228 réponses à ce sujet

[Flextt]

Great elaboration, OP. As you pointed out yourself, such complicated topics shouldn't be brought up in a matter of 5 minutes (or 14 lines of dialogue). But, Synthesis is in line with the equally morally abhorent choices of Destroy and Control. While moral stances are subjective, they become independent of your own morality the moment you hurt someone else's, in this case Javik. He specifically states he would rather kill himself than become (part-)machine.

Furthermore, I think it's complete space-magic-bogus and simply fanservice to more devoted sci-fi fans. There was never a need in ME to meld organic and synthetic life. The only instance we see happening is abhorrent and disgusting and as Paragon Shep, coexistence becomes much more viable and attractive.

[Ieldra]

Thracecius wrote...
Still, I think it's a bit hamfisted for BioWare to only come up with solultions that (presumably) kill off Shepard simply because he/she has already "done the impossible" repeatedly. Let the legend retire peacefully; not every epic has to end with "The Ultimate Sacrifice".

Well, technically they came up with three different scenarios:
(1) Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect and continues to live on as a human
(2) Shepard sacrifices his organic aspect and becomes some kind of AI god.
(3) Shepard sacrifices all of himself to get the best outcome for everyone else.

The interesting thing is that they added "you will die" to Control after the November leak, purportedly because they thought Control was too attractive. There are quite a few contradictions in the Catalyst dialogue, like "you will die. You will lose everything you have" or "I can't make them happen - and I won't". I just ignore those. It doesn't make sense that Shepard "dies" in Control. It does make sense that he dies in Synthesis, as unpleasant as it is to admit that for a Synthesis-er like me.

 

[matthewmi]

Explain it all you want Synthesis is the worst moral choice of the three presented. You're basically reordering the DNA of all living things without consent. Seems pretty evil to me when you have two other options that don't alter all life in the galaxy. It even sounds creepy, it will guarantee "Peace" how exactly? Looking at the only option that makes sense it will put everything in a consensus even stricter than the geth, you will have no way to disagree since that might disturb the "Peace" no thank you. I'd rather destroy the reapers and sacrifice the Geth who've proven in the near past they would align themselves with the reapers than turn everyone into some hybrid being. Control would be morally better as well though the explanation on it is so weak I can't see picking it over destroy.

[Flextt]

I always got the feeling the Catalyst promotes something like "eternal peace" with Synthesis. Am I the only one?

[Ieldra]

Flextt wrote...
Great elaboration, OP. As you pointed out yourself, such complicated topics shouldn't be brought up in a matter of 5 minutes (or 14 lines of dialogue). But, Synthesis is in line with the equally morally abhorent choices of Destroy and Control. While moral stances are subjective, they become independent of your own morality the moment you hurt someone else's, in this case Javik. He specifically states he would rather kill himself than become (part-)machine.

Hmm....I am unaware of having said that Synthesis is morally abhorrent. I am quite sure I said no such thing. The "consent" problem exists but I believe I have sufficiently defanged it by giving evidence that the effects are supposed to be beneficial. If its effects can reasonably be said to beneficial (example: Shepard's superior strength and poison immunity gained from Lazarus) and I have a button that can bestow them on everyone or no one, pushing that button may be justifiable. At the very least, it cannot be said to be immoral without looking at the details and circumstances. I have no problem ignoring counterarguments based on intuitive notions of purity. 

Furthermore, I think it's complete space-magic-bogus and simply fanservice to more devoted sci-fi fans. There was never a need in ME to meld organic and synthetic life. The only instance we see happening is abhorrent and disgusting and as Paragon Shep, coexistence becomes much more viable and attractive.

