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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Hercules]

Another question I never had to worry about before in my SP games is this.

Do facilities that increase mineral output by 50%,( such the Robotic Assembly Plant and Quantum converter) also increase eco damge by 50% or is the important consideration the underlying base mineral production level: in other words these facilities increase yield by 50% from the raw source?

[Aaron Blackwell]

These facilities don't directly increase the eco-damage, they raise it through the increased number of minerals haversted by a base.

In other words, it is the underlying level of mineral production that counts.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Yes, but if you have a higher Planet rating, you have less pops. If that weren't the case then looking after Planet causes Planet to be damaged more, which would be ludicrous.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Yes it does. Planet's reaction is a natural reaction to being hurt. Just like if a bee stings you, you swat it. It pops more the more we damage it, and those pops are justified.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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).

Yes, and the lower the Planet rating, the fater rate pops are produced. And burning coal in early steam engines did harm Earth, and did nothing to mean later damage did less. It just didn't harm it as much because there was less pollutants then than at later times in Earths history.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Well if you don't keep formers in cities with massive eco-damage then when it pops you have to move formers there to combat it. If the formers are in other parts workign on new cities you have an even bigger problem. Under your proposals NS gets much more minerals and so will also be in danger, and NA is still badly in danger (at 30). I think the impingements on former time will be quite damaging to our infrastructure, without many more formers.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Strange, I find massing relatively large armys easy, and often do it by accident with a Planet rating of 2 or 3. And before fusions (ie. now) they can be decisive, and require no building. We could have an army over at the Hive without stopping infrastructure development. No they're not the be all and end all, but they negate armor (which is very usuful against military nations), are good enough to win small wars (and defend against large ones) and they're free!

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

No, I've never had to cut my mineral production before for Green issues, and running Green have never had major worm-rape or ice cap melting. FM will allow us to have many pops now, so as to already have melting and still be at our level of development. With such a low Planet rating, we could have melting in 30 or 40 years time, which would be disasterous to our coastal bases. And the argument 'we do more damage now so less later' is just rubbish, it's against common sense. We do more now, so less per mineral later than we would otherwise, but that I believe will still be more than if we run Green and have less pops.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Oh please! The third world just because we're not running FM. We will still be the most advanced faction on Planet, and yes we'll have less money, but we'll have a lush green and beautiful place to live. With FM we'll have money yes, but Planet will end up like Nevada: A desert, with no decent water supply, everyone living crammed in cities, with few morals, a life of decadence for some and poverty and starvation for the many, because we won't be able to grow food. Is that what you want? With Green we'll be slightly worse off, both monitarily and technologically, but with the benefits of a clean and beautiful place to live, where it's safe to breathe the air and drink the water.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

No, lose some money, and some production, still be the most advanced faction on Planet and have a prosperous nation.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Increase psych spending, use specialist, these wipe out most of the economy benefits. And for a society of hard working talents we need both less civil unrest, more facilities, more psych and a nice Planet to live on.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Because I thinkw e shouldn't go to war, doesn't mean it's not a negative effect. I realise we will need to fight soon, and we will need to not be at FM when we do.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
4) Negative effect on society - what on Chiron are you talking about?

Having a faction with a sparse desert landscape (or worse, a sprawling smog ridden metropolis without clean water, air that's dominated by a few while millions live in poverty) will have a negative effect. The civil unrest from any troops being out of base has a negative effect. The inequality in society has a negative effect. Most of all, the culture of rewarding greed and ruthless ambition above kindness, morality and generosity has a negative effect on society.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Well, that is wrong. Planet's eco-system is based on all the little eco-systems, and harming one harms the whole. All areas have a lot of significance, especially to any animals or humans living there. However that statement does support my idea that eco-damage should be addressed factionwide, and not in each individual Governorship.

To me it's just common sense. A lower Planet rating represents the fact that people do not care about Planet and are prepared to harm it, that there is an ethos of it doesn't matter, such as the USA was on Old Earth. And either roleplaying, in real life, or in the game, having people harming Planet, does more damage than people not harming Planet.

If looking after the Planet does more damage, surely that is a bug, and should not be exploited.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

That is not true. There is no must to maintaining high levels of production. It is all relative anyway, so as long as we have more production than other factions, we will be ahead (which is the case). But even that is not the most important thing. Why would we want to have things, and be powerful, if what is left of Planet isn't worth protecting. We are saying that we can win and save the planet. You're way we all become a slave to the rat race, and as a collective faction, lose our morality for a quick buck.

