Vigilant111 wrote...
@macroberts:
1. Yes, now the reapers are set free, and that is dangerous, u are expecting that they would be benevolent, but they are under no obligations to listen to you
(What is it with u and processed cheese?
)
2. You seem to believe that synthesis is a proactive choice, I think I am okay with that but I also think it is unnecessary, I am sure if Shepard doesn't take the offer, there are a bunch of other people will snap up the chance like no tomorrow, it is not something that Shepard should be worrying about
4. No, no I am not saying that there shouldn't be responsibilities to be discharged, but I am saying that such responsibilities are too big for one person to handle, this person must be well adviced, well informed, otherwise it is a gamble, and it is irresponsible to do so, we have never received any concrete information about what exactly synthesis does and its effects, and fanfic does not count unforturnately. Even if one person CAN decide such things, there still need to be other external factors to facilitate and maintain synthesis so that everything goes smoothly, and these factors are beyond Shepard's control
5. Yes, I understand perfectly
6. It is not so much that conflict is inevitable, cos we all know in real life and in game, peace is rare, but u assume that conflicts automatically mean the eratication of all organics, and that is worrying
7. What I meant is that in synthesis, the nature of the people has been preset, it is almost like their fate has been sealed, and (I hate to say this) the pinnacle of evolution has been reached - arrested development, in other options, people have not changed a bit...well unless u can can tell me that there is a button to revert to the pre-synthesis world, resonable right? reset point;)
8. The Catalyst's reasonings are extremely complicated, and I do not have time to list all possible scenarios and too much speculations about that, I was only highlighting that the rise of synthetics does not immediately result in the extinction of organics
9. I think it is quite relevant because while technology helps us to better life, it also makes us lazy and greedy (build better weapons to bring wars), ultimately to doom. Synthesis, which is bringing in these so-called desirable technological advancements, may not be all that beneficial as first thought, may even become a burden, I mean u don't want to glow green when u are trying to sleep right? (and now you will argue that super beings don't sleep, go on, have your fun)
Synthesis is quite a denial to self-determination because people are robbed of a right to choose whether they want synthesis or not, and since the implementation of synthesis is galactic wide...well, it is no point talking about individualism cos being an "individual" is no longer important
Yes, I understand it is a numbers game, but that number is TOO BIG, we are talking about TRILLIONS of individuals, not just one or two that might oppose to synthesis, THE WHOLE galaxy is robbed a chance to say anything, how is Shepard going to answer to that?
I think the ending failed to show a comprehensive picture about repercussions and consequences, so far it only showed the "good" or benign stuff, but failed to show downsides and boldly left it to gamers' imagination
As usual, if you are going to read this, I suggest you read my previous posts, on pg 95. Also, hooray for page 100!
@ Vigilant111
First thing I did when I woke up was read the thread and reply to you. Bask in the honour, my friend. =D
I think Shepard is the only man who can make the decision. He's the only person who has the information that the Starchild gives him. He's the only one who's actually informed as to the situation at hand. Of course in a perfect world, he'd be able to get advice etc etc. But this is never a perfect world. And as I said in my first post, it's not the first time Shepard has had the fate of a race in his hands. He never fully consulted on giving geth Reaper code over Quarian survival, giving Krogan genophage cure, or gving a chance to the Rachni.
But in deciding whether or not something is morally right or wrong, I don't feel the numbers involved ever influence whether it is right or wrong. The punishment of what's morally wrong, the condemnation, might be different, but fundamentally, what's wrong, is wrong, and what's right, is right. To take an example, you are being fined and jailed for robbing a bank. That is the moral condemnation against what you did. But you may be punished more if you stole a million bucks over say, two-hundred. Nonetheless, taking a million and taking a couple hundred equates to the same moral wrong: you've stolen something. I feel that the objection against synthesis is significantly stronger if it is "Oh gawd, I can't take this choice, it's morally repugnant" rather than "Oh gawd, I can't take this choice, it affects everyone." If every man in a leadership position acts like that second Shepard nothing will get done, ever. Its the substance, not the magnitude, which truly matters.
I think that organics stand no chance against developed and sentient synthetics. I almost take this as fact. Of course, one can hope organics are good enough to do something about it, but the thing is (and OP said this before) synthetics will adapt to any change you put in at a faster rate to organics. In essence, synthetics are, and will be, better than organics in every single way. Except one. Which is that they do not understand nor share in the experience of life.
