1104 réponses à ce sujet

[TobyHasEyes]

Phaedon wrote...

Over humanity? Hmm.

Well, to be honest, if there were the same chances of saving each race, but I could only save one, I would save the one with the largest number of civilians.

 This makes me happy

[SandTrout]

Luc0s wrote...

and how is the quarian immume system a choice?

The quarian immume system is weak and as far as I know not a single book has contradicted or retconned that.

If you're messing with me, I'm too tired to tell right now. I meant that the Quarian immune system was lore, rather than an in-game choice. The point that this has not been changed by the books was what I was trying to explain.

[Nashiktal]

SandTrout wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

and how is the quarian immume system a choice?

The quarian immume system is weak and as far as I know not a single book has contradicted or retconned that.

If you're messing with me, I'm too tired to tell right now. I meant that the Quarian immune system was lore, rather than an in-game choice. The point that this has not been changed by the books was what I was trying to explain.

I agree with this, but it raises a few problems, such as how far can you make choices not cannon (either way) until your main story unravels? It makes me worry about future games outside the trilogy, that we might be stuck with prequels.

[Barquiel]

SandTrout wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

The rachni war lasted nearly a century. We can't win a nearly decade/century-long war against the reapers (quick victory or we lose...).

-> birth rates are irrelevant in a fight against the reapers

This is wrong. A long war of attrition works in our favor, not the Reapers'. Every casualty that we inflict uppon their numbers cannot be replaced for 50k years, while we can produce more ships in a matter of months.

Granted, the Reapers' presence on Earth makes quick action to eject them an immediate priority. However, their removal from Earth does not necessarily indicate the end of the War.

Why do you think so? All they have to do is to build a new smoothie machine (or attack cerberus if Shep didn't destroy the collector base) -> they can harvest humans and build new reapers.

And I don't think we can produce more ships in a matter of months if all homeworlds are under attack (or already evacuated).

[TobyHasEyes]

Luc0s wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Seriously, don't flaunt outdated discredited versions of sociobiology, it lowers the discussion

I'm not talking about Social Darwinism, which is not survival of the fittest but survival of whoever we choose for social reasons.


I'm talking about the actual primal instrinct within every single creature that drives us into protecting our own genes over anything else.

There is a specific order of importance for most animals, including humans. The order is like this:

your children > yourself > your family > your pack, tribe or social circle > your species > other species


In humans, this order can sometimes be a bit different, but generally we got that specific order of importance imprinted in us. It's in our nature.

 Sociobiology isn't social darwinism, it is basically genetic determinism

 A view which has been discredited over the last thirty years; very little is imprinted in our nature than cannot be overridden by our environment and culture. And certainly an instinctive drive for survival is not a universal feature of human nature

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 21 août 2011 - 11:16 .

[SandTrout]

Barquiel wrote...

Why do you think so? All they have to do is to build a new smoothie machine (or attack cerberus if Shep didn't destroy the collector base) -> they can harvest humans and build new reapers.

A process that apparently takes months just to create the equivelent of an embyo, and represents a relatively obvious target for a quick destructive strike.

And I don't think we can produce more ships in a matter of months if all homeworlds are under attack (or already evacuated).

The Reapers cannot be everywhere at once, and many nations other than the Big 3 have ship production capabilities that can be repurposed toward warship manufacture. The Alliance's shipyards, for example, are not even at Earth, they are at Arcturus.

The fact is that the Reapers need to prevent us from producing, which is why they must opperate in a blitz and take as much as they can as quickly as they can. If they do not, and instead take a slow route of securing systems a few at a time, then we will simply pull a Russia on them and hit them with thousands of small, expendable vessels, gradually whittling down their finite numbers while we continue to reproduce.

Modifié par SandTrout, 21 août 2011 - 11:19 .

[redneckwonderland]

I would save the Asari, You humans are all racist.

[Golden Owl]

Luc0s wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Seriously, don't flaunt outdated discredited versions of sociobiology, it lowers the discussion

I'm not talking about Social Darwinism, which is not survival of the fittest but survival of whoever we choose for social reasons.


I'm talking about the actual primal instrinct within every single creature that drives us into protecting our own genes over anything else.

There is a specific order of importance for most animals, including humans. The order is like this:

your children > yourself > your family > your pack, tribe or social circle > your species > other species


In humans, this order can sometimes be a bit different, but generally we got that specific order of importance imprinted in us. It's in our nature.

