Ventpunk?

Recently I have found myself at the mercy of a concept that has been with me for longer than I can remember, yet I only discovered it two days ago. This expression is, for now, called "Steampunk".
I remember the kind of games I used to play in the playground when I was little. One of my favourites was one where me and my friends would pretend to be plane crash survivors on a desert island (Sometimes inhabited by dinosaurs, but that's beside the point). Together with the raw materials we would find, we would create all sorts of things by combining it with the plane wreckage: Intricate machines to bring plumbing and central heating to our hut, bamboo bazookas to keep the dinosaurs at bay, more suitable clothing and equipment and so on. What's more, we'd make sure it worked. We used to bring our designs to the teacher and get her seal of approval (Not that my primary school teachers knew much about engineering) to double check that it would work. Learning about Roman aquaducts or Victorian locomotives would only add to our already expansive list of inventions.

Since then, I have always enjoyed creating or finding new designs, plans, ideas and constructions. I enjoy playing videogames where new, intriguing things are present, reading books that teach me new skills and concepts, studying topics where personal exploration is needed. Sometimes I would come across one of the "punks": Cyberpunk, steampunk, clockpunk, dieselpunk, stonepunk... And subsequently ignore it. I'm not a "punk" person.

That said, there's nothing "punkish" about steampunk. To quote wikipedia: Steampunk is a subgenre of fantasy and speculative fiction. The term denotes works set in an era or world where steam power is still widely used—usually the 19th century, and often set in Victorian era England—but with prominent elements of either science fiction or fantasy, such as fictional technological inventions like those found in the works of H. G. Wells and Jules Verne, or real technological developments like the computer occurring at an earlier date. Other examples of steampunk contain alternate history-style presentations of "the path not taken" of such technology as dirigibles or analog computers...

I have always liked "old fashioned" architecture and design, like Art Deco and Nouveau, but have never been overly enamored by the Victorian style, nor by dirigibles. Clockwork I like, but bustles and lace don't do anything for me. What is it then, that attracts me to this?

Simple: The exploration and creativity. In other words, it's an idealized version of my childhood invention games.

The fantasy genre is too much of a God mode. Don't like the laws of phsyics? Then create your own. Can't find a way to get that machine to work? No problem, just add in a good dose of magic and mumble over the details. Not that all fantasy is like that, many fantasy writers spend years refining and honing thier ideas (Think Tolkein). Steampunk forces you to at least think about the way things work, and do something about it. It's not magic and myth which is enshrined here (Though nothing wrong with that), it is the hard worker: Scientists, explorers, inventors, pilots, engineers, mariners, detectives... Even housewives and medics. Cogs and oil and blood and sweat. These rolemodels have achieved something, found something, made something, keep something working. Like Ayn Rand's fountainhead of human endeavour, these characters epitomise the spark inside humanity which can work hard at doing what it loves most. For me, that is exploring new frontiers. That's why I admire steampunk so much, because it has given me a creative outlet for those desires I've allways had; inventing, exploring... And who knows, it might do the same for others out there. Perhaps I could call it "[in]ventpunk" instead?

Earlier I mentioned video games, so just as an added extra here are some games that are worth looking into if you're looking for something steampunk-esque, but are dissatisfied with linear interpretations.

1. Bioshock

A steampunk videogame list without Bioshock? Sacré! Even though it takes place in the early 1960's, the underwater dystopia itself is backwards enough for it to fit in with 1930's Art Deco (Extended in the game to the 1940's and onwards, as the secluded city of Rapture allowed the ravishes of war to pass over them) and so pleases the later year steampunks. Even if this isn't early enough for you, I sincerely recommend you try it. Hell, even the stonepunks among you, just try it. It's an awesome game and the level of customization available is quite good for a first person shooter.

2. Final Fantasy (VI, IX)

You heard me correctly. Final Fantasy. Almost all FF games mix magic and technology, but a good place to start would be FF6, or FF9. Both have amazingly deep plots which will keep you tied to the game for hours at a time, and well... just look at that airship (FF9). You know you love it.

3. Dark Chronicle

One of my all time favourite games, it mixes magic and technology quite well. You get two main characters; Max, the inventor's apprentice, embodying the steampunk side of things, and Monica, the princess from another dimension, who covers the magic and fantasy aspect. It's up to you how much of each you pursue... Shoot things with your clockwork gun atop your steam-powered robot, or run around hacking things with a sword. The only thing which gets a little repetitive are the mile-long dungeons. You hack and slash, get key after key and... You still have about 20 dungeons before the end? Not for the faint hearted. If the dungeons don't get you, the suprisingly emotional storyline will.

4. Primal

Okay, so I'm just pushing it now. Nethertheless, I love Primal. It deserves to be here. A girl goes into another dimension to save her boyfriend who got abducted by demons, and finds out that she has demonic powers of her own. Aristocratic French wraith-vampires with a "blood machine", a mechanical hedge maze, a mad scientist Count, the wierd and wonderful Chronos, sustainer of the universe, the mysterious machines of the Undine underwater kingdom, rift gates and of course, Scree the cartographing talking gargoyle. Don't know what I'm talking about? Play the game and see.

NObama?

Recently in an attempt to find out what people thought of the upcoming American elections, I decided to check out a popular poll on community art website, deviantART. This is what I find:

Anon: what’s with all the dems, are ALL young people liberals? ew. i hate people who vote for people who best match their own opinions or just appeal like a beauty contest, both. your supposed to vote for the candidate that will most uphold the constitution.every time i see an election poll i get nauseous, especially after hearing all of the "giggle, obama’s cool cuz he wants change" ish comments.

And thus begins a small debate about the nature of the constitution, liberalism and the right to vote.

