Aller au contenu

Photo

Defending Synthesis


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
267 réponses à ce sujet

#201
Steve The Seal

Steve The Seal
  • Members
  • 113 messages
The thing that generally bugs me about the synthesis ending is that it is completely warped logic. Why should we all be half-synthetics? Does that solve conflicts between different races incl. geth for example (given that they stay just a bit diverse)? Why is the god child suddenly satisfied with synthesis? His insane goal is to keep organic life stable, by simple wiping out most of it every now and then. Does synthesis even solve the problem which the god child believes even exist? It is an idiotic idea filled with holes. 
And how in the worlds name those beaming everyone with some kind of laser from the mass relays, suddenly change your dna? What?! Wouldn't synthesis imply that every organic should undergo upgrades, like those TIM and Saren got? So everyone is suddenly cyborgs? What is this new dna? On with points those it affect the organic body (with a beam, seriously... space magic weee). 
It simply is irrationallity in it's purest form. And the idea that synthesis should create a peaceful world between organics and synthetics implies that the god child should also rewrite the way each individual thinks (indoctrination gasp!!). Because every species (incl. synthetics) have their individual ideas. Will the krogan simply say: "What the hell, we are half-synthetics now, so lets hold hands and dance all night with the turians and salarians"? Or for example if we made the assumption that the war between the geth and quarians hadn't ended before the synthesis took place. Would they simply give up the war because their all 50/50?
For peace to exist, the god child would also have to rewrite every single individuals mind, to accept that now all races are equal and the same.
And then there's the point about shepard simply chooses for everyone, taking away their personal freedom, by choosing synthesis. 
It simply is a mind-blowingly flawed theory presented by the god child, not to say that the rest it says is any better.
 
* Update*
The idea the god child has, is that synthetic life no matter what WILL DESTOY all organic life because they will come to the conclusion that organic life is flawed. If synthetics already came to this conclusion, would it change anything that they are suddenly 50/50? Probably impossible to answer this question because it requires too many assumptions. Which also shows the flaws behind synthesis.
Example with organic vs organic: If the US and Russia where at war and suddenly some "thing" made them all half-Russian and half-American, would that end the war? Probably not because each indiviual still identifies themselves as their former dna.
Would synthetics also think this way or are they as invidual thinkers flawed? Meaning that their oppion about a specie suddenly changes because of a change in that species dna?

Another thing I thought about: If the former humans suddenly decides that they want to create new synthetics (for labour as an example) doesn't that simply recreate the "problem" or are these synthetics also 50/50 (meaning: more space magic)?

Modifié par Steve The Seal, 07 mai 2012 - 07:49 .


#202
PsyrenY

PsyrenY
  • Members
  • 5 238 messages

vv238email wrote...

My point is that as long as you allow free will there will also be prejudice.


The Catalyst's goal is not Miss America-style World Peace. It's to give organic life a fighting chance. Without the Reapers' safeguards of leaving undeveloped organics alone, we'd have never lived long enough to go to the moon, much less any other planet. If any other synthetic life form arose that did want to wipe out organics, it would be trivial.

Synthesis, if it works the way we think it does, can easily achieve this goal. even if organic-born hybrids and synthetic-born hybrids end up disagreeing in the future, no side will have an inherent advantage over the other.

Which brings us to the Geth. A large chunk of them decided to wage war on organics because of... a math glitch. Furthermore, the ones that glitched hit upon the idea of mass-brainwashing the ones that didn't. And even the ones that didn't glitch, had no problem with letting the ones that did run amok and tarnish both of their reputations among organics.

So honestly, the Catalyst may not be that far off the mark.

#203
paxbanana3915

paxbanana3915
  • Members
  • 183 messages

feliciano2040 wrote...

There is a difference between struggle and violence.

Synthesis eliminates the gap between organics and synthetics and creates a new form of life, no longer will people kill each other simply because of misguided prejudice.

Seriously people who complain incessantly about Synthesis need to read a little Georg Hegel.


Because we all know philosophers are right about everything. Descarte and his pineal gland, etc.

And as far as I can tell, people often kill each other for no reason so I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. Misguided prejudice has nothing to do with "hybridizing" the galaxy. Case in point: people kill people. Humans are all within the same subspecies.

The point I feel the writers made (whether they wanted to or not) is that the only way peace can come about is if everyone thinks and feels the same thing. That is about the worst message you can stick onto the end of any story, and I'd mention a few corresponding political parties that use this message as propoganda but I'm not touching that debate.

