Is retribution given individually or as a group?

I'm not a great believer in God, although I appreciate the importance of the concept. The fact that pretty much all nations had developed belief separately shows the importance of the concept. It's as crucial to human civilisation as language- which again was developed separately among different populations, but with a common purpose and with the use of speech/writing as means of communication- and much the same way, the concept of God as all powerful and all knowing, all forgiving and punishing the wicked is also mostly common across the world. However, the number of atheists/agnostics has been quickly on the rise, and although they still don't have enough confidence to proclaim themselves in public, there are several online groups and communities that are springing up. Atheism wasn't uncommon in 17th and 18th centuries in Europe and Nietzche's writings which I came across talked about how atheism was quite common in his days. In India however, the movement is very recent. Development- especially philosophical development (through books, movies and music, and not the GDP kind of development which possibly precedes it), along with scientific progress probably help the movement towards atheism. There is a society called Indian Atheists which conducts meets in different parts of the country and the meets are organised through social networking websites. Although atheism/agnosticism lacks acceptance in society, it is commonly accepted online. Communities such as those on 9gag and reddit, and even some posts on facebook these days have accepted atheism as a philosophy.

I've been talking about atheism and agnosticism by clubbing them together, though they've very different. I myself belong to a third group which does not care if God exists. It's probably closer to atheism than agnosticism, and revolves around the fact that if God is as he is spoken about in scriptures and stuff, he wouldn't hate atheists for not believing in him, for he is not an asshole who is self-obsessed. The same way most religions portray Gods as being human in physical form (in spite of millions of other species that God has allegedly created), they think of him as being human in thought as well, and having requirements such as wanting love and affection and appreciation for all his work. Which is kind of silly, really. I reckon that atheists are in general, more honest and would be preferred by God over the selfish theists who more often than not, pray for their own needs and desires. Having said that, I do love theists, and do in a way, wish that I had faith. It's something that gives great strength and courage to do things atheists may not do, and also gives a great sense of purpose to life. The Darwinian theory or classical economic theories about the purpose of life are more accurate, but less appealing to us, as humans. Although dangerous when in huge groups that hate other religions, theists are loving people who are also possibly more successful than their atheist/agnostic friends.

Coming to the topic, I started thinking today if according to religious books, whether sin can be delegated. By this what I mean is that, if there is something that is sinful and I don't want to do it, can I ask someone else to do it for me? Today afternoon someone asked me to take their 'pappad' (a kind of snack) which was about to be wasted, because she didn't like wasting food. She's a strong believer and I'm fairly sure that she doesn't want to sin. I, as always wanted to irritate her and kept saying no and making up excuses, but finally agreed, even though I did not want it and would end up wasting it myself. Giving rewards and punishments individually is not a very efficient method of management in a corporation. They are mostly given to top performing groups/teams and there may be separate, smaller incentives to top individual performers, if any. Punishments are not always done in the same fashion but I do believe that it would be more efficient. In corporations, the punishment is often not being rewarded, and thus it is naturally built into the system when rewards are given likewise.

So does God punish/reward as individually or as a whole? If not individually, is it our family or our neighbourhood, or is it earth as a whole? Do animals also get punished for their sins? Only those who've never played with pet cats or dogs would say that animals are incapable of thinking or acting with intelligence. I'm certain that even among animals, there would be a few evil ones, as is the case with us. By giving me the pappad, the girl shouldn't relieve herself of her punishment, because she is not creating any value by doing it- she's only transferring the sin. A corresponding situation in a company is where one division transfers it's losses using accounting loopholes into another. Thus in this case, we should be given our punishment as a group. But then, we interact with so many people that it's difficult even for God to constantly keep track of different groups,  which keep on changing and intersect at several instances with each other.

I think it was Valmeeki in the Indian mythology, who was the hunter who killed animals to feed his family who changed his 'evil' ways when his family shamelessly told him on his face, that they wouldn't share his sin since it was he who killed the animals and not them. Dumb stories like this make people do dumb things like delegating the sin of wasting a pappad, even in this day and age. Similarly, my grandfather makes others kill insects and other creatures that get into the house, scared of sinning himself - believing strongly that sin can be delegated.

Along with the hope that God would not care about whether we believe in him or talk to him or whatever, I kind of hope that all the punishments that we get are given as a group and never individually. I don't think that anything in this world can benefit only a single person, and if someone else benefits from it even without their knowing, that is still a sin of ignorance. Even in small groups that constantly change, it is impossible to give out punishments, since others may get benefits group their sins, some time in the future. And in a very remote and connected argument, since anyone in this world has the ability to stop sinning of humanity altogether (yea right!), it is everyone's fault when someone in this world sins.

The economic value of inhumanity

I watch quite a lot of youtube. People who regularly post on themselves, general stuff, memes and even post on others who post on these things. Owning a youtube channel is a relatively easy way to make money. It's not a lot of money but it can be a living nevertheless. Some of these people are very smart though, and very hardworking. But the pay they get is not much. Among the millions of youtube channel owners, may be a few hundred can afford to make a living out of it. And even the top earners on youtube worldwide only get around 100-200 thousand dollars a year which is a lot, but nothing compared to average performers with similar intellect in other fields. (It is obvious that say, an investment banker would be doing a lot more work than a youtuber and thus earning his pay, but there are cases where a youtuber such as Olga Kay may be working a lot harder and putting in way more time than an i-banker, only to get paid way less.)There are non-monteray benefits though of being a youtuber- the fame and the comfortable and casual nature of the job as well as being able to talk/ make videos about your passion. This makes people do youtubing for these non-monetary benefits partly and thus would compromise a bit on the pay (received from google), thus creating a market where the equilibrium monetary benefits are mediocre.

Music is something I have a lot of passion for, but it doesn't generate money in India. In fact for a large majority of talented musicians, the joy of playing music, the coolness factor, and the associated fame are sufficient. Most bands in Kerala have rich members who don't really need the money. This has ensured that even the people who deserve money don't get it, since there are some who don't ask for it. Playing music or talking about what you like on youtube are very natural things for humans to do- but sitting at a desk and doing paperwork isn't. I doubt if many people would actually be passionate about a desk job (although some might claim the same) but part of the reason why they pay more is because it's plain boring. Going to outer space, being a soldier and fighting a war, being a contrarian value investor and heck- even going away from home and living in a far away city in a small rented house will all pay more (though the last one is not directly related to the others and has more to do with your risk-taking abilities in life, and the abilities to socialise quickly/ live without much social life in a different city). The same way non-monetary benefits reduce the pay for certain jobs which involve doing innately human things, jobs which involve inhuman tasks to be carried out, compensate by paying higher. Passion, which can be measured as the joy when you do something you like, can guide your career path. But in a similar way, if you suffer less pain than others while doing something that no one wants to do, it's in effect the same thing. It's something along the lines of maximising returns/ minimising losses - both of which require similar approaches and end results. For someone who is risk-averse, it can be a wise choice to go for a job which gives him less pain than others, as compared to going for his passion- since you can always misjudge your true passion.

Bioshock, and the things that make us human

It looks like this blog might end up being predominantly about gaming but I do have some hope that it wont. Right now I'm going through a phase of relaxation more or less and that means quite a bit of gaming and so that's what I feel like writing about.

Bioshock is  a slightly older game that came out around 2007, with very solid FPS (First Person Shooter) game mechanics. I'm not a huge fan of FPSes- simply because the concept of shooting everything at sight is not something i like greatly. This doesn't mean that I hate them though and there can be very clever FPSes as well. Duke Nukem 3D which came out in the mid 90s had some smart puzzles in spite of being a hardcore FPS and I loved it- at least compared to the other games of the time and Doom was the most obvious comparison- which had some very solid gameplay but didnt really require as much brains as practice, and the story wasn't very engrossing, aaand it wasn't funny either.

FPSes have come a long way since then and now have RPG (Role Playing Game) like elements almost universally. Bioshock is probably one of the first games to be an FPS that blended RPG elements effectively. These aren't hardcore RPG elements though- there is no leveling up and skills are gained by looting or with currency rather than with experience. Fallout 3, a more traditional RPG which came out around the same time was a game I thoroughly enjoyed playing and remains one of the favourites of all time while I stopped playing Bioshock pretty early in the game not realising what I missed out on. The casual gamer would not look beyond the FPS elements of Bioshock and I definitely did not, when the game came out. One can easily be fooled by the brilliant FPS mechanics and think that the story is not worth exploring. One would be making a huge mistake then.

Bioshock as I said, has very strong FPS mechanics. The shooting feels realistic and moving around while shooting makes it harder for enemies to target you. Enemies are not particualrly smart but can be challenging enough. Player's health is not obscenely high as it is in some games and it's easy to die in 1 hit in several parts of the game, from full health. The atmosphere is fantastic and the back-story is explained through a set of audio diaries scattered throughout the world. RPG elements include multiple ways to defeat enemies. There are magic-like abilities gained through injections called plasmids which can be combined with each other or with guns for amazing effects. Igniting an enemy for instance makes him run to a nearby pool of water if it's there and then you can shock him for almost instant death. You can use telekinesis to throw an item covered with land mines at an enemy, or freeze and shatter an enemy. There are around 10 superpowers that are active and some 20-30 that are passive. There's a way to do practically anything you can imagine in the world, and this includes hacking security systems, cameras, fooling powerful "Big Daddies" to fight for you and so on.

