NATION

PASSWORD

[submitted] Follow ups to Organic Outburst (multiple issues)

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

[submitted] Follow ups to Organic Outburst (multiple issues)

Postby Aculea » Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:01 am

Round three!

If you chose to keep pesticides in Organic Outburst, you must deal with the wrecked environment:


Dead In The Water

The pesticides and fertilizer your nation uses on its crops run off into the Gulf of @@NAME@@, feeding the algae until it chokes out all other life. You are on a fishing trip arranged by @@RANDOMNAME@@, your minister of agriculture, meant to impress various dignitaries and members of the media. At her signal, you cast a line into the water. The fishing rod bends and flexes as you pull at it, quite unlike any ministers present.

[option]Echoing what you were told beforehand, @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of oil company Drills And Gills, says, “You can’t catch anything in sterile water.” She jabs a finger at the open sea and adds, “If you want to squeeze more production from this gulf, abolish the obsolete environmental regulations hindering our offshore oil rigs. There’s nothing left to protect, and cheaper oil brings cheaper fertilizer.”
[effect]derricks in winter are heated by contained oil slick fires
[stats]eco-friendly down, whatever proxies for oil up, maybe an added penalty to trout fishing and/or a bonus to agriculture, the latter not necessarily being enough to create upward motion, just to reduce the ding from trashing the environment.

[option]A hard pull on the line drags the rod out of your hands. @@RANDOMNAME@@, an astonished senior captain from Something Fishy, a multinational trout fishing concern, makes a diving catch for it and wrestles with whatever is on the other end. She says, “If that’s a fish, we must find out how it lives in lifeless water! Otherwise the only way to save the fishing industry -- and the environment -- is to ban the pesticides causing this destruction.”
[effect]debate rages over whether ground fish guts can be spread on fields
[stats]eco-friendly up, trout fishing up and a dent in agriculture for the same reason as above. pro-market down. Pesticides illegal.

[option]With a wrench and some salty language, the captain lands the “fish”, revealed as a woman in a scuba suit. Tripping on her swim fins, she says, “No, take me back! I had proof the genetically modified crops I planted shed no harmful chemicals, and now that proof is at the bottom of the gulf.” Floundering on deck, she continues: “They grow better than any of the plants we now poison to keep alive.” She collapses with a tear in her eye. “Help me,” she says, “I can give you autofertilizing, autopesticidal autotrophs. Pesticides would be obsolete.”
[effect]superstitious farmhands refuse to enter @@NAME@@’s immaculate fields
[stats]No idea. I only included GMOs because of a request in the writer’s block thread, so presumably someone knows. GMOs enabled.


Runoff from pesticides and fertilizers has created a lifeless region known as the Hypoxic Zone in the Gulf of @@NAME@@. @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, your minister of agriculture, has compelled you onto a fishing trip with various dignitaries and members of the media.

[option]To a speckle of applause, you flick a fishing line into the water and watch the bobber beg for help before it drowns. @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, CEO of (fertilizer company), scoffs. “You can’t catch anything in pure water. If you want to squeeze more food from this gulf, abolish the obsolete environmental regulations hindering our offshore oil rigs. Cheaper oil brings cheaper fertilizer."

[option]Your bobber plunges underwater. @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, an astonished senior captain from Something Fishy, the nation’s largest trout fishing concern, grabs the pole from your hands and starts to wrestle with whatever is on the other end of the line. She exclaims, “If that’s a fish, we must find out how it lives without any oxygen. Otherwise the only way to save our fishing industry -- and the environment -- is to ban all pesticides!“

[option]With a wrench and some salty language, the captain lands the “fish”, revealed as a woman in a scuba suit. Tripping on her swim fins, she says, “Do you realize what important research you’re disturbing? Without pesticides, food production could drop by up to three quarters.” Floundering on deck, she continues: “If I had the funding, I could use the knowledge taken from the extremophilic creatures in this gulf to genetically engineer invincible cash crops.”



If you chose to ban pesticides, you must deal with the lowered productivity:


Portions of Biblical Proportions

The ban on pesticides has been blamed for allowing a plague of locusts to devastate crops in @@NAME@@’s bread basket. It being a voluntary no-lunch day for government workers, implemented to fight spiraling food costs, your stomach is grumbling when a number of activists come to your office with grumbles of their own.

[option]“It is time to tighten our belts,” says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a popular ascetic, while running her thumbs through her suspenders, “There are many ways to save money on food. Buy at the lowest price per calorie, use recipes that turn leftovers into luxuries, and most especially hold back on any children you may have been planning.” She sneers at a woman in your office snacking out of a small paper bag. “Our citizens just need a little encouragement. Posters. Public announcements. You get the idea.”
[effect]the banana peel mondae is more popular than the banana sundae
[stats]Obesity down, unexpected death up, whatever government department is responsible for the propaganda (health care?) up, compassion down, a tax cut.

[option]@@RANDOMNAME@@, the owner of the paper bag and a locavore guru, is the only one with any cheerfulness. She says, “There’s no need to do any of that. The answer is right in front of us.” She starts to crunch on candied locusts pulled from her bag as she talks. “Native animals destroy our invasive foreign crops," she says, "Native plants reclaim our fields before the plague has abated." After a swallow she says, "This is their home. With some agricultural research and job retraining, we could make these the staples of our diet and no one would go hungry. Think globally, eat locally.”
[effect]culinary schools organize their recipe books by biome
[stats]civil rights down, pro-market down. Eco-friendly up. Vegetarianism repealed.

