2463 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

So how come decades after the development of eezo drives the debris and junk left over from boot-strap space development hasn't been cleared from Earth's immediate vicinity? Kinetic barriers are needed just to prevent ships from being seriously damage.

Why hasn't it been cleaned up?

I can only assume because it isn't very important,or the writers decided Humans got lazy once we expanded our reach to the stars.

An immediate threat to our ecosystem takes precedence over space junk,no?

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

None of your counterpoints are any near the scale of disaster that be the result of the battle of the Earth. That's why your examples don't work.

It's why I offered my analogy of the kitchen fire vs a forest fire.

Not going to chase the candy-bar you're dangling in front of me Saphra.
Already argued these points to you.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Hasn't been deemed to be an immediate threat to Earth's surface.

It's a threat to anyone leaving the Earth's surface and considering how much off-world trade and colonization Earth does...

And so what?  It's still not a threat to the SURFACE of the Earth.  Anybody engaging in trade with our planet does so at it's own risk.

If it was considered threatening enough as to extinguish all life on the planets surface (as you claim Eezo to be), then something would be done about it.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I guess you have no understanding of economics either.

Sisterofshane wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

None
of your counterpoints are any near the scale of disaster that be the
result of the battle of the Earth. That's why your examples don't work.

It's why I offered my analogy of the kitchen fire vs a forest fire.

Not going to chase the candy-bar you're dangling in front of me Saphra.
Already argued these points to you.

If you've got nothing new to add then get out and stay out.

what you offered to me wasn't anything new, either.
Same old story, recycled to try to make me look incompetent.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

None of your counterpoints are any near the scale of disaster that be the result of the battle of the Earth. That's why your examples don't work.

It's why I offered my analogy of the kitchen fire vs a forest fire.

Do you even read our posts or do you just look for our names and put "You are wrong. wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong"

Examples of 100% exposure to Earths surface have been brought up and you simply disregarded them and fell back to your 1 One  ONE Uno Singular,example of a planet that had 0 ZERO Nought attempt of cleanup.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 07:09 .

[TuringPoint]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Hasn't been deemed to be an immediate threat to Earth's surface.

It's a threat to anyone leaving the Earth's surface and considering how much off-world trade and colonization Earth does...

Politicians, heck, humans everywhere, ignore more immediately pressing 'clean-up' difficulties than the stuff in Earth's atmosphere all the time.  As a matter of fact, in the ME universe it's probably a bad idea to go anywhere in a spaceship without a kinetic barrier of some sort, logically and speculatively making it a non-issue that the space debris around Earth is hazardous to ships without a kinetic barrier.  The space debris is no where near the scale of what Eezo pollution would be, as you yourself suggest.  "Worst case scenario," people would ignore the Eezo pollution and let themselves die off horribly.  Does that really seem likely, from a perspective of logical speculation?

 In real life people try to ignore all sorts of disastrous pollution, with the threat of all that being deniable even by some of the people living in that pollution.  While they die and suffer from all sorts of diseases and poisoning.

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 07:11 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

what you offered to me wasn't anything new, either.
Same old story, recycled to try to make me look incompetent.

I'm not trying to make you look incompetent.

If that's the way you look after I deconstruct your argument then that's your problem.

Present a better argument and that won't happen.

Would you provide an example of a throroughly deconstructed argument?


Also inb4 insult.

[TuringPoint]

But it's not just a localized area, it's world-wide. If people can unite as nations or multi-national efforts against common foes, how is it you suggest people wouldn't be likely to address the problem of Eezo pollution?

Consider the resources required to make the Alliance's fleet in such a relatively short amount of time.  Enough to defeat the Turians at Shanxi.    We didn't even have a common foe; somehow the Alliance had the resources.  People with resources and money had concern for the common cause of humanity.  

The main point of your argument that still seems to hold would be that the immediate effects of destroyed Reapers in Earth's atmosphere would be disastrous.

Still, you have a hard line that we can't save Earth or defeat the Reapers.  Do you mean to say we won't be able to?  Perhaps.  Nothing is possible until you've achieved something.

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 07:19 .

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

what you offered to me wasn't anything new, either.
Same old story, recycled to try to make me look incompetent.

I'm not trying to make you look incompetent.

If that's the way you look after I deconstruct your argument then that's your problem.

Present a better argument and that won't happen.

you never deconstructed anything.  You said that you had an argument over stoves and forest fires.
If you actually broke down the points of my argument and held them side by side to yours, you can see that I am holding my own.
So again, you are fishing for things to try to make others seem incompetent, all the while completely ignoring their competent arguments because it is counterintuitive to your strategy.

Example, I pointed out earlier that your examples, if considered to be true, make up only a measly 1.4% of HALF of the known planets in the galaxy.  It is not sound evidence to base a strategic surrender upon.

And yet you completely ignored it.

You can't just ask me to present a "better" argument, based upon your subjective opinion that nothing stands up to your "evidence".

You can, however, try to argue that 1.4% is what you consider to be "highly likely", to the point of being "definite", which is what your original post was trying to debate.

[TuringPoint]

Ok, I just made an edit, I think I completely changed my post.

Anyway, yes, being world-wide means it is a very bad thing. Again, though, a thing is impossible until it's done.

What specifically could we do?  I don't know.  It's a more advanced, an entirely fictional world with some basis in modern reality.  Perhaps we could evacuate some, create shelter for others.  If it came to Eezo poisoning in the atmosphere.

I want to suggest that you are being a little harsh, I'm not sure why it came to that, but sponsoring debate shouldn't mean calling people incompetent for trying to counter debate points you come up with.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 07:35 .

[Bogsnot1]

Fingers in ears? Check.
Shouting "LALALALALA I cant hear you"? Check.
Insulting those who put forth valid, rational arguments? Check.

Saphra must still be losing.

[TuringPoint]

It might. People rebuilt on the destruction of Hiroshima rather quickly.  How many people die off will depend on Shepard.

So assuming the worst, Eezo can cause catastrophe on a large scale, in large amounts, very quickly.

But that's just assuming the worst that it will come to that.  Perhaps it's even likely it will come to that.  But a thing is impossible until it's done.  Can you agree  to that? 

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 07:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Interesting OP.

I am of the mindset that if humanity is doomed anyways, then I would not mind the extinction of the galaxy and humanity's ascension into reaperhood. When playing ME3, I personally will not be fighting for the status quo, or to save the galaxy. I'll be fighting for the interests of Humanity. If the only option available to us is reaperhood, then so be it.

I'd prefer a different outcome to the war and my ideas on human interests and what I deem desirable differ from this. But necessity will have to overcome desire.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Alocormin wrote...

It might. People rebuilt on the destruction of Hiroshima rather quickly. 

Japan was also blessed with having American support just after the war, and the US had a vested interest in an economically performant and politically stable Japan.

Who would be willing to do that for Humanity? Will there be a cold war type scenario where we would be seen as valuable allies? How would we be if our population ends up being nearly annihilated?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 août 2011 - 07:45 .

[TuringPoint]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

It might. People rebuilt on the destruction of Hiroshima rather quickly. 

Japan was also blessed with having American support just after the war, and the US had a vested interest in an economically performant and politically stable Japan.

Who would be willing to do that for Humanity? Will there be a cold war type scenario where we would be seen as valuable allies? How would we be if our population ends up being nearly annihilated?

I acknowledge those points.  Didn't feel like writing it all out.  In a way reasonable arguments are sometimes the least effective.  I don't believe the person behind them has to be unreasonable, though, despite that.

Will the galaxy have enough resources and manpower to keep itself stable, much less help humanity?

Honestly, it's easy to see how humanity would be considered valuable.  I am personally not convinced Reaperhood would save anything of what we were, I am convinced it would make us something else entirely.  Something perhaps similar to what we could become in billions of years, but without culture and the type of individual reality we benefit from, whether scrounging for survival or thriving until the end of our days.

I believe in culture.  I believe there are worse things than death.  I don't believe becoming Reapers is a true way for us to survive, although it does fit the patterns some of us follow:  to declare culture and individual reality unnecessary.

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 07:56 .

[Sisterofshane]

Alocormin wrote...

It might. People remade on the destruction of Hiroshima rather quickly.

Alright. So assuming the worst, Eezo can cause catastrophe on a large scale, in large amounts, very quickly.

But that's just assuming the worst that it will come to that. Agreed?

Give up, Alo.  I spent the better half of several pages within this thread trying to argue that the eezo could be cleaned up.  I even used a model based on Chernobyl's cleanup that estimated that cleanup would be done in mere decades with only 20% of the population dedicated to clean up, and the model considered that the ENTIRE surface of the planet had been covered in Eezo. 

I even figured out that, given the current Earth population, that we would have the time to clean it up because even if every subsequent generation was exposed to life-threatening levels of Eezo (I'm still not convinced that it's toxic to fully developed humans outside of utero), based on the die-off numbers given in the game, because Earth's population wouldn't even HIT lower then the tens of millions in five hundred years (WAY far off from unsustainable populations).

And, in all of my arguments, I never even accounted for the ADVANCEMENTS made technologically by human society, things such as BIOSUITS and the ERADICATION OF MOST HUMAN AFFLICTIONS, nevermind the advances in the area of emergency toxic clean up, which would certainly make widespread clean up easier then what we now know with nuclear fallout, of which we KNOW to be more instantly deadly at high enough levels of exposure then Eezo, and, we really can't even get rid of nuclear fall out.  Still, habitats and cities with minimal damage control that were exposed to nuclear fall out (chernobyl, nagasaki, hiroshima) are now THRIVING centers of life just a few decades later.

Saphra is not only assuming the worst, she's banking on it.  It's the basis for her entire argument.  She's even said it herself, it's a "worst-case scenario".  And it's based on less then one percent of the entire known galaxy (on game).

[ObserverStatus]

big whoop, the galaxy can go on without earth, if their is no way to save it, just 'splode the Charon mass relay and be done with it.

[TuringPoint]

What page are your arguments on, sisterofshane?