quote: Original post by nobodynews

Question though: If your writing a book, will the world have problems like those I''m describing? Or is it some kind of sociological paper? Does it have anything to do with games?(I''m not ridiculing on that last question, just curious)

Oops, I forgot to answer this before. I believe this world would like me to write it as a graphic novel. Something like: 4 artists live together. They want some special art supplies or something, so they make a deal with the government - they agree to acculturate ''pasters'': souls rescued from the past by using this matter transmission/replication technology to pull their brains out of their bodies just before death - in other words, the future has decided that it is morally obligated to make itself a ''heaven'' for the poor people who suffered through the past to make this future possible. (I hope that made sense.) Anyway, the first few pasters they get were mundanes when they lived in the past=our present, and so they adapt really poorly to the future and generally annoy the hell out of the artists. But the artists really want this special allowence, so they argue about it with each other, and decide, allright, we''ll do it one last time. And this time they get a big science fiction fan (i.e. me ) who reacts completely differently and who is soon out-doing them at their own game.

Think that would be funny?

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

I just fail to see how giving people lots of free time to make art with, free art supplies, and a Mall with the largest and most diverse selection you''ve ever seen, could possibly result in a society of people who aren''t individualistic.

Sunandshadow, your society has stolen struggle from your citizens. And by stealing struggle, you may as well have stolen the challenge of life. Struggle and challenge are what distinguish the strong from the weak. It is what enables us to evolve.

Materialism is not the ends to the means. It is one of the means to the end. By equalizing what everyone may have, you have created a society which enables all to participate in many endeavors which many may have no right to participate in.

Individualism is not alone defined by one''s artistic abilities. Perhaps I could say that life is a celebration of spirit, mind and matter. It is not one or two, but all three entangled together in story that unfolds the day we are born.

quote: Original post by Wavinator

I think what you''re overlooking is the power aspect. You and several like minded folks could get together, manufacture the "rare thing," and hide it in the world in order to go on a quest for it. But it wouldn''t change national politics. It would be much more like geocaching, the new pastime that has arisen from people using GPS systems to hide useless items out in nature-- frivolous, fun, harmless.

But that is not it. It is not a contrived game that is played for frivolous fun. That is ultimately unrewarding. It is a true quest, with possible danger, conflict, and self discovery. This results in true character building. In short, it is life. And without the need to struggle and earn, much of the character building ingredients are removed from our hypothetical society''s citizen.

Sure, some of the citizens would be truly talented artists. But many, if not most, I suspect would merely be recipients and take on the very yuppie-esque qualities a non-materialist despises. These citizens can essentially have anything they want, and they do. Every item they own now no longer has any rarity whatsoever attached to it. Each and every item takes on the look and feel of a Sharper Image gadget, or an Ikea knowckdown furniture item. Each item might as well be a disposable Schick razor. For there is no longer value or individuality attached to any object anymore. There is no longer a reason to care. Does this encourage wrecklessness?

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Why-- other than through the influence of mass marketing-- would someone define who and what they are by what they possess?

I can answer this. Let''s go back to that airplane to illustrate this point. And, sunandwhadow, I hope you are reading too, because this is not just for Wavinator. Suppose I seach up and down this country for a small plane in good shape that will suit my needs to engage in exploration of Northern Canada and Alaska. I buy it, and outfit it with avionics for mountain flying and bad weather, and then I put tundra tires (big donut tires) on it for landing on rough terrain. I have expended time, energy, and money to be an owner of this ''customized'' airplane. In other words, I have earned it. Do I now have it computer scanned, so anybody can matter-replicate it? No! This comes back to what I was saying about allowing anybody to participate in endeavors they should not participate in. Ease of entry causes saturation and decreases the pleasure of those who worked hard for something.

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Now, artistic expression is another thing entirely, and where I see the individuality of these hypothetical people really shining. You can see the model for this right here in this forum! Imagine if everyone here could create their own game instantly, at no cost: Do you think that we''d all think exactly the same thing? I don''t think so.

