Someone had posited that the Founders need the refugees because they keep the Ark afloat by performing dangerous work and maintenance tasks, and that is why they're being made to stay, but I'm not sure that's the case. It seems to me that the original inhabitants of the Ark are capable of maintaining things themselves, but since they have a population of refugees, they're getting them to do it in exchange for their rations. I don't think the Security or founders have a desire to kill the resistance, as one of the Container City vids starts off with the Security team leader stressing about minimizing casualties, and only using martial force if the resistance... resists. However, I would think that if resources were a concern then it would be better for less people to be using them.

In other words, the security has a relatively humane outlook toward the resistance, but if they pose a threat, then destroying them and losing the labor they provide would still be a net gain in terms of resources.

If this is accurate then I maintain my original position that the security and founders are not the aggressors in the scenario.

+1 (I'm trying to be nice today Shadowcat) :whistling:

Aww but arguing like this is soo much fun :thumbsup: Anwyay Shadowcat is right, we can't really know anything until the game comes out. Are you reading this developers? These are the insane ideas about stroyline that your fans have made!!

They really only read their own forum as I've found for myself.

Jep, I posted it a bit earlier. Look up ^

Ok. Well I don't think the original inhabitants are necessarily reliant on the labor of the refugees, was the point of my post. I think they'd get along without them and they're just putting them to work in exchange for their provisions.

I already explained my position on this - if a person cannot properly provide for someone else, they should have never accepted them in the first place. If I knew I wasn't able to provide for myself and you, and not going to invite you in and then "half ass it" from there - I just wouldn't let you in the first place. If I decided to let you in, it would be because I knew resources weren't a problem.


There's that "original inhabitants" again. The only reason a majority of the Ark natives a re original inhabitants, is because they happen to be in the right place at the right time. It;s not like The Ark is a country, and the inhabitants are all citizens of said country.


But it wouldn't be/isn't a "good vs evil" scenario - things like this happen in the real world everyday, and people support both sides.

The "original inhabitants" were scientists who made the place, researchers who were there to do science without being bothered by laws, and people who paid to live at a 5 star resort. The refugees on the other hand are just about anyone who had a boat and was lucky enough to wander around and find the Ark.

P.S. If the Ark was able to last for 40 years with 1000% more people than intended, i would say they did a pretty decent job of providing for the people. When someone shows up at your doorstep with nowhere to go, do you make a 50 year plan? How about when someone shows up at your Island 1000 miles from land? "half assing it" seems immensely preferable to letting the person die.

I am mainly speaking about those who paid to live on the Ark - so because they happen to be rich enough to afford to live their, (or chose to spend their money to live there) they should be a higher priority than refugee's?

That may be your position but it isn't based on anything but your own emotional reasoning. You're making a positive claim and then using "should" statements as the rationale behind it. Besides, "properly provide" is subjective. If the person isn't dying, then who's to say what the proper provision is? Not getting an equal share does not necessitate that you aren't receiving the base minimum for life. You're demanding an equal share as if it's owed to you simply because you decided to come in to the shelter. There's no logic behind that.



Being that, as far as I have read, the exact location of the Ark was not made known to those that weren't welcome there, there's certainly an element of exclusivity behind it. This means that those inhabiting it at the time of the earth's destruction were intended inhabitants, and the refugees who happened to find it were not. The Ark is a city, it's even described as such, and in a world where all the land mass is gone and flooded, it may as well be a country. It has a class of founding members, societal organization, and a defense force. The difference between the Ark and what defines a nation-state are negligible and semantic.

I can agree with you on this point at the very least.


But it isn't about what people in the real world support, SD wants the story to be interesting for players on both sides. If the story Turns out to be "Not quite evil Oppressors vs heroic resistance" or even "Semi-Benevolent Oppressors vs Heroic Resistance", it's hard for the security to feel like they're fighting for a just cause.

Uh, yeah. That's generally how property works. If I buy a house or rent an apartment, I am an inhabitant there, whereas your presence is that of a guest if you do not own it or rent it.

Morality changes in a life or death crisis. In a post-apocalyptic world, money no longer means anything. The American dollar is basically based on faith in the US government, if they are gone the money becomes scraps of paper. Preservation of life > right to property.

You're missing the point (again)

When an ELE hits the planet, you're telling me that those who live, rent, work or happen to be visiting the Ark at the time, deserve to be taken better care of than those who have been displaced by the disaster? Yes, if you own a home, you are an inhabitant - you are also the head of household. On the Ark, this is not true, since regardless if you paid to live there or not, someone else is calling the shots.


Thank you. This is something I have been trying to point out - real life examples and such really mean nothing, since the circumstances involved change everything.


But that is part of what makes Brink so interesting - they are only "not quite evil" or "semi-benevolent" if you view them that way, just like the Resistance can be "dirty, no good freeloaders" or "ungrateful degenerates."

Sure, it changes. But property is not equivalent to money. My home and my resources are still mine regardless of whether I have money or not. And if the preservation of your life is dependent on your property, you're under no moral obligation to relinquish that. The entire dilemma comes from recognizing current societal norms. If we lived in a world where resources were already shared equally and the division of labor was also more equitable, then there would be no issue.



Hint: When someone disagrees with you, it does not automatically correlate that they are missing something or don't understand. If I don't address a point you are making it's because I don't think it's relevant to the discussion, or at least what I'm trying to convey.

And yes, as I've already explained in an earlier post, the people residing at the Ark at the time of catastrophe are the intended inhabitants. And that someone is "calling the shots" is irrelevant. There are rules and judges and authority figures currently in the society I live in, and I still own my home. I'd have no positive obligation to let you into it or share anything of what I have, even if it was the last place on earth.

How about we up the ante:

"Sure, it changes. But property is not equivalent to money. My home and my resources are still mine regardless of whether I have money or not. And if the potential preservation of the human race is dependent on your property, you're under no moral obligation to relinquish that."

Do you still feel the same way?

Would it help change anyone's opinion if i pointed out that if you took all of the moisture out of the air via rain, and melted all ice and snow in the world, it wouldn't be enough to cover the world in water. The question is if land can be found, not if it exists.

I heard it pointed out in a discussion on the history channel about Noah's Ark. =D

*Cue G.I. Joe* BECAUSE KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE

That's assuming that sharing everything equally will result in more people living, which is not necessarily the case. The resources available might be enough to sustain 50 families just long enough for civilization to take root again. Sharing those same resources equally among 5000 families could result in no one having enough to make it.

You are avoiding his question by posing a more specific scenario.

His question still stands, whats more important, Right to Life, or Right to Property?

I'm not avoiding anything. I've already told you that the right to life and the right to property are essentially one in the same- you can't live without property.

The question he posed is if I would sacrifice my property in order for the human race to survive, but given the context, he's premising it on the notion that sharing equally will actually be helpful to that end, which isn't necessarily the case.

Yeah, I had Container at first but accidentally changed lmao.

I don't care what you've paid for or what you think you're entitled to. If everything starts to turn sideways and everyone is going to die the principles of ownership seem to become shaky. Anarchy can come to rule.

So it's impossible for a person to survive by just living off the land? News to me. A person does not need property to survive. "Property" isn't even a natural occurrence - it is a man made commodity.

Food is property. Tools are property. Clothes are property. Shelter is property. If you can survive without any of that, all the more power to ya'.