Three human organizations are involved. The first one is fighting to
favor the emergence of Gaia.
I suggest that if they are for a higher consciousness, they wouldn`t
fight, but more like ''go with the flow'' and dissiminate their beliefs
in subtle ways.
Yes, that's correct. I wanted to say that more or less but my english
level does not always let me :)
I see this organization having two main activities : 1)
education/communication/lobbying around the emergence of Gaia, and 2)
concrete action to favor its emergence (we can invent what are the
conditions that permit its emergence)
the Matrix would be back? Salvation through colorblind and emotionless
technology which would implement a set of rules aimed at self
sustainability?
:-)
The third is a group of so called humanists, who fights against the
emergence of these supra-human consciousness, and whishes to
maintain human beings in control of nature and science.
mmmhhh.... that one doesn`t make much sense to me. Science and
diversity of opinions, of races, ideologies... that is part of a
`'higher consciousness'' plan isnt?
I'm not sure I was able to express myself clearly here. If the two first
groups are dedicated to the emergence a higher consciousness, one
related to science and one to nature, then this third one is the group
that refuses that human lose their domination. They want to keep things
as they are, their position is that human and the autonomy of reason is
the key to everything. Something like that, you see what I mean ?
In my view, again, there are only 2 groups. Unless the '' higher
counsciousness'' one is bogus, hiding an agenda that is as dangerous as
the techno one, which is to eleminate all diversity of opinion, of race,
even of climate, to make one big homogenous world, ''the price for no
more wars in the world'' ?
I'm not sure I get your point here, let's discuss it during our meeting
tomorrow. But if I understand you, yes, the Gaia group is as dangerous
as the science group, and as dangerous as the human group. They are all
dangerous according to the point of view. The science because they see a
higher consciousness (AI) taking charge, the Gaia because they see a big
merge of everything (homogenous to quote you), very foundation/Asimov
like, and the humanist because they refuse to evolve (the best of all
possible worlds...).
My point was that I thought that three groups (nature/science/human)
would be more dynamic than two for the unfolding of the story and the
multiplayer part.
* The first organization that contacts the player could be the
'humanists'. They seem like the reasonable guys at the beginning
(see their long term goal as defined by Alex, seems good enough no ?
:)),
These guys are for diversity and contrast, more like libertarians, or
even anarchists, the less control there is, the better...? Perhaps
their dream is of a real effective democratic world government?
Why not ! Not the initial idea I had (see above), but I'm definitely
open to that.
I like all of that stuff, BUT, it should be used as a guide, as we
should leave everything open in terms of what and where things are going
to go, depending on the input of the players. he truth is that I think
that this is good stuff for our own internal reflexions. For me, In the
end, there is a push for more conformity and homogeneity, thus less
freedom and less contrast, and a push for more individual freedom, thus
more contrast and more chaos.
Absolutely. Everything is open and will be tested with the players. It's
definitely just a loose guide.
I like your idea of conformity vs chaos, it would be interesting to see
how it fits with our groups once we agree on the number of groups ;)
_______________________________________________
Farsides mailing list - [email protected]
Wiki: http://farsides.com/
List: http://farsides.com/ml/
Forum: http://farsides.com/forum/
Ideas: http://farsides.com/ideas/
Chat: http://farsides.com/chat/
