Shinsekai yori Episode 21 Discussion

What did you think of this episode?

DO NOT discuss the source material beyond this episode. If you want to discuss future events or theories, please use separate threads.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.

Mar 3, 2013 12:30 PM

#201

AnimageNeby

Offline

Feb 2013

623

katsucats said:

AnimageNeby said:

katsucats said:

AnimageNeby said:

katsucats said:

AnimageNeby said:

katsucats said:
I hesitate to enter the fray, but I just can't resist my instigating nature :)

AnimageNeby said:
You are also confounding the moral cause of the claim that sentient beings should be free, with the means to do it. It must be apparent that, even if the cause could be claimed moral, therefore the means that are used to get to that cause can still be immoral. Otherwise, the adagio that the goal justifies the (any) means, would be accepted. If that stance is accepted, in reciprocity, someone else can claim - with as much right - that whatever he does is morally right, because it serves *his* goal, including killing you and your family, for instance. Thus, we can see that such a reasoning of arbitrarily chosen morals which are dependent on an equally arbitrary goal, where it isn't even deemed immoral to go against ones' own morals, leads to the simple conclusion that the one with the most power is morally right.

The one with the most power is morally right if his goal was more moral than the one with less power. But if his goal was more moral, then his power is irrelevant. Confounding a moral prescription with the means to achieve it leads to Social Darwinism. The ends justify the means if the utility of the goal is larger than the sacrifice.

Ah, finally some discussion with an ethical stance again. I was getting a bit bored with emina's nonsense.

The problem which you encounter is, that the evaluation of who actually IS morally superior, at least at that time, is done by the victorious. Which normally would be the strongest/most powerful.

The only counter to that would be to use logical reasoning and reciprocity, based on some basic tenets, like the categorical imperative of Kant and basic values as was already proclaimed by Confucius. Saying that it doesn't matter and can be arbitrarily chosen at will, as eminagram insinuates, however, leads to the moral of the most powerful, for the reasons stated.

Let us assume 2 goals, where killing the opposing party affects neither (or affects both the same). Both goals are evaluated upon conception.

Goal#1 has a moral value of +5.
Goal#2 has a moral value of +7.

Even if Person#1 (holding Goal#1) kills Person#2 (holding Goal #2), Goal#2 still has higher moral value than Goal#1.

If you believe that morality is either subjective or non-existent (i.e. not objective), then Goal#1 and Goal#2 are simply incomparable, and neither can be "superior" to the other.

Edit: For clarification, I don't believe eminagnam really has a point (or has articulated his point enough to merit a direct response) beyond that Yakomaru's intentions of freeing the queerats from human control were somewhat justified. While he might believe the ends justify the means using some unknown system, he never specifies that any ends justify any means in the way that you're characterizing it.

My only point in this post is that the belief of some morally justifiable goal regardless of means does not lead to Social Darwinism as you suggest. The conclusion does not follow. I think you're confusing subjectivity and objectivity. A subjective claim remains subjective, even if the agent (i.e. person making the claim) is the only person left. It does not mean it becomes objective just because there's no one else making a counter-claim. If there isn't some system to verify the moral value of 2 opposing claims so that they can become directly comparable, whether the claims are objective or subjective in themselves, then it is pointless to compare them

Hence, the fact that you might, for example, like "blue" doesn't mean that blue is the best color even if you were the only sentient being left -- and I think we can both agree that color preferences are rather arbitrary.

Well, I gather you have understood I'm not actually a proponent for the morally superior = superior strength/power; my stance is, on the contrary, that you have mechanisms by which you have a much more objective measurement (based on principles of universalism and logic/reciprocity) in which to establish if someone or some group acts morally or ethical or not.

But I do think that if you deny that, as emina did - and later he came with the argument it's futile because I can't change Squeelers actions, which, one can all agree, is a nonsensical and irrelevant argument in this debate - one can not else than conclude that, ultimately, you have nothing left than to weigh each ones' morality arbitrarily. And obviously, each party will see his own moral justification as the most just, if all that is needed is a subjective feeling of it.

That's why I'm thinking the starting premise of your example is already different from mine.

You say:

"Goal#1 has a moral value of +5.
Goal#2 has a moral value of +7.

Even if Person#1 (holding Goal#1) kills Person#2 (holding Goal #2), Goal#2 still has higher moral value than Goal#1."

But according to WHOM is goal 1 +5 and goal2 +7? Certainly not by those parties themselves! Their actions are based on the assumption that their own moral justification is higher, obviously. And mostly in the area of +10 for themselves, and -10 for the other. Look at how we regard terrorism, for instance: the West is hardly going to claim the terrorists are morally superior to themselves, are they? On the contrary. The reverse is also true; clearly, the terrorists think they are morally superior and the West a dark pool of immoral pagans.

You are acting as if there is an objective third party there, who could evaluate such a thing. Well, yes, you could have that, if one follows the premise I first said. But if one denies that this is possible, and claim somebody is outside morality altogether and can't be judged, then obviously, it boils down to an arbitrarily chosen judgement about the morality of the persons involved.

There is a 3rd party, whether real or imaginary that assigns some objective system in which the values of 2 subjective moral systems could be evaluated and compared. It doesn't matter if these values are ever articulated; if such an objective system exists, then the values exist as soon as the goals are conceived (even if no one in the world ever knows what they are).

