SMAC/X and affinities

[BlaneckW]

Okay, in that case,  is Supremacy because his long-term practical focus is to ditch the weakness of flesh, even if it takes him a while to get the necessary tech.

He wants to end up supremacy in the end, he's just doesn't have the tech for it at the beginning.  He'll definitely focus on more immediately practical implementations.  But he would make investment in supremacy when there isn't said immediate practicality.  This is different from Zhakarov or Santiago.

[Yitzi]

Okay, in that case,  is Supremacy because his long-term practical focus is to ditch the weakness of flesh, even if it takes him a while to get the necessary tech.

He wants to end up supremacy in the end, he's just doesn't have the tech for it at the beginning.  He'll definitely focus on more immediately practical implementations.  But he would make investment in supremacy when there isn't said immediate practicality.  This is different from Zhakarov or Santiago.

No,  would also invest in supremacy even without immediate practical benefit.    might not, though.

[BlaneckW]

would also invest in supremacy even without immediate practical benefit.

That's what distinguishes the two.  Yang invests in more immediate things like industry.  He only gets around to advanced tech eventually.  Santiago focuses on cutting-edge weaponry. 

[Yitzi]

would also invest in supremacy even without immediate practical benefit.

That's what distinguishes the two.  Yang invests in more immediate things like industry.  He only gets around to advanced tech eventually.  Santiago focuses on cutting-edge weaponry.

That picture is Zak, not Santiago.

But you are right about the immediate emphases, but I don't see that as a Supremacy/Purity distinction.

[BlaneckW]

That picture is Zak, not Santiago.

was talking about Zak, only mentioned Santiago at the end.

But you are right about the immediate emphases, but I don't see that as a Supremacy/Purity distinction.

Purity isn't as immediately high-tech as Supremacy.  Purity focuses on fortresses and internal solutions.  In real life (well, not real life, but you get the idea), purity would be the immediate-solutions group, putting up fortresses, doing immediate farm-work with more human labour, greenhouses, while Zak is busy working on robots and Santiago who is better at applying advanced weaponry but has poor industry.

[Yitzi]

That picture is Zak, not Santiago.

was talking about Zak, only mentioned Santiago at the end.

Ah, my mistake.  I think there's a lot more than that that distinguishes  from  , though.  Most notably,  is a lot more pro-control, whereas  would rather researchers be able to work freely.

Purity isn't as immediately high-tech as Supremacy.

I don't think that's really true.  I think that Purity is not about low-tech (low-tech is represented by not having any affinity), but rather about using your technology to maintain the human form rather than replacing it.

[BlaneckW]

I don't think that's really true.  I think that Purity is not about low-tech (low-tech is represented by not having any affinity), but rather about using your technology to maintain the human form rather than replacing it.

Replacing the human form and using robots instead of power-suits is a high-tech pursuit that needs high-tech solutions.

[Yitzi]

I don't think that's really true.  I think that Purity is not about low-tech (low-tech is represented by not having any affinity), but rather about using your technology to maintain the human form rather than replacing it.

Replacing the human form and using robots instead of power-suits is a high-tech pursuit that needs high-tech solutions.

And Purity is about having that option and choosing not to do it, not about not having that option.

[BlaneckW]

And Purity is about having that option and choosing not to do it, not about not having that option.

Doing it dogmaticly simply makes them insane.  Yang emphasizes the low-tech immediate solutions for advantageous purposes.  But of the three I would designate the starting practice as purity by circumstance.

[Yitzi]

And Purity is about having that option and choosing not to do it, not about not having that option.

Doing it dogmaticly simply makes them insane.

Whether you consider it insane or not, that is what constitutes Purity.

Yang emphasizes the low-tech immediate solutions for advantageous purposes.  But of the three I would designate the starting practice as purity by circumstance.

Except that that doesn't fit how the concept is used in BE.  So either BE devised the concept and then immediately mis-used it, or you're misunderstanding it.

[BlaneckW]

Except that that doesn't fit how the concept is used in BE. 

It fits the practice, just not the amish intention.

[Yitzi]

Except that that doesn't fit how the concept is used in BE. 

It fits the practice, just not the amish intention.

No, your understanding (where low tech is purity by default) doesn't fit the practice (of how Purity is used in BE) either.

[BlaneckW]

No, your understanding (where low tech is purity by default) doesn't fit the practice (of how Purity is used in BE) either.

I don't see you offering an alternative.

[Yitzi]

No, your understanding (where low tech is purity by default) doesn't fit the practice (of how Purity is used in BE) either.

I don't see you offering an alternative.

Of course I did: Purity is explicitly deciding "even though we can change the human form to better adapt to the new environment, we won't".

[BlaneckW]

Of course I did: Purity is explicitly deciding "even though we can change the human form to better adapt to the new environment, we won't".

Low-tech is low-tech, regardless of the intentions.