I cannot imagine a situation where "total equality" would ever be possible, and therefore i do not believe it should be the object of the game. If inheritance is abolished, as per the basis of the game, I believe everyone would begin on a much more equal playing field at birth. Therefore, I find it unnecessary to try to make adults completely equal. This is completely against human nature, in my opinion, and I do not see how a such a society could exist perpetually without great secrecy and cheating, as men naturally want to provide best for their families and offspring.
i agree, people innately are inequal. via, intelligence, ability, fitness.
physical and biological inequalities as well as inequalities of experience that may be dependent on age.
so like everyone else here is saying "total equality" should not be the object, but perhaps a system where everyone receives the same chances. but i don't know how to suggest what a game that chooses that as it's object would know when that kind of equality is reached.
I do not believe that "total equality" is remotely possible due to the fact that there are several traits and characteristics that are impossible to duplicate and therefore it should not be the object of the game. I agree with what (snewton) stated previously in that it would be completely against human nature. People are unique and it seems rather unrealistic for "total equality" to exist in a society where everyone is not equal in terms of occupation, beliefs, race, or just simply physical appearance.
why would any one want to aim for total and complete equality? what, are we aiming for the perfect communist society? while we value equality as a principle and aim to give all people equal chances, the decrees of the game seem to start by already giving people more equal chances to thrive (compared to what the world is like today). We will have to do some work on creating equality in terms if equal chances and equal rights that the decrees do not guarantee, but i think it unrealistic and undesirable to strive for total and complete equality among all individuals. For example, this would not allow for some to thrive economically above others, which may make people have less of an incentive to work. This would hinder new developments and not allow for as much progress.
I would say that total and complete equality is a viable goal, but only if one was comparing different states/groups instead of people. Equality across individuals would effectively destroy any realism the game would have, and thus can be discarded. However it is much more reasonable that all the states could rise to a point of equality; for instance in the real world it is possible that eventually all the states could become liberal democracies (assuming a liberal democracy is the best form of government). Here equality could be achieved, there would just have to be very limited qualifications to be met in order for the game to be considered "perfectly equal" for all states.
I do not think that total equality should be the purpose of the game. However, I think it would be interesting to maybe have the starting point of individuals be equal. I am not talking about everyone starts off with the same amount of land and more. Rather, I always found Rawl's theory of the veil of ignorance very interesting but, have never been able to see it play out from the beginning. For those that are unfamailiar with Rawls, in a nutshell. he believes that society should be created based upon principles of justice that all of society agrees to. In order to come up with these principles each individual in society is under a veil of ignorance which means that they seperate themself from their identities, gender, place in society. Under this veil of ignorance it is very unlikely the people would choose a monarchy because the chances of them being the monarch are very slim. Ok, I seemed to be rambling but I thought this would be intereseting to start with.
Actually....I just realized something. I think that this whole project is actually some-what putting his thoughts into action. Each student is putting their own thoughts and idea sabout what the world (the game world) should look like. None of the students know what their exact position will be in thes game. I am very excited and interested to see how this all works out now. =)
Equality should only exist in democratic principle, giving everyone the chance to prosper and succeed. If the object of the game is taken under communist ideology then it would become boring. Players would rapidly lose interest in the game because their objective would be the same as everyone else's. Equality in opportunity should be granted to all, for we should all be created equal. It would be irrational to establish a guide, a common goal that all are to follow in order to reach "total equality," this meaning equal property, equal income and equal contributions to society. Diversity of interests, pursuits and activities will not only make the game more interesting, but allow us to see how a society is constructed under democratic ideals, ideally them being really embraced. Total equality should merely mean everyone should get the chance to become what they want regardless of whatever the game may assign them at first (if this takes place) and contribute to society by what they choose to do.
