301 réponses à ce sujet

[MassEffect762]

Humans.

[OmegaXI]

Sajuro wrote...

Humans: from the time we first learned the killing power of bone and rock, we've been killing each other in the name of everything from God, to Justice, to simple Psychotic rage.
There are some who say that Earth falling would be the end of humanity, but it will just be the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history.
Because war... war never changes

nice Fallout Refference:wizard: , but these same violent human traits are one of the reasons why humanity has survived and prospered in the universe of mass effect. These traits held the Turians at bay, these traits lead humanity to build a fleet of warships before even encountering another alien race, and these traits will help humanit stop the machine gods the Reapers see themselves as, thus stop the cycle of extinction that has gone on for millions of years. Humans are a double edge sword by our very nature. But as pro-human as I am I understand that willing obediance is better than force obediance.

Modifié par OmegaXI, 29 janvier 2011 - 04:00 .

[SandTrout]

Zilizhra said...
And what happens if our species drives itself into extinction?

That is a very unlikely hypothetical situation that has no basis in historic precedent. We've had plenty of opportunity to wipe ourselves off the planet, but our self-interest has kept us from managing it. In the 65 years of their existence, Nuclear weapons have only been used on a human population twice, and most historians agree that said use was probably far less costly in terms of human life than the alternative. Humans in general do not do things simply to destroy. Our actions are driven by our desires and guided by our available options.
I've never claimed that anyone said that humanity was evil, but their stated opposition to their own species implies that they believe that it is. I have simply pointed out that I consider such actions as treason, regardless of their reasoning that justifies it in their own mind. Never the less, I have asked for their reasoning so that I may point out their mistakes and illuminate the dangers of such attitudes.

Modifié par SandTrout, 29 janvier 2011 - 04:04 .

[Sajuro]

OmegaXI wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Humans: from the time we first learned the killing power of bone and rock, we've been killing each other in the name of everything from God, to Justice, to simple Psychotic rage.
There are some who say that Earth falling would be the end of humanity, but it will just be the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history.
Because war... war never changes

nice Fallout Refference:wizard: , but these same violent human traits are one of the reasons why humanity has survived and prospered in the universe of mass effect. These traits held the Turians at bay, these traits lead humanity to build a fleet of warships before even encountering another alien race, and these traits will help humanit stop the machine gods the Reapers see themselves as, thus stop the cycle of extinction that has gone on for millions of years. Humans are a double edge sword by our very nature. But as pro-human as I am I understand that willing obediance is better than force obediance.

Have you ever read Cell? That reminds me of your position.
One of the characters say basically that we didn't get to the top because we were the smartest or strongest but because we were the 'craziest motherfrackers in the whole d@mn jungle"

[OmegaXI]

SandTrout wrote...

Zilizhra said...
And what happens if our species drives itself into extinction?

That is a very unlikely hypothetical situation that has no basis in historic precedent. We've had plenty of opportunity to wipe ourselves off the planet, but our self-interest has kept us from managing it. In the 65 years of their existence, Nuclear weapons have only been used on a human population twice, and most historians agree that said use was probably far less costly in terms of human life than the alternative. Humans in general do not do things simply to destroy. Our actions are driven by our desires and guided by our available options.
I've never claimed that anyone said that humanity was evil, but their stated opposition to their own species implies that they believe that it is. I have simply pointed out that I consider such actions as treason, regardless of their reasoning that justifies it in their own mind. Never the less, I have asked for their reasoning so that I may point out their mistakes and illuminate the dangers of such attitudes.

They are traitors and after the dust settles old TIM will have to send them to "Focus Retreats", so they can focus on their actions of betraying their race. Alot of these same people try and defend batarian slavery because its their culture. The way I see it humanity has done more for the galaxy in its short amount of time on the glactic stage than most of the other races have done in ten times the amount of time.

And the strange thing about nuclear weapons is that they have prevented more wars from happening then they have caused, that ultimate power of destruction has force humanity to keep its violent tendecies in check, and if you think about it more people have been killed by artillery, blades, and bullets than by nukes. So Nukes are good.

