2463 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

joriandrake wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

What difference does it make when you're dead?

Well if you are so self-centered you can't look beyond your own personal well being then I suppose it makes no difference.

Greed/self-interest can be a bit of a problem for humanity under certain circumstances. That's why ultimately this choice will need to be made for you.

Be it kicking and screaming, humanity will be dragged out of the dark and into the light.

it doesn't matter if human genetic survives if it is twisted and formed at the whim of reapers, it would be like trying to resurrect the T-Rex from its genes, and the result would be a parrot headed turtle with tentacles

Sounds like something out of Kirk Cameron's worst nightmares

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

We'll do neither. We'll live on.

Whatever your definition of "living" is, it's wrong.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

We'll do neither. We'll live on.

Whatever your definition of "living" is, it's wrong.

Well,something would be alive,it may not necessarily be Human but,it's alive.What makes us uniquely Human would certainly be very dead.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 30 juillet 2011 - 01:32 .

[Someone With Mass]

Uh-huh...

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

For me to entertain that the idea of cleaning up the planet would as a ridiculous, unnattainble idea, I need data.

Google "Earth" and look up its total surface area.

And, once again, you base your entire argument on the least amount of data you can find!

It's a wonder you aren't the winner of the nobel prize in science, you know, the way that you can completely ignore every single variable that doesn't support your hypothesis.

So cute, I'm game.  Earth's surface area is roughly equivalent to 500,000,000 square kilometers, with close to a third of that being land.
The only event truly comparable to the Eingana Theory is the extinction of the dinosaurs, most of which is just wild speculation.  That being said, I will compare it to events in our recent history with which there are well kept records.

Case in point, Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Explosion.  According to wikipedia, there was roughly 100,00 square kilometers of land/water that was in the contaminated zone.  Estimates at clean up are that it took nearly 500,000 workers (over the entire course of the last 25 years) and 18 million rubles( russian currency - not sure how that would translate to creds) to contain and clean up the surrounding area.  Today, the area around Chernobyl is now a lush wildlife sanctuary.  With many species native to Europe's Eastern Forest having either returned naturally or been reintroduced.

If we took the accident on a planet-wide scale (meaning all of Earth's surface area was contaminated), we can estimate that we would need roughly 5000 times the number of workers and money to effectively clean up the earth.

Of course, this number is ridiculous because it is not reasonable to assume that we would need to mount a planet-wide clean-up -- the oceans would be impossible because of the depths and the currents, and there are certain areas that are not populated in such a way that would warrant immediate clean up. 

So let's reduce our planet-wide estimates to just saying that it effectively covered all land on the planet.  That reduces our number to only about 1500 times the size of Chernobyl.  This number is also ridiculous --it is assuming that we effectively need such high number of workers for the entire length of the project, when according to wikipedia that really only half that force was needed for additional clean up, and assumingly the next half over the next twenty five years or so. So, let's take our number of workers and cut it in half.

It is even more reasonable to assume that we wouldn't necessarily be cleaning every square kilometer of land at the same time.  It is acceptable to assume that heavily populated areas would have first priority (according to wikipedia, only 1.5% of usable land), then it would be any lands used for agriculture (13%) and permanent crops (almost 5%),  then it would be land for permanent pastures ( 26%) after that the forests and woodlands (32 percent) and then all other areas (30%).  Once all the math is done, initial clean up to ensure that humanity has places to live and grow sustainable crops, we're down to a work force of only 2.5 billion people.

That is a very large number, yes, but not so inconcievable as you might claim.  Especially since Earth's supposed population in the game is over 11 billion people.  So with a force of only 20 percent of earth, we could concieveably begin the clean up of our planet.  This does not take into account that unlike a Nuclear Explosion, the effects of eezo exposure are toxic only in the second generation ( every fully developed human exposed has no risk), and the Eezo would  be  to all known evidence, non-reactive, meaning there would be time before there would be plant die off, if we even need to consider plant die off at all(and extra time can be used as a mean to further cut down on initial resources needed).  This is in addition to the fact that this is set over 100 years in the future where humanity will have acess to technology that Chernobyl Plant workers couldn't possibly dream of having.

So, considering that I, a twenty-five year old house wife with only a high-school education can figure this out, why couldn't you?

