PDA

View Full Version : Not Getting the Whole Philosophy Behind DX



Tracer Tong
18th Jan 2008, 19:55
Hello fans of DX franchise,

I am having severe trouble in understanding the philosophy behind the DX series.
It's not that I don't like the idea of Posthumanism(I do), it's just that Why would the augmented people be segregated and humiliated rather than the 'pure human'? The hatredness is always against the incapable (i.e. crippled and less common race-based people), while the mechanically augmented are over-capable. It should be otherwise.

It's like today's people will tell rich people to enter from the back.

What about augmented-exclusive places? And why do augmented people seem to look destroyed from the inside? They should be enhanced.

jordan_a
18th Jan 2008, 20:00
Philosophy thread?

Kneo24
18th Jan 2008, 21:39
it's just that Why would the augmented people be segregated and humiliated rather than the 'pure human'? The hatredness is always against the incapable (i.e. crippled and less common race-based people), while the mechanically augmented are over-capable. It should be otherwise.

It stems from a purity standpoint. Whether a certain group has more or less capabilities doesn't mean they're "pure" in the eye of the beholder. So really, the hatredness isn't against the incapable, but rather things that are different.

Different things scare people because they don't understand it, and when they can't understand it from a cursory glance, they feel negative towards it.

Tracer Tong
18th Jan 2008, 22:06
Philosophy thread?

I never checked the thread for my issue specifically (why the world's state isn't the exact opposite of what it is in DX)


It stems from a purity standpoint. Whether a certain group has more or less capabilities doesn't mean they're "pure" in the eye of the beholder. So really, the hatredness isn't against the incapable, but rather things that are different.

Different things scare people because they don't understand it, and when they can't understand it from a cursory glance, they feel negative towards it.

Correct, but then again, if the mid-to-richer segment of society gets the augmentations, how come they are the ones who suffer?
They are the majority, and even if they weren't: Aren't people in the normal human society aspire for more money/the luxuries?

Just seemed weird from the beginning (when I saw the analysis of the DX3 teaser), never occurred to me during DX1. I always thought that the mech-augmented people were rejected because they were mostly ex-military (i.e. the bartender in Hell's Kitchen).

imported_van_HellSing
18th Jan 2008, 23:06
It's severe bodily modification we're talking about here. If a large portion of the general populace frowns upon people with piercings, how would they react to someone who willingly had his arms cut off to replace them with prosthetics?

Kneo24
18th Jan 2008, 23:35
Keep in mind that the higher you go up the food chain, there are less of you. Poor people look down on the rich as much as the rich look down on the poor, hence why the class argument is a non-issue.

It's about bodily modification. It's something different. It's something that's not pure. There are a lot of people who don't like body art. It's the very same concept. It's just something different. They don't fully understand it. Therefore they hate it.

Papy
19th Jan 2008, 00:05
Why would the augmented people be segregated and humiliated rather than the 'pure human'?
For the same reason people who take steroids are segregated and humiliated.

jordan_a
19th Jan 2008, 00:31
Moreover, they would be despised for having giving up their human features: most of the time, our first reaction to something we can't recognize or unknown is suspucion, uncertainty.

B0b_P@ge
19th Jan 2008, 03:00
For the same reason people who take steroids are segregated and humiliated.

Because they broke the agreed rules that no one was to use artificial performance enhancers.

The world isn't that simple though, cheating, unfair advantages, and performance modifiers are a fact of life, and we don't always get angry at it, quite the contrary sometimes take this example: "Wow, did you see that guy just speed by that cop with the radar gun, he must of had a cop-jammer, wow, I wish I had one"

Just a thought; moreover, given the opportunity I would definitely augment myself with nano-tech regardless of the 'witch hunts'. I do agree with the counter argument though, its quite believable if the augmented person almost stops looking human with the tech-grafting... but I think there's too sides to the coin here.

I hope they give a realistic and believable explanation with this.

Papy
19th Jan 2008, 03:38
I hope they give a realistic and believable explanation with this.

