9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

In my opinion, the most "dangerous" choice is control. Synthesis may seem more dangerous on the exterior, but its a one-time violation of free will. Its a pretty big one, but one-time. Everyone go their own way after that and there's no godlike entity directing the way the galaxy works. In control, catalyst-shepard is the unquestioned lord of the galaxy. If you consider synthesis bad, consider what catalyst-shepard can inflict on the galaxy.. something far worse than synthesis. Ofcourse he/she doesn't do that right away, but the catalyst too, was created as a peaceful AI.
 
Destroy is a no-no for me because it kills Synthetics. I can't live with myself after doing that..

Modifié par pirate1802, 27 septembre 2012 - 01:54 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Offtopic: Anyone else playing Borderlands 2? That game's looking effing amazing.

[Steelcan]

pirate1802 wrote...

In my opinion, the most "dangerous" choice is control. Synthesis may seem more dangerous on the exterior, but its a one-time violation of free will. Its a pretty big one, but one-time. Everyone go their own way after that and there's no godlike entity directing the way the galaxy works. In control, catalyst-shepard is the unquestioned lord of the galaxy. If you consider synthesis bad, consider what catalyst-shepard can inflict on the galaxy.. something far worse than synthesis. Ofcourse he/she doesn't do that right away, but the catalyst too, was created as a peaceful AI.

. That one time  violation destroys every sapient species' right to self determination, to say nothing of what it does to developing species.  Every organic being in the galaxy, and synthetic is being fundamentally altered without their consent.  If synthesis is truly inevitable it is unnecessary to force it one every living thing.

Modifié par Steelcan, 27 septembre 2012 - 01:56 .

[Steelcan]

Question for synthesis supporters. What happens to plants, fungi, bacteria etc....

[DirtyPhoenix]

Steelcan wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

In my opinion, the most "dangerous" choice is control. Synthesis may seem more dangerous on the exterior, but its a one-time violation of free will. Its a pretty big one, but one-time. Everyone go their own way after that and there's no godlike entity directing the way the galaxy works. In control, catalyst-shepard is the unquestioned lord of the galaxy. If you consider synthesis bad, consider what catalyst-shepard can inflict on the galaxy.. something far worse than synthesis. Ofcourse he/she doesn't do that right away, but the catalyst too, was created as a peaceful AI.

. That one time  violation destroys every sapient species' right to self determination, to say nothing of what it does to developing species.  Every organic being in the galaxy, and synthetic is being fundamentally altered without their consent.  If synthesis is truly inevitable it is unnecessary to force it one every living thing.

It doesn't destroy, it violates. Destroying someone's right to self determination would mean taking away that right from them forever: no one will be free to decide for themselves ever. But you are right, its a pretty drastic step, which is what I said.

Though I imagine as the galactic civilization gains knowledge, they would eventually find ways to reverse the change for those who wish so.

[Steelcan]

pirate1802 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...
In my opinion, the most "dangerous" choice is control. Synthesis may seem more dangerous on the exterior, but its a one-time violation of free will. Its a pretty big one, but one-time. Everyone go their own way after that and there's no godlike entity directing the way the galaxy works. In control, catalyst-shepard is the unquestioned lord of the galaxy. If you consider synthesis bad, consider what catalyst-shepard can inflict on the galaxy.. something far worse than synthesis. Ofcourse he/she doesn't do that right away, but the catalyst too, was created as a peaceful AI.

. That one time  violation destroys every sapient species' right to self determination, to say nothing of what it does to developing species.  Every organic being in the galaxy, and synthetic is being fundamentally altered without their consent.  If synthesis is truly inevitable it is unnecessary to force it one every living thing.

It doesn't destroy, it violates. Destroying someone's right to self determination would mean taking away that right from them forever: no one will be free to decide for themselves ever. But you are right, its a pretty drastic step, which is what I said.
Though I imagine as the galactic civilization gains knowledge, they would eventually find ways to reverse the change for those who wish so.

