Anyone else never use Slavery?

[Ataxerxes]

So, since this stupid post is still thriving, I thought I would throw out another moral issue to tangle with...
If you don't use slavery, do you use Serfdom? Caste System? Both treat other people poorly... I recommend not using it.

The second point is actually a good point. There are more "evil" civics than just slavery. Police State comes to mind also.

Look up some of the older role-playing games by Mad Scientist. Some of them had rules to avoid all "evil" civics, such as Police State, and you had to embrace the most "enlightened" civics. In others, such as the "Lord Satan" game, you had to embrace the most cruel civics.
Admittedly, for optimal play, you have to divorce yourself from this. However, some people like role-playing for fun without trying to optimize anything. It's often fun to role play either way, benevolent leader or Satan and they can do it either way. A little crazy, but often fun. And isn't that the whole point?

 

[Jury-6]

Agree with the total sentiment of your post above. Disagree on the part where you imply that the homo sapien species has a monopoly on capacity for compassion and love, or even if you meant that we have a greater capacity compared to all other known species.

I'm at a loss when trying to come up with another species that will throw things like basic survival necessities or even their own lives away simply out of bleeding-heart sympathy or love for a member of another species or even a member of their own if it doesn't directly benefit the particular animal or a branch of its instinct--like the wellness of a pack. Humans, on the other hand, can't seem to stop themselves from doing such things.

 

[gorf37]

Initially, I refused to use slavery. So it's only marginally more repulsive than serfdom. I was playing at noble, so really, it didn't slow me down that much.

Upon lurking here for a while, I realized that it was a pretty bad thing to do, in terms of winning the game, and practically suicidal when playing above one's comfortable skill level.

Now I use slavery, but typically only at the start of the game, say, until 0AD, situation dependent, of course. Basically, I don't whip unless I have a city working unimproved tiles. Most commonly I whip:

Monument - pretty important if the optimal city location has a strategic resource in the outer ring of the BFC. If a worker is not available to chop the monument out for me, of course.

Grainery - this is the most common thing I chop. It just makes sense to me to lose 2 pop when only half of the food will be required to recover them.

Library - whipping, then running scientists while I wait for the whip anger to abate works exceptionally well, synergy ftw! (of course temples would be even better, but usually don't get built unless I'm spiritual).

In spite of the fact that it angers the more serious players in the crowd, I think that the group of players who never use, or only sparingly use slavery is significant. Perhaps a guide that helps to minimize the cost of these choices would be worth while?

 

[mariogreymist]

You underestimate how far lethal projectiles can travel. You would have a hard time banning rocks . Look up how people used to use slings! But even thrown rocks are pretty impressive.

And things like gas/explosives don't require looks in the eye either, and are unfortunately very easy to produce and use if one doesn't care about the consequences.

1- I said all ranged weaponry...that would include thrown or slung rocks
2 - And I think gas and explosives as a means to kill are barbaric.

The only civilized way to kill someone is with a melee weapon. The industrialization of death is the only way that modern large-scale warfare can be stomached. If you take an 18 year old kid and say "go kill those guys because of abstract political principle X, and do it with this sword" wars become more difficult to wage on a psychological level than saying "go kill those guys because of abstract political principle X, and do it with this rifle." Small tribal scale wars, over watersheds, grazing land and the like would still be likely. But do you really think the US would be tromping around the world telling people they have no choice other than democracy (a laughable bit of self contradiction for anyone who has a ing clue) if we couldn't bring Tomahawk (TM) cruise missiles, Raptors, RPGs and M-16s?

The world would be a much safer, less violent place if only private citizens could legally use firearms, and only then to protect their own lives, families or property. An exception for supervised use by a state as a defense against groups/states which break the rule would be needed. If we're serious about making rules of war meaningful, then technology just needs to be thrown out the window. Let wars be decided by how many troops a side can find willing to personally butcher other human beings. It's far more democratic.

