LS612 Concerns

[Azurian]

Ls612 can you list all of your concerns that you are experiencing with techs and content, so we can review and modify it if needed. Thanks in advance. I am all ears.

 

[ls612]

From a week or so ago on the Transhuman Era thread:

All of that in the last post gets to my two main concerns about the future eras, as well as the future of C2C.

The first one is that MrAzure, while being a great source of ideas, has been adding dozens of new techs without consulting anyone. Generally, we all try to propose our new ideas on the forums and discuss them before adding things. This is doubly true for major overhauls, such as been happening with the Tech tree. I understand that we are a "more is more" mod, and I like that. The issue is that we aren't an "anything goes" mod, and there needs to be mutual agreement and collaboration on things. That is why the Galactic Era discussion thread has been going on since last year, people have had new ideas and proposed them, and old ideas have gone by the wayside as new ones arose *cough Multi-maps*. Now, we have many dozens of new techs on the SVN, and any attempt to revise them will seem like an assault on someone else's hard work. That isn't good. We need to from now on discuss all of our ideas before adding them so that we can make sure that the best ideas make it in, and the poor ideas don't. This leads directly to my second concern.

C2C is now one of the 2 or 3 most popular mods on CivFanatics. With that, a lot of eyes will be on our mod, and I want as many people as possible to enjoy it. This is the other reason I started this whole discussion, is that I don't want to have 'wierd' sci-fi that will probably turn many people off. That is why I would veto things like Futuristic Theology, Soul Emulation, Homo Plantae, and other stuff that is similarily exotic or odd. There are plenty of more mainstream sci-fi ideas to give us very robust Transhuman and Galactic eras without going 'into the bushes' so to speak, on our ideas. Even if some of these things are possible in the future and meet DH's criteria of being a new technique or idea, I would still like to avoid using it. I would also like to avoid using stuff from Orion's Arm, unless they wrote back with permission, as that could lead to all sorts of legal issues we really don't want. I know that many will not like my opinions, but I think in the long run that staying more mainstream will help us reach the maximum possible audience and push C2C the farthest.

So, I think that this discussion will continue, but I want everyone to keep the two preceeding points in mind as we try to hash out what the Transhuman Era will look like.

 

[ls612]

The start of the discussion of what qualifies as a good tech

Beacuse it comes down to the fact that the Metamorphasis GPS is a quantitative advancement, not a qualitative one. Quantitative advancements should be buildings/units/improvements, not techs. Ditto with Terapixel Photography, that is simply the resolution getting bigger, not an actual qualitative advance in the science of photography. The list goes on, but I can't get to all of them right now.

And why not add that content under the Tech?



Well metamorphosis GPS is the Tech that enables:

Metamorphosis GPS (Project)
4-D Ocean Cartography (length, width, height, time)
Terapixel Photography
Drone Mothership
Citizen Barcodes
Orbital Telescope Array

Most of those are OK in terms of a gameplay perspective, it is just that they are probably better as units or buildings or civics, as opposed to techs.

Techs in my opinion should be qualitative advancements in the items and resources available to a civilization. Many of the things I listed are good in terms of the science behind them, but they aren't good as a tech in the civ 4 engine. For example, Next Generation GPS is a great idea for a Project or World Wonder which could give bonuses. However, the technology behind it would still be almost the same as today's GPS, it would just be smaller, faster, and/or more accurate.

Maybe that's just my philosophy on techs in civ, but I'll wait for Hydro to respond before continuing.

Edit: I just read your continuation, and would like to respond. Most of those I don't have a problem with on a "this isn't possible in reality" level, it is a "this is not what a tech in civ is" thing. All of those four examples are great as buildings, projects, and units respectively. They are however not good gameplay-wise as techs. That is my main point for most of those, although there are a few I take exception to on a technical or scientific basis.

Edit2: The ones I don't like on a technical or scientific or societal basis are now bolded.

Updated Cyber, and Nano Era Techs Schemas
See post 230.




Sorry but they all serve a specific purpose and have building/.civics/units/wonders/promotions/terrain and fit in their current era, and have been mentioned in science fiction or in scifi movies for that era, and Rightfuture (who has read like 700 future novels and loves the future) will probably agree. . What did you think the future was like? Look at the Nano Era..yeah it gets crazy..the Era after that..Luminal..whoah..then the big futuristic knockout at Solar era..and it gets extremely unrealisticly omg at Galactic and Dimension era..

For example Biomathematics, Artisan Firefighting, sophisitcated lasers, Specialized police, and more already exist!

