See? In L4D I'm pretty sure the virus was airborne, or in the water supply or something. Almost everyone was turned very quickly, except the immune... who turned out to be carriers. So the virus was still inside them, breeding and living and waiting to spread and infect others whether it be through sex, a fist fight or what have you.Unless the persons are immune or something.
...PILLZ HERE!
Ah game one was a contained breakout. The virus went airborne for a bit inside the underground labs but was quite contained. The airborne portion died off quickly and simply lived inside the creatures.Well it was weird, the first one, the virus spread was kinda experimental, injections and such that let out. If we're talking one person gets injected with a virus and they become a zombie... I don't think an apocalypse is any danger.
However, in the second, I believe it was carried by rats, and they got it aerially, I'm not sure.
Dinosaurs may learn, but you're also forgetting that in some fiction zombies have learned as well. From George Romero films, to the Stephen King novel Cell. Also, you keep forgetting this basic principle that not everyone is going to be able to shoot their loved ones in the head, and also a headshot may or may not kill a zombie outright if it doesn't hit the right part of the brain. Dinosaurs can bleed out... take a good rifle and hit a T-Rex in the thigh and it will go down.Not the mention that Birkin injecting himself doesn't help either.
To your last point, sin. I think zombie control is a lot easier than dinosaur control. Between the two, we're dealing with creatures that can learn versus one's that don't. We're also dealing with reproduction on the dinosaur's side.
I mean, as for zombies...You must be registered to see the links, and you're pretty much set. For dinosaurs, you got a lot to learn and even then... the dinosaurs can learn, which would just create more complications.
Jurassic Park is a horrid example simply for the fact that they had limited weaponry on the island, the guy who was the raptor hunter was a fucking idiot ("let's go hunt the raptors alone in the middle of the jungle") and was actually rather quarantined already. There was very little people, and very little backup plans for when the dinos escaped. Besides, Jurassic Park also happened because of sabotage.Well, for starters, you have to picture a situation that fits just like zombies.
So how I figure it, it's like Jurassic Park. Some guy makes them, but the islands have to be quarantined. From there, they expand.
I mean, logically speaking... how do you expect a zombie outbreak to occur? Do you think people will just be "un-aware" and thus let a virus happen? By all logic, people would know beforehand and this take measure to contain it.
Yet to let this debate take place, we have to assume there's a lack of control on both sides.
Hmm, I didn't even bring up the fact of the dead simply rising. That's a huge issue. Suicides quietly killing themselves in the middle of the night, heart attacks, strokes... all sorts of sudden and random deaths that will suddenly become another threat. Sure you can set up burning pits in replacement of funeral homes, or shoot all the dead people you see in the head... but there will still be people who just die randomly whether in cities or out in the middle of no where that will suddenly become a waiting trap.As the squid said ecosystem would be a big problem for dinosaurs, considering the possibility that glaciation is one of the most probable cause of their extintion, any area outside the tropical area would be safe, maybe the ocean would cause problems, but it's still not enough to call an apocalypse.
A zombie outbreak could be more dangerous depending on the starting factor. The worst possible thing is that dead just come back to kill more people, you can't eradicate the concept of death so it's a pain, but can still be handled if no one does something stupid, which always happens.
A virus can be really troublesome depending on the vector of transmission and the latentcy, a virus that takes weeks to manisfest with any important symptom could spread like oil in the sea far before it can be contained.
Also to be considered is the tendency of viruses to mutate which is completely random and supported by an extremely fast reproduction speed, this means that even if a vaccine is found for a specific strain it might be completely useless for others, to find an effective cure could take decades, which would make it easier to just wait for all who died to just wait in a completely sealed enviroment, possibly in an extremely cold region of the world, if you have a sure way to determine who is infected and who is not, so there is still the problem of someone doing something stupid, which always happens.
Thta being said both zombie outbreaks can easily erase any living dinosaur, so i'd say zombies win anyway.
It wasn't a matter of winning. It was a matter of what's realistic.I know you want to focus on the Resident Evil type just to make things simpler (re: easier for dinosaurs to win the debate).
Well the DNA wouldn't allow them any concessions regarding natural survival. A "raptor" that can't out run a gazelle will starve, and a T-Rex that can't find enough large wildlife to sustain it's imense size will starve. Neither can survive tundra. The only way altered DNA could help them with that would be to make them entirely different creatures, and in several dozen different regionally suited variants.Anyhow, it's the same with Jurassic Park. It's a brilliant idea - to take supposed dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes that were trapped in tree sap (amber) and then re-create the sample by mixing it with contemporary amphibians (frogs). The altered DNA also explains how the dinosaurs would be able to survive in our established ecosystem.
Right, ok, so, here we go. Nothing can be singled out for nazism. No single cause. Same for the Holocaust. There's nothing in all of history we can pick up and declare to be THE cause of the Holocaust, Hitler, and all that.Heh, i see your wiki and raise with my hystory books from back in highschool, being italian and having actually studied recent italian hystory(unlike many others in my country), i am pretty sure of what i say when i talk about fascism. Now, as much as Nazism "can" be considered a form of fascism, it is not Fascism in the fact that it presents very particular differences from the original concept, since, and i quote from your wiki, "It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism", these two concepts are not born of fascism and are the origin of the holocaust.