Ok: which one? When I said that, using the principles I outlined, one could come to a more objectieve measurement and evaluation of the morality of a person of action, I didn't mean that there was a completely objective observer in the *absolute* sense. There still has to be an actual observer/third party/ 'a' party to evaluate, in the end. you seem to imply there is an absolute order in morals, whether there actually is or isn't. You claim that there is an observer; very well, I repeat: which one? The moment you have an observer capable of distinguishing morals en ethical behaviour and giving a judgement, that moment you have an observer with a moral set of his own, even when using universal principles to ascertain the morality of something. It makes no sense to say there is an 'imaginary' observer: an imaginary observer is no observer. If one gives weight to what an imaginary observer would say about the value of moral goals, than you are in effect using the values and the capacity of discernation of the one imagining that imaginary observer.

You are arguing against yourself, and in circles. If there is a third-party observer with the capacity to arbitrate a moral argument, it must do so against a set of objective principles X (whether X be of reciprocity or anything else), otherwise we fall into the trap as you outlined where the third-party observer has his own moral system. If that's the case, then what is the relevance of the third party observer?

There are only 2 possibilities here:
Objective moral values exist: Any moral claim can be theoretically compared against the objective regardless of a third-party observer, even if the agent making the claim is unaware of the existence of the objective values.
Objective moral values do not exist: Third-party observer has no authority.

In either case, the third-party observer is irrelevant to the outcome.

AnimageNeby said:

katsucats said:

You believe that means and ends, as moral actions, both have moral value. This doesn't have as much impact on the universalism of morality as you think it does.

On one hand: Ends = X (where X is some determined moral value)
On another hand: Means + Ends = X

The formula changed but the framework remains.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with that sort of equation. What I'm saying is, that a goal can be morally justified, but that doesn't mean the means to get to that goal is morally justified. That is all. If one would have to put that into an equation, I would say that the goal and the means are two distinct parameters in the equation. So if goal = +3 and the means would constitute -7, one could still say it was -4. But since it are different parameters, it makes it rather confounding to lump the two together as a single value. After all, the value of the goal doesn't get any less. Meaning, if that is deemed ethical, on itself it doesn't become unethical because the means to get it were unethical. Just as the reverse isn't true, which I already gave an analogy of, namely that the means don't become ethical or moral, because the goal was morally justified.

You are right. If the means have negative value beyond the positive value of the end, then the overall prescription is unethical. However, this does not lead to your conclusion that ignoring means necessarily leads to Social Darwinism (i.e. the strong is right, the weak is wrong). I've showed that calculating for means only changes the calculation of the utility of the outcome, not any other fundamental facts.

M = X and M +/- E = X are alike -- nothing changes in X except for the moral value.

AnimageNeby said:

katsucats said:

Subjective values cannot be directly comparable, it is epistemically impossible. Say I love blue, but you love green. How can we know whether I love blue more than you love green, or vice versa? There is no way to quantify subjective experience. Even if there were, since both our moral systems would have different criteria, it would be impossible to evaluate them objectively. If morality is subjective, then 2 moral systems are neither equal nor unequal -- they cannot be compared.

Well, I agree with you there. But that's something else as claiming the judgement of 'blue is the best' is wrong if the only one left to judge is that person. You now compare TWO judgements: one says blue, one says green. As I said (and thus I agree), there is NO way to determine the value of both when one does not rely on basic principles (and being basic means; where both persons inherently can adher to), and the only determining factor is one of personal feeling and opinion of it, regardless of anything else.

If there are a set of principles in which everyone must inherently be compelled to agree to that doesn't arise out of their individual opinions, then those principles can be said to exist externally in relation to the agent -- they are then objective. You cannot deny the objectivity of morality only when it's convenient to do so. You aren't being consistent. If there are "basic principles", then a person's moral value depend on how far they deviate from those principles. If there are not "basic principles", then those moral values are incomparable to any other set of moral values because there is no universally agreeable arbiter of values.

AnimageNeby said:
Thus, when fully arbitrarily chosen, and in disregard of universal principles, there can be no measurement of value. That's why your stance about goal 1 and goal 2 is +3 and +7 doesn't make sense, in that particular case: both regard their own moral value as +10, if that value is only to be determined by their own irrational thoughts on the matter. That much is obvious. As you said: there is no way to quantify subjective experience, as long as one deems the subjective nature of it the only measurement possible.

I want to make something clear. Those numbers are an illustration of your stance, not mine. I have not given any stance to this issue. You said that moral values can be compared to some universal principle. Thus, a moral argument is either negative or positive in relation to said "universal/basic" principle.

AnimageNeby said:
In which case, when in conflict, the morals that win out are those that are victorious in imposing themselves. If that imposition is so drastic, everyone else is dead, than the morals of the one surviving is the only one left, and thus the only judgement left. If it then judges his own goal +10 and all others -10, which other judgement could be possible, since there is no-one else to judge?

Such a claim is still subjective and meaningless to any theoretical third-party observer. Objectivity must exist independent of the mind, which the moral claim is not if there are no universal values. As you've affirmed yourself, "when fully arbitrarily chosen, and in disregard of universal principles, there can be no measurement of value". There is "no measurement of value" regardless of the presence of a second party.

