Messages

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ben Chandler? I a fan of your work! I've played all your games! You are amazing!

Listen, sorry about the confusion, those things you quoted were directed to Miguel. I was just trying to make myself clearer about some points. You took them out of context. My fault, I didn't made it clearer to whom I was talking to. I'm sorry.

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.

Ghost,

Yes okay, but WHAT makes you think that? The sentence implies you see a detrimental effect there. Which one?

Long story. If you really want to know, here is a good intro.

Defensive? Me? No, I was trying to be respectful. Look, if I just ignored you, you wouldn't like it. But I really don't know what else I could say, since all I say is considered petulant. I agree we wont get anywhere like this. I'm okay with leaving it.

Ghost,

In my view, we have too much entertainment. But if you say it's not enough until people stop buying, then, what can I say? Vive la difference!

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!

Okay, if I'm going to continue this conversation, I need to say something first:

I didn't knew “negative” means “don't like it”. I was thinking of something else.

I believe games are culture, and so they change the way we think.

Yes, art can be depressing. I meant it is not just depressing, like it shouldn't have been done.

About “cowboys and indians”, I really didn't understood your question because I'm not used to this expression.

About jobs, I was oversimplifying, but what I meant was: why more jobs in game industry if we already have too much games?

I know I said some very silly things (dead bird in a vivisection, for example). Sorry, it happens.

Now, what's the issue with the definition of game? Well, if what theorists say doesn't matter... I'm sorry. I thought it was relevant. If it is all that simple, let's close the case and do something else, right?

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.

Miguel,

Janos, you're arguing just for the sake of it, and turning every single phrase into philosophical counter measures

What can I do to prove that I'm not? Really, I thought you would understand my way of thinking, but it is not happening. I believe that if I try to explain, you will just think I'm arguing for the sake of it, don't you? So there's nothing more I can say...