897 réponses à ce sujet

[Estelindis]

Brilliant opening post, Taboo-XX. I agree completely. Synthesis takes away the choice of machines and people to preserve any differences they might find desirable. Also, historically, annihilating difference has been the mark of tyrannical regimes attempting to create a cultural/racial utopia but only succeeding in creating a nightmare.

[TookYoCookies]

nicethugbert wrote...



It's a hardware upgrade.  I see no evidence that it changes a person's personality or that it robs them of individuality.

Incidentally, all three endings in ME3 are the same type of ending as the one for Arrival.

Synthesis is the same choice that legion made, without consensus, for the Geth when he gave them individuality.  Yet, I don't see anyone complaining about that.

 

Are you f*cking joking? 1st off we dont have any evidence as to wtf happened exactly for any of the endings, other than the fact that: yes, we are suppose to take them at face value (as of now). 

But Merging all ORGANIC AND SYNTHETIC DNA SO ALL DNA IS THE SAME by definition, robs each and every form of organic life of some level of individuality. The fact that every single DNA strand now will be compatable is not a fluke, it was manufactured, artifical, FAKE. And occured by shpered's choice alone, with 0 input from the billions of parties that would be affected by this decision. 

Again, "Are you f*cking joking?". Legion giving the geth individuality GAVE THEM FREE WILL -  THE ABILITY TO THINK/SPEAK/DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES . Sheperd's choice, may have instantly taken that away from them; with out their consent!  There is a huge difference between giving some one the Freedom of choice and possibly taking that away from them. If you can not comprehend that difference, you need to get off of these forums, and get a much, much better education.

[nicethugbert]

TookYoCookies wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...



It's a hardware upgrade.  I see no evidence that it changes a person's personality or that it robs them of individuality.

Incidentally, all three endings in ME3 are the same type of ending as the one for Arrival.

Synthesis is the same choice that legion made, without consensus, for the Geth when he gave them individuality.  Yet, I don't see anyone complaining about that.

 

Are you f*cking joking? 1st off we dont have any evidence as to wtf happened exactly for any of the endings, other than the fact that: yes, we are suppose to take them at face value (as of now). 

But Merging all ORGANIC AND SYNTHETIC DNA SO ALL DNA IS THE SAME by definition, robs each and every form of organic life of some level of individuality. The fact that every single DNA strand now will be compatable is not a fluke, it was manufactured, artifical, FAKE. And occured by shpered's choice alone, with 0 input from the billions of parties that would be affected by this decision. 

Again, "Are you f*cking joking?". Legion giving the geth individuality GAVE THEM FREE WILL -  THE ABILITY TO THINK/SPEAK/DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES . Sheperd's choice, may have instantly taken that away from them; with out their consent!  There is a huge difference between giving some one the Freedom of choice and possibly taking that away from them. If you can not comprehend that difference, you need to get off of these forums, and get a much, much better education.

People like you are why I call myself nicethugbert.  I'll dissect your post later when I get back from work.  See you in 12 hours.

[TookYoCookies]

nicethugbert wrote...


People like you are why I call myself nicethugbert.  I'll dissect your post later when I get back from work.  See you in 12 hours.

 

Cool, really hope you read books there.

[Hawk227]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Hawk, I've come to trust io9 and their writers, for the most part, to be people who understand what they write about.
Hence the talk about the polymerase.

What I'm "proposing" here is that for the XNA theory or explanation, call it what you will, to be appropriate there was no fundamental change done except for the ability to transcribe data.
Instead of DNA and RNA and TNA (dumb name for Turian Nucleic Acids) and ANA (Asari Nucleic Acids) and BNA and so forth and so on (I'm being very simplistic on purpose here) - it all becomes XNA. Or it all gets those polymerase interfaces that are able to talk to each other.
Now - Joker retains his own encoded data. No data is being changed.
However, with the data being now translatable he can have sex with an Asari and conceive children (yes, I know it's BS, but you get the direction).
Or rather, test tube babies can now be formed from combining different encoded data.

