1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Psychlonus]

BWGungan wrote...

It was mass murder, not genocide.

Genocide as defined by the United Nations is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". It can simply also be known as the intent to destroy a group, in part or in whole. Intent must be proven, otherwise the crime cannot be identified as genocide.

I think even more to the point is that genocide really only applies to reproductive organisms. Preventing their future existence. In that sence, wiping out AI is only mass murder because AI don't require geneological lines.

[burb2500]

corpselover wrote...

And yet the ultimate manifestation of synthetic life has come to the determination that organic life needs to be preserved. That alone makes it hard for me to accept that synthetic life is destined to determine that all organic life needs to be destroyed.

The only thing I can really say to that is that the Reapers are a combination of Synthetic and Organic components; they are hybrids. Whether this was a result of synthetics and organics willingfully combining (as in the Synthesis ending) or an Organic race deciding that the only way to combat synthetics is to become part synthetic themselves is unknown. They do not, however, represent the ultimate manifestation of (purely) synthetic life.

What intrigues me, now that I think about it, is who gains and who loses in the Synthesis ending. Synthetics are technically superior, so adding a biological component seems unnecessary (i.e. something that doesn't have easily repaired components, that isn't interchangabel, that requires sustenance etc.). On the other hand, organics potentially stand to gain faster intellects, and wider connections to other individuals (among other things). By becoming part synthetic, organics A) have improved capabilities and have no reason to create purely synthetic beings that they could come into conflict with.

Therefore, there is a possibility that the Reapers are the pinnacle of Organic evolution, not Synthetic as you propose. Since the Catalyst did not have this capability untill the creation of the Crucible (as cheesy as that is), it was forced to strike a balance between Organic and Synthetic. With the Synthesis ending, there is no need for the Reapers because the potential threat of synthetics destroying organics no longer exists now that such distinctions no longer exist.

Also, to nuance your last point, Synthetics are not necessarily the ones destined to start the conflict. Organic's fear of Synthetics could spark the conflict as well (which the Synthetics would assuredly end).

[krayt298]

The Angry One wrote...

dragonage200200 wrote...

Ummmm, you have to remember, this is just a video game, and considering that as far as I know, a AI like the geth has yet to be invented so yea.....

You miss the point, in that the Catalyst's argument presumes beings should be judged by what they are instead of their actions.
That is in fact fundamentally racist, and contradicted by the game.

This

[htewing]

BWGungan wrote...

It was mass murder, not genocide.

Genocide as defined by the United Nations is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". It can simply also be known as the intent to destroy a group, in part or in whole. Intent must be proven, otherwise the crime cannot be identified as genocide.

I actually commented on this earlier. It's logical to assume that with the way culture and language evolve, that the term genocide would evolve as well. It's obvious that the Reapers intend to destroy an entire group (organic life of a certain technological level), and with the way intent is considered latent in acts of genocide, this could be construed as one.

[burb2500]

corpselover wrote...

Call it genocide or not, you are intentionally wiping out an entire race that is not even in conflict with you.

This is something that I (and others) have tried to grapple with in this thread (with some difficulty). The problem that I saw with using this word is that in our society it is such a highly politicized word with lots of different meanings associated with it's use. Another problem is that the purpose of using this word, in place of others, is generally to denote an intent (or agenda) on the part of the aggressor. i.e. killing others on the basis of creed, ethnicity, gender etc. It becomes less approriate when you want to describe the wanton killing of a large number of people that is not motivated by an ideology. In these cases the terms "Annihilation" "Extermination" or "Slaughter" become more appropriate.

An example of this difference can be drawn from a comparison of the number of Jewish people killed during WWII and the number of Russians killed during this same time frame. The Holocaust claimed 6 million+, but the Germans killed nearly 4 times that many Russians (24 million). Only the former is commonly regarded as a genocide because it was done to fulfill a particular ideology; the latter was the result of (comparatively) ideology free warfare. 

Because the term "Genocide" originated within the context of the Holocaust, it has consequently become associated with the deaths of a large number of people, and I think this is a source of common confusion in this thread: the deaths of large numbers of people do not always represent a Genocide. A genocide could be as small as 100 people, or as large a 10 trillion; the important part is what the intent of the aggressor was. If everyone submitted to the Reapers, there would be little to no death (if you don't count being liquified as dying). The fact that so many die is because they engage the Reapers in combat. In my interpretation, the deaths of Organics is not genocide becuase the deaths are a result of combat and because the Reapers actions are not consistent with the term; genocide does not involve the induction of the victims into their ranks (which is what "Ascension" is). 

I would have to agree though that the elimination of synthetic life forms does adhere closer to the definition of genocide, although a person's stance on this issue likely hinges on their stance with regards to the issue of pre-emptive strikes.



EDIT: fixed speeling errors.

Modifié par burb2500, 22 mars 2012 - 04:48 .

[Teacher50]

burb2500 wrote...

corpselover wrote...

Call it genocide or not, you are intentionally wiping out an entire race that is not even in conflict with you.

