The Panopticon Wonder Discussion Thread

[civplayer33]

Spoiler Oh Lord why hast thou forsaken me? (also: I should really get paid for this) :

Actually, in our country capital city (Bogota), social policies in education in the infancy were reducing the educational gap between classes in our people , getting more people from the low class to the middle class with some years.

I don't know what you mean by "social policies in education in the infancy" but the science is clear: while you can get a temporary IQ boost with focused education in children, the effect will dissipate when they get older and at 18 years old only about 20% of IQ will be determined by non-genetic factors, which include, but are not limited to, education. The reason why people benefit from getting a degree at a prestigious university is because those places take the best, meaning that once you graduate you can show proof of having been selected as one of the best; that and the networking that takes place so you can have some smart and competent friends. The actual difference in educational quality is just gravy; most of the educational value you get out of university is up to you anyway...if you don't read any books and don't put in any extra effort you may still graduate but you won't have learned much. People don't get secondary education to raise their IQ because that is impossible.
What most likely happened in your capital (I don't know because you didn't explain what you meant) is that people who didn't get any (decent) education were provided with one and thus gained the qualification necessary to get a job, which is what improved their economic status; which is great, but it didn't make them more intelligent and is simply an indicator that access to basic education in your country is severely limited. That sucks but it doesn't mean it's the rich people's fault; your government is supposed to make sure everyone can get a basic education.

It's not about biological differences, the ones richer aren't the ones more intelligent or something like that, the ones richs are the one accumulating privileges with the past of the years

It is, actually, to a large degree. See this, for example, for an interesting analysis of the correlation between IQ and income. Now, existing assets are not the same as income, obviously, and while rich people will usually still have above average IQ, someone who is a self-made millionaire can still have dumb children (regression to the mean and all) who will squander the family fortune (that is why the infamous "1%" is not static).
If the people in your country, who have a lot of money, can have undue influence in the political process on a massive scale (which I assume is what you mean by accumulating privileges) then the problem, as I had already laid out earlier, is corruption. Of course rich bastards are gonna be selfish, how do you think they got rich? It is up to the government to make sure they don't use their wealth to circumvent the rules, just as it is the government's job to make sure that the rules are fair. Your job as citizen is to elect the people who will do that job well into office and if those don't exist then gather support in your community and run for office yourself. Now I know that sounds simple and it really isn't and I'm not trying to downplay the problems in your country but the fact that you only talked about corruption when I brought it up first shows me that ideology is more important to you than taking this very insidious issue seriously.

No, this is the difference between social democrats, progressives (no-extremists) and marxist guys.

Actually, abolishing equality of opportunity is definitely an extremist position and it is what you said earlier so if your "social democrats" are taking that stance then they are just as bad as the Marxists even if they don't call for violence (yet).

In our country we have a specific thing in our constitution, which it's very interesting: "Private property have to fulfill a social and ecological function" [...] When we have for example, big guys still having a lot of land, generating problems to a lot of people, or big guys having actions in our weird private-public healthcare system, desviating resources from the public hospital to the private hospital. Private property is not fullfilling a social function in those cases.

That actually sounds like a great law and is an idea I have thought about before and I think is very sensible! However, you then go on and blame the rich people, again, for the problems that your government is supposed to solve. If someone is behaving in an unconstitutional manner they should be held accountable; so either the government is too weak to take action or the government is too corrupt to do so or the leftists are merely serving you this interpretation and the legal system disagrees. I don't know since I don't know anything about Colombia, but in no scenario is it the rich people who are solely to blame.

Yes, in a ideal capitalist society, the idea is to have a very big middle-working class. But because of neoliberalism, what we have now is a big middle-working class in some countries, and a lot of poverty in certain specific countries, because a certain group of people in some countries loves to use third world countries to get big reduction in prices, associating with the corruption in the local government.

More ideology...again, it is not the rich people / corporations who are solely to blame. If corrupt governments exploit their own people that is not the fault of some corporation. In fact, in most countries where the "evil big Western companies" have "exploited" the "poor indigenous population" by not paying them the same wages and not providing them with the same benefits as in First World countries, the economies have taken off and hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty. Unless you have some sort of slavery or extreme corruption the people are only gonna work at your company if that is their best option; if that enables you to make good profit you will reinvest that money into your company since your competitors will eat you alive otherwise, which will, among other things, create more jobs in the poor country, which will raise their wages since you increased the demand for labor, which increases its value (basic economic principles). That is how more than a billion people were lifted out of extreme poverty in the last 30 years. You need to focus more on getting ahead and creating value and less on some global victimhood narrative.

Problem is, my government is corrupt, but we don't have enough laws to fix the situation

Kudos for recognizing the problem! However, personally I really wouldn't rely on some Marxist (or soft core version of one) to fix corruption, as in my experience people who are obsessed by an ideology will find a way to justify any immoral action and will quickly end up being even more corrupt than their predecessors once they are in power. You need a party that has a strong focus on meritocracy, lawfulness, transparency and democracy, that is the only way forward in my opinion.

