692 réponses à ce sujet

[Barquiel]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I agree to an extent. Cerberus did resort to the most egregious and damaging methods far too many times.

What exactly is it that you don't like about Cerberus's goals or ideology? I think we disagree on what we think they are.

Human dominance. For example, TIM specifically picked Kai Leng and considered him a perfect recruit, not just because he was once an N7, but because his anti-alien leanings and violence towards aliens were "proof of character". Cerberus is not only pro-human, they're also anti-alien. My Shepard has an asari bondmate, Shepards children will be asari and grow up on Thessia  (in my headcanon at least). Why would I want humans to rule the galaxy...

The Council made sure citadel space was at peace for over a thousand years before humanity showed up (look at our history in the past...100 years). Claiming that there is something wrong with the "status quo", or that Humans know better how to govern the galaxy instead of that "oppressive alien council" is extremely arrogant imo.

Modifié par Barquiel, 09 août 2013 - 05:06 .

[CronoDragoon]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
There was zero chance that I'd be able to protect them from the Reapers. Zero. 

I can't protect and save civilians while fighting the Reapers. I will utterly destroy my chances of successfully waging war against them. It becomes economics. 

TIM was right: It's always about resources. And I can't waste any on civilians. 

Their fate was sealed when the alliance and Council who were supposed to protect them decided that Shepard was crazy and that the Reapers were just a myth.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding an argument since I am coming in late, but I am not following the jump of logic that "can't spare the resources to protect civilians" means "transferring them to be experimented on and killed is viable." It would be different if you did this to fatally wounded soldiers or brain-dead civilians (whether it's moral or not, it's at the very least a different situation) but this case entails taking potentially healthy refugees and sacrificing them, which really has no basis in " I wouldn't be able to protect them and therefore-".

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

So we assume that "ethical means" will always produce acceptable consequences because ......God wouldn't let the universe work any other way?

It's just peachy that the ulcer guy did what he did, but can absolutely every problem be solved in that manner? Can you prove that?

 Grisom academy is able to teach biotic # children without torturing them, doing experiments upon them that result in death and kidnapping little children. Liara was able to find the blueprints for the device without wiping out the whole facility. Legion is able to convince the geth to fight the reapers without killing the quariuns or the rest of the geth.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 05:08 .

[OldSwede]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think we all thought it would end for different reasons.

My Shepard knew full well that he was being used. He used them as well.

And he was planning on joining Cerberus for his own reasons after the mission.

Cerberus' goals and my Shepard's goals were conceptually not very different.

Then they became a bit more 'humanity at any cost'. That's a lot different.

Things became incompatible for them when they started wanting to wantonly use Reaper tech without regard to the risks and consequences. That did bite them in the ass.

First off, thank you for being really clear in this post (not saying you haven't earlier, but it's been a lot of talk in the thread and lots of replies that you've answered).

Then I'd like to ask you (actually it was three questions, but I am too tired atm and I forgot one - so I will have to ask another time instead ;-)

I am wondering about what you said earlier, re: keeping your promise to 100%
From what I've read, is that you approve of the actions at Sanctuary -- that is one thing, but I'd like to ask if You (yourself, or your Shepard, or both) were in charge of Sanctuary, would you do the same thing?