[Drogue]

To Archaic:

The only damn liar here is you. We both know full well that Eco-damage will go up under FM. If steps are taken to "regulate the ego damage" to the levels you feel comfortable with, then FM ceases to be an option. You eliminate it indirectly. Now, I challenge you to prove that eco-damage is as much of a problem as you say it is, which you've yet to do.

I never accused you of lying, just of insulting people. I am not lying either, i don't want to get at FM, and I have no idea why you think that is my aim. I want a clean, pollution free, Green Planet, that is my overriding aim, as I've stated many times. the fact that FM have a -3 Planet rating means I don't like FM, and that Green has a +2 means that I do like that. I am not 'indirectly' attacking FM either. I attack FM for what it is, an unfair, immoral, polluting way of life, but I argue for lower eco-damage rates in each base because I don't want to see melting or pops, and there is not need to have all production centred in NA. FM is just a side thing I don't like for the above reasons. Why is that so hard to understand and believe? I believe I have shown eco-damage to be a big problem, and I find as such playign SMAC. If you don't, good luck to you, but prove FM, and damage to the environment (if you can seperate the 2) are a good thing? And FFS please calm down!

[GeneralTacticus]

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.

I don't really see how a Cybernetic society would necessarily be 'uncaring', unless it was used to promote inequality, which isn't a given.

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.

Funny, isn't it, that energy is also the thing that FM is best at producing. And, yes, I do mean mineral production when I say industrial production. The only circumstance under which mineral production is a bad thing is when you experience a lot of fungal pops that you aren't prepared to deal with. If we make sure to have a high clean mineral limit, this will not be a problem.

Yes, but if you have a higher Planet rating, you have less pops. If that weren't the case then looking after Planet causes Planet to be damaged more, which would be ludicrous.

You get less ecodamage, which means pops are less likely to occur for the same amount of minerals over the limit. However, my point still stands; 1 pop now means less later (although that, of course, assumes that the situation then is identical to now, whcih it won't be). Another thing that should be noted is that if we do use FM, 1 pop now will have much more effect, since the multiplicative effects of a low Planet rating only apply AFTER the base damage is calculated, not before. This brings me to yet anothjer point on switching to FM now; the only base that will suffer from pollution is NA, as it is the only one producing it right now.

Yes it does. Planet's reaction is a natural reaction to being hurt. Just like if a bee stings you, you swat it. It pops more the more we damage it, and those pops are justified

That it's a 'natural reaction' doesn't make it right. If a bee stings you, you swat it; but we aren't bees, nor are we like them. I accept, of course, that Planet doesn't like us polluting it, and that the pops are going to happen, I just think we should live with them rather than cowering in fear of Planet's wrath.

Yes, and the lower the Planet rating, the fater rate pops are produced. And burning coal in early steam engines did harm Earth, and did nothing to mean later damage did less. It just didn't harm it as much because there was less pollutants then than at later times in Earths history.

You're attacking an example I gave and ignoring my actual point. Of course coal smoke damaged Earth's environment, but it didn' cause the polar ice caps to melt. There just wasn't enough of it.

Well if you don't keep formers in cities with massive eco-damage then when it pops you have to move formers there to combat it. If the formers are in other parts workign on new cities you have an even bigger problem. Under your proposals NS gets much more minerals and so will also be in danger, and NA is still badly in danger (at 30). I think the impingements on former time will be quite damaging to our infrastructure, without many more formers.

12, actually, after DBTS took two more crawlers that were in his region. Besides, just how much impingement on our former time is there going to be? 1 or two pops will slow us down a bit, but nothing more.

Strange, I find massing relatively large armys easy, and often do it by accident with a Planet rating of 2 or 3. And before fusions (ie. now) they can be decisive, and require no building. We could have an army over at the Hive without stopping infrastructure development. No they're not the be all and end all, but they negate armor (which is very usuful against military nations), are good enough to win small wars (and defend against large ones) and they're free!

How exactly do you plan on getting your mindworm army to the Hive? How do you plan to deal with the fact that their morale will be pitifully low, and they will be facing Hive troops trained at the Command Nexus? They will have some difficulty beating just one standard Hive unit fresh out of boot camp, disregarding bonuses from sensors, higher morale, etc. O defense, they're mincemeat.

