9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Krunjar]

I am quite insulted that you think I am somehow out to "trick" you. I fully agree and believe in everything i wrote. I am not lying to try and backup my favorite ending like some kind of football fan bigging up his "home team".

Oh and youre allegory makes no sense. I could just as easily defend my position by saying "So you think having babies violates you by taking youre dna?" My point is not wether any specific instance of life forcing things on us is good or bad. Simply that things are forced on us every day. Even technological research is such an act. As it as often forces horrors on us as boons. However if we do not do it someone else will eventually. If something is possible it will in all probability get done eventually. If not by those with good intentions then by those with selfish or evil ones. Even the catalyst says that now we know synthesis is possible it is inevitable. If not in this cycle then in future ones. There is quite simply no resisting change.It is as much forced on us  as our next breath. And the right choice is almost always to take it.

Modifié par Krunjar, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:24 .

[JamieCOTC]

lillitheris wrote...



I want to deconstruct one thing. The choice.

And every single one of you is dancing around it, whatever your excuse is.

You understand that what the Catalyst is saying is that through synthesis, organics and synthetics will gain a deeper understanding of each other.  And that's what he says ... in so many words.  And then you make the gamble that playing god w/ the galaxy is worth the future the galaxy will gain by this change.

What irks me is that the Catalyst says that synthesis is inevitable now that it is possible. Game over! We won! The problem is solved by simply coming together as a united galaxy, but nooooo, the game forces you to make a choice anyway.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:24 .

[Welsh Inferno]

To be honest lillitheris you seem intent to keep discussion on(or close to) the morality of the choice etc as we apparently cannot logically decide that its the right call or not. I don't think anyone denies that it is morally wrong to force a choice like this on billions of live. Its pretty obvious it is morally wrong. So I don't know where else you want to go with that but IMO the ends justify the choice based on what I am told at the time. So I make that choice.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:25 .

[SpectreVeldt]

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Ugh. It’s better you just ignore me from now on, if this is really so difficult for you. Please.
[/quote]
You're already doing a fantastic job of ignoring quite a lot of what I say, especially any part that makes you seem like a single-minded brute.  Forcing your way into a post, stating non sequiturs and utilizing strawman fallacies, then conveniently trying to change what you had originally stated to save face:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
...I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant to the right question.[/quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
You're welcome to 'foster logical discussion' about the other aspects of Synthesis.[/quote]
[/quote]
This is what seems to be difficult for you.  So, perhaps, "it's better you just ignore me [and what you actually did] from now on."  As I stated previously:

"One of the things I encouraged was a deeper analysis of other aspects of Synthesis, presented as an overhead statement.  You responded viscerally, repeating that your two aspects of Synthesis were the only ones that should be discussed."  Denial accomplishes nothing.

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:31 .

[Krunjar]

I might argue against that Welsh Inferno. I would argue that if we consider morality mereley being given the choice in the first place, Even the refusal choice is also morally wrong. According to morality they all should have had an election where everyone in the galaxy votes for their ending. Pity there wasn't time for that Eh? To some NOT choosing synthesis could be seen as the violation. As either other choice stunts the evolution of organic life in comparison. Others might argue that control or destroy where the best way. But either way you must choose and youre choice WILL effect the entire galaxy. Choosing for everyone is already inevitable. And in  this narrative shephard if no one else has earned the right to make it. The only question that remains is what do you choose?

Modifié par Krunjar, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:38 .

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Considerable more than nothing, and it's actually very relevant to the decision. By your reasoning, we might as well roll dice to choose an ending because of course, we do not have absolute knowledge about the consequences. The geth will die in Destroy? Sorry, we don't actually know that, so it must not be taken into acccount.

Why do you keep trotting out that canard? I’ve told you personally at least three times, let alone other people: unknown is not unknowable.

“Geth will die.” OK, let’s assume they do.

“There will be a new DNA. Final evolution of life.” …What?

Each of the other options have clearly stated effects. Synthesis doesn’t, as evidenced by you having to invent all kinds of fantastic theories about it.

And you keep ignoring the new exposition and act as if nothing has changed from the pre-EC times. I can now back most of my points with statements either from the epilogue or from the Catalyst's explanation. I don't have to "invent fantastic theories" because my speculations about the effects themselves, even if not the technical details (which I have adapted since) have been canonized. 

