Official: Preffered Society Models

[Maniac]

That's the plan indeed. Populate Egregion with only military specialists and technicians. This allows to build as much offensive aircraft as we want, as long as they have clean reactors.

[Method]

so i see nobody has come up with a valid reason for voting for green. why then? why?

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by TKG
so i see nobody has come up with a valid reason for voting for green. why then? why?

There really isn't a valid game-based reason, unless one is operating on false assumptions/data (for example that +2 Effic is ever better than +2 Econ)...

There's plenty of RP reasons, like the damaging of the environment or the oppression of the poor... I can find ways to kill all ED, and to placate all the drones, but that doesn't make the RP guys happy, as they generally have non-game definitions of "damaging the environment" and "the poor".

Then there's the "Must Crush Capitalism" party, which should be fairly self explanatory

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by TKG
so i see nobody has come up with a valid reason for voting for green. why then? why?

It’s mainly RP; some of us here are just sentimentalist hippies who wish to save the environment and crush the evils of big business.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Voltaire
It’s mainly RP; some of us here are just sentimentalist hippies who wish to save the environment and crush the evils of big business.

Exactly, and screw the game advantages, it's not like we can lose this game if we tried ... I vote FM because I just like the game advantages, and am not *that* opposed to capitalism.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Dammit! This Director of Peacekeeping Operations wants the corporate sponsorship money - else why do you think we have all those close-ups of the P4PSI logo on the wings of our Needlejets shown on the holo-news?

I have expensive sun-glasses and cigars to buy here people! How else can I be a General?!?!?

/me plans firing tests and mind-worm psych experiments near Greeny communes

[Kirov]

IIRC, atrocities forbiddance is held mostly for RP reasons, but noone sees any problem with that. What if nerve staple in, let's say, Aurrilion or JV would be allowed by Police rating and was beneficial at the same time? Should I assume that most FMers would vote yea?

What if Fundamentalism was beneficial for some time? Are we so democratic merely because Demo settings are better than those of Fundie? What if Fundie had had +2 ECON bonus?

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Kirov
IIRC, atrocities forbiddance is held mostly for RP reasons, but noone sees any problem with that. What if nerve staple in, let's say, Aurrilion or JV would be allowed by Police rating and was beneficial at the same time? Should I assume that most FMers would vote yea?

Two problems with your analogy: one, it's quite a stretch to say FM is as bad as nerve stapling; two, the benefits of FM are far greater than the benefits of nerve stapling. Btw, I'm not arguing that RP isn't a valid reason to refuse something, I'm just saying that it's about all the ground the Greenies really have.

What if Fundamentalism was beneficial for some time? Are we so democratic merely because Demo settings are better than those of Fundie? What if Fundie had had +2 ECON bonus?

If Fundie had a +2 ECON bonus I'd be all over it ... in fact I'd go fundie if it were even on par with Demo in the game... but Firaxis doesn't like fundamentalism, so it sucks in the game

[Drogue]

Originally posted by TKG
now, i'd like to hear some good reasons to run green over free market, without this turning into another "Archaic Vs Everyone" thread please.

OK, here is a reply I gave earlier on the pros of Green, and a high Planet rating:

Originally posted by Drogue in 1st Internal Affairs Office
If we have a low Planet rating, we make psi-combat much harder, which although not a big negative during war, is a big negative for exploration. If we have a high Planet rating, we hardly need worry about MW or IoDs.

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.

With a low Planet rating (and thus more eco-damage) we create more ice-cap melting, which means we need to build pressure domes, and even then we lose much population from a base losing its land. With a high Planet rating this is much less the case. And yes, I know we can launch a solar shade, but that has to be agreed with other factions (that have much different agendas) and we have to have the technology to do it. Even not using FM, with a high Planet rating, it is quite possible to get problems with ice caps melting, so with a low Planet rating, it could prove very problematic.

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.

I'm not against FM idealistically, hell I'm a Economics student, I'm believe in real life FM is the best option. But even without the negative police effects, I think FM in SMAC is not the best option.
At the moment, we need growth, so Planned is a very good option (easy pop-boom), but later on Efficiency and Planet are more important, so I would propose a switch to Green. Not having FM isn't my priority, neither is having Green, what I want is a higher Planet rating, and less eco-damage.
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 looking after Planet now, we won't have a problem later, and have to cut our production 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.

