PMOG Forum

Who here has read Manna? I will post a portal in the Thread! I was just wondering what moral laws I would violate by creating a culture/society like that. It is my life goal, but I need feedback, I need people to critique it, as the story is a work of fiction, and probably needs a lot of work to be a functioning societal system.
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

by lcp 5 months ago
| Permalink

I'm not seeing a portal here, did you post it?

by uselessness 5 months ago
| Permalink

It's a good story. I don't think it's very realistic, but like any utopia worth its salt, it's fun to think about. :-)

First, a major premise of the Australia Project is the total recycling of all matter. Ignoring the fact that this is nowhere near possible today, the story makes the assumption that products are being created and destroyed at an equal rate. However, the story talks of people creating works of art (among other things) that are meant to last indefinitely; therefore the net availability of raw materials is constantly decreasing, and the problem of scarcity arises, which is where the reality of economics shakes things apart for this utopia.

Secondly, the concept of "refs" monitoring not only crimes committed but crimes *about* to be committed is downright Orwellian. One must weight the benefits of a more orderly society against the proliferation of surveillance and invasion of privacy. For me, there is no difference between being monitored by a human or by a robot. One of the essential securities we all possess is the sanctuary of the mind: your thoughts are yours and yours alone. I would not describe a society where "thoughtcrime" is punished as a utopia.

The story makes no provision for defense. The Australia Project is assumed to be a closed system that the rest of the world is happy to leave alone. In reality, such a place would not last long before someone came after it. I expect the humans would be too busy enjoying themselves to respond appropriately and the robots would be taken too far beyond their programming to know what to do. That's all hypothetical, of course. Also, the story mentions the issue of a possible hacker attack to create a nation of "zombies" but glosses too quickly over the solution. That threat should be looked into more carefully.

I'm concerned about who makes the rules. What kind of system is put in place to prevent abuse? Democracy is often lauded but it has its flaws; all it takes is for a misguided majority to step in and vote away the rights of the minority. It opens the doors to oppression and corruption. A legion of obedient robot enforcers would be an awfully tempting weapon for a would-be tyrant and his friends to wield.

Some sci-fi fans might point out the inevitable issue of "robot rights" issues that Asimov liked to wrestle with. I personally believe that robots, no matter how smart, should always remain as servants of those who created them, and always be treated as devices rather than "people." But I also think it's a given that as they become more lifelike, many will begin to personify them, and then defend them and demand emancipation for them. A slave class, even one of machines, will be construed as a civil rights violation by some politically active do-gooders and cannot last long.

Finally, any successful economy is driven by incentives. The Australia Project removes the natural incentives of currency and commercial competition and replaces them with something assumed to be equal: self-motivation. Which is nice in theory, but the latter is not nearly as powerful of an incentive. What drives the restaurateur to maintain health standards, for example, if there is no financial incentive? If writers seek fame for their novels, how can they expect to find it without some mechanism for advertising? The story assumes word-of-mouth is enough, but that is short-sighted.

Sorry for the long post. I could have gone longer, but I figured that's enough to chew on for now. :-)

by uselessness 5 months ago
| Permalink

I think the majority of my issues with this scenario sit in the gulf between science fiction and reality. The world of Manna is dependent upon certain technologies that are nowhere near fruition in the world we know. In the story, I think they serve as a sort of deus ex machina for overcoming the world's most fundamental unsolvable problems. In a story it's easy to dismiss those problems by saying "technology will fix that" but in the real world it's easier said than done.

For example, given my (very basic) understanding of physics, I don't imagine humanity will ever have the ability to recycle all matter like the story describes. Maybe in many centuries. But it's extremely far off. So that leaves us with the mining-resources-from-the-universe scenario you described. That sounds very reasonable to me, personally, but for a lot of environmentalists that's not going to fly. They'll tell you that the universe is not ours to exploit, that we need to coexist with the cosmos. How to appease such a group?

Another implausible technology is the mind-reading one. I understand what you're saying about the cut-off point between thinking and doing, the microsecond where one has already committed to action but the muscles have not yet responded. Drawing again from my (very basic) understanding of a subject, in this case psychology, that moment in time is purely theoretical. It's equally likely that our brains don't operate so sequentially, that decisions are made in spurts, that there's always time to change one's mind, even after the fist has begun swinging.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there is a single moment in time where thought turns to intent. As a real-life computer programmer, I'm very conscious of the fact that no software works perfectly. I must always factor in fault-tolerance, and there will always be mistakes. When dealing with something as critical as identifying that moment inside someone's mind, you can't afford to be wrong. If the system failed only once out of a thousand times, that would be too often! Again, I strongly believe that a person's mind ought to be a sanctuary, and no outside force should ever infringe upon it. Privacy is immeasurably valuable... you simply mustn't interfere with a person's liberty, or free will, which is a fundamental right.

It's probably best that I explain where I'm coming from here. I could be called a libertarian, but that word confuses some people who aren't clear on its meaning.

I believe in the principle of non-aggression. Some smart people have gone ahead of me and explained that principle much more eloquently than I could hope to with a slick little online video. If you've got a couple minutes, you should check it out. Then you'll know the basics of what constitutes the most just and humane society possible, according to my worldview.

