Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[DC0]

That is an extreme view and can hardly be claimed to be a fact; and that Russian saying is quite irrelevant.

Basic human nature dictates a person to find an easy way in life. If one can have enough only to cover his basic needs, he might well make this choice. If at the same time he sees that his proceeds will be taken away from him, he will double down on his choice to live on smallest income. And here society arrives to a problem of very low personal productivity.
"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability" simply doesn't work in real life. And it is immoral if it is mandatory.

And every socialist / communist regime has tried hard to change human nature. Mostly by killing millions deemed "incorrigible" and by "reeducating" remaining millions. All have failed.
And it leads to conclusion that socialists are very ignorant people. It takes really ignorant person to think that he/she knows better than other person what is the best way to live a life.
All people are different. Human nature is fluid. This is a key for survival. Person learns throughout his life, he changes his opinions and world views. It is said "If you wasn't socialist when you was young you have no heart. If you didn't become conservative when you grew up you have no brain".

Why would SEP, an international European organization that works with start up companies have any interest in lying about Nordic countries to make them look good in a European context?

Because it's task is to promote startup activities. Naturally, it advertises how fine it is to start innovating in EU. Not a complete lie, but advertisement

What disaster? Sweden has a pretty low crime rate if that's what you're getting at.

It became rape capital of the world.
Police is being assaulted with hand grenades and other explosives almost every month.
And no-go zones.

It's disastrous enough by my standards. Especially when compared to how it used to be.

The US is so indebted that it will have to declare bankruptcy to get out of it.

Yes, debt is a problem. And every other developed country is in the same or worst situation. As I wrote, politicians are crooks.

The widespread poverty within the population and the crime generated by it

Man, that's exactly the words used by soviet propaganda in USSR. When it described "how poor are struggling to survive there while here everybody enjoys fruits of honest communist labor".
And it's a common misconception. That humans are good and it is only environment that makes a person bad.
Scientific studies now possess overwhelming proof that it is anywhere from 60 to 90% genes that determine human behavior and overall results in life. In other words: it is nature, not nurture, which determines a person.
Thus the constant struggle between good and bad within each person. People used to say that each man is being tempted by devil constantly. Now science says it is genes that drive person to certain activities, while his conscience and conscientiousness struggle to keep him within socially accepted norms of behavior.

Discrimination exist everywhere

I hope we both use term discrimination as a derogatory treatment of a person based on defined only by nature characteristics of that person. Like segregation by race or sex. Like in some Arabic countries women are not allowed by law to drive a motor vehicle; or sit in a room next to men.
Now, apparently, such discrimination still exists only in some countries. In other countries, mostly in western civilization, such discrimination is not only punishable by law, but since long time ago is considered socially unacceptable behavior.

The alternative is usually worse, just look at the US health care system, compare it to the universal health care of Europe, and it should be real clear where the most people die due to a lack of health care.

It is immoral to make people pay other person's bills. It's a theft.
Now if people wish to pay other person's bills, that's called charity. And it used to be and still is a common practice in many countries.
I'll bring another example from Russia. We have many charity funds here, one particular is called "Gift a life". It specializes on cases, mostly kids, which have been abandoned by our universal healthcare system. Abandoned means either child is considered by medical bureaucrats "a hopeless case" and just thrown out of hospital or a child is in a waiting list. Normally, many children die while still sitting in a waiting list for treatment. But this fund has a pretty long success list. They saved lives by pooling donations and taking kinds for treatment to other countries.

Now, only uninformed or vile person will tell that "universal healthcare" system is better. Because every sufficiently informed person understands clear as sunny day: anything and everything government touches (tries to regulate) magically turns to s h-it.

I don't know the full story of the example you mentioned from UK

Apparently. Search for Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. These are heartbreaking stories.

The "Volvo Group" in 1999 decided to sell their car manufacturing branch called "Volvo Cars", not because of bankruptcy, to the american Ford Motor Company.

Yeah, officially you are right. Volvo Cars haven't called for bankruptcy. The sold it because they precisely tried to avoid calling for bankruptcy.
And yes, headquarters are still sitting in Sweden. Which doesn't mean that tax optimization mambo jumbo is not active. Frankly, I'm not interested in the details. I'm not writing Chinese are doing some shady job of tax evasion. Chinese Volvo Cars might be enjoying tax cuts or tax breaks provided by Swedish government. If you are interested in details, you are welcome to search for it.

but 'm not that afraid of the Chinese as you seem to be.

You must be at least concerned. If you care for the future of your children. Because you know, even if you are considered an ally of China at the moment, Chinese people have their own kids...

And that is a good thing, those who consume the most pays the most taxes

You either didn't understand the point, or pretend you didn't understand.
I have proven to you exactly the point indicated by journalist: it is poor people who pay majority of taxes in absolute figures. In any country. Simply because majority of people are considered "not rich" (middle class or poor).
There are many perspectives on tax subject.
If you look at a proportion of total income which is taken away as taxes, it is poor people who are robbed the most by indirect taxation. Because poor person spends 50% or more of his income on food. Which is taxed indirectly by VAT, import VAT, duties and levies.
If you look at the net taxed personal income (personal income taxes paid minus all subsidies received from government) than it is rich people who pay the most taxes.

If you are still not impressed you are just a mean person

Here's the conclusion you reach: Taxation is an unfair system that squeezes the poor and should be abolished because it is totally unfair to the poor.

Not exactly.
Precisely my conclusion is: taxation is theft.
Because it is immoral. Because it is based on deceit and lies. Because money collected this way are mostly wasted or used in a vile manner, like conducting wars in other countries.

​

I and many others on this forum use the word socialism in the trivial sense, not in the old fashioned strict definition

Oh. Please note I strongly oppose such attitude. I strongly believe that humans invented speech as "a vehicle of though", quoting a quote from C2C mod.
Speech was invented with intention to transfer information in the most concise and descriptive manner. Later speech was decorated by poets. Then defiled by sophists.
Still, it is imperative that people engaged in a dialogue use and understand terms exactly the same.
When it is as Russian proverb says "I told him about John, he told me about Jack", parties won't be able to have a meaningful conversation.

The human race was not intended

Oh really? That's quite a statement. Might be considered arrogant by some. And punishable for heresy by others.

I don't agree with you that collective projects like welfare should never be tried by humans, that it somehow was not intended by nature for humans to build civilization.

It seems you mix separate things in one pot here.
Nature intends to kill humans, like it does to any other life form. In order to survive, humans had to gang up and start cooperating.
Now, there are good and desirable projects which are attainable only with cooperative efforts.

But I strongly oppose idea that certain collective projects (like socialist society), which has been proven unsustainable by many examples (from different times, by different nations, different cultures, at different circumstances), must be tried again.
It's a fool's mistake to repeatedly step on rake only to be hit by it again.

Any cooperation is an attempt at being civilized.

Apparently, it depends on your understanding of term "civilized". I strongly support Ayn Rand's opinion: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

I'm not a darned encyclopedia, there is probably thousand of smaller medical discoveries within the Nordic countries in the last 70 years.

Oh, come on. You are not really saying that Nordic countries have made same or more advances in medical industry than USA, do you?

The fundamental factors for the number of scientists and scientific funding in a country is population, wealth and the inclination to focus on research. period.

Bull. Crap.
It is whether a customer will pay for any kind of scientific advance that determines if this advance will ever happen.

In USSR there were thousands (literally) research institutes. And they all were funded handsomely.
USSR was proud of it's sophisticated education system. Free and available for all, which in many factors was objectively better than American, for example.
For example, soviet education system took pride in teaching people to approach problems from different angles. Sort of a free thinking. Unlike western education system, which encourages to use known tools to solve known problems. If one tools doesn't work, try another. Western education is test based. While soviet was based on free style problem solving. It eventually led to downfall of soviet system, because it became apparent to soviet people that socialism/communism is unsustainable by design.

Anyway, you can't possible tell me that soviet technology was better of more sophisticated than western technology.

Because USSR had an extensive spy network, tasked to steal technologies from the West.
Because most Soviet inventions were invented following way. A group of engineers/scientists were gathered in a room with a blackboard. Blackboard had a cover on it. Cover was removed for a short period of time. And it revealed a formula, or a blueprint, of whatever scientific advance stolen from The West. Then this group of people was tasked to invent/draw similar or better.
And because every soviet non-military technology was a pile of s-h\it. It was a pile of cheap, inconvenient, hard-to-maintain crap. Telltale story is cars. Or refrigerators. Whatever, really.
And military soviet technology mostly relied on power to compensate lack of precision. Though it wan't always the case. And some specific instruments of war were brilliant designs, considering their purpose and circumstances.

The US is notorious for it, the medical insurance most have does not cover much.

And that's precisely the purpose. Because most people won't need most healthcare, because they are healthy.
If a person knows he will need medical attention (because of preexisting condition, for example) he is supposed to get prepared by stockpiling money. Or by purchasing more expensive insurance, which covers his specific case.
It is rational and expected behavior for a person to be responsible for himself. To take care of his own health. Live a healthy life.

And it is immoral to make innocent people pay for some moron who does drugs and gets infected with AIDS or Hepatitis in the process.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Anyone remember what the utility is that checks the art in a mod? If you can point to it I will also add it into the modder document so I can find it next time

 

[raxo2222]

Okay, can we lock Toffer and Thunderbrd in gulag for supporting communism, and DC0 and tmv in private prison for supporting corporatism and all four for derailing thread?


Something more chill:
Lets change those icons found in beginning of this thread:
And replace them with 13 icons, each representing one era:
Prehistoric/Ancient/Classical/Medieval/Renaissance/Industrial/Modern/Information/Nanotech/Transhuman/Cosmic/Galactic/Transcedant

Prehistoric - Old man, as it was so long ago.
Ancient - Egypt, its self explanatory.
Classical - Culture, because of Greek/Roman cultural legacy.
Medieval - King, as it was age of kings.
Renaissance - Science, as it was period of scientific revolution and exploration.
Industrial - Hammer, because industrial revolution and sudden increase of production.
Modern - Nuke, because Atomic Era had stuff like quantum physics, nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants.
Information - Computer, this era should be self-explanatory.
Nanotech - Scan, as we gain more and more understanding on things.
Transhuman - Great person, because humans can be technologically enhanced.
Galactic - Borg, because human descendants ARE one with technology in this era.
Cosmic - Cool, because civilization is too cool for any limitations.
Transcedant - Jesus, because total mastery over everything.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Still, it is imperative that people engaged in a dialogue use and understand terms exactly the same.

Then stop referring to socialism as if the term is synonymous with communism. It is not. It is a side of a coin where the government is the providing body rather than a private entity. A socialized service is an element of socialism. Most world Militaries are a great example, which is what the discussion began with. If socialism means public ownership of all property, then you're eliminating the entire world of gray zone between black and white. You admitted in a post that government MUST handle some services. If you would concede that point is false so as to uphold other statements you're making here, then you must then also admit that you are an anarchist that believes that no degree of government is positive and I think we can all admit that this model IS great until someone with power hunger takes full advantage of the vulnerability of that scenario. RE centuries of Chinese history showing many attempts to maintain stable states of Anarchy only to eventually fall to the latest dynastic dictatorship.

I can accept that you believe that all governmental employees are subject to corruption and that everything a government does is going to be crap, but from what I've seen, that problem is just as bad or worse when you see the corruption that exists in private enterprise. Either way, people are people and the structure of law is always going to be challenged to control and eliminate corruption. Government is the first layer upon which law applies, but is also where law is made, so it is indeed a challenge, regardless of what system is employed, social or private. The 'human condition' problem will always exist wherever extremes have become enabled and allowed and too much power has become centralized, be it in a select group within government, or within a select group of powerful oligarchs outside of government wielding their massive wealth influence to dictate policy decisions upon those governmental regulators they support.

Perhaps with the modern age of cyber connectivity, a new governmental structure more akin to original Greek democracy might become possible, at which point, more frequent applications of socialism within the system (NOT a complete lack of ownership right) will be less susceptible to corruption. In essence, the nation would become a company under control of the people, all with an equal share.

It is immoral to make people pay other person's bills. It's a theft.

I used to agree. The one thing that has made humanity such a survivable species is much less its intelligence and much more its cooperation. A human alone is one of the weakest and least survivable creatures in the animal kingdom, on average. Even back in more prehistorical eras. It is our cohesion and teamwork and specialization that makes us so powerful, community, interconnection and the will to support one another. To expect us all to support each other is somehow immoral? I find it immoral to suggest that we should be cast into social darwinism where the wealth we possess is the measure of our right to survive. The accumulation of wealth should be our ability to carve out more of what we WANT, but should not be tied to what we NEED.

Apparently, it depends on your understanding of term "civilized". I strongly support Ayn Rand's opinion: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

Yeah, I guess that would be a very core distinction. The older I get, the more I believe nobody should have anything to hide that is pure of heart and intent and their conscience is clean and if it isn't, then they are themselves benefited by community exposure. Darkness has a pretty tough time hiding in the light. I realize that this can also lead to great tyrannical control, but when what's good for the goose is good for the gander and our leaders are held to the same levels of exposure in a truly democratic system where the people have power rather than the elite wealthy few, we have nothing to be afraid of in community awareness of who we are.

I also believe we should all be striving to be understanding of the fact that our separation is just illusory to begin with and at the core we are all the same being living out his own creation, therefore we should be supportive of growth and change and the evolution of one another towards more 'pure' beings who can and would add more value to the community than they take from it. Some might call this an attitude of forgiveness but not necessarily acceptance.

Your assumption that man is inherently evil is deeply flawed. People CAN and DO grow and change and can do so in any direction. Sure we're all challenged by differing corruptions, all weaker towards one vice than another, but no vice exists except to challenge us to rise above it to show others that it can be done and that we can be better than what our more basal natures would tempt us to be. IMO, any other viewpoint is missing the entire point of life. Souls manifest to undergo these challenges and lessons and to learn to overcome them and even if we are defeated by them, we'll circle back around and work on it in another life.

The great insight for human beings to grasp here is that, just as cells of the body make up a larger whole, we are collectively ONE, that others, all others, matter as much as we do and that a world where everybody accepts this as a fact and seeks to make things better for all will be an amazing place, while a world that sees nothing but competition to survive, to get yours before someone else does, will be one of great suffering and constant hostility. Which world do we want?

Oh, come on. You are not really saying that Nordic countries have made same or more advances in medical industry than USA, do you?

I'd take a good look at the real value in those advances for the people. Most advances here in the US are achieving little but to help people obtain more side effects that need to be further supported by other medications and never actually cure a person, just maintain the disease they have in such a way that they don't go downhill. Diseases are too good a cash cow to really solve. And they make great excuses to create other problems for people to also solve with other 'solutions'. Putting profit ahead of quality of life as the goal to obtain leads to tremendous corruption and as a result, our massive investments into pharmaceutical research are mostly a complete waste of time and investment in the real picture of achieving honest advancements in real health. Sure, there's probably a lot of that taking place but much of it is being sat on because there's much less $ in really solving problems.

As you admit:

It is whether a customer will pay for any kind of scientific advance that determines if this advance will ever happen.

Of course this only applies when profit is the motive rather than the benefit of humanity.

it became apparent to soviet people that socialism/communism is unsustainable by design.

And you say we are falling prey to YOUR propaganda. lol. Who bit the apple here and from what grove was it grown I wonder. You have a Master's degree, which is to be respected for the effort it took to earn it, but you've apparently forgotten that institutes of higher learning are actually institutes of higher conditioning. You've been taught a lot of conclusions to support the direction your nation now wishes to go, which, btw, I think you can admit, is exactly the direction your own oligarchies wish to take you for their benefit rather than for the honest benefit of the people. It doesn't have to be that way. We don't have to keep falling for the arguments of the far right OR the far left. It's the balanced system between that respects the pros and cons of both methods and applies the proper tool to the proper application that succeeds the greatest. Otherwise, the US wouldn't be falling so dramatically behind so many of its contemporaries in so many ways.