And even if it was easier (which for you it may well be), this is only Thinker, we are going to win, but we should be judged on how we win. Not how many points we have, but what state is Planet in when we win. We can win harvesting as many minerals as possible, having genejack factories and robotic assembly plants, using FM, planting many Boreholes and wrecking this Planet, both for Planet and for us; or we can win with a beautiful Planet, with wonders for us all to enjoy, with a life or harmony and happiness, and by Transcending with Planet.

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', having 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?

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.

Here is a quote from a more moderate position, taking from the STEP thread:

Originally posted by Earwicker
True, FM increases the risk we run for global warming. But the rising of the seas is not inevitable, and careful management of ecodamage is possible and essential under FM just as it is under Green. You'll just see a higher ED number in FM (for a given amount of minerals or terraforming) than you would under Green, so need to be extra-cautious. Whatever our economic model, we'll need to be mindful of the overall ED numbers.

And here, in brief, are reasons to go Green:
Planet rating – MW control, helps psi-combat, helps reduce ED, reducing fungal pops and ice cap melting.
Efficiency – Helps equalise regional differences (by helping those further away from the capital that are worse affected by inefficiency) gives us the ability to choose more extreme positions (10:0:90 for example) and increases energy.
Appeasement of Deirdre, a very valuable ally, being that she is powerful, has many techs, and can be a great ally against Yang/Deirdre/Santiago (our most likely foes)

RP Arguments:
Equality of wealth among citizens. Yes it’s an RP argument, but it’s a big one. I want an equal, meritocratic society, which I fell cannot happen with FM. Planned is also too inefficient for me, and results in much wastage.
Green is sustainable. It helps to promote an economy that is viable in the long term. FM is not sustainable, in RP terms (baring in mind we don’t know about Planet Flowering yet) because we are using up Planets resources at a faster rate than they are being created. Even with Synthetic Fossil Fuels, the burning of those harms the environment, and will end up creating global warming (extra production leading to ice caps melting).
Green gives us more control. We have efficiency, with a decentralised economy, while still not leaving us at the whim of Market forces. If we feel we have too much unemployment, we can have more government spending to create jobs, if consumer spending is creating large, unsustainable debts, we can raise interest rates (just two examples, obviously many things we can do)
What gives us the right to wreck Planet. We may be the most powerful species, but surely we have a duty to keep it habitable for our descendants?

We are going to win, whatever we choose, so RP arguments are important to me. I would rather win with an harmonious, peaceful, well-looked-after Planet, by Transcendence, but being more challenging and fun, than quickly and easily using FM. Indeed, I believe we should gain control as we intend to Govern, and since us gaining control is not an issue (we will win) I care far more about how we win, about what is a better society according to my principals and ideals, and what is best for the future of our race, than I care about what makes it easiest for us to win, and therefore, what the *best* option now is.

Planet is not for sale

Sorry for being so long winded, and I know much of this has been said before, but there was a call for reasos to vote Green, and I felt a need to give them. These are, of course, just my reasons, other people may have others.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Cedayon
Two problems with your analogy: one, it's quite a stretch to say FM is as bad as nerve stapling; two, the benefits of FM are far greater than the benefits of nerve stapling. Btw, I'm not arguing that RP isn't a valid reason to refuse something, I'm just saying that it's about all the ground the Greenies really have.

At the risk of answering for Kirov, I don't think Kirov was arguing about atrocities, but that if we ban atrocities for purely RP reasons, why isn't it reasonable to choose Green purely for RP reasons? It's not all the ground, as my previous post will hopefully show, but that this argument has been done to death for those that have been here (and read the threads) a while. I can give you links to the STEP and STEP High Garden threads, along with other discussions about the merits of Green, both in-game and RP, but the'd take ages to read, and probably worked better in context. If you wish I will however (just don't say I didn't warn you )

Is economic growth that important? Is it worth the value of our future? Isn't sustainability, and the survival of Planet more important?

Originally posted by Cedayon
If Fundie had a +2 ECON bonus I'd be all over it ... in fact I'd go fundie if it were even on par with Demo in the game... but Firaxis doesn't like fundamentalism, so it sucks in the game

Really? You'd go against our whole factional ethos just for some in game advantage? Let me ask you this. If we win by means against our ideals and our whole factional ethos, what was the point of us winning?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Cedayon
Exactly, and screw the game advantages, it's not like we can lose this game if we tried

Exactly I care more about how we win than how easily we win.

Originally posted by Cedayon I
vote FM because I just like the game advantages, and am not *that* opposed to capitalism.

