4520 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

The reapers rebuilding the relays was such an epic scene.

Indeed.

[dorktainian]

pirate1802 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

The reapers rebuilding the relays was such an epic scene.

Indeed.

[CrutchCricket]

Alien Number Six wrote...

Control is the best ending if you want the humans to come out on top after the war. Especialy if you cured the Krogen and saved the Geth. As Javik said "The Geth may want the Reapers out of the way so they can take over the galaxy after they are gone" With the Alliance fleet smashed how could we repel a Geth attack? The Krogen will out breed us in a few months after the war. With human numbers down after a full scale Reaper attack we wouldn't be able to hold them back if they decide to take our space. TIM knew Control was a option once he was indoctrinated. But TIM also knew he could not control the Reapers in his state. That is why he is constantly trying to change Shepard's mind during the game. TIM feels that controlling the Reapers is not only the best way to insure human dominance but also protect us from our "allies". A group of aliens who in the first Mass Effect treated the humans like dirt. The Council refused to help the humans when their colonies where under attack by the Collectors. A great big Reaper army is very useful for repelling foolish alien invaders.

Not at all.

First off, the Geth were getting owned by the quarians after the destruction of the Dyson sphere. Now they have Reaper code which mitigates that but their numbers are still greatly reduced. The quarian-geth alliance would be the strongest superpower coming out of the war, but apart, they are not significantly stronger than everyone else.

Secondly, the krogan can't just pop out babies by the dozens. Their homeworld has zero infrastructure and resources are at their scarecest. A population boom would lead to extinction. And no one's going to be dumb enough to supply them beyond their cap a second time (even if they wanted to, which they can't, because of the war).

Thirdly, TIM didn't know ****, he was shooting in the dark and just happened to be right. I've always resented the quote that makes up this thread title and its associated assumptions. TIM didn't know the functions of the Crucible or its connection to the Citadel (and he certainly didn't know about derpchild.exe). He was trying to hack the Reapers with currently existing technology which was and still is a sucker's game. That the Crucible just happened to have a function that would allow one to control the Reapers was pure coincidence. Once TIM was indoctrinated (and Your Mileage May Vary on when that came around), the Reapers saw no reason to dissuade him from his efforts since he no longer posed a threat. Hell they probably even let him grab the electrodes just to **** with him, thus explaining his appearance at the end.

And finally, some sort of civil strife is inevitable, regardless of ending chosen. Every race has done **** they will be called to answer for (and humanity is no different), there's plenty of bad blood to clear. Humanity isn't going to be the little kid that's picked on, everyone's gonna need to scrap. It'll be a full on brawl (though not necessarily going as far as open warfare). No one's in any shape to do it right after the war but the time will come. And I have my own reasons for believing the control entity will have no part in these affairs (check the sig).

But as a sidenote, thank you for providing some discussion that isn't Seival weirdness or the same old tired attacks (power corrupts, it's not Shepard etc etc.)

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 28 janvier 2013 - 03:56 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

Modifié par Mouton_Alpha, 28 janvier 2013 - 07:33 .

[Bill Casey]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

You build an omnipotent being in your own image out of zombie slaves that wants to lord over the galaxy, benevolent or otherwise...

It's beyond ****ed up...
Even the soundtrack thinks so...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 janvier 2013 - 11:15 .

[JasonShepard]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

You build an omnipotent being in your own image out of zombie slaves that wants to lord over the galaxy, benevolent or otherwise...

It's beyond ****ed up...
Even the soundtrack thinks so...

Yes, but it's only a crime if said AI proceeds to abuse its power. Even then, it wouldn't (technically) be a War Crime since the war was finished. And - if you're working on the premise that the AI isn't Shepard* - it isn't Shepard's crime.

(*Personally I'm of the opinion that memories are the person, so I'd say the AI is Shepard.)


The soundtrack shows, quite well, that what comes next could go either way. Taking into consideration Paragon/Renegade versions and the vast  potential for headcanon, I'd say that it's quite appropriate.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 29 janvier 2013 - 12:33 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

You build an omnipotent being in your own image out of zombie slaves that wants to lord over the galaxy, benevolent or otherwise...

It's beyond ****ed up...
Even the soundtrack thinks so...