You want a realistic and believable explanation? Well, I think I'm your explanation. For one I think "the guy who just speed by that cop" should not be allowed to drive a car. I don't think being retarded is cool. Also, the same way I'll always refuse to take steroids or other kind of drugs, I would not switch my arms to something mechanical... and I would despise the ones who do.

Xcom
19th Jan 2008, 06:30
I am having severe trouble in understanding the philosophy behind the DX series.
It's not that I don't like the idea of Posthumanism(I do), it's just that Why would the augmented people be segregated and humiliated rather than the 'pure human'? The hatredness is always against the incapable (i.e. crippled and less common race-based people), while the mechanically augmented are over-capable. It should be otherwise.


Ah, the ever going question of what makes human human? Who is superior and who is inferior? In the chaotic and dysfunctional world of DX, the people have suffered greatly from various diseases, plagues and continue to suffer from lethal drug, and so being "pure", healthy human might be perceived as a status symbol in itself. So presumably, anyone who is not, is looked down upon.

Mech-augmented folks are distrusted, feared, disliked and generally considered to be freaks (partly due to the fact that they indeed look scary). This creates the foundation for this whole nano-augmentation conspiracy thing because it doesn't affect people's appearances, and therefore makes it nearly impossible to distinguish nano-augments from normal humans.

Useful literature here: :thumbsup:
http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/april02/dxbible/dx2/

Rosenrot
19th Jan 2008, 10:35
Jealousy and or fear. The two main reasons why humans hate in such manner.:rasp:

Papy
20th Jan 2008, 00:00
Jealousy and or fear.
This is simplistic. Moral values are not always based on primal emotions. In fact, most people moral values are based on higher level concepts than basic emotions.

Grant_Weaver
20th Jan 2008, 03:42
They cut off his arm, replaced half of his face.

Hermann, right? He's a good soldier. Killed three of our men.

They'd've replaced his whole body if it would've improved performance. If that's how you judge a man -- by performance -- then eventually it's not about people but upgrades, versions, functionality...

All I know is we could use a few mechs for ops like this.

Soon as we buy into the cult of the machine we're just like them.

Rhetoric, always more rhetoric.

Aliera42
20th Jan 2008, 10:27
Hello fans of DX franchise,

I am having severe trouble in understanding the philosophy behind the DX series.
It's not that I don't like the idea of Posthumanism(I do), it's just that Why would the augmented people be segregated and humiliated rather than the 'pure human'? The hatredness is always against the incapable (i.e. crippled and less common race-based people), while the mechanically augmented are over-capable. It should be otherwise.

It's like today's people will tell rich people to enter from the back.

What about augmented-exclusive places? And why do augmented people seem to look destroyed from the inside? They should be enhanced.

It's not about being capable. There is no shortage of discrimination against perfectly capable people, ethnic and religious minorities, blacks, women, gays, etc. Now from a Transhumanism standpoint I can kinda see what you're getting at- that by transhumanist ideals, mechs would be considered a success story.

But it goes without saying that transhumanism is just one ideal out of a great variety of opinions. The most obvious counterpoint is the conservative religious groups which feel that playing god with what they see as their natural bodies would be sacrilegious (and unholy). Another more mainstream opinion is that technology should be only used to restore people to normal functioning, allow the deaf to hear, blind to see, etc. (Sort of like how giving steroids to sick people with atrophied muscles is totally acceptable, but not to pro athletes.) Not everything has to be that cut and dried, of course, and i could see opinions running all over the spectrum, depending on the type and extent of the augmentations.

I also think you guys have overlooked a crucial fact though- these mechaugmented cyborgs would have much greater abilities than normal humans- say stronger, faster, possibly built in weaponry. (Like a skul-gun, hah) Certainly there would be some fear of what they don't understand, but it wouldn't be entirely unfounded. Say a couple mechs go on a violent rampage, or worse, were linked to terrorism in some way. Might not mechs be discriminated against in the same way as a middle eastern fellow wearing a turban who jokes about a bomb at an airport?

