aka, mrxak's big discussion topic of the year

It's that time again, folks...

Okay, we've discussed a number of things in the past, like space warfare, space travel, population growth, and other things. But now it's time to talk about politics.

What kind of government do you see existing in the future space-faring civilizations?

Certainly there have a lot of ideas in science fiction. Everything from the oppressive dictatorship to the ineffectual parliament to the loose federation to the feudal system is out there. Egalitarian ideals and military realpolitik have popped up. But what makes the most sense?

There is something to be said for history repeating itself, but do we expect ideas like fascism and communism to survive into the stars? Or even democracy for that matter? Can a mega corporation own everything in a nearly infinite universe? Will planets even care about the "greater good" beyond their own atmosphere or star system?

Peter Cartwright of EVO fame has recently said that the UE government was essentially just a united front vs. the galaxy, looking out for Earth interests off-planet, but still many Earth nations jockey for power on the planet itself. And in that universe the population of one human planet greatly outnumbers the rest of the human territory. Do you expect this type of system to develop, with the home planet nations always existing long after the stars have been colonized? Will there always be a certain deference to the home system?

Will nations still exist on planets after we've conquered the sky? Will there be two Mars governments collecting taxes or 8 countries on the moon? If there are, will they be a federation, that is to say, sovereign states making up a united planet, or will certain traders end up landing only on the North Hemisphere of a planet because the tariffs there are lower? For that matter, will different planets in a system turn over sovereignty to the most populated inner planet or maintain their own planetary laws and police?

As for governments and political culture, what's most likely? Around the world, the trend is towards democratic socialism, and a centrist party is usually the one winning the most seats in congress or house of commons, or whatever they call them in whatever country. The United States' current polarity is fairly unusual. Additionally, strong presidential systems are giving more power to the legislative, and strong parliaments are giving more power to prime ministers. Will these sorts of trends lead to a future typical government of the welfare state and a balance between representatives and executives, or is this just a stepping stone to a more radical form of government, just as absolutist monarchies gave way to democracies and democracies for a time gave way to communism or fascism in many places.

When it comes to military struggles, will people actually stand for it? Does a planetary bombardment on a far away world matter to the average guy on the street? Some political theorists argue that democracies don't fight each other. If the trend is towards social democracy in the future, does that mean the end of war, or does intergalactic warfare matter not at all if your planet as a whole is united and the bad guys are many lightyears away? What's the loss of one ship with x people on it if your planet has x*10,000,000 people on it?

Does constant war in a stalemate necessitate propaganda, and a government that lies to its people on a routine basis? How does that affect politics? Are more oppressive governments a necessity in the space-faring future?

As always, I feel that science fiction is enriched by the author knowing the answers to these questions, even if they don't fully come through in everything they write. A little comment in a planetary dësc here, a reference to the nature of a conflict there, these are the things that keep an EV plug-in or any other project a little more interesting.

Here's a few examples of various science fiction universes that you may or may not be familiar with, but show some interesting takes on the future.

Star Trek: The galaxy is generally broken up into various sovereign units, for the large part based on what species you are. The unique government is an egalitarian United Federation of Planets, held together in peaceful coexistence and cooperation by a non-centralized government. There is a center, Earth, but each planet is a sovereign power, including Earth (theoretically, Earth could leave the Federation). One interesting thing of note is that planets seeking entrance to the Federation are generally unified within themselves. Planets with competing powers are usually told to make peace and unify before they're allowed in. Other governments of note are the Cardassians, a fascist military society with a largely-figurehead democratic government (although at times this is done away with and a single dictator rules), the Romulans, an oppressive paranoid society with a powerful Senate, the capitalist-run Ferengi, and the Klingons, with a powerful ruling council of nobility and a figurehead Emperor with religious airs. The Federation is shown to be superior in every way to these other types of government, but as more than one commander in the field has said, the Federation (in particular, the leaders on Earth) is a paradise, blind to the realities of the larger galaxy. Ideology and lack of realism often conflict with the human sense of morality, and the Federation is not without its sinister elements either.

Star Wars: The Republic is also a federation, but a parliament. Presumably coalitions are able to decide who is Chancellor, and when things change, a vote of no-confidence is all that's required to get rid of the executive. Corruption is rife, as to be expected in such a huge government spanning thousands of worlds. The "solution" to this was a military dictatorship when the Republic turned into the Empire, and centralization of power eliminated the federation elements. Also of note in the Republic is the quasi-religious order of Jedi acting as the sheriff-types throughout the galaxy, whose ideology and suppression of emotion was not without its flaws.

