124 réponses à ce sujet

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

By comparison, the Reapers are ecological-

What? Razing planets? Burning off the atmosphere? Complete ecological genocide?

omnicide... they kill all... plants, animals, sentient beings, technology, planets... every ****ing thing... 

they're more dangerous than a LARGE group of wolves, bears, hawks, and lions. One Reaper could kick a entire planet's ass, as to what Sovereign did to Eden Prime in Mass Effect 1.

apparently a reaper is the ultimate predator... cool story bro.

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[Marzillius]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

By comparison, the Reapers are ecological-

What? Razing planets? Burning off the atmosphere? Complete ecological genocide?

omnicide... they kill all... plants, animals, sentient beings, technology, planets... every ****ing thing... 

they're more dangerous than a group of wolves, bears, hawks, and lions.

Indeed, I sure would rather destroy the Reapers than Humanity. But if humanity can't change to live in harmony with nature in real-life... well, it was fun while it lasted.

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Marzillius wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

By comparison, the Reapers are ecological-

What? Razing planets? Burning off the atmosphere? Complete ecological genocide?

omnicide... they kill all... plants, animals, sentient beings, technology, planets... every ****ing thing... 

they're more dangerous than a group of wolves, bears, hawks, and lions.

Indeed, I sure would rather destroy the Reapers than Humanity. But if humanity can't change to live in harmony with nature in real-life... well, it was fun while it lasted.

yeah, global warming sucks... i'm sure we as a intelligent species could utilize advanced technolgoy someday, and the type of technology that doesn't interfere or disrupt nature or anything...  like Cold Fusion, or Clean Dynamic Energy technology... being beyond Green Technology... technology that don't emit carbon waste to pollute a planet's air only if they were terraforming a planet. Atleast we have Hybrid technology, that's a start.

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:39 .

[Marzillius]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Marzillius wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

By comparison, the Reapers are ecological-

What? Razing planets? Burning off the atmosphere? Complete ecological genocide?

omnicide... they kill all... plants, animals, sentient beings, technology, planets... every ****ing thing... 

they're more dangerous than a group of wolves, bears, hawks, and lions.

Indeed, I sure would rather destroy the Reapers than Humanity. But if humanity can't change to live in harmony with nature in real-life... well, it was fun while it lasted.

yeah, global warming sucks... i'm sure we as a intelligent species could utilize advanced technolgoy someday, and the type of technology that doesn't interfere or disrupt nature or anything...  like Cold Fusion, or Clean Dynamic Energy technology... being beyond Green Technology... technology that don't emit carbon waste to pollute a planet's air only if they were terraforming a planet. Atleast we have Hybrid technology, that's a start.

Don't forget Vertical Farming, that's extremely important. But the problem with those things is that people would rather use that money to buy a bigger car 

[Nightwriter]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

omnicide... they kill all... plants, animals, sentient beings, technology, planets...

Birds, beasts, trees, flowers...
Gnaws iron, bites steel, and grinds hard stone to meal...
Slays king, ruins town, and beats high mountain down...

Oh, how I long for the day when every random sentence I hear doesn't remind me of some poem in a book I've read or a song I've heard or a stray phrase from a sitcom.

God damn pattern recognition subroutines.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:47 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Marzillius wrote...

Don't forget Vertical Farming, that's extremely important. But the problem with those things is that people would rather use that money to buy a bigger car 

Thank goodness you know better than them how to spend their money.

[Marzillius]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Marzillius wrote...

Don't forget Vertical Farming, that's extremely important. But the problem with those things is that people would rather use that money to buy a bigger car 

Thank goodness you know better than them how to spend their money.

No need to be sarcastic, because what you just said is absolutley true.

Modifié par Marzillius, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:52 .

[R-Taco]

I nominate Adam for leader of the human race.



Considering humans as separate from nature is just silly. We're just exceptionally large-brained organisms (and not even the record holders at that). We're not the most numerous (rats, ants, cockroaches, etc. make us look downright endangered) nor do we have the greatest impact on the environment (plants and algae have us beat by a longshot).



