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

[GeneralTacticus]

To Archaic: "The progress of a Free Market reduces the Eco Damage we do in the long term" - Do you really believe that? Free Market, both in real life and in SMAC damages the environment. You just have to look at the large negative Planet rating it brings to see its effect. If we go to FM, we will be slaughtered everytime we get a fungus pop, which is obviously more likely with a bad Planet rating. FM may bring great technological and monetary advatages, but the expense it just too great. We can't go to war with FM, we can't produce anything like as much (otherwise we get fungus growth). There may be some instances where FM is better ion the game, but even then the negative effects would hinder us greatly.

He's talking about the fact that every fungus pop increases the number of minerals required to cause ecodamage.

[Drogue]

True, but that is pop that wouldn't have occured otherwise... it will lead to more fungus pop, even if its harder to get (really not with it.. explainations not good today ) and I would measure eco damage more in ice caps melted, since that measures all eco damage, not just at that base.

[GeneralTacticus]

Actually it affects every base, not just the one that had the pops, and in addition, if we don't get a pop, then we don't get nearly as much benefit out of our ecological facilities.

[Drogue]

You think? I think if we run at an output that gives us a small amount (or just 0) eco damage we can run at a nice equilibrium. We can produce a lot without having to produce many defenses and formers to deal with the pop, and we don't have to worry bout melting ice caps, having to build pressure domes and loosing much of our population.

[Drogue]

Does it affect every other bases fungus pop point (the eco damage rating for that base)?

Well you learn something new every day!

[Hercules]

Drogue : So is that a yes or a no?

[Hercules]

Gen Tact: you following me or do you want to join

I can just see the news headlines

[GeneralTacticus]

You think? I think if we run at an output that gives us a small amount (or just 0) eco damage we can run at a nice equilibrium. We can produce a lot without having to produce many defenses and formers to deal with the pop, and we don't have to worry bout melting ice caps, having to build pressure domes and loosing much of our population.

The point is that the more fungal pops we have, the higher the ecodamage threshhold goes, and we need to have at least one pop for our ecological facilities to have any impact on this.

Does it affect every other bases fungus pop point (the eco damage rating for that base)?

Yes.

Gen Tact: you following me or do you want to join

Neither. I am simply addressing some of the mistakes made by your friend here.

[Method]

drogue, have you read the revised formula blake ned and fitz did? i'll find a link....

[Method]

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/175_ecodamage.shtml

basically, each *pop*, increases your "clean minerals" threshold by 1. so does each tree farm/hybrid forest/cent preseve/temple of planet you *build* (you can sell it, give it away, whatever) after the first *pop*. IIRC, each *pop* after the second produces worms.

the "clean mineral" limit starts at 16, but is reduced by terraforming. tree farms and hybrid forests reduce the damage caused by 'forming as well as increase the clean mineral limit, or something.

anyways, read it. it'll help your SP games too

[Drogue]

Cheers for that, I knew it had some effect but that cleared it up.

I was arguing about ice caps though. In other words, if you have less eco damage, then will have less fungus pop throughout the course ofthe game. Your threshold will be lower, ie it takes less to have another pop, but there will be less damage in total.

I was trying to highlight that Archaics statement "Free Market reduces the Eco Damage we do in the long term" is not true in absolute terms. It may mean that near the end of the game we are doing less damage, but the total damage done will be higher (it sea levels will have risen by more) and that is what I disagree with.

Sorry i didn't expess myself clearly at all

[GeneralTacticus]

I was trying to highlight that Archaics statement "Free Market reduces the Eco Damage we do in the long term" is not true in absolute terms. It may mean that near the end of the game we are doing less damage, but the total damage done will be higher (it sea levels will have risen by more) and that is what I disagree with.

Global warming is triggered by x number of pops within x turns, not by total number of pops.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Hercules
Drogue : So is that a yes or a no?

Damn right

About the name I'm not sure... either seems fine.

[Drogue]

Herc, are you running for Election. IMHO we need a non-FM candidate to counter Archaic's DoSE application, since AdamTG is running for DoScience.

No offence to Archaic, I'd just like to see a balance of interests.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue
To Archaic: "The progress of a Free Market reduces the Eco Damage we do in the long term" - Do you really believe that? Free Market, both in real life and in SMAC damages the environment.

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.)