Ideal Social Engineering Settings

[binTravkin]

But biology has a long history of building in self regulation to keep (for instance) predators from overproducing and wiping out the species upon which they depend.

It's rather not a regulation but an inability of any other species to create (or invent way to take more from nature) new sources of supplies - that's the wonder of consciouness!

..and also the human ability to live in almost any environment by either changing it or making tools to prevent environment from destroying humans (micro-environments such as houses, astronaut suits etc.).

However there are some species in nature that have the ability to replicate so much that they use all the resources in their area, but they can't go on using other resources instead as humans do
Lemmings for example - they have a dempgraphic cycle of 3 years - in 3yrs their numbers reach maximum and die out from starvation.
At the 3rd yr their food species are almost extinct in that area..(the same situation as humans had with game when agriculture was invented)

[Whoha]

BinTravkin, If you Think the US isn't a warlike nation I suggest you check out the Arsenal of Democracy series of books by Tom Gervasi.

We also surpassed GB's GDP and GDP per capita before world war 1, while the two wars certainly hurt Europe a great deal, free trade hurt them more.

[binTravkin]

If you Think the US isn't a warlike nation

I didn't say that, I just said that US citizens haven't expierenced much of wars, because most of the US wars are agressions not defensive!

We also surpassed GB's GDP and GDP per capita before world war 1, while the two wars certainly hurt Europe a great deal, free trade hurt them more.

Nope, FM can't hurt anything in such way because that's human nature, GB rather got hit by efforts to keep it's huge empire together and by investing improportional sums in navy and diplomacy, US at the time had no problems on deploying most of the available resources to economical growth!
This is very well illustrated by the standing army of US - only 200k troops for such a big nation both territorically and in population..
Peace is what made US what it is, for there are nations who never thrived so much and the only difference was war - they had all the resources and opportunities that US did have, but they had also dangers while US practically had none!

[mmontgomery]

There is so many inaccuracies it is mind boggling. Most of them stem from the absurd idea that a free market means a total absence of government regulation. A free market absolutely requires government oversight to ensure that it remains free.

To better understand this, lets look at human freedom. Freedom is definitely NOT the absence of laws or regulations; this is anarchy, and it leads to oppression by the powerful, and very little freedom for the masses. Freedoms require laws and the force of government to protect them, to prevent the powerful from oppressing the weak.

The same is true for economic freedom or free markets. Most of the strawment for free market have actually been anarchy, not economic freedom. It is not "survival of the fittest" or "natural behavior". In SMAC, it is modelled as a Technological Breakthrough that must be researched then implemented.

Just as the government oversees protection of our personal freedoms, in a free market, the government oversees protection of our economic freedom. This means that anti-competitive practices are punished, such as building monopolies and trusts, or engaging in price fixing, or using physical or economic force to bully someone into selling their business, or forcing people to work at jobs they don't want, to name a few.

But on the flip side, for the market to remain free, the government must not itself engage in anti-free market practices, such as requiring excessive fees (or bribes) to start a business, or running government monopolies. For example, many goverments that are largely free market for some reason (perhaps government indoctrination) have a monopoly on education. [I pick this because I consider it the single most damaging example of anti-competive practice in the USA.] Now most people would support public funding of education, but a government monopoly on education is another matter. And test results show that just as you would expect, the free market is vastly superior in education both in the quality of the education (how much the kids learn) and cost effectiveness. Though public schools are funded at an average of over $7,000 per student per year, they average 20% poorer results on standardized tests compared to private schools that average only $5,500 funding per student.

In summary, free market is not anarchy. Just as human freedoms require laws to codify the freedoms and government to enforce them, economic freedoms also must be codified and enforced.