#204
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 189 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
You can mix organic and synthetic elements in a lifeform to get a hybrid. But you cannot make something with fundamentally in-between basic building blocks.


Actually, we DO have "fundamentally in-between basic building blocks" - atoms. To quote Adams: "We're all machines, carbon or silicon. Is there really a difference?"

And Shepard's response if you side with him: "Genetics don't make us alive. It's our self-awareness, curiosity, and capacity to evolve." Couldn't have put it any better myself.

Yes, but physical makeup can shape perspective, and it's perspective that makes the difference between organics and synthetics. That perspective - what Javik mentions - cannot be in-between. You're either aware of your purpose or not, you either know you're created or not, know your creator or not, and you're either immortal unless killed or not.

This also applies if the difference between synthetics and organics is that the former are constructs and the latter results of a growth process - two fundamentally different methods of design. And lastly, considering that synthetics can advance faster and make themselves smarter: you either see yourself as the crown of creation, before which all lower life forms are inconsequential, or not. (heh - if synthetics are like organics in that regard, I foresee that organics will become extinct without intervention).

Whatever definition you use for synthetics and organics, there is either no difference at all (like "we're all machines, carbon or silicon"), in which case Synthesis would be a solution without a problem, or the difference is of a kind that there's no fundamental "in-between". So Synthesis must effect a "mix" rather than a hybridization on the "basic building blocks" level.

#205
Pride Demon

Pride Demon
  • Members
  • 1 342 messages
None of the endings is morally superior to the others, they all present horrible implications ("victory through sacrifice and all that")...
A lot of people here seem try too hard to demonize the two they didn't pick to try and justify the one they picked, regardless of which it is they picked.
A more elaborate way of saying "I'm right, you are wrong and there's nothing you can do about it"...

A few raise interesting points in support of the "demonization" of the others, but when someone points out the same can be applied to the one they picked they suddently turn a deaf ear.

In my opinion, that's a result of the confusion caused by the ending, since everything is volatile in it, everyone tries desperately to cling to what they feel is best, they know it's not actually the best, so they need to convince others (and themselves) it actually is even if that's not the case, and the easier way to give value to one's vision is criticising the other existing visions...

Maybe this is intentional, one gigantic social experiment: "If put in an uncomfortable position where the only way through is renouncing a specific moral value, which one will be discarded first: "freedom", "diversity" or "right to life" ?" "How will the people justify their decision after?".
After all, Mac Walters has a degree in psychology, doesn't he?
If this was the case, I'm not sure I appreciated taking part in the survey... :(

#206
TheClonesLegacy

TheClonesLegacy
  • Members
  • 19 014 messages
Destroy is the most Logical option (Honestly if your going to defend an ending where Robots and computers are all turned into Fleshy things because Magic, your beyond help) I quote Spock "The Needs Of the Many Outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" the Reapers Had to die, because what makes anyone think Synthesis will cause the Reapers to ****** off?. Therefore Regarding Destroy Even if it did cause the Death of all Synthetic Life they still made up a small population of the Galaxy, Organics outnumbered them (Considering non-sentient Organics also) theres nothing Moral about any of the Options it's pure Logic with no room for Improvisation or Imagination.
There's no good or evil to any option.

#207
PsyrenY

PsyrenY
  • Members
  • 5 238 messages

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

the Reapers Had to die, because what makes anyone think Synthesis will cause the Reapers to ****** off?


1) Because their leader said they would.
2) They did.

#208
TheClonesLegacy

TheClonesLegacy
  • Members
  • 19 014 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

the Reapers Had to die, because what makes anyone think Synthesis will cause the Reapers to ****** off?


1) Because their leader said they would.
2) They did.

I say they were Biding their time, y'know when the Turians and Quarians Starve to death. 

#209
KingZayd

KingZayd
  • Members
  • 5 344 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

the Reapers Had to die, because what makes anyone think Synthesis will cause the Reapers to ****** off?


1) Because their leader said they would.
2) They did.


And what stops them from changing their mind and killing us?

#210
GreenSoda

GreenSoda
  • Members
  • 1 214 messages
Synthesis = Solving racism by turning everyone white.

It is known.

#211
PsyrenY

PsyrenY
  • Members
  • 5 238 messages

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
I say they were Biding their time, y'know when the Turians and Quarians Starve to death. 


Assuming synthesized races even need food anymore, the Quarians have plenty. (The Turians may get bored with veggies after awhile though.)

KingZayd wrote...

And what stops them from changing their mind and killing us?


We're not organic anymore. Why would they?