AnimageNeby said:
I deny the existence ( - at least until proven differently, following Occams' razor) of some all powerful, omniscient absolute neutral observer that exists without existing (aka 'imaginary'), but more on that in my last part of this post.

Then you should deny the existence of your own moral system based upon universal/basic principles.

AnimageNeby said:

katsucats said:

If ethics were universal, then there would be some observable fact in the physical world that explains why everyone would come to the conclusion. The elimination of opponents do not eliminate that such fact existed.

And I think this is the crux of the matter. When I say 'universal' I mean in a way that it is universally (aka, widespread, for everyone) applicable to all parties involved. I don't mean there is some universal observer in an absolute sense. Who would that be? God? ;-) This principle of universalism, thus, is based on a common groundwork, basic tenets that all agree on. If none where there, however, and the universe was empty, obviously, there would NOT be a moral judgement possible. Morals and ethics do not exist without those that can have morals and ethics. That's why it futile to say a stone is moral or immoral.

If that's the case, then your "universal principles" are irrelevant.

Suppose we have 2 parties involved, Queerats and Humans, and their respective moral systems, such that:
Q(m) = A + X
H(m) = A + Y
where A is a moral constant, and X and Y are moral variables that are mutually exclusive.

In this case, only A is applicable to all parties involved, so you would propose to use A to judge X and Y. But A has no means of judging X and Y. X and Y remains incomparable and subjective regardless of whether some metaphysical concept called "universal principle" exists, which is just the common ground between 2 opinions when we get down to it -- so we eliminate it with Occam's Razor. It is superfluous and doesn't change the situation.

To be clear, there are holes in your argument regardless of the existence of "universal principles":

The existence of a common ground does not change the conclusion. IF Social Darwinism is the conclusion, it is whether "universal principles" exist or not.
Social Darwinism is NOT the conclusion because subjectivity cannot be measured regardless of the existence of a counter-claim.

AnimageNeby said:
Now, one might claim, in the situation of the anime, there can be no common values, but I would dispute that. Firstly, to all living entities already have some common grounds: the wish to live, the wish to feed itself, the wish to propagate, etc. this is a starting basis to have a universal common aspects to build a framework on. From this biological setting, we than have the common ground that is akin to be sentient beings. Furthermore, there is a potential common ground in the sense that both races are not only sentient, but also socially and hierarchically structured. Furthermore, seen the distress and complaints Squeeler had, about being the rat-babies being stolen and to go into slavery, the fact that sentient beings should live free, etc (even when he isn't really aiming for that, which makes him immoral) means that at least the same concepts exist that we can relate to. Such common concepts and methods in determining basic moral values, would be the use of ethical common values, reciprocity and the use of logic.

I held this back earlier, but as such beings are "sentient", they are not bound to biological instinct, so the attempt to equate biological imperative to moral imperative --first of all, if such an equation could be made, then we could strike "morality" using Occam's Razor and just refer to socio-biological imperatives-- commits the naturalistic fallacy. It attempts to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.

Additionally, nature isn't so benevolent. Tribes of a monkey may evolutionarily resist taking the lives of their own, but they would not be adverse to killing other tribes or species. We don't kill other humans, but we kill cows, and we kill cockroaches. It is unrealistic, even within the biological framework, to consider Yakomaru enslaving human children to be the moral equivalent of humans enslaving queerats from either perspective.

AnimageNeby said:
If nothing of the sort would exist and be possible - say, an alien who had no understanding or willingness to use any of that, than, indeed, any moral or ethical consideration would become futile, and the only way it could proceed, is by brute force and violence.

If you perhaps presume, by some mysterious source, that communication requires morality, or that brute force isn't compatible with morality -- either is questionable with or without the existence of "universal principles".

AnimageNeby said:

katsucats said:

AnimageNeby said:
In that situation and with those conditions (but, as said, I'm not prone of the premise of such a thoughtpattern), you would be wrong in your last conclusion. The only one remaining, when deciding what colour is best, would be right in ascertaining it is best: there would be no-one left claiming anything else. Since "man is the measurement of all things", and he would be the only one left, he would be the only measurement possible. Especially if one would claim logic and all the rest doesn't matter, only his own arbitrarily chosen subjective feelings on the matter count. Well, then, obviously, it would be 'best', indeed.

A claim is not automatically correct just because there lacks a counter-claim. If objective morality exists, a claim either adheres to it, or it doesn't. A rock exists even if there isn't anyone to observe it. When a tree falls in the middle of the woods, it still makes a noise. If the last person on Earth proclaims "1+1=5", he is still wrong.

I disagree, and I will divide my counterarguments in two parts. The first one, is the inherent difference between a material object, and a set of morals. While one could theoretically argue a stone is still there if no-one sees it, a set of moral values only exist within a mind. You can not have a judgement of morals without there being anyone with the capability to judge. In a world where no observes of moral values are present, there are no morals. Does a rock have morals? The question itself wouldn't even be there without someone as an observer with a concept of morality.

The second one is more philosophical, and boils down to the question whether, in fact, there is anything here without an observer. Logic would, at first glance, suggest there is. We believe that a stone is still there, even when no-one can observe it. That a tree still makes a noise, even if nobody hears it fall, etc. However, these ideas use 1)logic (which is one of the basic tenets/concepts/methods that are universal for all sentient beings) and 2)start from the premise the world as we known, is, in fact, persistent in an absolute way.

For 1), one can say that if we deny logic as a way to determine something, as in the case of enimagram, than it can't be used to substantiate that claim neither. And for 2): ultimately, that's a preconception, which, strictly speaking, can not be validated in a scientific way. Because, let's face it: how would you know that a stone is still there if no-one observes it? It could as well be that the stone appears every time one looks, and disappears every time one doesn't. It could be that the whole universe disappears when no one is there to observe or experience it, for that matter. It's an impossible matter to have a final word on, because we only know about the universe because of the observation of it.

In fact, even in science there are examples that shed some doubt on the certainty that everything is there regardless if we see/observe it or not. In quantummechanics you have the concept of the cat of Schrödinger, for instance. Where you would say: the cat is dead (or alive) whether we look at it or not, there it says: the cat is both death and alive UNTIL we look at it and observe its state. So you see, even the basic premise where one would think of the persistence of composition or states regardless of an observer, could well be an illusion itself.

*sigh* not interested in arguing about quantum sophistry. Schrodinger's Cat is ad reductio absurdum. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Nice to see that you put some considerable thought into this; it's always a pleasure to have a profound (rational) conversation of something with people who put effort in it, even if we don't agree on everything.

I'll start with your last part: the cat of Shrödinger. You didn't need to sigh, my friend, I'm well aware it is used to demonstrate a concept, not a real-life cat. But I DID say it was the philosophical aspect, and it WAS to demonstrate the principle of it. Furthermore, it has an actual ground, at least as far as quantummechanic particles are observed: there, you can't, in effect, know if or where it exists until it is observed. Meaning: the universe isn't as simple as we experience on a macro-level. And I'm not arguing for some vague metaphysical concept, rest assured; I'm quite fond of the scientific method.

However, and this was the point; the *principle* of science is, that nothing is certain in an 'absolute' way. Science is not there to uncover some absolute truth; it is there to give an as close as possible approximation of the observable reality. Nothing more, nothing less. For instance, if one would observe 1000 ravens, and you came to the conclusion that all are black, this would be true, but only in a relative sense, namely as far as no observation contradicts this. The moment one sees a white raven, however, the conclusion is not valid anymore. Any conclusion, thus, is always temporary, and is directly related to the observation of it.

As far as a concept is launched, thus, that would say that something isn't there when you don't observe it, in actuality, science can not say anything about it. It might be possible, an it might not be. We presume everything is still there, because we didn't experience the lack of something when we aren't observing - obviously - but this doesn't mean it's impossible, just as with the white raven. One can't argue, thus, that it is *certain* that everything is there - as you claimed - whether we look or hear it, or not; we only assume there is. I'm not saying that assumption is unreasonable, but I'm saying you can't say such a thing in any absolute certainty.

My other point was, that morality, contrary to a stone, is not a physical entity, but something that is created in the mind; if those minds do not exist, thus, no morality exists. you didn't go into that, alas. There is NO objectivity independent of the mind, since the concept of objectivity itself is something of the mind. We seem to regard the terms of 'objectivity' and 'universalism' differently, and I have the distinct impression you use it in a completely 'absolute' sense.

But now to the principle matter: you seem to think I am busy in a circular reasoning, and I can follow why you came to think that. I should have explained better what I meant by 'universal' principles sooner, me thinks. But I did in this last post, so I'm not sure why you're still puzzled about it, then. You still seem to regard 'universal' in a way that is nowhere what I explained I meant with the terminology. So let's be sure we comprehend eachother: if your stance would be, that universalism needs an unknown, omniscient, neutral yet imaginary observer, yet that it exists outside of any observer (which would contradict the first) or any mind, and is completely 'absolute'...then of course you are right: such a thing does not exist. But that wasn't my claim. Maybe I should have made that more clear.

As said, I regard 'universal principles' as those principles which have a common ground and are widely applicable. You claim than that such thing might not exist between two groups. Indeed. Well, if no common ground exist, than no peaceful solution can be found, and ultimately, the one that remains (the victorious) can dictate his moral stance (in fact, if it's the only set of morals left, because everyone else is killed, than it is the ONLY moral set left). That was exactly what I was saying.

However, I do think there are always common grounds to be found, for all living beings, and for all sentient beings. Your counter-claim that biological instincts do not work with humans anymore was irrelevant in this; I never spoke about instincts, I spoke about biology. We're still biological entities, and thus we still have the same cravings and longings and necessities as all biological entities. This does not change when we are sentient. In fact, purely going by instinct would probably have a detrimental effect on establishing a peaceful way of determining ones' moral rights. Thus, you mistook what I said as being 'instincts', but I only said our biology is also one of the possible basises to use as a common ground (since it's a common factor).

