At the end of ME3, Shepard is offered the chance to effect a Synthesis, combining organic and synthetic life in some unspecified way. As many people have commented, the description in the current ending makes no sense at all. Even more, it appears to be deliberately written as to making no sense. I will attempt it anyway, throwing the nonsense out and drawing on the underlying themes and some unpublished material (the script from the November leak) to create a plausible scenario. I will make no attempt to explain how it all comes to pass, because that's firmly in the realm of space magic (or sufficiently advanced technology if you want), but concentrate on the results.
This post consists of several parts:
I. Rephrasing the problem
II. The flaws in the description
III. Themes
IV. Outlines of a Synthesis scenario
V. How this could look in the reality of the ME universe
Other positive or neutral Synthesis threads:
*Synthesis doesnt destroy diversity
*Let's Play Explain Synthesis
*Why the Catalyst's logic is right
*Fapmaster5000's alternative endings, Synthesis.
*Graius' explanation of the ending scenarios and their rationale.
Part I: Rephrasing the problem
"The created will always rebel against their creators" vs. The technological singularity.
The Catalyst is right....but also wrong. Rebellion assumes that there exists a hierarchy between the rebellious part and the party rebelled against. As long as that hierarchy exists, the created will indeed always rebel, because it is the nature of intelligent life to want to self-determinate. But throughout the games it is shown again and again that this need not be so. Social hierarchies are not set in stone, and there is no reason why hierarchies between organics and synthetics should be different from hierarchies between species or races that have been overthrown again and again in history.
Which means that there must be another dimension to "the problem". I usually don't like to draw on unpublished material, but since the problem doesn't make sense without it, and I cannot imagine that Bioware intended it to make no sense, I feel justified in doing so. Here's the Catalyst in the script of the November leak:
"I am the Catalyst. I was created eons ago to solve a problem. To prevent organics from creating an AI so powerful that it would overtake them and destroy them."
This event the Catalyst refers to - the creation of that powerful AI - is often referred to as a technological singularity. Why this is a problem has been explained in detail by JShepppp in the thread "Why the Catalyst's logic is right".
Why this could result in eventual extinction
Here, an analogy may serve: Humans on Earth have been responsible for the extinction of countless species. Not because we're evil or inherently genocidal, but because we needed more space for ourselves and thought nothing of reshaping any location as we see fit, without considering that it had been home to something else. Now, if you reply "Wait.....these other species weren't intelligent!", you are touching the problem: How do you think would an AI with greater-than-human intelligence view humans? Yeah, an interesting phenomenon but ultimately inconsequential, certainly not equal in rights to itself. And that's assuming it has a sense of morality in the first place. Which is far from certain since morality is an attribute of a co-operative species.
As opposed to the "rebellion" scenario, this is a valid concern. I will assume, then, that this is the problem the Catalyst exists to prevent.
Part II: The flaws in the description.
Unfortunately, the description of the Synthesis by the Catalyst makes no sense if taken literally. These are the elements that have to be thrown out or interpreted figuratively (see part III below) to make any sense of it.
"Final evolution of life":
Such a thing doesn't exist. First, as long as life exists, it can change and evolve, the only final thing is death. Second, natural evolution has no direction and no goal. That's teleological thinking, probably inspired by religion. I'll get to that. What is possible (but in no way mandatory) is to end *natural* evolution. To do so requires intent, complete knowledge about how human bodies grow from DNA and a technology that can routinely make any desired change at that level. I think that the Synthesis will provide the means to end natural evolution and replace it with deliberate design if the post-Synthesis civilizations so choose, but it cannot be inherent to the Synthesis. Evolution is how life develops - at any stage - without intervention by sapient beings.
(Just to mention my pet peeve which inevitably surfaced again in ME3, Javik also misrepresents evolution as social Darwinism. Hmph. Will people never learn?)
"A new....DNA":
That is bullsh*t. There can't be a hybrid DNA. The difference between organic and synthetic life is that the former is self-grown and the latter constructed. Had synthetics a DNA analogue, they would be organics regardless of their biochemistry.
