Save the Environment Party (STEP) or The Green Party (GP)

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic

GT's already adressed most of this, but anyway, In the short term. Over the long term, the progress of a Free Market means we produce less Eco Damage relative to what we did before, because it hastens research into new, safer and cleaner methods of production through simple market forces. (ie. We might produce the same or more eco-damage, but we would be producing *less* ecodamage per mineral. The basic principle holds for real life as well, as you'd see if you bothered to do your research.)

I'm not doubting that we produce less eco damage per mineral, however we produce more overall. By its nature, if the more eco damage we have done in the past means it takes more minerals to do so in the future (as in FM) then we have produced more *overall*. The absolute amount of damage we have done is greater, and thus, is IMO bad. In SMAC terms, this means that sea levels will have risen more overall, even though it takes more to get them to rise any further. The simple fact that FM has a large negative Planet effect seems to show that it is supposed to damage the environment more, in absolute terms.

In real life I'm sure there are FM ways to reduce pollution (tradable permits etc), but in general countries that are have a freer market (the USA for example) produce more pollution and damage the environment more then countries where markets are more controlled (such as Scandinavia or most of the EU). This is partly, IMO, because of a laissez faire approach to businesses pollution regulation, and partly because of an unwillingness to tax fossil fuels and make consumers pay the total social cost. America even has a President who was (or still is?) a director of an oil company, and a government official in charge of a pollution regulation body (can’t remember his name) who believes that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, and does not damage the environment, because it’s naturally occurring!

"The basic principle holds for real life as well, as you'd see if you bothered to do your research" – If you’d read my posts you’d realise I never said that we’d be producing less eco-damage per mineral under FM, merely that we would produce more eco damage overall. And anyway, just because someone has an different opinion to yours, doesn't mean they don’t know what they’re talking about. It simply means there are 2 sides to the argument, and probably is a reflection on the differences of what we were taught.

[Hercules]

Yes I'll run as for Director of Social Engineering. The time seems right. There has been a good informative debate on the merits and demerits of different social engineering approaches.

The fact is you can win (by conquer or by Ascent ) the SP game reasonably easy at (thinker level) with a green approach: it's a more stimulating challenge as many of you know already.

I 've looked at the constitution again and I don't know what the overall policy objective is.
To win Yes but to win what:
The distruction and submission of all other factions?
Cooperative achievement of Ascent ( with as many factions as possible, allowed)
Saving the Planet from environmental disaster.

In keeping with the peacekeeping outlook on life I suspect it is not a militant subjugating outcome we are looking for.

At this stage in the game our faction surely has the capability of looking beyond simple survival and a crude conquer/win scenario.
It is time we discussed our vision for the planet.

PS (I think it is important players distinguish between strongly held personal beliefs and the limits of the game's parameters). Some players in my view stray into RL politic outlooks too easily.

For instance much discussion rightly, on the fate of the drone and his/her kith and kin, but what about the, probably, over taxed middle income specialist.
Recycle your old rovers and 3dvcr machines

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue


I'm not doubting that we produce less eco damage per mineral, however we produce more overall. By its nature, if the more eco damage we have done in the past means it takes more minerals to do so in the future (as in FM) then we have produced more *overall*. The absolute amount of damage we have done is greater, and thus, is IMO bad. In SMAC terms, this means that sea levels will have risen more overall, even though it takes more to get them to rise any further. The simple fact that FM has a large negative Planet effect seems to show that it is supposed to damage the environment more, in absolute terms.

The absolute amount of damage we have done is far less. By doing more damage now, we do less damage than we would later for the same minerals.

For a very basic example

Say we produce 10 Eco Damage now under FM, and none under Green. Under the same ones 200 years down the track, but with minerals about 4 times what they currently are, we still produce 10 with FM, but we produce something like 200 with Green, because we had absolutly no pops. Get the picture?

That was of course a basic example, and I'm not attempting to make the numbers exactly right, only to give a general idea of what's going on.

In real life I'm sure there are FM ways to reduce pollution (tradable permits etc), but in general countries that are have a freer market (the USA for example) produce more pollution and damage the environment more then countries where markets are more controlled (such as Scandinavia or most of the EU). This is partly, IMO, because of a laissez faire approach to businesses pollution regulation, and partly because of an unwillingness to tax fossil fuels and make consumers pay the total social cost. America even has a President who was (or still is?) a director of an oil company, and a government official in charge of a pollution regulation body (can’t remember his name) who believes that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, and does not damage the environment, because it’s naturally occurring!

You've looked at a *very* short term. Perhaps you should look at a longer term perspective, like I said the principle holds for? Say....Industrial Revolution to now.