Me: What's the point of upholding a constitution without rational thought or change. That would defeat the point of the constitution. Ideas, no matter how noble, lose all meaning when people refuse to debate them and improve them, if possible. It becomes a mere prejudice. "Teachers and learners alike fall asleep at their posts when there is no enemy in the field." - JS Mill.So when those evil, mislead young people vote for those who "best match their own opinions" or get excited over change, hell, welcome to democracy. If a lot of people want change, maybe that says something about the current government.

Anon: i disagree partly, while that is a noble concept, the problem is we have the Wrong type of people debating. people who care more about their own gains than what is best for the country they were Supposed to be serving. we elected these people because we as a country are no longer educated properly on our own political system. thinking about the constitution doesn’t work if you don’t First understand it, how it came to be, and why. our country isn’t a democracy, so your statement kind of proves my point.

Me: I agree that there's a lack of education regarding politics these days, though your reasoning followed to the logical end implies that certain parties shouldn't be allowed the vote. I agree that there are some rather stupid people in the world who need to be more educated on the standpoints they waffle on about, I wrote an essay regarding it once. However, even if it were made compulsory to attend a certain amount of education regarding politics, everyone would still have their opinion, and a lot of those opinions would be self-interested - No matter how educated. It's a shame, but it's the way things are.I don't believe in the state as a separate entity from the populace, that is why to me nobody's view should be stifled, nor their sovereignty removed because of their views. I put up with those that vote for rubbish reasons because of this equality.

Anon: i never said certain parties shouldn’t be allowed to vote, that’s a pretty big conclusion to jump to. i certain feel that people who are a leach on society shouldn’t be allowed to vote. i don’t care if they didn’t have a day of documented education in their life, that doesn’t mean they didn’t take steps to learn on their own, and doesn’t mean they aren’t smart. i like the concept of a system where you get points, and only people who actually achieve get votes. i.e. "your on welfare because your too damn lazy to get a job? well goodie, no vote for you." harsh, but would work wonders on the attitude of the countries youth.

Me: I know you never said they shouldn't get the vote, but you just did right there so it still stands. As you may have already guessed I'm a fan of JS Mill, who also came up with a points system. The more educated you were, the more votes you got because your intelligent opinion was worth more. I'd rather do that than remove someone’s vote entirely, making them unchoosing slaves. Well, it's arguable that we are such in any case, but even the semblance of having freedom of thought is better than being told your thoughts aren’t worth anything, and that others can think for you.So yes, I agree. Those that are too lazy to join society in any way shape or form shouldn't partake in societies decisions. It's very hard though to weed them out from those who are generally having a hard time and need all the benefits they can get, like a... I don’t know... cancer-ridden, jobless single mother of 12. >.> It's impossible to check out everyone, and check them out well. It's a fine line that I wouldn't like to go near, because the consequences of making a mistake can be disastrous.

Anon: i don’t like leaving a point system in the hands of the education process. most of it is currently funded and therefore controlled by the government, i wouldn’t even call going to school being educated anymore. i have heard many point systems, and ive liked some, and disliked some, but its a nice concept all the same. and on that note, if you cant support children, don’t have children. that should be common sense but apparently people didn’t get the memo. if a person has children and cant afford the child, don’t give them money for it, just take the child away until they get their life together, see how much the unemployed rate drops. charities exist for people who come down with a disease, as well. i see our current system as openly encouraging non-achievement, between our tax code and welfare. i don’t think we should have welfare to begin with, so i disagree fundamentally, i think private organizations should be left to take care of the small percentage of people in this country who actually have a reasonable excuse for wanting that level of assistance. i have no respect for most of these people and i wont pretend to, but i also wont pretend i don’t blame government schooling and our current tax code for the attitude of so many of the young people today. self-sufficiency/independence is dieing and its sad.

Me: I didn't mean an example where they couldn't support their children from the off, sorry I was vague. I meant, if you could fully support 12 children, but then suddenly out of the blue, you get seriously ill, your wife or husband leaves you, takes the money and leaves you to foot the bill, then suddenly you can't look after them. Situations similar to this could happen to anyone regardless of their dependency.I think perhaps it's best to have a constantly changing state. Say every 50 years or so the policies fluctuate between social welfare and the rejection of a nanny state, that way social welfare could still get to most of those that need it, and people wouldn't develop a false sense of dependency because either they would be brought up without it, or before their eyes their worldview will vanish and they'll be left to fend for themselves.

Anon: 50 years is waaaay too long and therefore couldn’t work, but that concept, if done based on a need-to-change basis if that makes sense, could work very well, and its been proven in studies. though I still have no problem with having people fend for themselves, I think that small communities and the private sector does.. everything personal better than any government could hope to, and once again studies prove this, and i think it would apply just fine to charity programs. there is an extremely slim minority of people who hit a situation even close to the one you described (especially considering that its insane to have that many children in the first place), and privately run charities are more than enough to cater to these few peoples needs.

I decided to leave it here, as by now many people had joned in the debate and that I felt we wern't getting anywhere. The poll in question can be found here: http://kitton.deviantart.com/journal/poll/298456/

One Very Simple Principle

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.

Thus comes the name of this blog. As a profound supporter of John Stuart Mill and his advocacy of the benefits of freedom of thought and opinion, freedom of tastes and pursuits and freedom to unite for peaceful purposes, I feel that the only caveat to these ideals has to be the one very simple principle, also called the harm principle, which simply states that the only reason power could ever be rightfully used against anybody is to prevent harm to others.

This blog is therefor a collection of utilitarian liberal thoughts and ideas relating to society, culture, religion and current events. I am here to debate, so comments are more than welcome.