5087 réponses à ce sujet

[frypan]

@CultureGeekGirl,

Good distinction between the options given, and the advocate of the choices - you make good points about the characters if those options were simply there and not given by Starchild.. Have to go now, but will mull that one over.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

edisnooM wrote...

@Devil Mingy

Thanks. And I guess if the same situation plays out with her father she probably wouldn't be to keen on Control either.

@CulturalGeekGirl

I would think Mordin would be pretty down on Synthesis after his discusion about the Collectors in ME2, and his opinion on uplifting the Krogan before they were ready (I think he talked about that).

See, I think that, given his arc in ME3, if given the choice between actively committing genocide and experimenting with technology from an uncertain source, he would choose the latter. Bear in mind that the central premise of his arc in ME3 is the idea that war crimes that risk extinguishing an entire race are never OK, even if they seem logically expedient at the time.

I really think people are reading way, way too much into the "replaced with tech"  speech in ME2. That speech was supposed to be about the unsalvagability of the Collectors... about the fact that we couldn't save them, that the Reapers had destroyed everything they were. If you assume that Synthesis is a Reaper idea, then this kind of paranoia makes sense, but without that assumption, there is no logical connection between the two ideas. If you're a codex-kiddy, you learn in ME2 that indoctrination ruins the higher reasoning and creative thinking parts of the brain, so they must be replaced with synthetics. The idea isn't that replacing something with tech kills the soul, the idea is that, after indoctrination has killed the soul, the only way to keep the body moving is tech.

It's like blaming someone's prosthetic leg for their phantom limb pains. They'd have the pains whether or not they got a prosthetic, the prosthetic doesn't cause the pain.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[CronoDragoon]

osbornep wrote...

@CronoDragoon

These are really good points. My worry is that the question of whether or not being a collective consciousness makes one more vulnerable to indoctrination or viruses might be a red herring relative to the point I was trying to make. Compare: Members of ethnicity A might be far more vulnerable to certain genetic diseases than members of ethnicity B, but this does not seem to imply anything concerning the relative dignity or value of members of A compared to members of B. I don't think it suggests that A's should try to make themselves more like B's. A preponderance of certain conditions or vulnerabilites among members of an ethnic group isn't a reason for that group to give up its ethnic identity.

Well, in a way I think that in our current world culture, this is pretty much exactly what would be done. You test ethnicity  or individual A to try and isolate the reason for its resistance to a disease/sickness, and then see if you can develop a treatment/cure based on those tests for others who are susceptible. I think in such a case, though, you have become more like others while still retaining the core of your ethnic identity. The same cannot be said for the geth individualization.

The same thing is going on, I think, with the reaper code. Perhaps it's true that Geth are more vulnerable to indoctrination, etc., but this doesn't at all suggest that the consensus is a lesser or inferior way of being. I don't think it means that the Geth should recognize that autonomy was the way to go all along. Vulnerability to external tampering isn't a determinant of the worthiness or value of one's way of life.

To be honest, I forget exactly why Legion uploaded himself. Someone mind reminding me? I agree with the above in normal circumstances, however since the change prevented some catastrophy or another (Reapers taking back over the hive-mind? Destroying the quarians? I forget) you could argue that the change was more necessary than it was good/bad.

I agree that from the fact that a certain way of life existence, it doesn't follow that we have reason to preserve it. Sometimes (a lot of the times, actually), change is better. But it's one thing to suggest that a certain culture or group should change, and quite another to suggest that the members of that culture are not really 'alive' or 'people' until they make that change. The in-game evidence suggests that the developers were thinking of the Geth individuality issue in the latter terms, and that's what bothers me.

The funny thing is that I think the geth would not want to be thought of as "people" at least according to ME2. As Legion said, that's just anthropomorphism. Of course, his disdain for such is replaced by admiration for humans in ME3, which I think brings me to an important point:

I think ME3 fundamentally changed the geth, because it established that the very moment a geth became self-aware, the first question out of its mouth was: does this unit have a soul? It's a purely individual question, and so if we are forced to reconcile ME2's geth culture with ME3's flashbacks, I think we might have to admit that the geth consensus, narratively, might have just been an attempt for the geth to find the soul, which could have been conceptualized as a true/perfect intelligence for them, having no context with which to identify the search for a soul.

If this point has been made before I apologize, I've only read the last few pages of responses.

