Psycho-Pass - Episode 20 Discussion / Poll

[MeoTwister5]

The idea of criminal/legal justice is that the guilty are punished and the innocent set free. There is no room for "mistakes", that's why the state tends to make hefty amends for it's mistakes. Do we allow the mistaken trampling of the innocence of the few to effectively punish as much of the guilty as possibility?

Because right now what I'm seeing is that Gen is also presenting the notion that some find this allowable. That society can entertain the idea that we may sacrifice a few innocent people to punish as many criminals and potential criminals as possible. Now, of course, is this a reasonable sacrifice?

Does anyone have the right to make that call, to allow to put in place a system that is more concerned with preventing criminals from getting through the cracks than preventing innocents from being mistakenly punished?

Because, as I see it, it's innocent until proven guilty. By pointing the Dominator at someone, it's guilty until proven (by the Dominator) innocent.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

In short, Sybil treats everyone like they are already a criminal. And that it is only a matter of time before they have to be killed. Because the crime coefficient can never be zero, everyone is already guilty; the question is if you live long enough to get executed.

And if everyone is already guilty, there is no problem about killing innocent people; because there aren't any innocent people. So, by Sybil's logic, anyone can be killed by Sybil if it feels it needed to.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

In short, Sybil treats everyone like they are already a criminal. And that it is only a matter of time before they have to be killed. Because the crime coefficient can never be zero, everyone is already guilty; the question is if you live long enough to get executed.

And if everyone is already guilty, there is no problem about killing innocent people; because there aren't any innocent people. So, by Sybil's logic, anyone can be killed by Sybil if it feels it needed to.

That's the problem. By pointing a gun at someone and waiting for the Dominator to dispense judgement you're inherently already considering the target of your sights a possible threat, only waiting for the decision whether you should fire or not. You don't point the damn thing at anyone unless you consider them a threat.

Consider the fact too that you can't even fire the damn thing unless Sybil judges the target guilty. The human person behind the gun is only there to pull a trigger, something a robot can easily do. So honestly, you don't need a human to pull the trigger. You need a human's capacity to think to make field decisions, but you don't need him to actually be the one pulling the trigger and dispensing justice.

And if we're just talking about the realm of possibilities, then anyone is a possible criminal.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

TConsider the fact too that you can't even fire the damn thing unless Sybil judges the target guilty. The human person behind the gun is only there to pull a trigger, something a robot can easily do. So honestly, you don't need a human to pull the trigger. You need a human's capacity to think to make field decisions, but you don't need him to actually be the one pulling the trigger and dispensing justice.

If Sybil lasts a few decades longer, it might decide to simply install a bomb inside every person's skull that would explode once the coefficient is high enough. This is essentially what the system is already doing, except the bomb doesn't need police officers. To build the killing mechanism into people would be the next step, making it more efficient.

It also avoids the waste of time that is manual scanning, as well as making the signal blocking helmets useless. Win-Win. Instant death when you think the wrong thoughts. The beauty of treating everyone like a criminal.

[lightbringer]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Because, as I see it, it's innocent until proven guilty. By pointing the Dominator at someone, it's guilty until proven (by the Dominator) innocent.

In this real world we live in, it's one as often as the other.

[GDiddy]

Watched this last night. All I have to say is this:


1. Makishima might be a Villian Stu, but I can understand what his motives are. And he's hella entertaining


2. I hope nothing bad happens to Akane after her convo with SS, but I have a feeling that either she/Ko/both will wind up sacrificing themselves in the end.

3. 21 and 22 can not come fast enough.

[Dengar]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Because right now what I'm seeing is that Gen is also presenting the notion that some find this allowable. That society can entertain the idea that we may sacrifice a few innocent people to punish as many criminals and potential criminals as possible. Now, of course, is this a reasonable sacrifice?

On the flipside, if you go the "lets wait until they actually commit a crime before apprehending them" you're basically viewing the possible victims as acceptable losses.

[cyth]

I see we also have nanny state fans in this thread.

[merakses]

Why should they intersect?

We didn't create a judiciary in order to make NICE people. We create a judiciary to stop people from hurting one another. There is a reason we don't punish thought crimes; it isn't because we can't do it, but because your thoughts aren't hurting anyone.

The criminal system is not about enforcing morals. That's religion and philosophy's job. The criminal system is about agreed rules on human interaction that punishes harmful actions.

It is NOT the judge's job to punish you for your thoughts. You mind your own business, you should be allowed to think and dream whatever you want.

A man dreams of killing his wife? Not illegal. Scary, but not illegal. The man disconnects the brakes on his wife's car? Illegal. He did something. He didn't have to actually harm his wife to be charged, but he did need to have began a criminal act.

Should a man who dreamed of killing his wife be charged for a crime? You say yes, I say no. We don't always have nice thoughts, but the line is when we decide to act upon it.

An unpleasant person does not deserve to die just because you don't like his personality. And the legal system is not designed to imprison people you don't like.

If they didn't intersect, people would commit crimes equally often, regardless of their background, life experiences and general disposition. This is clearly not the case.

Claiming that you can't punish a person before he commits a crime is quite naive. Exactly the same reasons you're giving against brain scanning could be used with the same effect in order to justify unrestricted trade in firearms (and heavier military hardware) - since simply owning these things isn't hurting anyone. I could even use the same argument to justify putting an armed thermonuclear warhead in the middle of the town you live in (as long as I own the storage space): after all, it simply being there isn't hurting anyone.

What exactly is ignorant about showing restraint when it comes to using technologies that aren't aligned with our cultural values? The culture in Sibyl Japan had to be aligned in a certain way that people accepted their presumably mechanized overlord, but the cultures of our world simply aren't like them (yet). This is why your argument about technological suppremacy falls on a lot of deaf ears, because you don't acknowledge that cultural values might clash with usage of such controversial technology. Human cloning was one example I gave you, and you simply brushed it off.

Again, it's not relevant whether this technology can exist or not. The question for us is whether we'd be comfortable employing such technology and modifying policy around its significance. As you say, it's logical to assume that if an event has enough statistical occurences under certain conditions, then we can say, with high probability, that such an event is going to occur. But is that acceptable practice when it comes to human dignity, life, and freedom of choice? Would you be comfortable with such a deal if it produced statistically negligible victims along the way? Would you be comfortable with it if that statistical anomaly turned out to be you?

Any system we currently know of produces victims along the way. Even in our current society, false convictions do exist. In that case, isn't it natural to choose the path with the least number of victims?

Whether the hypothetical system is better than the current is not influenced by who is the anomaly. Even if that anomaly is me, my core beliefs would remain the same. If I believe it is very likely to improve my situation by a significant measure, I might try and preach against the evils of the new system - although I can't really imagine a situation where doing that would help me even a little bit. Overall, I would do the same thing as always - try to keep myself amused.

Human dignity, life, and freedom of choice are not unique to the potential innocent man our brain scan is sending to jail. They are also something which the potential victims are entitled to as well, and they won't have them, if we decide that we don't really like that brain scan, and the innocent man turns out to be not so innocent after all.

Last time I checked, not attempting to prevent a crime despite evidence that it is going to occur clashes with our 'cultural values' too.

Consider the fact too that you can't even fire the damn thing unless Sybil judges the target guilty. The human person behind the gun is only there to pull a trigger, something a robot can easily do. So honestly, you don't need a human to pull the trigger. You need a human's capacity to think to make field decisions, but you don't need him to actually be the one pulling the trigger and dispensing justice.

This exact problem was discussed in episode 13:

No matter how perfect the system is made to be, it still needs a safety net in order to deal with unforeseeable circumstances. The ability to flexibly respond in an emergency, temporary measures for when the system malfunctions... The system becomes perfect once these things are included.

Kasey/Sybil states outright that this is the exact reason they don't simply equip drones with Dominators and then send them patrolling. Also, while Sybil doesn't let you shoot a target it deems innocent (with a success rate of 99.9999995% in determining innocent people, that's quite justifiable... although the fact that it needs the remaining 0.0000005% brought back alive obviously plays a role too), you are in no way obliged to pull the trigger against a target flagged for neutralization/elimination.

Of course, up to now we have only seen one instance of an Inspector/Enforcer holding back against a flagged criminal - Akane herself (Division 2 while they were capturing Touma are somewhat in the middle: they did manage to get him into custody, claiming that he agreed voluntarily, but it is unclear whether the Chief had tipped them off that he was an asymptomatic or not). So there is a real possibility that Sybil has indoctrinated it's own safety net so much that it has become nearly useless.

That's the problem. By pointing a gun at someone and waiting for the Dominator to dispense judgement you're inherently already considering the target of your sights a possible threat, only waiting for the decision whether you should fire or not. You don't point the damn thing at anyone unless you consider them a threat.

Just to clarify this, would there be a problem if the measuring device was disconnected from the Dominator (so that you could check a person's CC without sticking a gun in their nose)?

In short, Sybil treats everyone like they are already a criminal. And that it is only a matter of time before they have to be killed. Because the crime coefficient can never be zero, everyone is already guilty; the question is if you live long enough to get executed.

CC can fall too, you know. Actually, it seems to happen pretty often to almost everybody except the as-of-yet-unknown number of people with CC permanently stuck above 100.

[Dengar]

Originally Posted by cyth

I see we also have nanny state fans in this thread.

You know, you don't HAVE to resort to insults when you can't come up with a proper argument. You can also just not say something.

Not to mention you are SO VERY WRONG about that.

[GDiddy]

Originally Posted by cyth

I see we also have nanny state fans in this thread.

.....

It's just fiction. No one has said that they're all for a nanny state.

[Qilin]

It’s nice to see that just about nothing has changed about the arguments here since a number of episodes back. For the sake of clarity, I'll just list down some of the critical points in the argument so far, and my thoughts on them.

• Too much power in the hands of a few

Well, I can’t argue with this since this is very much true. At some point, a tradeoff has to be made between unified, swift decision-making and a lack of internal regulatory mechanisms. There are clear benefits and disadvantages to both extremes, but this is somehow mitigated by spreading out the power across a larger group and reducing the members into brains. As many would argue, it’s not a perfect solution. Heck, there’s really no telling as to the extent by which each brain’s individuality is reduced. In any case, arguments of this sort could be replaced with one concerning the justifiability of an authoritarian form of government and no one would be able to tell the difference.

In the end, it all depends on how the self-serving interests of Sybil and the “good of society” happen to line up. For the moment, Sybil’s interests appear to be oriented towards sustaining power and achieving functional omniscience. To those ends, it strives to maximize its scope and effectiveness as a system, which, in itself, is not all too horrible. It still isn’t perfect, but it is several times more effective than a typical totalitarian regime thanks to technological augmentations. Hence, it's very good at what it does, which is in being a monstrous authoritarian system that thinks nothing of sacrificing human dignity for the sake of control and order.

• Criteria for selecting constituents

This is another hot issue here, it seems. As of the latest episode, it appears that Sybil is indeed an aggregation of criminally asymptotic brains. Now, it looks like a lot of people have an issue with Sybil being composed of former criminals, which is entirely understandable. After all, how can we trust criminals with the running of our government? A lot of Sybil’s defenders would argue that it is because they’re deviant that they deserve a say in how to run things. One thing to note is that criminally asymptotic individuals should not be lumped with ordinary criminals. Their crimes are not necessarily because they go to of their way to break society’s laws, but rather because they never adhered to those rules to begin with. Still, this introduces a moral dilemma to the equation with regards to justice: Why should these individuals, who committed some horrible crimes, be freed from punishment for their actions?

We have very little information on what exactly constitutes a criminally asymptotic individual, so it’s still difficult to argue on this issue. Would a mass murderer mentality that enjoys killing for the kicks of it count as criminally asymptotic? Or would such a label limit itself to ruthless utilitarian visionaries in the likeness of Makishima? The only thing we can ascertain is that they have little regard for human life for their ends. That by itself is already something to be appalled at, but is nevertheless within the assumptions of an authoritarian mode of governance.

• Homogeneity within the Sybil System

Opinions on this seem to be split. There are some who see Sybil as system that gathers a diverse pool of individuals into itself for a wide range of ideas and perspectives. This is what Sybil claims. However, there are also some who reject this claim who call it a very convenient lie for Sybil to collect all kinds of criminals and/or serial killers under its wing, turning it into an exclusive club of sorts. I understand the logic behind it. After all, why does it have to limit itself to criminally asymptotic individuals only? Is it not possible for some of the best perspectives to come from individuals that are not deemed criminal to begin with? In this sense, the term “criminal” here is too suggestive to simply ignore. But then, if such was the case, it would be absurd to think that the system has worked for so long, not to mention undermining all the claims to effectiveness that the system has made so far. In the end, a lot of these people would simply like to trust that Urobuchi did not intend Sybil to be an entirely black system.

