9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Heeden]

@Urdnot - the possiblity for Synthesis was made by Shepard and the Crucible being present on the Citadel.

[JamieCOTC]

lillitheris wrote...

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.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and this is basically what BW is trying to do w/ the conversation between Shep and the Catalyst. But it doesn't work and that's why it makes no sense. The Godchild is the villain of ME3 because he effectively ruins the ending by his very presence. Don't try to make sense out of it because you can't.  You either go with the thematic view that Shepard dies to give peace to the galaxy or you go w/ the other two choices or you go crazy. 

[saracen16]

[quote]Uncle Jo wrote...

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

That doesn't matter. What matters is that through the Catalyst's experience, organics and synthetics will conflict with each other. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, and there's evidence to support both. It, however, saw more of conflict rather than understanding, hence - after a series of failed solutions including something similar to synthesis - the Reapers.

[/quote]While I do see your point, it still does matter IMO. Because it created the Reapers, its best solution, based on an inevitability (no matter if tech sing with bad outcome or synthesis). An absolute law with no exception. The starting point of its reasoning is at best flawed, at worst wrong. So is consequently its solution and so is synthesis, even if the latter seems to be an improved version : Reapers 2.0. It's a solution to a false problem.[/quote]

At least organics retain their individuality in synthesis if not the decision to how they should evolve, which itself is a consequence of nature, not the self. No one is arguing that the Catalyst's logic is flawed, but it's still logic. It is based on a hypothesis that it has tried and tested, the hypothesis being that conflict is inevitable, and that eventually down the road, synthetics would become too powerful to destroy organics. We do not know the exact nature of the conflicts that the creators had with their synthetics, but I think it is safe to assume that it was so dire that it required the aid of a logic engine to figure out what to do about it. Therefore, the problem does have a validity.

[quote]By annhilating every civilization without a trace, it denied us any chance to learn of their mistakes and try to not repeat them. It condemned us to reproduce the same pattern again, again and again. After every cycle, back to square one. Its zero risk politic is as circular as its insane logic.[/quote]

And what of the Citadel's universal AI ban? Organics are capable of learning from their mistakes in the span of years. It just so happens, however, that someone, somewhere outside of such jurisdiction, such as the Quarians, Synthetic Insights, and Cerberus would always bypass those conventions and create AI's of their own, be it geth or Project Overlord... and we know what those AI's were capable of. The Catalyst's logic loop states that it takes 50,000 years for organics on average to reach some sort of threshold where they are capable of creating AI's that can wipe out organics, not necessarily create AI's that DO wipe out organics. This is a problem the Catalyst and its creators fear the most (which, I'm assuming, is from their own experience), hence Reapers.

[quote]But it's a matter of perspective, I'm organic and think as such, not like a Reaper. And I never will. [/quote]

"In order to defeat the enemy, you must first know the enemy." - Sun Tzu

You have to understand the basic premise of their argument before you make a decision to what you think is the best solution to this problem, to prevent organics from being capable of creating AI's that could or will destroy them. The problem is that we do not have a time period beyond 50,000 years to know what will happen: it is possible that down this road, AI's will become unstoppable.

[quote]I'm willing to to let every one evolve the way they should, not to dictate their fate. Life will always find a way to florish, no matter what could happen. That's called the miracle of life.[/quote]

You know, that's actually a very good argument against synthesis that I never really thought of. Ironic is that this is the same reason I chose to cure the genophage. The reason I chose synthesis, however, is to give the Krogans an equal footing with all other races. I mean, who am I to play god, right? At least, however, it is the ideal solution because it solves the problem at its core: understanding between synthetic and organic by breaking the barrier between them. The other two solutions, however, have no guarantee that the situation will be under control, whether synthetics will be created in the future or whether god emperor Shepard will become an enlightened despot and oppress the galaxy after losing touch with humanity.

[quote]It does support the inevitability of conflict, in no way its bad outcome for organics. On the contrary.[/quote]

That's not the point. This is what the Catalyst saw. We don't have a period longer than 50,000 years to assume that synthetics will never destroy organics. However, we have two cycles that show that at this time, AI have been created that are capable of wiping out organics. Therefore, we can assume that his postulate has validity.

[quote]They've smoked something they shouldn't have in this cycle then. Because it'a a curious way to influence. I'd say that it pretty much contradicts their claims. The Rachni are an intelligent race. Because of the primor, malevolent influence of the Reapers, they could have been completely wiped out. It depended only on Shepard to decide of their fate.

They claim to want to ascend the past civilizations and yet meddle with their business,taking the risk to annhilate them ? Sending Reapers to war, i.e. to an eventual destruction, is also a way to preserve them ? [/quote]

Yet, the krogan came in. This was an eventuality they must have anticipated as well.

[quote]To achieve their human proto-reaper, they turned their vctims into a goo, as they were still alive. Couldn't they at least knock them out ? With all their technology, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Or is it something we can't comprehend ?

Do you remember what Harbinger said about us ? How Sovereign despised the Geth ?

They didn't give a damn about organics nor synthetics. Every single thing I saw from ME1 until Marauder Shields confirmed this. It wasn't an emotionless genocide ascension. It was pure cruelty, a barbaric slaughter, which no words could describe. The brat has only his words and his insane circular logic to support what he claimed. Not enough for me.[/quote]

They're ruthless. What do you expect from machines? Whatever they do is for their own purpose, not for some malevolent ambition. Sovereign and Harbinger used the Geth and the Collectors as tools, nothing more, nothing less. Their speeches were nothing more than psychological warfare designed to bring about the most efficient demoralizing of the enemy and its eventual surrender, to maximize the amount of genetic material that can be acquired.

About not comprehending them, I agree: we can't. Even Legion, an AI with 1000+ programs, interfaced with one, and found their scope to be massive and unknowable.

[quote]Yes it is. You aknowledged that the kid was right and that his whole-heartedly advocated solution (Synthesis) is the only possible choice. You didn't even dare to control them. You submitted to his deductions and conclusions, although the Geth and EDI has proven to you that there is maybe another way to achieve peace without turning every one into cyborgs/hybrids. Without the Reapers. You took your future from the Reapers. In other words you've given up on hope.[/quote]

You're linking loosely-associated concepts. Agreeing with the Catalyst is not equivalent to submitting to him, nor is it equivalent to giving up on hope that the Reapers will cease their harvest. There's plenty of proof to suggest that he is right, as it can go either way for the Geth and EDI: the Geth fought with Saren. As for EDI, she was that rogue synthetic VI that wiped out every soldier on the Alliance Luna base. There is wisdom in harnessing the strength of your enemy, and if it means taking their strengths and ending the cycle, then I'm all for it. You just want to kill the Reapers, and that's fine. I, however, see that as unnecessary if the cycle can be stopped.