"The basic principle holds for real life as well, as you'd see if you bothered to do your research" – If you’d read my posts you’d realise I never said that we’d be producing less eco-damage per mineral under FM, merely that we would produce more eco damage overall. And anyway, just because someone has an different opinion to yours, doesn't mean they don’t know what they’re talking about. It simply means there are 2 sides to the argument, and probably is a reflection on the differences of what we were taught.

No matter if there's 2 or 20 sides to every arguement, only 1 is right, and to think any different is a logical fallacy. There is no "golden middle ground". You fail to grasp that we would *not* be producing more eco damage overall by trying to prevent eco damage happening in the first place. The only way to do that, even under green, is to restrict the mineral output, an unacceptable position. Producing the mineral levels we require, over the long term, by allowing eco damage now, we'll reduce the amount of eco damage we create in future. By having no eco damage now, we *won't* be able to prevent eco damage in future except through the unacceptable solution of restricting mineral output.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
The absolute amount of damage we have done is far less. By doing more damage now, we do less damage than we would later for the same minerals.

I'm not disputing that. But that is not what absolute means. By doing more damage now, we do less later for the same minerals is perfectly true. However, the total, the absolute amount of damage, ie. The total number of pops, is greater. If at some point under Green we had done more total pops, then per mineral we would do less damage than under FM. I can assure you, if you run Green, over the course of the game you will have less pops than if you had run FM. Worse Planet rating = More total pops.

Originally posted by Archaic
For a very basic example

Say we produce 10 Eco Damage now under FM, and none under Green. Under the same ones 200 years down the track, but with minerals about 4 times what they currently are, we still produce 10 with FM, but we produce something like 200 with Green, because we had absolutly no pops. Get the picture?

That was of course a basic example, and I'm not attempting to make the numbers exactly right, only to give a general idea of what's going on.

That's simply not true, we would have some pops under Green, just fewer. So if the amount of eco damage under Green ever rose above the amount under FM (like it has to in your example, since 200 is more than 10) then Green would be having more pops, and thus would over time reverse this, before the total number of pops under green reached the level it would be under FM. And even if the total number of pops under Green rose higher to that under FM, then for each mineral produced there is less eco-damage under Green. Combined with the higher Planet rating, this would lead to *much* less eco damage, overall or per mineral. I would even doubt (and i'd like to see an example of this) that the rating would ever go higher under Green than FM, simply because the higher Planet rating would be more beneficial than the number of pops earlier in the game, and as such would have more effectin keep eco-damage to a minimum. Quite simply, if you have a better Planet rating, you do less damage to the environment. I think that seems the only logical explaination.

Originally posted by Archaic
You've looked at a *very* short term. Perhaps you should look at a longer term perspective, like I said the principle holds for? Say....Industrial Revolution to now.

No I didn't, I took a realistic time length (I think America has been both one of the most FM major industrialised nations, and one of the biggest environmental destroyers) for at least 50 years. And the theory wouldn't matter for the Industrial Revolution, since there we simply didn't pollute the environment as much then. There wasn't global warming or anything to worry about. The theory holds true for all the time since we 1st knew about global warming and eco-damage. The freer the market, the more eco damage done, because of the less controls on it.

Originally posted by Archaic
No matter if there's 2 or 20 sides to every arguement, only 1 is right, and to think any different is a logical fallacy. There is no "golden middle ground". You fail to grasp that we would *not* be producing more eco damage overall by trying to prevent eco damage happening in the first place. The only way to do that, even under green, is to restrict the mineral output, an unacceptable position. Producing the mineral levels we require, over the long term, by allowing eco damage now, we'll reduce the amount of eco damage we create in future. By having no eco damage now, we *won't* be able to prevent eco damage in future except through the unacceptable solution of restricting mineral output.

No, there is very rarely a *right* answer. There are almost always options with some positive and some negative options, and thus some people opt for one option, others for another. Its very nieve, and logically false to believe there is an absolute best or right answer, and absolute wrong answers to everything. Sure in Academia maybe, but there are different styles of doing things, different objectives. Yes the main way to produce less eco damage is to reduce mineral output. But according to the Advanced Dormula in Datalinks, if you have a Planet rating of 3 or higher, you have no eco damage (multipling by 0) if its -2 (the equivilent FM amount, being 5 (or it 7) lower than what it would be under Green) you multiply by 5. Hence having a higher Planet rating (by running Green vs FM) leads to a lower level of eco-damage. And though more pops earlier means less pops later, if the total number of pops while running a higher Planet rating, exceeds the total number of pops running a lower Planet rating, then there will be more free minerals, and less damage per mineral under the higher Planet system. This means that by just running a higher Planet rating, but keeping everything else the same, it is impossible to have more pops *in total* at any point in the game.

