As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Penny Arcade - Comic - That’s So Gabe
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Penny Arcade - Comic - That’s So Gabe
Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.
Unknown User on
+15
Posts
this is extremely on brand
He loves his cults.
That's the joke!
The non-cultists get to listen to Joe Walsh, tho
I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!
IDK, I mean, you have to factor in social inertia. The logic being that only in the threat, (or after the success) of an event that could eliminate most of a population could society change. The Watchmen's Adrian Veidt uses this approach.
Off the top of my head:
Andrew Ryan: Bioshock
Jowy: Suikoden 2
The Reapers?: Mass Effect
I know there's a million more but I can't think of them right now. Video games are certainly on par with movies regarding bad guys with nuance. They're not common but they certainly exist in the better stories.
It certainly can have positive results, the Black Plague was large part of why the feudal system collapsed, but it's not supposed to be your first option. The idea that the majority of humanity is just chaff to be cleared away so the survivors can thrive is a very dangerous mindset.
In the given example, that wasn't the reasoning for Veidt. Accepting the conceit of the movie - which is that Veidt has an enormous intellect - he is sacrificing a large minority of innocent lives because he sees imminent global nuclear war that will kill the majority of humanity. I think the point of his plan was that there was simply no other option is massive brain could see and it was either that or extinction.
Yes, but the virtual nullification of "survival of the fittest" by humanity is also quite dangerous. Our medical advances have the unintended effect of weakening our overall genetic integrity, since genetic anomalies that normally wouldn't perpetuate in a natural setting are instead able to survive and spread.
Does the most recent game actually let you be neutral or even shift sides?
That would seem really progressive to me for a game that has been getting annual releases
No. The more realistic option would have you switching "sides" depending on operational realities. But it would also have included a lot more war crimes on all sides and there would really have been no villain.
I don't think you fully understand "survival of the fittest" if you think it's been nullified. We're not being given medicine, agricultural technologies and other means by which we've spread our genes all over the place by aliens from outer space. Humans did it. Much like when we started poking around with sticks to increase our food opportunities or started wearing animal skins or tamed fire, we used technology to make us more fit for survival.
I'm not saying I don't get what you're saying. But the path we're on is going to be the more successful one, in terms of spreading DNA (the only thing life ultimately selects for) than any other. Eventually, it's likely we'll be ale to improve our immune systems enough that we don't even have to worry about pathogens.
And then there's the fact that when you say "humanity" what you really mean is "the first world countries." There's a substantial portion of the rest of humanity that is still there in the trenches duking it out with all our old enemies.
Of course, it'll probably be pointless and the eventual big asteroid will probably wipe out all "higher" life forms anyway. But in terms of raw DNA replication, we're punching above our weight.
Firstly, I said "virtually nullified". Secondly, where did you come up with that "alien" stuff? And the medical advances that humanity has made are precisely what I'm talking about (and yes, I did mean in the west, I'm just getting tired of always making that qualification when it should be obvious). We're seeing rapid growth in allergies to common foods, thanks to the sterility of our society weakening our immune systems, unlike those others you mentioned "in the trenches", who have far hardier immune systems.
And then there's the people who naturally would have died young, or would otherwise been unable to procreate, due to genetic abnormalities. "Heroic measures" taken by medicine allow them to live much longer, and even productive lives, but the abnormal genetic info is also preserved and allowed to become productive.
I'm not sure what genetic abnormalities you think arent being properly screened out by natural selection. Pretty much all human physical and mental disorders are recurring mutations and have been around long before modern medicine.
I'm not going to respond very much in depth, because Tube is complaining about the direction of the discussion (though I'm not entirely sure I understand how it's a discussion of eugenics, since this isn't about trying to direct humans to breed in a certain way and is rather just a discussion of the outcome of how our technology affects evolutionary pressures).
So this may seem a bit glib and for that I apologize in advance. But I just wanted to say that from an pre-technological/pre-civilizational standpoint, any of us past our peak reproductive years are already overstaying our welcome. Natural selection pressures of that era didn't really give a shit if we pumped out a lot of babies and died in our 20s.
Actually, the human lifespan wasnt quite that bad even in prehistory, it's just massively skewed because of the high mortality rates. If you made it to adulthood, you had a decent chance of reaching atleast middle age and even your 60's.
Also, did you mean to say "life expectancy"? Lifespan is just maximum age any individual has ever been observed to have obtained. It's not an average.
You know what, never mind. I don't think Tube wants us getting off on this tangent that's not really related to the comic, so I'm going to discontinue engaging in the subject.
Well, mortality rates were super high back then
100% of people born in pre-technological eras are now dead
Compare that to modern day
Living people everywhere
This math checks out.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Survival of the fittest is all well and good but unfortunately the capacity of sentient beings to care about things is much stronger and also much more important in the long run.
Plus if you're really looking at things like that you have to start defining what "fittest" actually means and you slip right into eugenics whether you want to or not.
Survival of the fittest just means the organisms being able to do well enough to procreate. The whole idea of genetic superiority is just childish power fantasies.