-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There are plenty of independent news sources - even if some are owned by rich businessmen with close links to whoever is in charge, there will always be other rich businessmen with rival interests. I don't really subscribe to the view that we are all being spoon fed what our leaders want us to know. Mainly as it contradicts your second point: people are generally incompetent. If the people in charge really don't want some information to get out, chances are they will be powerless to actually stop it getting out.
The idea that infinite growth is unsustainable assumes that technology has a fixed limit - which I agree it probably does. I think both the laws of thermodynamics and general relativity state there will be fixed limits on what is physically possible. But I don't think we are anywhere near that limit. We barely understand what these limits are and physicists are constantly adjusting them. I very much doubt we will reach out technological limits within my lifetime.
As for the latest economic crisis, it's an odd one. Clearly money printing sounds bad and it hasn't worked great in the past in places like Weimar Germany, but it does seem to have helped. The only risk is inflation but hopefully that can be kept under control. As long as governments actually learn from their past mistakes of spending massively without any thoughts of how to pay the money back (not that I can see that happening - once again: people are incompetent) I don't see any massive problem.
1) I subscribe to the view that when the EROI of certain fuels rises too high, another one will be developed/discovered to take it's place. I don't think it's a coincidence we have seen a shale gas boom just as oil was seemingly heading for unaffordable levels. As you pointed out the EROI of solar power has improved massively in recent years and there's no reason it can't be improved further. I don't think we are going to hit a wall where energy suddenly becomes unaffordable.
2) Are renewable sources really more pollution than burning fossil fuels? I know people have painted them as a planet saving wonder that we all need to embrace when they actually aren't, but I'd be surprised if producing wind farms and solar panels produced more CO2 than drilling for and then burning oil.
As for materials, we can pretty much synthesise anything in a laboratory. Obviously it's not energy efficient to start producing coal, but if we get to a point where we are in desperate need of it to make steel (although there is actually still massive amounts of coal left un-mined) it can be created. Market forces will take charge though. If we are that desperate for steel it will be worth the huge costs to make, but it also creates an incentive to find alternatives, which someone will do eventually.
You are right that current infrastructure is geared towards using fossil fuels, but that's just because we have been using them for so long. Once they become more expensive and alternatives cheaper that infrastructure will be developed to accommodate new sources of energy. We can't say for certain whether the future of personal transport will be electric cars, hydrogen furl cars or those tubes that fly people around like in futurama, but something will pop up - it always does.
3) Once again, I'm going to turn to technology. GM crops will soon allow us to feed far more people than we currently do, using less actual land and perhaps without the use of pesticides and fertilisers. They are still relatively new though, so it's hard to say if they actually make the huge difference I'm hopeful they can. If not, then yes there will be issues. There will be more conflicts, more starving people and more poverty. I don't see it creating some kind of economic apocalypse though.
I'm not trying to dismiss you or anything by the way, but as someone who has studied both economics and geography at university, I just always find these discussions interesting.
Brent crude oil, yes. That's not the same as "the oil price", really. It's just one of the types of oil out there.
That graph looks accurate, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Crude has:
I did warn you guys, right ..?
Oh, it gets out ... in fact, we've been told. Over, and over again. "Save the whales", "Save the planet", "Oil is running out", etc etc. You've all heard variations on it, haven't you?
The club of rome wasn't the first, nor was it the last group to make predictions of this nature. Especially in scientific circles.
But let's face it: 99% of the people do not *want* to hear this news. It's human nature to ignore, revile, despise, and otherwise just try to forget about bad news. Especially news this dire.
Your reaction is a case in point: "crackpots". Really? Is that the best you can come up with? Why are these people any less sane than you? On what basis do you conclude that?
These articles talk facts, and bring evidence to the table. There is no lunacy involved here. Really.
All technology is constrained by physics. And technological limits .. yeah, we've already reached some of them. Look at the engine in your car - what principles does it use that were not well known and available in the 60's and 70's? Yeah, we added a ton of electronics, and it's all been polished very well, but the basics of it hasn't changed a bit in 40-50 years.
Yeah, it seems to have helped .. if you don't look too deeply at the state of the US economy, that is.
