F*ck the modern world!

[SpookyFX]

I was reading how books are slowing becoming only digital. And I have seen with my own eyes other products becoming only digital. (looking at you game box with a download slip in the box where the DISK should be). And I started thinking about how if everything eventually goes digital even humans themselves and all our culture and knowledge. Future races will be able to know us 1000 times better than we do now by reading scrapings of symbols on scraps of clay. OR... if we are then hit by an EMP solar flare (geomagnetic storm ), the entirety of human civilization will be wiped out completely with no possible way for it to be studied.

 

[Guest 4719259]

Truth is offensive to most. Most like it hidden under a nice mantle of 'love'. Try to be honest in any social setting and see what it gets you.

Plus, Truth lies in the middle or so the saying goes, , everyone is standing around it, and just sees his/her part of the truth and takes is for Truth Absolute.


Of course it is!

You're still gonna have to try to get away from conventional truths after all, and grow intellectually on your own.
The fact that ‘the truth lies in the middle’ is objective data proven by whom? It is also the truth - but for whom?
I, for example, prefer to believe that if a problem of verification of a judgement appears, the correct solution most likely lies not ‘in the middle’, but in some other plane, inaccessible to the participants of the discussion.

I remember some quote like this:

"If all life is farmed by 'intelligent beings' as part of a great ecology to serve a universal purpose, then human life has the potential to provide higher qualities of energies than other life forms. If these qualities can be produced through death/suffering, then human life has a clear purpose. "

Does it follow from this that humans can also be eaten by someone else, or what? That some ‘techno-necromancers’ have the right to include us in their food chain just as we include other species in ours?
I'd just like to understand )

F*ck the modern world 'fun' 'fact':

When you die, your funeral usually is within 14 days. Approximately after 49 days of your funeral 98% of the attendees will have forgotten about you.

Well, that's the right thing to do. You're going to another world to be reborn, you're getting ready to solve your new problems, so why should you be prevented from it? ))

 

[SigilFey]

You're still gonna have to try to get away from conventional truths after all, and grow intellectually on your own.

This is probably the core of complacency that prevents solid, foundational growth in an ever-changing world. (Universe, really.)

The thing is, conventional truths are conventional because they largely work. And pretty much any society will try to ingrain those truths into their people. That society will therefore be based on those truths.

As per human nature, people "rebel" against those conventions instinctively when they're teenagers. Part of the joys of puberty. However, they won't have the simple general knowledge or world experience to:

• fully understand the implications of their preferences as it applies to the day-to-day reality of the society they live in.
• fully understand how much work will be involved in acting on their preferences without creating problems for others.
• possibly comprehend how acting on their preferences will alienate them from members of their society that disagree with their views.
• possibly be able to comprehend how and why they, themselves, feel the way they do -- as the vast majority of their desire to rebel is actually to seek affirmation and acceptance from others, not stand on their own or achieve a societal good.

Thus, the lack of knowledge and experience will ultimately lead to them failing in their "rebellion". They end up needing to go to their families for help and forgiveness, normally after causing some sort of problem or damages that they're not capable of rectifying, and winding up indebted to their legal guardians and providers to get them out of it.

It's at this point that those conventional truths are reaffirmed within the framework of that society, and the young person now learns a "valuable life lesson" by reaching an understanding of, "This is just how the world works."

But that's the major problem. Because that's not "...just how the world works". It's how the world works in that society, governed under those specific values, at this particular point in history. Because it works, those young people become complacent with the existing truths and values...

...then the world changes.

At this point, the now older, more knowledgeable, and much more experienced people have grown quite comfortable in their conventional truths and don't want them disturbed.


_______________


So rather than learning from their past failures, trying to find a way to better understand their own preferences, discovering a way to better pursue them and implement them in a way that does not interfere with others, and achieve a balance within their society...they conform. Either that, or they continue to mindlessly rebel and are normally at odds with the law and the customs of their society throughout their lives, getting exactly nowhere.

The trouble is, finding the balance while simultaneously co-existing with conventional truths a person may disagree with requires an enormous amount of personal knowledge and experience that won't be gained by conforming to a given society. Those conventional truths need to be intelligently and patiently explored, then challenged with alternative interpretations that will generate upset, but not damages. A tall order for most people that classify as "human".

It will result in a life lived in compromise with existing conventions and societal norms, receiving harsh, often unintelligent criticisms from those who disagree, and those that begin actually implementing alternative conventions will never live to see it become the norm...if it ever becomes a norm. So, they're effectively living in compromise according to their own values for themselves and the sake of posterity. Which should be enough! But, it's usually not. Enter: greed, complacency, prejudice, self-righteousness, and/or impatience. Until people are knowledgeable and experienced enough to conquer these things, they'll never be able to find that balanced path. And that requires a lifetime dedicated to truly learning and understanding the universe around us.

Most people will just conform...or continue to rebel until they go to prison for being a nuisance or danger to society.

When you die, your funeral usually is within 14 days. Approximately after 49 days of your funeral 98% of the attendees will have forgotten about you.