Total equality does not exist- and if that was made the objective of this game i would then think that the game was lacking in substantial validity and to be blunt corny! I feel that striving towards a MORE equal world is what the proper objective should be. Striving for equality is more realistic and could produce ideas and strategies that could then be translated back into our "non perfect" world. i think by having people strive for something like more equality as opposed to total equality will lead people to make better and more feasable decisions in the shortrun and propose actions to bring those decisions to life as opposed to just sitting around striving for something that is unattainable.
Total equality would mean that there is no difference among anyone and I would not understand why this game would exist. I think that the purpose of inequality is to see how life turns out according to different reasons, and if everyone was equal there would not be anything to compare to anything since the world would become perfect due to the lack of difference. It would be useful if part of the objective was to reach equality, but I don't think it would be a good idea for there to be equality from the start.
True it's more like the real world if there were intentions of malice. But this is a game, and from what I gather, the purpose of this game is to actually influence how people conduct themselves in real societies. Let's get everyone thinking "equality".
I said no because then there would be no incentive for us to grow from the game. I mean how are we planning on making everything and everyone equal when we won't be able to challenge ourselves and get more competition among different states? What will our society or people think; more how is our government going to handle everything equally? There has to be disparities in order for progress to ensue and any society will benefit from this.
This question raises a few questions of my own.
What does “total equality” refer to? Is it total equality amongst the people in the world or the states? Or is it total equality in dividing up resources among the states? If there were to be total equality, would this affect time of birth or the time of death? How are we to find what is “total equality”?
To me, total equality should not be the object of the game. Rather, the object to make this game as close to reality but at the same time creating a vision of a better world seems to me achievable through learning to exist with natural inequalities (genetics, qualities and traits inherently in us when we are born rather than traits and characteristics we gain through nurture) without creating man-made inequalities used to enhance inequalities. Total equality just seems unrealistic. But to envision a world like the one we live in without certain man-made inequalities such as the laws of citizenship, marriage, property, and inheritance as listed in the decrees seems plausible in a virtual game world that is in fact real world, created by real people. It is much easier to envision the world with some inequalities than to see even a game world with total equality.
I cannot imagine a situation where "total equality" would ever be possible, and therefore i do not believe it should be the object of the game. If inheritance is abolished, as per the basis of the game, I believe everyone would begin on a much more equal playing field at birth. Therefore, I find it unnecessary to try to make adults completely equal. This is completely against human nature, in my opinion, and I do not see how a such a society could exist perpetually without great secrecy and cheating, as men naturally want to provide best for their families and offspring.
i agree, people innately are inequal. via, intelligence, ability, fitness.
physical and biological inequalities as well as inequalities of experience that may be dependent on age.
so like everyone else here is saying "total equality" should not be the object, but perhaps a system where everyone receives the same chances. but i don't know how to suggest what a game that chooses that as it's object would know when that kind of equality is reached.
I do not believe that "total equality" is remotely possible due to the fact that there are several traits and characteristics that are impossible to duplicate and therefore it should not be the object of the game. I agree with what (snewton) stated previously in that it would be completely against human nature. People are unique and it seems rather unrealistic for "total equality" to exist in a society where everyone is not equal in terms of occupation, beliefs, race, or just simply physical appearance.
why would any one want to aim for total and complete equality? what, are we aiming for the perfect communist society? while we value equality as a principle and aim to give all people equal chances, the decrees of the game seem to start by already giving people more equal chances to thrive (compared to what the world is like today). We will have to do some work on creating equality in terms if equal chances and equal rights that the decrees do not guarantee, but i think it unrealistic and undesirable to strive for total and complete equality among all individuals. For example, this would not allow for some to thrive economically above others, which may make people have less of an incentive to work. This would hinder new developments and not allow for as much progress.
I would say that total and complete equality is a viable goal, but only if one was comparing different states/groups instead of people. Equality across individuals would effectively destroy any realism the game would have, and thus can be discarded. However it is much more reasonable that all the states could rise to a point of equality; for instance in the real world it is possible that eventually all the states could become liberal democracies (assuming a liberal democracy is the best form of government). Here equality could be achieved, there would just have to be very limited qualifications to be met in order for the game to be considered "perfectly equal" for all states.