I am asking since it is supposedly for refugees - but they are being lured into a trap. You would keep your promise, right (keeping it for refugees)?

~~~

Now, I'd like to ask how you felt being forced to work for the Alliance?
(if you felt that way, that is)

I know I felt horrible in the beginning of ME2, being forced to work with Cerberus --- but I guess if it had been the other way around (ME1 starting with Shepard being in Cerberus), I might have felt just the same about suddenly working for the Alliance.

NB: I think you and I are not very alike. I cannot even kill a fly IRL (meaning, I am very emotional and will spare lifes when I can, e.g. letting a fly/whasp/mosquito out of the window instead of killing them) and I have a very hard time playing games being a "badass" (not saying you are a badass, I just do not agree with what Cerberus has done). I actually think it would do me good to play more renegade (in games in general), but I've tried, and always failed. I guess I just need to practice more ;-)

Thanks for your time and goodnight for me  although it's only 7 PM here.
edit: sp and forgotten words...I really am tired...

Modifié par OldSwede, 09 août 2013 - 05:36 .

[rekn2]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rekn2 wrote...

everyone keeps counter arguing from a position of privilege. TIM couldve been right from the perspective of shep.

people really need to stop bringing up the fact that " but we can beat the reapers with just a little more effort!" the only reason you know that is because you beat the game. ever hear the phrase hind sight is 20/20? it applies here.

massively, stop putting up with illogical argument fallacies. youre starting to do it too.

Where did I do this? Can you define where I'm making an illogical argument fallacy?

no because i misread. youre the wrong poster. my bad, cuz.

[jtav]

AlanC9 wrote...
So we assume that "ethical means" will always produce acceptable consequences because ......God wouldn't let the universe work any other way?

It's just peachy that the ulcer guy did what he did, but can absolutely every problem be solved in that manner? Can you prove that?

Not for me. Good does sometimes come from evil, but that doesn't make it less evil. Enduring suffering and death isn't the worst thing in the world.

[AlanC9]

shingara wrote...

 Grisom academy is able to teach biotic # children without torturing them, doing experiments upon them that result in death and kidnapping little children. Liara was able to find the blueprints for the device without wiping out the whole facility. Legion is able to convince the geth to fight the reapers without killing the quariuns or the rest of the geth.

And Shepard was unable to hold off the Reapers in Arrival without annihilating a batarian system. Piling up anecdotes won't prove any principle here.

[garrus and ashley squad]

IMO things cerberus did that are just horrible

Experiments on living organisms without giving them a choice. What they did in me1 was just horrible. me3 was no better.

Torturing children- Yeah don't need to say much more here.

Taking on the forces that opposed the reapers for their own goals, which was a fools dream. So many people have failed controlling them, you really think you're going to succeed, and that whole thing with the krogan. I honestly forgot why they were even their trying to stop us. They just seemed to do it to get in our way.

cerberus did some horrible things which is why I never trusted them, and like I said they got what they deserved. Don't know if it is the worst organization as I said, other races have done some terrible things as well.

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Grisom academy is able to teach biotic # children without torturing them, doing experiments upon them that result in death and kidnapping little children. Liara was able to find the blueprints for the device without wiping out the whole facility. Legion is able to convince the geth to fight the reapers without killing the quariuns or the rest of the geth.

And Shepard was unable to hold off the Reapers in Arrival without annihilating a batarian system. Piling up anecdotes won't prove any principle here.

 Shepard was knocked out for 2 days, if they had the 2 days they would have evacuated the system. They tried to evacuate the system but the signal was blocked.


 ow and as for cerb just suddenly going off the reservation in 3, its not the case, Grayson, omega and not just the me3 dlc one. Kahoku, the thorian experiments, the rachni experiments.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 05:17 .

[AlanC9]

jtav wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
So we assume that "ethical means" will always produce acceptable consequences because ......God wouldn't let the universe work any other way?

It's just peachy that the ulcer guy did what he did, but can absolutely every problem be solved in that manner? Can you prove that?

Not for me. Good does sometimes come from evil, but that doesn't make it less evil. Enduring suffering and death isn't the worst thing in the world.

You're going full Kantian, eh? Well, that's a real position.

Even in the face of universal armageddon?

[AlanC9]

shingara wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Grisom academy is able to teach biotic # children without torturing them, doing experiments upon them that result in death and kidnapping little children. Liara was able to find the blueprints for the device without wiping out the whole facility. Legion is able to convince the geth to fight the reapers without killing the quariuns or the rest of the geth.

And Shepard was unable to hold off the Reapers in Arrival without annihilating a batarian system. Piling up anecdotes won't prove any principle here.

 Shepard was knocked out for 2 days, if they had the 2 days they would have evacuated the system. They tried to evacuate the system but the signal was blocked.

