286 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

It seems that synthesis almost makes the least sense (though the difference is slight) because it basically means the end of what makes life life or the end of what makes it worth living.

[nuculerman]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It seems that synthesis almost makes the least sense (though the difference is slight) because it basically means the end of what makes life life or the end of what makes it worth living.

It makes far more sense than this post.

Whether syntehsis is good or bad relies entirely on assumptions made in basically a vacuum, since Bioware decided to give us almost no context.  I chose to believe synthesis meant everyone was mortal, but could reach the pinnacle of intellectual intelligence.  Organics are limited by the structure of their body, whereas synthetics don't have to worry about that.  I.E the human race can only be so intelligent, because our neurons can only fire so quickly and we can only have so many of them.

The biggest problem, again, is that Bioware gave us no context.  Most people choose to assume the absolute worst meaning possible concerning synthesis.  I chose to assume the absolute best meaning possible (which still isn't a very ethical choice, but none of them are).  Personally, I chose to assume the best because I'm 99% certain, based off Bioware's reactions, that this is what Casey Hudson intended with the Synthesis ending, and all the explanation it deserved was simply cut out due to time constraints.  I pretend it wasn't, and that I was able to ask Starchild more direct questions, and learn that synthesis didn't just mean implanting a chip in organic life, but instead meant all of the benefits of organic life (mortality, reproduction... i.e. existing without a known creator, capacity for emotion) and all of the benefits of synthetic life (nigh infinite intellectual potential, nigh infinite faculty for rational reasoning).  How starchild could possibly pull this off was irrelevant.   Space magic is needed to explain pretty much every ending choice.

[Deebo305]

You mean the Zha'til, I actually thought the same thing when Tali mention the geth began uploading themselves into Quarian bodies which actually does support Starchilds cycle but I do think synthesis is BS because of it lack of real explanation as to why it would work with its supposed eternal peace claim. Imo everrlasting peace is a sad delusion

[feliciano2040]

nuculerman wrote...

The biggest problem, again, is that Bioware gave us no context.  Most people choose to assume the absolute worst meaning possible concerning synthesis.  I chose to assume the absolute best meaning possible (which still isn't a very ethical choice, but none of them are).  Personally, I chose to assume the best because I'm 99% certain, based off Bioware's reactions, that this is what Casey Hudson intended with the Synthesis ending, and all the explanation it deserved was simply cut out due to time constraints.  I pretend it wasn't, and that I was able to ask Starchild more direct questions, and learn that synthesis didn't just mean implanting a chip in organic life, but instead meant all of the benefits of organic life (mortality, reproduction... i.e. existing without a known creator, capacity for emotion) and all of the benefits of synthetic life (nigh infinite intellectual potential, nigh infinite faculty for rational reasoning).  How starchild could possibly pull this off was irrelevant.   Space magic is needed to explain pretty much every ending choice.

Hopefully, the extended cut will give us more context on that decision.

Even if, personally, I do not believe it to be necessary.

[3DandBeyond]

The context that Bioware gives us for Synthesis is the glow boy's words. He says it's the end of evolution. Since we are supposedly meant to guess a lot of things about the ending, that means that all learning is moot, advancement is moot, striving for any goal is moot. Life stagnates. What makes life worth living no longer exists. It means the soul (what Legion died for) is rendered meaningless. Strife, for good or bad creates change, and has the potential for great good or bad. Synthesis, just stops that.

[nuculerman]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The context that Bioware gives us for Synthesis is the glow boy's words. He says it's the end of evolution. Since we are supposedly meant to guess a lot of things about the ending, that means that all learning is moot, advancement is moot, striving for any goal is moot. Life stagnates. What makes life worth living no longer exists. It means the soul (what Legion died for) is rendered meaningless. Strife, for good or bad creates change, and has the potential for great good or bad. Synthesis, just stops that.

Evolution isn't the meaning of life.  I'm going to have to disagree with you on a very fundamental level.  It's the end of physical evolution, which the human race has basically reached all on our own anyway.  And you can know every fact the Universe has to offer and still have a whole lot to learn.  Plus, the logical conclusion of evolution is the end of evolution.  Logically, given enough time, you'd stop evolving anyway.  Synthesis just hits the fastforward button.  

