864 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@CGG:
I do not have certainty about the outcome of keeping the base. If I had, then I'd be quite a bit more persistent. Here's the gist of things as I see it:

The base contains advanced technology. I don't know the chance of that being useful against the Reapers, but given that

(a) so far we have exactly *nothing* that can defeat a Reaper without its cooperation (see Sovereign),
( the base was a Reaper factory and should contain information about their construction, and
© the outcome if we don't win is total extinction,

the weight in favor of keeping the base is overwhelming. I repeat, the worst case scenario is not Cerberus creating some kind of human Evil Empire with their new advanced technology, the worst case scenario is total extinction. It appears to me people who argue in favor of destroying the base don't take that into account.

Things counting against keeping the base:

(a) Cerberus personnel might end up indoctrinated and start working for the Reapers
( Giving Cerberus advanced technology may not be a good idea in the long run.

Of these, only (a) presents a level of danger (not saying anything about the probability) that needs to be taken into account, because it might contribute to the worst-case scenario. Granted, after what we now know after ME:Evolution and the ME3 reveals that seems a distinct possibility, but Shepard does not have that knowledge when he arrives at the base. All evidence we can put forward towards that risk is Cerberus general ineptitude when it comes to dealing with Reaper technology. Since they got their high-priority projects right (Shepard and the SR2 - which contains Reaper tech btw), I don't see why that should bring me to destroy the base, given the worst-case scenario.

I do admit to bias here, though: I want that technology to be available for study, in a general sense. So here's my question: if both the risk and the chance were removed, if there were no Cerberus and no Reaper invasion and you found the base floating in deep space and discovered what happened there and its purpose - would you destroy it or keep it?

As for your final question:
I will, of course, accept the evidence of events. My final "processing" will depend on the details. If I feel that it is a contrivance to make Reaper tech some inherently unknowable evil mojo, then I will complain about it because evil mojo should have no place in an SF universe. Otherwise, I'm fine with any outcome. I will have judged wrongly. That happens.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 avril 2011 - 09:22 .

[FlintlockJazz]

You know what I would find funny: If keeping the base and saving the council are both bad! Think about it: most people assume that if one choice was better than the other for the endings then it's probably gonna be the paragon ending for ME1 (since then you build up allies) and the renegade ending for ME2 (since you get the tech) so that they balance out, each path gets something to help them out and to screw them over.

However, what if saving the council leads to humanity just being thrown the bone of being on the council and the other council races carry on as before instead of becoming more militant (and are perhaps indoctrinated by the Citadel) while saving the base leads to indoctrinated Cerberus? Bioware screwing with us essentially.

Probably not, probably just changes the ending sequence, but it would be funny.

[Eudaemonium]

LOL, as someone who - on his initial playthrough at least - both saved the Council *and* the Base, I think it would be amusing to see myself being royally messed with. Granted I also saved the Rachni Queen, which I am now almost certain is going to give me headaches. Still, I wouldn't go back and kill her, because that would be a bit too much meta-gaming for me.

[008Zulu]

The base wouldn't need to have an indoctrination device in it, the Collectors were bred to be subservient. EDI found no internal security grid because the Reapers didn't think, anyone would make it in the base.

Maybe TIM decides to make his own Reaper starting with Renegade Shepard (which then causes Shep to bail on Cerberus with their shiny new ship) or hunt down Paragon Shep for the same reason (EDI sent TIM schematics of the base, he could build his own)

[bellurdan]

