Nobody is worrying for life itself on earth. Life is resilient. Moss and insects will endure. Ecosystems will be reshaped. New balances will be found.

We're just a bit annoyed to be erasing ourselves (and a few fun animals) out of the equation.

One amusing thing with Civ-likes is that, no matter which regime you select, you always run an autocracy. Because it's a game, gameplay requires you to be able to make decisions. A Civ-like where establishing a democracy would mean you'd actually depend on citizens' votes would soon become a (game-of-life-like) demo. So, there's always, by nature, a hypocrisy about being the good guy and setting up democracies in such games.

For the same reason why games that toy with evolution always end up illustrating intelligent design rather than pur darwinian processes. Where would be the player, if it was realistic ?

Actually, in first Civ it was the opposite. Use of nukes actually contributed to pollution that resulted in a global warming. Not very scientific, I know, but we already established that Civ interpretation of natural laws are pretty loose.

Well in those games you're not actually playing the reigning Emperor or President but rather all Emperors and all Presidents over the course of how many thousand years a game goes. You can also think of yourself as "the power behind the throne" so to speak. Therefore elections and such are of very little meaning for you as a player. There are games however, like Europa Universalis or Stellaris where leaders are simulated as characters with individual traits and limited life spans and elections do have an (albeit small) impact on your gameplay.

I agree though, that a game about natural evolution would be very non-interactive. Intelligent design is just much more fun.

Good that at least someone tries:

#1 is already here and mainly caused by the population explosion in e.g. Africa. I refer again to this:

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/

Just try to wrap your mind around it:

in 1955: 253,995,025
in 1990: 634,567,044
in 2018: 1,287,920,518
in 2040: 2,100,301,731 (projected)

The immigration flood from Africa and Middle-East to e.g. Europe is not caused by drought or floods or hurricanes or melting icebergs, but ever-increasing over-population which uses e.g. Europe as the safety valve. Even without any climate change, that excessive population WILL try to go somewhere where they think they could find a better standard of living (= becoming western/European consumers with a huuuuuge carbon footprint, usually even two).

Also, the way news travel nowadays globally (via internet) accelerates this immigration, that many people make the exact same decision (to try to move to some other continent) at the same time. This wasn't already a thing e.g. in the 50s or even 80s, immigrants from Africa and Middle-East didn't have smartphones and Facebook back then.

Same for #4, even without climate change, such population explosion will cause food shortage. The main problem is the population explosion, not climate change. I think the "activists" don't care about that because you can't damn the white meat-eating hetero man for the population explosion, as the birth rate in many western countries is record low (e.g. in Finland it was said to be this low somewhere in the 1800s during famine).

As for war and terrorism, there are far more probable reasons for it, like religion.

Generally, I find it odd that the alarmist never seem to take this far higher number of people on the globe into account when discussing about CO2 levels and whatnot. Isn't it quite logical that 1,287,920,518 people will consume and produce much more CO2 gasses than 253,995,025 people, even if we are talking about poor Africans? Even if their carbon footprint is relatively small, that much more people will still consume and produce CO2 much more by burning wood and raising cattle, than when the population was only 1/10 of it.

Like I keep saying, in order to combat this so-called climate change, the best and most effective things you could do are, in this order:

1. Don't procreate.
2. Kill yourself.

I am unsure if this is possible in Civilization games.

Then the people will gradually move more to inland. Problem solved. Or, they do what the Dutch did, those damn geniuses living under the sea level.

That has nothing to do with coral reefs, which occupy less than 0.1% of the oceans, only in very specific areas. Plus, there are lots of other things causing destruction of coral reefs than just rising sea temperatures, for instance excess nutrients in seas (possibly from e.g. farming which is needed for the ever-increasing population).

You would have a point, if forests and jungles occupied less than 0.1% of the land area on the globe, in very specific areas. As it is now, you are overly exaggerating their importance.

Since we are already half-way to the hell with the existing, current, 1 degree increase, these "extreme climate fluctuations" seem quite weak, for "extreme". Hyperbole much? Sometimes just using superlatives doesn't work.

There you have it, the reason I call your kind "alarmists". You are like the people preaching about Jesus' second coming.

I'll make you a bet. In 50 years, we will not be extinct. No, we won't even be living in some kind of hell. The people in 2068 will be playing video games, just with better graphics and more DRM than now.

I am basing this in common sense. 1978 was 40 years ago. The CO2 levels must have had massive increases since then... yet the world today is not worse off at all. We don't have famine, we aren't dying left and right due to "extreme" weather, we are just arguing on the internet. I find that impressive especially considering how the world population has grown over these 40 years, meaning more people needing food and consuming shit. Somehow we have been even been able to feed all these people, even if even 40 years ago there were news of drought and famine in Africa and whatever. Very little has changed since then.

If I am to believe you alarmists, in 40 years this will all be barren desert and everyone is dead! D-E-D dead! After all, you used the keyword "extinction". As in, end of the world, apocalypse, The Judgement Day, The Second Coming.

When some start preaching, I become suspicious.

Suddenly you don't seem too concerned about climate change? I thought we have to take all possible measures to fight it, but suddenly when it comes to discussion about e.g. over-population, the alarmists go "meh".

Again you seem completely reluctant to discuss about the effects of population explosion to all this. How many more people live(d) in Syria in e.g. 2015, than 900 years ago, or even 50 years ago? Isn't it just common sense to think that the overpopulation in the area in itself accelerates drought and other unwelcome effects, as e.g. three times more people will use three times more ground water, or raise three times more cattle (for which forests are cut down for grazing land) etc,? They will most probably also produce three times more CO2 gasses, by the way.

And the fact that the number of people in the area have jumped from e.g. 253,995,025 to 1,287,920,518 in about 60 years has nothing to do with that, right? And if I point that out, then I must be into eugenics or something?

1. Your reluctance to acknowledge that they have effect to it as well (CO2 levels, climate change, whatever).

2. It has every bearing, from steel to plastic bearings. I already explained it: after immigration, they become these awful western consumers which produce much more CO2 gasses and consume everything from the world.

If you really are so concerned about climate change, then you should be vehemently preaching against mass-immigration from poorer countries to richer ones, and fight it every way you can. Because climate change and human self-extinction, you knows?

Can you name which areas, and specifically point out that they became wastelands due to climate change = rising temperatures, and not due to overpopulation, wrong cultivation, extra cattle (to feed the extra people) etc.?

You can't blame climate change if some people cut down rain forests for pastures because there are suddenly three times more people living in the area (or the world overall).

Dammit, I knew my one-man marble-throwing development team had a leak!

I get your point about demographics and climate change but I don't think the solution is as simple as reducing the population index.

First of all there's the economic issue, if you're from Finland I'm assuming you live under a welfare state. Decreasing demographics jeopardise that model as there's not enough revenue to sustain the ageing population, which means that if your country doesn't incentivise immigration or childbirth you'll be in trouble.

Why? Well, assuming that scenario, the working class will have to be taxed heavily and their wealth will decrease, which means that they won't be able to sustain or think about having children which creates a downward spiral that leads to the welfare state collapse; working families will also reduce spending and the economy will also collapse because of that, which means less jobs which means poverty which creates another downward spiral. The implications of an economic collapse reach to many other departments such as energy, food, housing, etc. You can see how the picture ain't pretty.

Then let's end the welfare state. Well, this is a problem because your country will grow in inequality to the extent that it'll most probably face either a dictatorship, a working-class revolution, a civil war, a war with other countries for their resources, etc. This doesn't look good either.

Ok then let's try to reach an agreement for a sustainable reduction in global demographics but... How do you do that? How do we establish a scientific model that regulates population in the world and to which every country has to adscribe to? Does this sound familiar? If we can't even do it with greenhouse-gas emissions how are we supposed to talk about population? After all a country with less population is a weaker country. For example, let's say the EU agrees to reduce their population but Russia doesn't, see where I'm getting at? And even before thinking about a war-like stage we have to consider the economic consequences that such measure could have. If we were to do this peacefully there's no avoiding a global agreement.

To conclude, neither me, nor you, nor anybody else has a clear answer. These are complex issues and being so taxative will only get you so far. We should be able to wrap our minds around more and more questions (especially if we want to foresee harsh consequences) rather than sticking to a certain set of figures which, isolated and descontextualized, can easily prove any point.

Overall you're right, but i just returned to this long enough to point out that the Gluten-free thing isn't about climate change or anything like that, but it's an allergen. I can't imagine the left actually making things gluten-free, as it is overall unhealthy for those who don't have gluten intolerance or straight-up celiac's disease (and people with these conditions need special help getting the nutrients they need that wheat, in particular, usually provides). For reference, regulations to help people with this condition were largely ineffectual: Rice Krispies don't list wheat, but are not gluten free: the allergenic gluten (not all gluten causes issues) comes from wheat and barley, but only wheat gets listed, so things with "malt flavoring" and such can contain the allergenic gluten without it being listed as an ingredient.

And it gets interesting how such conditions show up: it's not like the usual anaphylaxis, but major blood pressure changes, gastrointestinal flushing, and potentially new allergens showing up, such as Hashimoto's syndrome (last one isn't empirically verified, yet).

Even that path is unsustainable: the elderly are always getting more numerous, especially when not all are elderly. Not only that, but more people available for work doesn't mean that more work is available, which drives down the average wage towards the minimum, which is what we're seeing in the United States right now: while wages are similar to europe, the purchasing power of that wage is much, much lower, and businesses don't feel the need to compete and drive up wages, because of the US' immigration and birth policies have the market saturated with people who will work minimum wage, just to pay the rent, and in some cases we have people moving in together who have no sexual interest or attracting to each other (on the plus side, this drives the population down, as these people will feel too obligated to keep their roommate above water than to abandon them and get married and settle down with someone). Noticed this is the shortest point. I think in the end, some level of conflict has become inevitable because of the welfare state: too many businesses know you can get welfare to pay your bills, so they aren't incentivized in that regard, either, to keep wages at a certain level. I've met plenty of people who are on welfare while working, and they actually properly qualify. If companies didn't have workers, this would change. If this results in a little bloodshed: well, that's the price we paid for dealing with this devil in the first place. It's unsustainable, as a whole, and will invariably end. The longer it takes to end, the more it's going to hurt, which means the more inequality that will exist when it finally does end. Better to end it early, for equality's sake. Other than the CO2 thing, overpopulation is a myth. But, just as we want to say that we need to cut down on CO2, why can't we grow more of those things that eat the CO2: plants? I've heard some interesting stuff going on in this field, but it's progressing ever so slowly (i've heard there is a potential fuel source out of this, as well, but i remain skeptical of this point). IMO, regardless of what we do with it, it seems to be the most efficient method of using solar energy. My problem is, we keep relying on people known for using their special interest to come up with objective solutions for the benefit of society instead of themselves. Why are we trusting the foxes to guard the chickens from evil spirits? I'm still skeptical that foxes can guard against evil spirits (government can even accomplish any of this) or that there are even evil spirits (manmade causes of global warming).

As I said before, fundamentalism, in its Civilization 2 form, was game-breaking. If they were to keep or re-introduce that form of government, it would need to be tweaked in order for it to be balanced.

The thing is, realism and the creator's political views are not the only factors that determine what goes into the game. Whether a mechanic is included depends on whether it can be reasonably balanced, and on whether the mechanic is fun for the player. (One example: Civilization 3, when it was in beta, had Dark Ages, which playtesters didn't find fun. So, they ended up inverting the mechanic and introduced Golden Ages instead.)

Hence, I can ask a question: Is global warming fun for the players? If it is not fun, then that is a good reason to eliminate the mechanic. If it is fun, then the mechanic is worth keeping. (Perhaps some experienced Civilization player could weigh in on this?)

One other thing: Each mechanic included in a game increases the game's complexity; this increases the risk of bugs and balance issues.

I think your question is the honest to goodness reason: some people like to play these games with a focus: slink in the shadows, avoid open conflict, build everything you need to complete wipe everyone out, etc, then wipe everyone out. Ever use a cheat console in Rome: Total War to make massive amounts of elephant units early in a campaign? It's fun in it's own sort of way. Global Warming and Pollution mechanics basically put the breaks on this sort of game play, and some people just don't like that. Is that the majority? Is Civ trying to expand by appealing to people who want to play like that? I really don't know.

But, hey, look at comparative games like Virtua Fighter and Dead or Alive: the roster size and the "counter system" are the only tangible differences between the games (even the character button combinations are about the same), but everyone will tell you "they're completely different games." And, yes, the fans usually have played both (especially thanks to the crossover stuff in Dead or Alive 5). DoA devs openly admitted that they were ripping off Virtua Fighter. But, hey, a 25% chance of guessing your opponent's attack and reversing it (where if you make a guess and guess wrong, you get punished worse) makes Virtua Fighter people call Dead or Alive "for casuals" and "too easy," and things like that.

In every Civilization game there must be some mechanics that act as obstacles for the player, to limit expansion, production, money, etc. For example, Civilization IV has the best one in the series, city maintenance (a new city is initially a net loss, but with investment in buildings/population, it will eventualy become profitable). But even overcoming this obstacles was challenging and fun.

As for your question: no, global warming was never fun. It didn't work as a limit to anything: it came too late into the game and was only annoying, turning random tiles into desert, which is not how nature works. It could even be a consequence of the use of nuclear weapons, which doesn't make no sense as you'd expect the exact opposite (nuclear winter).

There is already a related mechanic in Civ IV that makes a better job: unhealthiness/pollution. It limits the food and therefore the population growth of cities. It's not that noticeable if you play at easier difficulty levels, but at the higher ones it becomes a serious problem to deal with, and even makes the Environmentalism civic (which usually nobody implements) a desirable choice.

(Despite how annoting global warming is, I cannot stop recommending Civilization IV. If you haven't played it yet, go buy it. You can thank me 10,000 turns later).

That's kind of why they would do that since doing harmful things to the populace mentally, physically, and even spiritually is their thing. But yes, I love me some gluten. :)

I see it differently. Yes, it wasn't fun getting your nice land destroyed, but so was having an army invading your country or other players building that Wonder just a few turns before you could have completed it. I guess, Civ was never really about having fun all the time. Coming late in the game also isn't really a bad thing. Tanks came late in the game and they rocked. How nature works, we still don't fully understand ourselves, but a random degradation is kind of statistically equivalent to an overall degradation, which is kind of predicted for global warming. I can accept that as an approximation of the effect, like the stacks of doom were also only an approximation in Civ IV. One effect of using nuclear weapons is to make the target area unproductive for a long time. They could have solved it differently (maybe by marking it as radioactively polluted) but it's only a minor nuisance in my eyes.

All in all, I think it's a suitable game element. It surely adds to the complexity of a game like Civ. I even think it shows Sid Meier's genius to already in the 90s include something from real life that becomes really popular only later. But at that time one could still joke about global warming because it was much more far away.