Firefly: The inner worlds formed an Alliance to "bring civilization" to the outer worlds. Apparently quite idealistic, the military and secret operatives keep control of unwanted elements, or tries to. While the protagonists of the show are certainly biased anti-Alliance, they are still somewhat bad-guys themselves so take their point of view with a grain of salt. Space pirates may not be the best judges of character, but there's something definitely inhuman about the Alliance, and if you've seen Serenity you know their ideology can be pretty messed up. If anything, Firefly is realistic in that humans will always be humans, for better or worse.

Dune: This is a feudal society with an Emperor and various lords and ladies, barons and baronesses, over thousands of sovereign worlds. Governments rule their denizens by fear of military power, and Great Houses are constantly bickering and fighting. While extremely complex, there are three major groups that balance the economic power and military might of the Emperor. There's the Spacing Guild with their monopoly on FTL space travel, the Landsraad (a council of the various nobility which combined balance the Emperor's military might), and CHOAM which represents all interplanetary commerce (and is itself controlled by the above powers and a few other silent partners). All-out war is avoided largely because of economic concerns, and the Spacing Guild keeps warfare between planetary fiefs to a small scale, but assassination and plotting is very common between all of the powers in the universe. Very much a class-based society, advancement is nearly impossible, and the lowest classes are very much oppressed.

5th Element: Earth appears to be by itself as a government of humans. The planet is unified under one president, and it is not clear what other parts of government may or may not exist, although there is a cabinet. Large corporations seem to control a large portion of the society. Strong police and military operate everywhere within the society, and personal freedom seems to simultaneously exist and not exist (there are enough people that much can go unnoticed, but at the same time individuals are left with little liberty). It's likely there are very strict laws and police operate within certain bounds, although the society as a whole seems more oppressive than many of us would be used to now.

Battlestar Galactica: At least before the Cylons nuked the 12 colonies, there were 12 fairly independant sovereign worlds with their own laws, united under a single presidential government on Caprica. It was definitely a federation, as we know that certain colonies had laws that were very religious-based, and others were more liberal, and this was fine under the federal government.

Starcraft: What we know about Earth is limited, but it appears to be a military dictatorship of some kind (to be honest it's been a while since I read any of the manuals for Starcraft or Broodwar). The various colonies set up by Earth exiled prisoners had a sort of democracy, but with heavy military undertones. And of course, that one guy built up enough forces to bring about a coup and named himself emperor. Overall, humans in Starcraft are quite militaristic. The protoss had a caste system with a ruling class, a warrior class, and various others. Their society was quite stable, although they had outcasts from a particular caste. Zerg are just, well bugs controlled by an overmind.

Certainly a fairly wide range, although obviously they all have some conflict or no stories about them would be interesting.

It's getting late and I can't think of too many others, but feel free to add some more, comment, try to answer some of the many questions I posed, and just discuss it all. I don't make these topics all too often, so I hope to see a lot of response :).

Heh, good to see a new mrxak discussion topic

When thinking about the Arpia novels, I tried to create a system that, to me, seemed more plausible at an interplanetary level, and so I created the Absolem Constitutor. Not a Federation, not a Confederation. Somewhere in between.
The history behind that system is that it comes from the basic idea behind the European Union in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries: you have sovereign entities, and you have a new body above them to whom they give a bit of their sovereignty.
In terms of linguistics, the term "constitutor" has nothing to do with the sense commonly given to "constitution": here, it basically means "ruling together" (somewhat… and yes, I know technically speaking it should be "Adsolem", but we don't know what latinised terms will look like in a millennium or two :p).
So, how does it work?
It's like the EU, but with dozens of such systems working together at any given point.
The main idea is the following: what are the needs of each group, and how (= at what level) can you best respond to them?

You have the local government, which can be a commune just like it can be a province.
This depends on the local conditions… every community is different, every place is different, and sometimes it's better to organise powers at this or that a level; basically, when the Constitutor is created, it's based on pre-existing levels of government if they already exist, if and only if these pre-existing levels make sense (for example, the random division into countries of Africa during/after the colonisation would not have been taken into account just after this division, but if in the future these countries prove to be viable and not always the object of internal and external tensions, then they might prove to have enough "common historical baggage" to continue to work that way).