Neither am I, I just think it needs to have environmental safeguards, and other checks in place. FM isn't just capitalism, it's pure, unrestrained capitalism. I favour a mixed economy, Capitalism, but with checks, especially environmental ones, hence I favour Green.

[GeneralTacticus]

If we have a low Planet rating, we make psi-combat much harder, which although not a big negative during war, is a big negative for exploration. If we have a high Planet rating, we hardly need worry about MW or IoDs.

Exploration is now completely unnecessary, as we have satlleites, so that point is irrelevant.

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.

The simple fact that we currently have a capitalist society which produces no pollution whatsoever effectively shoots that point out of the water too.

With a low Planet rating (and thus more eco-damage) we create more ice-cap melting, which means we need to build pressure domes, and even then we lose much population from a base losing its land. With a high Planet rating this is much less the case. And yes, I know we can launch a solar shade, but that has to be agreed with other factions (that have much different agendas) and we have to have the technology to do it. Even not using FM, with a high Planet rating, it is quite possible to get problems with ice caps melting, so with a low Planet rating, it could prove very problematic.

1) See above.

2) Even if we do produce a bit of ED, this won't necessarily cause global warming. You need x amount of pop within y turns for that, and as long as this does not occur, we're safe.

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.

Nor is it in the slightest bit necessary.

I'm not against FM idealistically, hell I'm a Economics student, I'm believe in real life FM is the best option. But even without the negative police effects, I think FM in SMAC is not the best option.

In sipte of the fact that it currently has no downsides whatsoever?

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 looking after Planet now, we won't have a problem later, and have to cut our production 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.

None of this is a matter of any concern, due to there ebign no pollution.

And even if it was easier (which for you it may well be), this is only Thinker, we are going to win, but we should be judged on how we win. Not how many points we have, but what state is Planet in when we win. We can win harvesting as many minerals as possible, having genejack factories and robotic assembly plants, using FM, planting many Boreholes and wrecking this Planet, both for Planet and for us; or we can win with a beautiful Planet, with wonders for us all to enjoy, with a life or harmony and happiness, and by Transcending with Planet.

Pollutino is not in any way necessary to FM, as evidenced by the current in-game situation.

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', having 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?

False dilemma. The choice is not between being wealthy on a dead planet, or comfortable on a healthy one - it's between being wealthy and poor on exaclty the same planet.

Planet rating – MW control, helps psi-combat, helps reduce ED, reducing fungal pops and ice cap melting.

None of which is at all necessary.

Efficiency – Helps equalise regional differences (by helping those further away from the capital that are worse affected by inefficiency)

Which is counter-productive, as it reduces the energy fed into bases with single-base SPs, thus making us worse off, and means we have to build more facilities to get the same results.

gives us the ability to choose more extreme positions (10:0:90 for example)

Which, again, is completely unnecessary.

and increases energy.

In comparison with +2 ECON, it actually reduces it enormously.

Appeasement of Deirdre, a very valuable ally, being that she is powerful, has many techs, and can be a great ally against Yang/Deirdre/Santiago (our most likely foes)

In in-game terms: nope. She is not a partciularly valuable ally. What does she have to offe rus?

In RP terms: Yuo're adocating an alliance with her why, exactly? Have you ever bothered to examine the structure of her society? It has actually regressed since Planetfall, being effectively a Green theocracy. Why should we ally ourselves to such a tyrant?

Equality of wealth among citizens. Yes it’s an RP argument, but it’s a big one. I want an equal, meritocratic society, which I fell cannot happen with FM.

A society cannot be both equal and meritocratic at the same time. If it is meritocratic, it must recognize that some ahve more merit than others, and hence accept inequality accordingly.

[quote]Green is sustainable. It helps to promote an economy that is viable in the long term. [/qupte]

It creates an economy which can exist perpetually, but at what cost? In order to do so, it prevents change and growth.

FM is not sustainable, in RP terms (baring in mind we don’t know about Planet Flowering yet) because we are using up Planets resources at a faster rate than they are being created. Even with Synthetic Fossil Fuels, the burning of those harms the environment, and will end up creating global warming (extra production leading to ice caps melting).

No, it doesn't; if that were true, we'd be seeing ecodamage, but we aren't. Also note that most of our power is generated by Fusion Reactors anyway, which are clean and effectively permanent.

Green gives us more control.

Why should anybody have 'control' of our economy?

We have efficiency, with a decentralised economy, while still not leaving us at the whim of Market forces.

