9087 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
No, if he did value organic life he would never apply the havest cycle as his salution...

That I prune my rosebush is a sign that I value it. Though I'm sure the rosebush would disagree. Different perspectives. They value organic life as a whole and sacrifice single branches to protect that whole. Perfectly consistent.

Your rose bush doesn't have a will. The fact that he ignores the say of advance organic life makes it clear he does not respect organic life.

Having a will doesn't make a difference for valuing anything. Besides, when did "value" change to "respect". You're changing your stance with every post you make.

Yes, it does. That means they have wants and needs...it extends to awarness, making it more important. The fact that the reapers are not even considering what organics what makes what they are doing wrong. The advance ones ar able to understand there point given time, but they can find another way to solve the problem. 
You don't notice how dangerous you way of think is? It's lead to much deeath and inslavement for people. I doubt any one would want someones consept of evolution forced on to them.
And value leads to respect.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mai 2012 - 02:05 .

[antares_sublight]

Aside from the laughable fact that to have any sort of semi-reasonable support of synthesis you not only have to throw out canon dialog from multiple characters in the game, but also statements from the developers...most of my questions remain. A couple are:

So... plants are intelligent now and can deliberately alter themselves? Just how intelligent is plant life now?
What about microorganisms like viruses and bacteria?

[Uncle Jo]

So if I understand it good, you're defending an option where you basically rape all the galaxy, turning every one into a husk without their consent.. And you're achieving this by jumping into a energy beam that transforms Shep in bulky, green atoms which combine with every single living thing in the Galaxy? And this for the greater good of everyone?

Why bother taking Shep? Why not another Human?

Just remember me what was Mass Effect about ? Destroy the Reapers.
What's Hackett saying all along the game ? Destroy the Reapers.
Anderson ? Destroy the Reapers.
Your Squademates ? Destroy the Reapers.
Your Allies ? Destroy the Reapers.

-Shepard: "TIM think of a way to control the Reapers"
-Hackett: "He's wrong. Destroy them. It's an order."

Another main theme in ME was "try to find a way coexist peacefully, although we're all different". Synthesis exaclty contradicts this.

Merging synthetics and organics to create new uber-beings with no flaws. Wow. That's pure eugenism. You're violating the very way the Nature works. You're playing God here.

What did the brat say already ? "Synthesis will end the cycle but we need each other to accomplish this"... Really ? By the way, the Reapers think of themselves as the pinnacle of the evolution and they are also a combination of organics and synthetics (Harvest). So why would we do something that's exactly what they want at the end?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 21 mai 2012 - 02:57 .

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...
Aside from the laughable fact that to have any sort of semi-reasonable support of synthesis you not only have to throw out canon dialog from multiple characters in the game, but also statements from the developers...most of my questions remain. A couple are:

So... plants are intelligent now and can deliberately alter themselves? Just how intelligent is plant life now?
What about microorganisms like viruses and bacteria?

Bull****. I can tell you to the point what I have done:

(1) I interpret "A new...DNA" as metaphorical. Which it actually rather obviously is meant to be, given the pause.
(2) I interpret "final evolution of life" as "the possible end of natural evolution of intelligent life", because anything else makes no sense.

Since (1) is pretty much intended as a metaphor, the only concept I have basically thrown away is the "final evolution of life". Because, you know, there is no such thing. Would you rather insist on me using the literal meaning so that you can make fun of me and discredit my arguments with less effort?

As for the plants, nowhere is it even remotely suggested that they're now intelligent. Using my interpretation, they may have inert nanite clusters as symbionts. And since in my interpretation, the symbionts are useless for beings with no creative intelligence, lower life forms don't need them - and may not have them. This does not contradict anything, btw. - or have you seen a half-synthetic single-cell organism anywhere? If Synthesis takes a step along a specific path of development, it stands to reason that only higher life forms are affected anyway.

[Jadebaby]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
No, if he did value organic life he would never apply the havest cycle as his salution...

That I prune my rosebush is a sign that I value it. Though I'm sure the rosebush would disagree. Different perspectives. They value organic life as a whole and sacrifice single branches to protect that whole. Perfectly consistent.

But would you continue to prune your rosebush if it started to cry and scream whenever you cut a branch?

[Jadebaby]

Uncle Jo wrote...

So if I understand it good, you're defending an option where you basically rape all the galaxy, turning every one into a husk without their consent.. And you're achieving this by jumping into a energy beam that transforms Shep in bulky, green atoms which combine with every single living thing in the Galaxy? And this for the greater good of everyone?

Why bother taking Shep? Why not another Human?

Just remember me what was Mass Effect about ? Destroy the Reapers.
What's Hackett saying all along the game ? Destroy the Reapers.
Anderson ? Destroy the Reapers.
Your Squademates ? Destroy the Reapers.
Your Allies ? Destroy the Reapers.

-Shepard: "TIM think of a way to control the Reapers"
-Hackett: "He's wrong. Destroy them. It's an order."

Another main theme in ME was "try to find a way coexist peacefully, although we're all different". Synthesis exaclty contradicts this.

Merging synthetics and organics to create new uber-beings with no flaws. Wow. That's pure eugenism. You're violating the very way the Nature works. You're playing God here.

What did the brat say already ? "Synthesis will end the cycle but we need each other to accomplish this"... Really ? By the way, the Reapers think of themselves as the pinnacle of the evolution and they are also a combination of organics and synthetics (Harvest). So why would we do something that's exactly what they want at the end?

I curtsey you and tilt my hat to you, good sir!

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...
Aside from the laughable fact that to have any sort of semi-reasonable support of synthesis you not only have to throw out canon dialog from multiple characters in the game, but also statements from the developers...most of my questions remain. A couple are:

So... plants are intelligent now and can deliberately alter themselves? Just how intelligent is plant life now?
What about microorganisms like viruses and bacteria?

Bull****. I can tell you to the point what I have done:

(1) I interpret "A new...DNA" as metaphorical. Which it actually rather obviously is meant to be, given the pause.
(2) I interpret "final evolution of life" as "the possible end of natural evolution of intelligent life", because anything else makes no sense.

Since (1) is pretty much intended as a metaphor, the only concept I have basically thrown away is the "final evolution of life". Because, you know, there is no such thing. Would you rather insist on me using the literal meaning so that you can make fun of me and discredit my arguments with less effort?

As for the plants, nowhere is it even remotely suggested that they're now intelligent. Using my interpretation, they may have inert nanite clusters as symbionts. And since in my interpretation, the symbionts are useless for beings with no creative intelligence, lower life forms don't need them - and may not have them. This does not contradict anything, btw. - or have you seen a half-synthetic single-cell organism anywhere? If Synthesis takes a step along a specific path of development, it stands to reason that only higher life forms are affected anyway.

Touchy? But you basically repeated what I said. In order for you to make up anything semi-sensible, you have to reinterpret direct dialog from the game and developers and throw out a proportionally very large amount of information from the game about this topic.

So then... what do these "symbiotic nanite clusters" do in plant life, viruses and bacteria do? What's the purpose of them being "inert"? Will they activate when these life forms evolve intelligence? How intelligent are these nanites? How much control fo these parasitic things over their host?

The Catalyst says ALL life is changed. Are you throwing out even more of the very few statements in the game about synthesis? It most certainly does not "stand to reason" that only intelligent life is affected, the Catalyst, your ONLY source of information about synthesis says all life is affected.

[antares_sublight]

Also, how do these nanite clusters taste? My original question: do they make spinach crunchy? How edible is vegetable and meat food now?

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...
Aside from the laughable fact that to have any sort of semi-reasonable support of synthesis you not only have to throw out canon dialog from multiple characters in the game, but also statements from the developers...most of my questions remain. A couple are:

So... plants are intelligent now and can deliberately alter themselves? Just how intelligent is plant life now?
What about microorganisms like viruses and bacteria?

Bull****. I can tell you to the point what I have done:

(1) I interpret "A new...DNA" as metaphorical. Which it actually rather obviously is meant to be, given the pause.
(2) I interpret "final evolution of life" as "the possible end of natural evolution of intelligent life", because anything else makes no sense.

Since (1) is pretty much intended as a metaphor, the only concept I have basically thrown away is the "final evolution of life". Because, you know, there is no such thing. Would you rather insist on me using the literal meaning so that you can make fun of me and discredit my arguments with less effort?

As for the plants, nowhere is it even remotely suggested that they're now intelligent. Using my interpretation, they may have inert nanite clusters as symbionts. And since in my interpretation, the symbionts are useless for beings with no creative intelligence, lower life forms don't need them - and may not have them. This does not contradict anything, btw. - or have you seen a half-synthetic single-cell organism anywhere? If Synthesis takes a step along a specific path of development, it stands to reason that only higher life forms are affected anyway.

