Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Caz]

Evil usually happens hand and hand with progress because 'evil' people want to research and keep the progress for themselves, ensuring that they're ahead of everyone else, which they can then use as a bargaining chip to get what they want. 'Good' people don't have this motivator, or hordes of servants to carry out the research. 

I don't think I'm making much sense here, but oh well.

[Duke 2.0]

 Perhaps it is the fact that is progress is at the expense of others?

 Say you have a scientist. He toils away for years and sacrifices many things that mean a lot to him to continue testing various things. Eventually he comes upon a discovery that increases the output of farms by tenfold. He is thus a good guy. The only people he hurt in the process was himself, and he helped many thousands others.

 Now we have a factory owner. He starts hiring children and poor people because he can pay them less. The safety conditions are horrible, but because there are so many homeless and children out for work he cares not, for they can always be replaced. His products are cheap, but the country he is in just needs the products and the quality is still high enough for their standards. He may have provided a product to many people that helped them, but he also hurt many people in the process.

 Eventually he makes a global chain, exploiting the poor of other countries to make more of his product. He creates jobs and work for millions, and causes the death of thousands every year.

 I suppose having others pay so you may gain is a bit of a social no-no. Even if those gains spill out to others, you still have victims. If you have victims, something was done wrong.

[Tormy]

Evil usually happens hand and hand with progress because 'evil' people want to research and keep the progress for themselves, ensuring that they're ahead of everyone else, which they can then use as a bargaining chip to get what they want. 'Good' people don't have this motivator, or hordes of servants to carry out the research. 

I don't think I'm making much sense here, but oh well.

You do, but I don't really agree with your statement. Good and evil people have different motivations, that's all.

[Yanlin]

WWII is the answer here. Hitler industrialized Germany creating massive amounts of jobs, technological advancement, etc., while commiting genocides and starting a massive world spanning war after everyone thought that gobal war would never happen again. Trench warfare, the return to the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, air strikes against civilian targets, the holocuast, pearl harbour, the use of the atomic bomb, etc. are the things that people remember from WWII. In a whole lot of people's subconcious, industrialization brings up imagess of nationalism, fascism, nazi stormtroopers, devastated countrysides, endless global war and death camps.

Godwin's law. (I never actually checked the 2nd page.)

[Zaranthan]

Godwin's law. (I never actually checked the 2nd page.)

Not applicable. This isn't a debate.

[Keilden]

Godwin's law. (I never actually checked the 2nd page.)

Not applicable. This isn't a debate.

It seems like a debate for me, people are talking about if progress is evil in a way that seems like a debate to me.

[umiman]

Duke 2.0: Progress (and really, everything) is done at the expense of someone else. The point of it is to benefit a greater cause / more people / bring higher profit. No matter what you do, when you do it, and why you do it... you're always going to put someone at a disadvantage by your actions. It's the rule of nature. There's no action you can take in this reality that universally benefits everyone.

Even the "good" guys are being complete dicks at times, but the plot just ignores those parts of the equation. Let's take Final Fantasy 7 for example. There's no doubt that because of the actions of the rebels, thousands of Shinra workers would lose their jobs and suffer from unemployment and as a result, they would grind the economy to a recession and really, just ruin everyone's day. Sure, they defeat some evil person whose motives aren't really clear though it involves something evil but if you see the end result of their actions (read: sequel movies), not only is there no progress or actual benefit from their actions, but all existing infrastructure was reduced to rubble and people were forced to live like beggars.

[Yanlin]

Some games really pull the fight against evil rather well. Mass Effect comes to mind. But then again, they pulled the cheap card where you get to

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

save the galaxy...

But yeah. I hate it when story writers never think things through.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality

[Ampersand]

The problem in mass effect isn't that you get to do that, it's that you have to do that. There's a good ending, and a bad ending, but the difference between them is basically the expression on the PCs face when he climbs out from under the rubble at the end.

[Yanlin]

To be honest, Mass Effect doesn't have an "evil" path. Just a "I did what I had to do" path.

[Puck]

It's strange isn't it? We know that maintaining the status quo is actually quite reviled in the real world, yet it's something that fiction tends to maintain as "good". I don't really understand how we came to such a contradiction.

Oh, I think that's quite easy to understand.

You're simply talking about two different kinds of "status quo", that's why you end up with a contradiction  In fact I think you give the term a wrongish meaning (could it be you're thinking about balance?).

Wikipedia has it put nicely:

Status quo, literally "the state in which", is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs. To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are. The related phrase status quo ante, literally "the state in which before", means "the state of affairs that existed previously.

In RL the status quo is bad because... well, just take a look at the distribution of wealth for instance.

And to be honest I cannot really think of any (science) fiction stories in which the status quo would be all the shiznit for everybody. Also, the term "status quo" shouldnt be related to "life is change, stagnation equals death". Because even the status quo can be maintained by fluid changes in the background, that keep the "state of affairs" balanced on top.

Fake edit: FIGHT THE POWAH!

[umiman]

Uh no. It's pretty clear I understand what status quo means. Here:

"It's strange isn't it? We know that maintaining the current situation is actually quite reviled in the real world, yet it's something that fiction tends to maintain as "good". I don't really understand how we came to such a contradiction."

In fact, I think you're going round and round in circles (status quo is bad in real life, but not all sci fi considers it good but status quo should not be related to this but status quo is actually change but it's also balance) and are misassociating your own confusion for mine.

[Puck]

So shoot over some examples of fiction where the status quo is all that desirable, please?

Also, I ain't confusing anything, I just added that "life is change" thing, because that one often confuses people when talking about the status quo (and they use it to argue that's why the status quo is actually bad. Not saying that was what you did, I just wanted to make that one clear right away)

I also never said that status quo equals balance in ANY way. I just said things can change all the time, but like the chinese guy with the sticks and the plates, the status quo keeps balancing upon all the things that change. The chinese guy with the sticks being the change, the status quo being the plates.

Either way, my points are:

.) status quo doesnt equal stagnation, and therefore that one shouldnt be used to call it bad.
.) status quo doesnt equal "balance"
.) wtf what stories are you reading that picture having a status quo is desirable? (not saying that it isnt, when it rocks.)

[Sowelu]

The status quo means we're not all dead, and at least have the freedom to discuss stuff or think.  In sci-fi universes, "changing the status quo" is not guaranteed to preserve all of these things intact.

[Yanlin]

So is that how conservatives rationalize things?

"You fancy ass liberals want to get us all killed! Pollution is good!"