I know they did this to deprive the machines from solar energy but wouldn't i be suicide as no sun light means no life on earth?
When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
I think they probably had a plan to take away the blackness after destroying the machines. Problem is they didn't destroy the machines.
share
</end post>
My thought as well - the nanomachine swarms were constructed to respond to a deactivation code or signal that was given to a select few of the civilian and military leadership for security reasons. The human armies and governments were so ravaged by the war that they lost the code or transmission signal because the individuals entrusted with it were killed. Either that or they yet again underestimated the power they were unleashing and simply lost control of the nanomachines, so that they pretty much set a "Grey Goo" event in motion except confined only to the skies.
sharethe humans were apparentely desperate
www.youtube.com/user/edgecrusherhalo
the max payne movie is the st anger of video game movies
[deleted]
I don't understand why the machines haven't gotten rid of the cloud yet... Surely if they're so advanced, they would have the capability to fix the sky.
I don't believe that the humans blackened the sky. "The Second Renaissance" was presented as a "Zion historical archive," and since we know from the trilogy that Zion's understanding of history is totally governed and controlled by what the Machines tell them, there is reason to suspect the events as presented in "The Second Renaissance."
Blackening the sky did much more to hurt the humans than it ever did against the machines. Not only was it totally useless and ineffective against the machines, it screwed humanity for all time.
Also, since we know that there are plenty of other sources of energy on the planet, the claim that the machines were totally dependent on solar power seems unfounded and ill-conceived. (This is also confirmed by the Architect's implication that the machines don't really need humans as a source of power, as well as the fact that Zion has a source of power, too.)
Humans are/were far more dependent upon the Sun than the machines. I think it was the machines who blackened the sky and rewrote history to blame it on the humans.
I think your hypothesis would make more sense the other way around. Humans would blame the black sky on the machines as a propaganda piece. I think it's fair to say that humans are 100% responsible for the black sky.
shareHe said that the black sky could be machine propaganda. Thus it was the machine who blackened the sky and blamed the humans. Second Renaissance has to be machine propaganda since blackening the sky only hurts humans more.
You can shield against EMP. Nukes produce emp, but for the most widespread effect, they have to be detonated at high altitude, and again, it can still be shielded against. In other words, if it's shieled well enough against the heat of a nuke, it's probably shielded well enough against the emp of a nuke.
sharewhat I don't get is why didn't the machines remove it?
share
They have no need to. They have all the energy they need in human bodies.
"You're going to need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
"They have no need to. They have all the energy they need in human bodies.
"
It's an unrealistic story gimmick, that's all.
It wouldn't be plausible that the machines wouldn't fix the sky.
First of all, isn't it logical and better to have as many energy sources as possible?
Second of all, wouldn't it be better for the 'crops' as well?
Third of all, if we are to think that the machines are in so many ways SOOOO "human", that we are supposed to somehow feel sympathy, when a machine is destroyed by humans in a way that would be very gory and disgusting, if it was an actual human being ripped apart - then why can't we assume that the machines would also have an APPRECIATION OF BEAUTY of the nature and all?
If we are to assume they somehow have souls (though this is not really explained in any of the movies or stories - just 'assumed', because they are 'sentient'), which would be the only reason to feel sympathy for the machine that's ripped apart in that scene I mntioned, then shouldn't we also assume that they would also benefit from the light?
Just because their BODIES do not need the sun, doesn't mean their other bits couldn't benefit from it.
So, if they are just 'pure machines without souls', it'd be insane to feel anything towards a machine that's being ripped apart, except for its usefulness (like watching someone destroy a fully functional Sega Dreamcast would be a horrible experience). Which means that this scene doesn't make any sense - it tries so hard to gather sympathy for the machines, and portrays humans as evil, soulless machines as well.
But if they somehow, magically, without incarnation, just 'have souls' suddenly, then we can sympathize with the machine in the scene, being ripped apart, and although there's no physical pain, there could be psychological trauma. And this would consequently mean that they would definitely fix the sky and the planet so that nature can flourish again, because they appreciate the delicate beauty and other very human aesthetics that would then be available.
So no matter how you look at it, it's just a silly movie plot gimmick, illogical and implausible. You can't have it both ways. Either soul + skyfixing, or no soul + no empathy for the previously mentioned scene (which would render the scene and the whole episode meaningless).
Third of all, if we are to think that the machines are in so many ways SOOOO "human", that we are supposed to somehow feel sympathy, when a machine is destroyed by humans in a way that would be very gory and disgusting, if it was an actual human being ripped apart - then why can't we assume that the machines would also have an APPRECIATION OF BEAUTY of the nature and all?
If we are to assume they somehow have souls (though this is not really explained in any of the movies or stories - just 'assumed', because they are 'sentient'), which would be the only reason to feel sympathy for the machine that's ripped apart in that scene I mntioned, then shouldn't we also assume that they would also benefit from the light?
It would have been suicide, yes.
shareI'd suggest watching the next Republican Leadership Debates to understand more.
And then look at Iraq, Syria and China and ask yourself, "Why wouldn't we do it?".