## Friday, September 24, 2010 ... /////

### Red Redemption: Fate of the world

In 2006, Red Redemption, openly supported by Oxford, BBC, and the Environmental Change Institute, released a Flash game called Climate Challenge.

Click to zoom in.

In the game, you were a "European president" who had to suppress the whole European population as Hitler and Stalin combined with the goal of reducing the CO2 emissions, screwing the people, bribe politicians from other continents, and keeping yourself in power (play now the monstrosity directly at the BBC website).

Of course, these folks haven't been arrested so they continued to "work". At the end of October 2010, they will release a game that is more ambitious,

Fate Of The World (game website, trailer)
In the new game, you are no longer just a European dictator which was way too modest a job.

Now you are chosen the global dictator - the head of the G.E.O. junta - who is hired immediately when the 2010 climate talks fail (see the trailer) and whose task is do everything to reduce the emissions of CO2 in the world. Here are some of your basic options; they became much more "juicy" relatively to the bureaucratic elimination of power plants etc. in the 2006 game:

Click to zoom in.

On each continent, you can introduce "mandatory euthanasia" for $100 billion - a policy to kill all the old and ill people. Or you can pay the same money to develop special bio-weapons to predictably exterminate whole nations. For the same payment, you may also induce a regime change just to overthrow politicians who are climate skeptics or who are otherwise hostile to your world government and replace them with "biddable", corrupt politicians of your choice. So this is what they plan if the 2010 climate talks will fail, and be sure that they will? Even if the creators of the game don't intend it, it's clear that some groups will worship the game as a computer model whose lessons justify "action". After all, the likes of the IPCC are already taking much less realistic computer games seriously today. Let me admit that I really think that the people who will be earning money by promoting these recipes for the future should be quickly and preemptively arrested if not executed for planned crimes against humanity. This topic is no material for jokes in a world where you can find actual unhinged lunatics, and some of them are very powerful (e.g. the U.S. "Science Czar", Mr Holdren), who indeed want to introduce inhuman and anti-market measures in order to "regulate carbon dioxide". You may say: this is just a game. You don't want to arrest or execute someone who just wrote a video game, do you? Well, Mein Kampf was also "just a book". For a while, before it became clear that it wasn't just a book: it was a detailed plan to bring a decade of genocide (originally planned as a millennium) to the whole European continent - and beyond. As long as there exists a credible threat that some people will try to actually realize these insane things with carbon regulation in the future, we should better view games and books with details about such a hypothetical future to be parts of the planning process for the genocide, and the courts should deal with the perpetrators accordingly. You may call it the precautionary principle. By the way, if you're worried that mandatory euthanasia, bioweapons to exterminate continents, or liquidation of democratic politicians are your only options in the game, you shouldn't worry so much. You may also initiate a global nuclear war. This climatic option also reflects a reality: Rutgers professor Alan Robock just explained his friend and comrade Fidel Castro what are the climatic impacts of a nuclear war. Sweet. On a positive note, there are a few positive decisions you may do in the game, too. For example, you may "sponsor denial lobby" - but only$50 billion, instead of \$100 billion for the recommended "projects" above. And you may also build nuclear power plants - but you will become hated if you do so. As you can see, genocide is the only option you can take.

Holy cow.

Don't expect the punishment for the disgusting jerks anytime soon. In August 2010, Nature published a positive review about this game promoting several methods of global genocide. It's a "platform for learning about science" and "serious fun," we learn.

Huh!? What is so scientific about clicking at a button to kill millions or billions of people? People used to be good at these things long before they began to study science. Maybe they were not as good in genocide as climate alarmists, but it's still true that there is absolutely no science in genocide or in the global warming fearmongering.

Hat tip: Willie Soon

Update: The Telegraph

The Telegraph joined those who promote the new game. According to the conservative newspapers, it's an "interesting idea" to solve the climate crisis by designing a virus that kills millions.

Many brutal adjectives seem more appropriate than "interesting" to me.

#### snail feedback (7) :

When I first saw this, I thought it was a joke. Evidently this is not a joke!

I wonder how favorably Oxon, BBC et al will review my new *flash player* game, wherein points are scored by tying green Communists to the back of a truck and dragging them down the street

"Sources of cards

All policies are taken from actual government policy documents, except those near the end of the game, which are deliberately futuristic, such as Mining the Moon. The UK government's Climate Change Programme 2006 was a major source of policies,..."

Who'd have thought it? :-0

OK - I see your first link was to the original game with less extreme policies so please ignore my previous post (if possible don't post it or this one)

I was totally with you on the 10:10 ad-campaign but to me this game looks like a smear against the eco-lobby. This sort of thing does happen sometimes. If you want to discredit a peaceful protest, plant a couple of guys in balaclavas to start chanting 'kill, kill' and throwing stones.

Even if these plants go way against the general sentiments of the rest of the crowd, the media is likely to focus on them and make them appear representative.

I think that climate-change skeptics would do well not to get drawn into animosity and an oppositional mindset. I am a skeptic because I am not convinced, not because I am 'opposed' to the belivers. Do you think maybe you want to believe that those with the opposing view are evil fascists?

Dear Thedailyg,

almost nothing can be 100% excluded. But if you think that this game is created by provocateurs that want to discredit the green business, well, then the creators of the game, Red Redemption (company), must be filled with such provocateurs.

However, it's a company that has openly co-operated on the previous project with BBC, University of Oxford, and the Environment Change Institute. So even if there are provocateurs in the company, they were endorsed by the greens in those official institutions.

Even the current game has been endorsed by the green writers in Nature and elsewhere.

So I don't really understand the power of your "provocateur" theory even if it were right. Some detailed work may hypothetically be done by provocateurs - a programmer who adds a screen with genocide, fine - but the big picture, including approval and marketing, is surely done many of the "normal" green people that we know and not-quite-love. Those that belong into the millions of people whose behavior is mostly given by things we can see.

Just imagine that e.g. Al Gore would turn out to be a provocateur paid by the oil companies or nuclear power plants or whoever is better for that. ;-) It would surely be interesting to know this thing about one person named Al Gore, but would it really make any difference in the rational appraisal of the whole movement? Gore is saying certain things and many others are applauding him, spreading it, filming it, giving him awards for it, and so on. That is what makes him relevant. They're doing it according to what he is saying. Whether he is saying these things because he's a genuine nutcase, or a greedy person working just for himself, or whether he is paid by someone else doesn't make any difference when you want to judge everyone else who interacts with Gore, does it?

Cheers
LM

For sure, all those mainstream associations do make the provocateur theory very unlikely and there doesn't seem to be anything self-reflective or self-deprecating about it.

Sometimes I have asked people to answer a hypothetical moral dilemma: if you know that overpopulation will cause a catastrophe and that you can push a button to randomly, instantly, painlessly cull a portion of the global population, would you do it?

Most people don't know how to answer. The logic is obvious (of course, in real life there are not such definite 'knowns') but culling humans is not something most people can be flippant about.

One of the better answers I got is that 'humans are their own destruction anyway' but that avoids the question because if we destroy ourselves through nuclear war or ecological catastrophe the survivors, if any, face an impoverished future, whereas to institute 'forced euthanasia' right now would preserve some natural resources.

People are always looking for the wrong kind of answer to life's dilemmas because of their hidden biases.