I play but based on the history of the text, most of the plots are really very well written and everyone is interesting, I'm impressed with every new issue, I've never been so happy to have a new issue than when I play here, I refused only 2, 1 that has only two options, being that there could be more, and another that can be said to have been "accidentally". Many issues lack balance, and taxes in this game are far from realistic, most nations I see have 100 percent taxes, even in planned economies or communism it is impossible to have all capitalization of statewide resources. For the community to balance the attributes, it should be possible to edit the issues until certain point of-course, and probably on the forum that this happens?
NationStates allows you to have both a massive and ever-growing economy and a pristine environment, given the right combination of clean technologies and regulations. There's an ingrained belief in "technological solutionism" at work here: you can have your cake and eat it too! You won't see that happening anywhere in the real world, so enjoy!
Since the majority of players in this game, as well as the site staff, are from Western liberal democracies in real life, many of the issues that are produced are naturally inspired by the problems that face Western liberal democracies. So the game assumes that your nation has some history with colonialism, that your nation has minorities that face similar issues as minorities in majority white nations, and so on.
Personally, I feel greatly aggrieved by the assumption in issues that democratic nations must be parliamentary democracies. This infringes on mah freedoms as a proud American! Since the issue-producing site staff and the most productive authors usually have been from parliamentary democracies (British, Irish, Canadian, Australian), the assumptions in issues reflect that. Issues say that my democratically elected legislature is called Parliament, that members of the legislature are called MPs, that members of the executive are also members of the legislature, that the executive derives its authority and power from the legislature, that there are problems of minority governments and coalition governments, and so on. There are no options in any issues for democratic nations to ditch the parliamentary system and instead operate under a presidential system, in which the executive is not part of the legislature. Potential issue idea?
That's the most wonderful phrase I've heard in a while, and it's incredibly indicative of our contemporary society.
Technological Solutionism sums up the la-la-land wishful thinking of what's going on. In reality, of course, while technology can easily reduce per capita or per unit wastefulness or consumption, and so can easily (and quite understandably) lead to the thinking that technology is the solution, not the problem, nevertheless it has always entailed a net increase in consumption in absolute terms, often precisely because of per unit or per capita increases in efficiency or reductions in wastefulness, increased affordability, etc.
Thank you for that turn of phrase! :-)
I borrowed the expression from a Belarusian critic, Evgeny Morozov, author of a book titled To Save Everything, Click Here. The Folly of Technological Solutionism. I think you'll find it very interesting. Here's an interview with the author, which revolves around that book: https://www.publicbooks.org/the-folly-of-technological-solutionism-an-interview-with-evgeny-morozov/
I didn't know about this book; thank you! I may very well purchase it after looking a bit into it. The concepts of the book are not really the position from which I would approach tech or the manner in which to think about it. I'm always happy to be shown another viewpoint, actually.
You're very welcome! And yes, he doesn't really approach technology from an environmentalist point of view; he focuses on the ideology expressed by the gurus of Silicon Valley, and particularly on the ubiquitous celebration of the Internet, social networks, smartphones and self-tracking apps as emancipatory forces which are expected to create, all by themselves, a more democratic and sustainable society. However, to get to that point he does deal quite a lot with a broader critique of technological utopianism, and develops some insights which are certainly relevant for those concerned with environmental matters.
The main issue with technological solutionism is it doesnít solve inequality, in fact it makes it worse. For example, we still donít have everyone in the country connected to high speed internet. Sure, people can go to libraries. But in a world where tech is growing at the blink of an eye these people are being left behind. Itís no wonder that where I am from people are clinging to coal. Technology has ostracized them culturally. Itís not about choice anymore.
That's not my department, say Koalacaput.
"The Immortal Cells of Mrs. Gratwick"...
3ļ - ďThis stuff is funny!Ē giggles your niece, squishing her fingers in the goop. ďItís all warm, gluey, and bouncy! Someone should be turning out this stuff for kids to play with, or as sticky putty to stick posters to walls, or whatever. Youíve got, like, an infinite supply of it, so thatís good economics, right?Ē
Issue by The OMG write issues of The Atlae Isles
Edited by Candlewhisper Archive
This brings me all kinds of feelings, there could be not a more ingenious option, which goes beyond the yes and no. Maybe it's good!
Dammit! "You installed a new national policy: Corporal Punishment." not again...
Technological solutionism is 100% how Eryndlynd is functioning. It's a fun fantasy to imagine we've scienced our way into a wood elf-esque utopia that also has good internet speeds.
For me, the real headscratcher is how I can have an economy that's "frightening" in how good it is, despite my 96% tax rate.
I donít know why people have trouble with this. Money is just an abstraction and people in society work to get access to essentially unlimited/extensive services. That 4% represents the small portion of income one is able to spend on ďluxuriesĒ if you can even call them that. And since in the Cypher Nine everything is state owned anyways itís just indirect democracy as citizens vote with their wallets on what their final tax dollars are used for.
But since other nations donít work like that, our economy can still be converted in to a dollar like entity. We work and trade with other nations after all, we might even give them money. Itís not that money is worthless or not used in these societies itís just extremely and efficiently allocated.
On the whole "parliament" thing, this is probably actually something that under current editing practice we wouldn't have let into the game, as it overrides player autonomy to an excessive degree.
To my mind, however, there exist five sorts of assumptions in NS.
The first set are assumptions that we have to make to tell any stories at all, which tie our game to reality. The population are humans. Magic does not actually exist. Trees photosynthesise. Gravity exists.
The second are assumptions that we make because it's impractical not to, even if they're not going to be universal for nations in the world. Westernised names are frequent. The nation has a coastline, and other geographies.
The third are assumptions that we make because we want to, so "tough". Gender equality is a good thing. Homosexuality exists and oppressing it is an attack on civil rights. And so on.
The fourth are assumptions we make because it makes for more interesting stories and worldbuilding. There's a TV Show called "60 Minutes". There's a city called @@ANIMAL@@ City. Blackacre is a rival nation.
The fifth are assumptions that we probably wouldn't make now, but have done so in the past, so we may as well keep making them. Politicians in a representative democracy are called MPs. Democracies are representative democracies by default unless you actively adopt Proportional Representation. Guns are legal till you actively ban them.
It all blurs together a bit, of course.
I loved "At Home." Possibly my favorite Bryson title aside from "A Walk in the Woods." I listened to the audiobook during a flight from Seattle to London and it made the trip considerably less stressful (I'm a very anxious flyer, especially over water).
I love flying! (Not that I do it much...) I mean, sitting in economy sucks, but I love taking off and landing. I remember once I was headed back East from Hawaii--into San Fransisco, I believe--and there was turbulence. Everyone was nervous, and I was like, "yeah! More!!" Maybe I'm just delusional, but I find flying very exciting, and it seems like one can't be worried about it, insofar as the likelihood of automobile accidents are much, much higher than issues with flying.
Now, if I could only go First Class, that would *really* be awesome. The Ruinenlustian budget doesn't ever provide for that. :-/