Furthermore, as said: in the anime, both humans and queerats are social animals, with a hierarchical structured society; that yet again, gives a whole set more of common ground. Even when would claim, as you did in your last post, that it's not because you agree to A you can agree to B, this is not the issue, since those considerations are already being made AFTER a common principle was established. Because the moment you AGREE to point A, you already have established that there is a common ground to base oneself on. In that case, you just continue from those principles you used to agree on A, and apply them on B. A principle of reciprocity, for instance: every argument from one party may be reversed to the other. The principle of reciprocity has a high degree of inherent logic in it, because when you make an argument and claim it valid, than it still remains valid if the other party claims it too, under the same circumstances and conditions. And when one *does not* agree to that principle, than logic dictates, neither does the other party have to adhere to it. (In which case, if the conflict continues, it boils down to whoever has enough force to claim it in that way, and thus the 'moral darwinism' we spoke of).

Mar 4, 2013 1:13 AM

#202

Meomix

Offline

Nov 2010

160

You know there is despair there is darkness and then there is kyubey cackling in his grave.

This episode described my reactions perfectly.
Shit hitting the fan? More like a meteorite hitting a wind turbine.

Mar 7, 2013 3:23 PM

#203

desolato

Offline

Nov 2008

2930

Now, what would have happened had you never saved 'Yakomaru' from drowning ehh.. Saki?

Mar 9, 2013 4:29 PM

#204

Sawaonpu27

Offline

Oct 2012

can anyone explain this whole episode to me?
what i know so far: the fiend is mamoru and maria's child stolen from yokomaru and that it killed shisei san. am i right? 0.0

Mar 17, 2013 1:52 PM

#205

Zel_Ezl

Offline

Sep 2009

2821

so it was mamoru and maria's son.. poor maria and mamoru.. they were just used. that those bones are them. their son become fiend! what a terrible.. you can say that the color of his hair came from maria and his eyes came from mamoru..
gaa... throughout the whole episode, all i can see is saki's eyes!

Mar 21, 2013 5:24 PM

#206

xriceball26

Offline

Jul 2012

320

Cirris said:
If you haven't put 2 and 2 together. Robber fly colony promised the bones of the two escapees, Mamoru and Maria. But they said it would take time. Essentially they needed time for Maria and Mamoru to mate and have a child. I'm pretty sure that Squealer sweet talked them into staying with them. When the child was born shortly thereafter, they eliminated the two and gave the bones to the ethics committee as proof.

The little brat was brought up to be the perfect killing machine. He was nursed outside of human control so all the mental barriers placed on the humans with the rituals doesn't apply to him. He is pretty much Squealer's nuclear weapon against the humans.

Edit:

Also, I noticed a lot of people are asking why don't they just take the "death feedback" and kill the fiend. You need to go back to episode 4 about 9:50 to get your answer. it's explained in great detail and you will realize why it's not possible.

I haven't found out why "fiends" are immune to death feedback. I re-watched "Tomiko's explanation" episode 12. It doesn't REALLY say what is different from a fiend or a regular cantus user.

This episode really showed how arrogant and naive the community had become. The Queerats had this attack so thoroughly planned out. One fiend causing havoc allowed the Queerats to literally run around and take what they wanted, more children to be turned into weapons in the future. The community was sure of their Cantus with regards to Queerats they never thought of them as a real threat.

You finally realize why Narrative Saki wished Maria had never been born. I'm sure she still loved her as she made the comment. But the horror the little brat of hers caused to the community was enough to understand why she said it.

Amazing explanation^^ This episode was great! No episode I've seen has been absolutely horrible so it is to be expected^^ Kyaa, Love this!

Mar 25, 2013 6:25 PM

#207

Miharu_Endoh

Offline

Dec 2006

227

desolato said:
Now, what would have happened had you never saved 'Yakomaru' from drowning ehh.. Saki?

Yeah the one who Saki saved was Squonk, someone already corrected you but I was kinda wondering the same question, Who's fault is it?

First if the Board of Education would have successfully killed Mamoru nothing of this would have happened (I hate Mamoru).
But going more backwards if saki and the others wouldn't have helped Squealer in his war, nothing of this would have happened either.
In the end I think it was all because of the experiment conducted on group 1 and the natural curiosity that humans have.

Mar 27, 2013 8:58 PM

#208

reilanimu

Offline

Jan 2012

1067

The fact the rats are using Maria's child as a puppet saddens me :l Argh, one of the two characters I cared about is dead (Maria), Saki is the second, but she will live for sure, now the only thing I need is Squeak dying painfully in the end. At least, the "Maria should never have been born" comment makes sense now, but well, I disagree. Squeak is the one who should never have been born.

Mar 29, 2013 3:01 PM

#209

Ani-Blast

Offline

Jul 2007

368

Ikutozuki said:

And now I'm dead inside

^This. Forever more.

きみ　は　だれ　だい？
ぼく　は　ラムボ！
ぼく　は　だれ　だい？
きみ　は　ラムボ！
ラムボ　なんでし！

Mar 29, 2013 5:48 PM

#210

ThreePercent

Offline

Aug 2012

551

I admire Squealer as a tactician.

Apr 3, 2013 5:14 PM

#211

RafaelDeJongh

Offline

May 2012

25827

Is it her or isn't that Maria? She didn't looked aged and they did manage to identify her bones... so yea I'm guessing child! But damn to have this all put together is really sick! Lets see what happens next!

Apr 9, 2013 4:01 AM

#212

5layer

Offline

Sep 2008

11495

This show sure likes to kill off the whole cast.

