Wiffleball!
No real reason, just wanted to say that.
What value hath gold?
-
Madmoonie
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:05 pm
- Location: Not a fuzzy clue.... (waves)
- Contact:
Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' John 11: 25-26
----
Want a new avatar? Contact me and I can set you up with a new sig pic or avatar, totally FREE!
----
Want a new avatar? Contact me and I can set you up with a new sig pic or avatar, totally FREE!
Heavier than air craft WOULD be of use to the Rac Cona Daimh. It's a major area they haven't made much progress. Internal and external combustion engines--- steam engines, stirling engines, gasoline and diesel engines--- would be a major leap forward as well. Long range communication devices would be another valuable commodity.... the light towers are the result of technological advances following a different route, and are terribly limited in their own fashion--- as are the messenger birds and other message-carrying methods.
Really, the majority of their technological handicaps are directly related to their shortage of certain resources, namely metal. Steam engines? Internal combustion engines? Not without considerable quantities of iron. Railway systems? Again, not without miles of iron tracks. Electricity? Telegraph? Telephones? Miles of copper wire.
However, granted access to such resources, they'd quickly catch up in those areas.
On the flipside, their wireless energy transmission method has been nothing but a dream for us, since the days of Nicolai Tesla. Potent, versatile, and virtually pollution free. Even if no humans in our world could manipulate it directly, technological innovation would quickly find ways around that (as it has in the Questorverse already.)
That said, there are very few goods we possess that they wouldn't have a market for (excepting for, in some cases, the mageblind...)
X-Ray machines, EKGs, and most other medical devices for monitoring internal bodily functions.
Night vision goggles.
Baggage scanners.
Metal detectors.
Cigarette lighters.
Most heating and chilling methods (air conditioners, refrigerators, hot plates...)
Electric fans.
Electric lighting.
Weather radar.
Holograms or 3D movies.
Most special effects equipment.
Tanning booths....
Really, the majority of their technological handicaps are directly related to their shortage of certain resources, namely metal. Steam engines? Internal combustion engines? Not without considerable quantities of iron. Railway systems? Again, not without miles of iron tracks. Electricity? Telegraph? Telephones? Miles of copper wire.
However, granted access to such resources, they'd quickly catch up in those areas.
On the flipside, their wireless energy transmission method has been nothing but a dream for us, since the days of Nicolai Tesla. Potent, versatile, and virtually pollution free. Even if no humans in our world could manipulate it directly, technological innovation would quickly find ways around that (as it has in the Questorverse already.)
That said, there are very few goods we possess that they wouldn't have a market for (excepting for, in some cases, the mageblind...)
X-Ray machines, EKGs, and most other medical devices for monitoring internal bodily functions.
Night vision goggles.
Baggage scanners.
Metal detectors.
Cigarette lighters.
Most heating and chilling methods (air conditioners, refrigerators, hot plates...)
Electric fans.
Electric lighting.
Weather radar.
Holograms or 3D movies.
Most special effects equipment.
Tanning booths....
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
-
Kerry Skydancer
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:03 pm
- Location: Bethlehem PA
- Contact:
8)RHJunior wrote:Ensign, the Prime Directive was written by a bunch of racist, elitist, corn-fed hollywood limousine liberal catamites who had less comprehension of ethics than a lawyer 3 days past his last coke fix and fewer brains than Paris Hilton after a lobotomy. It was this same sort of skullfried hippy dippy crapadoodle substitute for thinking that led intellectuals to suggest keeping the Native Americans quarantined in Yellowstone so as to keep them from being "polluted" by Western Civilization with things like modern medicine, plentiful food, and sleeping on something besides dirt.
Don't hold back, RH - tell us how you really feel.
Seriously, that's what I always disiked about the show. I think this is why Kirk was a popular character in spite of being played by Shatner - he got bureaucratic directives and acted like a typical American. He ignored them.
Picard, on the other hand... I wanted to strangle him at least half the time. And Troi. Bad enough that you'd put that sort of pshrink on a warship, but why in the name of all that's unholy would you allow her on the bridge??? (And don't give me that rubbish about her being a semi-mind-reader, you Californians. In the episode with the reawakened late-20th individuals, the businessman did a better job of it without telepathy -or- knowing the players.)
Roddenberry gave the game away completely with that line in 'Kirk and Spock Save The Whales.' (Don't tell me you don't use money in the future.) Why wouldn't the Federation use money? How -else- do you track the functioning of an economy? They might have gone to a pure cred-card system, but they'd still have the concept. Socialist derriere-chapeau.
Skydancer
Ignorance is not a point of view.
Ignorance is not a point of view.
-
Anthony Lion
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:32 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Wouldn't that be be shortest way to disaster?Steltek wrote:I think any such cooperation would probably have to be initially established through the respective Churches -- given that having a similar faith is the sole thing that humans and Rac'Cona have in common culturally. In light of that, initial efforts would probably have a large humanitarian (Rac'Conatarian?) slant (comparing notes on medicine, etc), and would gradually branch out into the commercial once citizens from both sides got comfortable with the other species.
Just look at how similar most of Earth's religions are, and how many wars has been because of those small differences...