Think of how Asari are procreating with other species (somehow mentally reading the desired phenotypes and incorporating them in the offspring) but on an actual biological level.

Too far out there?
Maybe, but even though the science might be waaaaaaaaay off, the fiction - or the logic, lacking a better word - works, I think.

I realise you trust them, I'm just trying to point out that making new polymerases from scratch is a substantially bigger accomplishment than the XNA thing. If they had done that, the article would have been about that.

As for the rest. It's still a fundamental misunderstanding of how biology, DNA, and reproduction work (I know you partially acknowledge this). Humans and Chimps not only both have DNA (as opposed to... CNA, I guess) they share 97% of their genes. That means that out of the billions of nucleotides in their genome, 97% of them are identical. But they can't procreate together. To do what you describe would genuinely require homogenization. It would require everything turning into humans or turians or asari or hybrid species X. It's not how the genetic code is written, its what is written in the genetic code. It's the data itself that is important.

Again, XNA is just DNA with the tiniest little change. That change does nothing except make it less susceptible to enzyme degradation. It doesn't affect gene expression in anyway. It's not how the genetic code is written, its what is written in the genetic code. It's the data itself that is important. Changing the way its written, does not change what it says.

Also, polymerases don't talk to eachother. They transcribe one molecule (DNA) into a second molecule (mRNA). This mRNA is a sort of biochemical mirror of DNA. Like a photographic negative.

The way asari reproduce is a slightly fantastic interpretation of a very real phenomenon. It's call parthenogenesis and it happens in some species of reptiles, insects, and some invertebrates.

As for the logic... I would say it doesn't work. But I'm reasonably well educated on the matter. I'm sure that I found some of the astrophysics stuff okay that would have incited rage in an astrophysicist. Although, a lot of people think that synthesis makes no sense, so I'm not alone in this.

[Cypher_CS]

Hawk227 wrote...

I realise you trust them, I'm just trying to point out that making new polymerases from scratch is a substantially bigger accomplishment than the XNA thing. If they had done that, the article would have been about that.

Hawk, here's another quote from the article:
"
But scientists have been synthesizing XNA molecules for well over a decade. What makes the findings of Pinheiro and his colleagues so compelling isn't the XNA molecules themselves, it's what they've shown these alien molecules are capable of, namely: replication and evolution. "

And this:
"
Using a crafty genetic engineering technique called compartmentalized self-tagging (or "CST"), Pinheiro's team designed special polymerases that could not only synthesize XNA from a DNA template, but actually copy XNA backinto DNA. The result was a genetic system that allowed for the replication and propagation of genetic information. "

Please note, I'm not saying it's possible right now.
I'm saying look at the breakthroughs these guys have published only this past month.
Now take a Sci-Fi spin on it with a huge step farther.

A leap of faith, or fancy, is required. I'm not negating that.

The way asari reproduce is a slightly fantastic interpretation of a very real phenomenon. It's call parthenogenesis and it happens in some species of reptiles, insects, and some invertebrates.

Yes, I know.
Except they should be able to pick the traits they want, not just do self cloning (they don't do self cloning).

While we don't get an explanation on what or how is the "father" important, it is more than implied that they are indeed very important.
Otherwise, there would be no cause for considering Pure Bloods as... well, lesser.

[Dark Penitant]

nicethugbert wrote...

Dark Penitant wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

To say that Synthesis would alter a person's personality and therefore their free will runs counter to what actually happened to Shepard and the Quarians. Shepard was loaded with synthetics and owes his life to having them. The Geth are helping the Quarian's immune systems adapt to Rannoch's environment.

So? Doesn't matter, it's altering others' bodies without their permission. 

So is blowing up a mass relay which Shepard does in Arrival and in all three endings in ME3.  Given that Shepard is about to kill a lot of people in the galaxy when he blows up all the relays, what should be the result?