 

[wobuffet]

I’m happy with splitting into 3 projects for CV. Gives it more flavor for minimal work (and no balance concerns, as they’ll just be reskinned panopticons.

G

@Gazebo Could a gameplay effect like "While being built, no Trade Routes allowed with Civilizations following a different Ideology" be added?

I outlined some other differentiation ideas here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...discussion-thread.631962/page-9#post-15118326

One distinction I worry the discussion has elided:
Personally, I support the 3 different Ideology-flavored CV capstone projects idea if and only if splitting them up has some gameplay value (compared to just having one project). For example,

• Each capstone has some unique bonus effect while being built. For example, the Freedom one gives +Happiness, the Order one +Gold, the Autocracy one +Combat Strength.
• Alternative possibility: each capstone has some malus while being built (so you really want to build it as soon as possible) – for example, some malus to Tourism to make it a challenging last hurdle.
• Project may start being built before Influential with everybody, but the CV win doesn't occur until Influential with everybody. While project is being built, +50% Tourism with the same Ideology.

 

[Tekamthi]

re: game mechanics attached to 3 CVs projects;

great idea from posters here, definitely captures my imagination and gets me thinking on this topic.. am curious whether a SV-style, multi-part project could be implemented, rather than a straight 1-city build. Possibly the stuff of mod mods at this point, though. G's point in adding a finisher-project was to give some structure to the very end of a CV game, and eliminate the instances of where "it just happens" while players are not paying attention as tourism grows in unpredictable lurches. This alone I think will add some end-game intrigue, especially if the AI responds appropriately to such a circumstance.

adding more mechanisms to these CV projects, while desirable to distinguish the ideologies maybe, brings up all kinds of balance and dev concerns. The ideological path itself to these endings will be much different already, and I'd lean towards getting them in VP in a civ-compatible form from existing templates, rather than developing these as new concepts.

 

[Rekk]

Do you mean projects, as in United Nation projects? I would support this.

Why would any other Civ vote for this? Are you expecting the cultural civ to dominate the United Nations as well as dominating the tourism game?

 

[Noob Fanboy]

Spoiler Hue :

I don't know what you mean by "social policies in education in the infancy" but the science is clear: while you can get a temporary IQ boost with focused education in children, the effect will dissipate when they get older and at 18 years old only about 20% of IQ will be determined by non-genetic factors, which include, but are not limited to, education. The reason why people benefit from getting a degree at a prestigious university is because those places take the best, meaning that once you graduate you can show proof of having been selected as one of the best; that and the networking that takes place so you can have some smart and competent friends. The actual difference in educational quality is just gravy; most of the educational value you get out of university is up to you anyway...if you don't read any books and don't put in any extra effort you may still graduate but you won't have learned much. People don't get secondary education to raise their IQ because that is impossible.
.

About the "20% of IQ will be determined by non-genetic factors", it's what totally differences us, i think genetic factor plays a very small role, and superior education plays a big role. But it's a ideological difference, i'm very sure we're never going to agree on that

What most likely happened in your capital (I don't know because you didn't explain what you meant) is that people who didn't get any (decent) education were provided with one and thus gained the qualification necessary to get a job, which is what improved their economic status; which is great, but it didn't make them more intelligent and is simply an indicator that access to basic education in your country is severely limited. That sucks but it doesn't mean it's the rich people's fault; your government is supposed to make sure everyone can get a basic education

You're totally right, specially in the government part.

It is, actually, to a large degree. See this, for example, for an interesting analysis of the correlation between IQ and income. Now, existing assets are not the same as income, obviously, and while rich people will usually still have above average IQ, someone who is a self-made millionaire can still have dumb children (regression to the mean and all) who will squander the family fortune (that is why the infamous "1%" is not static).
If the people in your country, who have a lot of money, can have undue influence in the political process on a massive scale (which I assume is what you mean by accumulating privileges) then the problem, as I had already laid out earlier, is corruption. Of course rich bastards are gonna be selfish, how do you think they got rich? It is up to the government to make sure they don't use their wealth to circumvent the rules, just as it is the government's job to make sure that the rules are fair. Your job as citizen is to elect the people who will do that job well into office and if those don't exist then gather support in your community and run for office yourself. Now I know that sounds simple and it really isn't and I'm not trying to downplay the problems in your country but the fact that you only talked about corruption when I brought it up first shows me that ideology is more important to you than taking this very insidious issue seriously.

For me, if rich people have above average IQ, is because of access to education, not because of biological correlation between intelligence and social class. Yes, you have some "rich guys" being businessmen, who ended up like that being successful after struggling, but the ultra rich guys here are not because of that. So, we need to end some privileges those ultra-guys have (charging more taxes from having big portions of land, trying to have some statal companies in basic services).

Actually, abolishing equality of opportunity is definitely an extremist position and it is what you said earlier so if your "social democrats" are taking that stance then they are just as bad as the Marxists even if they don't call for violence (yet).

Social democrats, are just guys who support free market, but social intervention when the ultra rich guys are abussing privileges. I'm social democrat / progressive in practice. A little marxist in theory.

