Taboo-XX wrote...
nitefyre410 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
I hope they read this thread.
I started a fire. Oops.
Na - you just threw the match on the powder keg that was already there... it was bound to happen.
Honestly its about time someone just straight up call Bioware out on this..
I was fed up. Tired. I just want answers or at least acknowledgement.
I'm not dumb Bioware and neither are your users. We know you messed up and will forgive quite a bit if you just say so.
True. But I share the Catalyst's views and therefore, like the concept of Synthesis. As such, I am choosing to remain optimistic about the effects of it.CmnDwnWrkn wrote...
We simply do not know what "Synthesis" entails. We haven't been given nearly enough information on how it would work, what exactly would be synthesized, which entity is controlling the synthesis process, whether any elements of synthetic or organic life would be discarded in the process, etc. There are simply far too many variables that we really cannot predict with any reasonable certainty what the ramifications would be.
Choosing Synthesis is nothing more than a gamble, a roll of the dice, in which you are hoping it will work out the way you want it to.
nuculerman wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
The bomb was built to stop a problem. As was the crucible. The general consensus about the crucible was that it would provide the ability to kill the Reapers. HACKETT MENTIONS THE ATOM BOMB IN THE DIALOUGE. IT'S THERE.
Yes. Because Hacket was one of the many who assumed the crucible was a Reaper off switch, that magically killed the Reapers, only the Reapers, and nothing but the Reapers. No one understood the technology. The technology of the atom bomb was very well understood. A neutron breaks up an atom. That process releases more neutrons. The release of neutrons is exponential, and so much heat gets built up, we have ourselves a bomb. Place it here, people die. Place it here, we get constructive interference from the shockwaves, and more people die. Radiation is released, so the long term consequences to the area are probably not ideal.
And that is exactly how the bomb functioned. Anyone who agreed to detonating the bomb was morally culpable for the resulting loss of life.
The only way the situation would be analagous is if the scientists creating the A-Bomb said, "so, there's a lot of energy, but we have no idea how that energy is going to get used. Like, at all. No seriously." And then they said, oh great, lots of energy. Let's throw it at Japan. And then China, along with Japan, dissolved. And in that scenario, would not everyone who agreed to use the bomb be morally culpable for the loss of life in China? The answer is yes. Ignorance does not recuse you of moral responsibility.
nuculerman wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
The bomb was built to stop a problem. As was the crucible. The general consensus about the crucible was that it would provide the ability to kill the Reapers. HACKETT MENTIONS THE ATOM BOMB IN THE DIALOUGE. IT'S THERE.
Yes. Because Hacket was one of the many who assumed the crucible was a Reaper off switch, that magically killed the Reapers, only the Reapers, and nothing but the Reapers. No one understood the technology. The technology of the atom bomb was very well understood. A neutron breaks up an atom. That process releases more neutrons. The release of neutrons is exponential, and so much heat gets built up, we have ourselves a bomb. Place it here, people die. Place it here, we get constructive interference from the shockwaves, and more people die. Radiation is released, so the long term consequences to the area are probably not ideal.
And that is exactly how the bomb functioned. Anyone who agreed to detonating the bomb was morally culpable for the resulting loss of life.
The only way the situation would be analagous is if the scientists creating the A-Bomb said, "so, there's a lot of energy, but we have no idea how that energy is going to get used. Like, at all. No seriously." And then they said, oh great, lots of energy. Let's throw it at Japan. And then China, along with Japan, dissolved. And in that scenario, would not everyone who agreed to use the bomb be morally culpable for the loss of life in China? The answer is yes. Ignorance does not recuse you of moral responsibility.
Modifié par Seryl, 26 avril 2012 - 08:55 .
Seryl wrote...
nuculerman wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
The bomb was built to stop a problem. As was the crucible. The general consensus about the crucible was that it would provide the ability to kill the Reapers. HACKETT MENTIONS THE ATOM BOMB IN THE DIALOUGE. IT'S THERE.
Yes. Because Hacket was one of the many who assumed the crucible was a Reaper off switch, that magically killed the Reapers, only the Reapers, and nothing but the Reapers. No one understood the technology. The technology of the atom bomb was very well understood. A neutron breaks up an atom. That process releases more neutrons. The release of neutrons is exponential, and so much heat gets built up, we have ourselves a bomb. Place it here, people die. Place it here, we get constructive interference from the shockwaves, and more people die. Radiation is released, so the long term consequences to the area are probably not ideal.
And that is exactly how the bomb functioned. Anyone who agreed to detonating the bomb was morally culpable for the resulting loss of life.