Maybe things would have gone better if Shepard had had those two days, but she did not. So what's your point? That you can do the right thing and everything will go fine if the universe hands you all the breaks? Sure. But it won't.

In the actual universe Shepard lives in she didn't get the two days, and she did have to blow up that system.

Edit: I'm just talking about the general moral principle. If all you're saying is that Cerberus does bad stuff they don't actually need to do, I have no objection.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 août 2013 - 05:23 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Barquiel wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I agree to an extent. Cerberus did resort to the most egregious and damaging methods far too many times.

What exactly is it that you don't like about Cerberus's goals or ideology? I think we disagree on what we think they are.

Human dominance.

I think the 'human dominance' claim is false personally. I think the truth to it, if there is any, is that it is a perversion of Cerberus goals that was twisted by the Reapers as they came under control.

It makes sense. The Reapers, once in control of Cerberus, twist their idea's into something that creates conflict in the galaxy.

It's how the Reapers operate. Divide and conquer. I think we can chalk it down to interpretation here. I just wish some people weren's so objective with it.

For example, TIM specifically picked Kai Leng and considered him a perfect recruit, not just because he was once an N7, but because his anti-alien leanings and violence towards aliens were "proof of character".

I think that's a bit of a contextomy. I think TIM thinks Leng is perfect because he not only has the skills, but the mindset to be of use to TIM. TIM isn't anti-alien himself. I've never seen the evidence to suggest he is - Indeed, according to the SB files, he bedded an Asari matriarch. 

I think what that line means is that TIM knows that Leng will be easy to control: Leng's anti-alien opinion will naturally make him inclined to believe in Cerberus.

Cerberus is not only pro-human, they're also anti-alien.

Not really true. Read my above points. In fact, Shepard even talks about this in ME3. 'Cerberus was pro-human, and that's a pretty sympathetic goal. Then they became humanity first, and that's a very different thing. But I don't know where this came from, or how it came to be'. Not the exact words, but this is from the discussion with Kaidan after the Gellux mission. 

Are there xenophobes in Cerberus? Undoubtedly. They also exist in the alliance, the Turians, the Salarians, the Asari (remember the Asari on Illium that hates aliens), and every other race really. Look at the Batarians. They're especially xenophobic.

My Shepard has an asari bondmate, Shepards children will be asari and grow up on Thessia  (in my headcanon at least). Why would I want humans to rule the galaxy...

Well, Cerberus, at least prior to being twisted and perverted by the Reapers, never wanted the humans to rule the galaxy. 

In Evolutions, TIM even tells Saren to get the Turians ready for the Reapers.

That said, your headcanon is your headcanon. In mine, the Asari suffer a tremendous fall from grace and lose a lot of respect as the information on their hiding of the Prothean Beacon is leaked and the knowledge that the Asari witheld their forces from the war until the Reapers directly threatened Asari worlds becomes known.

The Council made sure citadel space was at peace and stability for over a thousand years before humanity showed up (look at our history in the past...100 years). Claiming that there is something wrong with the "status quo" or that Humans know better how to govern the galaxy instead of that "oppressive alien council" is extremely arrogant imo.

And IMO, the status quo breeds stagnation and keeps the powerful on top. The Council is a powers club in my opinion. I'm against that. I want to open it up for all the races, not just humanity, but everyone. I remember I mentioned something about the Galactic Republic a few pages back. That's what the galaxy needs to become. To often the associate races, including humanity, were told to go eff themselves because the Council didn't want to actually take time and govern. And I'm not saying it was different with the humans on the Council either. They did the same as well.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 05:22 .

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Grisom academy is able to teach biotic # children without torturing them, doing experiments upon them that result in death and kidnapping little children. Liara was able to find the blueprints for the device without wiping out the whole facility. Legion is able to convince the geth to fight the reapers without killing the quariuns or the rest of the geth.

And Shepard was unable to hold off the Reapers in Arrival without annihilating a batarian system. Piling up anecdotes won't prove any principle here.

 Shepard was knocked out for 2 days, if they had the 2 days they would have evacuated the system. They tried to evacuate the system but the signal was blocked.

Maybe things would have gone better if Shepard had had those two days, but he did not. So what's your point? That you can do the right thing and everything will go fine if the universe hands you all the breaks? Sure. But it won't.

 The fact is what is a choice and what isnt. In that situation shepard had no choice. TIM had every choice in the world. Also the motivations, did shepard do it for themselves. thats questionable based on who plays shepard but did TIM do it for himself, most definatly. Only one thing mattered to TIM and that was TIM.

[AlanC9]

shingara wrote...
