This is reading way too much into the game. The game is not a didactic device that aims to teach a lesson about ecology, conservation, and the peaceful coexistence with nature, just like plenty of works of fiction do not address anything in the real world—they are simply figments of the author's imagination.<p>> Also, a game is not a lecture in economy or ecology.<p>Okay good, because this sentence invalidates pretty much all of the author's criticisms.<p>I feel that the whole article is just like the people who say shooting games are harmful because they promote violence in real life (they don't). Why not write about them? "Shooting games actively ignore the basics of human-human interaction, and ultimately the basics of life."<p>Also, I don't think the author played this game where pollution is turned off:<p>> As a game device, the aliens force the player to build a machinery of war. If one would take out the products, the buildings, the technology research etc. directly or indirectly connected to military, there is only a fraction left. So for a great deal, this game is a war game, with little strategic value I might add.<p>When you turn off pollution, you turn off the militaristic aspects of the game, and I can assure you there are plenty of interesting things to explore without the military. From basics like fully utilizing the two-sided nature of conveyor belts (you can totally have each half delivering completely different products and prevent them from mixing up, therefore saving space), to intermediate stuff like fluid mechanics (how many pumps and where), train station design (how to load and unload efficiently) and railroad planning (train signals are surprisingly rich), to advanced things like circuit networks and combinators.