897 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I could technically eliminate the HIV/AIDS problem by killing everyone with the virus...

BUT

All it would take is a case of zoonosis and a mutation in the Primate Immuno-Deficiency Virus and it would start again.

Life (not life in the case of a virus) finds a way. There is no limit to evolution or mutation.

Medical knowledge appears to have been discarded as well.

How did this happen?

  

Artistic Vision, Artistic Integrity,   Like the Matrix, Speculation for Everyone and Space Magic 

Art has an ethical requirement as well. Who is responsible?

[BouncyCaitian]

MisterJB wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...
The differences between these peoples are not all derived from physical appearance, or "hardware" (as the Geth would say). These classifications are as much social constructs as they are categorical labels. We derive our sense of "self" from both nature and nurture. It is silly to believe that a simple blast of energy can erase all traces of individuality from life, even if everyone becomes similar in appearance.

This is, unquestionably, true.
Of course, I don't believe Synthesis will actually entirely remove individuality and, judging from the ending, everyone still looks very much like themselves.

Mr. Gamble's statement is actually even more insulting than the original scenario. His idea that there is nothing left but "life" is utter nonsense. There is no "life" left after Synthesis, not in the way that it existed before. Rather than respecting the chaotic, fractuous nature of life, Synthesis teaches us that we should all become the same if we wish to get along. Bull.

Or it is teaching us that we should stop placing labels on people; organic and machine turn into living beings in this case; if we want lasting peace.
However, realistically, that's not going to happen. So, we introduce a rogue element that will lead to this: Synthesis.
There is no evidence that diversity, either genetic or cultural, is gone after Synthesis.

Here's a better idea. Why don't we learn to cope with our differences, and get along because we learned to work past them, and not because we swept them under a sparkly new carpet? Did it ever occur to the Starbrat that the reason sentient synthetics chose hostility toward organics is because organics refused to treat the synthetics as a legitimate form of life? Would the Quarians and Geth not have lived peacefully if the Quarians had not openly attacked their creations?

Naturally, the StarChild is not basing itself solely on the Geth/Quarian conflict to justify its reasoning. The Reapers existed long before the geth or quarians did. It stands to reason that it has witnessed synthetics destroying organics before. The alternative is that AI that should act solely on logic created a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Of course, it should have explained itself better. Shepard could have point out how there is now peace between quarians and geth and the Catalyst could have simply refutted this.

Thankfully, I don't need a lesson about dealing with others delivered at a high school level. I've pretty much figured it out on my own. And the concept of imposing Synthesis on a unsuspecting Galaxy makes me a monster worse than the Reapers. Denial of what a beings essence is and to change it into something else without thier input rubs me the wrong way in methods I cannot begin to suspect. Oh we got choices at the End all right.

And they were all Monsterous

[Taboo]

nuculerman wrote...

Ukjack44 wrote...

Can anyone come up with a logical conclusion to synthesis or any of the endings for that matter? With the rumours of a sequel I can't exactly see how they are going to physically carry on the Mass Effect series. They would like have to create a separate game for each ending.

Synthesis is canon.  The logical conclusion is everyone survives and becomes partly synthetic.  The Geth and EDI become partly organic (whatever that means).  The galaxy's future seems bright considering the "tell me about The Shepard" ending.  Any ME IP after the events of ME3 will probably look like ME already did, except everyone is a little green.  There's nothing to suggest Turians won't still be fighting Krogans for resources with Salarian help.  Or that Batarians still aren't fighting humans.  The point of synthesis is that no race can create a life form so much more advanced than them, the whole sentient population can be wiped out.  All the anti-synthesis arguments rest on extreme assumptions about what was actually done.  In fact we have no idea what was done.  Considering they want to obviously stick with it as canon, and assuming the bare minimum (they're not total loons) I think it's a fair assumption to guess the explanation will be something along the lines of "see the Geth, they haven't really changed."  "See the Turians, they're still nothing like humans."  "See the Batarians, man they still hate humans.  Even more so now, since Shepard turned them all green.  Everyone is way smarter now though."

