clearing jungles

[The keeper]

As far as barbs go, I am fairly certain that I saw barbs build a wonder once. It was in one of my first few games


The Maya, Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs all were very successful civilizations that lived in the jungles of the Americas. There were and still are tribes that live in the Amazon - though they dont attain 'civilization' status of the other civs in this game.


Swamps do exist quite far from oceans. I live 500 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. I have a small swampy area 500 feet from my front yard. Behind my place of employment, there is a couple of square miles of unusable swampland. All you need for a swamp is relatively flat land that doesn't drain real well.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


They are cut down to make cheap beef for McD and BK. No thanks to el cheapo US fast food chains.



What is "successful?"

You have the Incas and the Aztecs, for starters.

Well thanks in your previous post and to Willem for straightening me out on why the jungle soils are unproductive, but now your turning around again and blaming clear-cutting on the bad old Americans. (Our beef consumption is down in recent years, as a result of health awareness; I haven't heard we were getting significant amounts from Brazil. Excuse me, my Big Macs are getting cold. )

(Ah, much better ) The Mayan civilization was very decentralized and it did disappear, disease is often cited as a possible cause. The Aztec and Incan capitals were in highlands areas, they might have done some building in jungle, but not most of it. The "Angor Wat" Thai civilization was swallowed up by jungle, but it may have been less significant when the civ actually thrived. They too disappeared. American forces on their little neo-imperialist adventures in the Mexican War and a half century later in the Spanish-American War (at their base in south Florida, Cuba and the Phillipines) suffered significant disease losses. So did Napoleon's troops trying to crush the slave rebellion on Hispaniola.

Just for giggles, try Googling "Disease in the Tropics" and read some of the hits you get. Lung disease, neurological disease, glomural disease (whatever that is), cardiovascular disease. One site claimed explorers Stanley and Livingstone were sick most of the time they were in Africa. The same source claimed "natives" such as the ancient civ in Zimbabwe, had natural immunity that colonists did not. In general, jungle is bad for most of world history (until disease is conquered anyway ) Even today, malaria and sleeping sickness remain constant problems and diseases like Ebola, AIDS and West Nile virus occasionally spring out of those beautiful "jungles."

But they are a good source for bananas

[tetley]

Does the U.S. even import beef? In my experience beef has been one of the U.S.' more significant exports.

[Willem]

Originally posted by tetley
Does the U.S. even import beef? In my experience beef has been one of the U.S.' more significant exports.

They import lots of beef. Canada used to be one of it's biggest suppliers until the Mad Cow scare closed the borders. It really hurt our cattle industry.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Willem


They import lots of beef. Canada used to be one of it's biggest suppliers until the Mad Cow scare closed the borders. It really hurt our cattle industry.

Hmmm, Big Mac, hmmm!

[tetley]

Well, besides Canada.... That's a two-way street, we export lots of beef to Canada, too.

[snafuc4]

Thoughts like yours make me very angry

Originally posted by Generaldoktor The Mayan civilization was very decentralized and it did disappear, disease is often cited as a possible cause.

Probably because the explorers themselves (or the forerunners of those explorers - the ones that didn't make it back) introduced it (the disease)

Just for giggles, try Googling "Disease in the Tropics" and read some of the hits you get. Lung disease, neurological disease, glomural disease (whatever that is), cardiovascular disease. One site claimed explorers Stanley and Livingstone were sick most of the time they were in Africa. The same source claimed "natives" such as the ancient civ in Zimbabwe, had natural immunity that colonists did not.

Just for giggles consider a disease (say) fabricated in a lab or brought from space on a meteor. Both exist. I would say there is a large chance that the latter has more chance than spreading within humans than the former, but the chance of a fabricated disease is much less likely to be released to the population, by accident or, more likely design (governmental or individual)

In the example you give (in the above quote) the natives were perfectly happy with their immunology, until they were exposed to outside influences (influenza is the immediate thing that comes to mind - why do you think our medical scientists gave it that name? - but probably not relevant in this case

