2463 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Source?

Eingana as well as the fact that all organisms on Earh share a common heritage.

Eigana is in a different solar system,you cannot say what happened there can apply to Earth fauna because everything evolved differently.

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Source?

Eingana as well as the fact that all organisms on Earh share a common heritage.

Eingana does not explicitly state any negative impact on plant life. It only references a vague 'extinction event' that involved unknown quantity and quality of species. You are just assuming that all species were affected equally without a factual basis.

Modifié par SandTrout, 15 août 2011 - 07:14 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Eigana is in a different solar system,you cannot say what happened there can apply to Earth fauna because everything evolved differently.

Well so far we've seen how hazardous eezo can be to human life so I don't see any reason to believe Earth is some special exception.

Flora and fauna that consist of different elements don't all react the same way,also you keep trying to convince everyone that eezo=vx ,the numbers aren't ideal,but it isn't the same thing as poison. You also have no evidence that flora just up and dies out due to eezo.

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

[TuringPoint]

So it's better to be goo-ified and have our minds and individuality taken, than live in a significantly changed Eezo world? Not sure I follow here.

[SandTrout]

Alocormin wrote...

So it's better to be goo-ified and have our minds and individuality taken, than live in a significantly changed Eezo world? Not sure I follow here.

That just means you're still sane.

[superharek]

Didnt had any time to read all 85 pages so i dont know if someone said it before or not but why you all think that Reapers will only attack Earth first.If they have a massive army they could easily invade many star systems at the same time,making "destroying reapers in one blow by blowing up solar system" useless.

[GodWood]

Can't we just find a nice garden world, build some vaults and hide?

None of this "Suicidal War" or "Reaper Ascension" nonsense.

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The original didn't even mention it.

The beginning of the OP:

It has occurred to me that humanity at least is doomed no matter what we
do. I would like to point you all towards a specific planet... it
was... ah yes, this one.

Saphra Deden wrote...

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.

The implications should be obvious, but I suspect I need to spell it out anyway.

Reapers contain massive drive cores of their own, and what fuels drive cores? Element zero, of-course.

So
what will happen if we destroy hundreds of Reapers on or in orbit over
the Earth? The same thing that happened on Eingana will happen on Earth.
Refined element zero will poison the environment and wipe out much of
the life there. The effect will likely be much worse on Earth because
Reapers likely carry drive cores much larger than anything the races
fighting over Eingana used, meaning a hell of a lot more eezo is going
to rain down on the planet.

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

we won't be able to grow any edible food there. If the planet can't
support life it certainly can't support industry and with that goes the
human economy and along with it our military standing.

Someday
the Earth will probably recover, but that could take tens of thousands
or even hundreds of thousands of years. It might even take many
millionsof years depending on how catastrohpic and total the die-off is.
Humans
can't afford to wait around that long.

Obviously, Earth isn't the only world in peril.

You dedicated about half your post to the perrils of an eezo contaminated including this little piece of BS:

Earth will become a wasteland with most species on land and in the water dead, including plants. This means we won't be able to grow any edible food there. If the planet can't
support life it certainly can't support industry and with that goes the
human economy and along with it our military standing.

This is baseless assumption that is actually counter to the Eingana example which actually features very agressive native life in the wake of the eezo contamination.

Since it's not a big point, though, why not concede that you hadn't considered everything, and that the devastation caused by eezo would not be as wide spread as you are presuming?

Modifié par SandTrout, 15 août 2011 - 07:25 .

[superharek]

Also came to my mind is that because Reapers created mass relays they could possibly just deactiate all relays in the galaxy,and turn them back on one by one after each star system relay is in is under their control.

[SandTrout]

You ignored part of the post. I said before I first presented the worst case scenario for the sake of argument. I did say that planet would eventually recover, as Eingana did. However that won't happen for a long, long time.

I'm quoting the part that you contradict yourself. And how long did Eingana take to recover, and when was it ever

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

?

Modifié par SandTrout, 15 août 2011 - 07:29 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Saphra Deden: "Pretty much one" (I know what you meant)

So - if by taking the Citadel they've "Pretty much won" - you admit that prior to that they have not "pretty much won."

Which is it? They've already won and we can't save the earth and we can't beat the Reapers...

Or

If they take the Citadel they've 'pretty much won' and we can't save the Earth and can't beat the Reapers.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 août 2011 - 07:31 .

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

So - if by taking the Citadel they've "Pretty much won" - you admit that prior to that they have not "pretty much won."

No, I haven't. Without the Citadel it will just take them longer to actually win the war, but I don't doubt for a moment that they won't eventually win it.

An interesting conclusion to reach when quantifiable data is in such short supply.

[superharek]

Saphra Deden wrote...

superharek wrote...

Also came to my mind is that because Reapers created mass relays they could possibly just deactiate all relays in the galaxy,and turn them back on one by one after each star system relay is in is under their control.

That is what the Citadel is for. I'd be surprised if capturing the Citadel wasn't one of their primary objectives. If they can do that they've pretty much one since galactic society would immediately cease to exist.

So you say that Citadel is a control center for relays,i thought it just was A massive relay,i thought that they could control relays by connecting to any relay they find.If what you said is true then Reapers really messed up on this part,that was trully a stupid thing to do,it alot easier to control them by just connecting to anyone of them.

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

An interesting conclusion to reach when quantifiable data is in such short supply.

Based on what we know about space combat and Reapers it seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion to me.

I actually agree that it is reasonable, but the lack of data leave open too many other posibilities to throw in the towel now.

Unless you know:
How many Reapers there are,
How powerful they are on average,
How many ships exist in the standing fleets,
How powerful they are on average,
How many ships can be produced over the period of the war.

We simply do not have enough data that definatively state that we cannot win, even if the current, limited, data we have states that we probably won't.

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

[SandTrout]

I've said before that I don't actually advocate surrender right now.

The problem is that right now you are advocating surrender. You are advocating a no-reverse course of action even though you admit to inadequate data. This is not rational. Rational would be to gain as much information as possible before we reach the point where a decision must be made.

However, you are not waiting as long as possible, you are jumping the gun way early. We gain nothing by making the decision to surrender now, and loose everything.

Modifié par SandTrout, 15 août 2011 - 07:53 .

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

We simply do not have enough data that definatively state that we cannot win, even if the current, limited, data we have states that we probably won't.

I've said before that I don't actually advocate surrender right now. I want to have a chance to study the Reapers first and then make my final conclusion. Part of that also involves studying the Collector base to determine just what exactly Reapers are and if anything of humanity actually does persist in Reaper form.

If nothing does then joining the Reapers or not makes no difference to me and I'd advocate going down fighting, doing as much damage to them as possible in the process.

Which is completely contradictory to your OP.  When you wrote it, you obviously felt that there was enough "evidence" within your argument to justify surrender, even without the knowledge from the CB -- if the CB was important to your argument then you would have put it within your OP.

And just what of humanity are you hoping to preserve?  Our individual DNA? Our Collective Memories?  Our Counsciousness?  We could determine some of these from the CB, but not others.  It's very important to your argument that you know "what" you want humanity to be, for you to consider us to still be "human".

It's also important to note that your idea on what makes us "human" is fundamentally and philosophically different from what others may feel.  It is not "wrong", just different.  So even if we were "preserved" in a fashion that you find to be acceptable, it does not stand to reason that everyone will fall in line with your assessment.

[Medhia Nox]

@SisterofShane: See - that's why the old days were better. When two people disagreed about "what makes a human" - swords and maces got involved - and the rest was washed away in the rain.

*sigh* If only these threads could be sorted out with barbarism. Such an honest time.