The truth is, absolute socialism (aka communism) IS unsustainable by design. So is unchecked capitalism. Both systems fall to the same real problem, human corruption. Both must be protected against that by a strong set of legal structures and a culture that fosters a reverence for those structures such that they are held to be unbreachable. Our current government is doing everything in its power to cast aside nearly all the final bastions of those protections put in place to keep the whole system from falling into complete tyranny and it boggles the mind how many would support these abuses of power just so their 'tribe' can come out on top. Nobody can be above the law in a healthy civilization but we've almost completely lost that here now.

And it is immoral to make innocent people pay for some moron who does drugs and gets infected with AIDS or Hepatitis in the process.

Nobody is perfect and fostering the sense of responsibility for one another and for the well-being of one another strongly diminishes the frequency of people making these kinds of bad decisions to begin with. Therefore, the selfish mentality of this statement is something I find far more immoral itself.

 

[pepper2000]

I don't object to discussing political philosophy, but can I request that we move the conversation here? This thread is better used as discussion specifically of C2C ideas.

 

[Toffer90]

Spoiler Too long not to be in a spoiler. :

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability" simply doesn't work in real life. And it is immoral if it is mandatory.

That is a fundamental pillar of the Nordic model, we mostly don't agree about it being immoral.

It became rape capital of the world.
Police is being assaulted with hand grenades and other explosives almost every month.
And no-go zones.

The rape capital "award", or rather claim, was based on the amount of reported sexual offenses in Sweden, it includes sexual harrasment, indecent exposure, etc. as well as rape.
If the same crime is reported multiple times the Swedish police report it again every time as a common practice, which makes the statistic used contain many duplicates of the same crime, most other countries does not have this reporting practice within the police force. The threshold for filing a sexual crime accusation in Nordic countries are also very low compared to other countries.
The metoo movement may have been the prime cause for the increase in reported sexual crimes in Sweden.
Here's the statistic that the claim is based on. As you can see the number of reported rapes have not really soared.
The statistics on this particular field is difficult to compare internationally, due to national differences in recording practices, reporting rates and types of offences included in the categories.
In Sweden there is actually a relatively new law that states that sex without clear consent is rape even if there was no threats or use of force involved in the act.
This means that prosecutors does not need to prove violence or that the victim was in a vulnerable situation in order to establish rape. The law states that allowing a sexual act (as an in the heat of the moment event, or by not objecting to it) is not considered as giving consent to it.
Groping is actually classified as rape in Sweden by law. I'm painting a cultural picture, a mentality, that can explain some of the recent changes in that statistic too.

Regarding the murder statistic in Sweden, yeah it has increased slightly the last 15 years, but countries like Finland, Canada, UK, Germany still have more murders per 100 000 inhabitants than what Sweden has.

I agree that the grenade issue in Sweden is quite worrying, there is more gang activity in the country lately, and they have successfully smuggled in some heavy weaponry like ak47's and hand grenades.
Hopefully they'll manage to get it under control and that it will be remembered as a nasty phase. I believe they will manage this unless they keep taking in as many immigrants as they have up till now.

The no-go zones in Sweden is a myth, there are areas where ambulances and the police take extra caution when entering in the city of Malmö. There has been some sensationalist news articles about how the police feels unwelcome in a certain district there, but those articles makes it sound like the police presence there has been removed. I would think it rather is increased now but I don't know that for certain, it could be a little reduced too, depends on the response they have chosen I guess.

Why are we even talking about this, are you claiming that the minor crime wave in Sweden today would not be there if there was les taxation there?
Most countries with less taxation have worse crime than Sweden, and crime waves are to be expected in any and all countries now and again.

Yes, debt is a problem. And every other developed country is in the same or worst situation.

There is a lot of national debt around the world, true, but many countries are managing their debt way better than the US, the only exception in the west is Greece and Japan (I regard Japan as part of "the west") which is worse off than the US.
I'm no fan of living on debt, but most economist insist that it is good for growth and the economy.
The Nordic countries all have a debt they can manage, and they usually take those loans because they are convinced they will earn more from the investments they can do with that extra money than what will be lost in interest, Norway practically has a policy to always have national dept, as long as it is less than about 40% GDP, one could say it is part of the business model, I feel it's like playing with fire though.

Scientific studies now possess overwhelming proof that it is anywhere from 60 to 90% genes that determine human behavior and overall results in life. In other words: it is nature, not nurture, which determines a person.
Thus the constant struggle between good and bad within each person. People used to say that each man is being tempted by devil constantly. Now science says it is genes that drive person to certain activities, while his conscience and conscientiousness struggle to keep him within socially accepted norms of behavior.

You got any proof of that? Something to back up this claim?

I hope we both use term discrimination as a derogatory treatment of a person based on defined only by nature characteristics of that person.

I also include derogatory treatment based on stuff like, lifestyle choices, social class, mistakes made and paid for earlier in life, clothing, opinions, facial hair, etc.

Apparently. Search for Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. These are heartbreaking stories.

They are, I couldn't figure out why the doctors of that hospital decided to override the wish of Gard's parents about the hospital-transfer. There are some examples where it is right for the doctor to override the will of the parent's but this was probably not one of them.
The case of Alfie was similar, the doctors overrode the parents wish to keep the child on life support claiming it was unkind and inhumane to keep him on life support.
Without universal health care there are thousand of examples of people being forced to take loved ones off life support because they can't afford it, that is not much better imo.

Yeah, officially you are right. Volvo Cars haven't called for bankruptcy. The sold it because they precisely tried to avoid calling for bankruptcy.

You got any proof?

You must be at least concerned. If you care for the future of your children. Because you know, even if you are considered an ally of China at the moment, Chinese people have their own kids...

I've worried about overpopulation since I was a kid, it is the entire human race that worries me in that regard, not the Chinese in particular.

You either didn't understand the point, or pretend you didn't understand.
I have proven to you exactly the point indicated by journalist: it is poor people who pay majority of taxes in absolute figures. In any country. Simply because majority of people are considered "not rich" (middle class or poor).

Ok, then what is your point?
We have established that a rich individual pays more taxes than a poor individual, both in terms of % of income (unless there is flat or regressive income tax in the country) through the income tax, and absolute amount in terms of consumption tax.
Let's not forget all the other taxes like wealth tax, property tax, corporate taxes and so on that also mainly reduce the salaries for those who have more than others.

What are you arguing for or against? I though you said those that have more pay less tax than those that have less, and that this was the main flaw of any tax system. I really don't understand this logic, and I can't seem to make you understand why I think you are wrong.

If you look at a proportion of total income which is taken away as taxes, it is poor people who are robbed the most by indirect taxation. Because poor person spends 50% or more of his income on food. Which is taxed indirectly by VAT, import VAT, duties and levies.

Sure, people with low income will be less capable of saving the money they earn than those that have a bigger salary, but that's the way of the world unless all have equal salaries, even in a tax less society.

Precisely my conclusion is: taxation is theft.

We will have to agree to disagree on this, I consider it a duty to ones fellow citizens, to contribute a fair share of ones spoils to ones society.
I feel there is little point in discussing it any further, none of us will budge anyway.

Speech was invented with intention to transfer information in the most concise and descriptive manner. Later speech was decorated by poets. Then defiled by sophists.
Still, it is imperative that people engaged in a dialogue use and understand terms exactly the same.