Saving the base may not be the safest course of action in a normal situation, but please. There is a giant fleet of nigh-unstoppable Cosmic Horror Sentient Ships coming our way, and their goal is nothing short of destroying life in the galaxy as we know it, without pardon. While I do agree that in a situation where the Reapers weren't coming to harvest us all, destroying the base would be the only sane course of action.
It is, however, not so.
Looking at Cerberus operations, I see desperation, grasping at straws. We here have a saying that a drowning man will grab a razor. The situation is dire, and seriously - can you think of anything that a failed Cerberus experiment could do that's worse than the Reaper invasion?
Seriously?
I don't.
Now let's look at some other groups: the Citadel Council goes straight into swiping Sovereign under the rug and bury everything Shepard has done in the first game in boatloads of red tape. The Systems Alliance tries to badge the abducted colonies of Cerberus. It seems like pretty much nobody in the damn galaxy apart from Shep and Cerberus does anything about the threat, instead trying to somehow wish it out of existance.
Now, don't get me wrong, there's some fridge brilliance in the Council's lack of support in ME2 - perhaps knowing the unruly and not-giving-a-**** mentality of the Terminus Systems, the Council doesn't want to provoke an all-out war with them just as the Reapers are closing in, decimating any hope of success against them. Perhaps they can't even officialy say anything about the subject, even within the Presidium. At the very least they're letting Shepard do his thing withing Citadel space. Nevertheless, someone should still be doing something more active, and that's where Cerberus chimes in. They may not be succesful every time, but in the current situation it's better than doing nothing.
Now let's take the Systems Alliance. More specifically, the Alpha Relay in Arrival. Can you say they did well in that regard? They secretly planned to shove an asteroid into a mass relay but at the same time they didn't even give a warning to Batarians that they should maybe evacuate the system. Perhaps that is due to the fact that talking to Batarians is mostly pointless at this point. However, what happens is this: they take a neccessary step that costs hundreds of thousands of lives and perhaps spark an all-out war. This sounds like something Cerberus would do. On other occasions they haven't been that pristine either - staging 'accidents' to produce biotics in the past, for one, and the Gagarin Station facility for another example. The reckless activation of a dormant relay that sparked the First Contact War (though, perhaps, the turians are as much to blame - was there no attempt to communicate at all?). And quite frankly, the Alliance does seem to act like dicks a lot, especially in competition with Batarians for new systems to settle.

What I'm getting at here - Cerberus are bastards, true, but in the larger scheme of things, they're overall not much worse than most other groups on team Milky Way.
Further... in a way, Cerberus doing a lot of the dirty work to further humanity's rise to power allows the Systems Alliance to retain a relatively high moral profile. Cerberus does things that the Alliance couldn't afford to.

Another point - with the Normandy SR-2, and Miranda on our side, I don't really see TIM as much of a threat to Shepard. He should seriously know better than to ****** him/her off at this point, and if he wants to start a war with Shepard, well, he clearly is going insane and has outlived his usefulness.

[Kelgair]

V-rex wrote...

Besides, I trust Cerberus about as far as I can throw Grunt.
.

With some clever use of mass effect fields and your cybernetic implants I bet you could get some good distance tossing that krogan.

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...

(a) so far we have exactly *nothing* that can defeat a Reaper without its cooperation (see Sovereign),

the weight in favor of keeping the base is overwhelming. I repeat, the worst case scenario is not Cerberus creating some kind of human Evil Empire with their new advanced technology, the worst case scenario is total extinction. It appears to me people who argue in favor of destroying the base don't take that into account.

To be completely fair, we did not have Thanix Cannons at the time.

Speaking on behalf of Base-Blowers, I think all of us realizes the stakes and what will happen if we loose.
However, personally, I think we're still not so desperate that we should just forget the dangers that the Base and Cerberus poses (even if it doesn't explode on their faces), throw morals and principles out of an airlock and do whatever it takes.

bellurdan wrote...

Now let's take the Systems Alliance. More specifically, the Alpha Relay in Arrival. Can you say they did well in that regard? They secretly planned to shove an asteroid into a mass relay but at the same time they didn't even give a warning to Batarians that they should maybe evacuate the system. Perhaps that is due to the fact that talking to Batarians is mostly pointless at this point. However, what happens is this: they take a neccessary step that costs hundreds of thousands of lives and perhaps spark an all-out war.

I was under the impression that the "Let's blow up a System without evacuating first" plan was all Kenson's idea, not the Alliance, and it happened because she didn't think the Batarians would believe a human. 
Not saying that the Alliance are knigths in shining armor but they would not be stupid enough to give the Batarians reason to start a war with Humanity.
 

Cerberus are bastards, true, but in the larger scheme of things, they're overall not much worse than most other groups on team Milky Way.

It's not about what Cerberus is righ now; I do have a measure of respect for them, they at least accept that the sky is falling on us and try to do something to stop it; it's about what they'll become if Shepard gives them the Base. Frankly, I would prefer to not risk turning The Illusive Man into the single strongest player in the Galactic Stage.