We're no more or less deserving of life than anything else. Anyone who considers us deserving of being wiped out has some things to sort out.

[Valikdu]

http://tvtropes.org/...mansAreBastards

[Ryzaki]

Frankly I was hoping the Reapers were pulling some survival of the fittest mantra.



Alas. D:



Pants ruined my dreams.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i have nothing to say here other then the matrix rules.

Too bad they didn't make any sequels.

Oh please, the Matrix sequels were a better middle chapter and conclusion of a trilogy than any other we've had this last decade.

[Inquisitor Recon]

You hippies want the reapers to win? Fine, have Shepard commit suicide. Then your reaper pals can restore "galactic harmony" (by killing everything) or something like that.



And this crap about carbon output needs to end as it only hurts the development of technologies that can get us away from oil. Resource conservation is far more important than this carbon output nonsense.



And in response to adam, 1st world countries have no duty to try to raise everybody to their standard of living. How many Somalias and Afghanistans will we have to see before we realize that places like that will always be wastelands unless they themselves get their act together? Better that money go to space programs or defense programs which have been a huge factor in pushing technological development. A man who is unwilling to work is not entitled to the quality of life as somebody who does work. The best we can do is provide opportunities to employ people.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Oh please, the Matrix sequels were a better middle chapter and conclusion of a trilogy than any other we've had this last decade.

If your watching them on drugs perhaps.

[The Spamming Troll]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...
 i'm a non-spamming troll... i make most of my posts out of boredom, not being serious most of time.

im a spamming troll. were all a bunch of spamming trolls.

the reapers prolly never troll or spam. so maybe the reapers ARE a good thing.

ReconTeam wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Oh
please, the Matrix sequels were a better middle chapter and conclusion
of a trilogy than any other we've had this last decade.

If your watching them on drugs perhaps.

drugs makes everything better. ive never played ME without.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 09 novembre 2010 - 07:48 .

[Fixers0]

To the topic's question, Yes the destruction of mankind is a bad thing.

[vehzeel]

I'm Commander Shepard, and this is the worst idea on the Citadel.

Modifié par vehzeel, 09 novembre 2010 - 08:27 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Clearly we also didn't send a man to the moon, because there was no financial benefit. And no point of wiping out diseases like smallpox or rinderpest: you can make more money from therapies than cures. And wars: lord know we do them because they're profitable. 

The moon race was a direct result of political arm flexing that abounded during the cold war. Cures for diseases often result from small groups with some government help. Mars colonization would take a public investment that has never been seen (in terms of resources). Also, wars can be extremely profitable. WW2 is what jump started the American industrial economy and dragged us out of the great depression. The military industrial complex in **** Germany is what dragged them out of the Weimar republic.

[Dean_the_Young]

Political arm flexing is timeles. So is political maneuvering. The moon landings are a primier example of a time when a very costly, non-beneficial policy was pursued... but it wasn't the only one.



Small pox and rinderpest are the only diseases to have been wiped out in human history, and only by massive government effort across the globe. It wasn't a cheaper solution, it wasn't a matter of some individual made a cure out of his pocket that just had to be spread. Cures are costly, and defy the logic that money is the only concern.



The US didn't enter WW2 because it was itching for a chance to jumpstart its economy. It entered because Pearl Harbor was bombed in a surprise attack by the Japanese. Economic jumpstart/turbocharge for the next decade was a happy coincidence/consequence of the rest of the world being bombed to turds, not an intent.



Likewise, the H-man didn't turn to war for economic recovery. He turned to war because he was interested in territory and a mystical sense of genetics and even more hyper-nationalism.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Political arm flexing is timeles. So is political maneuvering. The moon landings are a primier example of a time when a very costly, non-beneficial policy was pursued... but it wasn't the only one.

True, but the sort of multi-polar hegemony that existed during the cold war does not exist today to anywhere near the same extent.