May I remind you that Shepard is a hybrid? How is that abhorrent and disgusting? I agree that the need needs to be explained. The script from the November leak works better there since it makes use of the Singularity. The problem is not so much that synthetics and organics cannot coexist but that synthetics will surpass organics with ever-growing speed, which will result in the galaxy being a place shaped by synthetics. Organics will be sidelined first, then dismissed as inconsequential, which will eventually lead to extinction. There is actual evidence in the game if you look closely: the most advanced civilization is that of the geth. It's the only one with the capability to build a Dyson Swarm, which makes it a civilization of type II on the Kardashev scale. None of the other species are there yet. The surpassing of organics by synthetics has already begun

Apart from that, the melding of man and machine is a common transhumanist theme. Bioware created a scenario where this is one possible solution to a problem. As a transhumanist I appreciate that this option exists.

As for the space magic, Synthesis "space magic" is trivial compared to "mere" FTL. From a "hard sci-fi" viewpoint, violation of local relativity as in non-relay FTL travel is several orders of magnitude more "impossible" than creating synthetic/organic hybrids. The only part that makes it appear nonsensical is the scale, which is, in turn, tied to the space magic of FTL. this thread attempts an explanation I have touched on with my nanite cluster scenario.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[matthewmi]

Flextt wrote...

I always got the feeling the Catalyst promotes something like "eternal peace" with Synthesis. Am I the only one?

Nope I got that too, and only way to have eternal peace is  for there to be no conflict, and only way to remove conflict would be to remove free choice and opinion.  Sounds like the galaxy would be rather boring and static we'd all agree on everything no sports no literature why need it since we agree on everything no art bleh no thanks.  I'll chose destroy, control seems to ambiguous at least how it's presented in game.  

I don't want to share my thoughts with everyone, and a singularity guarantees that totally evil, kills off natural evolution and robs trillions of free choice nothing morally wrong there....also if it doesn't guarantee these things how does it solve the problem the starchild presents?   See it has to lead to a usurping of free choice/will and opinion otherwise conflict would rise up again.

Modifié par matthewmi, 16 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[Ieldra]

Flextt wrote...
I always got the feeling the Catalyst promotes something like "eternal peace" with Synthesis. Am I the only one?

No. Eternal peace means there is no life. See my OP for my explanation of where this came from. I have interpreted it as an end to those conflicts between organics and synthetics that will inevitably end with extinction.

[matthewmi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Flextt wrote...
I always got the feeling the Catalyst promotes something like "eternal peace" with Synthesis. Am I the only one?

No. Eternal peace means there is no life. See my OP for my explanation of where this came from. I have interpreted it as an end to those conflicts between organics and synthetics that will inevitably end with extinction.

How so if there is free choice after synthesis couldn't I convince a group of "heretics" to align with me and attack the rest of the hybrid groups?  See I don't see how you can eliminate conflict unless free choice is reigned in til it has no meaning.  

[Ieldra]

matthewmi wrote...
I don't want to share my thoughts with everyone, and a singularity guarantees that

Nowhere is it said Synthesis will force you into a mental union with anyone.

kills off natural evolution

So what? Natural evolution of humanity is ended as soon as we get the knowledge and the technology to do with our genes what we want. That will probably happen in the real world not so far in the future.

and robs trillions of free choice

(1) When did you ever have a choice about what chemistry your body is based on? (2) Non sequitur: giving you synthetic parts does not entail depriving you of other choices. In fact, you'll end up with more options than ever before.

These are assumptions YOU put into the Synthesis. You *feel* it's creepy and then pull out the worst associations that come up. This is clearly recognizable by your profligate use of the word "evil".

[Flextt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Flextt wrote...
Great elaboration, OP. As you pointed out yourself, such complicated topics shouldn't be brought up in a matter of 5 minutes (or 14 lines of dialogue). But, Synthesis is in line with the equally morally abhorent choices of Destroy and Control. While moral stances are subjective, they become independent of your own morality the moment you hurt someone else's, in this case Javik. He specifically states he would rather kill himself than become (part-)machine.

Hmm....I am unaware of having said that Synthesis is morally abhorrent. I am quite sure I said no such thing. The "consent" problem exists but I believe I have sufficiently defanged it by giving evidence that the effects are supposed to be beneficial. If its effects can reasonably be said to beneficial (example: Shepard's superior strength and poison immunity gained from Lazarus) and I have a button that can bestow them on everyone or no one, pushing that button may be justifiable. At the very least, it cannot be said to be immoral without looking at the details and circumstances. I have no problem ignoring counterarguments based on intuitive notions of purity. 

