135 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

Shandepared wrote...

Collider wrote...

And? Invasions typically cause deaths.

Yeah, but without them we wouldn't have civilization.

That's quite literally a logical fallacy to say. Martin Luther may have furthered the civil rights movement, but that does not mean that we would not have equality for African Americans had he not existed.

Regardless, if the Europeans hadn't invaded and settled the Americas they would still be as undeveloped today as they were back then.

You really have no idea about that. There's also nothing inherently wrong with having less technology. A lot of diseases like cancer, heart disease, etc are said to be "diseases of development" that arise from artificially prepared foods. Plenty of people have also died in the work place due to technology that towered above the Native American's. Not to mention you know...the World Wars. Machine Guns are much more deadly than bow and arrows.

Fortunately, we know that technology and culture can spread through trade, not just conquest.

[HTTP 404]

sometimes its better to just have a question than finding an answer.  I think bioware should keep it a question and not give an answer at the end of ME3.  Let the gamers imagine what the answer is since we all want different ones any way.

[cruc1al]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
Does progress really help? Native American civilization probably would have lasted longer than we will, some geologists say that oil could run out in 30 years.

Prognosticators have been saying this bs for the last 100 years.

Relevance? 0. Prognosticators =/= geologists.

Being in a particular occupation does not exclude one from being a Prognosticator.

Yet you need evidence to show the prognosticators who have been saying this "bs" are, in fact, geologists of comparable competence to the ones that, according to bobobo878, are saying this "bs" today. What you said was so-called anecdotal evidence, and therefore irrelevant.

Modifié par cruc1al, 28 mars 2010 - 09:56 .

[cruc1al]

Shandepared wrote...

Collider wrote...

And? Invasions typically cause deaths.

Yeah, but without them we wouldn't have civilization. This must be an incredibly uncomfortable fact for you to come to terms with. The Romans spread their empire, that is their advanced civilization, through war and conquest. Countless people were slaughtered by their legions, cultures destroyed. It was no different with the Americas. The only twist was that native peoples did not have immunities to European diseases. That is what killed the overwhelming majority of them. Regardless, if the Europeans hadn't invaded and settled the Americas they would still be as undeveloped today as they were back then.

There's an alternative to hostile occupation: peaceful exchange of information. The Europeans who invaded and killed native americans were just as ignorant of morality and the consequences of invasion (diseases) as the native americans were of technology.

[cruc1al]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
Does progress really help? Native American civilization probably would have lasted longer than we will, some geologists say that oil could run out in 30 years.

Prognosticators have been saying this bs for the last 100 years.

Relevance? 0. Prognosticators =/= geologists.

Being in a particular occupation does not exclude one from being a Prognosticator.

Yet you need evidence to show the prognosticators who have been saying this "bs" are, in fact, geologists of comparable competence to the ones that, according to bobobo878, are saying this "bs" today. What you said was so-called anecdotal evidence, and therefore irrelevant.

True, but there is also abscence of evidence that geoligists ever made such predicitons.  So the statement that "some geologists  say that oil can run out in 30 years" is also irrelevant.

I'm not saying I agree with the premise that geologists are saying that. I was criticising your criticism of the premise as invalid.

Modifié par cruc1al, 28 mars 2010 - 10:03 .

[ObserverStatus]

30 years is a worst case scenario. Here's an article on the subject.  The range of highest probability for deptletion is 2036-2050.  Given how much America seems to care about maturing it's energy infrastructure, I'd say anarchy is imminent.  As for these people being Prognosticators, we all believe what we want to believe, JonnyDollar.

Modifié par bobobo878, 28 mars 2010 - 10:04 .

[cruc1al]

bobobo878 wrote...

30 years is a worst case scenario. Here's an article on the subject.  The range of highest probability for deptletion is 2036-2050.  Given how much America seems to care about maturing it's energy infrastructure, I'd say anarchy is imminent.  As for these people being Prognosticators, we all believe what we want to believe, JonnyDollar.

I didn't read the article, but isn't that estimate for known accessible oil reserves? I mean, there are known oil reserves that are currently inaccessible, but being able to access would greatly extend the time until oil depletion. Afaik.

[ObserverStatus]

Well, keep in mind that unknown oil reserves take decades to develop once discovered.

[Wildecker]

Dragonikus wrote...

 My little theory about the way our souls travel is that there is one big
source, one soul, one force so big we cant even begin to understand and when a
life is born a tiny, almost unnoticeable piece of this force is transferred
into this new organism. So in my theory we are all one soul anyway, just
separated for the moment, but they will merge eventually.

No one said I cant have my own faith, right? and its not based on Mass Effect.



What if being a part of a Reaper was a good thing? 




 

And what makes you think that your soul - for lack of a better word - will stick to the goo they transform you into and therefore will be part of the Reaper? Legion speaks of programs running inside the Reaper, not of some spiritual community.
However, the cycle of rebirth will either be stopped completely (if souls need a matching body), will take a long time-out (if souls will be able to inhabit any body with a sufficiently complex neural system) or start from scratch all over again (here's your Pyjak, this will have to do for the next millenia).

[cruc1al]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

I would assume that your criticism also extends to the original premise concerning the geoligists then? 

Well, not entirely. I'm inclined to believe that oil could theoretically run out (hence some geologists are saying it could run out) in 30 years from now, because I've read about it in school books and it's a known fact that if we keep burning finite oil reserves, they will run out eventually. Also testament to that hypothesis is the fact that oil drives lots of international conflicts such as the Iraq war.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Yeah, but without them we wouldn't have civilization. This must be an incredibly uncomfortable fact for you to come to terms with. The Romans spread their empire, that is their advanced civilization, through war and conquest. Countless people were slaughtered by their legions, cultures destroyed. It was no different with the Americas. The only twist was that native peoples did not have immunities to European diseases. That is what killed the overwhelming majority of them. Regardless, if the Europeans hadn't invaded and settled the Americas they would still be as undeveloped today as they were back then.

Is it really a revelation to say that if things hadn't happened the way they had happened, it wouldn't have turned out the way it turned out?

What's important is that while violence has been the harbinger of progress in the past, it must not be so in the future. As conscious, reasoning creatures it is our responsibility to create ways in which advancement can be achieved without cruelty. You think it was necessary then? Fight so that it's not necessary now.

[JWCbox]

Futurama had a movie about this...

[cruc1al]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...
I would assume that your criticism also extends to the original premise concerning the geoligists then? 

Well, not entirely. I'm inclined to believe that oil could theoretically run out (hence some geologists are saying it could run out) in 30 years from now, because I've read about it in school books and it's a known fact that if we keep burning finite oil reserves, they will run out eventually. Also testament to that hypothesis is the fact that oil drives lots of international conflicts such as the Iraq war.

Your assuming that oil reserves are finite.  That has not been proven to my knowledge.

Sorry but the opposite is a physical impossibility.

[ObserverStatus]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...
I would assume that your criticism also extends to the original premise concerning the geoligists then? 

Well, not entirely. I'm inclined to believe that oil could theoretically run out (hence some geologists are saying it could run out) in 30 years from now, because I've read about it in school books and it's a known fact that if we keep burning finite oil reserves, they will run out eventually. Also testament to that hypothesis is the fact that oil drives lots of international conflicts such as the Iraq war.

Your assuming that oil reserves are finite.  That has not been proven to my knowledg

Of course, we'll just herd our dinosaurs into giant fossilization machines.