It is funny, Wavinator, what you are saying. And I think you are truly brilliant. But I look at the posts in the Game Design Forum descrbing the sci-fi game you are creating, and I see a game (of which I approve) whose analogue in real life are the very features I have been advocating here. Your game is based upon exploration, struggle, wealth building, enhancing one''s own spaceship, and carving out a niche in the galaxy. You wish to create an experience for the user where she can vicariously through the computer experience many of the things I attempt to accomplish in real life.

quote:
Original post by sunandshadow

I just fail to see how giving people lots of free time to make art with, free art supplies, and a Mall with the largest and most diverse selection you've ever seen, could possibly result in a society of people who aren't individualistic.

Original post by Bishop_Pass
Sunandshadow, your society has stolen struggle from your citizens. And by stealing struggle, you may as well have stolen the challenge of life. Struggle and challenge are what distinguish the strong from the weak. It is what enables us to evolve.

Materialism is not the ends to the means. It is one of the means to the end. By equalizing what everyone may have, you have created a society which enables all to participate in many endeavors which many may have no right to participate in.

Individualism is not alone defined by one's artistic abilities. Perhaps I could say that life is a celebration of spirit, mind and matter. It is not one or two, but all three entangled together in story that unfolds the day we are born.

You can't steal struggle from people because people always manufacture some for themselves in addition to that imposed by the environment. Example: struggle is imposed on me by my environment in the form of the GPA I must earn every semester or be kicked out of my major. I impose struggle on myself by deciding that I must understand matriarchy, or plot structure, or something. This society merely frees people to choose the struggles they wish to partake in.

I am looking at material comforts (not materialism, it's different) as the means to an end. In this case the end is maximal quality of life and minimal stress (not eustress) for all citizens.

I'm really disturbed at that phrase "endeavors which many have no right to participate in." Am I mistaken, or do you think some people have no right to do art? Everyone has the right to attempt to create something beautiful; the result may be ugly, people may laugh at it, but everyone can make the attempt (and has had the ability to do so since the time of cavemen when people first thought of putting feathers in their hair and wearing shiny stones).

Distinguishing the strong from the weak. Well, I won't venture an opinion on whether they should be distinguished, but I will strongly assert that life as is does not distinguish between the strong and the weak because every individual is subject to different and unequal imposed struggles. Keep in mind that most of the factors that affect survival and reproduction of humans today are social, not environmental or biological. Do we really care whether we evolve to be better adapted to life in this society when in 100 years our descendants will probably live in a completely different society, for example the one described in this thread?

I do look at life as a celebration of spirit, mind, and matter, and I get really pissed off when having to get a certain grade or do laundry interferes with my celebrating.

quote:
Original post by Bishop_Pass
But that is not it. It is not a contrived game that is played for frivolous fun. That is ultimately unrewarding. It is a true quest, with possible danger, conflict, and self discovery. This results in true character building. In short, it is life. And without the need to struggle and earn, much of the character building ingredients are removed from our hypothetical society's citizen.

Sure, some of the citizens would be truly talented artists. But many, if not most, I suspect would merely be recipients and take on the very yuppie-esque qualities a non-materialist despises. These citizens can essentially have anything they want, and they do. Every item they own now no longer has any rarity whatsoever attached to it. Each and every item takes on the look and feel of a Sharper Image gadget, or an Ikea knowckdown furniture item. Each item might as well be a disposable Schick razor. For there is no longer value or individuality attached to any object anymore. There is no longer a reason to care. Does this encourage wrecklessness?

So you're saying playing games is never truly rewarding? I beg to differ; games, especially tabletop RPGs, and reading fiction, which is essentially a game of pretend you play with the author, are much more rewarding to me than most of the things I do everyday. In a year, who will care if I did my Latin homework? But If instead I had spent the time reading a book that changed my philosophy and thereby built my character, in a year I would be an entirely different person than I would have been otherwise.