From my point of view, capitalism is going to collapse some time,and when that happens, socialism is going to appear again. Meanwhile, a capitalist system with a little of state intervention (to avoid corruption and to guareentee healthcare and education) is fine. So, the social democrat is not the extremist position, my position is the extremist one :').

That actually sounds like a great law and is an idea I have thought about before and I think is very sensible! However, you then go on and blame the rich people, again, for the problems that your government is supposed to solve. If someone is behaving in an unconstitutional manner they should be held accountable; so either the government is too weak to take action or the government is too corrupt to do so or the leftists are merely serving you this interpretation and the legal system disagrees. I don't know since I don't know anything about Colombia, but in no scenario is it the rich people who are solely to blame.

I blame the elite, mostly, not every rich guy.

More ideology...again, it is not the rich people / corporations who are solely to blame. If corrupt governments exploit their own people that is not the fault of some corporation. In fact, in most countries where the "evil big Western companies" have "exploited" the "poor indigenous population" by not paying them the same wages and not providing them with the same benefits as in First World countries, the economies have taken off and hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty. Unless you have some sort of slavery or extreme corruption the people are only gonna work at your company if that is their best option; if that enables you to make good profit you will reinvest that money into your company since your competitors will eat you alive otherwise, which will, among other things, create more jobs in the poor country, which will raise their wages since you increased the demand for labor, which increases its value (basic economic principles). That is how more than a billion people were lifted out of extreme poverty in the last 30 years. You need to focus more on getting ahead and creating value and less on some global victimhood narrative.

That relationship end creating economical dependence in international companies, generating conflicts between economical motivations and social motivations, for example, our economy is very mining-dependent, but mining is really ruining our environment. What we need is not attracting more inversion in that sector, is trying to generate our own corporations or industrialize our own people.

Kudos for recognizing the problem! However, personally I really wouldn't rely on some Marxist (or soft core version of one) to fix corruption, as in my experience people who are obsessed by an ideology will find a way to justify any immoral action and will quickly end up being even more corrupt than their predecessors once they are in power.

Some guys tried to do it in the last century, and right now Marxism is seen with bad eyes. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

You need a party that has a strong focus on meritocracy, lawfulness, transparency and democracy, that is the only way forward in my opinion.

I don't like meritocracy, since that's precisely the problem of our education, only some guys can get university in our country, while we need a lot of people to industrialize our land. We need to guarentee the access to superior education to everyone first, and then we can think about meritocracy later. We have a party like that (and the guy was nearly killed one time last year while running the campaign btw)

 

[tu_79]

Spoiler Oh Lord why hast thou forsaken me? (also: I should really get paid for this) :

I don't know what you mean by "social policies in education in the infancy" but the science is clear: while you can get a temporary IQ boost with focused education in children, the effect will dissipate when they get older and at 18 years old only about 20% of IQ will be determined by non-genetic factors, which include, but are not limited to, education. The reason why people benefit from getting a degree at a prestigious university is because those places take the best, meaning that once you graduate you can show proof of having been selected as one of the best; that and the networking that takes place so you can have some smart and competent friends. The actual difference in educational quality is just gravy; most of the educational value you get out of university is up to you anyway...if you don't read any books and don't put in any extra effort you may still graduate but you won't have learned much. People don't get secondary education to raise their IQ because that is impossible.
What most likely happened in your capital (I don't know because you didn't explain what you meant) is that people who didn't get any (decent) education were provided with one and thus gained the qualification necessary to get a job, which is what improved their economic status; which is great, but it didn't make them more intelligent and is simply an indicator that access to basic education in your country is severely limited. That sucks but it doesn't mean it's the rich people's fault; your government is supposed to make sure everyone can get a basic education.


It is, actually, to a large degree. See this, for example, for an interesting analysis of the correlation between IQ and income. Now, existing assets are not the same as income, obviously, and while rich people will usually still have above average IQ, someone who is a self-made millionaire can still have dumb children (regression to the mean and all) who will squander the family fortune (that is why the infamous "1%" is not static).
If the people in your country, who have a lot of money, can have undue influence in the political process on a massive scale (which I assume is what you mean by accumulating privileges) then the problem, as I had already laid out earlier, is corruption. Of course rich bastards are gonna be selfish, how do you think they got rich? It is up to the government to make sure they don't use their wealth to circumvent the rules, just as it is the government's job to make sure that the rules are fair. Your job as citizen is to elect the people who will do that job well into office and if those don't exist then gather support in your community and run for office yourself. Now I know that sounds simple and it really isn't and I'm not trying to downplay the problems in your country but the fact that you only talked about corruption when I brought it up first shows me that ideology is more important to you than taking this very insidious issue seriously.


Actually, abolishing equality of opportunity is definitely an extremist position and it is what you said earlier so if your "social democrats" are taking that stance then they are just as bad as the Marxists even if they don't call for violence (yet).


That actually sounds like a great law and is an idea I have thought about before and I think is very sensible! However, you then go on and blame the rich people, again, for the problems that your government is supposed to solve. If someone is behaving in an unconstitutional manner they should be held accountable; so either the government is too weak to take action or the government is too corrupt to do so or the leftists are merely serving you this interpretation and the legal system disagrees. I don't know since I don't know anything about Colombia, but in no scenario is it the rich people who are solely to blame.