The destroy ending is the only ending that creates variables. Hudson has also said no more games after ME3.

HAHAHAHAHA.

[nuculerman]

adneate wrote...

nuculerman wrote...
Does that give you the right to strip someone of their genetic biases?  Of course not.  But I still argue it's preferrable to committing mass genocide.

I'd aruge then that technically Shepard has no right to make any choice since all of them involve consequences that Shepard cannot possibly comprehend and outcomes Shepard cannot predict. However Synthesis is altering all life in way we don't understand, in a way that can't be undone and for a reason we don't comprehend. It's a "God" level decision and demands a "God" level amount of information and foresight on how this will affect every single individual in the galaxy for all time.

Comparatively destroying all Synthetic life can't even come close to requiring that much information mainly since it's focused soley on Synthetics not ALL life everywhere.

Actually, as someone brought up in another thread and I elaborated on, Shepard has every right to make that decision.  The galaxy gave their consent.  They all agreed to help build the crucible, not understanding what it's function was, only knowing it was preferrable to extinction, which was the only other logical option they had.  The ethical onus does not lie solely on Shepard's shoulders.  The galaxy signed up for this, and even, more or less, elected Shepard as their representative.

Modifié par nuculerman, 26 avril 2012 - 08:28 .

[nitefyre410]

Taboo-XX wrote...

*snip* 

Art has an ethical requirement as well. Who is responsible?

 

I would say Casey Hudson and Mac Walters for this travesty... 

So we how  do proceed in rectifing this sitution ?   

Because its either one of two things... They  A. Have no clue of what they were working with  or B.  Are being willfully blind to all the implication because they think its a cool comcept. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 26 avril 2012 - 08:24 .

[Discrepancy]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Mr. Gamble seems to find it a confusing concept that we already considered synthetics as equally valid forms of life. The organic and synthetic lifeform dichotomy is entirely fabricated, and the solution proposed is atrociously immoral. Why must organics and synthetics be merged into one? They're already life, and they each have a place in the cosmos. Synthesis takes away their future and everything they could become through the natural progession of a sentient culture.

Exactly! As EDI said to Javik, 'We are a part of this cosmos, whether you like it or not'. And then there's Adams: "We need to break free of nature, and open our minds to new forms of life' - well, I suppose Synthesis is also a new form of life, but hardly a desirable one for the reasons already outlined. Shepard also mentioned life's 'capacity to evolve' - and didn't the God Child mention that Synthesis is the final step in evolution? Meh..

Modifié par Discrepancy, 26 avril 2012 - 08:23 .

[Seryl]

adneate wrote...

I'd aruge then that technically Shepard has no right to make any choice since all of them involve consequences that Shepard cannot possibly comprehend and outcomes Shepard cannot predict. However Synthesis is altering all life in way we don't understand, in a way that can't be undone and for a reason we don't comprehend. It's a "God" level decision and demands a "God" level amount of information and foresight on how this will affect every single individual in the galaxy for all time.

Comparatively destroying all Synthetic life can't even come close to requiring that much information mainly since it's focused soley on Synthetics not ALL life everywhere.

Quite honestly, this is one of the major reasons why I contend that Destroy is the only moral option. Starbrat's logic can't be trusted that EDI and the Geth will die if the Reapers are ended. However, even if they are, they knew exactly what fighting the Reapers might entail and both EDI and the Geth say something to the effect of "To the Death". Shepard knows that and can make a choice with that information.

However, he didn't get an OK to forcibly change everything in the galaxy as per Synthesis. Control can be discarded just because it is him enslaving and subjugating another race. By definition, Shepard doesn't need consent to do this.

[XwebraiderX]

Siansonea II wrote...

