PowerCrazy on 25/10/2001 at 21:40
Thats a good point. And very valid now that i think about it. But even still what if it were 50% yeild (too low i think.) wouldn't that be WAY too devestating to be "moral" i mean the changes in the weather of the world would have dire reprocussions, And many people would be affected and killed, by either radiation, Drought caused by affected wheather patterns, the actual explosion, other superpowers seeing a weekend U.S. and a war occuring... Possibilities are endless. I think that we should rule taht one out.
Agent Monkeysee on 26/10/2001 at 05:02
As mentioned before though, the explosion is deep underground, meaning the radiation, debri, and detritis would be largely contained by the resulting cave-in when a significant portion of rock suddenly vaporises. Thus you would get something like an underground nuclear test result, albeit most likely with a larger radius.
Thus the region formerly known as "Area 54" would become a rather large depression in the otherwise flat desert area. Secondly the ground in the region would be highly radioactive so it wouldn't be a fun place to live. Area 54 would probably become something like "the Forbidden Zone" in the original Planet of the Apes movie, a region devoid of any notable life, but relatively localized.
As for the additional concerns, there's already extreme famine throughout the world at this point so a drought would be of little concern. Second, other superpowers are basically just MJ12 puppets, which due to the recent destruction of all communications, has been rendered completely headless. Third, the aforementioned destruction of global communications would render other so-called superpowers just as helpless as the U.S. So a scavenger war as other powers descend on the continental United States would be unlikely IMO.
I do agree with you that the New Medieval ages is not the best solution and is most likely Tong's little pipe-dream that would hardly pan out. But this has been covered earlier in this thread already and I have little to add to it.
menchise on 26/4/2002 at 14:34
After finishing Deus Ex yesterday, I decided to revive this thread.
After talking to Everett, Tong, and Helios, I thought long and hard about the three choices.
1. Illuminati. Everett and JC (I assume that Dowd and DuClare would also be involved) become the rulers of the world.
First, Paul's assumption that the Illuminatus society would be capitalistic is false. In capitalism, the elites compete with each other, and everyone else has the option of self-employment to attempt advancement.
The system organized by the Illuminati would be a plutocracy (which roughly translates to "wealth rules"). The elites would be working together in governing society to preserve their own power, and everyone else would be their employees. The economic tyranny would be disguised by a complex network of subsidiaries that project the image of 'free' market competition (think back to JC's conversation with the NSF commander in the Statue). Only the pretense of freedom would exist.
The idea that JC could keep the system from going corrupt would also be false, since Everett clearly has no regard for his peers (e.g. his exploitation of Lucius DeBeers) and is very manipulative. JC would eventually become a puppet.
2. New Dark Age. The destruction of the global communications network reverts human civilization back to localized societies.
First, it is quite clear that such an act would cause a devastating economic collapse, and millions would probably die before the city-states reorganized production.
Second, there is no guarantee that the same mistakes would not be repeated when civilization re-enters the industrial and technological ages.
However, the assumption that the Gray Death would still be around is false, because Savage and Tong could distribute the vaccine once communications were adequately restored (the UC would still function).
Also, the collapse of global conspiracies and the installation of governments on a local level, comprehensible to local people, would grant humanity the freedom of a second chance to determine itself wisely.
3. Merging with Helios. A techno-theocracy is formed with JC/Helios as the god.
This one is very interesting, and it doesn't surprise me that it inspired the most debate.
The concept of humanity being ruled by a sentient machine with no petty ambition or corruptability, merged with human understanding, thus creating a form of absolute knowledge and reason that could guide civilization to prosperity, certainly sounds tempting.
But how does Helios define prosperity? How much understanding does JC really have about humans?
Both JC and Helios agree that humans are born with petty ambition, and reason that peaceful prosperity requires the control of such vices.
In order to control these vices, they make the people fearful of their god (if someone misbehaves, the lights go out etc.), but JC/Helios must eventually admit that such rule is not sustainable, because ruling through terror negates even the pretense of freedom, thus humanity would have no motivation to prosper.
So, JC/Helios reasons that peaceful prosperity requires the removal of such vices.
They develop nano-technology to the extent of physically manipulating the thoughts and impulses of humans, thus eliminating ambition altogether. The people become completely obedient as more vices are removed.
The result is that humanity is de-humanized into machine servants of a machine god.
I chose the New Dark Age because it gives humanity a second chance, but I would have preferred a more pleasant method than global chaos.
Chimpy Chompy on 26/4/2002 at 15:42
Quote:
Originally posted by menchise
So, JC/Helios reasons that peaceful prosperity requires the removal of such vices.
They develop nano-technology to the extent of physically manipulating the thoughts and impulses of humans, thus eliminating ambition altogether. The people become completely obedient as more vices are removed.
That sounds a bit far-fetched to me. I wouldn't bother trying to predict in too much detail what the Helios\JC entity would get up to; who knows what plans it may have for the human race?
ICEBreaker on 26/4/2002 at 17:34
I agree. To choose the three endings, the basic question comes down where you place your faith.
