359 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Tell me Zulu, where this nuclear arms race lead us after all this time?

There is still in off nuclear warheads on this sick world to blown up Earth ten times.
I comes from part of Europe which not to long ago (20 years back) was part of the military block which only waited at single oportunity to turn Europe and rest of the world in another blood bath in name of the Socialistic revolution.

Hell in 1963 we were inches from global nuclear war because both sides (but SU especially) were too stubborn to back off until Kennedy decided to present solution which end entire crisis but at sea was in off that one submarine would fire torpedo at russian cargo ship and perhaps now instead of this debate we will struggle to find wood to keep fireplaces intact during nuclear winter... assumng that we would survive judgement day at all.

Pharaphrasing Thane's words.

"It's not important how strong weapon is, important is hand who wield such weapon and knowledge how to use her properly."

Where has the nuclear arms race lead us? Along a history with a lot less fighting and bloodshed than before the atom bombs were developed. Ah, I wish I could find it, but there was a study that came out a few years ago that showed a graph between the rate of people who died of wars preceeding the bomb and after the bomb. The rate and numbers went far, far down after the Bomb: first-world states weren't fighting eachother directly (which leads to far more deaths) and conflicts were diminished into indirect proxy wars, which were far less intense and frequent than the wars leading up to Hiroshima.

The atomic bomb has done more to prevent between powerful nations than anything else. That's what you got out of it. Now, if you don't think all the lives saved by preventing those heavy wars was worth it...

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 avril 2010 - 02:17 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Tell me Zulu, where this nuclear arms race lead us after all this time?

There is still in off nuclear warheads on this sick world to blown up Earth ten times.
I comes from part of Europe which not to long ago (20 years back) was part of the military block which only waited at single oportunity to turn Europe and rest of the world in another blood bath in name of the Socialistic revolution.

Hell in 1963 we were inches from global nuclear war because both sides (but SU especially) were too stubborn to back off until Kennedy decided to present solution which end entire crisis but at sea was in off that one submarine would fire torpedo at russian cargo ship and perhaps now instead of this debate we will struggle to find wood to keep fireplaces intact during nuclear winter... assumng that we would survive judgement day at all.

Pharaphrasing Thane's words.

"It's not important how strong weapon is, important is hand who wield such weapon and knowledge how to use her properly."

Where has the nuclear arms race lead us? Along a history with a lot less fighting and bloodshed than before the atom bombs were developed. Ah, I wish I could find it, but there was a study that came out a few years ago that showed a graph between the rate of people who died of wars preceeding the bomb and after the bomb. The rate and numbers went far, far down after the Bomb: first-world states weren't fighting eachother directly (which leads to far more deaths) and conflicts were diminished into indirect proxy wars, which were far less intense and frequent than the wars leading up to Hiroshima.

The atomic bomb has done more to prevent between powerful nations than anything else. That's what you got out of it. Now, if you don't think all the lives saved by preventing those heavy wars was worth it...

The Bomb didn't prevent the Soviets from occupying Asheer_Khan's country. So it's of little importance that it did prevent them from occupying Western Europe, Japan, entire South-East Asia and large portions of Africa. And that only by 1962, with or without world revolution agenda.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 25 avril 2010 - 02:36 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Let's not get hyperbolic here, or get our facts wrong. Plenty of SE Asia and Africa were in the Soviet sphere of influence, and China and it's sphere were aligned with the Soviets for most of the Cold War. Japan wasn't at a great threat (naval power difference was massive). Western Europe, Korea, and arguably Cuba were the main flashpoints of any war kickoff.. but it's limited to that little in no small part to the nuclear element.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 avril 2010 - 02:41 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

False dichotomy.

[Zulu_DFA]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Let's not get hyperbolic here, or get our facts wrong. Plenty of SE Asia and Africa were in the Soviet sphere of influence, and China and it's sphere were aligned with the Soviets for most of the Cold War. Japan wasn't at a great threat (naval power difference was massive). Western Europe, Korea, and arguably Cuba were the main flashpoints of any war kickoff.

Come on, China condemned the Soviet leadership as "revisionists" after 1956. If fact, there was an armed conflict between China and USSR in 1960s.