The point of life is happiness.  It's the goal.  It's the only good in the world that's good in and of itself.  This is a central idea to most modern philosophies, which was first postulated by Aristotle.  We don't live so we can die and change.  We're individuals.  We live to find personal happiness, and hopefully, effect happiness onto those around us.  It's even in the US declaration of independence.  If you're a US citizen, this idea should be very familiar to you.

[3DandBeyond]

nuculerman wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The context that Bioware gives us for Synthesis is the glow boy's words. He says it's the end of evolution. Since we are supposedly meant to guess a lot of things about the ending, that means that all learning is moot, advancement is moot, striving for any goal is moot. Life stagnates. What makes life worth living no longer exists. It means the soul (what Legion died for) is rendered meaningless. Strife, for good or bad creates change, and has the potential for great good or bad. Synthesis, just stops that.

Evolution isn't the meaning of life.  I'm going to have to disagree with you on a very fundamental level.  It's the end of physical evolution, which the human race has basically reached all on our own anyway.  And you can know every fact the Universe has to offer and still have a whole lot to learn.  Plus, the logical conclusion of evolution is the end of evolution.  Logically, given enough time, you'd stop evolving anyway.  Synthesis just hits the fastforward button.  

The point of life is happiness.  It's the goal.  It's the only good in the world that's good in and of itself.  This is a central idea to most modern philosophies, which was first postulated by Aristotle.  We don't live so we can die and change.  We're individuals.  We live to find personal happiness, and hopefully, effect happiness onto those around us.  It's even in the US declaration of independence.  If you're a US citizen, this idea should be very familiar to you.

I'd disagree with you on a fundamental point here.  Happiness is a false end goal, always.  Happiness is a transient state, individually defined. It is often something you decide to be. And it's the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself that is within the Declaration of Independence along with life and liberty.  And, happiness has so many reasons for being.  You are happy when your child smiles at you, in the appreciation of a beautiful sunset, in a newfound love, in art you have made, in all kinds of things even though you can be surrounded by other very sad things.  This often makes the happy things have more meaning.

I never said evolution is the meaning of life.  It is a fundamental facet of life.  What I did say is the glow boy says synthesis stops it.  Again, you are forced to read into what this all means.  Evolution is not an end state, it is about life even at the molecular level, striving for something better.  It doesn't always create the best outcome, but it is a core dimension of life.  As you age, you evolve.  Evolution is a constant in the best use of an oxymoron.  The glow boy does not specifically state that it stops one certain kind of evolution, but that it is the end of evolution.  Without this key factor, strife is rendered meaningless.  Life that has no goal, stagnates.  I don't mean the goal to make money, to retire, or any of these things.  Change, adversity, and so on, all help to create new ideas, new ways to solve problems.  Without these things, you are just existing.  One foot in front of the other, just being.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 26 avril 2012 - 03:59 .

[Cobra's_back]

nuculerman wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

It seems that synthesis almost makes the least sense (though the difference is slight) because it basically means the end of what makes life life or the end of what makes it worth living.

It makes far more sense than this post.

Whether syntehsis is good or bad relies entirely on assumptions made in basically a vacuum, since Bioware decided to give us almost no context.  I chose to believe synthesis meant everyone was mortal, but could reach the pinnacle of intellectual intelligence.  Organics are limited by the structure of their body, whereas synthetics don't have to worry about that.  I.E the human race can only be so intelligent, because our neurons can only fire so quickly and we can only have so many of them.

The biggest problem, again, is that Bioware gave us no context.  Most people choose to assume the absolute worst meaning possible concerning synthesis.  I chose to assume the absolute best meaning possible (which still isn't a very ethical choice, but none of them are).  Personally, I chose to assume the best because I'm 99% certain, based off Bioware's reactions, that this is what Casey Hudson intended with the Synthesis ending, and all the explanation it deserved was simply cut out due to time constraints.  I pretend it wasn't, and that I was able to ask Starchild more direct questions, and learn that synthesis didn't just mean implanting a chip in organic life, but instead meant all of the benefits of organic life (mortality, reproduction... i.e. existing without a known creator, capacity for emotion) and all of the benefits of synthetic life (nigh infinite intellectual potential, nigh infinite faculty for rational reasoning).  How starchild could possibly pull this off was irrelevant.   Space magic is needed to explain pretty much every ending choice.