That the whole problem...It's your interpetation on something that is vague. Anything anyone comes up with based on the vague explinations of the star child is irrelivent. What is important is what he feels it means. He's the one that offers it and know how it works, he is the one to apply it. Being so, the fault of assuming it onthing when it means something else is the biggest counter to your arguement. You don't knoiw how he thinks or means, thus they is no way you or I can know. The problem is an issue of trust, which the starchild has not shown that can be given based on his history. That fact that it has multiple possiblities for what he means makes the choice at fault because their is an even chance it can go ageints you goal.
You can't trust the starchild.

[Ieldra]

@Uncle_Jo:
Oh my....so many flaws in a single post. Let me help you out:

(1) That Synthesis turns everyone into husks is nonsense. Joker and EDI look pretty much like themselves.
(2) It is our goal to stop the Reapers. Destroying them is *one* way to do that. For a long time, it appeared it was the only one. That's why everyone said it's what must be done. New possibilities appeared, foreshadowed by TIM, confirmed and expanded in the Catalyst dialogue. This was new information. Being unable to mentally adapt to new information is a sign of mental deficiency.
(3) Nowhere is it suggested post-Synthesis intelligent life will have no flaws. Gaining more power and understanding does not equal gaining infinite power and understanding, even less a perfectly working moral compass. Even more to the point, mistakes you still make tend to have bigger consequences.
(4) Eugenics means "improving the gene pool of a population". First, nothing of that kind is done, since - read the OP - it's not a genetic rewrite. Second, it's not a bad goal as such. It only becomes problematic with the methods used, particularly if your opinion of what's good is tainted by a political ideology.
(5) There is no "violation of nature". I am part of nature, and so is everything I do. There is no imperative to leave anything untouched by the hands of intelligent life. It's just a useful guideline at times.
(6) I am not "playing god", I am trying to act as a responsible god. Godlike power is thrust into my hands by the situation, I do not have the option not to use it or the galaxy will fall to the Reapers. I am called to use it as best as I can.

So, please try to understand what I've written before you go on to demonize Synthesis with baseless assertions and association fallacies.

[Uncle Jo]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

So if I understand it good, you're defending an option where you basically rape all the galaxy, turning every one into a husk without their consent.. And you're achieving this by jumping into a energy beam that transforms Shep in bulky, green atoms which combine with every single living thing in the Galaxy? And this for the greater good of everyone?

Why bother taking Shep? Why not another Human?

Just remember me what was Mass Effect about ? Destroy the Reapers.
What's Hackett saying all along the game ? Destroy the Reapers.
Anderson ? Destroy the Reapers.
Your Squademates ? Destroy the Reapers.
Your Allies ? Destroy the Reapers.

-Shepard: "TIM think of a way to control the Reapers"
-Hackett: "He's wrong. Destroy them. It's an order."

Another main theme in ME was "try to find a way coexist peacefully, although we're all different". Synthesis exaclty contradicts this.

Merging synthetics and organics to create new uber-beings with no flaws. Wow. That's pure eugenism. You're violating the very way the Nature works. You're playing God here.

What did the brat say already ? "Synthesis will end the cycle but we need each other to accomplish this"... Really ? By the way, the Reapers think of themselves as the pinnacle of the evolution and they are also a combination of organics and synthetics (Harvest). So why would we do something that's exactly what they want at the end?

I curtsey you and tilt my hat to you, good sir!

Thanks . But it's really no big deal. I don't think that anyone with some common sense could possibly buy Synthesis as plausible alternative. Taken at face value, I would even give more credit to the control option... Wait... No, no way...

[antares_sublight]

Also, seeing as how the trees are glowing in the synthesis ending sequence... I fail to see how there is anything inert there.

And...

Ieldra2 wrote...
(6) I am not "playing god", I am trying to act as a responsible god.

Umm...

Modifié par antares_sublight, 21 mai 2012 - 03:30 .

