CIV and the End of History 

Loved Mission Impossible 64!

jordan peterson jungian lobster phase - I'd like to learn more about that, laugh

Ugh, another mistake: I've got a typo for the year 1984 in ~22:44

Another minor error: Crusader Kings 3 starts in 867, not 807

@@the_representative 867 is the other and i believe more popular start date

Singapore is what you want it to be.

Also Singapore is not "free market" the state owns the biggest investment company (from which its economy basically depends) and most of the housing

good

Singapore is a complicated onion where people look into what they want to see, and that's coming from someone on the inside.

This is a fucking world heritage comment

Pilgrims pass enjoyer, pretty based

Absolutely - Civ especially portrays history as a straightforward match towards modernity with absurd results like the Aztecs adopting knightly feudalism

That's one of the most fascinating aspect of transhumanism - every civilization has had one thing in common: humans. Change that and who knows what kind of aggregate behavior we get

I would argue communalist ways of living are the danger for his supposed "end of history" propaganda bullshit.

kinda funny if you think about it from a soviet "OGAS is a step toward communism" POV, like, this stuff actually existed as a movement, a promising one imo that failed because USSR politics were shit since khruschev.

@@VolokArtyom There is no point in history when Russian politics was not terrible, these people never got a breather

@@perverse_ince they did evolve from an agrarian feudalist society to an industrial powerhouse competing against the US in the space race in just a couple of decades, when the US already started that race as one of the strongest industrial nations of the entire world. "The politics were terrible" depends on the point of view you want to look at it. I could say the US politics are terrible because of their insane overfocus on cars and privatisation of even the most fundamental of needs, or the giant prison population that are practically used as slave labour, or the constant destabilisation wars against anyone who doesn't agree with them enough. And yet the US is most often celebrated as the richest country in the world and the centre of modern western culture.

Yeah, that could be a discussion (admittedly one I'm less equipped for) but I really did just start reading weather statistics for like an hour as a meaningless rabbithole for the Morocco point. I mean, I've been there and there absolutely are lots of drylands and mountains, but there's also typical "Mediterranean coast" so that region in specific sticks out as an example. I'm sure there's probably tons of places/ways games get India wrong too. I dunno if I could make a whole video on it, but it could be part of an odds-and-ends thing for the bad history bonus. We'll see.

Lots of interesting things, the most obvious are map changes like EU4 making Venice a large island so it can actually defend itself with its navy. But also a lot of problems come from oversimplfied biomes, "plains" are a flat grassy area but northern Europe, the Great plains of the USA, the Russian Steppe, ect are very different biomes but still get lumped together with the same bonuses.

There is much democracy in capitalism, it is just the way the vote works is different, that is others vote for you with their money, which they get in turn from being voted by others.

@@Cecilia-ky3uw Lol.

@@AbstractTraitorHero that is in essemce how capitalism's democracy works.

@@Cecilia-ky3uw Its a joke dude because it's just plutocracy your talking about. Their is no democracy there, capitalism is anaethma to genuine democracy.

@@AbstractTraitorHero the wealthy are people who are voted for by the majority of people using their money.

I think it's the idea that an autocracy using ai as a tool is not immediately a technocracy just because they use technology.

Yeah but all of those have free market capitalist economies with more or less liberal government structures.

​@@nicholascarter9158 technocracy is not a democracy anyway, so still strange

It doesn't, Civ 6's cold war ideologies leads to globalization, environmentalism, and social media. It isn't until you research the "Optimization Protocol" that all of it amounts to a "Synthetic Technocracy," which means even the Totalitarian or Communist governments can become a technocracy if they research it.

​​@@user-qi6pv9jh7omany modern autocracies or unitary single party states present themselves as democratic or are partially democratic in effect, most full "open" multi party democracies still have elements of non democratic states or define limits of democratic rule in the interest of maintaining the state. So I'd be reluctant in walling any particular system off as wholly separate.

Personally, I think understanding him and that he had more going on than just confirming the neolib worldview and being platformed for it is important. He's got a whole tradition he's pulling from and they're worth understanding. It's easy to mistake it for the simple millenariansim of "the day is coming" rather than a complex millenarianism that is detailed in his book.

China would like a word with his claims. ;)

@@wunderwerks7826 I'm sure they absolutely would. In fact, the CCP is one of the many victims of the Poverty of Historicism, they are an explicitly historicist ideology that sees itself as the next phase of history. But are they? He's acknowledged that China seems to be doing well... so far, but fundamentally he doubts that their system is going to sustain in the long term, and definitely won't become the center of a new global order as Monarchy and Liberalism have in their own times. And indeed, cracks are showing in the covid response that would almost make them envious of democracies. The Zero Covid Policy has turned from ingenious efficiency into an abject failure but the political system of China does not allow them to change course so easily.

@@wunderwerks7826 China’s going to collapse that’s to the demographic bomb as a result of the one child policy.

@@wunderwerks7826 they are probably too busy welding people into their homes to keep them from coughing on eachother tho

As long as it doesn't end before I do I'm not too worried about it.

you got yourself a new subscriber!!

Ck3s culture and religious mechanics seem to answer that a bit better as you don't really have true control over how they grow and act. Unless you create your own , even then it takes a huge amount of effort and some compromise will be made.