I am neither yuppie-esque nor an anti-materialist. I am technically a member of generation Y, which has been dubbed "the shopping generation", and I do enjoy shopping. But let's look around my room, shall we? The only decorative objects in the room are some pictures of me and my boyfriend, three pieces of art that I didn't make, one piece of art that I did make, and my clothes and jewelry. Of these I have exactly enough laundry that I only need to wash it every two weeks, and almost all of that is practical enough that I can wear it to tromp across campus through snowdrifts, like I did today. And yet I never see people wearing the same thing: for example today's shirt is blue and green with black leopard spots, and I've never seen anyone wearing the same one. All of my jewelry fits in a 2' x 2' x 6" tuperware box, and I mostly only get it out for the purposes of doing cosplay (recreational costuming, one of my hobbies). Everything I own, except the pictures of me and my boyfriend, was mass-produced, but my choices among all available objects express my individuality.

quote:
Original post by Bishop_Pass
Let's go back to that airplane to illustrate this point. And, sunandwhadow, I hope you are reading too, because this is not just for Wavinator. Suppose I seach up and down this country for a small plane in good shape that will suit my needs to engage in exploration of Northern Canada and Alaska. I buy it, and outfit it with avionics for mountain flying and bad weather, and then I put tundra tires (big donut tires) on it for landing on rough terrain. I have expended time, energy, and money to be an owner of this 'customized' airplane. In other words, I have earned it. Do I now have it computer scanned, so anybody can matter-replicate it? No! This comes back to what I was saying about allowing anybody to participate in endeavors they should not participate in. Ease of entry causes saturation and decreases the pleasure of those who worked hard for something.

I can see how you would enjoy working for something and achieving it. But why do you care whether or not other people have to work for the same thing? If it makes them happy to work for it, ok, they should work for it. But if they don't get a kick out of working for it, they shouldn't have to. They should only have to do what they feel like doing (according to this society's stated goal of giving all citizens a maximal quality of life). Ease of entry can easily be compensated for on an individual basis, but you must realize that only some people would prefer that it be compensated for.

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Now, artistic expression is another thing entirely, and where I see the individuality of these hypothetical people really shining. You can see the model for this right here in this forum! Imagine if everyone here could create their own game instantly, at no cost: Do you think that we'd all think exactly the same thing? I don't think so.

Original Post by Bishop_Pass
It is funny, Wavinator, what you are saying. And I think you are truly brilliant. But I look at the posts in the Game Design Forum descrbing the sci-fi game you are creating, and I see a game (of which I approve) whose analogue in real life are the very features I have been advocating here. Your game is based upon exploration, struggle, wealth building, enhancing one's own spaceship, and carving out a niche in the galaxy. You wish to create an experience for the user where she can vicariously through the computer experience many of the things I attempt to accomplish in real life.

The key difference between a game and reality is this: when you play an computer game you don't have to sleep out in the cold, you don't get hurt, you don't die, and you can always win if you do it right. In real life you get hurt. In real life you get so frustrated you scream and cry, and you take your frustration out on other people, damaging your relationships with them and making them unhappy. In real life you can die, and no one gets any satisfaction or character development from that. The whole point of computer games is to tame struggle and make it safe to enjoy.

Edited by - sunandshadow on February 24, 2001 5:13:40 PM

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

I'm really disturbed at that phrase "endeavors which many have no right to participate in." Am I mistaken, or do you think some people have no right to do art? Everyone has the right to attempt to create something beautiful; the result may be ugly, people may laugh at it, but everyone can make the attempt (and has had the ability to do so since the time of cavemen when people first thought of putting feathers in their hair and wearing shiny stones).

No need to be disturbed. Everyone certainly has the right to do art. But your matter-replicating society allows everyone to have a perfect working copy of virtually anything somebody else might dream up.

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

I do look at life as a celebration of spirit, mind, and matter, and I get really pissed off when having to get a certain grade or do laundry interferes with my celebrating.

Do you not revel in the joys of cramming for exams or sorting whites from bright colors?