The Rac'Cona Daimh's religion seems 'passive' to me, ie. it's mostly up to the individual to seek it out, instead of having someone literally beat you over the head with it...
How will that go with the rather 'expansionistic' tactics of Earth religions?
Sounds like a mess to me....
The Prime directive...
While the way it is used in Star Drek is incredibly hamfisted and pompous, it makes sense in some situations.
If a starfaring culture should come into contact with a stone-age culture and they can't blend in(say a Human trying to hide amongs rac'Cona), the result can be a ruined civilisation.
We have examples of that here on Earth where primitive tribes started to build elaborate wooden copies of aeroplanes in the hope that their new 'gods' would return...
Also, we have a very poor record of contact with more primitive cultures here on Earth...
Slavery, the Inca gold, The Indians, and so on...
Until we learn to behave a bit better, should humans be allowed to interact with more primitive civilisations?
I'd say the Prime directive makes sense as long as there is any danger of the members of the other civilisation is in danger of mistaking the contacting civilisation for 'gods'.
The exception is of course if inaction will lead to a total collapse of or extinction of that civilisation.
Transferral of technology...
It doesn't take a lot to change a bronze age civilisation to an iron age civilisation. While it doesn't change the structure of said civilisation significantly, it will provide them with much better tools, and will help them develop much faster.
It may be advisable to give them time to assimilate new technology, though (Maybe even a few generations), as the larger the group, the longer it takes for new things to be fully accepted and understood by everyone.
And some types of technology just makes no sense at all.
Even Leonardo DaVinci would have had problems understanding the concept of a modern laptop, much less use it.
What is important, though, is to be careful about the transfer of more abstract ideas.
My name is Lion, Anthony Lion.
A fur with a license to purr
A fur with a license to purr
Further, in technology, there is no single 'one right path' of development. When you introduce technologies to someone like a gift from on high, then you tend to make them dependent upon them. That is, if you give something to someone who hasn't reached that level of development, then they tend to abandon whatever they were working on in favor of the new thing you've given them. Sure, some people will keep working on the old methods, probably in a tinkering fashion, but most of the development will be driven, by economics, into playing 'catch-up' on the better technology.
But in doing so, you've then abandoned much of what could have been along that track. Great inventions many times sound ludicrous, or at the very least impractical, until someone pursues it far enough to make it work. By allowing that chain of development to be dismissed, passively, you've cut off potential technologies and developments that could have helped you out greatly.
The biggest danger from that comes in single-point vulnerabilities. When almost everything runs off of the same technology, a basic flaw in that technology could cause EVERYTHING to crumble. Whereas, if you'd kept some diversity, you'd have more than one method, and a better chance to keep any single event from wiping everything and everyone out. (or at least sending you back to the stone age)
Let me make a couple of illustrations.
First off, take wireless communications as an example. Suppose you gave the Rac'cona wireless technology. Not some low-level, like our amateur radio, but the works. Ralph has as much as admitted that they'd be all over it in an instant, and all but abandon the light towers in favor of wireless telecomunications. All is well...
...until 250 years later when a nuclear war begins between two nations with more technology than common sense. Detonations wipe out most of the electronic networks (by EM pulses) and scramble wireless for years to come. Suddenly, the communication of the Rac'cona is crippled, whereas if they'd persued the light towers, not only would they be just fine, but they might not even notice anything had happened.
Or another example. Let's take it a step further. Suppose that we share with them a virtually unlimited metal supply. (It would be prettymuch unlimited to them, because of the different sizes of economies) Suddenly, a wealth of new metal-based technologies would develop. Metal becomes as commonplace as it is here within a few decades.
....and then a solar event happens. Radiation pours from the sun in copious quantities that would make even a nuclear strategian blanche. The atmosphere does the bulk of the work of shielding, true enough. But what does escape finds its way to the surface and irradiates the people badly. Now, radiation is survivable, to some extent. But radiation also has a peculiar property with metals. When encountering the heavy nuclei of those atoms, it tends to knock out one or two. This results in much deadlier neutron radiation, and sometimes produces radioactive metals that then further irradiate the people nearby. Hundreds of thousands die instead of only thousands.
Finally, an example from our own history. Between 1347 and 1350, anywhere from a third to half of Europe's population was wiped out. The Black Death (bubonic plauge) killed of much of the work force. Around that time, the Islamic nations of the middle east were pushing forward, trying to overrun what was left of the Byzantine empire. (It did not finally fall until 1453.) The Islamic peoples, at the time, were some of best-learned in the world. Their scholars had persued mathematics for centuries. Europe would have stood to gain much from their 'help'. And although they would have more or less enslaved Europe upon conquest, it probably would have quickly settled into an overall more beneficial situation.
But something else happened instead. When pushed against the wall, the people of Europe had to get clever. It was not something inherently in their nature. Far from it: the Roman Catholic Church had oppressed any hints of progress for centuries. But the lack of work force caused them to have to figure out new means of getting the work done. The result was mechanization. Among the notable inventions following the Black Plague was the windmill, which allowed people away from water to begin milling grain.
Further improvements happened as well. The death had made skilled workers a valuable commodity that could no longer be controlled in servitude. The fuedal system, which had held the common man down in opression for centuries, finally began to crumble because of the Black Plauge.