Modifié par MisterJB, 12 avril 2011 - 11:57 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Things counting against keeping the base:

(a) Cerberus personnel might end up indoctrinated and start working for the Reapers
( Giving Cerberus advanced technology may not be a good idea in the long run.

Of these, only (a) presents a level of danger (not saying anything about the probability) that needs to be taken into account, because it might contribute to the worst-case scenario.

I don't believe a mad Cerberus is our worst case scenario for keeping the base. The holo on Ilos spoke of a subtle infiltration of all of Prothean society, with the indoctrinated everywhere, no one can trust anyone. Keeping the base risks giving the Reapers a substantial headstart on their infiltration not just of Cerberus, but of all of human and galactic society. And that doesn't even acknowledge the deeper risk, which I will explain below.

Ieldra2 wrote...
My final "processing" will depend on the details. If I feel that it is a contrivance to make Reaper tech some inherently unknowable evil mojo, then I will complain about it because evil mojo should have no place in an SF universe. Otherwise, I'm fine with any outcome. I will have judged wrongly. That happens.

I've been trying to put my thoughts together about the ability of tech to have "evil mojo." I will agree that tech can't be cursed, can't be inherently bad, but it can come at the wrong time, be in the wrong hands, and change us forever.

I'll use a science fictional example, rather than a historical one. Also, bear in mind I have not gotten any sleep. This is written under the influence of insomnia. Contains comedy, etc.

Remember when everyone was afraid of the grey goo? No? Really? Christ I'm old.  Or maybe I just have old friends? Anyway: quick lesson on grey goo. Early foreseen danger of nanotechnology. You make a self-replicating nanobot that can consume resources and build copies of itself. You accidentally let it get loose in the wrong place, it eats everything, makes copies of itself, those copies eat, etc. World is reduced to a clump of these machines hanging in space, once they've eaten everything. Grey goo. Tell your friends.

For a long time it was seen as a reason to avoid pursuing any kind of nanotech - the risk was just too great. A few decades later the guy who first conceived of the problem comes back and says it really isn't the problem we once imagined.

"We have a solution to the grey goo problem!"
"Ok, great, what is it?"
"Nobody ever make any grey goo!"
"What?"
"As long as we all promise to never construct a self-replicating nanomachine that can consume resources and make copies, we're fine. And we don't have to make them in order to get most of the benefits of Nanotech."
"But it's still technically possible to make them someday?"
"Sure."
"So... what if someone does make one?"
"No one will, because we now know we shouldn't, and they're pretty hard to make."
"But what if someone does, though?"
"Oh. Well then it still has the potential to get loose and end the world, yeah." 
"Ah."
"Oh but don't worry. It would probably be easier to make a non-self-replicating version that would just kill all humans than it would to make one that would literally consume the earth, grey goo style."
"I... see?"
"So basically don't worry about the grey goo anymore! There are much easier ways to potentially misuse nanotech!"

So, is grey goo "evil?" does it emit "psychic waves" or "bad mojo"? Nope. But can it destroy a planet, any planet, if a single, tiny error is made? Yes. And make that area of space uninhabitable, and any recovery projects impossible, because recovery projects risk picking up a single 'bot, and well... then another planet becomes a quivering grey mass.

Grey goo isn't evil. But the only reason we know not to mess with it is that we conceived of the principles behind its risks before we had the opportunity to create or interact with any of it. If someone had just handed our absolute best scientists in the 1970s some grey goo with the instructions "Hey, try to figure out what THIS stuff is," chances are the earth would be eaten by nanobots in a week. Sometimes you don't have the technology available to study a more advanced technology properly, and you don't know that unless you've already figured out that advanced technology's first principles.

So is Reaper/Collector tech evil? No. Might it contain some grey-goo style traps, things that are impossible to study safely without understanding the basic principles behind them first? Oh yes. Probably! Heck, they might have literal grey goo in there. I've seen 'em use what looked like that kind of nanotech to goo some people. So they might have tech that we do not understand how to safely study, yes. I think that's very likely, in fact.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2011 - 12:14 .

