Missing Important Technologies

[Ouchgeddon]

Hey people, I'm starting a new thread titled "Totally Stupid Techs Discussion!"

You can guess what it's gonna be about, can't you.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Colonialism falls into the same category as eg Nationalism. It is a major 'advance' in human attitude towards society, with in this case enormous implications for the economy, as it generated the capital necessary for the Industrial Revolution.

Are you sure that you aren't the victims of prograganda - especially a little marxist one ?
Rational economical calculus are the base for Industrial Revolution - not colonialism !! Maybe colonialism was ( and in some forms still are ) usefull for boosting a mass-production society like today or, au contraîre - a extremely lavish oligarchy like in Roman Empire - but not for start ( first )Industrial Revolution !!

 

[Dinorius R.]

Interesting thread lah.

LaRo from Quebec nominated Celine Dion as a "tech" which contributes overall to national unhappiness. I nearly cacked myself when I read that. We must also include Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey and all the other wailing "divas" who can't decide which note to sing so they sing them all just in case.

The role of mass entertainment in general seems to be neglected in Civ III. Hollywood (or Bollywood if you're in India) generates massive amounts of money and has a huge impact on happiness and culture. After discovering Photography as a new tech, there could be the Hollywood Wonder representing the combined effect of the pop music industry and the movies. Doubles the effects of Entertainers and increases culture rating (or maybe it should have a propaganda effect, not sure). Cinema could be a building, adding to effects of theatres already built.

Fast food - MacDonalds, donuts and Coke - sadly a pretty big slice of the national economy these days, but what would it's effect be? An insidious boost to culture? A negative effect on national health? A significant worsening of pollution? Improved efficiency of the Police Station? All of the above? Is the Big Mac a modern wonder (a wonder that so many are sold but hardly any digested?).

I had better stop, I'm babbling...

.

 

[elfstorm]

Originally posted by Ribannah


All techs emerge from older techs. Colonialism falls into the same category as eg Nationalism. It is a major 'advance' in human attitude towards society, with in this case enormous implications for the economy, as it generated the capital necessary for the Industrial Revolution.

I didn't explain myself to well above. I meant more that Colonialism should be something that players would do, not research.

So if you set up colonies overseas to secure resources and trade, thats fine. But I don't think it should be a technology. As long as you have boats, harbours and settlers you can engage in colonialism.

 

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by Ribannah
All techs emerge from older techs. Colonialism falls into the same category as eg Nationalism. It is a major 'advance' in human attitude towards society, with in this case enormous implications for the economy, as it generated the capital necessary for the Industrial Revolution.

Exactly - and you can even argue that having "colonialism" is enough to procede to Indust'n, actual colonies are not necessary. During the height of the Spanish colonial expansion, for example, a lot of the resources and profits went to England, bringing in new capital long before they acquired their own colonies.

@ Mitiu Ioan - propaganda?! lol. Yes, my views of colonial history and industrialization are informed by Marxian (not marxist) analysis. And though you may disagree, the scholarship behind those analyses is very serious and no more propaganda than modernization theory is. And it is not to say that having colonies inevitably leads to industrialization, nor that one must have colonies to industrialize. Of course, once one civ discovers Industrialization, the others can skip colonialism (like Nigeria, the Asian tigers, etc, though with admittedly very different models of industrialization than the 18th century experiences). Nonetheless, HISTORICALLY (which is the only tech path the civ games try to model, understandably), the first industrialization experience, in England, involved materials (most notably cotton) aquired from either their own colonies or trade with powers that had them. What I'm getting at is the massive relocation of natural resources, specifically raw, unprocessed ones, to productive centres far from the territory where the resources are acquired. That, to me, is such a significant part of the first experiences in industrialization to warrant a tech like colonialism (though some would argue what I'm talking about is mercantilism). But i concede that an idea like "Rational economic calculus" (aka "economics" in civ2?) is also significant, and warrants a tech that is not just "banking".

 

[Ironikinit]

Marx falsified his research. See Paul Johnson's, Intellectuals, among others.

Normally I'd worry about being off-topic but this thread turned into a joke telling competition some time ago.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


Are you sure that you aren't the victims of prograganda - especially a little marxist one ?
Rational economical calculus are the base for Industrial Revolution - not colonialism !!

That is historically incorrect. Economics had a distinct influence on the course of Industrialization, by allowing large corporations to function efficiently, but it didn't start the revolution.

However, without Colonialism, it would have been an industrial evolution, as slow as the centuries that went before.

Apart from the natural resources, and the capital that was gained from the trade, Colonialism also brought Europe into contact with other civilizations, and they learned many things.
For instance, from the Iroquois the Dutch learned to mix crops, and because of this they were able to significantly reduce the number of people needed in agriculture, thereby tripling the merchant class which induced the Dutch Golden Age. Only after the other colonial powers followed suit, they could overtake the smaller Dutch civilization and find enough people for industrial work, too.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Park Ranger
@ Mitiu Ioan - propaganda?! lol. Yes, my views of colonial history and industrialization are informed by Marxian (not marxist) analysis.

I bet that in fact this are Hobson & Lenin based-analysis ...

And it is not to say that having colonies inevitably leads to industrialization, nor that one must have colonies to industrialize.

O.K. - that's right ...

Nonetheless, HISTORICALLY (which is the only tech path the civ games try to model, understandably), the first industrialization experience, in England, involved materials (most notably cotton) aquired from either their own colonies or trade with powers that had them.

O.K. - let's start with the definitions and historical aspects of term ...

Old colonies - like in Roman empire or Spanish colonies in South America - this was used especially for their gold, slaves and so on. But this products was used for a small oligarchy so this have little to do with "capitalism". And also "political role" is very important in this case.

Colonies of XIX century - their role was, according with marxist and post-marxist theroies ( even that Hobson wasn't marxist !! ) to be a market for industrial manufractured products from metropolis ... in orde to avoid a over-production crisis. So this avoid ( in theory at least ) the colonies to have their own industries ...

Actual situation - the modern mass-consumption society from West are in fact a very fragile and even non-rational economical one. This need supplies of cheap and large quantities of raw materials ... imagine for example what will happen if oil barril prices will be at 100 $ !!!
Third World countries is no longer significant as market, because developped countries trade almost 80% of their manufracturated good beetwen them. Even that some scolastic "liberal" books tell that "complete free global market" will also develop emergent economies ( you see the nuances ? No more third world countries ... ) - this is probably a desire and hard to imagine how will happen this way.

So colonies and also colonialism had a different role in historical times and there isn't a conclusive link beetwen this proccess and "industrialisation" - Japan in 1945 hadn't any colony at all !!

What I'm getting at is the massive relocation of natural resources, specifically raw, unprocessed ones, to productive centres far from the territory where the resources are acquired.

India and China in 1800 possesed the greatest textile and manufracturated industry - protectionism of England Empire ( impossed by force, of course ) ruined this industry and make more profitable to sell cotton instead of clothes ...

scris de Ribannah
However, without Colonialism, it would have been an industrial evolution, as slow as the centuries that went before

No true. Already the English oligarchy ( formed by old nobles and new enriched persons ) had aquired near 1800 a huge capital by deposesing the middle farmers of their lands and make the old farmland in terrain for sheep - and selling the wool - and so on ...
So this is the origin of Industrial Revolution ... at least in my opinion .

Regards,

P.S. : Excuse me my bad english ...

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Old colonies - like in Roman empire

The Roman Empire didn't have colonies in the sense of colonialism. They conquered neighbouring lands and added them to the empire as provinces.

or Spanish colonies in South America - this was used especially for their gold, slaves and so on.

Slaves were imported from Africa, usually bought from local kingdoms.

But this products was used for a small oligarchy so this have little to do with "capitalism".

On the contrary. It led to the prototype of the corporation (the Dutch East Indies Company, with other companies soon to follow) as well as stock exchanges (starting with Amsterdam).

Colonies of XIX century - their role was, according with marxist and post-marxist theroies ( even that Hobson wasn't marxist !! ) to be a market for industrial manufractured products from metropolis ... in orde to avoid a over-production crisis. So this avoid ( in theory at least ) the colonies to have their own industries ...

Again, no. First, the ships that sailed to the colonies in the 16th/17th century didn't go empty, they sold home products to the local population.
Second, industries were set up in the colonies. It was a free market so nobody feared overproduction.
And since labour was cheap in the colonies, often enough setting up the industry there was more profitable; internationals still do it today even
while they aren't our colonies anymore.

Actual situation - the modern mass-consumption society from West are in fact a very fragile and even non-rational economical one.

Huh?

This need supplies of cheap and large quantities of raw materials ... imagine for example what will happen if oil barril prices will be at 100 $ !!! ...

I can hardly wait for that to happen, so a certain part of the world will finally learn to care

Overlooking the nonsensical babble that follows ...

... Already the English had aquired near 1800 a huge capital ...

After almost two centuries of imported riches, I'm pretty sure they had.

by deposesing the middle farmers of their lands and make the old farmland in terrain for sheep - and selling the wool - and so on ...

That was nothing new. The same already happened during the entire middle ages (remember Robin Hood?), but no Industrial Revolution happened back then.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

O.K. - unfortunatelly english isn't my native language so I have difficulties to explain myself ...

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Roman Empire didn't have colonies in the sense of colonialism. They conquered neighbouring lands and added them to the empire as provinces.

Not necessary - or not from first time every time ...
But anyway - what is the differences - economically speaking - between this kind of ocupations and a colony like India for England ??

Slaves were imported from Africa, usually bought from local kingdoms.

After thousands of native Indians died in silver mines ...

On the contrary. It led to the prototype of the corporation (the Dutch East Indies Company, with other companies soon to follow) as well as stock exchanges (starting with Amsterdam).

Wait a minute !! That form of organisation existed from XII or XIII centuries in Northen Sea and Mediterana !!
Probably the sources aren't accesible - but I bet that the Greeks or Phoenicians did the same kind of commerce ? I must admit that I'm totally confused - this means "colonialism" for you ?? If no, what in fact means colonialism ???

Again, no. First, the ships that sailed to the colonies in the 16th/17th century didn't go empty, they sold home products to the local population.

Same as the Vikings did, the Arabs, the Chinese ... and this didn't start the Industrial Revolution ... or even something similar.
Again - this kind of commerce - with expensive goods and in small quantities was for a small oligarchy ...

Second, industries were set up in the colonies.

Really ? Hmmm - India population occupied in agriculture was 54% in 1810 and almost 80% in 1900 !!
The reality is that the English claim in defend "free commerce" in Europe - but put strongly protectionist measure against India and China merchandises ...

It was a free market so nobody feared overproduction.

Ooops !! And a overproduction crisis doesn't appear ussually on a "free market" ? Better said on a "laissez faire" one ...

And since labour was cheap in the colonies, often enough setting up the industry there was more profitable; internationals still do it today even while they aren't our colonies anymore.

Sorry - you're missinformed !!
Except mining, agriculture and eventually some very little "preparational" industries there wasn't almost no industry developed in colonial countries !!
Please give me a exemple "au contraire" ...

Today trend has a different mechanism.

After almost two centuries of imported riches, I'm pretty sure they had.

Tz, Tz, Tz ... the Chinese, the Arab and many other did the same.
"Imported riches" ? Hmmm ... they stole gold - good for money circulations - but not enough to start a "real" industry in that centuries !!

That was nothing new. The same already happened during the entire middle ages (remember Robin Hood?), but no Industrial Revolution happened back then.

Yes - but this time - for causes which I couldn't explain completely - this people was a excelent "reserve workers" for a borning industry !! Only a man with no land at all accepted to work for few pennies on hour, 12-13 or even more hours at day ...

Regards

 

[Park Ranger]

@Ribannah and Mitiu Ioan -

You guys are leaving me in the dust here, as I haven't kept up with the scholarship in industrialization and development theory since the early nineties. But to backtrack to the original thread, and the particular idea that interests at least the three of us:

What, exactly, can CIV3 do to reflect the complex process known as industrialization in terms of advances. I have always felt, since civ2, that something was missing to show the massive changes in economy, society, and polity that was exhibited by colonialism, and that this should be a prerequisite for the tech "industrialization".

That India and China had a textile industry before England raises a lot of questions: was this actually "industrial" production, as Adam Smith would describe it? I suspect it was much more labour-intensive than capital-intensive, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Because if it was labour intensive then I can't see how it discredits the notion of colonialism as being an historical precursor to industrialization.

But in either case, as Mitiu points out, protectionism was (and still is), very important in establishing fledling industries in industrializing nations, even considering the Asian experiences. I wish I could remember the name of the guy who did such an excellent job debunking the logic behind Structural Adjustment, because World Bank policies do a lot to prevent the very processes that worked for Europe (e.g. subsidized agriculture, protectionism). Sorry, this argument is very weak without support I know, I will do my best to provide references later (if anyone cares).

The best I can do for now, sadly, is continue to hold to the point that whatever England might have been able to do at home without colonies, the fact remains that colonies were very important to the emerging industrial economy. They had NO cotton, but it was textile factories, I understand, that led the way in industrialization. Maybe without cotton England would've found some other way, or maybe China would've industrialized on their own, with their own resources. But Sid Meier's games - all of the historical ones - don't go for "might-have-beens", at least in terms of alternate paths in "advances".

As far as Rome's colonies, well, that's already in the game, as I see it, in the worker command to "build colony" on luxury and SR squares. But I think we all agree that the "colonialism" of the 16th cent onwards involves something different. For now, I must leave but I'll part with this thought:

What DID the colonial experiences of England, Spain, the Netherlands, etc, mean to the development of those societies? Are the changes they brought about adequately reflected in CIV3? If not important to Industrialization, then what? I'm not satisfied with the mere addition of a happy citizen or two in my cities. That's something different, an ancient impetus to conquest and occupation of new land. My own academic and personal experiences in both Latin America and Africa have left an indelible sense of the massive changes (many, no, MOST of them painful), that modern colonialism brought to the societies that were colonized. If these colonies, however, were unimportant to the industrialization of the home countries, then why did it happen? Selfish profit of a few individuals? White man's burden? Well, something to chew on, I hope..

Sincere appreciation of the thought-provoking discussion - hope I'm keeping things on track just enough to justify posting in this thread.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Park Ranger
That India and China had a textile industry before England raises a lot of questions: was this actually "industrial" production, as Adam Smith would describe it? I suspect it was much more labour-intensive than capital-intensive, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Because if it was labour intensive then I can't see how it discredits the notion of colonialism as being an historical precursor to industrialization.

The main point of me is this :

The main starting point for Industrial Revolution was the micro-organizational facts. India, China as well as old "breslas" ( damn, I don't know the english term !! ) was small workshops which produce goods for a small and ussually well-known number of people. This workshops had a very rigurous way to work and only few innovations was introduced. The governement also impose suplimentary reglementations. In many cases this workshops produces many of its products for aristocracy or for wealth citizens at a almost fixed price. So this is the old style ... doesn't matter how many resources was pumped in from a outside colonies few improvements would appear in such a system.

Only "war economy" was open to inovations that times ... sad but true.

"Au contraire" - the cotton-made clothes in U.K. had very few reglementations - mainly concern of British Crown was in wool-made clothes. This give to the investor a good freedom to innovate !! And also - doesn't forget a very important facts - Arkwright for e.g. doesn't produced expensive products for Royal Courts, but cheap clothes for almost everyone !!

This mean - a big market, a good sense to innovate ( a better productivity means more profit ) and so on ...