The only way the situation would be analagous is if the scientists creating the A-Bomb said, "so, there's a lot of energy, but we have no idea how that energy is going to get used. Like, at all. No seriously." And then they said, oh great, lots of energy. Let's throw it at Japan. And then China, along with Japan, dissolved. And in that scenario, would not everyone who agreed to use the bomb be morally culpable for the loss of life in China? The answer is yes. Ignorance does not recuse you of moral responsibility.
They knew that the atom bomb would detonate and kill people. They didn't know how well it would work or what the energy yield would be. If I remember my History correctly, there were a few people that were concerned it might burn of the entire planet's atmosphere.
Skull Bearer wrote...
What about the pre-spaaceflight species who haven't a word or stake in any of this? They're going to be changed as well, against their will.
Taboo-XX wrote...
He hasn't read the reports. Let him do as such.
nuculerman wrote...
Skull Bearer wrote...
What about the pre-spaaceflight species who haven't a word or stake in any of this? They're going to be changed as well, against their will.
You're violating their personal liberty to not be altered by your space magic. As I said, synthesis is not a moral option. Quantifying morality is mostly opinion. And in my opinion, mass genocide is worse, morally, then physically altering everyone in the galaxy. Life has infinite value. If it were me, I'd choose synthesis over murdering a single Geth.
nuculerman wrote...
Skull Bearer wrote...
What about the pre-spaaceflight species who haven't a word or stake in any of this? They're going to be changed as well, against their will.
You're violating their personal liberty to not be altered by your space magic. As I said, synthesis is not a moral option. Quantifying morality is mostly opinion. And in my opinion, mass genocide is worse, morally, then physically altering everyone in the galaxy. Life has infinite value. If it were me, I'd choose synthesis over murdering a single Geth.
IanPolaris wrote...
nuculerman wrote...
Skull Bearer wrote...
What about the pre-spaaceflight species who haven't a word or stake in any of this? They're going to be changed as well, against their will.
You're violating their personal liberty to not be altered by your space magic. As I said, synthesis is not a moral option. Quantifying morality is mostly opinion. And in my opinion, mass genocide is worse, morally, then physically altering everyone in the galaxy. Life has infinite value. If it were me, I'd choose synthesis over murdering a single Geth.
Destroy is the only ending that prima facia ends the threat of Reaper genocide forever and guarantees that the galaxy will be safe...at least today. When the stake is the survival of your own species, genocide is acceptable (it's why genocide against the Darkspawn is acceptable in Dragon Age). I hate the idea of destroying an entire species but the alternative is worse.
-Polaris
nuculerman wrote...
Skull Bearer wrote...
What about the pre-spaaceflight species who haven't a word or stake in any of this? They're going to be changed as well, against their will.
You're violating their personal liberty to not be altered by your space magic. As I said, synthesis is not a moral option. Quantifying morality is mostly opinion. And in my opinion, mass genocide is worse, morally, then physically altering everyone in the galaxy. Life has infinite value. If it were me, I'd choose synthesis over murdering a single Geth.
IanPolaris wrote...
Here is something else about "Synethesis". There is absolutely no guarantee that the now independant Reapers won't go slaughtering the rest of the galaxy. Shepard even asks, "...but will there be peace" AND THE STARBRAT NEVER ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
-Polaris
nuculerman wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
He hasn't read the reports. Let him do as such.
I have a masters in Nuclear Engineering. But thank you for enlightening me. The physics of the atom bomb was well understood before it was dropped in Japan. It was even TESTED first...
Village Idiot wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Here is something else about "Synethesis". There is absolutely no guarantee that the now independant Reapers won't go slaughtering the rest of the galaxy. Shepard even asks, "...but will there be peace" AND THE STARBRAT NEVER ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
-Polaris
This is an instance where the leaked script was much better in explaining what happened because Synthesis doesn't just change organics/synthetics, it also changes the Reapers. I think the line was: "You will become more like us and we will become more like you."
I think synthesis was perhaps meant to be a take on this, but this philosophy requires way more intellectual context than what the ending gave us. I just don't feel it hits the right thematic units for this game quite honestly, but people who enjoy the endings may disagree. The execution and most importantly, variance among choices is lacking.
Modifié par Skull Bearer, 26 avril 2012 - 09:00 .
IanPolaris wrote...
Destroy is the only ending that prima facia ends the threat of Reaper genocide forever and guarantees that the galaxy will be safe...at least today. When the stake is the survival of your own species, genocide is acceptable (it's why genocide against the Darkspawn is acceptable in Dragon Age). I hate the idea of destroying an entire species but the alternative is worse.
-Polaris
IanPolaris wrote...
Destroy is the only ending that prima facia ends the threat of Reaper genocide forever and guarantees that the galaxy will be safe...at least today. When the stake is the survival of your own species, genocide is acceptable (it's why genocide against the Darkspawn is acceptable in Dragon Age). I hate the idea of destroying an entire species but the alternative is worse.