[bellurdan]

MisterJB wrote...
I was under the impression that the "Let's blow up a System without evacuating first" plan was all Kenson's idea, not the Alliance, and it happened because she didn't think the Batarians would believe a human. 
Not saying that the Alliance are knigths in shining armor but they would not be stupid enough to give the Batarians reason to start a war with Humanity.

It's just about as much involvement as Cerberus and Project Overlord, or the facility on Perugia. If we're going to collectively assume TIM knew full well about **** hitting the fan there, it'd be only fair to assume the same for Alliance command. 
 

It's not about what Cerberus is righ now; I do have a measure of respect for them, they at least accept that the sky is falling on us and try to do something to stop it; it's about what they'll become if Shepard gives them the Base. Frankly, I would prefer to not risk turning The Illusive Man into the single strongest player in the Galactic Stage.

I wouldn't say Cerberus is even nearly close to being a medium player. From EDI's knowledge, the organisation is rather tiny. It's way too small to be a major player itself - their modus operandi is forcibly manipulation and infiltration. They may have had the resources to put Shepard in the Collector Base, but the organisation isn't really capable of pulling off what the Alliance did at the Citadel when Sovereign came. The base may give him an edge, but Cerberus will still need others to ensure it's own survival, even if we're cynical enough to say that TIM doesn't in fact care about humanity. Furthermore, it's doubtful they'll really gain much tech quickly enough for it to matter tremendously, and with Shepard taking away a lion's share of Cerberus resources, the organization is probably at one of it's lowest points ever, even if they have the Collector Base.

[Apollo Starflare]

Eudaemonium wrote...

LOL, as someone who - on his initial playthrough at least - both saved the Council *and* the Base, I think it would be amusing to see myself being royally messed with. Granted I also saved the Rachni Queen, which I am now almost certain is going to give me headaches. Still, I wouldn't go back and kill her, because that would be a bit too much meta-gaming for me.

Yup, this sums up my initial playthrough as well. Looking forward to seeing how my decisions jive together in 3.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@ISpeakTheTruth: Look at from another angle:

What is clear is that the reapers wanted the mass relays and the technology behind it to be found. But from the quote I posted above it isn't clear that they wanted all their technology to be found.

If the technology given is useful enough then it is likely to be the focus of science for a while. My guess is that the reapers might want do that to avoid proper research that may lead to the same technology, but now has an equal understanding of its basics.

Instead they were given technology that can be applied, but have no idea how it actually works. So the galaxy is kept dumb to make the developments of the civilizations predictable. The reapers must be really good at those predictions, because they have done it many times before. That makes the reaper's targets easier to harvest in the future.

I'm not saying that the idea of keeping the base is wrong. I think that if it was properly handled it could be very benificial... however like I've said keeping the base was never the issue with me as much as it is who we are giving the base to. I don't know about you but I don't trust TIM with that kind of technology, I'm inclined to believe that he'd do more harm with it than good and that's why I never give it to him because whatever good can come from the Technology will be undone by the damage I bet he'll do.

Also lets not forget that there is a specie in the ME universe that has seperated themselves from Reaper Technology and they aren't weak at all in fact they're the single strongest specie in the galaxy: The Geth. Think about what their tech was able to do to the Citadel Fleet. The Heritics were only 5% of the Geth's total numbers and look at what 5% was able to do they destroyed one of the strongest fleets in the known galaxy in a matter of minutes.

The Geth are an example of a race that can develop away from Reaper technology and be stronger for doing so not weaker. Just as the Geth were able to find their own technology so too can we. I still believe that its the Geth that will prove to be the deciding factor in the battle simply because they still have 95% of power left to show.

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

MisterJB wrote...

Keeping the base was always a BAD idea, IMO.

This ^

[Dean_the_Young]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


I don't believe a mad Cerberus is our worst case scenario for keeping the base. The holo on Ilos spoke of a subtle infiltration of all of Prothean society, with the indoctrinated everywhere, no one can trust anyone. Keeping the base risks giving the Reapers a substantial headstart on their infiltration not just of Cerberus, but of all of human and galactic society. And that doesn't even acknowledge the deeper risk, which I will explain below.

Something that should be remembered is that not all indoctrination is the same. There is 'directed' indoctrination, which makes people into covert agents, and there is the general 'dumb' indoctrination which turns them into relic-guardians/husks. To date, the two have been completely separate, and the former has always depended on a live Reaper to direct. 'Dumb' indoctrination doesn't make covert agents: it makes canon fodder.

And, of course, we know that indoctrination is detectable. We don't know how, yet, but our only means to develop such a counter to a problem that will not go away... is to study indoctrination.

So is Reaper/Collector tech evil? No. Might it contain some grey-goo style traps, things that are impossible to study safely without understanding the basic principles behind them first? Oh yes. Probably! Heck, they might have literal grey goo in there. I've seen 'em use what looked like that kind of nanotech to goo some people. So they might have tech that we do not understand how to safely study, yes. I think that's very likely, in fact.

The difference between Reaper tech and Grey Goo is that while Grey Goo nanotechnology is a product of our own creation that will come when we make, if we ever do, Reaper tech is going to come regardless of whether we understand it or not. The less we understand it, the far greater the catastoph it will be at the time, while the earlier the study it, the less dire the plausible risks.

The Indoctrination worst-case scenario has already come to pass, in a more viable threat than any other indoctrinated subject bar Sovereign: the Grayson experiment. Actual Reaper control, increased rather than decreased capabilities, and extreme lethality. The actual threat and danger from it was... less than overwhelming.

[Ieldra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
So is Reaper/Collector tech evil? No. Might it contain some grey-goo style traps, things that are impossible to study safely without understanding the basic principles behind them first? Oh yes. Probably! Heck, they might have literal grey goo in there. I've seen 'em use what looked like that kind of nanotech to goo some people. So they might have tech that we do not understand how to safely study, yes. I think that's very likely, in fact.

That does not add weight to the equation in favor of destroying the base. For if that is the case, any attempt to destroy it may have exactly the repercussions you'd want to avoid. Here's an example I have actually used in an RPG:

A spaceship was infected by a very hard-to-fight nanovirus. One option to deal with it was to send the ship into the sun, only that the nanovirus was specifically heat-resistant and created to be spread through the solar wind. As it approached the sun, its next life cycle would have been activated and it would have spread over the whole star system.

So while your scenario is plausible, it does not make one where destruction should be favored over study. If we do not know enough to study something safely, it is very likely we do not know about it to destroy it safely as well.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 avril 2011 - 02:37 .

[Eudaemonium]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...

LOL, as someone who - on his initial playthrough at least - both saved the Council *and* the Base, I think it would be amusing to see myself being royally messed with. Granted I also saved the Rachni Queen, which I am now almost certain is going to give me headaches. Still, I wouldn't go back and kill her, because that would be a bit too much meta-gaming for me.

Yup, this sums up my initial playthrough as well. Looking forward to seeing how my decisions jive together in 3.

I have to admit, I was a bit put out when I got back to my ship and everybody and their mother told me keeping the base was a bad idea. Even if they were pro-keeping it 5 minutes before. I thought that was rather poorly handled on Bioware's part.

[Seboist]

Eudaemonium wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...

LOL, as someone who - on his initial playthrough at least - both saved the Council *and* the Base, I think it would be amusing to see myself being royally messed with. Granted I also saved the Rachni Queen, which I am now almost certain is going to give me headaches. Still, I wouldn't go back and kill her, because that would be a bit too much meta-gaming for me.

Yup, this sums up my initial playthrough as well. Looking forward to seeing how my decisions jive together in 3.

I have to admit, I was a bit put out when I got back to my ship and everybody and their mother told me keeping the base was a bad idea. Even if they were pro-keeping it 5 minutes before. I thought that was rather poorly handled on Bioware's part.

It's just further evidence of Bioware favoring the Paragons. It's ridiculous that the same people who favored keeping the base have a complete mind crush and decide it was a mistake almost instantly. IIRC only Garrus seems neutralish about it afterwords

There should have been mixed feelings among the crew with what Shep decided to do with the base.

[Dean_the_Young]

All the post-base foreshadowing is unease about how TIM would use the base, and none about indoctrination/Reaper-conspiracy/uber-failure fears.

Those three have always been fan-provided.

[lovgreno]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


I'm saying we have evidence in both directions.