If they don't exist, the levels of government are based on an analysis of the groups themselves:
- How much do groups of people interact with others?
- How big is the community? (if you have 10.000 people on one planet, you won't automatically create every level of planetary government… you'll be more inclined to have them all working like a federation, probably even combining the national and regional governments to make a unique government with both fields of competence, and then perhaps also combining them with the provincial and communal levels, until the community grows and necessitates a division in order to better respond to the needs of each local entity)

After the local government, you go up a level, and you have the regional entity. Same basic principles.
After that, the national level. For example, on Earth, we have nearly two hundred countries. In the future, these need not disappear. You can still have countries. But then you also have higher levels.
If the countries are many, then you have a supranational level, before coming to the planetary level.
After that, mostly based on historical ties, you have the interplanetary level.
And above all of these, you have the supraplanetary level.

As in Star Trek, any planet can leave the Constitutor. Any local entity can proclaim its independence and say "we are no longer under the jurisdiction of these other powers". And such events do take place, whenever the needs of the community change, and when an entity feels one of the other "supra-entities" can't fulfil its obligations as well as the entity itself.
It's a complex process, and there are many fields where such an "opting out" is purely theoretical (for example, few entities have the power to adopt a new currency easily and with any chance of viability). But it is possible.

Anyway, the Constitutor's highest bodies are based… on Earth. While this sometimes spurs a feeling (for planets and entities far away from there) of being governed by Earth, a distant place that has no idea of what's going on. This "democratic deficit" (:p) is reduced by the close co-operation between assemblies/legislative powers at each level (if you have a more democratic form of local government, your parliamentary representatives are in contact with the higher parliaments/legislative bodies; if you have a more aristocratic or monarchic form of local government, the direct subordinates of the governors do the same - I might as well say that I am inclined not to think of democracy as being the only good system, and I like Aristotle's idea quite a bit, and depending on the level and its history, one form can be better than another at any given time).

Whew, I think that's enough for the time being.

(that's just one of the three major governments though… the rest might follow)

Edit: oh yeah, I forgot to say that these come into place after a more military & anarchic period of time…

This post has been edited by Pace : 17 January 2007 - 04:58 AM

I'm not sure if the governments we have today will still be around when humanity is far more of a space-faring society – probably whatever powers manage to put a sufficient number of their culture into colonies in space and keep from collapsing on Earth itself due to war, famine, economics, whatever. For the initial phase of space colonization I think it will be very military-oriented because of the costs involved, but as there becomes more civilian demand and interest in space travel increase it will resemble the society that put them up there.

The feasibility of government in space is a good question. If you have groups of people that go off on their own because they don't want to be under the government they came from, and they have the resources to get there and survive, how is the government going to punish them without wasting more resources then they'd get by using them for something more productive, such as settling elsewhere? I think the economic impact of trying to police space will be prohibitive until someone develops FTL or something else that's currently impractical. Plus, because nations have an agreement not to make space a war zone, it kind of precludes fighting

Mack will write more when it is not 3 am

@mrxak, on Jan 17 2007, 07:37 AM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

Peter Cartwright of EVO fame has recently said that the UE government was essentially just a united front vs. the galaxy, looking out for Earth interests off-planet, but still many Earth nations jockey for power on the planet itself. And in that universe the population of one human planet greatly outnumbers the rest of the human territory. Do you expect this type of system to develop, with the home planet nations always existing long after the stars have been colonized? Will there always be a certain deference to the home system?

Remember that Override is set just 150 years in the future. There simply hasn't been time (even with these silly ftl systems) for that large a proportion of the population to leave, or the population of other human planets to grow. Despite that, a large proportion of human colony worlds have already moved outside Earth's authority.

But, generally, I don't see any reason why nation states would cease to exist just because interstellar travel and colonisation has become possible. After all, today we still have regional, local (and personal) politics within countries - they haven't ceased to exist because we have larger units called nations.

The reason most (almost all) sf universes assume politically united planets is that it's such an easy short-hand. It's much easier to say, 'this planet is ruled by a such-and-such government. They think this about this, and can't stand this,' than it is to say, 'this planet is divided between three main interest groups, and into 143 distinct states, each with its own distinct culture ' It's the same reason you get 'desert' planets, 'ice' planets, and so on: assuming a unity of government - like assuming a unity of climate - makes it possible to characterise the planet more quickly and effectively.