In short, we are where we are today because no one came and 'helped' us back then. Not every struggle is something that should be removed. Such struggles force people to solve problems for themselves. The results of those solutions can carry them much farther than any outside help ever could. It also brings about a pride of the people in being able to do things for themselves. What might we not have today had the Islamic nations broken through and 'helped' Europe out of it's straits? (many of Islams practices were much better in day-to-day life than Europe's at the time.)
The idea of noninterference is not arrogance. It's a realization that you DON'T hold a monopoly on truth or thought, and that your way of life, and of doing things, is not inherently superior to everyone else's. It's somewhat akin to the notion that you shouldn't play God, because you can't forsee every outcome of your actions.
That said, I do recognize that there are some times when it's simply not practical to work. For instance, stepping back from Africa now might not do a shred of good. But then.... who knows? Perhaps, cut off from our 'aid', they might fix the problem themselves? I doubt they could do a worse job of it than we have, in truth.
But in doing so, you've then abandoned much of what could have been along that track. Great inventions many times sound ludicrous, or at the very least impractical, until someone pursues it far enough to make it work. By allowing that chain of development to be dismissed, passively, you've cut off potential technologies and developments that could have helped you out greatly.
The biggest danger from that comes in single-point vulnerabilities. When almost everything runs off of the same technology, a basic flaw in that technology could cause EVERYTHING to crumble. Whereas, if you'd kept some diversity, you'd have more than one method, and a better chance to keep any single event from wiping everything and everyone out. (or at least sending you back to the stone age)
Let me make a couple of illustrations.
First off, take wireless communications as an example. Suppose you gave the Rac'cona wireless technology. Not some low-level, like our amateur radio, but the works. Ralph has as much as admitted that they'd be all over it in an instant, and all but abandon the light towers in favor of wireless telecomunications. All is well...
...until 250 years later when a nuclear war begins between two nations with more technology than common sense. Detonations wipe out most of the electronic networks (by EM pulses) and scramble wireless for years to come. Suddenly, the communication of the Rac'cona is crippled, whereas if they'd persued the light towers, not only would they be just fine, but they might not even notice anything had happened.
Or another example. Let's take it a step further. Suppose that we share with them a virtually unlimited metal supply. (It would be prettymuch unlimited to them, because of the different sizes of economies) Suddenly, a wealth of new metal-based technologies would develop. Metal becomes as commonplace as it is here within a few decades.
....and then a solar event happens. Radiation pours from the sun in copious quantities that would make even a nuclear strategian blanche. The atmosphere does the bulk of the work of shielding, true enough. But what does escape finds its way to the surface and irradiates the people badly. Now, radiation is survivable, to some extent. But radiation also has a peculiar property with metals. When encountering the heavy nuclei of those atoms, it tends to knock out one or two. This results in much deadlier neutron radiation, and sometimes produces radioactive metals that then further irradiate the people nearby. Hundreds of thousands die instead of only thousands.
Finally, an example from our own history. Between 1347 and 1350, anywhere from a third to half of Europe's population was wiped out. The Black Death (bubonic plauge) killed of much of the work force. Around that time, the Islamic nations of the middle east were pushing forward, trying to overrun what was left of the Byzantine empire. (It did not finally fall until 1453.) The Islamic peoples, at the time, were some of best-learned in the world. Their scholars had persued mathematics for centuries. Europe would have stood to gain much from their 'help'. And although they would have more or less enslaved Europe upon conquest, it probably would have quickly settled into an overall more beneficial situation.
But something else happened instead. When pushed against the wall, the people of Europe had to get clever. It was not something inherently in their nature. Far from it: the Roman Catholic Church had oppressed any hints of progress for centuries. But the lack of work force caused them to have to figure out new means of getting the work done. The result was mechanization. Among the notable inventions following the Black Plague was the windmill, which allowed people away from water to begin milling grain.
Further improvements happened as well. The death had made skilled workers a valuable commodity that could no longer be controlled in servitude. The fuedal system, which had held the common man down in opression for centuries, finally began to crumble because of the Black Plauge.
In short, we are where we are today because no one came and 'helped' us back then. Not every struggle is something that should be removed. Such struggles force people to solve problems for themselves. The results of those solutions can carry them much farther than any outside help ever could. It also brings about a pride of the people in being able to do things for themselves. What might we not have today had the Islamic nations broken through and 'helped' Europe out of it's straits? (many of Islams practices were much better in day-to-day life than Europe's at the time.)
The idea of noninterference is not arrogance. It's a realization that you DON'T hold a monopoly on truth or thought, and that your way of life, and of doing things, is not inherently superior to everyone else's. It's somewhat akin to the notion that you shouldn't play God, because you can't forsee every outcome of your actions.
That said, I do recognize that there are some times when it's simply not practical to work. For instance, stepping back from Africa now might not do a shred of good. But then.... who knows? Perhaps, cut off from our 'aid', they might fix the problem themselves? I doubt they could do a worse job of it than we have, in truth.
Conquering the Universe, one class at a time...
RHJunior Wrote:
Turns to leave and like so many red shirts on the Enterprise walks blindly into a trap and is killed by the monster of the day ending the short carrier of a Hollywood extra.