I guess what I'm saying is that it would have been a bolder move on the part of the developers to ask the player to accept the Geth as they are and treat them as equals in spite of their vast differences with us. That would have fit better with the strength in diversity theme. They probably didn't trust the Geth to generate pathos without giving them the darned Pinocchio story, though. We've had Tali since ME1, we're introduced to quite a few Quarian characters in ME2 (the admirals, Reegar, etc.), and we never have to fight the Quarians. On the other hand, Legion is the only voice for the Geth, he's encountered relatively late in ME2, and the vast majority of Geth you encounter in-game are mooks. You can't exactly have a Geth LI, either, so for all of these reasons, the developers probably expected the majority of players to side with the Quarians. Thus, I think the developers felt the need to add "The reaper code will make the Geth just like us!" to generate some sympathy for the Geth. But I would have preferred it if the game simply demanded more from our moral sensibilities to accomplish this goal.

I don't think the geth transformation was for generating sympathy; I think the geth consensus trip was. I mean, the entire flashback sequence was designed to establish that the quarians were the a-holes and the geth were innocent. By the end, you by no means need the geth to become individuals to identify with them. I think the writers just felt like this was the natural evolution of the geth's philosophical story arc as represented by Legion's character arc in particular through ME2-ME3.

[CronoDragoon]

delta_vee wrote...

 It seems as if at least some of the writers thought the value of humaniform individuality self-evident, and ask us to believe Legion's transformation to be a pinnacle instead of a retrenchment.

In short, I liked the geth just fine the way they were, and saw no reason to change them.

I liked the geth consensus idea too, and would have been fine if they had remained that way. But as someone who values autonomy over almost everything else, I did not have a negative reaction to the decision to localize intelligence into specific platforms. What might be an interesting question is whether or not the geth/Legion would have ever considered individualism as a preferred option had it not been for wartime necessity spurring on the act.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

On the subject of the Geth and Legion's use of the word "I."

For me, it simply represented Legion's acceptance of a truth that was already apparent to everyone around him. In ME2, we ask him why he's wearing our armor... and he doesn't have a good answer. The reason is obvious, to me at least: he's wearing it because it's important to him, because he decided to, because Shepard and his search for her means something to him. Yet, despite this, he still claims, steadfastly, to be nothing more than an ordinary collection of programs that happen to be installed in a specially designed platform. He acts, in short, as if he does not believe himself in any way distinct from other Geth.

He continues to refuse to believe that he has been changed by his life an experiences. Even when he starts to become aware of his ability to reason apart from the collective in ME3, he chalks it up to the increased processing power of the Reaper upgrades. But when he uploads these to his fellow Geth and they fail to achieve what he has already achieved, he realizes... that it wasn't just the reaper processing upgrades. It was his life experiences, his personal growth that gave him these new abilities. The reaper upgrades may have given him a way to share this with his fellows, but they alone did not produce sentience. They needed to know what it was like to operate alone, to meet new people, to do things because you wanted to, to wear armor because it meant something, to have friends.

It was a good, old-fashioned "don't you see, the magic was inside you all along!" moment, and it worked on me completely.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 06:48 .

[Seijin8]

@CGG:  Your points on the intended value of synthesis are well-articulated, and while I don't totally dis-agree, this line of debate has to take an out-of-game perspective.

We have occassionally been using "narrative intent" to help define/digest/discuss these ending concepts and why they are good/bad/unpleasant/revolting... This tool itself presents a hurdle in discussing the character's own points of view, as their viewpoints are narrative constructs that arguably put forward a certain perspective or point of view.

The developers could as easily say, "Mordin is for control due to his time in the STG where the use of a foe's assets was common practice.  The Reapers are tech, a tool, and the tool is not inherently evil."  EDI might very well advocate for destroy based on her observation that the Reaper's desire for self-preservation was part of what made them monstrous, and she would follow a different path.  Tali could plausibly argue for or against all three based on her prior experiences.

My point isn't to say that those character motivations do or don't exist, just that if we are hinging everything on the narrative intent, then we may as well ignore all other arguments and treat BioWare dev tweets as the lost gnostic apocrypha of the ME Bible.

If we allow that the Catalyst is intended to be a neutral figure, and can be taken at face value, we simultaneously have to ignore much that has been told to us previously about the corrupting nature of the Reapers.  It isn't a logic jump to assume indoctrination awaits any choice other than destroy.  Hell, it follows logically from everything else we know about the Reapers.