Sad to find out the fiend wasn't Maria or Mamoru. Guess they really are dead.

Apr 9, 2013 4:12 AM

#213

TheLoneBanshee

Offline

Mar 2013

5layer said:
This show sure likes to kill off the whole cast.

Sad to find out the fiend wasn't Maria or Mamoru. Guess they really are dead.

You should have sorta noticed earlier when they tell you that the bones were a 100% match to Maria and Mamoru's DNA, etc (can't be bothered finding out) and some stuff how it matched their dental records at their school (the one before the academy).

just saying. >___< i guess you didn't pick it up, but yea....really sad :c

Apr 9, 2013 5:02 AM

#214

5layer

Offline

Sep 2008

11495

TheLoneBanshee said:

5layer said:
This show sure likes to kill off the whole cast.

Sad to find out the fiend wasn't Maria or Mamoru. Guess they really are dead.

I did notice that, but it wasn't much of a confirmation at all. Knowing this show, it was possible that they somehow survived. But piecing everything together up to this point, I'm pretty sure they are dead now.

5layerApr 9, 2013 5:07 AM

Apr 21, 2013 2:29 PM

#215

funkotaku

Offline

Sep 2011

10430

Wow... amazing... truly mind-blowing.

Apr 28, 2013 5:27 PM

#216

Monad

Offline

Jun 2008

15842

Wow! World domination plan. I bet Saki wished she left that queen eat his ass all those years back.
Still if Yakomaru raise as lot of human children in the end he will bring his own disaster.
Those children at one moment will decite to do whatever they like and kill the shit out of all of them.
In the end humanity will still develop again but this times human won't have restrictions.

I still don't get why the fiend doesn't get death feedback. According to what the Minoshiro said the death feedback was put inside the human DNA so the fiend should feel it no matter what. Sure maybe is not as strong without human education but is still there.

Also saying that there is a reason why the other human don't take death feedback and kill it isn't accurate because we saw that humans killed humans by mistake while fighting the Queerats. This means they can do it even if it means they will die from the feetback afterwords.

Btw didn't get why that strong guy lost like that. Can anyone explain? Why couldn't he defend?

Elfuun said:
The fact the rats are using Maria's child as a puppet saddens me :l Argh, one of the two characters I cared about is dead (Maria), Saki is the second, but she will live for sure, now the only thing I need is Squeak dying painfully in the end. At least, the "Maria should never have been born" comment makes sense now, but well, I disagree. Squeak is the one who should never have been born.

I don't think Squek is the matter here. If it wasn't him then someone else would have done. From the moment you have too intelligent beings that don't have an equal coexistent status with friendly terms you will end up with a fight over the superiority.

MonadApr 28, 2013 5:42 PM

Apr 30, 2013 3:14 PM

#217

RazielZero

Offline

Sep 2011

2107

So they really are dead after all... That's sad :/ What is even more sad is the queerats are using their child :/ (though it was somewhat expected).

I guess I understand why Saki said "it would have been better if Maria wasn't born" (well not exactly these words, but felt like this for sure), but it's really not her fault at all. They really shouldn't have gone away though, Tomiko even promised their safety...

I really don't understand how the queerats killed Maria and Mamoru. Were they stupid and stayed with the queerats? Or did they just go away and they found them?

Biggest idiots are still the humans to let something like this happen as I already stated it in the previous episode.

Didn't expect Shisei to die so easily. I thought at least he would be powerful enough to stop/stall a fiend.
Btw, I read what some people said, but I still think he could have killed the fiend while sacrificing himself. I know the death feedback would have made him hesitate, but I believe he had enough willpower to overcome it just enough to blow the fiend up. He would have died, but the main problem would have been gone.
Inui would have also been able to sacrifice himself when he first saw the fiend.

Squealer's plan is certainly not bad, though I thought the main goal of the ultimate villain would be a little better.

I really, really hope Squealer will die a very horrible death at the end of this all.

RazielZeroApr 30, 2013 3:19 PM

May 17, 2013 2:28 AM

#218

Cabron

Offline

Jan 2013

5351

Damn people dying left and right.

CabronMay 17, 2013 2:33 AM

Please learn about cel animation and its technical process.
Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers.

May 25, 2013 5:31 PM

#219

RaisinMuffins

Offline

Aug 2011

1165

Looks like I was right about the ogre being Maria and Mamoru's child. Tragic :/

Damn, at this point saying that shit's gone down would be a huge understatement. How are they going to recover?

Jun 6, 2013 4:36 AM

#220

bittersweetlove

Offline

Jul 2009

4805

So seems that Maria is actually dead =/
The damn Yakomaru is using her kid, he must have searched for them once Saki was gone =/

Jun 20, 2013 9:29 AM

#221

Avenger-senpai

Offline

Mar 2012

5785

Fiends are OP.

Jul 3, 2013 5:09 AM

#222

Pyr0

Offline

Jun 2011

360

Whoa, so it was Maria & Mamoru's child, that starts making more sense...
I wonder if they know about what their child is doing now

Jul 4, 2013 2:01 AM

#223

Always-Hungry

Offline

Apr 2013

2282

xAvengerx said:
Fiends are OP.

^ Exactly.