Small pox and rinderpest are the only diseases to have been wiped out in human history, and only by massive government effort across the globe. It wasn't a cheaper solution, it wasn't a matter of some individual made a cure out of his pocket that just had to be spread. Cures are costly, and defy the logic that money is the only concern.

I'm going to be honest, I do not know much about the historical context of these diseases. Eradicating disease, however, is helpful to a government in the long run (higher population = more tax revenue). This could be seen as an investment, where a mars mission would be viewed as a money dump in the government's eyes.

The US didn't enter WW2 because it was itching for a chance to jumpstart its economy. It entered because Pearl Harbor was bombed in a surprise attack by the Japanese. Economic jumpstart/turbocharge for the next decade was a happy coincidence/consequence of the rest of the world being bombed to turds, not an intent.

You're right, America did enter the war because of Pearl Harbor. The economic recovery began in the late 1930's when we started selling supplies to the Allied forces (even though we were not yet involved). So, maybe we don't go to war for monetary purposes, but they can be profitable.

Likewise, the H-man didn't turn to war for economic recovery. He turned to war because he was interested in territory and a mystical sense of genetics and even more hyper-nationalism.

Hitler dragged Germany out of the crapper by uniting them behind a cause. The biggest government investment was military infrastructure by far.

Now you're right that countries generally don't go to war in order to drag themselves out of poor economies, but it is often a by-product. Also, I just don't see the public of a nation being willing to invest so much into a Mars mission as they would into a war. I would love to see it happen. I just don't think it will.

[Dean_the_Young]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Political arm flexing is timeles. So is political maneuvering. The moon landings are a primier example of a time when a very costly, non-beneficial policy was pursued... but it wasn't the only one.

True, but the sort of multi-polar hegemony that existed during the cold war does not exist today to anywhere near the same extent.

Which, of course, is why China, India, the EU, and even the US have broadcast intent to go back to the moon... decades after the US already left.

I'm going to be honest, I do not know much about the historical context of these diseases. Eradicating disease, however, is helpful to a government in the long run (higher population = more tax revenue). This could be seen as an investment, where a mars mission would be viewed as a money dump in the government's eyes.

Smallpox and Renderpest are the only diseases in history to have been wiped out. Ever..

Medical companies and corporations make infinitely more money treating/vaccinating a disease than they do wiping it out. But that's what they research towards. And given how everyone recognizes that government policy is so affected by those with money, which would be the medical industry in this case...

Hitler dragged Germany out of the crapper by uniting them behind a cause. The biggest government investment was military infrastructure by far.

Now you're right that countries generally don't go to war in order to drag themselves out of poor economies, but it is often a by-product. Also, I just don't see the public of a nation being willing to invest so much into a Mars mission as they would into a war. I would love to see it happen. I just don't think it will.

You're mixing cause and effect. Rearmament had an effect of dragging Germany out of the depression sooner, but that wasn't the reason why rearmament took place. Rearmament took place so that Germany could have the arms for Hitler's intended wars.



The point of this all is that money isn't the sum-all-be-all of decision making. Other reasons exist. Other reasons often dominate: it's a lack of money, rather than the prospect of money, that drives most policy decisions, as most government revenue comes from taxes/trade, not their policies directly. Governments specialize in 'public services' that money doesn't easily translate into or for.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The point of this all is that money isn't the sum-all-be-all of decision making. Other reasons exist. Other reasons often dominate: it's a lack of money, rather than the prospect of money, that drives most policy decisions, as most government revenue comes from taxes/trade, not their policies directly. Governments specialize in 'public services' that money doesn't easily translate into or for.

I would agree. When you simply consider a mars colonization mission, however, it involves a huge initial investment (one that would blow other historical projects out of the water), and there would be zero chance of receiving anything back from it. Money is not the sole factor in policy-making, but when we're talking large percentages of the world's GDP that would need to be put into this project, it would take a nation (or more likely a group of nations) fully behind it for years. I just do not see this happening anywhere in the near future. It almost certainly will not happen in our lifetimes.