[quote]However, I reacted more to the pic of Saren on your sig than your answer. My bad. [/quote]

We just took a quote from one of the coolest villians in all of video gaming and used it for the synthesis slogan. It's not because we support his idea of submitting to the Reapers.

[quote]Yes, the barriers have fallen, but do you remember that there were always conflict between organics themselves ? Between people of the same race, the same family ? Why would it be different now ? Just because everyone has green circuits and green glowing eyes ?[/quote]

It's not perfect, but at least the organics and synthetics will decide their own futures, not have some all-powerful race of synthetic-organic warships do that for them.

[quote]Unless you brainwashed everyone and removed every emotion and instinct, there is no chance in hell that the peace will last for ever. Everything has a beginning and an end.[/quote]

The peace between organics and synthetics will last forever. At least they won't be harvested. And there's no indication that they are brainwashed or emotionless. The synthesis ending managed to be the most touching and the most jubilant.

[quote]The Control ending has its issues as well. The tech singularity threat is all but eliminated. Nothing guarantees that Reapergod Shep and her new buddies (aside from turning her to the biggest hypocrite of the Galaxy. But that's a "moral" point of view, which is unrelated to the post), won't turn against us. You've heard her talking about eternity, immortality and all. She's not organic anymore, her mindset has completely changed. And it's just the beginning. [/quote]

Yeah, but Shep will lose his/her connection from the rest of his/her species, and as such think on a level above them to the extent that he/she might see herself as an enlightened despot to the point of promoting galactic-wide oppression through enforcement with the Reapers. This is something that can definitely happen down the road, as absolute power...

[quote]The Destroy ending removes the Reapers from the game. A big issue fewer. They've started their pre-emptive, ruthless genocides based on a flawed assumption. They are the cycle, not the synthetics. Even if tech sing is inevitable, its outcome stays unknown. The Geth and EDI die because the writers decided to tie their fate to the destruction of your archenemy, just in order to balance the choices and for no real other reason.[/quote]

Actually, no. The Crucible does not discriminate between all synthetics in destroying the Reapers. That's part of the narrative. There's also the danger of re-creating synthetics and a resumption of the chaos, only this time without the intervention of the Reapers.

[quote]Where there is life, there is death. Where there is chaos, there is order.  Where there is love, there is hate. Where there is compassion and altruism, there is cruelty and selfishness. That's how the Universe is balanced. So the dream of perfection, eternal peace and immortality, while admirable, will stay an utopia. Something we'll always try to reach but never achieve. Even with Synthesis.[/quote]

I never said that synthesis is a utopia, but yeah, I agree. The point in the ending is that you have to decide which is more important for your future.

[lillitheris]

SITHDUKE wrote...

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.

You cannot know those implications. A new DNA framework for life is an incomprehensible quantity. If you do not lean on the epilogues, which are irrelevant at the time of making the decision, there is not sufficient information to make an educated decision on the merits of the proposal. You’ve had four months on this thread, now, and there’s still nothing resembling a coherent explanation of how the stated goals of of Synthesis are achieved, or how the goals themselves even make sense. I know, because I’ve been here pointing out the problems on the scientific side of things until I got bored with that.

Shepard’s got 5 minutes to succeed in what you’ve failed at for 4 months.

Furthermore, even if you could come up with an explanation that could possibly work…you don’t know if that’s correct. You don’t know. Can’t know. And yet you gamble everyone’s lives and minds on it.

That is what makes a merely horrifying denial of the right of self-determination an actual abomination. You don’t even know which ends you’re trying to justify your means with.

I literally cannot understand such a mindset, which is why I’m fervently hoping that the problem is just that you’re not really thinking about the implications on every single living being in the universe.

Edit: Or maybe you’ve all just said “f— it, it makes no sense, let’s just pick the theme we agree with” and don’t really care about the moral conondrum. I wish you’d say so, if that were the case, and stop comparing Synthesis to other options…

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:51 .

[Enthalpy]

lillitheris wrote...

SITHDUKE wrote...

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.

You cannot know those implications. A new DNA framework for life is an incomprehensible quantity. If you do not lean on the epilogues, which are irrelevant at the time of making the decision, there is not sufficient information to make an educated decision on the merits of the proposal. You’ve had four months on this thread, now, and there’s still nothing resembling a coherent explanation of how the stated goals of of Synthesis are achieved, or how the goals themselves even make sense. I know, because I’ve been here pointing out the problems on the scientific side of things until I got bored with that.

Shepard’s got 5 minutes to succeed in what you’ve failed at for 4 months.

Furthermore, even if you could come up with an explanation that could possibly work…you don’t know if that’s correct. You don’t know. Can’t know. And yet you gamble everyone’s lives and minds on it.

That is what makes a merely horrifying denial of the right of self-determination an actual abomination. You don’t even know which ends you’re trying to justify your means with.

I literally cannot understand such a mindset, which is why I’m fervently hoping that the problem is just that you’re not really thinking about the implications on every single living being in the universe.

Edit: Or maybe you’ve all just said “f— it, it makes no sense, let’s just pick the theme we agree with” and don’t really care about the moral conondrum. I wish you’d say so, if that were the case, and stop comparing Synthesis to other options…

I for one would like to point to space magic as the "scientific" basis for synthesis. I think it's not too too far-fetched. This is the same Mass Effect universe where biotics can shred people with their brains, and relays can teleport ships across vast distances, and Reapers can travel at FTL speeds without refuelling or discharging drive cores, and Rachni are telepathic, and Shepard can be resurrected from "meat and tubes."

[Uncle Jo]

A real pleasure to discuss with you. Even I don't agree with you.

[quote]Saracen 16 wrote...
At least organics retain their individuality in synthesis if not the decision to how they should evolve, which itself is a consequence of nature, not the self. No one is arguing that the Catalyst's logic is flawed, but it's still logic. It is based on a hypothesis that it has tried and tested, the hypothesis being that conflict is inevitable, and that eventually down the road, synthetics would become too powerful to destroy organics. We do not know the exact nature of the conflicts that the creators had with their synthetics, but I think it is safe to assume that it was so dire that it required the aid of a logic engine to figure out what to do about it. Therefore, the problem does have a validity.

[/quote]I disagree on the first sentence. They aren't organics anymore but hybrids. Their bodies being changed up to a molecular level and combined with synthetic , their mindset has to adapt to this new situation, if it can. To stretch it a bit : Green Liara is not blue Liara. For the better or the worse.

I think that we can put the problem Catalyst's logic put to rest now. IMO the point is how do people react to an eventual tech sing's and its outcome :
The ones fear the worst (AIs will wipe out organics at one point) and make their decision according to this hypothese by overcoming the difference.
The others don't consider it as inevitable or bad (for the organics) and still prefer to give a chance to synthetics and organics to evolve as such. Preserving the diference.

