301 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

lovgreno wrote...
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.

I agree completely. Establishing overt dominance over all species is not a practical short-term goal for the reasons you stated. It is far better to have friendly subordinates than hostile ones, and we must first consolidate support and good will from the other species before we can improve our status any significant ammount. Instigating revolts against our authority is not productive, and should be avoided, as it would be far better to have the other races peacfully decline as they become dependent on Humanity for their security and well-being. Humanity gains nothing from trying to wipe out the other species, especially when there's still plenty of planets that we can expand to.

[SandTrout]

Jagri wrote...
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.

Except that this happens with every species on earth as well, I just chose an example of sapient behaviour. Chimpanzies are known to go to their version of war to drive out other groups, as do lions, wolves, birds, fish, Ants, termites, and other social animals. Hell, even plants will strangle and kill other plants if their root systems are in conflict. With this many examples of the principal, and none that counter it, there is no reason not to believe that the same will apply to the evolution of other species.

[GuardianAngel470]

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

My Commander Shepard, Sean.

Seconded, with edit.

[ravenimage]

 To human dominance? Who cares. I certainly don't want a galaxy dominated by humans. 

[SandTrout]

ravenimage wrote...

 To human dominance? Who cares. I certainly don't want a galaxy dominated by humans. 

Why not?

[ravenimage]

Ideally, for the sake of balance. Any galaxy - for the sake of fantasy - dominated by a single species is doomed. There should be an equal amount of control by every species. There are going to be wars, destruction, and arguments no matter what (that's the basic behavior of sentient life), but for one race to have absolute control and dominance over the others is more harmful in the long run than if all the species war against each other.

[SandTrout]

ravenimage wrote...

Ideally, for the sake of balance. Any galaxy - for the sake of fantasy - dominated by a single species is doomed. There should be an equal amount of control by every species. There are going to be wars, destruction, and arguments no matter what (that's the basic behavior of sentient life), but for one race to have absolute control and dominance over the others is more harmful in the long run than if all the species war against each other.

That's remarkably... logical. However, I would like to point out that if the other species were not able to stop human dominance, then they would be, by definition of natural selection, unfit. Our rise to dominance would proof of fittness and capablity, and force other species to adapt and overcome by weeding out the weaknesses within their own societies.

Even assuming that no species rises to challenge us, others in this thread have pointed out that human societies do have a habbit of creating their own competition when nature doesn't provide it. I doubt that we would see stagnation, or peace, for that matter, under Human rule.

[ravenimage]

I can only agree so far on weeding out the weakness in their societies, and God knows I speak from an ideal point of view rather than a realistic one, but the simple fact is I don't want humans to pursue dominance. In fact, in the game this is why I support the Council. They're not perfect, but so far they've managed to uphold galactic peace and cooperation between all species under Council rule. It isn't for any one species to pursue control; it isn't for any one species to weed out weakness in other societies. We would never see peace under human rule, but we would never see peace under the single rule of any race. The most logical path - that I can see - to anything remotely close to "peace" is continued cooperation, not dominance.

[Jagri]

SandTrout wrote...

Jagri wrote...
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.

Except that this happens with every species on earth as well, I just chose an example of sapient behaviour. Chimpanzies are known to go to their version of war to drive out other groups, as do lions, wolves, birds, fish, Ants, termites, and other social animals. Hell, even plants will strangle and kill other plants if their root systems are in conflict. With this many examples of the principal, and none that counter it, there is no reason not to believe that the same will apply to the evolution of other species.

Yes "on earth" but does that apply to alien races who live on entirely diffirent planets?

Modifié par Jagri, 29 janvier 2011 - 08:20 .

[GnusmasTHX]

Turians. The Systems Alliance would steamroll every other race out there. The turians will just take longer.

[SandTrout]

Jagri wrote...

Yes "on earth" but does that apply to alien races who live on entirely diffirent planets?

It should because its a basic principal of evolution and spans all known locations and ecosystems. Logically, it should apply to other planets' ecosystems as well. Alien planets are just ecosystems isolated by distance and vacuum. They have different stressors for evolution like atmospheric chemistry, radiation levels, and geography, but they would still be subject to resource scarcity regardless.

[Ahriman]

Humans are council race with weakest fleet and lowest population. Which 'dominance' are you talking about?

[Gabey5]

Wizz wrote...

Humans are council race with weakest fleet and lowest population. Which 'dominance' are you talking about?

not after the events of me1

not to mention if you get rid of the council in me1

[Ahriman]

Gabey5 wrote...

not after the events of me1

not to mention if you get rid of the council in me1

Huh? Asari lost one dreadnought, turians - few cruisers and unknown number of frigates. It didn't change power balance.

[GuardianAngel470]

SandTrout wrote...

ravenimage wrote...

Ideally, for the sake of balance. Any galaxy - for the sake of fantasy - dominated by a single species is doomed. There should be an equal amount of control by every species. There are going to be wars, destruction, and arguments no matter what (that's the basic behavior of sentient life), but for one race to have absolute control and dominance over the others is more harmful in the long run than if all the species war against each other.

That's remarkably... logical. However, I would like to point out that if the other species were not able to stop human dominance, then they would be, by definition of natural selection, unfit. Our rise to dominance would proof of fittness and capablity, and force other species to adapt and overcome by weeding out the weaknesses within their own societies.

Even assuming that no species rises to challenge us, others in this thread have pointed out that human societies do have a habbit of creating their own competition when nature doesn't provide it. I doubt that we would see stagnation, or peace, for that matter, under Human rule.

That only works if you kill them all and leave humans alone. That is true Natural selection, not some flawed concept of Social Darwinism.

Think of Rome, Athens, Persia, Great Britain, France, and Germany. How many times in our history has so few ruled over so many infinitely? It doesn't work, period. What you are calling for is simply, as above stated, Social Darwinism, which is just a euphemism for racism.

Apartheid on a Galactic scale, no thank you.

[Jagri]

SandTrout wrote...

Jagri wrote...
Yes "on earth" but does that apply to alien races who live on entirely diffirent planets?

It should because its a basic principal of evolution and spans all known locations and ecosystems. Logically, it should apply to other planets' ecosystems as well. Alien planets are just ecosystems isolated by distance and vacuum. They have different stressors for evolution like atmospheric chemistry, radiation levels, and geography, but they would still be subject to resource scarcity regardless.

Yes but as of yet we assume that life on other planets would Conform to the standards we believe established. But such thinking has been proven wrong before.

For example...

People believed the world was flat yet after some investigation we they come to discover its round.
The Earth is the center of the universe and they we learn we ain't even the center of the our system.
Light is needed for animals to survive and yet their is creatures that live in complete darkness.
Mammal's don't lay eggs or use poison... Platypus
                         
This list could go on but till we have another planet filled with life to compare anything its all assumption based on human experiance. Throwing logical out there doesn't making it any less of one. If anything at best its a logical guess at worse a out right assumption.

Modifié par Jagri, 29 janvier 2011 - 12:41 .

[Asheer_Khan]

Wizz wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

not after the events of me1

not to mention if you get rid of the council in me1

Huh? Asari lost one dreadnought, turians - few cruisers and unknown number of frigates. It didn't change power balance.

Truth to be told... killing original Council and seizing lead power of new council by humans only gives green light for Hierarhy to declare dreadnought limiting treaty as non existed and thier shipyards start to work on four shifts to biuld new ones... and belive me NOT to repell incoming Reapers... but finish what they started on Shanxi.

[Gabey5]

Wizz wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

not after the events of me1

not to mention if you get rid of the council in me1

Huh? Asari lost one dreadnought, turians - few cruisers and unknown number of frigates. It didn't change power balance.

It is is stated in Acension  that the greater part of the Citadel Fleet is destroyed in the attack on the Citadel, leaving the Alliance Navy as the dominant military power. Humans have the most ships now. The remaining ships of the aliens are gonna be securing their homeworlds presumably . The battle was much bigger than what was shown in the brief cutscene

Modifié par Gabey5, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:26 .

[Strugz]

Oh dear the anti human comments from HUMANS makes me sick , you have no belief in your own species? We have done bad things to ourselves , but the grand Turians had a giant war with themselves , the krogan have , the Salarians commited genocide , the Quarians tryed to commit genocide , doesnt make us look so bad now , does it?

[Dean_the_Young]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Think of Rome, Athens, Persia, Great Britain, France, and Germany. How many times in our history has so few ruled over so many infinitely? It doesn't work, period. What you are calling for is simply, as above stated, Social Darwinism, which is just a euphemism for racism.

