This is based on outside influences and factors, not an inherent human trait, or "Human nature." In today's society, a good portion of the "immoral" or "dishonest" things people do, can be traced back to the Market System.

Some words by Peter Joseph:

"It is important to point out that the motivations and hence actions of any human being within a society can only be a consequence of that society's influence. Stealing, for example, is not a “genetic” trait. It is the product of a culture. Human motivation is complex and the study of human behavior should be at the forefront of criminology, with all relevant attributes of the social system considered as a possible cause. It is no revelation of human psychology and hence sociology that if a certain to act does not offer a proper reward, then naturally there will be little motivation to carry out such an action. Likewise, if personal gain/reward can be attained through what society even condemns as an “unlawful action”, that distinction truly changes nothing if there is a level of desperation within a given person to require whatever that action may be.

The fact is, every single act of monetary gain is based on a form of dishonesty...only this dishonestly is simply re-termed as “competitive”. In the marketing world everything is driven by “advantage”. The “competitive edge” is nothing more than a passive corruption where competing companies seek to “out do” each other in whatever way they can for the sake of market share. The very act of seeking differential advantage is to be engaged in the abuse of another person or group. Regardless, our social system at large chooses to collar this understanding and instead imposes punitive reactions to what the system defines as "socially offensive behavior” (or crime) while, in fact, ignoring the root causes of most of these so called “criminal” actions along with overlooking the other “accepted” forms of dishonesty present.
As an aside, the resolution of “offensive” human behavior can only come from an adjustment of the social system. There is no such thing as a “criminal” as we are all products and hence the victims of the culture which we are born into.

In a sustainable society, human motivation would be driven by contributions to society and hence themselves – not abstractly “making money”. The system would be designed to best facilitate the needs of the population directly. Yes, this is that dangerous phenomenon we hear so much about, with the image of blood engulfing the planet Earth, denoted as “socialistic”. God forbid society might actually be designed to benefit the people that live inside it. The fact of the matter is, the profit motive incentive and hence our competition oriented system is entirely “antisociety”. It is a pure corruption. The entire point of a social organization is to facilitate and perpetuate the well being of its citizenry. In society today, the exact opposite is true. People are told they must “earn a living” which perpetuates a form of superstition that only certain people deserve the “right of life” and others do not."


In conclusion, a "competition for power," is influenced by the society that surrounds a person, not human genetics. In today's society, one that is based heavily on profit and personal gain, a "competition for power" exists because there is something to "gain." Once you eliminate the cause (the basis for competition) the need for power is rendered pointless. Perhaps in today's social system, saying it will never happen is true, but saying humans are incapable of not being competitive altogether, is just naivety.

Well it was an interesting point of view
My opnion was based on historical facts, be that on a scale of countries that tried to conquer and colonize more land in the past or individuals trying to stand out in strength/knowledge or other attributes;
even games have competition - winning over your oponent/oponent team is what most online games are based on. The other example is the Olympic games...
I think, most people are trying to be better at something than others, however, I agree that not everyone is competative and people are different (I guess it is one of the charateristics in personality).

"As long as there's two people on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead." - TF2 Sniper

In my humblest opinion, I believe that violence is human nature. Plus, aggression in males is in fact biological. That's true for some different animals, not just humans. If you think about it, war and famine are the only population control we have.

It's tragic how it comes down to this, but it may as well be one of 2 things:

1. Everyone sets aside their pride and hate to work together. Then results will slowly appear and possibly restore the Ark over the course of several years.

2. War breaks out. This drains resources at a sharp rate and at the same time, several hundreds to thousands of people die from skirmishes alone. With these two factors combined, the population may actually reach a sustainable low, which will be less than 5k at this point. The Ark then rebuilds from there or enters a cycle, repeating this process.

Which one is more grim? Yeah, the second option. The first option is what I've been saying should happen (it obviously wont) the whole time. I'm on the Security's side to try to preserve peace so those who are dedicated to rebuilding are able to.