Sophists are the worst. ^^
It is in my opinion more important that all engaged in dialogue are aware that there are countless accepted definitions of the more complex words, and that all shows interest in understanding others definitions and adapting to it for the sake of the dialogue.
Words that name ideologies have the least strict meaning of all the words, and should imo be vague for the sake of any dialogue that employs such words.
Sure, plan economy is a specific idea that fits into the scope of the ideology called socialism, but I draw the line at saying that the entire abstract ideology is something as specific as only meaning plan economy and nothing else. Capitalism doesn't only mean free market, fascism doesn't only mean dictatorship (or whatever), liberalism doesn't only mean... absolute personal freedom, etc.
It makes those words useless in a conversation.

Oh really? That's quite a statement. Might be considered arrogant by some. And punishable for heresy by others.

And impossible to disprove, which is why I used it to mock your claim that government was never intended to redistribute wealth.

In order to survive, humans had to gang up and start cooperating.

You have talked a bit about human nature earlier, I disagree and feel like making a counterpoint for it here.
There are quite a few studies on primates and pack animals in general that shows that it is in their nature to share food, even with those they consider their enemies or dislike, when food is scarce.
I don't know if there have been made quality studies invovling humans in such an experiment, but I'm quite sure it in most cases apply to humans too. Historically, in times of need, people tend to overcome their differences and make choices that may endanger ones own life through sharing scarce food, medicine or housing. On another note, it is not uncommon for people who visits poor countries to experience that the people there are very generous even though they know you got more than they may ever have.
I'm not so sure about your pessimistic view of human nature.

But I strongly oppose idea that certain collective projects (like socialist society), which has been proven unsustainable by many examples (from different times, by different nations, different cultures, at different circumstances), must be tried again.
It's a fool's mistake to repeatedly step on rake only to be hit by it again.

I don't disagree with you on that. But we should also show respect and tolerance towards countries that wants to try something similar through democratic means.
After Chavez's demise the sanctions against Venezuela became worse and worse for every year. Maduro is a fool imo and a stubborn one at that he has made many questionable moves, and he should have let democracy run its course without messing about with it in a way that gave the opposition potent ammunition regarding his legitimacy; he's but a flicker of shadow when compared to Chavez who actually imo quite a competent leader. Anyhow, back to my point, the sanctioning was uncalled for in the begging, it has only hurt the people of the country and given the opposition all that much more motivation at sabotaging both the democratic process and the economy however they could. Today it is hard to say whether the arguments that validates the continuation of these sanctions are caused by those sanctions or not. We should accept a peoples will and democracy, instead of being all manic about regime change all over the world. Sanctions has pretty much never worked, but we still insist on it being a very effective diplomatic tool, yes, effective at causing misery it is. I have a similar opinion regarding Iran even though the Iranian political ideology has zero similarity with my own views.

Oh, come on. You are not really saying that Nordic countries have made same or more advances in medical industry than USA, do you?

No, I'm trying to show that not all medical inventions used in Nordic hospitals were developed in the US. Norberg said it in the video, and I said it was not true, you asked for proof, and here we are.

Bull. Crap.
It is whether a customer will pay for any kind of scientific advance that determines if this advance will ever happen.

Exactly, that is funding, funding is dependent on absolute wealth, and population is absolutely tied to the absolute wealth of a country, the amount of well educated people is also tied to the population and to funding. Funding is extremely tied to the general inclination to focus on science within a country.

In USSR there were thousands (literally) research institutes. And they all were funded handsomely.
USSR was proud of it's sophisticated education system. Free and available for all, which in many factors was objectively better than American, for example.
For example, soviet education system took pride in teaching people to approach problems from different angles. Sort of a free thinking. Unlike western education system, which encourages to use known tools to solve known problems. If one tools doesn't work, try another. Western education is test based. While soviet was based on free style problem solving. It eventually led to downfall of soviet system, because it became apparent to soviet people that socialism/communism is unsustainable by design.

Anyway, you can't possible tell me that soviet technology was better of more sophisticated than western technology.

There were many interesting innovations made in the USSR, one should also keep in mind that they were scientifically isolated, was far poorer than the US, and focused more on pure research than on instant money making concepts, that focus difference doesn't create as many bestselling products as fast as the, type of focus that was more dominating in the US. The isolation meant that international success was an impossibility too, which makes it hard to compete on the international market which decides which product is a success or not.

They invented their own computer system, it is scientifically fascinating at least, it was quite different from what the west designed. USSR's early focus on IT education made the population there generally more computer literate than people in the west for a long time, might even still be the case.
3D holographics.
Many aircraft engines, some of which were superior to the engines made in the west for quite a while.
The first satellite.
Laser
Underwater welding, or rather welding in high pressure atmosphere in general.

I'm simply saying that the USSR wasn't completely un-inventive.

And that's precisely the purpose. Because most people won't need most healthcare, because they are healthy.
If a person knows he will need medical attention (because of preexisting condition, for example) he is supposed to get prepared by stockpiling money. Or by purchasing more expensive insurance, which covers his specific case.
It is rational and expected behavior for a person to be responsible for himself. To take care of his own health. Live a healthy life.

Most people will have unforeseen medical issues through their lifes, usually several times. It may very well come an the unconvenient time when the person has no surplus and is already indebted. Again, we will have to agree to disagree, this time regarding universal health care, you have your points and I have mine.

I don't object to discussing political philosophy, but can I request that we move the conversation here? This thread is better used as discussion specifically of C2C ideas.

Okay, makes sense, this was my last one here.

 

[Esfera]

The Soylent Green buildings should give a positive happiness bonus if "cannibalism worldview" is on, so cannibalism as a worldview isn't that bad at the mid-late/late game and all overall.

 

[Trantor]

like we can discard slavery with judge, we should be able to discard cannibalism and human sacrifise

 

[DC0]

I've replied to @Thunderbrd here.
And to @Toffer90 here.

 

[strategyonly]

how come if u trade "fir example" donkey, , u can get a mule worker etc???

 

[raxo2222]

how come if u trade "fir example" donkey, , u can get a mule worker etc???

If you have horse and (or just) donkey, then you can make mule workers.

 

[Schwarzbart]

Tore and Khomvoum both strength 11 hero are unlocked to early or are to strong in svn 10224 as I could build them both when the strongest other unit I could build are strength 5

 

[raxo2222]

Tore and Khomvoum both strength 11 hero are unlocked to early or are to strong in svn 10224 as I could build them both when the strongest other unit I could build are strength 5

Heroes are always stronger than other units in that timeframe.

 

[Schwarzbart]

That is true but more then 2x the strength compared to normal units, and 8 more strength to a other hero unit of the same time, sound kind of wrong.
Edit: Strength 11 hero sound to me more like early Ancient then Prehistoric hero.

 

[raxo2222]

That is true but more then 2x the strength compared to normal units, and 8 more strength to a other hero unit of the same time, sound kind of wrong.

It seems like Ritualism tech hero units are too weak - others have 11 strength.

It seems like hero unit strength is completely inconsistent when compared to their cost (cost is directly related to position in tech tree).

 

[strategyonly]

If you have horse and (or just) donkey, then you can make mule workers.

sorry word should have been "CAN'T" get mule workers .. . .

 

[raxo2222]

sorry word should have been "CAN'T" get mule workers .. . .

You need to build Mule Trainer - it needs Donkey Farm (needs Donkey in city vicinity) OR Herd - Donkey - buildable by subdued donkey or breeding pair of donkeys (tamed donkeys) units.

 

[strategyonly]

You need to build Mule Trainer - it needs Donkey Farm (needs Donkey in city vicinity) OR Herd - Donkey - buildable by subdued donkey or breeding pair of donkeys (tamed donkeys) units.

then whats the use of trading items from other civs, like donkey and wheat etc etc / /???

 

[raxo2222]

then whats the use of trading items from other civs, like donkey and wheat etc etc / /???

You can build certain buildings/units with them.
Just that sometimes there isn't direct path between resource and target just like ores.

Mule trainer needs donkey resource in addition to building requirements.

Can I see your save?

 

[strategyonly]

You can build certain buildings/units with them.
Just that sometimes there isn't direct path between resource and target just like ores.

Mule trainer needs donkey resource in addition to building requirements.

Can I see your save?

k