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

[Hercules]

Quite you have obviously thought little about future scenarios, otherwise you wouldn't be pushing the agenda you are now.

Well I have thought about but I thought it would be interesting to discuss something else other than the pro/con FM debate again. And saving the environment is not necessarily incompatible with any of these future social environments in theory.

The given (for the discussion) is that the environment is saved so what are the implications of the 3/4 future social environments and does the STEP have views, should it have views, on the well being/ human condition at this future stage.

Meaning of Ethos - I probably meant something else like a 'caring/ uncaring' society? but there could also be widespread dispair. Would/should that concern the STEP.

In short does STEP need to develop policy on the welfare of society in addition to saving the environment.

I have seen you give no consideration to the future, when we must be able to maintain high levels of industrial production without excessive ecodamage, but will likely be unable to do so if you have your way.

Your way seems to be via industrial production (do I presume you mean mineral production). In my SP games I found excessive mineral production in the late game to be a nuisance.
When energy power transmitters and hydroponics become available, for me the valuable commodities are energy and specialists.

[GeneralTacticus]

And now on to the questions just posted by Hercules.

You mean he's improved from way back.!

Yes. If you dig through the Planetary archives you'll find I was a vocal opponent of his at one point.

He did respond to the question about the kind of world he wants to live in on planet. He is undecided between Thought Control or maybe Cybernetic. It depended on the circumstances prevailing at the time.

I believe his problem is that he's excessively utilitarian, without stopping to think about the hidden impact of a decision (in the case of Thought Control, while the effects of such psychic tyranny ar emore or less invisible, they are no less real. Check the archives of the Chrion Security Force for our faction's main debate on this topic). This doesn't mean his arguments are wrong, they are mostly correct, just that sometimes they aren't.

Take Thought Control: Say we as a party get to the stage (with us as leaders on Planet or otherwise) where the planet is secure. One weak faction left; Eco Damage not just under control but well contained; We have saved the environment.
The AC manual says for TC,
'significant resources are required to maintain this level of control':
+2 morale,+2police, +2 probe,-3 support.

But there would be no other threatening faction left, so would that level of support be needed and easily provided without more Eco Dam ?

I believe his actual statement was that he would favour it if we built the Cloning Vats, which would remove all negatives from the TC choice (in-game ones, anyway).

The AC manual for Cybernetic world: 'computers taking over and freeing humans for more creative tasks', +2 efficiency, +2 planet, + 2 research, -3 police. The suggestion here is freeing humans for more creative tasks. So humans distanced from human manual tasks and front line interaction.
This scenario could see the planet saved and doing well and with Telepathic Matrix, but what about the ethos of the planet inhabitants by that time?

What do you mean about their ethos? Cybernetic involves the use of computers and machines to do menial tasks, freeing humans for other pursuits - the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of knowledge, of wealth, of whatever they like.

A Eudaimonic future tends to be everyones preferred choice (bar Archaic).

That seems to be correct; I'd be included with 'everyone else', so long as the use of Eudaimonia doesn't result in military defeat.

What is clear though is that few, including me, have thought in depth about the future scenarios on planet, beyond survival and basic conquest.

Quite you have obviously thought little about future scenarios, otherwise you wouldn't be pushing the agenda you are now. You accuse the advocates of FM of being shortsighted, yet I have seen you give no consideration to the future, when we must be able to maintain high levels of industrial production without excessive ecodamage, but will likely be unable to do so if you have your way.

[GeneralTacticus]

This was originally posted in the DIA office, but we've been asked to take the argument elsewhere, so I'll post it here.

GT has not ripped to shreds the argument, all he has done is repeatedly claim, along with you, that we have overestimated the negative effects. I believe you have underestimated them.

I've repeatedly pointed out that:

1) Fungal pops reduce ecological damage in the long-term, by reducing the amount of ecodamage produced at ALL bases by 1; after 100 turns, every base that is still producing ecodamage or would have been producing 1 will have have been spared 1 pop. Quite a bargain, if you ask me.

2) (I haven't said this before, but it is worthg mentioning) - the actual appearance of fungal pops doesn't mean that we've caused great damage to the local ecosystem, nor is it a manifestation of such damage, but is rather Planet's way of expressing it's displeasure. That doesn't mean the displeasure is justified.

3) Drogue's repeated claim that more ecodamage = more global warming is completely specious, as ecodamage produces global warming only when produced at an excessive rate not an excessive amount (causing some damage now to spare a lot of damage later doesn't cause the caps to melt, any more than burning coal in an early steam engine did).