How are intentions meaningful to consequences? I also never wanted to insinuate you regard Synthesis as morally abhorrent, I do. As a non-native speaker I may have missed my own build-up contexts. I also think Lazarus is a bad example. How it works, how extensive it is and so on are mostly left in the dark and rightfully so. We only know cybernetics were used to reconstruct most of his bone and skin matter whereas the "soft" stuff was revitalized. I agree though, that at least atmospheric reentry should have taken a great toll, if not putrefaction as well. While the Catalyst implies, Shepard could be affected by Destroy, that is as much as we get to know about the extent of modifications. I also think Javik's notion goes beyond mere purity. Although centuries of waging a futile war against a synthetic race that proceeds killing every one around you or conduct even worse experiments on them do not make up a philosophical stance on your existance, he has seen the cruelty of syntho-organic lifeforms firsthand. He has every right to be cautious.

Furthermore, I think it's complete space-magic-bogus and simply fanservice to more devoted sci-fi fans. There was never a need in ME to meld organic and synthetic life. The only instance we see happening is abhorrent and disgusting and as Paragon Shep, coexistence becomes much more viable and attractive.

May I remind you that Shepard is a hybrid? How is that abhorrent and disgusting? I agree that the need needs to be explained. The script from the November leak works better there since it makes use of the Singularity. The problem is not so much that synthetics and organics cannot coexist but that synthetics will surpass organics with ever-growing speed, which will result in the galaxy being a place shaped by synthetics. Organics will be sidelined first, then dismissed as inconsequential, which will eventually lead to extinction. There is actual evidence in the game if you look closely: the most advanced civilization is that of the geth. It's the only one with the capability to build a Dyson Swarm, which makes it a civilization of type II on the Kardashev scale. None of the other species are there yet. The surpassing of organics by synthetics has already begun

Apart from that, the melding of man and machine is a common transhumanist theme. Bioware created a scenario where this is one possible solution to a problem. As a transhumanist I appreciate that this option exists.

As for the space magic, Synthesis "space magic" is trivial compared to "mere" FTL. From a "hard sci-fi" viewpoint, violation of local relativity as in non-relay FTL travel is several orders of magnitude more "impossible" than creating synthetic/organic hybrids. The only part that makes it appear nonsensical is the scale, which is, in turn, tied to the space magic of FTL. this thread attempts an explanation I have touched on with my nanite cluster scenario.

As far as I know, Legion states it is only a resemblence of a Dyson sphere and while he admits he doesn't know what could happen, the narrative gives us not such a bleak outlook as the Catalyst makes us want to think. Basically, the writers frequently dig their own graves by making concessions for the narratives, while logically the conjecture bears very unpleasent possibilities.

[Ieldra]

matthewmi wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Flextt wrote...
I always got the feeling the Catalyst promotes something like "eternal peace" with Synthesis. Am I the only one?

No. Eternal peace means there is no life. See my OP for my explanation of where this came from. I have interpreted it as an end to those conflicts between organics and synthetics that will inevitably end with extinction.

How so if there is free choice after synthesis couldn't I convince a group of "heretics" to align with me and attack the rest of the hybrid groups?  See I don't see how you can eliminate conflict unless free choice is reigned in til it has no meaning.  

Read again. I never said there would be "no conflicts". I said there would be "no conflicts that end in the extinction of one side". Because there would be no motivation for such. Humans haven't killed each other off on Earth and become extinct, and why? Because in the end, we see too much of ourselves in other humans, regardless of ideologies that try to tell us differently. The Synthesis makes sure we always see too much of ourselves in the other. Wars will still happen, but life of organic origin will not become extinct.