"Narrative intent" is only possible to discern when it runs alongside "narrative consistency", which has deteriorated at varying levels throughout the second and third games, and is mysteriously absent in the final moments.

It is more likely that the narrative intent was to set the stage for a new Mass Effect story, taking place in the wake of these events.  The destruction of the relays and other facets of the end scenes are the narrative intent, and the resolution of Shepard's story was not important for achieving this end.

BioWare has demonstrated similarly dissonant staging of plot events in both Dragon Age and KOTOR.

tl;dr:  I have no faith in BioWare's "narrative intent", as it has not been clearly defined.  I cannot justify (for myself) using a self-contradictory purpose to illustrate a direction, though I don't begrudge anyone else's attempts to steer a fruitful course using narrative intent, or anything else floating amidst the wreckage of this once-great sci-fi epic.

Modifié par Seijin8, 30 mai 2012 - 06:51 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Oh, I definitely don't think that the examples opinions I presented are the most logical ones... once again, my advocating against complete excoriation of synthesis sometimes sounds like arguing for it. I agree that any character could easily advocate any of the choices (though I'm firm on Javik always advocating for destroy, because come on. That guy?)

I was talking to a friend recently and I realized that we have completely different experiences when it comes to Garrus's recommendations the vast majority of the time. This is because he usually ran with Liara and I usually ran with Wrex. Wrex and Ash are the ME1 characters who (if I recall correctly) routinely take the Renegade position over Garrus.

In ME2, my boys were Grunt and Mordin, both of whom often populate the more renegade side of the spectrum with their advice. It would be interesting to see the advice spectrum laid out for every decision in ME1 and ME2. I wonder how much it divides up along straight renegade and paragon lines, and how much it varies depending on the situation. I also wonder whether the choices you make on Garrus's personal missions in ME1 and ME2 have any real influence on his likelihood to advocate the renegade path. I paragon'd him both times, myself.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 06:57 .

[edisnooM]

@CulturalGeekGirl

Synthesis is presented by the Catalyst as the ultimate solution to the conflict between organics and synthetics, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense as it is.

But if synthesis is not his I don't really understand why it's there. The Reapers don't really like explaining their purpose to anyone, so why would anyone have put in an option to merge organics and synthetics. Who thought that would solve anything? Destroy and control I can see as solutions to stopping the Reapers, but at what point did any civilization think this was a way to stop them.

[Seijin8]

I absolutely think that Garrus is a malleable character throughout the series. Whether this is headcanon or emergent gameplay, I couldn't say, but I have always had that impression.

[Seijin8]

@edisnooM: Frapmaster5000's alternate ending dialogues magnificently captured the origin of the synthesis concept as being unique to the Catalyst's view that the prior 20,000 cycles were not really a "solution" at all.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

edisnooM wrote...

@CulturalGeekGirl

Synthesis is presented by the Catalyst as the ultimate solution to the conflict between organics and synthetics, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense as it is.

But if synthesis is not his I don't really understand why it's there. The Reapers don't really like explaining their purpose to anyone, so why would anyone have put in an option to merge organics and synthetics. Who thought that would solve anything? Destroy and control I can see as solutions to stopping the Reapers, but at what point did any civilization think this was a way to stop them.

But Synthesis isn't offered unless you did well in gathering allies and building the Crucible. If it were the Reapers' ideal solution, why wouldn't they offer it every single time? (This is also the most nonsensical part of indoctrination theory for me, personally: if you suck, the Reapers give you a get-out-of-jail-free card and don't give you any choice but to break indoctrination. They bother to put you all the way into the trance, but then don't even try? Pfftpshwhaaaaaaat?)

Synthesis makes total sense as a tactic from a past civilization. It has been implied that the Geth can't be indoctrinated unless they at least willingly accept some kind of a gift from the Reapers. What if a previous cycle had a civilization like the Geth and the Quarians would have been if the Morning War had never happened? Or if the Pro-Geth Quarians had won? This is something that doesn't get brought up enough: the Geth Consensus mission doesn't just show that the Geth were blameless in the Morning war, it also shows that numerous Quarians sided with them and were brutally murdered for doing so. It wasn't just a synthetics vs. organics war, it was a civil war among the Quarians.