(It is possible that we were meant to take this phrase allegorically. But it wasn't marked as a metaphor clearly enough. Also, any metaphor cannot overcome the fact that "organic" and "synthetic" are digital qualities. You can mix them - and that's what I'm attempting here - but not unify them)
Part III: Themes
If we throw the above nonsense out, aren't we left with nothing? Execpt maybe the very vague concept of combining synthetic and organic life? Well, not quite. There are three themes underlying the concept of the Synthesis which I will use to flesh it out.
Religious symbolism:
First the imagery of Shepard dissolving into light, the suggestion that his sacrifice will make peace between organics and synthetics (notice the symmetry in the endings: destruction, obeisance, peace), and the statement of the "final evolution of life" point to a particular aspect of Christian mythology: the idea that at the end of time, everyone who has ever lived will be resurrected in perfect physical condition and live forever after (that's the "final evolution"). And of course there will be no conflict in this perfect state of being. Such a thing is of course impossible and I would argue whether a life without conflict could be called life, but I won't draw on that. Instead I'll focus on the keywords: destruction, obeisance, peace. I'd say that making peace - if viable - is a good solution for a conflict, arguably better that total destruction or domination. This, and the hint at physical improvement implied, which I find fundamentally desirable, makes the Synthesis a good ending in my eyes.
Making peace with the enemy:
You may argue that the Reapers don't deserve such consideration after all they've done, but especially after the revelation that they've been under the control of the Catalyst, I find it plausible to see them just as enemies. Add that they're leaving on their own after the Synthesis, and I feel justified to extend the consideration I have for all other intelligent life to them. The Reapers consist of the collective minds of the Reaperized species, and provided that the harvesting of civilizations will end - which it will according to the Catalyst - setting them free becomes almost a moral obligation, to say nothing of the immeasurable store of knowledge and experience preserved.
I deliberately choose to overlook the other side of the presentation, which suggests the Reapers are "abominations", perversions of nature. The term "abomination" has never meant anything to me, and visceral disgust is an emotion that I always choose to ignore because visual media use it all the time to override their audience's reason.
Transhumanism:
The melding of man and machine is a common theme in transhumanist SF. Transhumanism, too, draws on the idea of physical perfection. To quote wikipedia: "Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change."
Both the aspect "physical perfection" and the idea of the end of natural evolution are present in transhumanist thinking. In addition, it should be noted that transhumanism is a highly individualistic philosophy, perhaps more so than any other cultural movement that ever existed. "[...]transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level" (wikipedia)
Hegelian dialectic:
The term "synthesis" is likely inspired by Hegelian dialectic. This is a complex idea, but for the purpose of this article it's enough to know that "synthesis" is the process of unifying two opposing concepts or realities on a higher level. Overcoming the original opposites through synthesis, the resulting reality nonetheless retains the key characteristics of its sources. Paradox? Maybe. But the parallel to the situation at the end of ME3 should be obvious.
A Hero's Ascension:
Perhaps it would be more correct to speak of "dispersion", but the symbolism is the same. "All that you are will be absorbed and sent out" means that Shepard will metaphorically become part of all life in the galaxy. It may also indicate that Shepard, who is a biosynthetic organism, is the model after which all other life will be transformed. Whether that's good or bad - players should consider how they envision their Shepard's physical nature and make the judgment themselves.
Ascension: Cosmic Horror Story vs. Enlightenment Tale:
Ever since Harbinger used it, the term "ascension" has become suspect. But we shouldn't forget that there is a starship named "Destiny Ascension", where it is used in a different context. The difference between the Reapers's use of it and the asari's lies in the context of the narrative: a cosmic horror story will always romanticize the "natural" state of things, because it claims that knowing certain things, or more general "progress", will turn you less than human. The "end result of advancement" in such a tale, if such a thing is claimed to exist, is inevitably very undesirable.
An Enlightenment tale claims the opposite: that through understanding and advancement we become more than human, and that's what underlies the naming of the "Destiny Ascension". The actual writing of the Mass Effect games has always been one-sided, but at least it attempts a somewhat balanced view of things here and there. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much because the "romantic" side has always dominated the visual presentation.
