9087 réponses à ce sujet

[YNation913]

All this "academic" discussion and debate over the ethical and mechanical nuances of synthesis is interesting, but what about what Bioware was trying to do with it narratively speaking?

I've seen and heard many perpectives on what synthesis is in this regard. Is it a repetition of the genophage; a solution to a problem based on projections? Is it even necessary, given that cooperation between synthetics and organics is possible without it? Or is it the culmination of Shepard's effort to put everyone on equal footing, removing the need for tools which eventually, in gaining complexity and evolving into life forms, are no longer suited for subservience?

Is it an actualization of potential, both in terms of Shepard's use of his physiology and in terms of an organism's natural abilities? Perhaps it embraces the perspectives of all sides of the conflict, accepting a notion that has been resisted with increased intensity as society has become more liberal: that there are just some things that are much bigger than us and fall outside the realm of our control. But then, is this in keeping with the idealistic themes behind the character of Shepard? Or does his decision to "synthesize" represent the collective effort of the galaxy; a rejection of the Reaper's solution in favor of one achieved on the galaxy's own terms via the construction of the Crucible?

"I.. don't know." The thing is, it's all made up, so without definitive consequences within the narrative, I'd say there's little point in being an absolutist, which ever side of the argument you find yourself on. And I mostly direct this last bit at the folks talking like it's morally reprehensible to choose synthesis. Chill out, y'all.

/rant.

[Jadebaby]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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

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

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

Like might seem rhetorical but I am actually interested in your answer OP....

[Vlta]

Ieldra2 wrote...

What if I don't want to eradicate the Reapers if I have an alternative? One Reaper is "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined...." Killing the geth pales into insignificance before such a multiple genocide. I would be destroying the legacy of organic life in the galaxy of the last 40 million year at the very least.

Fortunately, the ending provides me with two acceptable alternatives.

This is what I really don't understand, even if you chose synthesis all you did was render what the reapers current job was irrelevant. What's to stop them from now just eradicating everything because it's inferior or that child thing deciding that perhaps synthesis wasn't the correct answer and just decides to "correct" this new issue. Control from what I understand just sends the reapers away, how long before they overide that control, these are after all massive super AIs. Killing the reapers is effective and permanent and for my self satisfying.

Synthesis is an abomination it takes away humanity and every other races ability to evolve on their own terms and forcing such changes rarely ever works out. It has been mentioned on other threads but think of the more primitive races in the galaxy that suddenly were changed how would any of them react. Destroy allows the galaxy to progress on it's own terms not have that course dictated by an AI overlord, whose own logic is based on outrageous theories and is even disproved in the game.

As for control(yes this thread isn't about it) All it does is side step the problem a push it to be dealt with next tuesday...

[Taboo]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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

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

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

Like might seem rhetorical but I am actually interested in your answer OP....

The issue we have here is that the Rosebush will recover initially. It will survive being pruned. It is not sentient in the way a dog is, or a cat.

Somehow I think their is sadistic enough bastard there who would continue to prune it if it screamed.

I don't think I've ever seen someone's explanation as to what Synthesis does to plants. They are synthesized as well. Does this mean they have sentience now?

[Vlta]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I don't think I've ever seen someone's explanation as to what Synthesis does to plants. They are synthesized as well. Does this mean they have sentience now?

lol man I can see those vegans now....

[Taboo]

Vlta wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I don't think I've ever seen someone's explanation as to what Synthesis does to plants. They are synthesized as well. Does this mean they have sentience now?

lol man I can see those vegans now....

We haven't even decided if people have to eat and drink now. Do I still have to defecate and urinate? How do I reproduce? Are sperm and Eggs still the go to cells for this?

Have we discussed this yet?

[Taboo]

I1 Trust wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

*sigh* Why do I even bother?

Exactly.

Y'know, it's clear that you spent more time thinking and working on this than even the writers themselves.

So why do you bother at all? I'm curious.

The irony you bestow upon this topic with your banner...

