9089 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I lost all desire to choose Control after the EC. Under no circumstances should an AI made from Shepard be in existence. It has no right to police or dictate what people do.

So don’t police or dictate, and don’t be such a drama queen.

I AM a drama queen.

I DID take theater in High School.

It is ironic that someone tells you do not police or dictate, then immediatly follows it by telling you what not  to do.

It’s actually not ironic, Alanis. Aside from that, your ‘clever’ jibe is slightly blunted by you not understanding what was written…

The effort you spent is about as lazy as most Synthesis justification.

…

So, anyone got any further arguments as for why it makes sense to choose Synthesis instead of Control (-> Synthesis)?

I don’t count ‘having more time to think about it’ as a bad thing.

[MisterJB]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

It is racism in its purest form. Apparently it is for elitist Shepard not enough that those inferior races have the qualities and genes they currently posses and thus they need to be improved. That is the ugly idea behind synthesis. The comparison between the reapers and Germany during WW2 is strong. Especially because synthesis has a history similar to eugenics. The brat mentions that earlier attempts have failed. I take this very seriously and these parts of the ending are all full of themes like that. Genocide being another. Anyway. If you see me comparing it with the Lebensborn project then I do that in the hope that someone looks up what it is and see similarities between that and galaxy wide synthesis.

Now, I can understand that a race decides that synthesis is the way to go. However, in this case it is not voluntary. None of the races are consulted. There is no opt-in and there is no opt-out. It is irreversible. And thus elitism surfaces again in the form of the violation of the right of self-determination by forcing synthesis without their consent.

First and foremost, I truly despise fallacy by association. Because the National Socialist party attempted a form of eugenics, the term is now forever tainted.

However, this is irrelevant to this discussion because Synthesis has no base in racism or anything similar. It is the speeding and culmination of something that is going to happen regardless. Many are already those who use synthetic upgrades to improve their lives and this trend is going to increase, not diminish. Synthesis simply makes it happen now, assures no one will be left behind in the dust, affects synthetics as well but differently; their "DNA" is untouched; and it preserves the lives of the Reapers.
It does not set people in an irreversible path, it simply gives them more means to pursue whatever it is they wish to pursue.

That violation is also true for the control option, but not for the destruction one. Ever since ME1 it is clear that everyone willing to help Shepard wants the destruction of the reapers. In ME3 Shepard once again gets the green light and actively forms alliances with nations, gangs and individuals to destroy the reapers. Everyone seems to be prepared to die for it.

Everyone rejected the control option, the Illusive Man's path, by actively fighting Cerberus. They also rejected the synthesis option, Saren's path, by joining forces to fight him and Sovereign. Even Wrex thought that, even though Saren may hold the key to the genophage cure, it was better to fight him. Saren asked you "Is submission not preferable to extinction?" Even EDI can tell you the answer to that one.

That all means that any other option than destruction is betrayal to those allies.

Needless to say that any of your questions are, given the above, irrelevant and not worth answering.

Individuals are prepared to die for it. But no species is willing to go extinct for it. All of them are simply trying to protect themselves.

None of Shepard's allies had acess to the information the Catalyst gives him.
Control seemed impossible and TIM was killing millions to achieve it, so people fought Cerberus. There was no proof Sovereign and the Reapers (nice name for a band) would ally with us and not simply cause our extinction so, people fought him.
Synthesis is not submission, is is the possibility of cooperation with the Reapers.
Also, curiously, one of the Council policies is that the creation of a true AI spells doom for all organics. Synthesis also offers a way to not make this a certainty.

In light of this, I find it very difficult to believe there would not be many who would wish for Shepard to jump into the green beam of light if questioned about it.

[Vigilant111]

MisterJB wrote...

