ThinkIntegral wrote...
No it would be a new problem. The old problem is that organics will more often than not create synthetic life; that synthetic life will at some point turn on organic life and it will win.
frylock23 wrote...
Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety and security deserve neither.
ghostbusters101 wrote...
j78 wrote...
Maybe synthesis is BW ‘s way of commenting on the singularity .Most of the great minds of are time believe that a form of synthesis will be humanities ultimate form or the apex of human evolution . Or maybe BW fans are a little to smart for their own good ? you don’t see all this deep philosophical debate going on in many game forums .thumbs up people.
Yes you are absolutely correct.
I love science, but I will not allow some sick immoral bastard take away my constitutional rights. At least today our laws stop this.
Modifié par j78, 26 avril 2012 - 02:12 .
ThinkIntegral wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ElSuperGecko wrote...
And amusingly, if that were the case, then it stands to reason that the Reapers could quite easily re-start the cycle of extinction if they wanted to as well. After all, Synthesis doesn't get rid of them, does it? They're still floating around out there. So if, say, these new syntho-organic-hybrids displease the Catalyst for some reason, the entire process can start all over again.
The purpose of the Reapers was to harvest advanced civilizations to prevent the occurrence where synthetic life would eventually wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. This was the solution of the Catalyst because it could reason no other way to do so.
Synthesis removes that purpose. As such, the Reapers are out of a job. Maybe they could at their own volition be dicks and start killing everything, but that's a different reason than what originally was laid out.
Btw history has a tendency to repeat itself in certain areas; well human history does
It doesn't resolve the ethical dilemna of forcing all organic life to become what you want it to be. Playing with the nature of the Universe? No. I wasn't given any evidence to believe that the star child had any evidence the Reapers were needed at all. He must have seemingly predicted that this would happen without any real data. Had something like that happened the Reapers wouldn't even be there. His argument makes no sense. Destroy them and be done with it.
Oh and the ethical dilemma of deciding for both EDI and the Geth to lay down their lives for organic life does? As I said above, they both may have signed on to help Shep fight the Reapers but it was on their terms. Just because of that Shep gets the ultimate decision to say, "I think they would've wanted this" ? What gives Shep that right?
ghostbusters101 wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ElSuperGecko wrote...
And amusingly, if that were the case, then it stands to reason that the Reapers could quite easily re-start the cycle of extinction if they wanted to as well. After all, Synthesis doesn't get rid of them, does it? They're still floating around out there. So if, say, these new syntho-organic-hybrids displease the Catalyst for some reason, the entire process can start all over again.
The purpose of the Reapers was to harvest advanced civilizations to prevent the occurrence where synthetic life would eventually wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. This was the solution of the Catalyst because it could reason no other way to do so.
Synthesis removes that purpose. As such, the Reapers are out of a job. Maybe they could at their own volition be dicks and start killing everything, but that's a different reason than what originally was laid out.
Btw history has a tendency to repeat itself in certain areas; well human history does
It doesn't resolve the ethical dilemna of forcing all organic life to become what you want it to be. Playing with the nature of the Universe? No. I wasn't given any evidence to believe that the star child had any evidence the Reapers were needed at all. He must have seemingly predicted that this would happen without any real data. Had something like that happened the Reapers wouldn't even be there. His argument makes no sense. Destroy them and be done with it.
Oh and the ethical dilemma of deciding for both EDI and the Geth to lay down their lives for organic life does? As I said above, they both may have signed on to help Shep fight the Reapers but it was on their terms. Just because of that Shep gets the ultimate decision to say, "I think they would've wanted this" ? What gives Shep that right?
War is hell. What gave us the right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How did the pilots sleep after they killed over 200,000 civilian? This is not the only ugly thing a nation has done during war.
Shepard is a soldier. As a soldier he needs to get rid of the reapers. That is his job. I wouldn’t allow him to destroy the natural evolution process or violate the constitutional rights of a trillion citizens. Shepard will have to deal with the loss of 1,000,000 to save a trillion.
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ElSuperGecko wrote...
And amusingly, if that were the case, then it stands to reason that the Reapers could quite easily re-start the cycle of extinction if they wanted to as well. After all, Synthesis doesn't get rid of them, does it? They're still floating around out there. So if, say, these new syntho-organic-hybrids displease the Catalyst for some reason, the entire process can start all over again.