[option]“The Pollyannas who think nature is our garden forget to mention that gardening is a lot less productive than farming,” says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a stooped and weatherbeaten farmer hiding some stolen locusts behind her back. “Do you know how much labor can be saved by integrating best practices with the latest generation of pesticides and fertilizers? It would restore food security with minimal harm to the environment.”
[effect]farmhands in masks and latex gloves apply pesticides to crops with eyedroppers
[stats]eco-friendly down, whatever industry proxies for pesticides and fertilizer up, pro-market up. Pesticides unbanned.

[option]“No!” screams a woman in polyester and vinyl. She grabs the bag of locusts and dumps it out the window. “These land-intensive methods abuse the ecosystem. We must move all farms into greenhouses, big as skyscrapers, and grow only what cannot be replaced by technology!” She leans over your desk and says, “If that means genetically modifying crops to survive the new conditions, it’s a small price to pay for the ethical treatment of nature.”
[effect]the Hanging Edible Gardens of @@NAME@@ are marveled throughout @@REGION@@
[stats]Once again, no idea, except it should probably include the penalties for government being this invested in agriculture directly.


The ban on pesticides has been blamed for allowing a plague of locusts to devastate crops in @@NAME@@’s bread basket. It being a voluntary no-lunch day for government workers, implemented to fight spiraling food costs, your stomach is grumbling when a number of activists have come to your office with grumbles of their own.

[option] @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a survivalist and locavore guru, is the only one with any cheerfulness. “There’s nothing wrong with the ban on pesticides,” she says, “And the answer is right in front of us.” She pops a handful of candied locusts into her mouth. “Fund agricultural research and job retraining until we know how to grow the crops that suit the land,” she mumbles while chewing. “I’m sure all the new jobs will do wonders for the economy.”

[option] “Wonders for the economy of the people who aren’t doing all that hot, back-breaking labor,” says @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a stooped and weatherbeaten farmer hiding some stolen locusts behind her back. “Do you know how much weeding work can be replaced by a single application of a proper pesticide? If we allow just the latest generation, harm to the environment can be limited and our food security can be restored.”

[option] “No!” screams a woman in polyester and vinyl. She grabs the bag of locusts and dumps it out the window. “These land-intensive methods abuse the ecosystem. We must move all farms into greenhouses, big as skyscrapers, and grow only what cannot be replaced by technology!” She leans over your desk and says, “If that means genetically modifying crops to survive the new conditions, it’s a small price to pay for the ethical treatment of nature.”



If you chose to implement GMOs to solve any of the previous two, you must have a chance to ban them again. The fourth option has escaped my control. The character has decided she's a supervillain. She's wordy, dramatic, and worst of all threatening but I can't convince her to calm down. I'm ready to let the editors just butcher it (or scrub it) and move on, because deep down inside I like her too much to do it myself.


Are Green Fields of Golden Soy a Gray Goo?

Golden Soy, the genetically engineered main ingredient of the world’s healthiest tofu, has escaped its fields. Immune to natural predators and designed to weed itself by killing off competitors, ecodiversity has plummeted across the nation. Not even your nation’s other crops are safe. The people summoned to discuss this issue have gathered around your window planter.

[option]@@RANDOMNAME@@, a professor of ecology from @@NAME@@ University, digs at a stray soy plant. She says, “We must destroy each and every Golden Soy like the weeds they are and ban GMOs so this can never happen again.” Up-ending your pansies, she rips the soy out of your planter. “Spare no expense: time, money, labor.”
[effect]children with tiny trowels dream of joining the Weeding Corps
[stats]Bans GMOs. Employment up. Something to push the tax rate and/or the government’s slice of the economy pie up. Ideally, median income down. Farmhands don’t get paid much, despite the tag. Reverse whatever mystery effects occur when you enable GMOs.

[option]“Nonsense,” says @@RANDOMNAME@@, lead researcher for Genomes R Us, the company that invented Golden Soy, “We were prepared for just such an eventuality.” She drenches a different soy plant with a spray bottle, covering the petunias in your planter with a lurid pink goo. As the soy plant withers, she says, “A targeted pesticide and an upgrade to the plant itself will solve this problem quickly and efficiently.”
[effect]seed packets are stamped with a version number
[stats] Pesticides unbanned. Environmental beauty down, for basically ignoring eco-diversity, but agriculture up, because selling lots of new versions seems to fit in with the business strategy of real world GMO companies.

[option]An aide comes from behind you to drop a catered lunch on your desk, decorated with a tasteful arrangement of soy flowers. “What’s wrong with soy?” she says, pointing out the dishes of your meal, “Tofu in soy sauce, soy milk, edamame as a side, why should we stop any of it from growing?”
[effect]families mourn when children are diagnosed with soy allergies
[stats]Unexpected death up, eco-friendly and/or environmental beauty down, a tax cut.