None of Shepard's allies had acess to the information the Catalyst gives him.
Control seemed impossible and TIM was killing millions to achieve it, so people fought Cerberus. There was no proof Sovereign and the Reapers (nice name for a band) would ally with us and not simply cause our extinction so, people fought him.
Synthesis is not submission, is is the possibility of cooperation with the Reapers.
Also, curiously, one of the Council policies is that the creation of a true AI spells doom for all organics. Synthesis also offers a way to not make this a certainty.

In light of this, I find it very difficult to believe there would not be many who would wish for Shepard to jump into the green beam of light if questioned about it.

You ARE cooperating with them, this is not just a possibility, u can't go back if u change your mind

How did you know that synthesis in this cycle is the only way to not make organics' doom a certainty?

The fate of the organics is sealed?

[MisterJB]

By possibility I meant that the Reapers could have decided to not cooperates with us.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the creation of an AI race means the death of organics. It may not be a certainty but it is a possibiltiy and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

[Vigilant111]

MisterJB wrote...

By possibility I meant that the Reapers could have decided to not cooperates with us.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the creation of an AI race means the death of organics. It may not be a certainty but it is a possibiltiy and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

So synthesis is not the only way?

[AngryFrozenWater]

@macroberts:

Well... A little later than expected. Ghehe. But here it is, sir.

I am in luck. I can skip a lot of the ideas you have about the actual advantages of the implementation. As I've written earlier (quoted below) that implementation is irrelevant to me. Where synthesis starts I have already rejected the idea and want absolutely nothing to do with it. It is pure evil.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

It is racism in its purest form. Apparently it is for elitist Shepard not enough that those inferior races have the qualities and genes they currently posses and thus they need to be improved. That is the ugly idea behind synthesis. The comparison between the reapers and Germany during WW2 is strong. Especially because synthesis has a history similar to eugenics. The brat mentions that earlier attempts have failed. I take this very seriously and these parts of the ending are all full of themes like that. Genocide being another. Anyway. If you see me comparing it with the Lebensborn project then I do that in the hope that someone looks up what it is and see similarities between that and galaxy wide synthesis.

Now, I can understand that a race decides that synthesis is the way to go. However, in this case it is not voluntary. None of the races are consulted. There is no opt-in and there is no opt-out. It is irreversible. And thus elitism surfaces again in the form of the violation of the right of self-determination by forcing synthesis without their consent. That violation is also true for the control option, but not for the destruction one. Ever since ME1 it is clear that everyone willing to help Shepard wants the destruction of the reapers. In ME3 Shepard once again gets the green light and actively forms alliances with nations, gangs and individuals to destroy the reapers. Everyone seems to be prepared to die for it.

Everyone rejected the control option, the Illusive Man's path, by actively fighting Cerberus. They also rejected the synthesis option, Saren's path, by joining forces to fight him and Sovereign. Even Wrex thought that, even though Saren may hold the key to the genophage cure, it was better to fight him. Saren asked you "Is submission not preferable to extinction?" Even EDI can tell you the answer to that one.

That all means that any other option than destruction is betrayal to those allies.

I am not willing to discuss what acceptable racial identity changes are. Any forced change is in my view unexceptable. Mac Walters' exact quote was: "There is no Geth or Krogan anymore, just 'Life!'" To me that means it is at least "radical". The glowing eyes and chip patterns confirm that. The victims show no signs of pain during their forced physical transformation. It is as if something messes with their mind to accept their new state. And whether the changes are good or bad, the cinematics shows an utopian society in true Disney style. That pipe dream and the painless genetic/synthetic mutilation has to be fueled by a process similar to indoctrination or another form of mind control.

macroberts wrote...

As for the idea of enforcing the Reapers' will. I really don't know about that. It would imply that the Starchild is lying, and that Harbinger is an arrogant little ass who thinks he can trick you into choosing his wants and have you ignore the chance to destroy him. I see no real indication of some will by the Reapers in anything at all.

You also mentioned that a high EMS score is an indication that the brat and the reapers are honest. And that if they were dishonest that this has something to do with IT. I rather stick to what I see in-game.