The fact is what is a choice and what isnt. In that situation shepard had no choice. TIM had every choice in the world. Also the motivations, did shepard do it for themselves. thats questionable based on who plays shepard but did TIM do it for himself, most definatly. Only one thing mattered to TIM and that was TIM.

OK, so all you're saying that Cerberus does bad things that aren't actually necessary?

[CronoDragoon]

shingara wrote...

 Shepard was knocked out for 2 days, if they had the 2 days they would have evacuated the system. They tried to evacuate the system but the signal was blocked.

Such are complications in practical scenarios. By illustrating these difficulties, you've actually succeeded in showing that the mere production of deontologically moral decisions will not always override real world obstacles. Refuse is the best example of this - although such a point is probably lost on an ITer.

Still, if we admit that in practice it's impossible to know when resorting to consequentialism was "necessary" or which option produces the best results or what they're probabilities are, then "ends justify the means" justifications become extremely limited in scope, reserved for actions in which the deontologically moral act is still guaranteed to produce a worse outcome than the worst possible outcome a consequentialist can formulate through their actions. To me this limits the scope of such reasonings to situations such as Arrival or the Crucible options, and excludes situations such as whether or not to experiment on and kill civilians who may or may not die anyway.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 09 août 2013 - 05:30 .

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara wrote...
The fact is what is a choice and what isnt. In that situation shepard had no choice. TIM had every choice in the world. Also the motivations, did shepard do it for themselves. thats questionable based on who plays shepard but did TIM do it for himself, most definatly. Only one thing mattered to TIM and that was TIM.

OK, so all you're saying that Cerberus does bad things that aren't actually necessary?

 Yes. They didnt need to destroy the base on mars, they didnt need to subjegate people who trusted them to be defended from the reapers only tobe turned into dominated indoctrinated troops and reaper husks for the self fullfilment of cerberus.

  They didnt need to purposly crash ships over settlements to gain biotic children, they didnt need to kill arias daughter. they didnt need to kidnap grayson and implant him with reaper tech just so TIM could work out how to implant it within himself without becoming indoctrinated. They didnt need to send Kei lang to try and kill anderson, the council members etc. They didnt need to Kill and ship off colonies of people from edan prime for there experiments at sanctuary.

   They didnt need to lure alliance soilders into a threshermaw pit to see how they attack and then capture and torture a survivor from it, they didnt need to kill kahoku etc etc etc. They systematically kill any scientist they no longer see a need for.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 05:37 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
There was zero chance that I'd be able to protect them from the Reapers. Zero. 

I can't protect and save civilians while fighting the Reapers. I will utterly destroy my chances of successfully waging war against them. It becomes economics. 

TIM was right: It's always about resources. And I can't waste any on civilians. 

Their fate was sealed when the alliance and Council who were supposed to protect them decided that Shepard was crazy and that the Reapers were just a myth.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding an argument since I am coming in late, but I am not following the jump of logic that "can't spare the resources to protect civilians" means "transferring them to be experimented on and killed is viable." It would be different if you did this to fatally wounded soldiers or brain-dead civilians (whether it's moral or not, it's at the very least a different situation) but this case entails taking potentially healthy refugees and sacrificing them, which really has no basis in " I wouldn't be able to protect them and therefore-".

I see what you're saying and why you think I'm advocating that. 

A few pages back, I detailed my method of the economic utility of a certain amount of the population that would be used to manufacture, build, create, and maintain war materiel, as well as a pool of people who's particular skills would be useful to the war effort in some way. Engineers, physicians, surgeons, people with professional skills that can actually assist in the war effort. All kinds of resources and things will be necessary. There's a lot to account for. We'll need soldiers, farmers, laborers, etc.

However, once I reach an economic equilibrium balance of what I can produce with the highest amount of efficiency, that's going to leave a surplus population that really does nothing except drain my resources and be a big target for the Reapers. So I think the best way to utilize them personally is as bait, with another population taken to be used in ways to find research against the Reapers - with them as the test subjects.

A policy of detente ensues: I can't afford to keep these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them (huskified, indoctrinated, harvested). So I have to do something about these civilians that is resource-savvy and effectively curbs the problem as efficiently as possible.

[jtav]

AlanC9 wrote...

jtav wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
So we assume that "ethical means" will always produce acceptable consequences because ......God wouldn't let the universe work any other way?

It's just peachy that the ulcer guy did what he did, but can absolutely every problem be solved in that manner? Can you prove that?

Not for me. Good does sometimes come from evil, but that doesn't make it less evil. Enduring suffering and death isn't the worst thing in the world.

