Socio-economic engineering?

[David]

"Your looking for an evolutionary change in a species that has stopped evolving."

Not so. We are increasingly in a purely man-made environment, but that does not mean we have stopped evolving. The species is evolving to fit its new urbanized environment

Trends point to a future in which almost everyone will live in urbanized areas of increasing population density. For example, in sections of societies that has been urbanized for thousands of years in China, a strict code of social conduct has been ingrained in the society. Similarly, in Japan where exessive public emotion is frowned upon, strict social conduct is enshrined in elaborate social mores (this may be changing, though). The Japan example is interesting, because a kind of warrior-individualist ethos is present, but in reality collectivism prevails. Surely, both of these societies had been borne of primitives that constantly grunted about what they wanted publicly: as was the case with probably all primitives. Will those with increased “emotional intelligence” and tolerant introversion prosper, and will those with rampant individualistic aristocratic desires perish, due to the nature of highly urbanized living? It is a possibility.

A collectivist point of view will prevail; individualism must give way in all but ceremony. This does not necessarily mean Communism, it means strict statism. Elements of Communism are present in all industrialized societies, including America. The truth is that all systems have their merits and synthesis inevitably results. The dominant world power that has its 15 minutes of fame, totes its system as best, though its system in practice can not be ideologically pure, it must bend to reality. Idiotic rhetoric requires that the propaganda encased in the rhetoric boil out all the impurities. Therefore, we have the dogmatic stupidity of Ayn Rand, whereas mixed systems are required to be very successful. To have a clear academic thesis idiotic simplistic platitudes are required to make a more convincing argument (i.e., “The <insert your ideology here> is the best system, and here are the reasons why…”) When in reality the way society works is much more complex than that.

How does this apply to Cantr, and the discussion?

It seems that those some people want a hamstringed combat system, and excessive scarcity to play out their specific play style (greedy tycoon), at the expense of destroying the accurate social development of the game. Well, maybe this highlights who owes who. A strong government is required to protect the tycoon from the people (his workers) and foreign invasion. Without that, Capitalism is unprotected, giving way to the tried and true tribalism. Industrialists are not possible without highly advanced governance and infrastructure first! Otherwise they are wiped out by raiders and under developed markets! You cannot just skip right to Industrialist Capitalism. There are several levels of advancement before that, so people need to be patient, it takes a long time.

Scarcity in Cantr will only grow, without artificially increasing it, why? Geography produces scarcity. Someone mentioned that iron is abundant in X location, while lacking in another. That is scarcity! Each location in Cantr is a market, whether developed or not, A market has X resource, and B market has Y resource. Even with the most highly developed transportation, you are not going to see an across the board unified market, so scarcity will rise. Why will it rise? As government control rises, and more people populate a region, a sense of uninhibited sovereignty will develop, trade will ensue between nations, rather than individuals traveling from one region to another. The industrialist relies on the government once again, because without lucrative trade deals among highly advanced governments, the economies of scale that industrialist wants can’t happen. In other words, massive amounts of resources will only be traded among groups of people, while an individual company may make all the money off the deal…

There is ONE thing, with respect to increasing scarcity that ought to be implemented: decay. Other than that, the answer is: wait for large and complex governments to develop, so they can trade with each other.

[Meh]

People are evolving but society could be. Evolution is so slow it is hard to tell. It seems to me that it is at a standstill.

As far as scarcity ever resource is exhaustable and should be in the game. But that would have to be balanced by being able to technologically provide new sources of resources or increasing supply.

[David]

The Star Wars Galaxies model could be used: The resources spawn every so often in different places, and leave others. That might be a little too destabilizing, though.

[Meh]

For metals I would like to see mining become steadily harder. It could require tools-only, machine-only, or added processing (iron ore) as resources become more scarce at a particular location.

http://www.protiserron.gr/proti-new-old/envilstory.htm

Chance discoveries of undiscovered things would be neat too. It would be neat too if the discoverer was a chracter and at first only that character could get the resource and those he told of it. As mining went on it would be easier for others to rediscover even if not told.

For food I would like to see the wild varties have a refresh rate than when exceed means that it steadily becomes harder to acquire. Requiring farming. I belive the first farming was simply poking sticks in the soil and putting seeds in.

[kroner]

The populations in cantr are not very dense and the amounts being mine aren't that much. If you wanted to mirror RL on this one, the minable resources shouldn't become significantly harder to find. I think item deterioration would be a better solution because depletion just gives newer characters an additional disadvantage. Food is a completely different matter.... there should probably be some depletion or at least less yield when more people are farming, but with food and other plant products it will grow back.

[Meh]

Yeah. I guess I get it now. Deteration of items first then resource depletion.

Now would food depletion work the same way in that it would benifit older chracters? It would be OK since food is avialable more widely? Food should grow back but only according to how much unpicked plants are available to grow back from.

[kroner]

With minable resource depletion I was thinking you meant that it would never grow back, so the characters that get there first have the easiest time. As time passes, the resources will get more and more scarce. With food, if it grows back, then on average food will stay about as easy to get as time passes. That was the distinction I was making.

[David]

I like the idea of smaller yields the more people farming at once. Certainly not calculated by the amount of projects though: that would be highly exploitable: someone could start dozens of projects and starve a town. If calculated by the amount of people farming at a given time, and a gradual reduction in the quality of the soil, which can be brought back up if people stop farming intensively for a while.