449 réponses à ce sujet

[Erield]

lx_theo wrote...

I'm sick and tired of people proving me wrong, and showing how my arguments are flawed from the ground up.  I have nothing intelligent left to offer this discourse besides repeating myself or mocking people.  Because of this, I'll be on my way. If you have anymore questions, please refer to the last fourteen pages.

Good day all.


PS--I may drop backin to mock people just because.

Fixed

[Reorte]

Sisterofshane wrote...

There is no pinnacle of evolution for genetic material - as the universe is always changing, so then is the need to adapt to it.  Mordin says so in so many words in response to Avina talking about social class engineering on the citadel in ME2.  He believes in the struggle of "life" to promote growth.  So Synthesis can mean one of two things:

When merged, the ability for all life (this synthetic-organic hybrid) to adapt to it's environment is gone (no more evolution).  This would lead to stagnation and ultimately the demise of all life within the galaxy, as we would be incapable of adapting in any meaningful way to changes within the environment.  Loss of food/power sources through changes in planets would almost certainly spell doom.

Or, perhaps what it does is allow for all life to "evolve" the same way as organics do now.  How exactly does this promote "peace"?  There will still be struggles for resources, different factions interpreting rights of individuals in different ways (and we know how easy it is to war over ideaology).  Old conflicts will still exist, as well as old grudges.  we should know with more certainty than anything else, that human history has shown us that sharing DNA does not necessarily lead to acceptance.

For the Synthesis ending to make any difference at all, what would need to occur would be a complete and total re-writing of the ideas and concepts that every being (synthetic and organic) held before the synthesis occurred.  Basically brainwashing everyone into accepting each other.  It would have to be completely pervasive and continuous in order to maintain any peace by preventing any future conflicts.  Doesn't sound so "idyllic" now, does it?

It's possible that it would stop any natural evolution if it means that no random mutations can occur (so at least there's no cancer post-synthesis). There's no reason to think that it'll stop intelligent species from deliberately tinkering, even if it takes them some time to understand the space magic results. It'll probably wipe out life on many planets eventually as it won't be able to adapt to things like climate shifts.

Of course there will still be the same old wars and the possibility of some group being more powerful and power-hungry than the rest, possibly aided by building some machines that don't suffer from the vulnerabilities of the organic parts... Unless, as you say, everyone's mind is changed too, and changed to the right state.

Synthesis is repugnant (due to being shoved onto everyone and everything without asking), wildly implausible and doesn't solve the problem the Catalyst claims to be solving. Quite how anyone can put up with that is beyond me.

[ediskrad327]

what do people eat in Synthesis? how does this affect animals? are there nano mechanical parts that are impossible to get out of the beef? or is it clear where to cut? does this affect flavor? and what about plants? is it safe to eat lettuce now? is the glowy thingy harmful to health?
so many questions

[Skull Bearer]

lx_theo wrote...

anorling wrote...

So what lx_theo is trying to say is forcing synthesis on an entire galaxy is ok because it changes nothing?

No, because it changes one very important thing. It creates empathy.

The idea that people need to be the same in order for there to be empathy is a fundementally revolting one.

[Eterna]

anorling wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

DJBare wrote...

*sighs* The fundamental is that you are playing god by choosing synthesis, it does not matter the outcome, you are choosing the destiny for an "entire" galaxy, humanoids, aliens, plants, you are playing god, So please, stop making the silly threads about the Synthesis option.

I pretty sure using a space ship/biotics/medi gel is also playing god. 

Well, I might agree with you on the biotics and maybe medigel, but space ship?, Buzz Aldrin is God?

Don't feed the troll. He is only trying to add fuel to the flames. 
I remember that obnoxious salarian from another thread.

Wow, Nice way to throw around accusations. Counter arguments are trolling now? 

[DamonD7]

lx_theo wrote...

Since I've spent way too much time on here, and feel that many of these debates have gone in their expected circle, I'll be on my way. If you have anymore questions, please refer to the last fourteen pages.

Good day all.

Funniest bit.

[Turtlicious]

Skull Bearer wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

anorling wrote...

So what lx_theo is trying to say is forcing synthesis on an entire galaxy is ok because it changes nothing?

No, because it changes one very important thing. It creates empathy.

The idea that people need to be the same in order for there to be empathy is a fundementally revolting one.

Inb4 hitler.

[Skull Bearer]

Turtlicious wrote...

Skull Bearer wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

anorling wrote...

So what lx_theo is trying to say is forcing synthesis on an entire galaxy is ok because it changes nothing?