[Grey34]

i thought i might mention that its created by bioware, and bioware wouldn't put all that in if they didn't have a way to beat the reapers. very good Bioware writting there they are holding that back till me3 as a plot twist etc. the biggest flawed in saphra's arguement is?..... missing plot twists


im sorry Saphra i know you would like it to be true but there is a way to beat the reapers bioware is simply holding that back for me3

Modifié par Grey34, 30 juillet 2011 - 02:32 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

The thing is sephra,you have a couple examples of speculation,just like scientist speculate that Luna was a impact body that hit the Earth and then fell into our orbit,no one knows they can only hypothesize,that in no way means you are wrong.
But they have small scale examples of proven hazmat situations that directly combat your claim.
Small scale translates into large scale.

[didymos1120]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

The thing is sephra,you have a couple examples of speculation,just like scientist speculate that Luna was a impact body that hit the Earth and then fell into our orbit,no one knows they can only hypothesize,that in no way means you are wrong.

A bit OT, as this doesn't really apply to a game setting where we can't freely investigate whatever we want, but that's not really an accurate representation of how science actually works.  Suffice it to say...no, we can't "only hypothesize".  We can also TEST those hypotheses.  You're right about the never truly knowing bit though.  All theories are indeed provisional and never proven, the way a mathematical theorem can be.  Of course, that's not to say we can't get so close to "truly knowing" as makes little to no practical difference.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...


What do you mean by that?

Meaning that in nearly every post I have  more than several points which often go completely ignored in your rebuttal.  So I can assume you are either not reading my entire posts, or that you choosing to ignore these facts.  Either way, your rebuttals are therefore incomplete.   You cannot manange to completely disprove my theory, or at least offer counterpoints.  Your initial post is also based on one example.  You're trying to paint an intricate lanscape using only a red crayon.

 

Saphra Deden wrote...
You haven't presented any variables that dispute my hypothesis. You've made up additional (and supported) explanations for Eingana and Ilium. Otherwise you've completely underestimed that magnitute of the clean up project you'll need to undertake on Earth.

Perhaps you have forgotten your OP.  Your hypothesis is that, were we to defeat the Reapers, we would die off any way because our planet would be contaminated to the point of no return.  You think that we will go extinct because of Eezo exposure. so we might as well submit to the Reapers.

Everything I have offered points to the fact that this is not an absolute truth.  And your only rebuttal is that I happen to "underestimate" the magnitude of a clean up project.  I am the one who crunched the numbers, found usable and relevant examples, and took the time to explain them to you.

The only thing underestimated here is your ability to understand the facts.  Cold hard numbers are hard to beat.

Saphra Deden wrote...
It's not as if you'll be able to devote everything to cleaning up the eezo. You'll have to rebuild as well, and provide people with food, shelter, and medical care. All the things that come with a disaster.

Imagine the mega tsunami, only this time it hits every coast on Earth. Exactly how much aid do you think would be getting passed around? Not nearly as much as what actually happened. You have to help yourself before you can help anyone else. The other races and probably even the colonies will have to take care of themselves before they can help Earth.

You can clean up the planet, but it's going to be a long-term project and the planet's going to suffer.

You raise a good point.  Yes, there will have to be efforts placed into immediate survivability.  But in all of recorded history, there has been more incidents of people remaining then there is off abandonment.  So, eventually, cleaning up the earth is going to happen.  There will be death, and hardship.  And how would I be helping myself by allowing my property and possesions to remain covered in Eezo when I could be capable of cleaning it up and salvaging everything I can?

And now you're telling me that everything I've said is right (I can clean up the planet, it will be long term, and there will be casualties)  And all you can say is that Earth will suffer?  What happened to doom and gloom, total widespread extinction?  So perhaps Earth is not such a loss after all.

Saphra Deden wrote...
Chernobyl does not compare. It was not a disaster of significant enough scope. This is global.

It wasn't a significant enough disaster?  Over fifty thousand people were evacuated and over a total of over 100,00 sqaure kilometers were contaminated from a single incident and it wasn't significant enough?
Besides which, I already accounted for the global scale in my math.  And all of the obvious discrepencies happened to work out in my favor.  Try actually reading my  full post sometimes.
 

Saphra Deden wrote...

SisterofShane wrote...