No, I've never had to cut my mineral production before for Green issues, and running Green have never had major worm-rape or ice cap melting. FM will allow us to have many pops now, so as to already have melting and still be at our level of development. With such a low Planet rating, we could have melting in 30 or 40 years time, which would be disasterous to our coastal bases. And the argument 'we do more damage now so less later' is just rubbish, it's against common sense. We do more now, so less per mineral later than we would otherwise, but that I believe will still be more than if we run Green and have less pops.

It's not rubbish at all; 'common sense' doesn't apply here, the game mechanics do. I've already explained the effect 1 pop now has on later pops.

As for global warming; we won't see it any time soon unless we allow pollution to get completely out of hand, which we won't.

Oh please! The third world just because we're not running FM. We will still be the most advanced faction on Planet, and yes we'll have less money, but we'll have a lush green and beautiful place to live. With FM we'll have money yes, but Planet will end up like Nevada: A desert, with no decent water supply, everyone living crammed in cities, with few morals, a life of decadence for some and poverty and starvation for the many, because we won't be able to grow food. Is that what you want? With Green we'll be slightly worse off, both monitarily and technologically, but with the benefits of a clean and beautiful place to live, where it's safe to breathe the air and drink the water.

I'm not making an argument in favour of FM here, I'm making one against minimizing pops, as you want to do. If we make sure never to have pops, then our bases will never be able to safely increase production beyond 16 or so. Even if we minimize pops, we will never be able to produce as much as we could if we allowed them to a greater extent.

btw, it isn't safe to breathe the air or drink the water here; it's poisonous, remember? It isn't because it's polluted, it's just the way the planet is.

No, lose some money, and some production, still be the most advanced faction on Planet and have a prosperous nation.

We won't be able to maintain a decent production rate if we don't allow pops. It's that simple.

Increase psych spending, use specialist, these wipe out most of the economy benefits. And for a society of hard working talents we need both less civil unrest, more facilities, more psych and a nice Planet to live on.

They don't wipe out the economy bonus AT ALL, especially when you consider that these measures will induce GAs in most bases, thus allowing us even more energy production, and the people are still happier than they would be under Planned or Green.

Because I thinkw e shouldn't go to war, doesn't mean it's not a negative effect. I realise we will need to fight soon, and we will need to not be at FM when we do.

Yes, we do need to fight, but we CAN deal with the Drone problems a war will cause, through the use of Psych and specialists outlined above. It will only be a problem if we allow ourselve sto be sucked into a long war on Hive soil using large numbers of troops, which we shouldn't.

Having a faction with a sparse desert landscape (or worse, a sprawling smog ridden metropolis without clean water, air that's dominated by a few while millions live in poverty) will have a negative effect. The civil unrest from any troops being out of base has a negative effect. The inequality in society has a negative effect. Most of all, the culture of rewarding greed and ruthless ambition above kindness, morality and generosity has a negative effect on society.

How, exactly, does allowing a Free Market create all these things you've just outlined? A faction turned into a desert will not come about merely as a result of using FM, nor of allowing fungal pops, and there's no reason why FM would have such effects on society as you think it would.

Well, that is wrong. Planet's eco-system is based on all the little eco-systems, and harming one harms the whole. All areas have a lot of significance, especially to any animals or humans living there. However that statement does support my idea that eco-damage should be addressed factionwide, and not in each individual Governorship.

Planet's ecosystem is based on the complex interrelationship of all of it's parts, but it's also quite resilient. It should also be noted that there is rather less diversity here than there was on Earth; the fungus is the Planet's primary life-form, found everywhere, which everyhting depends on. It won't cause enormous damage to the ecosystem to exploit specific parts of it, as long as we don't go too far.

To me it's just common sense. A lower Planet rating represents the fact that people do not care about Planet and are prepared to harm it, that there is an ethos of it doesn't matter, such as the USA was on Old Earth. And either roleplaying, in real life, or in the game, having people harming Planet, does more damage than people not harming Planet.

A low Planet rating indicates that people are either more willing or more able to harm Planet (under Green, you don't have much choice; if you harm Planet, you go to jail). It need not be an ethos of 'it doesn't matter'; it should be an ethos of 'if it's worth it, do it'.

If looking after the Planet does more damage, surely that is a bug, and should not be exploited.

It's the way the game was constructed; I see no reason not to play it as it was made. Besides, you are correct in saying that there will be fewer pops if you minimize them; I'm just arguing that the extra pops aren't necessarily a bad thing, as they allow us to produce more.

That is not true. There is no must to maintaining high levels of production. It is all relative anyway, so as long as we have more production than other factions, we will be ahead (which is the case).