Bones is overheard saying "First Flamed by the Captain and now this. I guess it was just not his day."
Sorry Captain, I miss spoke.Ensign, the Prime Directive was written by a bunch of racist, elitist, corn-fed hollywood limousine liberal catamites who had less comprehension of ethics than a lawyer 3 days past his last coke fix and fewer brains than Paris Hilton after a lobotomy. It was this same sort of skullfried hippy dippy crapadoodle substitute for thinking that led intellectuals to suggest keeping the Native Americans quarantined in Yellowstone so as to keep them from being "polluted" by Western Civilization with things like modern medicine, plentiful food, and sleeping on something besides dirt......
Turns to leave and like so many red shirts on the Enterprise walks blindly into a trap and is killed by the monster of the day ending the short carrier of a Hollywood extra.
Bones is overheard saying "First Flamed by the Captain and now this. I guess it was just not his day."
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."
-- Douglas Adams
-- Douglas Adams
Allow me to present a nigh-blasphemous proposition.
<I>Civilizations and cultures have no innate right to exist.</I>
"Civilizations" and "cultures" are not people. They are <I>artificial mechanisms</i> by which people interact with one another. If they cannot cope with the introduction of new situations and factors, if the introduction of a broadened understanding of the universe causes them to crumble, <I>then good riddance.</i> Let those who relied upon that system seek out one that better adapts to reality. Mourning the loss of a culture that could not adapt is foolish as bemoaning the failure of the whale-oil and buggy-whip industry.
Yes, there have been "cargo cults" as a consequence of primitive cultures meeting up with modern societies. The human capacity for foolishness is immeasurable, and there is no real way to prevent such folly. To demand that a more advanced culture establish a means to <I>completely prevent</i> such misunderstandings is to demand the impossible. There are people here and now living in 21st century Western Civilization who still believe the Earth is flat. Has our society "failed" because we have not persuaded that last vanishing percentile that the world is round?
And as to the issues of slavery, the Native Americans, and the Incas.....
I'm sorry; I was unaware that Evil Whitey invented slavery.
Guess what--- slavery was an established institution all over the world when Europeans were still contemplating the virtues of iron over bronze. And it wasn't "more advanced" civilizations keeping it going, either. The africans were selling each other in chains for centuries before the first honky hit the shoreline. Hell, the European slave traders barely had to go ashore--- there were african tribes waiting on the shore with other african tribes in chains and price tags. And the barbarian bastards of the Islamic world kept the slave trade going long after Whitey ended the practice. It's still going to this very day, in fact.
It was the introduction of more advanced cultures that brought about an end to the slave trade.
The Incas? Good stinking riddance. Was everyone asleep in history class, or just the teacher? The Spaniards were dealing with a savage, barbaric people who <I>skinned other human beings alive</i> and hacked out their hearts to make the rain fall and the corn grow. Slavery, genocidal war, infanticide.....every inhuman abomination imaginable was status quo in the Incan Empire of the Sun. the Spaniards, God bless the blackhearted bastards, did the world a favor--- They put down that bloody "empire" like a mad dog.
The American Indians were no damned prizewinners either. From tribe to tribe you had varying degrees of rape, kidnapping, slavery, ritual murder, cannibalism and human sacrifice.
Look, I know it's all popular and everything to wallow in White Man's Guilt for every wrongdoing, real and imaginary, in the Hippiefied history of man.
But the real story of history is not as much of greater cultures "oppressing" less advanced ones, but rather more often of barbaric cultures causing more civilized ones tremendous misery and grief--- and either bringing about their destruction, or reaping their own at the hands of a more advanced society.
The Vikings, the Mongols, the Huns who ravaged meeker, more civilized cultures, razed their villages to the ground, and plundered the ashes for the wealth they were too savage and ignorant to produce themselves... the Muslims who slaughtered their way deep into the European territories.... the countless pagan tribes who answered the explorer's and the missionary's outstretched hand of friendship with a poisoned spear to the face, and who engaged in murderous raids on their settlements time and time again.
Even now in the 21st century we face a war between a more enlightened culture, one of unparalleled prosperity and human liberty, and an empire of bloody savages--- animalistic barbarians <I>whom we have showered with compassion and charity at every turn</i>--- who seek its utter destruction.
"Barbarians at the gate" is not just a metaphor.
Whenever a more advanced civilization subsumed a less advanced one, <I>even when that process was a hostile and violent one,</i> the less advanced peoples came out of the other side better off for it. The American Indians may have come out the loser of the American settlement, but they still came out the other side with modern science, medicine and nutrition--- not to mention special privileges no other native-born American enjoys. The African American community is collectively more prosperous than any other black community in the world. (Cassius Clay once took a trip through Africa. When he got back and was asked what he thought, he said "All I gotta say is, thank God my great grandaddy got on that ship.") As poor as they are, ask the natives of South America if they'd like to bring back the good old days of mass human sacrifice and stone-age slavery... I doubt many thinking ones would be up for it. At the very least they came out of it all with the fricking WHEEL.
If a culture cannot survive contact with a more advanced civilization--- one truly more advanced, not just one with shinier toys--- then GOOD RIDDANCE.