Impractical? That's the only problem with this. But really...do you think the Taliban would be able to recruit so well fighting the evil satan of the US, if the US weren't an image of modernized brutality in the eyes of the Afghan/Pakistani people?

It only seems crazy until you think about it.

So, since this stupid post is still thriving, I thought I would throw out another moral issue to tangle with...
If you don't use slavery, do you use Serfdom? Caste System? Both treat other people poorly... I recommend not using it.

And this is a very good point. Once can view human history as a tendency for increasing liberties of individual people (See Freire or Marx), from despotic regimes with slavery to democratic ones with emancipation. Almost every modern society which dates back at least as far as the Renaissance has some history of slavery or caste systems. I really can't think of an exception.

Moderator Action: Please do not use foul language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheWilltoAct]

So, since this stupid post is still thriving, I thought I would throw out another moral issue to tangle with...
If you don't use slavery, do you use Serfdom? Caste System? Both treat other people poorly... I recommend not using it.

Cool that people hiding behind their computer screen can openly ridicule the opinions of others.

While I understand the point that there are many unjust forms of government in CIV, Slavery's immediate toll on your populace has the greatest emotional impact. Why would I be grieved that State Property is giving me food from my workshops and saving me gazillions of , or pained that Serfdom makes my workers more efficient? In essence I can see only a positive impact on my people, so even if the government is called Elitist Scumbagism but it gives me + 10 in my empire I'll go for it.

 

[kochman]

I'm at a loss when trying to come up with another species that will throw things like basic survival necessities or even their own lives away simply out of bleeding-heart sympathy or love for a member of another species or even a member of their own if it doesn't directly benefit the particular animal or a branch of its instinct--like the wellness of a pack. Humans, on the other hand, can't seem to stop themselves from doing such things.

Dogs do it all the time.

@ TWTA... I remember you arguing against basic math, so I don't take your little swipe very seriously. Ironic how you also condemned yourself with your own post.

 

[MarcoPollo]

I have no problem using slavery in CiV. What did Solzenetzin say in his book Gulag Archipelago... He called these slaves "shock labor".

How eerily close to shock troops. I guess they both die at the expense of the state.

I will not Nuke opponents. If I can't win, and need nukes then I start a new game or crush them conventionally.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1- I said all ranged weaponry...that would include thrown or slung rocks

Good luck banning rocks. Why not save a few steps and just ban air?

2 - And I think gas and explosives as a means to kill are barbaric.

Clearly you are on the wrong end of the noob toob (m203 grenade launcher attachment in modern warfare 2.

The only civilized way to kill someone is with a melee weapon. The industrialization of death is the only way that modern large-scale warfare can be stomached. If you take an 18 year old kid and say "go kill those guys because of abstract political principle X, and do it with this sword" wars become more difficult to wage on a psychological level than saying "go kill those guys because of abstract political principle X, and do it with this rifle." Small tribal scale wars, over watersheds, grazing land and the like would still be likely. But do you really think the US would be tromping around the world telling people they have no choice other than democracy (a laughable bit of self contradiction for anyone who has a ing clue) if we couldn't bring Tomahawk (TM) cruise missiles, Raptors, RPGs and M-16s?

If I stuck a sword or .50 caliper bullet through your heart, I can guarantee that if you cared which was used, you wouldn't for very long. There is no civilized way to kill someone. Technology and logistics have always been factors in war, and yes it takes material superiority in those regards to handle wars across the world on opposing turf. You'd have to ban a lot more than gunpowder based things though.

The world would be a much safer, less violent place if only private citizens could legally use firearms, and only then to protect their own lives, families or property. An exception for supervised use by a state as a defense against groups/states which break the rule would be needed. If we're serious about making rules of war meaningful, then technology just needs to be thrown out the window. Let wars be decided by how many troops a side can find willing to personally butcher other human beings. It's far more democratic.

It's a sadistic joke. I hope it is a joke by the way, because although it's not particularly funny it is WAY better than if you seriously believe this trash...the post I'm quoting does not appear close enough to one.

