Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
Talk:Ecoregion: Difference between revisions
m
Sorry. I agree with House Elf -> I agree with 142.177.X.X
No edit summary |
m (Sorry. I agree with House Elf -> I agree with 142.177.X.X) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well. | :This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well. | ||
::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way. | ::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way. | ||
:::I agree with | :::I agree with 142.177.X.X on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], | ||
::::by sticking with [[ecology risk]] first we avoid certain complexities like | ::::by sticking with [[ecology risk]] first we avoid certain complexities like | ||