I suggest to take the endings in the spirit they come across and not act like a Biblical literalist.

No. Just…no. That would be a completely pointless discussion. You’re  welcome to it, but I have no interest.

Q.e.d.

The theme of Synthesis is not "we all turn into unicorns". It's a loosely defined scenario about ascension, making civilization embrace a future with elements of "otherness" in it, and embracing some "otherness" to take into itself. That some details of the outcome are unknown is very much the point. To insist on full disclosure would break the theme.

Additionally, the whole idea is so utterly ridiculous that I do not draw any intellectual satisfaction inventing some fantasy explanation for it because I’m not solving an actual problem.

That statement says more about the limits of your concept of science fiction than about anything else. I'll point you again to theOrion's Arm Universe Project for appreciating the truly outlandish things which are still possible if you stick to the boundaries of physics. The process of Synthesis may be as "magical" as the ME universe's concept of FTL, but the results can be put within a convincing framework. I admit you need to pick and choose, but that's only because some parts of the expostion contradict each other. I'd say it's bad writing but I have the suspicion it was intentional.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:43 .

[SpectreVeldt]

lillitheris wrote...
You seem to be in a place where it’s impossible to understand that this is not a personal attack on you somehow. I’ve made two very clear points, one of which is that empiricism has nothing to do with the moral question (it happens after the question and is therefore irrelevant). If they do not apply to you, then just don’t worry about it. If you do wish to address my points, do so. If you wish to address some other points that I’m not interested in, do that.

Which is the equivalent of the following:
I'm having a nice conversation with someone about empiricism, and then you interrupt out of nowhere and proclaim, "That has nothing to do with what I'M talking about!  It has nothing to do with the moral question!"  Well, no shi*.

Congrats on getting it wrong and misrepresenting what happened again.

[Welsh Inferno]

Krunjar wrote...

I might argue against that Welsh Inferno. I would argue that if we consider morality mereley being given the choice in the first place, Even the refusal choice is also morally wrong. According to morality they all should have had an election where everyone in the galaxy votes for their ending. Pity there wasn't time for that Eh? To some NOT choosing synthesis could be seen as the violation. As either other choice stunts the evolution of organic life in comparison. Others might argue that control or destroy where the best way. But either way you must choose and youre choice WILL effect the entire galaxy. Choosing for everyone is already inevitable. And in  this narrative shephard if no one else has earned the right to make it. The only question that remains is what do you choose?

They are all morally wrong. Thus it nullifies the morality issue. At least for me.

Not being able to vote on it doesn't not make the morality of forcing it wrong. Regardless of what it does you are forcing an incredibly big change. The ends(what Synthesis achieve's) do justify the means(Forcing it) for me and obviously for you. Others not so much.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:50 .

[lillitheris]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

To be honest lillitheris you seem intent to keep discussion on(or close to) the morality of the choice etc as we apparently cannot logically decide that its the right call or not. I don't think anyone denies that it is morally wrong to force a choice like this on billions of live. Its pretty obvious it is morally wrong.

It seems to be denied — or ignored, to be precise — quite a lot in my opinion. I appreciate that you’re addressing it head-on.

So I don't know where else you want to go with that but IMO the ends justify the choice based on what I am told at the time. So I make that choice.

OK. My contention on this point is that we don’t know what those ends are, and therefore can’t use them as justification. Essentially, for Destroy I could say that the ends (destroying the Reapers) justify the means (killing the geth, assuming the worst). I don’t feel that I can do the same with Synthesis, because the ends are so ephemeral. We don’t know what the actual transformation involved is. This is why the option should be avoided if at all possible.

If you disagree with that, I suppose there’s not much I can do to convince you otherwise. I’m happy to agree to disagree (since this is not real life).

…

I’m sorry if I missed it, but did you have anything on the point of Controlling first, and then possibly moving to Synthesis?

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:50 .

[mauro2222]

I don't see how synthesis is a solution to the conflict. Understanding is not the same as accepting. Quarians still hate the Geth, and if that doesn't happen, then we can agree that they are not the same Quarians pre-synthesis we knew, which adds another dilemma to Synthesis. If Bioware actually shows people having the same traits as before, like racism, hate, conflict, or simply show people not being able to adapt to the changes, this options would not sound as them trying to sugar coat Synthesis.