It's entirely debatable that actually happened, and frankly, worse options do not make synthesis a better one.

nicethugbert wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

To
say that Synthesis would alter a person's personality and therefore
their free will runs counter to what actually happened to Shepard and
the Quarians. Shepard was loaded with synthetics and owes his life to
having them. The Geth are helping the Quarian's immune systems adapt to
Rannoch's environment.

They are impants. We are talking about adding synthetic information to the coding of DNA itself.

It's a hardware upgrade.  I see no evidence that it changes a person's personality or that it robs them of individuality.

Incidentally, all three endings in ME3 are the same type of ending as the one for Arrival.

Synthesis is the same choice that legion made, without consensus, for the Geth when he gave them individuality.  Yet, I don't see anyone complaining about that.

That's debatable, however; we're not entirely sure whether or not consensus was achieved, and for such a collectivized species, I'd be stunned if they did not. If Legion made that choice without the consensus of the Geth Collective, then it was the same atrocious decision, and Legion should be judged for it, even though there were no downsides.
Consent Consent Consent. 

Modifié par Dark Penitant, 30 avril 2012 - 12:41 .

[nicethugbert]

For all we know this new DNA framework may allow individuals to self modify and give them more genetic choices. So it may actually increase freedom.

[Cobra's_back]

nicethugbert wrote...

For all we know this new DNA framework may allow individuals to self modify and give them more genetic choices. So it may actually increase freedom.

You really don't know what happens to them.

Having said that this still applies:

Dark Penitant wrote...

Frankly, I don't even care if synthesis was purely beneficial with no downsides. Bodily Sovereignty still applies, and Shep had absolutely no right to make that decision.

It is short to the point and correct.

[Shaigunjoe]

nicethugbert wrote...

For all we know this new DNA framework may allow individuals to self modify and give them more genetic choices. So it may actually increase freedom.

Thats actually exactly how I interpreted "Final stage of evolution"  After synthesis, we don't need to rely on randomness anymore to advice ourselves as a species.  More importantly, I felt it meant we now have complete control to advance ourselves as an individual.

[Taboo]

This is so exciting! The exact kind of discussion we need.

Oh, I'm giddy.........

I'll be back later to discuss!

Anyway my new topic is forthcoming......

[Dark Penitant]

nicethugbert wrote...

For all we know this new DNA framework may allow individuals to self modify and give them more genetic choices. So it may actually increase freedom.

Except it doesn't matter; even if synthesis just cured the common cold, it's still not something anyone has the authority to make. No one has the right to decide what happens to any body other than their own, and Shep is just as beholden to that as everyone else. So sure, synthesis could be amazing and incredible and awesome, but that doesn't mean it isn't accomplishing that through the violation of trillions of beings' rights.

[Ieldra]

Dark Penitant wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...
For all we know this new DNA framework may allow individuals to self modify and give them more genetic choices. So it may actually increase freedom.

Except it doesn't matter; even if synthesis just cured the common cold, it's still not something anyone has the authority to make. No one has the right to decide what happens to any body other than their own, and Shep is just as beholden to that as everyone else. So sure, synthesis could be amazing and incredible and awesome, but that doesn't mean it isn't accomplishing that through the violation of trillions of beings' rights.

Pfft. That's taking deontological morality to the extreme. If politicians made decisions like that, nothing would ever get done. For a consequentialist, the action is justified if the results are good enough. If your decision can be expected to ****** off a small minority but a great majority can be expected to appreciate it, you usually make it. As long as it doesn't result in something drastic like death for some.

Besides, you have no control over your physical nature in the first place. You have about 2 kg of bacteria in your body, which serve functions without which you wouldn't survive. It's a symbiotic relationship. Now add 2 kg of synthetic symbionts which increase your options, enable self-enhancement and possibly make you healthier and longer-lived? Would I feel justified in not considering objections based on a principle with benefits like that? Most certainly I would.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 avril 2012 - 03:41 .