My philosophy came about by observing a few things about our world, things like scarcity, entropy, and the inherent self-interest of man. These are some of those fundamental unsolvable flaws of the world I described above. In a world without them, other possibilities happily open up, like the Australian Project. But outside of fictional inventions, these flaws aren't going away, and the solution to them just isn't that easy.

I don't believe a utopia is possible, because there will always be scarcity. There will always be waste. Humans will always value themselves higher than their neighbors. Considering these things, the best possible (non-utopian) society is one that allows for maximum freedom and incentivizes labor with spending potential. It's the only system that has proven itself sustainable for human progress without devolving into mass consumption and idleness. It's not perfect, but it acknowledges the flaws of the world we live in, and makes the most of them.

It's easy to imagine an endgame where technology has rid the world of its problems. But let's picture the path from here to there. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I think those problems would kill the technology before it got that far. Even the open-source movement isn't powerful enough to overcome them. Eventually, greed will steer the technology in a different direction and we'll end up with Manna instead of Vertabrane. More realistically, the development roadmap is likely to wind through the military than the fast-food industry, and we'll end up with a Terminator scenario.

Yikes, I'm a real downer, aren't I? Sorry! ;-)

by uselessness 5 months ago
| Permalink

Sorry if I need "appeasement!" :-) In my experience, convincing people on the internet is very seldom possible. Which is why I no longer get involved in online arguments; it just ends up frustrating all parties involved. I'm not out to prove anything or "win." As this thread shows, I do enjoy having thoughtful conversations or brainstorming with people. But I have to detach myself from the concepts we're talking about, because vested interest in one side of the argument ruins things for everyone. Years ago I toured the college competitive debate circuit; the lessons I learned there about civility and objectivity are still very important to me today.

In other words: I know that I'm not going to convince you of anything, and you (hopefully) know that you won't convince me of anything, but we should both be okay with that. The real value here is in stretching ourselves and looking at issues from other points of view. And in honesty I'm a pretty open-minded guy... I'm not beyond persuading in the least. Just don't make that your goal. My personal beliefs are the aggregation of a lifetime of experiences, introspection, communication, and research. They're always maturing and evolving, but cannot easily be undone. And I recognize the same is true for you.

Anyway, the gist of the whole liberty tangent is essentially that all people do have equal rights. The important thing is recognizing what rights are. I hearken to the Enlightenment writings of folks like John Locke and Thomas Paine. In the American Declaration of Independence, for example, rights are described as innate and inalienable. No one (not the government, not the constitution, not a democratic majority) can give rights because all humans are born with them intrinsic. So to me, discussing what rights people should be "given" under various circumstances is absurd, because rights do not come from anywhere but within.

Today there are some political theorists who talk of "positive rights" and "negative rights." Negative rights, they say, are the intrinsic ones I've just described. Positive rights, on the other hand, assume obligations on behalf of others. For example, that you have a "right" to something that belongs to me. I posit that these so-called "positive rights" are not rights at all, because they infringe on the individual's ability to voluntarily decide how to manage his own resources. By their very nature, positive rights limit our intrinsic negative rights, therefore calling them "rights" is a misnomer. You have no claim to my life, liberty, or property, and neither do I for yours.

I think you and I have opposing views of human nature. I believe that man is basically selfish, and (if I'm understanding you correctly) you believe man is basically altruistic. If someone wants to aggress against someone, no amount of reeducation is going to stop his desires. I believe the human heart is dark and no amount of enlightenment will ever eradicate evil. In my experience, attempts to prevent crime usually only produce more creative criminals. So I am convinced that a more effective motivator is needed, namely punishment. The punishment should effectively repay the victim for the damages, one and a half times. (Actually there's no particular rule of thumb here, that's why judges are needed to rule on a case by case basis).

You said that the problem of each person considering himself better than his neighbor is merely cultural, but I'm not convinced that's so. It's more deeply rooted in our individual instincts for self-preservation, extrapolated nicely in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. From the most primitive to the most civilized cultures, this sense of self-entitlement is never absent. It's manifest in tribal warfare and it's manifest in suburbanites keeping up with the Joneses. In a society like the Australia Project, the idea that all people possess equally sounds great; but there will always be people who want more than others. Ought these people be slapped on the wrist and told "tough luck"?

My point is that I don't believe greed can be educated away. And as long as it exists, total financial equality is more stifling than freeing. It leaves those desiring more no recourse but to steal. Contrast that with today's society, where greed can be channeled into ambition, and then labor, to satisfy no only the person's desires but also improve society at the same time. Manna offers no such mechanism.

To answer your final question, the best shot at preserving liberty is vigilance. It requires a respect for and an understanding of what it means to be free. And it requires an active rejection of tyranny in all the many disguises it wears. As long as there is someone trying to control you, regardless of whether that person does so in the name of evil or in the name of some noble cause, you are not free. In my experience, human nature means that someone is always willing to step into that position. Tyranny never ends. But those who care about freedom must always push back.

by uselessness 5 months ago
| Permalink

Two people, two views on the same topic that differ so greatly they won't be able to compromise. Both are convinced their way is right, and that regardless of others opinions (even if you do read them) it won't change your intrinsic core values, which results in unaltered opinions.

I'm going to read this story, and offer my feedback as well. But having read both of your opinions, I am going to leave this post with a little reminder before I wander off to read.

"Utopia: from Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place", indicating that Moore was utilizing the concept as allegory and did not consider such an ideal place to be realistically possible."

by starryice 5 months ago
| Permalink