No Korean Civs??

[Heroes]

A civ in game is not necessarily a civ historians talk about. For example, in his great book "a study of history", Arnold Toynbee listed some 16 (right?) civs of the entire human history, and most of them are already dead (like Egyptian, Greek, and Roman). The only living ones, according to him, are western civ (son of Greek-Roman civ, the most powerful one at that time, but met some deep problems), Chinese civ, Islamic civ, and Indian civ (do I forget some one?). Every civ is respectable, and the future of mankind relies on communication and understanding among civs, -- I think Toynbee made a pearl of wisdom here.

Obviously, there were a lot more countries than civs. That's because many nations belong to a same civ. It's funny to say France and Germany as different civs, from the point of view of a historian.

I (as a Chinese) respect and love Korean people for kimchi p), preserving historical traditions, fighting dictatorship for democracy (China has a lot to learn from Korea at this aspect), and especially, the common experience in fighting against Japanese invasion (Ming Dynasty and Republic of China). Having said that, I hope it's not offensive to state that Korea is basically a branch of Chinese civ, in the sense that the dominant ideaology in Korean history is Confucianism. This is not to say the achivements of Korean people are insignificant by any means. It's just that a civ is much more than living styles, social sytems, and scientific achievements.

What fundamentally makes sth a civ is a grand picture of philosophy: world view and life view. Two nations can be in war with each others, but as long as they believe there is one god called Yahveh, they belong to the same Western civ. If the god is called Allah, that's Islamic civ. If people don't care much about religion, but care a lot about social levels, ancestor worship, history recording, and education, that's Confucian civ.

However, for sake of play, the game has to include many nations as different civs. If there is no USA available, maybe its market will be much less, -- although it's hilarious to see Washington with only 2 techs at 4000 BC! Well, it doesn't need to reflect closely these nations' relative importance in human history. You always have the possibility to modify it.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

Yes. It is an act of free will, as much as any other. Each individual is affected by their environment, but that does not eliminate their ability to make choices and to determine a course of action different from other people who lived or live in very similar circumstances.

And how exactly do you exact your free will / free choice if you do not know the alternatives? This can be easily answered for people who lived in the past: They did not know of today's possibilities, so they quite obviously didn't have that choice. However: Do we of today know how it was / would be without all those achievements? Because only then the choice would be "free".

If you want to argue that we have absolutely no free will, that we are totally products of our environment, then that is a very long discussion in and of itself.

Ah, no, a discussion of free will or even determinism was not my intention. It's just that I think it's a bit too easy to point to some things we take as normal and have no CLUE of how it would be without them and say: "It's better today because we have those".

I believe you mean that to be free we must have choices, not make choices. But regardless, I would argue that we do have choices, and that we do make choices.

Certainly we do (That is, IF one doesn't accept determinism... but that would be a VERY different discussion). The question here is whether we have a valid scale to measure up the alternatives. That's what I doubt. And, to get a tiny bit back on topic: We tend to measure former civilisations by today's standards - AS IF we had a means to measure the amount of sheer happiness people had. I say: We don't. And therefore we shouldn't be as quick as we tend to be in judging cultures as superior or inferior.

As far as imagination goes: I can imagine not having a Dell computer. In fact I did not always have one. Not having a computer is not something that I have to imagine.

That's not quite the quality of imagination necessary here. You can only imagine how it is not to have a Dell computer in a world where Dell computers exist and maybe some of your friends have some, too. I honestly couldn't say I am happier with my 2 GHz PC today than I was with my 1MHz C64. Looking at the fun we had with some of those games, I sometimes think it may be the other way round... to take the next step, it would be questionable if I, 23 years ago, was happier with my C64 than my father had been in post-war Germany with his first pocket knife. And so on. This is just one example how technical advancement does not lead to an increase in FELT happiness.

There are other such "niceties of civilization" that I have not always had that I currently have. And there are some that I don't have that I want.

Yes. Because you know they are available. And because there are others who have them. There could be the most astonishing invention in the world, due in 2020, and yet you don't miss it any second - now. There is no real desire because you don't know what you're missing.

