9089 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...


Please do read the second article (the criticism of the slowing of modern human evolution). In a nutshell, research has tentatively shown that well-off Western humans are still evolving despite modern comforts. I don't see how this cannot be extrapolated in a post-synthesis world. 

Unfortunately, this does not take into account the fact that western civilizations are starting to have such reduced birth rates that the population is beginning to be unsustainable.

And, many genetic anomalies and variances are being traced to the environmental differences in people's lives.  For instance (and this is somewhat noted in that article), men are now being seen to have more of an impact than at first thought with certain conditions such as autism-the age of the father may determine the possibility of autism in the child.  Sure, evolution continues, I never said it didn't right now, but just as many studies of other people show that genetic diversity is waning.

For instance a University of Michigan study showed that stem cell lines used for research are strikingly similar genetically, though they come from different people.  And they came from Middle Eastern, southern European and East Asian donors.

And the most diverse people genetically seem to be those on the African continent.

Other studies done in Montreal indicate that mutations are slowing down, but that certain environmental toxins may also be inhibiting certain mutations, but that some groups of people are more susceptible to mutations.  What they are thinkng is that evolution actually has taken longer than at first theorized, that we may even have diverged from chimps at some time further in the past that originally thought.  Evolution is incredibly slow.  There may be as little as 60 changes or mutations within billions of bases within a genome every generation and most mutations don't even initiate true change.

The introduction of a major change in what makes up people would necessarily lead to less genetic diversity, since we aren't that different to begin with.  It would be similar to the Asari process of reproduction where they select genetic coding to be introduced.  Presumably (if being used as the kid suggests) tech would decide what code to discard and what to keep, and all people have the same tech within them.

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
The introduction of a major change in what makes up people would necessarily lead to less genetic diversity, since we aren't that different to begin with.  It would be similar to the Asari process of reproduction where they select genetic coding to be introduced.  Presumably (if being used as the kid suggests) tech would decide what code to discard and what to keep, and all people have the same tech within them.

Hm, it could work in the sense that whereas before, genetically engineered humans like Miranda were rare due to the large costs associated with producing such a human, but now, the new basis of genetics is much easier and cheaper for the ordinary person to manipulate.

What if the new tech made genetic engineering even more difficult and expensive instead? Then perhaps the limited amount of gene therapy legal and available in the Mass Effect universe would become useless, and mutations would increase. 

[3DandBeyond]

alleyd wrote...

I sometimes look at synthesis as being similar to Autotune, the vocal correction software. It can make vocals etc "perfect" in tune or tempo but does it improve the musicality of the performance.

Synthesis feels like that for me. The results may be more theoretically perfect but then life loses the beauty of what life is. The struggles and its successes.

Great way to put it.  Exactly what it's like.  Tech would put coding in its correct place and discard unwanted coding-that is exactly what I interpret the kid as saying.  It is directing all evolution to someone's (his or whoever's) idea of perfection (unreal by our standards, but our standards are not his).  It would be directing all life toward that perfect pitch, but it's the randomness of adversity that makes things in life interesting.  Tech would direct the body to ignore the effects of that adveristy, since it's trying to reach that perfection that has already been determined.

People get hung up on perfection, the word.  But again, it's not real perfection (if such a thing could ever exist), because we'd all see that differently.  It is perfection as seen from a limited POV.  If I say, I met a handsome guy today, everyone would have a different view of what I mean.  But, if ten computers are programmed the same and are given parameters as to what constitutes a handsome guy, those computers will all "see" the same guy.

And back to your analogy.  A synthesized life would be an auto-tuned life, the in studio version.  A self-determined life would be a live performance.  Infinitely more unpredictable and exciting.

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Sure, evolution continues, I never said it didn't right now, but just as many studies of other people show that genetic diversity is waning.

For instance a University of Michigan study showed that stem cell lines used for research are strikingly similar genetically, though they come from different people.  And they came from Middle Eastern, southern European and East Asian donors.

