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

[Hercules]

Well done guys

[Hercules]

Earwicker: Your outlook seems very much in parallel with the 'Save the Environment Party (STEP) perspective. If you have not already done so take a look at the earlier contributions to this thread. Recent members Drogue and Adam? have presented a formidable case to the extent that even Archaic is having to do some homework.

[Hercules]

Earwicker: You will note that our party (we are not a single issue party) is democratic by inviting criticism and discussion on latest releases. The contributions, already submitted to this thread, show the calilbre of debate. More later

[Kirov]

Herc, are you just against FM and extensive terraforming, or you will also vote for Green, Xeno Dome, breeding Mind Worms and the like?

[Drogue]

Personally, I'm against FM and extensive terraforming, and for building Tree Farms, Hybrid farms, Paradise Gardens etc., Green Economics (although Planned is useful near the start) a high Planet rating and victory by Transcendance.

If we run Green then we shouldn't need to breed MW, we can just find them and capture them. Herc is also (I believe) against removing much of the Fungus. While I agree in theory, some fungus needs removing to stop worm rape or invisible enemy units. However once we have (hopefully) a higher Planet rating it can be very beneficial, since we can find and capture more worms.

This is just my opinions however, and because we are more of a collection of like-minded individuals, we have no *official* party line.

Basically, if it harms the Planet unnecessarily, I'm against it.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
Basically, if it harms the Planet unnecessarily, I'm against it.

How would you define unnecessary? Since a capitalist would argue that industrial development and the fulfillment of the wants of the people for a profit thus ensuring a healthy economy is necessary, etc. The term is rather vague.

[Drogue]

Since it would all depend on the circumstances, it was meant to be vague If I think the pros, the extra development or industry etc., outweigh the environmental damage, then I'm for it. However I think the price for environmental damage is very high, so if an action results in eco-damage, there would have to be considerable pros for me to believe it worthwhile.

Basically, I think harming the planet is bad, but sometimes (very rarely) it is necessary.

[GeneralTacticus]

Why do you see ecodamage as being so bad? As long as it is kept low, it's negative impact is very minor.

[Drogue]

Well, since I'm roleplaying the game as much as playing it for victory (lets face it, were going to win, it's only thinker) and we've just arrived, I think we have a responsibility to take care of the Planet. We're the people that don't belong here, what right to we have to invade Planet and mess up its whole eco-system. I keep thinking fo the quote from The Matrix "Humans are like viruses, they find a habitat, use up all the resources and then move on" (or something alongthose lines) I think we need to find our equilibrium and live in harmony with Planet. Every pop means were out of sequence with Planet, and that isn't good, and it isn't fair

[GeneralTacticus]

But every pop also nrings us closer into sequence with Planet, as we learn more about it and adjust matters accordingly. That way, both we and the Planet are better off, as Planet is suffers less damage, and we can safely produce more.

[Drogue]

I disagree... I think every pop we have simply means that Planet is more used to it and so it harms it less, and that is why it does less eco-damage. I think the idea that in harming Planet you make it more resistant is like giving someone a disease because then they become resistant to it. You forget that the damage has already been done.

[GeneralTacticus]

Planet isn't the only thing we have to worry about. We have to think of our own needs as well, and if causing some ecodamage now means we cause less permanently for the same amount of production, I see no reason why this should be a bad thing.

[Hercules]

Mein General you are repeating the same argument again and again. Also

We have to think of our own needs as well,

What exactly are those needs that can not be achieved by the path suggested by Drogue, myself and others.

Note also the actual words ECO DAMAGE. meaning damage to the ecosystem.
Your approach to the game seems to be the 'fastest path to conquer' approach. You can't wait to do battle and earn some purple stars or whatever. Fine, join Miriam or the Hive.

What actually is your vision for the planet and it's inhabitants. Is it Eudaimonia but no fungus, or mindworms to be about the place.

You've seen what a jolly bunch those mind worms can be when on our side but at the same time I don't want to give rise to the circumstances where there is rampant and unchecked worm birth and then where there is a benefit to us slaying them. The real benefit to our society is when, you call it 'capture', we know it as 'harmonisation'. they live happily alongside and indeed play their part in defending the nation.

I repeat what is your vision for this planet? sir

[GeneralTacticus]

Mein General you are repeating the same argument again and again.

That's the generally accepted course when your arguments haven't been refuted yet. Perhaps this is a situation you have yet to experience.

What exactly are those needs that can not be achieved by the path suggested by Drogue, myself and others.

The ability to maintain decent production levels in the late-game without seeing mindworms rip our faction apart.

Note also the actual words ECO DAMAGE. meaning damage to the ecosystem.

Yes, and?

Your approach to the game seems to be the 'fastest path to conquer' approach. You can't wait to do battle and earn some purple stars or whatever. Fine, join Miriam or the Hive.

What, exactly, has given you that impression? I have never implied anything of the sort.

What actually is your vision for the planet and it's inhabitants. Is it Eudaimonia but no fungus, or mindworms to be about the place.

A planet where we can live with a propserous economy and industry without cowering in fear of the native life. I don't want to see them exterminated unnecessarily, but I don't see why we should tolerate them attacking us either. And that's all they've done so far.

You've seen what a jolly bunch those mind worms can be when on our side

I've seen only death and destruction brought by those worms. I see no reason to tolerate this.

The real benefit to our society is when, you call it 'capture', we know it as 'harmonisation'. they live happily alongside and indeed play their part in defending the nation.

Yes, we can benefit from controlling mindworms, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous, especially when we can breed them in the lab without any of the risks of capturing them in the wild.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Planet isn't the only thing we have to worry about. We have to think of our own needs as well, and if causing some ecodamage now means we cause less permanently for the same amount of production, I see no reason why this should be a bad thing.

We won't cause less permanently because we're not just saying lets have less eco-damage now, we'll argue later to reduce eco-damage aswell. Basically I don't see why we need to have more than one or two pops throughout our whole time on Planet, if at all!

We can win, by transcendance, without a single pop, and live in harmony with Planet. That is my vision for the Peacekeepers. What right do we have to arrive uninvited and wreck the fragile eco-system.