[option, requires 441:3]“She’s right,” says a woman indicating your aide with a blue rose. Present on the strength of her reputation alone, @@RANDOMNAME@@ says from the comfort of your sofa, “Why stop any of it? Golden Soy is a success, not a mistake. Our work has never been a mistake, not even the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ bee.” She buries a smirk in the rose. “The successor I have invented goes where we need it,” she says. An insect within the petals crawls onto her cheek and buzzes. “The real mistake is vulnerability. Give me the proper facilities," she says, "And I will replace the mistakes in our ecosystem with obedience.”
[effect]every tree has @@ANIMAL@@-shaped leaves
[stats]government size up, scientific advancement up, appropriate industries up, environmental beauty down, but not necessarily eco-friendly. You’re spending the same amount of money on the environment, you’re just doing it wrong.


Golden Soy, the genetically-engineered main ingredient of the world’s healthiest tofu, has escaped its fields. Immune to natural predators and designed to weed itself by killing off competitors, eco-diversity has plummeted across the nation. Not even your nation’s other crops are safe. The people summoned to discuss this issue have gathered around your window planter.

[option] A professor of ecology from @@NAME@@ University digs at a stray soy plant. She says, “We must destroy each and every Golden Soy like the weeds they are and ban GMOs so this can never happen again.” Up-ending your pansies, she rips the soy out of your planter. “Spare no expense: time, money, labor.”

[option] “Nonsense,” says the lead researcher for Genomes R Us, the company that invented Golden Soy, “We were prepared for just such an eventuality.” She drenches a different soy plant with a spray bottle, covering your impatiens with a lurid pink liquid. As the soy plant withers, she says, “A targeted pesticide and an upgrade to the plant itself will solve this problem quickly and efficiently.”

[option] An aide sneaks up behind you to drop a catered lunch on your desk, decorated with a tasteful arrangement of soy flowers. “What’s wrong with soy?” she says, pointing out the dishes of your meal, “Tofu in soy sauce, soy milk, edamame as a side, why should we stop any of it from growing?”

[option, requires 441:3] “Excuse me, I’m pretty sure we own this ecosystem,” says a woman known only as “Or Else,” which is how she signed her letter requesting permission to join the meeting. Threatening the room with a blue rose, she continues, “Does no one remember the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ bee? Leave it to me and it will never fertilize a Golden Soy plant again. I ask only… hold on.” She drops her rose to pat all of her pockets. “I seem to have lost my notes. All I can remember is that it’s a ridiculous sum. But worth it, oh so worth it, in the long run.”


Last edited by Aculea on Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:59 am, edited 24 times in total.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10541
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:23 am

Aculea wrote:@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, your minister of agriculture, has compelled you onto a fishing trip with various dignitaries and members of the media.
Hi, nations with compulsoty vegetarianism!

Also, note that nations which are supposed to be landlocked ICly are prone to dismissing sea-related issues.

Aculea wrote:[option]To a speckle of applause, you flick a fishing line into the water and watch the bobber beg for help before it drowns.
Also, as someone who doesn't fish, what is this "bobber" thing and why is it begging for help? I assume that's a metaphor, rather than it literally being a sentient creature that's capable of enunciating a desire for help.

Aculea wrote:"You can’t catch anything in pure water. If you want to squeeze more food from this gulf, abolish the obsolete environmental regulations hindering our offshore oil rigs. Cheaper oil brings cheaper fertilizer.
You forgot a closing quote here.

Aculea wrote:"Otherwise the only way to save our fishing industry -- and the environment -- is to ban all pesticides!"
How exactly are pesticides causing a hypoxic marine environment, anyway? Are they killing the algae producing the oxygen?

..Okay,
Wikipedia wrote:Oxygen depletion can result from a number of natural factors, but is most often a concern as a consequence of pollution and eutrophication in which plant nutrients enter a river, lake, or ocean, and phytoplankton blooms are encouraged. While phytoplankton, through photosynthesis, will raise DO saturation during daylight hours, the dense population of a bloom reduces DO saturation during the night by respiration. When phytoplankton cells die, they sink towards the bottom and are decomposed by bacteria, a process that further reduces DO in the water column. If oxygen depletion progresses to hypoxia, fish kills can occur and invertebrates like worms and clams on the bottom may be killed as well.
But that doesn't specifically say the pollutants in question are pesticides, and strongly implies they're not.

The page for pesticides fingers herbicides as responsible for aquatic hypoxia, which makes more sense. I guess those are technically "pesticides" (if you see weeds as pests), but normally I associate the latter term with killing insects and such, which might be harmful to aquatic life by poisoning it directly, but doesn't seem likely to be causing such a roundabout problem. In fact, it outright goes on to say "Insecticides are typically more toxic to aquatic life than herbicides and fungicides.".

The issue doesn't need to go into a lengthy essay on how this works, but it should at least give a layman-acceptable justification why thing A affects thing B.

Aculea wrote:"fish,"

Eww. Put the comma outside the quotes, and don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

Aculea wrote:[option]With a wrench and some salty language, the captain lands the "fish", revealed as a woman in a scuba suit. Tripping on her swim fins, she says, "Do you realize what important research you’re disturbing? Without pesticides, food production could drop by up to three quarters." Floundering on deck, she continues: "If I had the funding, I could use the knowledge taken from the extremophilic creatures in this gulf to genetically engineer invincible cash crops."
So I'm unclear what she's suggesting here. Does she want to keep pesticides legal (since she's warning of the dire results of not doing so), or is she suggesting the genetic engineering as a way to improve plants to not need pesticides anymore (so you can ban them)? What kind of extremophilic qualities is she talking about, anyway, and how are they relevant to any of the problems addressed in this issue?