And the most diverse people genetically seem to be those on the African continent.

Other studies done in Montreal indicate that mutations are slowing down, but that certain environmental toxins may also be inhibiting certain mutations, but that some groups of people are more susceptible to mutations.  What they are thinkng is that evolution actually has taken longer than at first theorized, that we may even have diverged from chimps at some time further in the past that originally thought.  Evolution is incredibly slow.  There may be as little as 60 changes or mutations within billions of bases within a genome every generation and most mutations don't even initiate true change.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. The time-speed of evolution is apprently slowing, and you believe that's a bad thing. I don't believe that it's necessarily a bad thing. Modern societies seem to be doing fairly well (in terms of life expectancy, etc.) compared to pre-agricultural societies, despite the latter perhaps possessing the higher speed. Should speed then be an issue?

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
The introduction of a major change in what makes up people would necessarily lead to less genetic diversity, since we aren't that different to begin with.  It would be similar to the Asari process of reproduction where they select genetic coding to be introduced.  Presumably (if being used as the kid suggests) tech would decide what code to discard and what to keep, and all people have the same tech within them.

Hm, it could work in the sense that whereas before, genetically engineered humans like Miranda were rare due to the large costs associated with producing such a human, but now, the new basis of genetics is much easier and cheaper for the ordinary person to manipulate.

What if the new tech made genetic engineering even more difficult and expensive instead? Then perhaps the limited amount of gene therapy legal and available in the Mass Effect universe would become useless, and mutations would increase. 

The problem is where's the expense?  There is none.  Tech is internal, it is if you will calibrating (hey, Garrus) all life, deciding the direction it will take.  It would be throwing out "garbage" coding.  But those very garbage codes could at some point become important mutations, create future change.  Tech would see it as illogical.  This is another thing that scientists have theorized with nanotech.  It could be used medically which is great, but would have to be programmed to do things on its own.  It can be active or passive. It's already being used to create smart drugs that are targeted.  And is being tested for regenerating limbs and skin and more.  And further studies are working toward genetic manipulation.

So, consider it like this.  You have regenerative nanotech within you.  You begin to age and it "fixes" you.  You are injured and it "heals" you.  But furthermore, what if a society determines that blonde hair and blue eyes are this year's favorite traits for babies?  Genetic manipulation may result in a huge increase in BH/BE babies.  Now consider pre-programmed nanotech that the kid uses to reach what he thinks of as perfection.

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Sure, evolution continues, I never said it didn't right now, but just as many studies of other people show that genetic diversity is waning.

For instance a University of Michigan study showed that stem cell lines used for research are strikingly similar genetically, though they come from different people.  And they came from Middle Eastern, southern European and East Asian donors.

And the most diverse people genetically seem to be those on the African continent.

Other studies done in Montreal indicate that mutations are slowing down, but that certain environmental toxins may also be inhibiting certain mutations, but that some groups of people are more susceptible to mutations.  What they are thinkng is that evolution actually has taken longer than at first theorized, that we may even have diverged from chimps at some time further in the past that originally thought.  Evolution is incredibly slow.  There may be as little as 60 changes or mutations within billions of bases within a genome every generation and most mutations don't even initiate true change.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. The time-speed of evolution is apprently slowing, and you believe that's a bad thing. I don't believe that it's necessarily a bad thing. Modern societies seem to be doing fairly well (in terms of life expectancy, etc.) compared to pre-agricultural societies, despite the latter perhaps possessing the higher speed. Should speed then be an issue?

Well, speed is an issue with either natural or unnatural influences.  We all have a bias.  People want kids that share traits that are passed down through the family.  Women when selecting sperm choose traits.  But even this is still in a major way influenced by nature.  The father may be a Nobel Prize Winner, but that doesn't guarantee anything.  If however, you have tech installed that discards what someone sees as garbage-say some unscrupulous nanotech scientist wants to skew all genetics and create short bald male kids that look like him.  The idea is, he could program the tech to manipulate coding and create copies similar to him.  If the tech that he programmed to make this happen is also passed on to the offspring of these kids, say in the bloodstream, then it will continue to happen over and over again and again. 

But synthesis is doing this on a much larger scale.  I think it's why EDI sees immortality as possible.  That is to show that some process of change (not necessarily evolution-it could be change caused by the tech), is ongoing.  It also seems geared toward reaching a certain end stage.  If immortal no further evolution is needed.

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
The problem is where's the expense?  There is none.  Tech is internal, it is if you will calibrating (hey, Garrus) all life, deciding the direction it will take.  It would be throwing out "garbage" coding.  But those very garbage codes could at some point become important mutations, create future change.  Tech would see it as illogical.  This is another thing that scientists have theorized with nanotech.  It could be used medically which is great, but would have to be programmed to do things on its own.  It can be active or passive. It's already being used to create smart drugs that are targeted.  And is being tested for regenerating limbs and skin and more.  And further studies are working toward genetic manipulation.

Where is it ever suggested that after synthesis, organics can change their own genetic code as easily as synthetics can change their code code? 

Furthermore, there are already laws in the Mass Effect universe that recognise genetic diversity and prohibit generic modification beyond some threshold to preserve that diversity (Codex: Genetic Engineering). I don't think people would discard them.

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
The act of learning a thing-especially if you are met with obstacles that you overcome, changes chemicals in your brain, changes the biology within your brain, and that is something you could pass on to offspring.  But thanks for the implied insult here.  I mean you like to use a lot of citations and all to appear intellectual, but then you can't even understand a simple concept.  I know you understood what I meant, so you are being argumentative.

1. According to the article, this has only been demonstrated once by training rats to run mazes -- in an experiment that was later shown to be incorrect due to poor setup. Therefore, science hasn't yet shown that "the act of learning...changes the biology within your brain...you could pass on to offspring."

2. I'm just pointing to current research related to your ideas...as opposed to making things up off the top of my head 

What I was pointing to is merely the things we do pass along.  Take depression for instance.  That has some genetic ties.  It is also related to chemicals in the brain.  If my brain improperly processes serotonin, I may pass that trait to my children.  But, if I have alternate brain chemicals and maybe I even use my grey matter differently, I may pass that predisposition onto my children.  I'm not passing along the knowledge, but the change or biology of my brain and the chemistry of my body.  Learning (not knowledge), but the ability or way we learn and even our ability to deal and adapt to adversity (learing overcomes adversity), may be passed to future generations just like drugs in a mother's body or repeated chemical abuse prior to pregnancy may damage genes.

I was not making this up off the top of my head. 

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Well, speed is an issue with either natural or unnatural influences.  We all have a bias.  People want kids that share traits that are passed down through the family.  Women when selecting sperm choose traits.  But even this is still in a major way influenced by nature.  The father may be a Nobel Prize Winner, but that doesn't guarantee anything.  If however, you have tech installed that discards what someone sees as garbage-say some unscrupulous nanotech scientist wants to skew all genetics and create short bald male kids that look like him.  The idea is, he could program the tech to manipulate coding and create copies similar to him.  If the tech that he programmed to make this happen is also passed on to the offspring of these kids, say in the bloodstream, then it will continue to happen over and over again and again. 

But synthesis is doing this on a much larger scale.  I think it's why EDI sees immortality as possible.  That is to show that some process of change (not necessarily evolution-it could be change caused by the tech), is ongoing.  It also seems geared toward reaching a certain end stage.  If immortal no further evolution is needed.

That's not speed-related, though. That's genetic engineering, completely overhauling biology. And I don't choose to assume that the tech in synthesis can manipulate genetics, much less according to the desires of some external factor. I'll just stop before stepping into headcanon territory.

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
If my brain improperly processes serotonin, I may pass that trait to my children.  But, if I have alternate brain chemicals and maybe I even use my grey matter differently, I may pass that predisposition onto my children. 