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

So you're saying playing games is never truly rewarding?

No. I am saying playing games is frivolous fun, and nothing more. It can never equal the satisfaction derived from the true struggle of life. One should live life, rather than endure it and seek methods to escape it. What I mean is, while game playing is perfectly acceptable and fun, the pretending is no substitute for the rewards waiting for those who are not shy to participate in the real life analogue. I can play a flight sim, or learn to fly. I can play a dungeon and cavern exploring RPG, or I can go canyoneering or spelunking. I can acquire treasure in a fantasy game, or I can build wealth through business. Game playing will give me a few hours of diversion and fun while real life endeavors will build my character and move me ahead in life.

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

I beg to differ; games, especially tabletop RPGs, and reading fiction, which is essentially a game of pretend you play with the author, are much more rewarding to me than most of the things I do everyday.

Yes, to a degree. Certainly reading a book is more enjoyable than transfering laundry from the washer to the dryer.

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

In a year, who will care if I did my Latin homework? But If instead I had spent the time reading a book that changed my philosophy and thereby built my character, in a year I would be an entirely different person than I would have been otherwise.

But here is where struggle aids in building character. It tests your fortitude. Although I admit I probably do not have the fortitude to endure Latin homework. But where is the character building happening with our utopian artists and consumers of their matter-replicated art? These poor souls have it too easy. Their art will undoubtedly be of the worst nature imaginable. For without the poignant and life enriching experience of actually living life, they will have trouble portraying it.

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

I am neither yuppie-esque nor an anti-materialist. I am technically a member of generation Y, which has been dubbed "the shopping generation", and I do enjoy shopping. But let's look around my room, shall we? The only decorative objects in the room are some pictures of me and my boyfriend, three pieces of art that I didn't make, one piece of art that I did make, and my clothes and jewelry. Of these I have exactly enough laundry that I only need to wash it every two weeks, and almost all of that is practical enough that I can wear it to tromp across campus through snowdrifts, like I did today. And yet I never see people wearing the same thing: for example today's shirt is blue and green with black leopard spots, and I've never seen anyone wearing the same one. All of my jewelry fits in a 2' x 2' x 6" tuperware box, and I mostly only get it out for the purposes of doing cosplay (recreational costuming, one of my hobbies). Everything I own, except the pictures of me and my boyfriend, was mass-produced, but my choices among all available objects express my individuality.

But despite this case you make (and it is a good case; I have always liked the word 'tromp') that your modest consumerism still enables you to define your individuality, you have tied its origins to mall shopping. Malls are the most unindividualistic places on Earth, second only to food marts. If you've been in one mall, you've been in them all. I must say I avoid them like the plague. I choose only to patronize them when I realize I may need some new clothes.

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

I can see how you would enjoy working for something and achieving it. But why do you care whether or not other people have to work for the same thing? If it makes them happy to work for it, ok, they should work for it. But if they don't get a kick out of working for it, they shouldn't have to. They should only have to do what they feel like doing (according to this society's stated goal of giving all citizens a maximal quality of life). Ease of entry can easily be compensated for on an individual basis, but you must realize that only some people would prefer that it be compensated for.

Back to the phrase "endeavors which many have no right to participate in." They should have to work for it. And this will keep the numbers of participants down. By working for it, you have declared your desire to be a participant. If anybody can become a participant, the field becomes clogged with unlearned and noncommittal individuals creating numerous problems and possibly endangering others.

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

The key difference between a game and reality is this: when you play an computer game you don't have to sleep out in the cold, you don't get hurt, you don't die, and you can always win if you do it right. In real life you get hurt.

Yes, and getting hurt just plain hurts. I know. But to quote Gordon Wiltsie, an author and in his own way, an artist: "Here, in the spacious wilderness stretching between Mount Whitney and the Sawtooth Range, lie most of my fondest climbing memories, as well as my closest brushes with elements far more powerful than I. This landscape has humbled me and it has almost killed me. But mostly, it has inspired me to come alive ."