Well, that's the right thing to do. You're going to another world to be reborn, you're getting ready to solve your new problems, so why should you be prevented from it? ))

Yep! Regardless of what people believe and put their faith in, one of two things will be true:

1.) You'll move on to another life or form of life, which means the problems of this lifetime will no longer be a concern.
-or-
2.) You'll cease to exist -- which means you'll no longer be around in any form to care.

Simplicity itself!

 

[Jesting-Jack]

Well, that's the right thing to do. You're going to another world to be reborn, you're getting ready to solve your new problems

Will they really be new problems though? I bet there are taxes in that other world too. Taxes are eternal, there's no escaping them.

 

[Guest 4719259]

Will they really be new problems though?

No, basically the same )) Just another context )

Taxes are eternal, there's no escaping them.

True indeed.
But maybe, as some posts in this thread hint, you just need to change your outlook: stop being a taxpayer, and become one of those who determine tax policy
(uh-oh, that was close to politics!)

This is probably the core of complacency that prevents solid, foundational growth in an ever-changing world. (Universe, really.)

The thing is, conventional truths are conventional because they largely work. And pretty much any society will try to ingrain those truths into their people. That society will therefore be based on those truths.

As per human nature, people "rebel" against those conventions instinctively when they're teenagers. Part of the joys of puberty. However, they won't have the simple general knowledge or world experience to:

• fully understand the implications of their preferences as it applies to the day-to-day reality of the society they live in.
• fully understand how much work will be involved in acting on their preferences without creating problems for others.
• possibly comprehend how acting on their preferences will alienate them from members of their society that disagree with their views.
• possibly be able to comprehend how and why they, themselves, feel the way they do -- as the vast majority of their desire to rebel is actually to seek affirmation and acceptance from others, not stand on their own or achieve a societal good.

Thus, the lack of knowledge and experience will ultimately lead to them failing in their "rebellion". They end up needing to go to their families for help and forgiveness, normally after causing some sort of problem or damages that they're not capable of rectifying, and winding up indebted to their legal guardians and providers to get them out of it.

It's at this point that those conventional truths are reaffirmed within the framework of that society, and the young person now learns a "valuable life lesson" by reaching an understanding of, "This is just how the world works."

But that's the major problem. Because that's not "...just how the world works". It's how the world works in that society, governed under those specific values, at this particular point in history. Because it works, those young people become complacent with the existing truths and values...

...then the world changes.

At this point, the now older, more knowledgeable, and much more experienced people have grown quite comfortable in their conventional truths and don't want them disturbed.

How did you end up on the Cyberpunk forum? )) You know, here they teach kids how to blow up corpo towers, and you..

So, the problem is that human consciousness or other adaptive mechanisms of the psyche simply can't keep up with the changes in the environment around them? Or are unable to process data correctly - i.e. either fall into conservatism, fixing the picture of the world as an object, or provoke lack of awareness and frustration leading to deviant behaviour?
Interesting implication - the fact is that the human psyche was formed precisely in response to challenges from the external environment, and if the situation had always been like this, humanity would simply not have survived to the present day as a biological species.
Or else, the modern world is a much more incomprehensible and dangerous place for humans than, for example, warm shallow oceans a few million years ago.

Yep! Regardless of what people believe and put their faith in, one of two things will be true:

1.) You'll move on to another life or form of life, which means the problems of this lifetime will no longer be a concern.
-or-
2.) You'll cease to exist -- which means you'll no longer be around in any form to care.

Simplicity itself!

No, it's not that simple. This is a simple explanation for mundane conversation; in fact, everything is complicated at any stage of the reincarnation process.
Well, at least to start with the fact that any person has three parents - father, mother and an extraneous entity called ‘gandharva’, very roughly corresponding to an angel in Christianity, present nearby at the moment of conception of the child. ))
Or, it is said that somehow the memory of past lives is transmitted - it can be discovered later. But who or what is the agent, for example?
It's a very complex theory, and I haven't found anyone whose understanding of it or interpretation of it fits me unequivocally, 100%. But maybe I'm just stubborn and picky.

 

[SigilFey]

How did you end up on the Cyberpunk forum? )) You know, here they teach kids how to blow up corpo towers, and you..

I can't remember. I was playing Majong, must have fallen asleep, and when I woke up, I was here.

So, the problem is that human consciousness or other adaptive mechanisms of the psyche simply can't keep up with the changes in the environment around them? Or are unable to process data correctly - i.e. either fall into conservatism, fixing the picture of the world as an object, or provoke lack of awareness and frustration leading to deviant behaviour?
Interesting implication - the fact is that the human psyche was formed precisely in response to challenges from the external environment, and if the situation had always been like this, humanity would simply not have survived to the present day as a biological species.
Or else, the modern world is a much more incomprehensible and dangerous place for humans than, for example, warm shallow oceans a few million years ago.

Of course they can, and some people will to some extent (get away from conventional truths). But the history of humankind is littered with examples of people being unwilling to in the face of the real hardship in doing so. Not really a matter of whether or not it's possible. It's the reality that the vast majority of human beings will find a society that they like well enough, conform, and then refuse to rock the boat -- even if they know the conventionally accepted truths are completely false.

And/or, they struggle to uncover deeper understandings only for a portion of their lives, then get tired and stop really learning, exploring, and growing. They go only so far before they're too busy with work, to tired and jaded by the world to care anymore, or think that they know everything they need to know in order to handle their own life.