More ideology...again, it is not the rich people / corporations who are solely to blame. If corrupt governments exploit their own people that is not the fault of some corporation. In fact, in most countries where the "evil big Western companies" have "exploited" the "poor indigenous population" by not paying them the same wages and not providing them with the same benefits as in First World countries, the economies have taken off and hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty. Unless you have some sort of slavery or extreme corruption the people are only gonna work at your company if that is their best option; if that enables you to make good profit you will reinvest that money into your company since your competitors will eat you alive otherwise, which will, among other things, create more jobs in the poor country, which will raise their wages since you increased the demand for labor, which increases its value (basic economic principles). That is how more than a billion people were lifted out of extreme poverty in the last 30 years. You need to focus more on getting ahead and creating value and less on some global victimhood narrative.


Kudos for recognizing the problem! However, personally I really wouldn't rely on some Marxist (or soft core version of one) to fix corruption, as in my experience people who are obsessed by an ideology will find a way to justify any immoral action and will quickly end up being even more corrupt than their predecessors once they are in power. You need a party that has a strong focus on meritocracy, lawfulness, transparency and democracy, that is the only way forward in my opinion.

Spoiler About corruption :

In a very recent study here, researchers have determined that the occurrence of corruption scandals is very strongly correlated with the time of permanence of the same party in power, no matter if in majority or in coalitions. So, if you really want to diminish institutional corruption, begin limiting the time for ruling party. 6 years is very suiting for a personal term. Some rules could be added to increase alternation in power.

Spoiler About equality :

Yes, we are not all equals. I'm taller and stronger than my wife, this cannot be denied. What we say is that people should be equal to the law in the first place. This is something people from any ideology, but aristocrats, accept.
Also, we say all votes count equal, because in a democracy it's the people's will what we want to hear, not only the voice of the most powerful or the most intelligents. Sadly people is easily influenced by mass media, and whoever controls it, but the alternatives are not much better.
With differences it's hard to say which ones are better. I'm taller than my wife, but she's more accurate with dates such as birthdays. We think that rich people live better, but actually having more money than what we need to cover our needs only produces unhappiness (we need to care about that extra money, protect it, increase it). Of course, it's much worse to lack the money to cover our basic needs. People with higher IQ don't necessarily performs better at works, there are many other useful skills. We still need a basic formation to be able to perform on some jobs, but IQ is just a (unaccurate) part of the equation. I put unaccurate in parenthesis because how IQ tests are biased towards western culture knowledge.
Finally, there's a recent trend in Economics regarding the inefficiencies of inequalities. This is no longer about justice or morals, it's the acknowledgement that too much inequality hurts economy. A robust middle class guarantees social rest, favoring bussiness. We already knew that absolute equality (as proposed by radical communism) is also very inefficient, so the virtue is somewhere in the middle.
(By the way, and completely unrelated, communism doesn't advocate for everyone being the same, but for the public control of means of production, which nowadays we refer as strategic sectors, energy and communications, enforced by a totalitarian state.)

Spoiler About income and intelligence :

Of course money and IQ are correlated. You may think, those fathers were very intelligent so they got all that money in the first place, and then their children, having common genes, are intelligent too. Yes. But not that much. Actually there are many other factors.
Expectation. High income families expect their breed to get educated, so they put more pressure in their education than other families, failure at studies is not accepted.
Imitation. Children learn how to do things mainly by copying, so if their parents usually read and study, children are more likely to read and study themselves. If the father is a plumber, the son may learn the job as well.
Investment. When children underperform in school, a personal tutor may help in succeding, something poor people cannot afford. When studying for a long career like medicine or judge, many years have to be spended in the studies, and not working, something not many families can afford for their children. A poor family may risk the investment for a specially shinning child, maybe acquire a grant. High income families do this for all their children, no matter how smart they are.
Background. If you belong to the same social class that made IQ tests, chances are that you already know some of the answers just by being yourself.

 

[tu_79]

Why would any other Civ vote for this? Are you expecting the cultural civ to dominate the United Nations as well as dominating the tourism game?

Nope, I'm expecting diplomatic civs to create UN, then cultural civs can start the project.

 

[Noob Fanboy]

Spoiler About equality :

Finally, there's a recent trend in Economics regarding the inefficiencies of inequalities. This is no longer about justice or morals, it's the acknowledgement that too much inequality hurts economy. A robust middle class guarantees social rest, favoring bussiness. We already knew that absolute equality (as proposed by radical communism) is also very inefficient, so the virtue is somewhere in the middle.
(By the way, and completely unrelated, communism doesn't advocate for everyone being the same, but for the public control of means of production, which nowadays we refer as strategic sectors, energy and communications, enforced by a totalitarian state.)

Actually, communism advocate for public control of means of production, but that doesn't mean a totalitarian state is the only solution. I agree with you in the rest

 

[Rekk]

Nope, I'm expecting diplomatic civs to create UN, then cultural civs can start the project.