Actually, those you mention actually by and large prove that smaller populations can dominate much larger ones for extensive amounts of time. All the ones you mention didn't fall to internal rebellion: they lost their power from external fighting.

There's a point of 'no organization lasts forever', but it isn't transcended by 'the bigger group always ultimately wins.' Because history shows this isn't the case, in the same ways that those smaller groups could come into dominance in the first place.

Apartheid on a Galactic scale, no thank you.

I don't think you understand apartheid if you equate it to the incredibly broad category of dominance.

Your parents are dominant. Your teachers are dominant. The police are dominant. The alpha-dog in your group of friends is dominant.  The United States as a whole was exclusively dominant in the international political scene for the 90's. None of these equated to apartheid.

Calling dominance apartheid is like calling police action gestapo tactics. It's more than hyperbolic, it's outright wrong more often the right.

[Dean_the_Young]

Jagri wrote...

Yes "on earth" but does that apply to alien races who live on entirely diffirent planets?

In general?

Universal concepts apply universally. Physics works regardless of where you go, as does gravity. Principals of war as well.

Evolution is more mathematical and systemic than people realize, and math doesn't change on geography. You're faced with the burden of proving why principals wouldn't apply, not the other way around.

[Dean_the_Young]

ravenimage wrote...

I can only agree so far on weeding out the weakness in their societies, and God knows I speak from an ideal point of view rather than a realistic one, but the simple fact is I don't want humans to pursue dominance. In fact, in the game this is why I support the Council. They're not perfect, but so far they've managed to uphold galactic peace and cooperation between all species under Council rule. It isn't for any one species to pursue control; it isn't for any one species to weed out weakness in other societies. We would never see peace under human rule, but we would never see peace under the single rule of any race. The most logical path - that I can see - to anything remotely close to "peace" is continued cooperation, not dominance.

The Council doesn't maintain peace because it likes peace, the Council maintains peace because it's the establishment and peace preserves it's interests. When peace doesn't, and anything really threatens the status quo, they're more than willing to send STG and Spectres in to deal with it. The Council is ruled by three alien species because it was in the interests of the first species to add the third to secure their grip on power, not because they liked more species in general. (Their long history of exlusion to everyone else puts that idealism to rest.)

It has nothing to do with them being aliens, and nothing about being more enlightened, and everything to do with being 'the establishment' power and therefore conservative in defense of its own position. The same has and does apply to Humans as well: groups that benefit from peace push for peace, and once in dominance the Humans are more likely to lose said dominance in war than peace.

[Flamewielder]

Thus a paragon human dominance could look like Dean's example of the alpha-dog in a group of friends. Dominance is established naturally and accepted as natural under whatever the current circumstances are, and not forcibly imposed through in-fighting and aggression/threat displays.



Renegade human dominance is imposed through whatever means necessary, including aggression/intimidation and will therefore not be willingly accepted. It will only be tolerated until circumstances somehow change the balance in favor of one or more of the beta-dogs, at which point the new top dog will kick humans down into their new place.



Bottom line: human prominence/dominance is not a renegade/paragon issue. You can even argue that the struggle for dominance itself is actually good for all participants, as each deploys renewed efforts to alter the balance and rise to the top rung of the ladder.

[Ahriman]

Gabey5 wrote...

It is is stated in Acension  that the greater part of the Citadel Fleet is destroyed in the attack on the Citadel, leaving the Alliance Navy as the dominant military power. Humans have the most ships now. The remaining ships of the aliens are gonna be securing their homeworlds presumably . The battle was much bigger than what was shown in the brief cutscene

Yeah, I've read it, but it has no sense. Small percentage of geth just cannot destroy greater part of Citadel fleet.
Also Codex states that "During the year 2185, the dreadnought count is 39 turians, 20 asari, 16 salarians, and 8 humans."

Modifié par Wizz, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Paragon/Renegade analogies break down further when you start to realize that Udina, the Renegade aligned politician, has never been shown or depicted to do anything more violent than a shove, while Anderson is repeatedly depicted as a war-hero badass who relishes punching certain politicians.



Udina, the Renegade, is the compromiser who's better and more interested at maintaining good relations to humanity's own benefit. Anderson, the Paragon, is depicted as keeping Udina around to clean up those sorts of messes.