Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by EmraldOnyxx, Feb 24, 2011.
ppl this d=subject is very interesting! vote to keep up the score
I'll take up Smote's challenge here. The first part of that sentence may or may not be true in real life. Any time that technological change favors the weaker actor, we should see increased risk of conflict. Any time it favors the stronger actor, we should see the stronger actor demand concessions and get them.
However, you can't really demand concessions in CiV. That means that the only way to take advantage of a technological shift in your favor is to beat on the other guy. So in the context of the game, technological progress by one player is going to tend to lead to war.
There was a tech diffusion mod for IV that helped model wartime tech transfer better.
The other issue here is that modern nations deficit spend in wartime, so that they can boost both research and production. To represent that we'd probably need to be able to buy some units & military buildings with borrowed money @ 5- 10% /turn interest after economics or maybe banking.
You say your not being political, and that we shouldn't reply with any politiacl leanings, then you yourself go off on a political rant about technology and the current uprising in the Middle East!
Regarding your quote above, have you never heard the phrase:
Necessity is the mother of invention.
And with regard to technology being the cause of war, I think you'll find that in the real world it's religion that is the cause of most unrest in the world. It's a shame religion was removed from CivV as it's now less realistic. Converting the whole world to YOUR (own true) religion was such a piss-take!
If your are able to discern if I am for or against anything happening in those examples, then you are honestly trying to read into nothing. I have already stated my purpose for the examples. My pointing out the conditions of the middle east or anywhere else are strictly given with reference to the game in service of my main point and their places in our history.
Additionally, I do agree that religion has caused more death in the form of war than any other single cause in our entire written history. However, that wasn't my point and it's so far off the topic, that I just didn't see any need to bring that portion into this discussion.
This is from WIKI and considered true by many historians and museums across the world.
The first postal service in America arose in February 1692, when a grant from King William & Queen Mary empowered Thomas Neale "to erect, settle and establish within the chief parts of their majesties' colonies and plantations in America, an office or offices for the receiving and dispatching letters and pacquets, and to receive, send and deliver the same under such rates and sums of money as the planters shall agree to give, and to hold and enjoy the same for the term of twenty-one years."
The United States Post Office (U.S.P.O.) was created in Philadelphia under Benjamin Franklin on Wednesday, July 26, 1775, by decree of the Second Continental Congress. Based on the Postal Clause in Article One of the United States Constitution, empowering Congress "To establish post offices and post roads", it became the Post Office Department (U.S.P.O.D.) in 1792. Until 1971, it was part of the Presidential cabinet and the Postmaster General was the last person in the United States presidential line of succession.
The United states became united by the resources of Benjamin Franklin's Printing companies sending the news vial mail to communicate our Declaration of Independence every township in America with-in a matter of days. The news was to be read and posted in the city square. Since the same news took weeks to travel across the pond back in England, the phrase printed on flags across America at the time "Join or Die" actually held some weight.
Additionally, it was many of those same roads created for communication via mail that the Minute Men used. Paul Revere had served as a courier prior to his "midnight ride" and continued to do so during the early years of the war.
I believe I have to concede that portion of my title Smote. As I have tried desperately to connect them but I can't. Many have already pointed out it's just reaching too far into the way they did what they did during war and not actually the cause. Thank-you for all that participated in the discussion, as I really did enjoy the comments.
However, I do think I triggered a point on the latter. So I think I will submit this thread as an example to generate interest with a new mod addition to broaden the game a bit when it comes to wars without detailed allowances for spies and how to account for production, economy, happiness, technology, and other levels during war time.
"War breeds Technology" is IMO the same as saying that space breeds technology. We got Space programs and satellites...plenty of nice stuff came through those projects.
The thing to look at here is that wars present a challenge. An obstacle. It presents the appropriate level of motivation and it removes a lot of cultural resistance towards new things - especially since scrambling for new tech is usually out of desperation.
I do not agree that this is a good environment for scientific exploration.
Long term exposure to stressful and desperate situations will lead to more mistakes in the long run and less and less effective science the longer the conditions continue. You may get a burst of tech from half-completed projects on the back-burners but very little actual new tech. I really don't think the British were making very many breakthroughs on new and revolutionary tech while under constant attack, but I could be wrong.
Technology is created when someone gets an idea for something, it has a practical application, and solves a problem. Guns were created because it gave Generals a cheap way to arm poorly trained troops with viable easy to operate weapons.
The AK47 was invented by a wounded Soviet General because he wanted a reliable weapon for his troops that could be mass produced by unskilled labor. He solved the problem of guns jamming in harsh conditions even with minimal maintenance training and produced by simple metal stamping machines. M16s were the exact opposite. high tech/small parts and prone to jamming if not properly maintained.
Point here is that he modified existing tech to suit his needs. M16s and Ak47s are both very good weapons and very effective at killing, however they are made with very different manufacturing techniques - one that suits their originating country/nation/group the best.
