Civilization critique and gaming

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

Previous topic - Next topic

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:

Quote from: Lasca on Tue 22/04/2014 21:40:06
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.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

bicilotti

Quote from: janosbiro on Wed 23/04/2014 18:16:17
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

#22
.

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

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Wed 23/04/2014 20:23:44
Quoteassimilation, ignoring or annihilation...

You guys forgot about PEACE. Come on! :-D

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).
There are those who believe that life here began out there...

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

kaput

#26
.

Janos Biro

Sunny Penguin,

;-D

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

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.
Working on a RON game!!!!!

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

ThreeOhFour

#30
Quote from: janosbiro on Wed 23/04/2014 23:05:09
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

#31
.

miguel

Quote from: janosbiro on Thu 24/04/2014 01:33:53
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.
Working on a RON game!!!!!

Janos Biro

#33
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.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

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  (roll)  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.
Working on a RON game!!!!!

Janos Biro

#35
Miguel,

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

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?

Working on a RON game!!!!!

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

Mandle

#38
Quote from: janosbiro on Fri 25/04/2014 07:12:53
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,

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. 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. :)
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk