Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by raxo2222, Jun 12, 2017.
What a sad view of the world as competing "players". Civ is a game, humanity is not.
If group A plays the game of dominance, and group B deludes itself into thinking that there is no such game, then group B will inevitably lose.
And yes, group B is current Western civilization.
While most peoples on Earth keep growing in numbers, the white peoples are demographically in decline. This demographic suicide of the "hated white race" is regularly discussed by other peoples.
Muslims tend to be happy about it, and dream of a future annexation of Europe. As Khadaffi said: "We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." Some radical muslims even think that islamic terror attacks of the Osama Bin Laden type, are a strategic mistake, as an islamic victory over Europe through demograpic replacement is a certainty if the current course doesn't change, and terror attacks might increase European resistance to the islamic take-over of Europe.
Israeli's tend to have a mixed reaction. Some wonder what the hell is wrong with Europeans that they want to commit suicide. Others think that European demographic suicide is justice for centuries of persecution of Jews. Others worry that the more islamic Europe becomes, the more anti-Israel it will become.
David Yeagley, great-great-grandson of the famous Comanche leader Bad Eagle, however, speculated that at one point in history, white people were ahead so much of the rest of the world, they started to get bored due to a lack of competition. And as a result of that, the white peoples lost the Spark, the Will to survive, and are on a suicide course ever since.
And then there is Cultural Marxism, a political ideology that tries to hasten this suicide course of the white peoples through propaganda known as Political Correctness.
Meanwhile China/India are rising.
Don't forget, that far right may get traction and go full anti-immigrant policy.
Also there is global warming. This century will be interesing.
I feel very sorry for you is all I can say
Statistics doesn't support this idea. There are only 12 or so nations where population growth due to child birth are still well above replacement and they are all in Africa. Elsewhere population growth is mostly due to people living longer.
We (humans on Earth) passed "peak child" in 2003-2005 or so.
Well, thank you, I guess, although I don't understand why I deserve or need that.
Not entirely correct. This link (from the very comprehensive CIA world factbook) shows fertility level of countries:
To have a stable population (excluding migration) you need a fertility rate of 2,1 children/woman. Higher leads to population growth (in the long run), lower leads to population shrinkage (in the long run).
Of the 224 countries listed, 105 have a fertility rate of over 2,1 and thus have a growing native population. None of these countries are European. The highest pop growth countries tend to be in Africa.
EU average is 1.61 children born/woman (2016 est.) while world average is 2.42 children born/woman (2016 est.)
The stats I was using were from the UN but they said you need over 2.2 children/women for a stable population. That is enough to account for the difference. The figures were from 2016 also I think, but I have not been able to find the source again.
Just guessing here but given the proven link between education levels and lowered population rates, it makes sense that European/North American nations would generally be on a maintainance path rather than increasing population. Demographically, it's pretty clear Hispanics and Blacks are having much larger families much younger here. This is just obvious if you live in the US and I mean it not to be any kind of racist statement. Catholic white families and some other religious based families that preach to use no birth control whatsoever are quite large, but that's becoming less common.
Personally, I strongly feel that having 2 or less children is just responsibility at this point in time. Any more than that is just irresponsible, I don't care what race one happens to be a member of. Sadly, this means that the families that are more responsible than others are the ones that will fade from population based influence as the future marches onward generation after generation. Unfortunately we're probably going to devolve because of this... where generally only the UNwise among us breed, simply because it is UNwise to do so. This is not a good prospect for the effect of natural selection on humanity.
And this is exactly the problem (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy). Any "strategy" to solve this problem must be an ESS, otherwise the solution simply won't happen.
You can't stop people having more or less kids as economic realities develop
Please T-brd just stop.
You disagree huh? I would've thought this should be common perspective on such an overpopulated planet by now. Look around man... Earth is dying under our weight. This is a finite planet. Remember all those places you used to play as a kid... all developed now right? Where once was nature is gone, even in our own lifetimes.
We either look at it like I suggest or we eventually experience a mass death scenario or two or three or possibly complete extinction. We wouldn't be the first species to go that route. Nature will eventually remind us that it still rules us and can never be truly overcome. Isn't adopting a society wide opinion that we should depopulate for a bit the only humane solution?
Generally liberal, from almost any perspective, involves increasing government spending to provide social services.
In reality, some civics are stronger, and should be, but don't properly until a certain standard of economic and social development has been reached. Republic was tried several times in history but couldn't stick, and the current 1st world government models are very young when looking at history as a whole. As people have stated, republic and democracy don't work when there is a low level of education and/or a high level of crime. It seems the balancing to be done is certainly making some later civics stronger, but having there be much more significant penalties if base levels of education and crime (and health/disease?) are not maintained.
An example would be the Socialized Welfare civic. It has great bonuses over most of the previous ones, but if your cities started to get unhealthy or diseased, people would turn on the government for failing to provide. Double unhappiness (or more) for all the disease related buildings would certainly make that civic more challenging and balance the positive aspects.
Only if you mean "Americal liberal". European liberal means almost the exact opposite.
So can we have general level of crime and education change health/happines/yields output from civics?
Are you asking if civics can directly create an adjustment to the property rates in cities? Yes.
No you got it backward:
Civics yields, health and happines modifiers would depend on general level of properties.
For example with high crime and low education in biggest cities civics would lose most of their yeld bonus, and they would bring unhappiness and unhealthiness.
If education was high and crime was low, then civics would get boosted yelds and health/happiness bonus.
Education and crime can be weighted average by city size and would influence 2 new properties: competence and transparency, which in turn would modify food/production/commerce/science/culture/gold/espionage yields and health/happiness bonus.
That would mean players should keep eye on their largest cities or your civilization will suffer from dark age.
Could all be achieved by autobuildings that require various crim levels AND civics. Would be cracking open a can of worms on balance factors though.
So my suggestion would absolutely destroy balance?
No... it would complexify the attempt to achieve balance or the attempt later to try to determine if there IS balance or not. If you make the machine too complex, it becomes much harder to map out where the source of imbalances are coming from. Take for example a game where you find that you're suddenly screaming ahead on research, or an AI is, and you're trying to figure out why. When you look at their civics everything seems fine but it's not until much farther into evaluation that you find that there's too strong a research % modifier being established on an autobuilding that emerges in every city when the education level hits a certain point when a particular civic is in use. Try putting the expected frequency of that building's emergence and influence in the game to a chart!
We're having a hard enough time just balancing the core buildings and basic civic effects right now.
Separate names with a comma.