<I>Civilizations and cultures have no innate right to exist.</I>
"Civilizations" and "cultures" are not people. They are <I>artificial mechanisms</i> by which people interact with one another. If they cannot cope with the introduction of new situations and factors, if the introduction of a broadened understanding of the universe causes them to crumble, <I>then good riddance.</i> Let those who relied upon that system seek out one that better adapts to reality. Mourning the loss of a culture that could not adapt is foolish as bemoaning the failure of the whale-oil and buggy-whip industry.
Yes, there have been "cargo cults" as a consequence of primitive cultures meeting up with modern societies. The human capacity for foolishness is immeasurable, and there is no real way to prevent such folly. To demand that a more advanced culture establish a means to <I>completely prevent</i> such misunderstandings is to demand the impossible. There are people here and now living in 21st century Western Civilization who still believe the Earth is flat. Has our society "failed" because we have not persuaded that last vanishing percentile that the world is round?
And as to the issues of slavery, the Native Americans, and the Incas.....
I'm sorry; I was unaware that Evil Whitey invented slavery.
Guess what--- slavery was an established institution all over the world when Europeans were still contemplating the virtues of iron over bronze. And it wasn't "more advanced" civilizations keeping it going, either. The africans were selling each other in chains for centuries before the first honky hit the shoreline. Hell, the European slave traders barely had to go ashore--- there were african tribes waiting on the shore with other african tribes in chains and price tags. And the barbarian bastards of the Islamic world kept the slave trade going long after Whitey ended the practice. It's still going to this very day, in fact.
It was the introduction of more advanced cultures that brought about an end to the slave trade.
The Incas? Good stinking riddance. Was everyone asleep in history class, or just the teacher? The Spaniards were dealing with a savage, barbaric people who <I>skinned other human beings alive</i> and hacked out their hearts to make the rain fall and the corn grow. Slavery, genocidal war, infanticide.....every inhuman abomination imaginable was status quo in the Incan Empire of the Sun. the Spaniards, God bless the blackhearted bastards, did the world a favor--- They put down that bloody "empire" like a mad dog.
The American Indians were no damned prizewinners either. From tribe to tribe you had varying degrees of rape, kidnapping, slavery, ritual murder, cannibalism and human sacrifice.
Look, I know it's all popular and everything to wallow in White Man's Guilt for every wrongdoing, real and imaginary, in the Hippiefied history of man.
But the real story of history is not as much of greater cultures "oppressing" less advanced ones, but rather more often of barbaric cultures causing more civilized ones tremendous misery and grief--- and either bringing about their destruction, or reaping their own at the hands of a more advanced society.
The Vikings, the Mongols, the Huns who ravaged meeker, more civilized cultures, razed their villages to the ground, and plundered the ashes for the wealth they were too savage and ignorant to produce themselves... the Muslims who slaughtered their way deep into the European territories.... the countless pagan tribes who answered the explorer's and the missionary's outstretched hand of friendship with a poisoned spear to the face, and who engaged in murderous raids on their settlements time and time again.
Even now in the 21st century we face a war between a more enlightened culture, one of unparalleled prosperity and human liberty, and an empire of bloody savages--- animalistic barbarians <I>whom we have showered with compassion and charity at every turn</i>--- who seek its utter destruction.
"Barbarians at the gate" is not just a metaphor.
Whenever a more advanced civilization subsumed a less advanced one, <I>even when that process was a hostile and violent one,</i> the less advanced peoples came out of the other side better off for it. The American Indians may have come out the loser of the American settlement, but they still came out the other side with modern science, medicine and nutrition--- not to mention special privileges no other native-born American enjoys. The African American community is collectively more prosperous than any other black community in the world. (Cassius Clay once took a trip through Africa. When he got back and was asked what he thought, he said "All I gotta say is, thank God my great grandaddy got on that ship.") As poor as they are, ask the natives of South America if they'd like to bring back the good old days of mass human sacrifice and stone-age slavery... I doubt many thinking ones would be up for it. At the very least they came out of it all with the fricking WHEEL.
If a culture cannot survive contact with a more advanced civilization--- one truly more advanced, not just one with shinier toys--- then GOOD RIDDANCE.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
-
Shyal_malkes
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1804
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:12 am
- Contact:
a hypothetical here ralph so don't get mad
suppose civilization 1 is more advanced then most or all of the world as it knows it.
now suppose civilization 1 is visited by civilization 2, a far advanced civilization.
now suppose civ2 is so far advanced and so different that civ1 cannot comprehend half of what makes civ2 turn and in an attempt to immitate what it sees as civ2's advantages, causes it's own downturn and ruin.
would it not be better if civ2 advanced itself in stages at best so civ1 had time to adapt to the ways of civ2 when full exposure to it became possable?
not a scenario of non-interferance, but if you're using computers, it's usually a good idea to teach em how to read before you start telling them what a microchip is, right?
suppose civilization 1 is more advanced then most or all of the world as it knows it.
now suppose civilization 1 is visited by civilization 2, a far advanced civilization.
now suppose civ2 is so far advanced and so different that civ1 cannot comprehend half of what makes civ2 turn and in an attempt to immitate what it sees as civ2's advantages, causes it's own downturn and ruin.
would it not be better if civ2 advanced itself in stages at best so civ1 had time to adapt to the ways of civ2 when full exposure to it became possable?
not a scenario of non-interferance, but if you're using computers, it's usually a good idea to teach em how to read before you start telling them what a microchip is, right?