I think, to return to what I said in the second half of that post to another poster, that Synthesis is ultimately attempting to solve the organic vs synthetic conflict by putting everyone into the same shared experience of life, furnished with understanding and augmented with technology. By doing this, the Reaper cycle is broken and therefore the Reaper threat is for the immediate moment, but I think for the long term too, removed. The threat of the Reapers still exists perhaps, but it exists in the same way the threat of the Krogan exists, that it'd take a conscious decision on their part to be aggressive. In fact, you're more or less giving the chance for Reapers to self-determine! Sounds familiar? ;-)
Let me just quote from what I said:
"As for changing racial qualities. It is a very human thing to do to identify yourself with distinctive racial qualities and use that as what makes you unique. But I think both you and I agree that what makes a person unique is much more than that. It's not just the accident of birth and parentage, it is most importantly your dreams, aspirations, ideals, and philosophies. Things around you provide the conditions within which you develop these unique thoughts and ideals throughout your life. Are these thoughts, philosophies, ideals, aspirations changed with synthesis? Perhaps they will be changed, but they will not be changed directly because of synthesis. Rather, synthesis changes the condition within which you form these thoughts and ideals which makes you unique. You are free to retain your previous ideals, but you are also free to pursue other opportunities.
I don't know if OP would agree with me on this, but what I feel synthesis ultimately attempts to do is to redefine the experience of life, from a purely organic experience to an experience the synthetic can share in. And in return, the organics get the benefits of augmentations from technology. But at no stage does your individuality, your uniqueness, what makes you different from me, ever disappear. Synthesis is not primarily concerned with making everyone and every individual the same. Synthesis isn't trying to create Utopia or Erewhon. Synthesis is concerned with offering a solution to the problem of an inevitable conflict between synthetics and organics. And so synthesis provides this solution by allowing organics and synthetics to have a shared experience in 'life'. Hence what Walters said when he says "It's just life." Ultimately what makes organics different from synthetic is the experience of life. Once they have that experience, then it is just all life. And because synthesis gives the qualities of synthetics to organics (green, just all green =P) everyone is on an equal footing sharing in the same experience of "new life", so to speak, and that particular conflict ceases to be a problem. It doesn't solve all conflicts, of course. No one is going to guarantee that the krogan ain't gonna need more ryncol distilleries, and Thessia happens to be the perfect climate, y'know (=P). It just solves this particular existential one. But the world is arguably better for this change."
The way I see it, everyone's brought upwards. Everyone now shares in this new experience of life. Everything that makes you you remains exactly and completely the same. Anything can still be changed, and probably will be changed, because synthesis changes the conditions in which a person make their choices. At no point does synthesis suggest that it's the end of evolution, the end to pursuing perfection. That pursuit is never-ending. Indeed, it is suggested by EDI that the pursuit continues. People will continue to seek improvements in their lives. I don't think people will get too comfortable a la Wall-E and spend the rest of their lives in a chair. What I'm saying is synthesis will open up new opportunities for you to do whatever you want.
It is awfully..... intangible, the change. To cover some of the objections to synthesis, no, synthesis doesn't change what makes you you. Synthesis does not create a hive mind. Synthesis does not homogenize. What I'm saying is that fundamentally synthesis brings everyone to a shared experience in life. By shared I don't mean everyone has the same. By shared I mean everyone
has a new experience of life. A form of new life which combines an experience of life with the benefits of technology. Have a think about how this might affect you. How would having
a different form of life change you? It is hugely difficult to imagine. But at the crux of it, you are still you. You still retain everything which made you unique. The only real change synthesis brings is that one of the conditions within which you are you, and within which you decide what you want, is different. You now have more paths opened to you and for you to pursue. The only way this idea of a hive-mind could be instituted is if people chose to do so. Again, synthesis does not forceth, nor does it taketh away. It just giveth. (XD)
And I hate processed cheese. It represents everything bad about the world. =P
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I could tackle self-determination again. I did this briefly in my first post, but since it's come up again and again I want to go into more detail.
As I understand it, the idea goes something like "You can't force a change onto everyone when no-one of the everyone has had a say on whether or not they want that change." Self-determination appears linked with the idea of free will, that a person is free to pursue whatever it is they so desire.
For me, I still maintain that synthesis does not actually change anything within you, nor does it violate some right. Synthesis does not in any way actually change the ability or right for you to pursue whatever it is you want to pursue. But I feel that it is problematic to be claiming such a right in the first place.