Pick the choice you want. Bioware didn’t say one is better than the other. Many wouldn’t touch this option with a ten foot pole.
 
To change the DNA of every living organism without their consent is just out of the question for many. It violates a living organism’s individual rights.
Yes, red sucks as well.

[nuculerman]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I'd disagree with you on a fundamental point here.  Happiness is a false end goal, always.  Happiness is a transient state, individually defined. It is often something you decide to be. And it's the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself that is within the Declaration of Independence along with life and liberty.  And, happiness has so many reasons for being.  You are happy when your child smiles at you, in the appreciation of a beautiful sunset, in a newfound love, in art you have made, in all kinds of things even though you can be surrounded by other very sad things.  This often makes the happy things have more meaning.

Bolded part is exactly what I'm talking about.  I disagree on a fundamental level that you need suffering to feel happiness.  Happiness doesn't exist as a response to strife.  Your argument that it does is slightly scary.  And arguing with me about the goal being happiness or the goal being the pursuit of happiness is nonsensical symantics.  How do you achieve a goal?  You pursue it.  Happiness is the goal--should be the goal, of any rational individual.

3DandBeyond wrote...
I never said evolution is the meaning of life.  It is a fundamental facet of life.  What I did say is the glow boy says synthesis stops it.  Again, you are forced to read into what this all means.  Evolution is not an end state, it is about life even at the molecular level, striving for something better.  It doesn't always create the best outcome, but it is a core dimension of life.  As you age, you evolve.  Evolution is a constant in the best use of an oxymoron.  The glow boy does not specifically state that it stops one certain kind of evolution, but that it is the end of evolution.  Without this key factor, strife is rendered meaningless.  Life that has no goal, stagnates.  I don't mean the goal to make money, to retire, or any of these things.  Change, adversity, and so on, all help to create new ideas, new ways to solve problems.  Without these things, you are just existing.  One foot in front of the other, just being.

That's your personal interpretation based off an assumption evolution means change in general, when in most scientific circles, it means specificially biological evolution.  Again, the real issue here is that we were not allowed to question starchild at all regarding the decision he was asking us to make on behalf of the entire galaxy, but I disagree with your interpretation and personally think it's pretty obvious he means its the end of biological evolution, not the end of intellectual evolution.  I freely admit your assumption could be right, but I seriously doubt that was the intention of the writers, especially considering their responses to the complaints and the well known fact synethesis is the "good" choice.

[SetecAstronomy]

Eh, it's still my favorite of the endings.

[zambingo]

devSin wrote...

I wish Javik could go with you to the end.

He would troll that dumb kid like nobody's business.

Paragon? Nope.
Renegade? Nope.
Prothean Interrupt FTW!

[Cobra's_back]

Nimrodell wrote...

stevefox1200 wrote...

There is a big difference from a flying machine and a machine that completely rewrites everything in know existence's DNA in a matter of minutes that will have no negative health effects in a quick shock wave

That is pretty much a literal God machine in a universe where hyperspace style jumps are the most crazy thing they have

For you it is big difference but for the men in XIX  century there was no difference and yes, Catalyst is more god-like being, entity since it already created Cycles and Reapers (strange how people doubt DNA re-writing and since ME2 they know bits how Reapers are made and they don't question that) - but I'm not defending synthesis, I'm merely trying to state - stop looking at things from your own, mortal, limited, human perspective. What would you say when you'd learn that many scientists actually consider our universe as one of the most improbable ones? Check this out. Anyway, people here would even question Arthur Clarcke's Starchild and the Monolith and all Odyssey novels I guess, even those are SF classic nowadays - because they need our scientific background - and that's reader's bigotry.

Your comment: “stop looking at things from your own, mortal, limited, human perspective”
 
If a person strongly believes in individual rights or natural evolution can you really expect them to pick Green? There is no way that is going to happen.
 
Here is where you need to make the decision for yourself. We are not socialist. Everybody has a right to pick what they want. Some will agree with you and others won’t.

[feliciano2040]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

To change the DNA of every living organism without their consent is just out of the question for many. It violates a living organism’s individual rights.

Of course, it's better to let everyone be killed and harvested by The Reapers.

[Cobra's_back]

feliciano2040 wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

To change the DNA of every living organism without their consent is just out of the question for many. It violates a living organism’s individual rights.