Anyway, imagine a collaborative society of sentient machines and organics. Imagine if they learned that machines were resistant to indoctrination, and that making yourself part synthetic conferred that resistance onto organics. Without indoctrination, it seems pretty plausible that a fairly advanced civilization could beat the Reapers, either by hiding out during an entire cycle or through conventional warfare.

Also, being part synthetic makes you harder to kill, stronger, faster-thinking, it confers almost limited military advantages and almost no military disadvantages, assuming that becoming partially synthetic does not completely overwrite your organic consciousness.

A civilization that was already on the cusp of collaborative transhumanism developing this as a tactic makes perfect sense. I could go on for pages about the theoretical tactics that could be employed by a hybrid race or by a transhumanist collaboration between all races in the galaxy.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 07:22 .

[Seijin8]

Synthesis (as transhumanism) is certainly a viable concept within the existing structure of ME, though it would need more exposition prior to the end to feel like a reasonable choice.

The main issue I have with it is that *if* we assume the Catalyst is right, and synthesis will end the organic vs. synthetic struggle, then it must - by definition - rob people of some measure of their free will.

If it WILL end the war, then it must prevent the war from taking place, and thus there is an imposed limitation on choice. If we accept that possibility, then we again have to confront just how much of a reduction in freedom we are willing to accept and if our notion of "acceptable" loss of freedom is in line with the catalyst's intentions.

[edisnooM]

@Seijin8

I agree it's an interesting idea, though I doubt BioWare will do something like that.

The problem with that though is that it comes back to trusting the Catalyst and the Reapers, the fact that the Crucible is their design brings in to doubt whether we can trust any of the choices.

Also I still don't really get how synthesis solves anything, if it overcomes the conflict of organics vs synthetics, what would prevent it from starting up again down the line.

@CulturalGeekGirl

The problem I see though is that it isn't presented as a means by which to gain a military advantage, it is presented as a solution to the conflict the Reapers are trying to prevent. And no one seemed particularly interested in continuing to fight the Reapers after synthesis, even the troops on the ground don't cheer as they leave.

However until BioWare "clarifies" things everything we can think about on topic of the ending and the choices is "speculation".

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Seijin8 wrote...

Synthesis (as transhumanism) is certainly a viable concept within the existing structure of ME, though it would need more exposition prior to the end to feel like a reasonable choice.

The main issue I have with it is that *if* we assume the Catalyst is right, and synthesis will end the organic vs. synthetic struggle, then it must - by definition - rob people of some measure of their free will.

If it WILL end the war, then it must prevent the war from taking place, and thus there is an imposed limitation on choice. If we accept that possibility, then we again have to confront just how much of a reduction in freedom we are willing to accept and if our notion of "acceptable" loss of freedom is in line with the catalyst's intentions.

I don't think that it implies that it will make war impossible through the removal of a portion of free will, but rather that it would make the victory of "pure" synthetics in such a war less inevitable, and that it would make misunderstandings caused by a lack of compassion for the other side less likely.

Now, you could say that blank hatred of the other side is a choice, that by forcibly exposing someone determined to not have any compassion for another group to stimuli intended to evoke that compassion, you are robbing them of their volition on some level.

edisnooM wrote...

@Seijin8

I agree it's an interesting idea, though I doubt BioWare will do something like that.

The problem with that though is that it comes back to trusting the Catalyst and the Reapers, the fact that the Crucible is their design brings in to doubt whether we can trust any of the choices.

Also I still don't really get how synthesis solves anything, if it overcomes the conflict of organics vs synthetics, what would prevent it from starting up again down the line.

@CulturalGeekGirl

The problem I see though is that it isn't presented as a means by which to gain a military advantage, it is presented as a solution to the conflict the Reapers are trying to prevent. And no one seemed particularly interested in continuing to fight the Reapers after synthesis, even the troops on the ground don't cheer as they leave.

However until BioWare "clarifies" things everything we can think about on topic of the ending and the choices is "speculation".

I don't know where you get the idea that the Crucible is the Reaper's design. Can you point that out to me? And if it is, why would they include Destroy? Doesn't that make Destroy the most suspect, as that is the solution most likely to be offered, the solution most clearly outlined in the "Reaper's" design... if it is designed by the Reapers. I never got even a whiff of that idea during my playthrough, but I've only played through once. I thought it was pretty strongly implied throughout that this was the embodiment of the collaborative striving of all organic life throughout history, incorporating every single scientific anti-reaper insight that organics ever came across in all of Galactic history.

