There is no evidence of any deities existing, while there is evidence of global warming. Also, quantum mechanics has been well-tested, and has indeed led to major advances, like transistors without which we wouldn't have computers to type posts like this. Let's not forget that things like lasers and atomic clocks also rely on quantum mechanics.

(Incidentally, I could see Quantum Mechanics working as a technology in a Civilization-style game; it would be in the modern era, of course.)

What about putting conservative political propaganda into them?

Also, climate change is not political, not anymore. Yes there are some loons out there who still insist it's a hoax, that evidently highly trained scientist are incapable of reading a thermometer, but they are few and far between, Where the controversy lies is what causes it. The numbers are there, the climate is changing, the catalyst not so much. Both sides have their theories on reason, but I'm not here to argue about that, not in this thread.

In this regard I have no problem. You can deal with climate change and be totally A-political about it. If I was to make a game about an ancient society during an ice age, that would be a game that deals with climate change yet HAS NO POLITICAL AGENDA. You'd have no soapbox to stand on and scream "PROPAGANDA!" and wouldn't your life just be unlivable if you couldn't do that? :P

True, technically there is, though, but i won't get into the semantics of this, as this wasn't a point i was trying to defend. But there's no evidence that it's man made. No need for strawman arguments. No they don't: they rely on basic atomic theory that is disconnected from quantum theory, like i said in another post when you brought this up. Just because you can use quantum theory to explain it doesn't mean it relies on it, otherwise quantum theory laws be explained before quantum theory became a thing, like with gravity. Gravity itself seeks explanation in quantum theory, but to say that we need quantum theory for anything involving the application of gravity would be incorrect, no?

Edit: clarity purposes.

The statement is not disrespectful for anyone; certainly not for you, whom I have followed now for years in these forums. Skins are thin nowadays (curiously, often against those with the most open views, as if marking territory was necessary).

Never mind, I am giving you a reply, just because it is you, in order to remark (even if it should not be necessary if you have read me before in GOG) that disrespect was neither meant nor expressed:

What is said here is that they are putting two things from very different categories in the same basket. Namely: the basket of controversial issues. The argument over the use of gender pronouns is a social debate on social mores and political correctness. Especifically, you might agree (or not) that the debate involves these main points:

1. Civil rights for everyone, no matter their sexual orientation or identity or evolution in them, along with race, age, etcetera.

2. Respect and equal opportunities for everyone, never mind their circumstance, even if it means changing some residual social mores. This affects employability as well (civil rights along with really equal social rights and opportunities).

3. Some people defend that language should accept changes, in order to defy said social mores, and add to the equality of opportunities and civil respect mentioned above.

4. Some defend that the changes mentioned in point #3 should include the generalized use of gender pronouns.

Concerning point #4, AFAIK this is something happening in English, and more of an American/Canadian development (maybe not).

I hope you can agree to that. More or less, of course (surely you have studied it more). The point is: it is largely a social debate about civil and social rights, equality of opportunities and the use of language, which is a human construct.

On the other hand, discussion of climate change, its causes, effects, mitigation and adaptation is a scientific-technical one. These discussons are based on hard data and take place in peer-reviewed forums, such as scientific magazines (scientifc articles) and scientifical congresses (communications).

To provide an example: the last report, Global Warming of 1.5 C from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change (1), is the work of 91 authors from 44 citizenships plus 133 contributing authors, with 6000 cited references and 42001 expert and government review comments.

Simply put, lots of people who know their scientific chops checking on the data and trying to establish physical facts and its possible effects on biology and human life. There are three separate groups for causes (group 1), possible effects (group 2) and possibilities for mitigation (group 3). The final report is a joint effort.

The methods, nature and goals of the two debates are fundamentally different. One is about how should we speak (in English). The other is about the nature, causes and effects of physical-chemical phenomena happening now and what will be happening by 2040, 2070 and later (what we might see in our lifespans and the legacy for the next generations). It is hard to see how anyone would put them together or compare them over the same basis. (2)

##### The main point of this thread is: Civ5 and BE sucked. Fear of CC denialists guiding the design of Civ6 does not bode well for its gameplay experience. It also shows that Firaxis not only forgot how to make amazing games, but have also become cowards. They are free to call me when they get cured from these two afflictions. (3) #####

*******

Footnotes:

(1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN body for assessing the science
related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN
Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide policymakers
with regular scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and potential future
risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies. It has 195 member states.

(2) It might be enlightening to review the "controversy" that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) stirred in its time. Or the "controversy" on the effects of tobacco (popularly thought to have overal beneficial effects--noo need to go further than Robinson Crusoe--and with this belief exploited by propaganda until the law stopped tobacco compaines from doing so. It is safe to say that it is the same kind of "controversy".

(3) On a side note, all the hate towards Beamdog lead yours truly to get all their D&D-related titles and extras on GOG. Just because.
I would have done so either way (maybe not the extras), because they are good restorations and fun if you like D&D.
A nice remark to remember: Cowardice is not the same as treachery, but it has the same consequences.

I will say that he does have a point, here. Regardless of whether or not I believe it's a money making scam or not, these issues are of totally different "spheres." Still, i'd like some evidence that the controversy is behind their decision.

This article on the launch party for Civilization VI quotes Sid Meier literally.

More on "global warming" (as the phenomenom and event was named in the Civilization series) and its absence in Civilization 6: RPS.

And this for the super lazy: just google it.

Yours truly found about it just by chance, searching recently for reviews on Civ6. The aim was finding some hints that it might be a better game than Civ5 or BE. Loved most of the Civilization titles and Sid Meier's prior work, from Civ 1-4 and SMAC to Gettysbourg and the duelling in Sword of the Samurai. On a personal note, this came as a big surprise. Not a nice one. More was expected from someone with such a reputation and background as Meier has: Say it aint so, Sid

WUT?! Quantum physics was created exactly because there were some physical phenomena (particle-wave dualism) that couldn't be explained by other theories. And there are devices that use quantum non-determinism in cryptography.

On topic.
I'm still waiting for OP author to show some link where Firaxis states that no global warming mechanics in Civ 6 was to avoid controvercy and not because they simply cut it to add later in some ecologically themed DLC.

Ninja-ed. Find comment above as well.

Thanks for sharing your views on the issue. It affects not only my beloved Civilization series, but also the games industry and life beyond games, as it might be a symptom of something that might be happening in other media.

BTW, one ot the references in the post above yours was linked above in the thread from the sixth post.

This is the text version of an L-cut. I saw the same article when i googled: i want something with a little more context. The preceeding sentence even suggests that it might just be that they aren't sure how to keep it realistic.

I remember looking up such technology, believe it or not. You'll find more theoretical devices than real ones. Meanwhile, things are still under basic atomic theory. Quantum non-determanism for cryptography need not employ quantum mechanics. You set up isolated enough circuits that you can have an electron go down 1 of two paths, but not both, you're going to see that electron take a path, but that could be determined by the position of other electrons, not necessarily quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is the scientific version of religious goalpost moving, which is also precisely why some religious people are out there saying that God is hiding in quantum physics: because it works for other goalpost moving, too. Just because something can explain something doesn't mean it's true, nor does it mean it's not true. I'm not sold out that quantum theory is false, but I find it really hard to believe without some sort of evidence, especially with all the investment into it and nothing coming out.

But you're right, this is another topic for another time. The end all point is, what's the difference between the global warming alarmist and the doomsayer televangelists? Hint: these people are hypocrites with the same goal of power using fear-mongering tactics.

Still don't see it. Do you mean this? It doesn't say anything why climate change was cut from Civ 6. Firaxis once cut spies from Civ 5, but that was temporarily. They expanded system in DLC.

Yes that crazy liberal agenda item of climate change that has been discussed by scientists since before the modern conservative or liberal political movements existed. It was being discussed by scientists in the 18th century. There has been literally more years of research put into this issue by more scientific minds than most modern medicine, yet it is a made up thing created by a political movement that didn't exist when the research started.

The same thing could be said about alot of things, such as race and IQ, religion, etc. It's amazing what people are willing to buy from doomsayers. Skeptics? Hypocrites: just following the modern BS coming to you from the top, where no one can get in a word edgewise, for fear of not having the right credentials. Sure, we got plenty of evidence for warming itself, but not humans' influence on it, and that's where the real debate is, is it not? But heaven forbid you be a scientist and want to get funding for an opposing study. And don't you dare think about bringing any data. You don't have the right credentials, 'cause you're not part of the right club. No different from the catholic church's monopoly on the bible for such a long time. Such hypocrites.

EDIT: But, hey, what's the difference between fundementalist christians accusing pokemon of being satan worship propaganda over the word "evolution" and the assault on Count Dankula's name over the nazi pug video? Both are incredibly silly.

Calling scientists warning about this doomsayers and comparing them to fundamentalist Christians is kind of a stretch. The Christians are an organization provided a doctrine from the top down. There are thousands of scientists from hundreds of organizations, all receiving funding from different sources, from varying personal political leanings that agree on the currently accepted results. It is an overwhelming majority of them that agree, this isn't a 50-50 split or even an 80-20 split. This is a massive majority.

What I find more surprising is the number of people that discount it out of hand when they are not experts on the subject and have such a small amount of refuting evidence to work from. At that point it simply amounts to something like Pascal's wager. Look at the pros and cons and the end result for each.

1. Climate change isn't real and you don't want to do anything about it so you don't:
Potential Positive: Maintain economic status quo
Potential negative: Everything dies

2. Climate change is real and you try to fix it:
Potential Positive: Preventing everything from dying
Potential negative: The economy may take a temporary hit

When you actually look at the upsides and downsides it makes zero sense from a risk assessment perspective to do nothing about climate change because the downside to doing something is tiny compared to the presented risk. The fact that people make a bet on this being wrong based on their meager expertise and a couple of outliers telling them that it's wrong seems strange to me. And again, that has nothing to do with whether or not you think the data or the premise of the argument is correct, it has to do with a common sense assessment of the benefits and risks of the data being presented regardless of what the actual outcome is.

Not top down at all? Definitely not top down. Definitely not an issue of argument from authority here. Nope, not at all. We don't use consequences to determine truth, at least we never did before. But, hey, while we're throwing a bunch of different things (methane, CO2, etc) which have completely different effects on the environement under the same label, why not just throw nursingNursing, sports , and a few others in there as well? You know, the Christian fundementalists have the same argument about religion as well, right? It's safer to believe in God than risk your soul to damnation in hell. People say religion causes war, but there's a stronger correlation between war and totalitarian authorities. I'm waiting for the day we shoot rockets off in the name of saving the planet, 'cause this is definitely top down.

My favorite question is, say that i'm right: that global warming is real, but not caused by mankind: We're focused on an artificial solution insteaad of trying to come up with a realistic way of avoiding the inevitable, thus are we not effectively simultaneously hurting the economy temporarily and allowing everything to die? I mean, shit, we should be trying to fix things assuming the worst possible outcome to err on the side of safety, no?

EDIT: GOG forum code issues...

EDIT2: I give up, the underlined urls are
Nursing: http://campaignforaction.org/climate-change-health-nursing
Sports: http://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/climate-change-and-sports
A few others: http://www.sustainablepractice.org/