I still say the doctor did it....
I dunno, I think handguns would rapidly make their way into the Rac'Conan underworld... just as their lux-powered weapons would be a huge hit in ours.fusion wrote:flashlight, Hand gun, Hair Gel!
To bring up Star Trek again... I believe the Vulcans attempted to do just that when they met humanity... And there was a running resentment of vulcans by humans who didn't like to be considered "not ready" for the Vulcans' superior technology. There were even attacks against Vulcans by humans who didn't want to wait.shyal_malkes wrote:a hypothetical here ralph so don't get mad
suppose civilization 1 is more advanced then most or all of the world as it knows it.
now suppose civilization 1 is visited by civilization 2, a far advanced civilization.
now suppose civ2 is so far advanced and so different that civ1 cannot comprehend half of what makes civ2 turn and in an attempt to immitate what it sees as civ2's advantages, causes it's own downturn and ruin.
would it not be better if civ2 advanced itself in stages at best so civ1 had time to adapt to the ways of civ2 when full exposure to it became possable?
not a scenario of non-interferance, but if you're using computers, it's usually a good idea to teach em how to read before you start telling them what a microchip is, right?
I believe they were doing the right thing, though... You make a valid point, and one that I agree with.
The main issue was the Vulcan technology, their "shiny toys," which they insisted upon attempting to slowly impart to humans... But I do not believe they made any effort to spread their culture to humans, to curb what they made clear they believed to be excesses of violence and emotion. Probably realized it was hopeless.
You both make good points... Though I would like to disagree with RH on one point (or clarify, I'm not sure which it is):
Civilization and Culture DO have innate rights to exist.RHJunior wrote: Civilizations and cultures have no innate right to exist.
Specific civilizations and cultures have no more or less right to exist than others.
Because of our culture, we believe that nutrition, medicine, laws, order, etc are good things. A culture without them, we think, is less advanced, right? But it's our culture making us think that. We don't really have an objective view... so we can't really be sure that the things we think are good things are necessarily good for a certain culture at a certain time.
I do agree that civilizations/cultures that are ineffective should adapt and should NOT strive to ignore the changing conditions around them... After all, Civilization and the order of culture's end is to protect its members as best it can. If there's a better way, it needs to take it.
I think that was what you were getting at... not that Civilization and Culture in general have no right to exist, that anarchy is superior.
"If you hear a voice inside you saying "you are not an artist," then by all means make art... and that voice shall be silenced"
-Adapted from Van Gogh
-Adapted from Van Gogh
-
Shyal_malkes
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1804
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:12 am
- Contact:
I have a proposal to make;
In order for a culture / civilization to survive it must posses certain qualities:
1. A unique cultural identity. We believe that we have something better than anyone else on the planet has. Be it a technology, theology, or government. We are a nation of X and X is what makes us strong and unique. Without this cultural identity the nation will wander and be absorbed by another culture with a stronger self-definition.
2. A disciplined, regulated populace. The people must understand that they have something better to offer the world and should be willing to work to maintain it. If the people no longer care for the nation, but only for themselves, they will breed corruption and cultural decay.
3. The will to live. If the people question their nation
In order for a culture / civilization to survive it must posses certain qualities:
1. A unique cultural identity. We believe that we have something better than anyone else on the planet has. Be it a technology, theology, or government. We are a nation of X and X is what makes us strong and unique. Without this cultural identity the nation will wander and be absorbed by another culture with a stronger self-definition.
2. A disciplined, regulated populace. The people must understand that they have something better to offer the world and should be willing to work to maintain it. If the people no longer care for the nation, but only for themselves, they will breed corruption and cultural decay.
3. The will to live. If the people question their nation
Always tell the truth, that way you don't have to remember anything. -- Mark twain
Well, not to be too blunt, but you would be wrong.Tbolt wrote:Oh, Aurrin, I would respectfully disagree that the church was responsible for holding technology back, during the dark ages at least.
This is true. But while they kept the old knowledge, they actively discouraged people actually learning most of it. The common person was not even allowed to read the Bible, supposing one could even read (which was uncommon at best). And then, they began clinging dogmatically to the old knowledge, to the point that any new idea that contradicted the works of, say, Aristotle, was considered heresy, punishable at best by torture and confinement, at worst by agonizing death. In those days, the main church entity was as much a political figure (if not more) than it was actually a real church.Tbolt wrote:After the fall of the Roman empire, the only major repositories of western culture and knowledge were the monasteries.
Now, it often was a little different at the local level. Your average monk probably really did have good intentions. However, the system as a whole was corrupt, and it did most certainly actively hunt down 'heretics'. See, it's not enough to have the 'old knowledge'. To advance, you have to actively seek new knowledge as well.
Ah, don't misunderstand. I didn't say they were all bad. They did serve some good purposes. But they did very diliberately try to make themselves the enemy of progress, at least at the higher levels.Tbolt wrote:The local warlords were more interested in creating their own miniature hegemonies than recapturing the technology of the lost empire. If a young man desired social advancement he had only two options, military service and the church. And the church was more likely to value his intellect over his sword arm.