Tong - The Past: faith in the ordinary human and that they will eventually sort themselves out.
Helios - The Future: faith on the perfect machine and whether it can really take care of human.
Everett - The Present: faith on great thinkers and that the way things were before Page came along was the best.
dL9 on 28/4/2002 at 01:22
None of them would be a solution to the problems they're facing. First off, going back Stone Age would kill half the lazy population who don't know crap about surviving in the wild. Diaseases would spread quickly, people would die from cold, there would be nothing to eat. It's like saying let's start all over again. But the thing is, there would be no more developped education for new new borns, they be able to follow the ideologies of their ancestors and they will start a corrupted gouvernment all over again. Obviously that idea is the worst.
Then, there would be your body merging with Helios. That would cause more problems than anything. Now, I'm not sure that JC can control Helios, maybe Helios was just leading JC to a trap from the start. The people won't bow to a machine, there would be rebelions and secret groups, like MJ12 and the Illuminati to stop Helios.
Then, controlling the world in secret with the lluminati is far from being a smart idea. Let's suppose it's corrupted, let's suppose that JC has the highest authority and let's suppose no one can either kill JC or stop him. It's not like he will be able to control "everything". Think of today's gouvernments, I'm pretty sure presidents don't know everything that's going on in their countries.
Therefore, the fourth ending would be the best. Everyone would drink, take drugs and dance until they all die. The end of humanity is the best solution.
ICEBreaker on 28/4/2002 at 02:41
The last two endings would both work actually. Helios had already taken over the world by the time you reach Area51. Your conversation with Paul / Savage indicated that people are cooperating with Helios, so despite what you might think, from the evidence in the game, people were OK with being ruled by a machine. As for the Everett ending, that is the way the world has been working for centuries. Why do you think it won't work? It is working like this now.
I just don't get this common notion that many people have which suggests they prefer an incompetent human ruler than a benevolent and highly competent machine ruler. Sounds like xenophobia but directed at artificial life. When will people wake up and realise that all sentient life are the same. It does not matter if the lifeform is black, Vulcan or Helios. If they are the best candidate based on ability and have the best interest of humanity at heart, let that person rule.
menchise on 28/4/2002 at 03:00
Quote:
That sounds a bit far-fetched to me. I wouldn't bother trying to predict in too much detail what the Helios\JC entity would get up to; who knows what plans it may have for the human race?
I admit that my particular example is a bit silly, but I also think that JC/Helios would have a twisted interpretation of safety and prosperity in a human context, and Helios itself is hypocritical: it claims to have no ambition yet it's trying to rule the world as a god. That sounds very ambitious to me. I believe that JC/Helios as god would rule on the assumption that humans will prosper best when they worship and obey the god. Therefore, concepts such as independence, self-determination and free development of the person could be regarded as flaws because they potentially threaten the divine authority.
Quote:
First off, going back Stone Age would kill half the lazy population who don't know crap about surviving in the wild. Diaseases would spread quickly, people would die from cold, there would be nothing to eat. It's like saying let's start all over again. But the thing is, there would be no more developped education for new new borns, they be able to follow the ideologies of their ancestors and they will start a corrupted gouvernment all over again. Obviously that idea is the worst.
The New Dark Age would only be a reversion in an economic and structural sense. Remember that Aquinas is a central communications hub, not a central library or information server, so the knowledge and technology would still exist, albeit fragmented. Because the local technology is still around, the recovery would be much quicker, and because the local knowledge is still around, humanity would have the advantage of examining its current society in retrospect, thus it would be less likely to repeat mistakes out of ignorance.
menchise on 28/4/2002 at 03:12
Quote:
I just don't get this common notion that many people have which suggests they prefer an incompetent human ruler than a benevolent and highly competent machine ruler. Sounds like xenophobia but directed at artificial life. When will people wake up and realise that all sentient life are the same. It does not matter if the lifeform is black, Vulcan or Helios. If they are the best candidate based on ability and have the best interest of humanity at heart, let that person rule.
The competency of the ruler is not the only issue; it's also whether a single ruler is preferable.
ICEBreaker on 28/4/2002 at 05:59
I mentioned two important qualities, competency and benevolence. You only seemed to respond to one but not the other. A leader needs both these qualities. But as we cannot measure either qualities quantitatively, we have a system of democracy which involves a collective decision making process. If pure benevolence could be proved in the future, then we don't need those safe guards. A single competant and benevolent ruler is preferable to multiple incompetent half benevolent leaders chosen by uninformed public on the basis of charisma or vague promises.
My response was in reply to dL9, whom I quote "The people won't bow to a machine... " He didn't say that people won't bow to a dictator. He specified machine. That was the issue I was responding to. If people disliked the Helios ending on the basis that it is a dictatorship, then that is a fine opinion to have. We don't know exactly how benevolent Helios is, and we also don't know how flawless he is either. As this was only a game and not a real life decision, I decided to assume he is competant and benevolent, as the game suggests.