Maybe I don't understand what a United Nations project is. I am under the impression that they are resolutions like Treasure Fleet or International Space Station.

 

[pineappledan]

Yeah, why would anyone vote for that if you needed it to win? You’d have to control enough votes to unlock a C.V. in addition to unlocking a C.V., so you would basically have to win twice

 

[chicorbeef]

I don't know if multiplayer is a worthwhile concern for this, but if cultural victory depended on other resolutions, it would be extremely hard to win a culture victory in multiplayer.

I disagree with the thinking that it should be tied to a proposal, you're at the mercy of the whims of other civs in that case.

Why not tie the wonder such that you need a T3 tenet and Telecom?

 

[Gazebo]

@Gazebo Could a gameplay effect like "While being built, no Trade Routes allowed with Civilizations following a different Ideology" be added?

I outlined some other differentiation ideas here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...discussion-thread.631962/page-9#post-15118326

Why? For 6-10 turns it would be irrelevant.

G

 

[wobuffet]

Why? For 6-10 turns it would be irrelevant.

G

Ah, I thought the project was more hammers than that (15–30 turns).

 

[Legen]

@Gazebo Could a gameplay effect like "While being built, no Trade Routes allowed with Civilizations following a different Ideology" be added?

I outlined some other differentiation ideas here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...discussion-thread.631962/page-9#post-15118326

I said before, but I`d prefer generic construction speed modifiers, instead of a unique mechanic for each wonder. For instance:

• a +10% build speed to your CV wonder for following the World Ideology;
• a +10% build speed to your CV wonder for having the respective "free social policy" wonder of yor ideology (e.g. Prora for Autocracy);
• a +1% build speed to your CV wonder for each franchise of your corporation in a foreign city;
• a +10% build speed modifier for controlling the Holy city of the World Religion;

• a -10% build speed to your CV if you're following an ideology different from the World Ideology;
• a -10% build speed to your CV if a certain wonder was built by someone else (e.g. Great Firewall);

The idea is that the CV player can still have something to strive for while waiting for the Telecommunications tech unlock, even if he or she already is influential with everyone. And if the AI is struggling to learn how to deal with those, at least they could have a passive modifier on higher difficulties to compensate.

That assuming we bother adding any mechanic to those wonders to the game.

 

[chicorbeef]

I said before, but I`d prefer generic construction speed modifiers, instead of a unique mechanic for each wonder. For instance:

• a +10% build speed to your CV wonder for following the World Ideology;
• a +10% build speed to your CV wonder for having the respective "free social policy" wonder of yor ideology (e.g. Prora for Autocracy);
• a +1% build speed to your CV wonder for each franchise of your corporation in a foreign city;
• a +10% build speed modifier for controlling the Holy city of the World Religion;

• a -10% build speed to your CV if you're following an ideology different from the World Ideology;
• a -10% build speed to your CV if a certain wonder was built by someone else (e.g. Great Firewall);

The idea is that the CV player can still have something to strive for while waiting for the Telecommunications tech unlock, even if he or she already is influential with everyone. And if the AI is struggling to learn how to deal with those, at least they could have a passive modifier on higher difficulties to compensate.

That assuming we bother adding any mechanic to those wonders to the game.

I assume this is a lot of work and new code for something that doesn't have that clear a benefit. If I get the opportunity to build the project, chances are some build speed modifiers isn't going to change anything.

 

[Legen]

I assume this is a lot of work and new code for something that doesn't have that clear a benefit. If I get the opportunity to build the project, chances are some build speed modifiers isn't going to change anything.

Maybe not, but the Telecommunications tech puts Cultural victories roughly on the same speed as Scientific and Diplomatic victories. Stacking modifiers may help winning the race against players pursuing those other victories.

I was mostly thinking of those early complaints of a cultural player having nothing noteworth to do if he or she gets influential with everyone long before the Telecommunications tech. These modifiers would at least add side goals while the Cultural player is waiting for the tech unlock. If a CV wonder mechanic would be added, I'd prefer one that addresses that concern, rather than a gimmick that only lasts while the CV wonder is being built.

 

[chicorbeef]

Maybe not, but the Telecommunications tech puts Cultural victories roughly on the same speed as Scientific and Diplomatic victories. Stacking modifiers may help winning the race against players pursuing those other victories.

I was mostly thinking of those early complaints of a cultural player having nothing noteworth to do if he or she gets influential with everyone long before the Telecommunications tech. These modifiers would at least add side goals while the Cultural player is waiting for the tech unlock. If a CV wonder mechanic would be added, I'd prefer one that addresses that concern, rather than a gimmick that only lasts while the CV wonder is being built.

A 10% building speed modifier won't make me really get out of my way and 3/4 of the positive modifiers are things I try to do anyways. And I think some of your propositions would probably require new code.

If I'm influential far before Telecom, then I'm honestly just going to try to stay alive, stave off other win conditions, and beeline Telecom for the project.

