661 réponses à ce sujet

[James2912]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Actually, with Udina on the Human-Led Council, the Collector Base at the disposal of Cerberus, and the coming role of the Saviors of the Galaxy from the Eternal Doom, I'm going to -

TAX ALIENS FOR MONEY

Without Earth the Collector base isn't going to be enough. You will be to vulnverable to be able to hold onto the Citadel. As you go into debt with alien powers you'll be forced to give it up.

With regards to the Collector base you simply won't have the money to use any of the tech.

Once again: if your goal is to stay wealthy and keep expanding then don't kill off your biggest investor and market.

This is just common sense people.  As for all the sci fi possibilities sure and humanity could evolve into demi gods through the power of  eezo and rule the galaxy!  Lets not try to get too out there people...

[Malanek]

This is a list of human planets (well one is a moon). It's not a conclusive list, just what has been mentioned in the material. Some of these don't contain a lot of people ie Mercury but some of them are more substantial than you might think ie mars and moon are over 8 million people and these are unhospitable worlds. There is a large amount of infrastructure here, it would be significantly greater than what humans began interstellar travel with.

Earth - homeworld
Akuze
Amaterasu
Anhur
Arvuna
Bekenstein
Chasca
Cuervo
Cyrene
Demeter
Dobrovolski
Drasta
Eden Prime
Elysium
Euntanta
Fargone
Feros
Ferris Fields
Franklin
Freedom's Progress
Gei Hinnom
Horizon
Israfil
Intai'sei
Joab
Jupiter
Luna
Mars
Mercury
Mindoir
Naxell
Neptune
New Canton
Olor
Pluto
Proteus
Sathur
Saturn
Shanxi
Sidon
Sinmara
Sirona
Terra Nova
Therum
Trebin
Trident
Tyr
Uranus
Venus
Watson
Yandoa
Zion

[Malanek]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Even with only 10 million people breeding at post-WWII levels, using no technology developed after 1985, we get back to 6.8 billion in 350 years, using just one world.

This is not unreasonable, and nobody has contradicted these figures yet. They just like to ignore them. We came to this party 1300 years late... another few centuries is just even more fashionable.

Because they don't want to see their fragile arguments shredded.

[Legbiter]

Malanek999 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Even with only 10 million people breeding at post-WWII levels, using no technology developed after 1985, we get back to 6.8 billion in 350 years, using just one world.

This is not unreasonable, and nobody has contradicted these figures yet. They just like to ignore them. We came to this party 1300 years late... another few centuries is just even more fashionable.

Because they don't want to see their fragile arguments shredded.

Touché.

[Legbiter]

Saphra Deden wrote...

In 350 years how do you think the galaxy will change? How do you think humanity will change? You think all those systems we were planning to settle will still be available? You are taking some very dangerous risks, killing 11 billion people, for a very uncertain pay-off.

That's Paragon for you.

You're a ruthless renegade who cares about no one!

[Inquisitor Recon]

Legbiter wrote...
You're a ruthless renegade who cares about no one!

As a renegade I take offense at this statement. I care about forging a stronger humanity much like TIM does.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Saphra Deden wrote...
"I'll make humanity stronger by setting back its development 350 years!"

Brilliant!

(and that's not aimed at you, ReconTema, necessarily, but at well, you know who you are.)

I'm wouldn't blow up Earth for the fun of it but I would rather fall back and regroup elsewhere than risk losing the entire fleet in a desperate gamble that could doom the galaxy.

[Almostfaceman]

Malanek999 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Even with only 10 million people breeding at post-WWII levels, using no technology developed after 1985, we get back to 6.8 billion in 350 years, using just one world.

This is not unreasonable, and nobody has contradicted these figures yet. They just like to ignore them. We came to this party 1300 years late... another few centuries is just even more fashionable.

Because they don't want to see their fragile arguments shredded.

Dude, don't ever presume to speak for me or anyone else.  Like - ever.  Thanks.

@CulturalGeekGirl - my position is that it is far better to not have to go through this - keep Earth & its population.  Earth is taking its first steps - its baby steps - onto the galactic stage.  Things are very fragile at this point.

What the potential is for human birth rates is not the same as what will happen.  If there's a war with the Reapers, and Earth and its population are destroyed - humans will be fighting for their survival.  If the Terminus systems don't get involved then they'll attack - not just humans but the forces weakened by the Reaper battle.  (this is a strong argument for gathering as many allies as possible - especially unconventional choices like the rachni and the geth)  Humans could very well lose their independence for a time and be scattered.  They could form competeting colonies, there could be in-fighting amongst the humans and amongst other species. It's just not a pretty situation and I think it should be avoided.  Humanity's survival is precarious if we lose Earth.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 07 avril 2011 - 01:09 .