[Xilizhra]

I have simply pointed out that I consider such actions as treason, regardless of their reasoning that justifies it in their own mind.

If political affiliation was determined by genetics, the Terminus colonists would all be Alliance members.

Regardless, I'm not out for human extinction or anything. I will, however, stop attempts to establish total human hegemony.

[Sajuro]

OmegaXI wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Zilizhra said...
And what happens if our species drives itself into extinction?

That is a very unlikely hypothetical situation that has no basis in historic precedent. We've had plenty of opportunity to wipe ourselves off the planet, but our self-interest has kept us from managing it. In the 65 years of their existence, Nuclear weapons have only been used on a human population twice, and most historians agree that said use was probably far less costly in terms of human life than the alternative. Humans in general do not do things simply to destroy. Our actions are driven by our desires and guided by our available options.
I've never claimed that anyone said that humanity was evil, but their stated opposition to their own species implies that they believe that it is. I have simply pointed out that I consider such actions as treason, regardless of their reasoning that justifies it in their own mind. Never the less, I have asked for their reasoning so that I may point out their mistakes and illuminate the dangers of such attitudes.

They are traitors and after the dust settles old TIM will have to send them to "Focus Retreats", so they can focus on their actions of betraying their race. Alot of these same people try and defend batarian slavery because its their culture. The way I see it humanity has done more for the galaxy in its short amount of time on the glactic stage than most of the other races have done in ten times the amount of time.

And the strange thing about nuclear weapons is that they have prevented more wars from happening then they have caused, that ultimate power of destruction has force humanity to keep its violent tendecies in check, and if you think about it more people have been killed by artillery, blades, and bullets than by nukes. So Nukes are good.

Then my Shepard will be leading the breakout of the focus camps, getting Tony Stark to build a new normandy in a cave with a box of scraps

[OmegaXI]

Sajuro wrote...

OmegaXI wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Humans: from the time we first learned the killing power of bone and rock, we've been killing each other in the name of everything from God, to Justice, to simple Psychotic rage.
There are some who say that Earth falling would be the end of humanity, but it will just be the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history.
Because war... war never changes

nice Fallout Refference:wizard: , but these same violent human traits are one of the reasons why humanity has survived and prospered in the universe of mass effect. These traits held the Turians at bay, these traits lead humanity to build a fleet of warships before even encountering another alien race, and these traits will help humanit stop the machine gods the Reapers see themselves as, thus stop the cycle of extinction that has gone on for millions of years. Humans are a double edge sword by our very nature. But as pro-human as I am I understand that willing obediance is better than force obediance.

Have you ever read Cell? That reminds me of your position.
One of the characters say basically that we didn't get to the top because we were the smartest or strongest but because we were the 'craziest motherfrackers in the whole d@mn jungle"

OMG yes. great book, and I approve of your observation. 

[OmegaXI]

Sajuro wrote...

OmegaXI wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Zilizhra said...
And what happens if our species drives itself into extinction?

That is a very unlikely hypothetical situation that has no basis in historic precedent. We've had plenty of opportunity to wipe ourselves off the planet, but our self-interest has kept us from managing it. In the 65 years of their existence, Nuclear weapons have only been used on a human population twice, and most historians agree that said use was probably far less costly in terms of human life than the alternative. Humans in general do not do things simply to destroy. Our actions are driven by our desires and guided by our available options.
I've never claimed that anyone said that humanity was evil, but their stated opposition to their own species implies that they believe that it is. I have simply pointed out that I consider such actions as treason, regardless of their reasoning that justifies it in their own mind. Never the less, I have asked for their reasoning so that I may point out their mistakes and illuminate the dangers of such attitudes.

They are traitors and after the dust settles old TIM will have to send them to "Focus Retreats", so they can focus on their actions of betraying their race. Alot of these same people try and defend batarian slavery because its their culture. The way I see it humanity has done more for the galaxy in its short amount of time on the glactic stage than most of the other races have done in ten times the amount of time.

And the strange thing about nuclear weapons is that they have prevented more wars from happening then they have caused, that ultimate power of destruction has force humanity to keep its violent tendecies in check, and if you think about it more people have been killed by artillery, blades, and bullets than by nukes. So Nukes are good.

Then my Shepard will be leading the breakout of the focus camps, getting Tony Stark to build a new normandy in a cave with a box of scraps

Well if anyone could do it it would be Tony Stark

[SandTrout]

If political affiliation was determined by genetics, the Terminus colonists would all be Alliance members.
Regardless, I'm not out for human extinction or anything. I will, however, stop attempts to establish total human hegemony.

Then, by default your are supporting Human submission to someone else's hegemony.

It's not a matter of political affiliation, it's a matter of survival of your species. I garauntee you that those Terminus colonies would not side with the Batarians against the alliance unless the Alliance was posing a threat to their continued prosparity, and maybe not even then. They are separate population of the species, and I support their continued prosparity as much as I can. If they were resisting annexation by the Alliance, then I might consider resisting the Alliance to help them, depending on the circumstances, but at that point, I'm still serving humanity as a whole by allowing the colonies to continue to grow and prosper.

Modifié par SandTrout, 29 janvier 2011 - 04:28 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, not by default (you could have an anarchy), but it is submitting to a tri-part hegemony of the Turians, the Asari, and the Salarians, who's primary virtues are being able to kill everyone who would overthrow them.

[Xilizhra]

SandTrout wrote...

If political affiliation was determined by genetics, the Terminus colonists would all be Alliance members.
Regardless, I'm not out for human extinction or anything. I will, however, stop attempts to establish total human hegemony.

Then, by default your are supporting Human submission to someone else's hegemony.

Total hegemony, I said. My goal is to prevent any one species from controlling all the others. Having four species control the remaining four (elcor, volus, hanar and drell; batarians, krogan, vorcha and yahg aren't part of the Council government) isn't ideal, but it's better.

[Sajuro]

SandTrout wrote...

If political affiliation was determined by genetics, the Terminus colonists would all be Alliance members.
Regardless, I'm not out for human extinction or anything. I will, however, stop attempts to establish total human hegemony.

Then, by default your are supporting Human submission to someone else's hegemony.

faulty logic is faulty

[SandTrout]

Xilizhra wrote...
Total hegemony, I said. My goal is to prevent any one species from controlling all the others. Having four species control the remaining four (elcor, volus, hanar and drell; batarians, krogan, vorcha and yahg aren't part of the Council government) isn't ideal, but it's better.

Then you are placing them in an advantageous possition to establish dominance over our species. Their ability to take advantage of that position may vary, but it's willingly giving them an asset without ensuring our species is getting anything in return, and they WILL take advantage of every asset they can get to try to become the top player.
If circumstances decide that co-leadership is the best that we can reasonably achieve, then, yes, I am all for it, but you're possition has been that we should just stop there and hope that they will do the same. This has NEVER been the case at any point in history.

[Jagri]

SandTrout wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Total hegemony, I said. My goal is to prevent any one species from controlling all the others. Having four species control the remaining four (elcor, volus, hanar and drell; batarians, krogan, vorcha and yahg aren't part of the Council government) isn't ideal, but it's better.

Then you are placing them in an advantageous possition to establish dominance over our species. Their ability to take advantage of that position may vary, but it's willingly giving them an asset without ensuring our species is getting anything in return, and they WILL take advantage of every asset they can get to try to become the top player.
If circumstances decide that co-leadership is the best that we can reasonably achieve, then, yes, I am all for it, but you're possition has been that we should just stop there and hope that they will do the same. This has NEVER been the case at any point in history.

True but your referring to human history...

[Xilizhra]

SandTrout wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Total hegemony, I said. My goal is to prevent any one species from controlling all the others. Having four species control the remaining four (elcor, volus, hanar and drell; batarians, krogan, vorcha and yahg aren't part of the Council government) isn't ideal, but it's better.

Then you are placing them in an advantageous possition to establish dominance over our species. Their ability to take advantage of that position may vary, but it's willingly giving them an asset without ensuring our species is getting anything in return, and they WILL take advantage of every asset they can get to try to become the top player.
If circumstances decide that co-leadership is the best that we can reasonably achieve, then, yes, I am all for it, but you're possition has been that we should just stop there and hope that they will do the same. This has NEVER been the case at any point in history.

You seem to be forgetting that in every scenario, we're on the Council. We're one of the top dogs ourselves.

[SandTrout]

Jagri wrote...

True but your referring to human history...

And the Mass Effect aliens have behaved in manners consistant with political bodies from human history, and were actually, at least somewhat. based on them.

Also, natural selection dictates that any advanced species will have similar competative behaviors, and Stephen Hawking agrees.

[James2912]

You either believe in the science of Evolution and Natural selection or you don't whats ironic is that a lot of the kumbaya people love Darwin and science but refuse to realize the realities of what his theory means. Only the strongest survive while the weak will go extinct. Do you want humanity to be strong?

[Jagri]

SandTrout wrote...

Jagri wrote...

True but your referring to human history...

And the Mass Effect aliens have behaved in manners consistant with political bodies from human history, and were actually, at least somewhat. based on them.

Also, natural selection dictates that any advanced species will have similar competative behaviors, and Stephen Hawking agrees.

What information we are given about the Mess Effect Universe is limited at best but to sum up a entire race(s) history by concluding they have mannerism/political bodies we can relate to is assumption at best. I sooner want a more indepth break down of each races history that extend far beyond the Codex before making any statements about what historically never works.

Modifié par Jagri, 29 janvier 2011 - 05:12 .

[SandTrout]

Xilizhra wrote...
You seem to be forgetting that in every scenario, we're on the Council. We're one of the top dogs ourselves.

I'm not forgeting this, though you don't seem to understand why they let us join, and you assume that being on the Council makes us equals, when it does not.

The Alliance was allowed to join the Council, which increases our influence and adds us to the dominant group in our section of space, because we had the millitary and economic power to push for dominance without their consent. By inviting us to the Council, they tie our status to their own and decrease the possibility of open war with the Alliance. Such a war would not stand to help the Council races in any way, and would be costly for the Alliance, and not an assured victory.

As the junior member of the Council, the Alliance would not hold a lot of leverage in council decissions, and would have a more difficult time securing its interests than the Asari, Turians, or Salarians. Dominance within the Counicl is not a clear-cut status of king and vassel; it is decided by the eb and flow of diplomacy and economics as each member nation tries to get an edge for its own species while all 4 try to maintain the authority of the Council as a whole over the varrious associate member species. It is held together by common vested interest that makes open defiance of the other species inadvisable, as it would only weaken all the members, leaving the vulnerable to being overtaken by the non-council species.

Cooperation is well and good if if gets us where we want to go, but the more power we hold over the general decissions of the Galactic community, the more able we are to ensure our interests are protected and the less likely we will need to make concessions to other species.

[SandTrout]

Jagri wrote...
What information we are given about the Mess Effect Universe is limited at best but to sum up a entire race(s) history by concluding they have mannerism/political bodies we can relate to is assumption at best. I sooner want a more indepth break down of each races history that extend far beyond the Codex before making any statements about what historically never works.

It's not an assumption, its a principal of natural selection. Passive societies WILL be overrun by more conquest oriented ones, and thereby removed from the gene pool.

For example: Two tribes, tribe A and tribe B, live in a firtile valley where they hunt and grow food for their respective people. Eventually, they will both expand their populations and territory so that there is not enough food in the valley to support both populations, they will go to war and one will be driven out or killed, otherwise they will all starve. If tribe A refuses to fight back, it will definitely be driven out of the valley and be forced to travel in search of somewhere else to find food before they all die of starvation. If they find another valley that is not occupied, they may be able to survive for a while, at least until Tribe C, which was kicked out of their valley by tribe D after a bloody war, shows up.

