Ce sujet est fermé
iOnlySignIn wrote...
BioWare, please wipe out all the borders in this map in the final release.
It is completely unbelievable that they stay largely the same 170 years in the future. Or even countries exist in the future,
Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 07 juin 2011 - 06:19 .
ohbobsagetpiss wrote...
Randy1083 wrote...
Countries have existed for thousands of years. Why would they stop existing 170 years from now?
The same reason tribes and city states went away.
Codex...
The homeworld and capital of humanity is entering a new golden age. The resource wealth of a dozen settled colonies and a hundred industrial outposts flows back to Earth, fueling great works of industry, commerce, and art. The great cities are greening as arcology skyscrapers and telecommuting allow more efficient use of land.
Earth is still divided among nation-states, though all are affiliated beneath the overarching banner of the Systems Alliance.While every human enjoys longer and better life then ever, the gap between rich and poor widens daily. Advanced nations have eliminated most genetic disease and pollution. Less fortunate regions have not progressed beyond 20th century technology, and are often smog-choked, overpopulated slums
Sea levels have risen two meters in the last 200 years, and violent weather is common due to environmental damage inflicted during the late 21st century. The past few decades, however, have seen significant improvement due to recent technological advances.
Modifié par Mesina2, 07 juin 2011 - 06:28 .
ohbobsagetpiss wrote...
I'm surprised Europe wouldn't just be one big nation in the future.
Tribes (any Native American/First Nation group, for example) and city-states (Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino, Singapore, etc.) still exist today.ohbobsagetpiss wrote...
The same reason tribes and city states went away.Randy1083 wrote...
Countries have existed for thousands of years. Why would they stop existing 170 years from now?
Cheesy Blue wrote...
Last I knew Canada and the United States wern't the same country. It's the future bro.
BinaryHelix101 wrote...
ohbobsagetpiss wrote...
I'm surprised Europe wouldn't just be one big nation in the future.
Because of the EU, for all intents and purposes it pretty much is like one big nation already.
daqs wrote...
And within a few months after the victories of the united Greeks over the Iranians at Plataia and Mykale in 479 BC, the league spun apart; a fragment of it was converted into the Athenian Empire, and within thirty years the formerly united Greeks were locked in combat - while Athens was still fighting the Achaemenid Iranian Empire.
Yeah, unity in the face of a threat is never a given. Besides, humanity wasn't facing a threat until the First Contact War.
The threat was essentially defeated by 479BC. Just because city-states united once doesn't mean they have to stay united unless faced with a persistant threat. Rome was renowned for its unity and nationalism, but that unity only existed because they declared war on every "barbarian" they met. The same goes for Russia who, despite much unrest and distrust, is famous for their citizens uniting together to defeat threats like Napoleon, Hitler, and the USA.daqs wrote...
And within a few months after the victories of the united Greeks over the Iranians at Plataia and Mykale in 479 BC, the league spun apart; a fragment of it was converted into the Athenian Empire, and within thirty years the formerly united Greeks were locked in combat - while Athens was still fighting the Achaemenid Iranian Empire.
Yeah, unity in the face of a threat is never a given. Besides, humanity wasn't facing a threat until the First Contact War.
I approve that the relationship of countries and the Alliance should be similar to that between the USA state and federal governments, thus the term "nation-states." But if they are simply nation-states there shouldn't be any highlighted borders and boundaries on a global scale since they are all one "nation."
Modifié par Oblivious, 07 juin 2011 - 06:44 .
Vulee94 wrote...
Sorry OP, but Kosovo isn't independent yet. It's not in the UN, and Serbia didn't recognize it, so no.
Yeah, resource wars are very chic for international relations scholars of the modern era. Historians tend to ignore them; squabbling over scarce resources simply doesn't explain many, if any, historical conflicts. Take the Peloponnesian War example; the Athenians aided the Kerkyraians because they were afraid that, if the Korinthians defeated the Kerkyraians, that Korinthos' navy would be powerful enough to wrest Athens' empire away. And the Spartans aided the Korinthians because the Spartans were afraid that the Korinthians would abandon their alliance if their reckless policies were not supported. It was not as though the Athenians were trying to conquer Sparta for its wealth (it had none) or its grain (which Athens already got in abundance from the Black Sea coast), or that the Spartans wanted to take over Athens' empire for the purposes of wringing more treasure out of the region.Kileyan wrote...
Yeh but humanity was fighting over tiny parcels of land for scarce resources. It was worth fighting over those scraps when those scraps were all there was.
When they realized there were entire planets out there, it was likely a much more pallatable idea to band together, pool their resources, cooperate and head into space to find whole planets, rather than squabbling over nearly depleted land and polluted water.
People tend to fight because someone has something they want or need. Why fight over a couple thousand square miles of fertile river land, when you recently find out there are many planets out there, that haven't been touched by an industrialized nation.
