2463 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

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.

You assume that the eezo will slowly kill us, a point that has no validity after the first couple of generations get bred into eezo resistance (you know, that at least 60% of the population that receives 0 negative affect from eezo in utero, it will become close to 100%), and even if it still had the same mortality rate, those mortality rates are not great enough to cause extinction, only enough to slow our population growth.

Not to mention that there will be no significant eezo contamination in 25 years.

We swill have multipule uncontaminated agricultural colonies that will likely see an influx of cheap labor, resulting in greater production. It might not completely make up for any losses from Earth's agriculture, but it will help reduce the effects, meaning that starvation will not become a danger to our viability as a species.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

So let me get this straight. If defeating the Earth means that Earth is made inhabitable instead of trying to relocate you'd rather have all of humanity killed so we could be turned into a sticky paste so the very beings who have killed all sentient for million or billions of years can look vaguely human? I don't understand how you could look at that as a good thing. Being used to make a Reaper look slightly like you and seeing this as some great thing for humanity as a whole seems crazy to me.

You want humanity to go on? If humanity is sucked up into being a Reaper the DNA used will only be used for once cycle. Then the human Reaper shell will be tossed out to get a new body of the next specie so humanity's great legacy would be doomed under the Reapers in every single way eventually. If there's no way for humanity to survive this than I'd rather us go down in history as the specie that saved the galaxy from a monster race that has been genociding every sentient being since the dawn of time.

That is how humanity can live on even if we die. I'd rather humanity go out saving future lives than to allow trillions of lives both human and alien to be wiped out so we can become baby food for monsters that are going to continue to destroy more and more sentient lives.

We have a chance to stop the madness once and for all and give the galaxy a freedom that its never and you actually want it to continue?

[Arijharn]

Saphra Deden wrote...
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.

Perhaps I'm missing something here (I admit, I haven't done much research into it), but even if it falls back onto the Earth (i.e, from orbit), wouldn't it burn up in atmospheric re-entry? I mean, it is dust form (implying to me size and mass) and would have to undergo the stress of it, which doesn't seem very likely. 

I mean, Eingana doesn't share Earth's gravity, mass or atmospheres, so it can't be a perfect 1:1 comparison to begin with.

It really depends on what part of the 'journey' the Mass Effect drive core breaks open more than anything else.

EDIT: nvm, I just remembered that element zero is formed from collapsed stars, so treating it basically as dust by another name is a bit of a misnomer. Carry on.

Modifié par Arijharn, 02 août 2011 - 05:45 .

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

The fleets of the navy may be decimated, but that doesn't mean that every ship within existence will be.

No, of-course of not, but any major clean-up operation like the one needed to after this battle will inevitably require military support.

Huge disasters often require that because of the immense logistical requirements in countering them.

I don't think that is quite so in this specific future.
The Alliance isn't really connected to the specific goings on of all of Humanity  In fact, to be away from the alliance was a specific reason for so many humans wanting to be in the Traverse.
And if it were me, I wouldn't wait around like so many waiting for the military to valiantly rescue from any disaster.
If the military were not there, someone else would organize it.  And the circle of life would continue.

[SandTrout]

To be fair, Arijharn, just because something 'burns up' in the atmosphere doesn't mean it goes away, it just turns to ash, which is still free to float down to ground level. The idea that the post-war looters would leave it in orbit long enough for a significant amount to suffer adequate orbital decay is pretty laughable, IMO, though.

[pablodurando]

Saphra Deden wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

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.

I'm willing to bet you're full of ****. Earth reached this huge population on its own without having anybody to import from.

Earth being polluted already just means that this extra pollution will make it worse. (though a lot of the pollution on Earth has been cleaned up over the centuries)

You're missing the point.  Since the First Contact War humanity has spread, and so has entrepenuirship.   It stands to reason that a major haul would be from other 'fresher' worlds.  

EDIT: These fresh planets are more geared toward mass production and are better fitted to distribute a massive population like that of Earth.  Macroeconomics suggest that this would be ideal to producing the majority of crops on Earth.  I'm going to sleep now so don't expect me to respond to this thread right now.  

Modifié par pablodurando, 02 août 2011 - 06:00 .

[Arijharn]

True, it's still element zero, so even if humans can't harvest it, I'd bet some entrepreneurial pioneer would be eagerly rubbing his hands/claws/tentacles in glee.

"Where there's eezo there's an economy!"

[didymos1120]

SandTrout wrote...

To be fair, Arijharn, just because something 'burns up' in the atmosphere doesn't mean it goes away, it just turns to ash, which is still free to float down to ground level. The idea that the post-war looters would leave it in orbit long enough for a significant amount to suffer adequate orbital decay is pretty laughable, IMO, though.

There's also the fact that we really have very little idea how eezo, as a material, behaves.  It's clearly not normal matter, so who knows what all its properties are.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

You assume that the eezo will slowly kill us, a point that has no validity...

A wave of extinctions followed.

Birth defects and cancers.

SandTrout wrote...

Not to mention that there will be no significant eezo contamination in 25 years.

Assumption.

You really have no more evidence to cite for this argument, do you?

By the way, at least SandTrout has an assumption based upon facts that a generally considered to be credible by a majority of people here on this thread.
Which is better than your shot in the dark.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Why are peoples real world assumptions less valid then saphras in game assumption?

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

You assume that the eezo will slowly kill us, a point that has no validity...

A wave of extinctions followed.

Birth defects and cancers.

A wave of extinctions means that there were a number of species that were not able to adapt to the eezo contamination. Obviously many were able to.

Birth defects and cancers only occured in <40% of fetuses that lack the adequate genetic trait to deal with eezo. This means that <60% do exhibit the genetic disposition to cope with eezo, and can therefore ignore small amounts of it in the enviroment. The 40% will simply not survive reproduce, while the 60% do, passing on the eezo-resistant trait to their offspring, making for a population that is near 100% resistant to eezo within a couple of generations. The birth-rate takes a hit for a generation, then bounces back because every surviving baby has the genetic trait necessary to resist the negative effects of eezo. Note that this is a worst-case scenarrio of 100% population exposure (unlikely) and that other scenarios that involve only partial exposure of the population would result is less of a hit to the 1st generation birth-rate, but less of a bounce-back effect because of larger portions of the population sill being susceptable to the negative effects of eezo exposure. Overall, we're probably looking at higher populations from the less than total exposure scenarios, and total exposure is far from dooming our species from extinction. Based on available data regarding human physiology and eezo suggests that there is a high likelihood that humanity would be among the species that will adapt to an eezo-rich enviroment.

Adaptation and natural selection can, and has had in the past, occur in the span of 1-2 generations, provided that the trait necessary for survival allready exists somewhere in the population, which it obviously does.

The fact that humans can (and will) eat next to anything, combined with the fact that we have aggricultural colonies removes the posibility of extinction through starvation for our species.

SandTrout wrote...

Not to mention that there will be no significant eezo contamination in 25 years.

Assumption.

True, but your premise regarding the amount of eezo contamination is also an assumption. An assumption based on an example, but an assumption none the less. My assumption is based on the premise that we have a reasonable means of eezo cleanup, just like we have for oil today.

[Sisterofshane]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Why are peoples real world assumptions less valid then saphras in game assumption?

Because she's not living in reality.
And it's easier to claim invalidity than to prove it.

[Sisterofshane]

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

You assume that the eezo will slowly kill us, a point that has no validity...

A wave of extinctions followed.

Birth defects and cancers.

A wave of extinctions means that there were a number of species that were not able to adapt to the eezo contamination. Obviously many were able to.

Birth defects and cancers only occured in <40% of fetuses that lack the adequate genetic trait to deal with eezo. This means that <60% do exhibit the genetic disposition to cope with eezo, and can therefore ignore small amounts of it in the enviroment. The 40% will simply not survive reproduce, while the 60% do, passing on the eezo-resistant trait to their offspring, making for a population that is near 100% resistant to eezo within a couple of generations. The birth-rate takes a hit for a generation, then bounces back because every surviving baby has the genetic trait necessary to resist the negative effects of eezo. Note that this is a worst-case scenarrio of 100% population exposure (unlikely) and that other scenarios that involve only partial exposure of the population would result is less of a hit to the 1st generation birth-rate, but less of a bounce-back effect because of larger portions of the population sill being susceptable to the negative effects of eezo exposure. Overall, we're probably looking at higher populations from the less than total exposure scenarios, and total exposure is far from dooming our species from extinction. Based on available data regarding human physiology and eezo suggests that there is a high likelihood that humanity would be among the species that will adapt to an eezo-rich enviroment.

Adaptation and natural selection can, and has had in the past, occur in the span of 1-2 generations, provided that the trait necessary for survival allready exists somewhere in the population, which it obviously does.

The fact that humans can (and will) eat next to anything, combined with the fact that we have aggricultural colonies removes the posibility of extinction through starvation for our species.

One thing I would like to point out is that the possibility to spread the necessary trait is only about 50% likely, thanks to recessive traits.  But that might only shift the genetic adaptation to being near total in only about four to five generations.  Again, nowhere near extinction levels.

[SandTrout]

I have already dealt with the birth-defect debate. There is an apparently hereditary trait that is related to said birth defects from eezo. Trait proliferates, and the mortality rate decreases, eezo contamination becomes less of an issue. Isn't nature wonderful?