From your Google search did you bother to try to find out how many of these diseases are native to their environment, & how many were either introduced or greatly enhanced since the tribes/civilisations/WHY were discovered? (Note immunodeficiency: a population infected or even recovering from a trivial complaint has lost 50-85% of its ability to fight off a new/different bug). If these 'discoveries' happened within a few years of each other (such as the 'age of discovery' on the African continent, say 1820-1880) it's quite possible that a great deal of indigenous peoples were wiped out through 'trade'

Just this week new species are being found /and reported/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4688000.stm The point is not in the fact that they were found, but that they're reported back to the world in a closed ecosystem.If that ecosystem is disrupted, by a strange bacterium or clearcut logging, they will die. Hundreds if not thousands of new species are being 'found' on a daily basis, but none of us know about it

Even today, malaria and sleeping sickness remain constant problems

Malaria & sleeping sickness are not jungle diseases, they are wetland diseases. The tse-tse fly & the mosquito thrive in stagnant water - not something you'll find a lot of in jungle. However, to address the point you were trying to make, the main reason why they remain problems is through assorted governments (I'm including the UN & WHO), both local & international, refusing to stick with a policy. Innoculation against malaria in Africa started some 25 years ago IIRC; due to local & international differences it has never been completed. This makes things worse, of course: the previously suceptible mosquito is now immune to assorted drugs & pesticides (DDT anyone?), which makes things even more difficult. Anyway, where d'you draw the balance? A mosquito may well be an irreplaceable part of that area's ecosystem (remove mosquito = remove bats = remove.. etc), & if the only way to find out is to remove it then we'll suffer in 10 or 30 years time, or longer - not something governments are much interested in IME

and diseases like Ebola, AIDS and West Nile virus occasionally spring out of those beautiful "jungles."

Do you know anything at all about these diseases, where they come from, what infection vector(s) they travel through? Or have you been looking at FoxTV?

[snafuc4]

That was a very 'bitty' post, giving my ideas but not fully explaining the reasoning behind them My apologies. When I've calmed down a bit if anyone wants to question these 'proposals' I'm quite happy to do so.. but not here in the Strategy forum, eh?

[Dis]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are they so bad?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Las Vegas is the most energy wasting city in the world. You should move somewhere else and do your part to save the Earth, Dis.

I'd like to see some proof we are the most energy wasting city in the world. While it could be true, I'm not sure that it is. I'm sure some city built in sub zero temperatures will use more energy than we do.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
Well thanks in your previous post and to Willem for straightening me out on why the jungle soils are unproductive, but now your turning around again and blaming clear-cutting on the bad old Americans. (Our beef consumption is down in recent years, as a result of health awareness; I haven't heard we were getting significant amounts from Brazil. Excuse me, my Big Macs are getting cold. )

Not on the US as much as big corporations searching for quick profits. Only in this case they happen to be US ones.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
(Ah, much better ) The Mayan civilization was very decentralized and it did disappear, disease is often cited as a possible cause.

Probably from the Old World diseases carried by European explorers. Native Americans had no resistance to these and were killed in large numbers. You are right, diseases was the major cause that decimated New World inhabitants.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
The "Angor Wat" Thai civilization was swallowed up by jungle, but it may have been less significant when the civ actually thrived.

Angkor Wat was not build by Thais it was built by a Combodian kingdom. Its demise had more to do with invading Thais than with the surrounding jungle.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
Just for giggles, try Googling "Disease in the Tropics" and read some of the hits you get. Lung disease, neurological disease, glomural disease (whatever that is), cardiovascular disease.

And surprisingly, the natives rarely get these (with a few exceptions such as Malaria, Ebola, and AIDS). Why? That's because they are resistant to the endemic diseases, while the Old Worlders aren't.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
In general, jungle is bad

Only for outsiders

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
Even today, malaria and sleeping sickness remain constant problems and diseases like Ebola, AIDS and West Nile virus occasionally spring out of those beautiful "jungles."

Actually, Malaria (etc.) wouldn't be a problem if preventive measures could be afforded. You know, wiping out the disease carrying vectors ( usually the mosquito but can be other insects as well), giving vaccines, etc. If the hygienes in the US were as bad as that in these countries I am sure diseases would be as rampant. Smallpox, anyone?

[johnmcd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are they so bad?