To keep it short, free will has its limits. This might be controversial for many of you, but I would suggest that this idea of self-determination and free will is completely over-blown. I'd go as far as to say that this 'right' is merely a limited one, even in reality. Personally, my philosophy has always been one where it's rights with responsibiliities and limits, responsibilities to self, to community, to society, limits set by society and nature. There is no such thing as a completely natural and free right, anywhere. True and complete freedom is as fantastical as it sounds. What we have are rights with responsibilities, and rights with limits. The right of self-determination exists with limits, both man-made (e.g. laws) and natural (e.g. you can't bloody fly off the cliffs of Dover without any help, nature gave you no wings), and you select your choices and pursue your futures within those limits and conditions. They're not tough limits, and most of the time, you don't actually see that they are limits at all (until such a moment when you decide to take a dive of the white, white cliffs of Dover). But the fact is, they are there. You just don't come up against them that often. In other words, no one is ever truly free to decide or self-determine. Everything is done within the conditions and limits set by man and nature.
But let us also approach this from within the game's world. In a way, I feel that the whole existence of life is already robbed of a lot of self-determination because of the Reaper Cycle. There's fairly little of the right as it is, because whatever you do, you are limited by a finality in the cycle. Why bother determining anything if not only you will end (more or less a given anyways, and I acknowledge it's never stopped anyone =D) but the entirety of civilization as you know it will end? The way I see it, the Crucible, Catalyst, and Shepard's Choice is a way to actually return self-determination to the galactic society, without the threat of becoming processed cheese. In other words, in breaking the cycle, you return to the galaxy the hope that you can have a future.
So far then, all three solutions would do that. But which would do that better? Control and Destroy both work very well. The cycle is broken, and people have a future which does not involve becoming processed cheese. But synthesis doesn't just break the cycle. It gives you even more of a freedom to exercise your right to self-determination by changing the conditions within you self-determine yourself. As I've said, what Synthesis does is change the conditions in which you exist as you. You can still do whatever you want, but you can do it with an almost natural help from technology. Of the three choices, Synthesis is the only one which actually gives you a greater freedom to pursue self-determination. It lets you attempt to break the natural limits and conditions within which you pursue your dreams, to determine yourself. Even if you say that there is a right to self-determination regardless of the finality of the Reaper Cycle, the fact remains: by removing the natural limits of organics through synthesis, Shepard gives you even more room to pursue and self-determine yourself.
To put it another way, I personally don't feel people have had or ever had a complete right to self-determination. In reality, it is limited by man-made limits and natural conditions, and in the game, it is limited by a sense of finality of the Reaper Cycle. You work within these limits and conditions to pursue what you want, to have your future, but a future with an end. What breaking the Reaper Cycle does is gives you that future which continues. What synthesis does is gives you that extra step, to change the conditions (namely, changing the natural limits of life) within which you pursue your life and find your future. And if I am accused of violating even that limited right to self-determination, I would argue that I did so to give the galaxy a more real, true, and free self-determination. Yes, I may have rolled over your right , but it is partly because you couldn't haul rear-end to the beam, but mostly because I managed to give you an even greater right to self-determination.
Thanks again for reading. I'm going to take a few steps back from this thread now and see what happens. The only reason why I've been posting here is because I have a load of spare time, and I feel strongly about the issue. Let me just say that the only thing I've really wanted to do through these passages is to demonstrate that Synthesis is not some ending which is horrible, unjustifiable, and demonic. It is in fact as valid as (and in my opinion more so) the other two solutions. I completely respect the merits of the other solutions. I also believe BioWare has done a magnificient job in bringing the three endings back to a quality I expected of them. I believe all three solutions are as valid and justifiable as each other. I just think synthesis has more merit than the rest. =)
I hope you all have a fantastic life. =)
(edit: formatting as usual =P)
(edit 2 and post-script: if you do wish to talk to me about what I've written, whether it be support or objection, and I don't reply to you here in this thread, you can send me a personal message thingy on these forums. I'll try to reply to you as quick as I can, although I'm going to have less time to do so after these few weeks. I won't guarantee I can persuade you, nor should you assume you can persuade me, but I'm sure it would be an interesting conversation. =D)
Modifié par macroberts, 01 juillet 2012 - 03:54 .
Retour en haut
