Civilization critique and gaming

Started by Janos Biro, Tue 22/04/2014 07:05:45

Previous topic - Next topic

bicilotti

Quote from: janosbiro on Fri 25/04/2014 17:27:19
Mandle,

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

Janos Biro

#41
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? (laugh)
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

bicilotti

Janos, it all started from:
Quote from: janosbiro on Fri 25/04/2014 07:12:53
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

#43
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 ;-D ). 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

#44
Quote from: janosbiro on Sat 26/04/2014 00:43:40
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

#45
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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteDon'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?
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

Ghost

#46
Quote from: janosbiro on Sat 26/04/2014 18:22:17
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. :)

Quote from: janosbiro on Sat 26/04/2014 18:22:17
I've played Chance Of The Dead and it made me smile. Great game!
Appreciated, thanks! :-D

Quote from: janosbiro on Sat 26/04/2014 18:22:17
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.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

Janos Biro

QuoteI 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.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

Ghost

#49
Quote from: janosbiro on Sat 26/04/2014 20:42:55
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.

Quote from: janosbiro on Sat 26/04/2014 20:49:23
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.

Quote from: GhostIf 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:

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

Quote from: Ghost
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.

Quote from: Ghost
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.

Quote from: Ghost
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 ;-D ). 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.

Quote from: Ghost
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.

Quote from: Ghost
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?
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Janos Biro

#51
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.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

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.

Quote from: janosbiro on Tue 22/04/2014 07:05:45
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!
Quote from: janosbiro on Sun 27/04/2014 00:01:33
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.

Quote from: janosbiro on Sun 27/04/2014 00:01:33
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 :D. 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.
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Janos Biro

#54
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.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

Janos Biro

#55
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.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

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


miguel

QuoteThink 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. 
Working on a RON game!!!!!

Babar

Quote from: janosbiro on Sun 27/04/2014 21:17:28
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? :D).

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 :D.
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.
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk