The Living City
At the beginning of the 3rd millenium, mankind had already begun experiment with bioengineering. At first, his discoveries were limited to medical and military advances. Later develops like cheap synthetic oil were essential to the development of the modern world, but it was not until five hundred years later that mankind truly began to comprehend the shear scope of his powers.
In times of peace, the city is a vision of heaven. The streets and buildings are always in perfect condition. In every park vibrant green grass is carpeted under groves of trees bearing unexhaustible fruits of every taste and texture. The city's antibodies fill the air, preventing infection and illness in all its citizens.
In times of war, the city is a vision of hell. Many of the people are unfed and homeless, their former houses lay rotting, streams of putrid cityflesh pours down the streets, spreading strange and terrible diseases. Those who protest are quickly suppressed by the city's usually unseen force of biorobots.
Resource usage: Sunlight.
Pollution: Pollution accumulates whilst the city feels threatened. Clears quickly when it is happy.
Crime: Very low.
Happiness: Continually lowers whilst the city feels threatended, very high otherwise.
Population growth: No special bonus whilst the city is happy above any usual bonus related to the population's happiness level. Penalty during war due to mass execution of dissidents and reckless disregard for the safety of all citizens.
What every good 32nd Century city needs is a...
There were so many great replies that I didn't get a chance to respond to them all. I just wanted to say thanks again and sorry if I ignored you (I read everything!).
Just wanted to say I like the joining of happiness to the state of diplomacy as well as the whole concept in general. I've been long obsessed with the idea of living cities and have made them a central component of a race of psionic mind gods (called the Zelenae). I imagine the city looking like an electron micrograph of a cancer cell with tendrils sprawling across the landscape. The idea of friendly and hostile viruses protecting the city and the people being kind of an antibody system as well is VERY weird and interesting.
Quote:Original post by Mayrel
The Living City
Just wanted to say I like the joining of happiness to the state of diplomacy as well as the whole concept in general. I've been long obsessed with the idea of living cities and have made them a central component of a race of psionic mind gods (called the Zelenae). I imagine the city looking like an electron micrograph of a cancer cell with tendrils sprawling across the landscape. The idea of friendly and hostile viruses protecting the city and the people being kind of an antibody system as well is VERY weird and interesting.
Original post by Dakar
By The Way, what exactly is a Memecaster? (I've only been here a few weeks, and you've probably talked about them earlier. Are they some sort of mind-controllers?)Quote:
Not exactly mind-control because you have a choice, Memecasters directly suggest emit desires or concepts into your mind. To make things interesting, mind control is specific to the species whereas memes are a viral form of psionic life. (Helps with the backstory in theory[wink])Quote:
When coupled with a paradise chip, however...
Heh. [smile] Well, at least it's better than Soylent Green.Quote:
I don't think research should be inhibited. The way I thought of it was that the mind was in a state of continual bliss while the body worked on whatever was commanded (A small part of the mind might be dedicated to working on the task at hand, so that they do a decent job.)
What is there advantage, on the other hand, is their greatest downfall. Using paradise chips is like broadcasting to every terrorist organization "Hey! Come Here!". All it takes is one person with a broadcasting device to say "revolt." and the city is will go down in flames. Afterwards the terrorists have an army of obedient slaves.
It's funny, I notice that when I invent tech advances I run into the limits of my own philosophy. Balance and "you don't get happiness for free" are strong impulses, personally, so I have a hard time imagining people being simply happy without some downside (IOW, even unhappiness has a benefit, for instance in the creation of beautiful poetry).
What's cool to think about is that whenever you suggest a monumnetal change like this it makes you think what we would be like without some of the problems afflicting us.
Terrorism *MIGHT* work as a deterrent, but I don't think so. Consider this: What's to stop a society from armoring up and spending most of their budget on security to protect the Paradise chip network? Just like a terrorist could not attack Chyenne Mountain, home of NORAD, because it is an impregnable facility (without sophisticated bunker-busting nuclear bombs), you could create impregnable fortresses around the emitters.
Whenever a society gets something useful with few drawbacks, it becomes widespread. The wheel and the sail are good examples. If the chip has no severe drawbacks, you'd expect it to be all over the place. In places where there was resistance, you could conceivably devote all the resources of the society to snuffing out the resistance. Rebellions which thrive on civilian support would be much harder becuase people would have no wants, nothing to complain about. Today, rebels can blow up a dam or power plant and the people often blame the government. In a Paradise society, they'd simply be happy.
I think I'll have to go with a more severe drawback to justify why this tech isn't all over the place.
I like the ShroudOut, btw. :)
Yes, I think this is mostly right with the one exception that unhappiness is a state which suggests many actions, one of which could be unrest. Others could be exmigration, work stoppage, religious conversion, etc.Quote:
I think unrest should be dropped and only happiness used. If happiness goes to far into the negatives, then people revolt. Otherwise, they do things like stop work or stage protests.)
Okay, I'll think about this. It is logical that people won't protest unless they're unhappy about something.Quote:
1) If two Icaruses are built, they confict in research ideals and end up sabotaging each others pojects to the point in which it just isn't worth it. There can be more than one, but it is such a bother that people choose not to do it.
2) A main unit sends signals to lesser ones, which each do some work and send the results back. (efficiency) If two were built, then the signals would get mixed up and nothing would be done.