[-Skorpious-]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The irony you bestow upon this topic with your banner...

Quit posting snarky comments and start writing that topic you promised us last weekend! 

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 22 mai 2012 - 04:42 .

[Veneke]

I'm going to condense down people's posts into what they basically say rather than what they actually said. Apologies in advance.

Synthesis rapes the galaxy/Synthesis is an abomination/People who choose Synthesis are Hitler-esque, authoritarian or similar/Ethical issues etc.

Basically, this line of reasoning is irrelevant. They're arguments against choosing Synthesis, not arguments dealing with how OP explains how it works.

Various posts regarding religion.

Irrelevant. See above.
 

How is plantlife affected?

I'd question the relevance of this line of thinking as well, though on different grounds. Short answer - we have no idea and there's nothing ingame to help inform an answer. I've seen a couple of people respond to these types of posts with some interesting conjecture, but frankly all that does is fuel the 'Nobody knows anything about Synthesis!' argument.
 

How can we trust the Catalyst?

Asked and answered really. I'm sticking with the one that makes the most sense to my mind and that I've tried (and failed) to convince dreman9999 about - Namely that it comes down to narrative integrity. The number of narrative issues that arise if we can't trust the Catalyst are enormous. The biggest one being that if he's lying then we can't win and there's potentially no ending at all if the Catalyst is lying.

What's to stop the Reapers from continuing the Cycle anyway?

This is basically the same question as 'How can we trust the Catalyst?' it involves the same problems with narrative integrity that I talked about at length earlier in this thread.
 

You force people to be equals.

There's no way to substantiate this one way or the other, though I personally think it makes no sense in the slightest.

Multiple interpretations of Synthesis are possible.

Indeed there are, and the first post in this thread is one of those possibilities. 
 

Synthesis is a physical impossibility.

Irrelevant. Synthesis is a possibility because it's one of the three choices presented ingame. The science behind it may be circumspect but seeing as how it is achieved in the Synthesis ending questioning the possibility of Synthesis working is simply flawed.
 

Taboo-XX wrote...

The political implications are so disgusting it's not even funny.

Could you explain that one? It's irrelevant, of course, but I am have difficulty understanding what disgusting political implications Synthesis offers.

Modifié par Veneke, 22 mai 2012 - 05:12 .

[Jadebaby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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

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

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

Like might seem rhetorical but I am actually interested in your answer OP....

The issue we have here is that the Rosebush will recover initially. It will survive being pruned. It is not sentient in the way a dog is, or a cat.

Yes but I think the metaphor was to organic life as a whole, in which case it does recover because they grow again every 50,000 years, I think that was the point OP was making.

But yes, on an smaller level you're right. Also the rosebush will eventually die out, which runs counter to the OP's arguement that he's sacrificing the short term for the long, although it isn't a result of pruning, it just sums up how loosely the metaphor should be taken.

Somehow I think their is sadistic enough bastard there who would continue to prune it if it screamed.

I don't think I've ever seen someone's explanation as to what Synthesis does to plants. They are synthesized as well. Does this mean they have sentience now?

You have never seen an explanation as to the details of Synthesis because they don't exist. It is a totally fictional theme and Bioware did not explain it ... At all. We only ever heard about it 5 minutes before the games end.

[Jadebaby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I1 Trust wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

*sigh* Why do I even bother?

Exactly.

Y'know, it's clear that you spent more time thinking and working on this than even the writers themselves.

So why do you bother at all? I'm curious.

The irony you bestow upon this topic with your banner...

The stereotyping you bestow upon this topic with your post....

Just because someone has the IDT banner doesn't necessarily mean they have studied the game to obsessive lengths or made 1000+ words threads about it.

It means they have played the game and seen all the evidence toward IDT and believe in it. That is all.

[Ieldra]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Uncle Jo:
Here is one biological change that I think almost all humans with enough knowledge to know what I'm speaking about would agree is a very good thing: remove the appendix. It has no function at all, it is an evolutionary relic, and it's prone to inflammation.

