Raider's Advocate - Is civilization the real enemy?

[peadar87]

In general, order is stronger than chaos. The NCR could have walked over each of the 57 Tribes of the Legion, probably without even breaking a sweat. Band them together under Caesar's banner and you have a real existential threat.

Anarchy is never going to last forever. A bigger fish is going to come along and annex Goodsprings eventually. If it's not a raider army, it will be the NCR in return for protection from said raider army.

 

[Prone Squanderer]

I'm actually not speaking on anarchism in general. Goodsprings is a good example of an anarchist society as are the Followers of the Apocalypse. They reject authority and law but work for the communal good.

That's all well and dandy, if your idea of communal good is universally shared by all.

I also think Tandi's NCR is a perversion of her father's vision for the way forward. He had a highly religious equality-based society which worked well but got suborned into his daughter's bizarre conquest-minded Empire.

Aradesh's NCR wouldn't survive unless he was somehow able to live forever and have everyone agree with him. Everyone has a different idea of what is best and given how things change his idea of the NCR might not have survived anyway even if Tandi fully agreed with it.

More, I'm actually curious if the fact that a largely disorganized Wasteland is better for humanity's survival and that attempts to rebuild. Certainly, the Empire of Caesar is an example of the absolute horror of civilization along with the Enclave. Organizations which are the enemy of the continued survival of humanity by attempting to impose "order" and "control" over the Wasteland's divergent self-sufficient societies.

Depends what you mean by survival. I feel if humanity just stops trying to do anything worthwhile then survival is pointless. People will band together, it's inevitable.

Caesar's Legion isn't all evil. It does terrible things yes, but it's also stated that all Legion territory is essentially free from raiders and suffers far less corruption than the NCR.

Fallout 2 showed the possibility of humanity building a NEW society in the Arryo merging of tribal based society with modern technology--but Fallout: New Vegas shows that effort failed and NCR is now repeating all the mistakes of the Pre-War government.

But Arroyo is still a civilized society. The Chosen One becomes Elder and with a town that size there has to be some degree of government. Also how is it shown that effort failed? I don't recall anyone explicitly saying Arroyo had joined the NCR, even if it's likely to have happened.

Repeating mistakes is something we do a lot. But I'd wager the NCR, as bad as it can be, is still a better entity than the Pre-War government and it has improved the lives of many in the Core Region. The NCR has stamped out slavery, provided security and education to the population. It isn't perfect, but it's better than having roving bands of raiders running around and no order whatsoever.

* If the Master's plan COULD have worked, would it have been better to unite all of humanity under One Race, One Nation, One Psychic Godmind?

There's no right answer for this. I personally feel that in some respects, yes it could have been better, but it also would be worse. The members of the Unity all appear to support the Master, even centuries after his death some still mourn his loss. But on the flip side that doesn't mean there would be zero differences to fight over. Unless everyone thought the same way conflict would still break out and you could argue that there wouldn't be much to life if everyone thought the same.

* Is it better for Vault City to be allowed its independence or crushed under NCR's boot?

Depends on what side you're on. I say Vault City has a right to determine its own fate, but I couldn't say whether it would be better off or not. VC has already expanded to its limits and whilst fixing up Gecko helps them out they'll eventually need more. The NCR might provide that, or it might exploit VC and not give two shits.

* Is the Enclave correct for its desire to purify the United States and rule over one regime once more?

If you were a pure human (i.e free from radiation/all mutation) and either a member of the Enclave or sympathetic to their goals you might think so. Vault dwellers are pure human but I doubt many would appreciate the Enclave telling them what to do, nor is there any guarantee the Enclave would treat them as equals.

* Is Bishop right that New Reno is better off as part of NCR rather than its own state?

Depends. Law and order might harm New Reno's business or more people might visit knowing they aren't going to be robbed.

* Is it better for the New Vegas communities to be annexed or remain independent?