Every tech is crucial for the next sets of techs to appear. Blue electromagnetic pulse is a real thing..look at Corning's A Day of Glass video..(sucks as an energy source but is the future of MRI)..Transonic Traffic means AI controllled 150 to 325 mph traffic..luminal organisms are bacteria that emit light and are created with gaia computing that can think..Soul Emulation is what the guy in the movie Avatar uses to control this alien body..intelligent pavement is real..its call solar roads..lanchpod jetpacks are currently being tested..Asymetrical architecture is currently being applied to buildings now..but in cyber era it becomes an epidemic..luna juristiction is the tech for moon governments and where you can build..(the moon is like the American colonies and Earth is england..)..

and so on..it may sound unrealistic but it really isnt..technology advances really really fast..

@MrAzure: First, understand I mean no offense by this. I think that some of your new techs are either too unrealistic/fantasy-esque, too specific, or too much of just a quantitative advance as opposed to a qualitative improvement. I would like for you to please remove the following techs.

• Next Generation GPS
• Biomathematics
• Artisan Firefighter
• Specialized Police
• Modular Armament
• Digitalized Fabrics
• Insecta Robotics
• Biodiversity Infomatics
• Liquid Materials (this one mostly just needs a rename)
• Sophisticated Lasers
• Metamorphosis GPS
• Blue Electromagnetic Pulse
• Intelligent Pavement
• Launchpod Jetpack
• Asymetrical Architecture
• Transonic Traffic
• Futuristic Theology
• Novus Chemistry
• Binary Legislation
• Animamaterials
• Creation Dogma
• Soul Emulation
• Luna Jurisdiction
• Picotechnology
• Luminal Organisms
• Binary Agriculture (growing microchips?!)
• Binary Pyscokinesis
• Essence Transistors

These all fall under one of the aforementioned categories, and I would like to see them gone. I like a whole lot of your work, but sometimes not everything is worth keeping in a specfic role/context.

 

[ls612]

And the opinions of others regarding my opinions and concerns

I'll chime in with what I think. I think a lot of these technologies desperately need renaming. The concepts are not bad, as far as I can tell. The problem is that the names are focusing far too much on specifics and not enough on fundamental underpinnings.

Example 1: Metamorphosis GPS. I think this is a really bad name. I would prefer (and am going to use myself, thanks to a modmod) Nanosatellite Network. The important thing is that you have created nanosatellites and put enough of them into orbit to create a far more capable satellite network than ever before. That you can then run a GPS system off of this is (to me) incidental, and almost obvious at this point in the game. Next Generation GPS has the same issue. I'd like something less application-focused.

Example 2: Insecta Robotics. From the Civilopedia text, this sounds like a brand name, which is a really bad idea for a tech name. I would suggest something simpler, like Microbots.

Example 3: "Relative" adjectives. One of my philosophies for tech naming is "Show, Don't Tell". With only 2-3 words, that means you really have to find the ideal adjective for a tech name. You need to show WHY this tech is different, and not just have us accept it. I do not like any of the tech names that start with Ancient, Modern, or Advanced, and I am trying to find better names for them (same modmod project). I think these techs need a better adjective:

• Artisan Firefighting (this makes absolutely no sense as a name)
• Contemporary Vehicles (Contemporary means "of its time" -- it sounds to me like an advertising word. It suggests big 1950's cars with fins.)
• First Responder Robotics (I get where you're going, but the adjectives need work)
• Sophisticated Lasers (WHY are they sophisticated? If you need to create a word, I would do so.)
• Specialized Police (again, why are they specialized? What are they specialized in?)
• Theoretical Physics (there has to be a better adjective for this)

There are more that I would like to see fixed, but these are the ones that really stick out.

I also have a very hard time buying some of the tech tree connections. I've already mentioned that I didn't see how Animalia Exoskeletons could be necessary for Skyroads, which is about directing aerial traffic. I think Blue Electromagnetic Pulse is trying to be more places than it needs to be (like Asymmetrical Architecture? Why?)

The techs I can see removing without losing any complexity are:

• Digitalized Fabrics (how is this different from Wearable Computers?)
• Intelligent Pavement (could probably be folded into Automated Urbanization)
• Launchpod Jetpack

I have to agree with ls612. Technologies are a technique or idea not a tool or minor change to a tool. This is a problem we have had in all eras and gets lots of discussion.

To get to the "final" tech tree it needs some one to write down the idea and links first before people can get the whole view of the era, and you are doing that well MrAzure. Now we need to start pulling your work apart and moving bits in, out and around. It will get worse as we begin to play these eras.

@MrAzure

After reading those wiki pages, I must say that I still stand by what I said - with a little better understanding at what you're getting at, but I still stand by what I said.

Affective Computing (as it's called on the wiki) is more of an ongoing study, not really a technology.
Evolutionary Algorithms is really just a double of machine learning - perhaps you should rename machine learning to Adaptive Computing. Coincidentally, Adaptive Computing would also incorporate the byproduct of Affective Computing.