I do not understand what you mean. Are you proposing that Shepard AI is going to abuse power? How do you know that? It is the kind of pure speculation that you can apply to any ending. And how is the potential for abuse a "war crime"?

[Eterna]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

You build an omnipotent being in your own image out of zombie slaves that wants to lord over the galaxy, benevolent or otherwise...

It's beyond ****ed up...
Even the soundtrack thinks so...

The Separd AI never says anything about being a dictator. You've come to that conclusion yourself. 

[Red Panda]

Eterna5 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

You build an omnipotent being in your own image out of zombie slaves that wants to lord over the galaxy, benevolent or otherwise...

It's beyond ****ed up...
Even the soundtrack thinks so...

The Separd AI never says anything about being a dictator. You've come to that conclusion yourself. 

I agree, all we know is that it has a great responsibility.

[3DandBeyond]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

You build an omnipotent being in your own image out of zombie slaves that wants to lord over the galaxy, benevolent or otherwise...

It's beyond ****ed up...
Even the soundtrack thinks so...

Shreaper (made out of Shepard's memories and thoughts, but not feelings uploaded into the Catalyst's infrastructure), is not alone in there.  And even a paragon Shepard as Shreaper says things that are not like what a paragon would say.  A lot of people love to say that the music in ME3 is over the top in trying to draw out emotions.  Well, people need to then understand that music does this, it's meant to.  The music for Synthesis is techno.  The music for Destroy is inspiring, in a way.  The music for Control is ominous.  The whole tone of the thing is, voice over and music, and what is said.  It becomes clear that this is merely uploading new data into the Catalyst consciousness. 

It's also realistically very flawed.  No rational person who saw Palaven burning or watched their family die or that knows that people they cared about are in goo pots in reapers (or are reaper creatures), would want this to happen.  It's a nightmarish reality being created for the survivors of this galactic event.  And Shreaper is all in-Shepard is dead.  It would be like (but about a million times worse), fighting only Cerberus and becoming a partner with TIM and then the two of you controlling the galaxy with Cerberus troopers stationed everywhere to ensure the peace and well-being of some ill-defined Many.  But, even that would be better than what Control does.  So, then take my example and you become a new computer that TIM can use as TIM controls the galaxy with Cerberus.  Only, it's still worse. 

The idea of it being a dictatorship has not only been brought up by those against it as a concept, but by the OP of this thread.  In fact, he and others within this thread have suggested that such things are the reality of life, that we are all under control and they see that as a good thing.  You have only to read the thread or some of the OP's other posts.  I see it in a lot more practical terms-it can't lead to anything good, because it does nothing to achieve the goal, and it forces people to live with reapers with people goo in them, reapers that will be used as galactic police.  Some think that's great-keep people in fear.  Well, that's no way to live-it stifles life and learning and growth.  If one person here on the BSN would still want the reapers dead, then it follows that people in that fictional galaxy would too.  Which Many will Shreaper protect and which others are expendable?

[3DandBeyond]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...


The Separd AI never says anything about being a dictator. You've come to that conclusion yourself. 

I agree, all we know is that it has a great responsibility.

The Shepard AI says (even a paragon says this), she knew she had to become something greater.  Well, not in my game she didn't.  Shepard in my game believed that everyone in the galaxy needed to unite and to become something better together, not that she as one person needed to become greater.  That line implies a change in character.  Shepard then is alluding to the idea of control as TIM saw it, not in the beginning, but later on as he was being consumed by it.

You have only to look at how it applies to real life.  Even good people who have been given total control of others can convince themselves that certain things are necessary.  People can be convinced that some things can be set aside for some never-ending race to become secure.  It's a slippery slope.  Univerities have done studies on this.  One famous one occurred in the 1970s I think-a professor set up 2 groups.  One group was to be prisoners and one to be their jailers.  It didn't take long for the jailers to start becoming abusive toward the prisoners and to believe the prisoners had done bad things.  And yet, both groups were selected at random and knew this was an experiment.

Responsibility needs to be a balance between the rules/laws set up that people agree should exist, and that which comes from within each person.  Control attempts to substitute one person's (actually a group of "people") will for true responsibility.  Shreaper is a combination of reapers and Shepard's data.  It's supplanting personal free will with Shreaper's enforced control of the Many.  It's irrational to think this would stop conflict.  In fact, it's obvious what types of conflicts will exist.  It happens all around us.  Under complete authority, people find refuge in their own comfort zones-race, religion, sects, and so on.  They become polarized, because that is the only area of their lives they control.  And when people strive to be free, they often have a very hard time joining others to fight for it because they are split into splinter groups with their own agenda.  In effect, Control drives people apart in fear and other things.  It's a logical extension of what would happen with reapers under some partly (marginally) new management.

[Obadiah]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

You build an omnipotent being in your own image out of zombie slaves that wants to lord over the galaxy, benevolent or otherwise...

It's beyond ****ed up...
Even the soundtrack thinks so...

Shreaper (made out of Shepard's memories and thoughts, but not feelings uploaded into the Catalyst's infrastructure), is not alone in there.  And even a paragon Shepard as Shreaper says things that are not like what a paragon would say.  A lot of people love to say that the music in ME3 is over the top in trying to draw out emotions.  Well, people need to then understand that music does this, it's meant to.  The music for Synthesis is techno.  The music for Destroy is inspiring, in a way.  The music for Control is ominous.  The whole tone of the thing is, voice over and music, and what is said.  It becomes clear that this is merely uploading new data into the Catalyst consciousness. 

It's also realistically very flawed.  No rational person who saw Palaven burning or watched their family die or that knows that people they cared about are in goo pots in reapers (or are reaper creatures), would want this to happen.  It's a nightmarish reality being created for the survivors of this galactic event.  And Shreaper is all in-Shepard is dead.  It would be like (but about a million times worse), fighting only Cerberus and becoming a partner with TIM and then the two of you controlling the galaxy with Cerberus troopers stationed everywhere to ensure the peace and well-being of some ill-defined Many.  But, even that would be better than what Control does.  So, then take my example and you become a new computer that TIM can use as TIM controls the galaxy with Cerberus.  Only, it's still worse. 
...

I think people, when faced with the reality of Reapers willing be constructive members of society and provide leadership, will deal with it just fine. The idea of them being "horrified" by this "nightmare," if that even hppens, will pass once some kind of stability is reached.

The way I look at it, we were living in a galactic preserve and didn't know it. With Control, the preserve wardens are now under new management. They may overtly force everyone to conform to their wishes, or they may take a back seat and try to influence the course of events.

[Seival]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

I have finished ME3 quite recently so I haven't followed this thread. Can someone remind me why do some people call Control a "war crime"?

I have repeatedly met such a curious outlook around here - that every ending is a war crime and you are forced to pick one. It is horribly stupid but I can understand it a bit with Destroy and maaaaybe in Synthesis, if I consider the naturalist kneejeerk rejection. But control? No one dies. No one gets altered except the Reapers. What's their problem?

You build an omnipotent being in your own image out of zombie slaves that wants to lord over the galaxy, benevolent or otherwise...

It's beyond ****ed up...
Even the soundtrack thinks so...

 - "Omnipotent being". Why not?
 - "In your own image". Great - your Shepard's personality lives on and keep affecting the galaxy.
 - "Zombie slaves". Ok, they are mindless beasts and will follow only omnipotent being's orders.
 - "Wants to lord over the galaxy". Where there is a civilization - there is an order. Someone has to keep that order.
 - "Benevolent or otherwise". Yes, everything depends on who was your Shepard as a human being.

...So, what exactly is so negative about things written above? "It sounds dark, so it's negative"? "It has dark and powerful music theme, so it's negative"? Sorry, but that is too linear and short-sighted starwarish point of view. World is not just a black-and-white polygon.

Modifié par Seival, 29 janvier 2013 - 08:27 .

[Ageless Face]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Shreaper (made out of Shepard's memories and thoughts, but not feelings uploaded into the Catalyst's infrastructure), is not alone in there.  And even a paragon Shepard as Shreaper says things that are not like what a paragon would say.  A lot of people love to say that the music in ME3 is over the top in trying to draw out emotions.  Well, people need to then understand that music does this, it's meant to.  The music for Synthesis is techno.  The music for Destroy is inspiring, in a way.  The music for Control is ominous.  The whole tone of the thing is, voice over and music, and what is said.  It becomes clear that this is merely uploading new data into the Catalyst consciousness.  