I have bolded the part that I do not believe without citation.

Edit: Ah, found what I was thinking of. Epigenetics is valid but the effects of brain usage are unexamined within the field.

Modifié par Enthalpy, 24 août 2012 - 03:51 .

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
The problem is where's the expense?  There is none.  Tech is internal, it is if you will calibrating (hey, Garrus) all life, deciding the direction it will take.  It would be throwing out "garbage" coding.  But those very garbage codes could at some point become important mutations, create future change.  Tech would see it as illogical.  This is another thing that scientists have theorized with nanotech.  It could be used medically which is great, but would have to be programmed to do things on its own.  It can be active or passive. It's already being used to create smart drugs that are targeted.  And is being tested for regenerating limbs and skin and more.  And further studies are working toward genetic manipulation.

Where is it ever suggested that after synthesis, organics can change their own genetic code as easily as synthetics can change their code code? 

Furthermore, there are already laws in the Mass Effect universe that recognise genetic diversity and prohibit generic modification beyond some threshold to preserve that diversity (Codex: Genetic Engineering). I don't think people would discard them.

I never said they could.  I said the tech is created to direct genetic change.  I wasn't talking about scientists in ME, but in real life.  Nanotech is being considered to change coding-the law has not caught up with this in real life.

I was just saying that tech in real life (and therefore in ME) could be created to manipulate genetics-in ME, perhaps people do use it for diversity.  That doesn't mean someone couldn't be using it unscrupulously to create similarity-uh, Miranda.

I was just trying to show that tech could be used to manipulate genetics and that in Synthesis, since the kid wants all organic life to reach the end state of evolution (perfection as he sees it), that tech that is integrated with organics would be used to direct genetics toward this goal.  It would happen internally and no person would be manipulating it.  The kid or whoever created it would have pre-programmed it to discard garbage code that would not lead to the pinnacle, end state of evolution.  That's the problem.  Diversity eventually would cease to exist as tech worked to crush it.  And the end of this galaxy's evolution would have been directed by the kid or whoever created synthesis.

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
If my brain improperly processes serotonin, I may pass that trait to my children.  But, if I have alternate brain chemicals and maybe I even use my grey matter differently, I may pass that predisposition onto my children. 

I have bolded the part that I do not believe without citation.

What are you talking about.  If my brain chemicals are different, if I eat things that help to build mental accuity, I may learn things faster.  If I get more sleep, if I continue to learn, I may have a better memory.  Some autopsies of alzheimer's patients have shown a smoothing of the convolutions within the brain.

Studies shown that our environment may shape the ability of our cells to process protein-inefficient cells may then replicate and create new cells with this lessened ability.

Chemicals within our bodies and our brains affect almost everything we do, and they effect and even contribute to mental illness, hence the serotonin reference.  Endorphines do other things.  Adrenaline can do damage to us physically over time.

And we all think differently and use our brains differently.  If you don't understand that, you prove it.  There are studies related to dopamine in infants and attachment disorders.  It seems babies that have no strong attachments to  say a mother in early life may have a problem with dopamine and may develop antisocially.

Other chemicals may be related to other types of learning.  And disruptions of these may lead to less effectiveness at learning or even cause physical changes within the brain, either of which (chemical or physical change) may in some way be passed down.  With the randomness of natural states of being, it's possible neither will be carried over, but it's also possible chemicals can create genetic change.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 août 2012 - 04:00 .

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
I was just trying to show that tech could be used to manipulate genetics and that in Synthesis, since the kid wants all organic life to reach the end state of evolution (perfection as he sees it), that tech that is integrated with organics would be used to direct genetics toward this goal.  It would happen internally and no person would be manipulating it.  The kid or whoever created it would have pre-programmed it to discard garbage code that would not lead to the pinnacle, end state of evolution.  That's the problem.  Diversity eventually would cease to exist as tech worked to crush it.  And the end of this galaxy's evolution would have been directed by the kid or whoever created synthesis.