There are realities in terms of military security and government/societal control. Limiting weapons does not change reality. If the sword were the best damned weapon available, only the people truly in control would wield those. Soldiers have easily slaughtered people point blank with melee weapons in the past, and people don't change all that much within a few thousand years, so they can do it again. Even if you threw down all weapons, organized enforcement parties could absolutely dominate. If you want the world to forgo all technology entirely, then the race will survive, but the consequences of that would be worse than every war we know of combined most likely.

At any rate, there is no historical or economic (or any) basis for an argument along the lines of "they wouldn't do it if it had to be melee". In reality if it COULD be enforced it would just shift the balance of power.

I will not Nuke opponents. If I can't win, and need nukes. I start a new game or crush them conventionally.

Burning cities and/or killing hundreds of millions of people is FINE, but god forbid we use a nuke . I wonder what kind of answer you'd get if you were to ask someone who was part of the fire bombing of Dresden if they were glad because at least it was "conventional". Damage is damage. Radiation leaves lasting effects, but there are other was to accomplish the same thing...even the Mongols knew how to slaughter everyone around and then make the land useless for quite some time.

Nuking a stack outside of a city is arguably way better in moral terms than shelling a city with artillery or repeatedly bombing it!

 

[mariogreymist]

I don't think it's remotely practical, just fun as a thought experiment.

I also think the general populace has a right to the same weapons used by any organization which can legally exert control of civilian populations. If the national guard can have automatic weapons when responding to a domestic emergency, I have a right to have them too. If they get RPGs, so do I. Anti-aircraft? Tactical nuclear weapons? yep.

Granted, deploying the national guard (in the US) as a police force is illegal. That hasn't stopped the government from doing it though. So if Randy Weaver and David Koresh (granted, those were ATF screw ups, not nat guard) want to shoot federal agents for infringing freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, don't expect me to cry for the guys whose only claim to righteousness is the better guild.

But like I said...I'm crazy. Believin in freedom an stuff.

 

[aimlessgun]

So, since this stupid post is still thriving, I thought I would throw out another moral issue to tangle with...
If you don't use slavery, do you use Serfdom? Caste System? Both treat other people poorly... I recommend not using it.



Moderator Action: Please don't Flame
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Well the funny thing is...I actually don't use serfdom or caste system

As for the discussion on rules of war...if you could actually enforce any sorts of extreme rules of that sort, you could go a step farther and conduct all combat with nerf guns.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think it's remotely practical, just fun as a thought experiment.

I also think the general populace has a right to the same weapons used by any organization which can legally exert control of civilian populations. If the national guard can have automatic weapons when responding to a domestic emergency, I have a right to have them too. If they get RPGs, so do I. Anti-aircraft? Tactical nuclear weapons? yep.

Granted, deploying the national guard (in the US) as a police force is illegal. That hasn't stopped the government from doing it though. So if Randy Weaver and David Koresh want to shoot federal agents for infringing freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, don't expect me to cry for the guys whose only claim to righteousness is the better guild.

But like I said...I'm crazy. Believin in freedom an stuff.

USA (well, before it had a REAL constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Military) and many many other nations have learned the hard way that if the government itself does not have a overwhelming control over its military and how they're equipped, the government itself can't enforce anything, including laws that are for the good of the nation that some group happens not to like. History has painted a very, very clear picture of this time and again. It sucks, but it's reality, and I think civ represents THAT well at least. People who aren't held to rule act as they please, even to the detriment of society. Nobody has modeled anything that overcomes that, except perhaps in civ .

 

[kochman]

Well the funny thing is...I actually don't use serfdom or caste system

As for the discussion on rules of war...if you could actually enforce any sorts of extreme rules of that sort, you could go a step farther and conduct all combat with nerf guns.

