3478 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well at first my reason was "I don't trust the Illusive Man"...

But recently I changed it to, "To ****** Shand off."

I feel both are equally admissible.

I'm impressed at how much you let the opinions of others decide you choices for you.

[Yukiko]

"Why do people destroy the Collector base?"



Hmm why not?

[Collider]

One cannot really assume that I am motivated and controlled by raw emotion when I say the risks are not worth the potential benefits. Yes, what the team witnesses at the collector base is horrific and all that. But at the core, whether or not one views the scene as something that upsets your stomach, the technology exhibited at the collector base is capable of mind control as well as the construction of reapers. Given that Cerberus

a) Done mind control and other immoral experiments in the past
or
Apparently fails to or does not care to monitor their "rogue" sects

I cannot trust Cerberus to use the technology in a reasonable matter. The suicide mission could have omitted the death scenes of the humans to the player's eyes, and I would still have the same opinion. Mind control is bad and a violation of human rights no matter how you slice it.

Modifié par Collider, 02 juin 2010 - 11:52 .

[Ieldra]

Nightwriter wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

There are basically two reasons why people destroy the base:

(1) They find the risks (what TIM might do with it, indoctrination) greater than the possible benefits (a better understanding of the enemy, adapting technology).
(2) They let their decision be influenced by the disgust at what has happened there ("no good ever comes from that", "it feels like a betrayal").

Since reason is the slave of the passions (David Hume), I suspect that many people argue with (1) while really being motivated by (2). This, btw, may also apply to us who argue for keeping the base: we may argue that the benefits outweigh the risks, but I really couldn't say how much I'm influenced by what I also feel with the strength of a moral imperative: you don't destroy knowledge. Period.

A reasonable and fair summation. Very good.

I rather can't help but consider how it applies to myself. My strongest natural emotional instinct was to keep the base. Because of the power it might grant. So I suppose that power had emotional sway over me as well.

Another strong emotional instinct that came into play was my distrust for TIM. Hmm. Is distrust an emotion? Is suspicion an emotion? All I know is disgust for what happened there or "this is a betrayal" never came into play for me at all. Foreboding, however, very much did.

Foreboding, yes. Here's my preferred explanation for that:

Humans - and other social species - are ultimately concerned with preserving their societies and their societies' institutions, because they depend on them for survival. Anything that threatens upheaval is viewed with suspicion. That, since the 19th century at the latest, also includes technologies with the potential to disrupt. Reaper technology is definitely such a technology, even assuming it can be adapted to mostly beneficial purposes. This fear of upheaval has been useful for survival for so long in the history of our species that our brain structure was affected and it now informs our moral intuitions: we have one moral domain that is mostly concerned with social stability, even if it comes at the cost of fairness and justice on an individual level, which is why some things others do bother us even if they don't deal any damage or injustice to anyone (liberal westerners tend to overrule this domain). The decison about the Collector base puts us into a situation where we might need to risk upheaval to survive - or risk death for the sake of stability. Humans tend to risk individual death for the sake of their society's stability, and our mythologies tend to glorify such a sacrifice. To deliberately risk upheaval has always been a minority's choice - here we find the revolutionaries of all persuasions. That the latter may now be rational, because there is absolutely no chance that things will stay the same, is hard to reconcile with our intuitions.

For myself, I like scenarios where things will never be the same after the conflict is resolved because it's an ultimately forward-looking viewpoint. The only end for the ME trilogy I really fear is one where things go back to normal, to where they've been before ME1, where people go on living and can pretend it all never happened because it had no large-scale consquences to speak of. I experience foreboding at the idea that the Paragon ending might come to that.

[Nightwriter]

I think that's a very apt evaluation Ieldra.

So are you saying I feel as though my fear of social instability makes me destroy the base or my fear/survivalism instinct makes me keep it? 

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm impressed at how much you let the opinions of others decide you choices for you.

You are so no fun. Where is your humor. Where.

I know it's in there somewhere. I know it, I tell you. And I'll find it. You can't hide these things from me.

[Ieldra]

Nightwriter wrote...
I think that's a very apt evaluation Ieldra.

So are you saying I feel as though my fear of social instability makes me destroy the base or my fear/survivalism instinct makes me keep it?

