1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by strategyonly, Sep 3, 2010.

  1. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,587
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Depends on the settings you're using. At the last minute, a fix was attempted to help adjust numbers for the easier game settings to get them better balanced between production costs and research costs and it has caused some severe disruption overall and illuminated some earlier bad choices. We'll get it fixed up but it might take longer than hoped.
     
  2. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,587
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Interesting... I consider that term to be synonymous with sustainability.
     
  3. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    6,843
    Location:
    Norway
    That wholly depend to what degree those ideas are implemented in practical life though, something I said nothing about, (assumption on my part: "but your belief tells you that I'm spouting blasphemy so you have to disagree" (I'm not characterizing you as a person, I'm describing a behavior I perceived right now that is not an adequate basis characterize you). You are jumping to conclusions about what I say, mean, and think in a way I find unreasonable.

    If I were to say that, in Norway parents get a certain amount of economical support per child they have, and that I would like to see that support completely removed, but again strengthen the economical support to the poor (a system we already have that also considers the welfare of children). My main reasoning for this is to reduce political encouragement for people to get more children. You may argue that this would encourage the poor to get more children, but I would answer that no one wants to be poor just because that gives extra child support, and that poor children need support more than well off children.
    Can you argue that this is a completely unstable implementation of the idea that "More chefs does not always equal a bigger piece of pie for each chef". (Paraphrase of "I think all people would be more resourceful if there were much less people on this planet today that shared wealth, resources....")
    Or that parliament, and government officials salaries should be based on the average salary of the country, instead of being three-five times the average salary in the country. That would certainly make politicians prioritize reducing the wealth gap.
    Would that be an unstable implementation in your view?
    Or that a civil salary (would reduce the living quality of upper classes but could potentially eliminate poverty as poverty is today) that is given to everyone that have citizenship above 18 years regardless of their employment status or wealth. How would this be unstable?

    Ok, now you have some concrete implementations examples of some of my ideas. Are my opinions still blasphemous to you, or can you respect such opinions even though you don't agree?
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  4. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,587
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    The average salary will always include the incomes of the top wealthiest. Which is why those looking at the US from the outside in think the average income should be some 100k+ (Paul Ryan himself recently said he thought most folks made at least 500k a year) when in reality the majority are making 20-50k a year. So basing the income for politicians on an average just makes them do more of what they are doing, making sure that the nation as a whole gets a lot more wealth built up without a care for how well it is distributed. It has become clear that wealth build up in a nation != prosperity for its people, only those who are benefiting from the expanded wealth.
     
  5. strategyonly

    strategyonly C2C Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    20,553
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MN
    ok thx for the info, will hold off till u say so . . .btw really like the NEW icons, the religious ones really "shine" nicely, thx, to whom ever did those and the others, thx . . . . SO
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  6. armenia4ever

    armenia4ever Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    This idea may have been mentioned before, but think about the effects of cold weather and snowstorms on regions - particularly regarding movements whether in peacetime or war. (Napoleon's army getting annihilated by the winter in his invasion of Russia or the similar fate of the German invasion of Russia in World War 2.)

    It occurred to me last night as I was shoveling outside my home in our recent snowstorm, that I was mighty glad I had some warm clothes specially manufactured for winter, as well snowplows, salt, ect. So what did people a thousand years ago do in snowstorms trying to travel from one destination to another? Often, they had to delay their travels completely.

    What if the snow and or mountain regions had an option for weather effects that rendered either defensive bonuses, additional tile movement penalties, reduced attack, ect? Early on in early era, it's severe, but as tech progresses units either have tech effects or unit bonuses to nullify the weather effects to some degree, if not permanently in the modern age. Think of the Alpine Troops and the kind of troops the Finns had when they attempted to fight off Russian Invasion. They thrived in the snow.

    Just a thought. I'll elaborate more later.
     
  7. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    No, it's not the same thing. I mean the mathematical concept (cf. stable equilibrium), where deviation experiences a counter-force. Unstable in that sense means deviation benefits, leading to more and more deviations in the future (like: if theft is neither forbidden nor persecuted, you cannot keep the concept of personal property). Cicero wrote (IIRC it was in "De re publica" or "On the Commonwealth") that a system must be first and foremost stable, and it was meant in that sense (it's a while ago that I read it, but I remember it clearly, I just don't remember where in that book I read it).

    Are you not even wishing for your ideas to be implemented? Consider if you're right, you would rather just see everything collapse?