Also Vietnam was under direct Soviet influence during the Vietnam war and USSR sent their "advisers" to fight Americans, but at the same time Vietnam was also at odds with China and Maoist Cambodia.

North Korea tried to maneuver between the two "big brothers", and ended up with their own version of communsim... Until Mao Zedong died, and the Chinese didn't mind the North Koreans to lean back to the USSR... That's why it was not untill 1980s that North Koreans received nuclear and rocket tech from USSR.

There was a great rift in the communist "camp" ever since 1956. But the 1956 turnabout of the Soviet leadership was itself greatly influenced by the Bomb.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 25 avril 2010 - 03:01 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Come on, China condemned the Soviet leadership as "revisionists" after 1956. If fact, there was a military conflict between China and USSR in 1960s.

Also Vietnam was under direct Soviet influence during the Vietnam war and USSR sent their "advisers" to fight Americans, but at the same time Vietnam was also at odds with China and Maoist Cambodia.

North Korea tried to maneuver between the two "big brothers", and ended up with their own version of communsim... Until Mao Zedong died, and the Chinese didn't mind the North Koreans to lean back to the USSR... That's why it was not untill 1980s that North Koreans received nuclear and rocket tech from USSR.

There was a great rift in the communist "camp" ever since 1956. But the 1956 turnabout of the Soviet leadership was itself greatly influenced by the Bomb.

Yep.  Tyrants don't often get along too well, what with the prospect of having to compete over land and slaves.  The threat of annihilation is a chilling effect.  To paraphrase Flannery O' Conner, we're all better people when there's a gun to our heads.

[Habelo]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Come on, China condemned the Soviet leadership as "revisionists" after 1956. If fact, there was a military conflict between China and USSR in 1960s.

Also Vietnam was under direct Soviet influence during the Vietnam war and USSR sent their "advisers" to fight Americans, but at the same time Vietnam was also at odds with China and Maoist Cambodia.

North Korea tried to maneuver between the two "big brothers", and ended up with their own version of communsim... Until Mao Zedong died, and the Chinese didn't mind the North Koreans to lean back to the USSR... That's why it was not untill 1980s that North Koreans received nuclear and rocket tech from USSR.

There was a great rift in the communist "camp" ever since 1956. But the 1956 turnabout of the Soviet leadership was itself greatly influenced by the Bomb.

Yep.  Tyrants don't often get along too well, what with the prospect of having to compete over land and slaves.  The threat of annihilation is a chilling effect.  To paraphrase Flannery O' Conner, we're all better people when there's a gun to our heads.

i am not, however i am one of those very few individuals with honour left intact.

[Habelo]

saving the base is more about if you are pro cerberus or pro alliance. That is why it is a renegade to go with cerberus.



All this technology bull**** will probaly hae 0 effect. It is more to say "love/****"-you to TIM.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I hope not. I didn't do it to help Cerberus. In fact I even told that to The Illusive Man. I did it for the potential of new weapons against the invasion of the reapers.

[Habelo]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I hope not. I didn't do it to help Cerberus. In fact I even told that to The Illusive Man. I did it for the potential of new weapons against the invasion of the reapers.

get ready to get disapointed

[Jedi Master of Orion]

It would be easy to replay the mission to blow up the base. I have a saved game right before the end of the Long Walk but if it is the purpose of the game to show whether you support Cerberus specifically in the future or not, shouldn't the game have made that a little more clear? All the dialogue at the time centred on using repear technoloy or not. Not about giving it to Cerberus. And afterwards, I still got the opportunity to tell the Illusive Man to "shut up" or that "I won't sacrifice thte soul of our species to stop the reapers."

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 25 avril 2010 - 06:01 .

[Ladi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

When TIM's plans improve the chances of there actually being a Galactic community, yes. You should be okay with it, unless you value mythical equality over survival.

TIM isn't some racist who wants to enslave all other races and derive them of all say in galactic affairs. He, and Cerberus, behave like xenonationalists. Just like everyone else in the galaxy: it's the entire setup of the Council, that each race has one speaker and one representative only. It's why we speak of the races as if they're one unit: the Turians, the Batarians, the Humans. Everyone is forced into a single pseudo-national position.