-Polaris
Thanks! It's really quite and interesting, albeit disconcerting discussion. I'll impose on you again, if you don't mind (I gotta get my account working right...).
Oh, and I finally found a scene that perfectly illustrates why I found Mr. Gamble's original statement so frustrating;
Here is Captain Picard's answer to the question "do you consider that a form of life?"
Perhaps it's asking too much for people to be aware of philosophy, but one of the best episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation? An episode from 1989? Are people that are into sci-fi really asking whether a thinking machine can be "alive" 23 years after that episode?
As for the (rather creepy) side conversation about how wonderful a world would be if only we could strip out "urges", and that "Urges aren't concious[sic]" let's make that more concrete:
-If you had a button that could, with a single press, instantly and permanently convert all homosexuals into heterosexuals, would it be moral to push that button? It wouldn't kill anyone, wouldn't torture anyone, wouldn't be an act of genocide. All the affected would simply stop being... different.
After all, the existence of the aforementioned condition is involuntary, a source of friction, persecution and oppression almost everywhere, thru-out much of recorded history.
The underpinnings of Mr. Gamble's logic would seem to indicate... Yes, that would be moral. It might even be laudable, if his tweet of "That's enough twitter for the night:) Clearly having a personal favorite is fodder for being attacked. Keep it up folks!"* Synthesis isn't just an ending he is trying to explain, it's his "personal favorite".
Now, while I'm sure I don't have to, I'm going to state for the record how morally repugnant this line of reasoning is. Not for nothing has the idea of a "forced cure" been a plot device of villains in the X-Men comics for decades.
But if the sentiment Mr. Gamble presents is genuine... what moral obstacle is there to a "forced cure"? To "Peace through Unity"?
*https://twitter.com/#!/GambleMike/status/19533701873625907
nuculerman wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Destroy is the only ending that prima facia ends the threat of Reaper genocide forever and guarantees that the galaxy will be safe...at least today. When the stake is the survival of your own species, genocide is acceptable (it's why genocide against the Darkspawn is acceptable in Dragon Age). I hate the idea of destroying an entire species but the alternative is worse.
-Polaris
Bioware gave us no context for synthesis. I decided to make the assumption, considering it was their canon ending, it wasn't the extreme change most of you are assuming. And genocide against the Darkspawn is genocide against willful evil. The Geth are in no way associated with the Reapers, and neither is EDI. They have done everything in their power to help you fight them and are totally innocent. You're trading a million innocent lives for the guarantee other lives will survive.
I don't think you understand the basic concept life is infinitely valuable.
savionen wrote...
Synthesis would cause more conflict, more death. I really doubt half the races want to be synthesized. I can just imagine the Krogan rampaging, regardless of if they have a super-calculator in their head or not.
nuculerman wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Destroy is the only ending that prima facia ends the threat of Reaper genocide forever and guarantees that the galaxy will be safe...at least today. When the stake is the survival of your own species, genocide is acceptable (it's why genocide against the Darkspawn is acceptable in Dragon Age). I hate the idea of destroying an entire species but the alternative is worse.
-Polaris
Bioware gave us no context for synthesis. I decided to make the assumption, considering it was their canon ending, it wasn't the extreme change most of you are assuming. And genocide against the Darkspawn is genocide against willful evil. The Geth are in no way associated with the Reapers, and neither is EDI. They have done everything in their power to help you fight them and are totally innocent. You're trading a million innocent lives for the guarantee other lives will survive.
Taboo-XX wrote...
This is how animals function. This is why the bomb was dropped on Japan. It is unethical, repugnant and will plauge humanity until the end of days. It does however give credence to the lesson that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
Unpleasent. But that's how the world turns.
Taboo-XX wrote...
nuculerman wrote...
Bioware gave us no context for synthesis. I decided to make the assumption, considering it was their canon ending, it wasn't the extreme change most of you are assuming. And genocide against the Darkspawn is genocide against willful evil. The Geth are in no way associated with the Reapers, and neither is EDI. They have done everything in their power to help you fight them and are totally innocent. You're trading a million innocent lives for the guarantee other lives will survive.
I don't think you understand the basic concept life is infinitely valuable.
This is how animals function. This is why the bomb was dropped on Japan. It is unethical, repugnant and will plauge humanity until the end of days. It does however give credence to the lesson that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
Unpleasent. But that's how the world turns.
Taboo-XX wrote...
When I attend the Cannes film festival I expect a good degree of discussion because the films are so cerebral. But I know the director has a problem when the narrative is literally torn apart to get answers. This isn't speculation. It's an abject failure without any sort of information............
Retour en haut