no stress at all. I've seen this argument many times. Again,  all I can say is that I agree: You can surely look at it as a pendulum. But is civilization really as simple as a pendulum? Or it is like trying to mess with a very complex system without the proper knowledge, in which the tendency is that the more you interfere and try to "correct", more problems are created? We can create a lot of metaphors, but what really counts are the facts. And we don't have them.

Civilization doesn't need to be fundamentally against nature to be fundamentally unbalanced. Many things in nature can become unbalanced. Things will eventually come back to balance, usually after being destroyed. The problem is not the destruction of nature as a whole, I know this is impossible. The problem is that we can destroy our balanced relation with other living things, and then be excluded from the community of life. Again, if capitalist environmentalism is right, no problem! But I seriously doubt, and admit this is not the right place to discuss my viewpoint.

[nickherc]

Civilization definitely deserves to be among top 10 games of all time. I loved the first one, there's just something at growing your empire. Everyone seems to love numero 2, but I don't like it really just because the lack of borders. You have your country all build up and modern and then the enemy parks his tanks in front of your city deep into your territory. And you can't do anything about it, because of the 2 spaces distance rule. ARGH! I loved the 3rd one. 4th one was also okay, but never played the fifth one. I know there is a different battle system..?