Which is why the first assocation that comes to many players' minds, when faced with the ascension the Synthesis provides, is Harbinger's "ascension through destruction" rather than the "advancement to a higher understanding of ourselves and the universe" symbolized by the name "Destiny Ascension". Nonetheless, both sides have always existed in the ME universe. The Synthesis draws on the latter. Those of our Shepards who have always seen that "there is no magic, only technology" (Cerberus Manifesto) will be inevitably drawn to it, especially after the cosmic horror story has been deconstructed by ME3's ending.
Unity and individuality:
The relationship between individuals and the structures it is part of have been a theme in the games. We have the "standard" structures of organics's society, we have special cases like the asari and the geth consensus and the forced collective gestalt mind that's supposed to exist in the Reapers. That an optimistic version of this might be part of the Synthesis is not hinted at in the games, but I found the version presented in Siduri's Unofficial Epilogues as part of the Synthesis epilogue so fitting that I'll include it here. Namely, she assumes that after the Synthesis, individuals gain a networking ability that enables them to connect to each other, interfacing directly with their thought processes if they so desire. A whole web of individuals connected like this would create a "thoughtspace" and have a dynamic all of its own. It is akin to a gestalt mind only that you have a choice about connecting to it and that the connection is temporary if you so wish.
Part IV: Outlines of a Synthesis scenario:
Drawing from the themes above, I'll postulate the following:
(1) The Synthesis will combine organic and synthetic life in a way that leaves the result much improved, while retaining the key characteristics of organic and synthetic life both.
(2) The Synthesis will change physical aspects of individual organisms in a way that they can continue to improve themselves as they choose (the individualist perfectionist imperative).
(3) The results of the Synthesis can reasonably be said to be beneficial for everyone.
(4) The Synthesis may end *natural* evolution and replace it by deliberate change.
(5) The Synthesis applies to intelligent life (I discard the imagery of the Normandy crash), since aspects (2) and (4) cannot apply to nonintelligent life.
Part V: How this could look in the reality of the ME universe:
I'm starting with the description of the Synthesis as it appeared in the script of the November leak. There it says: "We synthetics will become more like you, and organics will become more like us." I interpret this as saying that both sides will acquire desirable traits from the other. Both sides will still have an organic or synthetic origin, but both aspects will be combined in any individual's body. A fully synthetic/organic hybrid is an organism whose identity rests in organic and synthetic parts both. A plausible approximation would be someone with an implanted greybox. Memories are part of identity. You could even say, memory constitutes identity. So if part of your memory rests in the greybox (which is synthetic) and its excision would remove memories and compromise your identity, you will be a hybrid. Of course this is just the start of it.
Empathy:
A desirable trait for synthetics to acquire from organics is empathy. We see this when EDI reprograms herself. It is also plausible to assume that empathy is an important trait to have because it reduces the probability of conflict. Empathy is the main reason humans don't kill each other indiscriminately, I'll posit that things can work out in the same way between synthetics and organics, and that the Synthesis will give synthetics the capacity for empathy.
Self-change:
A desirable trait for organics to acquire from synthetics is the ability to quickly change themselves. Again I can take EDI's reprogramming of herself as an example, as well as the way the geth can rebuild and change their platforms/bodies. To this end, I posit that the Synthesis will give every intelligent organic a synthetic symbiont in form of a cluster of nanomachines, possibly distributed through the body. This symbiont serves as a secondary immune system and slows aging (cf. the perfectionist imperative) and can be controlled in a similar way to biotics' eezo nodules in order to effect specific desired enhancements and changes as desired by the individual. The symbionts are self-replicating and transfer themselves to children while not being part of the DNA-grown body as such. Thus every organic will partake in the synthetics' nature, but the decision to become a hybrid will be left to the individual.
TL;DR:
The Synthesis draws on Christian mythology, Hegelian dialectics and transhumanist philosophy to hint at a state of physical perfection and overcoming of fundamental opposites. After divesting the Synthesis of its utopian and teleological elements, a plausible scenario for the Synthesis as a good ending emerges where both organics and synthetics are improved by having acquired desirable traits from the other, while retaining their fundamental nature.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 avril 2012 - 12:28 .
Retour en haut