The very same mountains he describes have filled me with awe and wonder. I have labored up four miles of steep canyon and snow to stand in reverance at what one could only describe as God's own throne room. And I am not religious. On like trips, I have been rained and hailed upon. I have experienced thunder and lighting that has truly scared me. Yet I reveled in the awesome power of it. I have vomited from the high altitude more times than I can count. And yes, I have slept out in the cold. In short, I have been absolutely miserable. But the power of the experience is so intense, that despite my vowing never to do it again, I soon find myself yearning for the experience once again. It does build character, and the memories produced shine like beacons among the more mundane.

To succeed at art and literature, it seems to me you must live and experience life. You must experience the struggle of striving and failure. Tragedy and loss too. Art to me is not just the materials and tools. It is the experience it portrays, and the entire process of creating it.

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

The whole point of computer games is to tame struggle and make it safe to enjoy.

Yes. It is the watered down version.




Edited by - bishop_pass on February 25, 2001 8:55:54 PM

Edited by - bishop_pass on February 25, 2001 10:46:05 PM

Edited by - bishop_pass on February 26, 2001 11:05:03 AM

quote: Original post by bishop_pass

Sunandshadow, your society has stolen struggle from your citizens. And by stealing struggle, you may as well have stolen the challenge of life. Struggle and challenge are what distinguish the strong from the weak. It is what enables us to evolve.

This is so awesome. This, right before our eyes, would be the extraordinarily difficult philosophical transition this civilization would have to go through. (S&S, meat for the story? )

Bishop, consider that you are neither right nor wrong here. Imagine what hunter gatherers might have felt about the nature of life as they watched agricultural tyrannies, with their walled cities, standing armies, and rampant disease encroach on their way of life.

Or imagine how farmers and artisans would have responded to the the Industrial Revolution. The work of a man devalued, their lives thrown to the whims of the free market, the old ways of life and meaning disappearing...

So for a civilization dependent upon ravenous competition, where the weak are gutted and removed from the gene pool, this is a disaster. But consider a society evolving compassion: One in which our fates are intertwined, and we can not afford to throw anyone away. A remarkable society like this, as alien to us as Silicon Valley would be to Mesopotamia, would not define itself in terms of blood and fire.

To you, they''d be breeding increasing weakness. To them, weakness would have been redefined as empathy and strength.

quote:
Materialism is not the ends to the means. It is one of the means to the end. By equalizing what everyone may have, you have created a society which enables all to participate in many endeavors which many may have no right to participate in.

Right is defined by the society. Once upon a time (and still), right was who had the biggest gun. Right was whoever could kill and take. Then humankind began developing this sociological phenomenom called empathy... and just in time, hopefully, as it may be the only thing that saves us from bombing ourselves into non-existence.

quote:
But that is not it. It is not a contrived game that is played for frivolous fun. That is ultimately unrewarding. It is a true quest, with possible danger, conflict, and self discovery. This results in true character building. In short, it is life. And without the need to struggle and earn, much of the character building ingredients are removed from our hypothetical society''s citizen.

They may have developed character of a different nature-- one which a society of scarcity could never value.

quote:
It is funny, Wavinator, what you are saying. And I think you are truly brilliant. But I look at the posts in the Game Design Forum descrbing the sci-fi game you are creating, and I see a game (of which I approve) whose analogue in real life are the very features I have been advocating here. Your game is based upon exploration, struggle, wealth building, enhancing one''s own spaceship, and carving out a niche in the galaxy. You wish to create an experience for the user where she can vicariously through the computer experience many of the things I attempt to accomplish in real life.

Wow! Thanks for the high compliment! (et tu...)

But have you ever noticed that we put ourselves through game experiences and our heros through fictional experiences that we would define as hell in real life? Hanging from cliffs by a pinkie, dodging freight trains, being stalked by insane madmen, facing down the eradication of human civilization, defusing a nuclear bomb... etc, etc., etc.

