Synthesis ending is reflecting an inacceptable moral relativism, the fact that it requires a lot of EMS only shows that the creators either did not think enough about that ... or it is their personal opinion, what is at the minimum a troubling conclusion.
Synthesis is not only disgusting or morally wrong; it is simply one of the things we were always rejecting in the real life: the totalitarian ideologies were funded upon singularity and uniformity, no place for diversity, liberty of thoughts
Is Synthesis is disgusting ?
Débuté par
Gogzilla
, avril 23 2012 01:59
Retour en haut
#352
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:19
Cobra's_back
-
- Members
- 3 057 messages
Kalundume wrote...
Synthesis ending is reflecting an inacceptable moral relativism, the fact that it requires a lot of EMS only shows that the creators either did not think enough about that ... or it is their personal opinion, what is at the minimum a troubling conclusion.
Synthesis is not only disgusting or morally wrong; it is simply one of the things we were always rejecting in the real life: the totalitarian ideologies were funded upon singularity and uniformity, no place for diversity, liberty of thoughts
This option might get more takers in a communist country.
#353
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:22
InHarmsWay
-
- Members
- 1 080 messages
Wolven_Soul wrote...
Drummernate wrote...
InHarmsWay wrote...
My biggest problem with the synthesis ending is when the starchild calls it the apex of evolution.
Anyone with a basic understanding of biology and evolution know that there is no such thing as the apex of evolution. Evolution is a continuous process where organisms (both biological and non-biological) continue to adapt to their environments. Organisms have to adapt or face extinction. If we take the starchild at its word, then we just stagnated evolution in all life in the galaxy. This means we just doomed all life in the galaxy because it can no longer adapt. Diseases and the environment can wipe out everything.
You miss the point then.
If you combine synthetics with organics, you can no longer get diseases. You can no longer go extinct unless they begin killing each other, you no longer need to eat, drink, sleep, or anything like that.
Micro-evolution will always happen.
Macro... not... really.
You can still get diseases. Computer viruses. Besides, part of you is still organic, that part can still be affected. Also, that part of you has to be maintained somehow, so yes, you still need to do things like eat and sleep. Take the Borg for example. They still consume food. Granted I think it was basically just some kind of paste or something. And their regeneration cycles are just like sleeping.
Exactly. If anything, synthesis has just opened up the galaxy to newer threats. Also Drum seems to miss that no evolution also means no microevolution as well as macroevolution. If you are at the "apex" of evolution then microevolution can't happen. No where in the game does it say that the needs of biological organisms goes away with the new synthetic parts. Shepard is proof of that.
#354
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:22
Torxen
-
- Members
- 47 messages
It pains me that Bioware placed it as the "hardest" to get choice, because this leads me to believe that they see it as the best ending possible.
*Puts face into hand*
This choice is the greatest destruction of the internal themes of the ME trilogy. To quote a well informed and thought out post from another thread;
"This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless."
Here is the thread. It is relevant to this one in it's views on the Synthesis ending. I think it would be informative for others to read it as well.
http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1
*Puts face into hand*
This choice is the greatest destruction of the internal themes of the ME trilogy. To quote a well informed and thought out post from another thread;
"This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless."
Here is the thread. It is relevant to this one in it's views on the Synthesis ending. I think it would be informative for others to read it as well.
http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1
#355
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:23
Anduin The Grey
-
- Members
- 799 messages
Meltemph wrote...
The Catalyst also mentions his absolute refusal to act on any of the new possibilities made available to him, it is quite content to let the REapers continue to do their thing, personally I thought the whole point of being consumed by two endings was to incorporate everything your Shepard was into and to influence the final result, but that's just an assumption
Actually the kid said he "cant" do it, which raises more questions then answers.
I found this response bizarre to begin with, so I replayed the ending just now to see for myself (hence my slow response). I specificly remember the Catalyst "empahasizing" the words "I won't".
So I googled and that lead me to this thread pretty quickly:
http://social.biowar...5933/4#11470164
Which in turn links to a video (of quite poor quality I might add), which shows the Catalyst saying "I won''t".
The video says it's a Shepard with low EMS. I played through the end twice, once choosing the top right answer when talking to him (just before he mentions the Crucible) and the bottom right the second time.
On both occasions the Catalyst says I can't.