And there will be many developed in the future that I will want, and I wager you'll want some of them to.

Sure. We're both children of capitalism and it's our (manipulated) desires that make the stock markets pulsate.

We will make choices to seek out those "niceties of civilization" that we prefer and will choose not to work hard to get those that we don't care about.

Yes. And your point is...?

I agree. There is no objective measure of bliss. That does not mean that people are not better off today than they were in the Stone Ages.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. But, and that is my whole point, it doesn't necessarily mean the opposite, either. It is the mantra of the modern world that everything must get better, faster, bigger... This was not always so. Our ancestors lived in a cyclical world, were all things repeated themselves. And if you look closely, you can get glimpses of that feeling: In fairy tales. In fantasy novels. Why is The Shire (from LOTR) such a desirebale place for so many people? Because it does NOT change. Because there is NO "bigger, faster...". Because, deep inside, many people feel a desire to escape that endless running after the latest fashion, the fastest computer, the flashiest car.

Just because people are not any happier does not mean that they are not better off. It is impossible to be well off (in a wordly sense) when one is dead. In the Stone Ages people lived short lives.

For one, this is a matter of philosophy. It is my opinion that death might be a favourable choice when compared to certain ways of living. People who commit suicide quite impressively document this. So, no, from my point of view merely being alive is NOT automatically "being better off" than being dead. And then: Which criterion would YOU choose if not happiness?

Yes. People have problems. But more people in the world today "suffer" from being overweight than suffer from starvation. Hell of a nice problem to have, compared to the Stone Ages.

I guess you are not heavily overweight, otherwise you might have picked a diferent example. What you fail to notice is that people feeling miserable don't really care for absolutes. To use a picture: When someone tears off your right hand, you hurt not a bit less than if he had pulled of the arm. You misery stems from YOUR RELATIVE feelings.

If you assume that I have no free will and am solely a product of my environment, then yes, I "like" those things because I do not know otherwise. I think the notion that humans have no free will and are totally products of their environment is rubbish. But I know of people who agree with you.

So I'm a fool like others you know? Thank you very much

But, no, I do not think that we don't have a free will (and IF we didn't have any, it wouldn't matter anyway, so discussing determinism is the most redundant topic ever - for all practical effect, just assume there was something like a "free will"). It's just that we haven't got a free choice in many respects since we don't really know the alternatives. Add to that a surrounding that makes us believe every single day that we "need" the newest cell phone, that we "need" to spend our holidays on a très chicque carribbean island, that we "need" to buy a new car after 3 years... etc. (Or game companies that assure us we "need" an even faster computer in order to play a suboptimally programmed strategy game... or that we "need" T&L effects to display unit icons in it).

I don't know how you managed to tie free will into a conversation about barbarians, but somehow you managed it.

Nope. You did. My point was "free choice". As far as "free will" is concerned, well, at least there we seem to agree

 

[Jimbo30]

And how exactly do you exact your free will / free choice if you do not know the alternatives? This can be easily answered for people who lived in the past: They did not know of today's possibilities, so they quite obviously didn't have that choice. However: Do we of today know how it was / would be without all those achievements? Because only then the choice would be "free".

Right there is the fundamental difference between modern humanity and past humanity.

To the Romans, flying was something birds did and they didn't even attempt to allow humans to do it.

Nowadays, humanity is able to envisage the future, and plan for it and - even better - reach for it. It never was before.

*That* is what I call progress.

 

[jar2574]

jar2574
"Better" products in what way? McDonald's is better than beef from a cow your community raised on a local farm? Tyson better than a chicken raised by your family? What makes these products better? Better because they're faster? What's better about faster? That just means you're done sooner and you have to go back to work.

McDonald's tastes good to me and is cheap. Lots of other people like it to. That's why it's so big.

Capitalism in fact does not make products better. It makes them faster and it makes more of them, but that's only valuable if your goal is to minimize quality while maximizing pollution, labor exploitation, and profit. Is profit a "good thing?" Well, it can certainly be used to make more things faster... again, only a desirable goal if you see the unchecked indefinite expansion of corporate and industrial interests and ownership in the world as a "good thing" for mankind in general. I certainly do not.

People competing in an open and free market produce better products.

This is the great myth of the modern society -- that our luxuries and conveniences make life so much more enjoyable and leisurely. It's patently false. Modern workers have significantly less free time than even their recent generational predecessors, let alone less "advanced" societies. We work longer hours, spend less time nurturing our families and communicating with friends, participate less in our communities and neighborhoods, participate less in local politics, etc. These are all well known phenomenon.

I did not know that there was an objective way to measure happiness. Could you please offer your formula?

People work longer hours. But there is more to buy with the money they earn. Like medicine. TVs. Computers. If you don't want to buy these things you can stop working. Or work at McDonald's for 40 hours per week and get by just fine without any material things.

You "like" these things, certainly; could you not imagine also "liking" a day spent hunting Buffalo with your father and brother? Fresh air, exercise, the thrill of a hunt and satisfaction of feeding your family; at night you would come home to a village that welcomes you and the game you bring (when was the last time one of you were welcomed home by your entire community, and congratulated on your day's pay?). You clean your game, you tend your simple home, and then spend your evening smoking peyote and talking with your friends. Then you have sex and go to sleep..

I like to hunt. I don't like to hunt for fear of starving. I like to have sex also. I can do that without hunting for fear of starving. I do not smoke peyote. I do not imagine that I would like it. But I suppose I could be wrong.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like Google and all, but if faced with the choice between my "modern" life of working 60-70 hours a week in front of a flickering screen, living 400 miles away from my family whom I see 3-4 times a year, and really only living anything resembling a "life" two days out of the week and a life spent hunting, fishing and smoking dope with my family and friends?

Stop working 60-70 hours per week in front of a flickering screen. Move to where your family lives. Hunt, fish, smoke dope with them.

Personally I think the choice is pretty simple.

I agree. We choose our lives. You have chosen to live in a "modern" way. You could work at a job for 40 hours per week and have many more creature comforts than Stone Age people. You chose not to. And you have a computer.

If you honestly believe that the pursuit of profit runs parallel to the "best interests of mankind" than I imagine you are already too far gone for any kind of reasonable discussion..

The pursuit of profit via capitalism has indirectly resulted in many benefits for mankind.

I don't think I really even need to say anything about Tobacco Companies, other than to mention their existence.

Oil companies? Have they been furthering the best interests of mankind lately? How? With their campaigns to cut funding for alternative fuel research? The pressure they put on the government to allow them to drill in more and more remote locations, threatening ecosystems in every country on the planet? Their propaganda campaigns against alternative fuel cars? Oh, I know, it's the way in which they further our dependence on imported foreign oil, hence leaving the crux of our economy in the hands of foreign leaders? That's in mankind's best interest, right?

I like cars. Many other people do to. Cars need gas to run. Tell people to stop buying cars. Tell them all these problems. They won't listen. People like cars.

I don't smoke. Some people do. They need tobacco companies to give them cigarrettes. Tell people to stop smoking.

WAL*MART? The pursuit of profit sure helped them destroy the livelihood of retailers around the nation, replacing their family-owned businesses with low-quality garbage and family business with minimum wage labor.

Tell people to stop shopping at Wal Mart. They won't listen though. People like stuff. They like cheap stuff even better.

Pharmaceutical companies are out for profit (not to make drugs that help people). For this reason they do things like rush drugs to market which have not been thoroughly tested. Vioxx, Lipitor, Zyprexa, Bextra, Wellbutrin, Zoloft, Paxcil, Ritalin... any of these names ringing any bells with you? These are drugs which do far more harm than good. Why did they find their way to store shelves? Well, because it's hard to make a profit unless they're there, right?

Many people would disagree with your assessment of the merits of those drugs. Regardless, many drugs do help people live longer, happier lives. And most of those drugs are produced by pharmaceutical companies.

Tell people to stop buying drugs from these companies. They won't listen. People like to feel good. They like Viagra. They like Ritalin.

How about off-shoring? Certainly the pursuit of profit justifies this, right? It's in the best interests of mankind that the entire manufacturing industry has been moved overseas, employing workers in countries whose weak governments and lack of organized labor allow exploitation on a scale not seen since the Industrial Revolution -- not to mention moving into countries without ecological protection legislation, so they may return to polluting as much as profit dictates necessary, regardless of its effect on the local ecology? This is in our best interest too?

Why are the interests of Americans more important to you than the interests of other people in the world who can do American jobs? Tell the people they are being exploited. Maybe they will quit their jobs. Or maybe they will take the 50 cent pay raise and tell you to go back to America.

Slave labor in African diamond mines, employing boys and girls as young as 10 so you can buy an engagement ring for your girlfriend. This too in our best interest?

Tell people to stop buying diamonds.

Was it in mankinds best interest when Coca-Cola Bottling hired a group of militant guerillas to violently quell unrest in South America when it threatened their supply lines. Was it mankind's interest they hand in mind?

No. I didn't say it was. I didn't say Coke did have mankind's interest in mind. Who said that?

I mean, come on, we are living in the same goddamned world right?

No

Materialism doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm not talking about ideas or ways of behaving, I'm talking about real things that are being created and destroyed -- i.e., Big Macs are getting created, Rainforests destroyed.

You may find this trite. Largely because of how indoctrinated you are with the Capitalist ideal. The bottom line is that we live in a finite world. Capitalism treats it as an infinite world. There is a limited amount of "stuff" in this world, and we're using it to "make things" which may or may not benefit mankind.

Deep thoughts man. Deep thoughts.

I hope you move closer to your family and find greater happiness.

Well, your opinion is clearly refuted by all modern anthropological studies.

Plenty of human civilizations have existed for centuries without the pursuit of "stuff" being a tenant of their culture. The idea of "wealth" is a relatively modern creation, and the wanton pursuit of it at the heart of mankind's worst atrocities.

No. Plenty of anthropological studies indicate that early humans often died young, violent deaths. Warfare was not uncommon.

Wealth is a modern creation because there is more stuff now.

 

[jar2574]

Nope. You did. My point was "free choice". As far as "free will" is concerned, well, at least there we seem to agree

Your attempt to discuss 'free choice' showed a lack of respect for the idea of 'free will'.

I have to get back to studies now. Best to all,

 

[Machete Phil]

McDonald's tastes good to me and is cheap. Lots of other people like it to. That's why it's so big.

It tastes good to you because it consists primarily of fat and sugar. It's cheap because it consists primarily of fat and sugar. People like it because it consists primarily of fat and sugar.

It's so big because the corporation has engaged for decades in strategic placement of their venues among poor communities without convenient access to healthy, inexpensive alternatives.

They have built an empire on poisoning people. That's okay though, they have the best interests of mankind at heart.

No. Plenty of anthropological studies indicate that early humans often died young, violent deaths. Warfare was not uncommon.

Yes, and plenty didn't. Did you even read my posts? Early Native societies had lifespans far less violent, more leisurely, and considerably longer than their more "advanced" counterparts in Europe. Can you respond to the actual content of my posts?

 

[Machete Phil]

Why are the interests of Americans more important to you than the interests of other people in the world who can do American jobs?

It has nothing to do with valuing the interests of Americans over others. Off-shoring harms both Americans and the countries to which the work is exported. Americans, who have labor unions and government legislation to protect them are actually compensated for their work.

It's much more profitable therefore to move the labor to a country where such protection doesn't exist, and rape the workers who have few to no alternatives (except other sweatshop labor).

Tell the people they are being exploited. Maybe they will quit their jobs

Haha. If only you were around at the turn of the century in America. You would have been such a great voice for the labor movement and the reforms which made possible things like, oh, I don't know, not employing 11-year-olds to operate heavy, dangerous machinery in factories.

Many people would disagree with your assessment of the merits of those drugs.

Oh, yah, lots of people like heart disease as a cure for their depression.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Machete Phil]

I like cars. Many other people do to. Cars need gas to run. Tell people to stop buying cars. Tell them all these problems. They won't listen. People like cars.

Actually, cars don't need gas to run. That's the whole point, bro.

 

[platypuss]

When something new ist discovered / developed / invented, you often hear that this would make people's lives easier, happier etc. Is it true? It certainly IS true that many achievements made SURVIVAL easier. But is this the key to happiness? I doubt that.

Surely, without survival, happiness is moot?

Similarly, what use are aboriginal principles of "eco-friendly anticapitalism" when they are mostly not around to employ them?

 

[Machete Phil]

As for the entire "Tell people to stop..." thread that you thought was so clever, you do realize that you didn't actually address the point to my post, right?

The point to my post is that corporations and capitalism do not as a natural side effect foster the good of mankind.

Just because people like to eat fat and sugar doesn't mean it "improves our civilization" to drop a McDonald's into every low-income neighborhood in the country.

Just because people get addicited to smoking doesn't mean Tobacco companies are adding value to our civilization. Is being addicted to a deadly drug really in our best interest?

Your post doesn't even make sense in the context of the discussion. Just because people can choose not to purchase the product or consume the good doesn't mean having it or producing it makes our civilization more "advanced" or better for the good of the people who live within it. Nor does it mean the consumption and destruction of natural resources is justified in any way.

People competing in an open and free market produce better products.

Hahahahaha.

Really. Had to laugh at this one.

Capitalism really got its hooks into you.

A better product implies quality. Quality requires additional investment. This cuts into profit. This runs contrary to Capitalism. The goal of the capitalist corporation is to produce the absolute lowest quality product that their customers will still buy. This is how they maximize profit.

It's the "competition" that makes everything better, right? Tell that to Electronic Arts, Microsoft, General Electric, WAL*MART, etc., etc.

There is no competition anymore.


Congrats on buying into the myth though.

 

[CyberChrist]

The goal of the capitalist corporation is to produce the absolute lowest quality product that their customers will still buy. This is how they maximize profit.

You mean products like CIV?

 

[Sorceresss]

The goal of the capitalist corporation is to produce the absolute lowest quality product that their customers will still buy. This is how they maximize profit.

No : He must be talking about my Windows XP.

 

[jar2574]

They have built an empire on poisoning people. That's okay though, they have the best interests of mankind at heart.

No one ever said that McDonald's had the best interests of mankind at heart. You keep bringing that up. What is your point?

McDonald's poisons me? With fat and suger. Oh dear god. I guess I'll have to eat it in moderation.

Look, I can't handle your crazy conspiracies about evil fast food corporations that poison people. But I'll point out that I never said these corporations had the best interests of mankind at heart.

All I said was that capitalism indirectly improves peoples lives, because competition leads to the best products. I never claimed that companies gave a whit about consumers. You asked if I read your posts, but I am left wondering whether you read mine.

Did you even read my posts?

Yes I read your post. You like to smoke pot, hunt, and you miss your family that lives 400 miles away. You hate McDonalad's, Wal Mart, diamond makers, and lots of other businesses that will do quite well regardless of how you personally feel about them.

Early Native societies had lifespans far less violent, more leisurely, and considerably longer than their more "advanced" counterparts in Europe. Can you respond to the actual content of my posts?

I said that other studies suggest that Stone Age man lived short, violent lives. I responded to the content of your post. I responded to every statement. If you read my posts you would see that I responded to yours.

I was not discussing Native American's lives compared to their European counterparts. I was saying Stone Age man (not Native Americans) did not live as long as we do today. But again, if you read my posts you'd know that.

And by the way, I really don't know why you're comparing Early Natives to their counterparts in Europe in a discussion about how awful capitalism is. Neither society was a capitalist society.

Re: conflicting studies about prehistoric lifespans. Sure there's differences of opinion. But surely you can admit that we live longer today that Native Americans did.

Here is a source that briefly discusses prehistoric man that I am happy to point out, because I enjoyed the book. The book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" discusses early man in a few chapters. And early man according to that book, did not lead the idylic, happy lives that you seem to believe that they lived.