• The current value of Sybil on society

A dominant argument against destroying Sybil is that destroying it suddenly would lead to unwanted problems. Argue as you may like, but it’s undeniable that Sybil has been highly effective in maintaining peace and stability for so long, barring random variables like Makishima. To take a step even further, society itself is already dependent on the system in order to function.

Another thing is that government reform is something that must be well-planned and coordinated. Maintaining a stable totalitarian regime, for me, is much more preferable than any hastily-planned revolutionary government that comes afterwards. If things have to lead to violence, that’s fine, but such an action has to be deliberated. Vague thoughts like, “Sybil has to go,” have no place in such kind of decision-making.

• Fatal flaws in how Sybil operates

Another recurring theme I’m seeing is Sybil’s stupidity. This is something I’m slowing getting an issue with these recent episodes with the introduction of superoats and the helmets. There’s really not much to say about this except that these strike me as conveniently placed Achilles Heels just so the main characters can stand up to the system. Aside from such meta justifications, I can’t see why Sybil would expose itself to such a vulnerable mode of food production, nor do I see why the system itself is so dependent on the Dominators to function. The worst is that a lot of it isn’t necessarily connected with Sybil’s effectiveness as a governing system. A lot of it is just arbitrary stupidity.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Qilin

• Fatal flaws in how Sybil operates

Another recurring theme I’m seeing is Sybil’s stupidity. This is something I’m slowing getting an issue with these recent episodes with the introduction of superoats and the helmets. There’s really not much to say about this except that these strike me as conveniently placed Achilles Heels just so the main characters can stand up to the system. Aside from such meta justifications, I can’t see why Sybil would expose itself to such a vulnerable mode of food production, nor do I see why the system itself is so dependent on the Dominators to function. The worst is that a lot of it isn’t necessarily connected with Sybil’s effectiveness as a governing system. A lot of it is just arbitrary stupidity.

I'm skipping over the other ones because, as you hinted at yourself, we've already discussed them at great length for several weeks now.

However, this particular one I think hasn't been grappled with as much.

Personally, I think it is possible to find a good in-canon reason for Sybil to be like this. And so that's what I'm going to strive for here.


One of the important things to remember about Sybil is that it is a totalitarian and very centralized form of government. It's in search of a certain singular ideal. It's searching for the objective, all-encompassing "best". To this end, it wants to gain greater and greater understanding of humanity.

So Sybil is also very centralized and singular in its thinking. When people become like that, they can start to lose sight of the value of diversification.

In the world of politics, you'll sometimes see "one size fits all" public policy. These are typically bad because they often don't take into account for the wide differences that can be found throughout the whole population. Nonetheless, some politicians do favor these policies and vote for them. It is possible for otherwise intelligent human beings to be short-sighted this way, and hence make these kinds of mistakes. And I think that the very centralized form of government represented by Sibyl is particularly susceptible to this sort of short-sightedness.


Other things to consider:

1. The Dominator wouldn't work that well against an armed populace - Just imagine an old fashioned Western duel between a Sheriff holding a Dominator and a criminal holding an old-fashioned gun, and you'll understand why.

I think it's pretty clear that almost nobody in Sibyl Japan owns guns, as they have been extremely hard to come by in a narrative that focuses on the police of all groups.

I suspect that at some point Sybil ordered the complete disarmament of the Japanese population of old-fashioned firearms. Perhaps they even took the added step of having those confiscated guns destroyed for added security.

"Now we're the only ones with lethal long-range weapons at our disposal. That will make it much easier to police society. It also means we can relax security a bit as there's no feasible way for us to be seriously challenged by the people. A combination of secrecy, our ubiquitous nature, and us having the only guns in town, essentially makes us invulnerable."

Clearly, they were mistaken. Nonetheless, it's an understandable degree of hubris given Sibyl's status in the Japan of Psycho-Pass.


2. I think I mentioned this in some other post somewhere, but hyper-oats could conceivably be easily explained by simple lack of options. We don't know what food options the Japan of Psycho-Pass enjoys. A lot of it might have been destroyed by, say, radiation. Something destructive happened to the Japan of Psycho-Pass judging by some of the locales we saw back during the arc that pitted Kougami against the Cyborg Hunter.

Also, as the Hyper-Oats strategy of bringing down Sybil makes clear, Sybil's power would be threatened by significant degrees of international trade. This is for fairly obvious reasons that were discussed before (i.e. the first time a foreign citizen gets imprisoned - or worse, exploded - due to a bad Psycho-Pass reading, you've created a major international incident).

So for Sybil to maintain itself with its current criminal justice system, if you will, it can't engage in significant degrees of international trade. Period. So it can't important much food. It has to work with what Japan itself is able to produce. And if Sybil Japan has a high population density (as we see with real world Japan), then hyper-oats may simply be about the only way to go.

[merakses]

1. The Dominator wouldn't work that well against an armed populace - Just imagine an old fashioned Western duel between a Sheriff holding a Dominator and a criminal holding an old-fashioned gun, and you'll understand why.

What makes you think this way? I think episode 11 showed that one-on-one, the Dominator isn't worse than an ordinary gun. Multiple armed criminals, or someone with a submachine gun/assault rifle would pose a threat, but that goes for the current police force as well. Producing cover fire with Dominators might be an issue, but the actual cases in which you might need it will be extremely limited. Right now, the only confirmed weakness in food production is the plot-induced nonexistant security.

I think I mentioned this in some other post somewhere, but hyper-oats could conceivably be easily explained by simple lack of options.

While using a singular food source like the hyper-oats is obviously more dangerous than using diverse ones, it could legitimately be the case that the genetic modifications do make them extremely resilient to most forms of outside attack (although this is speculation). So far, the only confirmed weak spot is the plot-induced nonexistant security of the food supply

One of the important things to remember about Sybil is that it is a totalitarian and very centralized form of government.

Isn't Sybil only involved in the military and justice areas? All other aspects are run by bureaucrats - although ones who received Sybil's approval beforehand. However, it doesn't seem that Sybil is screwing with the results of the aptitude tests - Akane did get recommended for all the ministries (although a sample of 1 person isn't especially useful)

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by merakses

What makes you think this way?

Because it has a significant time delay due to the scan and (in some cases) having to change form. In a firefight (and certainly in an old-fashioned Western gun-duel) that time delay could easily be the difference between life and death.

I think episode 11 showed that one-on-one, the Dominator isn't worse than an ordinary gun.

Episode 11 is actually what made the Dominator's time delay weakness very obvious to me. There was one scene where a normal gun would have quickly taken down one of the Cyborg Hunter's dogs, but with the Dominator, Kougami was forced to dodge a couple very dangerous attacks before he could get a shot off.

Put a normal policeman in Kougami's spot, and he's probably dog-food due to the differences between the Dominator and a normal gun.


To be fair, the time delay is pretty much unavoidable, and there for a reason. And against someone without a gun, the time delay will usually be no big deal. But against someone with a gun, that time delay could easily be a factor.

So it's no wonder that Sibyl wants the Japanese people unarmed. That's smart of Sibyl. But where Sibyl is shortsighted is in not storing old-fashioned guns and other such weaponry in some very secure location somewhere.

While using a singular food source like the hyper-oats is obviously more dangerous than using diverse ones, it could legitimately be the case that the genetic modifications do make them extremely resilient to most forms of outside attack (although this is speculation).

Good point. That could help explain Sibyl's decision-making here as well.

Isn't Sybil only involved in the military and justice areas? All other aspects are run by bureaucrats - although ones who received Sybil's approval beforehand. However, it doesn't seem that Sybil is screwing with the results of the aptitude tests - Akane did get recommended for all the ministries (although a sample of 1 person isn't especially useful)

How much say Sibyl has over the actual political leaders of Sibyl Japan is indeed an open question.

However, in areas where it claims jurisdiction (military, justice, possibly foreign policy, possibly human resources management), it operates with complete independence. There's little indication that it looks for outside opinions on much of anything. There appears to be no consultation with any outside experts in pertinent fields. Gino and Akane are merely pawns to it.


Mind you, it just occurred to me what could be a major cause of Sibyl's lack of security.

If public financing is handled by Japanese politicians (which it pretty much has to be, otherwise these politicians have ceded everything to Sibyl, which would render their jobs entirely pointless), then maybe Sibyl is simply suffering from government underfunding. In other words, they don't have more security because they just don't have the funds to afford to pay for it. I have to admit, this is an oddly humorous idea to me. The great dystopian Sibyl taken down by cheapskate politicians.

[Dengar]

Originally Posted by Qilin

Long post, just snap back to it.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Another long post.

I thank both of you for summing this up real nicely. Maybe I'm just not good at this discussion thing because when I see both sides of an argument I tend to focus too much on the side that people aren't being biased against.

I completely agree that Sibyl's oversight is merely caused by these things not occurring to them, because their thoughts are occupied with different things, and they honestly believed they were well enough protected. Being wrong once (Yes, ONCE) does not make someone stupid.

On a final note considering the whole "mass panic". Consider this: If you secretly replace the system, you will be unable to perform Psycho-Pass scans. All it takes is ONE violent crime to trigger a massive psycho-hazard.

[merakses]

Because it has a significant time delay due to the scan and (in some cases) having to change form. In a firefight (and certainly in an old-fashioned Western gun-duel) that time delay could easily be the difference between life and death.

I agree about the gun-duel, but something like that is quite improbable, to say the least. In a firefight, the dangerous part would be in the beginning, since you have to point the gun at someone in order to get it to change to eliminator mode (I reckon that anybody shooting at police officers will be flagged for elimination extremely quickly). While the initial calibration is a problem, I don't think it makes things that much more dangerous than if you simply had to ascertain the enemy's position (which you have to do in any firefight).

Episode 11 is actually what made the Dominator's time delay weakness very obvious to me. There was one scene where a normal gun would have quickly taken down one of the Cyborg Hunter's dogs, but with the Dominator, Kougami was forced to dodge a couple very dangerous attacks before he could get a shot off.

Put a normal policeman in Kougami's spot, and he's probably dog-food due to the differences between the Dominator and a normal gun.

We aren't sure whether normal guns would even be able to deal significant damage to a drone. Makishima's team was shown destroying drones, but I think they used bladed weapons (that laser saw, in particular).

So it's no wonder that Sibyl wants the Japanese people unarmed. That's smart of Sibyl. But where Sibyl is shortsighted is in not storing old-fashioned guns and other such weaponry in some very secure location somewhere.

It' is implied that border control's Field Operations division is extremely well-armed. Their weapons most likely don't incorporate scanners, too, given as they would serve no real function.

Mind you, it just occurred to me what could be a major cause of Sibyl's lack of security.

If public financing is handled by Japanese politicians (which it pretty much has to be, otherwise these politicians have ceded everything to Sibyl, which would render their jobs entirely pointless), then maybe Sibyl is simply suffering from government underfunding. In other words, they don't have more security because they just don't have the funds to afford to pay for it. I have to admit, this is an oddly humorous idea to me. The great dystopian Sibyl taken down by cheapskate politicians.

This actually makes a lot of sense. The politicians believe that the scanner system is perfect, so spending almost no money on additional security would seem like a waste to them. It might have even been the case that Sybil had to take action personally in order to prevent the whole CID from being disbanded and law enforcement being entrusted to drones with Dominators . In any case, government underfunding could plausibly cause almost all of the problems in security we're currently observing (the retired agriculture professor retaining his clearance still strikes me as odd, but I think I'm willing to stomach even that - they might have been in so much hurry to close the project and stop spending money on it, that they didn't even bother to tie up the loose ends first). In fact, in such a scenario Sybil might not even be aware that the nation's whole food supply system is basically left undefended.

If Sybil was brought down because of incompetency in the human sector, it would be ironic on so many levels

[Quadratic]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Should a man who dreamed of killing his wife be charged for a crime? You say yes, I say no. We don't always have nice thoughts, but the line is when we decide to act upon it.

I say, no, but (would like to) force him into therapy, like what the CID would do.
I don't like ticking time bombs. Do you?

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

An unpleasant person does not deserve to die just because you don't like his personality.

Good thing the Sibyl System doesn't do this (or to be pendantic, we have not seen or heard of any evidence of this being true, yet).

[Qilin]

Hm. We're both arguing on imperfect information here, but I'll do my best to get my points across here.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

So Sybil is also very centralized and singular in its thinking. When people become like that, they can start to lose sight of the value of diversification.