It's also possible that the race that designed Synthesis wanted to talk to the Reapers. It's possible that they believed that the Reapers were the still-living souls of civilizations past, and that these minds and spirits could be salvaged if the Reaper's regained some of their original organic perspective.

There are few arguments that paint Synthesis as negative that do not paint Destroy as equally negative, or worse, when taken to their natural conclusion. Remember, Destroy and Control are incredibly easy to come by. They are the plans that are the most clearly laid out, the most obvious. If the Crucible is the Reaper's design, they want you to have the ability to pick destroy more than they desire any other thing in the entire universe.

I do find it funny that people often think the starkid is capable of any evil, any manipulation... except for reverse psychology.


Oh commander Shepard, don't throw me in that briar patch!

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 07:47 .

[edisnooM]

@CulturalGeekGirl

The Crucible thing was from Fapmaster5000's alternate ending idea back on page 106 I think. Here is the link to the thread where he posted it: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11118797, it's under his synthesis ending idea.

And I do think that all the choices are bad, I just really don't get how synthesis is supposed to solve anything. Control and destroy have definite ends and "solutions" to an extent, but for synthesis to make sense you need to accept the Catalyst's statement that organics and synthetics can't coexist peacefully, and that somehow this will solve the problem.

Modifié par edisnooM, 30 mai 2012 - 07:48 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

edisnooM wrote...

@CulturalGeekGirl

The Crucible thing was from Fapmaster5000's alternate ending idea back on page 106 I think.

And I do think that all the choices are bad, I just really don't get how synthesis is supposed to solve anything. Control and destroy have definite ends and "solutions" to an extent, but for synthesis to make sense you need to accept the Catalyst's statement that organics and synthetics can't coexist peacefully, and that somehow this will solve the problem.

No, you don't.

For Synthesis to solve anything you just have to believe that making us all more collaborative and increasing understanding across the diverse races of the galaxy by easing communication will help us.

Maybe add in a little indoctrination resistance, and some nigh-immortality for spice.

Then you can choose from a buffet of possible add-ons: maybe with better synthetic-to-organic communications, it will be possible to reach with the once-living "souls" trapped within the Reapers.  Maybe by evening the playing field for everyone, one race completely dominating the galaxy becomes completely unfeasible.  Maybe this will free the Reapers from the Control the catalyst has been exerting over them for all these millenia.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 07:54 .

[frypan]

Apologies in advance for a frivolous comment.

I keep finding myself wondering why CultureGeekGirl opposes Destroy so much, and then I remember - that genocide clause. I know its foolish, but I found the tacked-on price so jarring it has been headcannoned out on some subconscious level.Not sure if anyone else is experiencing a similar phenomenon.

Clearly, in my happy place, there is no price to Destroy (..and so returns to happy place)

[Ieldra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Synthesis is, to me, literally the embodiment of the unknown. For me, the final decision was between a known evil, a suspect but imaginable possibility, and the complete unknown. As a student of chaos, I'd rather do something where the result is impossible to predict than do something I know to be evil. Better the deity of uncertain alignment than the devil you know, and all that.

If you phrase that final choices as "you can either murder and die, compromise and collaborate, or you can... change in some way that is fundamentally unknowable." then I pick change every single time.

But this perspective isn't available to most people, because it isn't the instinctual human feeling, and a reason to consider the choice valid must be searched for. To find it, you must try to find an angle of approach, and the only reason you would look for one is a genre-savvy knowledge that it must be there.

You're the only one I've seen on BSN I share this perspective with. Ultimately, I choose Synthesis because it is something that hasn't been tried before. Just as I chose "Merge with Helios" in DX1 because it hadn't been tried before. I might have no way to actually *know* the result is good, but to make the decision, it's enough if I have reason to believe that it might be good.

CulturalGeekGirl, would you mind if I reposted some of your stuff in my Synthesis thread?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 mai 2012 - 08:05 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

frypan wrote...

Apologies in advance for a frivolous comment.

I keep finding myself wondering why CultureGeekGirl opposes Destroy so much, and then I remember - that genocide clause. I know its foolish, but I found the tacked-on price so jarring it has been headcannoned out on some subconscious level.Not sure if anyone else is experiencing a similar phenomenon.