 

[tu_79]

Yeah, why would anyone vote for that if you needed it to win? You’d have to control enough votes to unlock a C.V. in addition to unlocking a C.V., so you would basically have to win twice

Projects are not that difficult to pass, it's not like the World Leader resolution, where you need to control half the delegates. Also, if you have not influenced everyone yet, you might not get too many negative votes (you are not the bigger threat yet), players going for diplomatic victory may even unlock it for you. Even if you have influenced everyone, there's a chance that other players put your civ to the ground before you are able to complete the project, as this shall trigger the panic mode. If I want to crush a cultural player, letting him start the finisher project, that it's going to take several turns to complete (the more the taller), would turn everyone against him and we might have our part.

But if you are so afraid of having it as a electible project, make it available for building as soon as any of these triggers happen:
- Someone built the Apollo Project.
- Someone founded United Nations.
- Someone controls all capitals but yours.
Also
- Ideology is required, as the available project depends on the ideology.

 

[civplayer33]

Spoiler *will argue about politics for food* :

bout the "20% of IQ will be determined by non-genetic factors", it's what totally differences us, i think genetic factor plays a very small role, and superior education plays a big role. But it's a ideological difference, i'm very sure we're never going to agree on that

You can believe what you want just like I can believe that the earth is flat when discussing astronomy but it's not going to help and the discussion won't go anywhere. It took me 5 minutes to find these studies showing that 80% or 86%, respectively, of IQ in adults is genetically determined; it's really not that hard to find this kind of information.
Education has a very limited impact, and so long as it is provided at a base level (i.e. up to high school through whatever means...this could also be home schooling if done right) to teach people basic maths and reading / writing skills they'll be fine on their own if you provide them with a library, because the rest, as far as the educational system is concerned, is mostly certification and networking.

For me, if rich people have above average IQ, is because of access to education, not because of biological correlation between intelligence and social class. Yes, you have some "rich guys" being businessmen, who ended up like that being successful after struggling, but the ultra rich guys here are not because of that. So, we need to end some privileges those ultra-guys have (charging more taxes from having big portions of land, trying to have some statal companies in basic services).

See above; conclusions drawn based on an incorrect assumption are gonna be wrong. And I also talked about corruption to a sufficient degree already, which you are ignoring again.

I'm social democrat / progressive in practice. A little marxist in theory.

That doesn't actually make any sense. If you're a marxist in theory then you're a marxist in practice as well. The difference to you, it seems to me, is that you seem to think the degree of violence used to enact your policies determines where one falls on the spectrum. That is wrong. If you think like a marxist you're a marxist, no matter if you aren't violent (yet).

From my point of view, capitalism is going to collapse some time,and when that happens, socialism is going to appear again.

You can ruin your own country as much as you want, I don't particularly care, and then you can all live in poverty and starve together while complaining how the system is only dysfunctional "because this isn't real Marxism yet".

I blame the elite, mostly, not every rich guy.

If by elite you mean government then you're on to something.

That relationship end creating economical dependence in international companies, generating conflicts between economical motivations and social motivations, for example, our economy is very mining-dependent, but mining is really ruining our environment. What we need is not attracting more inversion in that sector, is trying to generate our own corporations or industrialize our own people.

If the way the mining is conducted is ruining your environment, then you (and by that I mean the government, which you and your fellow citizens elected) need to regulate those companies so that doesn't happen; again, if the government is too corrupt to protect its citizens then that's on them (and on you as voters) and not on some third party. Companies that invest in your country are not your mother; they are there to make a profit, which incidentally helps your local economy as well; it's a mutual benefit operation. If there are too many negative side effects you need to mobilize support in your community to bring that to the governments attention and elect new leaders if they don't care about it.
And as far as "industrializing your own people" is concerned: why don't you? Because it's not easy gaining the expertise and capital investment needed to do so. And chasing away all the people with money and skills while screaming "evil oppressors" isn't gonna help you.

Some guys tried to do it in the last century, and right now Marxism is seen with bad eyes. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

Glad to hear someone has learned their lesson.

I don't like meritocracy

And there we have it (not hugely surprising though). Why work hard to achieve something when you can just get a mob together and steal it from someone else, right?

that's precisely the problem of our education, only some guys can get university in our country, while we need a lot of people to industrialize our land. We need to guarentee the access to superior education to everyone first, and then we can think about meritocracy later. We have a party like that (and the guy was nearly killed one time last year while running the campaign btw)

Look man, I'm sure there's a ton of things wrong with the education system in your country but you don't industrialize a country by pumping a ton of people into universities, you do it with hard work. First of all, not everyone is supposed to get into university in the first place; this is one of the problems we have in Europe and also in the US these days...requirements are dropping more and more and now ever larger numbers of people are becoming students, who are not smart enough to get a degree but end up getting one anyway because of the lower performance requirements and then they fail in their field or just don't get a job in the first place because they're simply not competent enough...that's how you get professors who don't even know Australia is a country (and that isn't even the worst example). Meritocracy is how you get good students which is how you get good engineers and scientists and that combined with a hard working blue collar segment is how you create value on a scale that can industrialize a country. I know I make it all sound easier than it is since there are many complicating problems like the brain drain to the First World, that is surely happening, the corruption and a whole bunch of other stuff, but again: the solution is not to close your eyes and live in some fantasy but to accept the hardship and do the best you can with what is there.

In a very recent study here, researchers have determined that the occurrence of corruption scandals is very strongly correlated with the time of permanence of the same party in power, no matter if in majority or in coalitions. So, if you really want to diminish institutional corruption, begin limiting the time for ruling party. 6 years is very suiting for a personal term. Some rules could be added to increase alternation in power.

Sounds like a good idea and there are many (including myself) in my country who are sympathetic to limiting at least the terms a chancellor can serve; alas, corruption in Germany, while certainly occurring here and there, is not the primary problem at this point. It is the lack of a real opposition (although the AfD, as I've already laid out earlier, is making great gains and is represented in the lower house, finally, since 2017).
Something like this would probably be helpful in Colombia as well although, like I said, I know nothing about the politics or situation there.

About equality, income and intelligence

I agree with most, but not all:
First, there are actually Neo-Marxists (and even college professors!!! note how this idiot says "I can unpack that if you want but I won't"...I've seen this multiple times now from Neo-Marxist morons like this it's always "there is so much evidence" and when you ask them "where?" they evade or just call you racist and transphobic and what not...it's absolutely disgusting) saying that there are no biological differences between men and women and that women are only shorter and weaker because the boys steal their food and culture tells them that they should be shorter and weaker; I am not kidding about this! It is absolutely appalling. So it's not just aristocrats but instead it is, in fact, the radical left who is doing this TODAY (and the radical right makes similar mistakes but I've laid all of this out already in previous posts in this thread and I don't like repeating myself).
Second, about IQ: people with higher IQ will actually tend to perform better on any job, since the g-factor, which a good IQ test measures, is the ability to solve complex problems and also increases the speed with which one learns new tasks and becomes proficient at them. That doesn't mean that an average-IQ or even below-average-IQ person can't be successful, though; they just need to pick a career or field that has an adequate level of complexity for them. And it also doesn't mean that it's the only variable; hard work, discipline and dedication in particular can be used to "make good" on a hypothetical shortfall of the g-factor to a significant degree; you may need to work twice as hard and twice as long as someone smarter but if you're willing to do that you can compete as long as they are less dedicated. There is also quite strong evidence that both short-term and long-term memory are correlated with the g-factor, so I'm afraid we are not as diverse in our skill sets as you think. I know this is pretty devastating, especially considering how IQ is so strongly determined by genetics, but it is the world we live in.
As far as children of intelligent people: there is a phenomenon in statistics that I already mentioned here before, called the regression toward the mean, which is actually active quite strongly in breeding populations. So if you look at two very smart parents it's likely that their kids will be less smart than them (though probably still above average).
I mostly agree with the rest, except this part: "Background. If you belong to the same social class that made IQ tests, chances are that you already know some of the answers just by being yourself." This is actually wrong; it has been pushed through the media quite a bit not too long ago (especially the example of how a poor black kid is not gonna know what a regatta is, while the rich white kids will, because their parents take them to regattas); this has actually been proven wrong in several studies. One of the reasons why it's wrong is because a smart kid will have a thirst for knowledge, intellectual engagement and a better memory so as long as the kid has access to a library (or the internet) it will find out about regattas sooner or later, while the dumb but rich white kid might rather want to stay at home playing Call of Duty or whatever instead of going to regattas with his parents.

Actually, communism advocate for public control of means of production, but that doesn't mean a totalitarian state is the only solution.

It course it means that a totalitarian state is necessary; you still live in this fantasy that one day everyone will think like you and we'll all sing kumbaya and live happily ever after in our communes. That's NEVER going to happen, which means you need to force people (with violence or the threat of violence) to do what you want and that is what totalitarian states do.

 

[Noob Fanboy]

Spoiler :

You can believe what you want just like I can believe that the earth is flat when discussing astronomy but it's not going to help and the discussion won't go anywhere. It took me 5 minutes to find these studies showing that 80% or 86%, respectively, of IQ in adults is genetically determined; it's really not that hard to find this kind of information.
Education has a very limited impact, and so long as it is provided at a base level (i.e. up to high school through whatever means...this could also be home schooling if done right) to teach people basic maths and reading / writing skills they'll be fine on their own if you provide them with a library, because the rest, as far as the educational system is concerned, is mostly certification and networking.

the thing is: you can have a very high iq, as long as you don't have access to knowledge, you're not going to use it. I defend the need of university for everyone (giving access to university to everyone, no graduating everyone...). Actually, rich - upper middle class have more access to education (at least in my government). Education is not about increasing the average IQ, it's about bringing the knowledge our society needs.

See above; conclusions drawn based on an incorrect assumption are gonna be wrong. And I also talked about corruption to a sufficient degree already, which you are ignoring again.

Just like you don't like neo-marxism, i don't like biological determinism. You're saying IQ in adults is genetically determined, i'm saying it doesn't matter, education is not about increasing the average IQ, it's about access to knowledge.