Tribe C moves in before tribe A has expanded its population enough to take up the entire valley, and everything is hunky-dory for a littlewhile until they have the same issue that tibes A and B did. Again, tribe A refuses to fight back, and is forced from the valley and needs to go in search of another place to grow food.

Even if we assume that tribe A manages to find another valley, lets take a look at an overview of the populations of the valleys in this hypotheical area. We have 3 valleys occupied by tribes B, C, and D, all of which were willing to fight for their possition within their valley, and 1 valley with tribe A, which has a stunted population due to food shortages while it was searching for a new area to settle.

What asspect do you think is likely to express itself in this species' overall culture once it grows and advances to the point of space travel?

[RAF1940]

If Council survived - no one really, maybe batarians





If Council died - definitely turians

[lovgreno]

SandTrout wrote...

Cooperation is well and good if if gets us where we want to go, but the more power we hold over the general decissions of the Galactic community, the more able we are to ensure our interests are protected and the less likely we will need to make concessions to other species.

That is well and good untill other superpowers starts to join forces against humanity. Considering how unpopular the human dominated Council has managed to make themselves in a very short time that shouldn't be too hard to do.  Those in power are always much more weak than they want us to belive, it takes very little (often none at all) violence and effort to remove a unpopular ruler as we have seen in Tunisia recently for example.

So all power may sound tempting and beneficial for a minority (like a single race in a big galaxy for example). And many just want to make up for a lack of something else... But it's not very practical if you want to stay in power. No, sharing power with other minorities and specialising on getting good at one thing is usualy better. Sure it would probably stroke my ego more if I was best at everything but that is frankly just a rather juvenile fantasy. However, getting reliable allies requires that you are actualy willing to let others have a real say in all things, the human dominated council does not.

[Sajuro]

How all human ambitions are quashed

[Jagri]

SandTrout wrote...
It's not an assumption, its a principal of natural selection. Passive societies WILL be overrun by more conquest oriented ones, and thereby removed from the gene pool.

For example: Two tribes, tribe A and tribe B, live in a firtile valley where they hunt and grow food for their respective people. Eventually, they will both expand their populations and territory so that there is not enough food in the valley to support both populations, they will go to war and one will be driven out or killed, otherwise they will all starve. If tribe A refuses to fight back, it will definitely be driven out of the valley and be forced to travel in search of somewhere else to find food before they all die of starvation. If they find another valley that is not occupied, they may be able to survive for a while, at least until Tribe C, which was kicked out of their valley by tribe D after a bloody war, shows up.

Tribe C moves in before tribe A has expanded its population enough to take up the entire valley, and everything is hunky-dory for a littlewhile until they have the same issue that tibes A and B did. Again, tribe A refuses to fight back, and is forced from the valley and needs to go in search of another place to grow food.

Even if we assume that tribe A manages to find another valley, lets take a look at an overview of the populations of the valleys in this hypotheical area. We have 3 valleys occupied by tribes B, C, and D, all of which were willing to fight for their possition within their valley, and 1 valley with tribe A, which has a stunted population due to food shortages while it was searching for a new area to settle.

What asspect do you think is likely to express itself in this species' overall culture once it grows and advances to the point of space travel?

The example given and statement both reflect on human understanding of natural selection on our planet. Environment has been noted to be one of the most influencing factors in the development of culture so if a planets environment differs from our own then our understanding of natural selection might not apply.

But this was all besides the point the original statement in which I jumped on was...

Then you are placing them in an advantageous possition to establish dominance over our species. Their ability to take advantage of that position may vary, but it's willingly giving them an asset without ensuring our species is getting anything in return, and they WILL take advantage of every asset they can get to try to become the top player.
If circumstances decide that co-leadership is the best that we can reasonably achieve, then, yes, I am all for it, but you're possition has been that we should just stop there and hope that they will do the same. [b]This has NEVER been the case at any point in history.

^ This... Never? Do you know the complete history of the Asari, Turian, Salarian, Quarian, Geth, Rachni, Reaper, Prothean, etc? If not then there might be points in their own history that has shown this system to work. The assumption is highlighted in bold.