SMAC/X and affinities

[BlaneckW]

There are some fairly late techs that give Purity bonuses...

which you apparently don't know anything about.

[lifehole]

But isn't an affinity something you grow into?

In the real world purity would be lower tech.

Probably true, but beyond earth wasn't designed to be realistic.

EG you can still advance and tech and play the game as purity but civilization.com says: "What are the defining aspects of this Affinity?
Purity is focused on preserving, glorifying, and creating the ideal version of humanity as we know it now. If Harmony and Supremacy represent the changes humankind will face in the future, Purity is a total rejection of that adaptation."

[BlaneckW]

A purity civilization would have to have high man power, like Asia, since they'd be relying on it.  Power suits are of limited capability.

[lifehole]

A purity civilization would have to have high man power, like Asia, since they'd be relying on it.  Power suits are of limited capability.

Considering a purity civilization would need powersuits/habitats to survive outside, well, manpower would just screw them over.

[BlaneckW]

Considering a purity civilization would need powersuits/habitats to survive outside, well, manpower would just screw them over.

They'd live underground.

[Yitzi]

There are some fairly late techs that give Purity bonuses...

which you apparently don't know anything about.

I know (or rather, know where to look up) their names.  Did you have a point?

[BlaneckW]

I know (or rather, know where to look up) their names.  Did you have a point?

Go on and try to expand upon a standpoint.

[Buster's Uncle]

There's a lecture on debating decorum/manners forthcoming...

[lifehole]

I know (or rather, know where to look up) their names.  Did you have a point?

Go on and try to expand upon a standpoint.

I don't even know what you're arguing for or what point you're trying to make?

Yang shouldn't be in supremacy?? what does your question have to do with this?

[Yitzi]

I know (or rather, know where to look up) their names.  Did you have a point?

Go on and try to expand upon a standpoint.

I'm not sure how you "expand upon" a standpoint.

[BlaneckW]

I'm not sure how you "expand upon" a standpoint.

For instance, you are running on the standpoint of judging things by ideals.  I judge them by practices.  You (don't) develop structures out of fantastical standpoints, I develop structures out of practical standpoints.    I point out that Yang is low-tech, but might eventually catch up and be able to act from a supremacist standpoint, you start in mid air from the pure fantasy of the ultimate eventuality or even based simply upon aims or statements, and make an ad-hoc statement without further reflection.

In my case, I am able to detail how Santiago's standpoint with regards her military is immediately supremacist while Yang goes through a lengthy development process to attain the same goal (relying on force and quantity and only eventually coming to supremacist tool-usage by proxy of having a larger resource base to draw upon for the eventual end-result of it's development), while you start in mid air from an intellectuality (the totally subjective aim or end goal) and make judgements based on subjectivity, i.e. nothing, upon simple propoganda or even mere stated intent.  In order to expand upon a standpoint, or really anything, and operate in reality, one has to address things rather than just ideas or intentions.  Otherwise we get the unthinking nonsense of judging all things by their form and not essence, i.e. their practice, their reality.

For instance, we often get people calling a religion bad based upon the actions of adherents without comparing their practice to the book.  It may happen that there are only a few Christians in the world, but an unthinking person will simply accept anyone with a stated aim or identification as a Christian.  This is idealism, i.e. judging everything based upon the subjective rather than the objective.  These people are not Christians based upon the definition of their own doctrine, but an idiot accepts them as such based on their say-so.  Similarly, one accepts Yang as supreme before he has actually done it.  Yang is not so foolish.  He neither accept the supremacist's claims of being such by virtue of the superior position they operate from today, nor does he claim victory before the accomplishment as you do for him.

In reality, a person is not a doctor simply by intending to become a doctor, or having the end goal of being a doctor in mind.  Yang intends supremacy, but he is not immediately operating from the standpoint of having and using superior tools.  He intends to develop this supremacist standpoint by way of better application of a purity standpoint.  If anything, Yang operates from an inferior standpoint, not a superior one.  He only eventually obtains the superior position by proxy; maybe he will glean more scientific geniuses from a larger population base, and thus eventually obtain a standpoint of superior research, i.e. supremacy, which he does not have in manifest reality. 

But an eventuality or a goal is not a reality.  Practice is reality.  If Yang is eventually supreme, it is because he has taken what is easy with what is hard.  But to have to take what is easy with what is hard, in Yang's case literal serfdom and inferior units, is not to operate from a position of superiority. 

Within the earth, wood grows: The image of Pushing Upward. Thus the superior man of devoted character heaps up small things in order to achieve something high and great.  Again, to eventually achieve is not the same thing as to posses already.  Zhakarov already possess superior research, Santiago already possesses a superior military.  Thus they operate from a supremacist standpoint.  Yang does not.  Neither do their goals matter.  If your goal is to be a doctor but all you do is fix cars, then you are going to be a mechanic.  The brain is a subjective organ, it's considerations do not reflect the reality of the entire organism except where united by a will informed by said entire organism.