Of course, it's better to let everyone be killed and harvested by The Reapers.

I don’t buy that will happen. I took the nasty red option and killed a 1,000,000 to save a trillion. I committed genocide. Didn’t I say all the options suck.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

nuculerman wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

It seems that synthesis almost makes the least sense (though the difference is slight) because it basically means the end of what makes life life or the end of what makes it worth living.

It makes far more sense than this post.

Whether syntehsis is good or bad relies entirely on assumptions made in basically a vacuum, since Bioware decided to give us almost no context.  I chose to believe synthesis meant everyone was mortal, but could reach the pinnacle of intellectual intelligence.  Organics are limited by the structure of their body, whereas synthetics don't have to worry about that.  I.E the human race can only be so intelligent, because our neurons can only fire so quickly and we can only have so many of them.

The biggest problem, again, is that Bioware gave us no context.  Most people choose to assume the absolute worst meaning possible concerning synthesis.  I chose to assume the absolute best meaning possible (which still isn't a very ethical choice, but none of them are).  Personally, I chose to assume the best because I'm 99% certain, based off Bioware's reactions, that this is what Casey Hudson intended with the Synthesis ending, and all the explanation it deserved was simply cut out due to time constraints.  I pretend it wasn't, and that I was able to ask Starchild more direct questions, and learn that synthesis didn't just mean implanting a chip in organic life, but instead meant all of the benefits of organic life (mortality, reproduction... i.e. existing without a known creator, capacity for emotion) and all of the benefits of synthetic life (nigh infinite intellectual potential, nigh infinite faculty for rational reasoning).  How starchild could possibly pull this off was irrelevant.   Space magic is needed to explain pretty much every ending choice.

But BioWare HAS given us plenty of context to set up a player's notion of what synthesis would mean.  With both specific examples of the merging of organic and synthetic life, and with characters' opinions about the topic, the player is presented with information throughout the course of the series that synthesis is mostly a BAD thing.

[nuculerman]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

If a person strongly believes in individual rights or natural evolution can you really expect them to pick Green? There is no way that is going to happen.
 
Here is where you need to make the decision for yourself. We are not socialist. Everybody has a right to pick what they want. Some will agree with you and others won’t.

This makes less than zero sense.  Every choice requires you to laugh in the face of individual rights, and choose a drastically different course for every civilized being in the galaxy.

Destroy--pretty sure Geth and EDI would choose life.  I'm also pretty sure there are a lot of organics that would choose synthesis as opposed to being stuck on Earth with no Mass Relays.  You do realize destroy condemns quite a few people to a slow death, right?  They have no way to get home in a reasonable time frame, and Earth definitely doesn't have the resources to feed them for their long journey.  The other option is to stay on Earth, which means Quarians and Turians are all dead as soon as they run out of the spare food on their ships, and everyone else is going to be fighting over Earth's limited resources.  Assuming there are a few people who can do that math on that one, I feel like it's pretty much guaranteed some of them would want you to choose synthesis.

Control--if you assume control can mean "fly all reapers into the Sun" then this is really the only choice that -could- mean you don't tread on individual liberty.  But I think most of us agree, this is not what was meant by control, though, as with all endings, we weren't given enough context to say conclusively.

Synthesis--Best case scenario, you're changing physical characteristics only (and mental capacity).  This is equivalent to turning everyone gray to end racism or force feeding them ritalin that never wears off.  Though it is certainly forcing something on someone they may not want, it is a far less extreme case than destroy (murder).  Worst case scenario (what you and most others seem to assume), you've changed them so much that they think and act differently now.  This, I agree, is ethically equivalent to murder, and it is at a much larger scale than "destroy."  Though, once again, I think this assumption is a very poor one, and clearly goes against the spirit of the franchise and what the writers would have intended.  I hope the ending DLC, at a bare minimum, clears this issue up.

[richard_rider]

Yeah, I saw how much reapers love their synthesis, husks, banshees, cannibals, etc.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[The_Shootist]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

I agree. The disturbing thing is that the leaked script and the game itself both indicate that synthesis is supposed to be the best.

And a Paragon would choose to force all sentients in the Galaxy to submit to this change without even asking their opinion? I think not.

EA/Bioware, the endings sucked. All of them. Are you listening?

[nuculerman]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...