Still can't believe that the Fiend is Maria and Mamoru's child >_<
And Kaburagi was killed so easily.

Jul 7, 2013 10:56 PM

#224

Hamelin

Offline

Jun 2013

314

Holy crap! I really thought that it was gonna be Mamoru who would be the ogre because of how unstable he was and how they tried to kill him earlier, but boy was I wrong.
That smile just adds to the creepiness of it just killing everyone.

I can't believe that Yakomaru is basically trying to reverse the "order", never expected him to go for the infants. I thought that he just wanted to beat the humans.

Aug 11, 2013 4:58 PM

#225

rebelakuma

Offline

May 2012

2364

I was really thinking it was Mamoru. But when I see the fiend's face, I was like, wait he looks like Mamoru but with Maria's hair! And Saki and Satoru needs to power up. Oh, I think they will not kill the fiend since he is their friends' kid.

Aug 20, 2013 9:38 PM

#226

SaidNoOneEver

Offline

May 2013

I think that Squealer somehow caught Mamoru and Maria's kid and killed the parent so they could give the bones up. Then they trained the kid from birth to become almost animal like in nature. After she kills Shisei you see her on hands and knees before a Queerat.

Aug 30, 2013 5:57 PM

#227

vhynz

Offline

Feb 2013

1275

Oh....I thought that was Maria.

Wait a minute, does that imply that Squealer killed Maria and Mamoru after they conceived a baby?

"And if, there were so many people in the world, there had to be someone living an interesting life that wasn't ordinary. I was sure of it. Why wasn't that person me?"
- The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya Part V
[/center]

Sep 1, 2013 3:36 PM

#228

UnculturedWhitey

Offline

Sep 2012

889

This whole Fiend business shows what happens when you brainwash and disarm the entire populace -- just as in real life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik.

UnculturedWhiteySep 1, 2013 3:39 PM

Never forget, that if you post a topic, you're not allowed to post in it yourself, by order of MAL administration.

Sep 21, 2013 3:44 AM

#229

Yokamota

Offline

Nov 2012

2403

seriously.. is that maria? :O
anyway it is a good episode..
I wonder what happen next..
everyone has gone now

Sep 23, 2013 9:14 AM

#230

SimpleMan

Offline

Jul 2013

Looks like Akki is so powerful.. she(or he) has killed Shisei so easily.. And Shisei was one of the most powerful humans over there, in Shinsekai Yori.. I think that maybe there will be Shun's big comeback or something in one of the next episodes. We'll see :)

Oct 8, 2013 8:42 AM

#231

davidfresh

Offline

Dec 2012

213

Thank god it wasn't Maria though. I don't think I could have handled that.
How do the rats keep an Ogre under control...

Oct 16, 2013 1:03 AM

#232

Adramelech

Offline

Aug 2011

1165

makarov52 said:
seriously.. is that maria? :O
anyway it is a good episode..
I wonder what happen next..
everyone has gone now

Did you even watch it?

Oct 16, 2013 1:14 AM

#233

Adramelech

Offline

Aug 2011

1165

I feel like mamoru or maria (maybe both) will come and rescue people by killing their own child and dying afterwards.

Oct 26, 2013 6:41 PM

#234

aidoru

Offline

Oct 2011

617

So the fiend is Maria and Mamoru's child. I have no idea how the queerats are controlling it and no idea how Saki and Satoru will stop it.

Nov 13, 2013 1:51 AM

#235

camerawr528

Offline

Jan 2012

142

Hoooooooooooahhhh my God's. I can't stop watching. :D

Live, Laugh, Love.

Dec 1, 2013 1:59 PM

#236

Vokoca

Offline

May 2011

395

For a moment there I thought it was Maria, and got really hyped. What a shame, I think it'd make for some awesome moments if it really was Maria, with Saki potentially having to take her out and all... but I guess a kid makes more sense.

Jan 20, 2014 8:09 AM

#237

terrablu2003

Offline

Nov 2011

7621

5/5

Episode that gives those twists that I do not regret the fans trust given to him in the past, both as regards the diabolical plan of that slimy Yokomaru, both the identity of the "messiah"!
Plot and narrative worthy of note, even if it s good designs could do better to make them more finished.
However, an interesting episode and that has created a very high level of pathos.

Feb 14, 2014 3:30 PM

#238

Bernkastle

Offline

Feb 2013

1326

An episode before there was a brief moment with Maria saying how she loved Saki but in the end they weren't supposed to be together since both were girls. She said they couldn't have a child... Well that's the hint and now it was confirmed.

So sad, Maria was so lovely. How could she die...

Aliis si licet, tibi non licet.

Feb 14, 2014 7:16 PM

#239

Jessintime

Offline

Aug 2012

536

oh...

Mar 8, 2014 3:49 PM

#240

Confucius

Offline

May 2010

8122

So the fiend really is their kid.

Even when I was in crowd, I was always alone

Apr 18, 2014 8:06 AM

#241

kawaiinekolover

Offline

Jul 2013

648

Wow, things just got down big time! The anime is almost over and lots of surprises to come.

Apr 29, 2014 3:52 PM

#242

minouneetzoe

Offline

Aug 2013

4245

It's a bit bad to say this after all that happened, but I think their current humanity kinda deserved it. Don't get me wrong, what Yakomaru is doing is really horrible, but he's pretty much doing them the same thing they did to them. It's a (almost) fair payback if you ask me.