In the world of politics, you'll sometimes see "one size fits all" public policy. These are typically bad because they often don't take into account for the wide differences that can be found throughout the whole population. Nonetheless, some politicians do favor these policies and vote for them. It is possible for otherwise intelligent human beings to be short-sighted this way, and hence make these kinds of mistakes. And I think that the very centralized form of government represented by Sibyl is particularly susceptible to this sort of short-sightedness.

The very strength of Sybil from what we've seen so far is its flexibility. It possesses the capacity to judge individuals on a case-by-case basis, so I'm not seeing how Sybil doesn't value diversification when it does in fact take such individual differences into account when evaluating the populace. The selection procedure even goes out of its way to diversify the range of perspectives it has access to. Of course, that's assuming the reliability of Sybil's claims.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

1. The Dominator wouldn't work that well against an armed populace - Just imagine an old fashioned Western duel between a Sheriff holding a Dominator and a criminal holding an old-fashioned gun, and you'll understand why.

There's really no telling how much of the Dominator's said "limitations" can be lifted if Sybil were to allow it. Still, the power of Dominators in this society would indeed be impossible if old fashioned guns were still in circulation, but if Masaoka managed to keep one stashed, then I guess Sybil wasn't as thorough as they should have been.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

2. I think I mentioned this in some other post somewhere, but hyper-oats could conceivably be easily explained by simple lack of options. We don't know what food options the Japan of Psycho-Pass enjoys. A lot of it might have been destroyed by, say, radiation. Something destructive happened to the Japan of Psycho-Pass judging by some of the locales we saw back during the arc that pitted Kougami against the Cyborg Hunter.

Also, as the Hyper-Oats strategy of bringing down Sybil makes clear, Sybil's power would be threatened by significant degrees of international trade. This is for fairly obvious reasons that were discussed before (i.e. the first time a foreign citizen gets imprisoned - or worse, exploded - due to a bad Psycho-Pass reading, you've created a major international incident).

So for Sybil to maintain itself with its current criminal justice system, if you will, it can't engage in significant degrees of international trade. Period. So it can't important much food. It has to work with what Japan itself is able to produce. And if Sybil Japan has a high population density (as we see with real world Japan), then hyper-oats may simply be about the only way to go.

Well, I would understand if some sort of natural disaster damaged the land to the point that only hyper-oats could be grown, but it wouldn't make it any less contrived. I don't think it was foreshadowed either. The economic explanation might be better, but it still baffles me as to why they'd just rely solely on a single crop when there's such a huge risk involved. There's a reason why sexual reproduction is a much better way of sustaining a population than asexual reproduction. It's a matter of variety. I'm not even sure if this is as much stupidity as it is blind arrogance.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Qilin

Hm. We're both arguing on imperfect information here, but I'll do my best to get my points across here.


The very strength of Sybil from what we've seen so far is its flexibility. It possesses the capacity to judge individuals on a case-by-case basis, so I'm not seeing how Sybil doesn't value diversification when it does in fact take such individual differences into account when evaluating the populace. The selection procedure even goes out of its way to diversify the range of perspectives it has access to.

Does it?

I don't doubt that Sibyl really does thinks it does, but let's examine the claim a bit more closely.


Sibyl only incorporates people that are criminally asymptomic. These people make up a very small percentage of the population.

Now, there's actually two ways to look at this.

Sibyl's Way: All the special people with truly independent personalities that are beyond conventional judging become a part of Sibyl. This means that Sibyl becomes as close to objective as possible. That means that Sibyl has very powerful higher thinking capabilities. In time, nothing will be beyond it.

Alternate Way: The only people that ever get into Sibyl are the extreme outliers, the very exceptional cases. A conservative might argue that this is like the Ivory Tower on steroids - A group like this will inevitably become out of touch with its people because none in the group are remotely close to normal. A liberal or progressive might argue that this is like the 1% on steroids - The 99% and their perspectives count for nothing, they don't factor into the system, so the system becomes very skewed in its viewpoints and in who it benefits.

I'm not even sure if this is as much stupidity as it is blind arrogance.

You have a super-exclusive club of ubermensch that collectively handle the entire military and justice systems of Japan. They are in control. There is nobody above them that they answer to, nor are they directly answerable to the people. They are combining their thoughts together every day, thinking about how great this Sibyl Collective is, and how wonderful their new role in life is. Recall how Touma pitched Sibyl to Makishima.

Of course these 250 brains have huge egos. How could they not?