3) You can have two, but more than one has a nasty side effect. (If it gets energy from the center of the earth, then two would make a change that the core would explode).
The problem I have with all of these is that none are intrinsic in such a natural way that you'd say, "oh, sure, that makes sense." As a result, it's kind of arbitrary.
For the first, I'm not sure why an AI, even a super-AI, would chose to sabotage something like itself. You'd think it would want friends.
The signals idea doesn't follow because we can create very complex networks of wires, frequencies and even means for sharing the same frequency with codes and conventions. Maybe you could have some sort of "hyperwave" signal idea, but then you'd think this would have other effects.
I'm afraid the core exploding idea would just be considered annoying without a very good, logical reason.
Thanks nonetheless, you help jog the ol' imagination!
Quote:Quote:
I think unrest should be dropped and only happiness used. If happiness goes to far into the negatives, then people revolt. Otherwise, they do things like stop work or stage protests.)
Okay, I'll think about this. It is logical that people won't protest unless they're unhappy about something.
Don't remove unrest, make is something like standard of happiness. If you keep the people at a happiness level for a length of time they become accustom to that level and removing any happiness would cause restlessness. On the other hand if you have people that are unhappy most of the time they might not see what they are missing so it would take more for them to revolt.
i.e. take away all the TVs in the world. Third world countries probably wouldn’t notice as much but first world countries would.
Quote:Original post by Wavinator
I think I'll have to go with a more severe drawback to justify why this tech isn't all over the place.
Okay, how about this:
Instead of delivering jolts to pleasure areas of the brain (with jolts, the chip would need a steady supply of energy), the Paradise <new thing here> sreleases substances that alter the brain's chemical makeup. The brain's pleasure and obedience areas are altered and more fully developed, but the other areas will slowly weaken.
While you have a perfectly blissful community, they slowly grow worse at coordination and capability and will eventually die off.
Either:
-You don't care, and watch your citizens die off,
-You get a steady stream of immigrants for replacement, (Unlikely)
-Have the Paradise work in moderation, (Less benefits)
-Have people perodically go to a "reversal station", which will quickly revert the brain to normal. This would require space and more energy, and might be difficult to have everyone go. (Unless there was a loudspeaker of sorts)
Quote:
The problem I have with all of these is that none are intrinsic in such a natural way that you'd say, "oh, sure, that makes sense." As a result, it's kind of arbitrary.
For the first, I'm not sure why an AI, even a super-AI, would chose to sabotage something like itself. You'd think it would want friends.
The signals idea doesn't follow because we can create very complex networks of wires, frequencies and even means for sharing the same frequency with codes and conventions. Maybe you could have some sort of "hyperwave" signal idea, but then you'd think this would have other effects.
I'm afraid the core exploding idea would just be considered annoying without a very good, logical reason.
Maybe a different aproach could work.
The Icarus is built in such a way that at any time it can be added to. Instead of building a second one, you simply increase the power of the first (More efficient and lower cost: You don't have to worry about things only needed once). Eventually, the Icarus is a huge building sprawled over several kilometers/miles.
In any case, I have a couple more:
ShapeMold (Needs a better name)
The ShapeMold is pretty much a giant device with massive stockpiles of raw material inside it. When somebody requires something (Say, a couple hundred new tanks for a war or a quick Superprocessor for a new AI construct), The shapemold sends out nanobots to gather the required materials and contruct them into the finished product. Note that, if required, the nanobots can alter the molecular structure of the material to turn it into something else, but this requires a lot of energy and is only done in extreme emergencies.
Often requested items are displayed on pressure sensitive panels for quick access.
Usage
Instant, well, anything. Only for use in times of need.
Hunter Thingy (*really* needs a better name)
When a sample of DNA is fed into the HT's reader, it sends out a swarm of nanobots. The nanobots will scour the surrounding area for a sample of the DNA, and once found, all of them will zoom in and quickly deassemble the target's brain. A favorite assassin device of those who can build the facility without getting caught.
Usage
Hunt down terrorists/opposing faction VIPs
Doomsday Weapon (Hit the "destroy everyone" button and the bots will carry out your order)
Increases unhappiness point where rebellion occurs (Would you revolt if they could instantly kill you?)
I think I just burned out of ideas.
Quote:Original post by The Shadow Nose
The sentent hermit house-
A very cool use for this occured to me: You could make the SHH a secret base very easily. Because it's reorganizing and recycling material you may only be able to tell of its existence by its absence!
Quote:Original post by The Shadow Nose
The Sewer System of Doom
What would an RPG be without monsters in the sewers?!?!?!! [grin]
Quote:Original post by Kars
Don't remove unrest, make is something like standard of happiness. If you keep the people at a happiness level for a length of time they become accustom to that level and removing any happiness would cause restlessness. On the other hand if you have people that are unhappy most of the time they might not see what they are missing so it would take more for them to revolt.
i.e. take away all the TVs in the world. Third world countries probably wouldn’t notice as much but first world countries would.
How happiness is defined and how the citizens are modeled actually deserves a new thread. I've been thinking about how to model things like addiction. Maybe this is a short circuit effect that automatically affects a people's mood? Not sure, but I've posted more detail in this thread about the whole thing if you care to migrate on over.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