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Uncle_Jo:
Oh my....so many flaws in a single post. Let me help you out:

(1) That Synthesis turns everyone into husks is nonsense. Joker and EDI look pretty much like themselves.
(2) It is our goal to stop the Reapers. Destroying them is *one* way to do that. For a long time, it appeared it was the only one. That's why everyone said it's what must be done. New possibilities appeared, foreshadowed by TIM, confirmed and expanded in the Catalyst dialogue. This was new information. Being unable to mentally adapt to new information is a sign of mental deficiency.
(3) Nowhere is it suggested post-Synthesis intelligent life will have no flaws. Gaining more power and understanding does not equal gaining infinite power and understanding, even less a perfectly working moral compass. Even more to the point, mistakes you still make tend to have bigger consequences.
(4) Eugenics means "improving the gene pool of a population". First, nothing of that kind is done, since - read the OP - it's not a genetic rewrite. Second, it's not a bad goal as such. It only becomes problematic with the methods used, particularly if your opinion of what's good is tainted by a political ideology.
(5) There is no "violation of nature". I am part of nature, and so is everything I do. There is no imperative to leave anything untouched by the hands of intelligent life. It's just a useful guideline at times.
(6) I am not "playing god", I am trying to act as a responsible god. Godlike power is thrust into my hands by the situation, I do not have the option not to use it or the galaxy will fall to the Reapers. I am called to use it as best as I can.

So, please try to understand what I've written before you go on to demonize Synthesis with baseless assertions and association fallacies.

1.Who said it turn everyone to husk? That not the only thing implantation does...Look at Saren ,TIM and every cerberus solder.
2.But working with them is not. That is what you are doing insynthesis...Helping them achevie their goal.
3.You not getting that fact that it doesn't solve the problem the reapers present. Why is it an option of the reapers if it solves nothing? Why does the starchild guarantee that it solves everything when he gives no reasons why or how it will solve everything?
4.How do you impove the gene pool of synthetics? How does putting tech in someones body impove their DNA?
5.HA...Look around you...Check the news, watch some animal mating patterns....Organics have been proven time and time agein of having the need of conflict in their nature...Just because you can control it in yourself doesn't mean it's not there.
6.If you are imposing you ideas and will on a populance in this degree...You are.

[Ieldra]

@dreman:
Belaboring the point about trusting the Catalyst is irrelevant. I and others have made the point repeatedly that arguments from narrative structure and intent as well as the fact that the Catalyst didn't have to do anything to just win the war signify that it does not lie. That you refuse to accept that doesn't make your assertion true.

Besides, I have not said that I absolutely know the results. I have proposed a scenario for a version of Synthesis that (a) sticks to the basic notion of combining organics and synthetics, ( is made to resolve the organic/synthetic problem, © is in line with the visual presentation, (d) is in the spirit of the pseudo-utopian imagery without actually going there.

You see, the description by the Catalyst is not the only information we have. I am not saying my scenario is the only one that fits. But it's comprehensive and consistent, and it fits the suggestion made by the game that Synthesis is a good ending. That information is in the game, if implicitly.

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

(6) I am not "playing god", I am trying to act as a responsible god. Godlike power is thrust into my hands by the situation, I do not have the option not to use it or the galaxy will fall to the Reapers. I am called to use it as best as I can.

Wow man. Just wow....

Edit: a longer answer is coming...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 21 mai 2012 - 03:41 .

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@dreman:
Belaboring the point about trusting the Catalyst is irrelevant.

Sorry, it is relivent. I'll end it at that. He's the one that offers it, he's the one that knows how it works...That makes tust a relivent thing.
And your still not understanding the problem with synthetics and organics is the alien nature of synthetic and the need of conflict of organics. This is something that can only besolve by manipulation of the nature of these beings, cutting out the nature of thes being or findiing a way for them to have mutual ground....Technology never find a way of mutual ground with conflicting sides, it alway does the opposite.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mai 2012 - 03:43 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...


(3) Nowhere is it suggested post-Synthesis intelligent life will have no flaws. Gaining more power and understanding does not equal gaining infinite power and understanding, even less a perfectly working moral compass. Even more to the point, mistakes you still make tend to have bigger consequences.
(4) Eugenics means "improving the gene pool of a population". First, nothing of that kind is done, since - read the OP - it's not a genetic rewrite. Second, it's not a bad goal as such. It only becomes problematic with the methods used, particularly if your opinion of what's good is tainted by a political ideology.
(5) There is no "violation of nature". I am part of nature, and so is everything I do. There is no imperative to leave anything untouched by the hands of intelligent life. It's just a useful guideline at times.
(6) I am not "playing god", I am trying to act as a responsible god. Godlike power is thrust into my hands by the situation, I do not have the option not to use it or the galaxy will fall to the Reapers. I am called to use it as best as I can.

So, please try to understand what I've written before you go on to demonize Synthesis with baseless assertions and association fallacies.

You make baseless assertations all the time. You assume that this is what Bioware intended with Synthesis.