Tracer Tong
20th Jan 2008, 13:33
I also think you guys have overlooked a crucial fact though- these mechaugmented cyborgs would have much greater abilities than normal humans- say stronger, faster, possibly built in weaponry. (Like a skul-gun, hah) Certainly there would be some fear of what they don't understand, but it wouldn't be entirely unfounded. Say a couple mechs go on a violent rampage, or worse, were linked to terrorism in some way. Might not mechs be discriminated against in the same way as a middle eastern fellow wearing a turban who jokes about a bomb at an airport?

That is an excellent point, though I want to focus on another aspect: The augmentations for the handicapped.
If one had his legs cut off because of a tumor, and had to be mechanically augmented to be able to walk and run again (similar to prosthetics nowadays), in the DX world people would still despise him just as they would despise an athlete who wants his thighs upgraded. In the augmentations, there's no telling who were augmented and what are the reasons for that (in contrast to steroids). Perhaps a black-ops veteran with eye augmentations or a blind person who got to see again.

That's what seems unlikely to me. Even Christianity includes an appendix for people who will die unless they do something 'unholy'.




Useful literature here: :thumbsup:
http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/april02/dxbible/dx2/
I read that before posting this topic, which confused me even more. Interesting article nonetheless.

guru7892
22nd Jan 2008, 07:34
I don't want my country ran by a bunch of fricken mechs. pure-blood humans wrote the consitution, founded this nation, defended it in times of war, portected it in times of peace. This is a nation of pure blooded humans, not some machine that gets thrown away when its 'defective'.

Can mechs even understand humans? they can't feel in their mechanical parts. they have skewed concepts of pain, just programed alerts. if they cant feel pain, doesnt that draw eveyrthing else into question? can they love? do they feel sorrow? what about guilt and morality? if mechs started running things they would have no regard to the human expereince. life, death, saddness, love, and faith have no meaning to a mech whose sacrified their huamity for the vain sake of increased performance.

When god comes to judge us, what will he think of the destruction of his own image? Doesn't AUGMENTATION SAY that GOD IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH? Becoming better than god means we value ourselves over Him, and are we not endebted by our creator to do His work?


Mechs don't belong in our society, Mechs can't understand people, and Mechs are a Sin against God!

oh, BTW, totaly love the idea of agumentation and human computer interfacing, but we do need to see the other side of the argument, even if it is a little conservative. Remember that conservatives are well-meaning people too. (a Mech can be programed to be well-meaning, but can they be programed to be Human?)

Tracer Tong
22nd Jan 2008, 09:23
We're not talking about fully fledged mechs but rather humans with augmented body parts.

Moloch
22nd Jan 2008, 14:14
Two things, quickly -

Firstly, On the issue of Augmented people being "better" (having something others don't) than normals, and the issue of why this would make someone uncomfortable, consider biological transgender people. You could argue that a functioning transgender has access to capabilities that 99.9% of either single gender do not - yet still they still make people nervous or uncomfortable.

Secondly, there's a very interesting phenomenon in robotics called the Uncanny Valley.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley)

Arguably augmented people sit in the ascending slope of the valley towards human, but could be just as unsettling as an excessively anthropomorphized robot.

Like a lot of prejudice, the ones who worry you most are those on the borderline, rather than those who sit in nice categories. This is supported by historical examples - I remember distinctly, for example, a letter from an British officer occupying Egypt in the 19th century complaining about Arabs who dressed like Westerners, where he used the phrase "I like them primitive". Extend this, and you can see how people would be worried about machines that were too human or humans that were too mechanical.

Now the issue of augs for the handicapped could be very interesting. For another precendent, remember the scene in the film Philidelphia where the lawyers posits a difference between Aids from sexual activity and Aids from accidental infection (like blood transfusion) - "Bad aids" and "good aids"? This sort of small mindedness very clearly shows how a two tier attitude might exist. Perhaps the "legitimately" augmented are viewed as merely unfortunate, to be pitied, whereas those augmented by choice are thought of as degenerates.

Of course, this all depends how augmentation is introduced to society. Like plastic surgery, celebrities can lead the way on making something acceptable...