(May reply to other points later.)

I predict a future ruled by a small council of corrupt historians who act as "advisors" to a powerless head of state.

Maybe I'll say more when it stops being 7:30 AM.

@mrxak, on Jan 17 2007, 07:37 AM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

When it comes to military struggles, will people actually stand for it? Does a planetary bombardment on a far away world matter to the average guy on the street?

With regard to this question, I think the main factor is: how routine is space travel? Not for the player, but for 'the average guy on the street'?

If space travel is rare, and most people could never in their lifetime afford to (or would never have the inclination to, for whatever reason) travel to another planet, then everything that happens 'out there' will seem remote and unreal: even if that planet being bombarded is just one jump away.

Conversely, a flight to the next system may be no more unusual than, say, a trans-Atlantic flight today. The next system may feel as though it's just next door, and may seem familiar to everyone (even those who haven't actually been there).

So it could be quite possible to have an extremely liberal world or group of worlds, with what we today would regard as high standards in terms of equality before the law and rights - but which has a fleet (or other organisation(s)) which go out into the rest of the galaxy doing terrible things 'in its name'. A combination of lack of knowledge, lack of interest, remoteness and convenience means that the arms of this state get up to things its population would never tolerate on its own soil.

As for any theory that democracies don't start wars, or make war with one another, evidence for this is sadly lacking. Many of the most expansionist and aggressive powers in history have been democracies, or certainly representative systems of one form or another - 'the people' are not naturally pacifist: they often support wars enthusiastically.

The only reason it is possible to make the claim that democracies don't make war on one another, is that the 'other side' always gets painted as not being a democracy at all.

To take just one example, in 1999, about seven major democracies (and an assortment of minor ones) went to war with Yugoslavia - which was, believe it or not, another democracy! And yet, to this day, Slobodan Milosevic is routinely referred to in the media as having been 'a dictator'. But he wasn't. He was a democratically elected leader. It's possible that some elections may have been somewhat crooked, but they were still real , contested elections - as proved by the fact that it was an electoral defeat (and a failed attempt to ignore the result or rig it in his favour) which led to Milosevic's fall (this fact is also frequently overlooked in mainstream coverage).*

Democracies can and do elect 'nasty' individuals and nasty parties. Even if they don't, if circumstances make it attractive, they may well still go to war with whoever the national interest makes a suitable target, regardless of the governmental system of that target. It's just that you can be sure that the propaganda machine will be put to work making that 'regime' look as tyrannical, hateful and illegitimate as possible.

(* BTW, this shouldn't be taken as suggesting I am in any way a Milosevic supporter - I was at opposition rallies in Belgrade in 2000. But, love him or loathe him (and I recommend loathe), his leadership was the result of a democratic system.)

This post has been edited by pac : 17 January 2007 - 11:18 AM

Right now the single largest nation in terms of population is a communist country...making strides toward capitalism. The second-largest is a democracy...which doesn't raise cattle for meat or leather. However, the single largest collection of people who identify as a group is not a political state at all, but the religion of Christianity. Close second is another religion, Islam. Corporations are in distant third in terms of manpower. Wal*Mart, the largest employer in the world, only has 1.2 million people.

Norway, the "best place to live," is a democracy with very strong socialist policies. It has about 5 million citizens. Bhutan, the only country to measure Gross National Happiness, has a population under 700,000.

So look for religions to play a huge role in interplanetary colonization and governance. Expect Cristians and Muslims to be at each others' throats and spaceships. Expect nations and supranations to be bent to religious whims. Be curious whether people will undertake the Hajj from distant planets. If FTL does not exist, be mindful of the very real possibility that Earth will be left to the squabblings of those who want to control Jerusalem, and other planets will be populated at first by those fleeing religious persecution.

Expect new religions to be founded on other planets, on moons, on spaceships, even on the internet. And expect them to fight.

@qaanol, on Jan 17 2007, 05:31 PM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

Expect Cristians and Muslims to be at each others' throats and spaceships.

Although you should keep in mind that both Christians and Muslims have spent far more time (and blood) over the centuries fighting amongst themselves than they have fighting each other.