[quote]And what of the Citadel's universal AI ban? Organics are capable of learning from their mistakes in the span of years. It just so happens, however, that someone, somewhere outside of such jurisdiction, such as the Quarians, Synthetic Insights, and Cerberus would always bypass those conventions and create AI's of their own, be it geth or Project Overlord... and we know what those AI's were capable of. The Catalyst's logic loop states that it takes 50,000 years for organics on average to reach some sort of threshold where they are capable of creating AI's that can wipe out organics, not necessarily create AI's that DO wipe out organics. This is a problem the Catalyst and its creators fear the most (which, I'm assuming, is from their own experience), hence Reapers.


[/quote]I absolutely agree with you. However, the Catalyst was stuck in a logic loop, we're not. But here again it comes always to how you handle the tech singularity problem. As organic or as a Reaper.


[quote]* Well known quote from the Art of War*

You have to understand the basic premise of their argument before you make a decision to what you think is the best solution to this problem, to prevent organics from being capable of creating AI's that could or will destroy them. The problem is that we do not have a time period beyond 50,000 years to know what will happen: it is possible that down this road, AI's will become unstoppable.

[/quote]As well as it is possible that Ai's will be completely harmless or benevolent. I perfectly understand the base of the brat's reasoning and knowing your enemy's motivations doesn't mean you have to share his conclusions. You still can think for yourself and envisage your own solution.

By turning everyone to hybrids, you flatly admitted that AIs will doom organics someday, or at least that it's the most plausible outcome. That organics and synthetics can't coexist peacefully no matter what, hence you "solved the problem at its core": no difference anymore. Everyone is happy. You still don't give them any chance to evolve separately. That's also what thought the Reapers.


[quote]You know, that's actually a very good argument against synthesis that I never really thought of. Ironic is that this is the same reason I chose to cure the genophage. The reason I chose synthesis, however, is to give the Krogans an equal footing with all other races. I mean, who am I to play god, right? At least, however, it is the ideal solution because it solves the problem at its core: understanding between synthetic and organic by breaking the barrier between them. The other two solutions, however, have no guarantee that the situation will be under control, whether synthetics will be created in the future or whether god emperor Shepard will become an enlightened despot and oppress the galaxy after losing touch with humanity.

[/quote]Even more ironic is that curing the genophage is the reason I'll never choose synthesis. The Krogan are really troublemakers (not as much as the Yahg in the future but still). Wrex and Eve have them under their iron grasp, but noting tells that in the future they won't turn against the galaxy.

But I simply cherish the life in every form, even synthetic. You could object me why I did choose destroy thus annhilating the Geth and EDI.

Actually it was "Refuse" but it was something between me and the writer who came up with the brat. Off-topic.

It was the price to pay to get rid of the Reapers."Their sacrifice will be honored in the next empire".

No, seriously I hope that in the future other synthetic races will see the light of the day and that organics will remember that the Geth fought along the organics against the Reapers. That they were our allies. Yes I'm an optimist.

[quote]That's not the point. This is what the Catalyst saw. We don't have a period longer than 50,000 years to assume that synthetics will never destroy organics. However, we have two cycles that show that at this time, AI have been created that are capable of wiping out organics. Therefore, we can assume that his postulate has validity.

[/quote]The Catalyst has its own experience for its postulate, which is indeed valid. Well, before it decided to give the galaxy only a 50,000 years evolution-span.

Our experience shows that its postulate was wrong at least twice :

- The Protheans winning against the machines in the Metacon War until the Reapers showed up conveniently.
I'm not the conspiration freak but you can agree with me that it's at least a little bit suspicious. Was it really to help the Protheans ? Or they messed with the machines to weaken the Protheans (similar to what happened with the Rachni) thus making the harvest easier ? Speculations.

- The Geth, the Morning War and the Rannoch Arc.

[quote]Yet, the krogan came in. This was an eventuality they must have anticipated as well.

[/quote]Please. You came up with better arguments than that.


[quote]They're ruthless. What do you expect from machines? Whatever they do is for their own purpose, not for some malevolent ambition. Sovereign and Harbinger used the Geth and the Collectors as tools, nothing more, nothing less. Their speeches were nothing more than psychological warfare designed to bring about the most efficient demoralizing of the enemy and its eventual surrender, to maximize the amount of genetic material that can be acquired.

[/quote]They're not machines but synthetic/organic hybrids. "Each a nation", "independant" and "free off all weaknesses". At least until the brat popped up.
However, I absolutely agree that they were doing it for their own purpose. After all, the Reapers do need organics to reproduce.

[quote]You're linking loosely-associated concepts. Agreeing with the Catalyst is not equivalent to submitting to him, nor is it equivalent to giving up on hope that the Reapers will cease their harvest. There's plenty of proof to suggest that he is right, as it can go either way for the Geth and EDI: the Geth fought with Saren. As for EDI, she was that rogue synthetic VI that wiped out every soldier on the Alliance Luna base. There is wisdom in harnessing the strength of your enemy, and if it means taking their strengths and ending the cycle, then I'm all for it. You just want to kill the Reapers, and that's fine. I, however, see that as unnecessary if the cycle can be stopped.

[/quote]As well as they're plenty of proofs that he isn't. Only the heretic Geth (which, I repeat, were manipulated by Sovereign) fought with Saren and they were a minority amongst them. EDI chose cooperation and peaceful coexistence after gaining self-awareness. Destroy the Reapers and the harvest/cycle will cease as well. As for harnessing the strenght of your enemy, we'll talk about it in a few millenia

You've given up hope on organics (your kind btw) and synthetics to ever find a way to coexist without being transformed. That's I why I said you submitted to the Catalyst and its views.

[quote] *snip*
It's not perfect, but at least the organics and synthetics will decide their own futures, not have some all-powerful race of synthetic-organic warships do that for them.

[/quote]Also achieved in Destroy, a little less in Control. It depends on Shepard now.

[quote]The peace between organics and synthetics will last forever. At least they won't be harvested. And there's no indication that they are brainwashed or emotionless. The synthesis ending managed to be the most touching and the most jubilant.

[/quote]Pure assumption. There is neither organics nor synthetics anymore. They won't be harvested as well in destroy or control. Again without being changed. Oh, sure synthesis was greatly favored by the guy(s) who made the slideshows and the speech of EDI. But just because they depicted it like that, doesn't make him/them right about it. It's their opinion or artistic vision.


[quote]Yeah, but Shep will lose his/her connection from the rest of his/her species, and as such think on a level above them to the extent that he/she might see herself as an enlightened despot to the point of promoting galactic-wide oppression through enforcement with the Reapers. This is something that can definitely happen down the road, as absolute power...