I don't think that that's very plausible. Human beings have historically been quite willing to slaughter each other despite an imminent threat; security and the search for it is a powerful motive force, but it is not a sufficient explanation on its own. Poland-Lithuania, once a great power in Eastern Europe, fell to pieces with infighting even as Prussia, Austria, and Russia gobbled it up in the famous Partitions; its nobility refused to give up its privileges to a centralized monarch and band together against foreign invaders until it was much too late. The Successor monarchies of the Greeks were perfectly fine with fratricidal warfare while the Romans and Pahlavan conquered their outlying territories. The Baktrian Greeks of the houses of Eukratides and Euthydemos slaughtered each other in the shadow of the Hindu Kush while Saka and Yuezhi nomads poured across the Oxos and swarmed into their territory. Jiang Jieshi and the Guomindang preferred to attack the Chinese Communists of Mao rather than fight against the encroaching Japanese, until Jiang himself was kidnapped at Xi'an. The Marathas, Durranis, Mughals, and the various Mughal successor states fought each other to death while the British quietly seized much of India. The nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem fought over control of the state throughout the 1170s and 1180s until Salah al-Din had finished conquering Syria and Egypt - and by then it was too late.Oblivious wrote...
The threat was essentially defeated by 479BC. Just because city-states united once doesn't mean they have to stay united unless faced with a persistant threat. Rome was renowned for its unity and nationalism, but that unity only existed because they declared war on every "barbarian" they met. The same goes for Russia who, despite much unrest and distrust, is famous for their citizens uniting together to defeat threats like Napoleon, Hitler, and the USA.
Technically the United States are supposed to be a coalition of states who joined of their own free will and tried to leave of their own free will (the American Civil War). But when the US is faced with threats like the former Soviet Union, China and North Korea, when leaving the country is the equivelant of suicide, nobody would be stupid enough to seced. Now instead of being independant states each with their own culture and "nationality" there is a single American culture and a single American people.
Modifié par daqs, 07 juin 2011 - 07:05 .
Indeed.HTTP 404 wrote...
what does it matter? they all get reaped anyways...reapers care not for borders! they are that soulless...
Actually, it's a known fact that even the Reapers don't want to go into New Jersey.HTTP 404 wrote...
what does it matter? they all get reaped anyways...reapers care not for borders! they are that soulless...
Modifié par Kronner, 07 juin 2011 - 07:13 .
I'm merely stating the theory. I in turn could quote dates, names, places, and events and you would counterquote with additional information but that is unnecessary. Humanity itself is, by essence, illogical and random so it's nearly impossible for there to be a one-size fits-all rule in regards to that. I believe this relates to what Legion says "The Geth view 1 to be less than 2, the Heretics view 2 to be less than 3. We are all correct, but think differently" in that both of us are correct in our theories but they do not fit.daqs wrote...
I don't think that that's very plausible. Human beings have historically been quite willing to slaughter each other despite an imminent threat; security and the search for it is a powerful motive force, but it is not a sufficient explanation on its own. Poland-Lithuania, once a great power in Eastern Europe, fell to pieces with infighting even as Prussia, Austria, and Russia gobbled it up in the famous Partitions; its nobility refused to give up its privileges to a centralized monarch and band together against foreign invaders until it was much too late. The Successor monarchies of the Greeks were perfectly fine with fratricidal warfare while the Romans and Pahlavan conquered their outlying territories. The Baktrian Greeks of the houses of Eukratides and Euthydemos slaughtered each other in the shadow of the Hindu Kush while Saka and Yuezhi nomads poured across the Oxos and swarmed into their territory. Jiang Jieshi and the Guomindang preferred to attack the Chinese Communists of Mao rather than fight against the encroaching Japanese, until Jiang himself was kidnapped at Xi'an. The Marathas, Durranis, Mughals, and the various Mughal successor states fought each other to death while the British quietly seized much of India. The nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem fought over control of the state throughout the 1170s and 1180s until Salah al-Din had finished conquering Syria and Egypt - and by then it was too late.
I mean, I could keep going for a very long time. The point is that a perceived threat is not always enough to motivate unitary policy, especially when not everybody perceives the threat as a threat. This especially holds true for the fractious countries of Earth, which seem remarkably incapable of joint action even on policies that seem to enjoy wide approval. So what implications does that have for the Systems Alliance? I think it's quite reasonable to display national borders on a map of Earth in this situation, especially when the Codex explicitly confirms that independent states do exist. More than anything else, I think that the map of Earth as it was was employed for simplicity's sake: the audience would easily recognize everything and know what the heck was going on.
Oblivious wrote...
I am shocked and appalled to think that noone has conquered France in 2 centuries. For shame Bioware, if you want the game to be realistic SOMEONE has to conquer France.
European Union>United Europeohbobsagetpiss wrote...
I'm surprised Europe wouldn't just be one big nation in the future.
Modifié par Phaedon, 07 juin 2011 - 09:25 .
Retour en haut