If we wish to maintain a timely rate of infrastructure construction, we must maintain a rate of production; if we don't, we'll never be able to properly develop our faction. We may not lose, but we will have a far harder time of it.

But even that is not the most important thing. Why would we want to have things, and be powerful, if what is left of Planet isn't worth protecting.

Why would it not be worth protecting? Nobody's arguing that we should turn it into a wasteland, we're simply arguing that we shouldn't be so afraid of causing pollution that we cripple our industry.

We are saying that we can win and save the planet.

I know what you're saying. You say that it's better to win with restricted industrial and economic production because the landscape will prettier. Big deal. Somehow I doubt that people will be unahppy to trade away the scenic value of a few places for twice their current standard of living.

You're way we all become a slave to the rat race, and as a collective faction, lose our morality for a quick buck.

Please elaborate on how this will come about.

Alright, enough for now. Too many long posts in one day.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You get less ecodamage, which means pops are less likely to occur for the same amount of minerals over the limit. However, my point still stands; 1 pop now means less later (although that, of course, assumes that the situation then is identical to now, whcih it won't be). Another thing that should be noted is that if we do use FM, 1 pop now will have much more effect, since the multiplicative effects of a low Planet rating only apply AFTER the base damage is calculated, not before. This brings me to yet anothjer point on switching to FM now; the only base that will suffer from pollution is NA, as it is the only one producing it right now.

Yes that is all true, but I still think there will be as many if not more pops later under FM, because I don't think the extra clean minerals will make up for the much lower Planet rating. And until the pop last turn, New Suez was also creating eco-damage.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
That it's a 'natural reaction' doesn't make it right. If a bee stings you, you swat it; but we aren't bees, nor are we like them. I accept, of course, that Planet doesn't like us polluting it, and that the pops are going to happen, I just think we should live with them rather than cowering in fear of Planet's wrath.

I think we can live in harmony and avoid pops. And I think we are like bee's to Planet. We are just an annoyance to it.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
How exactly do you plan on getting your mindworm army to the Hive? How do you plan to deal with the fact that their morale will be pitifully low, and they will be facing Hive troops trained at the Command Nexus? They will have some difficulty beating just one standard Hive unit fresh out of boot camp, disregarding bonuses from sensors, higher morale, etc. O defense, they're mincemeat.

With IoDs. And I think we'll be moving into knowledge, as the poll said and Adam gave orders for, in 2 turns when the Morganites discover Cyberethics, so the Morale won't be 'pitifully low'. And with fungal bonuses, easier movement, and that they bypass armor, I think we can do some serious damage to Yang.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
It's not rubbish at all; 'common sense' doesn't apply here, the game mechanics do. I've already explained the effect 1 pop now has on later pops.

Since I'm Roleplaying as much as trying to win (we're going to anyway) 'common sense' has a lot of bearing.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As for global warming; we won't see it any time soon unless we allow pollution to get completely out of hand, which we won't.

That's good to hear, but I think if we take FM now we might see it run away a bit, possibly enough to cause global warming.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I'm not making an argument in favour of FM here, I'm making one against minimizing pops, as you want to do. If we make sure never to have pops, then our bases will never be able to safely increase production beyond 16 or so. Even if we minimize pops, we will never be able to produce as much as we could if we allowed them to a greater extent.

That is true, but since we will win either way, I don't think cuting minerals, even drastically, is a bad thing. It will make the game more interesting, and we can still go for techs and transcendance almost as easily.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
btw, it isn't safe to breathe the air or drink the water here; it's poisonous, remember? It isn't because it's polluted, it's just the way the planet is.

Really? then how do we live? If we filter all our ait, then how do we survive in-the-field?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
We won't be able to maintain a decent production rate if we don't allow pops. It's that simple.

Is that such a bad thing. Why do we need so much production? I would rather have a happy and peaceful Planet.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
How, exactly, does allowing a Free Market create all these things you've just outlined? A faction turned into a desert will not come about merely as a result of using FM, nor of allowing fungal pops, and there's no reason why FM would have such effects on society as you think it would.

An unregulated FM will cause those things, in the long term. Some of them were taken from looking at the USA, others fromlooking at the effects of repeated pollution and eco-damage. Yes they are rather extreme, but I believe in the long term could easily be possible, unless we have a non-FM or carefully regulated FM society.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
A low Planet rating indicates that people are either more willing or more able to harm Planet (under Green, you don't have much choice; if you harm Planet, you go to jail). It need not be an ethos of 'it doesn't matter'; it should be an ethos of 'if it's worth it, do it'.