I like the idea of a game where you play as a culture - rather than a regime, leader, or even a nation/state.

Gasp, I know, it's wild.

Don't worry, you should get it with your microwave's next dlc :p

@@joshuawhite9876 big if true

For all intents and purposes China is almost a model national socialist state

Yeah, I actually originally considered writing a section on this in a bit more depth. It's very much as you say, an open ended conclusion. I was looking at it more as just flat and sudden. The games I've reached the endpoint to have tended to just suddenly be happening with like 1 turn's warning before the game was over, and I suppose that took the fore in my experience (even though the discussion is more about tech/civics than the timeline). In the end, I ended up leaning away from the distinctions, and maybe that was a mistake and there's more conversation to be had than I anticipated. I do genuinely appreciate that Humankind has a narrator with a bias, who also seems to mostly be curious what you'll do. There's more than a few moments where you're asked "so what happens next?" and I think that's charming. I'm...not optimistic about near future content.

It was hidden in plain sight. (To be fair I’ve fought the urge to bring him up like four times in other scripts)

If fortune tellers could really see the future, they'd be buying stocks and lottery tickets instead of trying to making money telling other people's fortunes.

What

​@@VenomSnake420authoritarian countries becoming stronger, throwing doubt onto the idea of a world embrace of democracy any time soon

"Democratic elements" is the problem here, I think. Democracy itself is a looser concept than we take it to be, given that it applies to things ranging from voting rights and enfranchisement to representation and republic style government-- but also, since the time of Marx, at the least, has been applied to work as well. Defining the shape and limit of "democracy" is part of the issue , then. It's true that, for example, the Netherlands has a democratic government. But they also have a monarch still. And a representative legislature. And workplaces are not "democratic" in a way that mirrors even representative government. There are undemocratic things in democratic countries. Capitalism, if we define it not as open markets or "trade" as some might, but as the control of large industry by a small amount of people who use their profits to invest into expansion and the conglomeration and assimilation of smaller industries is, intrinsically undemocratic, because it necessitates a centralization of power. It is not "undemocratic" in the sense of being, on paper, at odds with universal suffrage, for example (though there are arguments that lobbying is not an unfortunate side effect but an inevitable element of capitalism, and it does, ostensibly exist to interrupt democracy). Charitably, if one's idea of democracy did not include labor, and did not take issue with representative government (as opposed to direct democracy) then capitalism is not at odds with democracy. I don't want to speak in absolutes here, but two things appear true in a "never been tried" way, as you put it: capitalism without economies of scale (forced through colonialism and exploitation, or otherwise) has not been tried, and modern democracy without the influence of money has not been tried. Now, the latter point is quite idealist, I recognize, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth consideration. Is it democracy when every person in Montana is represented by two senators, who can in turn choose to represent the interests of one pharmaceutical company, at the expense of their constituency, due to the influence of capital? This could go on, as a topic, for quite some time. As to your last question, that is a genuine concern, and it's why, at least for me, personally, "stage theories" of history are more templates than they are declarations of inevitability. And it's also why eventually there was the articulation of what we call "postmodernism"-- the absence of meta-narrative. (That does not make me a post-modernist, mind you.) I would argue that theories of socialism that are more articulated or mainstream present themselves more as theories or pathways that could happen, where at the very least Fukuyama is a bit more singular and expectant. The certainty is important to the charge of millinerianism. But that also becomes rather semantic. But ultimately, the monopoly on democracy, as you put it stems from having a more totalizing definition of what ought be democratized.

I started with 3, so I just did what I know… though I do know what civ 2 still has the cure for cancer wonder which is in civ 3 and partly inspired this video

I wonder how he got the point that fascism wouldn't be corporate if it literally was before WW2 started, while during WW2 Germany turned into a slave/conquest economy.

At least Purity being the most k-mart brand Warhammer 40k faction aesthetic was really funny the first time I saw it.

On the contrary, Purity at least makes perfect sense. It is the expression of a politics of nostalgia, which has been given various forms in our real political landscapes, such as the irredentism of Russia under Putin that contradictorily yearns for the glory of both imperial czarist Russia and the communist USSR that defeated the nazis. Harmony, on the other hand, can be seen as another expression of the transhumanism at the heart of Supremacy, but one that focuses on, well, harmonising with nature as it is rather than wrestling with it through the brute force of Supremacy. It is also a more transcendentalist vision than Supremacy, trying to elevate itself beyond transhumanism into posthumanism. This is especially succinctly contrasted with the victory conditions associated with each ideology: Purity, naturally, looks back to and idealises Earth, making its ultimate mission the fulfilment of the hopes vested into the settlers by the people of Earth by bringing them to this new Promised Land. Supremacy, having subjugated the alien world with technological might, returns to Earth to subjugate the rest of humanity and bring them "into the fold", while Harmony fully realises the transhumanist vision and its own moniker, and finally turns posthuman, destroying the distinction between human and non-human, civilisation and nature, and unlike the other two ideologies, surpasses Earth and its own origin. All in all, I actually quite like the ideologies of Civ: Beyond Earth as speculative ideological adaptations to a new world and its conditions by the pioneers that make up the factions of the setting.

of course it is, abrahamic religions call themselves slaves of God, so it is not something they'll be angry about