[nicethugbert]

Shepard may not have the right to make the decision, but, he was the only person in a postion to do so. He is bleeding to death and in the opponents home. Nobody else got that far. The reapers are winning the war and The Catalyst is willing to make a deal.

What do you expect? If it came up to a galactic vote, what do you think would happen? If mothers could look back in retrospect, which option would they choose for their children?

[Sisterofshane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dark Penitant wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...
For all we know this new DNA framework may allow individuals to self modify and give them more genetic choices. So it may actually increase freedom.

Except it doesn't matter; even if synthesis just cured the common cold, it's still not something anyone has the authority to make. No one has the right to decide what happens to any body other than their own, and Shep is just as beholden to that as everyone else. So sure, synthesis could be amazing and incredible and awesome, but that doesn't mean it isn't accomplishing that through the violation of trillions of beings' rights.

Pfft. That's taking deontological morality to the extreme. If politicians made decisions like that, nothing would ever get done. For a consequentialist, the action is justified if the results are good enough. If your decision can be expected to ****** off a small minority but a great majority can be expected to appreciate it, you usually make it. As long as it doesn't result in something drastic like death for some.

Besides, you have no control over your physical nature in the first place. You have about 2 kg of bacteria in your body, which serve functions without which you wouldn't survive. It's a symbiotic relationship. Now add 2 kg of synthetic symbionts which increase your options, enable self-enhancement and possibly make you healthier and longer-lived? Would I feel justified in not considering objections based on a principle with benefits like that? Most certainly I would.

And if consequentialism works so well, why isn't everyone allowed to around doing whatever they feel is "best" for everyone?  Oh, that's right - because it is impossible for any one person to truly know what would be best.  One person has limited perspective and experience, and Shepard isn't any different then the average person in this respect.  Considering this and the fact that Shepard is making what is essentially an uninformed decision based upon a five minute conversation (possibly less) had with a being that is showing a very hard bias toward the choice of synthesis, I believe that it would take a very egomaniacal person to make this choice believing that they were doing so for everyone's own good.

The only way that the Synthesis would be justified by consequentialism would be to show that the what happened thereafter was purely beneficial.  As the ending stands, there is not enough to base a decision on what "good" may happen.

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 30 avril 2012 - 04:58 .

[The Edge]

It seems to me that Mr. Gamble was trying to make the ending psychologically deep or something.

Of course, it's hard to see the rest of the lore around you when you dig yourself into the ground

[Richard 060]

Here's a thought - might not have already been posted, but figured it was worth a mention:

What happens with non-sentient animal life, or 'primitive' (e.g., equivalent to anything from the Bronze Age to the Middle Ages on Earth) civilisations, all of which aren't really of a level to comprehend the notion of 'synthetic life', let alone 'synthesis', and are pretty well-established in their respective ways of life.

How do they cope with suddenly being turned into synth-organic 'hybrids' without their consent? Would they even understand what happened? Would animal life be crippled by such a sweeping forced change? And would primitive sentients be open-minded enough to accept change, or would their superstitions and beliefs (again, using both Earth's own history, plus that of the other races in Mass Effect, as examples) prevent them from dealing with it in a constructive manner?

It's just another reason why synthesis as a concept might have seemed like a 'cool' idea at the time of writing by Mac/Casey, but put in any thought and logical extrapolation beyond the scant depiction in the frankly piecemeal end cutscene, and it just doesn't hold together at all.

[Klijpope]

Taboo-XX wrote...
To critique a piece of art is common. To defend a piece of art is common. To have sixty thousand people complain about a piece of art is unheard of. It has never happened before. What we have is sociological problem of an enormous magnitude. Bioware did not respond properly and are now paying for it.

I did not start the fire but I tried to fight it.

What is the proper response to an unprecedented situation? How do you plan for things that have never happened before?

They took a couple of weeks and then announced the EC DLC. How is that not a proper repsonse? What else could they have done? (And I mean here in a realistic business environment, as opposed to clamouring that they should grovellingly apologise, a demand I have seen too often to count on these pages).