[/quote]That's what I was implying, it seems that I didn't express myself correctly. My bad. I whole-heartedly agree.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Still curious that you're more open to the interpretation of the slideshows and Shep's speech in Control than in Synthesis. Everyone of us sees what they want, isn't it ?

[quote]Actually, no. The Crucible does not discriminate between all synthetics in destroying the Reapers. That's part of the narrative. There's also the danger of re-creating synthetics and a resumption of the chaos, only this time without the intervention of the Reapers.

[/quote]That's what the Brat said, no one knows how the Crucible works and since he said himself that there is not enough time to explain... Pretty convenient isn't it ? As for the second part, there is indeed is risk that it turns to exactly what you said. Or not.

I'm also glad that the Reapers won't intervene this time, because IMO they've already achieved what the most evil and powerful AI can only dream of.

[quote]I never said that synthesis is a utopia, but yeah, I agree. The point in the ending is that you have to decide which is more important for your future.

[/quote]That's the point. Exactly.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:35 .

[saracen16]

[quote]Uncle Jo wrote...

A real pleasure to discuss with you. Even I don't agree with you.[/quote]

Likewise.


[quote]I disagree on the first sentence. They aren't organics anymore but hybrids. Their bodies being changed up to a molecular level and combined with synthetic , their mindset has to adapt to this new situation, if it can. To stretch it a bit : Green Liara is not blue Liara. For the better or the worse.[/quote]

In time, yes, green Liara will not be blue Liara. However, at the outset, green Liara is blue Liara. The self is composed of many things: experiences, memories, knowledge, relationships, etc. None of these are changed at the point Synthesis happens. In time, yes, they do change significantly, but they retain the choice of how it progresses in these new settings.

[quote]I think that we can put the problem Catalyst's logic put to rest now. IMO the point is how do people react to an eventual tech sing's and its outcome :
The ones fear the worst (AIs will wipe out organics at one point) and make their decision according to this hypothese by overcoming the difference.
The others don't consider it as inevitable or bad (for the organics) and still prefer to give a chance to synthetics and organics to evolve as such. Preserving the diference.[/quote]

I'm not so sure. The Control ending can go either way, allowing both organics and synthetics to retain their individuality, but using the Reapers as enforcers for a new peace between the two groups.

[quote]I absolutely agree with you. However, the Catalyst was stuck in a logic loop, we're not. But here again it comes always to how you handle the tech singularity problem. As organic or as a Reaper.[/quote]

I don't have to be a Reaper to agree with the Catalyst's theory or logic loop. If the evidence is there and it makes sense, its not unnatural for me to act on it.


[quote]As well as it is possible that Ai's will be completely harmless or benevolent. I perfectly understand the base of the brat's reasoning and knowing your enemy's motivations doesn't mean you have to share his conclusions. You still can think for yourself and envisage your own solution. [/quote]

That AI's will be harmless and/or benevolent is based on the notion that AI's will never see their organic creators as obsolete or irrelevant, nor will they be able to exceed limits and instead remain in stagnation. It also assumes that someone, somewhere won't be creating a more powerful AI.


[quote]By turning everyone to hybrids, you flatly admitted that AIs will doom organics someday, or at least that it's the most plausible outcome. That organics and synthetics can't coexist peacefully no matter what, hence you "solved the problem at its core": no difference anymore. Everyone is happy. You still don't give them any chance to evolve separately. That's also what thought the Reapers.[/quote]

Organic creators have a degree of power over their synthetic underlings. Should these underlings rise above, many organics will fear instability in the relationship of dominance that they have over these automatons. Reciprocally, the automatons will eventually gain the most basic function of organics: self-preservation. Conflict always arises in differences of power, especially where evolution, be it social, economic, or political, is involved. We've seen that in history: the struggle for equal rights is almost always a violent one.


[quote]Even more ironic is that curing the genophage is the reason I'll never choose synthesis. The Krogan are really troublemakers (not as much as the Yahg in the future but still). Wrex and Eve have them under their iron grasp, but noting tells that in the future they won't turn against the galaxy. [/quote]

Which is strange because you were willing to give synthetics a chance, in spite of their violent history (ala. the geth and Quarians). Why not the krogan?


[quote]But I simply cherish the life in every form, even synthetic. You could object me why I did choose destroy thus annhilating the Geth and EDI. It was the price to pay to get rid of the Reapers."Their sacrifice will be honored in the next empire". [/quote]


If you think their sacrifice is worth it, then I won't stop you. However, I don't think that EDI nor the Geth are a worthy price to pay. 


[quote]No, seriously I hope that in the future other synthetic races will see the light of the day and that organics will remember that the Geth fought along the organics against the Reapers. That they were our allies. Yes I'm an optimist.[/quote]

Yeah, but that would probably be thousands of years in the future. The past will cease to be relevant. We've had stories of two peoples uniting (East and West Germany) and peace being made between warring nations. Yet, conflict is a fact of life that we can not escape from.


[quote]The Catalyst has its own experience for its postulate, which is indeed valid. Well, before it decided to give the galaxy only a 50,000 years evolution-span.

Our experience shows that its postulate was wrong at least twice :

- The Protheans winning against the machines in the Metacon War until the Reapers showed up conveniently.
I'm not the conspiration freak but you can agree with me that it's at least a little bit suspicious. Was it really to help the Protheans ? Or they messed with the machines to weaken the Protheans (similar to what happened with the Rachni) thus making the harvest easier ? Speculations.

- The Geth, the Morning War and the Rannoch Arc.[/quote]

The point is that at the 50,000-year mark, organics reached a state where they can create violent AI's capable of wiping them out. We still don't know if the Protheans will lose their war against AI in the next 50,000 years if the Reapers decided to skip a cycle for no apparent reason other than for the sake of the argument. I do admit that the Reapers appearing at the time of the Metacon war can lead one to believe that the Reapers are pro-synthetic, but there is no indication otherwise to show that. I would only assume that the Zha'til were the geth of the Prothean cycle, simple tools for use by the Reapers, making, just like you said, the harvest more efficient.

[quote][quote]Yet, the krogan came in. This was an eventuality they must have anticipated as well.

[/quote]Please. You came up with better arguments than that.[/quote]

Okay. I meant to say that the Reapers repeated many patterns of evolution (change) and dissolution (conflict) but we don't know why this is the case, assuming that they are responsible for the pattern vis-a-vis the Rachni war. You'd think that for countless eons, they'd have some experience.


[quote]They're not machines but synthetic/organic hybrids. "Each a nation", "independant" and "free off all weaknesses". At least until the brat popped up.[/quote]

They're still machines nonetheless at their core: their efficiency at which they carry out their tasks, their weaponry, their technology, and their modifications... all machinery.