If you want to start saying that because nazism and fascism share foundamental traits than we can say that all that nazism does originates from fascism, then the fascism that originates from the ancient roman empire is not the real origin, but it is the ancient roman empire, and why stop there when that same empire originated from something else?
Hm, well, actually I think it IS something to be surprised about. People all over the world EXIST under dictatorships, and have for hundreds, if not thousands of years. If it was just one country, I could dismiss it as a random event, but three in a row?Pretending that fascism is the source of the holocaust because hitler might have been inspired by fascist ideologies is wrong. It's like saying that all forms of democracy are the same and if one takes a wrong decision then all other democracies are responsible for the exact same thing as they all have similar origins.
Fascism is not the origin of the holocaust, for the foundamental ideology behind fascism did not include genocide and racial persecution.
Actually it started in tunisia(at least the first big one) for economic reasons, if i remember correctly the leader of the country was stealing the money of the taxes, then spread to egypt and since the people there managed to defeat their pseudo-dictator, it was just a matter of time before it would spread through countries in similar situations, and it was just a matter of situation when it would hit a fake democracy resulting in a civil war. It's nothing to be surprised about that people would want to revolt against their torturers, the problem is that Gheddafi is an old-school dictator and is not gonna let go till he has even the silghtest military support, which he seems to be rapidly losing.
Well then... zombies still cause more damage. We can easily stop an animal, we wouldn't be sharing the planet with bears, wolves, elephants, and so forth if animals could so very easily kill us all off.It wasn't a matter of winning. It was a matter of what's realistic.
Ok, we'll have a full variety of dinos, and have them turn up/break out on a main continent. There's still a major problem there, being that an active hunting predator needs to eat dozens of herbivores over a year. If you have 25 predators, then you will need in the region of 500 herbivores to safely feed them for a year. To provide enough time and population security for the herbivores to breed new generations without risk of the predators making them extinct before the young mature, you will need thousands. You would need to be mass producing these things in factories before you had enough to kick start a new food chain. This is without any other natural misfortune befalling them or significant competition from the existing animals. What happens when our raptors meet a grizzly bear? What if lions started hunting the dinosaur herbies? What does one of the highly limited T-Rexes do when an enraged elephant breaks it's leg? There's too many things out there to make life hell for them.This goes back to story elements though. We basically have to assume that a large amount of carnivores & herbivores were around. I mean, the carnivores feasted on the herbivores, so as for the eating cycles work, we would only have to question if the herbivores would be able to eat the plants so they can live/breed and thus let the carnivores do the same.
Obviously it's the carnivores that will cause the real trouble during such an outbreak. Herbivores could be a problem too, depending how much the dinosaurs would grow and expand. Humans trying to find places to live and yet be near an area where a herbivore sets it's home, would only mean that a carnivore would be right around the corner.
The main cause for the holocaust, on a pragmatical basis, would have probably been econimacal and political. The jew comunity has a tendency to be close and generally composed of middle/high bourgeoisie(i'm getting out of my knowledge of english, so i'm not sure if it really makes sense). Considering the strong nazionalistic orientation of nazism, the economic troubles of germany after WW1 and the bellic effort's enormous cost, a close comunity with a religious belief different from the majority of the population with considerable economical resources and generally not well considered by the people becomes the perfect target. This way you can gain popularity by creating an elitist feeling in the people and accumulate a considerable amount of both money and free manpower to produce weapons and vehicles without having to heavily tax the people, who were already heavily taxed by the other european countries already, you become a hero. This is were hitler's genious lies, evil indeed, but genious none the less.Right, ok, so, here we go. Nothing can be singled out for nazism. No single cause. Same for the Holocaust. There's nothing in all of history we can pick up and declare to be THE cause of the Holocaust, Hitler, and all that.
Yeah, fascism doesn't really have much in common with the roman empire, but it was being as a mean to exploit the feeling of the people, so it can still be considered a cause, if one wants to really start nitpicking, that was my point.As for the origins idea, well. I think you'll find the links between fascism and the Roman Empire rather more tenuous than those between fascism and Nazism. Mussolini was very quick to point out how he was just like the Romans because that won him support, owing to Italian nostalgia for the "Good Old Days". Much like the Brits these days. Nazism however is an immediate and direct evolution from fascism. I think it should also be obvious that no nazism, no Hitler, no Holocaust.
So you can conceivably demonstrate the fascism, while not the sole factor responsible for the slaughter of millions of Jews, was certainly critical. I'd offer the non-Godwinesque comparison that the concept of communism led to the deaths of millions of Russians!
Well, it was a surprise in 1789 with the first french revolution that started a process that spread to almost all of europe, the recent uproar can still be considered an aftereffect, they just had a late start because they didn't find a valid enough reason to unite the people, the beast called people being what it is. I mean it's expected to happen at some point that poeple looking at others living better lives would want to have the same, they just need the right spark.Hm, well, actually I think it IS something to be surprised about. People all over the world EXIST under dictatorships, and have for hundreds, if not thousands of years. If it was just one country, I could dismiss it as a random event, but three in a row?
I'm still unsure, though, so over to you, Debate Thread.
Should the WikiLeaks fiasco be considered a Black Swan event, and is it responsible for the repeated series of political upheavals in recent times?
P