Also, why do you keep using @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@s even though the only character you use a pronoun for isn't even named? Oops, you do use a pronoun in option 2 too. But not in option 1, and the character from the issue summary is never referred to again. Just @@RANDOMNAME@@ will do. (Okay, so I know your real reason for doing this, but c'mon, your roleplay isn't going to apply to most nations.)




Aculea wrote:a survivalist and locavore guru
A what? Is that an actual word?

It sounds like it's from "local-vore", i.e. eating locally-grown food, but there's probably a better term to use, and it seems somewhat incidental to the topic unless it's given clearer justification.

Aculea wrote:"There’s nothing wrong with the ban on pesticides," she says, "And the answer is right in front of us." She pops a handful of candied locusts into her mouth.
I loved this part, though. Be sure to keep it.

(...Though, that "compulsory vegetarianism" detail comes up again. Presumably choosing this option would repeal it if you have it.)

Aculea wrote:"These land intensive methods abuse the ecosystem."
Should be "land-intensive".




Aculea wrote:GMO's
I know it's common, but I... dislike the use of apostrophes in plurals, even for acronyms. "GMOs" will do, the lowercase letter serves to establish it's not part of the acronym.

Aculea wrote:Golden Soy, the genetically engineered main ingredient of the world’s healthiest tofu,
Should be "genetically-engineered".

Aculea wrote:eco diversity
Should be "eco-diversity".

Aculea wrote:He drenches a different soy plant with a spray bottle, covering your impatiens with a lurid pink liquid.
My what?

That sounds kind of like a Latin name, but not of the pansies mentioned in the previous option (those are Viola tricolor), and it's not a correct scientific name (scientific names should always start with a capitalized genus name, even if it's abbreviated, as in "E. coli" - a bare species name is never valid).

Then I looked it up and found it actually is supposedly a "common name" of one genus of plant in English. Still, not one you're likely to recognize unless you're a gardener. The article lists "jewelweed", "touch-me-not", and "snapweed" as synonyms, I suggest using one of the ones with "weed" in its name since it's obviously a plant even if you don't recognize it specifically.

(Also, hey, you used a male character! Yay.)

Aculea wrote:As the soy plant withers, she says,
...Or you're just contradicting yourself.

Aculea wrote:"Does no one remember the @@NAME@@ bee?"
"@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ bee", you mean.

Aculea wrote:"Leave it to me and it will never fertilize a Golden Soy plant again."
There's quite a big difference between engineering a bee species to be more resilient, and fine-tuning it to refuse to pollinate some specific species of plant. The fact that your previous experiement resulted in a hyper-aggressive killer bee suggests that you're not that exact on what you're doing, anyway.

User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Aculea » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:44 am

Trotterdam wrote:
Aculea wrote:@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, your minister of agriculture, has compelled you onto a fishing trip with various dignitaries and members of the media.
Hi, nations with compulsoty vegetarianism!

Also, note that nations which are supposed to be landlocked ICly are prone to dismissing sea-related issues.

Would it be sufficient to imply catch and release? And does a nation have to have a coastline before it can care about what the run off from its farms is doing? Iowa cares, it's landlocked. I can shift the trout fishing company to be multinational if it helps.

Aculea wrote:[option]To a speckle of applause, you flick a fishing line into the water and watch the bobber beg for help before it drowns.
Also, as someone who doesn't fish, what is this "bobber" thing and why is it begging for help? I assume that's a metaphor, rather than it literally being a sentient creature that's capable of enunciating a desire for help.

Not to imply it doesn't need fixing, but the bobber floats on top of the water and tends to go up and down like a person who can't swim very well. When a fish takes the bait, it pulls on the line and the bobber sinks underwater. I really liked that line, too. :(

Oh and the "Not to imply it doesn't need fixing" can go for the rest of these as well.

Aculea wrote:"Otherwise the only way to save our fishing industry -- and the environment -- is to ban all pesticides!"
How exactly are pesticides causing a hypoxic marine environment, anyway? Are they killing the algae producing the oxygen?

Fertilizer is more dangerous than pesticide. I wrote the whole thing under the impression that Organic Outburst banned fertilizers, since no one who cares thinks food is organic unless it's grown without commercial fertilizers. I noticed later Organic Outburst had this inexplicable oversight, cleaned up the text about 80%, then forgot about this project for a month.

Fertilizer makes plants healthy, it runs off into the Gulf and feeds the algae until the water is choked with it. They die off, of old age if nothing else, sink to the bottom and begin to decompose. The decomposition consumes oxygen, leaving none left for anything else. It's a devotional to irony. Life creates death. I definitely have both ears open if you can suggest another demonstration of the global impact of conventional agriculture.