And the main problem with the Synthetic vs Organics no sense, are organics. The Catalyst may not know this, but he's the one creating the conflict in the first place. Without reaper tech (everything the Catalyst leaves behind, the Citadel, Mass Relays, electronics), I doubt the Quarians would have been able to create the Geth in the first place. They are not culturally ready for such advanced technology, see their reactions, they fear their own creations. Same with EDI, if humans were more socially and culturally advanced the need for war tools would be almost non existant, every investigation is going to have deep observations and analysis, instead of a rush to get it working. EDI's creations was a result of this, of humanity not knowing the limits between a computer and an AI. Result... she became self aware during a training exercise, she was under fire, her life was in danger, she acted on defense and killed everybody, consequences... everyone fears the devil inside machines.

Modifié par mauro2222, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:59 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And you keep ignoring the new exposition and act as if nothing has changed from the pre-EC times. I can now back most of my points with statements either from the epilogue or from the Catalyst's explanation. I don't have to "invent fantastic theories" because my speculations about the effects themselves, even if not the technical details (which I have adapted since) have been canonized. 

Oh. Goddess. The epilogue is irrelevant. I am NOT trying to argue whether Synthesis is awesome or not. Let me say that for all intents and purposes my argument can assume that Synthesis is literally the best thing to ever happen to anybody. It. Does. Not. Matter.

There is some more exposition before the decision, yes, but it still talks about a new DNA, a new framework, all that jazz. Nothing about the process is known to any reasonable degree at that time.

Not to a degree that justifies such a “leap of faith”, when other options are available.

The theme of Synthesis is not "we all turn into unicorns". It's a loosely defined scenario about ascension, making civilization embrace a future with elements of "otherness" in it, and embracing some "otherness" to take into itself. That some details of the outcome are unknown is very much the point. To insist on full disclosure would break the theme.

I have no interest in arguing about what is and isn’t thematic. I’m interested in the moral aspect. I would be interested in the scientific aspect, but it doesn’t exist.

That statement says more about the limits of your concept of science fiction than about anything else. I'll point you again to theOrion's Arm Universe Project for appreciating the truly outlandish things which are still possible if you stick to the boundaries of physics. The process of Synthesis may be as "magical" as the ME universe's concept of FTL, but the results can be put within a convincing framework. I admit you need to pick and choose, but that's only because some parts of the expostion contradict each other. I'd say it's bad writing but I have the suspicion it was intentional.

No, they can’t be put in a convincing framework. They can be put in a tenuously plausible framework that doesn’t actually do what it is that it’s supposed to do.

But, again, I don’t care. You’ve convinced yourself that these particular unicorns are what you get. You’re welcome to that, I really have nothing further to add to this part of the discussion.

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:58 .

[Welsh Inferno]

lillitheris wrote...

OK. My contention on this point is that we don’t know what those ends are, and therefore can’t use them as justification. Essentially, for Destroy I could say that the ends (destroying the Reapers) justify the means (killing the geth, assuming the worst). I don’t feel that I can do the same with Synthesis, because the ends are so ephemeral. We don’t know what the actual transformation involved is. This is why the option should be avoided if at all possible.

If you disagree with that, I suppose there’s not much I can do to convince you otherwise. I’m happy to agree to disagree (since this is not real life).

But you don't know that. Infact many people try to argue that the Geth & EDI survive regardless. You are going purely on what you are told, as am I with what I am told on Synthesis. I don't know if its cause I have a better imagination than you or whatever else but I expected Synthesis to be pretty damn close to what it is pre-EC. Destroy is probably my second favorite ending really, yes the ends justify the means there as well. I see the ends of Synthesis as more beneficial than Destroy. Counter to that the means of Synthesis are perhaps a little more morally wrong than Destroy.

So I guess agree to disagree is correct.. 

I’m sorry if I missed it, but did you have anything on the point of Controlling first, and then possibly moving to Synthesis?