[quote]However, I absolutely agree that they were doing it for their own purpose. After all, the Reapers do need organics to reproduce.[/quote]

To harvest, you mean, yes.


[quote]As well as they're plenty of proofs that he isn't. Only the heretic Geth (which, I repeat, were manipulated by Sovereign) fought with Saren and they were a minority amongst them. EDI chose cooperation and peaceful coexistence after gaining self-awareness. Destroy the Reapers and the harvest/cycle will cease as well. As for harnessing the strenght of your enemy, we'll talk about it in a few millenia [/quote]

His logic engine is not a conjunctive argument (i.e. since conflict is both inevitable and evitable, it is false), but a unitary one (conflict is inevitable). The baseline is cooperation or control, but you only need one incident to support his theory.


[quote]You've given up hope on organics (your kind btw) and synthetics to ever find a way to coexist without being transformed. That's I why I said you submitted to the Catalyst and its views.[/quote]

I agreed with the Catalyst's views, but to submit to them is to obey them without question, which I do not. I only chose the Synthesis option as I saw it as the least of the three evils. I would never refuse the Crucible because that would mean the end of the cycle. I wouldn't destroy the geth and EDI because I would not sacrifice their lives, nor would I allow the possibility of something like the Reapers happen again in a distant future. I would choose control only if I was capable of understanding and embracing my potential transcendence. I am aware of the consequences of synthesis, but I do not see any reason that it will lead to a sacrifice of individuality. Moreover, it saves many lives, that of the civilizations and the Reapers, all of them - like you said - nations.

[quote]Also achieved in Destroy, a little less in Control. It depends on Shepard now.[/quote]

Indeed.

[quote]Pure assumption. There is neither organics nor synthetics anymore. They won't be harvested as well in destroy or control. Again without being changed. Oh, sure synthesis was greatly favored by the guy(s) who made the slideshows and the speech of EDI. But just because they depicted it like that, doesn't make him/them right about it. It's their opinion or artistic vision.[/quote]

The reason I cited the synthesis epilogue was to show you that they are not emotionless or brainwashed.

[quote]Still curious that you're more open to the interpretation of the slideshows and Shep's speech in Control than in Synthesis. Everyone of us sees what they want, isn't it ?[/quote]

I don't think synthesis is rosy, either, but I think that it is the least of all evils. All the ending choices have moral wrongs about them, and prospectively terrifying outcomes. It hearkens back to the Deus Ex series, where technology is put in a similar spotlight, each resulting in outcomes that are potentially monstrous. Hell, in Deus Ex Invisible War, you can reject all of them, leading to a bleak future and an apocalypse dominated by cyborgs.

[quote]That's what the Brat said, no one knows how the Crucible works and since he said himself that there is not enough time to explain... Pretty convenient isn't it ? As for the second part, there is indeed is risk that it turns to exactly what you said. Or not. [/quote]

"There's not enough time to explain" referred to the designers of the Crucible. He also said that he first noticed the design for the Crucible several cycles ago, meaning that the Crucible was birthed as a result of the Reaper cycle, not at its onset.

[quote]I'm also glad that the Reapers won't intervene this time, because IMO they've already achieved what the most evil and powerful AI can only dream of. [/quote]

Themselves.

[quote][quote]I never said that synthesis is a utopia, but yeah, I agree. The point in the ending is that you have to decide which is more important for your future.

[/quote]That's the point. Exactly. [/quote]

And that's what makes the scope of this game epic. Through a series of small decisions right up to the very end, we shaped a galaxy. It is mind-boggling to think about the implications and the possibilities if this was real life.

[PsyrenY]

Thanks for updating this Ieldra!

H8rs gonna h8, etc.

[mauro2222]

Enthalpy wrote...

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.

The scene is there, Wreav leads the krogan into battle again, and then it shows pics of Tuchanka being... well a wasteland 2.0, but with Krogan squeletons.

[YNation913]

I'd like to hear some opinions on these points:

1. If every civilization is fully integrated with technology, what are the consequences for those that have yet to develop any meaningful technology for themselves? (OP seemed to think undeveloped civilizations would somehow "ignore" it until they were ready? How is that possible if everyone is connected to a cache of unlimited information and memory?)

2. I still haven't heard an explanation for Stargazer in the synthesis ending. If everyone's thoughts and memories are preserved, and are readily available for observation, nothing should ever be lost to time! I'm dying to hear an actual developer's comments on this.

[Welsh Inferno]

YNation913 wrote...

I'd like to hear some opinions on these points:

1. If every civilization is fully integrated with technology, what are the consequences for those that have yet to develop any meaningful technology for themselves? (OP seemed to think undeveloped civilizations would somehow "ignore" it until they were ready? How is that possible if everyone is connected to a cache of unlimited information and memory?)

2. I still haven't heard an explanation for Stargazer in the synthesis ending. If everyone's thoughts and memories are preserved, and are readily available for observation, nothing should ever be lost to time! I'm dying to hear an actual developer's comments on this.

1. Its not a permanent connection. Think of the logistics of EVERY single being in the entire galaxy being linked constantly. That's just crazy. I imagine civilizations that are pre-spaceflight will have no idea of our existence yet. They will be capable of connecting with those on their own world but IMO its doubtful they can share information with those they do not even know exist. Also civilizations that are in their respective stone age(or whatever else) may think what happened as an act of God. I'd also say that the effects of Synthesis would allow those races to advance a lot quicker and will thus discover the current races(or we discover them) sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if everyone else thinks of it that way but that's what I get from the ending.

2. BioWare's fault for having one generic Stargazer scene(+ the new one being specifically for refusal). There isn't any rational explanation for it because of that mistake.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:55 .

[Ieldra]

YNation913 wrote...
1. If every civilization is fully integrated with technology, what are the consequences for those that have yet to develop any meaningful technology for themselves? (OP seemed to think undeveloped civilizations would somehow "ignore" it until they were ready? How is that possible if everyone is connected to a cache of unlimited information and memory?)

I can't imagine that's a permanent connection. Some people would go mad from being connected to a Reaper mind permanently. Perhaps there's a range factor involved, perhaps other limitations, I don't know, and I'm sure people can close the connection off if they want.
I see it like this:  if this "altered matrix" allows people to integrate with technology, maybe the link will activate as soon as a civilization has technology sophisticated enough to integrate with. Or it will all depend on whether or not galactic civilization implements a "prime directive" for non-interference. Now that I think of it, the latter appears more likely than not. Add that the basic link may have a limited range, which can be extended by integrating with more technology, and you have a working scenario.

2. I still haven't heard an explanation for Stargazer in the synthesis ending. If everyone's thoughts and memories are preserved, and are readily available for observation, nothing should ever be lost to time! I'm dying to hear an actual developer's comments on this.

I've hypothesized that this planet is a colony lost in the aftermath of the war, still to be reconnected with the rest of the galaxy. Another possibility that galactic civilization has collectively ascended to become something totally different, leaving some behind who didn't want to follow. I find that rather unlikely, though.

[DrZann]

lillitheris wrote...

DrZann wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

I can’t say this any clearer: the outcome of a decision is irrelevant when trying to assess the morality of the decision. It’s only dependent on factors known at the time of the decision. By definition, the outcome is not known at the time.

There is no research. There is no analysis. There is no meta-analysis. There are no results. There are no statistically significant results. It is all completely unknown at the time of making the decision.

But the outcome of the other choices are known. Genocide or subjugation of at least one life-form. These are known quantities at the time of the decision. Don't you think it would be morally remiss to make such an important decision based solely on your anxiety of an uncertain future?

Yes, which is why it’s not based solely on that. At the same time, it’s nowhere near as irresponsible as making a decision with an unknown outcome on the basis that it might be good.

This is what my analogy illustrates, because it seems to get ignored or deliberately obfuscated. Right here on these last few pages, people are very studiously avoiding all moral implications of that choice in a manner that is outright frightening.

Control is preferable even if you decide to believe in that it leads to ‘subjugation’, because you have the option to choose Synthesis or otherwise liberate them at a later time. It gains you time to understand what the nature of things actually is — whether the Reapers are truly benevolent hiveminds despite never showing any tendency toward that, what the actual effects of Synthesis are, and so on. It is irresponsible to choose an unknown in this case. If it were just Shepard or a bunch of volunteers, guinea pigging would perfectly fine. Now it isn’t.

I can entertain the thought that someone could explain to me how they justify the unknown over the known, but at this point, nobody’s actually done so…

Your doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, reading in your own interpretation of the consequences of the act. Your moving goalposts. The consequences of Control are just as unknowable at the time of the choice as are the consequences of Synthesis. Also, in choosing Control we know Shepard will be destroyed so attributing a future liberation (or anything) to him is impossible.

Since we are not looking to the consequences of the act for moral guidance (for the sake of argument) we have to examine either the act itself or the motivations of the actor.

Modifié par DrZann, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:29 .

[MisterJB]

KingZayd wrote...
A) There was 1 Krogan Rebellion.
A) The pattern of extinction has repeated itself more times than you can fathom.

One Krogan Rebellion after the Rachni Genocide caused by overpopulation and just a violent, antagonistic nature.
While the Reaper's methods are torturous, at least they are trying to protect us. As far as we know, they have never caused the extinction of a species. All were preserved.

We can beat the Krogans without a Crucible.
We can't beat the Reapers without a Crucible.

Neither can be defeated through conventional methods.
Genophage.

C) I saved the Krogans because I had first hand experience that not all Krogans were bad.
C) No peaceful Reapers ever encountered. They have all been hostile.

Before the Council intervened, no peaceful turians had even been encoutered.

If the Reapers wanted peace it would be easy. Shepard said we'd rather keep our own form. Starchild said "No." All the Reapers would have to do is stop killing us, and leave our worlds and our people alone. The only reason we're at war with the Reapers is because they attacked us.

There is more than a piece of evidence that suggests the Reapers really have no choice other than do what the Catalyst wants who is itself bound by its programming.
Humanity made compromises to end the war with the turians and join the galactic "community". Why not with the Reapers? Certain changes to our DNA that don't seem to negativelly affects us in any way are not terrible terms.

[lillitheris]

DrZann wrote...

Your doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, reading in your own interpretation of the consequences of the act. Your moving goalposts. The consequences of Control are just as unknowable at the time of the choice as are the consequences of Synthesis. Also, in choosing Control we know Shepard will be destroyed so attributing a future liberation (or anything) to him is impossible.

No. Just…no. Again, I don’t know how I can clarify this. The consequences of Control are merely unknown beyond the initial delineated paths. Control means there’s a ShepardAI. Maybe it’ll slowly go insane later. That’s a situation we understand. It doesn’t matter what the actual outcome is, because all outcomes are understandable. (Completely arbitrary events such as the entire galaxy suddenly exploding affect each choice equally, and cancel eachother out.)

The Explain to me how a “new DNA” and a “new understanding” works without fundamentally altering the biological processes that make up a human consciousness, especially when the argument is at the same time that we cannot understand this change because it’s a new level of consciousness.

This is what I mean. You can come up with a tenuously plausible explanation that doesn’t actually fully solve the posited problem — but even then you have no frame of reference to know whether it’s correct. It’s literally explained to you that you cannot understand that new existence. You cannot make an educated decision.

(If you really wanted to, you could even introduce what-ifs into the equation although they kind of defeat the purpose of discussion anyway: what if the Catalyst is lying about the control? So be it. We still have a situation we understand.)

So, Synthesis is not necessarily bad — in fact, chances could overwhelmingly be that it’s a positive — but you can’t know that. If you take the “leap of faith” and you’re wrong, you’re f—d.

Since we are not looking to the consequences of the act for moral guidance (for the sake of argument) we have to examine either the act itself or the motivations of the actor.

Exactly correct. The consequences are irrelevant, because they are not factors in the decision itself. The prime factor in the morality of the decision in the case of Synthesis is that you’re forcing a change that you don’t understand on people who did not volunteer to be guinea pigs on the basis that it might be good.

It’s irresponsible, to use the least loaded term.

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

The collective minds being conscious is speculative, they are useful only if they can come alive (or at least restored into original form) again, the genocide has been committed by the reapers, u cannot kill a dead person again

It is almost like saying I shouldn't kill a husk cos it used to be a person, and we killed at least 2 harbingers

Whether the uploaded minds have an individual existence or just an abstract form that adds to the whole, the Reapers still preserve in some way the diversity, experience and knowledge of harvested races. Beyond that the Reapers are themselves living entities (if you believe synthetics can be considered alive, if not I think you missed a major theme in the series), as entitled to have their race continue as the Krogan, Rachni and Geth.

When u said that the reapers are a collection of consiousness, where exactly is this collection located? in harbinger? a husk? but isn't harbinger just a weapon?

In ME2 it showed the harvested races are used to create a reaper-core that takes the form of the harvested race (in this case a human skeleton). Those cores are interred in the Cthulhu-like Reaper ships. Harbinger is "just a weapon" in the same way EDI is "just a machine" and Shepard is "just an animal".

You also need to imply that the reapers keep all these wonderful undead consciousness alive (by providing some kind of life support) cos the ascended are not AIs, is there an impossibility to harvest these minds out when reapers die?

Organic minds can be uploaded to a virtual environment, as shown when Shepard entered the Geth consensus.