 

[Machete Phil]

Who said anything about Stone Aged man?

 

[jar2574]

As for the entire "Tell people to stop..." thread that you thought was so clever, you do realize that you didn't actually address the point to my post, right?

I didn't think it was clever. I was bored. I wasn't going to respond to a meaningless rant with something "clever".

My point was that your rant meant nothing. You are an isolated voice. You cannot change the system. And most people do not see things the way you do.

The point to my post is that corporations and capitalism do not as a natural side effect foster the good of mankind.

So you pointed out corporations you hate. Very complex. Deep dude.

Just because people like to eat fat and sugar doesn't mean it "improves our civilization" to drop a McDonald's into every low-income neighborhood in the country.

If people don't like McDonald's I guess they can stop eating it. I'm not going to judge their culinary taste. But I'm sure you'll feel free to.

Just because people get addicited to smoking doesn't mean Tobacco companies are adding value to our civilization. Is being addicted to a deadly drug really in our best interest?

No. I don't smoke. But I wouldn't force others to stop. And I wouldn't ban the drug. Do you want to ban tobacco?

Your post doesn't even make sense in the context of the discussion. Just because people can choose not to purchase the product or consume the good doesn't mean having it or producing it makes our civilization more "advanced" or better for the good of the people who live within it. Nor does it mean the consumption and destruction of natural resources is justified in any way.

Most people like more choices in consumer goods. Just because you don't doesn't mean that my point was invalid.

Hahahahaha.

Really. Had to laugh at this one.

Capitalism really got its hooks into you.

I have lived in former communist countries. They like capitalism. Its got its hooks into everyone I guess. Jokes on you.

A better product implies quality. Quality requires additional investment. This cuts into profit. This runs contrary to Capitalism. The goal of the capitalist corporation is to produce the absolute lowest quality product that their customers will still buy. This is how they maximize profit.

Yes. That is the goal of capitalist corporations. Low quality. Absolutely. Because that makes you more profit in the long-term. Brilliant. Harvard MBA grad aren't you?

It's the "competition" that makes everything better, right? Tell that to Electronic Arts, Microsoft, General Electric, WAL*MART, etc., etc.

There is no competition anymore..

really?

Congrats on buying into the myth though.

Yes. The myth. Workers of the world unite!

 

[Machete Phil]

Yes I read your post. You like to smoke pot, hunt, and you miss your family that lives 400 miles away. You hate McDonalad's, Wal Mart, diamond makers, and lots of other businesses that will do quite well regardless of how you personally feel about them.

So, basically, you read it but didn't understand it. Okay.

So you pointed out corporations you hate. Very complex. Deep dude.

Not even close to what I did or said. Pretty much done talking to you now. Not sure if you can't read or are just trying to be argumentative. Either way you can have your "discussion" with someone else.

Anyone who thinks Capitalism leads to higher quality products, then sites McDonald's and WAL*MART as successes is clearly misguided beyond hope. Enjoy your narrow worldview.

In case you want to go back and reread, the point to the post was to refute the claim that the pursuit of profit and the betterment of mankind are somehow one-in-the-same, or go hand-in-hand. If you care to rejoin this conversation, please comment on the actual topic.

 

[jar2574]

Who said anything about Stone Aged man?

I did.

Hope you make it home for Christmas. Make sure to walk those 400 miles. Wouldn't want to burn any fossil fuels.

 

[jar2574]

So, basically, you read it but didn't understand it. Okay.

nice one.

 

[jar2574]

Anyone who thinks Capitalism leads to higher quality products, then sites McDonald's and WAL*MART as successes is clearly misguided beyond hope. Enjoy your narrow worldview.

Don't ask me. Ask their millions of customers. Or don't. And assume you're above us all.

 

[Sorceresss]

[...] I can't handle your crazy conspiracies about evil fast food corporations that poison people.

This "Korean" thread has crossed the outer limits and is now deep into the unsolved mysteries of the Twilight Zone.