The purpose of the Reapers was to harvest advanced civilizations to prevent the occurrence where synthetic life would eventually wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. This was the solution of the Catalyst because it could reason no other way to do so.
Synthesis removes that purpose. As such, the Reapers are out of a job. Maybe they could at their own volition be dicks and start killing everything, but that's a different reason than what originally was laid out.
Btw history has a tendency to repeat itself in certain areas; well human history does
It doesn't resolve the ethical dilemna of forcing all organic life to become what you want it to be. Playing with the nature of the Universe? No. I wasn't given any evidence to believe that the star child had any evidence the Reapers were needed at all. He must have seemingly predicted that this would happen without any real data. Had something like that happened the Reapers wouldn't even be there. His argument makes no sense. Destroy them and be done with it.
Oh and the ethical dilemma of deciding for both EDI and the Geth to lay down their lives for organic life does? As I said above, they both may have signed on to help Shep fight the Reapers but it was on their terms. Just because of that Shep gets the ultimate decision to say, "I think they would've wanted this" ? What gives Shep that right?
War is hell. What gave us the right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How did the pilots sleep after they killed over 200,000 civilian? This is not the only ugly thing a nation has done during war.
Shepard is a soldier. As a soldier he needs to get rid of the reapers. That is his job. I wouldn’t allow him to destroy the natural evolution process or violate the constitutional rights of a trillion citizens. Shepard will have to deal with the loss of 1,000,000 to save a trillion.
The point is if you're going to be arguing about ethical dilemma of consent that Synthesis poses there's a similar problem with Destroy. It's still "just war" when you're presented with the choices.
Modifié par ghostbusters101, 26 avril 2012 - 02:32 .
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Neither is moral. Constitutional rights are a legal thing. Of course someone could bring up charges of genocide against Shepard. It is picking your poison.
Modifié par ThinkIntegral, 26 avril 2012 - 02:36 .
I never got that impression as I played the game.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.
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Neither is moral. Constitutional rights are a legal thing. Of course someone could bring up charges of genocide against Shepard. It is picking your poison.
Uh okay, since when did intergalatic space law enter the picture?
Unless you're talking about US Constitutional law which I can't even see how that would apply because there isn't really a violation being imposed by the government against a citizen of the US.
ghostbusters101 wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Neither is moral. Constitutional rights are a legal thing. Of course someone could bring up charges of genocide against Shepard. It is picking your poison.
Uh okay, since when did intergalatic space law enter the picture?
Unless you're talking about US Constitutional law which I can't even see how that would apply because there isn't really a violation being imposed by the government against a citizen of the US.
Uh because The player makes the choice from what they know and are use to.
For example, a player doesn't want EDI and the Geth to die. In the story they are not telling you that it is against the law to eliminate them. The player sees this as a crime.
A player that thinks civil liberties are extremely important isn’t going to cross that line.
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Neither is moral. Constitutional rights are a legal thing. Of course someone could bring up charges of genocide against Shepard. It is picking your poison.
Uh okay, since when did intergalatic space law enter the picture?
Unless you're talking about US Constitutional law which I can't even see how that would apply because there isn't really a violation being imposed by the government against a citizen of the US.
Uh because The player makes the choice from what they know and are use to.
For example, a player doesn't want EDI and the Geth to die. In the story they are not telling you that it is against the law to eliminate them. The player sees this as a crime.
A player that thinks civil liberties are extremely important isn’t going to cross that line.
I think you're reading more into it than the average player. Moreover, I'd like to see the Galactic Statutory Code and Intergalactic Treaties you seem to draw from. Civil liberties still lie within ethics. They're a basis of legal systems.
ghostbusters101 wrote...
I didn’t make myself clear did I?
I mean a player like yourself may see EDI’s death as a crime. It is a crime because of the knowledge you already know about life. It is not a crime in the story.
Players that are repulsed by green respect their civil liberties and the natural evolutions too much to pick green.
Everyone in this post has picked a color they could personally tolerate.
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
I didn’t make myself clear did I?
I mean a player like yourself may see EDI’s death as a crime. It is a crime because of the knowledge you already know about life. It is not a crime in the story.
Players that are repulsed by green respect their civil liberties and the natural evolutions too much to pick green.
Everyone in this post has picked a color they could personally tolerate.