If synthesis is possible then I don't think there is anything impossible. In other words, destroy may not actually destroy this consciousness, unless u claim the "undead organics" ARE the reapers

Not undead, "differently alive", and yes the uploaded organics are the Reapers, conjoined in to a single "ascended" form and enslaved to the Catalyst's will. Yes there is a chance you may be able to ressurect the Reapers and gain access to this information, but it's not certain the Lazarus technique would work on them or that we have the technological know-how to effect repairs on Reapers who will be far more damaged than non-Reaper tech (if you have high EMS, with low EMS everything is equally fubar).

*Speculation warning

How did I miss this post?

Please expand on the bolded text "some way"

The reapers are serving as simply memory banks, "abstracts", exactly, like relics, and relics are not alive, life has been destroyed, and relics can be uncovered

How many times do I have to stress that I perceive synthetics as being alive?

Objectively speaking, isn't harbinger just a "weapon" and Shepard just an "animal"? Isn't that Catalyst's POV? Harbinger is a weapon that speaks, and Shepard is an "animal" that thinks

Hmm, Geth concensus, unfortunately we did not see the reaper concenses in the ending, no proof, and I am not looking forward to seeing horrifying images of reapers slaughtering previous civilisations

No, memory is memory, it is not alive, it certainly cannot dictate what a harbinger does once the Catalyst releases its grip, also, this is a combination of minds, wouldn't there be conflict of minds? Its like having multiple personalities, the voices in your head will argue like non stop, and since the Catalyst is gone, who has the final say? A roaster? monday its A's say, tuesday B's say...etc?

Again I must stress this, the consiousness gathered serves as memory only, it is no longer active, it has already occupied a space and time, if u make a new body for this structure of consciousness, it would be another person, thinks about some other things due to present environmental stimulation

EDIT: with regards to Shepard's resurrection, traces of Shepard's body tissue has been found, and this is useful to retain his / her identity, that most genuine foundation for tissue regeneration has survived, most importantly, the brain

Modifié par Vigilant111, 03 juillet 2012 - 11:05 .

[Krunjar]

Once again I don't think that synthesis creates a connection between minds. It changes the structure of life. It dousn't magically connect people together in one mind.People on undeveloped worlds will have no idea about reapers. It's true starkid says that the old races will be connected to us through the reapers. But being connected dousn't have to involve a joint mind or some kind of telepathy.

Modifié par Krunjar, 03 juillet 2012 - 10:46 .

[Ieldra]

Krunjar wrote...
Once again I don't think that synthesis creates a connection between minds. It changes the structure of life. It dousn't magically connect people together in one mind.People on undeveloped worlds will have no idea about reapers. It's true starkid says that the old races will be connected to us through the reapers. But being connected dousn't have to involve a joint mind or some kind of telepathy.

As I see it, it's communication with the potential to become more. Since it's realized through integrated technology, I'm tempted to call it "mechanical telepathy" or "mental networking". I definitely don't see a joint mind at all at the time of Synthesis, but I see the possibility of cultural movements towards one arising here or there in the galaxy in future.     

[DrZann]

lillitheris wrote...

DrZann wrote...

Your doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, reading in your own interpretation of the consequences of the act. Your moving goalposts. The consequences of Control are just as unknowable at the time of the choice as are the consequences of Synthesis. Also, in choosing Control we know Shepard will be destroyed so attributing a future liberation (or anything) to him is impossible.

No. Just…no. Again, I don’t know how I can clarify this. The consequences of Control are merely unknown beyond the initial delineated paths. Control means there’s a ShepardAI. Maybe it’ll slowly go insane later. That’s a situation we understand. It doesn’t matter what the actual outcome is, because all outcomes are understandable.

You've moved the goalposts yet again. Here's a quote from an earlier post.

lillitheris wrote...

I can’t say this any clearer: the outcome of a decision is irrelevant when trying to assess the morality of the decision. It’s only dependent on factors known at the time of the decision. By definition, the outcome is not known at the time.

I've expressed a willingness to discuss the moral implications according to your terms. You could do me the courtesy of following your own rules. Please explain to me how an unknown outcome can be understandable?

lillitheris wrote...
The Explain to me how a “new DNA” and a “new understanding” works without fundamentally altering the biological processes that make up a human consciousness, especially when the argument is at the same time that we cannot understand this change because it’s a new level of consciousness.

This is what I mean. You can come up with a tenuously plausible explanation that doesn’t actually fully solve the posited problem — but even then you have no frame of reference to know whether it’s correct. It’s literally explained to you that you cannot understand that new existence. You cannot make an educated decision.

(If you really wanted to, you could even introduce what-ifs into the equation although they kind of defeat the purpose of discussion anyway: what if the Catalyst is lying about the control? So be it. We still have a situation we understand.)

So, Synthesis is not necessarily bad — in fact, chances could overwhelmingly be that it’s a positive — but you can’t know that. If you take the “leap of faith” and you’re wrong, you’re f—d.

I've already conceded that the ultimate consequences of Synthesis are unknown at the time the choice is made. I'm not discussing the consequences of any choice as per your request. Can we please move on?

lillitheris wrote...

DrZann wrote...
Since we are not looking to the consequences of the act for moral guidance (for the sake of argument) we have to examine either the act itself or the motivations of the actor.

Exactly correct. The consequences are irrelevant, because they are not factors in the decision itself. The prime factor in the morality of the decision in the case of Synthesis is that you’re forcing a change that you don’t understand on people who did not volunteer to be guinea pigs on the basis that it might be good.

It’s irresponsible, to use the least loaded term.

The problem here is the ethical implications on free choice is yet another discussion of the consequences of the act. Do you want to discuss the morality of the act or the moral consequences of the act?

But I'll bite anyway. The problem here is, if you've reached the point where Synthesis is an option than a critical mass of the galaxy has voted in favor of what ever the Crucible does. And to be clear, no one really knows what it does. Galactic civilizations not only built the thing, they made enormous sacrifices in lives just to get Shepherd to a point where the choice is even possible. That's a clear enough commission of authority to satisfy my doubts.

Also, I'm not basing a decision for Synthesis on whether it may be good. Once again, that is an examination of the consequences. Which we were planning on avoiding.

Modifié par DrZann, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:15 .

[lillitheris]

[quote]DrZann wrote...

I've expressed a willingness to discuss the moral implications according to your terms. You could do me the courtesy of following your own rules. Please explain to me how an unknown outcome can be understandable?[/quote]

*sigh*

I understand what your misconception is, but I’m not sure how to rectify it. The events that can potentially be caused as a result of Control (or Destroy) can be reasoned about. You can make a reasonably educated decision because you can comprehend the implications to a sufficient degree.