It's then the few and rare revolutionary minds in the world that will make the next big breakthrough. The people at that time will largely laugh it off as ridiculous, fail to see how it's relevant and never try to understand, or never even hear of it. Won't stop future generations from learning about it and using it to change the world, but the vast majority of those people will also fall into the complacency of their own lives and societies.

Therefore, anyone with an idea that upsets the mindset and world view of "the norm" in that society will invariably hit resistance, regardless of how true and provable it is. It's unconventional, and the society will go, "We don't want that sort of truth here. That's not the way that our world works." Even if it is.

The world is a whole lot better today than it has ever really been in the past, actually. But that won't change human nature from trying to reject truths that they're uncomfortable with out-of-hand...simply because it makes them uncomfortable.

No, it's not that simple. This is a simple explanation for mundane conversation; in fact, everything is complicated at any stage of the reincarnation process.
Well, at least to start with the fact that any person has three parents - father, mother and an extraneous entity called ‘gandharva’, very roughly corresponding to an angel in Christianity, present nearby at the moment of conception of the child. ))
Or, it is said that somehow the memory of past lives is transmitted - it can be discovered later. But who or what is the agent, for example?
It's a very complex theory, and I haven't found anyone whose understanding of it or interpretation of it fits me unequivocally, 100%. But maybe I'm just stubborn and picky.

I'm aware of the basic philosophies behind reincarnation, but that's superimposing that potential reality as a universal fact. What I was stating is the empirical reality of what death means. No one actually knows what happens when we die, which philosophy is true, etc. That's why people have faith -- which by academic definition is "belief without proof." Can't have faith if I have proof; that would turn the faith into fact.

I'm just identifying the simple realities that apply to all people regardless of what they believe or put their faith in. Which, as far as it applies to myself, is actually quite comforting. Everyone will eventually figure out what happens when we get there! (No more taxes at that point, either! At least not for while. I hope...)

 

[Snowy_Cosmo]

CDPR and Sony teaming up to screw me over in every technical aspect simply because my options button doesn’t work on my controller makes me miss the days of Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, when technology wasn’t complicated by the large egos and overcompensating idealists scared of consumers that we have today.

 

[Guest 4719259]

I can't remember. I was playing Majong, must have fallen asleep, and when I woke up, I was here.


Of course they can, and some people will to some extent (get away from conventional truths). But the history of humankind is littered with examples of people being unwilling to in the face of the real hardship in doing so. Not really a matter of whether or not it's possible. It's the reality that the vast majority of human beings will find a society that they like well enough, conform, and then refuse to rock the boat -- even if they know the conventionally accepted truths are completely false.

And/or, they struggle to uncover deeper understandings only for a portion of their lives, then get tired and stop really learning, exploring, and growing. They go only so far before they're too busy with work, to tired and jaded by the world to care anymore, or think that they know everything they need to know in order to handle their own life.

It's then the few and rare revolutionary minds in the world that will make the next big breakthrough. The people at that time will largely laugh it off as ridiculous, fail to see how it's relevant and never try to understand, or never even hear of it. Won't stop future generations from learning about it and using it to change the world, but the vast majority of those people will also fall into the complacency of their own lives and societies.

Therefore, anyone with an idea that upsets the mindset and world view of "the norm" in that society will invariably hit resistance, regardless of how true and provable it is. It's unconventional, and the society will go, "We don't want that sort of truth here. That's not the way that our world works." Even if it is.

The world is a whole lot better today than it has ever really been in the past, actually. But that won't change human nature from trying to reject truths that they're uncomfortable with out-of-hand...simply because it makes them uncomfortable.



I'm aware of the basic philosophies behind reincarnation, but that's superimposing that potential reality as a universal fact. What I was stating is the empirical reality of what death means. No one actually knows what happens when we die, which philosophy is true, etc. That's why people have faith -- which by academic definition is "belief without proof." Can't have faith if I have proof; that would turn the faith into fact.

I'm just identifying the simple realities that apply to all people regardless of what they believe or put their faith in. Which, as far as it applies to myself, is actually quite comforting. Everyone will eventually figure out what happens when we get there! (No more taxes at that point, either! At least not for while. I hope...)

So is it humanity's penchant for ‘complacency’ to blame for the sins of the modern world? What about the thesis that human society and the objective physical world change at different speeds? Society is a much more stable and conservative structure, for all the changes. Moreover, any human community is a hierarchical model, with well-known leaders who hold repressive mechanisms, power, a monopoly on truth, etc.
If you are a young revolutionary, you understand perfectly well, well, you should understand in any case, that the expression of ideas that go against the traditional values in your environment, to put it mildly, will not be welcomed? And human life is one, you can't load a new game from a save point where you lost the old one...
Meanwhile, thought is a weapon. If you realise, if you have achieved something that others don't know, why should you openly talk about it? On the contrary, it is more expedient to keep silent, and to keep the revealed truths to yourself.
To understand - yes, to be clever - yes, but you have to be clever enough not to show your cleverness. My posts above are basically about that.
And you have everything linear - achieve something and immediately inform others about your achievements. And if you don't - it means you are a conformist, or you are lazy, or you are just tired, or you are just old. The mere fact that people agree with the existing reality is not enough for a linear interpretation of the situation. Remember Songbird? )) How many years she was a honourable and respected employee of the FIA, getting money, awards, respect from the government...
I'm almost ready to rebuke you for your superficial view of the nature of the ‘social man’. Almost.