This is true.Tbolt wrote:Were it not for the church, western culture would not exist as it is today.
Tbolt wrote:Islam was the pinnacle of human culture at that time, as you said they developed mathematics and literature to an impressive extent. (I believe for both Christianity and Islam the impetus was
Conquering the Universe, one class at a time...
That it's disturbingly easy for anyone to create horrible monstrosities with them? Yeah, sounds about right.CasVeg wrote:Actually, I believe Ralph was saying something like civilizations and cultures are like HTML and Flash and such.
"If you hear a voice inside you saying "you are not an artist," then by all means make art... and that voice shall be silenced"
-Adapted from Van Gogh
-Adapted from Van Gogh
-
Fusion
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:16 pm
- Location: My own little world
- Contact:
Hand guns are too powerfull for the Racconidin to weild. Something of lethal power is just too strong to use by an average Rac. The gun would break their wrist if it was fired with one hand. Heck, it almost takes two Racs to fire one Boomslay like the gaurds in the swamp use. Lux powered weapons would be a big hit with us. But because we can't natualy see or manipulate lux, I forsee some problems.Gengar003 wrote:I dunno, I think handguns would rapidly make their way into the Rac'Conan underworld... just as their lux-powered weapons would be a huge hit in ours.fusion wrote:flashlight, Hand gun, Hair Gel!
"Heh, sometimes talking to yourself is the only way to get an intelligent conversation..."--Tbolt
"I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!"--Edgar Allen Poe
"I just had an argument with myself, so now we're not talking."--me
"We are the salt of the earth, not the powdered sugar."--R.H. Jr.
"I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!"--Edgar Allen Poe
"I just had an argument with myself, so now we're not talking."--me
"We are the salt of the earth, not the powdered sugar."--R.H. Jr.
-
Kerry Skydancer
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:03 pm
- Location: Bethlehem PA
- Contact:
So they use our pistols as two-handed weapons. Or with our metallurgical abilities, we miniaturize our weapons into something they can use, packing more punch than they can manage in a lighter but stronger frame.fusion wrote:
Hand guns are too powerfull for the Racconidin to weild. Something of lethal power is just too strong to use by an average Rac. The gun would break their wrist if it was fired with one hand. Heck, it almost takes two Racs to fire one Boomslay like the gaurds in the swamp use. Lux powered weapons would be a big hit with us. But because we can't natualy see or manipulate lux, I forsee some problems.
I don't know why you think there'd be problems with lux-powered devices, though, just because humans can't see or manipulate it. We can't see or manipulate electric current or magnetic fields, either (well, a few of us can sense mag-fields, that's what sense of direction is) and we manipulate them just fine.
Skydancer
Ignorance is not a point of view.
Ignorance is not a point of view.
-
Fusion
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:16 pm
- Location: My own little world
- Contact:
The gun debate was coverd already. They could really only weild a bb gun well. You would have to give them pioson darts for them to be efective.
RHJunior: But just as big an issue as the "advanced" nature of such a firearm is the fact that at their size scale, a handgun small enough to handle is too small to be effective--- even without magic users being thrown in the mix.
As for lux manipulation, we don't manupulate electricity or electromagnetic feilds. We have to use equipment for that. Like a computer, vidio game, or machine, if the lux item has a physical trigger, we can use it.RHJunior: Aurrin wrote:
OOC:
Yeah, she's describing a gun. It's roughly equivalent to a .50 Desert Eagle in power and rounds, owing to the fact that she didn't have the proper equipment for fabrication of smaller diameters -- though it's now something of a blessing in disguise. No, unless you were sitting right next to her, you didn't see it. =P
Gotta jump in here again.
point of order:Though the rac cona daimh have developed firearms, there's a multi-layered reason--- outside of metal shortage--- that they don't make or carry that many.
The RacConans are less than three feet tall. They're the size of TODDLERS.
At that size scale, I suspect even something as small as a .22 pistol would be almost too unwieldy to use. And for sure, something with the power of a .50 desert eagle would break both her wrists the first time she fired it, and knock her ass over teakettle to boot.
You see, in designing guns, the racconans are up against the catch 22 of SIZE AND WEIGHT versus POWER. Anything small and light enough for them to use is going to be of too small a calibre to be of much solid use--- especially in a culture where a good percentage of the population can cast force fields and fling lightning bolts and fireballs from their hands.
The few guns they do have are consequently large, powerful, and unwieldy---- and generally reserved for dealing with dangerous creatures that have demonstrated a brute resistance to magic. The boomslang the guardsmen used in the swamp, for instance, is about the size and power of a 12 gauge shotgun, and it almost takes two racconans to hold and fire it. The smallest gun considered feasible or even worth the waste in metal is the length of a racconan's forearm, and has to be wielded with both hands and fired from the hip, suspended from an over-the-shoulder sling.
And they're generally considered a joke.
"Heh, sometimes talking to yourself is the only way to get an intelligent conversation..."--Tbolt
"I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!"--Edgar Allen Poe
"I just had an argument with myself, so now we're not talking."--me
"We are the salt of the earth, not the powdered sugar."--R.H. Jr.