[Phaedon]

OP, I feel you. Sometimes I can't help but think that we don't have much to offer to ourselves, let alone the cosmos. This might cheer you up though.

[Dean_the_Young]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The point of this all is that money isn't the sum-all-be-all of decision making. Other reasons exist. Other reasons often dominate: it's a lack of money, rather than the prospect of money, that drives most policy decisions, as most government revenue comes from taxes/trade, not their policies directly. Governments specialize in 'public services' that money doesn't easily translate into or for.

I would agree. When you simply consider a mars colonization mission, however, it involves a huge initial investment (one that would blow other historical projects out of the water), and there would be zero chance of receiving anything back from it. Money is not the sole factor in policy-making, but when we're talking large percentages of the world's GDP that would need to be put into this project, it would take a nation (or more likely a group of nations) fully behind it for years. I just do not see this happening anywhere in the near future. It almost certainly will not happen in our lifetimes.

Political, scientific, prestige advantages. The real trick is getting to self-sufficiency. Until that's figured out, it's largely pointless to even start. Once it is, however, it's a matter of initial costs... which we spend plenty of bad money anyway.

Colonizing Mars at the moment doesn't even serve a purpose. If you want to put self-contained colonies in remote hazardous places no one else lives, there are plenty of deserts, and plenty more space on the ocean floor. And those don't lack for water AND oxygen in significant amounts, and could give returns in terms of mineral extraction.

[TuringPoint]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ThunderSoul wrote...

it will equal the beauty of earth will live longer... i like that...

Any catastrophe that wipes most of humanity out is going to destroy the world's ecology far more than anything humans have ever done. It will not be pretty. The planet will not look nicer. And there's so much infrastructure around that blowing it up and taking the humans away would create it's own eco disasters with no one to fix.

Image if, right now,we blew up every oil tanker at sea, and every oil platform was left to cause the sort of disaster we saw in the gulf. And that's only two types of disasters.

I applaud your reasoning... but I just want to add a few things.

It would also be disastrous because, by ME1 time we've probably already killed off most or all of the species which don't have some sort of symbiosis with our way of life.  Leaving just what depended on our survival, thus... extinction on top of extinction.

But that would not prevent life from taking things back in time.  In periods of time greater than 50,000 years, possibly, but still, "in time".   There would also be all the beauty of the places which are untouched by human infrastructure, like mountains and natural parks, etc.   It depends on how far into "scorched earth" the reapers are.

So if the ultimate goal is for life to continue... then yeah, the Reapers might work for that.  But in other ways humanity is the best possibility for nature's legacy to live on.   Our adaptations to environment allow us, as a legacy of our home planet, to have the possibility to live on.  And become more than weeds by Reaper standards.  Although I have some theories about the Reapers... but that's for another post, or another thread.

On the ecological front, I actually oppose both sides of the argument... I don't think nature is more important than humanity, but I don't think humanity can survive unless it considers its environment in some way.  As it is, what we are doing to the environment could easily outpace our ability to adapt and survive, and thus for nature to survive and continue to thrive as is.  That would be incredibly tragic.

If we can't ever develop technology to get us away from poisoning the atmosphere for ourselves, and making Earth unlivable, we simply won't survive.  Developing a colony won't be enough.  Even if we did develop a colony, we'd have to figure out energy sources that are effectively greener anyway... that don't rely on fossil fuels or such things. 


I also think everything about nature and "gaia" if you will is admirable and far more impressive than we want to give it credit for... we are just one species, we sometimes just think about survival, or just about our personal survival in this lifetime.  So that is valuable.  Some don't think it is, but eh.

Modifié par Alocormin, 09 novembre 2010 - 10:37 .

[Dean_the_Young]

The Reapers start fires that burn the oxygen off of planets, reduce life to microbes in the oceans, and have simply made planets entirely uninhabital by stripping the atmosphere.







I have never found any value in 'beauty' of places no one can appreciate. It's like art that's never been seen: it might as well not exist.