Like I wrote before the track record of the brat and its boys is not positive:

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

They have a long history of betrayal (up to their own creators), intrigue (Saren, TIM, turning synthetics against organics), deceit (indoctrination), enslavement (ascension), genocide (of countless races which they deemed worthless to build reapers from), scare tactics (by turning the dead bodies of the races into husks to fight against those same races), harvesting civilizations (by first sowing mass relays and technology to make sure that their future victims "will develop along the paths [they] desire"), and last but not least lies (by using the hypothetical threat as a rationalization for their cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" reproduction method to keep them on top of the food chain). Much like a serial killer they show no emotion, nor remorse, even though they are perfectly able to use the concept of fear. The power of the brat and the boys systematically violates the right of self-determination by any means they can dream up.

Even the first reaper was created by harvesting its own creators without their aproval.

The brat advertizes the synthesis option in such a way that even the BW marketing department would be proud. Not only is the hypothetical domination of synthetics over organics inevitible, so is synthesis. I guess if you fell for the former then you probablly fall for the latter as well. After all, both are "inevitable" because the brat says so and who can say no to the "ideal" solution? Ghehe.

If the brat and the boys want to come clean and finally want to help the civilizations then they still cannot get rid of their urges to interfere with matters that are none of their business. Even control is forcing a genocide down Shepard's throat. No. Enough is enough. There is no place in this galaxy for such evilness. The brat keeps on showing that, no matter what, it wants to enforce its rules. And if Shepard reject those rules, the whole circus continues. It's time to end the horrors.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:01 .

[DrZann]

repost

Modifié par DrZann, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:16 .

[DrZann]

Taboo-XX wrote...

DrZann wrote...


No, you didn't. But some have more difficulty articulating themselves than others. Lets charge ahead anyway.

I answered your goddman question. One is inherent, the other is not. One chooses a moral absolute. A universalism is something you believe to be inherent.

That doesn't make any sense either. But I think I'm seeing some of the problem. You've confused the meta-ethic of Moral universalism with a System of Ethics. It is not.

Also, if you can choose a moral absolute then it's not absolute. You have a wonderful penchant for self-contradiction.

And Secular absolutism also believe laws of morality are an inherent part of human nature.

Modifié par DrZann, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:25 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'd like to ask a question of those who think Synthesis "changes your racial identity" (ugh, that sounds actually racist, but I wasn't the one who brought it up) or "species identity" or something like that?

Suppose that from one moment to the next, your body doesn't encode its proteins with DNA but with something else, let's name it X. Nothing else is changed, your cells still create the same proteins, with enzymes adapted to react to the new gene substance, they, in turn, create and process all the other stuff you're made from. Is there any reason to think you'd not be you any more? I think not. You wouldn't even notice the change unless you had reason for a gene scan.

This "new matrix" of organic life the Catalyst speaks of would work somewhat like that, only it would also encode other stuff, that which is needed to "integrate fully with synthetic technology", which, in turn, would possibly implement some basic functionality. So.....I don't understand this objection. It's like Jacob tells Shepard at Lazarus Station: "You may have a few extra bits and pieces, but you're still you."

It is racism in its purest form. Apparently it is for elitist Shepard not enough that those inferior races have the qualities and genes they currently posses and thus they need to be improved. That is the ugly idea behind synthesis. The comparison between the reapers and Germany during WW2 is strong. Especially because synthesis has a history similar to eugenics. The brat mentions that earlier attempts have failed. I take this very seriously and these parts of the ending are all full of themes like that. Genocide being another. Anyway. If you see me comparing it with the Lebensborn project then I do that in the hope that someone looks up what it is and see similarities between that and galaxy wide synthesis.

Now, I can understand that a race decides that synthesis is the way to go. However, in this case it is not voluntary. None of the races are consulted. There is no opt-in and there is no opt-out. It is irreversible. And thus elitism surfaces again in the form of the violation of the right of self-determination by forcing synthesis without their consent. That violation is also true for the control option, but not for the destruction one. Ever since ME1 it is clear that everyone willing to help Shepard wants the destruction of the reapers. In ME3 Shepard once again gets the green light and actively forms alliances with nations, gangs and individuals to destroy the reapers. Everyone seems to be prepared to die for it.