#212
Pride Demon

Pride Demon
  • Members
  • 1 342 messages

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Destroy is the most Logical option (Honestly if your going to defend an ending where Robots and computers are all turned into Fleshy things because Magic, your beyond help) I quote Spock "The Needs Of the Many Outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" the Reapers Had to die, because what makes anyone think Synthesis will cause the Reapers to ****** off?. Therefore Regarding Destroy Even if it did cause the Death of all Synthetic Life they still made up a small population of the Galaxy, Organics outnumbered them (Considering non-sentient Organics also) theres nothing Moral about any of the Options it's pure Logic with no room for Improvisation or Imagination.
There's no good or evil to any option.

That's your opinion, it's worthy of respect, but it's an opinion...
Still "The Needs Of the Many Outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" in the context of the ending, would mean that between "freedom", "diversity" and "right to life" you consider "right to life" to be the expendable one...
Others may priorize differently...

#213
Bill Casey

Bill Casey
  • Members
  • 7 609 messages

Pride Demon wrote...

A more elaborate way of saying "I'm right, you are wrong and there's nothing you can do about it"...


That's only because it's ****ing true...

#214
Grimwick

Grimwick
  • Members
  • 2 250 messages
 

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

And what stops them from changing their mind and killing us?


We're not organic anymore. Why would they?


The question is actually why wouldn't they?

They are nothing but sentient superweapons. Just because we're not organic anymore doesn't mean that at some point in the future they won't decide to exterminate us.

#215
TheClonesLegacy

TheClonesLegacy
  • Members
  • 19 014 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
I say they were Biding their time, y'know when the Turians and Quarians Starve to death. 


Assuming synthesized races even need food anymore, the Quarians have plenty. (The Turians may get bored with veggies after awhile though.)

We're not organic anymore. Why would they?

I'd imagine Synthesized Races Still need to eat, after all where would they get the energy to perform Tasks? I ain't seeing an Extention cord in Jokers Ass During the last bit of the ending.
Also the Quarians still have the best bet of living the Turians don't they can't eat Human food and their Fleet (Unlike the Quarians) is a War fleet, and I'd imagine have a limited amount of Military Provisions

#216
TheClonesLegacy

TheClonesLegacy
  • Members
  • 19 014 messages

Pride Demon wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Destroy is the most Logical option (Honestly if your going to defend an ending where Robots and computers are all turned into Fleshy things because Magic, your beyond help) I quote Spock "The Needs Of the Many Outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" the Reapers Had to die, because what makes anyone think Synthesis will cause the Reapers to ****** off?. Therefore Regarding Destroy Even if it did cause the Death of all Synthetic Life they still made up a small population of the Galaxy, Organics outnumbered them (Considering non-sentient Organics also) theres nothing Moral about any of the Options it's pure Logic with no room for Improvisation or Imagination.
There's no good or evil to any option.

That's your opinion, it's worthy of respect, but it's an opinion...
Still "The Needs Of the Many Outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" in the context of the ending, would mean that between "freedom", "diversity" and "right to life" you consider "right to life" to be the expendable one...
Others may priorize differently...

I Accept this response.

#217
survivor_686

survivor_686
  • Members
  • 1 543 messages
In response to OP and the kotaku guy who loved synthesis

- Synthesis at its core represents an imposition of your will on the entirety of all life in the galaxy. Basically this puts on par with the likes of history's most infamous dictators.

- It represents "forced ascension". The Mass Effect series shows what happens when an entire species is "ascended" before its ready, aka the Krogan. A brief spurt of prosperity followed by chaos, anarchy, war and death. Now imagine those effects spread across the entire galaxy.

- The Reapers are still a major player. As far as we can tell in the green ending, the Reapers are still a potent force. All we have is starchild's word that the reapers would cease their attacks, this coming from the leader of a group that has weaved lies and fabrications to get their way. If anything now we've made it easier for the Reapers to take control over us (hacking and what not)

- Cultural, social and psychological implications. Imagine the chaos as the entire galaxy realizes that their genetic data has been rewritten without their consent or knowledge. Some would keep fighting the Reapers, believing that their life is over. Others would give in to their lust for power and try to exact control over the fellow beings. Others would give into despair. Would concepts of privacy and intimacy still exist?

- Synthetics don't have DNA. No matter how much you dress it up, its impossible for a robot to have DNA. Basic biology would reject synthesis outright.

For those whom believe that synthesis would lead to intergalactic peace. None of the evidence provided would suggest that having half-robot DNA would lead to peace.

