206.
The weekend comes, so now you can really spend some time on this biosphere business. When you programmed your little biosphere was lots of food production so that nobody would go hungry, you also selected a higher rate of methane output. It just goes to show how you have to think about all of the unintended consequences of anything you do. That nobody should go hungry is a worthy goal, but, all things being equal, it means more people, and more people means more land under cultivation, and that means more methane, and that is a bit of a problem. So the next time you set up SimEarth you do things a bit differently. Rather than concentrate on expanding food production in the short term, why not put more resources into science and technology instead? This is a bit of a gamble, you think to yourself as you drive off to the mall in your high tech hybrid car. What if science didn’t come up with the answers in time? What if burning up fossil fuels at a rate of knots didn’t kick progress along fast enough? What if people go hungry? What the hell is progress anyway?
This sentence somehow is munged somehow. “When you programmed your little biosphere was lots of food production so that nobody would go hungry, you also selected a higher rate of methane output.”
‘was lots of food’ might need to be ‘with lots of food’, I can’t tell the intent.
Thanks skip — that’s the sort of ‘literal’ that you can miss even if you read yr own ms over a 100 times.
I know it’s a throwaway, but the line ‘What the hell is progress anyway?’ could sound a bit glib. Progress could be the desire (say) for _more_ liberty, equality and friendship. That’s not something that everyone would want to be glib about, even allowing for the fact that progress remains a problematic term.
Either needs finessing or to be cut. ‘Progress’ now seems compromised by the kinds of measurement specific to gamespace. Perhaps the utilitarians were the first theorists of gamespace, as an ethics of watching the bar graphs as you play…
View all comments in the book
(All comments will be moderated)
(All comments will be moderated)
(All comments will be moderated)
(All comments will be moderated)
Now _this_ is my favourtie card! (In order to drop out, first you have to tune in.)
This card is really bursting against the 250 word per par rule. The rule is both enabling and frustrating here.
Incindentally, Naill, this book in some ways is a response to your book on postmodernism, the title of which i can never remember. I tried to think outside the late-romantic rhetoric of escape and transgression and the violating of codes….
The game rule here is … what? I’ll guess: coded anecdote. So: of course you remember the title (you reviewed it
The game rule here is … what? I’ll guess: coded anecdote. So: of course you remember the title (which you reviewed). You’re alluding crypticaly to the title I told you I wanted to use, but knew I never could.
well, the rule is that things said in private communication stay private, unless both parties decide otherwise
But seriously, your postmodernism book was very useful in getting out of that romantic mindset, which favours the break, in this case, breaking code. Which, paradoxixally, is not exterior to the code at all.
Hence this book is interested in the opposite route: staying within the game as game, indeed valuing what can be discovered within the limits.
On the formal level, the book was written within constraints which i tried not to break.
But the question is: how do you discover the limit within?
View all comments in the book
(All comments will be moderated)