With the first modern age reveals just around the corner what is your big wish / hope?

Not my current province, but yes, I did think of H67 while saying that.

The National Arts Centre, now that they've added the lantern is also surprisingly decent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Your claim was not a testable scientific hypothesis, so I don't know why you expected a scientific response to it.

Rather, you made demonstrably wrong claims about historical event, so I gave you an answer founded on history: scientists had nothing to do with the decisions that led to the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The exceptional nature of Fukushima and Chernobyl against the backdrop of how many power plants are in operation (and, particularly, the extraordinary circumstances that were required to setoff Fukushima) do not speak of scientific recklesness or a particularly unsafe technology: they speak of a largely mature technology that can (like all technologies) be mishandled by imprudent people.
There is an interesting philosophical point to be made around whether these events demonstrate exceptionality or inevitability though, which I think is what the other chap is saying. Effectively the Oppenheimer position.
 
The same point can be made of any invention, and many of them have caused far more harm than nuclear technology.

Ultimately, if scientists are reckless, then all of us are, and it is our recklessness, not theird, that turn the potential disasters inevitable.

But ultimately, I don't buy into the theory that more science make disasters more likely.
 
I want to see mechanics pertaining to Industrialization, idologies and logistics.

Industrial and modern were always the most boring for me in pasts civs, it all became samey, and the snowball was in full effect. I really want to see mechanics unique to how that age plays out. I think the new army commander system could be expanded during the modern era to develop trench warfare, or at least more defined frontlines.
 
I want to see mechanics pertaining to Industrialization, idologies and logistics.

Industrial and modern were always the most boring for me in pasts civs, it all became samey, and the snowball was in full effect. I really want to see mechanics unique to how that age plays out. I think the new army commander system could be expanded during the modern era to develop trench warfare, or at least more defined frontlines.
'Defined frontlines' and Trench Warfare became inevitable when armies became too big for the terrain: 6 million men trying to fight over a line less than 600 km long guarantees that no one will go anywhere fast (and as weapons get more powerful and longer-ranged, it takes fewer troops to achieve the same effect: see modern Ukraine as a nasty example for all the world's military forces).

So, if the armies commanded by Army Commanders get larger as the Ages progress, WWI (or modern Ukraine) becomes an in-game inevitability unless there is a severe disparity in the strength and capabilities of the two sides - and given the right terrain situation.

Other contributing factors would be railroads providing much faster response times so that any advance is quickly met by rushed-up reserves and conscription providing Mass Armies. Conscription really has to be part of a system that recognizes the vast difference between Professional and Amateur militaries, though: Professionals are far more capable, but also far more expensive to raise, train and maintain, while Conscripts can be raised quickly but take away from your Productive manpower when they are raised, whether they are a medieval Fyrd of ex-farmers or a 20th century Draft Army of ex Workers.

But also true is that both Conscript Armies and railroads are largely products of the Industrial Revolution, and should be among the consequences of it.
 
Napoleon had hundreds of thousands of conscript soldiers without France being industrialised so how did it cause mass conscription?
 
Napoleon had hundreds of thousands of conscript soldiers without France being industrialised so how did it cause mass conscription?
In France it was the production of the revolution. That swept the aristocracy and church out of power in addition to the monarchy, and they were the source of military leadership (by law: a man had to show 4 quarters of nobility to become an officer, which means all four grandfathers had to be aristocrats - a closed system indeed) and legitimacy. To compensate for the sudden lack of any army in the face of invasion by every major monarchy nearby (Prussia and Austria being the two major antagonists), the revolutionary government proclaimed the first great levee en masse to form a new military. They had spotty leadership and no training to speak of in the traditional 18th century sense, but there were hundreds of thousands of them. Napoleon kept the conscription system and added professional leadership and training.

Other states, interestingly, did not adopt conscription right away: Britain did not regularly conscript soldiers until 1916. Only Prussia, which after being conquered by the French in 1806 by treaty was not allowed to form a large army, adopted a form of conscription to sneak around the treaty: they drafted the allowed number of men each year, trained them and then sent them home and replaced them so that they fairly quickly built up a trained reserve that allowed them in 1813 to put a quarter million men in the field, more or less ('more or less' because they were still seriously short of weapons, uniforms and all other equipment for their forces and remained so until after the wars were over at Waterloo).

That actually became the pattern for the European states (except for Britain) by the beginning of the twentieth century: draft X number of men (generally about 1/3 of the total force) every year, keep them for about 2 years to train, then send them into the reserves and draft more. Consequently, the government in peacetime only paid to have 3X troops in uniform, but could almost instantly raise 10 - 20X troops from reservists as soon as war was declared.

Result: in late 1914 6 million armed men marching across northern France and quickly running out of room to march without marching into machineguns, rifles and light artillery firing in their direction and bringing all movement to a bloody halt.
 
Rather, you made demonstrably wrong claims about historical event, so I gave you an answer founded on history: scientists had nothing to do with the decisions that led to the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Except it's simply not.

There is no way to refute that nuclear incidents would not happen if it weren't for nuclear plants.

I don't know why this fact upsets you so much.
 
Except it's simply not.

There is no way to refute that nuclear incidents would not happen if it weren't for nuclear plants.

I don't know why this fact upsets you so much.
Its the fact that the accidents all happened long after the technology was researched.... otherwise we should blame excessive science for every fire not started by a lightning strike (if we never researched fire we wouldn't start any by accident)

I could see the very fact of making progress on one of the Modern victories promoting social unrest though.
Colony on other planets
Economic/Diplomatic world domination
Military/Diplomatic world Domination
Cultural world domination

All could lead to extra social unrest (Disinformation would probably just be a function of particular communication technologies, leaks from biolabs a feature of a certain social structure ... and having enough tech to actually make it a factor... economic collapse a risk from certain social policies)
 
By that standard the man who invented the first firearm has murdered everyone who was ever killed with a gun, and made who made the first metal blade has killed untold billions. That's because the standard is bat manure insane.

Responsibility, in all sane systems of attributing it, falls at the feet of the proximate cause: the decision or chain of decision that suffice by themselves to explain why a situation that should not have been a disaster (a functional nuclear plant) became a disaster (a nuclear meltdown). Only if there are no proximate cause sufficient to explain, or only if there was reckless actions further up the chain that made the specific eventual disaster (not the general "something will go bad someday", but the specific "your design ensure this specific chain of event will happen someday), do we go further up the chain,

The only way the scientists who developed nuclear plants can be blamed is if you take for granted that nuclear technology should never have been developed; that nuclear power is uniquely dangerous in a way that make its invention and use reckless in and of itself. Which is a thesis popular among a certain fringe, but ill supported, and rather undermined by estimates regarding the death toll of other energy production methods - Chernobyl killed in the worst case estimates somehwere in the mid five digits (which counts all cancers after the fact that might possibly be due to it), air pollution from fossil fuel burning is estimated kill a few millions every year.

I have something against people using specious arguments to assign blame where it doesn't belong. "You wouldn't have meltdowns if they didn't invent nuclear plants" is just such a specious argument,
 
Top Bottom