You're going full Kantian, eh? Well, that's a real position.

Even in the face of universal armageddon?

Not Kantian, as much as Catholic/just war theory. I know sometimes innocents will die when striking legitimate military targets, but I can't deliberately target said innocents. But yes, even in the face of armageddon.

[shingara]

CronoDragoon wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Shepard was knocked out for 2 days, if they had the 2 days they would have evacuated the system. They tried to evacuate the system but the signal was blocked.

Such are complications in practical scenarios. By illustrating these difficulties, you've actually succeeded in showing that the mere production of deontologically moral decisions will not always override real world obstacles. Refuse is the best example of this - although such a point is probably lost on an ITer.

Still, if we admit that in practice it's impossible to know when resorting to consequentialism was "necessary" or which option produces the best results or what they're probabilities are, then "ends justify the means" justifications become extremely limited in scope, reserved for actions in which the deontologically moral act is still guaranteed to produce a worse outcome than the worst possible outcome a consequentialist can formulate through their actions. To me this limits the scope of such reasonings to situations such as Arrival or the Crucible options, and excludes situations such as whether or not to experiment on and kill civilians who may or may not die anyway.

 its the difference between a scorched earth approach simply cos its more mechanical to complete the job or not. I would say that if its something you have to think about then see if its against the geneva convention.

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime.
Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the
following acts if committed against a person protected by the
convention:

• willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
• compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
• willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

• taking of hostages
• extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
• unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[20]

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 05:55 .

[CronoDragoon]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
A policy of detente ensues: I can't afford to keep these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them (huskified, indoctrinated, harvested). So I have to do something about these civilians that is resource-savvy and effectively curbs the problem as efficiently as possible.

Why wouldn't you just draft them? If it's because of resources, why not train more farmers or laborers (I don't know how supply production works in the ME universe, specifically involving food)?

[DecCylonus]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

I am a high functioning socipath.

I know this.

That does not mean my points have no merit. I have carefully and logically thought out my points. And kept emotion to a minimum.

To say that they have no merit is prejudice against me. Same with a psychopath.

If you exclude morality and emotion from your arguments and instead focus on reason and logic, my arguments will make a lot more sense.

I'm also an INTJ type personality. Look that up. It will make sense.

This post, and the bolded statement in particular, encapsulate the problem most people have with your arguments. You are trying to argue that morality is relative, and that the end justifies the means of offering up all the "useless" people as cannon fodder or bait. But when somebody challenges you, you cry prejudice. By doing so you are appealing to the concept of a universal morality, which you dismiss in the very next sentence to justify your position. If there is no universal basis for morality, then there is no prejudice. People just have a different opinion than you do. So either you don't really believe that there is no universal morality, or you are willing to try to manipulate us with our own concept of morality.

To many of us your solution is simply to sacrifice the weak in order to protect the strong. You want to kill the civillians who cannot fight (the weak) so that they can't be turned into husks that your miltary (the strong) have to fight. Then you go one step further and suggest that the civillians be used as bait to trap and kill Reapers. All of this is morally repugnant to the average person.

From the standpoint of reason and logic, here are some very big flaws in your plan:
1) It will cost you resources to kill all those civillians. Those resources could be spent fighting the Reapers instead.
2) The Reapers aren't stupid. They might fall for your nuclear bomb trap once. After that they will probably search hard for weapons before committing significant resources to a harvest. In the worst case scenario they defuse your bombs and harvest the civillians.
3) The military cannot sustain itself. It needs food, fuel, weapons, ships, and all other manner of supplies. Those things have to be produced by civillians.The more civillians you have, the more they can produce.
4) The surest way to give your soldiers PTSD is to have them kill their own people. Your soldiers' morale will go in the toilet, and their effectiveness as a fighting force will go with it. You will face desertions and mutiny. They may try to kill you. Eventually most or all of them will refuse to follow you. Your forces will fracture and you will have a divided, weaker force to face the Reapers.
5) Once word gets out of what you are doing, support for your forces will evaporate. Nobody will want to sell supplies to your forces. You'll be forced to deal with criminals who don't mind your tactics for most of it. In other words, your logistics get far more difficult. You also won't see many new recruits to replace your losses.

