what the heck is this new "Longevity" wonder anyway?

[Your.Master]

Re: It seems like common sense to...

Originally posted by DanS
The UK and Canada, two countries with completely government-run health services, but similar lifestyles to the US, have life expectancies of 77.82 years and 79.56 years, respectively. IOW, there is no real advantage in life expectancy in countries where health services are provided by the government.

Austria and Germany, both of which have a government-provided basic health insurance package, but somewhat different lifestyles, have a life expectancy of 77.84 and 77.61 years, repsectively. IOW, there is no real difference in life expectancy in countries where universal health insurance is government-provided.

I think it's more to do with the sort of people who buy pets than the effect of pets on the people who buy them...

Anyway, think about your figures. A rich or average American can afford the same healthcare as any Canadian, Brit, or German. This keeps the American average up. It's the 30-year olds with no money that account for the 2 years of extra life a Canadian will get. When you consider that that is a small but significant percentage of the population, you realize that what really happens is not everybody getting an extra 2 years of life, but some people getting an extra decade or so.

That said I don't know where this argument came from due to deleted posts.

[Madine]

How does a 30 year old living in the U.S. have no money?

[Rhysie]

Originally posted by Ribannah


I hope so. I suggested the WHO in another thread.
If it is to be 21st century instead, I can't think of anything that would produce a population boom until we discover Regeneration. 'Just' a cure for cancer will not have enough impact.

A cure for AIDS would do it, especially in underdeveloped areas of the world...

In developed areas, a cure for AIDS would lead to increase promiscuity, which could lead to additional population growth through various pressures for pregnant women not to have abortions, but the biggest affect would be in the underdeveloped parts of the world where AIDS has a big impact and kills a lot of people already. In those areas these people would not die, and would continue to breed (They already do breed, but sadly their children don't have much chance to breed), thus increasing population.

[ajbera]

Rename the wonder "Baby Boom" and rush-build it with a great leader - then you can pretend that the leader was Dr. Ruth encouraging everyone to do a little mattress mambo.

[Rakki]

Or maybe it should be a Flower Power movement ! Free love baby !

[korn469]

the biggest problem i have with the Longevity wonder is the fact that it sounds like a pipe dream to me...it might be close but then again we never know, so why should we put something in civ3 that doesn't exist, and might never exist while there are many examples of things that fit historically

just a few things from history that would fit the bill

penicillin (or antibiotics in general)
vaccinations (the polio and smallpox vaccines in particular)
statue of liberty (massive immigration, this is how US population balloned in the late 1800s)

those three things are all historically accurate and will fit the bill unlike Longevity...i would say that in some countries with declining birthrates, that even if the average lifespan was increased to 100, that without immigration from developing nations that the populations of those countries (france comes to mind) would experiance little growth (from what i've heard because of the extrodinary low birthrate in france that it is experiancing negative population growth)

history is so rich and vivid that i think it is a shame that firaxis would leave out actual historical events for something that is made up, or at least is almost here but not quite yet

like M.A.D. and SDI

M.A.D. actually prevented the cold war from going hot while SDI has had less of an effect on the history of the world than the vacuum cleaner (SDI doesn't exist, hasn't ever existed, and might not ever exist)

so why should fantasy replace fact especially when fact is more interesting

[KrazyHorse]

But Dan, don't forget that health care spending per cap. in the US is around twice as high as it is in eiher the UK or Canada. The lesson is that maintaining a similar life-expectancy costs more when lifespan has a higher spread; i.e. it costs more to keep 500 people alive till 85 and 500 alive till 75 than it does to keep 1000 alive to 80. Or maybe it just shows that health care quality has a minor impact on average life expectancy. Either way, [/Off-Topic Mode].

The longevity thing is a nice touch. I would find Cure for Cancer a bit hokey with the stated effects, since instantly eradicating cancer from the Earth wouldn't lift lifespan (even in the developed world) by more than a couple of years. With some exceptions, cancer strikes hardest at the oldest segment of the population; the segment that is generally in bad health anyway and which is definitely not included in the breeding population.

[DanS]

There's Just No Convincing Some People

They want to believe in a certain ideal and then ignore any strong evidence that will give them a more nuanced understanding of that ideal. Perhaps that's why communism is dead...

I made no value judgement about socialized medicine or government-provided health insurance. Rather, my point was very narrow--it has little or no impact on life expectancy (or more precisely "maximal life expectancy") and therefore isn't appropriate for inclusion in Civ3. Same thing with the Cure for Cancer, as KH astutely points out.

Longevity, on the other hand, seeks to increase the maximal life expectancy from about 80 years old to something higher. I have heard rumored that we may soon have a maximal life expectancy of about 40 years higher--all in the prime of life and indeed, even before menopause (Please note that this would triple child-bearing ages for most women). Lastly, the "longevity device" (whatever it is) would be unavailable to those past the prime of life.

I really don't know how you could overestimate the impact on population worldwide that this would have. This would shake the ground in all things economic and political, in both countries with flat population growth and those with already high population growth. Even an addition of 10 years to maximal life expectancy would have a quite major impact. Damn near everything economic and political is based on the fact that we'll die at about 80 years of age.

KH: no, life expectancy really has nothing to do with spending. It has nothing to do with the system of payments that you have. Rather, it's some extremely basic public health measures that allow the West to achieve something like maximal life expectancy. Water. Sewage. 3 square meals with some variety. Being under-roof. Basic understanding of communicable disease (as Korn mentioned). Basic medicine. Slight moderation of intake of alcohol. That type of thing.

Your.Master: it's more likely the number of crazy homeless people we have walking the streets. The number of crackheads, etc. The amount of stress population-wide.

[korn469]

Longevity, on the other hand, seeks to increase the maximal life expectancy from about 80 years old to something higher. I have heard rumored that we may soon have a maximal life expectancy of about 40 years higher--all in the prime of life and indeed, even before menopause (Please note that this would triple child-bearing ages for most women). Lastly, the "longevity device" (whatever it is) would be unavailable to those past the prime of life.

ok i have a couple of points

*first saying that increasing life expectancy by 40 years is reasonable, but all of thoses years being in the prime of life is not
*even if childing bearing ages were tripled i doubt that most people would start having 6 children (child bearing ages increased in the 20th century while birth rates decreased)
*there would most likely be a significant cost for this
*it would be highly unethical to prevent longevity from being available to people past their prime

it's not here, and nobody is claiming that in the next five years that they will increase lifespan by 40 years for the general public all in the prime of life, so we are talking about something that doesn't happen until like 2010 at earliest (if ever)

so why put that into the game when there are valid historical examples of things that induced population explosions?

plus if the fixed size 40 food box is true then population in civ3 will grow exponentially even without population booms instead of linerarly like in civ2

big cities will now grow faster than little cities...in civ2 a size 11 city growing to size 12 would need 120 food (60 with a granary) to grow while a size 1 city growing to size 2 would need 20 (10 with a granary) to grow...in civ3 a size 11 city growing to size 12 would need 40 food (20 with a granary) to grow while a size 1 city growing to size 2 would need 40 food (20 with a granary) to grow

[Skeeve]

Overpopulation

DanS: Finally, someone who agrees that Overpopulation is not the problem! Kudos to you.

[DanS]

"*first saying that increasing life expectancy by 40 years is reasonable, but all of thoses years being in the prime of life is not"

How can we know, one way or another? The rumors that I've heard say exactly that. Of course, rumors are rumors, and I'll admit that I've heard some weird rumors about this, especially. Beats even some aerospace black programs in weirdness... It almost beats some conspiracy theories too.

"*even if childing bearing ages were tripled i doubt that most people would start having 6 children (child bearing ages increased in the 20th century while birth rates decreased)"

Again, how can we know? Some might have 20 children, if they have the time (think Mormons taking over the US ).

"*there would most likely be a significant cost for this"

You betcha. This could be a force to divide and destroy societies. Handle With Care.

An interesting twist is that you could spread fixed costs such as education, across more years of productive life...

"*it would be highly unethical to prevent longevity from being available to people past their prime"

But if you couldn't provide it to those past their prime, the point is moot. There are many, many other ethical issues involved. You're thinking along the correct lines, but try to think in more political and economic terms. That's where it intersects with Civ3.

"it's not here, and nobody is claiming that in the next five years that they will increase lifespan by 40 years for the general public all in the prime of life, so we are talking about something that doesn't happen until like 2010 at earliest (if ever)"

Yes, that's a weird quirk in the whole potential system. Countries with lower average ages would get higher and quicker population boosts. The US would get a more immediate boost than Europe, for instance.

"so why put that into the game when there are valid historical examples of things that induced population explosions?"

Because Firaxis can. What's wrong with a little speculation? I thought the Cure for Cancer was fun. SDI, etc., were speculative.

"plus if the fixed size 40 food box is true then population in civ3 will grow exponentially even without population booms instead of linerarly like in civ2"

And rightly so. You gotta realize that population, sooner or later, will be one of the strongest components of economic power. For instance, the US gets a little under half of its economic growth out of population growth. In this sense, Civ3 will more correctly reflect the inevitable economic power of China and India, for instance. Also note that food supply isn't linear either--it hasn't been since the invention of cultivation. For instance, the world eats much better now than it ever has, even though population has always grown geometrically.

[korn469]

Because Firaxis can. What's wrong with a little speculation? I thought the Cure for Cancer was fun. SDI, etc., were speculative.

i think the problem with speculation is that every speculative wonder or unit that firaxis adds to the game means one less real wonder or unit that doesn't make the cut and i see a big problem in that

as for the concept of Longevity, i think that we will eventually get it, but as far as adding 40 years in the prime of life, i would say that won't be a widespread event until at least 2020...there are still millions of people in the US who don't even have medical insurance, much less the ability to pay for something like this, and the gap between the rich and the poor would expand in such a way that the poor would have a much shorter lifespan than the rich

also i doubt it would be from any one proceedure or drug, but instead it would be a combination of various drugs and lifestyle changes...all of this being payed for by pharmaceutical companies who would expect to profit from it...however for people who could afford it they would certainly use it

i could think of movie stars being able to extend their careers, it could become a perk at the top executive levels of all large companies in order to stabilze leadership...certainly the president would get those treatments

on the other hand, just imagine if a person like Stalin had of been able to get a hold of it, that means the USSR would have been led by stalin until the 1990s, talk about cold war

i think that education wouldn't be a fixed cost, and that instead of being able to spread it over many years, people would have to reeducate themselves many times, like every twenty years you would have to go back to college for four years

interesting idea with tons of moral, economic, and political implications and repercussions that we cannot fully grasp? yes
does it deserve to belong in civ before a wonder like Edward Jenner's Vaccine (he used cowpox as a vaccine against smallpox, it was the first use of a vaccine and it was the first disease that man ever wiped out) no

we can save longevity for SMAC2, lets put real historical wonders in Civ3, that's all i'm saying

[El hidalgo]

I am not too happy with the longevity wonder either. I don't know why it has to be a wonder at all. In fact lifespans have historically increased as a result of many factors, especially as a consequence of industrialization and more generally of the increased adoption by governments of generally free market policies (under free market conditions, you can expect better medicine, etc., since it becomes profitable to develop and produce it). The discovery of Industrialization should have the effect of this wonder; you should also get food production bonuses based on government type (as in Civ 2).

This is from a syllabus for an economics course: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo.../e311/mac1.htm

Important point: While living standards did on average start getting better after the development of agriculture, average lifespans and childhood mortality only improve a small amount until about 1800 AD
B. All this changes with what has been called "the 2nd Agricultural Revolution" and especially the Industrial Revolution. From 10,000 BC to 1600 AD, new important inventions were often spaced centuries apart. With the Industrial Revolution, progress seems to become continuous:

1. The stream engine
2. The railroad
3. Germ theory
4. Electrification
5. Telephone
6. Automobile
7. Penicillin

H. These inventions increase life span, reduce child mortality, and increase lifespan in the countries they originate in; the benefits gradually spread.
I. From 1800-1900, child mortality before age 5 falls from about 20% to about 10% in the richer countries. Lifespans extend from about 40 to about 55 over the century.
J. From 1900-present, child mortality in rich countries falls from about 10% to 1%. Lifespans extend further from about 55 to about 75.
K. The Industrial Revolution dramatically cuts the percentage of the labor force engaged in agriculture. In the U.S., 80% in 1800 falls to 40% in 1900, and then falls further to about 2% by 2000!
L. This means that an increasing percentage of people's efforts focus not on bare survival, but on comfort, entertainment, etc. Variety of goods and life styles explodes.
M. Poorer countries still get richer during this period. Lifespans in India today, for example, exceed U.S. lifespan in 1900. Other countries about as poor as India in 1900 become rich by 2000: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong most obviously.

[DanS]

I would like to hear Firaxis' comment on this. I agree that it does take some explanation and they would probably more than happy to talk about it, considering that they view it as a major wonder. Besides, the explanation would be fun and interesting, and might give us some insight into why certain wonders were chosen over others.

Korn: the basis of the game is that it ends at Alpha Centauri. Because of this, it's not entirely historically based. I think you've got to allow Firaxis to have a little fun with this. Have an excuse to talk with the top scientific minds and speculate a little. This is probably one of the funnest creative exercises for Firaxis.

EH: I hear what you're saying, but if it is as I've described above, we would be getting a boost both in life expectancy and maximal life expectancy. Vaccines, while quite important in achieving a higher life expectancy, don't seem to impact maximal life expectancy, thus limiting their impact somewhat.

[korn469]

DanS

from the information i've read Civ3 ends in 2020 plus the most advanced technologies are Stealth, Intergrated Defense, and Robotics...in Civ3 you can build Alpha Centauri Space Ship parts before you can build TV satellites

here is the tech tree

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/screens/0,10865,2803910-5,00.html

Longevity looks like it comes with genetics

it's just a game so no big deal, i would just rather they use something that seems more historical and realistic