Let's say these intuitions are a factor in how we tend to feel and think about the decision. To which degree probably varies a lot by individual.
I'm actually not so sure about the emotions driving the decision to keep the base. For me, it's because the empowerment of the human mind through knowledge and (self-)reflection, particularly against the constraints of tradition, is a defining part of my value system. Within the framework of what I said in my last post, I'm one of the revolutionaries who actually welcome the upheaval and the destruction of the old order, hopes it will not end in disaster but is willing to risk it. That's why I tend to be on Cerberus' side in spite of its methods and TIM's untrustworthiness.

Of course this means that we all aren't completely rational about it. I think the decision to keep the base has, for the most part, reason on its side and only mythology against it, but I can never be completely sure of it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juin 2010 - 02:10 .

[Beholderess]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Well at first my reason was "I don't trust the Illusive Man"...

But recently I changed it to, "To ****** Shand off."

I feel both are equally admissible.

I'm impressed at how much you let the opinions of others decide you choices for you.

Most of the choices are based on opinions. This one is as valid as any other.

[Astranagant]

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

I fail to see the point in doing it. Preserving the base seemed convientient and perhaps increased the chances of getting collector weapons and tech in ME3. I don't get why the majority of the community destroy it. The last person I asked just said it was "to get a more satifying explosion" but it seems like more than that.

Because TIM would probably use the technology to exterminate all alien species and make humanity into the new Reapers?

[Beholderess]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Foreboding, yes. Here's my preferred explanation for that:

Humans - and other social species - are ultimately concerned with preserving their societies and their societies' institutions, because they depend on them for survival. Anything that threatens upheaval is viewed with suspicion. That, since the 19th century at the latest, also includes technologies with the potential to disrupt. Reaper technology is definitely such a technology, even assuming it can be adapted to mostly beneficial purposes. This fear of upheaval has been useful for survival for so long in the history of our species that our brain structure was affected and it now informs our moral intuitions: we have one moral domain that is mostly concerned with social stability, even if it comes at the cost of fairness and justice on an individual level, which is why some things others do bother us even if they don't deal any damage or injustice to anyone (liberal westerners tend to overrule this domain). The decison about the Collector base puts us into a situation where we might need to risk upheaval to survive - or risk death for the sake of stability. Humans tend to risk individual death for the sake of their society's stability, and our mythologies tend to glorify such a sacrifice. To deliberately risk upheaval has always been a minority's choice - here we find the revolutionaries of all persuasions. That the latter may now be rational, because there is absolutely no chance that things will stay the same, is hard to reconcile with our intuitions.

For myself, I like scenarios where things will never be the same after the conflict is resolved because it's an ultimately forward-looking viewpoint. The only end for the ME trilogy I really fear is one where things go back to normal, to where they've been before ME1, where people go on living and can pretend it all never happened because it had no large-scale consquences to speak of. I experience foreboding at the idea that the Paragon ending might come to that.

Very interesting idea, and you've explained it well. Thank you.
Not sure if it fully applies to me, though...If there was any opportunity to give the base to a less extreme organisation than Cerberus, I wouldn't have hesitated to keep it. Stability is not on top of my priority list, but knowlege is pretty close to the top.
So, the thing I've been afraid of is not instability, but the cruelty of Cerberus. It has a history of doing horrible things in the name of "research", so if I'll give them the base, knowing full well that they'll use it to torture hundreds of people - well, I'll be responisble for that torture.
Knowlege>stability, but knowlege<human (or other sentient) rights.

[smudboy]

Nightwriter wrote...

I think that's a very apt evaluation Ieldra.

So are you saying I feel as though my fear of social instability makes me destroy the base or my fear/survivalism instinct makes me keep it? 

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm impressed at how much you let the opinions of others decide you choices for you.

You are so no fun. Where is your humor. Where.

I know it's in there somewhere. I know it, I tell you. And I'll find it. You can't hide these things from me.

Look at this...

...summarizing someone's opinion via psychology.
You sexy flying police car devil you.  Let me just bend over and put on my wizard hat and robe here...

Oh yeah.  Keep the base.  Think of all the Baby Reapers. 

[JJM152]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I think that's a very apt evaluation Ieldra.

So are you saying I feel as though my fear of social instability makes me destroy the base or my fear/survivalism instinct makes me keep it?

Let's say these intuitions are a factor in how we tend to feel and think about the decision. To which degree probably varies a lot by individual.
I'm actually not so sure about the emotions driving the decision to keep the base. For me, it's because the empowerment of the human mind through knowledge and (self-)reflection, particularly against the constraints of tradition, is a defining part of my value system. Within the framework of what I said in my last post, I'm one of the revolutionaries who actually welcome the upheaval and the destruction of the old order, hopes it will not end in disaster but is willing to risk it. That's why I tend to be on Cerberus' side in spite of its methods and TIM's untrustworthiness.