Ask real life cops. Or soldiers. Or FBI profilers. Hannibal may be a top grossing movie, Saving Private Ryan an excellent film, and SWAT 3 a popular game... but living the moment is something else entirely. It is thrilling because it is vicarious .

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

First of S&S, sorry for hijacking the thread. Hope you are getting ideas, tho'', as this is fun...

Bishop, you''ve given me some great ideas, btw. I appreciate your viewpoint, as it is the most articulate version of this position that I have so far encountered. (Being that it''s so hypothetical, most I''ve talked with can''t seem to delve deep into the implications of such a weird / fantastical difference)

quote: Original post by bishop_pass

No need to be disturbed. Everyone certainly has the right to do art. But your matter-replicating society allows everyone to have a perfect working copy of virtually anything somebody else might dream up.

I picture that there would be a small part of society, living on an island somewhere in this world, with an old style free market economy, living without plenty just as the Amish live without electricity. (Not a value judgement, btw, just a cool point of detail to round out this world).

quote:
But here is where struggle aids in building character. It tests your fortitude. Although I admit I probably do not have the fortitude to endure Latin homework. But where is the character building happening with our utopian artists and consumers of their matter-replicated art? These poor souls have it too easy. Their art will undoubtedly be of the worst nature imaginable. For without the poignant and life enriching experience of actually living life, they will have trouble portraying it.

I think you''re still focusing too much entirely on the physical. Wealth and plenty do not ensure happiness. As the old common wisdom goes, there are plenty of wealthy people who suicide because of factors beyond wealth.

If you look at the history of human civilization I think you''ll see a common theme: As soon as we address one major issue, we start working on another. When agricultural societies met the basic needs, there was time to learn to solve the next level of problems.

Fear not, bishop. This society will not be problem free. They may not appreciate the value of matter, but mind is another thing entirely....

quote:
But despite this case you make (and it is a good case; I have always liked the word ''tromp'') that your modest consumerism still enables you to define your individuality, you have tied its origins to mall shopping. Malls are the most unindividualistic places on Earth, second only to food marts. If you''ve been in one mall, you''ve been in them all. I must say I avoid them like the plague. I choose only to patronize them when I realize I may need some new clothes.

Don''t like chain stores, eh?

Notice, though, that as the civilization moves in the direction of chain stores, you must spend greater and greater amounts of energy fighting the trend. Not saying this is good or bad, just making an observation.

quote:
Back to the phrase "endeavors which many have no right to participate in." They should have to work for it. And this will keep the numbers of participants down. By working for it, you have declared your desire to be a participant. If anybody can become a participant, the field becomes clogged with unlearned and noncommittal individuals creating numerous problems and possibly endangering others.

I like fan fiction. It''s the worst tripe you can imagine. But some people have actually turned out good work. These people still rise above the others, dispite relatively easy barrier to entry, and I gravitate toward their works.

The low barrier to entry to writing or singing or poetry does mean that the connoisseur has to tolerate a much higher level of mediocrity. Maybe the tradeoff is less of a virulent reaction to elitism?

quote:

Yes, and getting hurt just plain hurts. I know. But to quote Gordon Wiltsie, an author and in his own way, an artist: "Here, in the spacious wilderness stretching between Mount Whitney and the Sawtooth Range, lie most of my fondest climbing memories, as well as my closest brushes with elements far more powerful than I. This landscape has humbled me and it has almost killed me. But mostly, it has inspired me to come alive ."

The very same mountains he describes have filled me with awe and wonder. I have labored up four miles of steep canyon and snow to stand in reverance at what one could only describe as God''s own throne room. And I am not religious. On like trips, I have been rained and hailed upon. I have experienced thunder and lighting that has truly scared me. Yet I reveled in the awesome power of it. I have vomited from the high altitude more times than I can count. And yes, I have slept out in the cold. In short, I have been absolutely miserable. But the power of the experience is so intense, that despite my vowing never to do it again, I soon find myself yearning for the experience once again. It does build character, and the memories produced shine like beacons among the more mundane.