Tests have shown that only extreme amounts of testosterone, amounts that you wouldn't find in humans, can be directly connected to violence.

wars and over population usually drives technology advancements so this maybe good for the ark in the long run.

This is only true due to the current social system - The Market System. Wars = money.
In the current system, every good produced is inferior the moment it is created, for it is impossible for a company to use the most efficient materials or processes in the productions of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis. They very simply cannot make the “strategically best” physically - it is mathematically impossible. This is a reason why goods today are produced using planned obsolescence.

The current system has a propensity for “Establishments”. Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self perpetuation. If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a “competition” mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level which is the competition against new advents which would make them obsolete, outright.

The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well being of those on the pay role, leads to an inherent tendency stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations (IE the perpetuation of "Hybrid" cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.)

Wars do not drive technology, they drive "profitable" technology. Profitable in the sense of monetary or some other sense of personal gain, not profitable for society as a whole.

I'm not sure what happened there but I have been left feeling confused and scared.

imo, he ment that modern wars are business for corporations that produce technology for the wars, hence its not benefitial for society as a whole.

I have a feeling that horse is going to attack me for saying this but I am going to say it anyway. who cares about society?

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b involves serious damage to property,
(c endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

so the resistance are terrorists by the looks of it :shrug:

Society is very essence of the human species. They are you neighbors, your family, your peers and your community. Thriving and living a healthy, full life is all due to having a good social structure. The Social system we have now, which is all about infinite growth in a world of finite resources is not only mathematically unsustainable, it is ecologically detrimental. The whole "survival of the fittest" or "every man for himself" philosophy is old and outdated, and does nothing but harm to human society. having you say "who cares about society?" is a good of example of showing how indoctrinated into the system you have become.

Survival of the fittest is the problem inside the current society, imo
Good example of societies worth would be - imagine that you are the last person on the planet (no any sort of equipment/buildings/machinery/prepared food) - all your life would go to finding food and shelter, similar to animals.
Imo, society allows people to concentrate on different things and progress

Which, by the definition, so are the Security. Because, every act of war an every fight to ever occur in the world is at least a minor act of terrorism.

Anyways, I think people can agree that people who are apathetic to society and humanity/the world in general but then still try and hold an opinion and argue in it's support are being hypocritical. And since they usually say they don't care at all, then most of the time they have no idea what they're even talking about.

personally i feel as though the resistance is better in morals but i dont really KNOW enough about them (and niether will anyone else till the game is released) to make an accurate assumption. besides no matter what there will be abuse of rescources even if the resistance were in charge. human nature dictates that life will be unfair no matter what. just one side may cover it up more than the other, making life seem better. i will be playing both since its basicly like two seperate campaigns and ill be playing both of them for sure. mainly ill be choosing the resistance becuase i think the gameplay will be more fun to play as. i just hope stealth is a full option in this game.

This has been fun. I enjoy the fact that a game can make people think so hard. It can really make people question their beliefs.

I'm ALL for the Resistance. "Rebel" is in my name anyway. :rolleyes:

Just so you understand me a little, I have the Anarchy A tattooed on my back, should give you an idea.

Any who, here's how I see it, I don't think either side is good or bad, and I'm sure that's the idea. Both side is certain that they are the ones fighting for what's right. That's really how any conflict is though. It's very touchy to discuss, but even America fighting wars against "terrorism" for "freedom" is seen as oppressive and is often hated by the people were're fighting to liberate, but we're the good guys...right?

There is no such thing as human nature, only human behavior, which constantly changes.

You notice that it's only the person who isn't on the receiving end of "unfairness" is the one who's saying "Life isn't fair."?

what SD need to is to say how the women feel about this war because they make up half the ark so they decide who is the badies and goodies on the ark.

The Security weapons are better.

So I choose Security
:gun:

they have the same weapons

With the Resistance having weapons that look 10x more ghetto than the nice, polished, and well maintained weapons of the Security.

yea but they still work the same

Yes but coolness if half the battle.

And some people prefer a grungier look than the nice and clean look. Besides, if you didn't notice, in the character customization gallery the Resistance characters can be seen with weapons as well-kept as the Security weapons.