But BioWare HAS given us plenty of context to set up a player's notion of what synthesis would mean.  With both specific examples of the merging of organic and synthetic life, and with characters' opinions about the topic, the player is presented with information throughout the course of the series that synthesis is mostly a BAD thing.

Bioware has given us mostly contradictory context.  The quote in the OP from Javik contradicts the Geth completely.  The geth didn't understand their purpose, and they wanted to.  The Quarians found that terrifying and tried to wipe them out.  The Geth defended themselves.  Later, they reached a consensus that choosing their own personal evolution was far preferable than having it be chosen for them.  Again, this shows they care not who originally created them, they're struggling with the concepts of life just as much as an organic.  If you save them, they also "synthesize" with the Quarians to the benefit of both cultures (mostly to the Quarians).

I think the point of those developments was to contrast cooperative synthesis, with controlled synthesis.  I.E the point of the Reapers merging with organics is that the synthetic mind controls the organic bits.  I think if they had delayed the game for six months and worked solely on fleshing out the story behind this contrast, it would have made for an incredible story.  Instead, what we got, is a product that forces you to start making a lot of assumptions about "intentions" and "implications" to make any sense of the ending.  I choose to think Casey Hudson and the head writer aren't total morons, they're just exceedingly arrogant, and thought everyone would be able to think like them when they saw the ending.  They got too close to their work, like many of us do, but decided not to have it properly vetted before releasing it on an unsuspecting public.

Modifié par nuculerman, 26 avril 2012 - 04:56 .

[Cobra's_back]

nuculerman wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

If a person strongly believes in individual rights or natural evolution can you really expect them to pick Green? There is no way that is going to happen.
 
Here is where you need to make the decision for yourself. We are not socialist. Everybody has a right to pick what they want. Some will agree with you and others won’t.

This makes less than zero sense.  Every choice requires you to laugh in the face of individual rights, and choose a drastically different course for every civilized being in the galaxy.

Destroy--pretty sure Geth and EDI would choose life.  I'm also pretty sure there are a lot of organics that would choose synthesis as opposed to being stuck on Earth with no Mass Relays.  You do realize destroy condemns quite a few people to a slow death, right?  They have no way to get home in a reasonable time frame, and Earth definitely doesn't have the resources to feed them for their long journey.  The other option is to stay on Earth, which means Quarians and Turians are all dead as soon as they run out of the spare food on their ships, and everyone else is going to be fighting over Earth's limited resources.  Assuming there are a few people who can do that math on that one, I feel like it's pretty much guaranteed some of them would want you to choose synthesis.

Control--if you assume control can mean "fly all reapers into the Sun" then this is really the only choice that -could- mean you don't tread on individual liberty.  But I think most of us agree, this is not what was meant by control, though, as with all endings, we weren't given enough context to say conclusively.

Synthesis--Best case scenario, you're changing physical characteristics only (and mental capacity).  This is equivalent to turning everyone gray to end racism or force feeding them ritalin that never wears off.  Though it is certainly forcing something on someone they may not want, it is a far less extreme case than destroy (murder).  Worst case scenario (what you and most others seem to assume), you've changed them so much that they think and act differently now.  This, I agree, is ethically equivalent to murder, and it is at a much larger scale than "destroy."  Though, once again, I think this assumption is a very poor one, and clearly goes against the spirit of the franchise and what the writers would have intended.  I hope the ending DLC, at a bare minimum, clears this issue up.

Wrong. Red is genocide against 1,000,000 Geth and EDI. They die quickly.


Green is taking away every organic choice to be organic . Listen to Star Child talk about Synthesis. It will be the FINAL evolution of life. Many players say 1000,000 dead and a trillion saved. Synthesis is your best choice not everyone else.

[chester013]

Taboo-XX wrote...

veramis wrote...

Mac Walters is a confused person.

He has certainly made some serious errors in implementation of material. I'm not to fond of how much he wants me to make inferences about his writing. The things to infer are quite simply not there. Perspicacity is not his strength, that's for sure.

I'm an analyst by trade and we call these helicopter conclusions. They just come in out of nowhere, unsupported by the the material presented to you. They get you ripped to shreds in meetings and do you know where they tend to come from? Lack of peer review.

[SetecAstronomy]

nuculerman wrote...