The only difference between this playthrough and my previous one, was that when I played the campaign originally, I finished it pre-patch AND I had not touched Multiplayer whatsoever.
#356
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:28
AtreiyaN7
-
- Members
- 8 397 messages
Short answer to thread title: no, it's not disgusting under any circumstances unless you're a speciest who can't see beyond your own kind imo.
I've argued the subject to death, so I tend not to bother with people like that guy who claims that Synthesis somehow robs everyone of free will. It doesn't - it just makes changes to the base matter to create a compatible biochemistry in my opinion. Sometimes one person changes the course of history without asking everyone if it's A-OK with them.
I've argued the subject to death, so I tend not to bother with people like that guy who claims that Synthesis somehow robs everyone of free will. It doesn't - it just makes changes to the base matter to create a compatible biochemistry in my opinion. Sometimes one person changes the course of history without asking everyone if it's A-OK with them.
Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 23 avril 2012 - 06:28 .
#357
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:32
Khevan77
-
- Members
- 174 messages
The problem with Synthesis, in my opinion, is that it's described as the final stage of evolution, as if evolution had a "goal" of some kind. This is illogical thinking, since evolution is not an active force.
Evolution is nothing more than a series of happy accidents. Some change in a species gave it the ability to survive better than its competitors, and so it survived longer and passed genes on. This led to more random changes, some successful, some not. The unsuccessful ones died off, the successful ones obviously did not. It's not as if a species encounters a hardship, and somehow actively develops a natural ability to overcome that hardship. A species that naturally develops a counter to a hardship is the one who will survive, and that's natural selection.
Transhumanism and related philosophies are about taking control of our own evolution, forcing changes on life to overcome percieved limitations. My issue with transhumanism is the unknown quantity of it all, the law of unintended consequences. I will explain:
Suppose we create a drug or other process that allows humans to live for 200 years or longer. Now, older people aren't dying off, more children are born, and overpopulation leads to wars, famine, pestilence, etc. This is an extreme example, yes, but it's a perfectly valid example. Messing with evolution isn't as simple as people would like to think.
Now, to relate this back to the topic, forcing such a change onto all organic life is abhorrent. The other two options have a similar theme, destroy forces extermination on the geth, and EDI, etc. However, Destroy, while a terrible ending in itself (as written in the game), it's more palatable as the price of doing business. It's morally questionable to destroy a species, but it's acceptable to do so in stopping a cycle of destruction that would end all species. The needs of the many and all that jazz.
Synthesis is abhorrent because it's changing the fundamental elements of what makes a person a person, without their consent. It introduces a level of uncertainty into the ending that frankly makes me recoil. If it's explained better, it may become an acceptable choice, if the explanation works, but as it stands, it's the worst ending of the three, in my opinion.
Note: This is not a defense of the destroy choice. All three are terrible. Synthesis is absolutely terribad, control is slightly less terribad, while destroy is merely terrible. So I choose destroy, given that there's no other option (except turning the game off)
Evolution is nothing more than a series of happy accidents. Some change in a species gave it the ability to survive better than its competitors, and so it survived longer and passed genes on. This led to more random changes, some successful, some not. The unsuccessful ones died off, the successful ones obviously did not. It's not as if a species encounters a hardship, and somehow actively develops a natural ability to overcome that hardship. A species that naturally develops a counter to a hardship is the one who will survive, and that's natural selection.
Transhumanism and related philosophies are about taking control of our own evolution, forcing changes on life to overcome percieved limitations. My issue with transhumanism is the unknown quantity of it all, the law of unintended consequences. I will explain:
Suppose we create a drug or other process that allows humans to live for 200 years or longer. Now, older people aren't dying off, more children are born, and overpopulation leads to wars, famine, pestilence, etc. This is an extreme example, yes, but it's a perfectly valid example. Messing with evolution isn't as simple as people would like to think.
Now, to relate this back to the topic, forcing such a change onto all organic life is abhorrent. The other two options have a similar theme, destroy forces extermination on the geth, and EDI, etc. However, Destroy, while a terrible ending in itself (as written in the game), it's more palatable as the price of doing business. It's morally questionable to destroy a species, but it's acceptable to do so in stopping a cycle of destruction that would end all species. The needs of the many and all that jazz.