Everyone rejected the control option, the Illusive Man's path, by actively fighting Cerberus. They also rejected the synthesis option, Saren's path, by joining forces to fight him and Sovereign. Even Wrex thought that, even though Saren may hold the key to the genophage cure, it was better to fight him. Saren asked you "Is submission not preferable to extinction?" Even EDI can tell you the answer to that one.

That all means that any other option than destruction is betrayal to those allies.

Needless to say that any of your questions are, given the above, irrelevant and not worth answering.

Still not sure how racism fits into this.  Synthesis acts at a much much higher level than race, several levels above it in the taxonomic ranking.

Also, your point as to why Ieldra's questions are irrelevant are not clear in your post.

Another thing the whole saren == synthesis has been debunked many many times.

You tell me that racism does not fit in. Reallly? But you do think that

"Synthesis acts at a much much higher level than race, several levels above it in the taxonomic ranking."

That already says enough. The same goes for the fact that you do not understand why the advantages of synthesis are irrelevant. I was about to tell you what I think of that, but you most likely would think I was insulting you. So, I'll skip that part. Maybe I can dream up a way later on, to make it sound less confrontational.

About the Saren argument being debunked. Most likely by synthesis fans, I take it.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:23 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Enthalpy wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
In ME3 Shepard once again gets the green light and actively forms alliances with nations, gangs and individuals to destroy the reapers. Everyone seems to be prepared to die for it.

Except, naturally, the Reapers themselves. To put it in a different way and a smaller scale: remember in ME1 when you could Paragon Saren to shoot himself or Renegade him to shoot himself? Had there been an option to shake him out of Sovereign's control permanently, that's the one I'd choose.

Ah. Yes. There is a post several pages earlier in which I explain why I think the brat and the reapers should not be viewed as regular enemy soldiers.

[Xilizhra]

Regarding Saren: he was wrong, not because his idea itself was wrong precisely, but because he had no means to actually achieve it and was just getting played for a fool by the Reapers. As we can see in the ending here, that doesn't seem to be the case with Synthesis. "But," you may ask, "How do we know this before we actually make the decision?" To which I say "Does it matter?" Because if the Catalyst is lying and setting up our own destruction, it seems as though any of the three options it gives would do that; Synthesis isn't special in that regard. And since any Shepard who paid attention will recall that the Reapers can't be defeated in a conventional war at this time, there's nothing to lose by trusting the Catalyst for the moment.

As for Synthesis itself, I believe there's far too many assumptions about people assuming that the galaxy's happiness over the Reaper's defeat means definite brainwashing. Say this alteration was a fairly quick and seamless change that, while new, felt natural and acceptable right off the bat. How is this less genuine than if it felt painful and horrible?

[DrZann]

Xilizhra wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

But a forced harmony. Forced being the key word here.

As compared to forced genocide or forced Reaper-based dictatorship?

The idea of forced harmony is hyperbole. Don't fall for it.

[Ieldra]

mauro2222 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
And you cannot say that this will happen. Your black scenario is just your projection. I say there will be some problems, of which kind I have no idea since too many details are unknown. I see the ending scenes as indicative of a *generally* bright future, not a *universally* bright future - just as the others, btw.. But apparently people here don't understand that distinction. Things must either be 100% happy or 100% dark.

I edited my last post.

I'm not discussing which ending is happy and which is sad, all have pros and cons.

Is not a black scenario, is being realistic with the options and why synthesis is more than a superficial DNA alteration. Otherwise I can say everyone dies.

It's realistic to say that civilizations will nuke each other out of existence over this? Wow, that's a level of cynicism I haven't seen in quite some time. Forgive me for being more optimistic than that.

Yes, Synthesis is a significant change. I never denied that. What I do deny is that it changes what makes you "you".