You really love to rant about 'market forces', don't you? Has it ever dawned on you that they are not malignant, outside entities trying to destroy us, but that they are the manifestation of the choices of the entire population?

If we feel we have too much unemployment, we can have more government spending to create jobs, if consumer spending is creating large, unsustainable debts, we can raise interest rates (just two examples, obviously many things we can do)

Both of which are perfectly possible under FM, in case you haven't noticed.

What gives us the right to wreck Planet.

Nothing, but that's not what we're doing.

We may be the most powerful species, but surely we have a duty to keep it habitable for our descendants?

Oh, indeed. We have a responsibility to give our descendants a future beyond servitude to your arbitarily proclaimed limits on what is and isn't good for the planet.

We are going to win, whatever we choose, so RP arguments are important to me. I would rather win with an harmonious, peaceful, well-looked-after Planet, by Transcendence, but being more challenging and fun, than quickly and easily using FM. Indeed, I believe we should gain control as we intend to Govern, and since us gaining control is not an issue (we will win) I care far more about how we win, about what is a better society according to my principals and ideals, and what is best for the future of our race, than I care about what makes it easiest for us to win, and therefore, what the *best* option now is.

The fact that FM is the best optino now is precisely why we should use it. If, in the future, the best optino changes, we should it; it's as simple as that.

At the risk of answering for Kirov, I don't think Kirov was arguing about atrocities, but that if we ban atrocities for purely RP reasons, why isn't it reasonable to choose Green purely for RP reasons?

Because:

1) Atrocities ar ejust that, atrocities;

2) Atrocities bring in none of the benefits of FM, and they create huge downsides.

Is economic growth that important? Is it worth the value of our future? Isn't sustainability, and the survival of Planet more important?

False dilemma, again. FM is not in the least bit incompatible with sustainability, and (as current conditions show) it is not incompatible with a clean planet either.

FM isn't just capitalism, it's pure, unrestrained capitalism.

No. FM is jus tthat: a free market. Unrestrained capitalism does not deliver a free market, hence it is not a free market.

I favour a mixed economy, Capitalism, but with checks, especially environmental ones, hence I favour Green.

What you're actually advocating is a system of needless rules and regulations that kill economic progress for now gain whatsoever.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Drogue
Is economic growth that important? Is it worth the value of our future? Isn't sustainability, and the survival of Planet more important?

We can sustain FM, it does take effort but it's well worth it. Planet's doing just fine, too, hasn't made much of a peep at us for a while.

Really? You'd go against our whole factional ethos just for some in game advantage? Let me ask you this. If we win by means against our ideals and our whole factional ethos, what was the point of us winning?

I think you misunderstood me: I'd prefer to use Fundamentalism because I like the idea better than Democracy... and I could stand for Fundy on RP grounds if I wanted to... but the game models Democracy as much better, so I typically choose Demo. As for against our factional ethos... well, the whole "Democracy Game" thing does give a hint, but if we have the option (unlike police state) I think it's at least compatible. Doesn't matter though, we're staying Demo til the end of the game.

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Cedayon
Because:

1) Atrocities ar ejust that, atrocities;

2) Atrocities bring in none of the benefits of FM, and they create huge downsides.

I'm glad that atrocities don't bring any significant bonuses. You with Cedayon would have been first to nerve staple me and I would have had to seek asylum in the Hive faction...

Originally posted by Cedayon

I think you misunderstood me: I'd prefer to use Fundamentalism because I like the idea better than Democracy... and I could stand for Fundy on RP grounds if I wanted to... but the game models Democracy as much better, so I typically choose Demo. As for against our factional ethos... well, the whole "Democracy Game" thing does give a hint, but if we have the option (unlike police state) I think it's at least compatible. Doesn't matter though, we're staying Demo til the end of the game.

Frankly speaking, I'm rather dissapointed (not to mention astonished), but maybe I misunderstand you; could you elucidate your pro-fundie stance little further?


BTW, as for me, it does matter why we will stick to Demo until the end...

[Maniac]

Drogue:

A society cannot be both equal and meritocratic at the same time. If it is meritocratic, it must recognize that some ahve more merit than others, and hence accept inequality accordingly.

I have to agree with GT. Either you want equality and you support communism/Marxism/whatever, or either you want a meritocracy and then you support a free market with a strong enough government to provide equal chances, rules & regulations, and checks & balances.

GeneralTacticus:

What you're actually advocating is a system of needless rules and regulations that kill economic progress for now gain whatsoever.

Please...