[Yitzi]

I'm not sure how you "expand upon" a standpoint.

For instance, you are running on the standpoint of judging things by ideals.  I judge them by practices.

Because SMAC and affinities are both ideal-focused.

In order to expand upon a standpoint, or really anything, and operate in reality, one has to address things rather than just ideas or intentions.  Otherwise we get the unthinking nonsense of judging all things by their form and not essence, i.e. their practice, their reality.

You've got it backward; the ideals are the essence, the practice is the mere form.

For instance, we often get people calling a religion bad based upon the actions of adherents without comparing their practice to the book.  It may happen that there are only a few Christians in the world, but an unthinking person will simply accept anyone with a stated aim or identification as a Christian.  This is idealism, i.e. judging everything based upon the subjective rather than the objective.

No, this is judging by practice; an idealist would look at the ideal of the religion, i.e. the book.

In reality, a person is not a doctor simply by intending to become a doctor, or having the end goal of being a doctor in mind.

True, because "doctor" is a practice-based concept, not an ideal-based one.

But an eventuality or a goal is not a reality.  Practice is reality.

Depends what you mean by "reality"; certainly the eventuality or goal is relevant to reality, which I would argue means it itself must be real (as eventuality or goal).

\Again, to eventually achieve is not the same thing as to posses already.

It is not the same, but it does determine character.

Zhakarov already possess superior research, Santiago already possesses a superior military.  Thus they operate from a supremacist standpoint.

No, because Supremacy has very little to do with superior research.

Neither do their goals matter.  If your goal is to be a doctor but all you do is fix cars, then you are going to be a mechanic.

Profession and affinity are two very different things.

[BlaneckW]

Because SMAC and affinities are both ideal-focused.

That's merely how it's presented.  The reality of the factions is their gameplay.  Otherwise one uses the term "in the lore or "in the book."

You've got it backward; the ideals are the essence, the practice is the mere form.

An ideal alone is unmanifest.  Are you insane?  If anything, ignorance is a bigger definer of action than ideals.  One goes through years of training to become a [poopy] western pharmacist who prescribes harmful statins; one wishes to be a doctor, the reality is, one is pill-pusher unless one puts in significant effort to be otherwise.  You are arguing literally that reality is not reality, imagination is reality.  Reality takes significantly more effort than your mere fantasizing.

Depends what you mean by "reality"; certainly the eventuality or goal is relevant to reality, which I would argue means it itself must be real (as eventuality or goal).

It is the very end of the process, if you get there.  If you are a doctor one percent of the time, then generally speaking, you are not a doctor.  Usually one takes it as a life-long profession.  Then one is a doctor.  But this takes real effort, and not merely an ideal.  If one puts in the effort and carries out the work without the ideal, even blindly, then one still becomes and is a doctor.

Again, to eventually achieve is not the same thing as to posses already.

It is not the same, but it does determine character.

The reality is, you are not a doctor.

No, because Supremacy has very little to do with superior research.

BE supremacy is technological.  Zhakarov and Santiago use the superior tools, provided they put out the industrial capacity to use them.

Profession and affinity are two very different things.

So you say.

[Othniel]

You guys are all forgetting one factor here that makes a literal world of difference. The character of Planet is not present in BE, and the nature of the wildlife are not as hostile as they are in Alpha Centauri. The wildlife in Beyond Earth shows intelligence, but they aren't of psychic level. This opens up wider opportunities for adaption to the three affinities. The leaders would be presented with different avenues of adaptation here.  took to cybernetics to give her an advantage against mind worms, but she may domesticate a wolf-beetle as a hunting dog this time around.  Harmony on Beyond Earth is different from the Green of  . Its more about alien integration then it is about alien preservation. Its more about living as part of the world than minimizing your impact on it.

for example is clearly researching ways to claim immortality, whether from better genes, or from preserving his mind via mental upload. He'll use the methods available to him to gain that immortality. could easily be Harmony if he had the chance to play with alien DNA to the level of Beyond Earth Harmony. Another way of looking at the affinities may help; Supremacy believes the answer to humanity lies in human ingenuity, Harmony believes that the answer lies in Human Adaptation, and Purity believes the answer lies in Human Resilence. From a supremacy perspective it sees itself looking to the future for answers while Harmony looks to the present and Purity looks to the Past.

[BlaneckW]

Its more about alien integration then it is about alien preservation. Its more about living as part of the world than minimizing your impact on it.

So?  Deirdre would agree with that explicitly.

could easily be Harmony if he had the chance to play with alien DNA to the level of Beyond Earth Harmony.

Genetics are only one aspect of science.  Zhakarov is not limited in this manner.