Yes, it's realistic, the possibility is there so it's a real concern, more considering our own history.

If I'm a racist bastard who hates... lets say Turians, your view of synthesis should not be able to change that. If I despise the Reapers, your view of synthesis shouldn't be able to change that. The epilogue shows the opposite, everyone are friends. The same can be applied to Quarians and Geth, some Quarians still hate the geth, but they are all friends now. That racism and hate is part of them, understanding is not the same as accepting. If synthesis takes away that hate and racism then it changed their mindsets.

So....because we don't see a racist human in the ending sequence means that there are no racist humans anymore? What kind of logic is that?

The ending presents a generally bright future. That doesn't mean it's universally peaceful. It just means that the racist humans etc. are insignificant for the overall picture.

I repeat, this assumption of "forced harmony" is nothing more than an attempt to force bad consequences on the Synthesis ending because people object to it for unrelated reasons. There can't be what must not be, that's the mindset.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 juillet 2012 - 01:08 .

[Enthalpy]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
In ME3 Shepard once again gets the green light and actively forms alliances with nations, gangs and individuals to destroy the reapers. Everyone seems to be prepared to die for it.

Except, naturally, the Reapers themselves. To put it in a different way and a smaller scale: remember in ME1 when you could Paragon Saren to shoot himself or Renegade him to shoot himself? Had there been an option to shake him out of Sovereign's control permanently, that's the one I'd choose.

Ah. Yes. There is a post several pages earlier in which I explain why I think the brat and the reapers should not be viewed as regular enemy soldiers.

I remember that post, and still think the analogy is relevant. For example, Saren betrayed Nihlus, Shiala and even the Thorian, all on separate occasions. By your reasoning, this would indicate that he is never to be trusted and should not be viewed as a regular enemy soldier. I believe that ... "maybe there's still a chance."

[AngryFrozenWater]

Enthalpy wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
In ME3 Shepard once again gets the green light and actively forms alliances with nations, gangs and individuals to destroy the reapers. Everyone seems to be prepared to die for it.

Except, naturally, the Reapers themselves. To put it in a different way and a smaller scale: remember in ME1 when you could Paragon Saren to shoot himself or Renegade him to shoot himself? Had there been an option to shake him out of Sovereign's control permanently, that's the one I'd choose.

Ah. Yes. There is a post several pages earlier in which I explain why I think the brat and the reapers should not be viewed as regular enemy soldiers.

I remember that post, and still think the analogy is relevant. For example, Saren betrayed Nihlus, Shiala and even the Thorian, all on separate occasions. By your reasoning, this would indicate that he is never to be trusted and should not be viewed as a regular enemy soldier. I believe that ... "maybe there's still a chance."

No. They are too late. They have caused more harm than their hypothetical synthetic threat can ever cause.

That threat is "inevitable", of course. Ghehe. But in the EC synthesis has become "inevitable" as well. What do you think about that? So, why they are interfering at all really escapes me. If that is true and synthesis is also "ideal" then they could just leave and go back to where ever it is they came from and be assured that one day their dream will come true. No need to inflict all those horrors and no need to try to shove all their silly "solutions" down our throats, erm... cut our throats with their "solutions", I mean.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 juillet 2012 - 01:46 .

[Ieldra]

As for inevitability of Synthesis, that came up before. Why Synthesis now? As I see it, the problem is that the "natural" development would take so long that synthetics would've destroyed organics before it could defuse the conflict.

Thus, we are just speeding up the process (I've also mentioned this in the OP). It's actually an argument in its favor. Of course you can imagine that God!Shepard in Control will delay the extinction for long enough. But in Control Shepard takes a rather heavy hand in the development of civilization, and I'm much less comfortable with that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 juillet 2012 - 01:54 .

[Enthalpy]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

I remember that post, and still think the analogy is relevant. For example, Saren betrayed Nihlus, Shiala and even the Thorian, all on separate occasions. By your reasoning, this would indicate that he is never to be trusted and should not be viewed as a regular enemy soldier. I believe that ... "maybe there's still a chance."