 

[SigilFey]

So is it humanity's penchant for ‘complacency’ to blame for the sins of the modern world? What about the thesis that human society and the objective physical world change at different speeds? Society is a much more stable and conservative structure, for all the changes. Moreover, any human community is a hierarchical model, with well-known leaders who hold repressive mechanisms, power, a monopoly on truth, etc.
If you are a young revolutionary, you understand perfectly well, well, you should understand in any case, that the expression of ideas that go against the traditional values in your environment, to put it mildly, will not be welcomed? And human life is one, you can't load a new game from a save point where you lost the old one...
Meanwhile, thought is a weapon. If you realise, if you have achieved something that others don't know, why should you openly talk about it? On the contrary, it is more expedient to keep silent, and to keep the revealed truths to yourself.
To understand - yes, to be clever - yes, but you have to be clever enough not to show your cleverness. My posts above are basically about that.
And you have everything linear - achieve something and immediately inform others about your achievements. And if you don't - it means you are a conformist, or you are lazy, or you are just tired, or you are just old. The mere fact that people agree with the existing reality is not enough for a linear interpretation of the situation. Remember Songbird? )) How many years she was a honourable and respected employee of the FIA, getting money, awards, respect from the government...
I'm almost ready to rebuke you for your superficial view of the nature of the ‘social man’. Almost.

I think we're identifying more or less the same, exact thing. Revolutionary thought is just that -- revolutionary. Whereas you're arguing a philosophy between whether someone should have, share, and act on revolutionary thought...I'm simply identifying that it will happen but will always be in the minority. So, yes, absolutely, people should continue to challenge their own knowledge. Obviously, I'm on the side of the revolutionary thinkers and doers because stagnation only results in one thing.

I'm looking at it more in frustration of institutions that refuse to truly consider or recognize beneficial ideas because "it won't fit in the existing schedule" sort of thing. (Schools, governments, businesses, etc.) These will, of course, be the things to benefit the most from meaningful changes, but they're also going to be full of the most complacent people at the highest levels.

Another way to look at this (as a metaphor, but still on the "complacency" frequency) is the reason someone works. While there will surely be passionate and driven people that do a certain job because they love it and are constantly trying to break through to new innovations, there are a lot of others (I would argue the vast majority) that simply work for a paycheck. The first sort of person views the money they make as a resource: something that needs to be spent in order to continue with their passions. The second sort of person views the accrual of money as a primary goal. The money just sits in a bank account...doing nothing...getting bigger. In order for a resource to be of any value, it needs to do something. If money is not circulating, it's simply stalling the economy.

Of course, this is not to be taken too literally -- obviously people need savings, and many people on both sides of the coin have bills to pay, homes they may be saving for, cars that need to be bought, etc. But there's a difference between a desire to simply see a bank account grow larger and a desire to use the money for various needs. So, if we replace money with ideas, that's the general state of the world. A huge number of people will simply keep the account full and never really risk it big because they might lose and be left with an empty account. (Or, I imagine that's how it would feel if one suddenly learns that their world view is completely off the mark. "He that increaseth in knowledge increaseth in sorrow," and all that fatalistic stuff.)

To wear my opinion on my shirtsleeve:
I disagree with any retention of knowledge for the sake of conformity or exploitation -- which, let's be honest -- is the only reason to withhold knowledge of any sort. Id like to see a world that fully understands correlation is not causation, and evidence is not fact. But at the same time, when presented with hard fact, they are willing to acknowledge any existing causation, even if it means they might lose something.

As it stands, this is extremely unlikely. Essentially, too many people want the blue pill.

 

[Guest 4719259]

I think we're identifying more or less the same, exact thing. Revolutionary thought is just that -- revolutionary. Whereas you're arguing a philosophy between whether someone should have, share, and act on revolutionary thought...I'm simply identifying that it will happen but will always be in the minority. So, yes, absolutely, people should continue to challenge their own knowledge. Obviously, I'm on the side of the revolutionary thinkers and doers because stagnation only results in one thing.

I'm looking at it more in frustration of institutions that refuse to truly consider or recognize beneficial ideas because "it won't fit in the existing schedule" sort of thing. (Schools, governments, businesses, etc.) These will, of course, be the things to benefit the most from meaningful changes, but they're also going to be full of the most complacent people at the highest levels.

Another way to look at this (as a metaphor, but still on the "complacency" frequency) is the reason someone works. While there will surely be passionate and driven people that do a certain job because they love it and are constantly trying to break through to new innovations, there are a lot of others (I would argue the vast majority) that simply work for a paycheck. The first sort of person views the money they make as a resource: something that needs to be spent in order to continue with their passions. The second sort of person views the accrual of money as a primary goal. The money just sits in a bank account...doing nothing...getting bigger. In order for a resource to be of any value, it needs to do something. If money is not circulating, it's simply stalling the economy.