Mass effect, Fallout and Elder Scrolls series are famous for giving the player moral choices and they do so very well and often with very distinct in-game consequences. The moral choices are designed in such a way that there is no clear benefit to being good, and being bad just gives a different set of evil friends that you can interact with & a diferent set of actions and conversations become unlocked depending on your choices. Fallout 3 even rewards the player with perks, for being ethically neutral- in order to compensate for the loss of the extra friends and actions gained by extreme moral actions. Morally good behaviour is not strongly encouraged in the games which give the player a choice to be bad, and most players can casually choose to be either very good or very bad, and even try out 1 after the other- simply to get a different experience playing the game. In Bioshock, there is a huge compulsion to do what your heart wants. I for instance, cannot imagine taking the 'bad route' and I'm sure that a few people wouldn't be able of imagining the 'good route'. But the more important distinction is that the game makes you think of morality and government laws and their inter-relationships in real life, and not just in the game. It lets you go out into a world ( an underwater city called Rapture, which is very advanced technologically even in the 1950s-60s) where people are not bound by morality or by rules and regulations and are free to live life as they want to. Survival of the fittest. It also makes you wonder what is it that makes humans really human. For in this world of immorality, people seem to have lost things such as love and sharing-which are actually among the most important the things that define humanity; and resort to insane amounts of cheating, killing and even things like modifying kids' DNA to speed up their growing process and make them more efficient. These are the mildest atrocities that you come across in Rapture.

(Spoilers ahead) 

The creator of the city Andrew Ryan is an obvious reference to Ayn Rand and the guy who guides you through most parts of the game called Atlas- a possible reference to her work Atlas Shrugged. I'm sure that there are plenty of other references to her works as well as other similar ones.It's fascinating how the whole world is unforgiving and treats you just like any other guy. You are no hero, no one special until the end when you realise that nothing had been a  coincidence. You had been actually sent to the city by Frank Fontaine, a ruthless businessman who bought your embryo or something from Andrew Ryan (your real father) and accelerated the growth process to generate an adult within 4 years, genetically altered to make you more powerful, and programmed you to respond to the phrase "Would you kindly" without questioning it. All of it is not even explained directly in the game and the story is partly told through audio diaries scattered across the city. An epic sequence towards the end of the game has you facing Andrew Ryan who let's you know that nothing had been a co-incidence and let's you know about your programmed response. He dies in agony with the pain of knowing that all his hardwork was undone by the people he called "weak". Although Rapture was a ruthless city created by a ruthless mind, you do feel a bit sorry for Andrew Ryan because he had an amazing vision to help humanity, although it was a bit flawed. In any case, you start to wonder why Atlas had been giving you directions with "Would you kindly" added to everything, when he tells you that he is actually Frank Fontaine. This is just an icing on the cake- the game tells dozens of stories, from the doctor who got obsessed with plastic surgeries and started killing, and experimenting with harmful chemicals which led to permanently disfigured people who were again subjected to experiments, to Tenembaum who discovered "ADAM" which alters the human DNA and allows humans to have magic-like abilities called plasmids. Tenembaum also discovered that little girls, if implanted with ADAM could produce 20-30 times the original ADAM and so sets up a fake orphanage to get girls for this purpose. These girls, called Little Sisters (same as the orphanage's name) roam throughout the city and are protected by a Big Daddy each- a huge powerful robot thingy which can 1-hit you to death at the beginning of the game when you're relatively weak. Tenembaum discovers a cure for these girls and lets the player know about it, but using the cure would result in the player getting less ADAM and thus makes it difficult to survive at times since it implies lesser of these active or passive supoerpowers. The player has the choice of killing or rescuing these girls, if he chooses to fight the Big Daddies that he sees around and manages to defeat them.

And this is what I probably wanted to talk about that hasn't been talked about by the hundreds of reviewers of the game. The fact that it is these little girls who actually let you know something about humanity- they're  extremely adorable and in fact help you throughout the game with plenty of gifts to show gratitude, and this is upto the final boss fight with Frank Fontaine who became inhumanly powerful with doses of ADAM. Tenembaum is a big contrast to Andrew Ryan or Frank Fontaine, and protects these girls by storing them in a basement, and takes huge risks by trying to save and protect them. The human side of the game is almost completely feminine and this is no co-incidence. The motherly love that Tenembaum has (although she was a bit ruthless initially and only later regrets her actions) and the innocence of the kids touch you more than anything else in the game and the trailers of the game also advertise the Little Sisters more than anything. Andrew Ryan and Frank Fontaine are brilliant people. Ryan is frequently quoted by several audio logs of scientists as the best electrical engineer in the world, and Frank Fontaine is easily the best businessman in terms of making profits. But human beings are not complete just by being highly efficient. We have robots for that. It's the love for kids and family that really makes a human being and Tenembaun and the Little Sisters send the message really well. This message like several other messages, is implied and not explicitly thrust into the player and that is probably what makes the game so unique. The story is there and the environment is there, and it is upto the player to explore, find the audio logs and connect the dots. The atmosphere, the soundtrack and the random dialogues of the enemies that the player encounters in the game, all add up to an experience that is beyond words. A true Gesamtkuntzberg.

This video, along with the next parts explain Bioshock's story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrlgwU2PY-s
Bioshock's gameplay videos are available throughout youtube. But here's something more interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ke4WBDTUA