Biology is a mess, the human body is no well-designed organic machine but the result of a million miniscule patches. Our bones lose minerals in zero-G, our spines are not made for walking upright, our cartilage and our teeth don't regenerate. There's a long list of things that are rather objectively flaws we could do without, without losing functionality in other places. There is no reason at all not to remove those if you can, unless you value "nature untouched by human hands" more than the well-being of actual humans.

*snip*

You know what man, I humbly agree that we'll never agree. Your logic is more circular than the star brat's.

You're firmly convinced that you can mess with everyone for their greater good, even if the concerned doesn't agree... You want to make us happy even if we don't want to...

I'm sorry but I find your way of thinking extremely dangerous and hope that you'll someday change your mind.

This conversation, although... amusing, is over.

Imagine a crippled beggar, who, after you've cured him of his condition, complains that you've robbed him of his livelihood. Did he have the right to remain crippled? Well, perhaps, but this is nothing that would feature highly in my list of considerations had I a decision to make to either cure all cripples in the world - or none.

And yes, I know Synthesis goes further than that. I just wanted to illustrate that there are limits to an individual's rights and considerations that may override it. So, yeah - you have to deal with the question if it's justified to make such a decision, but the answer is not a foregone conclusion.

Edit:
I would make the decision in the example above based on the fact that a good denied is an evil, so I'd be doing more evil than good by not pressing the button. This appears to escape most people, probably because of status quo bias.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

No, synthesis is stupid and if you honestly believe it is viable ending you are not someone I wish to talk to.

[Ieldra]

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...
No, synthesis is stupid and if you honestly believe it is viable ending you are not someone I wish to talk to.

:lol:
The game shows me it is a viable way to end the Reaper threat. There is no belief about that, it's simply fact - read Veneke's post above as for why. What exactly it does and whether its effects are desirable are different questions but it *is* a viable ending.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Vlta wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I don't think I've ever seen someone's explanation as to what Synthesis does to plants. They are synthesized as well. Does this mean they have sentience now?

lol man I can see those vegans now....

We haven't even decided if people have to eat and drink now. Do I still have to defecate and urinate? How do I reproduce? Are sperm and Eggs still the go to cells for this?

I've touched on this in the OP. There is no reason why having synthetic symbionts would change the way reproduction works. The symbionts would have to replicate themselves and pass to the child during pregnancy but that's all. I guess internal recycling using energy absorbed from light is a possibility, but as I said in the OP: in my interpretation Synthesis only provides the tools. What you do with them is your own business.

[Ieldra]

Vlta wrote...
Synthesis is an abomination it takes away humanity...

"Abomination" is a pejorative that should have no place in a debate like this. Apart from that, you raise the question of what it means to be human and which traits we consider core traits without which we would not be human anymore. Since "human" in this sense encompasses many other species we intuitively grant the same status as humans, the definition cannot be based on biochemistry.  So what is this "human" nature that would be compromised by Synthesis?

Can we still relate to others emotionally after Synthesis?
Can we still think individually?
Can we reproduce as we did before?

I see no reason to assume that any of these things will be lost. In fact, I cannot see that anything is lost by the addition of synthetic symbionts to an organic life form. I suspect this notion that Synthesis "takes away humanity" is based on an intuitiion of biological purity. Between organics, this is usually called racism.

But I grant you this: Synthesis is based on the theme of ascension, implying that life exists to grow beyond itself and that speeding up that process might just be desirable. So...possibly something is lost because there is no ascension without a cost. But what is it? I don't know, but perhaps it's nothing but our innocence, our naiveté about our place in the greater scheme of things. Like eating another fruit from the mythical tree of knowledge. To that, my answer would be: it is inevitable. I am just speeding up the process.

As for control(yes this thread isn't about it) All it does is side step the problem a push it to be dealt with next tuesday...

