Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Luciferian wrote:
People are cooperative within their own tribes, but without shared values and identity they self-segregate into competitive in-groups. In reality, the more you put different tribes in proximity with each other, the more social cohesion breaks down and the different groups balkanize. A shared religion or shared identity would go a long way into solving this - but again, a new religion would be competitive with any previous ones and would be a matter of violent contention in itself.

Genocide is definitely not a good way to unite different groups of people, but pacification and subjugation to the whole would be necessary to overcome humans' innate in-group biases and preferences, in my opinion.

I think you are mostly right on the money here.

But I think the future of humanity is going to involve globalization and the dissolution of nationality as a primary identity. If the world considered itself as a single state, and the nations within considered themselves more like the states within the U.S rather than sovereign powers beholden to nobody else, I think the world would be a much better place. Clinging to "small picture" concepts like national sovereignty and ethnocentrism (both in majority and minority groups) over what is best for the human race as a whole is something that will stunt our progression as a species. Having competitive in-groups is perfectly acceptable (ever heard a red-blooded Texan and a California hipster argue?) so long as the needs of the greater whole are always given priority.

I think the U.N is a good start, but their inability or unwillingness to project militarily makes them somewhat of a laughingstock on the world stage, only to be sided with when it gives advantage. Also, their system is somewhat too democratic for my tastes, prone to abuse by the tyranny of the majority, I would much prefer if the U.N operated under a more republican system than it does now.

When it comes down to it, humanity has not really evolved socially much over the past 1,000 years. The only thing most people respect is power, and the ability to enforce that power.

Is everyone forgetting that the way the Emperor united the planet in the 40k lore was literally though conquest and genocide?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Is everyone forgetting that the way the Emperor united the planet in the 40k lore was literally though conquest and genocide?

Some people just want to see those they've come to identify as "The Good Guys" as such and so ignore or excuse anything that's to the contrary. 40k in general, much like Verhoeven's Starship Troopers suffers from this because it makes its point about authoriterianism and whatnot through satire, which some either just don't seem to get, or willfully ignore because it doesn't mesh with their worldview.

I guess everyones entitled to their own headcanon.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Is everyone forgetting that the way the Emperor united the planet in the 40k lore was literally though conquest and genocide?

Some people just want to see those they've come to identify as "The Good Guys" as such and so ignore or excuse anything that's to the contrary. 40k in general, much like Verhoeven's Starship Troopers suffers from this because it makes its point about authoriterianism and whatnot through satire, which some either just don't seem to get, or willfully ignore because it doesn't mesh with their worldview.

I guess everyones entitled to their own headcanon.

The phrase "History is Written by the Victor" mean anything to you? I bet if the nazis won WW2 they would be the good guys, and everyone else would be the reviled baddies.

American and Russian troops committed atrocities in Germany over the course of WW2 and don't get called on it because it goes against the narrative.

Also, which Starship Troopers are we talking about? The movie or the book? Because the book was profoundly pro-military to the point where Paul Verhoeven (a staunch leftist and anti-militarist) couldn't read it any more and decided to make a satire movie that trolled what the book was actually espousing.

Great comments all around.

In Master of Mankind, the Emperor was quoted as seeing a very narrow path towards mankind surviving the coming horror. This was an individual of awesome psychic might and singular intelligence and yet he made mistakes - many mistakes in fact. Could a normal human of limited faculties have done any better?

I would love it even more if we considered the "crunch" or deadlines the Emperor was working against. How many of us could have done a much better job if we had more time on our own projects? Remember that 4 almighty chaos powers were actively working to thwart his plans.

Conquering the old earth with overwhelming military might was the most expedient way to get results. Big picture vs micro management.


If this was the modern world, the Emperor will be like Godzilla. Follow me or face annihilation. Even if you were fearless, will you not bend your knee if your loved ones were at risk? After capitulation, most would come around if the Emperor ushered in an era of prosperity. For the eternal naysayers, well... What's the fastest way to deal with them?

overkill76 wrote:
Even if you were fearless, will you not bend your knee if your loved ones were at risk? After capitulation, most would come around if the Emperor ushered in an era of prosperity. For the eternal naysayers, well... What's the fastest way to deal with them?

I mean that is what it boils down to right?

Who here would follow a tyrant IRL and face a generation of bloodshed, horror, and genocide of any opposition, if it meant that everything that came after was stable, and the world was a far better place than it was before for a good long time? If we truly knew with 100% certainly that humanity would enter a golden age of prosperity and advancement...

IMO that is a really hard decision to make, but thankfully an unrealistic one, because the world and humans in general are too chaotic to know anything about the future with that much certainty. Therefore, the default answer to that question must always remain "NO" on ethical grounds.

The IOM is brutal, racist, xenophobic, genocidal, and horrible in pretty much every way. But it is the only way humanity will survive, and so the emperor guides us down that path.

w1zard wrote:
Also, which Starship Troopers are we talking about? The movie or the book? Because the book was profoundly pro-military to the point where Paul Verhoeven (a staunch leftist and anti-militarist) couldn't read it any more and decided to make a satire movie that trolled what the book was actually espousing.