Theoretical Physics, although a legitimate study, (and after seeing Vokarya wanting it's name changed) could probably be renamed to Imaginary Physics; Saying something is imaginary means otherworldly; not something common and not something that's (usually) made-up.

Aerodynamic Antigrav (misspelled on your sheet there) looks more like two different techs just mashed together. It should most likely just be deleted and anything in it moved to require the two other separate techs.

Oort Cloud Probes should be deleted and turned into a team project.

Chameleon Suit should be an infantry promo instead of a tech - it's basically just metamaterials and wearable electronics mashed into one.

Affinitybond Slavery sounds more like a slave trade company than a tech...

Liquid Metals would never come to fruition due to health violations (it's the reason mercury was banned from direct contact). As a general rule of chemistry, if it's a liquid state, then there WILL be floating particles and due to politics and bureaucracies, such a technology would be shunned like the plague.

EDIT:
@MarisellaB
Glad to see another joining the discussion, welcome!
The way you described wearable electronics is a common misconception - wearable electronics means to tailor the computers into fabrics and not to simply just place them on a helmet, etc.

 

[Koshling]

And the opinions of others regarding my opinions and concerns

My take (purely my opinion):

1) I agree that additions need full discussion over time. However, what better way to provide a vehicle for discussion than to have them in game where we can see how they appear in the pedia etc.? We have to accept that the eras beyond early transhuman are still very fluid and not in any way finalized. Arguably they should be omitted from release versions, but having them in SVN versions as a vehicle to discuss how they manifest in-context seems good to me.

2) 'Weird' is a viewpoint. It's the flip-side of 'imaginative' or 'radical'. Unless we restrict to dull techs (and remove things like slavery, many crimes, etc. on a similar basis, I would say) then it's always going to be the case that there will be some elements that don't sit well with some people's (moral, religious, cultural) world-view. If there is a broad consensus that either (a) a suggestion is regarded as weird/repulsive; or (b) that a significant minority feel that way, and the suggestion doesn't have a strong upside, such as not being conceptually represented in any other ways; then by all means let's agree to trim. However, there will be some examples (a religion based on mind-technology integrations say) which fall into the objectionable-to-some category, while being significant, technically plausible, and different enough concepts that they cannot easily be dropped without watering things down a lot.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm going to chime in with some similar sentiments to Koshling's statements.

I heard a great quote on Criminal Minds the other day:
"For those who believe, there is no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is possible."

My point is this: We, and everyone who plays C2C, all have our own ideas as to what is possible and not possible, what is likely and what is unlikely for the future of humanity. Some of us even differ greatly on what we believe about the present, and particularly about elements of history, such as the genesis of humanity itself.

I do not believe it is remotely possible to stay 'out of the bushes'. Because we all see differing paths and all live in differing world views. No future outlook could possibly eliminate the element of 'sci-fi' and it would be impossible for any true science fiction to eliminate the potential for disruption of the suspension of disbelief, which I think is the unsettling element being expressed.

My own views on the modern world have clearly been perceived as incredibly unrealistic to many but based on what I've researched, I feel is pretty convincing. I can accept any projected future, and all I ask is that it is made INTERESTING.

The most rational future outlook I've seen may have been presented in the movie 'AI'. There, we can clearly see a humanity that hasn't progressed all that much but their robotics and artificial intelligence development has taken on a life of its own, rapidly growing out of control while humans eventually succumb to their own destruction of Earth. But while some of these elements might be interesting, in general, most of it would NOT be.

Without a healthy dose of fantasy style thinking, we aren't going to present a very imaginative future setting. Without it being imaginative, it would be fairly boring. Personally, I feel that the future will present us with whatever we could not have possibly predicted, for that is how the divine storyteller tends to work, sending us not what was least possible, per se, but what was least considered. I doubt any projection, no matter how hard we work to try to legitimately and objectively predict, would be accurate.

So if the steps by which we project humanity gets to a point where it begins to experience a reality and worldview vastly viewed as impossible by today's standards is at least well rationalized, I'm not going to complain about a breakdown in my ability to suspend disbelief.

About a century ago, most people felt that putting a man on the moon would have been a laughable impossibility no matter how advanced technology may have gotten. Some still believe we never did. Often, until we can experience some things for ourselves, we will go on believing such experiences to be impossible.

 

[rightfuture]

All of that in the last post gets to my two main concerns about the future eras, as well as the future of C2C.