No. They are too late. They have caused more harm than their hypothetical synthetic threat can ever cause.

That threat is "inevitable", of course. Ghehe. But in the EC synthesis has become "inevitable" as well. What do you think about that? So, why they are interfering at all really escapes me. If that is true and synthesis is also "ideal" then they could just leave and go back to where ever it is they came from and be assured that one day their dream will come true. No need to inflict all those horrors and no need to try to shove all their silly "solutions" down our throats, erm... cut our throats with their "solutions", I mean.

Am I correct in assuming that you would not have spared Saren just as you would not spare the Reapers? That is fine. My Destroy Shepards would do the same. My Synthesis Shepard and myself as a player would disagree, and I don't think the basis of that disagreement is alterable.

I am not aware that the Catalyst speaks of Synthesis as inevitable. At least, not prior to the EC, which is the only version I have played. I always thought it said that Synthesis was not a viable option up until now, which may mean it was possible, but probablistically unlikely.

[Shaigunjoe]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'd like to ask a question of those who think Synthesis "changes your racial identity" (ugh, that sounds actually racist, but I wasn't the one who brought it up) or "species identity" or something like that?

Suppose that from one moment to the next, your body doesn't encode its proteins with DNA but with something else, let's name it X. Nothing else is changed, your cells still create the same proteins, with enzymes adapted to react to the new gene substance, they, in turn, create and process all the other stuff you're made from. Is there any reason to think you'd not be you any more? I think not. You wouldn't even notice the change unless you had reason for a gene scan.

This "new matrix" of organic life the Catalyst speaks of would work somewhat like that, only it would also encode other stuff, that which is needed to "integrate fully with synthetic technology", which, in turn, would possibly implement some basic functionality. So.....I don't understand this objection. It's like Jacob tells Shepard at Lazarus Station: "You may have a few extra bits and pieces, but you're still you."

It is racism in its purest form. Apparently it is for elitist Shepard not enough that those inferior races have the qualities and genes they currently posses and thus they need to be improved. That is the ugly idea behind synthesis. The comparison between the reapers and Germany during WW2 is strong. Especially because synthesis has a history similar to eugenics. The brat mentions that earlier attempts have failed. I take this very seriously and these parts of the ending are all full of themes like that. Genocide being another. Anyway. If you see me comparing it with the Lebensborn project then I do that in the hope that someone looks up what it is and see similarities between that and galaxy wide synthesis.

Now, I can understand that a race decides that synthesis is the way to go. However, in this case it is not voluntary. None of the races are consulted. There is no opt-in and there is no opt-out. It is irreversible. And thus elitism surfaces again in the form of the violation of the right of self-determination by forcing synthesis without their consent. That violation is also true for the control option, but not for the destruction one. Ever since ME1 it is clear that everyone willing to help Shepard wants the destruction of the reapers. In ME3 Shepard once again gets the green light and actively forms alliances with nations, gangs and individuals to destroy the reapers. Everyone seems to be prepared to die for it.

Everyone rejected the control option, the Illusive Man's path, by actively fighting Cerberus. They also rejected the synthesis option, Saren's path, by joining forces to fight him and Sovereign. Even Wrex thought that, even though Saren may hold the key to the genophage cure, it was better to fight him. Saren asked you "Is submission not preferable to extinction?" Even EDI can tell you the answer to that one.

That all means that any other option than destruction is betrayal to those allies.

Needless to say that any of your questions are, given the above, irrelevant and not worth answering.

Still not sure how racism fits into this.  Synthesis acts at a much much higher level than race, several levels above it in the taxonomic ranking.

Also, your point as to why Ieldra's questions are irrelevant are not clear in your post.

Another thing the whole saren == synthesis has been debunked many many times.

You tell me that racism does not fit in. Reallly? But you do think that

"Synthesis acts at a much much higher level than race, several levels above it in the taxonomic ranking."