Ok, so it boils down to what the Catalyst "would" (could?) have done to sabotage the tech that everyone received. That's slightly more subtle than the "tech indoctrinates everyone, the end" theory. So kudos for that. I still don't believe either.

Our headcanons, of course, don't intersect.

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
What are you talking about.  If my brain chemicals are different, if I eat things that help to build mental accuity, I may learn things faster.  If I get more sleep, if I continue to learn, I may have a better memory.  Some autopsies of alzheimer's patients have shown a smoothing of the convolutions within the brain.

Studies shown that our environment may shape the ability of our cells to process protein-inefficient cells may then replicate and create new cells with this lessened ability.

Chemicals within our bodies and our brains affect almost everything we do, and they effect and even contribute to mental illness, hence the serotonin reference.  Endorphines do other things.  Adrenaline can do damage to us physically over time.

And we all think differently and use our brains differently.

I'm saying people cannot pass those to offspring, unlike the genes that dictate how the parents regulate their neurochemical pathways. Sorry, edited my post with a source as you were writing this.

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
I was just trying to show that tech could be used to manipulate genetics and that in Synthesis, since the kid wants all organic life to reach the end state of evolution (perfection as he sees it), that tech that is integrated with organics would be used to direct genetics toward this goal.  It would happen internally and no person would be manipulating it.  The kid or whoever created it would have pre-programmed it to discard garbage code that would not lead to the pinnacle, end state of evolution.  That's the problem.  Diversity eventually would cease to exist as tech worked to crush it.  And the end of this galaxy's evolution would have been directed by the kid or whoever created synthesis.

Ok, so it boils down to what the Catalyst "would" (could?) have done to sabotage the tech that everyone received. That's slightly more subtle than the "tech indoctrinates everyone, the end" theory. So kudos for that. I still don't believe either.

Our headcanons, of course, don't intersect.

I never said tech indoctrinated everyone, so please don't act like you are quoting me.  The kid says synthesis is to help achieve perfection.  He says it's the pinnacle of evolution (the pinnacle is the top, the end, you can go no further).  He isn't sabotaging tech, but someone created it (someone who must agree with him) and why else would it be used if not for the purpose as he sees it?  Evolution is at times directed, but it is also at times random.  It is chaotic.  Hmmm. Something he doesn't like.  Therefore, the tech that's inserted into everyone is there to direct evolution.  It isn't sabotage-nice spin though.  It's intentional and expected.  Shepard is told the kid wants to help everyone achieve perfection (his idea of it).  In fact, he basically says synthetics are given that perfection that he thinks they want (the understanding of organics).  So, conveniently, you ignore the perfection he wants to "give" organics: tech.  Fully integration with tech.  It isn't like he wants to give people the ability to make toast in their mouthes.  At some point attaining final evolution (as he sees it), gets rid of all chaos.

The tech inserted is reaper tech.  Reapter tech has always directed advancement.  Why would this be any different especially when that's clearly what the kid wants?

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
What are you talking about.  If my brain chemicals are different, if I eat things that help to build mental accuity, I may learn things faster.  If I get more sleep, if I continue to learn, I may have a better memory.  Some autopsies of alzheimer's patients have shown a smoothing of the convolutions within the brain.

Studies shown that our environment may shape the ability of our cells to process protein-inefficient cells may then replicate and create new cells with this lessened ability.

Chemicals within our bodies and our brains affect almost everything we do, and they effect and even contribute to mental illness, hence the serotonin reference.  Endorphines do other things.  Adrenaline can do damage to us physically over time.

And we all think differently and use our brains differently.

I'm saying people cannot pass those to offspring, unlike the genes that dictate how the parents regulate their neurochemical pathways. Sorry, edited my post with a source as you were writing this.