... Generally, we all try to propose our new ideas on the forums and discuss them before adding things. This is doubly true for major overhauls, such as been happening with the Tech tree. I understand that we are a "more is more" mod, and I like that. The issue is that we aren't an "anything goes" mod, and there needs to be mutual agreement and collaboration on things. That is why the Galactic Era discussion thread has been going on since last year, people have had new ideas and proposed them, and old ideas have gone by the wayside as new ones arose *cough Multi-maps*. Now, we have many dozens of new techs on the SVN, and any attempt to revise them will seem like an assault on someone else's hard work. That isn't good. We need to from now on discuss all of our ideas before adding them so that we can make sure that the best ideas make it in, and the poor ideas don't. This leads directly to my second concern.

C2C is now one of the 2 or 3 most popular mods on CivFanatics. With that, a lot of eyes will be on our mod, and I want as many people as possible to enjoy it. This is the other reason I started this whole discussion, is that I don't want to have 'wierd' sci-fi that will probably turn many people off. That is why I would veto things like Futuristic Theology, Soul Emulation, Homo Plantae, and other stuff that is similarily exotic or odd. There are plenty of more mainstream sci-fi ideas to give us very robust Transhuman and Galactic eras without going 'into the bushes' so to speak, on our ideas. Even if some of these things are possible in the future and meet DH's criteria of being a new technique or idea, I would still like to avoid using it. I would also like to avoid using stuff from Orion's Arm, unless they wrote back with permission, as that could lead to all sorts of legal issues we really don't want. I know that many will not like my opinions, but I think in the long run that staying more mainstream will help us reach the maximum possible audience and push C2C the farthest.

So, I think that this discussion will continue, but I want everyone to keep the two preceeding points in mind as we try to hash out what the Transhuman Era will look like.

I wholeheartedly agree, diversity of opinion is what is going to challenge C2C to be the best it can be!

The start of the discussion of what qualifies as a good tech

Quantitative advancements should be buildings/units/improvements, not techs.

I'll chime in with what I think. I think a lot of these technologies desperately need renaming. The concepts are not bad, as far as I can tell. The problem is that the names are focusing far too much on specifics and not enough on fundamental underpinnings.
...
"Relative" adjectives. One of my philosophies for tech naming is "Show, Don't Tell". With only 2-3 words, that means you really have to find the ideal adjective for a tech name. You need to show WHY this tech is different, and not just have us accept it. I do not like any of the tech names that start with Ancient, Modern, or Advanced, and I am trying to find better names for them (same modmod project). I think these techs need a better adjective:

Artisan Firefighting (this makes absolutely no sense as a name)
Contemporary Vehicles (Contemporary means "of its time" -- it sounds to me like an advertising word. It suggests big 1950's cars with fins.)
First Responder Robotics (I get where you're going, but the adjectives need work)
Sophisticated Lasers (WHY are they sophisticated? If you need to create a word, I would do so.)
Specialized Police (again, why are they specialized? What are they specialized in?)
Theoretical Physics (there has to be a better adjective for this)

There are more that I would like to see fixed, but these are the ones that really stick out.

I also have a very hard time buying some of the tech tree connections. ....

I have to agree with ls612. Technologies are a technique or idea not a tool or minor change to a tool. This is a problem we have had in all eras and gets lots of discussion....

I agree with these ideas.
I think it is important to be as careful with placing and justifying technologies as possible. It is good to have some basic rules in naming, and improving them. Speculating about the future is tough, and especially in the near future eras, exploring more 'fantastic' ideas should be limited so as not to alienate 'realism' oriented players. I think that ideas that break the 'sense of realism' but are popular should either be shifted into the future, to the degree they seem 'fantastic' or less plausible, moved to any alternate era, or made optional (like light-sabers, transporters, and gundams). This is not to say there is an more appropriate place for them in C2C.

The near future is very fluid, and possibilities of what could happen abound. That is why we should take care in making the near future plausible. I would like to play as many variations of the near-future as possible, to explore the possibilities that good science-fiction and the future brings.

My take (purely my opinion):

1) I agree that additions need full discussion over time. However, what better way to provide a vehicle for discussion than to have them in game where we can see how they appear in the pedia etc.? We have to accept that the eras beyond early transhuman are still very fluid and not in any way finalized. Arguably they should be omitted from release versions, but having them in SVN versions as a vehicle to discuss how they manifest in-context seems good to me.

2) 'Weird' is a viewpoint. It's the flip-side of 'imaginative' or 'radical'. Unless we restrict to dull techs (and remove things like slavery, many crimes, etc. on a similar basis, I would say) then it's always going to be the case that there will be some elements that don't sit well with some people's (moral, religious, cultural) world-view. If there is a broad consensus that either (a) a suggestion is regarded as weird/repulsive; or (b) that a significant minority feel that way, and the suggestion doesn't have a strong upside, such as not being conceptually represented in any other ways; then by all means let's agree to trim. However, there will be some examples (a religion based on mind-technology integrations say) which fall into the objectionable-to-some category, while being significant, technically plausible, and different enough concepts that they cannot easily be dropped without watering things down a lot.