The Council isn't a community of equals, and this goes deeper than the fact that all the species have different levels of strengths: in much the same way that the US is the single most powerful state in the world and so gets a bigger say than, say, Germany, so it is in Council Space. Even within the Council itself, there is widely disparate strengths: the Asari are the biggest economy, the Turians are the military, the Salarians are the spy service swing vote. Outside of the Council, there is no pretense at equality. The Volus, the Hanar, the Elcor, and many more races have been denied any and all representation in the Council for thousands of years. In ME1, there are even plenty of insinuations that the reason that the Humans are being given such special treatment is that the Asari and Salarians are positioning humanity as a tool against the Turians. The Council plays all other species to its own advancement as a exclusion racket, and even inside the Council the players pursue their own interests. You and you alone pursue a policy of that every species is equal: all the rest seek their own advancement as best they can. The Volus are vassals of the Turians, quite possibly the most unequal relationship beetween any species.


Your question is highly misleading on two main accounts. First, it assumes that one group and one grouping only would benefit. Second, it assumes a grouping of racism. For the first, this is false: the Galaxy as a whole benefits from Humanity being better positioned to fight the Reapers (a rising tide lifts all boats), and  that humans would be disproportionately dominant isn't a change of the type of galactic affairs, merely the names of who's at the top. The second is highly misleading, as the basis of pursuing national self interest is different from racial identity. When, say, China pushes for a bigger say for itself, no one looks at it as 'those yellow-skinned ethnic Chinese are looking to advance the interests of their color', they (rightfully) look at it as a pursuit of national interest. Multi-ethnic, really multi-ethnic (as opposed to tokenism for distinct minorities) nations are rare: most nations on the planet are predominately of the same racial composition.

The only other people overtly following an "our race first" policy are the krogan you kill on Tuchanka. Even if other races are pursuing wholly self-interested goals, why should I stoop to their level? I can hold myself to a higher ideal than them.

I don't see how my question is misleading - Western nations and Japan are far ahead of most of Asia, Africa and Southern America. Advancements such as computers made by these nations benefit the world as a whole, just as the galaxy would benefit from Humanity having the Collector tech. However, if these advancements were withheld from Africa and Asia, would you consider that fair? TIM wouldn't be sharing that Collector tech with the other races, despite the fact that it would help a great deal more than just humanity having it.

Secondly, were China to come across a technological development that no one else had access to and refused to share it, people certainly would be at odds with that. I don't follow what you mean by "tokenism for distinct minorities". I live in London which is probably one of the most diverse cities in the world, but I guess that wouldn't fly with you?

[Habelo]

funny fact: war makes technology go much faster.

never have things gone so fast as in WW2.

and as for sharing techology, that is dangerous, races need to be ready for the tech we give them or else things go to hell (africa). I would no way give nukes to medieval europe for instance.

Modifié par Habelo, 25 avril 2010 - 06:31 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Ladi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

When TIM's plans improve the chances of there actually being a Galactic community, yes. You should be okay with it, unless you value mythical equality over survival.

TIM isn't some racist who wants to enslave all other races and derive them of all say in galactic affairs. He, and Cerberus, behave like xenonationalists. Just like everyone else in the galaxy: it's the entire setup of the Council, that each race has one speaker and one representative only. It's why we speak of the races as if they're one unit: the Turians, the Batarians, the Humans. Everyone is forced into a single pseudo-national position.

The Council isn't a community of equals, and this goes deeper than the fact that all the species have different levels of strengths: in much the same way that the US is the single most powerful state in the world and so gets a bigger say than, say, Germany, so it is in Council Space. Even within the Council itself, there is widely disparate strengths: the Asari are the biggest economy, the Turians are the military, the Salarians are the spy service swing vote. Outside of the Council, there is no pretense at equality. The Volus, the Hanar, the Elcor, and many more races have been denied any and all representation in the Council for thousands of years. In ME1, there are even plenty of insinuations that the reason that the Humans are being given such special treatment is that the Asari and Salarians are positioning humanity as a tool against the Turians. The Council plays all other species to its own advancement as a exclusion racket, and even inside the Council the players pursue their own interests. You and you alone pursue a policy of that every species is equal: all the rest seek their own advancement as best they can. The Volus are vassals of the Turians, quite possibly the most unequal relationship beetween any species.