Of course, this is not to be taken too literally -- obviously people need savings, and many people on both sides of the coin have bills to pay, homes they may be saving for, cars that need to be bought, etc. But there's a difference between a desire to simply see a bank account grow larger and a desire to use the money for various needs. So, if we replace money with ideas, that's the general state of the world. A huge number of people will simply keep the account full and never really risk it big because they might lose and be left with an empty account. (Or, I imagine that's how it would feel if one suddenly learns that their world view is completely off the mark. "He that increaseth in knowledge increaseth in sorrow," and all that fatalistic stuff.)

To wear my opinion on my shirtsleeve:
I disagree with any retention of knowledge for the sake of conformity or exploitation -- which, let's be honest -- is the only reason to withhold knowledge of any sort. Id like to see a world that fully understands correlation is not causation, and evidence is not fact. But at the same time, when presented with hard fact, they are willing to acknowledge any existing causation, even if it means they might lose something.

As it stands, this is extremely unlikely. Essentially, too many people want the blue pill.

That's close enough to idealism. ))

Why should anyone necessarily share knowledge with anyone else, if that knowledge is part of their own survival strategy (like a personal bank account, by the way). I could still understand if we lived in some kind of world that, and we would absolutely know this, was not built on cruelty, not on the violence of some groups over others, not on the ideas of mass profit-making by any means, but on universal, morally impeccable norms, and this would be really valued. If the world had at least a tendency to move in the direction of some moral ideals. But there is nothing of this in reality - it is worth judging at least by the title of this topic )).

I am afraid that this concept is idealism, which is good in itself, but is punishable in our world.

 

[SigilFey]

That's close enough to idealism. ))

Why should anyone necessarily share knowledge with anyone else, if that knowledge is part of their own survival strategy (like a personal bank account, by the way). I could still understand if we lived in some kind of world that, and we would absolutely know this, was not built on cruelty, not on the violence of some groups over others, not on the ideas of mass profit-making by any means, but on universal, morally impeccable norms, and this would be really valued. If the world had at least a tendency to move in the direction of some moral ideals. But there is nothing of this in reality - it is worth judging at least by the title of this topic )).

I am afraid that this concept is idealism, which is good in itself, but is punishable in our world.

Definitely punishable: anyone that is so free with information will be taken advantage of constantly.

But it's not idealism in any way. I'm not suggesting that people share every, last stitch of information about themselves and their personal lives. That would be ridiculous. I'm referring to things like conflicting historical accounts, uncomfortable truths about whether this nation or that region is more successful at a particular thing, giving credit to the actual inventors of new technologies or methodologies (rather that the first person to capitalize on it), etc.

There's a difference between honesty and privacy. Some things are no one else's business (personal health, family matters, love interests, etc.) But where learning, understanding, education, exploration, discovery, medicine and science are involved, there's no excuse for withholding information. That allows whole societies to live in either obscurity or denial of what is otherwise readily available information. It's withheld for profit and control.

Personal privacy -- simple human respect for one another.
Denial of access to known facts simply to gain an advantage in some way -- simple human greed.

 

[Guest 4719259]

Definitely punishable: anyone that is so free with information will be taken advantage of constantly.

But it's not idealism in any way. I'm not suggesting that people share every, last stitch of information about themselves and their personal lives. That would be ridiculous. I'm referring to things like conflicting historical accounts, uncomfortable truths about whether this nation or that region is more successful at a particular thing, giving credit to the actual inventors of new technologies or methodologies (rather that the first person to capitalize on it), etc.

There's a difference between honesty and privacy. Some things are no one else's business (personal health, family matters, love interests, etc.) But where learning, understanding, education, exploration, discovery, medicine and science are involved, there's no excuse for withholding information. That allows whole societies to live in either obscurity or denial of what is otherwise readily available information. It's withheld for profit and control.

Personal privacy -- simple human respect for one another.
Denial of access to known facts simply to gain an advantage in some way -- simple human greed.

No, well, well-known facts are actually called so, because anyone knows them (or should know them, if he wants to live more or less normally among people).
It's just that if someone can't do something, doesn't understand it, or doesn't know how to do it - why should it be my concern?
And how should my “supposed” goodwill necessarily be related to the mythical “progress of mankind”? If I open my mouth, and start saying what I know, start sharing - it remains to be seen who will use my data.
I don't know, the reasoning is so...it looks a bit artificial in my eyes.
This is a forum for the game “Cyberpunk”, I remind you, the game contains a powerful postulate that nothing good awaits anyone, and Night City is just the place where idealism or romanticism will be cured most quickly, easily and reliably, though with special methods.

 

[SigilFey]

No, well, well-known facts are actually called so, because anyone knows them (or should know them, if he wants to live more or less normally among people).
It's just that if someone can't do something, doesn't understand it, or doesn't know how to do it - why should it be my concern?
And how should my “supposed” goodwill necessarily be related to the mythical “progress of mankind”? If I open my mouth, and start saying what I know, start sharing - it remains to be seen who will use my data.
I don't know, the reasoning is so...it looks a bit artificial in my eyes.
This is a forum for the game “Cyberpunk”, I remind you, the game contains a powerful postulate that nothing good awaits anyone, and Night City is just the place where idealism or romanticism will be cured most quickly, easily and reliably, though with special methods.