Of course this means that we all aren't completely rational about it. I think the decision to keep the base has, for the most part, reason on its side and only mythology against it, but I can never be completely sure of it.

Here's the rub though - Knowledge is intrinsicly neutral, it's the application of that knowledge that implies morality and that's where I think you are over simplifying the repercussions of the decision.

Ultimately it's not about if you approve of Cerberus's mission, or their methods, it's if you feel that it's safe for a single man to have control over that technology. TIM is essentially a dictator, he has ultimate control over that base if you hand it over, and even if you think he's a great upstanding guy (and I have no idea why anyone would think that), concentrating that much potential power in the hands of one man is so incredibly dangerous (I mean, fark - they were making a Reaper!)

Now if it was a matter of turning the base over to the Council, it's not quite as dire of a decision. Even handing it over to the Alliance probably isn't too risky, but you're essentially choosing to give potentially the most powerful weapon in the galaxy over to a man whom you barely personally know and is held accountable to no one.

That seems pretty unethical to me.

[Nightwriter]

How dare you cast impure aspersions on my police car.

The moment I saw it I was reminded of Chief Wiggum's car and became woefully nostalgic for the Simpsons. I cannot let it go.

It is hardly its fault it is now sexy through extension.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 02 juin 2010 - 02:36 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

STG wrote...

It's those eyes man. Those disturbing, glowing eyes...

Also in the last scene, when you hand the base over to him he has this really devious smirk on his face. I just expected him to say: "Shepard, you fool."

LMAO! Nice way to put it ...

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 02 juin 2010 - 02:42 .

[Raphael diSanto]

crimzontearz wrote...

Look Johnny...as far as we knoiw even Shepard becomes a failure to Cerberus if you pick the Paragon path and rebell to them.......what does that tell you?

Actually, that's not true. TIM did not resurrect Shepard to become a beacon of darkness (heh) for Cerberus. TIM resurrected Shepard to beat the Collectors. And s/he did.

At no point in the story does is it ever even implied that TIM wants Shepard's opinion of Cerberus to change. Miranda might try and change Shepard's mind, but she's not TIM. This is exact reason why TIM did -not- want a control chip placed in Shepard's brain.

TIM wanted the exact same Shepard, including the same moral values. TIM knows that that means that a Cerberus-hating Shepard is going to remain a Cerberus-hating Shepard.

The difference between Miranda and TIM is that TIM doesn't care if Shepard hates Cerberus. He brought Shepard back to do a specific job, which was subsequently accomplished. The experiment was a complete success.

Modifié par Raphael diSanto, 02 juin 2010 - 02:47 .

[Cpl_Facehugger]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Look Johnny...as far as we knoiw even Shepard becomes a failure to Cerberus if you pick the Paragon path and rebell to them.......what does that tell you?

Actually, that's not true. TIM did not resurrect Shepard to become a beacon of darkness (heh) for Cerberus. TIM resurrected Shepard to beat the Collectors. And s/he did.

At no point in the story does is it ever even implied that TIM wants Shepard's opinion of Cerberus to change. Miranda might try and change Shepard's mind, but she's not TIM. This is exact reason why TIM did -not- want a control chip placed in Shepard's brain.

TIM wanted the exact same Shepard, including the same moral values. TIM knows that that means that a Cerberus-hating Shepard is going to remain a Cerberus-hating Shepard.

The difference between Miranda and TIM is that TIM doesn't care if Shepard hates Cerberus. He brought Shepard back to do a specific job, which was subsequently accomplished. The experiment was a complete success.

When you put it like that, I start to wonder how TIM couldn't see that a paragon-Shep wouldn't keep the base. I also start to wonder if this is all part of TIM's plan in some fashion.

[Skyblade012]

"Soon the Collectors will be crushed, and young Shepard will be one of us."



Yeah, not sure where that came from. Just sort of popped in there. Sorry.

[ArcanistLibram]

It turns organics into goo and feeds them to a Terminator. It's a ****ing evil base.

[Tooneyman]

Best answer to this day " Because I could!" haha!

[Jzadek72]

I'd like the option to give it to the council, but I'm not giving a superbase to space n.a.z.i.s

[Mouton_Alpha]

I wrote that in the other thread that touches this topic (inept Cebrerus thread):



The best way to use the base is have Shepard and his kill team remain on site and oversee the scientific effort. And shoot any clueless egghead that even walks near the husk spikes.