Also, every conflict which could be described as 'a war between religions' can also be viewed from a geopolitical perspective in which religion appears to be a supplementary justification, rather than a fundamental cause. (Examples available when I have more time )

The most recent one, the Crusade on Evil

More seriously, I agree with Peter (the other one). Think of the crusades. It is my belief that the greatest description of the crusades (among other things) is to be found in the recent film of "Kingdom of Heaven", in two parts:
- when the Hospitalier (however it is spelt in English basically, the warrior monk) says "I've seen rage and madness in the eyes of many men who were religious" (followed by "Godliness is what is here (points to head) and here (points to heart). It is about what you do each day. For your fellow man and for everyone else.")
- when Salah al-Din, to the question "What is Jerusalem worth?", replies "Nothing. ... Everything."

(these two quotes are, in my opinion, among the greatest for a variety of reasons)

Religious wars have been symbolic at most, always a secondary motive.

I'm thinking the exact same thing that happened to the Colonies of the U.S.

Settlers land on other worlds, are helped by the Natives of that world, than take over said world. They establish their own government, because they realize that the government that sent them has little power over them now. The government that sent the settlers then sends troops, which get turned back (or if not, they land and start their own government), and The settlers say "###### you guys, this is our planet." Supplies stop coming, but by then more ways to supply the colony/ies have been found, and the settlers continue to live. They form their own government, and eventually trade resumes between them and their former government.

500 years later, the same thing happens again.

Until another race with superior technology is encountered, and humans are all wiped out.

@razzle-storm, on Jan 17 2007, 02:49 PM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

Until another race with superior technology is encountered, and humans are all wiped out.

This isn't Halo.

Pace's comment about religious wars intrigued me. If a government somehow manages to inculcate it's citizens in one religion (say, 90 percent of the populace is of an extreme, kill-all-our-enemies-because-they're-heathens type, not religions like Buddhism or Christianity), and then some leader declares a population on another planet the enemy because they have a different religion, even involving the expense of attacking another world in (possibly) another solar system, do you think they would do it? Expending tremendous resources simply to 'kill the heretics.'

As an aside to, I believe pac, the Democratic Peace Hypothesis (which I personally believe to be a tautology) states that "constitutionally secure liberal democracies" don't fight each other, not that they fight less. As to what defines a constitutionally secure liberal democracy? This is what has eluded international Wilsonians (idealists, international political liberals, neoliberal institutionalists, whatever) since Kant first proposed it. The closest anyone has come is that countries with established McDonald's franchises don't attack each other, though Yugoslavia did have one Macer's.

But I digress, as far as how space travel will effect government, I think it depends on the ease and availability of space travel, the stopping power of space travel if you will, relative to the ease and availability of trans-oceanic travel, the stopping power of water. First off, a unified Earth will not happen until the stopping power of water becomes no greater than, say, the stopping power of a mountain range or a field. And even then, there will probably be sovereign splinter states on Earth. These may end up being client states to a global hegemon, and therefore negligible, but history suggests that domination of even so large a land mass as a planet is extremely difficult, and unless there is a global hegemon, global governance will not occur, since I believe states are too self interested. That said, I think the odds are that states will turn to the stars to promote "internal balancing" against other threatening states on Earth. Thus, I think newly colonized worlds, though perhaps only outside our solar system, will be unified. (If one country attempts to colonize e.g. Mars, another major power may attempt to balance that by colonizing Mars.) Incidentally, since only the richest states will be able to travel throughout the stars initially, it will probably further marginalize developing countries. (Currently, only the US, EU, China, and maybe Japan or Russia have the financial wherewithal to colonize space, if we could do it.) Ultimately, though, I believe that there will end up being multiple major international federations, confederations, and empires. In fact, I believe that they will have all types of government that we can see in todays world, and many forms which we cannot imagine.

@pac, on Jan 17 2007, 09:53 AM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

Although you should keep in mind that both Christians and Muslims have spent far more time (and blood) over the centuries fighting amongst themselves than they have fighting each other.

Very true. It's not as simple as "Christians and Muslims." I consider myself a Christian, but I do not in the least identify with Catholics, Anglicans, Puritans, Orthodox Christians, or numerous other groups.

@flavius, on Jan 17 2007, 11:11 PM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

The closest anyone has come is that countries with established McDonald's franchises don't attack each other, though Yugoslavia did have one Macer's.

('Macer's' = McDonald's?) If so, I know: I've been inside it. Didn't stop the bombs from dropping

(Who comes up with these silly theses!?)