Your question is highly misleading on two main accounts. First, it assumes that one group and one grouping only would benefit. Second, it assumes a grouping of racism. For the first, this is false: the Galaxy as a whole benefits from Humanity being better positioned to fight the Reapers (a rising tide lifts all boats), and  that humans would be disproportionately dominant isn't a change of the type of galactic affairs, merely the names of who's at the top. The second is highly misleading, as the basis of pursuing national self interest is different from racial identity. When, say, China pushes for a bigger say for itself, no one looks at it as 'those yellow-skinned ethnic Chinese are looking to advance the interests of their color', they (rightfully) look at it as a pursuit of national interest. Multi-ethnic, really multi-ethnic (as opposed to tokenism for distinct minorities) nations are rare: most nations on the planet are predominately of the same racial composition.

The only other people overtly following an "our race first" policy are the krogan you kill on Tuchanka. Even if other races are pursuing wholly self-interested goals, why should I stoop to their level? I can hold myself to a higher ideal than them.

Why hold to an ideal that no one else respects and everyone takes
advantage of? More importantly, why drag down
billions of others based on your ideals? Are you saying your opinions
are more valid and outweight the interests of billions?

I don't see how my question is misleading - Western nations and Japan are far ahead of most of Asia, Africa and Southern America. Advancements such as computers made by these nations benefit the world as a whole, just as the galaxy would benefit from Humanity having the Collector tech. However, if these advancements were withheld from Africa and Asia, would you consider that fair? TIM wouldn't be sharing that Collector tech with the other races, despite the fact that it would help a great deal more than just humanity having it.

It's misleading because you insinuate that the basis of granting the technology is purely on ethnic grounds. Moreover, you ignore the consequences of what the alternative is: it isn't a choice of give computers to everyone versus give computers to just the, let's say West. It's choice of letting computers go to the West versus no one getting computers at all... with the knowledge that the space Terminators are coming regardless. Yes, the world will be more unbalanced afterwards when one part has technological superiority to the rest. But the rest will actually stand a better chance to survive.

The world is already highly imbalanced on technology, on a level far more relevant than 'computers vs. noncomputers.' classified military programs and technologies are instrumental in keeping the US and Western nations far more powerful than the rest of the world, and yet the West is not some sort of technological superpower hidden society that hoardes all its secrets. Cerberus releases plenty of technology to the galactic markets: it's front companies are highly innovative inventor groups, and while their services benefit humans the most they also lift the tides of the galactic standard. Certainly some Reaper technology will become widespread: technology doesn't become as effective unless it's widespread. And the most strategic influencing pieces are held in reserve.

Secondly, were China to come across a technological development that no one else had access to and refused to share it, people certainly would be at odds with that. I don't follow what you mean by "tokenism for distinct minorities". I live in London which is probably one of the most diverse cities in the world, but I guess that wouldn't fly with you?

Actually, I consider London one of those genuinely diverse cities, and Britain one of the most diverse nations in Europe. However, most countries, in and out of Europe, are far less diverse and have far more dominant ethnic majorities, with notable minorities often in distinct separate areas of the country. (See Iraq and Kurdish regions.)

Technology and idea exclusiveness is an integral part of our world, our economy, and our idea of human rights (under property rights, the idea that everyone is entitled to own things and ideas). We call it patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and all capitalistic societies pay service to the idea of keeping advantageous secrets that others can't use at all/without permission/paying for the privalege.

[Dean_the_Young]

Habelo wrote...

funny fact: war makes technology go much faster.

never have things gone so fast as in WW2.

and as for sharing techology, that is dangerous, races need to be ready for the tech we give them or else things go to hell (africa). I would no way give nukes to medieval europe for instance.

War makes military-related technology go faster. Civil engineering and non-military sciences tend to falter, and culture even regress.

Technology has never gone so fast as it does now, actually. And in a year you can say it's never gone as fast as it has then. Technically you could start at the back of the computer age

Africa's problem is not that it was somehow unenlightened and unready for technology. It's problem was that it was actively torn apart and held down for centuries, and than released in inherently unstable ways when the colonial powers left. Technology did not cause the problems, politics and grievances did.