This is something that I (and others) have tried to grapple with in this thread (with some difficulty). The problem that I saw with using this word is that in our society it is such a highly politicized word with lots of different meanings associated with it's use. Another problem is that the purpose of using this word, in place of others, is generally to denote an intent (or agenda) on the part of the aggressor. i.e. killing others on the basis of creed, ethnicity, gender etc. It becomes less approriate when you want to describe the wanton killing of a large number of people that is not motivated by an ideology. In these cases the terms "Annihilation" "Extermination" or "Slaughter" become more appropriate.

An example of this difference can be drawn from a comparison of the number of Jewish people killed during WWII and the number of Russians killed during this same time frame. The Holocaust claimed 6 million+, but the Germans killed nearly 4 times that many Russians (24 million). Only the former is commonly regarded as a genocide because it was done to fulfill a particular ideology; the latter was the result of (comparatively) ideology free warfare. 

Because the term "Genocide" originated within the context of the Holocaust, it has consequently become associated with the deaths of a large number of people, and I think this is a source of common confusion in this thread: the deaths of large numbers of people do not always represent a Genocide. A genocide could be as small as 100 people, or as large a 10 trillion; the important part is what the intent of the aggressor was. If everyone submitted to the Reapers, there would be little to no death (if you don't count being liquified as dying). The fact that so many die is because they engage the Reapers in combat. In my interpretation, the deaths of Organics is not genocide becuase they attack the Reapers and because the Reapers actions are not consistent with the term; genocide does involve the induction of the victims into their ranks (which is what "Ascension" is). 

I would have to agree though that the elimination of synthetic life forms does adhere closer to the definition of genocide, although a person's stance on this issue likely hinges on their stance with regards to the issue of pre-emptive strikes.

Can of worms...

It could then be argued that ascension is forced  and opens the question of slavery. Beings of other races had already been enslaved.

[ThePanzer99]

This is a ceremonial dagger.

Sir, you still can't bring that on the citadel.

You humans are racist.

[Ashilana]

Zine2 wrote...
Mass Effect's Ending attempts to condone and justify genocide. This is why it is almost universally reviled.

So true... so very very true.

But no worries, they will soon make us pay for a dlc that explains why genocide is a good thing.  Maybe it will have some nice codex entries on mass extermination for the greater good.

[Teacher50]

ThePanzer99 wrote...

This is a ceremonial dagger.

Sir, you still can't bring that on the citadel.

You humans are racist.

Lol...

I do have to say on looking back that the issue being pondered was discussed many times in the plot.

[BlueChildren]

the racist card ? really ?

[Ashilana]

I really wonder if everyone at Bioware is unaware of how severe a problem this is with the ending... of if those who know are just afraid of losing their jobs.

Modifié par Ashilana, 22 mars 2012 - 12:56 .

[Teacher50]

BlueChildren wrote...

the racist card ? really ?

Perhaps and I would like to believe so, it was unintentional.

[Psychlonus]

Bioware discriminates against poor!

[Teacher50]

This is an angle I had not considered before (the genocide part). This likely why I rejected the ending and was left feeling empty or at least one of the reasons.

As I have said before, heroes and heroines don't have to martyrdom themselves in the name of art. That's not really how I am but there are some who do it in the name of religion. That's misguided at best.

[Joe920]

Ha! The "organicist card"!
BioWare really screwed up on this one!

Modifié par Joe920, 22 mars 2012 - 01:35 .

[sprintst]

I wanna give daps to the OP.

It's true. The Star Child represents everything that could possibly be wrong with sentient life (murdering whole species out of the blue without even TRYING to resolve issues peacefully) and by going along with its demands you become its tool, its co-conspirator.

So not only is the whole "answer" revolting, it is also poorly executed. The whole thing is shameful.

[Can0fCorn]

BioWare is part of Cerberus! They are racists!

[cchudoba002]

Wow...the only reason I entered this thread was to get ready to lol and flame you...but those are some excellent points. I never really thought of it that way. That's pretty messed up...someone should write a major news organization and point this out. Preferably one of the ones who isn't so far in EA's pockets that they can remain objective. See if people still consider it art.

[chris fenton]

I don't.. what..?
Are you kidding me?
*facepalm*

[Vromrig]

Not likely real premise. Stirring issues, false outrage.

Common on internet. Recommend social interaction. Clears issues such as this.

[Andur4]

Think your reading a bit too much into it. Not that your wrong, it's a fair point. But I think the biggest problem is we can't reject starchild's flawed logic.

[Dhraconus]

Andur4 wrote...

Think your reading a bit too much into it. Not that your wrong, it's a fair point. But I think the biggest problem is we can't reject starchild's flawed logic.

That really is the crux of the problem.  I've said elsewhere that I feel simply having the option to reject the kid's flawed logic would resolve this whole issue.

There is nothing wrong with the Reapers having this ideology, or even giving Shepard the option to agree with it.  But without the ability to reject it it becomes a statement of fact that Shepard basically responds to by saying "Oh, okay.  I guess I was wrong.  Thanks for pointing that out."

If the player can reject it then it becomes a powerful moment to reflect and consider what you want to do more like Legion Loyalty Mission in ME2.  I was never comfortable with either of the two options but it was understandable why there was no other choice, there was no obvious alternative that was unavailable in game.  That was for me a very powerful moment because I literally didn't know what to do and the first time I just stared at the screen for a while unsure how to proceed.