You fail to grasp that, all other things being equal, having a higher Planet rating, means you have less absolute eco damage. Anything else would simply defy logic.

[Drogue]

Sorry for hijacking your forum Herc. < rant over >

As for victory conditions, I think we should go for victory by ascent as I think Peacekeepers shoudl strive for a higher goal. And it takes longer, hence more playing time Even if it seems though victory by diplomacy is meant for us, It seems a little too easy somehow. And even if we win, when Planet eventually blooms, we will all die unless we Transcend.

[AdamTG02]

No one is contesting that ecological damage increases the threshold for future damage. What has been said is that the total amount of damage done to the environment is greater -- i.e., if you count the amount of eco-damage per turn, and total it, that figure is greater.

Why on earth is restricting the amount of minerals produced an unacceptable position? In New Apolyton, we are presently using an ungodly amounbt of minerals to build a Supply Crawler aimed at funneling more minerals into production. It isn't safe and it isn't sane. What use are all those minerals, aside from creating global warming so we can sun ourselves in wondeful UV rays, in our beachfront houses?

[lucky22]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
No one is contesting that ecological damage increases the threshold for future damage. What has been said is that the total amount of damage done to the environment is greater -- i.e., if you count the amount of eco-damage per turn, and total it, that figure is greater.

... so we can sun ourselves in wondeful UV rays, in our beachfront houses?

In fact- soon to be submerged beachfront houses. We'll need to get pressure domes into several bases' build queues if we insist on pushing that eco-damage threshhold very far at all.

[Drogue]

Thanks Adam, you summed up in a few lines what I couldn't say in many

hope you'll all support Herc - fighting for a sensible Planet rating!!! (and free eco-friendly Black Stuff )

[GeneralTacticus]

I'm not disputing that. But that is not what absolute means. By doing more damage now, we do less later for the same minerals is perfectly true. However, the total, the absolute amount of damage, ie. The total number of pops, is greater. If at some point under Green we had done more total pops, then per mineral we would do less damage than under FM. I can assure you, if you run Green, over the course of the game you will have less pops than if you had run FM. Worse Planet rating = More total pops.

The extra number of pops is irrelevant. The fact that they're more spread out is what makes the difference, because, as I said, global warming is induced by x number of pops in x turns, not the total number of pops throughout the game.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
The extra number of pops is irrelevant. The fact that they're more spread out is what makes the difference, because, as I said, global warming is induced by x number of pops in x turns, not the total number of pops throughout the game.

OK, but under FM wouldn't there be a large amount of pops nearer the begining and less later as apposed to a relatively steady stream throughout under Green. Therefore FM still produces more global warming.

[Earwicker]

True, FM increases the risk we run for global warming. But the rising of the seas is not inevitable, and careful management of ecodamage is possible and essential under FM just as it is under Green. You'll just see a higher ED number in FM (for a given amount of minerals or terraforming) than you would under Green, so need to be extra-cautious. Whatever our economic model, we'll need to be mindful of the overall ED numbers.

At this point, how many pops have occurred? The first is necessary for the planet-calming effects of TF to kick in. We should not be too cautious of pops, just cognizant of their frequency - especially before TF's are built and we have no way of controlling the damage.

I would hope we could find a means of balancing increasing production through time with limiting harmful effects on the planet. Green or FM, the construction of helpful facilities benefits us more faction-wide than waiting for multiple pops (and risking drowning).

[GeneralTacticus]

OK, but under FM wouldn't there be a large amount of pops nearer the begining and less later as apposed to a relatively steady stream throughout under Green. Therefore FM still produces more global warming.

No, because they are spread out enough to avoid it more or less entirely, as long as we apply some common sense.

[Earwicker]

This from a discussion about production at New Apolyton . . .

Maybe build the CDF first, but the amount of eco-damage there is simply too much!! I mean 80 !!!!!

That would be a good indicator of what we mean by too much ecodamage! I hope we can pursuade the Directors to reallocate mineral crawling to avoid such extremes!

[Drogue]

As do I. However, if people feel we need the CDF so urgently, we could rehome the crawlers in a couple of turns, or rehome some of them (rehome the 6 mineral mine near NS to NS). We need to spread production around, but if we have a powerhouse for SP building, it may help others agree to reduce prodution in other bases. Although 80 is simply too high.

[Maniac]

The directors are already convinced. DBTS and Joeno just forgot to rehome those crawlers.