It's pretty clear that no one's minding the store—or rather, the story. This is what happens when people think that they're smarter than they actually are. They write things with obvious plot holes, obviously problematic moral and ethical implications, and they don't realize it. Their egos are so inflated, and they're so high on industry recognition and financial success that they don't even question their own logic. What's the solution? Buy something made by someone else, I suppose.

So. F****. True.

[nuculerman]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The destroy ending is the only ending that creates variables. Hudson has also said no more games after ME3.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Not sure what you mean about creating variables.  Every choice creates a solution we can't fully comprehend.

And Hudson has said no more ME games, not no more games set in the ME universe.  It's been wildly speculated a ME MMORPG is going to happen, and ME MP was one of the ways they planned on testing the gameplay.

[Taboo]

nuculerman wrote...

adneate wrote...

nuculerman wrote...
Does that give you the right to strip someone of their genetic biases?  Of course not.  But I still argue it's preferrable to committing mass genocide.

I'd aruge then that technically Shepard has no right to make any choice since all of them involve consequences that Shepard cannot possibly comprehend and outcomes Shepard cannot predict. However Synthesis is altering all life in way we don't understand, in a way that can't be undone and for a reason we don't comprehend. It's a "God" level decision and demands a "God" level amount of information and foresight on how this will affect every single individual in the galaxy for all time.

Comparatively destroying all Synthetic life can't even come close to requiring that much information mainly since it's focused soley on Synthetics not ALL life everywhere.

Actually, as someone brought up in another thread and I elaborated on, Shepard has every right to make that decision.  The galaxy gave their consent.  They all agreed to help build the crucible, not understanding what it's function was, only knowing it was preferrable to extinction, which was the only other logical option they had.  The ethical onus does not lie solely on Shepard's soldiers.  The galaxy signed up for this, and even, more or less, elected Shepard as their representative.

An argument that could be described as fallacious. The atomic bomb was set off even though scientists didn't know what it would do. We technically consented with our tax dollars.

No one consented to anything other than stopping the Reapers. They did NOT agree to lost everything in the process. Furthermore the Synthesis option is provided by the Catalyst as his new solution NOT his old one.

[Traestus]

nuculerman wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The destroy ending is the only ending that creates variables. Hudson has also said no more games after ME3.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Not sure what you mean about creating variables.  Every choice creates a solution we can't fully comprehend.

And Hudson has said no more ME games, not no more games set in the ME universe.  It's been wildly speculated a ME MMORPG is going to happen, and ME MP was one of the ways they planned on testing the gameplay.

No like the game literally creates a seperate ending flag for ONLY the destroy option. He's not speaking metaphorically here.

[Taboo]

nuculerman wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The destroy ending is the only ending that creates variables. Hudson has also said no more games after ME3.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Not sure what you mean about creating variables.  Every choice creates a solution we can't fully comprehend.

And Hudson has said no more ME games, not no more games set in the ME universe.  It's been wildly speculated a ME MMORPG is going to happen, and ME MP was one of the ways they planned on testing the gameplay.

It means that the only thing the game records as a choice is destroy. Synthesis and Control mean nothing in the data.

[Gen Petitt]

Quick BAN HAMMER the endings seriously I mean!

[MisterJB]

Seryl wrote...
It's a bad thing because it wasn't their choice to be changed. They didn't even get consulted before that choice was made. To even suggest that nobody could have any problems with this is mind-bogglingly arrogant. To actually do it is hubris of the highest order.

The fact is that any benefits of Synthesis could be achieved through education, experience and trying to overcome the inherent limitations of current instincts. This is what makes life worth living. What you are suggesting carries moral, ethical, spiritual and philosophical implications that are just scary to even consider, let alone execute.

I'm a practical person.
In the scenario I presented, all life in the galaxy; and I mean ALL life, Sythesis doesn't leave anyone behind regardless of financial status; gained so much with Synthesis and lost nothing. I find it selfish to attempt to deny them all of this good based on moral implications.

You are basically arguing that the ends justifies the means. This is almost never true. It's usually trotted out to justify a course of action that is, at best, wrong.