Clearly, in my happy place, there is no price to Destroy (..and so returns to happy place)

Heh, I also want to be clear in reinforcing that I don't think my "rosiest possible interpretation of Synthesis" is the only interpretation, or even the most obvious. I'm not sure that Synthesis is the "best" choice. I don't even feel strongly that it's better than any of the others.

I still believe that all the possible endings are Thematically Revolting (I will never get tired of that phrase), but what I always object the most to is certainty without proof. Since the "Destroy-ies" tout their inherent righteousness most vocally and most frequently, I instinctually strike out against that choice. I was the same way with the Base Keepers, who loudly and endlessly insisted that, in a rational world, Destroying the base guaranteed everyone's extinction and only those who kept it deserved to live.

I'm not singling anyone in this thread out for that, mind you. It's just the feeling on the boards as a whole, so I've internalized it.

And maybe it's time once again to invoke my forum theme song: 

"Save us all from arrogant men
And all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore."

Edit: @Irelda2, sure, go ahead and repost whatever. If you include a link back to the posts in this thread for more context, all the better.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 08:10 .

[Ieldra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I still believe that all the possible endings are Thematically Revolting (I will never get tired of that phrase), but what I always object the most to is certainty and the arrogant belief that one is absolutely correct in one's assumptions, even without any sort of real proof. Since the "Destroy-ies" tout their inherent righteousness most vocally and most frequently, I instinctually strike out against that choice.

QFT x1000.

As opposed to you, I like to say that all the endings are good endings (at least the high EMS variants). It's just that people weigh the pros and cons differently based on emotion, the way they read the story and belief. To single one choice out as more correct than the other makes no sense.

(Not that I actually don't like the ending of ME3 as a whole. But I do like the final choice and the primary effects of the three options)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 mai 2012 - 08:12 .

[Seijin8]

Re: effects of synthesis.

To reduce war/conflict/aggression (in general) would require a number of factors to be mitigated. Synthesis must correct: hormonal imbalance, bloodlust, reproductive pressures, resource dependence, social hierarchies, ability to (mis)communicate (can't deceive?), and the general desire to end arguments in the most final ways possible. (Distasteful or not, a bullet to the brain is a permanent fix for undesirable behaviors with zero chance of recidivism. Shepard is an advocate of this method, like it or not.)

Synthesis shows fundamental changes even to the leaves on trees. We must assume that the trees don't like being fed upon by the new cyberinsects... vegans can now empathize with plants, so morally they cannot eat at all... but since this is a universal conundrum, we must all be solar powered now... unless sunlight has new DNA, then... dunno.

Once the green wave passes... whatever remains is utterly unrecognizable. My Shepard has made a career of putting his foes in the ground. With N7 and Spectre status, he is arguably the absolute best military problem solver (read: professional killer) tens of billions of humans could produce. I (and my Shep) don't for a moment believe that "give peace a chance" works for the duration, and now that "the duration" is effective synthesized immortality...

My Shep is a student of history. Genocide ends when the side perpetuating it is dead and gone. Hackett had it right: Dead Reapers is how we win this thing.

I will always advocate destroy as my ending of choice, but I am willing to consider the other options. The problem is that synthesis breaks at some level of detail. You can observe it from "abstracted god view" as a peaceful unity, but all the individual changes needed to make it function on a social, individual, communicative level require such a massive re-evaluation of what human (turian, quarian, synthetic) life is, that any conclusion drawn has to be fabricated from wishful thinking and strict avoidance of sapient logic.

Now... a higher level of consciousness could undoubtedly find a way to deal with whatever problems remain. Maybe it is a utopia. Just not for humans. Not us. Not anything we (thread readers and ME characters) have ever recognized as existence.

Synthesis erases the relevance of history, lierature, language and culture. All of those are built upon reflection of what it means to be human. Synthesis erases their meaning.

EDIT:  I'd like to soften this by saying that while I am arguing against synthesis, I'll happily make the same argument against any of the others.  I like debate and enjoy the Devil's Advocate role for whatever flawed personal reason that might be.  I have great respect for those who are posting here, and hope that any feathers I ruffle are taken in the spirit of intellectual discourse that was intended.  Much love all around

Modifié par Seijin8, 30 mai 2012 - 08:35 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

A lot of people are arguing against synthesis while assuming that it actually is going to end all war. I see no reason to assume this, I don't think that it's implied by what the Catalyst says, and I don't know anyone who supports Synthesis who believes this either.