2. Weird science / Fantasy. This is where being careful will pay off for C2C. I'm sure it will be a long term adjustment. Since much of future speculation and science fiction explores fantastic ideas as well, remember the Arthur C. Clarke quote " Any sufficiently advanced technology becomes indistinguishable from magic'. I am a fan of plausibility, but I am also a fan of imagination. Eventually anything could be possible. I prefered that C2C would err on the side of realism in the beginning, and after the plausible expansion of mankind into the galaxy there would be appropriate freedom, to expand on altering reality with more fantastic imagination. This way C2C will continue to appeal to a wider audience. Most science fiction roleplaying games, hard sci-fi movies, shows, and books stay in the realm of realism and C2C would do well to stay in it for a while. However most sci-fi ends there, and doesn't speculate well into the extended future as possibilities become diverse, and it is harder to pin down. This is where I think imagination takes over. Timing this balance correctly would probably keep both the realists and the explorers happy.

I think that alternate future era, could encompass alternate optional scenarios like aliens yes/no, and popular fantastic ideas in earlier times. Like what I develop space travel now or in 100 years. I do think that the future should be more fluid, and tech development variable in different games to make the future eras come out different every time. Maybe the aliens invade earth in modern times, maybe we only encounter them late in the galactic like in Isaac Asimov's classic "Foundation" book series (that will be a movie soon! Like Ender's Game!), maybe we never encounter them. Sometimes I prefer that it just be as consistently real as possible, other times I just want to see what-if. C2C could do with some variety in possibilities and progress. (maybe have variable/fixed tech development an option in the game).

Weird science is not tied to the future, as I have read some great stuff, from time travel developed by the Nazi's (Dean Koontz's excellent Lightning book) to nano-technology) gone wild in the 1990's (Dean Koontz's even more excellent Midnight). Mad scientists to God-like creation machines, I think we need to have options to explore "what if we developed this specific technology early or late?" I think that eventually we need to explore anachronism and options to vary alternate eras. (I can think of more than a dozen ways to implement the post-apocalyptic era: Peak Oil to zombies). I certainly want a chance to explore them in C2C.

I'm going to chime in with some similar sentiments to Koshling's statements.

I heard a great quote on Criminal Minds the other day:
"For those who believe, there is no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is possible."

My point is this: We, and everyone who plays C2C, all have our own ideas as to what is possible and not possible, what is likely and what is unlikely for the future of humanity. Some of us even differ greatly on what we believe about the present, and particularly about elements of history, such as the genesis of humanity itself.

I do not believe it is remotely possible to stay 'out of the bushes'. Because we all see differing paths and all live in differing world views. No future outlook could possibly eliminate the element of 'sci-fi' and it would be impossible for any true science fiction to eliminate the potential for disruption of the suspension of disbelief, which I think is the unsettling element being expressed.

My own views on the modern world have clearly been perceived as incredibly unrealistic to many but based on what I've researched, I feel is pretty convincing. I can accept any projected future, and all I ask is that it is made INTERESTING.

The most rational future outlook I've seen may have been presented in the movie 'AI'. There, we can clearly see a humanity that hasn't progressed all that much but their robotics and artificial intelligence development has taken on a life of its own, rapidly growing out of control while humans eventually succumb to their own destruction of Earth. But while some of these elements might be interesting, in general, most of it would NOT be.

Without a healthy dose of fantasy style thinking, we aren't going to present a very imaginative future setting. Without it being imaginative, it would be fairly boring. Personally, I feel that the future will present us with whatever we could not have possibly predicted, for that is how the divine storyteller tends to work, sending us not what was least possible, per se, but what was least considered. I doubt any projection, no matter how hard we work to try to legitimately and objectively predict, would be accurate.

So if the steps by which we project humanity gets to a point where it begins to experience a reality and worldview vastly viewed as impossible by today's standards is at least well rationalized, I'm not going to complain about a breakdown in my ability to suspend disbelief.

About a century ago, most people felt that putting a man on the moon would have been a laughable impossibility no matter how advanced technology may have gotten. Some still believe we never did. Often, until we can experience some things for ourselves, we will go on believing such experiences to be impossible.

