OFFICIAL : A switch to Green

[Voltaire]

GO GREEN!!!

With my vote in it’s a tie at 8:8… this is going to be close.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by TKG
to steal a phrase

"Green: so evil, it's almost finnish!"

Having been to Finland, I can say that there's quite a bit of green there. Anything associated with the color is likely evil

[GeneralTacticus]

I remain astounded by the number of people who are willing to vote for a setting that will impoverish our people for little or no gain. I just hope they don't actually succeed...

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I remain astounded by the number of people who are willing to vote for a setting that will impoverish our people for little or no gain. I just hope they don't actually succeed...

Some prefer to be decently rich and very knowlegeable than filthy rich and decently knowlegdeable...

[GeneralTacticus]

And some prefer to actually have an education and somewher enice to live to being uneducated and crammed into government housing projects.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And some prefer to actually have an education and somewher enice to live to being uneducated and crammed into government housing projects.

Propbably, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Green economy doesnt mean lack of education nor gouvernmental houses.

[GeneralTacticus]

It does in this case, given that you're ditching Psych spending, which will reuslt int eh creation of a lot of extra Drones and a lot less Talents.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
It does in this case, given that you're ditching Psych spending, which will reuslt int eh creation of a lot of extra Drones and a lot less Talents.

Less Talents but less drones too. And psych spending doesnt mean nice education. 100 Reseacrh per turn more mean better education, on the contrary. It doesnt mean gouvernment houding neither, on the contrary, a Green economy drastically suppress a huge part of our bureaucracy, making it more efficicent.

[GeneralTacticus]

1) Have you even bothered to look at the save? There are masses more Drones.

2) Yes, Psych spending includes educaiton. If you don't think quality education is a basic luxury, then I don't know what is.

3) 100% research spending would mean masses of cash going on research in the labs, not on education. Providing free education for all won't be that helpful in devleoping Unified Field Theory, after all.

4) Why wouldn't it mean government housing? There'd be masses more people who couldn't afford good homes, so they'd have to get either governemnt housing or rent cheap housing, which would be equally bad.

[Kirov]

I love this place. Can be away for a month, and when I'm back, it's all the same. Some things never change...

Just my two cents:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

2) Yes, Psych spending includes educaiton. If you don't think quality education is a basic luxury, then I don't know what is.

If PSYCH included education, then 100% PSYCH should mean something like compulsory high education, when almost every citizen is a Talent i.e., in my understanding, well-educated person from upper or upper-middle class. But hey, why then our research would freeze and our economy would get sluggish?

[GeneralTacticus]

1) Because an economy doesn't function without people to do the dirty work as well; not everyone can be a white-collar worker.

2) Because if all the money that is generated from that (and there would be quite a bit) is spent on further education (and there wouldn't be a lot of improvement after a while), then there's no funding for anything else.

[Kirov]

I think that most of the dirty work is automated in our society and that Talents can also be high-skilled and well-paid blue collars.

Besides, taking the hypothetical 100% PSYCH society into account, you can clearly see that 'talent' has different means in different societies. After all, in society with 100% Psych rating these talents would mean 'skilled teachers'. If other sorts of talents were generated in such society, there would be gret unemployment, if you cacth my drift. So, logically, 'talent' under FM with 100% Econ would be economist, and with 100% - scientist. Thus, it can be sometimes better to have one Talent under one SE setting [e.g. genuine artist] than 3 Talents under other one [Dilbert, Wally and pointy-haired boss from 'Dilbert' strips].

[GeneralTacticus]

I don't really think that 100% economy means a total social focus on making money, and 100% research a total focus on science - they're just govenrment spending priorities.

And you're right that automation does help solve the 'dirty work' problem, but somebody still has to maintain the robots. You can't really automate the whole process, because it becomes an endless loop.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
a Green economy drastically suppress a huge part of our bureaucracy, making it more efficicent.

Yes, but what's the real net result? You might be more efficient, but that's coupled with an economy that's been scaled back. You end up producing far less with your vaunted efficiency than a slightly less efficient (In real terms) economy that encourages production.

[GeneralTacticus]

Not to mention the fact that according to you (and you're going to be the one who puts it into practice), it'll get rid of the bureaucracy by turning it's duties over to Planet. Now remind me why, exactly, we should trust Planet to manage our economy for us, given that we could never hope to manage Planet's ecosystem for it?