ThinkIntegral wrote...
Fapmaster5000 wrote...
"An interesting choice Shepard-Commander. Your species was offered everything the geth aspire to. True unity, understanding, transcendence. You rejected it. You even refused to use the Old Machines' gifts to achieve it on your species' own terms. You are more like us than we thought."
-Legion
"To the death"
-EDI, on whether her friends and the galaxy were worth defending.
"Dead Reapers is how we win this."
-Admiral Steven Hackett
The quotes from the game go on and on. It sounds like my allies were counting on me to kill some Reapers. It also seems like the geth have a pretty strong opinion on Synthesis...
Legion's statement was in context to the Collector base and the temption of using Reaper technology to advance humanity above all else without earning it. This is a different context, one that was driven by self preservation and had a significant result.
EDI's statement doesn't necessarily equate to giving Shepard full reign of her life or death.
Hacket's statement is his opinion.
Like I said, if you're dead set on Destroy then you're dead set on it and more power to you.
Oh no, I'm also vaguely-ok with Control. I think it's risk is too high in the scenario, but it still seems an option that I think is incorrect, but not repulsive. Synthesis makes me ill. Not that the ending exists, but that people conceive of it and think it's the best ending.
I've really seen three patterns of thought that back Synthesis as "bestest":
1. Casual players. These guys beat the game, do pretty decent, play a couple rounds of multiplayer, then unlock the "secret Synthesis ending". "Whelp, " they say, "That looks like the best ending, since it was last, and God over here says it's super cool, so I'd better do it. Oh, whoa, green light, and Joker's banging EDI. Cool, I like those crazy kids. Wait, that's Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden imagery... holy shizz, that's, like, deep and stuff." Then they move on to other games and don't really process what the longer term implications of what Synthesis did, how it did it, or how Shepard came to that decision. I'd like to get these people to think about those questions, and come up with a solid answer, because, well, speculation for everyone! (And it's fun to point out fridge horror to people and swing votes.)
2. Transhumanist evangelists. Like door-to-door preachers, they believe that the singularity will save them from fleshy damnation, and preach the gospel of the post-human future. For these gals and guys, the Synthesis ending is equivalent of the Rapture to fundamentalist Christians, and they run towards it with open arms. Moreover, they will drag the rest of us (or in this case, the fictional galaxy) with them, regardless of anyone else's opinion, belief, or thought. Much like the die hard evangelicals that most of these guys probably hate, they don't care what others believe, because they're trying to save all of us poor fools from
hell non-singularity existance. (Again, please note, my objection is not to the transhuman part of this ending, but on the denial of choice to the rest of the galaxy, and against those who laugh and say, "morals, those are so outdated in the face of such POWAR!" like a cartoon villain. There was one in this thread. It was classic.)
3. People who believe that the loss of free will and agency was a lesser crime than the loss of life. Meh, not much to say here, other than, "I disagree, let's debate this for fun."
Now, the main thrusts of pro-Synthesis debate I've seen (from non-transhumanist evangelicals) are:
1. "It's like lifesaving surgery with a nonresponsive patient."
2. "It fixes the problem for all time, unlike the other options."
3. "It is less morally wrong than killing (destroy) or enslaving (control)."
I took on #1 with the mad doctor argument. I, and others, have taken on #2 with "Only if you believe the Catalyst is infallible, when the game demonstrates that he is fallible / That point of view is implicitly racist, since the Catalyst links this problem to diverse forms of life and the solution is homogenization / The Catalyst can be rendered a liar with the simple question, "how did you get this knowledge" / Even Synthesized life will create tools, which may rise again / The Reapers still exist under the control of a known genocidal control computer, and may yet return." Many of us have taken on #3 in this thread with issues of free will and sacrifice versus unilateral forced transformation. I personally took this up two pages ago with an entire argument on "intent versus result" and some vague deontological ethics.
I have yet to be satisfied with any rebuttals, and some of these points just get dodged/ignored when presented.
In comparison, the arguments against Synthesis tend to focus on these points:
1. "It's impossible/SPACE MAGIC. Explain how machines have DNA. Explain how the geth, a software consciousness, can be given physical organic components. There is simply too much unknown."
2. "There is so much unknown, and the change so drastic, and presented from so untrustworthy a source (he runs the Reapers) that it would be illogical to choose Synthesis."
3. "Synthesis does exactly what the Reapers were doing, creating a "final step" in organic evolution (Reapers are a synthesized, final (as in, unchanging) state). Synthesis simply looks prettier."
4. "Synthesis runs contrary to the objectives given to you by every trustworthy source in the series, and only complies with the objectives of two immensly unreliable villains (Saren and the Catalyst)."
The best counterarguments I've seen involve dodging the question with "oh, that time was different" and "but the potential". I've not seen one solid argument that answers why anyone should listen to the Catalyst. I've not seen one solid argument that fills the voids left in the Catalyst's logic or Synthesis's methods (#1) (because there's not enough canon, but this burden lies upon those claiming that the Catalyst is right, so blame Bioware for this one, guys!). I've not seen anyone truly answer #3 without a vague claim of "oh, this is different" without any solid reasoning.
In short, I engage in these discussions because I'm interested to see if there is a valid argument
for Synthesis. Instead, what I see, time and again, is people arguing against it (and usually for Destroy) using in-canon examples, ethical/logical reasoning, and/or critical analysis, while those that support Synthesis spend most of their time attempting to build hypothetical allegories, assemble head-canon, and choral line the phrase, "oh, but in this one case, it's not like every other example in the series because, well, I'd like it to be".
This is not to say that everyone who argues for Destroy is right, or that their arguments are superior. I've seen some very dumb people argue for Destroy, and some very flawed arguments. However, even the best and brightest people who like Synthesis have yet to put up an arguement that can't be detonated with basic reasoning or in-canon counter-examples, and so it troubles me to see this ending trumpetted as "the best".
Perhaps, in addition, it might concern me that Bioware would have considered this ending "the best", and didn't have the Artistic Integrity to consider what their optimal ending truly implied, and so my arguments, though directed at those who support Synthesis, are really a shadow-puppet show aimed at Bioware, hoping to build awareness that this abomination should
not be. We already have Deus Ex. We don't need Mass Effect ending on a perversion of Deus Ex's themes, but devoid of soul or context.
Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 26 avril 2012 - 05:41 .
Retour en haut