Synthesis is abhorrent because it's changing the fundamental elements of what makes a person a person, without their consent. It introduces a level of uncertainty into the ending that frankly makes me recoil. If it's explained better, it may become an acceptable choice, if the explanation works, but as it stands, it's the worst ending of the three, in my opinion.
Note: This is not a defense of the destroy choice. All three are terrible. Synthesis is absolutely terribad, control is slightly less terribad, while destroy is merely terrible. So I choose destroy, given that there's no other option (except turning the game off)
#358
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:32
Anduin The Grey
-
- Members
- 799 messages
As for the genetic rape argument, rape removes choice, there are whole lines of families who most likely owe their whole line to rape, rape is seen as a stain but we are more than just the sum of our genes. We may very well have genetic predispositions but unlike addiction or indoctrination, they do not compel us, to say that synthesis is akin to genetic rape is to claim evolution the same, doesn't matter how you got here, you are here, whether any of us owe our lines to a rapist going back thousands of years or not was not our choice, but we play the cards we are dealt with because they are the only cards we have.
It might be obscene to choose it on Shepards behalf but as players we are not forced to make any choice, none of the choices are prefect but they are the only choices that are open to us.
From Mass Effect 1 the whole Trilogy set itself up for us to make difficult decisions and then to live with the consequences, judging by the ire on the forums sinjce the endings were uncovered am guessing they made the last 3 choices of the trilogy too hard for most if not all of us to swallow.
It might be obscene to choose it on Shepards behalf but as players we are not forced to make any choice, none of the choices are prefect but they are the only choices that are open to us.
From Mass Effect 1 the whole Trilogy set itself up for us to make difficult decisions and then to live with the consequences, judging by the ire on the forums sinjce the endings were uncovered am guessing they made the last 3 choices of the trilogy too hard for most if not all of us to swallow.
Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 23 avril 2012 - 06:33 .
#359
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:36
Cobra's_back
-
- Members
- 3 057 messages
AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Short answer to thread title: no, it's not disgusting under any circumstances unless you're a speciest who can't see beyond your own kind imo.
I've argued the subject to death, so I tend not to bother with people like that guy who claims that Synthesis somehow robs everyone of free will. It doesn't - it just makes changes to the base matter to create a compatible biochemistry in my opinion. Sometimes one person changes the course of history without asking everyone if it's A-OK with them.
In the USA it’s a criminal act. It is a criminal act because it does go against an individual’s rights.
#360
Guest_Nyoka_*
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:36
Guest_Nyoka_*
Guest_Nyoka_*
-
- Guests
I want an option to make all the synthetics organic or all the organics synthetic. Or maybe both at the same time.
Since now we're f*cking with people's DNA without their consent for their own good because they can't help themselves (nice ideology there)... why not, it might give folks perspective. It also contains a real nice theoretical concept, the idea of putting yourself in someone else's shoes to see things from their perspective, thus expanding folks' own personal ethical and philosophical horizons and create a new galaxy of empathy and tolerance... we get a scene with robotic Joker holding Dr. Eva with his bionic arms.
Since now we're f*cking with people's DNA without their consent for their own good because they can't help themselves (nice ideology there)... why not, it might give folks perspective. It also contains a real nice theoretical concept, the idea of putting yourself in someone else's shoes to see things from their perspective, thus expanding folks' own personal ethical and philosophical horizons and create a new galaxy of empathy and tolerance... we get a scene with robotic Joker holding Dr. Eva with his bionic arms.
#361
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:36
YNation913
-
- Members
- 195 messages
Khevan77 wrote...
Synthesis is abhorrent because it's changing the fundamental elements of what makes a person a person, without their consent. It introduces a level of uncertainty into the ending that frankly makes me recoil. If it's explained better, it may become an acceptable choice, if the explanation works, but as it stands, it's the worst ending of the three, in my opinion.
Can you elaborate on what exactly "makes a person a person?" In my view it has very little to do with physiology since the synthetics in ME3 are able to achieve "personhood."
#362
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:40
YNation913
-
- Members
- 195 messages
Anduin The Grey wrote...
...but we play the cards we are dealt with because they are the only cards we have.
This is the theme of all three acts in ME3, in my opinion.
#363
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:40
Harorrd
-
- Members
- 1 116 messages
Synthesis is the genetic rape and the ultimate massacre of life in the universe.
#364
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:40
Anduin The Grey
-
- Members
- 799 messages
ghostbusters101 wrote...
AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Short answer to thread title: no, it's not disgusting under any circumstances unless you're a speciest who can't see beyond your own kind imo.
I've argued the subject to death, so I tend not to bother with people like that guy who claims that Synthesis somehow robs everyone of free will. It doesn't - it just makes changes to the base matter to create a compatible biochemistry in my opinion. Sometimes one person changes the course of history without asking everyone if it's A-OK with them.
In the USA it’s a criminal act. It is a criminal act because it does go against an individual’s rights.
Any children born to rape are not automatically labelled criminals though are they?
#365
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:43
Kidd
-
- Members
- 3 667 messages
Makes sense. Aside from being a thematic mistake to put in ME of all stories, not to mention the space magic-hood of the whole thing, I quite like the general idea itself. And I do indeed vote for a party that was called "the left communist party" until somewhat recently.ghostbusters101 wrote...
This option might get more takers in a communist country.
#366
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:43
Khevan77
-
- Members
- 174 messages
YNation913 wrote...
Khevan77 wrote...
Synthesis is abhorrent because it's changing the fundamental elements of what makes a person a person, without their consent. It introduces a level of uncertainty into the ending that frankly makes me recoil. If it's explained better, it may become an acceptable choice, if the explanation works, but as it stands, it's the worst ending of the three, in my opinion.
Can you elaborate on what exactly "makes a person a person?" In my view it has very little to do with physiology since the synthetics in ME3 are able to achieve "personhood."
Obviously we are more than the sum of our DNA. However, our DNA does affect who we are as human beings. Geth are the product of their programming, Turians are the product of their DNA-equivalent, etc.
Changing the very basic building blocks of what creates a person changes that person. Maybe not in noticeable ways such as personality or thinking perspecitves, but it has the potential to do so, and is not explained well enough in game to say otherwise.
The issue isn't whether this will have a profound impact on the day to day life of an individual, although it certainly may. The issue is that we don't know, and we're forcing that change on everything in the galaxy. This is morally questionable, and certainly horrible writing. Thus, it's the worst ending in ME3, in my opinion.
#367
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:44
Peranor
-
- Members
- 4 003 messages
AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Short answer to thread title: no, it's not disgusting under any circumstances unless you're a speciest who can't see beyond your own kind imo.
I've argued the subject to death, so I tend not to bother with people like that guy who claims that Synthesis somehow robs everyone of free will. It doesn't - it just makes changes to the base matter to create a compatible biochemistry in my opinion. Sometimes one person changes the course of history without asking everyone if it's A-OK with them.
So what you are trying to do is invalidate one thesis by removing their speculations and replacing them with your own speculations?
Based on how little information we are given about how synthesis really works your assumptions is just as valid as those that find synthesis disgusting.
But you seem to be very certain exactly how synthesis works. If you have some inside information from BioWare please do share with the rest of us.
Modifié par anorling, 23 avril 2012 - 06:49 .
#368
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:47
Anduin The Grey
-
- Members
- 799 messages
It's no more horrendous than any other choices in evolution the only horror possible is that of Shepard's choice, only time will tell if he made the right choice or whether he screwed everyone, but the Catalyst seemed to think it was the best idea out of the 3 and assuming he wasn't lying, he was in the best position to judge.
#369
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:48
General User
-
- Members
- 3 315 messages
What do you mean by "choices in evolution"?Anduin The Grey wrote...
It's no more horrendous than any other choices in evolution the only horror possible is that of Shepard's choice, only time will tell if he made the right choice or whether he screwed everyone, but the Catalyst seemed to think it was the best idea out of the 3 and assuming he wasn't lying, he was in the best position to judge.
#370
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:49
Kalundume
-
- Members
- 174 messages
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Kalundume wrote...
Synthesis ending is reflecting an inacceptable moral relativism, the fact that it requires a lot of EMS only shows that the creators either did not think enough about that ... or it is their personal opinion, what is at the minimum a troubling conclusion.
Synthesis is not only disgusting or morally wrong; it is simply one of the things we were always rejecting in the real life: the totalitarian ideologies were funded upon singularity and uniformity, no place for diversity, liberty of thoughts
This option might get more takers in a communist country.
Quite opposite ... for those that are not brainwashed actually.