Of course, this number is ridiculous because it is not reasonable to assume that we would need to mount a planet-wide clean-up -- the oceans would be impossible because of the depths and the currents, and there are certain areas that are not populated in such a way that would warrant immediate clean up.

The oceans are a huge source of food and the source of water preciptation on land.

Yes, but my scenario started off that 100% of the planet was contaminated.  Really, what kind of real number is that?  I think we could purposefully try to contaminate one hundred percent of the planet to the level of Chernobyl and it wouldn't happen.  So, seeing as how it's over 2/3 of the Earth's surface and several miles deep, I'm assuming that there wouldn't be enough eezo to thoroughly contaminate the entire ocean to levels that would cause die off of any concern.  I've said before, some species will go extinct.  Certain areas will become uninhabitable.  Does it mean the end of all of humanity? No.

And do we have any data or evidence that eezo would contaminate the weather system at all? No.  There is nothing to support that it would be able to evaporate and be spread through rain.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SisterofShane wrote...

It is even more reasonable to assume that we wouldn't necessarily be cleaning every square kilometer of land at the same time.  It is acceptable to assume that heavily populated areas would have first priority (according to wikipedia, only 1.5% of usable land), then it would be any lands used for agriculture (13%) and permanent crops (almost 5%),  then it would be land for permanent pastures ( 26%) after that the forests and woodlands (32 percent) and then all other areas (30%).  Once all the math is done, initial clean up to ensure that humanity has places to live and grow sustainable crops, we're down to a work force of only 2.5 billion people.

"Only two and a half billion people."

Like I said, no sense of scale.

Even if you completely ignore wilderness areas that's nearly half the globe you have to clean up. Bear in mind even wilderness areas influence settled regions. A lot of our drinking water originates from unsettled regions. Those regions also provide water for our crops.

Earth just went through a war. You need to restore power, supply lines, distributed medical care, clean food and drinking water, restore sanitation, provide security, dispose of the dead, possibly even contend with any Reaper agents or assets that still remain on the planet (husks and the indoctrinated). The point is you can't devote everything to the clean-up.

I can't reason with a person who looks at numerical values as if they were hypotheticals.  20% of the population is not everything.  It's not considered widescale (by reasonable people).  Your assuming that only 20% percent would be able to do anything, which is not what I said.  According to the model of which I drew from Chernobyl as an example, it would only require 20% of the population to clean up intial vital areas. 

With a nuclear reactor explosion, it took merely decades for the planet to return to a sustainable state in the contaminated area.  I doubt that the Eezo contamination would be as dire to the environment as a nuclear reactor exploding, or it would have been mentioned somewhere in game. So, it's reasonable to assume that we could afford to wait some time before wide-scale clean up would need to begin, giving us time to dedicate to rebuilding infastructure.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SisterofShane wrote...

This does not take into account that unlike a Nuclear Explosion, the effects of eezo exposure are toxic only in the second generation...

A dangerous assumption.

No.  A proven theory.   Otherwise there would be nothing like biotics in the game because all of the exposed mothers would DIE before giving birth.  If I take a whiff of Eezo, no effect on myself.  If I do so when I am pregnant, my child has a slight possiblity of birth defects,  cancer, or biotic capabilities.  If I do it and I am a biotic, it stands to reason that I can help increase my biotic tendencies.

You're the one making assumptions.  Assumptions that will lead to the mass anhilation of every species in the galaxy.  Now that is dangerous.

[Aimi]

didymos1120 wrote...

A bit OT, as this doesn't really apply to a game setting where we can't freely investigate whatever we want, but that's not really an accurate representation of how science actually works.  Suffice it to say...no, we can't "only hypothesize".  We can also TEST those hypotheses.  You're right about the never truly knowing bit though.  All theories are indeed provisional and never proven, the way a mathematical theorem can be.  Of course, that's not to say we can't get so close to "truly knowing" as makes little to no practical difference.

I imagine it must be nice to be a scientist.  Historians never get to even come close to proving anything, we just spend most of our time lobbying people to accept our individual interpretations of the same damn facts.  Which themselves could be wrong.  The theory of gravity might be a theory, but it works really well.  We don't know how well anybody's theories about, say, the fall of the Roman Empire work. 

[Sisterofshane]

ok really, to deny extinction and then confirm extinction in the same post is a little crazy, even for you.

Besides what kind of extinction is there other than TOTAL?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

So which is it saphra? We can save the Earth or we can't,you've switched positions on this many times,one last time for the record.

[Bogsnot1]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

I have already said how we can beat the Reapers, without the nasty Eezo contamination that Saphra is convinced will bring about the end of the world, with dogs and cats living together in unmarried sin.

Bogsnot1 wrote...
We can beat the Reapers. IFF mission has already shown us we can easily destroy the Reaper Mass Effect core.
The combined military forces of the galaxy would easily be able to provide at least 5 strike teams per Reaper. Give each strike team an M-490 Blackstorm.
Destroy Mass Effect core, launch black hole at remains to suck up Eezo dust.

Both problems solved. Go home and crack open the beers.

Out in space, the Combat cockroaches (Kodiaks) should work nicely, with Fighter and Interceptor screening wings as decoys to draw away attention from the shuttles.

I'd also bring along at least one Cain, with stores of thermite or some sorta plasma to burn or cut through bulkheads and walls inside the damn things.

And I think having the troopers use sealed armor that would have thrusters on them for any potential zero-g work outside and inside the Reapers would also be prudent.

It maybe be a one-way trip for most, but we need to try right? 

Exactly. We would need men who have sons. Men who have brother and sisters to carry on the family name.
Any trained Drell with Keprals syndrome would more than likely be up for it.
Pretty much every Krogan would want in on the action, purely for the bragging rights of bringing down a Reaper.
Batarians would hate the Reapers even more than they would hate humans, and would leap at the chance for vengeance.

I'd give my plan about 50-50 odds per Reaper. Thats still tons better than Saphras "Oh noes, we all be deadz".

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

So which is it saphra? We can save the Earth or we can't,you've switched positions on this many times,one last time for the record.

No I haven't.

The OP is that Earth is hopeless,now you say it isn't and you dodged the question.

[XyleJKH]

Never give up. Never surrender.

[Someone With Mass]

Praetor Shepard wrote...
Out in space, the Combat cockroaches (Kodiaks) should work nicely, with Fighter and Interceptor screening wings as decoys to draw away attention from the shuttles.

I'd also bring along at least one Cain, with stores of thermite or some sorta plasma to burn or cut through bulkheads and walls inside the damn things.

And I think having the troopers use sealed armor that would have thrusters on them for any potential zero-g work outside and inside the Reapers would also be prudent.

It maybe be a one-way trip for most, but we need to try right? 

Or even better.

Mount Thanix cannons on those fighters (totally doable, by the way) and burn a hole the size of a Volkswagen in the Reaper and drop a tactical nuke in the hole.

[Praetor Knight]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...
Out in space, the Combat cockroaches (Kodiaks) should work nicely, with Fighter and Interceptor screening wings as decoys to draw away attention from the shuttles.

I'd also bring along at least one Cain, with stores of thermite or some sorta plasma to burn or cut through bulkheads and walls inside the damn things.

And I think having the troopers use sealed armor that would have thrusters on them for any potential zero-g work outside and inside the Reapers would also be prudent.

It maybe be a one-way trip for most, but we need to try right? 

Or even better.

Mount Thanix cannons on those fighters (totally doable, by the way) and burn a hole the size of a Volkswagen in the Reaper and drop a tactical nuke in the hole.

For the smaller reapers certainly, they should be the main focus of the fighters and frigates for precision strikes to deposit nukes or modified anti-proton storage units (I'm sure carriers and dreadnoughts have a few to spare).

Frigates and the larger ship classes should also have those torpedoes and possibly those Javelin platforms to keep the Reapers busy.

Interceptors are there for any Occulus roaming about, protecting the Fighters and Shuttles.


So the larger Reapers would certainly be troublesome, so the Cruisers and Dreadnoughts would need to keep them distracted long enough for the shuttles to get in close.

At that point, the greatest danger is with rapid indoctrination for any brave souls going inside those monstrosities!

Maybe Mordin with help, has issolated the energy field frequencies that indoctrinate, and has built or modified shield generators to disrupt or out right block that energy signature.