[Legbiter]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Then for the love of god don't blow up the Earth.


"I'll make humanity stronger by setting back its development 350 years!"

Brilliant!

(and that's not aimed at you, ReconTema, necessarily, but at well, you know who you are.)

*shrug* Lady speaks the truth.

Now come tongue me woman, or we must stop agreeing all the time!

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

In 350 years how do you think the galaxy will change? How do you think humanity will change? You think all those systems we were planning to settle will still be available? You are taking some very dangerous risks, killing 11 billion people, for a very uncertain pay-off.

That's Paragon for you.

I'm not the person who said I'd kill billions of people! In fact, I'm the person who explicitly said that murdering billions of people to create a weapon is a bad plan. You are the one who said you grind 5 billion people into reaper goo if you thought there was a remote chance of it helping. This, right here, this is the definition of a straw man: attributing an argument to me that I did not, in any place, in any way shape or form, make.

I have explicitly stated over and over that I do not want earth to die, and that I would not sacrifice it to the Reapers. I did say that I would not murder 5 billion people in order to have a slightly higher chance to save earth, but that is not the same thing as explicitly sacrificing all 12 billion.

All I am saying is this: if earth does fall, unavoidably (and there is no more guarantee that a renegade action will save earth than a paragon one... in that they are pretty much both guaranteed to have a similar cumulative effect, because this is Mass Effect) then we can recover. We are not "out."

Basically I have more faith in humanity than all y'all.

[Gentleman Moogle]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

In 350 years how do you think the galaxy will change? How do you think humanity will change? You think all those systems we were planning to settle will still be available? You are taking some very dangerous risks, killing 11 billion people, for a very uncertain pay-off.

That's Paragon for you.

I'm not the person who said I'd kill billions of people! In fact, I'm the person who explicitly said that murdering billions of people to create a weapon is a bad plan. You are the one who said you grind 5 billion people into reaper goo if you thought there was a remote chance of it helping. This, right here, this is the definition of a straw man: attributing an argument to me that I did not, in any place, in any way shape or form, make.

I have explicitly stated over and over that I do not want earth to die, and that I would not sacrifice it to the Reapers. I did say that I would not murder 5 billion people in order to have a slightly higher chance to save earth, but that is not the same thing as explicitly sacrificing all 12 billion.

All I am saying is this: if earth does fall, unavoidably (and there is no more guarantee that a renegade action will save earth than a paragon one... in that they are pretty much both guaranteed to have a similar cumulative effect, because this is Mass Effect) then we can recover. We are not "out."

Basically I have more faith in humanity than all y'all.

Thank you for spelling "Y'all" correctly. 

That is all. 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Even with only 10 million people breeding at post-WWII levels, using no technology developed after 1985, we get back to 6.8 billion in 350 years, using just one world.

This is not unreasonable, and nobody has contradicted these figures yet. They just like to ignore them. We came to this party 1300 years late... another few centuries is just even more fashionable.

Because they don't want to see their fragile arguments shredded.

Dude, don't ever presume to speak for me or anyone else.  Like - ever.  Thanks.

@CulturalGeekGirl - my position is that it is far better to not have to go through this - keep Earth & its population.  Earth is taking its first steps - its baby steps - onto the galactic stage.  Things are very fragile at this point.

What the potential is for human birth rates is not the same as what will happen.  If there's a war with the Reapers, and Earth and its population are destroyed - humans will be fighting for their survival.  If the Terminus systems don't get involved then they'll attack - not just humans but the forces weakened by the Reaper battle.  (this is a strong argument for gathering as many allies as possible - especially unconventional choices like the rachni and the geth)  Humans could very well lose their independence for a time and be scattered.  They could form competeting colonies, there could be in-fighting amongst the humans and amongst other species. It's just not a pretty situation and I think it should be avoided.  Humanity's survival is precarious if we lose Earth.

Face: when I snap at people, which I am trying hard not to do, I am not snapping at you. I agree that earth dying is bad. Where we disagree is simply on the value of alliances and the nature of human resilience.

I will agree that humanity's chances go down if they lose earth. But I've read too much scifi to lose all faith in human resilience, especially in a universe where >50% of aliens seem to be at least slightly reasonable.

[Almostfaceman]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Even with only 10 million people breeding at post-WWII levels, using no technology developed after 1985, we get back to 6.8 billion in 350 years, using just one world.

This is not unreasonable, and nobody has contradicted these figures yet. They just like to ignore them. We came to this party 1300 years late... another few centuries is just even more fashionable.

Because they don't want to see their fragile arguments shredded.

Dude, don't ever presume to speak for me or anyone else.  Like - ever.  Thanks.

@CulturalGeekGirl - my position is that it is far better to not have to go through this - keep Earth & its population.  Earth is taking its first steps - its baby steps - onto the galactic stage.  Things are very fragile at this point.

What the potential is for human birth rates is not the same as what will happen.  If there's a war with the Reapers, and Earth and its population are destroyed - humans will be fighting for their survival.  If the Terminus systems don't get involved then they'll attack - not just humans but the forces weakened by the Reaper battle.  (this is a strong argument for gathering as many allies as possible - especially unconventional choices like the rachni and the geth)  Humans could very well lose their independence for a time and be scattered.  They could form competeting colonies, there could be in-fighting amongst the humans and amongst other species. It's just not a pretty situation and I think it should be avoided.  Humanity's survival is precarious if we lose Earth.

Face: when I snap at people, which I am trying hard not to do, I am not snapping at you. I agree that earth dying is bad. Where we disagree is simply on the value of alliances and the nature of human resilience.

I will agree that humanity's chances go down if they lose earth. But I've read too much scifi to lose all faith in human resilience, especially in a universe where >50% of aliens seem to be at least slightly reasonable.

For the record, I didn't feel you were snapping at me. 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I will agree that humanity's chances go down if they lose earth. But I've read too much scifi to lose all faith in human resilience, especially in a universe where >50% of aliens seem to be at least slightly reasonable.

Sci-fi is fiction. Thus "fi" part. It tends to be written as often by childish idealists like yourself as it is by more practical people like me.

The biggest, meanest, toughest dog wins.

Tell that to the Monguls! 

[Almostfaceman]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm not the person who said I'd kill billions of people!

If that's true then why do you support blowing up the Earth?

Also, we've been over this. You asked a strange question concerning a strange situation and got an equally odd answer considering the circumstances. If we are in a position where it looks like grinding up billions of people is a reasonable course of action then the situation must be an extreme one.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

All I am saying is this: if earth does fall, unavoidably (and there is no more guarantee that a renegade action will save earth than a paragon one... in that they are pretty much both guaranteed to have a similar cumulative effect, because this is Mass Effect) then we can recover. We are not "out."

We either come out of this on top or nobody comes out of it at all. I won't throw away all of our potential for greatness just to save a bunch of alien ingrates. If we can't save the Earth the logical course of action is to submit to the Reapers. We'll live on, just in a different form.

Ewwww.  Eh, I'd rather fall on my sword than become a Reaper.  Then again I kinda agree with the samurai that it's the ultimate dishonor to face defeat in battle on the enemies terms.

[Legbiter]

[quote]Legbiter wrote...
Now come tongue me woman, or we must stop agreeing all the time! ../../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/quote]



[/quote]



Not bad. 

Modifié par Legbiter, 07 avril 2011 - 01:24 .

[Gentleman Moogle]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm not the person who said I'd kill billions of people!

If that's true then why do you support blowing up the Earth?

Also, we've been over this. You asked a strange question concerning a strange situation and got an equally odd answer considering the circumstances. If we are in a position where it looks like grinding up billions of people is a reasonable course of action then the situation must be an extreme one.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

All I am saying is this: if earth does fall, unavoidably (and there is no more guarantee that a renegade action will save earth than a paragon one... in that they are pretty much both guaranteed to have a similar cumulative effect, because this is Mass Effect) then we can recover. We are not "out."

We either come out of this on top or nobody comes out of it at all. I won't throw away all of our potential for greatness just to save a bunch of alien ingrates. If we can't save the Earth the logical course of action is to submit to the Reapers. We'll live on, just in a different form.

How soon we forget. 

I would sooner die, and my friends and family with me, than to submit to some machine-god who intends to change us into one of them for all eternity, and either force us or change our thinking so much so that we continue perpetrating the same fate on other races. 

If I may quote a man who has been so often quoted, and who can sum it up so much better than I:

"What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

[Gentleman Moogle]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I will agree that humanity's chances go down if they lose earth. But I've read too much scifi to lose all faith in human resilience, especially in a universe where >50% of aliens seem to be at least slightly reasonable.

Sci-fi is fiction. Thus "fi" part. It tends to be written as often by childish idealists like yourself as it is by more practical people like me.

The biggest, meanest, toughest dog wins.

Tell that to the Monguls! 

Hell, tell that to the Spartans.