Now on to some fo the arguments Drogue presented in the DIA office.

If we have a low Planet rating, we have more eco-damage now, and at the moment former time is at a premium - we need to terraform places to crawl, and new bases - so we don't have time to keep formers in cities just in case of a pop. With a high Planet rating, and low eco-damage, we can relax about pops.

First of all, nobody is suggesting that we keep formers in cities doing nothing in case we have a pop. Secondly, the only city even remotely in danger of a pop is NA, and that danger will be reduced enormously under my plan for the NA region. Thus, FM at this time would not necessarily impinge on our former time more than slightly, and that impingement would be trivial compared to the potential energy benefits.

If we have a high Planet rating, then we can capture MW and IoDs, which is incredibly usuful both for exploration (units for free) and for war. I've before managed to win a war just using captured units, while concentrating on my infrastructure. With a low Planet rating this is not possible.

The fact that you can doesn't mean that you should; I've tried repeatedly (with a high Planet rating, mark you) to use indworms on a large scale militarily, and I can tell you that it isn't worth it, compared to a conventional military campaign. Worms have a part to play in the military, true, but they shouldn't be relied upon. The development of Fusion Reactors is their death knell, as they have to compete on worse than even odds.

I don't want us to only start thinking about the Environment when we start getting the ice caps melting, or major worm-rape. Prevention is better than cure, if we start lookign after Planet now, we won't have a problem later, and have to cut our productin at a crucial time. If we have pops, spread them out slowly, if we have a low Planet rating then we'll suddenly be hit by many pops, until we get enough clean minerals to stop it.

You have it competely the wrong way round. You want us to minimize pops as much as possible, but if we do that, then w'll find ourselves with either woefully low mineral production late-game or face massive worm-rape if we want to maintain some semblance of decent production rate. FM will allow us to have some pops now, which will cut down on our ecodamage and allow the use of ecological facilities to their greatest extent.

Even without taking into account the in-game effects, we have a duty to look after this Planet which we have landed on. We have no right whatsoever to invade it and wreck it for our personal wealth. What is wealth after all, it is having 'things', havign a comfortable life. That is what I want, comfortable in terms of needs, in terms of wants, and mostly in terms of happiness. Can we be happy living in a pollution wrecked Planet?

Can we be happy living as the Third World of Planet? If you want to minimize ecodamage permanently, that is where we will end up. That or as a worm-raped wilderness, as we belatedly realize our mistake and try to catch up without having our clean mineral threasholds high enough.

Far from providing no argument for Green and looking after Planet, I have provided much argument, the fact you wish not to hear it masks what you see. I have yet to hear an argument for not caring about Planet, nor have I heard an argument for FM, other than 'we have overestimated the negative effect of FM'. No my friend, you have drastically underestimated what negative effect it has, on Planet, on law and order, on war, and on society.

Let's see:

1) The negative effect on Planet - it exists, of course, but it is acceptable, especially considering that the society you seem to be advocating must accept these effects anyway or else become an inustrial backwater.

2) The negative effect on law and order - it exists too, naturally, but only if we allow our society to go down the road of the United States, in which the Free Market was accompanied by poor social policies, reulting in huge inequality and poverty, which naturally drove up the crime rate. If we increase our Psych spending and use the occasional specialist, our Drone problems should be almost non-existent, and we will have a society of loyal, educated, hardworking Talents instead.

3) The negativ eeffect on war - I would enver have expected to see an environmentalist complain about the negative impact on war. While FM does rule out long, protracted campaigns on enemy soil, we really shouldn't be doing them anyway. It doesn't prevent us from waging war, it simply requires that we fight a different kind of war - using Probe Teams to capture enemy bases and disrupt their factional organiztion, and fast or drop troops to go in and seize an enemy base in a single turn.

4) Negative effect on society - what on Chiron are you talking about?

That enough of an argument for you? I'm perfectly prepared to debate until hell freezes over, but I have a feeling neither of us will convince each other. I simply urge all citizend to vote against FM, and against anything that harms the Planet needlessly.

Then it all depends on the definition of needless, doesn't it? I define 'needless harm to the planet' as harm which will rpdouce either no benefits to humanity or benefits not in proportion to the cost. Native wildlife, for example, should not be exterminated, but it should be driven off if it attacks us; particularly important ecological areas should be protected, rather than overexploited (the Aral Sea should serve as an eternal reminder of what happens when you do that), but many areas have little overall significance to the planetary ecosystem.

[Hercules]

Just questions

[Hercules]

You mean he's improved from way back.!