"Shepard, uh, we kind of accidently activated a bunch of Scions in the Delta wing" "Yeah, yeah, be right there, just lemme finish this taco"

[lucke_p]

Well TIM thought that sabotaging starships over human colonies to release element zero, causing majority of newborns to be stillbirths or have cancerous growths and a few to have biotic talents, was something that furthered the cause of humanity.



So no, I'm not going to trust him with a station that has the potential to create Reapers at the cost och tens of thousands of lives or more.



And to those who wanted to give the base to the council, remember how they were ****in' about not creating a major conflict with the Terminus systems in ME1? I'm guessing that still holds true.

[Ieldra]

JJM152 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I think that's a very apt evaluation Ieldra.

So are you saying I feel as though my fear of social instability makes me destroy the base or my fear/survivalism instinct makes me keep it?

Let's say these intuitions are a factor in how we tend to feel and think about the decision. To which degree probably varies a lot by individual.
I'm actually not so sure about the emotions driving the decision to keep the base. For me, it's because the empowerment of the human mind through knowledge and (self-)reflection, particularly against the constraints of tradition, is a defining part of my value system. Within the framework of what I said in my last post, I'm one of the revolutionaries who actually welcome the upheaval and the destruction of the old order, hopes it will not end in disaster but is willing to risk it. That's why I tend to be on Cerberus' side in spite of its methods and TIM's untrustworthiness.

Of course this means that we all aren't completely rational about it. I think the decision to keep the base has, for the most part, reason on its side and only mythology against it, but I can never be completely sure of it.

Here's the rub though - Knowledge is intrinsicly neutral, it's the application of that knowledge that implies morality and that's where I think you are over simplifying the repercussions of the decision.

Ultimately it's not about if you approve of Cerberus's mission, or their methods, it's if you feel that it's safe for a single man to have control over that technology.

Not for me it's not. It is about whether the knowledge contained in the base is lost or not. That, for me, is the most important consideration and equals the weight of the moral dimension, especially since it's plausible to assume TIM will be easier to overcome than the Reapers.  Ultimately, the domain that influences my decision most is no one you would accept as a moral one, though I could explain why it is one for me. 

TIM is essentially a dictator, he has ultimate control over that base if you hand it over, and even if you think he's a great upstanding guy (and I have no idea why anyone would think that), concentrating that much potential power in the hands of one man is so incredibly dangerous (I mean, fark - they were making a Reaper!)

Yes, it is that. TIM is that most dangerous of individuals: the one who can lead a revolution but must not be allowed to rule after it. Yet, while TIM would only rule as an autocrat for an unknown length of time, the Reapers would destroy or indoctrinate all sapient life.

Now if it was a matter of turning the base over to the Council, it's not quite as dire of a decision. Even handing it over to the Alliance probably isn't too risky, but you're essentially choosing to give potentially the most powerful weapon in the galaxy over to a man whom you barely personally know and is held accountable to no one.

Well, we don't have that choice. If I had the chance, do you know what I'd do: give it to everyone!

That seems pretty unethical to me.

It depends on the alternatives. But to destroy it is not an option. If TIM is the next best one, then so be it. Don't think I'm happy about it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juin 2010 - 03:57 .

[Thatguy38]

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

Cerberus isn't that bad. I like how it auctually does something.

And why does everyone asume TIM is going to build another reaper? Also, why does everyone asume he's the only one in charge?
I always have that suspicion he has a superior...

Yeah, another Reaper. I have a theory, totally out there, but entirely possible. In ME 1, Sovereign says, "We are each a nation", which implies that reapers, like humans and pretty much all other sentient life, think independently or have free will. So, isn't it possible that TIM might be a puppet for yet another as yet unrevealed Reaper? Think about it, why else would he have Shepherd go after the collectors, why else would he want sheperd to keep the base. Yes, he is a megalomaniac, and no good could possibly come from putting the base into his hands, but isn't possible too that he is working under control of another Reaper that is trying to take control from Harbinger? No evidence to support this, and it is wildy speculative, but there is no evidence to disprove this either.

[Ravisha]

for me, it was mostly because it is totally Alien technology, little understood at best.



If I failed to destroy it, and some 'harmless' component activated at some future point, it would be a threat all over again, innocents might die (the scientists and security details of the conquering Cerberus fleet spring to mind.. for starters..)



That I would be keeping information out of Cerberus' greedy paws was a nice bonus but I'd also have destroyed it if there had been an option to deliver the base to the Alliance.. the only good Collector is an obliterated Collector..