"I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!"--Edgar Allen Poe
"I just had an argument with myself, so now we're not talking."--me
"We are the salt of the earth, not the powdered sugar."--R.H. Jr.
-
Yuoofox
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:56 am
- Location: Florida, U.S.A.
- Contact:
Yuoo's two cents:
Penny #1: "Be the change you wish to see in the world." A lot of nasty things have happened throughout history, and everyone has skeletons in their closet that they'd like to forget. It hurts for a person to be shown their own faults. For example, since I am a Christian, it hurts me to read about the bad things that Christians have done. It hurts even more when someone says to me, "See there? Your faith obviously leads to evil behavior."
How do I respond to that? I could say, "You're exaggerating," or "You've got your facts wrong," or perhaps, "We're not nearly as bad as you guys are." There is merit in these responses, but personally my answer is, "I'm sorry that such things happened. I can't help it that there are always nasty people in the world. I can only do my part to not be one of them." I deal with accusations of arrogance by trying not to be an arrogant person myself. I deal with racism by trying not to be a racist person myself. If someone walks up and says to me, "The problem with you Christians* is that you're too closed-minded [*or whatever else I happen to be: Republican, vegetarian, Asian-American, right-handed, Southern Baptist, Methodist, furrie, etc]," of course it hurts, and I'm tempted to get mad at them and call them bad names, but instead I say, "I'm proud of who I am, but I agree that I'm not perfect. What do you think I should do differently? I'm willing to listen." Yes, there are people who will take advantage of you, and there is a time to defend yourself. Yet, all in all, a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Penny #2: In regard to interfering with other people's cultures, I think it depends on how you do it. Take evangelism as an example. I think there are good missionaries, and there are bad missionaries. A bad missionary's message can be pretty much summed up as, "God's too busy to talk to you, but that's okay because I'm the next best thing. If you want to go to heaven, then you have to dress in the same sort of clothes as me, you have to obey everything I tell you, and you have to give me lots and lots of money."
One of my favorite scenes from Tales of the Questor is when Brother Linnaeus is talking with Deep Green:
Deep Green: "Why should we believe you, Linaeuss? Why should you not be like the other liars? You will use your Rac Cona Daimh magics, try to decieve us into following us."
...
Linnaeus: "...I can not use my powers to decieve you-- because I have none. I come to you with nothing but the words of God. If they are not enough to persuede you, then nothing else will be."
Brother Linnaeus is the main reason I got interested in Tales of the Questor in the first place. **Hurray for Mr. Ralph.**
I think that Deep Green is right. Some missionaries use gimmicks to draw crowds, and that's okay in its own way, but ultimately it's the message that you preach. "If you can bring someone in with a hamburger, then they can be drawn away with a pizza."
Penny #1: "Be the change you wish to see in the world." A lot of nasty things have happened throughout history, and everyone has skeletons in their closet that they'd like to forget. It hurts for a person to be shown their own faults. For example, since I am a Christian, it hurts me to read about the bad things that Christians have done. It hurts even more when someone says to me, "See there? Your faith obviously leads to evil behavior."
How do I respond to that? I could say, "You're exaggerating," or "You've got your facts wrong," or perhaps, "We're not nearly as bad as you guys are." There is merit in these responses, but personally my answer is, "I'm sorry that such things happened. I can't help it that there are always nasty people in the world. I can only do my part to not be one of them." I deal with accusations of arrogance by trying not to be an arrogant person myself. I deal with racism by trying not to be a racist person myself. If someone walks up and says to me, "The problem with you Christians* is that you're too closed-minded [*or whatever else I happen to be: Republican, vegetarian, Asian-American, right-handed, Southern Baptist, Methodist, furrie, etc]," of course it hurts, and I'm tempted to get mad at them and call them bad names, but instead I say, "I'm proud of who I am, but I agree that I'm not perfect. What do you think I should do differently? I'm willing to listen." Yes, there are people who will take advantage of you, and there is a time to defend yourself. Yet, all in all, a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Penny #2: In regard to interfering with other people's cultures, I think it depends on how you do it. Take evangelism as an example. I think there are good missionaries, and there are bad missionaries. A bad missionary's message can be pretty much summed up as, "God's too busy to talk to you, but that's okay because I'm the next best thing. If you want to go to heaven, then you have to dress in the same sort of clothes as me, you have to obey everything I tell you, and you have to give me lots and lots of money."
One of my favorite scenes from Tales of the Questor is when Brother Linnaeus is talking with Deep Green:
Deep Green: "Why should we believe you, Linaeuss? Why should you not be like the other liars? You will use your Rac Cona Daimh magics, try to decieve us into following us."
...
Linnaeus: "...I can not use my powers to decieve you-- because I have none. I come to you with nothing but the words of God. If they are not enough to persuede you, then nothing else will be."
Brother Linnaeus is the main reason I got interested in Tales of the Questor in the first place. **Hurray for Mr. Ralph.
** I think that Deep Green is right. Some missionaries use gimmicks to draw crowds, and that's okay in its own way, but ultimately it's the message that you preach. "If you can bring someone in with a hamburger, then they can be drawn away with a pizza."