Some of them might prosper under the banner of the NCR/Legion, others might not. Annexed or independent, they're still civilized to a degree.

* Does the independent but xenophobic Boomer society deserve its freedom?

They're only xenophobic because their first encounter with people from the outside world was a hostile one. The fact they let you, an outsider, talk to their leader means they realise pure isolationism won't work for them in the long run. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to remain, no one else claimed Nellis before they did.

* Is killing Legate Lanius the right decision? Is it better for there to be order in the Caesar's lands with a barbarian king like him or
the Legion's empire to collapse completely? Is killing Caesar a bad idea or is it better for him to survive and simply be defeated?
These are intriguing questions I can't help but ask myself.

They are certainly questions worth asking. I don't think having Lanius in charge will amount to anything worthwhile in the end. As for Caesar, I would say it would be better for the people in the Legion territories if he's alive, at least for the time being until Lanius is replaced with someone less bloodthirsty.

The last one, in particular, I'm wondering if it should have a thread in the New Vegas section. What is more moral? An Evil Order or a Unchecked Chaos?

I mean no offence by this, but you're thinking too black and white. Not all order has to be evil. Civilization isn't perfect but I'd sooner live with some degree of order instead of none at all.

 

[CT Phipps]

Oh, there has to be balance.

Then again, I don't see Chaos and Order as actually different.

They're measures of the same fundametal principle and always exist in relationship to the amount of one to the other.

Pure Chaos can't exist because it depends on an order to measure it against.

 

[CT Phipps]

Here's a tie-in thread:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/moral-conundrum-decapitate-the-legion-or-not.212898/

 

[NMLevesque]

Historically speaking a corrupt government is factually better than no government at all. One must also appreciate that it's easier to see no horror, when it comes as chaos rather than order. If it was reality we could closely examine and compare. The result of which would indicate clearly that having hundreds of small kingdoms is a terrible state of affairs, even compared to a megalomaniacal emperor to rule them all. As horrifying as that might be, it doesn't speak as badly of empires as it does what they replace. Though the idea of fighting against the power, of rebelling should certainly be included. That is of course a part of the human history of reform.

 

[CT Phipps]

Historically speaking a corrupt government is factually better than no government at all. One must also appreciate that it's easier to see no horror, when it comes as chaos rather than order. If it was reality we could closely examine and compare. The result of which would indicate clearly that having hundreds of small kingdoms is a terrible state of affairs, even compared to a megalomaniacal emperor to rule them all. As horrifying as that might be, it doesn't speak as badly of empires as it does what they replace. Though the idea of fighting against the power, of rebelling should certainly be included. That is of course a part of the human history of reform.

NO GOVERNMENT! BURN IT DOWN! FREEDOM!

 

[twillight]

Most anarchists, from what I gather, just want a world where communities and individuals solve there own problems, without governments forcing them to follow set laws. I don't think many actually want a world where everyone is doing whatever they want non-stop.

-------------

Why's that necessarily a bad thing?

Can't a community just dedicate itself to surviving.

Why does it need to go somewhere or have goals?, If they are happy where they are, let them stay where they are IMO.

The ultimate dream of anarchy is a society so large and complex that government gets in the way, and people are educated enough to govern themselves.
Everyone DOES continuously do what they want, but they work within the frame and strive of the community (better said civilization). They have long term goals, not just immediate pleasures.

And yes, a community not advancing is a dying community.
We're talking about a one-planet society here which does not progress. That community will die out at the first change of circumstances. Get a famine, a plague (FEV), some hostile power (deathclaws, supermutants, an ant colony), a big rock from the sky - and you have only dead people.
There's a wast universe out there with gazillion conditions to adapt to. To be able to stay around forever you must get out there and constantly adapt to the new and new things.

If you can't leave the planet for all the others - you might as well lay down and die.

An awesome anarchist civilization can be found in Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Earth, called Gaia.