No, under Green it makes no difference to laws on it, people just do not feel the need to pollute to gain money. The Gaians are peace loving and strongly libertarian, so they wouldn't inforce it with stringent laws. And I do think with FM morality and the 'social cost' goes out the window, and all people think about are 'private costs' and benefits to themselves.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
It's the way the game was constructed; I see no reason not to play it as it was made. Besides, you are correct in saying that there will be fewer pops if you minimize them; I'm just arguing that the extra pops aren't necessarily a bad thing, as they allow us to produce more.

Then that is the main point we differ on IMHO. I believe extra pops are a bad thing (part game, most RP) and you believe otherwise. It's good to have contrasting view for a demo-game

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why would it not be worth protecting? Nobody's arguing that we should turn it into a wasteland, we're simply arguing that we shouldn't be so afraid of causing pollution that we cripple our industry.

I agree, I just think the rate at which it becomes worth decreasing mineral production is lower than you do. I don't think we should cripple our industry, but I wouldn't want us to end up with the US style of pollution control - virtually non-existant. I'd rather we run the PK like most of Europe, with some FM, some pollution control and no major environmental damage.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I know what you're saying. You say that it's better to win with restricted industrial and economic production because the landscape will prettier. Big deal. Somehow I doubt that people will be unahppy to trade away the scenic value of a few places for twice their current standard of living.

Not just prettier. I don't think it would be twice the standard of living, and I think not living in fear of when and where the next pop will be would have a large effect on the happiness of the population.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Alright, enough for now. Too many long posts in one day.

I agree, I take your point. Should we end this hear? I think we know the other's position and arguments. You believe that the mineral production, and energy bonus from FM outweighs the ecological and police effects. I think the opposite. But aslong as we both acknowledge that the other there is a negative to both our ideas, then we won't run havok with either. I don't want a Planet of 0 production, and no industrial development, you don't want a Planet ravaged by worm-rape and destroyed by fungus.

Herc:

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

Yes we do. I would suggest taken the Gaian ideals of
1) High Planet rating, low eco-damage;
2) Pacifism;
3) Freedom of the individual.
but add a 4th:
4) Equality, wherever possible, between individuals, but by ethos rather than law or high taxes.
They would be my personal vision for a better nation.

[GeneralTacticus]

With IoDs.

Point taken.

And I think we'll be moving into knowledge, as the poll said and Adam gave orders for, in 2 turns when the Morganites discover Cyberethics, so the Morale won't be 'pitifully low'.

Wealth has no effect on Mindworm morale, I thought you knew that. We aren't far enough into the game for the worms to be very powerful.

And with fungal bonuses, easier movement, and that they bypass armor, I think we can do some serious damage to Yang.

Yang's strength is one of the worm's two great weaknesses: numbers. Yang's armour isn't exactly intimidating, anyway, but his army is likely to be big. We're hardly likely to be fighting Hive troops in fungus anyway, and even if we are, we'll probably only be doing damage at 1 to 1 ratio, or close to it. Not a good idea, with an army that has to harvested.

Since I'm Roleplaying as much as trying to win (we're going to anyway) 'common sense' has a lot of bearing.

I'm trying to RP too, but I'm RPing as someone who really doesn't care if Planet is unhappy, as long as we can get enough benefits from it to make it worth it. We can live with fungal pops, and Planet won't turn into a desert because we take what we need from it.

And you want the reason why I say Green will result in more ecodamage? It's because if we keep our pops to a minimum, then our clean minerals will not rise nearly as fast as they would otherwise, meaning that we have to either lack behind greatly in industrial production (not to mention missing out on the energy bonuses from FM), or else run increased ecodamage.

That's good to hear, but I think if we take FM now we might see it run away a bit, possibly enough to cause global warming.

We have only 1 base producing Ecodamage currently, and trust me, it will NOT produce enough pops quickly enough to induce global warming.

That is true, but since we will win either way, I don't think cuting minerals, even drastically, is a bad thing. It will make the game more interesting, and we can still go for techs and transcendance almost as easily.

Then we have a disagreement. As long as something isn't blatantly cheating and/or against our factional ethos (f.e., I would argue against excessive ecodamage if we were playing the Gaians), I'm not willing to deny myself an advantage to make the game more 'interesting'.

Really? then how do we live? If we filter all our ait, then how do we survive in-the-field?