BTW, not having a go, Mr. Taboo-XX, and these threads of yours are among the best on here right now, and really stand out against the background noise of kneejerk snark, but sometimes I feel it is getting to the point that no matter what BW do or say, people here will say it is inadequate or a betrayal.

Anyhow, moving on, some folk are saying that Shepard had no right to decide on the Synthesis option. If that's the case, then she had no right to decide on the Rachni, or to decide whether the Council lived or died, or whether the Geth got rewritten or not, or whether the genophage was cured, or who surivived the Rannoch war.

Shep has the right to choose synthesis because the rest of the galaxy gave him that right, and responsibility, during the entire game. Hackett explicitly gives Shepard the agency to end the reaper threat. Being a Spectre gives her all the authority she needs. Her final words are: "Then there'll be peace?". That's her goal, not revenge against the Reapers (or it might be, if that's the way you roll). Destroy doesn't end the problem forever; Control keeps the reapers around like a sword of Damocles; Synthesis changes the rules of the entire game (the Reaper's game, that is) - its virtue is the fact that it is impossible to predict the outcome, which makes the future open, and returns hope to both organics and synthetics. That is why I personally like it. I don't need to understand the physics of it; the mass effect is already space magic even if it is wrapped up in plausible technobabble.

If you'd prefer death before 'dishonour', then it is possible to wait it out after the conversation with the Catalyst to get a 'critical mission failure', as a conventional victory was never possible, a point hammered home throughout the enitre game (just completed my second playthrough last night - this point is relentless).

In the end, these choices are a matter of taste, not story-fail. That comes from the abrupt presentation and garbled denouement.

 

[PsyrenY]

goose-stepping hammers

Couldn't even make it out of the first post without a Godwin, could you?

[Taboo]

Klijpope wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
To critique a piece of art is common. To defend a piece of art is common. To have sixty thousand people complain about a piece of art is unheard of. It has never happened before. What we have is sociological problem of an enormous magnitude. Bioware did not respond properly and are now paying for it.

I did not start the fire but I tried to fight it.

What is the proper response to an unprecedented situation? How do you plan for things that have never happened before?

They took a couple of weeks and then announced the EC DLC. How is that not a proper repsonse? What else could they have done? (And I mean here in a realistic business environment, as opposed to clamouring that they should grovellingly apologise, a demand I have seen too often to count on these pages).

BTW, not having a go, Mr. Taboo-XX, and these threads of yours are among the best on here right now, and really stand out against the background noise of kneejerk snark, but sometimes I feel it is getting to the point that no matter what BW do or say, people here will say it is inadequate or a betrayal.

Anyhow, moving on, some folk are saying that Shepard had no right to decide on the Synthesis option. If that's the case, then she had no right to decide on the Rachni, or to decide whether the Council lived or died, or whether the Geth got rewritten or not, or whether the genophage was cured, or who surivived the Rannoch war.

Shep has the right to choose synthesis because the rest of the galaxy gave him that right, and responsibility, during the entire game. Hackett explicitly gives Shepard the agency to end the reaper threat. Being a Spectre gives her all the authority she needs. Her final words are: "Then there'll be peace?". That's her goal, not revenge against the Reapers (or it might be, if that's the way you roll). Destroy doesn't end the problem forever; Control keeps the reapers around like a sword of Damocles; Synthesis changes the rules of the entire game (the Reaper's game, that is) - its virtue is the fact that it is impossible to predict the outcome, which makes the future open, and returns hope to both organics and synthetics. That is why I personally like it. I don't need to understand the physics of it; the mass effect is already space magic even if it is wrapped up in plausible technobabble.

If you'd prefer death before 'dishonour', then it is possible to wait it out after the conversation with the Catalyst to get a 'critical mission failure', as a conventional victory was never possible, a point hammered home throughout the enitre game (just completed my second playthrough last night - this point is relentless).