I was born in a communist country, had seen it fall apart exactly because everybody cooperated actively to make it fail, a little like Shepard, we stand united along the whole society, even the communists themselves were anticommunists (even if the concept seems weird for you) ... one reason more to be revolted on the very idea of "synthesis" ending and finding it very offending as a "rewarding" solution.
That kind of regime is not eternal ... no system coming from violence can survive. The systems growing naturally survive much longer than those born out of violence, rape of any kind. Communism was born out of massive intellectual (and physical) "rape", imposed and eventually rejected by the society.
Singularity of thought, Uniformity, Rythmicity, no place for independent thoughts, gray, the same rituals again and again ... that is what it looks like.
A Wrinkle in Time movie shows that quite well... especially this part:
"Synthesis" ending is glorifying the worst of what humanity had to offer;
Modifié par Kalundume, 23 avril 2012 - 06:54 .
#371
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:52
julio77777
-
- Members
- 233 messages
Synthesis is nonsensical, it doesn't solve anything, synthesized can still make synthetics who can rebel and destroy them (assuming they retain their free will).
Plus the mass suicides, riots and other happy things that follow (yeah such sudden traumatic changes will cause these things, it's basic psychology)...
But mainly there is no moral justification for this, you just don't change the genetic code of the entire galaxy.
And it's the best option of the one who massacred entire civilizations for hundreds of thousands of years...I mean come on !!
Plus the mass suicides, riots and other happy things that follow (yeah such sudden traumatic changes will cause these things, it's basic psychology)...
But mainly there is no moral justification for this, you just don't change the genetic code of the entire galaxy.
And it's the best option of the one who massacred entire civilizations for hundreds of thousands of years...I mean come on !!
Modifié par julio77777, 23 avril 2012 - 06:54 .
#372
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:53
Oldbones2
-
- Members
- 1 820 messages
Bad King wrote...
I've seen people claim that Saren wanted synthesis, yet Saren's idea of synthesis and what we get at the end of ME3 are very different.
Sovereign had convinced Saren (via indoctrination) that organics needed reaper implants to be 'upgraded'. This would allow him to assume direct control of Saren when necessary.
The synthesis ending meanwhile creates a new genetic code for everything, both synthetic and organic. This genetic code somehow is a combination of organic and synthetic material which unifies all organic and synthetic life. This is different to simply being implanted with reaper tech (what the indoctrinated Saren wanted).
As for TIM, the reapers wanted him to believe that he could control them to create a rift between organic factions. It was clearly never their intention that some organic would come to control them. Just because control was what TIM wanted doesn't make it a bad decision.
Saren Synthesis (SS) and Catalyst Synthesis (CS) are different only in execution, the end result is the same.
Forcibly choosing a the state of being for every life form in the galaxy.
Who decides what the final evolution of life is?
1 Your sworn enemy who clearly doesn't understand biology OR physics and up until this moment its best plan was to kill everyone and dump their corpse paste into machine bodies?
2 Or is it up to each person to decide for themselves what it their life means and each of us together decides what the future will bring. And if we can't do that realistically now, then maybe we're not ready to reach the final evolution yet. Maybe we need more time to grow and evolve.
So who decides? Well if you plan Mass Effect 3, the first one.
#373
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:55
Anduin The Grey
-
- Members
- 799 messages
General User wrote...
What do you mean by "choices in evolution"?Anduin The Grey wrote...
It's no more horrendous than any other choices in evolution the only horror possible is that of Shepard's choice, only time will tell if he made the right choice or whether he screwed everyone, but the Catalyst seemed to think it was the best idea out of the 3 and assuming he wasn't lying, he was in the best position to judge.
Choices, there were none, any universe in which Shepard chooses to synthesise life, everything which is changed has no choice either. Sorry about the first use of the word choices it would seem I amphropormorphasized evolution.
Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 23 avril 2012 - 06:55 .
#374
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:57
Anduin The Grey
-
- Members
- 799 messages
Oldbones2 wrote...
Saren Synthesis (SS) and Catalyst Synthesis (CS) are different only in execution, the end result is the same.
I take issue with this statement only because it is clear from the end that organics resemble nothing like Reapers nor in function, they also have a capacity to smile which am pretty sure the Reapers would find little use for.
#375
Posté 23 avril 2012 - 06:59
T-Raks
-
- Members
- 823 messages
Yes, it's disgusting and not what Shepard fights for (freedom).