You could potentially do that yes. But Shepard's speech seems to want Organics to develop on a completely natural path so I doubt it would be considered. I see it as probably the most moral choice as you are'nt directly effecting anyone, allowing everyone to continue naturally etc. Its still not moral, but the most moral. On the otherhand of that I see the ends as a big risk. The Reapers arn't destroyed so they pose no threat and neither are they changed, effectively set free like they are in Synthesis. What happens when some race he is protecting tries to control him? God knows. Things like that will happen though.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:08 .

[lillitheris]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

OK. My contention on this point is that we don’t know what those ends are, and therefore can’t use them as justification. Essentially, for Destroy I could say that the ends (destroying the Reapers) justify the means (killing the geth, assuming the worst). I don’t feel that I can do the same with Synthesis, because the ends are so ephemeral. We don’t know what the actual transformation involved is. This is why the option should be avoided if at all possible.

If you disagree with that, I suppose there’s not much I can do to convince you otherwise. I’m happy to agree to disagree (since this is not real life).

But you don't know that. Infact many people try to argue that the Geth & EDI survive regardless. You are going purely on what you are told, as am I with what I am told on Synthesis.

I disagree in part. I’m adding more detail later, but as I try to keep saying, the other futures are unknown, but not unknowable. The Catalyst says that the geth will be destroyed. I will assume that this is correct. It might not be, but that’s just good, then.

I am still able to make a logical decision because I have a reasonable understanding of the possiblities and factors involved, even if I do not know 100%. I can comprehend what it means if the geth die. Or don’t die, if we get lucky. I can react to both cases (and probably to any variants thereof). These are known, understandable events.

I don't know if its cause I have a better imagination than you or whatever else but I expected Synthesis to be pretty damn close to what it is pre-EC.

It’s possible. I like to think myself imaginative, but perhaps I’m not. The Synthesis question, however, is a matter of not wanting to imagine things. I’ve imagined enough to know that it makes absolutely no sense on the scientific axis, and discarded any further imagination as pointless (because everything is equally valid).

I see the ends of Synthesis as more beneficial than Destroy. Counter to that the means of Synthesis are perhaps a little more morally wrong than Destroy.

OK. I see the stated purpose of Synthesis (peace between organics and synthetics, some type of semi-utopic coexistence) certainly as something that could be vastly beneficial.

My problem is that  I do not believe the actual ends (the reality of the end result, and the effects that are needed to get to it) are described in a manner  that is comprehensible. That is, there is no logical path from here to the utopia*. This means that I cannot make an educated decision on its merits.

If there was some kind of an understandable path to the end result of Synthesis (and the result itself was comprehensible), then I would consider it. I would probably still decline it because of the issue of consent, but at least then it would be an actual, valid option.


* I’m using this as a convenient shorthand, not an exact descriptor.

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:35 .

[SITHDUKE]

lillitheris wrote...

OK. My contention on this point is that we don’t know what those ends are, and therefore can’t use them as justification.

What do you mean "we don't know what the ends are"? The Catalyst explains "the ends" explicitly before giving you the choice. We are told to make a decision BASED on what he told us the ends would be.

The Catalyst says:
(~ is the placeholder response from Shepard

• Synthesis...
• ~~~~~~~
• Add your energy to the cricibles. The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new...DNA.
• ~~~~~~~
• Why not? Synthetics are already part of you. Can you imagine your life without them?
• ~~~~~~~
• This cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us. Synthesis is the final evolution of all life. The paths are open but you have to choose.

So knowing this, we know "the ends". We know all life will be merged into a new kind of life. We're told everybody will "survive" this process. So again, why are you asking people to discuss a decision without including "the ends"?

You are probably thinking "We only know what we're told." And yes you're right; we do. So then you are forced to think for yourself...what are the implications of my decision? That is why you can't answer your question without going into the finer details. SpectreVeldt even made a thread to answer some of the finer aspects of this question in great detail. Give their thread a read if you really want to try to answer that question. 

[Caelorummors]

Synthesis is the only fundamental problem with the choices offered. The logic of the Reapers has always been that they've allowed life to continue, for whatever reason, and only harvested the most intelligent races. These races were made into a synthetic-organic hybrids, the Reaper. Synthesis makes everything into synthetic-organic hybrids and is the "best" solution. Why, then, didn't the reapers just harvest all life to begin with?

[lillitheris]

SITHDUKE wrote

...The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new...DNA.
:
… Synthesis is the final evolution of all life.
:
So knowing this, we know "the ends". We know all life will be merged into a new kind of life. We're told everybody will "survive" this process. So again, why are you asking people to discuss a decision without including "the ends"?

