Ce sujet est fermé
darthrevaninlight wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I think it makes perfect sense from my point of view. I'm not saying my point of view is perfect, or that my point of view is any better than anyone elses. I just think that it makes sense, and that is what my Shepard is going to be doing in my own headcanon.
This debate looks fun. I want in.:bandit:
So you say it makes sense? I assume that you mean "sense" as in the practicality of the issue. You seem to assert (correct me if I'm wrong) that if someone's death occurs, and the result of their death is some betterment, whatever it may be, then it would be better that they do die.
I have two points of contention with this; the first being, on what basis do you determine betterment? Does it have to do with defeating the Reapers? What do you define 'better' as?
The other; assuming that you have no superhuman ability to know the future, on what basis would you be able to say 'this will happen as a result of their death'?
If I have a tangible benefit that can significantly boost my research, provide a breakthrough, get a cure, etc, then yes, personally I can accept the death of a person for that gain.
On the basis of defeating the Reapers, I'll start by saying that I believe that there is no worse evil than the Reapers, minus permanently destroying all life in the galaxy forever and synthesis from the current context of ME3.
I define better in regards to the Reapers as something that can be used to improve our odds, our chances. There comes a belief in me that not everyone is going to be saved. In fact I believe most are going to die no matter what I do. It is beyond my power to save them.
In this case, I do believe that I can make them useful before and as they die. I believe that anything I to do them would be better than leaving them to be harvested by the Reapers.
Normally, I would base this upon an economic model. I can turn some of these civilians into resources, tools to use in the fight against the Reapers. Utility is a big word. I can find lots of ways to utilize many of these civilians, be it through engineering, manufacturing, medical issues, agriculture, resource delivery, military conscription, etc.
There is going to reach a point however when I attain an economic equilibrium. This equilibrium is the point where I get the most output (i.e. value from assets gained) with the highest number of input (labor, time, resources, costs, etc). Once my level of output starts to show signs of weariness against increasing input, it's time to take the excess and find a... different application for them.
I can't protect them since the cost of protecting them exceeds the limitations of my military in other fields. I need my military to protect the Crucible whenever I deploy it. I need every ship and soldier and resource.
I might use them in something like Sanctuary where I can use them to try and find a way to use the Reapers indoctrination against them. I'm not talking like TIM where I want to control them - I don't. I want to find a way where I can exploit their indoctrination and find a means of countering it, or exploiting it destroy Reapers, or to find ways to turn more Reaper troops to our side and use them against the Reapers (along with the Leviathans).
And there's still going to be a massive excess of civilians. For them, I will use as bait: Have you read the World War Z book by Max Brooks? If so, I imagine you're familiar with the Redecker Plan?
Though of course, Reapers are much more intelligent than the hordes of the undead. They have a different purpose for people than the undead. So I'd plant nuclear devices on the colonies and cities that I leave my populations on. It's definitely not a good thing for rehabilitating the galaxy at a later date, but stopping the Reapers is my only priority. I'll deal with those problems later when the time comes. But a nuke in a city under attack by Reapers will take care of my excess population. They'll die instantly (most of them), which will prevent their use by the Reapers, and it will kill a few Reapers to boot (the ones in the immediate vicinity of the blast).
It's sort of like a scorched Earth policy: I can't afford to protect these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them. Besides outright killing them, the Reapers will either harvest them, or turn them into husks. So I'm going to deny their utility by the Reapers in that manner.
To define better, I define it as a galaxy where I don't have to do what I do.
On to the next, as for determining the future, I really can't.
That said, if I know I have a very good chance of making something happen, something that is truly beneficial, I'll take that shot to make the benefit. Once again, understand that I'm not going to out and out seek the most egregious method every single time. That was TIM's flaw with Cerberus. They relented to the most extreme method far, far too often. There are alternatives to exploit, and unless I'm absolutely sure that I can make a very positive gain now by... sacrificing someone, I will look for ways to utilize the alternatives.
It seems more people are upset though that I have a willingness to even consider the lethal options however. To that, I really can't say anything other than that I don't see why they're upset about what I think.
Retour en haut