We have exactly the same amount of evidence that the collector base will provide us with technology as we have that it will indoctrinate us, or that the tech will warp our minds, or that some other horrifying thing will happen - that is to say, we have SOME, but not complete proof.

No, you don't. You have indisputable proof that the base will provide you with advanced technology. You know this because you've seen this technology in action. Whether it will be useful against the Reapers or not isn't known, but it is implied. After all if the base was building a Reaper then it holds the secrets of Reaper construction and thus their capabilities.

You have no evidence that the base can indoctrinate anybody and have evidence suggesting otherwise. The Collectors were not indoctrinated and neither was your crew or the colonists that were held prisoner.

There is no logical reason to destroy the base without first examining it. The choices are not equal.

However this means you are assuming that Harbringer didn't wipe any databases and didn't frie machinery. You are also assuming that he wont come back. You are assuming that he didn't leave any traps before leaving. You are assuming the radiation wave worked as intended.

Think of project Overlord, thanks to Cerberus it almost unleashed a Skynet on the galaxy, wich would have made it easy pickings for the reapers. Do we want to risk this happening again? Considering what the base did do it surely have the potential for being dangerous and impossible to controll.

So yes, there is a big and very real risk with keeping the base and that risk is named reapers. The usefull applications of the things you may find in the base however is still just speculations.

[Bad King]

I stand by my decision to keep the base. IMO we cannot be too picky about what we use to fight the Reapers. If TIM decides to turn on Shep, it's his loss. As Cerberus crumbles in its fight against Shepard, Shepard will regain the Collector Base and use its secrets to help defeat the reapers.

Modifié par Bad King, 12 avril 2011 - 04:52 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Almost, but it didn't. Cerberus got it under control.

 
Shepard got it under control. I realize this is a bit of a nitpick, but a rather important one. There's nothing to guarantee that Cerberus would have been able to stop David from uploading his program off-world in the nick of time had Shepard not been there. It was an absurdly close call.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Almost, but it didn't. Cerberus got it under control.

 
Shepard got it under control. I realize this is a bit of a nitpick, but a rather important one. There's nothing to guarantee that Cerberus would have been able to stop David from uploading his program off-world in the nick of time had Shepard not been there. It was an absurdly close call.

Shepard was a Cerberus asset at the time, so Cerberus sending a resource to take care of a problem is management on Cerberus's part. Since, at heart, there was nothing to guarantee that Shepard could stop it either... Shepard isn't any inherent difference than sending anyone else.

'Just in time' aside (since Shepard can be 'just in time' whether he does Overlord immediately or after the Suicide Mission), all it would take to lock down the VI is destroying the transmission relay.

[Dean_the_Young]

A Cerberus operation with a prima-dona tsundere complex in regards to working with Cerberus...

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
So is Reaper/Collector tech evil? No. Might it contain some grey-goo style traps, things that are impossible to study safely without understanding the basic principles behind them first? Oh yes. Probably! Heck, they might have literal grey goo in there. I've seen 'em use what looked like that kind of nanotech to goo some people. So they might have tech that we do not understand how to safely study, yes. I think that's very likely, in fact.

That does not add weight to the equation in favor of destroying the base. For if that is the case, any attempt to destroy it may have exactly the repercussions you'd want to avoid. Here's an example I have actually used in an RPG:

A spaceship was infected by a very hard-to-fight nanovirus. One option to deal with it was to send the ship into the sun, only that the nanovirus was specifically heat-resistant and created to be spread through the solar wind. As it approached the sun, its next life cycle would have been activated and it would have spread over the whole star system.

So while your scenario is plausible, it does not make one where destruction should be favored over study. If we do not know enough to study something safely, it is very likely we do not know about it to destroy it safely as well.

This isn't what I was talking about. Ok, I'll give you a better example.

You have a flask of weaponized Ebola. You can give it to Girolamo Fracastoro, in the 1500s telling him "this is the eventual epitome of the theory you are trying to develop about germs causing illness. It is very advanced technology. It is also very dangerous. Do you want to study it or destroy it?

Studying it is a bad idea. Even though he is about to be one of the first to premise that "germs" cause disease, he doesn't know what safety precautions to take around an airborn supervirus. If you give him that vial and he opens it, likely most of the population of the earth will be destroyed.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2011 - 07:32 .