Aculea wrote:[option]With a wrench and some salty language, the captain lands the "fish", revealed as a woman in a scuba suit. Tripping on her swim fins, she says, "Do you realize what important research you’re disturbing? Without pesticides, food production could drop by up to three quarters." Floundering on deck, she continues: "If I had the funding, I could use the knowledge taken from the extremophilic creatures in this gulf to genetically engineer invincible cash crops."
So I'm unclear what she's suggesting here. Does she want to keep pesticides legal (since she's warning of the dire results of not doing so), or is she suggesting the genetic engineering as a way to improve plants to not need pesticides anymore (so you can ban them)? What kind of extremophilic qualities is she talking about, anyway, and how are they relevant to any of the problems addressed in this issue?

[conspicuous silence] Let me get back to you. The original idea was to modify plants in a way that obviates pesticides, but I clearly rolled a one if you have that many questions.

Also, why do you keep using @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@s even though the only character you use a pronoun for isn't even named? Oops, you do use a pronoun in option 2 too. But not in option 1, and the character from the issue summary is never referred to again. Just @@RANDOMNAME@@ will do. (Okay, so I know your real reason for doing this, but c'mon, your roleplay isn't going to apply to most nations.)

Because I'm not interested in flipping coins over each character's gender when the editors are just going to do it again anyways, and there were quite a few versions of the text with more pronouns. My roleplay needs practice anyways:
(Also, hey, you used a male character! Yay.)

Aculea wrote:As the soy plant withers, she says,
...Or you're just contradicting yourself.

Contradicting myself.

Aculea wrote:a survivalist and locavore guru
A what? Is that an actual word?
It sounds like it's from "local-vore", i.e. eating locally-grown food, but there's probably a better term to use, and it seems somewhat incidental to the topic unless it's given clearer justification.

There is not a better word, that's what they choose to call themselves. Locavores prefer locally grown food on the premise that it saves all the fuel it takes to fly in tomatoes from a thousand miles away. An extreme locavore goes to a lot of effort to find native plants (and animals) that provide all of her nutrition, leading to things like eating locusts. In an organic environment, native crops tend to be more productive since they're adapted to the local weather and local predators. They catch less diseases and they end up larger. Grow the crops to suit the land. I'll work on the justification.

Aculea wrote:"There’s nothing wrong with the ban on pesticides," she says, "And the answer is right in front of us." She pops a handful of candied locusts into her mouth.
I loved this part, though. Be sure to keep it.

(...Though, that "compulsory vegetarianism" detail comes up again. Presumably choosing this option would repeal it if you have it.)

As you command: Some land is too marginal to grow anything humans can eat, but you can graze animals on it and eat the meat, for that tiny extra bit of productivity. It would be reasonable if the locavore option repealed vegetarianism. Is one mention of locusts enough warning that this is going to happen?

Aculea wrote:GMO's
I know it's common, but I... dislike the use of apostrophes in plurals, even for acronyms. "GMOs" will do, the lowercase letter serves to establish it's not part of the acronym.

I'm willing to let the editors decide that, the manuals of style I can find are split on it. I swear I was taught to do it in college, which means I'm convinced at least one of these manuals has changed its mind since then.

Aculea wrote:He drenches a different soy plant with a spray bottle, covering your impatiens with a lurid pink liquid.
My what?

I suggest using one of the ones with "weed" in its name since it's obviously a plant even if you don't recognize it specifically.

I'll change the plant. All of the other names are boring.

Aculea wrote:"Leave it to me and it will never fertilize a Golden Soy plant again."
There's quite a big difference between engineering a bee species to be more resilient, and fine-tuning it to refuse to pollinate some specific species of plant. The fact that your previous experiement resulted in a hyper-aggressive killer bee suggests that you're not that exact on what you're doing, anyway.

Well, she did insist on a ridiculous sum, you can't get this issue without some practice genetically engineering things, and the second option shows the plant is unique enough to have a targeted pesticide. This option is mostly about solving the problem without unbanning pesticides or putting up with doing nothing. Admittedly, many would consider the cure worse than the poison, but the issue is about GMOs (see!?) anyways.
I think I can fix the text on this to require a lower technology level.

Is it the practice to edit the top post with major revisions, or to put them in a reply?
Last edited by Aculea on Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10541
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:59 am

Aculea wrote:There is not a better word, that's what they choose to call themselves. Locavores prefer locally grown food on the premise that it saves all the fuel it takes to fly in tomatoes from a thousand miles away. An extreme locavore goes to a lot of effort to find native plants (and animals) that provide all of her nutrition, leading to things like eating locusts. In an organic environment, native crops tend to be more productive since they're adapted to the local weather and local predators. They catch less diseases and they end up larger. Grow the crops to suit the land. I'll work on the justification.
I am aware of the movement (I referenced it in this thread). I still think the name is ugly, but if that's what they call themselves...

This may become moot if you edit her to talk more clearly about her views rather than just name-dropping it, anyway.

Aculea wrote:It would be reasonable if the locavore option repealed vegetarianism. Is one mention of locusts enough warning that this is going to happen?
Probably. Maybe you can try to hint a little stronger, but you can't be too blatant about it, or it won't make sense for nations that already don't have compulsory vegetarianism (which is probably most of them).

Having separate copies of every issues for vegetarian and non-vegetarian nations would be an unreasonable chore.

For what it's worth, do keep in mind that animal rights and environmental protection are often interests found together in the same people.

Aculea wrote:Well, she did insist on a ridiculous sum, you can't get this issue without some practice genetically engineering things, and the second option shows the plant is unique enough to have a targeted pesticide.
Well, programming a killswitch in response to a specific chemical is relatively easy, it doesn't require any advanced understanding of the organism's works. (Another safeguard I seem to recall scientists using is design an organism to require a specific chemical that isn't found in nature, so it can be grown in a lab but will be helpless if accidentally released. I'm not sure how well that would work for industrial-scale production, since it would require the chemical to be something you can manufacture rather easily and cheaply despite not being found in nature.) Behavioral modification to staunchly avoid a particular plant (while still being non-choosy about pollinating many other plants) would be considerably harder, especially if the plant itself isn't designed to have a conspicious and unique "keep away" pheromone. And the genetically-engineered bees would need to outcompete all other bees (and non-bee pollinators, if those are at all significant) in the nation for the scheme to work. And then you risk the bees losing the avoiding-that-plant modification through natural evolution, since it's crudely grafted-on and confers no fitness advantage.

Aculea wrote:Is it the practice to edit the top post with major revisions, or to put them in a reply?
Edit the top post. It's common practice to keep old versions in spoiler tags.

I'll try to comment on the other stuff once I've seen your edits.

User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Aculea » Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:58 am

Trotterdam wrote:This may become moot if you edit her to talk more clearly about her views rather than just name-dropping it, anyway.

Seems ideal, but I'm concerned about keeping length down so it might take a while. It's a challenging format.

Having separate copies of every issues for vegetarian and non-vegetarian nations would be an unreasonable chore.

For what it's worth, do keep in mind that animal rights and environmental protection are often interests found together in the same people.

I'm happy to report this occurred to me right away. Beta of another option I scratched out after the last post (script only): “It is time to tighten our belts. Simple economics says people will want to buy less food as the price of it goes up. If we start a propaganda campaign to help them reach that goal -- steps to find the lowest price per calorie, recipes that turn the smallest leftovers into new meals, and the ideal family size to contain demand while sustaining our workforce -- this problem will solve itself.”

The awkward wording is to avoid "family planning," since that hints at conflict with contraception and abortion. I'll find something better later.

And the genetically-engineered bees would need to outcompete all other bees (and non-bee pollinators, if those are at all significant) in the nation for the scheme to work.

This one, at least, I'm not worried about. The whole point of the bee issue is the declining value of "all other bees" and non-bee pollinators. The others could be answered, but in the spirit of making it moot let's just walk away.

The idea behind mixing in the bee issue is that it requires a nation to say twice that it's going to take direct responsibility for an ecosystem at the genetic level. What do you think can be done with a gengineered bee? I'm always thrown by vats being in game to think the tech level is higher than it is.

Instead of fiddling with the bees, a different option would be to commit deeper and create a third gengineered species, because hey if they can see this option they've already seen two unintended consequences (weaponized bees and escaped soy plants) so it's not like they haven't been warned.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10541
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:10 am

Aculea wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:And the genetically-engineered bees would need to outcompete all other bees (and non-bee pollinators, if those are at all significant) in the nation for the scheme to work.
This one, at least, I'm not worried about. The whole point of the bee issue is the declining value of "all other bees" and non-bee pollinators.
Don't forget that the new strain of genetically-engineered bees would need to outcompete the previous strains of genetically-engineered bees, too.

Aculea wrote:The idea behind mixing in the bee issue is that it requires a nation to say twice that it's going to take direct responsibility for an ecosystem at the genetic level. What do you think can be done with a gengineered bee? I'm always thrown by vats being in game to think the tech level is higher than it is.

Instead of fiddling with the bees, a different option would be to commit deeper and create a third gengineered species, because hey if they can see this option they've already seen two unintended consequences (weaponized bees and escaped soy plants) so it's not like they haven't been warned.
I was about to suggest something like that halfway through reading this.

Perhaps instead of going "let's use genetic engineering to completely defeat this one plant", go "let's genetically engineer the entire rest of the ecosystem to keep up with it, so we still have a healthy amount of biodiversity, even though none of it is natural".

Of course, creating enough genetically-engineered organisms to make a self-sustaining ecosystem is a lot more work, but it's "more of the same" compared to stuff you've already done.

User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Aculea » Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:50 am

Trotterdam wrote:Perhaps instead of going "let's use genetic engineering to completely defeat this one plant", go "let's genetically engineer the entire rest of the ecosystem to keep up with it, so we still have a healthy amount of biodiversity, even though none of it is natural".


This feels so very, very NationStates. In for a penny, in for a mint.

"What kind of plants do we have in our ecosystem that they can't kick out one invasive species? The whole thing needs to be replaced!"

User avatar
Merconitonitopia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1698
Founded: Jul 29, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Merconitonitopia » Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:29 am

Why are they all women? Kind of odd.
We also need to start deciding on effects for these options.

User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Aculea » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:33 am

Merconitonitopia wrote:Why are they all women? Kind of odd.
  • I'm practicing the writing style for personal reasons.
  • They all need to be randomized eventually, I would rather post lengthy explanations like this one than care about their sex in the draft phase.
  • Not caring about sex but using all men also creates arguments. I enjoy this argument more.

Merconitonitopia wrote:We also need to start deciding on effects for these options.


Thank you for your encouragement! I have ideas, but they are not well thought out, so if you peg me for balance or bias, I'm just going to agree with you.

Hypoxic Zone

Lowering environmental regulations: Eco-friendliness down, trout fishing down, whatever stands in for oil up. Mining? (as a nonrenewable energy industry) Manufacturing? (as the first to benefit from cheaper oil). Agriculture up, but not necessarily enough to overcome the penalties of eco-friendliness down. Pro-market up. Not convinced employment should go up or down. More oil workers, less fishermen.

Ban all pesticides: As Organic Outburst.

GMO: Enables GMOs. Subsidization up, education up, religiousness down, compassion down? I confess to not understanding compassion. There's an open call in that one thread for GMO issues, so I imagine the editors have thought about it, but I have no idea whether GMOs move the environment up or down. Personally I would hold it steady, boost agriculture directly, and wait for the follow up GMO issue to threaten their environment. The first hit is free.

Plague of Locusts

Locavoracious: Environment up, this is definitely good for the ecosystem. This should spill over into agriculture etc. Subsidization and education up again, this is a research and development effort. Repeals compulsory vegetarianism if necessary. I hate to say it, since I'm fond of this solution, but health down would be a reasonable counterweight. It's harder to get your nutrition when you're limiting yourself to a subset of foods. It can be done, of course, but it takes discipline and a deep interest in your own diet, which people IRL don't demonstrate much. Civil rights down since it implies limiting people's food choices, pro-market down for the same reason.

Unban pesticides: Something similar to Organic Outburst's middle option, but with more of a boost to agriculture.

GMOs: Enables GMOs. Subsidization up, education up, religiousness down, compassion down. This time environment is up, though, and agriculture is not manipulated directly. There should be something somewhere to represent the cost of those skyscraper greenhouses.

Propaganda campaign: Boost to whatever department pays for this. Every other department down, like a lot of laissez faire decisions this should shrink government. Lifespan down. Obesity down. Pro-market up?

Golden Soy

Ban GMOs: Bans GMOs. Scientific Advancement down. Employment up, from weeding. Agriculture down. I don't know if environment should go up or down because the beginning of this issue trashed it and now you're restoring the balance.

Targeted pesticide: Unbans pesticides if necessary. Leaves GMOs enabled. After that similar to Organic Outburst's middle option, which does include a hit to the environment.

Do nothing: Leaves GMOs enabled. Now your environment takes a nosedive. Lifespan down because of soy allergies, which I don't plan on referencing until they get the tag the next day. Another shrink the government option. This one seems bare.

Replace the environment: Environment down again, but counterweights added to the appropriate industries. One more time, subsidization, education, religion, compassion.
Last edited by Aculea on Wed Nov 18, 2015 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Merconitonitopia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1698
Founded: Jul 29, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Merconitonitopia » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:03 pm

I was more thinking the text it says on your description and happens (eg. nudity is compulsory or voting is voluntary.)

Not to say what you've come up with for stats isn't good.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10541
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:39 pm

Aculea wrote:Targeted pesticide: Unbans pesticides if necessary.
The point of a targetted pesticide instead of a less-discriminating one is that it's less likely to have harmful side effects on the environment, though. I thought that was the point of the option, as in "look, we designed the thing to be easy to kill without hurting anything else".

Though that's a bit too easy, I guess. Need to have a dilemma.

User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Aculea » Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:04 pm

Merconitonitopia wrote:I was more thinking the text it says on your description and happens (eg. nudity is compulsory or voting is voluntary.)


Would you believe I haven't thought about it at all? I'll add it to the list, but I'm open to suggestions.

Trotterdam wrote:The point of a targetted pesticide instead of a less-discriminating one is that it's less likely to have harmful side effects on the environment, though. I thought that was the point of the option, as in "look, we designed the thing to be easy to kill without hurting anything else".

Though that's a bit too easy, I guess. Need to have a dilemma.

I agree that both answers to that question will generate complaints, but unbanning pesticides is the historical solution to when GMOs disappoint. In fact, if it isn't boring, early GMOs were about making the plant survive a harsher pesticide, which seems stubborn. They finally caught on and made a plant poisonous to one of its major predators, but mishandling of the thing led to the predator developing a resistance (think antibacterial soap). Solution? Pesticide!

I thought what I had here sounded more exciting than resistant roundworm. It's got more alliteration: "Are Green Fields Of Golden Soy A Grey Goo?" Except I suspect grey goo is a niche reference.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7922
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:54 pm

I'm very Jon Snow when it comes to all things green-fingered, but I like how this is shaping up, and will be keeping a keen eye on it.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer CMD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Aculea » Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:13 am

New versions posted.

For the first one, I did the best I could with the vegetarian thing. It's now clear that Leader is not expecting to catch anything, and there's plenty of room to imagine that Leader is not comfortable on this trip -- harder to imagine she's 100% behind it, actually. The trout fishing company is a multinational. This puts it in reach of rationalization, and I hope that's enough.
Maybe the agriculture minister is trying to show that the water is so dead even vegetarians can fish in it.