Hey Bishop, you''re probably the reason why a civilization like this would found colonies on other planets, or beneath the oceans. You definitely represent a personality type that this society would not understand.

Oddly enough, I find myself attracted to S&S''s fictional world because I''m a person very closely connected with my own mortality. I enjoy the mental struggle, like what we''re doing now. But the physical is just too precarious. Some would distain my life as too safe . But given a limited life, that can be lived once and only once, with nothing else beyond-- well, I want to do every damn thing I can to stretch out and savor the time I have.

quote:
To succeed at art and literature, it seems to me you must live and experience life. You must experience the struggle of striving and failure. Tragedy and loss too.

I think there''s a strong element of truth to this, but I don''t think it''s the only source of great art. Part of great art is great perception, and as much as it pisses me off, you don''t have to earn perception. There are plenty of great artists out there that whose tragedy and loss pales in comparison to others, and nevertheless they somehow manage to make great works.

(Sadly, the opposite is also true... plenty of savaged souls out there who don''t manage to make great art...)





--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Bishop_pass, what''s worng with having a perfect replica of something someone has worked for weeks on without the blood, sweat, and tears that the original worker had to put into it? If I was to create something and my thoughts were, "If anyone else wants one, make them go through what I had to," then I wouldn''t be a good citizen in this world. It should be, "If anyone wants to go through what I did, then I''ll tell them what to do." If it''s a case of I don''t want my work to be just arbitrarily copied, and thus the meaning of it diminished, I can always take pride in the fact that I did it first. That pride would likely be the driving factor in invention and artistic expression.

Here''s a thought. Games. In our world, if I see fit, I can go out and get a game that someone else toiled on for hours. I do this because I want to play a game. Many of us here don''t just want to play a game, we want the experience of creating one of our own that others will want. (If I had free food and shelter, I''d do it for free.) Either that or we''re so tired of the cookie-cutter games out there, we make it our mission to make something new. Already, we''ve commited ourselves to a character building experience. But how much character do we want to build? Do we want to use an existing game engine, graphics, or libraries? Or for that matter existing user interfaces, hardware, OS, and so on down to the chips and components and then generate the electricty? As rewarding as putting your own computer together is on the chip level (done it) I don''t want to spend hours creating tools that someone else already has. It''s not that I don''t want struggle. I want to choose my struggle.

Sunandshadow, I do kinda wonder though what might there be to stop people from just being lazy and not contributing to society. I''ve been there myself, it''s really easy to waste days, weeks, and months not doing anything but watching Columbo reruns and soap operas when all your needs are met. An artist could easilly fall into such a trap when faced with something like writers block. But, you might not want or need to deal with this if your writing a graphic novel.

Back to setting for a minute. I would hope that such a vast mall would be well air conditioned and had plenty of space to move around. Not being able to get around all the other people is a extreemly vexing. This coupled with the wrong temperature and the scents of foods, flowers, and tortured artists who haven''t bathed in days would put me in the time-out area regularly.

Many stores would have a common area apropriate to what the store produces. This would be a place to test somethings social appeal or practicality as well as provide comfort to weary shoppers. Because shopping would be more for social purposes than materialistic, stores wold be deccorated (and located) in a manner to attract the type of people desired without fear of excluding potental customers. (Come to think of it, such a society might be more prone to dividing itself into cliques like skaters, rockers, and conservatives.)

Packaging would be a changed industry. It would probably always be light and easy to carry, but now it could also be very elaborate and pointless with no fear of waste since it could just be recycled into energy. Items would be packaged according to target customers with no fear of excluding potential customers.

Oh, I am kinda wondering where the 3k number came from.

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Don''t like chain stores, eh?

Actually, I really enjoy Border''s...

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Oddly enough, I find myself attracted to S&S''s fictional world because I''m a person very closely connected with my own mortality. I enjoy the mental struggle, like what we''re doing now. But the physical is just too precarious. Some would distain my life as too safe . But given a limited life, that can be lived once and only once, with nothing else beyond-- well, I want to do every damn thing I can to stretch out and savor the time I have.