So the fiend was Maria and Mamoru kid after all... The Robber Fly probably offered them to hide them. When they had a child, they probably killed them in their sleep or something like this. They raised the child to become a monster and hate human. That's really too horrible, this show is horrible, it make me sick... It's a rare feeling I get when watching anime, that mean that it's a success :P

Now, what will happen? It really look like the humanity is reaching their extinction. I must say that I don't really understand why Shisei didn't just sacrifice himself and accept the return of death. It was kill and die or be killed. It was a kinda stupid move in my opinion.

Saki now have to take the lead, but the lead of what? There is nothing left. Probably a few human wandering in the woods around, but they'll probably be killed soon or later. I don't really see what they have to build on now. The only way they could win is if they could somehow find a way to counter the return of death, then people wouldn't be scared to kill the fiend.

«Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.»
- Kurisu Makise a.k.a. The Zombie

May 24, 2014 7:57 AM

#243

Celestrial2

Offline

Nov 2013

2607

so did yakomaru end up killing maria and mamoru? thats so sad. :(

Jun 1, 2014 2:32 PM

#244

retepeters

Offline

Jul 2013

806

nasty creatures are nasty
i just hope they kick their ass
also, i am not so sure if maria and mamoru are really dead... who knows

Jun 9, 2014 5:48 AM

#245

Kuruwin

Offline

Jul 2013

1229

If Saki honestly thinks that the rat creatures were treated right shes either arrogant, naive or incredibly stupid. I would go far as say that they were relatively well treated if you compare their conditions to black slaves in America but saying that they were well treated is such bs.

Humans were willing to basically kill 500 thousands of them because of few "bad apples" so they have absolutely no right to criticize the rats.

Jun 16, 2014 8:36 PM

#246

Shigure

Offline

Nov 2012

2045

Damn, this episode was a mindfuck. Essentially, the queerats had prepared everything perfectly in their conquest. I cringed at the sight of Maria and Mamoru's child kneeling down in front of a queerat.

Jun 27, 2014 2:34 PM

#247

Vhailor

Offline

Feb 2014

3768

That was fucking depressing. For a while I thought the fiend was Maria, thanks to the character design that makes him look exactly like her (BTW he has by far the creepiest scream I've heard). I thought the queerrats killed Mamoru which drove her insane (although I think it's unlikely that would happen), turning her into a fiend. Turns out it was even worse.

Also, I don't get why Saki waited 12 years to tell the ethics committee about the Robber Fly colony trying to develop the technology of the old civilization by capturing a fake Minoshiro, and also having adopted democracy instead following the queen. Wouldn't that be important enough to at least mention in passing? They would've been much better prepared for a situation like this.

VhailorJun 27, 2014 11:25 PM

Jul 7, 2014 4:14 PM

#248

RedRoseFring

Offline

Jan 2014

17169

Knew leaving those 2 to be would cause problems down the road. Shun was right in telling Saki to take care of it earlier.

"Let Justice Be Done!"

My Theme
Fight again, fight again for justice!

Aug 2, 2014 4:44 AM

#249

Zeando

Offline

Feb 2011

2489

..maria is the fiend?? :O
no he/she looks younger..

it may look terribly on the long run, but it should take 10 years for the rats to completely take over
if the humans manage to bring back the childs they may have a chance to stop this course

@Vhailor
"Also, I don't get why Saki waited 12 years to tell the ethics committee about the Robber Fly colony trying to develop the technology of the old civilization by capturing a fake Minoshiro, and also having adopted democracy instead following the queen. Wouldn't that be important enough to at least mention in passing? They would've been much better prepared for a situation like this."
right, but guess that was part of the "overstimating the enemy cause to overconfident of their cantus"

continue to think that if they had invested some more time in defensive PK all this mess with karma demons and fiends would be not as much worrying
but they're all instead glass cannons...

ZeandoAug 2, 2014 4:48 AM

Fixes to make the Profile more bearable after "the Modern★Profile★Update★★Rip★Profile★"

Aug 6, 2014 4:03 PM

#250

Grunbeld

Offline

Jan 2014

3077

OH MY GOD.

Best episode. Niimi-san, why am I feeling sorry for a character I just met? The scene was beautiful.
Squealer is one of the best villains I've seen.

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

See All Discussions

» Ugly KV ScuzzyBear - Jun 8, 2023	9	by charlieman999 »» Mar 28, 6:10 AM
Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 25 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page ) Stark700 - Mar 22, 2013	1325	by Xeehad »» Mar 2, 8:13 AM
Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 14 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 ) Stark700 - Jan 4, 2013	169	by Xeehad »» Mar 1, 11:37 AM
Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 5 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page ) Stark700 - Oct 26, 2012	516	by Xeehad »» Feb 26, 10:04 AM
Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 4 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page ) Stark700 - Oct 19, 2012	363	by Xeehad »» Feb 26, 9:30 AM

Shinsekai yori Episode 21 Discussion

More topics from this board

» Ugly KV

Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 25 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )

Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 14 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )

Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 5 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )

Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 4 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )

MoreTop Anime

MoreTop Airing Anime

MoreMost Popular Characters