Sure. Fatalism is a valid form of philosophy with thousands of years of tradition. Makes for some cool storytelling, too!

I would argue about its vaildity in real life, though. The whole approach of, "Nothing actually means anything in the end; we're all doomed to suffering," simply means that anyone can do whatever they want because none of it will matter. That, I would argue, is a form of psychopathy. Yes, we are all ultimately doomed to mortality, but that doesn't automatically result in a negative. That would assume that because we don't understand "the meaning of life" (...being 42, of course...) that life therefore has no meaning. Correlation vs. causation, right there.

What remains is a messy, global stew of mindsets trying to superimpose values and morals onto their individual societies based upon the status quo of any particular society at the time. And that status quo will invariably be focused on efficient use of resources to ensure a standard of living for all in that society (whether higher or lower). It also invites corruption to a great degree, no matter which way one swings it, as there will always be opportunists looking to line their own pockets with silk from the misfortune of others.

It's now of great interest for those individuals in power to maintain their power, and by direct result their cash-flow, under the guise of "governance" and "economy". By academic definition, "governance" is meant to ensure the safety and well-being of all in a society, and "economy" is focused on the responsible distribution and circulation of resources to avoid shortages. That's not how it will work in practice, though. Governments will to some degree make decisions that are not focused on the health and growth of their societies (usually for existential or financial reasons), and many modern economies are not focused on enforcing responsible use of resources (rather focusing on maximum profits for minimum expense.) Once life gets cushy, anything that might upset that (im)balance starts to become unwelcome.

Those with new and revolutionary ideas, therefore, face an uphill slog having their ideas recognized and considered for what they are. They threaten the comfort of those that are benefiting from the existing society. We see examples of this throughout history: Galileo's heliocentric model, Meitner's work on nuclear fission, Tesla's inventions surrounding AC electricity, etc. Each one of these threatened to destabilize the existing social and/or economic norms of the times and were rejected out-of-hand for that reason alone. Prejudice, intolerance, and greed preventing the advancement of human society because..."That just doesn't feel right," or, "How much will that cost us!?"

It's unwillingness to fairly and honestly embrace new understandings of reality -- understandings backed up by purely empirical facts -- because few will want to pay for them or even deal with the challenges they may pose to existing world views. Stagnation of progress derived directly from complacency and obstinance.

The visionaries are left along the side of the street. Someone in the future will pick up where they left off (once the society has evolved to a state that will allow for it). And the true minds behind it will either be only latently recognized or completely un-remembered.

It doesn't always happen that way, or we wouldn't have visionaries and geniuses that we celebrate in their own time. But it does happen regularly -- and we won't ever even hear about the majority of them, as they'll be forgotton by history completely.

 

[Guest 4719259]

Sure. Fatalism is a valid form of philosophy with thousands of years of tradition. Makes for some cool storytelling, too!

I would argue about its vaildity in real life, though. The whole approach of, "Nothing actually means anything in the end; we're all doomed to suffering," simply means that anyone can do whatever they want because none of it will matter. That, I would argue, is a form of psychopathy. Yes, we are all ultimately doomed to mortality, but that doesn't automatically result in a negative. That would assume that because we don't understand "the meaning of life" (...being 42, of course...) that life therefore has no meaning. Correlation vs. causation, right there.

What remains is a messy, global stew of mindsets trying to superimpose values and morals onto their individual societies based upon the status quo of any particular society at the time. And that status quo will invariably be focused on efficient use of resources to ensure a standard of living for all in that society (whether higher or lower). It also invites corruption to a great degree, no matter which way one swings it, as there will always be opportunists looking to line their own pockets with silk from the misfortune of others.

It's now of great interest for those individuals in power to maintain their power, and by direct result their cash-flow, under the guise of "governance" and "economy". By academic definition, "governance" is meant to ensure the safety and well-being of all in a society, and "economy" is focused on the responsible distribution and circulation of resources to avoid shortages. That's not how it will work in practice, though. Governments will to some degree make decisions that are not focused on the health and growth of their societies (usually for existential or financial reasons), and many modern economies are not focused on enforcing responsible use of resources (rather focusing on maximum profits for minimum expense.) Once life gets cushy, anything that might upset that (im)balance starts to become unwelcome.

Those with new and revolutionary ideas, therefore, face an uphill slog having their ideas recognized and considered for what they are. They threaten the comfort of those that are benefiting from the existing society. We see examples of this throughout history: Galileo's heliocentric model, Meitner's work on nuclear fission, Tesla's inventions surrounding AC electricity, etc. Each one of these threatened to destabilize the existing social and/or economic norms of the times and were rejected out-of-hand for that reason alone. Prejudice, intolerance, and greed preventing the advancement of human society because..."That just doesn't feel right," or, "How much will that cost us!?"

It's unwillingness to fairly and honestly embrace new understandings of reality -- understandings backed up by purely empirical facts -- because few will want to pay for them or even deal with the challenges they may pose to existing world views. Stagnation of progress derived directly from complacency and obstinance.