That already says enough. The same goes for the fact that you do not understand why the advantages of synthesis are irrelevant. I was about to tell you what I think of that, but you most likely would think I was insulting you. So, I'll skip that part. Maybe I can dream up a way later on, to make it sound less confrontational.

About the Saren argument being debunked. Most likely by synthesis fans, I take it.

Your unwillingness to listen to arguments from synthesis fans indicates that you are incapable of rationally debating this topic, and it sounds like you through out pro synthesis concepts simply because they are pro synthesis comments, as well being unable to form clearly structured points without appearing insulting.  It sounds like you are an extremely close minded individual lacking any ability to understand any other points but your own.

You also do not understand the concept of racism very well.  What discrimination is going on?  There may be a problem of race identity, but nobody is discrimnating against anybody.  If some races got the upgrade, and others didn't becuase shep didn't think their traits were unsuitable for the life+ then that would be racism.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:02 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for inevitability of Synthesis, that came up before. Why Synthesis now? As I see it, the problem is that the "natural" development would take so long that synthetics would've destroyed organics before it could defuse the conflict.

Thus, we are just speeding up the process (I've also mentioned this in the OP). It's actually an argument in its favor.

Then what is the point for Catalyst stating synthesis inevitability if it could not be facilitated? It is wasting time

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for inevitability of Synthesis, that came up before. Why Synthesis now? As I see it, the problem is that the "natural" development would take so long that synthetics would've destroyed organics before it could defuse the conflict.

Thus, we are just speeding up the process (I've also mentioned this in the OP). It's actually an argument in its favor.

You again believe the brat and the boys blindly. I can't remember that they ever wore a white hat. There is no evidence that either of those two really is inevitable. We only see a giant pile of dead bodies that are caused by reapers and not by synthetics.

Edit: Oops. Messed up the order of these sentences. Fixed.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:00 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for inevitability of Synthesis, that came up before. Why Synthesis now? As I see it, the problem is that the "natural" development would take so long that synthetics would've destroyed organics before it could defuse the conflict.

Thus, we are just speeding up the process (I've also mentioned this in the OP). It's actually an argument in its favor. Of course you can imagine that God!Shepard in Control will delay the extinction for long enough. But in Control Shepard takes a rather heavy hand in the development of civilization, and I'm much less comfortable with that.

In addition, its also the best time for it IMO.  If synthesis were going to happen anyway (the way the catalyst describes it) it would still require consent of everybody.  Galactic unification is probably the highest is ever going to be (well...considering on how diplomatic your shep is)  and better now than in the future where things would have most likely fallen apart.

[Shaigunjoe]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for inevitability of Synthesis, that came up before. Why Synthesis now? As I see it, the problem is that the "natural" development would take so long that synthetics would've destroyed organics before it could defuse the conflict.

Thus, we are just speeding up the process (I've also mentioned this in the OP). It's actually an argument in its favor.

You again believe the brat and the boys blindly. There is no evidence that either of those two really is inevitable. I can't remember that they ever wore a white hat. We only see a giant pile of dead bodies that are caused by reapers and not by synthetics.

You are the one that brought up synthesis being inevitable. Way to strawman your own argument.

[Enthalpy]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for inevitability of Synthesis, that came up before. Why Synthesis now? As I see it, the problem is that the "natural" development would take so long that synthetics would've destroyed organics before it could defuse the conflict.

Thus, we are just speeding up the process (I've also mentioned this in the OP). It's actually an argument in its favor.

You again believe the brat and the boys blindly. There is no evidence that either of those two really is inevitable. I can't remember that they ever wore a white hat. We only see a giant pile of dead bodies that are caused by reapers and not by synthetics.

Apologies for stepping into a fast-paced debate, but reading the OP might be helpful. We believe that "the Catalyst is not stupid," because it has the age and capability of any fantasy god or sci-fi precursor supercomputer, if not the avatar of one. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for inevitability of Synthesis, that came up before. Why Synthesis now? As I see it, the problem is that the "natural" development would take so long that synthetics would've destroyed organics before it could defuse the conflict.