. No it destroys.  Every one is forced to become a hybrid.  This likely affects mental functions, they might be the same person, but they will not have the same mind.  And it is the Reapers who are the ones that enable this.  So everyone is implanted, without choice with reaper the h.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Steelcan wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...
In my opinion, the most "dangerous" choice is control. Synthesis may seem more dangerous on the exterior, but its a one-time violation of free will. Its a pretty big one, but one-time. Everyone go their own way after that and there's no godlike entity directing the way the galaxy works. In control, catalyst-shepard is the unquestioned lord of the galaxy. If you consider synthesis bad, consider what catalyst-shepard can inflict on the galaxy.. something far worse than synthesis. Ofcourse he/she doesn't do that right away, but the catalyst too, was created as a peaceful AI.

. That one time  violation destroys every sapient species' right to self determination, to say nothing of what it does to developing species.  Every organic being in the galaxy, and synthetic is being fundamentally altered without their consent.  If synthesis is truly inevitable it is unnecessary to force it one every living thing.

It doesn't destroy, it violates. Destroying someone's right to self determination would mean taking away that right from them forever: no one will be free to decide for themselves ever. But you are right, its a pretty drastic step, which is what I said.
Though I imagine as the galactic civilization gains knowledge, they would eventually find ways to reverse the change for those who wish so.

. No it destroys.  Every one is forced to become a hybrid.  This likely affects mental functions, they might be the same person, but they will not have the same mind.  And it is the Reapers who are the ones that enable this.  So everyone is implanted, without choice with reaper the h.

By what we saw in the EC.. they remain similar, mentally, to their pre-synthesis state.

[Steelcan]

Or they just think they are.....

[DirtyPhoenix]

Maybe.. like Shepard just thinks he is Shepard post-Lazarus. Actually he is a VI implanted by cerberus xD

[Steelcan]

pirate1802 wrote...

Maybe.. like Shepard just thinks he is Shepard post-Lazarus. Actually he is a VI implanted by cerberus xD

.  Indoctrination Theory!!!?!?!??!??!??!!!!  But only indoctrinated by Cerberus not the Reapers.  Genius

[Xilizhra]

pirate1802 wrote...

In my opinion, the most "dangerous" choice is control. Synthesis may seem more dangerous on the exterior, but its a one-time violation of free will. Its a pretty big one, but one-time. Everyone go their own way after that and there's no godlike entity directing the way the galaxy works. In control, catalyst-shepard is the unquestioned lord of the galaxy. If you consider synthesis bad, consider what catalyst-shepard can inflict on the galaxy.. something far worse than synthesis. Ofcourse he/she doesn't do that right away, but the catalyst too, was created as a peaceful AI.
 
Destroy is a no-no for me because it kills Synthetics. I can't live with myself after doing that..

The thing is... that godlike entity controlling the galaxy looks pretty good when you have the krogan and Leviathans. At least, to me.

I also have a preference for Control over Synthesis for... well, two reasons. One is that it's easier for me to envision a scenario where Shepard is resurrected in Control than in Synthesis. The other is that, to be honest, I want to imagine the ME universe after ME3 in a state I can imagine; I like the universe as it is and wanted to preserve it, and Control does the best job of that. Synthesis may be objectively better, but not narratively so, necessarily.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Steelcan wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Maybe.. like Shepard just thinks he is Shepard post-Lazarus. Actually he is a VI implanted by cerberus xD

.  Indoctrination Theory!!!?!?!??!??!??!!!!  But only indoctrinated by Cerberus not the Reapers.  Genius

Never saw that coming did we? Even the ITers are now indoctrinated. xD

[Argolas]

I hope you do not mind the OT, but this is your thread, so I guess you are fine =)

Ieldra2 wrote...