No, because it changes one very important thing. It creates empathy.

The idea that people need to be the same in order for there to be empathy is a fundementally revolting one.

Inb4 hitler.

Him and just about every other genocide in history.

[Meltemph]

No, because it changes one very important thing. It creates empathy.

Eugenics... It forces empathy on a person my manipulating their DNA, sounds like a form of homogenization to me. Synthesis fixes nothing, the synthetics vs organics debate the starchild brings up insist about racism it is about perspective. The only time synthetics become a problem is when they start to humanize, when they realize their humanity, they in effect become slaves, yet the organics will treat them the same.

This will not change because of synthesis unless the change FORCES people to be ok with their creations becoming more then what they want, which means control. That said, what the kid is suggesting doesn't even make sense, unless it is a form of indoctrination, since that green stuff was the same thing essentially, that TIM used to turn those people into husks. If all organics have synthetics in them then that means that someone somewhere programmed these synthetic parts with information, and that information that was put in it could have all sorts of "commands".

There is 0 reason to assume what you did made things better. Al lwe have is a picture of Joker and EDI showing affection...but this was already happening, since EDI already publicly admitted to giving Joker a kiss for good luck. We have no idea what synthesis does outside of the reapers stop attacking earth and normandy lands on a planet.

[humes spork]

Skull Bearer wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

anorling wrote...
So what lx_theo is trying to say is forcing synthesis on an entire galaxy is ok because it changes nothing?

No, because it changes one very important thing. It creates empathy.

The idea that people need to be the same in order for there to be empathy is a fundementally revolting one.

Not homogenization -- common ground.

You can't look at what precious little is shown of the synthesis ending and conclude that everything is homogenized and is now identical. Rather, the opposite seems to be true, that while all life has been synthesized it retains its form, distinctiveness, and individuality.

[Sisterofshane]

Reorte wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

There is no pinnacle of evolution for genetic material - as the universe is always changing, so then is the need to adapt to it.  Mordin says so in so many words in response to Avina talking about social class engineering on the citadel in ME2.  He believes in the struggle of "life" to promote growth.  So Synthesis can mean one of two things:

When merged, the ability for all life (this synthetic-organic hybrid) to adapt to it's environment is gone (no more evolution).  This would lead to stagnation and ultimately the demise of all life within the galaxy, as we would be incapable of adapting in any meaningful way to changes within the environment.  Loss of food/power sources through changes in planets would almost certainly spell doom.

Or, perhaps what it does is allow for all life to "evolve" the same way as organics do now.  How exactly does this promote "peace"?  There will still be struggles for resources, different factions interpreting rights of individuals in different ways (and we know how easy it is to war over ideaology).  Old conflicts will still exist, as well as old grudges.  we should know with more certainty than anything else, that human history has shown us that sharing DNA does not necessarily lead to acceptance.

For the Synthesis ending to make any difference at all, what would need to occur would be a complete and total re-writing of the ideas and concepts that every being (synthetic and organic) held before the synthesis occurred.  Basically brainwashing everyone into accepting each other.  It would have to be completely pervasive and continuous in order to maintain any peace by preventing any future conflicts.  Doesn't sound so "idyllic" now, does it?

It's possible that it would stop any natural evolution if it means that no random mutations can occur (so at least there's no cancer post-synthesis). There's no reason to think that it'll stop intelligent species from deliberately tinkering, even if it takes them some time to understand the space magic results. It'll probably wipe out life on many planets eventually as it won't be able to adapt to things like climate shifts.

Of course there will still be the same old wars and the possibility of some group being more powerful and power-hungry than the rest, possibly aided by building some machines that don't suffer from the vulnerabilities of the organic parts... Unless, as you say, everyone's mind is changed too, and changed to the right state.

Synthesis is repugnant (due to being shoved onto everyone and everything without asking), wildly implausible and doesn't solve the problem the Catalyst claims to be solving. Quite how anyone can put up with that is beyond me.

This idea almost scares me.  The idea that we will not be able to change anything about ourselves without directly intervening...  Physical adaptation through evolution serves a purpose.  For example, humans don't have tails.  We don't need them for balance, and they would have in fact gotten very much in our way while earlier versions of us would be hunting or evading predators.  Somewhere along the evolutionary trail, we "evolved" them to not be on our bodies.