Because it makes no real sense. What is this “final evolution of all life”? What “new DNA”? How does it affect our thought processes? How can it not affect minds if it’s actually reconfiguring basic biology? Anyone with any knowledge of how the mind works knows how subtle changes affect everything; the mind is not a separate entity. The Reapers — supposedly — were ‘survivors’, but that did not prevent them from slaughtering trillions of people perhaps against their will, perhaps not.

All you have for the real ends is conjecture. That’s fine in itself, and you may find pleasure in mapping those possibilities out in your theories…but it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications.

[Welsh Inferno]

lillitheris wrote...

-snip-

I think agree to disagree is the best option here now to be honest. Without further analysing of the endings you can't make an informed decision on any of them. But I enjoyed the discussion. 

[Krunjar]

I think it is wrong to equate "reaperisation" with "synthesis". The two may share similarities but I think we can infer from the context by which it is presented that it is not the same. This is pure speculation on my part but i believe that reapers utilize a mix of parts some organic some synthetic. Whereas synthesis re writes the framework itself eliminating the line between the two.

[Welsh Inferno]

Krunjar wrote...

I think it is wrong to equate "reaperisation" with "synthesis". The two may share similarities but I think we can infer from the context by which it is presented that it is not the same. This is pure speculation on my part but i believe that reapers utilize a mix of parts some organic some synthetic. Whereas synthesis re writes the framework itself eliminating the line between the two.

"Reaperisation" is being liquified into some grey paste and shoved into a shell along with synthetic parts.(the outside looks like a shell made from synthetic parts while the inside seem to be the goo) By which the end result means you become a slave to an AI. How people think that is even remotely the same I do not know. Infact Synthesis changes the Reapers aswell to surpass what they are already. The Catalyst will surpass what it was previously, also have emotions, come to think of it the Catalyst may end up killing itself after Synthesis due to not being able to deal with all the death. Maybe.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:40 .

[Enthalpy]

mauro2222 wrote...

I don't see how synthesis is a solution to the conflict. Understanding is not the same as accepting. Quarians still hate the Geth, and if that doesn't happen, then we can agree that they are not the same Quarians pre-synthesis we knew, which adds another dilemma to Synthesis. If Bioware actually shows people having the same traits as before, like racism, hate, conflict, or simply show people not being able to adapt to the changes, this options would not sound as them trying to sugar coat Synthesis.

And the main problem with the Synthetic vs Organics no sense, are organics. The Catalyst may not know this, but he's the one creating the conflict in the first place. Without reaper tech (everything the Catalyst leaves behind, the Citadel, Mass Relays, electronics), I doubt the Quarians would have been able to create the Geth in the first place. They are not culturally ready for such advanced technology, see their reactions, they fear their own creations. Same with EDI, if humans were more socially and culturally advanced the need for war tools would be almost non existant, every investigation is going to have deep observations and analysis, instead of a rush to get it working. EDI's creations was a result of this, of humanity not knowing the limits between a computer and an AI. Result... she became self aware during a training exercise, she was under fire, her life was in danger, she acted on defense and killed everybody, consequences... everyone fears the devil inside machines.

By the logic in the first paragraph: krogan still hate the salarians and turians, and if (violent conflict between krogan, turians, and salarians) doesn't happen, then we can conclude that they are not the same krogan, turians, and salarians as before Shepard's decision. Except we don't see krogan (especially under Wreav) taking advantage of the other species' weakened militaries after Destroy, and we don't see Shepard having to police them after Control. I think from this we can conclude that somehow, due to having fought together for an extended period of time, everyone has more or less learned to tolerate each other.I think there should be conflict in the background, but for the sake of a more uplifting ending Bioware has decided to leave them out.

As for the creation of AIs without mass effect technology -- I think there are scientists who believe it is possible with the resources we have now, in real life. We have not reached that point yet, so I don't know whether it really is possible or impossible.

[SpectreVeldt]

Welsh Inferno wrote...
Without further analysing of the endings you can't make an informed decision on any of them. But I enjoyed the discussion. 