(1) Galactic civilization will gain the knowledge, not technological items. There is no such thing as "knowledge you don't understand." If you don't understand, you don't know. If you don't know, then you can't build things using that knowledge and can't become dependent on things you don't understand. Also, this war should have shown the species of the galaxy how dangerous it is to depend on things you don't understand. I'd say they won't make that mistake again for quite some time. I don't see any virtue in destroying knowledge for the sole reason that it might be dangerous (it was one of my main Shepard's central character traits: he never destroyed information).
(2) The krogan destroyed their homeworld themselves, before the salarians came. Bakara says so. The salarians just took them into space.
(3) In the whole of human history, the psychological maturation needed to use a specific technology responsibly always came after that technology was developed. It can't be any other way, since earlier there is no incentive to learn. The only way to learn how to deal with technology is to have it and use it.  That's not to say it isn't advisable to be extremely careful in some cases, but most of the time, the "we are not ready" argument sounds to me like the reflexive rejection of a traditionalist mindset.

(1) Yes, there is knowledge you don´t understand, or spefically, you know how to build and use it, but you do not know the core principles behind it which the reapers may or may not teach you. The best example from the ME universe is the crucible: Hackett´s men got the plans for the device and were able to build it, they can use it as well, but that does not mean they understand it, proof is synthesis of which no one ever seems to have thought of.
(2) It is true that the Krogan destroyed their homeworld themselves. Naturally, they would not have been able to build spaceships for a long time since they are busy with surviving. They made a mistake and they learned the hard way how dangerous their way of thinking was. But the salarians gave them the ships they were not meant to have, and the result was the real crysis: The Krogan Rebellions.
(3) I think it was just too much at once. The technology we obtain grows slowly and allows us to adept. Jumps can have bad consequences, but normally these are not to heavy. Humanity skipped 200 years when it found the prothean archive on Mars, and the result was a social problem on earth because the develloped countries advanced extremely while others are stuck in the 19th century. Now these are serious problems, but it is somewhat contained because it is human business and stays on earth. Now imagine the whole technology of countless cycles (which can be roughly 50.000 years long, maybe some longer, some shorter) is given to the whole galaxy at once, countless different ways and plans and whatever...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Only in Destroy, the reaper influnce is truly broken. No one depends on them anymore because they are dead

Which is a sad thing, don't you think? That they're dead I mean. All that remains from the civilizations of countless cycles, and if Legion is right, billions of individual minds.

Also, on the surface, Destroy might be a good choice if you want to maximize freedom. But I think that argument is based on a limited understanding of freedom. Think of this: we all depend on technology these days. We would be more free, don't you think, if we destroyed everything we have come to depend on. Well, no, that's not how things work. Technology has also empowered us, as a civilization and as individuals we can do many things completely unimaginable to people just 200 years ago. Technology brings new options, which by definition means it increases your freedom. If you'd rather do things the old way, you still can. But you're not bound by the old limitations any more.  

No, I do not consider dead reapers sad because I think they are abominations. I saw how reapers are created, that is a horrible thing. Life that can only be created by murdering countless other lifes is something that should never have existed. Again, a matter of belief, but I´d rather see the old civilizations rest in peace than being a reaper.
About the freedom: I do not want the galaxy do be independant from Reaper tech, I want it to be independant from the reapers themselves. That is a difference. For example, I am fine with Mass Relays as long as those who use them also control them, and that is the case in Destroy since the galaxy repairs the relays themselves.

Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, building non-Synthesized synthetics would be like deliberately engineering humans without empathy. Do you really think anyone except the ME equivalent of a rogue state would do something like that? Of course it will happen, but civilization will deal with it.

Through Citadel conventions, creating fully self-aware AIs is illegal, so no one but rogue states would create them in the ME universe anyway, Synthesis or not. And slavery is about money, morals do not count much here. Batarians and even Volus traded living organics, so I do think that synthetic slaves are just as possible both in Synthesis and Destroy (Control as well). And yes, civilization will probably deal with it, but not only in Synthesis.