-----

*The prime fault of the Master's plan was - what happens when he/she/it dies? Even if the mutants were not sterile - what then?

*Vault city is a racist, slave-owning society. Even if they fall in the hands of NCR I vote against them.

*The attractive part of the Enclave is their technology and the idea of unification. The bad side (which for me heavly contraweights the good part) is their shortsided tendency of racism solved by genocide.
In their place I'd be happy to accept the ghouls and the other intelligent life forms evolved from the War. They proved they can exist under the new circumstances, sometimes even better than "pure humans".
The Enclave is practically the nazis, and have the same problem: they are wasting resources to goals they should not.

*New Reno has its own problems. It is infested with drugs, practicaly lives from gamblers, and the mobs are a) too strong b) too many c) too uncooperative to establish a long term society. Bishop comes up with an idea that is out of the frame, thus solves a seemingly impossible dilemma.
All four factions have their problem in themselves: the Mordinos are the maffia/yakuza, and those don't make a healthy society, can't (don't want) to work as a government.
The Salvatores are too ruthless, they strangle society.
The wassisname family are about blood-relation. They seem pretty innocent until you realise how petty they are, and how much they must inbreeding.
I like the ending where you make an offspring who takes over - but that's an unforseeable accident. Not even option if u r female.

*"What is more moral? An Evil Order or a Unchecked Chaos?" - define chaos

 

[Jogre]

We're talking about a one-planet society here which does not progress. That community will die out at the first change of circumstances. Get a famine, a plague (FEV), some hostile power (deathclaws, supermutants, an ant colony), a big rock from the sky - and you have only dead people.
There's a wast universe out there with gazillion conditions to adapt to. To be able to stay around forever you must get out there and constantly adapt to the new and new things.

If you can't leave the planet for all the others - you might as well lay down and die.

I disagree, life is existentially meaningless and there's nothing intrinsically good about making sure there are future generations of humans.

I mean sure, if considering the long-term survival of our species is what you personally want, fair enough, but I'd say that there's no real reason to think of that as an utmost priority beyond conditioning/instinct.

I'd say it's far better a community be happy and beneficial to all in it, but ends quickly, then a community that continues to exist forever but has severe issues with it. Extinction of species happens all the time, and certainly isn't the worst fate that could happen to humanity.

 

[twillight]

I disagree, life is existentially meaningless and there's nothing intrinsically good about making sure there are future generations of humans.

I mean sure, if considering the long-term survival of our species is what you personally want, fair enough, but I'd say that there's no real reason to think of that as an utmost priority beyond conditioning/instinct.

I'd say it's far better a community be happy and beneficial to all in it, but ends quickly, then a community that continues to exist forever but has severe issues with it. Extinction of species happens all the time, and certainly isn't the worst fate that could happen to humanity.

And where did I adress those issues?
Well, in the last line: "In that case we can lay down and die."

But if we add life value for value sake, than life gains the meaning of life existing. Thus future generations of LIFE is good.
Not necessarily human life, but who you are voting for in Fallout? Who should commit the genocide?

The conflict between us is you say "a dead community is the happiest community imaginable", while I say "the community that lives is better in either case than a dead community".
And we're not talking about only humanity. We talking about LIFE. If humanity dies on this planet, all life will go extinct with it.
Sure, there ARE aliens in the Fallout Universe - but we know almost nothing about them! What if they're a dying race? Who'll save LIFE?
There was a reason why I mentioned Gaia of Assimov. They never were only about humans (ok, they were technically amalgam of humans and robots).

 

[Jogre]

But if we add life value for value sake, than life gains the meaning of life existing. Thus future generations of LIFE is good.

Why add value for the sake of adding value?

Not necessarily human life, but who you are voting for in Fallout? Who should commit the genocide?

Nobody.

I'm not saying "Go out of your way to wipe out humanity"

I'm saying "Humanity's long term survival shouldn't be priority number one"

As it stands, if humanity's long term survival makes us happy, we'll continue to live.