What the hell does this have to do with your statement that there's no ethical choice but a legal one? You're not making sense buddy.
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Double Post
If this is about the US. "Civil liberties still lie within ethics. They're a basis of legal systems."
A genetic change like this wouldn’t pass the Supreme Court.
MisterJB wrote...
Imagine if this could be accomplished without humanity losing its free will or individuality or ambition.
Look at what the Reapers can do. Imagine the wonders we could create if we could just talk to them and ally their power and knowledge to our creativity and ambition.
Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 26 avril 2012 - 03:30 .
ghostbusters101 wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
I didn’t make myself clear did I?
I mean a player like yourself may see EDI’s death as a crime. It is a crime because of the knowledge you already know about life. It is not a crime in the story.
Players that are repulsed by green respect their civil liberties and the natural evolutions too much to pick green.
Everyone in this post has picked a color they could personally tolerate.
What the hell does this have to do with your statement that there's no ethical choice but a legal one? You're not making sense buddy.
I already said it is illegal in term of what a person is already using to. The same is true that getting rid of EDI is crime. It is not a crime in the story. It is why people feel the way they do when they post. They already have this information in them.
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Double Post
If this is about the US. "Civil liberties still lie within ethics. They're a basis of legal systems."
A genetic change like this wouldn’t pass the Supreme Court.
Uh huh...
My point is to show you that the choice still contains a matter of ethics even if you want to believe in your head that there's some legal basis for making a choice.
ghostbusters101 wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Double Post
If this is about the US. "Civil liberties still lie within ethics. They're a basis of legal systems."
A genetic change like this wouldn’t pass the Supreme Court.
Uh huh...
My point is to show you that the choice still contains a matter of ethics even if you want to believe in your head that there's some legal basis for making a choice.
Read all the post. How many players called red a crime? Techinically, it is not. It is a crime to the player.
Playing with everyone’s genes is a crime. Not in the book but still in the players mind.
Ethically, all the choices are bad.
ThinkIntegral wrote...
Green robs the choice from everyone in the galaxy
Red robs the choice from EDI and the Geth in laying down their lives for organics.
Both are technically equal in that respect. The only thing left to consider then is which cause the less damage to life. If red takes away synthetic life, an equally valid form of life and green doesn't, why would you choose red?
Green may have future consequences of disaster from problems with future generations but that's besides the point. The current point is to stop the cycle of harvesting and destruction of life and to prevent the thing that robs the people their own freedoms, even if that's to destroy themselves.
Fapmaster5000 wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
Green robs the choice from everyone in the galaxy
Red robs the choice from EDI and the Geth in laying down their lives for organics.
Both are technically equal in that respect. The only thing left to consider then is which cause the less damage to life. If red takes away synthetic life, an equally valid form of life and green doesn't, why would you choose red?
Green may have future consequences of disaster from problems with future generations but that's besides the point. The current point is to stop the cycle of harvesting and destruction of life and to prevent the thing that robs the people their own freedoms, even if that's to destroy themselves.
Because, as I stated about 2 pages ago: Destroy kills soldiers who were fighting to defeat the Reapers. The Reapers, in all their horror, set the stakes at "everyone dies or we do". The only choice was to fight and possibly die, or simply die. The geth consensus agreed to fight the Reapers. They agreed to stop being the tools of the Old Machines and join a fight where the ONLY outcomes were death or victory.
Soldiers are sacrificed in war. It is tragic, but every soldier knows the burden, and due to their unique nature, the geth were all soldiering in the war. As a hive mind, they have no "civilians" in the traditional sense, and if the choice had been, "Earth gets vaporized, killing all human life, but the Reapers die", Shepard should have still pulled that trigger. He/She was willing to burn the Batarian system in Arrival to stop them, and that was accepted as a necessary move, even by the Batarian survivors (if you have enough reputation). This war is a whole 'nother level of butchery, and the stakes have escalated to include genocide under the scope of "sacrifice few to save many".
It's not good, but it's not the betrayal of your allies that Synthesis is. They sent you to kill the Reapers, no matter the cost, not open up Pandora's Box and turn everyone into some sort of Reaper-creature in keeping with the Catalyst's vision.
And again, this is "Worst Case Scenario", if the Catalyst (an immensely flawed being) is completely right and truthful in all its cryptic statements, and we have very little reason to trust it at all.
Retour en haut