Fair enough. For the record, don't take it personal. I didn't mean to seem like I was attacking you. I just think the concept of not playing the game for what it is is kind of silly. I mean, do you play any games where you kill people as part of completion of the game? I don't know, Technu from old playstation comes to mind... or all the shoot 'em ups... It's a part of the game... the AI is definitely using all techniques available, and I bet that if you don't do the same you will never be able to win on the higher levels as a result.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

@ TWTA... Ironic how you also condemned yourself with your own post.

Where did I ridicule you??

 

[mariogreymist]

USA (well, before it had a REAL constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Military) and many many other nations have learned the hard way that if the government itself does not have a overwhelming control over its military and how they're equipped, the government itself can't enforce anything, including laws that are for the good of the nation that some group happens not to like. History has painted a very, very clear picture of this time and again. It sucks, but it's reality, and I think civ represents THAT well at least. People who aren't held to rule act as they please, even to the detriment of society. Nobody has modeled anything that overcomes that, except perhaps in civ .

Armed with a constitution and the force of law and backed by the popular will of the people, a democracy can maintain as much order as is genuinely needed. The problem is, the people must be properly educated and fully informed by a free press to make the society just, and that is something that has been absent for quite some time in the US. Once journalism became an industry (well over a century ago) more than a vocation, the hope for a properly informed citizenry became a pipe dream. Education too has followed suit. Whereas the focus used to be teaching people how to use their minds, it's now about developing the endurance for performing mind-numbing clerical tasks while sitting still for long periods of every day; critical thinking is discouraged by most schools.

It's no wonder Americans think of Olive Garden and Dancing With the Stars as culture.

That level of socio-political shift is hard to build into a game, as it is a slow shift among a variety of aspects of legal, governmental and social institutions.

American government and the industrial class that has controlled it since the time of at least T Roosevelt (and probably Lincoln) has done a wondrous job of convincing the american people to not practice their freedoms, but to instead be good consumers of goods and (specially chosen) information. All the good information still exists, and we have a remarkably free society. But very few Americans really know what this country has done and continues to do with regards to shaping our foreign policy exclusively around the interests of the industrial class (formerly the Carnegies, Melons Rockefellers and Fords, now the corporations). That effect has been gradual, and included far too many institutions (press, education, religion, government, law) to be effectively represented by a game.

That's just about enough off topic rambling from me. But if you really want to understand how American society is controlled, it's not about the guns but about the media. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a enlightening book called "Manufacturing Consent" which discusses many of these issues, and is worth reading for anyone who wants to understand how industrialists and politicians have used the media to maintain control without resorting to the use of force in the US.

 

[Manco Capac]

I never used slavery until I met my friend Monty.

 

[clif9710]

Mario - good thoughts

I've said before that I think CIV4 would be a great teaching tool. It shows the complexity of dealing with affairs. Though at a vastly simpler level than reality, the framework is there. It makes you responsible for success or failure, you realize that you can't jump from this to that but have to have an overall plan. Most important - there are consequences and you usually can clearly see where you went wrong if the enemy begins to roll up your territory. It shows that there is more than one way to skin a cat and from game to game you'd be nuts to use the same strategy - though you do feel an inclination to keep up with something that worked last time, you have to be inventive, creative, open to novelty.

In regard to what you said, CIV4 shows that you've got to think clearly about what you do. That's not the spirit of our time - instead, immediate gratification with no thought for the future is king. Perhaps the Great Recession will moderate that somewhat as people spend years pulling out of huge debt that was so easily and effortlessly obtained.

But I think you are too hard on particular groups to blame. We are a free people and we have chosen. It's true that we are lulled by the culture we have. To know what it means to put things in perspective, talk to anyone who has lived in another country for a couple of years only to return to the U.S., or better yet, read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's account of arriving in Holland in her book Infidel.

My sister gave me her Kindle and I'm reading the autobiography of Ben Franklin. The innocence of his time is profound. Imagine starting a lending library with the idea of improving the knowledge of your fellow citizens! Imagine the idea of bringing the community (a tiny Philadelphia) together with the idea of training a militia - not in the current fashion to oppose your own government but to protect the British colonial frontier from the French because the government wasn't providing protection.