First, I didn't find anything unparagonic (that's a word, right?) in Shepard's speech. Care to point out?

Second, a soundtrack is just music. It can draw out certain emotions, but it isn't responsible for the plot. At most, it can help you speculate on headcanon.

It's also realistically very flawed.  No rational person who saw Palaven burning or watched their family die or that knows that people they cared about are in goo pots in reapers (or are reaper creatures), would want this to happen.  It's a nightmarish reality being created for the survivors of this galactic event.  And Shreaper is all in-Shepard is dead.  It would be like (but about a million times worse), fighting only Cerberus and becoming a partner with TIM and then the two of you controlling the galaxy with Cerberus troopers stationed everywhere to ensure the peace and well-being of some ill-defined Many.  But, even that would be better than what Control does.  So, then take my example and you become a new computer that TIM can use as TIM controls the galaxy with Cerberus.  Only, it's still worse.  

Really? What, the Reapers are the first enemy humans ever had? 

Drawing from real life, countless wars had went on between countries, races, and even civillians. Most of them eventually ended in peace, even though the unhealthy hate between them. Some of them had even became Allied, or live with each other. 

They may not like it at first, sure. It can take a few generations even. But at the end they will come to terms with it, as people always had. No force is required.

Besides, I don't think the Reapers will bother people much anyway, after the rebuilding is complete.

The idea of it being a dictatorship has not only been brought up by those against it as a concept, but by the OP of this thread.  In fact, he and others within this thread have suggested that such things are the reality of life, that we are all under control and they see that as a good thing.  You have only to read the thread or some of the OP's other posts.  I see it in a lot more practical terms-it can't lead to anything good, because it does nothing to achieve the goal, and it forces people to live with reapers with people goo in them, reapers that will be used as galactic police.  Some think that's great-keep people in fear.  Well, that's no way to live-it stifles life and learning and growth.  If one person here on the BSN would still want the reapers dead, then it follows that people in that fictional galaxy would too.  Which Many will Shreaper protect and which others are expendable?

Some like the concept of dictatorship. There are some who think of it to be better than democratic living. Be surprised, but most of the countries in this world are still under dictatorship, and many of them enjoy it. There are even those who live in democratic country and still think dictatorship is better. So naturally, they'll go more for the thought of the Reapers ruling the galaxy, as they think of it as a better way. After all, Shepard is supposedly a good leader. Who's better to lead the galaxy than Shepard's thoughts and skills which are not clouded by subjective emotions?

I myself am against the concept, and rather democracy. So naturally, I don't headcanon my AIShep being a dictator. And as it's not a fact, and there are no evidence to suggest it (unless you're a renegade, obviously), the galaxy can live without being ruled over if control is chosen.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 29 janvier 2013 - 08:51 .

[DarkSeraphym]

Steelcan wrote...

Control and Destroy are my top ending choices. The only thing that pushes Destroy ahead is Shepard's survival in mind and body.

Still waiting for Cerberus style Control

I got the vibe that the Renegade Control ending was more Cerberus style.

[Seival]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Control and Destroy are my top ending choices. The only thing that pushes Destroy ahead is Shepard's survival in mind and body.

Still waiting for Cerberus style Control

I got the vibe that the Renegade Control ending was more Cerberus style.

What is the difference between Renegade Shepard, TIM, and Saren?... I think there are no noticable differences. If they would started their adventure as a part of the same faction, they would probably become the best friends. But, destiny is a tricky thing.

Catalyst's personality based on TIM or Saren would be very close to Catalyst's personality based on Renegade Shepard.

Modifié par Seival, 30 janvier 2013 - 08:34 .

[3DandBeyond]

HagarIshay wrote...
snipped

Some like the concept of dictatorship. There are some who think of it to be better than democratic living. Be surprised, but most of the countries in this world are still under dictatorship, and many of them enjoy it. There are even those who live in democratic country and still think dictatorship is better. So naturally, they'll go more for the thought of the Reapers ruling the galaxy, as they think of it as a better way. After all, Shepard is supposedly a good leader. Who's better to lead the galaxy than Shepard's thoughts and skills which are not clouded by subjective emotions?

I myself am against the concept, and rather democracy. So naturally, I don't headcanon my AIShep being a dictator. And as it's not a fact, and there are no evidence to suggest it (unless you're a renegade, obviously), the galaxy can live without being ruled over if control is chosen.

Huh?  Actually, it's not so much that they enjoy it, it's that they have some things that prevent them from considering any other choice.  They've lived under certain conditions for so long that they can't envision any other way.  And the ruling class creates situations that make it hard for them to consider something else.  They set up situations to keep groups with centuries old grievances from getting along, or they convince people that if there was not one main ultimate authority then chaos would take hold because people can't be trusted to try and work together.

People that believe that a dictatorship is better often fear that people cannot handle responsibility or that they should not on an individual basis, and their rulers are all too happy to prove that's so.

No one person should ever be given the right to rule a whole galaxy.  I don't care if it's Shepard or Mother Theresa or Justin Bieber.  No one person should have full authority over everyone else.

And removing emotions also removes the conscience as well as it removes the intent to determine right from wrong-and the ability to do so.  Someone who cannot feel emotions is not the best to decide things because what you then have is a machine that lacks compassion for the fallibility of people.  We make mistakes but need to be allowed to learn from them.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 30 janvier 2013 - 09:22 .

[3DandBeyond]

Obadiah wrote...

I think people, when faced with the reality of Reapers willing be constructive members of society and provide leadership, will deal with it just fine. The idea of them being "horrified" by this "nightmare," if that even hppens, will pass once some kind of stability is reached.

The way I look at it, we were living in a galactic preserve and didn't know it. With Control, the preserve wardens are now under new management. They may overtly force everyone to conform to their wishes, or they may take a back seat and try to influence the course of events.

Except Shreaper cannot tell people that s/he is in charge of the reapers.  And how long do people live?  On earth we have people that are fighting others based upon the conflicts of their ancestors.  The Asari and Krogan are very long lived.  And they are especially in tune with ancient happenings and grievances.  That won't pass.  You have reaper variants running around.  Reapers with people goo inside them flying around.  It's juvenile to think that real people will all be super happy to live under reaper authority.  And they won't know what is happening-could just as easily assume the reapers are getting ready to do something bad.  Or that they're temporarily messed up.  And if just a few people have a problem with the reapers then there will be some real conflict and Shreaper might have to kill some of the Many, even old friends. 

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

What is the difference between Renegade Shepard, TIM, and Saren?

Modifié par Argolas, 30 janvier 2013 - 10:14 .

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

What is the difference between Renegade Shepard, TIM, and Saren?

*Picture 1*
*Picture 2*

Yes, thanks for the reminder. The main difference is that TIM and Saren have failed, while Renegade Shepard did not.

Modifié par Seival, 30 janvier 2013 - 10:30 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

What is the difference between Renegade Shepard, TIM, and Saren?

*Picture 1*
*Picture 2*

Yes, thanks for the reminder. The main difference is that TIM and Saren have failed, while Renegade Shepard did not.

Are you implying that it's a good thing? 

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

What is the difference between Renegade Shepard, TIM, and Saren?

*Picture 1*
*Picture 2*

Yes, thanks for the reminder. The main difference is that TIM and Saren have failed, while Renegade Shepard did not.

Shepard never attempted any similar goal than TIM or Saren.

EDIT: Yes, granted, Shepard did right after the conversation with the intelligence if you choose to. But never before.

Modifié par Argolas, 30 janvier 2013 - 10:32 .

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

What is the difference between Renegade Shepard, TIM, and Saren?

*Picture 1*
*Picture 2*

Yes, thanks for the reminder. The main difference is that TIM and Saren have failed, while Renegade Shepard did not.

Are you implying that it's a good thing? 

From Renegade Shepard's point of view? Definitely yes.

[Red Panda]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

What is the difference between Renegade Shepard, TIM, and Saren?

*Picture 1*
*Picture 2*

Yes, thanks for the reminder. The main difference is that TIM and Saren have failed, while Renegade Shepard did not.

Are you implying that it's a good thing? 

Yes, because the galaxy has shown that it is incapable of saving itself.

[Argolas]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Yes, because the galaxy has shown that it is incapable of saving itself.

Saving itself from what?