Clearing slums should add a pop.

[Secret Master]

Did someone say "leave the Bronx?"

Gotta move the POPs to New Mexico.

 

[Shermanator]

I've always thought the clearing slums and industrial wastelands should cost more (its not exactly easy to end poverty) but reward you with influence. I mean, you just lifted millions of people out of poverty, or cleaned up a huge amount of land, fixing the world's major pollution problems. Your just not clearing tiles, your fixing society's problems when you clear those two tiles.

 

[Crissa]

That's a cool idea, that clearing the slums would create a pop (or maybe just a growth boost).

 

[Surimi]

Gotta move the POPs to New Mexico.

But yeah, the point I was actually making with that weird reference is that you're all assuming those people are all being rehabilitated or turned into productive citizens again, instead of just killed (sorry, "disinfested") or abandoned. Not every society in Stellaris is a nice place to live.

Even today on our comparatively nice planet, urban renewal or getting rid of slums doesn't always mean good things for the people living there.

 

[Secret Master]

But yeah, the point I was actually making with that weird reference is that you're all assuming those people are all being rehabilitated or turned into productive citizens again, instead of just killed (sorry, "disinfested") or abandoned. Not every society in Stellaris is a nice place to live.

Even today on our comparatively nice planet, urban renewal or getting rid of slums doesn't always mean good things for the people living there.

I assumed that the population living in the slum tiles is much smaller than normal POP. So, when you clear the tile to make room for POP growth, that's what you are getting: the nucleus for what might be a decent POP in the future.

 

[KingKone]

When you clear the slums blockers, it should be much more expensive, but add a pop on the tile it came from. This makes way more sense than just making all the poor people disappear for a small price.

I don't see that way. I see it as clearing the slums as ending poverty and creating jobs in mining or energy so the poor people can prosper.

 

[safe-keeper]

Would be interesting to take this a step further -- each terrain blocker could have a certain unique clearing result, which perhaps, at least in the case of slums or wildlife, were different based on your ethics. I imagine xenophobes simply killing or driving away all the dangerous wildlife, for example, while xenophiles would try to coexist with them by taming them, confining them to wildlife perserves, putting them in "zoos", and what have you.

Another example: clearing mountains should yield some minerals and energy credits. Those massive mountain chains can't contain only rock, there's got to be some metals, uranium, coal, and so on.

 

[Rath12]

Would be interesting to take this a step further -- each terrain blocker could have a certain unique clearing result, which perhaps, at least in the case of slums or wildlife, were different based on your ethics. I imagine xenophobes simply killing or driving away all the dangerous wildlife, for example, while xenophiles would try to coexist with them by taming them, confining them to wildlife perserves, putting them in "zoos", and what have you.

Another example: clearing mountains should yield some minerals and energy credits. Those massive mountain chains can't contain only rock, there's got to be some metals, uranium, coal, and so on.

And the environmentalist civic could add happiness and maybe unity to pops adjacent to blockers!

 

[Me_]

I don't see that way. I see it as clearing the slums as ending poverty and creating jobs in mining or energy so the poor people can prosper.

I see it as exterminating the poor and demolishing their homes. After all, there is nothing left afterwards.

 

[Rath12]

I see it as exterminating the poor and demolishing their homes. After all, there is nothing left afterwards.

Deuterte?

Maybe in the F-authoritarian despotic empire, but my p-e-xph democracy doesn't work that way.

 

[Stadhouder]

Adding a POP seems a bit OP. Start growing a POP would be better, although I'm not sure whether the game support 2 POP's of the same race growing at the same time. Perhaps it could 'immigrate' from a hidden 'slum planet' or something though.

In general I would like it if there was a bit more to tile blockers than just throwing money and minerals at it.

 

[Exarian]

I always thought killing slums population is integral part of "clearing slums".

 

[jedzenie]

But why? What you suggest does not correlate with what slums are or how they arise in reality. Slums are inefficiently constructed communities developed in desperation and poverty. Clearing them does not suddenly produce a "working" population which did not previously exist. At least in Stellaris, clearing slums should only produce space for the efficient and future-proofed construction of residences (..).

But in fact these people do not disappear ... most often either the state or the city builds for them the barracks... ekhem houses in other parts of the city or the world (additional population) or chases. And they move in another place. You want to have a roving populations that are extremely dissatisfied? (unhappy population)

You can always kill them (like is now in Stellaris), but for this I suggests using the military (army).
But seriously, you can always (instead of killing) during the liquidation of slums enslave them (enslaved population) .. depends on what style of playing you choose.

Edit: or eat them (''meat is back on the menu") //S:Utopia) //

 

[extrapancake]

It would be cool if you got an option to do something with them like boost minerals/growth or create an army unit or something but its probably best just to not overthink it.