@mrxak, on Jan 16 2007, 11:37 PM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

It's getting late and I can't think of too many others, but feel free to add some more, comment, try to answer some of the many questions I posed, and just discuss it all. I don't make these topics all too often, so I hope to see a lot of response :).

So then why in the hell did I suggest like 6 or 7 different ones?

@razzle-storm, on Jan 17 2007, 10:49 AM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

I'm thinking the exact same thing that happened to the Colonies of the U.S.

Settlers land on other worlds, are helped by the Natives of that world, than take over said world. They establish their own government, because they realize that the government that sent them has little power over them now. The government that sent the settlers then sends troops, which get turned back (or if not, they land and start their own government), and The settlers say "###### you guys, this is our planet." Supplies stop coming, but by then more ways to supply the colony/ies have been found, and the settlers continue to live. They form their own government, and eventually trade resumes between them and their former government.

500 years later, the same thing happens again.

Until another race with superior technology is encountered, and humans are all wiped out.

This is what I was going to reply. As intersystem travel becomes faster and cheaper, borders between worlds will become less fearsome, and trade and communication will expand as world-nation-states become "closer." Pretty soon it'll be like globalization, only galaxy-ization. Until then, a unified intersystem government would be unfeasible.

I think, ultimately it's cultural. The form of government societies take depends to a large extent upon their priorities. Barring a paradigm change in the way people interact with each other (for example, some sort of future common neural network into which everyone's brain is plugged), people will be driven by largely the same motives than in the past: military fear, hatred, desire for security and prosperity, fear of new technologies or social change, etc.

Technology will also play an enormous role, especially concerning the speed and ease with which information, material, and people (including troops!) can be moved between member worlds, or from a central command hub to outside planets. If soldiers and warships can be zipped around the galaxy in a matter of months or so, large, closely-united nation-states, 'galactization', large mega-corporations and the rapid dissemination of culture and information could lead to a larger-scale version of the unification and globalization movements taking place today. Quick information transfer and trade make lower-level representation along with a strong central government more likely- it's hard to run a democracy if it takes a century to figure out the election results!

If the timescale is upped to years or low decades, and with correspondingly slower communications, it seems likely that there might be more discrete, centralized, 'empire'-like governments. It would be easier to keep some sort of national homogeneousness, as it would be harder to move information or 'foreign' products into or out of the borders. Governors might be appointed, from a 'throne world', to serve stints of several years upon backwater planets. Planets would run their own affairs, but the fact that any rebellion would be answered within a reasonably short period of time (maybe 5-10 years of independence before the troop-ships and warfleet arrives) would allow these empires to remain together.

Interstellar travel that takes many decades or centuries would probably preclude the formation of interstellar empires of any size. It would be interesting if communications were instantaneous- instead of having interstellar governments, we might have interstellar ideologies: a thousand self-contained metaphorical battles of religions, philosophies, et. cetera jockeying for supremacy on an equal number of worlds. Interstellar unity wouldn't be based on force, but on ideological sympathy- two planets where the same faith has become dominant, for example.

(Of course, these are all narrowly constrained, oversimplified examples. Nothing has to happen exactly like these situations, or even anything remotely resembling them.)

Regarding SC, it seems the UEP is a take off the cinematic version of Starship Troopers, especially the 'propaganda video' cinematic- large, militaristic emblems, slickly done half-truths, 'Directorate psychics and powerful drugs' pacifying an alien mastermind, glorification of war, and the space burial. The whole 'militaristic government trying to pacifying rogue sector which might or might not pose a threat to Earth' angle also comes into play.

Quote

Until another race with superior technology is encountered, and humans are all wiped out.

Depending on who you ask, it's statistically improbable that we'll encounter another alien race within even 50 years more or less advanced than we are at that point...either they'll be so primitive that we'll have no trouble wiping them out, or we'll be on the receiving side. But then again, depending on who you ask, FTL travel, giant stellar empires, alien races we can even communicate with, and watching 'C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate' are all equally unlikely

This post has been edited by UE_Research & Development: 18 January 2007 - 02:08 AM

Sometimes less is more. For instance you can put too many of your own values into politics or religion and turn off folks that would otherwise enjoy a game. Keep in mind that some folks hold very strong opinions about things that may seem simular to what a game maker puts into a storyline and can be offended by what otherwise would be a playable and interesting plot. As a game maker or a game modder we want folks to become a part of the plot but if they become offended at some political statement that is built into a plotline the player must be a part of which goes against what the player feels is right or just then the plot becomes harder for the player to believe in or want to take part in. You can have all sorts of things going on around the player that may have strong political or religious motavations but the players plotline should be something which the player can build on with their own values. Maybe have a choice to allow the player to go in directions they see as right and proper rather than take a player through what you as a game devolper imagines to be a right and just political direction or religious direction. Let the players line be more free to add their own values into their role in the game.