The visionaries are left along the side of the street. Someone in the future will pick up where they left off (once the society has evolved to a state that will allow for it). And the true minds behind it will either be only latently recognized or completely un-remembered.

It doesn't always happen that way, or we wouldn't have visionaries and geniuses that we celebrate in their own time. But it does happen regularly -- and we won't ever even hear about the majority of them, as they'll be forgotton by history completely.

All right. Let's change the approach and level of argument, so to speak ))
We are on a gaming forum, after all ) On the СDPR game forum, right? )
The accusation of fatalism, which you indirectly bring against me, is in fact projected further on the glorious game studio from Poland. So yes, indeed, Cyberpunk is imbued with this philosophy - you can't change anything about V's fate in Night City, in a global sense - V is finished, no matter how you look at it. And there's no good ending. And that's something players are forced to come to terms with, just like V is forced to come to terms with.
Now tell me - if you were a writer for CDPR, what would you change about Cyberpunk? What innovations would you bring to the story? After all, you can't discuss philosophy by itself, in isolation from objective reality - and objective reality here is a game, a specific software product, a work of art, the result of the efforts of many people.
So what should be done with the game, so that no suspicion of fatalism could arise? You have said something about your pedagogical activity, right? Well, imagine children playing Cyberpunk. And how can we make sure that young players don't become a generation of fatalists (like me, presumably )?

 

[SigilFey]

All right. Let's change the approach and level of argument, so to speak ))
We are on a gaming forum, after all ) On the СDPR game forum, right? )
The accusation of fatalism, which you indirectly bring against me, is in fact projected further on the glorious game studio from Poland. So yes, indeed, Cyberpunk is imbued with this philosophy - you can't change anything about V's fate in Night City, in a global sense - V is finished, no matter how you look at it. And there's no good ending. And that's something players are forced to come to terms with, just like V is forced to come to terms with.
Now tell me - if you were a writer for CDPR, what would you change about Cyberpunk? What innovations would you bring to the story? After all, you can't discuss philosophy by itself, in isolation from objective reality - and objective reality here is a game, a specific software product, a work of art, the result of the efforts of many people.
So what should be done with the game, so that no suspicion of fatalism could arise? You have said something about your pedagogical activity, right? Well, imagine children playing Cyberpunk. And how can we make sure that young players don't become a generation of fatalists (like me, presumably )?

Firstly, I'm not "bringing anything against" you. I'm discussing a particular point of view and labeling certain arguments for what they are according to the points I'm trying to make. It actually has nothing to do with you at all -- it's just open argumentation on the topic, which anyone in the world is welcome to challenge or argue differently. That's the whole point of argumentative discussion.

As for Cyberpunk -- I wouldn't change anything as far as the arc goes. The whole narrative of CP2077 is following the traditional immortality theme very closely: as has been a celebrated story line since Gilgamesh. Since that time, we've had whole cultural traditions of the immortality tale told and retold over thousands of years: several A. Greek tragedies, Faustus, The Immortal, Anne Rice's whole vampire series, etc. CP2077 follows exactly the same arc: a youthful protagonist who reaches for immortality, quickly discovers the price of grasping at such power by losing a loved one (Jackie) during the journey, receives guidance from a metaphysical/ethereal/divine being (Johnny), overcomes the naive desire to achieve immortality and instead spends their power to right a great evil in the world, and ultimately faces the true nature of their mortal existence when they confront their death in some fashion. It's a classical arc that works beautifully as written and told -- not to mention the great and varied ways that the game qualifies different pathways to the same thematic conclusion.

I'm a fan of stories that complete their arc, and I actively dislike stories that are meant to stretch themselves endlessly, like a lot of modern network shows. The art of writing is based on arriving at a climax after steadily building dramatic action along a very clearly defined and constantly revisited theme. The main theme is where the energy and emotional impact comes from, and I feel CP2077 does that to an absolutely fantastic degree. My argument for people that want a "happy ending" is that they've missed the whole point of the story: we are mortal. To grasp at immortality is to be in denial of what humanity means -- if one achieves immortality, they will need to sacrifice the very thing that makes one human. Our purpose in life is fueled by the constant, background knowledge that we are not going to be around forever. That reality is what drives people to make the most of their lives. Those who grasp at the wheel of fortune can very well ride it to the top, but they will be crushed by it after they reach the summit. There's only one way to go from there, and the wheel will not stop turning.

As for a direct answer, I would not change CP2077, but rather look to the future of the series and embrace the legend of Johnny and V. The end result of the story is that the chip will eventually consume V's brain and identity, essentially making V = Johnny. However, that new being will not be 100% Johnny, either; both of them imprinted strongly on the other, meaning that some part of who V is will live on in the entity that remains. That's pretty much writer's gold to continue developing a new story that crosses paths with the legend of V and Johnny. My focus would be on creating 3 places where the next Cyberpunk crosses paths with the legend in some form. Massive potential there for haunting, evocative storytelling that shows the impact that V and Johnny had on the world, and potentially hints at what they have now become.

So is the storyline for CP2077 fatalistic -- absolutely! It wouldn't be a valid addition to the immortality quest if it wasn't. V will die. Now, I'd say the major focus would be to qualify the characters with an equally fatalistic storyline in Cyberpunk 2088, or whatever it's titled in the end. The point of worlds like Cyberpunk 2020 is definitely catharsis, to a great degree. Remove that, and you remove the heart and soul of what it is.