Ieldra2 wrote..Could be, might be. Or it might not. Double standards, double standards, and completly hypothetical scenarios.  You reject Synthesis because it doesn't guarantee a conflict-free future and yet you choose Destroy which does the same? None of the endings guarantee anything in the future, and it's methodically dishonest to single one ending option out for that. I wonder: why do you *really* don't like Synthesis? These are just rationalizations...

Yes, speculation indeed, but it is a likely possibility and if it is true, nothing could stop the Leviathans.
I do not reject Synthesis because it does not guarantee a conflict-free future, it was just that peace is one of the mojor pro-Synthesis arguments: "There will be no more organic-synthetic conflict." Well, I do not consider that true. I consider Synthesis far more dangerous than the other two. Another example: New technology only benefits those who can afford it, so with so much new tech at once, the gap between rich and poor people will increase significantly, so the danger of social riots grows and the problems that, for example, already exist on earth will get worse- after they rebuild, that is.

Ieldra2 wrote...

There is reason to believe that the geth actually survive high EMS destroy

Yeah, and Shepard survived the Synthesis. I have a headcanon like that, but I don't pretend it's more than that.

At least this headcanon was spread by a Bioware employee and has the following proof:
Catalyst: "Even you are partly synthetic."
=>Shepard lives
Catalyst: "You can wipe out all Synthetics, including the Geth."
We do not see Geth die => ???

Ieldra2 wrote...
I did say in my OP that Synthesis is likely accelerating a process that would take place anyway. If you follow the Catalyst, there is just not enough time to complete the process before organic life is destroyed. I think accelerating the process is very desirable.
Regarding the Leviathans, I think the post-Destroy civilization is poorly-equipped to deal with the Leviathans. In fact, post-EC they're a very good reason to choose a different ending. Control looks particularly desirable in that regard.

The first point is maybe the main reason why we disagree. While I worry a lot about the negative effects of such a radical and sudden manipulation, you consider it desirable. Opinions
And the last one: I see your point, but I fail to see just exactly how powerful those leviathans are. Their war asset is 400 and that already includes the reaper forces they control- which are not there anymore in Destroy. So they should be no match even to the Alliance fleets alone, yet we do not know how many of those Leviathans are still out there. I would not guess they are too many, but nobody knows exactly.

Modifié par Argolas, 27 septembre 2012 - 02:29 .

[Steelcan]

pirate1802 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Maybe.. like Shepard just thinks he is Shepard post-Lazarus. Actually he is a VI implanted by cerberus xD

.  Indoctrination Theory!!!?!?!??!??!??!!!!  But only indoctrinated by Cerberus not the Reapers.  Genius

Never saw that coming did we? Even the ITers are now indoctrinated. xD

. Even BioWare is indoctrinated

[Steelcan]

^^. All hail the great monolith of text

[DirtyPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

The thing is... that godlike entity controlling the galaxy looks pretty good when you have the krogan and Leviathans. At least, to me.

I also have a preference for Control over Synthesis for... well, two reasons. One is that it's easier for me to envision a scenario where Shepard is resurrected in Control than in Synthesis. The other is that, to be honest, I want to imagine the ME universe after ME3 in a state I can imagine; I like the universe as it is and wanted to preserve it, and Control does the best job of that. Synthesis may be objectively better, but not narratively so, necessarily.

Well yes, control is the option that preserves the galaxy in its pre-ending form. No synthetics are killed and no one is changed.

Also no ending is objectively better than other, only what works for you/ what you can rationalize. I might like synthesis more but that doesn't make it objectively better, what I wrote was just my own reasons for prefering synthesis over control for my canon, though I like control a lot too.

And on the question of Shepard surviving/resurrected in synthesis, its just a matter for firing a good head cannon. there arae some good examples in this thread itself

Modifié par pirate1802, 27 septembre 2012 - 03:00 .

[Xandurpein]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, building non-Synthesized synthetics would be like deliberately engineering humans without empathy. Do you really think anyone except the ME equivalent of a rogue state would do something like that? Of course it will happen, but civilization will deal with it.