Unless you remain painfully aware of the plights, feelings, sensations others experience...thats a spanner in works....hard choices can still be made but at a much greater personal cost.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 21 août 2011 - 11:30 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Luc0s wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 Sociobiology isn't social darwinism, it is basically genetic determinism

 A view which has been discredited over the last thirty years; very little is imprinted in our nature than cannot be overridden by our environment and culture. And certainly an instinctive drive for survival is not a universal feature of human nature

Biological determinism = Social Darwinism.

Or at the very least, biological determinism is often the foundation for social darwinism.

I never said that everything we do is within our genes. I simply say that our genes form the core foundation on which all our social and cultural values are build on.

Or, to be more accurate: Some (read: - some -, not all) parts of our behavior can be traced back to our primal instinct as animals. Those primal instincts originate from our genetics as a mammalian species.


For example, our general desire to have sex (and to enjoy sex) is part of our primal instinct. It's nothing social, it's nothing cultural, it's genetical.

 Biological determinism is the view that our actions, feelings and thoughts are dictated primarily (some argue entirely) by our biological makeup

 Social darwinism is the view that those traits which promote survival, or are seen as strong, should be encouraged and focused on within society

 I would agree that some parts of our behaviour have their roots in our instinctive reactions, and I am a determinist in general so I am not making a free will argument. What I am stating is that social and cultural influences upon an individual are so strong and formative in our development that human behaviour more often than not does not reflect those genetic bases

 Most relevant to the discussion, any desire for one's own survival, or that of their species, likely has its roots in instinctive behaviours. However there are many who, no doubt as a result of the culture/society/environment in which they have grown up can override that

 Biology does not dictate that altruists are covering up for an inner selfish nature, nor does it dictate that those who put certain values ahead of themselves or their species have a weak gene or anything like that

[SandTrout]

People that operate counter to their own self-interest almost invariably suffer from other personality problems such as addiction and suicidal tendencies, or low self-esteem at the least. Preservation of your species is an extension of self-interest. This kind of self-hate is an illness that is the cause of a great many social ills.

Modifié par SandTrout, 21 août 2011 - 11:43 .

[Barquiel]

SandTrout wrote...

The Reapers cannot be everywhere at once, and many nations other than the Big 3 have ship production capabilities that can be repurposed toward warship manufacture. The Alliance's shipyards, for example, are not even at Earth, they are at Arcturus.

I think it lasted so long because the collectors only attacked small colonies in the terminus systems (and they had only one cruiser). The codex says earth has 11 billion people on it during the events of Mass Effect 2...more than enough humans to harvest.

Arcturus Station guards the mass relay leading to earth...the reapers are on earth. I think it's save to assume that the system alliance can't recoup their losses.

asari, turians, salarians....I have no idea (we know the Turians have already evacuated their homeworld)

Be that as it may, I still think the asari fleet is useful against the reapers. The have the second largest fleet and their ships are probably the most advanced in council space.
I agree, their organization is everything but perfect. But it's a lot easier to change their command structure (we need a joint command against the reapers anyway) than it would be to build hundreds of ships.

Modifié par Barquiel, 21 août 2011 - 11:44 .

[Wulfram]

Luc0s wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

If the stereotypes are correct, a significant proportion of them will have a couple of hundred years of combat experience from their maiden days as mercenaries.

And yet they still are weaker than a human, turian or krogan squad.

"The asari are the finest warriors in the galaxy"

[SandTrout]

I agree that it would be far better to have the Asari fleet than to not have it. Cost that I'm willing to pay in order to acquire it is the issue.

My main point of disagreement with you is the idea that a long war somehow benefits the Reapers. Time is on our side, not theirs.

[nikki191]

Quinnzel wrote...

I would save a Volus over humanity.

i get that a volus makes a better round of ammo when fired out of a rail gun at a reaper... the biotic god anti reaper round

Modifié par nikki191, 21 août 2011 - 11:49 .

[SandTrout]

Wulfram wrote...

"The asari are the finest warriors in the galaxy"

"It's a good thing there are not many of them."

Also, fine warriors are good and all, but the finest warrior < propperly dirrected artilery.

[ddv.rsa]

Wulfram wrote...

"The asari are the finest warriors in the galaxy"

Finest commandos, maybe. But they can't fight conventional wars or even properly co-ordinate operations involving more than a few commandos.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 21 août 2011 - 12:09 .

[Barquiel]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

"The asari are the finest warriors in the galaxy"

Finest commandos, maybe.

...and the most advanced ships (if we believe Tali).

[ddv.rsa]

Barquiel wrote...

...and the most advanced ships (if we believe Tali).

When did she say that?