One of the more annoying aspects of the 'enlightenment before technology' arguments is the sheer gall of the cultural chauvenists who believe that, hey, they're enlightened enough to know what's best for the uncivilized people. Who on Earth (or in the galaxy) is in a place about when others can advance? Certainly not the Council: they grabbed hold of the Mass Relay technology as fast as anyone else.

[Dean_the_Young]

Habelo wrote...
i am not, however i am one of those very few individuals with honour left intact.

Assuming you're in anyway related to the rest of humanity, you learned that honor from parents who disciplined you when you disobeyed. Babies learn to lie before they learn to speak, so it's highly doubtful you were never subjected to any sort of physical correction as you developed.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
It would be easy to replay the mission to blow up the base. I have a saved game right before the end of the Long Walk but if it is the purpose of the game to show whether you support Cerberus specifically in the future or not, shouldn't the game have made that a little more clear? All the dialogue at the time centred on using repear technoloy or not. Not about giving it to Cerberus. And afterwards, I still got the opportunity to tell the Illusive Man to "shut up" or that "I won't sacrifice thte soul of our species to stop the reapers."

If I were you Jedi, I would stick to your original decision.  That makes the game a little more interesting IMO. 

The game is linear, but we still have the story.

I imagine that ist he case too. i'm so far planning on stikicking by my decision even if it has terrible consequences. It's more interesting to RP the consequences of making a mistake like that but Probably what would cause me to redo the suicide mission though is if the decison locks me into abandoning the Citadel and the Alliance in the 3rd game.

[Habelo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Habelo wrote...
i am not, however i am one of those very few individuals with honour left intact.

Assuming you're in anyway related to the rest of humanity, you learned that honor from parents who disciplined you when you disobeyed. Babies learn to lie before they learn to speak, so it's highly doubtful you were never subjected to any sort of physical correction as you developed.

Not true, my parents are more of hippies hipocrits with no honour (like 99% of sweden). I learned honour from becoming all-knowing.

And no, most tech that we use today comes from war. (computer, telephone, transportation ****ing everything)
Do you often spam **** that you have no at all knowledge about? Or did i just feed a troll? ;P
I prob did. Well this is the last i will say to you then.

[Ladi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why hold to an ideal that no one else respects and everyone takes 
advantage of? More importantly, why drag down
billions of others based on your ideals? Are you saying your opinions
are more valid and outweight the interests of billions?

They're more important to me, certainly. I don't feel I should have to compromise who I am for others. If you change what you believe in just because no one else believes that, that's not much of a conviction. That said, I'm just some unimportant kid. A real-life Shepard would likely not make the same choices as me, and if I somehow made it into a similar scenario I would likely think very differently to how I do.

For example, I wouldn't kill one person to save one hundred, while if I were a military individual I'd think differently. My Shepard's choices reflect my beliefs even if they don't make sense for someone in his position, so I guess I'm roleplaying after all!

It's misleading because you insinuate that the basis of granting the technology is purely on ethnic grounds. Moreover, you ignore the consequences of what the alternative is: it isn't a choice of give computers to everyone versus give computers to just the, let's say West. It's choice of letting computers go to the West versus no one getting computers at all... with the knowledge that the space Terminators are coming regardless. Yes, the world will be more unbalanced afterwards when one part has technological superiority to the rest. But the rest will actually stand a better chance to survive.

The world is already highly imbalanced on technology, on a level far more relevant than 'computers vs. noncomputers.' classified military programs and technologies are instrumental in keeping the US and Western nations far more powerful than the rest of the world, and yet the West is not some sort of technological superpower hidden society that hoardes all its secrets. Cerberus releases plenty of technology to the galactic markets: it's front companies are highly innovative inventor groups, and while their services benefit humans the most they also lift the tides of the galactic standard. Certainly some Reaper technology will become widespread: technology doesn't become as effective unless it's widespread. And the most strategic influencing pieces are held in reserve.

This seems a little patronising. Computers was just a simple example that I plucked out, I'm well aware that there are more relevant examples. I will concede that in terms of military secrets there are undoubtedly plenty that are kept secret from other nations, ally or not. My question was from the standpoint of "beneficial discoveries" so the parallel I drew in my head was more along the lines of medicine (i.e. information about a cure for AIDS being kept away from sufferers in other nations).