Now imagine a post-synthesis world in which we need to evolve past the "need" for something...like a pinky finger.  It won't be naturally mutated out of our "synthetic" DNA, but it's become a nuisance and actually hampers our ability to survive.  So now we would have people making the choice to have parts of themselves removed for the purposes of greater survivabilty.  And that would then translate to having these unecessary parts removed from our chilredn (will we even have children anymore?  We will have no need to pass on our genetics...).

The whole idea sounds gruesome to me.

[Meltemph]

You can't look at what precious little is shown of the synthesis ending and conclude that everything is homogenized and is now identical. Rather, the opposite seems to be true, that while all life has been synthesized it retains its form, distinctiveness, and individuality.

Almost everyone who defends the ending though makes the statement to some effect that ti ends synthetic racism... That is a form of homogenization, just not superficial. Synthesis cant solve anything unless it reworks the brain. Racism isnt the problem here...

[nitefyre410]

DJBare wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Not accepted, I want to remain precisely as I am, getting older and one day to die of  old age hopefully.

I choose to not let the Geth die and not let genocide happen. Your counter argument is?

As much as it pains me, I choose organics freedom of choice over synthetics, that includes my favorite EDI.

 

if thats very  case Mr. Bond  who are you to  fault him for playing god ... when you choose the fate of one race over another.   When you pick destory aren't you playing yourself playing  God wit the lives of   The Geth and EDI?  

Bare in mind I'm a simple observer  and neutral party  this because I   reject all  of  The Catalyst solutions as false.

I'm merely just curious about your answe to this... 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 24 avril 2012 - 12:40 .

[Skull Bearer]

humes spork wrote...

Skull Bearer wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

anorling wrote...
So what lx_theo is trying to say is forcing synthesis on an entire galaxy is ok because it changes nothing?

No, because it changes one very important thing. It creates empathy.

The idea that people need to be the same in order for there to be empathy is a fundementally revolting one.

Not homogenization -- common ground.

You can't look at what precious little is shown of the synthesis ending and conclude that everything is homogenized and is now identical. Rather, the opposite seems to be true, that while all life has been synthesized it retains its form, distinctiveness, and individuality.

Why do we need synthesis to find common ground?

[Sisterofshane]

humes spork wrote...

Skull Bearer wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

anorling wrote...
So what lx_theo is trying to say is forcing synthesis on an entire galaxy is ok because it changes nothing?

No, because it changes one very important thing. It creates empathy.

The idea that people need to be the same in order for there to be empathy is a fundementally revolting one.

Not homogenization -- common ground.

You can't look at what precious little is shown of the synthesis ending and conclude that everything is homogenized and is now identical. Rather, the opposite seems to be true, that while all life has been synthesized it retains its form, distinctiveness, and individuality.

Which leads me to question exactly how much we now "share" with the Reapers.  We woulld still be relatively small and not as technologically advanced as the Reapers even with synthesis.  We also know that synthesis would not remove the need for conflict (finite resources and all).  So, when push comes to shove, what's to stop the reapers from dominating the other individuals of the galaxy anyway?  The fact that they share the same "building material" with us?  What exactly is there to stop them from believing that they are superior to us?  Being made of purely organic material certainly hasn't stopped any race in the galaxy from believing it was superior/inferior to another yet...

[Scyldemort]

The problem with the synthesis option, space magic aside, is that it's silly and poorly thought out.
Molecular machine #1 (human beings) runs on ATP. Molecular machines #2-3 (Quarians, Turians) run on something else. Molecular machine #1 is built differently than molecular machines #2-3, but they accomplish the same general concept. Molecular machine #4 (Geth) works differently than #1-3, is built differently, but also accomplishes the same general concept. But "synthetics were created for a specific purpose, and they know what that purpose is," says the starchild. "That makes them fundamentally different." I don't see how it follows. For one, plenty of humans are absolutely convinced that they were created for a specific purpose, and that they know what that purpose is. For another, even the most rudimentary understanding of Evolution shows us that plenty of things are developed do to (x), and turn out to be totally amazing at doing (y) or (z), and that the reason any particular trait emerged in a species is far less important than what that trait can actually be used for. I don't see how it's any different in "synthetics."

... so how is 'synthesis' even relevant? Because a complete moron of a star-god thinks that glowing plants are cool?

[Bad King]

DJBare wrote...

*sighs* The fundamental is that you are playing god by choosing synthesis, it does not matter the outcome, you are choosing the destiny for an "entire" galaxy, humanoids, aliens, plants, you are playing god, So please, stop making the silly threads about the Synthesis option.