_______________



Now, as per the larger discussion, the main point is on visionary individuals being shut down by the conventions of their modern societies. I guess we could apply the same thing to developing a revolutionary video game, but I think we'd need to identify what's "visionary" about it. Say, for example, I chose to make a video game set in the Cyberpunk universe and somehow have it end "happily". I don't think that it's impossible, but the tale would need to be bittersweet at the most, or it would fail to honor the Cyberpunk universe. It definitely could not be done with V's questline, as that would completely invalidate the whole concept of mortality and sacrifice that pushes the dramatic action to its conclusion. ("Oh! V's all better now. Happily ever after. See? Nothing to worry about.) That would be the same sort of thing as writing: "...and it was all just a dream."

So, for something to reach the level of visionary, revolutionary work, it first needs to understand and master what has come before. As a teacher, I'm constantly confronted with students that don't realize that what they think is "visionary" is actually just a lack of knowledge and exposure to concepts that have been explored for thousands of years. It's only "new and revolutionary" to them.

I think we see a lot of that ignorance and lack of experience bleed into so many creative works in the modern day (namely the way The Witcher series was handled on Netflix, or the way the horrendous Second Age thing is going on Amazon.) Neither one of those works has any literary or dramatic understanding of the source material that would allow for a competent visualisation of the worlds they're trying to depict. On top of that, the attempts to redefine characters and story arcs (for obvious reasoning that we're not going to discuss here, read: real-world politics) not only fail to honor the existing themes that made the literature successful to begin with, they are not "revolutionary" mindsets. By hamfisting modern mentality into already crafted stories, it's naive denial of the literature itself. It's like saying, "Jedi should be able to fly because they have the Force! From now on, all Jedi can fly, and have lightsaber battles in the air, and they can also breath in space because of the Force! That's gonna be so much cooler!" That's not a visionary take on Star Wars -- that's just whimsical nonsense attempting to redifine what creates dramatic tension in the existing source material, and therefore cheapens and invalidates the work before it.

So, when attempting to rewrite or redefine something from literature, firstly, the writer would need to understand how and why things would need to change. Was there an advancement in science that now invalidates what the story is based on? Was there a historical inaccuracy that could be re-written to better portray reality? Is there anything like a plot hole or contradiction that could be written out? For CP2077, I wouldn't touch it. Part of what it does well is leaving certain things unsaid. The arc itself is a golden example of a classical thematic arc. It's beautiful just the way it is. But the radio is too damn loud, now.

 

[Spockprime]

So, the modern world:

There's a game called Banana. It's been at or near the top of the Steam charts for a while now. I keep thinking that there's something obvious I'm missing about it, so I tried to do some reading about it. Maybe something subliminal like "The Game", from Star Trek Next Generation.

Apparently, nope, it is what it is. A banana in the middle of your screen. Click on the banana and get more bananas. Hundreds of thousands of people play it each day.

 

[GrimReaper801]

So, the modern world:

There's a game called Banana. It's been at or near the top of the Steam charts for a while now. I keep thinking that there's something obvious I'm missing about it, so I tried to do some reading about it. Maybe something subliminal like "The Game", from Star Trek Next Generation.

Apparently, nope, it is what it is. A banana in the middle of your screen. Click on the banana and get more bananas. Hundreds of thousands of people play it each day.

It's really just NFT 2.0. You grind for bananas and can then sell them on the Steam market place... and people actually buy them for some reason I can't wrap my head around. From what I saw, in the early days of the game, you could make a significant amount of money with the rarer bananas. These days they hold events where rare bananas can be acquired and can sell for significant amounts. Like this thing which sold 3 copies for over one grand. Since the "game"'s release in April, over eighty million regular bananas have been sold at anywhere between 3 cents and 20 cents.

You get regular bananas every few hours and rarer ones every 15 hours or so if I recall correctly.

You're not missing on anything. Crypto, NFTs, this.... it seems in the future people are increasingly willing to buy air. It's all the greater fool theory in action.

 

[Spockprime]

It's really just NFT 2.0. You grind for bananas and can then sell them on the Steam market place... and people actually buy them for some reason I can't wrap my head around. From what I saw, in the early days of the game, you could make a significant amount of money with the rarer bananas. These days they hold events where rare bananas can be acquired and can sell for significant amounts. Like this thing which sold 3 copies for over one grand. Since the "game"'s release in April, over eighty million regular bananas have been sold at anywhere between 3 cents and 20 cents.

You get regular bananas every few hours and rarer ones every 15 hours or so if I recall correctly.

You're not missing on anything. Crypto, NFTs, this.... it seems in the future people are increasingly willing to buy air. It's all the greater fool theory in action.

Lol ! That's hilarious. And also sad.

 

[GrimReaper801]

Lol ! That's hilarious. And also sad.

You are a much nicer person than I am for only calling this sad.

I would call that whole thing complete insanity and that's the nicest thing I have to say about it lol.

It is hilarious, for sure. In a terrible, terrible way.

 

[EdwardMendoza]

I hate social media, but I dont imagine living without video games