That doesn't actually make any sense. If you're a marxist in theory then you're a marxist in practice as well. The difference to you, it seems to me, is that you seem to think the degree of violence used to enact your policies determines where one falls on the spectrum. That is wrong. If you think like a marxist you're a marxist, no matter if you aren't violent (yet).

Progressives, social democrats, it's all about recognizing the problem depredatory capitalism have (and using the state to give some basic rights to population). My country laws follow the socialdemocrat path (well, only the things we have in our constitution). Social democrats is what some people call "the third way", and in fact, they're very criticized by marxist, because marxism says: "It's impossible to humanize the capitalism system". In practice, they're very different, but they're both the result of recognizing the problem extreme capitalism have. Marxism is "violent" by definition, because it doesn't believe in institutions. Social democrats believe in institutions.

You can ruin your own country as much as you want, I don't particularly care, and then you can all live in poverty and starve together while complaining how the system is only dysfunctional "because this isn't real Marxism yet".

Capitalism is going to fall in the entire world if we have another big depression, and the consequences will be big everywhere. I think we're never going to agree in this point.

If the way the mining is conducted is ruining your environment, then you (and by that I mean the government, which you and your fellow citizens elected) need to regulate those companies so that doesn't happen; again, if the government is too corrupt to protect its citizens then that's on them (and on you as voters) and not on some third party. Companies that invest in your country are not your mother; they are there to make a profit, which incidentally helps your local economy as well; it's a mutual benefit operation. If there are too many negative side effects you need to mobilize support in your community to bring that to the governments attention and elect new leaders if they don't care about it.

Companies that invest in our country don't care about the population, explotation is still a thing, it's not mutual benefit between population and companies, it's mutual between the elite class and companies. Just like companies searching for oil don't care about the environmental results, only the economical benefit. External companies can help a little the economy, but that doesn't mean they're going to use a lot of workers from our country, and local companies normally can't compete with international companies, those companies end creating more unemployeement.

It's not mutually benefit, is only mutual between the companies, and the elite class (the corrupt politician and the ultra rich families)

And as far as "industrializing your own people" is concerned: why don't you? Because it's not easy gaining the expertise and capital investment needed to do so. And chasing away all the people with money and skills while screaming "evil oppressors" isn't gonna help you.

the people with money and skills are not going to solve the social problems, it's only going to get worse with those people. Chasing away some of the international investors (the ones in mining and petroleum / oil explotation) is the first step.

Glad to hear someone has learned their lesson.

No, we haven't, and as long as we have social problems, it's never going to end, you need to reform capitalism a little (progressive, socialdemocratic practices) or you need to destroy it (marxism). But we can't keep up like this.

And there we have it (not hugely surprising though). Why work hard to achieve something when you can just get a mob together and steal it from someone else, right?

If you want a good discussion, stop using indirect sentences because we have different point of views. I don't like meritocracy in economic access to education. But that doesn't mean i don't like meritocracy in the educational system. It's a big difference. Everyone needs to have access to high education, if they can't keep up with the education and end up leaving the university, it's their problem.

Bad view of right-wing people from some leftist guys, it's mostly because of words like "neo-marxism morons", followed by a confussion between marxism and marxism - leninism. If you want a healthy discussion, stop using indirect sentences, "neo-marxism morons", "leftists bs", "feminism bs". Just like i don't use the word "neo-liberal morons".

Look man, I'm sure there's a ton of things wrong with the education system in your country but you don't industrialize a country by pumping a ton of people into universities, you do it with hard work. First of all, not everyone is supposed to get into university in the first place; this is one of the problems we have in Europe and also in the US these days...requirements are dropping more and more and now ever larger numbers of people are becoming students, who are not smart enough to get a degree but end up getting one anyway because of the lower performance requirements and then they fail in their field or just don't get a job in the first place because they're simply not competent enough...that's how you get professors who don't even know Australia is a country (and that isn't even the worst example). Meritocracy is how you get good students which is how you get good engineers and scientists and that combined with a hard working blue collar segment is how you create value on a scale that can industrialize a country. I know I make it all sound easier than it is since there are many complicating problems like the brain drain to the First World, that is surely happening, the corruption and a whole bunch of other stuff, but again: the solution is not to close your eyes and live in some fantasy but to accept the hardship and do the best you can with what is there.

Solution is not graduating everyone, i didn't say that, it's about allowing the access to education to everyone. I'm not against meritocracy in the educational system, i'm against meritocracy in the economic access to education (only a certain % from school can have government help in universities)

It course it means that a totalitarian state is necessary; you still live in this fantasy that one day everyone will think like you and we'll all sing kumbaya and live happily ever after in our communes. That's NEVER going to happen, which means you need to force people (with violence or the threat of violence) to do what you want and that is what totalitarian states do.

the principes behind the free software foundation, and GNU / Linux, it's the result of trying to use socialism practices in the technology, and thanks to public source code, we have GitHub, Linux, LibreOffice, and a lot of things today. Common ownership of the means of production doesn't mean a technological reversal of things.

Communism is only about common ownership of the means of production, nothing more. Hell, some guys are anarcho-communism. Of course communism is not associated with a totalitarian state.