SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Note that Civ and other strategy games in the same ilk got it wrong.
Science/Research is not something you "bank". Science is something you invest in, and continue to invest in. Stop the investment and "Science" regresses.
For those who haven't played the Civilization games, the idea is that you run a civilization and compete with other civilizations. They typically are city-oriented (a key step in expanding power of the civilization is building more cities), and they invariably bank science. That is, if I'm researching writing and decide for some reason to switch over to research other technologies for a while, I can pick up where I left off on writing - even if it is a thousand years later!
This is part of a larger problem, namely that civilization is seen as a strictly progressive affair - anything you do aside from losing wars moves the civilization forward. Sure, if you start next to Alexander the Great or nuclear Gandhi (or worst of all a human player!), you have plenty of opportunity to experience civilization setbacks as the aggressive neighbor makes war on you. But you can slack off on science, infrastructure maintenance, etc and pick it up later.
In the real world, there's plenty of failure modes other than losing wars. Conversely, a number of real world civilizations have lost a bunch of wars yet still were able to keep relevant.
Over the past couple of weeks, I've been watching a podcast series called "Fall of Civilizations". Production values do leave something to be desired (such as showing a trash fire in an unnamed Middle East neighborhood when discussing someone burning something in a war or rebellion or reusing stock images in multiple episodes), but it's an interesting angle on history. The author starts with a discussion of the significant ruins that the civilization left behind, often from the point of view of historical figures who discovered it first, what the civilization actually did that made it notable, and finally, what led to the fall and its aftermath - including from the point of view of the people caught up in the fall. Last I checked he's up to 16 episodes.
What's interesting is how few of these disasters have a single, clearly identifiable cause (sometimes they just don't know why at all). Usually it's multiple factors with considerable uncertainty as to the relative significance of the factors. Again, this isn't something captured in historical games like Civilization. For example, what combination of factors caused the collapse of the Assyrian empire (Episode 13)? Did it fall due to the fact nobody liked them and finally unified enough, climate change transition from the best rainfall in the region to something of a megadrought, vast overextension of the empire (key parts of the army couldn't return in time to the core Assyrian region to save it), or an effect nobody has considered yet (maybe some sort of heavy metal poisoning explains their wacky leaders)?
A key problem for many of these civilizations was that they either stopped banking something (the collapse of the trade networks and disappearance of multiple languages of the late Bronze Age cultures of the eastern Mediterranean which at least partially was due to not diversifying critical resource needs like bronze and food and very low literacy) or they had some hidden deficit in their civilization that grew over time (such as the decline of Sumeria due to widespread salinization of irrigated farmland which when the region was hit with a drier climate turned the area from a great net food producer to mass starvation).
That leads to my observation - that just because a society or civilization has something now, not just nuclear engineering know-how and experience, doesn't mean it can keep it. Too often strengths of civilizations are taken for granted and just assumed that they will continue no matter how much we or the environment impair them. Well, there are a bunch of dead civilizations that indicate otherwise. You or nature can break something to the point that your civilization no longer exists in a recognizable form.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19, @12:51PM
I've been commenting throughout the threads here, and there are multiple people doing whatever they can to defend keeping wages low. This is short-sighted.
I am a manager within a large organization. I make hiring and firing decisions for a team of workers I oversee. When I make a hiring decision, HR gives me a range of wages or salaries that they will allow for the position. HR tries to keep wages and salaries down, including my own, meaning that they encourage me to go lower in the range. I do not follow that guidance, instead always paying at the upper limit of the range. HR would be happy to let me hire workers for 35% less pay, but I choose to pay top dollar.
This isn't some benevolent crusade to increase worker pay. Yes, I want to be fair to the employees I supervise. But paying better is good for productivity. The work we do is technical in nature, and there's a fairly steep learning curve to get used to our systems. Paying top dollar improves employee retention, meaning that I don't have to train new employees as frequently. During that training period, the employee isn't going to be as productive. Retaining good employees is good for overall productivity.
In addition to paying top dollar, I tell my employees that I don't require them to work from the office, and I am flexible about when they work. However, I expect them to be available when we have meetings to work on solutions to problems that arise. I also expect them that the work has to get done, that it's done well, and that it's done on time. It's a bargain where I give employees the very best working environment and pay that I can, and in exchange, they give me their very best effort and quality of work.
As a manager, I have a pool of money to spend on hiring. I could pay less and have more employees, but I would probably have a higher employee turnover rate and substantially less productivity. Instead, I choose to pay well, and in return I get better employee retention and productivity.
I understand that I have a set budget to work within, and I have to make sure that the work gets done. That does place some limits on how much I can pay employees. But choosing to keep employee pay lower than what is actually necessary is often bad management. That is why I prefer to hire good employees, pay them well, and insist on high standards. I am very selective about who I hire, but I pay employees well once I hire them. I see the results of this in the form of productivity. I wouldn't tolerate employees abusing the pay and flexibility I provide, because I do insist on getting good value and productivity from my employees. But paying well also means I'm less likely to get an applicant pool that is full of delinquents.
Even if my employees provided the exact same effort for 35% less pay, productivity is going to suffer because they're going to leave for better jobs, and I'm going to constantly be training new employees. However, I am also confident that I am getting more skilled applicants because I am willing to pay a premium. All the screeds about Marxism completely miss the point. None of this is about Marxism. In my case, it's about running my small part of the business in a way that maximizes our productivity. I wonder how many people posting those screeds actually have any experience in management. I don't think employees are lazy at all. It's been quite the opposite in my experience, that when you treat employees well, they're willing to work hard and do a good job. I am a capitalist. I want to maximize productivity so that we can get new contracts in the future and increase the amount of money we're bringing in. Sticking it to employees doesn't maximize profits.
As for the people posting about Marxism, defending things like stock buybacks, and justifying low wages, I doubt they have any managerial experience at all.