Actually, I consider London one of those genuinely diverse cities, and Britain one of the most diverse nations in Europe. However, most countries, in and out of Europe, are far less diverse and have far more dominant ethnic majorities, with notable minorities often in distinct separate areas of the country. (See Iraq and Kurdish regions.)

Technology and idea exclusiveness is an integral part of our world, our economy, and our idea of human rights (under property rights, the idea that everyone is entitled to own things and ideas). We call it patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and all capitalistic societies pay service to the idea of keeping advantageous secrets that others can't use at all/without permission/paying for the privalege.

And I apologise here for the assuming incorrectly about your stance on London. I'll back down because I'm in the wrong here - the comparison I made in my head isn't actually one that is relevant to this scenario. Had I been given the option I would have given the base to the council so that everyone could benefit - I destroyed it rather than giving it to TIM because he suddenly became unreasonable and threatening, as well as proving time and again that he wasn't worth trusting throughout the course of the game.

Also because Cerberus have done some pretty evil things and playing ME2 didn't make me forget that all of a sudden.

[Flamin Jesus]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

If Bioware had made saving the Base the paragon choice but still under pretty much the same circumstances, then I think the majority of members on the board would be arguing that saving it was the right thing to do.

I'd argue that saving the base would be the right decision if it wasn't Cerberus that got their grubby hands on it as a result.

Though, realistically, the entire ME-universe is running over with douchebags, there's hardly any organization or political entity that has both the resources to properly exploit the base as well as the inclination to do so.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ladi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why hold to an ideal that no one else respects and everyone takes 
advantage of? More importantly, why drag down
billions of others based on your ideals? Are you saying your opinions
are more valid and outweight the interests of billions?

They're more important to me, certainly. I don't feel I should have to compromise who I am for others. If you change what you believe in just because no one else believes that, that's not much of a conviction. That said, I'm just some unimportant kid. A real-life Shepard would likely not make the same choices as me, and if I somehow made it into a similar scenario I would likely think very differently to how I do.

For example, I wouldn't kill one person to save one hundred, while if I
were a military individual I'd think differently. My Shepard's choices
reflect my beliefs even if they don't make sense for someone in his
position, so I guess I'm roleplaying after all!

If you won't put kill one person to save a hundred, then the two end-game paragon decisions are even less justifiable. In the first, you're killing hundreds (the Alliance ships and service men) to save thousands (the Destiny Ascension). In destroying the Collector base, you aren't even saving people: you're just killing far more people (those who would survive in a better-armed galaxy) in the name of preventing a differently unequal galaxy.

In either case, the Renegade decision sacrifices fewer people in the name of more.

It's misleading because you insinuate that the basis of granting the technology is purely on ethnic grounds. Moreover, you ignore the consequences of what the alternative is: it isn't a choice of give computers to everyone versus give computers to just the, let's say West. It's choice of letting computers go to the West versus no one getting computers at all... with the knowledge that the space Terminators are coming regardless. Yes, the world will be more unbalanced afterwards when one part has technological superiority to the rest. But the rest will actually stand a better chance to survive.

The world is already highly imbalanced on technology, on a level far more relevant than 'computers vs. noncomputers.' classified military programs and technologies are instrumental in keeping the US and Western nations far more powerful than the rest of the world, and yet the West is not some sort of technological superpower hidden society that hoardes all its secrets. Cerberus releases plenty of technology to the galactic markets: it's front companies are highly innovative inventor groups, and while their services benefit humans the most they also lift the tides of the galactic standard. Certainly some Reaper technology will become widespread: technology doesn't become as effective unless it's widespread. And the most strategic influencing pieces are held in reserve.

This seems a little patronising. Computers was just a simple example that I plucked out, I'm well aware that there are more relevant examples. I will concede that in terms of military secrets there are undoubtedly plenty that are kept secret from other nations, ally or not. My question was from the standpoint of "beneficial discoveries" so the parallel I drew in my head was more along the lines of medicine (i.e. information about a cure for AIDS being kept away from sufferers in other nations).