Guess he missed the point if he couldn't read it more...

tneva82 wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Also, which Starship Troopers are we talking about? The movie or the book? Because the book was profoundly pro-military to the point where Paul Verhoeven (a staunch leftist and anti-militarist) couldn't read it any more and decided to make a satire movie that trolled what the book was actually espousing.

Guess he missed the point if he couldn't read it more...

What point was that? The original starship troopers novel by Heinlein was unapologetically pro-military to the point where it seriously proposed a system of government where the only people who were allowed to vote were current or former members of the military. It was not a satire at all.

The movie was a satire of the book, it was Verhoeven's way of making fun of the novel.

w1zard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Also, which Starship Troopers are we talking about? The movie or the book? Because the book was profoundly pro-military to the point where Paul Verhoeven (a staunch leftist and anti-militarist) couldn't read it any more and decided to make a satire movie that trolled what the book was actually espousing.

Guess he missed the point if he couldn't read it more...

What point was that? The original starship troopers novel by Heinlein was unapologetically pro-military to the point where it seriously proposed a system of government where the only people who were allowed to vote were current or former members of the military. It was not a satire at all.

The movie was a satire of the book, it was Verhoeven's way of making fun of the novel.

No it wasn't. The movie actually had nothing to do with the book until the title of it was changed later to cash in on the book. It was otherwise just developed as its own satire of fascism. Likewise anybody accusing Heinlein of believing everything in his books is an idiot, considering Heinlein was a socialist and partial libertarian.

 Wyzilla wrote:
No it wasn't. The movie actually had nothing to do with the book until the title of it was changed later to cash in on the book. It was otherwise just developed as its own satire of fascism. Likewise anybody accusing Heinlein of believing everything in his books is an idiot, considering Heinlein was a socialist and partial libertarian.

Being a socialist and partial libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-military. Heinlein was a veteran himself and often spoke out about his pro-military views.

Also, we know Verhoeven hated the novel and satirized it on purpose because he admits it himself.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/paul-verhoeven-explains-how-he-thinks-starship-troopers-remake-fits-times



This is just one source, there are plenty more out if you'd care to look.

w1zard wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
No it wasn't. The movie actually had nothing to do with the book until the title of it was changed later to cash in on the book. It was otherwise just developed as its own satire of fascism. Likewise anybody accusing Heinlein of believing everything in his books is an idiot, considering Heinlein was a socialist and partial libertarian.

Being a socialist and partial libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-military. Heinlein was a veteran himself and often spoke out about his pro-military views.

Also, we know Verhoeven hated the novel and satirized it on purpose because he admits it himself.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/paul-verhoeven-explains-how-he-thinks-starship-troopers-remake-fits-times

Spoiler:

Verhoeven acknowledge that the film he directed (which was written by Ed Neumeier) was in fact a rebuttal to the source material, saying:

"Our philosophy was really different [from Heinlein’s book],we wanted to do a double story, a really wonderful adventure story about these young boys and girls fighting, but we also wanted to show that these people are really, in their heart, without knowing it, are on their way to fascism."

This is just one source, there are plenty more out if you'd care to look.

He was pro military, but the thing that Verhoeven and others seem to always forget is that military is just one of the many ways you can guarantee citizenship. The book focuses on the military for some power armor action, but you can gain voting rights by just picking up trash or working as a clerk - so long as it's state community work. Heinlein had a hardon for the military, but he never went as far as people claim with the novel.

w1zard wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
No it wasn't. The movie actually had nothing to do with the book until the title of it was changed later to cash in on the book. It was otherwise just developed as its own satire of fascism. Likewise anybody accusing Heinlein of believing everything in his books is an idiot, considering Heinlein was a socialist and partial libertarian.

Being a socialist and partial libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-military. Heinlein was a veteran himself and often spoke out about his pro-military views.

Also, we know Verhoeven hated the novel and satirized it on purpose because he admits it himself.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/paul-verhoeven-explains-how-he-thinks-starship-troopers-remake-fits-times

Spoiler:

Verhoeven acknowledge that the film he directed (which was written by Ed Neumeier) was in fact a rebuttal to the source material, saying:

"Our philosophy was really different [from Heinlein’s book],we wanted to do a double story, a really wonderful adventure story about these young boys and girls fighting, but we also wanted to show that these people are really, in their heart, without knowing it, are on their way to fascism."

This is just one source, there are plenty more out if you'd care to look.

The movie started production as its own thing and was called Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine, but someone in the production company noticed the similarity to Heinlein's novel. The movie was then partly rewritten so it could be called a loose adaptation to boost sales. Verhoeven apparently tried to read the book before filming began but gave up.

 Wyzilla wrote:
...But he never went as far as people claim with the novel.

Oh... yeah. The novel was undeniably pro-military, but some people (even modern day critics) claim that Heinlein was promoting fascism which I don't think was true. Some people just see pro-military opinions as automatically fascist (which I don't really get), and that viewpoint has gotten depressingly common these days.

Why would he reveal himself in the same way?