    It's unstable if a single person deviating gets to have more than this person got by "obeying" the system (provided it's an ordinary case - if just certain people benefitted by deviating that's much less of a problem). That's the criterion.

    Again, what's the effect (intended or unintended), in this case for the politicians? Let's assume, to deal with Tunderbrd's point, that you spoke of the median instead of the average. Now what would happen? At first this leads to a big cut of the salaries of the "public servants". How do they respond? Are they going to work for an increase of salaries in general (and how can they do that)? Or are they going to be more corrupt than before? Of course they would like you to think of the latter option, so that their large salary is perceived as the "lesser evil". But is this cut going to make people corrupt who weren't before? I think that's unlikely. The first option is difficult as well - what influence do they have on the salary level, especially in the private sector? And if an action they could take (enlarge minimum wage) leads to more unemployment, is your system going to respond to that as well?

    That could indeed be unstable, if it leads to people not working at all any more (and the working force falling below any number you might have wished to retain). It could also lead to increasing population, because people might be able to afford a family at a younger age.

    While mathematics often insists to be quite absolute, it's not really a religion.
     
  8. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    6,843
    Location:
    Norway
    True, that last part wasn't a strong statement, though it is politically easier to elevate the ones that have nothing than to heighten the ones at the top any further, and if the politicians are not among the top they would most likely sympathize more with the bottom than the top. It does however depend a lot on what way it is based on average salary, if those that earn more than e.g. 10 times more than the average is excluded and we then make the calculation again to find the typical salary for a politician then theres a strong incentive for politicians to favour less wage gap in society.
    A different argument for the average salary idea would be to change the political career to be something people seek out not for the money and opportunity to mingle with rich folk, but because they actually care about society and want to contribute. It would put them closer (economically) to the people they actually represent and govern (majority).
    Sure, I wish for many of my ideas to be implemented, but you seem to think you know what those ideas are only based on one general philosophical descriptions of an idea that I wrote. My ideas will probably never be implemented as part of my ideas are that political changes must be founded in the opinion of the majority, and the majority will never agree that the status quo is inexcusable the way I do. I can't even convince people that the bombing of the government in Libya was an irrational call today, and even less so the weeks before it happened.
    To me it was obvious that bombing an unstable country in a region that has been under the violent threat from extremist religious factions was a bad call from the day it was first proposed, I knew that it would practically erase Libya from the map (it is split into two unstable nations today and there are large areas that are not under the control of any of them), I knew that it would create a safe haven for terrorists (training camps, recruiting, funding), I knew that a lot of Libya's weapons and military equipment would fall into unscrupulous hands, I did not know slavery would occur but it didn't surprise me one bit when it was reported. And what was the argument for causing all this misery, it was that Gaddafi said in a speech, addressing violent demonstrators, that he "would weed out the rats", which of course the west interpret to that he is going to massacre the civilian population. That the majority can accept such irrational arguments as a good foundation for war-acts is beyond me. The aggression war on Iraq is the same story when all is said and done, war was declared based solely on a satellite picture that supposedly proved the UN weapons inspectors, who recently had returned from a lengthy inspection in Iraq reporting there was no indication that Saddam had illegal weapons, wrong. I was only eleven years old at that time and I could not for the life of me understand the logic behind that assessment, it was to me only a picture of two trucks outside a factory and the UN inspectors sounded like they had done a proper job, I still haven't understood why people accepted the argument at the time. It was later proven that there were no weight behind the interpretation of the photo. At the start of that war, Bush said this would be over and done with in a matter of weeks, and many nodded and agreed that that was a very likely scenario. I on the other hand could not see how the war and following violence would not stain the country for at least 20 years. Before a year had passed Bush declared "Mission accomplished in Iraq" and there was much rejoice in the west ("bollocks" I thought), though we all know in hindsight what kind of swamp that war actually was at that point...... I could go on and on and on about this and that example of irrational beliefs ruling the decision making, and rationalization process for most people. The end rationalization here is that the end justify the means, the belief here is, among others, that toppling dictators is worth any and all misery.
    Main intent would be to change the attitude and culture that is typical in the political environment. I do not think it would noticeably increase corruption if there is a healthy separation of powers with emphasis on the judiciary branch present in the country. To avoid it being changed by the wind it might have to be part of the constitution.
    That's an assumption without anything backing it except for belief.
    I would argue that most people would want to feel useful and to have more than the bare minimum if given the opportunity. If one could choose to not work and get 19 000 USD a year, or to work and get 19 000 + 64 000 USD a year then I'm pretty sure most folk would take the latter if given the opportunity. We are going towards more and more automation so unemployment will inevitably rise a lot in the next 100 years, so I'm sure citizen salary is going to be unavoidable at one point or another unless we are ready to accept mass poverty in the streets....
    Did I imply that math is a religion, that was not what I meant, I tried to imply that political isms and economical models are often revered and blindly followed in a similar manner as religions. One doesn't need a religion to be a believer, to act on irrationalities without involving critical thought.

    It sounds, based on what you replied with and to, like you are saying that socialism as a concept is proven without a doubt, by mathematics, to be a bad mindset.
    Spoiler Maybe I'm misinterpreting your reply, but just in case :
    I haven't heard of this mathematical proof, but I'm sure there are subjective factors in it that should not be there and that it is lacking some important objective factors as well. The math may be sound but the interpretation of it can easily result in a illogical conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  9. Dancing Hoskuld

    Dancing Hoskuld Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,519
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Yes both "faith" and "piety" are being considered as properties. As are properties on the religion itself as in the Total War mod. This is all part of the complete religion overhaul I am working on. The aim of the overhaul is to have many more "real world" religions available in game but a nation would only have a few active in its cities.
     
  10. strategyonly

    strategyonly C2C Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    20,553
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MN
    what was i doing wrong to get the "build" to work correctly?? I kept getting only a few things in the "new" FPK, i tried like over 5 hrs to NO success??? I havent done one in around 6 yrs . . .
     
  11. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    I am quite certain that there is a proof (not formulated in mathematics but nevertheless rather strong, I think), and that it has been available for almost 100 years. One of the leading theorists of the Free Economy, Ludwig v. Mises, has written it, and it is available free of charge (the electronic version) here: https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis

    Warning: This book has 600 pages. This edition was written in 1950 and it is, in some places, rather expressive in rejecting socialism (as was common in that time), but that doesn't hurt the reasons this book gives. From what I remember the most important point is that socialism has no valid procedure to create prices for goods and services, as a result from there being no competition. With prices being arbitrary, the system lacks a control instrument to respond quickly to scarcity dynamics. This can lead to over-supply or (more often and more worrying) to over-demand, resulting in shortages. The end result of shortages is a known problem of socialist societies, both in history (Eastern bloc) and currently (Venezuela), so that fits. And the fact that Mises wrote about that in 1950 (the first edition was written in the 1920s, I think) also means that it was a successful prediction.

    Another thing: Rejecting the Free Economy because of real-world experiences is quite difficult, because there is hardly any free economy in the world right now. Even the USA stopped being a (completely) free economy in 1933 at the latest (New Deal). The freest economies today are very small countries (like Singapore) or even parts of a country (Hong Kong) - cf. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking with the USA having rank 18. If you look for a free economy in a large country you have to go back to the 19th century (not the UK, but France 1830 - 1848 or USA before 1861).

    Edit: I don't really mind it, but considering that Thunderbrd doesn't share my point of view he might not want to take credit for my quotes.
     
    Publicola likes this.
  12. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    6,843
    Location:
    Norway
    From the prologue of that book, it is clear that Mises define socialism as a totalitarian state driven by a complete and utter plan economy.
    It is not hard to prove that totalitarianism is as a concept a bad mindset, but I would argue that Socialism is not the same as totalitarianism.
    It is not hard to argue that complete plan economy has downsides, but socialism does not require a complete plan economy.

    I define socialism as the opposite as social darwinism, that it is simply the idea that helping the weak in the flock will strengthen the flock as a whole.
    I therefore define social darwinism as simply the idea that the weak in the flock must not be helped because they are dragging the individuals down.
    USA is leaning more towards social darwinism, while Europe is leanng more towards socialism.
    Contemporary scandinavia is in my opinion the strongest example of socialist states in history.

    I will read the entire book as it is an interesting read with credible historical information regarding fascism, and totalitarian communism. The economical parts of the book might be interesting to compare to the book Das Capital.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  13. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    First of all, :wallbash: - obviously I didn't mean to include slaveholder societies when I spoke of free economies - so that's only the free states of the USA before 1861. And in fact France from 1830 to 1848 is an even stronger example of a truly free economy.