In this phases colonies was usefull for :
- cheap resources to be pumped in to the system ( and boost the potential already existent );
- market for manufracturated goods.

So in my opinion Rational economical calculus - both from governement and economical agents - was at origin of Industrial Revolution .... despite some "leftist" propaganda - but not all of them ( Marx for example give a little role to colonies in functionality of capitalism of his time ... ).

Regards,

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Park Ranger
What, exactly, can CIV3 do to reflect the complex process known as industrialization in terms of advances.

Probably a solution will be to grow agricultural output to obtain bigger cities.

Look at population factor :
- in XVI century for e.g. a medium european city had something near 10 - 15.000 inhabitants;
- at the last XIX's the medium european city had a population to 200-300.000 !!

And also to enhance the 21 tiles when discovered a tech !!

If these colonies, however, were unimportant to the industrialization of the home countries, then why did it happen? Selfish profit of a few individuals? White man's burden? Well, something to chew on, I hope..

Honnestly - I belive the fact that XVIII century was a more "peacefull" one - comparing with the previous at least - had also a enormous impact on developing a peace industry ...

Regards

 

[Mapache]

Macchiavellism. Could replace Military Tradition.

Monotheism is misplaced. It came before Iron Working.

Alphabeth came after Writing. China hasn't researched it yet.

Refrigeration/Conservation of Food sounds good.

Some techs are missing advantages. What is Steel good for?
And the printing press only for Democracy?

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
But anyway - what is the differences - economically speaking - between this kind of ocupations and a colony like India for England ??

The lands added to the Roman Empire weren't robbed from their resources. In fact, as soon as the situation was 'pacified', the provincial citizens had basically the same rights as the citizens of Rome.

Wait a minute !! That form of organisation existed from XII or XIII centuries in Northen Sea and Mediterana !!

There were trade facilities and treaties between cities, but there was no form of combined means of the operational scale and the purpose of the later overseas trading companies.
The VOC (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie) was the first of these corporations. It was started in 1602 and lasted 2 centuries.

Probably the sources aren't accesible - but I bet that the Greeks or Phoenicians did the same kind of commerce ?

There are plenty of sources and no, they didn't. Greek and Phoenician traders didn't unite into corporations. Sometimes there were factors distributing some of the work, but that was it.

I must admit that I'm totally confused - this means "colonialism" for you ?? If no, what in fact means colonialism ???

Colonialism means remote settlements, for the sake of either (a) trade with the local pouplation and/or (b) exploitation of these territories, usually with disregard of local interests, human or otherwise.

Again - this kind of commerce - with expensive goods and in small quantities was for a small oligarchy ...

No. The scale was gigantic. The merchant class grew to 3 times its original size!

Really ? Hmmm - India population occupied in agriculture was 54% in 1810 and almost 80% in 1900 !!

I don't know these figures, somehow they sound wrong, but India was a somewhat different case as
this was more a military occupation than a proper colony. India, and certainly China, were Europe's competitors.

And a overproduction crisis doesn't appear ussually on a "free market" ? Better said on a "laissez faire" one ...

It does, frequently even. But (in most markets) the individual entrepeneur cannot influence it.

Except mining, agriculture and eventually some very little "preparational" industries there wasn't almost no industry developed in colonial countries !!
Please give me a exemple "au contraire" ...

Mining and agriculture were the major industries at the time, but add to that paper, clothing, shipyards, metalworks ....

"Imported riches" ? Hmmm ... they stole gold - good for money circulations - but not enough to start a "real" industry in that centuries !!

That's mostly Spain (gold and silver), but the riches were usually things like spice, tea, furs, silk (, bananas ) - things you see on the civ map.

Yes - but this time - for causes which I couldn't explain completely - this people was a excelent "reserve workers" for a borning industry !! Only a man with no land at all accepted to work for few pennies on hour, 12-13 or even more hours at day ...

So they were at all times, but before they just became serfs, sailors, outlaws or soldiers, resettled elsewhere or simply perished. But this time the situation was different: manual labor was in great demand in the manufacturing sector!