Interesting is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I think C2C should wander between a generic most possible future, an ideal one, and of course recovering and dealing with dystopia. Since history gives way to speculation gives way to extrapolation gives way to imagination, I think we have a lot to potentially explore. (let us not forget about alternate history exploration either.) C2C should remember to appeal to a wide audience (and optional include popular content) but it should also be it's own entity. Figuring out how to both both, keep it going, and growing, is what makes C2C exciting. We may not get in accurate that is why it would be great to have variety as well as a fixed future. Please don't fall into the pattern of one way, generic future, or too much fantasy. C2C would be simply amazing if it could explore alternate history, allows us to define the future, and explore what lies beyond!

.it may sound unrealistic but it really isnt..technology advances really really fast..

If that were the case we could have been on Mars by now! I think tech research variability, could make that possible. All in all, I love science and technology and would love to see it accelerate, and it very well may be doing that, just be careful not to alienate certain types of players in our rush to reach the C2C future!

I am not going to complain against suspending disbelief but I think it should be respected. Just remember that many players aren't as open-minded or progressive as we are. No matter what, a lot of what we believe in today like superstition, the earth is the center of the universe, The earth is flat, "I" am the center of the universe selfish nonsense that we used to believe in, or still do will be proven possible. Like it already has been done in history. Never believe that something is impossible, but make a good guess at what is probable. It would be nice to have galactic expansion before reality distortion. At some point suspending disbelief will cause people to give up on their C2C, some faster than others. Let's not stay in the bushes. Please strive to Keep C2C fresh and living. We want people to keep believing in C2C.

That said the ModTeam is what makes C2C possible. The C2C community and productive discussion is what will make even more probable. Together we simply will get more done.
There is something to be said for reaching and discovering what is beyond the close horizon and over in the next hill and valley..
Let's make the best possible decisions and reach for the stars! Will you be the one who disbelieves that C2C can reach Mars when all you aim for is the moon? I challenge everyone to see what is possible!
For the Lov of Civ!
Let's help Make Cavemen2Cosmos transcendant!

 

[ls612]

I have a couple other concerns about the mod, which I will talk about later. For now, I'll just say, let us end this pointless discussion about sexuality and move on, there is no valid gameplay reason to add more of it.

 

[Sarah Starlight]

this is what he changed..

Next Generation GPS
Artisan Firefighter
Specialized Police
Biodiversity Infomatics --> Biodiversity Catalog
Sophisticated Lasers -->Multispectrum Lasers
Metamorphosis GPS-->Nanosatellite Network
Blue Electromagnetic Pulse
Intelligent Pavement
Launchpod Jetpack ---> Personal Air Vehicles
Asymetrical Architecture
Transonic Traffic
Futuristic Theology
Picotechnology
Luminal Organisms

 

[Azurian]

i did most of the tech changes..

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11653985&postcount=402

 

[Azurian]

i did most of the tech changes..

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11653985&postcount=402

@Ls612

There are three Technologies I added i would like to review with you and see if they are not controversial.

-Synthetic Womb (REPLACED military cloning with this)
-Pheromone Biochemistry (REPLACED MACHINE SMELL WITH THIS)
-Designer Children

synthetic Womb

An artificial uterus (or synthetic womb) allow for extracorporeal pregnancy or extrauterine fetal incubation (EUFI)by growing an embryo or fetus outside of the body of a female organism that would normally internally carry the embryo or fetus to term. The first attempts to create an artificial uterus failed unitl Pheremone Biochemists discovered that a fetus has a pheremone connection to its mother, and with synthesized maternal phereomes the synthetic womb became a possibility.The most common application of a synthetic womb is to mass produce cloned organisms, specifically mammals.
An artificial uterus, as a replacement organ, could be used to assist women with damaged or diseased uteri to bring the fetus to term. This can potentially be performed as a switch from a natural uterus to an artificial uterus, thereby moving the threshold of fetal viability to a much earlier stage of pregnancy. In this sense, it can be regarded as a neonatal incubator with very extended functions. Also, it can potentially be used for initiation of fetal development.[Furthermore, it could avail for performing, for example, fetal surgery procedures at an early stage instead of having to postpone them until term of pregnancy.

An artificial uterus would have to provide nutrients and oxygen to nurture a fetus, as well as dispose of waste material. The scope of an artificial uterus (or "artificial uterus system" to emphasis a broader scope) may also include the interface serving the function otherwise provided by the placenta, an amniotic tank functioning as the amniotic sac, as well as an umbilical cord. A human may still supply nutrients and dispose of waste products if the artificial uterus is connected to her (or, potentially, him). Also, it may provide immune protection against diseases by passing of IgG antibodies to the embryo or fetus.

]Artificial supply and disposal have the potential advantage of allowing the fetus to develop in an environment that is not influenced by the presence of disease, environmental pollutants, alcohol, or drugs which a human may have in the circulatory system. Also, there is no risk of an immune reaction towards the embryo or fetus that could otherwise arise from insufficient gestational immune tolerance. Following are aspects of individual functions of an artificial supplier and disposer.