A theme in your posts is the separation of the physical and the mental. There is a synergy between the two; a reciprocal link between the conscious and the physical world around us. One drives the other and produces an experience that is greater than the sum.

You can live a safe life and die an inner death. But I do not advocate ''cheating'' death and physical recklessness. Nor would I deem my physical activities solely physical. They are in fact highly mental, thus the synergy. I am immensely aware of my mortality. I don''t think a day goes by that I do not comtemplate my death. Given a limited life, as you say, is all the more reason to experience that which heretofore you have denied yourself. Most fears are mental barriers we throw up in the absence of knowelge.

As I said, many of my excursions are highly mental. In fact, they involve many of the aspects of strategic gameplay as discussed here on these boards. Reasearch and reading are required. Topographical maps are acquired and perused. Trip planning involves gear inventories, where weight is a serious issue. Less is more has never been more true. And let me say that making headway at high altitude is very mental. ''Willpower'' is the keyword here.

I honestly believe that I could take most anyone here who is a fan of SF or Fantasy on one of my excursions and empower them with a stronger sense of... continuity? My trips attempt to be a bridge between the mundaneness of ordinary life and the fantastical adventure of make-believe. Above all else, they produce powerful memories.

I agree with Wavinator: the physical is just too precarious. I''m the type of person who detests physical exertion (tickle fights excepted ) and if I have to be uncomfortable to accomplish something that ruins, NOT enhances, whatever satisfaction I might have got out of accomplishing it. As for the great outdoors resulting in powerful memories, I''ll agree to that: I have a great memory of, going out to lake Erie in the middle of winter and being amazed by how desolate and alien the ice-dunes and frozen lake looked. But the reason I enjoyed this experience was because I was bundled from head to foot in a snowsuit, moon boots, thermal gloves, earmuffs, and a hat. No discomfort from cold meant I could concentrate on enjoying my bizarre surroundings. But that''s not really one of my best memories; my absolute most fantastic memory is of a dream where I could fly, and my other best memories are of writing or reading fiction. Face it Bishop_Pass, there are those of us who do not benefit from ''roughing it''. That''s just how my brain works - I cannot gain anything from an experience if I''m busy suffering.

For those who do like challenge and thrills, I had this thought: this fictional world probably has great theme parks, especially incorporating virtual reality technologies. Maybe there''s a huge horror/adventure theme park that is completely redesigned by volunteers every week, the challenge is to make it the whole way through without going crazy or bailing out - and certainly physical challenges could be included. Of course, with the bodysculpting that''s available, going into the park with a buff body could be considered unsporting - oh, there''s all kinds of room for hair-raising adventure in this future

quote: Original post by kseh

Bishop_pass, what''s worng with having a perfect replica of something someone has worked for weeks on without the blood, sweat, and tears that the original worker had to put into it? If I was to create something and my thoughts were, "If anyone else wants one, make them go through what I had to," then I wouldn''t be a good citizen in this world. It should be, "If anyone wants to go through what I did, then I''ll tell them what to do." If it''s a case of I don''t want my work to be just arbitrarily copied, and thus the meaning of it diminished, I can always take pride in the fact that I did it first. That pride would likely be the driving factor in invention and artistic expression.

kseh: Without strict rules and regulations governing which items are allowed to be replicated, (which would be a major affront against our artistic citizens) we will find many consumers having access to objects that this society and environment cannot bear in large numbers. There are many endeavors which require resources other than the object itself. And there are also many endeavors which become diminished as more join in.

A computer game does not serve as a valid analogy. For one thing, the activity of using a computer game is confined to one''s household, and sunandshadow has so generously decreed that each citizen shall have a household. This, incidentally, raises another question: houses occupy space, and how much space does this society have? Are we to assume that as someone dies, the next couple desiring a child is allowed one? Or do we allow the population to run amok?