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

Hercules · September 18, 2002, 22:53

Just out of the pod and I am starting a political party already. I may be a founder but I don't care to be leader.
I looked thru all ( or as many as are left) political manifestos and political policies I could find. Most all tag green issues on at the end game (some green creditionals that). Where is the commitment to the planet in pursuing policies that leads to the mass slaughter of native plant life and undertaking policies that raise sea levels multifold and then spending fortunes on technology and research to put down put down rebellious native lifeforms. Are we aiming for happy oceanworld. The game may end in peace but what sort of planet will you pass on to your children and grandchildren

I would suggest that we need a political party that gives due respect to native lifeforms from the outset and pursues policies to preserve as much native flora and fauna as is out there.

I popped into the Rec. Commons when I arrived and I find a menu almost totally, maybe totally made up of Mind worms and Sealurks dishes. I have no problem with people eating dead worm bodies ( I enjoy my Wormburgers as well as the next man/woman) if they died naturally or were killed in battle but to capture these innocent species and breed them for the dinner plate reminds me of those earth practices ( long ago) that led to the near demise of the whales and buffalo. Let us not repeat the same mistakes in heaven as we did on Earth. The Settler and the Mind Worm can be friends.

I realise in the early turns we need to be cautious- there are still a few bad worm eggs out there, I know that, and also that we may need convert the odd fungus patch or two. But I think if we plan carefully we can win the native folk to our side from early on. (I love the sound of locusts in the morning).

Don't rush in to vaporise the native life or destroy fungus if there are reasonable environmentally friendly alternatives but which may take a little longer in the short term..There are some within the faction who see our native lifeforms as just a cheap form of energy. Don't develop Boreholes, willy nilly, in their reservations if a bunch of solar collectors or odd echelon mirror can do the trick just as well

Certainly Deirdre would make a fine pact partner (know what I mean) and could teach us a thing or two although we may have to differ from time to time.

In the end, for our party, the most important thing is not just following a 'peace at any costs' agenda but having the vision and conviction to achieve the goal of harmonious co-existence with every life form on the planet.

So our political position would be to push the green agenda much more from the outset and preferably within a peaceful and democratic polity.

So there you have it, the initial thoughts. There is much work to be done, many policies and horns of dilemmas to sort (Would you let an Isle of the Deep bear your children?).

This is a young party, an evolutionary party, come an join us, help choose our motto eg 'A giant STEP for Wormkind', help decide policy, you could go far, even Leader.

I hope you will interested and if so:
Respond to this Thread BOX or meet me for an Isle of the Deep single malt in the Rec. Commons.

Archaic · September 19, 2002, 03:49

Oh bloody oath, not another treehugging leftie party. Get a reality cheque and learn how the progress of a Free Market reduces the Eco Damage we do in the long term while increasing our production ability in the present.

GeneralTacticus · September 19, 2002, 03:52

Quote:

I popped into the Rec. Commons when I arrived and I find a menu almost totally, maybe totally made up of Mind worms and Sealurks dishes. I have no problem with people eating dead worm bodies ( I enjoy my Wormburgers as well as the next man/woman) if they died naturally or were killed in battle but to capture these innocent species and breed them for the dinner plate reminds me of those earth practices ( long ago) that led to the near demise of the whales and buffalo.

May I remind you that the whales and buffalo were not bred for food, but hunted in the wild. There is no danger of causing extinction to native life forms if we breed them for food or energy.

Quote:

I realise in the early turns we need to be cautious- there are still a few bad worm eggs out there, I know that, and also that we may need convert the odd fungus patch or two. But I think if we plan carefully we can win the native folk to our side from early on. (I love the sound of locusts in the morning).

Rather more than a few - we have yet to encounter a single worm that has failed to be actively hostile. In addition, the fungus is a great impediment to travel and resource gathering, and should be eliminated wherever necessary.

Quote:

Don't rush in to vaporise the native life or destroy fungus if there are reasonable environmentally friendly alternatives but which may take a little longer in the short term..

The worms don't care how ecologically friendly we are - they will attack us anyway. While the fungus may become useful later, it is at present an irritant to be minimized.

moomin · September 19, 2002, 04:27

At least terran woods are halfway useful. Not as useful as boreholes and mines, though!

Pandemoniak · September 19, 2002, 04:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Hercules
I realise in the early turns we need to be cautious- there are still a few bad worm eggs out there, I know that, and also that we may need convert the odd fungus patch or two. But I think if we plan carefully we can win the native folk to our side from early on. (I love the sound of locusts in the morning).

Being the Director of Terraforming and Colonization, I am very interested by the views you can have on this question. Until now, I go for a melt ecology, between the native flora of planet and the plantations we brought ourselves. It seems that these trees could easily be planted on Planet.
It seems as well, that trees are, ecologically, a benefit for Planet.*

Quote:

In the end, for our party, the most important thing is not just following a 'peace at any costs' agenda but having the vision and conviction to achieve the goal of harmonious co-existence with every life form on the planet.

So our political position would be to push the green agenda much more from the outset and preferably within a peaceful and democratic polity.

I am glad to find some people who share the same vision about this important question.

Quote:

I hope you will interested and if so:
Respond to this Thread BOX or meet me for an Isle of the Deep single malt in the Rec. Commons.

Lady Deirdre gave me some blend

*. Since your a newbie/settler here, I thought this link could help you knowing more about ecodamage.

Nubclear · September 19, 2002, 05:33

Political parties

GeneralTacticus · September 19, 2002, 06:44

Quote:

Political parties

This seems a strange sentiment, considering that you are a member of the largest party in the game at the moment...

Archaic · September 19, 2002, 07:09

No, he quit. Apparently.

Hercules · September 19, 2002, 14:17

I am going to wait until I receive further replies before I comment overall on the feed back so far. Thank you those who have done so already I appreciate your advice. However there is one comment I cannot leave unchallenged and that 's from Archaic. (btw how do you get colour into these posts).
Quote:
'not another treehugging leftie party'

Treehugging yes (except cactii), but 'leftie', not intrinsically. This party (I would propose) would advance beyond the old world left-centre-right one dimensional political axis. On some occasions, I imagine, we'll seem to take a left view and others no. Afterall I don't think you could claim that all those countries who signed up to Kyoto are all left wing. Is Al Gore, whereever he is now, a 'leftie'.

Anyhow I am replying to make sure this party is not Pigeonholed as 'leftie' that easily . Also note that while we would have much in common with Deirdre's outlook I have not proposed a simple replica of that factions views.

I for one, also like luxuries and what better fun than out with the Garrison crew, a couple of Talents and some Drones if they're up for it, stalking through the old Xfungus for the annual Chiron Locust cull. (That's another reason why I love the sound of Loucusts in the morning).

As a party we'll not shirk our responsiblilities to our fellow faction companions in times of need but neither will we ignore the downside effects of global capitalism if it strays (as it tends to) from the 'true' principles of the Free Market.

Not only do we need 'Cheques' we also need balances. *Long graceful bow to much applause* and exits

moomin · September 19, 2002, 14:29

So, let's get this straight, you want more Kyoto-treaty style deals? That's the party goal?

Darkness' Edge · September 19, 2002, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Political parties

That makes three of us.

Hercules · September 19, 2002, 23:59

To Pandamoniak: Thanks for the link. Very interesting article. Much to commend that approach when we're getting near that stage of the game, provided most things are in place and we're not in the midst of global nuclear war. However I would hope that by that stage too that our party will have attracted some of the best talent on the planet (and there seems a fair few intellectuals out there still uncommitted at this stage) to argue the Environmental case.

To Moomin: The ultimate aim is to secure a healthy, stable eco system on the planet. If Kyoto type treaties move that forward, fine. But a lot more research is needed on oceans, deep sea currants and native life. I mean who knows maybe gases associated with worms , IODs and Locusts rather than being 100% recycled, leak a significant % into the higher atmosphere to cause long term damage. In such a scenario the party might have to revise it policy and attitude to native life.

Similarly, on first look, I quite like Pande's 'melt' approach with the introduction of trees, but who knows the long term consequences. To return to the point , if Kyoto style treaties genuinely improve the situation, great: if a couple of surgical strike planet busters on a major polluter get us there quicker, there's a case for that course of action.

We'd need a discussion on boreholes perhaps nothing much wrong with them in themselves but boy can they stir up some angry natives.

Thanks for your contributions but I must remind myself I want to be the catylist for this party not its leader and chief policy maker: maybe a small statue in the main square of Bloomsville would be modest recognition.

Hercules · October 9, 2002, 10:25

Sorry I have been absent from the desk. Been out getting a better feel for the planet. And of course since I was last back here our faction has grown,(though there appears to be a serial killer about trying to reduce numbers.) but this party hasn't grown partly due to lack of exposure/publicity.

On environmental progress
There seems to be less aggro from our poor misunderstood native life and our faction has managed to leave wonderful patches of defensive fungus around.So better attitude than in the early nervey days. That doesn't stop people enjoying their company (native, dead alas) in the recreational commons.

There is one point though worth mentioning. There seems to be too many polls springing up: official and unofficial.They are crowding out more diverting deliberations. We accept there is a need for Polls but can they not all be forwarded to a poll directory/folder after the initial announcement. I feel the citizens ( especially the new ones ) are getting Pollaxed.

Hercules · October 9, 2002, 10:41

After I have filed a preliminary report on the son of Tac, sorry Tactical Marine murder I 'll start the recruitment exercise in full.

On the criteria for party leader, it would now seem that a secret four year affair with a party colleague is mandatory in order to give the party a 'now' image: least that's what our Spin people are saying.

Not enhaling marifungus is passe

Drogue · November 13, 2002, 08:11

I agree with almost all your aims, we should consider ecological reasons in all our decisions, and a highgreen rating does wonders for stopping worm rape and (more importantly) creating a large native army without having to build a single unit

They will all bow to our will!!

oh no... I've said too much!

I also agree with the ultimate aim being "to secure a healthy, stable eco system" however i think fungus is, generally, a nuisance and should be replaced by trees in most cases.

I think the growth from planned econ is more important at the begining of the game, but that later on, we should switch to green.

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.

rant over

GeneralTacticus · November 13, 2002, 18:10

Quote:

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 · November 13, 2002, 18:39

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 · November 13, 2002, 18:45

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 · November 13, 2002, 18:49

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 · November 13, 2002, 18:51

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

Well you learn something new every day!

Hercules · November 13, 2002, 18:52

Drogue : So is that a yes or a no?

Hercules · November 13, 2002, 18:58

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

I can just see the news headlines

GeneralTacticus · November 13, 2002, 19:07

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Yes.

Quote:

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 · November 13, 2002, 21:39

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

Method · November 13, 2002, 21:46

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 · November 14, 2002, 06:28

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 · November 14, 2002, 06:31

Quote:

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 · November 14, 2002, 06:34

Quote:

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 · November 16, 2002, 16:05

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 · November 19, 2002, 08:28

Quote:

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.)