I don't see how it's patronizing, but if you feel it was then I apologize for sounding that way. But it certainly remains true none the less: the pieces that Cerberus will keep back will be those that can't be used easily against the Reapers. The rest, most of the uniformly positive stuff, there's no inclination to keep. In your example of AIDS, there's no long-sighted reason to keep a cure secret: letting AIDS exist anywhere risks having it mutate to a form that won't be countered, and selling/distributing the cure abroad boosts the position and sway of whoever's doing so.

What is without a doubt true is that in the context of the Collector Base, the technology is portrayed as being of critical importance in an upcomming, non-negotiable battle with absolute life or death consequences.

And I apologise here for the assuming incorrectly about your stance on London. I'll back down because I'm in the wrong here - the comparison I made in my head isn't actually one that is relevant to this scenario.

No prob.

Had I been given the option I would have given the base to the council so that everyone could benefit - I destroyed it rather than giving it to TIM because he suddenly became unreasonable and threatening, as well as proving time and again that he wasn't worth trusting throughout the course of the game.

The Council is no more an honest broker than TIM: It's primarily interested in its own interests. The entire Council has spent thousands of years being an exclusion racket, as well as keeping the dominating technologies (weapons, intelligence) under its own wraps. The technologies it would release would be ones that don't losen its own handle on power, which is the same concept which TIM espouses. On the other hand, TIM actually believes there's a Reaper threat, and would push the technology accordingly.

Also because Cerberus have done some pretty evil things and playing ME2 didn't make me forget that all of a sudden.

So has the Council. The Council's done more evil in both number and depth than Cerberus has. The Council condones genocide as a matter of policy: it's even the standing military doctrine of the Turians.

[Barquiel]

Flamin Jesus wrote...

I'd argue that saving the base would be the right decision if it wasn't Cerberus that got their grubby hands on it as a result.

Though, realistically, the entire ME-universe is running over with douchebags, there's hardly any organization or political entity that has both the resources to properly exploit the base as well as the inclination to do so.

Same her!

I wanted to give the base to the Council (if they still need more evidence)...
Cerberus? NO!

[Dean_the_Young]

Habelo wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Habelo wrote...
i am not, however i am one of those very few individuals with honour left intact.

Assuming you're in anyway related to the rest of humanity, you learned that honor from parents who disciplined you when you disobeyed. Babies learn to lie before they learn to speak, so it's highly doubtful you were never subjected to any sort of physical correction as you developed.

Not true, my parents are more of hippies hipocrits with no honour (like 99% of sweden). I learned honour from becoming all-knowing.

And no, most tech that we use today comes from war. (computer, telephone, transportation ****ing everything)
Do you often spam **** that you have no at all knowledge about? Or did i just feed a troll? ;P
I prob did. Well this is the last i will say to you then.

Humble, to, I see, but you've created a paradox about being all-knowing, since, well, you're incorrect.

Telephones and computers, for example, were not invented by in war: they were invented in peace, and Alexander Graham Bell wasn't even a contractor: military field telephones were decades after the invention because the technology hadn't caught up yet. Henry Ford, who created consumer vehicles and kicked the automotive industry off the ground, was doing so when the only respectable part of the US military was the navy, and the army still practiced by yelling 'bang'. It took over a decade for practical military vehiclesthat could cross rough terrain to emerge, and the went at about a swift jog (tanks). DARPA started as a military program, but not in war, and the internet really didn't become usable until civilian developments started networking in a way the military wouldn't/didn't. The internet took off after the military turned the project over. Even the US military attempts at a space program were near uniform national embarassments before space research was transferred to a civilian agency.

It's actually a relatively recent development that militaries innovate technologies before the civilian sector, and that's a result of the post-WW2 peacetime military-industrial complex as anything else. For the most part, technologies well prepace the military adoption of them, simply because the technologies start unsuitable for warfare:  too large, too unweildy, too fragile, and so on. The war-bred developments we've seen in technology in the last decade have been far less expansive and mindblowing than what one might think: more/better armor for vehicles, better body armor, and the expanded realm of UAV/ULV warfare. Militaries are generally concerned with shooting better guns, having better armor, healing people better, and delivering munitions/things to keep doing their job. That's expansive, sure, but it's also highly limited in regards to real high tech gadgets and toys.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 avril 2010 - 10:11 .