Tracer Tong
22nd Jan 2008, 16:47
Two things, quickly -

Firstly, On the issue of Augmented people being "better" (having something others don't) than normals, and the issue of why this would make someone uncomfortable, consider biological transgender people. You could argue that a functioning transgender has access to capabilities that 99.9% of either single gender do not - yet still they still make people nervous or uncomfortable.

Secondly, there's a very interesting phenomenon in robotics called the Uncanny Valley.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley)

Arguably augmented people sit in the ascending slope of the valley towards human, but could be just as unsettling as an excessively anthropomorphized robot.

Like a lot of prejudice, the ones who worry you most are those on the borderline, rather than those who sit in nice categories. This is supported by historical examples - I remember distinctly, for example, a letter from an British officer occupying Egypt in the 19th century complaining about Arabs who dressed like Westerners, where he used the phrase "I like them primitive". Extend this, and you can see how people would be worried about machines that were too human or humans that were too mechanical.

Now the issue of augs for the handicapped could be very interesting. For another precendent, remember the scene in the film Philidelphia where the lawyers posits a difference between Aids from sexual activity and Aids from accidental infection (like blood transfusion) - "Bad aids" and "good aids"? This sort of small mindedness very clearly shows how a two tier attitude might exist. Perhaps the "legitimately" augmented are viewed as merely unfortunate, to be pitied, whereas those augmented by choice are thought of as degenerates.

Of course, this all depends how augmentation is introduced to society. Like plastic surgery, celebrities can lead the way on making something acceptable...

I cannot but agree with you on this. Heck, I don't know how I, as a person, would react to a robotic living figure.

Even the celebrity point is correct. I find myself unable to argue on that matter.

Great first post. Never knew about that "Uncanny Valley" hypothesis.

RedFeather1975
26th Jan 2008, 09:21
It's the same reason why people on forums of video games released for PC and consoles inevitably have petty e-peen fights.
Many people feel that what they have or what they are is better than the rest.
They don't wish to learn everything they can and admit that there are pros and cons to both sides. They like to generalize and emphasize the pros that are associated with them and point out only the cons associated with that which they dislike. :(

SageSavage
26th Jan 2008, 10:06
Although the "Uncanny Valley"-theory is not undisputed, I tend to agree with it. I am fascinated with the idea of human-like robots but they also give me the creeps. I guess it's mainly because of the stories I've read/watched/played so far but I also think there's something deeper, more archetypical to it.

minus0ne
27th Jan 2008, 10:01
Mechs don't belong in our society, Mechs can't understand people, and Mechs are a Sin against God!
I do hope you're kidding. Besides, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between mechs/cyborgs and androids. Even so, why would either be sinful? Would you say someone with an artificial heart or pacemaker is heartless (in the figurative sense)? Are an athlete's efforts worthless if he has artificial limbs?

And no, I don't want DX3 to become some messed up moralistic experience. If you want "Christian values" or some crap like that then you're better off playing Left Behind.

ThatDeadDude
28th Jan 2008, 09:03
I think it all amounts to the same sorts of fear that you see coming from the uninformed all the time. Look at the number of people who are against cloning. Really there is absolutely no difference between a cloned animal and one born naturally, except that the cloned animal shares the same DNA of another. The only possible issue that may arise is that environmental damage to the original's DNA could be passed on. Yet still, you have these strange zealots calling it an abomination (apologies to anyone here who has that view, but this is my opinion)

Personally, I reckon that seeing as modern medicine etc. has artificially ceased the evolutionary process, it is something of an imperative that we start using it to take ourselves beyond the limits that have been imposed.

AI Prototype
29th Jan 2008, 19:38
Hello fans of DX franchise,

I am having severe trouble in understanding the philosophy behind the DX series.
It's not that I don't like the idea of Posthumanism(I do), it's just that Why would the augmented people be segregated and humiliated rather than the 'pure human'? The hatredness is always against the incapable (i.e. crippled and less common race-based people), while the mechanically augmented are over-capable. It should be otherwise.