People do pass genetic coding that determines at least partially what chemicals the body will secrete and in what amounts.  Many brain anomalies are genetically linked across generations and are due to chemicals within the person.  It's called predisposition.  It's passing along genetic traits that relate to thresholds within people.  I may not be smart because my parents were due to genetics, but I may have cells that are triggered to aid me in learning.  They may release chemicals.  Cognition is being related to chemistry and your cells may be more efficient in releasing or restricting certain chemicals that aid cognition.

Again you are referencing something I didn't say.  You are thinking that I mean parents pass on the inherent brain capacity to their children and I didn't say that.  Conditions can be genetically passed on that can aid or hinder learning or anything.  My genetics may make it more likely that I'll like a certain type of music, but that isn't the only thing that will factor into it.  It's a predisposition.  However, your citation actually somewhat backs up the idea that such things can be passed down.  "Conclusive evidence supporting epigenetics show that these mechanisms can enable the effects of parents' experiences to be passed down to subsequent generations."  From your citation of epigenetics in wikipedia.

If I have a chip inserted to enforce it, then that's more what Synthesis does.

All of this is diverging from the point.  I'm merely making the case that even today external genetic manipulation is being attempted.  Synthesis is being used by the kid to directly internally manipulate organic and synthetic life toward order and away from evolutionary chaos.  It's not sabotage, because Shepard is allowing and helping to make it happen.  Shepard is acting like a carrier of a virus which will ultimately direct all people to genetic sameness.

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...
Ok, so it boils down to what the Catalyst "would" (could?) have done to sabotage the tech that everyone received. That's slightly more subtle than the "tech indoctrinates everyone, the end" theory. So kudos for that. I still don't believe either.
Our headcanons, of course, don't intersect.

I never said tech indoctrinated everyone, so please don't act like you are quoting me.  

I didn't say you said it indoctrinated anyone. I meant that the ideas are similar in that they assume the Catalyst would use the technology to alter things in a (more, or less) drastic way, beyond what has already been altered by putting the tech there in the first place. 

He isn't sabotaging tech, but someone created it (someone who must agree with him) and why else would it be used if not for the purpose as he sees it?  Evolution is at times directed, but it is also at times random.  It is chaotic.  Hmmm. Something he doesn't like.  Therefore, the tech that's inserted into everyone is there to direct evolution.  It isn't sabotage-nice spin though.  

I don't see the tech being there as sabotage. Having a compiler in a computer isn't sabotage. Compiling a virus with it is sabotage. You're assuming that the Catalyst wishes to direct genetics, not merely giving them this new pseudoscience framework. That's sabotage to me.

 In fact, he basically says synthetics are given that perfection that he thinks they want (the understanding of organics).  So, conveniently, you ignore the perfection he wants to "give" organics: tech.  

Um, no. I'm just saying the Catalyst isn't necessarily doing anything with the tech.

The first bit is interesting. What if, by gaining organic perspectives, synthetics now understand the beauty of chaos and no longer want to interfere in the organised chaos that is evolution? 

Modifié par Enthalpy, 24 août 2012 - 04:33 .

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
People do pass genetic coding that determines at least partially what chemicals the body will secrete and in what amounts...

No contest with most of this paragraph. It's just that people cannot change what they pass solely with behavioural changes

You are thinking that I mean parents pass on the inherent brain capacity to their children and I didn't say that. 

 

 But people do pass on brain (cranial) capacity to their children. At least, I would assume the genes are passed because it's a physical trait...

 However, your citation actually somewhat backs up the idea that such things can be passed down.  "Conclusive evidence supporting epigenetics show that these mechanisms can enable the effects of parents' experiences to be passed down to subsequent generations."  From your citation of epigenetics in wikipedia.

 

For the record, "these mechanisms" refer to very specific protein-DNA interactions (DNA methylation and histone modification) that are studied in the context of the parents' experiences with cancer. It doesn't say if either play a role in brain neurochemistry normally.

Modifié par Enthalpy, 24 août 2012 - 04:48 .

[3DandBeyond]

Whatever. You keep twisting things and contradicting yourself to suit the current point. I'm not being hostile, but you do.  You ask me to cite something that I wasn't saying, but you believe.  This is contorted and I'm getting too old for this sort of thing.