[matthewmi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

matthewmi wrote...
I don't want to share my thoughts with everyone, and a singularity guarantees that

Nowhere is it said Synthesis will force you into a mental union with anyone.

kills off natural evolution

So what? Natural evolution of humanity is ended as soon as we get the knowledge and the technology to do with our genes what we want. That will probably happen in the real world not so far in the future.

and robs trillions of free choice

(1) When did you ever have a choice about what chemistry your body is based on? (2) Non sequitur: giving you synthetic parts does not entail depriving you of other choices. In fact, you'll end up with more options than ever before.

These are assumptions YOU put into the Synthesis. You *feel* it's creepy and then pull out the worst associations that come up. This is clearly recognizable by your profligate use of the word "evil".

I should have a choice of my body being changed by a third party and that is what synthesis robs a person living in the galaxy of any say in the matter.  I'm like Javik I'd rather die than have my body altered into some melding of machine and human.

"Peace" from synthesis isn't possible unless free choice is eliminated how else can it guarantee "Peace"  Otherwise I could round up a group of people and decide to start attacking others in the group etc...

[Ieldra]

@Flexxt:
I agree in this: the need for a solution to "the problem" needs to be explained better, especially since it goes against your experience if you made peace between the quarians and the geth. And the writers have failed spectacularly in that. Nonetheless, the logic has been successfully shown to be valid by fans, based on the leaked script. The writers' failing was to ignore the need for more exposition.

@matthewmi:
I think that my answer to your other post addresses the problem. "No more conflicts" was never the effect. Nor the goal.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[matthewmi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

matthewmi wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Flextt wrote...
I always got the feeling the Catalyst promotes something like "eternal peace" with Synthesis. Am I the only one?

No. Eternal peace means there is no life. See my OP for my explanation of where this came from. I have interpreted it as an end to those conflicts between organics and synthetics that will inevitably end with extinction.

How so if there is free choice after synthesis couldn't I convince a group of "heretics" to align with me and attack the rest of the hybrid groups?  See I don't see how you can eliminate conflict unless free choice is reigned in til it has no meaning.  

Read again. I never said there would be "no conflicts". I said there would be "no conflicts that end in the extinction of one side". Because there would be no motivation for such. Humans haven't killed each other off on Earth and become extinct, and why? Because in the end, we see too much of ourselves in other humans, regardless of ideologies that try to tell us differently. The Synthesis makes sure we always see too much of ourselves in the other. Wars will still happen, but life of organic origin will not become extinct.

If it's just melding me with a machine couldn't I decide I hate the Asari hybrids and attack them because the only commonality would be the machine parts?  I could totally wipe them out if I had enough followers. So this sameness doesn't seem like much of a way to guarantee there will never be an all out war.  Heck we almost had a nuclear war in the Cuban missle crisis and we're all humans, By your logic we would never have a war since we'd see ourselves in our enemies and decide it wasn't worth it.

Edit:  This is a nice thread good to see someone arguing about something other than a "Bad ending"

Modifié par matthewmi, 16 avril 2012 - 02:01 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Read again. I never said there would be "no conflicts". I said there would be "no conflicts that end in the extinction of one side".

Even that's too broad. All the Catalyst says that the cycle will end. There will be no conflicts that lead to the extinction of one belligerent, because there's only one party left – the hybrids.

Humans haven't killed each other off on Earth and become extinct, and why? Because in the end, we see too much of ourselves in other humans, regardless of ideologies that try to tell us differently.

It used to be impossible. When it became possible, we avoided extinction by pure luck, really. There are I think 3 documented cases where we were basically one button push short of WW3. Nowadays we're a little smarter about it. But only a little.

[DJBare]

I always wanted to be a reaper, sign me up for synthesis.

[Ieldra]

Yes, you could decide so. You mix up individual conflicts with the statistic effect. Most humans have empathy. Most humans like co-operation. Some don't. Some just hate for arbitrary reasons. But the conflicts those people engendered have not resulted in humanity's extinction because the wish for empathy and co-operation provides a counterforce.

This is not about ending conflicts between individuals or groups. This is about preventing extinction. Nothing more.