3) 4) Gaining more power and understanding is a forced change. You understand that it's implementation would change brain chemistry? You accuse others of having a political agenda, when you yourself have one. Synthesis is authoritarian in nature. You assume that's what people and do it anyway. Forcing things upon people without prior knowledge and consent is absurd, how can you justify that?

5) Violation of nature is affecting the way it functions. There is a difference between coexisting with it and changing it. You interfere on a basic level. You bring an order to a hypothetical chaos. What you suggest brings an end to an existential fear, the fear of being wiped out by a greater force. I'd say that removing something like that by brining Synthetics and Organics is interfering with nature. Chaos is the natural state of the Universe and therefore the galaxy.

6) Do you remember yesterday when we discussed the concept of god? That we cannot possibly define it? A choice on such a scale made by a human is made from false concept of importance. Shepard is no god. He is man/woman with a variety of flaws. He has no right to interfere on such a grand scale. Synthesis affects eveything in the Galaxy.

[antares_sublight]

Synthesis' role in and affect on plant life, food and microorganisms are inexplicable to pro-synthites. It's my favorite, so many unanswerable questions.

[dreman9999]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...


(3) Nowhere is it suggested post-Synthesis intelligent life will have no flaws. Gaining more power and understanding does not equal gaining infinite power and understanding, even less a perfectly working moral compass. Even more to the point, mistakes you still make tend to have bigger consequences.
(4) Eugenics means "improving the gene pool of a population". First, nothing of that kind is done, since - read the OP - it's not a genetic rewrite. Second, it's not a bad goal as such. It only becomes problematic with the methods used, particularly if your opinion of what's good is tainted by a political ideology.
(5) There is no "violation of nature". I am part of nature, and so is everything I do. There is no imperative to leave anything untouched by the hands of intelligent life. It's just a useful guideline at times.
(6) I am not "playing god", I am trying to act as a responsible god. Godlike power is thrust into my hands by the situation, I do not have the option not to use it or the galaxy will fall to the Reapers. I am called to use it as best as I can.

So, please try to understand what I've written before you go on to demonize Synthesis with baseless assertions and association fallacies.

6) Do you remember yesterday when we discussed the concept of god? That we cannot possibly define it? A choice on such a scale made by a human is made from false concept of importance. Shepard is no god. He is man/woman with a variety of flaws. He has no right to interfere on such a grand scale. Synthesis affects eveything in the Galaxy.

A man dream of only being a man...A god dreams of only being a god...

[dreman9999]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(6) I am not "playing god", I am trying to act as a responsible god. Godlike power is thrust into my hands by the situation, I do not have the option not to use it or the galaxy will fall to the Reapers. I am called to use it as best as I can.

Wow man. Just wow....

Edit: a longer answer is coming...

...I know right....And he/she still don't see the problem with this...He/She is begining to sound like the Illusive man.

[antares_sublight]

How are venus fly traps affected by synthesis?

How does organic decay change after synthesis? Do the nanites die and decay? Does synthesized fungus consume synthetic material now?

[Vlta]

The farther the debate goes on with synthesis the more it looks like those who support it have a very authoritarian view. I mean Ieldra2 here seems to think it's not playing god to change people but being responsible. A lot of dictators hold those kinds of views and well you know how that turns out....

Also you're not giving godlike powers. If you were giving power on that scale you could have simply eradicated the Reapers and called it a day. What you are giving is three choices by a thing with godlike powers and told to choose between the three options with little to no reasoning.

[MacTavish]

Well im glad i chose synthesis as an ending afterall. Also the fact that shepard sacrifaced EVERYTHING: his life, his friends, his love and his beliefs and ideals just to ensure a symbiotic state, that fact alone makes my Shepard a hero greater than those who would decide to dominate or destroy.

[Taboo]

Vlta wrote...

The farther the debate goes on with synthesis the more it looks like those who support it have a very authoritarian view. I mean Ieldra2 here seems to think it's not playing god to change people but being responsible. A lot of dictators hold those kinds of views and well you know how that turns out....

Also you're not giving godlike powers. If you were giving power on that scale you could have simply eradicated the Reapers and called it a day. What you are giving is three choices by a thing with godlike powers and told to choose between the three options with little to no reasoning.

This.

[dreman9999]

Mactav3 wrote...

Well im glad i chose synthesis as an ending afterall. Also the fact that shepard sacrifaced EVERYTHING: his life, his friends, his love and his beliefs and ideals just to ensure a symbiotic state, that fact alone makes my Shepard a hero greater than those who would decide to dominate or destroy.

Your being sarcastic...RIGHT?