In the end, these choices are a matter of taste, not story-fail. That comes from the abrupt presentation and garbled denouement.

 

Very true. However I am not convinced that Hackett knew entirely what the Crucible did. He assumed it was similar to the atom bomb except it killed the Reapers. He did not expect the other two options. I think we're splitting hairs here. Yes, they technically agreed to stop the Reapers at whatever the cost but I find idea of rewriting the way the galaxy is to be repugnant. It's like a shady business deal.

I believe fully the Universe must function as it has for billions of years, steeped in Chaos. Cycles come and go and will be replaced by new beings. My function was to stop the Reapers, not control them or synthesize organic and synthetic DNA. If in time Synthetics will rise and destroy organics then so be it. This is chaos and it must be maintained.

[WYLDMAXX]

When I think of the Synthesize ending I think back to the movie The Fly.

[Cypher_CS]

Sisterofshane wrote...

And if consequentialism works so well, why isn't everyone allowed to around doing whatever they feel is "best" for everyone?  Oh, that's right - because it is impossible for any one person to truly know what would be best.  One person has limited perspective and experience, and Shepard isn't any different then the average person in this respect.  Considering this and the fact that Shepard is making what is essentially an uninformed decision based upon a five minute conversation (possibly less) had with a being that is showing a very hard bias toward the choice of synthesis, I believe that it would take a very egomaniacal person to make this choice believing that they were doing so for everyone's own good.

The only way that the Synthesis would be justified by consequentialism would be to show that the what happened thereafter was purely beneficial.  As the ending stands, there is not enough to base a decision on what "good" may happen.

So what?
Was Shepard supposed to go all "Okay Kid, hold on a sec here, while I go discuss this with the rest of the fleet - got a Phone handy? Cause I gots to tell ya, reception be crappy around these here parts"?

And don't try to find justification for consequentialism right after you go all against it in the first place. Cause it's kinda self negating. If you're against consequentialism, there's no way you can find a justifiable way for it to work. Period.
Stick to your guns.

[Cypher_CS]

Klijpope wrote...

Anyhow, moving on, some folk are saying that Shepard had no right to decide on the Synthesis option. If that's the case, then she had no right to decide on the Rachni, or to decide whether the Council lived or died, or whether the Geth got rewritten or not, or whether the genophage was cured, or who surivived the Rannoch war.

Shep has the right to choose synthesis because the rest of the galaxy gave him that right, and responsibility, during the entire game. Hackett explicitly gives Shepard the agency to end the reaper threat. Being a Spectre gives her all the authority she needs. Her final words are: "Then there'll be peace?". That's her goal, not revenge against the Reapers (or it might be, if that's the way you roll). Destroy doesn't end the problem forever; Control keeps the reapers around like a sword of Damocles; Synthesis changes the rules of the entire game (the Reaper's game, that is) - its virtue is the fact that it is impossible to predict the outcome, which makes the future open, and returns hope to both organics and synthetics. That is why I personally like it. I don't need to understand the physics of it; the mass effect is already space magic even if it is wrapped up in plausible technobabble.

If you'd prefer death before 'dishonour', then it is possible to wait it out after the conversation with the Catalyst to get a 'critical mission failure', as a conventional victory was never possible, a point hammered home throughout the enitre game (just completed my second playthrough last night - this point is relentless).

In the end, these choices are a matter of taste, not story-fail. That comes from the abrupt presentation and garbled denouement.

 

Thank.
You.

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

And if consequentialism works so well, why isn't everyone allowed to around doing whatever they feel is "best" for everyone?  Oh, that's right - because it is impossible for any one person to truly know what would be best.  One person has limited perspective and experience, and Shepard isn't any different then the average person in this respect.  Considering this and the fact that Shepard is making what is essentially an uninformed decision based upon a five minute conversation (possibly less) had with a being that is showing a very hard bias toward the choice of synthesis, I believe that it would take a very egomaniacal person to make this choice believing that they were doing so for everyone's own good.