Can you imagine what religious groups would think of augmentation? It's like a perversion of the body "God gave you." Especially people who willingly augment themselves, it's like stripping away your humanity just so you can enhance your physical abilities.

I think for the broad population, having part of your society indulge in mechanical augmentation has horrifying implications for the future of humanity. Most people wouldn't want to be augmented like that, and if a large enough minority gets involved, it can be scary. You start to fear them because they threaten your way of life - more and more people will either embrace augmentation, or the augs will split into their own "ethnic" group, which would be far superior. And that's threatening.

There's also the fact that it would be physically repulsive. Can you imagine sleeping with your partner if they had robot arms? I can barely resist suggesting what certain in-bed activities would be like in that situation.

I think the reality is that we as a species are not as tolerant as some of us think. Discrimination will never go away. The modern world isn't as stable as most people assume - one wrong shift in the global economy and every country in the world goes into a recession. And because "enlightenment" correlates with affluence, it's not a stretch to reason that a significant drop in weath and living standards could increase that "witch hunt" mentality.

Draco1979
3rd Feb 2008, 20:17
Just my theory. I think the augmentations started out being a warm welcome because it gave handicap people the same abilities as normal people. As time went on better augmentations came about make the people that have them better then people that don't, and the people that had them became stuck up because they see them self as being better then the rest. That started the feud between the pure human and the augmentated. DX1 kinda brushed up on the feud between the mechs and the augmentated because the mechs felt outdated. For more on the distrust Bob Page didn't help the matter on becoming augmentated for the purpose of merging with a super AI to control the world. JC Denton was blame for collapse and he was augmentated.

tanonx
3rd Feb 2008, 20:38
I don't want my country ran by a bunch of fricken mechs... Sin against God!



I'm Christian, and I gotta say that's hardcore excessive... And also probably the reason why us non-psycos can't have nice things.

Far as I can tell, Aug Discrimination is like the classic Mutant Discrimination a la X-Men. Different and powerful and not as humany and not under control or anything and inhuman and dangerous and omgomgomgomgomg!1!111

Zegano
4th Feb 2008, 07:23
I think that this discrimination transcends the understanding of modern psychologists, so what hope have we mere mortals? But while all of the above a valid points, I think that they are only some of the factors that would contribute to this kind of discrimination. I have to admit, kind of hard for me to describe something that I don't fully understand.

But to add to the discussion in a less vague way, I think that humans fear what they don't understand because they don't know whether these things pose a threat. Take for example me. When I was young my friend had a dog. It was about my height and incredibly friendly. But when I first met it I was terrified when this massive beast with huge, white teeth came running at me. Yet as time passed I grew comfortable with it, because I understood that it would never try to harm me. Likewise, when confronted with a man who is half metal and has a 'skul-gun' attached to his head or an assault rifle that deploys from her arm (Anna Navarre had this in case your wondering), then wouldn't you be just a bit worried that they're not on your side?

RedFeather1975
4th Feb 2008, 09:04
That's true about the dog Zegano. That's adaptive neurochemistry at work. When stimulus is encountered and there is no pre-recorded stimulus to guage the positive or negative influences of this presently encountered stimulus, the brain uses hard coded instincts to react.

Once the positive/negative influences of the stimulus are gauged, they are recorded and we develop behavioural tendencies that are brought into play in anticipation, duration and after effects of the stimulus.

Those behavioural tendencies will actually affect how stimulus is gauged in the future and stacks over and over again leading to ease around that stimulus or even quite drastic perceptions and potential behavioural disorders. :(

Everyone who knows about something like Pavlov and his dogs, can see how we all develop behavioural tendencies towards certain things and how things we encounter that are unknown to us can lead to an instinctual apprehension, and then later possibly intense perceptions depending on how our behaviour has been conditioned.
Pavlov's dogs would first freak out and bark at the sound of a bell ringing, but eventually the bell ringing would lead to a response that positive stimulus concerning food was approaching and their mouths would naturally start drooling, which is not a conscious choice!