Of course a lot of civilizations will want to build non-Synthesized synthetics. Isn't that obvious? The reason to build non-Synthesized synthetics is to create them as tools, just as the Quarians built the Geth as tools. The analogy of engineered humans is wrong, because all synthetics aren't the same, anymore than all organics. We raise organic creatures as cattle for food on Earth, why not build synthetics as tools?

A non-synthesized Synthetic could be a useful tool, but as long as it's not sapient, it's hardly immoral to keep it enslaved. The dilemma doesn't occur unless someone accidentally make them sapient, like the quarians and the Geth. To continue the cattle analogy; if we "accidentally" bio-engineered bovines so they became sapient, I agree that it would be immoral to kill them for food, and it would raise some interesting dilemmas as those super-cows would probably feel a certain kinship to non-sapient cows, but unless that happened, I don't see the problem with eating the meat.

The usefulness of synthetic AI would clearly be the same as before Synthesis. The difference between such an AI and the "Synthesized" Geth would be probably bigger than between a human and a cow.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 27 septembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
Or they just think they are.....

And here come the conspiracy theories again. You know, arguments like this would have some weight if there was even a shred of evidence for them. This was getting old months ago, and it does get tiresome.

Watch the epilogue. Watch the character slides, and tell me they aren't themselves.

[Xilizhra]

Of course a lot of civilizations will want to build non-Synthesized synthetics. Isn't that obvious? The reason to build non-Synthesized synthetics is to create them as tools, just as the Quarians built the Geth as tools. The analogy of engineered humans is wrong, because all synthetics aren't the same, anymore than all organics. We raise organic creatures as cattle for food on Earth, why not build synthetics as tools?

Because it's building synthetics that have obviously inferior interfaces and communication powers. It's like deliberately building 90's-era cell phones nowadays; they're nigh-worthless compared to what we have now.

Though I'm curious, Ieldra: How do you view Synthesis and its possibilities now, in light of Leviathan?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 27 septembre 2012 - 03:53 .

[Xandurpein]

Xilizhra wrote...

Of course a lot of civilizations will want to build non-Synthesized synthetics. Isn't that obvious? The reason to build non-Synthesized synthetics is to create them as tools, just as the Quarians built the Geth as tools. The analogy of engineered humans is wrong, because all synthetics aren't the same, anymore than all organics. We raise organic creatures as cattle for food on Earth, why not build synthetics as tools?

Because it's building synthetics that have obviously inferior interfaces and communication powers. It's like deliberately building 90's-era cell phones nowadays; they're nigh-worthless compared to what we have now.

Because a non-Synthesized synthetic can still be just a tool, while a Synthesized one is a sapient being with a will of it's own. I for one would use my old Nokia if I risked being branded a slave-trader for ordering about my iPhone without it's consent!

Modifié par Xandurpein, 27 septembre 2012 - 04:00 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

I think with organics integrating fully with synthetic technology, the need for them to create synthetics to do their jobs for them would be greatly reduced.

[Xandurpein]

pirate1802 wrote...

I think with organics integrating fully with synthetic technology, the need for them to create synthetics to do their jobs for them would be greatly reduced.

And I think that there will always be a market for Synthetics that do boring things without needing any motivation...

[ATiBotka]

Even if we build more synthetics, after synthesis they can't "surpass" us.

They can't surpass their creators.

Modifié par ATiBotka, 27 septembre 2012 - 04:23 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Or they just think they are.....

And here come the conspiracy theories again. You know, arguments like this would have some weight if there was even a shred of evidence for them. This was getting old months ago, and it does get tiresome.

Watch the epilogue. Watch the character slides, and tell me they aren't themselves.

.  Relax I was kidding.

Modifié par Steelcan, 27 septembre 2012 - 04:35 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

ATiBotka wrote...

Even if we build more synthetics, after synthesis they can't "surpass" us.

They can't surpass their creators.

Thats a good point, also yes, they will probably create simple VIs like Avina, harmless stuff.