forums.rs

Forums

Zamorak vs. Zamorakianism

Quick find code: 341-342-42-65892825

of 18
Hazeel

Hazeel

Posts: 6,735 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Cthris said :
Right now we are only trying to find a metric in which to measure real world societies with.

Why even...? Runescape doesn't need a hero...it needs a villain. An all encompassing force of evil that will remain ever-threatening and use chaos to make the peoples of Gielinor tolerate each other, grow strong together, and fight side by side against this evil. I am that villain.

22-Mar-2017 16:45:39

Ancient Drew

Ancient Drew

Posts: 5,732 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Cthris said :
Would you still consider a society that forces its inhabitants undergo extreme pain in order to increase its overall lifespan by a year more advanced than a comparable society where it's inhabitants do not undergo extreme pain and therefore live one year less on average? It depends on whether the societies focus on training in battle, focusing on science etc. The painful society might make tougher soldiers but they might not be as focused on certain things such as science or developing other things. In terms of development, the ones that don't undergo pain might be more advanced by creating more things such as machines and great architecture, discovering and researching newer materials and studying. Prepare for hell on RuneScape in Naval Cataclysm!

Pokemon battle? Friend Code: 4614-0426-2439

22-Mar-2017 16:47:10

Rifleavenger
May Member 2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Cthris said :
Why would I do that? I haven't at all been arguing that society or the world is getting worse... Fine, you're arguing that whether it has been getting better or worse is ambiguous. In which case argue it's either worse or no different. If you cannot do that, then the only possibility that remains is that it is an improvement.

As to the wider question of a metric, I posted something of a response above, but my tl;dr is that I would be ok with decreased agency/freedom if the method used to increase fitness actually worked. Which I don't think eugenics does, at least not well enough, so I would reject the flaws of eugenics as a failure of the metric.

As to the earlier hypothetical about the pods, those going into them would experience consciousness as an unbroken stream. To an outsider observer it may seem awful to be locked in there for all that time, but to those involved they exist moment to moment as normal. So it's not that bad. The issue is that if interaction in the free periods is limited only to brief social interaction, it prevents the development of further advancement. Then again, that is only important if the people involved desire it or require it for humanity to continue existing. If no further improvement is needed or wanted, then those involved may as well have attained paradise.

EDIT: Posted this before seeing your latest response.

22-Mar-2017 16:48:02 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 16:56:34 by Rifleavenger

Rifleavenger
May Member 2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Cthris said :
You specifically mention that you would especially consider it advancement if it was non violent. What if the method of sterilizing mental/physical deficiencies came at the cost of extreme pain, essentially it would be violent.

Would you still consider a society that forces its inhabitants undergo extreme pain in order to increase its overall lifespan by a year more advanced than a comparable society where it's inhabitants do not undergo extreme pain and therefore live one year less on average? I stated non-violent preference because too often people overestimate the utility of violence in making a difficult goal attainable. It would also make it easier to convince people to agree to the treatment.

In the example you presented, if the method worked and the pain was not so great, or chronic, as to prevent further advancement or attain a state where advancement is unnecessary and undesired I would say the painful method is preferable. A real life example would be many surgeries. It is preferential to use painkillers to reduce the harm done, but if the procedure can be accomplished just as well without them, and the alternative is the patient dying, it is better to undergo the surgery without the painkillers.

Hazeel said :
Cthris said :
Right now we are only trying to find a metric in which to measure real world societies with.

Why even...? Why not? This is fun!

22-Mar-2017 16:53:24 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 17:03:47 by Rifleavenger

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Hazeel said :
Cthris said :
Right now we are only trying to find a metric in which to measure real world societies with.

Why even...?
You cannot prove that modern society is more advanced than historical societies unless you have a metric in which to measure each society. Hence the current discussion.

22-Mar-2017 16:53:52

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Ancient Drew said :
Cthris said :
Would you still consider a society that forces its inhabitants undergo extreme pain in order to increase its overall lifespan by a year more advanced than a comparable society where it's inhabitants do not undergo extreme pain and therefore live one year less on average? It depends on whether the societies focus on training in battle, focusing on science etc. The painful society might make tougher soldiers but they might not be as focused on certain things such as science or developing other things. In terms of development, the ones that don't undergo pain might be more advanced by creating more things such as machines and great architecture, discovering and researching newer materials and studying.
Thanks for your response. However, this makes our metric completely subjective because it is based solely on what each society focuses on. Thus we cannot say we are objectively more advanced than the dark ages. As a result, we are completely unjustified in saying that human advancement is even possible.

22-Mar-2017 16:57:33

Ancient Drew

Ancient Drew

Posts: 5,732 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I consider societies more advanced the further ahead they are of the average civilisation of their time. For example, the Zarosian Empire being one of the most successful societies in Gielinor if not the universe for its time (the Chthonians on Infernus being perhaps the only society more advanced, as they inspired Zaros' idea for introducing culture to the vampyres and Second Age humans), and making magical discoveries and having different prayers before war even broke out on the planet. The Zarosians also learned to make the sewer system in Varrock and had control of an area the size of a continent. And this was at a time before Bandos arrived, and when humans were living in mud huts.

More recent societies will have further advanced ideas, but these ideas would have been founded by discoveries made long ago by older civilisations. Prepare for hell on RuneScape in Naval Cataclysm!

Pokemon battle? Friend Code: 4614-0426-2439

22-Mar-2017 17:03:45

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Rifleavenger said :
Cthris said :
You specifically mention that you would especially consider it advancement if it was non violent. What if the method of sterilizing mental/physical deficiencies came at the cost of extreme pain, essentially it would be violent.

Would you still consider a society that forces its inhabitants undergo extreme pain in order to increase its overall lifespan by a year more advanced than a comparable society where it's inhabitants do not undergo extreme pain and therefore live one year less on average? I stated non-violent preference because too often people overestimate the utility of violence in making a difficult goal attainable. It would also make it easier to convince people to agree to the treatment.

In the example you presented, if the method worked and the pain was not so great, or chronic, as to prevent further advancement or attain a state where advancement is unnecessarily and undesired I would say the painful method is preferable.

My hypothetical scenario mentioned extreme pain with only a net gain of a year. Would a society that forces its citizens to undergo Extreme pain every 7 days with only the benefit of living on average more than one year than a comparable society that does not force its citizens to undergo any pain be more advanced in your opinion.

*You have absolute control over the citizens so there is no need to worry about convincing them of anything*

22-Mar-2017 17:04:06

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Rifleavenger said :
Fine, you're arguing that whether it has been getting better or worse is ambiguous. In which case argue it's either worse or no different. If you cannot do that, then the only possibility that remains is that it is an improvement.

Like I said, I'm not arguing for anything. Right now I only trying to find a suitable metric so we can actually have an argument on whether or not society has advanced.

22-Mar-2017 17:08:54 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 17:09:15 by Cthris

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Ancient Drew said :
I consider societies more advanced the further ahead they are of the average civilisation of their time.


*Sigh* :P

Ahead of the average civilisation of their time in what context? Resources, technology, freedom, literacy, mortality, longevity, perceived comfort, happiness.

22-Mar-2017 17:11:19

Quick find code: 341-342-42-65892825 Back to Top