The conflict between us is you say "a dead community is the happiest community imaginable", while I say "the community that lives is better in either case than a dead community".

You misread that.

I wasn't saying a dead community is necessarily happier.

I was saying that a community that's happy is better than a community that will live forever.

And we're not talking about only humanity. We talking about LIFE. If humanity dies on this planet, all life will go extinct with it.

Erm...no.

Life, in the sense of living, concious creatures has existed before us. Dogs are alive, Elephants are alive. We're not the only living creatures.

If you mean Sapient creatures(Creatures capable of higher reasoning), then I don't see how that's important.

 

[Deleted member 98605]

Civilization is the goal. It always has been. At most, Fallout NV allows you to leave the Mojave in chaos and nuke Arizona-New Mexico-California-Oregon, in the meta sense we have Avellone and co to thank for that, who apparently also taught that civilization was the enemy in some form.

In 1, you either help the local human communities prevail or you force everyone under the dream of UNITY (or of course, die trying). In 2, you're working with the local human communities against a genocidal force. In Tactics, you're working with the local human communities against a genocidal force, and can establish an empire along the way. In 3, you're working with the local human communities against a genocidal force, or help that genocidal force clean the wasteland to remake a local human community as they see fit. In NV, you're working with the local human communities who are stuck between two nascent empires choose a future. In 4, you're working with 3 local human communities choose a path for the local region under some dream. (I discount the Railroad here because they don't have a FUTURE planned, just to protect synths, while the Minutemen, Brotherhood, and Institute have concrete futures planned for the vast array of human civilization).

Thereof it cannot be said in any way, shape, or form, barring the extreme fallout NV ending of a chaotic, anarchic Mojave, nuked NCR and Legion, and The Cloud - basically, Fallout Dust, another faction who also thought, in general, that 'civilization was the enemy' and decided to knock a Post off of 'Post Apocalyptic'.

On the meta side, I get the allure. And maybe we should have a Fallout game in the real chaos, in the real post-apoc, something to balance out STALKER and the like. But so far, in canon, it hasn't happened yet (save of course the aftermentioned NV ending). But as a series, the trend is that civilization - in some form, under some view, is the goal, not the enemy.

 

[twillight]

I'm not saying "Go out of your way to wipe out humanity"

I'm saying "Humanity's long term survival shouldn't be priority number one"

Than whose survival is priority#1 at you I've asked.
You either value life, or you want instant extinction. If you value life, then don't ask why I value life (in your terms "it makes me happy"), but tell us how you plan to survive!
If you don't value life, than stop pretending you don't vote for exctinction, because that comes out logically.

You say:

I was saying that a community that's happy is better than a community that will live forever.

, and from that logicaly follows the community which is dead has the ultimate happiness.

Dogs are NOT conscious, neither elephants. While they are living, they are destined to die out w/o a race who can carry them forward. And that potential exist only in humanity. And in Fallout Earth ghouls, and intelligent Deathclaws, and possibly Seymore. And in Fallout Universe the Greys.
If you don't see the reason behind this, show me a radscorpion building a spacecraft.

 

[Jogre]

You either value life, or you want instant extinction.

It's not that simple.

You could just be apathetic towards either option. You don't have to take sides.

You can think it would be nice if humanity lived on, but not consider it a priority.

, and from that logicaly follows the community which is dead has the ultimate happiness.

How so?

I'd say the living are happier than the dead. Dead people can't be happy.

Dogs are NOT conscious, neither elephants.

By definition, and to the best of our knowledge, yes they are.

Concious simply means that a thing is awake and aware of the world. If it can feel and sense the world like we do, it's conscious.

 

[Einhanderc7]

I don't think everyone is really grasping the reality of an apocalyptic setting.
Imagine for a moment that the bombs fell on our planet, our world, the average person would not have the skill sets required to survive.