Synthesis--Best case scenario, you're changing physical characteristics only (and mental capacity).  This is equivalent to turning everyone gray to end racism or force feeding them ritalin that never wears off.  Though it is certainly forcing something on someone they may not want, it is a far less extreme case than destroy (murder).  Worst case scenario (what you and most others seem to assume), you've changed them so much that they think and act differently now.  This, I agree, is ethically equivalent to murder, and it is at a much larger scale than "destroy."  Though, once again, I think this assumption is a very poor one, and clearly goes against the spirit of the franchise and what the writers would have intended.  I hope the ending DLC, at a bare minimum, clears this issue up.

And the best part is, everyone in the galaxy is going to go forward assuming that Synthesis is/was the sole function of the Crucible. They collectively created a device that allowed them to evolve themselves to a post-organic state. After all, they can't be angry at anyone but themselves: they built the frakking thing.

[Darth Asriel]

I would like to reference Mordin Solus confirming what Javik states about what happened to the Ja. When asked by Shep if it was possible to save the Collectors Mordin replies, "no! No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul, replaced by tech."

That's why synthesis scares me. Because that is where it leads!

[nuculerman]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Wrong. Red is genocide against 1,000,000 Geth and EDI. They die quickly.


Green is taking away every organic choice to be organic . Listen to Star Child talk about Synthesis. It will be the FINAL evolution of life. Many players say 1000,000 dead and a trillion saved. Synthesis is your best choice not everyone else.

Life is a choice.  They wanted to choose life.  You murdered them.  Any ending is taking away everyone's choice of something.  I'm not sure why you don't understand this.  The whole point of the ending is you get to make a choice that drastically alters the fate of the galaxy on behalf of all organics and synthetics without consulting them first.

As for synthesis being my best choice and not everyone elses, you're really confused.  I chose syntehsis as one shepard, and will choose destroy as the other.  It's an RPG, not real life.  I'm simply arguing against the majority community consesus that synthesis is somehow less ethical than destroy.  Bioware didn't give us enough context to know that for sure, and I disagree with all their assumptions required to prove that assertion.

[Nimrodell]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

stevefox1200 wrote...

There is a big difference from a flying machine and a machine that completely rewrites everything in know existence's DNA in a matter of minutes that will have no negative health effects in a quick shock wave

That is pretty much a literal God machine in a universe where hyperspace style jumps are the most crazy thing they have

For you it is big difference but for the men in XIX  century there was no difference and yes, Catalyst is more god-like being, entity since it already created Cycles and Reapers (strange how people doubt DNA re-writing and since ME2 they know bits how Reapers are made and they don't question that) - but I'm not defending synthesis, I'm merely trying to state - stop looking at things from your own, mortal, limited, human perspective. What would you say when you'd learn that many scientists actually consider our universe as one of the most improbable ones? Check this out. Anyway, people here would even question Arthur Clarcke's Starchild and the Monolith and all Odyssey novels I guess, even those are SF classic nowadays - because they need our scientific background - and that's reader's bigotry.

Your comment: “stop looking at things from your own, mortal, limited, human perspective”
 
If a person strongly believes in individual rights or natural evolution can you really expect them to pick Green? There is no way that is going to happen.
 
Here is where you need to make the decision for yourself. We are not socialist. Everybody has a right to pick what they want. Some will agree with you and others won’t.

I perceive that problem differently - first of all, I don't know what any of the choices bring as consequence - we don't have any information, just assumptions and speculations, thanks to BioWare. Any of the choices is actually valid because Shepard actually doesn't have time to speculate and dissect and ruminate on democracy and personal feelings of every individual while those individuals are actually dying - like players do from their comfy chairs. Shepard will decide what s/he will decide - what s/he deems correct and right in that particular moment to ensure the survival of galaxy. If you as Shepard thinks Destroy or Control are right decisions - your Shepard will decide like that and there's no even place to talk about morality or democracy - try explaining that to a PETA activists while lion is ripping you to shreds and you think if you should pull a trigger... who knows, maybe they'll reprimand you for not carrying stunner instead of real gun. And btw, I don't know where you got the idea that socialists are not democrats and don't allow free thinking unless you're referring to communism in USSR or countries behind Iron Curtain.

Anyways, as I stated before - don't use Javic's words as valid argument because he himself will deny them by saying that his cycle lost 'cause of inability to change and adapt, one doctrine, one way of thinking.