Bear in mind, at the time he chooses to reveal himself he's already BEEN behind the scenes for 29000 years. When he reveals himself psychic powers, bioengineered superhumans and alien technology are all normal, and Terra has a recent history of genocidal warlords with warp-fuelled (though they wouldn't describe it that way) legions of murderous superhumans. People were used to all that.

I think, if the Emperor were to choose to reveal himself today, the it would be in a very different way. If his goal it to unite humanity, then revealing himself as a glowing psychic ten foot tall demigod warlord is probably a bad way to do it in the 21st century. Given he can appear however he wants, it's probably better to become a great politician who then ascends to, say, head of the UN and then use his psychic might to get everyone to do as he says. He'd probably have to 'die' every so often and then pop up again as someone different a few years later.

Or, as the fluff suggests, he'd be a series of people acting behind the scenes.

-----

Briefly, as I did read the rest of the thread:
- Jordan Peterson is a right-wing symbol of the angry middle-aged white guys, dog whistling to the alt-right from under the cover of being a 'reasonable' college professor.
- Heinlein might not have been an actual fascist, but he was really pro-authoritarian military societies, and leant that way hard. Starship Troopers shows bad sides to fascism but also glorifies authoritarianism and militarism, which were close enough for Paul Verhoeven (who experienced the nazis as a boy in the Netherlands in WW2) to take massive exception to it. I'm with Paul Verhoeven on that one.
- A lot of the exceptions that 'prove' humans don't collaborate well in groups ignore the fact that each individual section of the conflict is already made up of loads of groups who successfully collaborated. For example, angry right-wing white anti-immigrationists in the UK are still made up of angles, saxons, jutes, normans, danes and celts. They've just forgotten a lot of those differences. People tend only to become protective of their perceived in-group when their shelter, food supply or safety is threatened.

Turning up as a beautiful, magnetic, blonde genius who thinks everyone should follow him into an age of glory? In Erdoğan's Turkey? That sounds like a Kurdish politician who'd straight to jail.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Briefly, as I did read the rest of the thread:
- Jordan Peterson is a right-wing symbol of the angry middle-aged white guys, dog whistling to the alt-right from under the cover of being a 'reasonable' college professor.

Don't want to derail the tread into politics, but you seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. He's not right wing and not part of the alt-right. Watch the countless videos where he addresses this himself.

Back on topic, the Emperor is not a white dude with blond hair, he's always been described and represented as dark skinned with dark hair. Unless he shifts form, of course.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
- Heinlein might not have been an actual fascist, but he was really pro-authoritarian military societies, and leant that way hard. Starship Troopers shows bad sides to fascism but also glorifies authoritarianism and militarism, which were close enough for Paul Verhoeven (who experienced the nazis as a boy in the Netherlands in WW2) to take massive exception to it. I'm with Paul Verhoeven on that one.

Personally, I found Heinlein's thought experiment on a strongly centralized, service-oriented government pretty interesting. As another poster said, being in the military was not the only way to gain "citizen status", it was the concept of sacrificing something for the state means you then get to have a say in how that state is run. One of the army recruiters in the book even joked that if you were blind, deaf, and crippled and wanted to serve, they were legally obligated to find something that was within your abilities to do and could not turn you away because it was the right of every person to serve the state and to become a citizen.

I found this refreshing to be honest, because only a third of American citizens vote on a regular basis. Many American politicians seem to run on bread and circuses style pandering campaigns, or say sensationalist stuff to grab media attention and pander to the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying Heinlein's government would be ideal, or even good, just saying that it would be interesting to see a government where these things weren't an issue.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
- A lot of the exceptions that 'prove' humans don't collaborate well in groups ignore the fact that each individual section of the conflict is already made up of loads of groups who successfully collaborated. For example, angry right-wing white anti-immigrationists in the UK are still made up of angles, saxons, jutes, normans, danes and celts. They've just forgotten a lot of those differences. People tend only to become protective of their perceived in-group when their shelter, food supply or safety is threatened.

Humans don't collaborate well in groups with anything or anyone they perceive as "other".

Part of our maturation as a species is going to have to be shifting the primary way we identify ourselves away from national or ethnic groups into seeing ourselves as a collective humanity. Much like Americans all view themselves as primarily Americans instead of identifying themselves based on what state they are from. Don't get me wrong... there are real differences between people from say California and Texas, but those differences play second fiddle to our collective identity as Americans.

Unfortunately, I think a major step along this path is finding something else to "otherize" first, like aliens or something. Or the appearance of a superhuman that says we need to unite as a species to fight aliens or be wiped out .

Religion was the first thing to really transcend ethnic and national identities and create shared identities beyond the boundaries of those groups, but unfortunately those new, collective identities are just as competitive as the old ones. That's why I think that if someone with the Emperor's stature, charisma and power showed up and started performing legitimate miracles it would probably be the single most divisive and fractious event in human history. I agree that if an outside threat, something totally "other" to all of mankind, were to come on the scene, it would do much to unite humanity. It would create two groups: us, and them. But a demigod demanding loyalties and taking sides would ignite a thousand wars across the globe overnight, because there would be groups that stood behind him as a man, groups that worshiped him as a living god, groups that feared him as a tyrant, groups that despised him as an antichrist etc. etc. ad nauseam.