Which is why Control is probably the wisest decision of all. Yes, I can admit that even if it's not my favorite. It's saying "I don't know sh*t about this situation and I have no idea how to judge the Catalyst's assertions, so I'll stop the harvesting but save the status quo as best as I can, keeping the tools of intervention around. I have thousands of years to come up with a more permanent solution."

[kookie28]

What's so great about biological purity?

You would sacrifice human advancement for diseases and viruses that kill your loved ones because it would make you different than you are now?

Maybe you're the monster.

[Jadebaby]

kookie28 wrote...

What's so great about biological purity?

You would sacrifice human advancement for diseases and viruses that kill your loved ones because it would make you different than you are now?

Maybe you're the monster.

It wouldn't be human advancement because you would all be the same species. The same life-form.

Is the OP going to answer my question or not?

[kookie28]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

What's so great about biological purity?

You would sacrifice human advancement for diseases and viruses that kill your loved ones because it would make you different than you are now?

Maybe you're the monster.

It wouldn't be human advancement because you would all be the same species. The same life-form.

Is the OP going to answer my question or not?

Oh excuse me, the advancement of all life in the galaxy.  And nobody said that we'll all be Geth/Human/Turian/Quarian/Salarian/Asari/Drell/etc hybrids. 

So that makes it invalid?

Modifié par kookie28, 22 mai 2012 - 11:56 .

[Uncle Jo]

Note: I'm taking the endings at face value.

Veneke wrote...

Basically, this line of reasoning is irrelevant. They're arguments against choosing Synthesis, not arguments dealing with how OP explains how it works.

"I am making this thread to collect and present information that describes the Synthesis ending of Mass Effect 3 as a viable way to end the Reaper threat and secure a future free of any harvesting cycle for the civilizations of the galaxy"

Still don't have the right to argue against choosing Synthesis?

I respect his work. He has put a lot of thoughts in it. However he failed to explain it. Especially by the synthetics: I don't see where is the organic part.

"I propose molecular nanotechnology as the means to realize the aforementioned upgrades on the organic side, and reprogramming as the primary means to realize them on the synthetic side"

What is for, God's sake, the role of Shepard in this story? Why bother take him/her and not another human?

Star brat: "Add your energy (?) to the Crucible's". Laughed hard. By this sentence already, he lost the very little credit I could have given to him. I don't even want to speak about the kamikaze jump.

Various posts regarding religion are irrelevant.

 Agreed.

How is plantlife affected? I'd question the relevance of this line of thinking as well, though on different grounds. Short answer - we have no idea and there's nothing ingame to help inform an answer. I've seen a couple of people respond tothese types of posts with some interesting conjecture, but frankly all that does is fuel the 'Nobody knows anything about Synthesis!' argument.

Exalty. We have no frakking idea of how it works besides space magic. It's something we can not comprehend. What we do know is that we're going to turn all beings of the Galaxy into Cyborgs. Cool.
 

How can we trust the Catalyst? Asked and answered really. I'm sticking with the one that makes the most
sense to my mind and that I've tried (and failed) to convince dreman9999 about - Namely that it comes down to narrative integrity. The number of narrative issues that arise if we can't trust the Catalyst are enormous. The biggest one being that if he's lying then we can't win and there's potentially no ending at all if the Catalyst is lying.

Let's talk about narrative integrity
Do you realize that the very presence of the brat as catalyst makes the whole ME story totally absurd and your archenemies look like playmobil toys ?

What was the utility of Sovereign in this case ? Was he punished and left behind because of his big mouth ?

The Catalyst was always in the Citadel (note: the giant Mass Relay that always allowed the Reapers to launch their galactic Blitzkrieg in the previous cycles). He had a very good overview of what was happening in the galaxy and its scientifcal/technological progress.

Yet you're willing to tell me that the most powerful being in the Galaxy ever, who's probably older than 1 billion years, who "created" the Reapers and use them as minions (we're talking about the Reapers.THE REAPERS), was unable to stop a bunch of Protheans from hacking the Keepers or activating the Relay, HIS HOME ?