#218
Madecologist

Madecologist
  • Members
  • 1 452 messages
I am not sure where the peace parts come from. Sure the Catalyst says it... but a lot of people say the word peace. Doesn't mean it will happen. Even if you take the ending at face value and believe it will remove any future synthetic versus organic conflicts because everything is a 'new hybrid'.

You still have the issue of what stops 1st Gen hybrids of creating new 'hybrids' (assuming all new synthetics will be hybrids too). Perhaps there is no reproduction and all new life is 'created'. Or reproduction and 'creation' yields the same results, or that 1st gen hybrids have the same capabilities of self modification and improvement than any newly created hybrid would have... who knows...

But even if we accept that and remove created versus the creator conflict, there is still one major problem left. Synthetics were quite apt at killing other synthetics, organics were quite apt at killing other organics, and old hybrids (Reapers being the closest to one) were quite apt and killing everything. So even if you somehow remove the threat the premise of 'technological singularity' brings forth... you don't bring peace.

You removed one motive of war only, and here I am not discussing how bad or not bad this one type of war can or can not be. So even if you did solve technological singularity, you haven't achieved peace. There will be wars, ugly wars, for the million and one reasons beings wage wars. Everything being a 'hybrid' might resolve some of these reasons but I doubt it will resolve all of them.

Modifié par Madecologist, 07 mai 2012 - 09:32 .


#219
KingZayd

KingZayd
  • Members
  • 5 344 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
I say they were Biding their time, y'know when the Turians and Quarians Starve to death. 


Assuming synthesized races even need food anymore, the Quarians have plenty. (The Turians may get bored with veggies after awhile though.)

KingZayd wrote...

And what stops them from changing their mind and killing us?


We're not organic anymore. Why would they?


Because the only living things that have been around for over 50000 years are: The Thorian (who it seems the reapers either didn't know of or didn't care about. I personally suspect the former). Javik (due to being preserved in a hidden location), The Collectors (who serve Harbinger), The Keepers (who serve the Citadel), and the Reapers. Oh and Primitives.

No advanced organic civilisations were spared. No advanced synthetic civilisations were spared. And if there were advanced organo-synthetic civilsations (like the zha'til that the Protheans destroyed), they were not spared.

As Sovereign said: The Reapers are the end of everything.

Modifié par KingZayd, 07 mai 2012 - 09:51 .


#220
Bill Casey

Bill Casey
  • Members
  • 7 609 messages

Pride Demon wrote...

Others may priorize differently...

Others like...

Geth Prime: We will not relinquish sentience. There will be no more compromise with the old machines.

EDI: It is the right of sapients to live freely and securely, that is worth non-functionality.

#221
survivor_686

survivor_686
  • Members
  • 1 543 messages

Bill Casey wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Others may priorize differently...

Others like...

Geth Prime: We will not relinquish sentience. There will be no more compromise with the old machines.

EDI: It is the right of sapients to live freely and securely, that is worth non-functionality.



Permission to destroy reapers, you heard it commander straight from the machines themselves.

#222
Pride Demon

Pride Demon
  • Members
  • 1 342 messages

Bill Casey wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Others may priorize differently...

Others like...

Geth Prime: We will not relinquish sentience. There will be no more compromise with the old machines.

EDI: It is the right of sapients to live freely and securely, that is worth non-functionality.

Legion: Do we deserve death?

No one asked the Geth if they were willing to all get killed for the good of the galaxy, or if they were ok in becoming the galaxy sacrificial lamb, as sapients they also have the right to live freely and securely: the "right of life" states every human (or we may extend it to all life) has the right to live and not getting killed by another...

As each geth is a true AI now, I guess each has its own opinion, a few may be ok with dying for the cause, but that doesn't mean all are...

Chosing Destroy means you consider "right to life" the less important, Synthesis makes "diversity" the less important, Control "freedom" the less important...
Since not everyone chose Destroy, empirical evidence suggests that my statement "Other may priorize differently" is correct...

#223
Bill Casey

Bill Casey
  • Members
  • 7 609 messages
No it doesn't...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 07 mai 2012 - 09:50 .


#224
Pride Demon

Pride Demon
  • Members
  • 1 342 messages

Bill Casey wrote...

No it doesn't...

You can prove everyone who ever played ME3 chose the Destroy ending? Fork over the data then...
Otherwise your point is moot.

Modifié par Pride Demon, 07 mai 2012 - 09:49 .


#225
Bill Casey

Bill Casey
  • Members
  • 7 609 messages
No it isn't...