It was a colony, but the idea of free individuals jointly agreeing for the good of all, free individuals eager for self-improvement, what a different world. Franklin's whole thrust is to encourage everyone to be the best they can be and profit from it even as others profit from dealing with you. You can end up respected, with peace of mind and solvent (if not wealthy) if you practice what I've learned in my 79 years, is his message.

Who has this role today? Tiger Woods? Miley Cyrus? Who listens to anyone who is even 40, let alone 79 years old? Who has time to read something more than two sentences long? What would Franklin make of the concept of "cool" when he set down his list of virtues? Times have changed and we are all contributors for better or worse.

 

[Jury-6]

snip

Good thing the rest of the world's 196 countries have far less problems than the United States, eh?

Honestly, most of your criticisms can be directed at virtually all of modern western civilization; they're widespread sociological problems, not US-specific problems. The United States is not the only country with corporate media, specialized education, and a capitalist economy. I'm sure you realize this, it just seems you've got a severe personal bias against the US.

Also, for the record, if I were to be given a choice between being killed by a relatively impartial unit cleanly putting a bullet in my forehead and a psychologically shell shocked swordsman chopping me to gobs for a full half-minute while I frantically struggle, I'd choose the former and even go so far as to claim it more civilized. I'd also rather have a bomb dropped on me.

 

[gingerbill]

I don't whip. I am a kind and benevolent King who respects his people. Cross me though and I'll burn all your cities down.

same here . Played alot of games but never use slavery.

 

[remake20]

I always use slavery, but my brother never does. I guess it is becuase of the reason you stated in the first post.

 

[mariogreymist]

Good thing the rest of the world's 196 countries have far less problems than the United States, eh?

Honestly, most of your criticisms can be directed at virtually all of modern western civilization; they're widespread sociological problems, not US-specific problems. The United States is not the only country with corporate media, specialized education, and a capitalist economy. I'm sure you realize this, it just seems you've got a severe personal bias against the US.

Also, for the record, if I were to be given a choice between being killed by a relatively impartial unit cleanly putting a bullet in my forehead and a psychologically shell shocked swordsman chopping me to gobs for a full half-minute while I frantically struggle, I'd choose the former and even go so far as to claim it more civilized. I'd also rather have a bomb dropped on me.

As a US citizen, I am not as familiar with the problems of other countries. I don't have a bias against the US, per se, and believe it is still the greatest country on earth. The american people on the other hand are intellectually lazy, socially disengaged for the most part and without a damned clue who the real enemy is when they go to the polls (over 95% of voters think it's the other party).

From the point of view of a participatory democracy, it is not only a right but a responsibility of citizens to make themselves aware of the state of their government and its interactions on a variety of levels. Because corporations can only exist with government issued charters, the interactions between the corporate sector and government officials is a particular problem; and the lack of oversight by the former over the latter is an abdication of duty, as the latter have propagated environmental destruction, public disinformation (what passes for TV news is worse than a joke) and a general culture of consumerism that is not conducive to continued human existence on the planet.

Is the same thing happening elsewhere? I am sure it is. I don't get to vote in England, Canada or any other democratic country. I get to vote in the US. So I tend to focus on the social problems here.

Moreover, the educational problems in the US are unique to the US. US schools are a joke. I spent several years volunteering as a debate coach in the US public school system, and it is shocking how little training high school students get vis a vis critical thinking skills. The shift towards using standardized testing as an evaluation of schools' and teachers' efficacy is a sham, as it can only serve to turn schools into mills of production for clerical automatons who can regurgitate facts without considering the underlying ideas or implications of the "facts." And I won't even start for what passes for a "fact" in our history classrooms.

As for the "choice" you are making a terribly fallacious argument here. It is not a choice as to whether one person is killed either way, but whether tens of thousands are killed with guns or a hundreds are killed with swords in a major battle. And again - it's a thought experiment, not a practical suggestion.