[matthewmi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Flexxt:
I agree in this: the need for a solution to "the problem" needs to be explained better, especially since it goes against your experience if you made peace between the quarians and the geth. And the writers have failed spectacularly in that. Nonetheless, the logic has been successfully shown to be valid by fans, based on the leaked script. The writers' failing was to ignore the need for more exposition.

@matthewmi:
I think that my answer to your other post addresses the problem. "No more conflicts" was never the effect. Nor the goal.

  Still it's a morally wrong choice if you feel you have the right to make a choice for everyone even species that haven't evolved enough for the reapers to wipe them out go ahead make the choice but I can't it's wrong.

I could also decide to create a virus that kills the machine parts in all the hybrids and release it to everyone, how eould synthesis stop this from happening?  Free will after synthesis would allow for this option, that is how I can't see how it could exist in any real way afterwards but once again interesting thread thanks for the debate.

Modifié par matthewmi, 16 avril 2012 - 02:07 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, you could decide so. You mix up individual conflicts with the statistic effect. Most humans have empathy. Most humans like co-operation. Some don't. Some just hate for arbitrary reasons. But the conflicts those people engendered have not resulted in humanity's extinction because the wish for empathy and co-operation provides a counterforce.

I strongly disagree, but it is beside the point.

This is not about ending conflicts between individuals or groups. This is about preventing extinction. Nothing more.

I'd challenge that assertion, too. It's not preventing extinction per se. It's preventing extinction of organics by synthetics. Technically it doesn't say anything about the hybrids offing themselves.

@matthewmi: The catalyst does not say that there will be peace.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 avril 2012 - 02:05 .

[DJBare]

Ieldra2 wrote...
This is not about ending conflicts between individuals or groups. This is about preventing extinction. Nothing more.

Well, feel free to call me selfish, I have no wish to become a cyborg.

[matthewmi]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, you could decide so. You mix up individual conflicts with the statistic effect. Most humans have empathy. Most humans like co-operation. Some don't. Some just hate for arbitrary reasons. But the conflicts those people engendered have not resulted in humanity's extinction because the wish for empathy and co-operation provides a counterforce.

I strongly disagree, but it is beside the point.

This is not about ending conflicts between individuals or groups. This is about preventing extinction. Nothing more.

I'd challenge that assertion, too. It's not preventing extinction per se. It's preventing extinction of organics by synthetics. Technically it doesn't say anything about the hybrids offing themselves.

@matthewmi: The catalyst does not say that there will be peace.

Thanks for the clarification on the quote at work and can't check it right now, but you make my real argument if there is no guarantee of extinction with synthesis how is it a solution in any way?  Morally to me synthesis is wrong because I am making a choice for everyone in the other two I could get the desired effect without affecting everything, Destroy is my choice since the geth have proven they aren't very trustworthy having allied themselves with the reapers twice during the games.  I feel bad for them but they number in the millions Destroy saves many many more than that.  Control is a choice worth considering but there is really no explanation at all for it so it's so ambiguous I can't chose it maybe after the dlc it might be an option.

[Inxentas]

If Sythesis is the "best" ending, WWII sure had a 'bad' ending.

[matthewmi]

Inxentas wrote...

If Sythesis is the "best" ending, WWII sure had a 'bad' ending.

I like you.

[PsyrenY]

Inxentas wrote...

If Sythesis is the "best" ending, WWII sure had a 'bad' ending.

Oh yay, another Godwin. Do you folks get a dollar every time you reference Hitler or something?

[Ieldra]

Hmph. I didn't want to get bogged down in a pro/anti-Synthesis debate, but in the process I noticed that I forgot something we discussed in the other thread:

I the "problem" is the effect of the Singularity and synthetics surpassing organics, then the Synthesis must make sure that the hybrids get the same ability to self-improve advanced synthetics would have, or else someone would see the "need" for more advanced synthetics at some point and the problem would resurface.

So we can assume the Synthesis gives them that ability. The ability to maintain a geth-like network link would probably also help (and no, that doesn't remove individuality, because it's an added option you can use). The picture becomes clearer...