He did respond to the question about the kind of world he wants to live in on planet. He is undecided between Thought Control or maybe Cybernetic. It depended on the circumstances prevailing at the time.

Now here are the interesting questions from the Save The Environment Party perspective:

Take Thought Control: Say we as a party get to the stage (with us as leaders on Planet or otherwise) where the planet is secure. One weak faction left; Eco Damage not just under control but well contained; We have saved the environment.
The AC manual says for TC,
'significant resources are required to maintain this level of control':
+2 morale,+2police, +2 probe,-3 support.

But there would be no other threatening faction left, so would that level of support be needed and easily provided without more Eco Dam ?

The AC manual for Cybernetic world: 'computers taking over and freeing humans for more creative tasks', +2 efficiency, +2 planet, + 2 research, -3 police. The suggestion here is freeing humans for more creative tasks. So humans distanced from human manual tasks and front line interaction.
This scenario could see the planet saved and doing well and with Telepathic Matrix, but what about the ethos of the planet inhabitants by that time?

A Eudaimonic future tends to be everyones preferred choice (bar Archaic).
The question is can the STEP party accept these 3 possible futures (and default) as legitmate, as long as the environment of the planet is secure and harmonious, If so then STEP may also have to think about a whole life policy beyond environmental issues.

What is clear though is that few, including me, have thought in depth about the future scenarios on planet, beyond survival and basic conquest.

[Drogue]

Ohhhh I like it now I see why some people have had enough of 'to FM of not to FM' debates. However, just wait 'til Archaic posts the poll (and if he posts it while I'm at my Oxford interview I won't be happy! ) then the fireworks will fly

[Method]

you missed the good old days of the merchant exchange

check the term 3 dir

EDIT: i found it http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=60409
ooh, the good old days of party politics . back then archaic had a line in his signature that said "this post represents the views of archaic, and does not necessarily reflect those of the P4, or its members"

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lucky22
He actually is a little bit less of a baboon psycho recently. He was quite a special lad to reason with at the beginning.

I don't see why he has to insult people though. He's obviously quite intelligent. I guess everyone reacts differently to being challenged

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Drogue


Despite my belief that this should be about issues and effects rather than making it personal, Archaic has lowered the tone of discussion.

Well, I agree with you on the issues all the way. As far as Archaic goes, while one could hardly consider him gracious, he actually is a little bit less of a baboon psycho recently. He was quite a special lad to reason with at the beginning.

[Drogue]

Since Archaic has shown his interest to go to FM as quickly as possible, I would like to start the ball rolling by stating that STEP is completely against using FM in any way shape or form. The culture of greed it creates wrecks our fragile eco-system, and creates untold havok. For a link to arguments about FM, and ecology in general, either look on earlier pages of STEP or go to the Internal Affaires Office.

Despite my belief that this should be about issues and effects rather than making it personal, Archaic has lowered the tone of discussion. He has shown how he reacts in the face of opposition. Please try and ignore this, look at the facts and make your judgement on that. And remember, we're not just here to win, we're here to spead Peacekeeper ideals and to set an example for other, don't make Planet pay the price for our greed.

[Method]

Originally posted by Hercules
This is from page 2 of first referred link.

btw, there is currently no check if someone is in two teams at the same time. the leaders are responsible for
authorizing anyone into their teams

so I don't think it is solved.

if the leaders are stupid enough to authorise someone who's already on another team into their team, it's their own fault

I mean TKG how many email addys do you have?

what?

now, regarding governors, regions and re-elections, i'll figure out some kind of poll(s). i just need to get caught up on what's happening a bit first.

[Drogue]

Because I would have liked a little more discussion about it, and I think the number of Xenobananas shows that some people agree. Besides, I think we should have more regions (5 or 6). If TKG decides he want's to however, it is in the consitution that he's allowed to.

Also, because it sets a precident for future Governor elections. I don't think it's practical to elect the DIA and Governors at the same time, because if the new DIA want's to change the regions, he can't until it's too late.

[GeneralTacticus]

In the interests of efficiency, why don't we just ask TKG if he will approve the regions currently marked out and just let things stay as they are if he does? That way there will be no need for a repoll.

[Drogue]

But they were elected for each region. Thus only GT and Joeno were contesting a Governorship. Otherwise Joeno may have got more votes than one of the other Governor Elects. The elections should have been stopped, because they were unconstitutional.

[DeathByTheSword]

look the governers are elected but not for which region right? I am waiting for TKG to start polling on regions and if he wants new governers elections but all to be done before the end of next week please