We have these things called 'filter masks' and 'breathing tanks'. Being our DoEI, I'd have thought you'd be more familiar with how our troops survive in the field.

An unregulated FM will cause those things, in the long term. Some of them were taken from looking at the USA, others fromlooking at the effects of repeated pollution and eco-damage. Yes they are rather extreme, but I believe in the long term could easily be possible, unless we have a non-FM or carefully regulated FM society.

The USA became the social wasteland it did because the government allowed itself to be bought out by big bussiness, which then used it's power to completely dominate society, along with other, less related things such as the Drug War. As long as we remain vigilant in opposition to government corruption or tyranny, we need not fear such a fate will befall us.

No, under Green it makes no difference to laws on it, people just do not feel the need to pollute to gain money. The Gaians are peace loving and strongly libertarian, so they wouldn't inforce it with stringent laws.

The Gaian's entire factional ethos is built on a Green society; ours isn't. Anyoen can impose a Green economy and it will have the same effec ton the environment, but that doesn't mean the people like it.

And I do think with FM morality and the 'social cost' goes out the window, and all people think about are 'private costs' and benefits to themselves.

Why do you say this? This isn't a failing of the Free Market, it's a failure of private morality... which is where the government comes in, to prevent the society from being damaged.

Then that is the main point we differ on IMHO. I believe extra pops are a bad thing (part game, most RP) and you believe otherwise. It's good to have contrasting view for a demo-game

It's nice to know we can agree on something.

I agree, I just think the rate at which it becomes worth decreasing mineral production is lower than you do. I don't think we should cripple our industry, but I wouldn't want us to end up with the US style of pollution control - virtually non-existant. I'd rather we run the PK like most of Europe, with some FM, some pollution control and no major environmental damage.

Then I guess we disagree on what the SMAC equivalent of Europe is. We stillr etain control of what comapnies operate where, and under what restrictions, remember?

Not just prettier. I don't think it would be twice the standard of living, and I think not living in fear of when and where the next pop will be would have a large effect on the happiness of the population.

Twice might be an exagerration, but not by much, especially considering the effects if we invest some of our new income into Psych.

I agree, I take your point. Should we end this hear? I think we know the other's position and arguments. You believe that the mineral production, and energy bonus from FM outweighs the ecological and police effects. I think the opposite. But aslong as we both acknowledge that the other there is a negative to both our ideas, then we won't run havok with either. I don't want a Planet of 0 production, and no industrial development, you don't want a Planet ravaged by worm-rape and destroyed by fungus.

Agreed. Don't expect the argument to remain silent forever, though; it will flare up again when Archaic posts the poll, or for that matter whenever he drops into the STEP/CCCP offices.

[Drogue]

Post deleted.

[GeneralTacticus]

Aside from the eco-damage (ED),

This point has been repeatedly addressed. Don't use it again until you can actually support it.

the civil unrest and lack of respect for police,

See above.

the injustice to the less skilled members of our society,

Where's the injustice?

and the general all round evilness of FM,

What evilness?

we have an large MW problem in Terminal Dogma,

Actually, we have one boil otuside the base, which can be dealt with via a switch from a Former to a Trance garrison, followed by a rush.

and with extra ED (thus more worms) and negative psi combat, this could turn into a major faction-wide problem.

Care to support that with some evidence?

Will we let our children be slaughtered to satisfy our greed

No. This is what the army is for.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
This point has been repeatedly addressed. Don't use it again until you can actually support it.

I don't agree it has (still has -3 Planet, and that speaks volumes to me, especially RPing), and it's my thread, I can post what I want (within reason)

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Where's the injustice?

Social injustice, as in some people get rich, others live in poverty.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
What evilness?

It's a speech FFS It's to help build morale for our followers! It's a little tongue in cheek! Besides, if I believed in good and evil, FM would definatly be on the evil side (look it just would!!! )

Can't you let a completely biased, party political speech get through just once on our party thread?

[GeneralTacticus]

I don't agree it has (still has -3 Planet, and that speaks volumes to me, especially RPing), and it's my thread, I can post what I want (within reason)

It's been addressed in that it's been shown that it isn't a particularly bad thing.

Social injustice, as in some people get rich, others live in poverty.

Are you suggesting that this is gojng to change? There will always be some people whoa re rich, and some who are poor. the only injustice in this is in the reasons for it.

Can't you let a completely biased, party political speech get through just once on our party thread?

No. People might actually believe it.