I am claiming that the end justifies the means, we agree on that much.

Forcing Synthesis is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory. You've TEMPORARILY won, but the cost was destroying the very thing you sought to save. It's like killing a patient to cure cancer. Yes, he's now cancer free, but he's also not alive anymore. You accomplished what you set out to do, was it worth it?

In the scenarion I presented, in which way is humanity dead?
We maintain sentience, consciousness, free will, individuality...
Synthesis gives us amazing physical benefits and, to stop the war, maybe the ability to communicate at the speed of tought or maybe it will allow humans to choose which values they  wish to uphold much like EDI is capable of doing. Duty, love, altruism.
In this scenario, how is humanity dead? Hell, EDI rests her head on Joker's shoulder. She seems more alive than before.

Modifié par MisterJB, 26 avril 2012 - 08:30 .

[matthewmi]

nuculerman wrote...

adneate wrote...

You can't strip away the "bad parts" without taking some of the individual too, say we assume Synthesis creates lasting peace and all the hybrids lose is the "bad parts" of their respective race or personality. They've still lost something that made them who they were, we don't know everything and we aren't perfect and if we were we wouldn't be what we are.

Would Garrus really be Garrus if he didn't have that agressive and competitive nature?

No he wouldn't he'd be someone else, maybe you say he'd be better than who he is right now. That doesn't change the fact that he's being forced to give up something that defines him, for better or worse.

I'd argue yes.  Urges aren't concious.  What makes Garrus Garrus is his ability to decide whether to act on that urge or not.  The human brain is a massivley parallel processor overlaid with a central processing core.  This is what makes us "concious."  This is who we are.  We aren't defined by our genetic code and biases, we're defined by our faculty to reason through those biases and the choices we make as a result.  We're defined by our experiences in the world, and how we've learned from them and reacted as a result.  Without that single "decision making" core, we're just any other animal: without conciousness.

Does that give you the right to strip someone of their genetic biases?  Of course not.  But I still argue it's preferrable to committing mass genocide.

Mass genocide on robots? really Geth aren't alive. I'd rather sacrifice them and EDI then condemn everyone in the galaxy into some sort of organic synthetic mishmash without their consent. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...


No one consented to anything other than stopping the Reapers. They did NOT agree to lost everything in the process. Furthermore the Synthesis option is provided by the Catalyst as his new solution NOT his old one.

This needs to be reiterated. 

Not everyone is willing to throw their life away. Not everyone is willing to sacrifice it all to stop the Reapers. No one is fighting to simply stop the cycles. 

It's about saving this cycle in its entirety. Unless you're a dickhole Shepard (Renegade) and hate everyone and everything, in which case the option of destroying it all is there. 

[Taboo]

Gen Petitt wrote...

Quick BAN HAMMER the endings seriously I mean!

Bioware has mixed the word art and fact.

One is infallible. The other is subjective.

Faux intelltualists use this excuse quite often.

Take the films of Andy Warhol for example. 

[Taboo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...


No one consented to anything other than stopping the Reapers. They did NOT agree to lost everything in the process. Furthermore the Synthesis option is provided by the Catalyst as his new solution NOT his old one.

This needs to be reiterated. 

Not everyone is willing to throw their life away. Not everyone is willing to sacrifice it all to stop the Reapers. No one is fighting to simply stop the cycles. 

It's about saving this cycle in its entirety. Unless you're a dickhole Shepard (Renegade) and hate everyone and everything, in which case the option of destroying it all is there. 

QUOTE FOR TRUTH.

[The Night Mammoth]

matthewmi wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

adneate wrote...

You can't strip away the "bad parts" without taking some of the individual too, say we assume Synthesis creates lasting peace and all the hybrids lose is the "bad parts" of their respective race or personality. They've still lost something that made them who they were, we don't know everything and we aren't perfect and if we were we wouldn't be what we are.

Would Garrus really be Garrus if he didn't have that agressive and competitive nature?

No he wouldn't he'd be someone else, maybe you say he'd be better than who he is right now. That doesn't change the fact that he's being forced to give up something that defines him, for better or worse.

I'd argue yes.  Urges aren't concious.  What makes Garrus Garrus is his ability to decide whether to act on that urge or not.  The human brain is a massivley parallel processor overlaid with a central processing core.  This is what makes us "concious."  This is who we are.  We aren't defined by our genetic code and biases, we're defined by our faculty to reason through those biases and the choices we make as a result.  We're defined by our experiences in the world, and how we've learned from them and reacted as a result.  Without that single "decision making" core, we're just any other animal: without conciousness.

Does that give you the right to strip someone of their genetic biases?  Of course not.  But I still argue it's preferrable to committing mass genocide.

Mass genocide on robots? really Geth aren't alive. I'd rather sacrifice them and EDI then condemn everyone in the galaxy into some sort of organic synthetic mishmash without their consent. 

The above reasoning is evident of someone who hasn't ever talked to Legion, or EDI, or completed Rannoch with anything but siding with the Quarians. 

[Mr.House]

EDI outright tells you she is ready to die to defeat the Reapers. If EDI and the Geth do truly die in Destroy then it sucks but through their sacrifice, they have rid the Galaxy of a race of evil machines.

[RShara]

Do you think anyone who likes Synthesis ever read A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle? There's a bit about how Equality /=/ Sameness.

You don't have to be the same to be equal. Being the same is boring and dull. I value the krogan's temper. I value Legion's analytical computing mind. I considered the geth were already alive. EDI already had emotions. Why is Synthesis necessary and how does it even work?

It's either useless, immoral, or both.

[Madecologist]

Don't worry OP... when I read that... I was appalled. Not upset, not angry. Appalled. Disguisted. Even Distraught.

As I mentioned in my revelation post of what made me feel so sick when I first read this was that it is okay to have such themes and concepts in the story. They make for interesting antagonist and even dilemnas when prooperly presented. Heck just exploring such themes can be an interesting thought excercise.

It is when the writers or designers of said story don't realise the 'dark' nature of changing all life in the universe without their consent, and then saying it will be all-okay peachy (so are they saying it will also change their minds and perception... great it's mental violation too) that they cross the moral even horizan.

Not the literary one (as a villain being unredemable), but the real one where you question the very motives of the writers (mildly put).

Modifié par Madecologist, 26 avril 2012 - 08:37 .

[Mr.House]

RShara wrote...

Do you think anyone who likes Synthesis ever read A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle? There's a bit about how Equality /=/ Sameness.

You don't have to be the same to be equal. Being the same is boring and dull. I value the krogan's temper. I value Legion's analytical computing mind. I considered the geth were already alive. EDI already had emotions. Why is Synthesis necessary and how does it even work?

It's either useless, immoral, or both.

I say both.

[nitefyre410]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

matthewmi wrote...

*snip* 
Mass genocide on robots? really Geth aren't alive. I'd rather sacrifice them and EDI then condemn everyone in the galaxy into some sort of organic synthetic mishmash without their consent. 

The above reasoning is evident of someone who hasn't ever talked to Legion, or EDI, or completed Rannoch with anything but siding with the Quarians. 

 

You gotta love that  reasoning... I don't want to play  God... so I'm going to play God.
 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 26 avril 2012 - 08:34 .

[Taboo]

RShara wrote...

Do you think anyone who likes Synthesis ever read A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle? There's a bit about how Equality /=/ Sameness.

You don't have to be the same to be equal. Being the same is boring and dull. I value the krogan's temper. I value Legion's analytical computing mind. I considered the geth were already alive. EDI already had emotions. Why is Synthesis necessary and how does it even work?

It's either useless, immoral, or both.

It appears that Bioware has assumed the logic of the Reapers.

"We understand what's going on Bioware"

"N-no"

Logical people look for logical answers. There are no answers in this mess.