[DecCylonus]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
There was zero chance that I'd be able to protect them from the Reapers. Zero. 

I can't protect and save civilians while fighting the Reapers. I will utterly destroy my chances of successfully waging war against them. It becomes economics. 

TIM was right: It's always about resources. And I can't waste any on civilians. 

Their fate was sealed when the alliance and Council who were supposed to protect them decided that Shepard was crazy and that the Reapers were just a myth.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding an argument since I am coming in late, but I am not following the jump of logic that "can't spare the resources to protect civilians" means "transferring them to be experimented on and killed is viable." It would be different if you did this to fatally wounded soldiers or brain-dead civilians (whether it's moral or not, it's at the very least a different situation) but this case entails taking potentially healthy refugees and sacrificing them, which really has no basis in " I wouldn't be able to protect them and therefore-".

I see what you're saying and why you think I'm advocating that. 

A few pages back, I detailed my method of the economic utility of a certain amount of the population that would be used to manufacture, build, create, and maintain war materiel, as well as a pool of people who's particular skills would be useful to the war effort in some way. Engineers, physicians, surgeons, people with professional skills that can actually assist in the war effort. All kinds of resources and things will be necessary. There's a lot to account for. We'll need soldiers, farmers, laborers, etc.

However, once I reach an economic equilibrium balance of what I can produce with the highest amount of efficiency, that's going to leave a surplus population that really does nothing except drain my resources and be a big target for the Reapers. So I think the best way to utilize them personally is as bait, with another population taken to be used in ways to find research against the Reapers - with them as the test subjects.

A policy of detente ensues: I can't afford to keep these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them (huskified, indoctrinated, harvested). So I have to do something about these civilians that is resource-savvy and effectively curbs the problem as efficiently as possible.

You are leaving yourself no margin for error though. The Reapers have a way of blowing through our military and hitting any target they want. So what happens if you successfully eliminate the "useless" people and the Reapers attack your carefully horded cache of support staff? Now you have no supplies and no new recruits. The Reapers win.

You aren't taking into consideration that the harvest works both ways. It's the Reapers primary goal, and they devote a ton of forces and resources to it. If you take away all the easy targets, the only targets left are your support staff and military. That leaves them nothing to do but concentrate their forces and wipe you out, which they are very capable of.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
A policy of detente ensues: I can't afford to keep these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them (huskified, indoctrinated, harvested). So I have to do something about these civilians that is resource-savvy and effectively curbs the problem as efficiently as possible.

Why wouldn't you just draft them? If it's because of resources, why not train more farmers or laborers (I don't know how supply production works in the ME universe, specifically involving food)?

I can draft them, but what equilibrium still applies. Training them all would take too much time and resources, and it would affect their training and skills in a negative manner. 

Resource-wise, how many farmers and laborers can you you utilize before efficiency is hampered? Eventually, you're going to have too many workers in production that efficiency is no longer optimal. It's all the same principle. 

It all floats back to equilibrium. There's always going to be an excess.

[garrus and ashley squad]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
A policy of detente ensues: I can't afford to keep these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them (huskified, indoctrinated, harvested). So I have to do something about these civilians that is resource-savvy and effectively curbs the problem as efficiently as possible.

Why wouldn't you just draft them? If it's because of resources, why not train more farmers or laborers (I don't know how supply production works in the ME universe, specifically involving food)?

I can draft them, but what equilibrium still applies. Training them all would take too much time and resources, and it would affect their training and skills in a negative manner. 

Resource-wise, how many farmers and laborers can you you utilize before efficiency is hampered? Eventually, you're going to have too many workers in production that efficiency is no longer optimal. It's all the same principle. 

It all floats back to equilibrium. There's always going to be an excess.

What are you suggesting we should do? Just curious as I am coming in late to this.

[rekn2]

i think the whole cerberus debate is a fallacy actually. its so biased, organizations NOW do more dangerous stuff. huge projects that dont always go crazy.

making singularities, heating things beyond the temp of a supernova...all on the only planet we populate. people are getting better at organization and to have some backwards james bond movie-like firm set hundreds of years from now is a joke.

come on, every experiment goes way out of hand, scientists die left and right... are you kidding me? its almost as bad as miranda's infertility "problem"...you know, the one we can fix TODAY.