I don't think I've said the EROI of solar has "improved massively". I certainly don't subscribe to that view. Energy cost translate directly into financial cost. By the very nature of markets, we will always try to use the cheapest technology first. So any technology that replaces current technology will always be more expensive, in terms of money as well as EROI. Therefore, EROI will, in general, always go down as resources deplete. Not up.
That being said, I hope you're right, but any such technology needs to become available -right now-. And inventing, planning, and building any type of plant takes time. Possibly decades.
There are some promising technologies out there, so not all hope is lost, but we are far closer to a potential catastrophe than most people realize. Including you.
Producing them takes fossil fuels and various materials, not to mention land. Solar panels especially. I'm not up to speed on the details but when you hear certain prominent environmentalists recommend we switch to nuclear because of the mounting environmental costs of solar and wind power then I just have to stop and scratch my head a bit.
That being said - the main argument is simply that we do not have enough of these resources to make up for the coming fossil fuel shortfall. Not by a long shot.
.. assuming we make it to that point alive and with our high-tech economy intact, yes. IF the energy costs of such a technology don't push the EROI too low ..
That's speculation based on historic performance. Something any investor can tell you is a bad idea.
Not that these people are particularly wise, mind ;-)
But the more serious criticism is that as far as physics are concerned, there isn't much left to discover that doesn't require kilometers of particle accelorator to figure out. I wouldn't count on any magical last-second saviour technology from that corner at all.
I'm happy that you remain so blisfully unware. I lived my life like you until a few months ago. Then I came across the below talk, and my life hasn't been the same ever since.
(warning: extremely boring - the really juicy stuff comes at the last slide..)
[video=youtube;C_eFjLZqXt8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_eFjLZqXt8[/video]
I'm happy I am given the chance to discuss it. Or at least, tell the story. I've done a terrible amount of research on it the last few months, trying to find a loophole - some gap, any kind of error that makes it feasible we can get out of this mess somehow.
So far, I haven't succeeded.
So this is what The Resistance has come to. Debates about economics. If all the oil going to run out soon, we should get one last game in. If not, let's have another game just to be safe.
Soon, I just have to finalize the rule changes for a variation with roles. Now I think that a Perceval might be needed no matter what the player number so as to offset the assassin's advantage (and indeed they do have decent odds even on a random guess, though I imagine that the player wouldn't guess blindly but attempt to reason out which goodie is Merlin ).
There probably will not be deadlines, as no time works well for me at the moment, but I will strongly encourage members on a proposed team during the building phase to pre-load orders so as to lessen game delays. Also, after a team is approved, orders will probably default (support for goodies, sabotage for baddies) if a player hasn't sent one within about 24 after approval.
There probably will not be deadlines, as no time works well for me at the moment, but I will strongly encourage members on a proposed team during the building phase to pre-load orders so as to lessen game delays. Also, after a team is approved, orders will probably default (support for goodies, sabotage for baddies) if a player hasn't sent one within about 24 after approval.
Yes, that is it.
And the game will probably be up before the day's over, my local time.
The roles are actually pretty easy to understand; in this case it's what there'll be instead of plot cards, though one could use both in theory.
It means less for the GM to do (no cards to carry out). I hope that it might make games more distinct, as to me, one of the weaker elements of Resistance is that the game doesn't feel too different each seperate time.
And the game will probably be up before the day's over, my local time.
The roles are actually pretty easy to understand; in this case it's what there'll be instead of plot cards, though one could use both in theory.
It means less for the GM to do (no cards to carry out). I hope that it might make games more distinct, as to me, one of the weaker elements of Resistance is that the game doesn't feel too different each seperate time.
I'll host game 10, if there are no objections.
Also, I've posted each player's individual statistics. I had no idea TNT had a 100% record.
Also, I've posted each player's individual statistics. I had no idea TNT had a 100% record.
Could someone with time on our hands give a quick summary of all the different general types of resistance games. Like even just list them, standard, Avalon etc.
Last edited:
So far as I know, there are Resistance and Resistance: Avalon. Though there appear to be some similarish knock-offs.
Thanks! We should make up our own version, and nurture it to become the brand leader.
We should make up our own version, and nurture it to become the brand leader.
Any volunteers to host game 11?
Statistics have been updated, and jpr caught Cymsdale up.
Statistics have been updated, and jpr caught Cymsdale up.
I guess I can host a game if no one else wants too. Would give me a chance to relax after the frustrations of the last game...