The only way that the Synthesis would be justified by consequentialism would be to show that the what happened thereafter was purely beneficial.  As the ending stands, there is not enough to base a decision on what "good" may happen.

So what?
Was Shepard supposed to go all "Okay Kid, hold on a sec here, while I go discuss this with the rest of the fleet - got a Phone handy? Cause I gots to tell ya, reception be crappy around these here parts"?

And don't try to find justification for consequentialism right after you go all against it in the first place. Cause it's kinda self negating. If you're against consequentialism, there's no way you can find a justifiable way for it to work. Period.
Stick to your guns.

The point is that the choice has been pressed upon the audience at the last minute without any foreshadowing. This is a poor narrative choice and has since backfired. This is the problem. There is very little information nor is there is there any idea of how everyone is affected by Synthesis. From available data we assume that all organic life is going to be effected. This is not a moral choice that should be pressed upon the player in the last few minutes.

[Sisterofshane]

Klijpope wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
To critique a piece of art is common. To defend a piece of art is common. To have sixty thousand people complain about a piece of art is unheard of. It has never happened before. What we have is sociological problem of an enormous magnitude. Bioware did not respond properly and are now paying for it.

I did not start the fire but I tried to fight it.

*snip*
Anyhow, moving on, some folk are saying that Shepard had no right to decide on the Synthesis option. If that's the case, then she had no right to decide on the Rachni, or to decide whether the Council lived or died, or whether the Geth got rewritten or not, or whether the genophage was cured, or who surivived the Rannoch war.

Shep has the right to choose synthesis because the rest of the galaxy gave him that right, and responsibility, during the entire game. Hackett explicitly gives Shepard the agency to end the reaper threat. Being a Spectre gives her all the authority she needs. Her final words are: "Then there'll be peace?". That's her goal, not revenge against the Reapers (or it might be, if that's the way you roll). Destroy doesn't end the problem forever; Control keeps the reapers around like a sword of Damocles; Synthesis changes the rules of the entire game (the Reaper's game, that is) - its virtue is the fact that it is impossible to predict the outcome, which makes the future open, and returns hope to both organics and synthetics. That is why I personally like it. I don't need to understand the physics of it; the mass effect is already space magic even if it is wrapped up in plausible technobabble.

If you'd prefer death before 'dishonour', then it is possible to wait it out after the conversation with the Catalyst to get a 'critical mission failure', as a conventional victory was never possible, a point hammered home throughout the enitre game (just completed my second playthrough last night - this point is relentless).

In the end, these choices are a matter of taste, not story-fail. That comes from the abrupt presentation and garbled denouement.

 

First point, to be fair, as a Paragon you really aren't making decisions that remove the free will of an individual (unless you rewrite the heretics, and that comes back to bite you in ME3).

To say that Shepard was given the authority to deal with the "problem"
as he/she sees fit, we would have to understand the nature of the
problem itself.  Was Shepard sent by Hackett to end the Technological
Singularity? No.  This was a problem that was presented by the catalyst.  Shepard was sent to end the cycle of extinction(the one that was started by the Reapers themselves).  I would argue in the second point , if you chose synthesis then you haven't really done anything to remove the threat of the Reapers.  They are still around, and they are still vastly superior to all other life-forms (not only in size, but also in technological advancement - remember the "cuttlefish" are just their exterior shells - the Reapers themselvs are within the core of that cuttlefish-ship).  The only difference is now they have supposedly been given "feelings" (if I am reading into that ending right).  How does this stop any fighting?  And if fighting continues what is then to stop the Reapers from winning? 

And the problem I have with your last sentence is the sentence above that.  They can take the time, it seems, to hammer home the point that conventional victory is impossible, but couldn't possibly add any foreshadowing about the catalyst and the possibility of peace with the Reapers (and within that scope, synthetics), except for ONE line of dialogue that was delivered just one mission before we return to earth and deploy the crucible?  If that isn't story-fail then I don't know what is.