So? Shepard plays god throughout the entire series. He decides the fate of the krogan, the geth, the quarians, the rachni etc. The other end game options (control/destroy) also involve Shepard choosing the galaxy's fate for it.

[webhead921]

lx_theo wrote...

I suspect many people will ignore this thread because it doesn't let them vent and whine about the ending.

Troof.

[Reorte]

Skull Bearer wrote...

Why do we need synthesis to find common ground?

We need common ground to have a really good war. History shows that people love going to war against those that are only a little different. Fighting against very different cultures has never been anywhere as popular and was only done when we wanted to nick their stuff rather than wipe them out.

[nitefyre410]

Skull Bearer wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Skull Bearer wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

anorling wrote...
So what lx_theo is trying to say is forcing synthesis on an entire galaxy is ok because it changes nothing?

No, because it changes one very important thing. It creates empathy.

The idea that people need to be the same in order for there to be empathy is a fundementally revolting one.

Not homogenization -- common ground.

You can't look at what precious little is shown of the synthesis ending and conclude that everything is homogenized and is now identical. Rather, the opposite seems to be true, that while all life has been synthesized it retains its form, distinctiveness, and individuality.

Why do we need synthesis to find common ground?

 

You don't and THATS the  major flow in the whole the  Thesis , Anti - Thesis  and Synthesis  solution that Bioware presented at the end of Mass Effect 3.    The Synthesis ending is not  true Synthesis not in the sense of what it supposed to actually mean... 

[Toxic Waste]

lx_theo wrote...

And maybe you forget, but this is sci-fi. You can't walk 10 feet in ME without coming across omething that isn't actually possible.

24 years ago Star Trek presented comunicators and Personal Access Display Device (padds). Today we have cell phones and ipads/tablets. Science fiction has a habit of becoming science fact.

Now, on with the debate.

Modifié par Toxic Waste, 24 avril 2012 - 12:51 .

[paxbanana3915]

My issue is the complete lack of understanding of DNA/RNA and how cells work, not to mention evolution. Whoever wrote the synthesis dialogue and ending clearly doesn't have any knowledge in the basic biology. It goes far beyond my willing suspension of disbelief, and I don't mind a lot of silly things in the ME trilogy.

[Kyrick]

lx_theo wrote...

 Why do people think that Synthesis would make organics cyborgs or something along those lines? It makes no sense that people would be forced into a cyborg form. In fact, it makes so little sense that it also doesn't make sense that anyone would think that's what it meant. A bit... perplexing, I must say.

The Catalyst told of how synthesis would create a new DNA. He said nothing about how it would alter the physical forms of anyone. What does make sense is that if Synthesis only effects DNA and Sythetic's equivalent. They would be merged to create one fundamental building block of life rather than the two distinctly different ones that were there before. A Geth would simply be another species, like a Human is to a Turian. This is actually the only way it can make sense. If people were transformed into synthetics or cyborgs or something along those lines, it destroys the ability to write a future story coming after because of the huge variation it would force. People still have their free will. They still have their individuality. They are still who they are. The only logical interpretations of synthesis would be ones that change species at such a fundamental level that it can put them on the same playing field without changing the uniqueness of each species and individual. Any interpretation that does not take this in account will not make sense. I don't really understand why anyone would think those to be true. Maybe they are so bitter at the ending they choose to look for the interpretation they can hate on the most?

So please, stop making the silly threads attacking the Synthesis option.

So please, stop making threads defending the immorality of altering untold numbers of years of evolution on your own whim.  Synthesis is easily the most immoral of the options given.  You're rewriting the very code of what life is built off of.  You argue based off of an utterly incomplete understanding of what 'synthesis' is and what it is doing to those affected. 

Just so we all understand...you're all for changing one species into another.  You don't see the immorality of that at all.  Kindly stay away from teaching children anything to do with ethics or morals if you please, because I shudder to think what kind of monster would result from your 'insights'.

[Meltemph]

Reorte wrote...

Skull Bearer wrote...

Why do we need synthesis to find common ground?

We need common ground to have a really good war. History shows that people love going to war against those that are only a little different. Fighting against very different cultures has never been anywhere as popular and was only done when we wanted to nick their stuff rather than wipe them out.

Heh, you dont understand Reorte, all we need is empethy to fix our synthetic woes.  Cause, you know, life really is that simple. 

Modifié par Meltemph, 24 avril 2012 - 12:55 .

[Sousabird]

Or maybe I don't trust the being responsible for having the reapers try and kill us, do you? I vote blow the reaper's asses up