The name of the Gulf should be changed to something other than @@NAME@@ to cater to land locked nations, but I'm not up to it right now.

For the second issue, I'm sorry, Trotterdam. The plotline change required removing either survivalist or locavore for cadence. That is 100% a locavore option, and locavore is what they call themselves. Maybe the editors will feel differently, assuming it gets that far.

For the third one, as I put on top of it in the first post, I love the fourth option but it has escaped my control.

User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Aculea » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:10 am

Bump for effect lines and stats.

And just in case no one knows what to do with GMOs, random thoughts:

  • The industries affected by GMOs must go up. If they weren't profitable we wouldn't be arguing over whether they're ethical.
  • The same could be said of pesticides, so clearly must is too strong a word.
  • That being said, Scientific Advancement must go up.
  • Analogous to implementing nuclear power, Political Apathy seems a likely victim for enabling GMOs.
  • I'm not convinced GMOs do any harm to the environment until they escape, and I wrote these issues that way.
  • I'm the person who wrote replacing the environment as sexy so you can discount the previous pretty easily.
  • It is typical for other life-altering decisions like this to drop compassion, but I'm a little insulted to put soy on the same moral plateau as human embryos (183: Buy a Better Baby?)
  • OTOH, Religion is a likely target, and I'm starting to regret I didn't include a religious option to the last issue. I was thinking of the environmentalists as the people against GMO.
  • Banning/unbanning GMOs should have an effect on pro-market, but it is not an effect of GMOs.
Last edited by Aculea on Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Chan Island
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6824
Founded: Nov 26, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Chan Island » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:03 pm

Aculea wrote:Bump for effect lines and stats.

And just in case no one knows what to do with GMOs, random thoughts:

  • The industries affected by GMOs must go up. If they weren't profitable we wouldn't be arguing over whether they're ethical.
  • The same could be said of pesticides, so clearly must is too strong a word.
  • That being said, Scientific Advancement must go up.
  • Analogous to implementing nuclear power, Political Apathy seems a likely victim for enabling GMOs.
  • I'm not convinced GMOs do any harm to the environment until they escape, and I wrote these issues that way.
  • I'm the person who wrote replacing the environment as sexy so you can discount the previous pretty easily.
  • It is typical for other life-altering decisions like this to drop compassion, but I'm a little insulted to put soy on the same moral plateau as human embryos (183: Buy a Better Baby?)
  • OTOH, Religion is a likely target, and I'm starting to regret I didn't include a religious option to the last issue. I was thinking of the environmentalists as the people against GMO.
  • Banning/unbanning GMOs should have an effect on pro-market, but it is not an effect of GMOs.


1)The Agriculture sector must go up, you are correct, but I was wondering if there is an industry that is affected adversely. Possibly retail (because people would avoid buying the stuff to avoid the oh so spooky GMs)
2) Goes without saying.
3) Also goes without saying
4) Could you clarify that one? Because I'd think people would suddenly take more of an interest in politics if they perceive all these weird lab coat types messing with their food.
5) I agree with you there. In fact, some GMOs have the potential to actually benefit the environment in the long-run. However, escape is inevitable, and once there I'd imagine that disease resistant, environmentally hardy genetically modified plants would easily out-compete the native wild-life.
6) Could you clarify what you mean with that?
7) You could make it a very, very small decrease in compassion. The human embryo option results in a fairly hefty drop in compassion if I'm reading my nation's stats right (and if it isn't, could it be possible for an editor to fix that please?). Then they wouldn't be on the same plateau.
8) Religion hasn't been very prominent in the GMO fight. Typically religious institutions IRL have been skeptical of GMOs though, so you'd have to have the trope again of the religious nut who wants to ban everything. I think it's a good idea that you haven't included it. That said, spirituality and godlessness ought to be hit (only very, very slightly though).
9) Common Sense really. Companies have been the ones making GMOs. Meddling in their research isn't very pro-market, and letting them do their thing is wonderfully pro-market.

All in all quite a wall of text you have here in the OP, but some much needed issues which I look forward to seeing implemented into the game.
2)
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=513597&p=39401766#p39401766
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.

User avatar
Aculea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Aculea » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:03 pm

Chan Island wrote:1)The Agriculture sector must go up, you are correct, but I was wondering if there is an industry that is affected adversely. Possibly retail (because people would avoid buying the stuff to avoid the oh so spooky GMs)

Dunno. :( Shows I'm an optimist. Technically it's a labor-saving device, like most technology, which suggests the usual suspects for opposition to it. Employment, maybe.
4) Could you clarify that one? Because I'd think people would suddenly take more of an interest in politics if they perceive all these weird lab coat types messing with their food.

You're with me. Political Apathy goes way down if you implement GMO.

6) Could you clarify what you mean with that?

I like GMOs. I'm not good at imagining downsides, so maybe there's an argument for dropping the environment that NationStates would find more convincing than I would.
8) Religion hasn't been very prominent in the GMO fight. Typically religious institutions IRL have been skeptical of GMOs though, so you'd have to have the trope again of the religious nut who wants to ban everything. I think it's a good idea that you haven't included it. That said, spirituality and godlessness ought to be hit (only very, very slightly though).

I agree, it would be better to hit Godlessness.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads