Mori_Yuki: Have they used a scientific model for the simulation part of this game? Or is it just some simple numbers and percentiles attached to buildings and the environment?
tremere110: They use an emissions value. As long as it's positive things are okay. If it goes negative bad things start to happen. So not even remotely a scientific model.
I see, thanks ... So it is more about the message and not much meat to it? Not necessarily a knockout criteria where I would say: hard pass. I would just expect a little more when simulation of this kind (or in general, really) is involved and a game is advertised as such.
Not necessarily to the extant where maybe HoI is in the respect of charts and trees and what-have-you.Mori_Yuki: I don't care so much about the 'green message' as much.
Imho. a lost cause because all the whole thing is is about demonstrations and money but no actually acts to improve the situation, but an accurate model taking into account what actually influences the environment of a planet in a positive or negative way. Say for instance coal plants which I would suspect has in itself a heavy impact and is 'bad'. When mining for natural non-renewable resources is an option, in case of coal mining the occurrence and impact of coal-seam-fires must be factored in and weighed as well. I would also expect to find a calculation about the impact of 'green' or 'good' tech. Take E-mobility for instance and its chain of positive and negative factors having a more or less big impact (overall negative or overall positive) at some point down the line.
If it is just some numbers being made up, telling me that this and that is bad and this and that is good (where all things taken into consideration what seems good isn't better than what's advertised as 'bad'), it would just be to simple for a game wishing to convey an important message.
I've always believed we need more research. What if the world needs to get warmer in order to have better growing seasons to feed the growing human population? What if preventing climate change leads to worldwide famine as a result? Pretty sure wars of desperate nations with nukes battling over food would devastate the environment faster than anything else.
That said I would prefer we focus on space exploration and colonization over climate change. All it takes is a single major disaster (super volcano, meteorite, gamma ray burst, etc) and the human race would be wiped out. All our eggs are in one basket and we need to spread out to prevent complete loss in the event of a completely uncontrollable disaster.
Climate change, warmer temperatures, is not necessarily a bad thing right now. We are going through a new sun cycle, a phase called modern grand solar minimum, expected to last until 2053. Wouldn't it be for global warming caused by greenhouse gases (mainly), which of course has a big impact and will have for years to come, we should see a considerable cooling. A Maunder isn't expected by scientists, according to their predictions, (NASA et. al.), so no mini ice age, even if there was it would be counteracted by man-made pollution.
A second option to fall back to, like making another planet habitable, well that's not the worst option. Self-sufficient space station as interim solution, some new tech to somehow balance out cooling/warming - like blowing some stuff up in the atmosphere to reduce greenhouse gases, whatever it takes to make us last a little longer humanity here on good old mother earth unless and until a solution is found should be done.
Whatever little we as individuals can do to make a rather more positive impact on the situation, ignoring political talks and sales and people turning to the streets to protest, instead of actively working out solution on a grassroots level, companies and investors dealing with certificates, investment in green-tech, which isn't all green-thumbs, should be done. So far its all talking the talk but little walking the walk rather the opposite. Think China, Tesla, VW, Mercedes and other car makers; They buy CO² certificates from Tesla, the company earned $1.68 billion with it alone, only so they can keep producing their cars. That's just not helpful to bring about change at all. Neither is banning old cars, this will ruin the car industry, second-hand market, remember the crisis car builders had went through, governments paying people to scrap their 2, 3 or 5 year old cars, to buy new ones! Guess what happens with the millions of cars once only E-vehicles are allowed, how much waste that will cause ... Green future? Yes, indeed? No ... That's what I feel should be transported as message in a game like this, the wider implications and impacts of decision to do one thing versus the other, to build something versus another.
If change was wanted it's not just tech and money or constant reminders how bad it is already and how everything's spun out of control. A game trying to make aware of it with the message: If we continue to pollute the planet we pay a high price for it, that's just not enough. Since who
isn't aware of the impact? This isn't something that's happened in 2 years but 20, 30, 40 and more. No matter what has been done or tried, when money is involved, Brazil (rain forest), other places, we don't really have to worry to much about natural catastrophes anymore. We will drive ourselves to extinction before long, just because we are technically light-years ahead of our human development, some stuck in the 14 century fighting wars over territories a book says: It's yours, do away with the unbelievers, heretics, sinners.
Whatever we as a people do or let happen, the one and only way to bring about change is by starting in front of our own doors and inside our houses and neighborhoods. No planting hundreds and thousands of trees, or paying some charity for it, (see Turkey - millions of trees planted, hardly any of them survived, mono-cultures, a waste of time and effort ...), this grandeur: 'We must save the planet, no! Stupid! Stop! 'We' can't save the world, no matter what, which is again a message that's important that probably isn't even in this game implied or explicit. All that's needed is to start instead of Greta or whoever has been picked out or Fridays for Future etc. They just do what thousands already did which hasn't gotten us very far. Spend your money on your own terms, not to save Africa, or any other country. Buy trees, build something with a positive impact on everyone around, turn to local governments and work out and execute plans! Just bloody start, now!