[livid imp]

The Livid Imp Digest:

1. We Americans (other than war vets) have not truly experienced the horrors of war, yet we romanticize it at every opportunity. In Vietnam we lost 57,000 souls which spawned 20 years worth of movies and dialog about the subject. Yet we lose 43,000 Americans every year to auto wrecks and we sweep it under the rug because it just isn't interesting enough to make the evening news. Our perceptions of the world are so skewed in the US by so called "patriotism" that we'll go on and on about our great military accomplishments. Every single life lost to war is a tragedy, but when you look at the raw numbers, America is not the great John Wayne it likes to believe it is. We love to brag how we saved the French in WWI & II. The truth is that we played clean up crew. It would be like two boxers going at it for eight rounds, the French boxer gets knocked out, so then we send in a fresh American boxer against the winded German. Now don't get me wrong, all is fair in love and war, and we did the right thing in WWI & II, but America has lost its humility. When you lose your humility, you will start picking fights like a school yard bully. I'll leave that at that because I am starting to go into another subject.

2. Free Market is a great economic system that is doomed to collapse under its own weight without government regulation. A unregulated free market is economic anarchy, which is about as productive as, well, political anarchy. The entire idea behind the free market system is freedom or choice, what could be more American, right? But if you allow the Microsoft's of the world to stifle all the competition because we refuse to issue regulations, then you end up with one product, the same if you had a socialist government making your software. A vote for unregulated capitalism is a vote for socialism ultimately. The only difference is the source.
And let's not forget that this is a game, not political science. The developers are allowed to take artistic license in order to make the game fun. But in real life, free market and planned economies are not mutually exclusive, but rather degrees of separation.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
There is so many inaccuracies it is mind boggling.....

.....Though public schools are funded at an average of over $7,000 per student per year, they average 20% poorer results on standardized tests compared to private schools that average only $5,500 funding per student.

Keep in mind that the students in private schools typically come from middle to upper class families with more involved parents. Public schools have a much higher percentage of unwilling students and teachers which would bring down the test averages of even the richest private schools. It is real easy to brag about your test scores when you can just kick out all the D and F students....public schools don't have that luxury.

For as imperfect a system that it is, the necessities of life (utilities, schools, defense) need to be run by the government, not private enterprise. The last thing we need are a student's education or a soldier's life being sacrificed because it was more economical than doing the right thing.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
There is so many inaccuracies it is mind boggling. Most of them stem from the absurd idea that a free market means a total absence of government regulation. A free market absolutely requires government oversight to ensure that it remains free.

To better understand this, lets look at human freedom. Freedom is definitely NOT the absence of laws or regulations; this is anarchy, and it leads to oppression by the powerful, and very little freedom for the masses. Freedoms require laws and the force of government to protect them, to prevent the powerful from oppressing the weak.

In summary, free market is not anarchy. Just as human freedoms require laws to codify the freedoms and government to enforce them, economic freedoms also must be codified and enforced.

From the SMAC handbook (bold added for emphasis): "Free Market turns market forces loose in your society. Unfettered market economics can produce great wealth quickly, but in the context of Planet's fragile emerging economies can also lead to extremes of pollution and ecological damage. Also, citizens rendered suddenly poor by the actions of unscrupulous moguls may revolt against their energy-fattened masters."

You see, what this topic is all about is Alpha Centauri social engineering, not USA social engineering. I only mentioned Microsoft because it'd then be instantly obvious what I was talking about. Perhaps I should've involved Morgan Industries or OPEC instead.
Alpha Centauri is a game of extremes, as we all should know by now, and this includes Free Market. This one really is an economic model where the government does not interfere with business practises at all in any way.

So, going back on topic, I do not want to live in this kind of Free Market, preffering instead the extremes of Planned, Green or indeed Simple.
In my current real life I'm pretty pleased that I live in a mostly Free Market economy and am equally happy that there's a bit of Planned in it as well.

So... if you want to go defend the sacred Free Market, please go and defend Alpha Centauri's Free Market.

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by livid imp
Keep in mind that the students in private schools typically come from middle to upper class families with more involved parents. Public schools have a much higher percentage of unwilling students and teachers which would bring down the test averages of even the richest private schools. It is real easy to brag about your test scores when you can just kick out all the D and F students....public schools don't have that luxury.

This is an interesting theory, but it is not actually true. Most private schools accept anyone. No screening of bad students. And charter schools, which have to accept all students by law, also outperform public schools.

An interesting social experiment was performed in several US cities, including Milwaukee and Cincinatti. Vouchers were given to thousands of the worst performing and poorest public school students to be able to attend private school with public funding. Within two years, these students had gone from being in the bottom 25% of those tested, to averaging in the 60th percentile (10 percent higher than the public school average).