Yes, we will see an increase in birth defects and cancer. I never challenged this basic point. I simply nullified the notion that the result would be extinction. It would not.

Bad thing =/= OMFG WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE!

Ah, now we get to the heart of it. My assumption is based on an example and yours is based on nothing more than a belief.

No, I have an example as well. The fact that colonies that have suffered eezo exposure do not have areas that are abandoned due to eezo contamination, and that oil spills in the modern day result in massive cleanup efforts.

Your counter-argument was that Earth is too large to decontaminate, a claim which we systematically debunked by pointing out that clean-up can be scaled up to cover the necessary landmass as long as we provide enough equipment and manpower, with the manpower-part likely being a non-issue.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandtTrout wrote...

True, but your premise regarding the amount of eezo contamination is also an assumption. An assumption based on an example, but an assumption none the less. My assumption is based on the premise that we have a reasonable means of eezo cleanup, just like we have for oil today.

Ah, now we get to the heart of it. My assumption is based on an example and yours is based on nothing more than a belief.

So what? A belief in the very essence of human nature!
In the future, to not have any emergency contingincy plan in regards to the cleaning up of toxic waste would mean for us to be less adaptive then we are today.  This notion, after everything we know of survival and evolution, is not just silly.  It is absolutely wrong.
Everything you have said in the arguments goes against the very essence of being alive;
    -that we would give up and face almost certain destruction because of possible destruction
    -that we wouldn't attempt to save anything, or attempt to leave  a truly decimated planet when we are capable to
        avoid certain extinction, even at the prospect of failing
    - that we would become less adaptive to our environments as time progresses.
    - we wouldn't sacrifice ourselves/ our planet so that our brood would have a continued chance of survival,
      because there is a chance that we might possibly lose a war

Your arguments have negligible evidence/common sense.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

By the way, at least SandTrout has an assumption based upon facts that a generally considered to be credible by a majority of people here on this thread.
Which is better than your shot in the dark.

Arguing that one position or poster is more popular than another does not prove anything except that you don't know how to debate.

It's a fallacy to argue that one person is right because they are more popular.

My position is one based on numerous examples from the game.

Yours is based on nothing but faith and a poor grasp of scale, math, and logistics.

It has nothing to do with popularity of the person.

There is a general concensous within our community (thread) that his evidence is correct, regardless of whether they like him or not.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY LIKE THE EVIDENCE OR NOT.
And your so called numerous examples?

One instance of planet poisoning (clearly only a theory, even within the game)

Three cases of known examples of eezo exposure, only one of which uses actual numbers/statistics we can use

And one colony that had to be abandoned because of a microbial invasion.

I would not call that numerous.Everything else that you claim is not clear evidence.  It is your opinion.

For example, that a planet is too large to clean.

That there will definitively be a battle large enough over earth to poison it

That humanity is doomed to extinction within the game whether we try to fight the battle or not.

And even if my grasp of scale, math, and logistics is "poor" (another opinion based upon what, I misread one number with a lot of zeros at the end?), at least I don't ignore them completely or when it is convienent to my argument.

[SandTrout]

Edit: Nevermind.

Modifié par SandTrout, 02 août 2011 - 06:55 .

[FullmetalJ]

Mass Effect Wikia says...

Eingana is a hot, beautiful, and deadly world, covered with the debris of ancient starships. Approximately 127,000 years ago, a series of battles were fought over it by two organic species, the thoi'han and the inusannon. Although no records of the conflict remain, most historians agree that both races wanted to colonize Eingana, and neither were willing to share. The two lost hundreds of ships in a series of battles over Eingana and its moon, Barraiya; many of these were eventually pulled in by the planet's gravity well.

The mass effect drive cores of these ships broke apart, dumping refined element zero over large stretches of the landscape. This poisoned the environment and a wave of extinctions followed. Many of the animal species that remained showed a tendancy to develop biotic powers. As the ecology of Eingana is energetic and aggressive, this makes colonization a deadly peril.

But when we destoyed the core of the derelict reaper, didn't it just more or less fizzle and die? I can't remember it megasploding. One could argue that It was an old reaper, and the core was "stale" or something, but I don't think that reapers have any form of maintainence.

Also I doubt the reapers would lets us join them, we have provoked them and they haven't let any race in the cycle survive since the beginning, save the keepers and collectors, which my as well be dead.

Also, say they do let us live, that all of humanity decides to be their servants and what I mentioned above doesn't happen, that they don't kill us all or turn us into undead insects. After a while the indoctrination would destroy our minds, just like the protheans, and what did they do with them? They Left them to rot, due to the fact that they physically couldn't think for themselves any more.

As a certain trailer said: "we fight or we die, thats the plan".
There is no other choice. Except death.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

*In hippie voice* "Everything is like...suspect..maaan.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 02 août 2011 - 07:00 .