The overarching point is the kid specifically inserts reaper tech in people, with Shepard without consent. The reaper tech has always controlled advancement along a certain path. B follows A. Evolution is partly chaos. The kid wishes to wipe out chaos. C follows B. I've made the point that genetic manipulation is already being used and/or studied by many for altruistic or even narcissistic reasons. You have been obfuscating that.

The kid has stated the desire as he sees it is for organics to find perfection through tech. And perfection is an end state, as is the end or pinnacle of evolution. It is order. D follows C.

By the logic here, we are just to assume that tech is just thrown into people for no purpose. Please tell me what the purpose of integrated tech would be. I see people say it's not for immortality. Ok not that. It's now not for any evolutionary change or to direct evolution. Ok, not that. It's not to control people because they are still individuals who evolve and all. Ok, not that. It doesn't affect personality. Ok, not that. It does not give them instant knowledge. Ok, not that. Then just what the hell is it for?

If people will still evolve normally, learn normally, live and die normally, continue to be individuals, have separate personalities, have diversity, and all that. Then what's the benefit of having that reaper tech inserted that is supposed to appease organics' desire for perfection? Will they all suddenly just have straight teeth and have their tonsils grow back? They won't catch a cold? If this is not being done to create some specific measurable vast change, then how can it be worth it? The sacrifice is Shepard dying and people having to co-exist with killers and even probably the kid, along with synthetics who fully understand them-probably destined to open psychiatric practices throughout the galaxy, because no organic person has full understanding of organics.

The kid may well have spread his reaper seed even more completely throughout the galaxy and may be what tech exists within organics. But hey, since it didn't do much of anything at all, it's great fun.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 août 2012 - 05:07 .

[Enthalpy]

What about being about to communicate to Reapers without being indoctrinated? I think that's both plausible and useful. Of course I'm sure the rest of you are much more creative than I
So have at it.

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

What about being about to communicate to Reapers without being indoctrinated? I think that's both plausible and useful. Of course I'm sure the rest of you are much more creative than I
So have at it.

Just wondering what the reason for that would be.

I'm saying in Synthesis, you have husks, banshees, brutes, cannibals, reapers, and the kid in existence.  If people are truly still in possession of themselves and their full being, just as in control, most would not be overjoyed to have reaper neighbors.  If they would be ok with it, then the change is not a good change.

Some scientists might want to study or dissect them-not welcomed by reapers.  Some people would want them to die for goo-ifying their family-not welcomed by reapers.  Some of the goo inside the reapers would want an end to it all, but other goo might be perfectly fine with flying aimlessly around and being hated by some and even worshipped by others.  And we have no clear idea of what they might need to maintain their existence-presumably they derive some sustenance through organic matter or something.  Which planet becomes their next meal?

[Enthalpy]

alleyd wrote...
I don't personally think it would be a good idea to communicate with Reapers, unless there was an even bigger threat on the horizon that we would require their power or knowledge to combat. The arrogance and contempt of Sovereign and Harbinger states to me that they would be pleasant neighbours 

I was thinking something more along the lines of "hey, want to tell us where these hundreds of relays we have been too cautious to open actually lead?"
There are definitely questions they can help answer. But yeah, most don't seem to have shining personalities.

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

alleyd wrote...
I don't personally think it would be a good idea to communicate with Reapers, unless there was an even bigger threat on the horizon that we would require their power or knowledge to combat. The arrogance and contempt of Sovereign and Harbinger states to me that they would be pleasant neighbours 

I was thinking something more along the lines of "hey, want to tell us where these hundreds of relays we have been too cautious to open actually lead?"
There are definitely questions they can help answer. But yeah, most don't seem to have shining personalities.

The implication being you'd trust them to tell you the truth.  They showed disdain for people in ME1 and 2.  To think in ME3, that they don't still have that disdain is a part of what's wrong with it.