The main function of an amniotic tank would be to fill the function of the amniotic sac in physically protecting the embryo or fetus, optimally allowing it to move freely. It should also be able to maintain an optimal temperature. Lactated Ringer's solution can be used as a substitute for amniotic fluid.

There would be implications for the ongoing controversy regarding abortion, for example by potentially allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy very prematurely without ending the life of the fetus. Although the technology does not currently exist to raise an embryo from conception to full development outside of a human body, the possibility of such technology raises questions with respect to cloning as well. The elimination of the need for a living uterus would make cloning easier to carry out and harder for legal authorities to track. At the same time, the capacity to raise an unwanted fetus apart from the mother would allow the option of fetus adoption, but might raise concerns with respect to children born with no connection to a parent. Some pro-life groups argue that this would allow a father to have a choice in whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

Pheremone Biochemistry

Pheremone Biochemistry is one of the ealiest sciences to study the digital duplication of one of the five senses. A pheromone is a secreted or excreted chemical factor that triggers a social response in members of the same species. Pheremone Biochemistry is the applied science that main focus is to synthesize chemicals capable of acting outside the body of a secreting individual to impact the behavior of the receiving individual.

A branch of Pheremone Biochemistry is to create virtual smells for virtual reality worlds, smellovision, and another is to create machine noses in robots. Pheremone Marketing is the use of pheremones to target individuals to a specific product or service. There are several types of pheremones; alarm pheromones, food trail pheromones, sex pheromones, and many others that affect behavior or physiology. Their use among insects has been particularly well documented In addition, some vertebrates and plants communicate by using pheromones.

There are physical limits on the practical size of organisms employing pheromones, because at small sizes pheromone diffuses away from the source organism faster than it can be produced, and a sensible concentration accumulates too slowly to be useful.

Designer Children

he term "designer children" refers to a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering and artifically gestated in a synthetic uterus or the uncommon practice of in vitro fertilization.Designer Children are divided into several classes based on their how much genome design they were selected to have ,( Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and a failed gamete being called Epsilon). In later decades with the introduction of Gene enhancement to the commercial market, Alpha Plus. Alpha Omega, and Alpha Polaris were introduced. Some nations have allowed Genpmoc Castes to be a centerpoint of theor societies, while others ban Designer Children.

The technical capacity to heritably modify the biology of mammals, available since the 1980s, has led to proposals to apply such methods to the biological improvement of humans. The term "designer baby" was originally derived from "designer clothing" and used pejoratively as implying commodification of children. More recently it has gained currency as a relatively neutral shorthand for such manipulations, which, as far as the public record is concerned, have yet to be implemented. Supporters of designer baby technology include liberal technophiles, libertarians, and transhumanists, who variously believe in a moral imperative to improve society by improving the health, intelligence or physical capability of individuals, or in the right of individuals over the disposition of their own bodies and those of their unborn children.

Opponents of the prospect of designer babies include those who object to experimentation on human embryos, either because they reject abortion, which would be an inevitable consequence of some designer baby attempts, or because they oppose experimentation on humans in the absence of informed consent. Some have projected a dystopia in which a race of superior humans look down on those without genetic enhancements, though others have counselled accepting this vision of the future. If genetic manipulation could successfully prevent diseases and disabilities, some have anticipated that discrimination against those with disabilities would greatly rise. It has also been suggested that genetic engineering could have deleterious effects on the human gene pool.

Genetic modification is widely believed to be potentially capable of affecting the full range of biological traits, from gender to susceptibility to disease, and eventually appearance, personality, and even IQ. Such broad claims for the efficacy of genetic manipulation have been disputed, however. Nonetheless, the perceived desirability of genetic modification technology has led to controversies concerning the price of such procedures and its ability to create a gap in society. The technology is fairly recent and as it develops is a very costly procedure. With only the wealthy being able to pay for the modification that will eliminate disease for their children and eventually choose to treat people with disabilities or diseases and those used to enhance healthy people.

They are particularly wary of this technology's ability to lead to a new eugenics where individuals are "bred" or designed to suit social preferences such as above average height, certain hair color, increased intelligence, or greater memory. Not only is the prospect of future generations of "better people" a metaphysical concern, but apprehension also arises from the possibility that such groups of people might become prejudiced against one another due to a feeling of lost common humanity with non-enhanced or differently-enhanced groups. Within journalistic coverage of the issue, as well as within the analysis of bioconservative critics, the issue of safety takes a secondary role to that of humanity, because it is thought that the ethical issue of safety can eventually be resolved by innovation and so should not be focused on due to its fallibility.