I do not think that total equality should be the purpose of the game. However, I think it would be interesting to maybe have the starting point of individuals be equal. I am not talking about everyone starts off with the same amount of land and more. Rather, I always found Rawl's theory of the veil of ignorance very interesting but, have never been able to see it play out from the beginning. For those that are unfamailiar with Rawls, in a nutshell. he believes that society should be created based upon principles of justice that all of society agrees to. In order to come up with these principles each individual in society is under a veil of ignorance which means that they seperate themself from their identities, gender, place in society. Under this veil of ignorance it is very unlikely the people would choose a monarchy because the chances of them being the monarch are very slim. Ok, I seemed to be rambling but I thought this would be intereseting to start with.
Actually....I just realized something. I think that this whole project is actually some-what putting his thoughts into action. Each student is putting their own thoughts and idea sabout what the world (the game world) should look like. None of the students know what their exact position will be in thes game. I am very excited and interested to see how this all works out now. =)
Equality should only exist in democratic principle, giving everyone the chance to prosper and succeed. If the object of the game is taken under communist ideology then it would become boring. Players would rapidly lose interest in the game because their objective would be the same as everyone else's. Equality in opportunity should be granted to all, for we should all be created equal. It would be irrational to establish a guide, a common goal that all are to follow in order to reach "total equality," this meaning equal property, equal income and equal contributions to society. Diversity of interests, pursuits and activities will not only make the game more interesting, but allow us to see how a society is constructed under democratic ideals, ideally them being really embraced. Total equality should merely mean everyone should get the chance to become what they want regardless of whatever the game may assign them at first (if this takes place) and contribute to society by what they choose to do.
Total equality does not exist- and if that was made the objective of this game i would then think that the game was lacking in substantial validity and to be blunt corny! I feel that striving towards a MORE equal world is what the proper objective should be. Striving for equality is more realistic and could produce ideas and strategies that could then be translated back into our "non perfect" world. i think by having people strive for something like more equality as opposed to total equality will lead people to make better and more feasable decisions in the shortrun and propose actions to bring those decisions to life as opposed to just sitting around striving for something that is unattainable.
Total equality would mean that there is no difference among anyone and I would not understand why this game would exist. I think that the purpose of inequality is to see how life turns out according to different reasons, and if everyone was equal there would not be anything to compare to anything since the world would become perfect due to the lack of difference. It would be useful if part of the objective was to reach equality, but I don't think it would be a good idea for there to be equality from the start.
True it's more like the real world if there were intentions of malice. But this is a game, and from what I gather, the purpose of this game is to actually influence how people conduct themselves in real societies. Let's get everyone thinking "equality".
I said no because then there would be no incentive for us to grow from the game. I mean how are we planning on making everything and everyone equal when we won't be able to challenge ourselves and get more competition among different states? What will our society or people think; more how is our government going to handle everything equally? There has to be disparities in order for progress to ensue and any society will benefit from this.
This question raises a few questions of my own.
What does “total equality” refer to? Is it total equality amongst the people in the world or the states? Or is it total equality in dividing up resources among the states? If there were to be total equality, would this affect time of birth or the time of death? How are we to find what is “total equality”?
To me, total equality should not be the object of the game. Rather, the object to make this game as close to reality but at the same time creating a vision of a better world seems to me achievable through learning to exist with natural inequalities (genetics, qualities and traits inherently in us when we are born rather than traits and characteristics we gain through nurture) without creating man-made inequalities used to enhance inequalities. Total equality just seems unrealistic. But to envision a world like the one we live in without certain man-made inequalities such as the laws of citizenship, marriage, property, and inheritance as listed in the decrees seems plausible in a virtual game world that is in fact real world, created by real people. It is much easier to envision the world with some inequalities than to see even a game world with total equality.
Total equality is a starting condition so it can not be a goal. Basic equality provides a platform for individual fulfilment.