Still talking about narrative integrity ?

What's to stop the Reapers from continuing the Cycle anyway? This is basically the same question as 'How can we trust the Catalyst?' it involves the same problems with narrative integrity that I talked about at length earlier in this thread.

Nope. The Reapers (and their brand new boss) were the ones who started the cycles fearing an eventual technological singularity that might never happen. They're fans from preemptive wars genocides? Fine. Send them to hell and there is no cycle anymore.
 

You force people to be equals. There's no way to substantiate this one way or the other, though I personally think it makes no sense in the slightest.

Maybe not equals. But you're forcing them to be different. But sure the whole ME universe was never about ethics and moral (parangon/renagade choices, save the council or not, give TIM the collector base or destroy it, cure the genophage or not, kill the Geth/Quarians or broke peace...)

Multiple interpretations of Synthesis are possible. Indeed there are, and the first post in this thread is one of those possibilities.

Yeah sure. Democracy and freedom of opinion, interpretation and life choice. Exactly what you're taking away by choosing synthesis. But again it's irrelevant, since it's not about politics, moral, etc...
 

Synthesis is a physical impossibility. Irrelevant. Synthesis is a possibility because it's one of the three
choices presented ingame. The science behind it may be circumspect but seeing as how it is achieved in the Synthesis ending questioning the possibility of Synthesis working is simply flawed.

But wasn't that one of the goals of the OP? To also try to give a scientifical explanation to Synthesis ? Yet we don't have the right to argue against it? 
 

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 22 mai 2012 - 02:35 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@antares_sublight.
I don't know. And
in most cases I don't need to know. The host must somehow be able to
control the nanite clusters. Maybe they can communicate. There are
different scenarios possible and I have no way to tell which is more
likely. All that is headcanon territory. Does the ME trilogy answer the
question how the hell it is possible that asari can read other species'
genes?

Actually, I'm not sure that "hybrid plants" was the
intention int he first place, and that the image we get isn't just an
artifact of the rushed ending as they overlaid the existing image with
some pattern instead of doing something more elaborate. There's
certainly nothing of the kind suggested in the leaked script version.
That's why I'll wait for the EC until I deal with this stuff. Maybe the
offending imagery will be gone...

@Taboo_XX
The presence of the nanites might be responsible for the change in the eye color and the skin pattern.

Firstly, given that you have to throw out a proportionally very large amount of canon in order to make your argument, I'd say everything you've written is headcanon. Secondly, it's a very relevant and important topic, greatly highlighted by the game's final sequence with the glowing plants and all. Knowing how it affects plant life related directly to how it affects everything, since the Catalyst said ALL LIFE is changed.

Taboo-XX wrote...

Plants also glow green, as does Joker's
hat. I more than willing to dismiss the latter as a design oversight,
unless Bioware really intended his hat to gain some semblence of
sentience.

Maybe his hat is made of cotton or some other organic material. e.g. see my posts about whether wood still burns after synthesis or not.

Taboo-XX wrote...

Vlta wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I don't think I've ever seen someone's explanation as to what Synthesis does to plants. They are synthesized as well. Does this mean they have sentience now?

lol man I can see those vegans now....

We haven't even decided if people have to eat and drink now. Do I still have to defecate and urinate? How do I reproduce? Are sperm and Eggs still the go to cells for this?

Have we discussed this yet?

You must not have seen nearly every single one of my synthesis-related posts...

Some pro-synthistes posit that plant life becomes networked and able to make deliberate decisions regarding harvesting and growth.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 22 mai 2012 - 02:02 .

[Taboo]

The fact you haven't picked up on the political implications worries me greatly Veneke.

Authoritarianism one of the most disgusting forms of politics ever devised. It doesn't matter where you fall on the political line.

I dislike Margret Thatcher

I also dislike Joseph Stalin.

They are not the same but the authoritarian nature of their politics....

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 22 mai 2012 - 01:56 .