Originally posted by Dis


I'd like to see some proof we are the most energy wasting city in the world. While it could be true, I'm not sure that it is. I'm sure some city built in sub zero temperatures will use more energy than we do.

He did say 'wasting' not 'using', I think there is a difference there.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was true depending on how it's all calculated. If you look at the available natural energy sources and their use you can already point at lots of wastage. Then there is the fact the local economy is dependant to great extent on tourists expending huge amounts of energy to get there, then there is the 'uneccessary' cost of air conditioning all those spaces, piping water and so on.

[Dis]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are they so bad?

Originally posted by johnmcd


He did say 'wasting' not 'using', I think there is a difference there.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was true depending on how it's all calculated. If you look at the available natural energy sources and their use you can already point at lots of wastage. Then there is the fact the local economy is dependant to great extent on tourists expending huge amounts of energy to get there, then there is the 'uneccessary' cost of air conditioning all those spaces, piping water and so on.

If you consider having fun a waste. .

Our city wouldn't exist if people could have fun and relieve their stress and certain sexual desires in their hometowns.

Oh, and sorry for any threadjack.

As for jungles. I often wondered about getting shields from them. I'd like to get some. But for game balance, I'm not sure if that is necessary. As most people will get rid of them anyways.

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are they so bad?

Originally posted by Dis
If you consider having fun a waste. .

Do you really need to have 10,000 blinking lightbulbs in order to have fun? The place is as bright as daylight in the evening with all the displays around the town. I once drove into Vegas at night, and I could see the glow of the city from at least 60 miles out. I'd certainly consider that wasteful.

[rewster1]

It's not as if the city exists just to spite people who think its wasting energy. Las Vegas exists because yes, people do think it is fun to have 10,000 blinking lights. If nobody thought that was fun, obviously the town would not exist in its current state. I don't think lightbulbs are that much fun, but clearly enough people do to make it a thriving city.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not on the US as much as big corporations searching for quick profits. Only in this case they happen to be US ones.



Probably from the Old World diseases carried by European explorers. Native Americans had no resistance to these and were killed in large numbers. You are right, diseases was the major cause that decimated New World inhabitants.



Angkor Wat was not build by Thais it was built by a Combodian kingdom. Its demise had more to do with invading Thais than with the surrounding jungle.



And surprisingly, the natives rarely get these (with a few exceptions such as Malaria, Ebola, and AIDS). Why? That's because they are resistant to the endemic diseases, while the Old Worlders aren't.



Only for outsiders



Actually, Malaria (etc.) wouldn't be a problem if preventive measures could be afforded. You know, wiping out the disease carrying vectors ( usually the mosquito but can be other insects as well), giving vaccines, etc. If the hygienes in the US were as bad as that in these countries I am sure diseases would be as rampant. Smallpox, anyone?

I'm going to stay on-topic here, if nobody minds. I really don't care too much about Las Vegas, unless Washington builds it in a game I'm in.

It sounds like what you're saying is that anybody who founds a city in a jungle, (i.e. "native") should get a dispensation from disease penalties (and maybe half chop hammer credit too,) but not invaders or other outsiders, (except maybe barbs, who might be construed also as "natives.") It makes me wonder, since Urban Ranger and some others who have complained about jungle rules as they stand have been in this organization a long time and might conceivably have done playtesting or have other influence with Firaxis, why they have not tried harder to influence how jungle is handled in the game? (The Civ3 rules, I recall, were similar.)

Regardless, I stand corrected about Khmers at Angor Wat. Because this is a fun forum and not a thesis, I sometimes pull old research from memory and memory is sometimes faulty regarding things I read about years ago. I found out after reading some more yesterday that Aztec Tenochtitlan was in fact founded on a lake island with bordering marsh, though I don't know about modern Mexico City, which I still think I heard is on high ground even though it's nearby. (Never been there.)

So natives can tough jungle. I still can recall a lot of disease death building the Panama Canal, which could conceivably have included natives and you did concede malaria/sleeping sickness etc is still a problem where medicines aren't readily available, this conceivably also including natives. But we could debate generalities from specifics all night.

I think there are some locales on Earth that are just not meant for human habitation, without a lot of modification and that is what Firaxis is talking about when they designate a square "jungle."