    Second, I think the differences (roughly) between socialism, libertarianism and social darwinism are as follows:
    • In socialism, the state commands you to help the weak
    • In libertarianism, the state doesn't interfere with your property => it lets you help the weak
    • In social darwinism, the state forbids you to help the weak
    It should go without saying that I don't like social darwinism any more than socialism, in fact I like it less. And you are certainly right that socialism and social darwinism are polar opposites in almost every aspect - other than government interference.

    But I think Mises doesn't consider totalitarianism to be a necessary part of socialism, although he certainly thinks that socialism favors totalitarianism (where the government can command instead of beg)
     
  14. raxo2222

    raxo2222 Time Traveller

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,555
    Location:
    Poland
    There are social democracies too - Scandinavia is most famous example.
    In social democracy the state helps weak, and you pay relatively high taxes.
    Social democracies tends to have cheap needs and expensive wants relatively speaking.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  15. Dancing Hoskuld

    Dancing Hoskuld Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,519
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Australia is also considered a socialist (representative) democracy. It is also a big advocate for free trade, open markets and private ownership but not rampant capitalism.

    I don't think there are any true democracies out there. Most are Representative Democracies where you elect someone to represent you in the democratic process. The trade off being that in a true democracy every citizen would need to spend about half their time every day on the affairs of the state whereas in a representative democracy they only need to spend a fraction of that time to elect and inform their representative whose full time job is the state.
     
  16. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,587
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    lol... I noticed that but decided not to comment but since you said it... lol

    I liked Toffer's explanation. Perhaps the terms being used are creating greater dissagreement than there is. I do NOT define socialism as totalitarianism, but rather any attempt to irrigate the wild economy. Money flows much like water, as the trickle down economists are good at pointing out. So does this mean that it always works best in a natural system that experiences no interference? Maybe. A forest is usually pretty healthy on its own though, like an un-irrigated economy, it goes through cycles of long periods of satisfactory performance before a sudden collapse (forest fire) that can threaten the whole system. Nature is like that... it's perfection exists in its ability to embrace its imperfections just as naturally. Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about whether the squirrels that lived in that tree that's on fire just got killed or burnt out or how many critters die in the forest when things go south. Rather, it confidently knows that everything recovers in time.

    Man is a strange creature indeed that can look at the big picture of that forest and figure out how to set up processes of redistribution that can keep the whole thing healthy. He can grow as much as the land allows and keep the natural competition from one lifeform to the next in as much a balanced state as possible by redirecting flows of energy forms through the system to where it most needs to be sent (such as water). It's called farming and it was one of our most powerful inventions of all time.

    We admit that we can improve on nature in so many ways yet we argue that we must simply leave our economy as untouched as possible because if we mess with it we're only going to make it worse. I don't buy it. The wild is darwinian and it's not like in our society we say people cannot help... we even reward it. But by saying no help has to exist unless people care to and then fostering as much competition as possible, do you really think that people who fail in competition for whatever reasons they do, are getting their needs met?

    I've seen people starving to death on the streets here and sometimes I'd prefer to be one of them than continue to serve in the capacities of continued raping and pillaging of every bit of what can be found to take from others that I have witnessed in this great capitalist society. How many people in the US go to work every day thinking, "gee... I feel great about what I do because I'm helping people"? Very few. Most are looking at how many people they can screw over so they can get at the money growing on the trees we call one another. This competition is not healthy. And it makes life suck.

    I also do not think that socialist ideals should overtake competition entirely. It's all about striking the right balance. People have to be able to strive to thrive but we also need to have a chance to do so rather than having all the rain held away from the undergrowth by the interlocked canopy of the few old massive trees that are hogging up everything for themselves.

    Regardless of what system we will employ in the rebirth of this forest, we're going to see a fire come through one way or another and if it doesn't kill these overgrown overlords in the process, it will eventually since nothing will regrow until they die.
     
  17. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    6,843
    Location:
    Norway
    Not sure where that reply is coming from, but it has been clear to me all along that you are a quite fundamental libertarian.
    This is really the core of our disagreement, as I hold a strong opinion that society will be worse off if there are no universal social regulations. That there will be much more poverty and suffering that the judicial law cannot prevent, that the general attitude in society will degenerate into egotism and harshness towards the fellow man, where all who are suffering are generally perceived to have themselves to blame and deserves no help from anyone. The socialist regulation I speak of has the important role of teaching citizens from an early age that this is a society where we help and protect all members of the flock, and that will help form an imo healthy attitude among each and every citizens. Sure there will be deviations as you always point out, people who will still be unscrupulous, but in a completely unregulated economy, kindness towards the weak will in the long run develop into the deviations similarly to how it was during the feudal era.