The destruction and the decimation of nearly all infrastructure would render many of the luxuries we have useless as most of it would not only be destroyed but rendered useless without the ability to actually repair or even activate it. Power, water, communication, everything would be gone. There would not be any trucks to convey goods long distances, boats would get lost at sea since the old ways were forgotten and replaced with technology. Everything that makes life simple is eliminated in almost a single moment.

Now put yourself in the position of a survivor,
Are all of you trained with essential trade skills to affect an impact on the environment? I'm going to say no for most of you, and I would say some of you have a general understanding of some concepts. The education system would be broken so there would not be some kind of location to "learn" these skills, and learning them on the fly would take years. Coupled with the now dwindling population, people just cracking under the stress of their life, and random acts of violence everyone would be very hard pressed to make any improvements.

Granted over time things will settle down a bit, but the initial conflict as well the conflict of it's aftermath would destroy a lot of valuable resources such as books, electronics, tools, and people.

People would have to re-discover basically everything, and in doing so they would have to find a way to flourish as well. People would also have to combat false information in the form of new religions, and cultures that would form. Those who are successful would obviously have survivorship bias working for them and be able to bend the local populations to their needs.

Then consider this for a moment, people adapt. In the case of raiders these are simply individuals who have adapted to a specific and successful lifestyle. If you look at the different forms of government like animals you will see an interesting trend. They are all competing for space, and resources; once thy run out they have 2 options. Be exiled from your home or dominate the other animal and force it to be exiled.

Take this link with a grain of salt, its just an idea to explore:


Conflict is necessary for survival, without it humans just like any animal will be rendered inert. Therefore I submit that the raiders are actually a good presence in the wastelands.

 

[CT Phipps]

I disagree, life is existentially meaningless and there's nothing intrinsically good about making sure there are future generations of humans.

I mean sure, if considering the long-term survival of our species is what you personally want, fair enough, but I'd say that there's no real reason to think of that as an utmost priority beyond conditioning/instinct.

I'd say it's far better a community be happy and beneficial to all in it, but ends quickly, then a community that continues to exist forever but has severe issues with it. Extinction of species happens all the time, and certainly isn't the worst fate that could happen to humanity.

While a theist in RL, I should point out that just because someone chooses to MAKE a moral system doesn't invalidate that moral system.

The lack of meaning inherent to a society just means that when Caesar crucifies you for taking Med-X, that just means you have NO ability to refute his points because he's living true to his principles.

You can only headshot him to live true to yours.

And yes, this is the lesson of every boy's anime ever.

 

[Einhanderc7]

While a theist in RL, I should point out that just because someone chooses to MAKE a moral system doesn't invalidate that moral system.

The lack of meaning inherent to a society just means that when Caesar crucifies you for taking Med-X, that just means you have NO ability to refute his points because he's living true to his principles.

You can only headshot him to live true to yours.

And yes, this is the lesson of every boy's anime ever.

Hmmm, well put...

 

[Ben Soto]

wat
Have we been reading the same human history?
Are you living in a house made of dung right now? Oh wait, you're an english major, you probably are.

Hey, English is important! Without it, you'd all be speaking German!

Uh... wait a minute...

 

[Deleted member 93956]

 

[CT Phipps]

While I disagree with the argument in RL, technologically advanced united civilization in Fallout destroyed the world so a chaotic low-tech civilization of constant war with Luddite principles is better to allow the planet to rebuild.

 

[Deleted member 98605]

While I disagree with the argument in RL, technologically advanced united civilization in Fallout destroyed the world so a chaotic low-tech civilization of constant war with Luddite principles is better to allow the planet to rebuild.

That technologically advanced civilization still allowed billions to live lives that didn't have to wrangle with the basic necessities, up until 2050 or so at least. That same civilization also had the tools to avoid the causes of the war by their own inventions. It was some mix of fear and greed and idiocy that started the war, not some intrinsic evilness of technology.