2463 réponses à ce sujet

[SJK93]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Example?

Read a book.

That's not much of an example.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I have a sinking feeling it may be cause of the whole nitrogen/oxygen thing.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Example?

Read a book.

oh, cute.
I'm not asking for an example because I don't know of any, I want you to prove you know what you're talking about.

[SandTrout]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I have a sinking feeling it may be cause of the whole nitrogen/oxygen thing.

Ah, yes 'breathable atmospheres'. We have dismissed these claims.

Saphra's still ignoring the point that most of the orbital debris will be salvaged/cleaned up before it hits re-entry.

Also, "Read a book"? Really? It's your job to support your claims, not ours.

Modifié par SandTrout, 02 août 2011 - 05:24 .

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

They're valuable because they're EASIER to colonize.  It's not impossible to colonize a world (or space station for that matter) with out an ecosystem.

Yes, thank you. Easier, which means not being able to grow our own food on Earth and having to vat produce everything will be detrimental.

Garden worlds are valuable because you can grow plants and raise animals on them.

You toss around words like "detrimental" as if you are the supreme intelligent and all -knowing future predicting queen of the universe.
The word "detrimental" is completely subjective, and you have no evidence to prove that you are doing nothing more but tossing out words to make the argument look as if it was in your favor.
If it were detrimental to colonization, then we would not have been able to have large colonies such as mars, and space stations such as the Citadel.
And being harder to grow food =/= UNABLE to grow food.  Don't put words in my mouth

[SandTrout]

The funny thing is that Saphra is claiming that Earth will be uninhabitable again, which even her example of Eingana contradicts.

Yes, thank you. Easier, which means not being able to grow our own
food on Earth and having to vat produce everything will be detrimental.

Garden worlds are valuable because you can grow plants and raise animals on them.

Plants and animals still live on Eingana, and we can probably geneticly engineer the main food-crops around eezo, if needed, which it may not be.

Modifié par SandTrout, 02 août 2011 - 05:31 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

When she starts losing its kind of funny
FishScout AND S.O.S.-pukes out logic and solid argument
then saphra says "Oh yeah? well....YOUR FACE."

[SandTrout]

You said that we would not be able to grow any food on Earth. That is essentially stating that the planet is uninhabitable.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

You toss around words like "detrimental" as if you are the supreme intelligent and all -knowing future predicting queen of the universe.
The word "detrimental" is completely subjective, and you have no evidence to prove that you are doing nothing more but tossing out words to make the argument look as if it was in your favor.
If it were detrimental to colonization, then we would not have been able to have large colonies such as mars, and space stations such as the Citadel.
And being harder to grow food =/= UNABLE to grow food.  Don't put words in my mouth

So then why do we prefer garden worlds? I mean according to you there is functionally no real difference. Yet garden worlds are so valuable that the Council will declare war on anyone who threatens them.

I already told you why we prefer  garden worlds.  They are EASIER to colonizze.
You took that phrase, and are continuing to take it, to make it seem like I have said that it is impossible to colonize anywhere else.
I have not said that.  It's not even inferable within my text.
I will plainly state again to stop putting words in my mouth.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

*Inject fallacy*

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra's still ignoring the point that most of the orbital debris will be salvaged/cleaned up before it hits re-entry.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???

Depending on how much of it there is you may never stand a snowball's chance in hell of cleaning even a quarter of it up before it falls back down the planet.

This battle could easily leave the fleets devestated even in victory. In which case you'll be hard pressed to muster up the sufficient manpower to catch all of it.

Well, I know that I would make it a priority to salvage those wrecks both for ecological reasons and for 'teh phat lewts'. Serriously, there are going to be people shooting each other to get their hands on that kind of salvage. It's not even going to be something that you need to organize.

[SJK93]

Even if the worst happens, and Earth becomes contaminated or uninhabitable, the Alliance still has multiple colonies, and humanity would be able to survive.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra's still ignoring the point that most of the orbital debris will be salvaged/cleaned up before it hits re-entry.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???

Depending on how much of it there is you may never stand a snowball's chance in hell of cleaning even a quarter of it up before it falls back down the planet.

This battle could easily leave the fleets devestated even in victory. In which case you'll be hard pressed to muster up the sufficient manpower to catch all of it.

The fleets of the navy may be decimated, but that doesn't mean that every ship within existence will be.  There has to be civilian ships, the military wouldn't be in the business of transporting civilians around the galaxy (in fact, I know this to be true, several missions in ME 1 are set aboard civilian star ships).

[pablodurando]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

You said that we would not be able to grow any food on Earth. That is essentially stating that the planet is uninhabitable.

In the worst case scenario we can't. In other cases we grow food that is contaminated and slowly kills us.

If the Earth's ability to grow food for its residents declines enough then it won't be able to support as large a population. That means starvation.

Earth is already a polluted slum.  I'm willing to bet that while some crops may be grown there the majority of crops are imported.

[FoxShadowblade]

Saphra Deden wrote...

A species can reach the point of no return in a short time and then take longer to finally die out completely.

The theorized point of no return for Humanity is 2,000 Humans left(presumeably on one world) to maintain a population with sufficient enough diversity. 

Even if, and I have to stress the if, because I've seen many more convincing arguments then "read a book". IF the Reapers all crash and burn on Earth and Earth is exposed to what your proposing, there are more than enough humans left on colonies and major human worlds to ensure our survival as a species. The end of Earth does not signify the end of Humanity. And with the Reaper threat over in this if scenario, thanks in large part to Shepard, a human, I do not doubt that the races of the Galaxy will band together to restore the environments of any afflicted world.

Therefore, we CAN beat the Reapers, even if we DON'T save Earth. In your hypothetical if scenario. ME3 will force us to do the final battle on Earth so..awesome. If we win, BioWare won't suddenly go: "But teh enviromentz!!"

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

I already told you why we prefer  garden worlds.  They are EASIER to colonizze.

Which means that other planets are HARDER to colonize. Which means that Earth losing a large aspect of what makes it easier to 'colonize' will be a detrimental thing for its residents and for humanity as a whole.

Again you are using one of your opinions as a fact.

Harder =/= impossible.

That word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
det·ri·men·tal/ˌdetrəˈmentl/Adjective: Tending to cause harm. 

^note the word "irrepable" does not appear.