I'm not saying you're building a straw man on purpose, but I don't understand where you got that interpretation. The effects of synthesis that are implied by the text in game as far as I can see are:

1. Organics and synthetics are better able to understand each other as each takes on minor aspects of the other and

2. The evolutionary advantages that synthetic life has over organic life are mitigated.

That is all. I know a good few dozen people who advocate Synthesis, and most of them believe the above, with minor variations as to the degree of increased understanding, potential immortality, and the extent of hybridization. Still, those are the basic tenets, and I cannot find a single advocate of synthesis who believes it implies a fundamental change in life that makes conflict impossible.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 08:53 .

[Seijin8]

Fair enough. And I completely understand your prior "one option is unjustifiably horrible and the other is far too likely to backfire, thus the third 'undiscovered country' option is the least worst."

But the desire to create synthetics (created vs. creator as the fundamental issue needing resolution) arises from a need to adapt to environmental pressures. I don't know how to envision a world that is without environmental pressures while maintaining some kind of value. If all survival factors are eliminated, then we are moving up Maslow's paradigm toward... what? I'm not sure.

I am a firm believer that adversity is a necessary component of meaningful life. Without adversity, what does accomplishment mean? What is self-actualization if self-actualization is a foregone conclusion of your synthetic components?

What I struggle with is the seeming paradox between survival pressures (as motivator for all sorts of vicious acts, potentially escalating through to genocide), and wanting for nothing, having no needs, needing to make no choices, and existing simply to ... exist. Which is as hollow a concept as I can imagine.

EDIT:  In summary, synthesis to me seems to be a situation where nothing needs to be contested at a level leading to genocide... which means that there are fewer things worth fighting for... which doesn't seem like any kind of victory I can picture.  Beautiful in abstraction, but utterly without substance at the individual level.

Modifié par Seijin8, 30 mai 2012 - 09:04 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

This is getting increasingly abstract... which is good. I like increasingly abstract. Still and again, I feel like you're taking the interpretation too far.

Even the geth, who are pure synthetics, have reasons to fight and kill. Survival. Togetherness. Freedom from loneliness. These are pretty basic, and these needs are not negated by being synthetic.

The Catalyst believes that synthetics have some benefit that gives them an advantage over organics. I have no gorram idea which benefit he's talking about: the ability to back oneself up? Being better at hiding? Increased processing power being easier to achieve than networked organic brains? I don't know, and it absolutely does not matter.

The point is this: if we stick in a few double As, for some reason he believes we're no longer in danger of extinction and boom: we're still us, just with a few new minor superpowers (that in no way eliminate the need to survive or strive). It's implied that we're getting options that the Geth have, and they're getting options that we have. Both of us strive and fight, so I don't see why this kind of exchange would reduce the desire to strive or fight.

The only thing that it would rationally reduce is fighting brought about by irrational hatred and lack of understanding between organics and synthetics, and I think we can afford to lose this. The Morning War was started not over "something worth fighting for," but out of irrational fear. The Geth allied with the old machines because of a series of misunderstandings between them and organics. If the rest of the galaxy had had a chance to meet legion and parlay with the geth, they might have intervened in their behalf. Instead, they felt that the old machines were their only potential allies, which is profoundly sad.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2012 - 09:27 .

[Ieldra]

Seijin8 wrote...
I am a firm believer that adversity is a necessary component of meaningful life. Without adversity, what does accomplishment mean? What is self-actualization if self-actualization is a foregone conclusion of your synthetic components?

What I struggle with is the seeming paradox between survival pressures (as motivator for all sorts of vicious acts, potentially escalating through to genocide), and wanting for nothing, having no needs, needing to make no choices, and existing simply to ... exist. Which is as hollow a concept as I can imagine.

EDIT:  In summary, synthesis to me seems to be a situation where nothing needs to be contested at a level leading to genocide... which means that there are fewer things worth fighting for... which doesn't seem like any kind of victory I can picture.  Beautiful in abstraction, but utterly without substance at the individual level.

Why assume there won't be any challenges left? You might have solved the organic/synthetic problem, and gained considerably in power and understanding, but what lies beyond the border you just crossed but new expanses you get to explore? Just because our knowledge is too limited to imagine what those challenges might be doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edit:
Also what CGG said.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 mai 2012 - 09:22 .