The space race was not a war in the traditional sense, but the same thing happened without the actual war. A challenge was presented, people believed in what they were doing, they were properly motivated, and nobody wanted to be the one that said they couldn't do it, especially with an entire country (or even world) looking over their shoulder in honest disbelief. Just like the war, it gave practical application for people to rally behind.
Also on the note about the indians going from spears to muskets - that is not technological progression. That is desperation... they salvaged and stole their enemies weapons. They could not produce them or (more importantly) modify the technology to meet their needs. Just like Iraq lacked the ability to modify their weapons to meet their needs. Its because they didn't make it, its not theirs. They don't understand it.
I don't think war is paramount or even beneficial to technological progression directly, HOWEVER it will often remove blocks like cultural (religion, government, merchants, and guilds) resistance, force new ideas to the surface, and presents a problem to be solved... which can then (finally) lead to new discoveries.
In other words... war simply stirs the pot.
Umm....... Space DOES breed technology.
The desire to know what something is, where it goes, where it comes from, and how we can manipulate it, are all basis for the research put into learning something. This is how technology is created. (not accounting for plain luck discoveries of course)
Techs that derive from research of space? Wow! Where to start?
The calendar? Or maybe navigation? Or maybe just realizing the world is round? Pretty sure the calendar came first though.
So according to this logic; advancements are not actually a technological progression? Nonsense. Just because you can work iron into a blade, does not mean you know how to make iron into steel. That would require a technological breakthrough in the method of smelting, because ferrous steel is iron infused with small amounts of carbon and manganese to the Iron to form the alloy known as steel.
Advancements in technology do come from Necessity. And forcing something unfinished into completion does have a degree of imperfection, but have you really thought about it completely?
I believe someone else used this example earlier:
If all I had was a sling that could throw a rock against my enemies bow; Simply by being able to observe my enemy use the weapon against me, I have instantly completed most of the research required to use the bow myself. I will quickly be able to figure out how to make an adjustment to my sling and create an totally new weapon. Once I create the bow I already have a familiar knowledge of how to use it. While I may not be as accurate as the other that trained with a bow, I could very quickly make the technology useful for my needs. Even at the level of progression of the sling to the bow, on to the chariot, on to the longbow, ect., ect.. I know This may seem trivial because of it's simplicity, but that was my goal for pointing out the most basic form of research in observation. That research creates advancements in technology.
In our society, technology increases in the areas that we spend investment R&D in. Science & Technology is easier to fund in wartime, though, but for other reasons (governmental focus and the ability to run risky experiments). In modern times, the ability to conduct risky experiments on your soldiers would speed up research, but at a decent cost. In war, things are desperate, so if some experiment has (say) a 20% likelihood of hurting a soldier, but the battle hurts them at 40%, then the experiment is justified.
As well, during war, people spend less of their money on useless luxuries.
This reminds me of an old Ben Stein quote:
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Host: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Host: Good word, good word.
Technology does not cause war unless it has control of its own fuctions (like humans).
Oh yeah? Well what about Giant Death Robots?
I forgot about them
I've never seen them in any of my games. That late in the game it's either been won, or crashes and I lose interest, and don't bother to reload the game.
Not only does Space stimulate science, it stimulates religion.
As for religion causing wars, thats too often true. On the other hand, a lot of internal killing has been done in Russia, China, and Cambodia in an effort to purge religious opposition.
I`m actually the same, I either win or lose interest at the point they are avalible.
Yes, high tech rains from the stars when you look at them.
No "Space" itself does not breed technology, the studies of the sky gave us calendar etc. The grand project to put a man on the moon gave us new technology. Similarily, war might indirectly give us new technology but it's still because it is needed for the purpose of war. When man puts resource into doing something, it usually gets done. Now what if we had put wartime efforts into peaceful activities instead?
That technology would get used for war.
Case of deliberate misunderstanding?
Or do you mean that WWIII will be fought by throwing Ipods at eachother?
My first reaction was that it we put wartime efforts into peaceful activities "we would lose the war, of course."
My second thought is that "Oh wait, what if skellben meant during peacetime? Well, in that case we could put a man on the moon."
iPods can be adapted to war for the purposes of both psychological operations, and espionage. It is illegal to bring an iPod into a classified environment for the second reason; and blaring the sound of babies crying at high volume, 24 hours a day, into enemy territory would be efficient if the medium carrying that sound was an iPod.
There are several things that were created for the civilian sector that have been, or can be, converted and adapted to military use.
So no-- not a case of deliberate misunderstanding. A case of having too much real-world experience in the subject.
EDIT- for example, the same technology that put a man on the moon and satellites into space was later used to gather intelligence on enemies, develop Nuclear ICBM's, guide missiles and bombs, direct aircraft, and pilot military drones.
Separate names with a comma.