[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Qilin

Right from the start, Sybil was a system that hinged upon presenting the illusion of security to the public on a silver platter.

I would argue that Sybil was a system that hinged upon presenting the actuality of security, and psychological well-being, to the public.

Through that means, it has kept society running smoothly over several years.

Numerous political systems are capable of keeping society running smoothly over several years. The true value of a political system is in what it actually does (not in an illusionary sense, but in a concrete sense) to benefit people.

While there might be flaws within it, the important thing is that the public never notices.

If flaws are never noticed by the public then how do they ever get addressed in any real, concrete fashion?

Like Anh_Minh above me says, the most important thing is for the public to trust the system.

That's not what Anh_Minh said. He explained the Director's POV, which is fine. I agree with him on what the Director's POV is.

Let's look at how banks work to illustrate what I'm trying to say. Even if a bank is going under, it must maintain the illusion of stability lest it's depositors lose trust in it and start withdrawing everything at once.

As a short-term fix to simply buy more time, this might be fine. But long term, the bank has to actually stop "going under".

Would it indeed be better though? As far as I can see, Sybil has done a good job handling society for over many years only to be discarded for keeping a few secrets?

Sybil has numerous flaws, which have been discussed at length on this thread. Why can't Japan simply restore itself to how it was pre-Sybil?

Some truths are better left untold, and this is one of them.

I'd rather have an informed public that can make informed decisions on how they want their society to be ran than an uninformed public at the mercy of totalitarian oligarchs.

If things come to a point where it can no longer be hidden, then there would no longer be any choice. In the meantime, there's really no problem with dealing with the problem away from the public eye.

That presumes that they're actually dealing with it, of course.

If I know my history well, which I probably don't (I'm neither European nor American), weren't the Dark Ages defined by times of great instability and strife?

No, society was relatively stable during the Dark Ages. Yes, there were wars, but the Divine Right of Kings remained unquestioned, and a strict social order was enforced. Scientific progress moved very slowly under this atmosphere, and serfdom was commonplace. Your average individual enjoyed far fewer rights than they do today, and hence your average individual felt powerless to change things.

But there was plenty of stability in this era. Society did not change a great deal during the Dark Ages.

That's only partially true the way I see it. The strength of argumentation only has the power to change minds, but in the end, it is sheer strength of numbers that supports a counterculture. Arguments are only there to bolster those numbers. An opinion, no matter how logical, will only be listened to if enough people share it.

If this was true, no new ideas would ever catch on. By their very nature, new ideas start out only having relatively few people share them. This is precisely because it's a new idea that many people haven't thought of yet.

The internet, for example, was a new idea at one time. At one time, it was a new idea shared by relatively few people. But now it's a reality accepted by society at large.

I suppose you're familiar with the notion of group think, right? Or if not, the idea is that the individual is a rational, thinking being while a group of individuals is an unruly mob, swayed by the simplest of provocations. It's a social phenomenon observed in just about every society, even the internet, where the individual's decision-making capacity decreases as a group grows increasingly larger.

You are right in saying that the key lies in persuading the majority of society, but that's all it is. The fact is that most people can only see as far as their own interests. Only a select few can actually see the entirety of society for what it is.

None of this stops genuinely good ideas from taking off, or society at large from seeing the societal benefit of such good ideas.

Just because unruly mobs can occur, doesn't mean that the majority is necessarily wrong and is doomed to be wrong. The majority can be legitimately swayed to adapt to new, good ideas. Again, the internet alone is a huge example of this.

Originally Posted by Kanon

While it is true we haven't been told they were actively trying to fix the "bugs", I think it's safe to assume they have tried or are still trying.

Then why didn't the Director offer Gino such assurances?