@tiresmoke, on Jan 18 2007, 12:18 PM, said in Government Systems and Politics:

Sometimes less is more. For instance you can put too many of your own values into politics or religion and turn off folks that would otherwise enjoy a game. Keep in mind that some folks hold very strong opinions about things that may seem simular to what a game maker puts into a storyline and can be offended by what otherwise would be a playable and interesting plot. As a game maker or a game modder we want folks to become a part of the plot but if they become offended at some political statement that is built into a plotline the player must be a part of which goes against what the player feels is right or just then the plot becomes harder for the player to believe in or want to take part in. You can have all sorts of things going on around the player that may have strong political or religious motavations but the players plotline should be something which the player can build on with their own values. Maybe have a choice to allow the player to go in directions they see as right and proper rather than take a player through what you as a game devolper imagines to be a right and just political direction or religious direction. Let the players line be more free to add their own values into their role in the game.

I agree, I'd definitely argue for presenting the facts, giving the player options, and let them make up their own mind on things. I think value judgments should be kept out of a presentation of a political system, and in many cases I think that the political system itself should not play a major role. But, for a developer to keep these things in mind as they write and design for their universe, the richer the universe will be.

Some design aspects:

1. Planet dëscs
2. Mission dëscs (and types)
3. Ships
4. Newsfeeds, rumors, etc.
5. Miscellaneous information.

The political culture of a people will have an impact on all of those, even if it is subtle and just a backdrop. Of course, there's always propaganda, but I think the player should be pretty clear when that's going on, and it should be balanced on all sides.

It's interesting to see a lot of people thinking that federations or confederations will form. It's probably likely, if nations still exist when the colony ships start heading out. Each will have its own way of doing things, but like the EU is attempting to do with Europe, there will be a certain degree of clustering- for economic reasons at first- but then more. One interstellar currency makes things a lot easier for trade, and once you have that, political collaboration tends to follow. Will the space credit follow the euro?

I'm also glad that religion got brought up. As in the EU with Turkey, religion differences will probably cause a certain degree of reluctance to group up. Religion is definitely something people get heated about- we have plenty of wars in our history to prove it- even if it's just used as an excuse for an economic or political goal. To (roughly) quote the Dune series, "where religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows".

I think one thing can be assumed as a universal trait among intelligent rational creatures, and that is the striving towards efficiency. So I believe that travel, in any medium, at any speed, will get cheaper in time through the creativity of the intelligence. How fast, what mediums, and what the current cost is, of course, is something that the author of any plug-in would just have to decide on. But the trend will always be faster-cheaper-better, whether it's small changes or huge leaps.

More will definitely follow in time, but I wanted to make a few quick points now so you don't think I'm not still reading and thinking.

I just had a thought Over the past two millennia, Christianity has subsequently divided into many different groups. Islam has been mainly divided into two big groups (to my knowledge, the others are quite minor). Buddhism has quite a few distinct groups. Hinduism, same thing.
(I won't go into details)

Anyway, it seems that more and more groups are appearing, and growing in size. Could it be that within 500-1000 years, these "parts of major religions" will have eaten away at the main streams of thought in the major religions?
If so, is it perhaps more likely that the sense of conflict between major religions will decline, because some groups will be (for example) somewhere between Islam and Christianity, adhering to certain beliefs of each? If that is the case, religions, due to their division, will either not be associated with politics anymore (if we're talking about a country that is incredibly versatile in terms of religious beliefs) or will possibly lead to the creation of mini-states (where a geographically unified group of people share a same "minor religion").
If the former, religion will have definitely (for the time being) entered the so-called "private sphere". If the latter, then religion is still to be taken into account.

On the other hand, if this diversification is somehow countered, or if it does not blur the borders between religions, then yes, they will still play a role.

(sure, the idea of Christislam or whatever would be considered a heresy, but think about Luther one second anything is possible)