The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums

Full Version: Dragon Transhumanist Inbound
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Hi Rakeela!
My apologize if I didn't greet you before, probably I forgot   Blush
I have been more or less in the same situation as you, I guess, when I first joined the forum with my proposal and at the beginning things went a bit rough.
I'd take Rynn advice and slow down and put everything more in order.
Drashner is a bit stern as always, at least for me, but he has been here for much longer than me and always done a nice job as moderator. And I guess that being a forum administrator comes with the same warnings of a pack of cigarettes so give him a pass.

I'd suggest to make a thread on the main forum for discussion, this one is just for saying hello (more or less)

Regarding the ethics of the being in OA, well... we more or less have everything, which include its shades of evil, absolute evil and incomprehensible evil. If you binge in the articles of the site you'll find that often lesser being are treated by those superior to them with the same indifference we treat bacteria (this is the most often use metaphor).
AI Gods in OA are more Olympian rather than abrahamic and thus, sometimes, will be apparently evil. Sounds a bit shallow but I guess it's what make the whole setting more realistic. A full fledged Utopia would be pretty boring, at least for me.
And, anyway, what can you do against a God?
(07-13-2021, 07:28 AM)Vitto Wrote: [ -> ]Drashner is a bit stern as always, at least for me, but he has been here for much longer than me and always done a nice job as moderator.

Ahem - The reason that Drashner is 'a bit stern' in this case is that Rakeela basically stated that the OA setting:

a) 'normalizes an intense ethical regression as a supposedly inevitable consequence of intelligence.'

b) postulates that hyperfascistic rejections of civil rights are inevitable in sufficiently intelligent societies

Followed by:

a) strongly indicating that we - the creators of the setting - saw this state of affairs as a good thing, which in so many words is accusing us of being ethically regressed and supportive of fascism. This is re-enforced in Post Number 18, where Rakeela essentially confirms that they thought that we believed in all elements of the OA setting as a positive outcome for the future when they say 'If the setting isn't necessarily what you want the future to be, why are you treating it so personally that I contemplated the ethics and civil rights implications of the models of cognition that the setting uses as its base?'

b) stating that the replies to their earlier idea for a possible polity in the setting showed that those replying (myself and/or Rynn) were engaging in 'reactionary hostility to the words which prevented comprehension from being attained' - when what was actually stated in response to their idea was (and I quote):

Todd - You could do something like this, although such a civ would likely be an independent polity somewhere rather than a member of the Sephirotic empires since they generally don't engage in xenophobia and the right of mophological freedom - basically the right to change oneself in nearly any way you can imagine - is considered a fundamental one. But there is plenty of room in the setting for independent polities. Also, a single system polity would most likely be run by a Second or Third Singularity transapient rather than an archailect

Rynn - Just to add to Todd’s point: there doesn’t need to be a local transapient at all. Modo sophonts are very capable of running their own societies and transaps are relatively rare.

Neither of which are either hostile or reactionary, unless we are to assume that any questioning, critique, or suggested modification of anything Rakeela says is 'reactionary hostility' - which is not a pov that is going to fly in OA and which I would think would be self-evident given how OA works.

c) Stating that - once you plow through the verbiage - 'moderate xenophobia' (xenophobia = per Websters - fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign) dictatorial and control by the state in regards to people's appearance - is a good thing (in a very interesting contrast to the earlier statements about OA being fascist supportive), when it comes to matters of what people can and can't do with their own bodies on the principle that they might take on an appearance that other people find disturbing - which is tap dancing very close to the same sort of arguments advanced by various groups as to why inter-racial relationships, or same-sex displays of affection, or transgender people in general should be actively acted against by the state - that having to see such things is disturbing to them/causes them emotional distress.

Having a new person find elements of the setting disturbing is nothing new and would not have triggered the same reaction. But normally that takes the form of people stating they find something disturbing and why, asking questions about it, and allowing for discussion and explanation to see where we are coming from. And most definitely not jumping to highly negative conclusions about the personal beliefs of OA members based on the articles we've written or contributed to.

Having a new person (or anyone else) instantly jump right to the point of accusing the OA community in general - not to mention me personally - of being 'ethically regressed' and pro-fascist based on what the setting depicts is very much a bridge too far. Add to that essentially advocating that the government should act to restrict appearance/behavior on the basis of some people finding it emotionally distressing is a bridge too farther.

Acting shocked that anyone would respond negatively to such things is either disingenuous or flat out silly. Unless perhaps the goal is to 'stir the pot' in one form or another. But I don't have enough data points to really support that conclusion (yet).

So yes - I was/am 'stern' about this matter. Because I think I have good reason to be.


EDIT: Also - characterizing our treatment of transapients in this manner:

Postulating a sapience whose mind is of such magnitude that they forget to value predecessor sapiences is like postulating a God with Alzheimers.

Is a statement that is neither tactful nor polite nor something that I can believe any rational person would make and expect no other reaction except praise and positivity about their unerring insight.
Pages: 1 2 3