The so-called Frankenstein argument asserts that genetically engineering designer babies would compel us to think of each other as products or devices rather than human individuals.The genetic modification of humans can pose an ethical debate about the rights of the baby. One side of this issue is that the fetus should be free to not be genetically modified. Once the genetic modification of the fetus takes place then the baby is changed forever, there is no chance that the genetic modification completed prior to birth could ever be reversed. The opposing view to this is that the parents are the ones with the rights to their unborn child, so they should be able to have the option to decide their genetic code.

Despite the pejorative nature of the term "designer baby", a minority of bioethicists consider the notion of a designer baby, once the reprogenetic technology is shown to be safe, to be a responsible and justifiable application of parental procreative liberty. The usage of genetic engineering (amongst other techniques) on one's children is said to be defensible as procreative beneficence, the moral obligation of parents to try to give their children the healthiest, happiest lives possible.


Some futurists claim that it would put the human species on a path to participant evolution.It has also been argued that designer babies may have an important role as counter-acting an argued dysgenic trend. Initially this may be limited to wealthy couples, who may possibly travel abroad for the procedure if prohibited in their own country, and then gradually spread to increasingly larger groups.

EDIT:
I Deleted this Techs:

Next Generation GPS
Biomathematics
Artisan Firefighter
Specialized Police
Modular Armament
Metamorphosis GPS
Intelligent Pavement
Launchpod Jetpack
Asymetrical Architecture
Transonic Traffic
Ontological Engineering

I Renamed this:
Liquid Materials ---> Liquid Metals [ i can call it amphorus metals]
Insecta Robotics ----> Bugbots
Biodiversity Infomatics --->Biodoversity Geonomics
Sohisticated Lasers ----> Multiwavelength Lasers
Animalia Exoskeletons --> Animal Exoskeletons
Affective Algorithms--->Emotion Transistors
Microturbune---> Microgenerator
photovaltic glass--> Interactive glass
Metamorphosis GPS--> Nanosatellite Network
Biogenetic Warfare---> Genetic Warfare
Generation IV Nuclear --> clean Fission
First Responder Robotics --->Disaster Robots
Theoretical Physics-->Imaginary Physics (could use a better name)

+ and so many more..


No change:
Blue Electromagnetic Pulse ( i Can call it Electromagnetic Pulse)
Digitalized Fabrics ( I can call it Digitized Membrane)


Thanks for your advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :smile:

EDIt EDIT:

Is there any tech here that you may disagree with?

Spoiler :

 

[Azurian]

For the Cyber Era and beyond i think ill list 5-10 Techs for review at Tech Discussion at a time than the whole Era; its starts getting somewhat crazy, and the quality control will be better. Thanks again. =)

 

[Thunderbrd]

I might change the name of synthetic Womb to "Full-term Artificial Incubation". The rest of those I do like actually. Can't promise everyone will like them. But it seems to me its important to consider the impact of steps towards genetic engineering and artificial reality generation that these techs represent.

 

[Azurian]

I might change the name of synthetic Womb to "Full-term Artificial Incubation". The rest of those I do like actually. Can't promise everyone will like them. But it seems to me its important to consider the impact of steps towards genetic engineering and artificial reality generation that these techs represent.

Well ls612 is going to help generalize some of the techs and trim down the number of techs and attempt to merge some.

Full-term Artificial Incubation might be better as Embryo Incubator?

I admit i know alot more about space techs than these techs; i want c2c to have elements of these 4x space games:

Alpha Centari
Galactic Civilizations 2 Ultimate
Sword of the Stars 1 ultimate
Armada 2526 Gold
Star Ruler
Sins of a Solar Empire: distant Stars

 

[Thunderbrd]

Embryo Incubation

sounds about right... just seems a bit more pc that way I think.

 

[draz]

@MrAzure:

You might also want to check out the recently released Endless Space as well if you need more ideas, it has a pretty extensive and well-realized tech tree:

http://i.imgur.com/XAlJx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XULLC.jpg

 

[Azurian]

@MrAzure:

You might also want to check out the recently released Endless Space as well if you need more ideas, it has a pretty extensive and well-realized tech tree:

http://i.imgur.com/XAlJx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XULLC.jpg

oh my god! just did an impulse buy, this game looks really good from first impression
http://store.steampowered.com/app/208140/

I checked out this review from my favorite site Space Sector
http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2012/07/endless-space-review/

Embryo Incubation

sounds about right... just seems a bit more pc that way I think.

pc? Yeah space 4x will be really easy for me (Solar,interstellar, galactic,dimension),
its the digital-nano thats hard because there are like no games about those eras except for mechwarrior and supreme comander

ls612 is going to attempt to merge those 150 techs to around 80-100 (my prediction)