Thus, we are just speeding up the process (I've also mentioned this in the OP). It's actually an argument in its favor.

You again believe the brat and the boys blindly. There is no evidence that either of those two really is inevitable. I can't remember that they ever wore a white hat. We only see a giant pile of dead bodies that are caused by reapers and not by synthetics.

You are the one that brought up synthesis being inevitable. Way to strawman your own argument.

No. The brat told us synthesis was "inevitable".

[Caenis]

 I love this Thread, and am going to quote here what I have mentioned before in other threads, as I've been dying to have a conversation or read conversations from others who have already pondered this, who understand it's logic...just because there is an overwhelming group of people who refute and refuse it, and I wanted to know if there were others out there who didn't:

Caenis wrote....

 Synthesis is the Sci Fi version of Utopia: "Technological Utopia" : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_utopianism  They have merged with machine which means they are Human+ (Transhuman) : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism 
(not to be confused with Post Human Theories) : 
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Posthumanism 
As there are two, "Post Human of the human species", and "Post Human in terms of Transhumanism."

Mass Effect played with this throughout the entire series, I sensed it, during the second game I was asking if anyone saw hints to Transhumanism, that's when Legion came into the picture while I was studying the Transhumanism movement. I was fascinated that Bioware would play with this and that not many were talking about it. It wasn't until ME3 after more conversations with EDI and little hints throughout the game that I began to think woah they really are going somewhere with this. I think Edi might have even had a conversation about it (and Shepard asks if she is one, Edi says no:  www.youtube.com/watch). Then we got to the end and I saw Synthesis... I felt 98% certain that this is where they had been heading with the conversations between Legion and Edi, and the war between the Geth, and even the conversations that began way back with Sovereign. Like it just seemed to me that they were ALWAYS headed in that direction and that they had been priming us.The "Idea" of Synthesis is no different to me than an idea of utopia, like the idea of "Atlantis" or "Eden" or some other mythological Garden or Highly Advanced "Utopian" civilization, it is a place of peace and unity. But I believe that EVEN if something like Synthesis did happen (which it does in some parallel universes of Mass Effect ~), that the peace wouldn't last, that they would learn there is something greater than them out there, who may in turn wish to destroy them, or they may all sink into Atlantis. I also believe that they would continue to evolve past what their current idea of evolution is, and might even become something bigger than what Sovereign once was, and discover whole new Post-Galaxy ideas, that transcend even what we know. They could then become destroyed by some other massive threat that they didn't know about or that is was just unable to be stopped. So the Cycle would continue just in a different form provided they didn't go extinct. As Extinction no matter how evolved is always the RULE not the exception, and being one with the machine and able to self-improve on an as needed basis, is no exception.

I imagine that in this far future if they had the added benefit of "Reactive Evolution" similar to Darwing from the X-Men, where their bodies are programmed/designed to automatically adapt to new situations would be a plus for them. Imagine bacteria that rapidly adapted to eat Transhumans .

But these are all just "Ideas" that Mass Effect played with, which seemed at least in my mind fitting to the Sci Fi theme, though the more I think of it, ME plays with the Sci Fi genre but towards the end leaned more towards Speculative Fiction, a cross between Sci Fi and Fantasy (as the two historically have often been blurred) : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Fantasy

I believe that "Transhumanism" is just ONE of many alternative outcomes post-human, and that there are many theories out there that this is just one, and that it doesn't mean that "Transhumanism" is a utopia, it only means that it is utopia to our thinking, but I am sure they come with their own set of problems and will face new problems...as it seems the law of the universe is not "Order", it's a cycle of Chaos and Order....

While I didn't read every post in the past 101 pages + links linking to 101+ pages XD, so I might be saying something repeatedly and missing some points. Glad to see this here!

Modifié par Caenis, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:11 .