And adios reapers

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Exactly. We would need men who have sons. Men who have brother and sisters to carry on the family name.
Any trained Drell with Keprals syndrome would more than likely be up for it.
Pretty much every Krogan would want in on the action, purely for the bragging rights of bringing down a Reaper.
Batarians would hate the Reapers even more than they would hate humans, and would leap at the chance for vengeance.

I'd give my plan about 50-50 odds per Reaper. Thats still tons better than Saphras "Oh noes, we all be deadz".

We will not go quietly.
That's for sure.

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 30 juillet 2011 - 04:35 .

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Meaning that in nearly every post I have  more than several points which often go completely ignored in your rebuttal.

They aren't ignored, I just don't list them in my response to save space. My arguments do cover them however.

Other parts I do ignore because you just ramble on about things that don't advance your argument and convince me you're totally lost in this conversation.

That is a lie.  They are ingored, because most of your rebuttals have usually been answered/argued against in the previous post itself.
And there is a difference between rambling and being thorough.  For example, if you had been thorough in your original post, then maybe you wouldn't be fighting as much as you are now to prove your theory.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SisterofShane wrote...

Perhaps you have forgotten your OP.  Your hypothesis is that, were we to defeat the Reapers, we would die off any way because our planet would be contaminated to the point of no return.

No, that is not what I said.


I never said total extinction.

When I said you were misinterpeting/representing my position this is
what I meant. You've done this in about every one of your posts.

Here is exactly what you said...

"Earth will become a wasteland with most species on land and in the water dead, including plants."

So I exaggerated with my use of the word "total".  If you can't understand hyperbole as a literary device used to illustrate exactly how insane your position is, then you have no point in waging a debate.

The whole point of submitting to the Reapers would be that even were we to defeat them in combat, Humanity is doomed anyway.  You insinuate  that if Earth falls, and you claim without a doubt that it will, humanity will follow.  You have only one specific example of evidence as of yet to support this original claim.  But you have been vague and contradictory in all of your arguments
beyond your original post, without giving any further evidence beyond an
additional codex entry. 

When myself and others point out that eezo isn't toxic enough to do so, not with direct human intervention, you say that you never said Eezo was toxic, or claim that it is toxic in a way that is clearly not illustrated in the game.
When we offer an explanation as to why there may be only one specific example within the game (direct, sentient intervention on other planets to thwart off widescale damage) you claim that it isn't possible.
When we provide real-world examples of why it is possible, you say we underestimate the scale.
When I specifically offered numerical data relating to a planet-wide scale with a substance that is definitively more toxicly destructive then Eezo, and the numbers are in favor of clean-up, you claim that this is impossible.
And when it is pointed out that to abandon the planet would be more costly and harder on the human race then staying and attempting to mitigate the damage, you completely ignore us.

So if I misinterpret or misrepresent your case, it would be because you don't really have a case to begin with -- I've had to make it up for you, and then break it down.  No wonder my posts are so long!  All you've offered me to argue upon is the word "impossible"
Nothing is impossible.  Especially in a fictional, highly technologically advanced world.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SisterofShane wrote...

And do we have any data or evidence that eezo would contaminate the weather system at all? No.  There is nothing to support that it would be able to evaporate and be spread through rain.

Well if it is dust form then why couldn't it? To be safe we should assume it can.

The only way for toxic rain to form is for molecules in a gaseous state to mix with molecules in the water up in the atmosphere, throwing off it's nearly neutral pH and coming down as an acidic solution.

Dust =/= gas, therefore, no acid rain.
Any rain we would recieve would actually help purify the air, which is why planes dump water from high up in the air to simulate rain storms over areas that have been exposed to certain toxic compositions.

Which illustrates to me that you know nothing about science, and you can't be bothered to look up as something as simple as a definition before you open your mouth.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SisterofShane wrote...

No.  A proven theory. 

Cancers, birth defects, waves of extinctions.

Here, let me finish your sentence for you...

Cancers, birth defects, possible waves of extinctions in the second generation after initial exposure.

Which is the proven theory.  Thank you for clearing that up.  It makes my argument a lot easier when you actually prove my point.


So you won't except relatable examples, you won't except modeled statistics, and you have a poor dispostion (grouch indeed).  And yet you want everyone to drink the kool-aid?
At least Jim Jones was charming