This is not the case with Synthesis.

The reason I asked you to explain “new DNA” is not because I actually care about what it is. It’s to illustrate that there is a fundamental difference between such an alien concept, and the concepts involved in the other options.

[quote]
I've already conceded that the ultimate consequences of Synthesis are unknown at the time the choice is made. I'm not discussing the consequences of any choice as per your request. Can we please move on?[/quote]

I don’t need that concession. They’re obviously unknown. But they’re also unknowable.

[quote]lillitheris wrote...[quote]DrZann wrote...
Since we are not looking to the consequences of the act for moral guidance (for the sake of argument) we have to examine either the act itself or the motivations of the actor. [/quote]

Exactly correct. The consequences are irrelevant, because they are not factors in the decision itself. The prime factor in the morality of the decision in the case of Synthesis is that you’re forcing a change that you don’t understand on people who did not volunteer to be guinea pigs on the basis that it might be good.

It’s irresponsible, to use the least loaded term.
[/quote]
The problem here is the ethical implications on free choice is yet another discussion of the consequences of the act. Do you want to discuss the morality of the act or the moral consequences of the act?[/quote]

I have no interest in the consequences. You can debate that nonsense amongst yourselves.

[quote]Galactic civilizations not only built the thing, they made enormous sacrifices in lives just to get Shepherd to a point where the choice is even possible. That's a clear enough commission of authority to satisfy my doubts.[/quote]

What my grandparents wanted is not what I want. What my contemporaries want isn’t necessarily what I want.

The only contemporary mandate Shepard has is to end the Reaper threat. There are options to do that that don’t involve further unconsulted encroaching.

[quote]Also, I'm not basing a decision for Synthesis on whether it may be good. Once again, that is an examination of the consequences. Which we were planning on avoiding.[/quote]

So…you’re not even assuming that the result is beneficial, but decide to go for it anyway? What?

[KingZayd]

MisterJB wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
A) There was 1 Krogan Rebellion.
A) The pattern of extinction has repeated itself more times than you can fathom.

One Krogan Rebellion after the Rachni Genocide caused by overpopulation and just a violent, antagonistic nature.
While the Reaper's methods are torturous, at least they are trying to protect us. As far as we know, they have never caused the extinction of a species. All were preserved.
And I bet helping the Geth to  blow up the Quarians, was just a way of "preserving" them?
Not even Sovereign agrees with you: "Your extinction is inevitable"

We can beat the Krogans without a Crucible.
We can't beat the Reapers without a Crucible.

Neither can be defeated through conventional methods.
Genophage.

C) I saved the Krogans because I had first hand experience that not all Krogans were bad.
C) No peaceful Reapers ever encountered. They have all been hostile.

Before the Council intervened, no peaceful turians had even been encoutered.

If the Reapers wanted peace it would be easy. Shepard said we'd rather keep our own form. Starchild said "No." All the Reapers would have to do is stop killing us, and leave our worlds and our people alone. The only reason we're at war with the Reapers is because they attacked us.

There is more than a piece of evidence that suggests the Reapers really have no choice other than do what the Catalyst wants who is itself bound by its programming.
Humanity made compromises to end the war with the turians and join the galactic "community". Why not with the Reapers? Certain changes to our DNA that don't seem to negativelly affects us in any way are not terrible terms.

 A) Rachni wars were incited by Reapers. Actually, as far as we know, only the Protheans have had been preserved. Oh, and the Keepers. How much of them has been preserved is unclear. The Protheans certainly look different. All the evidence points to the species being extinct.

Genophages can be remade if necessary. The Crucible is a one time deal. Also, before the Krogan represented the millitary might of the galaxy. Asari and Salarian forces weren't very strong (which is why the Krogan were used against the Rachni). Turians were the new guys. Nowadays the Turian and Human forces represent the most powerful millitaries in the galaxy, and the Quarians and/or Geth (if they're still alive), are pretty powerfult too. Not to mention the Rachni if they're also around.


C) And if the Council hadn't intervened, it would be a reasonable assumption to make.



There are 2 times where it's suggested the Reapers are being controlled. 1) Vendetta who also says the controller's intent is CERTAINLY galactic annhilation. and 2) The Starchild itself. We repeatedly see evidence of Reapers being sentient and making decisions.

The Starchild says its purpose was to bring peace between organics and synthetics. EDI and the Geth (if they are around) are allied with the Organics against the Reapers. Mission accomplished, Reapers can go now.

It was the Turians who had to pay heavy reparations to the Alliance for starting the war. Discussing peace terms with the Reapers would be possible if they were to stop killing us first. They're the aggressors. We're only fighting them because they attacked us. They make no show of good faith.

Modifié par KingZayd, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:14 .

[Heeden]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I've hypothesized that this planet is a colony lost in the aftermath of the war, still to be reconnected with the rest of the galaxy. Another possibility that galactic civilization has collectively ascended to become something totally different, leaving some behind who didn't want to follow. I find that rather unlikely, though.

Personally I think the "some of the information has been lost" line is an accidental plot-hole and they didn't really think of the ramifications of it (probably because they wrote it as a generic scene for all three endings). However I can see how information could be "lost" even if it is still stored somewhere. Just because the relevant data still exists doesn't mean everyone is aware of it, the Cryptosphere in Feersum Endjinn holds the whole sum of human knowledge spanning millions of years, but specialists called "Tellers" are required to navigate the data-corpus to find out what and where that information actually is.

However I don't find the idea of withdrawing from Synthesised society to be that unlikely. There'll always be people who long for the simpler times and I see absolutely no reason why these people couldn't be given a comfortable colony to live on (in Feersum Endjinn earth is populated by descendents of people who decided to remain at home whilst the rest of humanity took to the stars, and amongst this population there are people who go a step further and live without the benefits of technology).

When I first saw the ending, I assumed planets served as nurseries/retirement homes. Children live there until they are old enough to head out in to space and the elderly return when their minds or bodies are no longer up to the adventure.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Heeden wrote...

@Urdnot - the possiblity for Synthesis was made by Shepard and the Crucible being present on the Citadel.

Awww, I see. 

[Heeden]

@lillitheris

We understand that to you taking a jump in to the unknown-unknown is the least moral choice. However compared to enslaving the most powerful force in the galaxy to our will or commiting genocide on two races and murdering a close friend it's hard to see it as a black-and-white issue like you do. In fact from a purely moral stand-point I would go for Synthesis hands-down because it does the most to sanctify the free-will of sentient life in the galaxy.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

So…you’re not even assuming that the result is beneficial, but decide to go for it anyway? What?

>.<

You said you didn't want to discuss the consequences of Synthesis, so of course they won't be brought in to the debate. That doesn't mean they weren't considered outside of the rules you wanted.