Some states also permit charter schools to be publicly funded. These schools must accept any student, but operate on a free market principle, in that no one is forced to go to a charter school, and the school is funded based on exactly how many students attend. So if the charter school is sub-par, parent won't send their children there, and the school goes out of business. These schools average test results about half way between public schools and private schools.

In US public schools, free market forces are totally suppressed. Parents are not free to send their schools to whichever public school they want; they are forced to send their children to a specific school, whether it is the best school, or even the closest school. Parents have been forces to send their children clear across town in some cases, their only other choices being to pay for private school, or to move their residence. Because of this, for many parents, the schools that their children will have to attend is a major factor in deciding where to live.

It is interesting how when a monopoly becomes entrenched, it is hard to move back to a free market in that area. If the monopoly is threatened, people being serviced by the monopoly are feed gloom and doom stories about what will happen if the monopoly is broken. This is true with telephone service, and with public schools, where the monopolies spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about the effects of the monopoly being broken (your children will suffer, your phone bill will go up), and discrediting the motives of those who are trying to break the monopoly, as belief in the superiority of the free market is not reason enough to try to break a monopoly.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Most private schools accept anyone. No screening of bad students. And charter schools, which have to accept all students by law, also outperform public schools.

It is not an issue that they will accept anyone. The lowest scoring students are also typically the poorest students that would not afford to go to private school. Thus a private school will always have higher test score averages.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
An interesting social experiment was performed in several US cities, including Milwaukee and Cincinatti. Vouchers were given to thousands of the worst performing and poorest public school students to be able to attend private school with public funding. Within two years, these students had gone from being in the bottom 25% of those tested, to averaging in the 60th percentile (10 percent higher than the public school average).

Two problems with this. One, Milwaukee and Cincinnati are rather white-bread Midwestern cities. I challenge the same test in the inner city of L.A. or N.Y. The social problems run so deep with the poor in those places I would like to see any level of improvement, public or private.
Two, what are the attrition rates in these studies? Again, they'll mean nothing if all the worst students get kicked out, or leave, or were never able to join the study in the first place. Do you have links or references to these studies?

Another thing is that I never said the private schools couldn't do well, or that public are doing well....cause they're not. My point is solving the public school problem isn't privatization, it is grassroots involvement of the parents to push issues.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
If the monopoly is threatened, people being serviced by the monopoly are feed gloom and doom stories about what will happen if the monopoly is broken.

You mean like California's fubar attempt to deregulate energy right? Need I remind you of our energy shortage? That was deregulation at work.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt)

That is a bit redundant isn't?

[Commy]

Ultimately, the Free Market depicted in SMAC is unpractical and unstable, the planned economy is stable but innefficient, and the green economy, while efficient and practical, is not economical...

Any questions?

If you are asking which one I like the best, I would have to say planned. The planned economy depicted in the game is what I would like to live in...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin

If Europe had so much help (in military force) by 1917, then by the end of the war Germany would be overrun

Imagine yourself in the SMAC game where you have 3.8 * 10 = 38 units
Imagine you have FM
Imagine you send 2 units to hostile territory (represents those 200k who were in reality transferred)
In that case, would you worry about pacifism drones??

Enough! The U.S. suffered 300,000 casualties in World War I, in about a year and a half of participation. Much of that time was spent mobilizing, so the casualty rates were pretty high toward the end when the U.S. was making a big difference on the Western Front. How did we manage to sustain 300,000 casualties with a force of 200,000? Only if every man were John Kerry could we have done so.

Here's the link, figures compiled by Al Nofi, who should be known to some of you wargamers and armchair historians alike:

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Originally posted by binTravkin

In the end - you must clearly realise that if any of you, americans want to talk about war, war victims or even historical warfare, you should not do it too overconfidently as your nation has saw at leas 10 times less warfare than an average European nation!

That might have some relevance if people were simply the sum of their nation's historical experiences, but that is not the case. The average American has seen a lot more of war first hand than the average European, as we have fought more of them in the last 50 years. This is at least as meaningful, which is to say not very.