    Point 1 is how it is in most of the world today, very few nations operate under the guidelines of point 2 and 3 even though some have a mixture of the points.
    Anecdote: Imo feudalism failed due to typical socialist notions among the people, the current system at the time had to compromise and evolve into a bit more liberal version and that was the start of capitalism, since the end of feudalism socialist notions continued to confront the new capitalist system (as the masses were still not happy and felt society still favored a minority in an unfair way), and many compromises had to be made along the path in the favour of the socialist notion until we reached typical contemporary systems that is an interesting mix between socialism and capitalism. Carl Marx made some excellent observations about the evolution of society, but I feel most people interpret him and his notions in an extreme manner. Strong worker unions are a product of socialism and I'm sure Marx would be proud to see how far socialism has come in certain countries today and proven many of his opinions right.
    Mhm, I've read some more and see that it is more a general prejudice that he had that I picked up on in the first few pages of the book. After reading some more I see that he isn't talking about socialism per say he is mostly making points on how fundamentalism is a bad thing with a focus on fundemantalist socialism and communism.
    I understand where he is coming from though, at the time he wrote that book there was a lot of outspoken "Utopian" socialist, in other words fundamentalists, even Marx distanced himself from the "Utopian" socialists..
    I dislike his way of tarnishing an entire political ism by considering all who speak in its name to be fundamentalist. One could easily imagine this guy defending feudalism with a very similar scientific approach, tone, arrogance, and prejudice if he had been born some centuries earlier. I'm sure that if Marx and Mises were in a discussion, Marx would not be given a chance to explain his own opinions because Mises would lecture Marx on what kind of opinions Marx have. Mises, in that book, gives off the impression of being a very difficult person to have a serious discussion with without him fixating on a couple of poorly formulated sentence that proves convenient (for Mises argument) to interpret completely literally.

    Marx did have some extreme opinions that came and went during his lifetime, he probably regretted the way he formulated his opinons sometimes too, as most outspoken firesouls (idealists) do, opinions that caused others to commit heinous acts; but there is little point in judging a person solely on that accord.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  18. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,587
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    My Father's words, "I didn't raise you to fail" being used to explain why he was not going to help me when I was about to lose the apartment for inability to pay rent certainly echoes in my mind when I heard this. This attitude is everywhere here. Who's willing to give when they are afraid of being the guy without tomorrow and when it takes money to make money?

    LOVE that term for that! Never heard it before but it makes sense.
     
  19. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    6,843
    Location:
    Norway
    It is a common term in norwegian "Ildsjel" directly translated.
    Ild → Fire
    Sjel → Soul
    I added the () because I know English speakers are not familiar with the term.
     
  20. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, there are mixed systems - but how can you understand the mixed systems if you haven't understood the (conceptually easier) pure forms?

    Switzerland?

    Yes, but as I pointed out the (current) USA is most certainly not a free economy. There's much less taxation in a free economy. And history shows (at least within a strongly christian society, as was common in the 19th century) that voluntary help is given to the poor, as long as people don't feel they have paid their share with high taxes. That's a real problem - people pay high taxes and think they have done their duty. With low taxes it might be different - as has been different in the past.

    The main problem I have with mixed systems is that I don't think they are stable - in the sense I pointed out recently. I think I've posted twice already about that - the government apportioning blame in an economic crisis with the power of the law unbalancing the system.

    Interesting. I have read somewhere that fires nowadays are a lot worse than in the past precisely because small fires are prevented so strongly. When a fire does break out, it's much worse with all the undergrowth.

    My main problem with this is that these moral failings are downsides of people in general, not just the rich. And in the end, this just makes the government stronger, because someone has to enforce rules that are not liked by everyone (if you thought everyone liked it, you wouldn't need these rules in the first place).

    No, I don't think so. If there ever was a system without fanatical support, it's feudalism. I think nobody really liked it, it just was a compromise with no one strong enough to end it for a long time. Can you really imagine fanatical support for feudalism (not the same thing as a powerful church, but indeed the feudal system of different lord ranks)? Wouldn't they rather pick a rank level they like, and support that (so either separatism or absolute monarchy)?
     

Share This Page