Very much so.  Just because someone doesn't want to further analyze the ending(s), utilizing experimental methods, doesn't mean that you shouldn't.  Not saying that this is what you are saying, but it's an amusing comment because it should be a given.  Those unwilling to 'research' or explore other viewpoints/aspects than their own are no longer debating, and any effort to 'prove' or validate their points is in error because they, themselves have already abandoned the scientific process inherent in analytical debate.  I haven't really been following your posts, so I'm not certain if you've attempted "further analys[is]."

[Welsh Inferno]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...
Without further analysing of the endings you can't make an informed decision on any of them. But I enjoyed the discussion. 

Very much so.  Just because someone doesn't want to further analyze the ending(s), utilizing experimental methods, doesn't mean that you shouldn't.  Not saying that this is what you are saying, but it's an amusing comment because it should be a given.  Those unwilling to 'research' or explore other viewpoints/aspects than their own are no longer debating, and any effort to 'prove' or validate their points is in error because they, themselves have already abandoned the scientific process inherent in analytical debate.  I haven't really been following your posts, so I'm not certain if you've attempted "further analys[is]."

Not particularly, I tried to debate on her(?) merits. But that can only go so far. I agree with you for the most part.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:51 .

[SITHDUKE]

lillitheris wrote...

Because it makes no real sense. What is this “final evolution of all life”? What “new DNA”? How does it affect our thought processes? How can it not affect minds if it’s actually reconfiguring basic biology? Anyone with any knowledge of how the mind works knows how subtle changes affect everything; the mind is not a separate entity. The Reapers — supposedly — were ‘survivors’, but that did not prevent them from slaughtering trillions of people perhaps against their will, perhaps not.

All you have for the real ends is conjecture. That’s fine in itself, and you may find pleasure in mapping those possibilities out in your theories…but it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications.

You state, "it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications."  But you also diminish the significance of conjecture based on an analytical process, through which we may actually gain a "firm understanding of the implications."

"Mapping those possibilities out" is how we further educate ourselves regarding the implications.  You are telling everyone here that we need a "firm understanding of the implications," but we shouldn't even TRY to reach that understanding by any means.

Modifié par SITHDUKE, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:07 .

[saracen16]

KingZayd wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

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.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the presence of the Reapers means the death of organics (and synthetics). It may not  be a certainty but it is a possibility and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

So (here it comes) the presence of Germans means the death of Jews?

I was using the same argument used for dealing with synthetics. Did you not look at what I was quoting?

And also, no. There was a time where Germans were killing Jews. It's not the same as Germans always killing Jews. If it was, your counterpoint would have had more validity.

But why should it be any different? Remember what Legion said about the heretics in the Geth station: "the mind of both forms of life can be shaped. Organic require time and effort. With synthetics, replacement of a data file is the only requirement." This implies the synthesis or control endings, and both involve cessation of conflict in one form or other.

[Urdnot Amenark]

I'll touch more on my own interpretation of Synthesis, a concept I think is highly problematic, especially for ethical reasons. The Catalyst claims that achieving transhumanism through the Synthesis option isn't "forcing" people like the very harvesting of the Reapers, when it obviously is - no one other than Shepard will be able to consent to the process or reject it if they wish, and these drastic changes will be done without them initially being aware of them. It was because of this choice that I actually sympathized with those who believed in the Indoctrination Theory, as it recalls a similar event that occurs in a popular manga known as Guyver (shadowy evil alien corporation that's taken over the world's nations uses DNA altering tech to turn the general populace into slaves to their will underneath the guise of global prosperity, human transcendence, etc.). Then, there were the not-so-subtle mentions of "ascension" each time we encountered Harbinger in ME 2. Hardly the benign connotation Shepard would have based on such an experience.

There's another question that concerns me: when, and why did the Catalyst all-of-a-sudden decide this was necessary? It's alluded that Transhumanism through Synthesis was something they considered doing but were unable to implement, but aside from this, there's obviously an inherent flaw in the backstory if Synthesis were the ulterior goal of the people all this time. The Catalyst is already an unreliable narrator as it is, and without a personality or any true backstory independent of it established, I can't necessarily trust anything it says let alone suggests, although that isn't reason to believe it isn't being honest.

Then there's the Space Magic behind the process that really shows just how little thought was seriously placed into this concept, but that's for another thread.