[binTravkin]

The Livid Imp Digest:

1. We Americans (other than war vets) have not truly experienced the horrors of war, yet we romanticize it at every opportunity. In Vietnam we lost 57,000 souls which spawned 20 years worth of movies and dialog about the subject. Yet we lose 43,000 Americans every year to auto wrecks and we sweep it under the rug because it just isn't interesting enough to make the evening news. Our perceptions of the world are so skewed in the US by so called "patriotism" that we'll go on and on about our great military accomplishments. Every single life lost to war is a tragedy, but when you look at the raw numbers, America is not the great John Wayne it likes to believe it is. We love to brag how we saved the French in WWI & II. The truth is that we played clean up crew. It would be like two boxers going at it for eight rounds, the French boxer gets knocked out, so then we send in a fresh American boxer against the winded German. Now don't get me wrong, all is fair in love and war, and we did the right thing in WWI & II, but America has lost its humility. When you lose your humility, you will start picking fights like a school yard bully. I'll leave that at that because I am starting to go into another subject.

2. Free Market is a great economic system that is doomed to collapse under its own weight without government regulation. A unregulated free market is economic anarchy, which is about as productive as, well, political anarchy. The entire idea behind the free market system is freedom or choice, what could be more American, right? But if you allow the Microsoft's of the world to stifle all the competition because we refuse to issue regulations, then you end up with one product, the same if you had a socialist government making your software. A vote for unregulated capitalism is a vote for socialism ultimately. The only difference is the source.
And let's not forget that this is a game, not political science. The developers are allowed to take artistic license in order to make the game fun. But in real life, free market and planned economies are not mutually exclusive, but rather degrees of separation.

Wise words!

I see there are still some americans who don't idealise their nation or US!

[binTravkin]

That might have some relevance if people were simply the sum of their nation's historical experiences, but that is not the case. The average American has seen a lot more of war first hand than the average European, as we have fought more of them in the last 50 years. This is at least as meaningful, which is to say not very.

Well, then I'll ask you:

1.did your grandfather died from a snipers bullet while scouting the frontlines (1943)?
2.was your grandgrandfather enrolled in the age of 15(WWI) and lost left leg in the second war(1942)?
3.was your grandgrandmother from the other parent found dead in the ruins of bombed house(1944)?
Mine were!

Those events are not in 50 year span, but close enough to mention!

Was your fathers cousin drafted to fight in Afganistan?
Mine was!

And I didn't mention that all but one of my grandfathers and grandgrandfathers have "seen combat"!

So you should better close your mouth!
Even if you have related people who had seen war that war was not like my ancestors have seen!

wargamers and armchair historians

I attend Latvian University, History catedre, 2nd course and I'm the best student in the course..
What we learned about in the spring was the beginning of the 20th century.

Well, maybe I dont remeber the real number, but your ancestors didn't made any diference in WWI, difference was made by economical sanctions nut a handful of mis-guided americans who therefore got high casualty ratio!

The frontline moved ~100 km in the 1918 when americans came into fight; do you call it big difference?
To make 10km/month..
If the war continued so, Germany was won around 1925 or even later when Allies reached RUR area..

And you should read livid Imp Digest and think about it a bit cause I'm starting to think that you're just another "patriotic" american who believes too much in his government and american "patriotic" historians

It's showinism!

[binTravkin]

16,353.7

or 16 353 700

This is from link you gave:
WW2, enrolled

And you should clearly see that this number is somewhat weird!

Russians had 13 million at the frontline at 1944
Germans had ~ 6 in average in 1940-1944

Your pitiful historian pretends that US had drafted ~1/3 of USSR's amount and ~2/3 of Germany's amount..

Then where the hell that glorious army was??
Why didn't it came and save us, pitiful Europeans who don't know howto fight and what a real war is?!?

[Dry]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Your pitiful historian pretends that US had drafted ~1/3 of USSR's amount and ~2/3 of Germany's amount..

Chill down a little, Travkin, I have already seen those numbers and although I haven't check all of them, those I have cross checked are correct.
This guy is not a 'pitiful historian'.

Now,I can understand your emotion. And to help fixing the minds, here are three maps of the deads causalties (I insist, the deads only, not the wounded).

First, the keys to read the maps: