9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Yestare7]

 

300 pages of Synthesis...  I am in awe of your dedication.

To focus of the thing we agree upon: Mass Effect is one awesome game.<3<3

[Auld Wulf]

We're dedicated to it because it's a poetic, symbolic look at our next step. When we go beyond natural evolution. Nature and evolution don't necessarily have to dictate our future -- we can become more than mere animals. And if we are going to become something better, then we might as well spend some time thinking about it in preparation.

This is as good a way as any.

Still, I thank you for being a positive influence in this thread, at least. That was big of you, and I won't forget that.

[Obadiah]

Morlath wrote...
...
I find nothing wrong with the endings at all.
...

Dude, who writes an ending in which an entire form of life is wiped out, then completely ignores it in the Epilogue? That's just one problem with the ending - there are a bunch of others.

I like the ending, but the ending has issues.

[Auld Wulf]

Obadiah wrote...

Morlath wrote...
...
I find nothing wrong with the endings at all.
...

Dude, who writes an ending in which an entire form of life is wiped out, then completely ignores it in the Epilogue? That's just one problem with the ending - there are a bunch of others.

I like the ending, but the ending has issues.

I'd... never actually thought of that. Huh. I guess I just never paid enough attention to Destroy in order to pick up on that, since I never choose it myself and I've only watched it a few times on Youtube.

That is undeniably weird. Hm.

Edit

I suppose, if I were to look at Destroy in the same symbolic way I look at Synthesis, it could be indicative that the cruel, harsh, self-interested nature of humanity reigns supreme, that it doesn't matter who dies, so long as those who live can continue the way they always have. The lack of any care, compassion, or emotion shown for any of the dead could be indicative of that, that it's just a cold Universe.

That's... bleak.

I'm not sure how else to take it.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 01 juin 2013 - 04:53 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

An honorary post for p. 300....

[Ieldra]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Morlath wrote...
...
I find nothing wrong with the endings at all.
...

Dude, who writes an ending in which an entire form of life is wiped out, then completely ignores it in the Epilogue? That's just one problem with the ending - there are a bunch of others.

I like the ending, but the ending has issues.

I'd... never actually thought of that. Huh. I guess I just never paid enough attention to Destroy in order to pick up on that, since I never choose it myself and I've only watched it a few times on Youtube.

That is undeniably weird. Hm.

Edit

I suppose, if I were to look at Destroy in the same symbolic way I look at Synthesis, it could be indicative that the cruel, harsh, self-interested nature of humanity reigns supreme, that it doesn't matter who dies, so long as those who live can continue the way they always have. The lack of any care, compassion, or emotion shown for any of the dead could be indicative of that, that it's just a cold Universe.

That's... bleak.

I'm not sure how else to take it.

You certainly have a very negative lens through which you view Destroy. Here is my take on the thematic interpretation of Destroy and Synthesis:

Destroy affirms the human condition as it is, with all its up- and downsides, and defends it against the intrusion of that which is fundamentally non-human. If affirms traditional ideas of what is human and says that if we are to change, the drive to change must come from within ourselves and respect our inherited nature. The limitations this might entail are part of human nature and thus to be retained, and any negative side effects are to be accepted as part of the challenge that is human life. Retaining all this is worth sacrificing possible benefits for. Destroy is also a pro-organic ending, denies synthetic life certain intrinsic lifelike qualities which are part of the organic's nature, and prevents organic life - true life - from being dominated by machines. 

Against that, Synthesis affirms the fundamental desirability of growing and advancing beyond what we are now. If that requires leaving traditional notions of what is human behind, then so be it. If it requires taking something foreign into ourselves, then we will do it and make those erstwhile alien traits our own. Synthesis affirms that the human mind is limited by its nature in its understanding, and consequently, that it is desirable to change ourselves in order to understand more. Synthesis accepts that there are fundamental differences between organic and synthetic life, but denies that the qualities of one domain of life should be valued over those of the other, affirming instead that any domain of life can benefit from acquiring some of the other's traits.

[jtav]

I *wish* I could view Destroy the way Ieldra outlines because that's what I believe about the real world. But the game spends so much time on the fundamental equality of synthetics that I take it as a fact of the universe like DAs magic. Synthesis is my second choice because I like the "sacrifice for a better world" theme even if I don't like the underlying assumptions.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I *wish* I could view Destroy the way Ieldra outlines because that's what I believe about the real world. But the game spends so much time on the fundamental equality of synthetics that I take it as a fact of the universe like DAs magic. Synthesis is my second choice because I like the "sacrifice for a better world" theme even if I don't like the underlying assumptions.

Yeah, the dropped anvil was heavy enough to create a crater. It's odd how in ME1 and ME2, Shepard could say "they're just machines". Only in ME3 things are different. Tali accepts the geth as valid life even if you side with the quarians against them.

As for the thematic interpretation of Destroy, I guess my account was positive enough to be accepted. Personally, of course I believe nothing of all that. 

[Nerevar-as]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Against that, Synthesis affirms the fundamental desirability of growing and advancing beyond what we are now. If that requires leaving traditional notions of what is human behind, then so be it. If it requires taking something foreign into ourselves, then we will do it and make those erstwhile alien traits our own. Synthesis affirms that the human mind is limited by its nature in its understanding, and consequently, that it is desirable to change ourselves in order to understand more. Synthesis accepts that there are fundamental differences between organic and synthetic life, but denies that the qualities of one domain of life should be valued over those of the other, affirming instead that any domain of life can benefit from acquiring some of the other's traits.

Hell of a headcanon there. The only thing Synthesis tells in game is that the only way 2+ beings of different nature will cohexist peacefully is to force them into the same nature. Considering the organic-synthetic conflict can be seen easily as an extrapolation of actual culture clashes, BW´s solution is a very disturbing one.

Oddly enough, if you substitute "Synthesis" for "Sarif´s ending", I agree with most. I guess the freedom to make such a choice is fundamental to me. Especially if you are going to have even the way you think changed, at least is the only way I can explain Javik around and Wreav abandoning his warmongering ways.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 01 juin 2013 - 09:26 .

[Ieldra]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Against that, Synthesis affirms the fundamental desirability of growing and advancing beyond what we are now. If that requires leaving traditional notions of what is human behind, then so be it. If it requires taking something foreign into ourselves, then we will do it and make those erstwhile alien traits our own. Synthesis affirms that the human mind is limited by its nature in its understanding, and consequently, that it is desirable to change ourselves in order to understand more. Synthesis accepts that there are fundamental differences between organic and synthetic life, but denies that the qualities of one domain of life should be valued over those of the other, affirming instead that any domain of life can benefit from acquiring some of the other's traits.

Hell of a headcanon there. The only thing Synthesis tells in game is that the only way 2+ beings of different nature will cohexist peacefully is to force them into the same nature. Considering the organic-synthetic conflict can be seen easily as an extrapolation of actual culture clashes, BW´s solution is a very disturbing one.

The EC Synthesis tells you much more that. If you connect all the details and the imagery, my interpretation suggests itself strongly.  

Oddly enough, if you substitute "Synthesis" for "Sarif´s ending", I agree with most. I guess the freedom to make such a choice is fundamental to me. Especially if you are going to have even the way you think changed, at least is the only way I can explain Javik around and Wreav abandoning his warmongering ways.

Why, when they see others acting differently than before, is "mind control" the first thing people up with? There can be pretty Wreav-like reasons for not going to war. As for Javik, remember that the Normandy scene, which we see after the epilogue, actually plays before the epilogue slides showing the future of the galaxy - where Javik isn't present. What he'll do after the Normandy gets home is anyone's guess. 

I agree, though, that Bioware messed the message up by making Synthesis a change forced on the whole galaxy. In my AU version, only Shepard is transformed and lives on to bring the message to the rest of the galaxy as the "avatar of Synthesis", so to speak. ME3's Synthesis should've been like that, with the different species taking up the idea or not in the epilogue depending on the choices you made during the story. Only that would've negated the sacrifice theme the project lead was so determined to force on the players.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 juin 2013 - 09:49 .

[Nerevar-as]

It´s not mind control as such, more like having your thinking patterns and parameters changed - forcibly, and from what we see, everybody is happy with being techorganic. That just isn´t believable if their minds stayed intact, if the changes were only physical.

[Ieldra]

Nerevar-as wrote...
It´s not mind control as such, more like having your thinking patterns and parameters changed - forcibly, and from what we see, everybody is happy with being techorganic. That just isn´t believable if their minds stayed intact, if the changes were only physical.

Everyone's happy with being ruled by a machine god in Control. That's equally unrealistic. That's just Bioware being typically ham-handed when telling the players that these endings are supposed to be good. 

It's pretty obvious from standard story logic that nothing of the sort happens and that Synthesis only changes what people are, not who they are. If things were supposed to be bad, it would be shown in no uncertain terms.

[Auld Wulf]

You know how it is, though, Ieldra2. People see different, and to a certain mindset, different is naturally evil. I've recently talked about how people are flawed because they see the unfamiliar as evil, HYR 2.0 posted a thread saying much the same thing. And the result? People kept at it. DinoSteve made a particularly brilliant post where he attacked Seival just for having non-mainstream opinions.

You're always going to have those who see Synthesis as evil. Not because Synthesis is evil, but because the person is incapable of differentiating between evil and different. This is a flaw within the person, not the ending. This is why you have people who see other cultures as evil, or new sciences as evil. Stem cell research is evil, abortions are evil, gay rights are evil, anything that's new is, essentially, evil.

It's all projection by the person who can't separate it. What's worse is that often the person willw ant to remove/destroy/kill that which is different, because it's "evil." This is a point where I think that schools Internationally could educate children better in the ways of ethics. Different != Evil. That should be lesson one. That that pattern of thought has taken hold is depressing.

[xlegionx]

Auld Wulf wrote...

You know how it is, though, Ieldra2. People see different, and to a certain mindset, different is naturally evil. I've recently talked about how people are flawed because they see the unfamiliar as evil, HYR 2.0 posted a thread saying much the same thing. And the result? People kept at it. DinoSteve made a particularly brilliant post where he attacked Seival just for having non-mainstream opinions.

You're always going to have those who see Synthesis as evil. Not because Synthesis is evil, but because the person is incapable of differentiating between evil and different. This is a flaw within the person, not the ending. This is why you have people who see other cultures as evil, or new sciences as evil. Stem cell research is evil, abortions are evil, gay rights are evil, anything that's new is, essentially, evil.

It's all projection by the person who can't separate it. What's worse is that often the person willw ant to remove/destroy/kill that which is different, because it's "evil." This is a point where I think that schools Internationally could educate children better in the ways of ethics. Different != Evil. That should be lesson one. That that pattern of thought has taken hold is depressing.

You really need to learn to read and actually understand why people don't like Synthesis. Often times they don't dislike the result of Synthesis (integration with technology). I myself find the prospect of nanomachine technology becoming a reality over the next century or so quite exciting. Most peoples' major gripe with it is the fact that it is forced on all life. If it alters organics' DNA (which thanks to the lack of any good explanation from the Catalyst or the epilogue we can't be sure about), then that is a major violation of free will, as altering someone's DNA at the level that Synthesis would seem to portray would change that person's very identity.

Another misconception you seem to have about Synthesis is that it you see it as a "I win" button against all disease, as you have compared choosing Synthesis to choosing to press a button to cure cancer. But this is most definitely not the case. Joker is still limping in Synthesis, so his brittle-bone issue has not been resolved. It would take some major searching, but I'm not entirely sure that the krogan are guaranteed to live in Synthesis if you sabotaged the genophage cure.

I don't have a lot of experience with Deus Ex, but what knowledge I do have I will use. In that world, synthetic implants (augments as they are called in DE I  believe) are either voluntary, or given to a person when they would die without being augmented (which is what happened with Human Revolution's protagonist). But one of the issues with altering the human body, possibly at a genetic level, can be simplified as racism. Because when you can improve a person at a genetic level to make them better, how do you decide what is better? There are obviously objective things, like minimizing/eliminating the chances of cancer and other diseases occuring. But what about more subjective things, like height, facial structure, etc.? Can a certain height be considered the most efficient? What happens to people who are unable or unwilling to get these enhancements? Do people slowly start to consider them "inferior"? None of that is guaranteed to happen, but the territory is dangerous none the less.

[jtav]

The genophage is always cured in Synthesis and quarians go without their masks if you made peace with the geth, so it seems to cause medical advances to be made much more rapidly than it would otherwise, but no magic cure. The consent issues are also troubling and I have serious issues with the idea that baseline healthy humans aren't good enough and have to be fundamentally altered. Same with synthetics. EDI says, "I am alive" implying she wasn't before. But...all the knowledge of the past regained. Those medical advances. Very tempting.

[Skvindt]

xlegionx wrote...

I don't have a lot of experience with Deus Ex, but what knowledge I do have I will use. In that world, synthetic implants (augments as they are called in DE I  believe) are either voluntary, or given to a person when they would die without being augmented (which is what happened with Human Revolution's protagonist). But one of the issues with altering the human body, possibly at a genetic level, can be simplified as racism. Because when you can improve a person at a genetic level to make them better, how do you decide what is better? There are obviously objective things, like minimizing/eliminating the chances of cancer and other diseases occuring. But what about more subjective things, like height, facial structure, etc.? Can a certain height be considered the most efficient? What happens to people who are unable or unwilling to get these enhancements? Do people slowly start to consider them "inferior"? None of that is guaranteed to happen, but the territory is dangerous none the less.

Well, another aspect of augmentation in Deus Ex is that it split society further into "have and have-nots".  Augmentation is expensive, so the only people that could afford it were the wealthy.  Thus, augmented individuals had an advantage over non-augmented individuals since they had a superior technological advantage.

While there very well might be some of those issues with synthesis as you said, at least the playing field is relatively equal in that everyone would be synthesized.

Modifié par SRX, 01 juin 2013 - 11:36 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
The genophage is always cured in Synthesis and quarians go without their masks if you made peace with the geth, so it seems to cause medical advances to be made much more rapidly than it would otherwise, but no magic cure. The consent issues are also troubling and I have serious issues with the idea that baseline healthy humans aren't good enough and have to be fundamentally altered. Same with synthetics. EDI says, "I am alive" implying she wasn't before. But...all the knowledge of the past regained. Those medical advances. Very tempting.

May I phrase "not good enough" in a more reasonable way:

Our psychology is circumscribed by our biology and needs to adapt to changing circumstances just like our physical traits. Organics as a domain of life (including baseline healthy humans as a species) are psychologically unfit for survival in the universe they are creating with their technology (including but not limited to synthetic life), because natural evolution is too slow and cannot make them adapt fast enough. Shortcuts in form of an accelerated artificial evolution (Synthesis) are necessary. The ability to Integrate synthetic technology Synthesis builds into organic biology will make it possible to bridge that "adaptation gap" on the collective level, meaning that indivuals may or not may not change their outlook based on the new physical traits, but on the collective level things will work out.

I see Synthesis as something that would happen anyway - "inevitable" as the Catalyst says - but only if organic life survives to that point. The scenario presented by the Catalyst tells us that without intervention, organic life will not survive to that point.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juin 2013 - 08:07 .

[Nerevar-as]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...
It´s not mind control as such, more like having your thinking patterns and parameters changed - forcibly, and from what we see, everybody is happy with being techorganic. That just isn´t believable if their minds stayed intact, if the changes were only physical.

Everyone's happy with being ruled by a machine god in Control. That's equally unrealistic. That's just Bioware being typically ham-handed when telling the players that these endings are supposed to be good. 

It's pretty obvious from standard story logic that nothing of the sort happens and that Synthesis only changes what people are, not who they are. If things were supposed to be bad, it would be shown in no uncertain terms.

I don´t like Control either, although it´s the only ending that doesn´t ask you to throw logic out of the window to happen. But the idea of enslaved Reapers, machines made to last millions of years, is quite disturbing, and then we have all that power at the disposal of a single intelligence. Never was a fan of the idea of a mortal rising to virtual godhood, and this isn´t an exception. And it´s clear that all leaders would be looking for a way to dispose of the Reapers and shut ShepAIrd down.

And well, standard story logic and ME3 endings can´t go together in the same context. Until Walters & Hudson explain WTF they wanted to tell (and likely prove that no matter how bad is, it can get worse...), all we have to work with is Starbrat´s senseless conversation and how we interpretate the ending slides. I see you have a more positive view than mine.

[Nerevar-as]

SRX wrote...

xlegionx wrote...

I don't have a lot of experience with Deus Ex, but what knowledge I do have I will use. In that world, synthetic implants (augments as they are called in DE I  believe) are either voluntary, or given to a person when they would die without being augmented (which is what happened with Human Revolution's protagonist). But one of the issues with altering the human body, possibly at a genetic level, can be simplified as racism. Because when you can improve a person at a genetic level to make them better, how do you decide what is better? There are obviously objective things, like minimizing/eliminating the chances of cancer and other diseases occuring. But what about more subjective things, like height, facial structure, etc.? Can a certain height be considered the most efficient? What happens to people who are unable or unwilling to get these enhancements? Do people slowly start to consider them "inferior"? None of that is guaranteed to happen, but the territory is dangerous none the less.

Well, another aspect of augmentation in Deus Ex is that it split society further into "have and have-nots".  Augmentation is expensive, so the only people that could afford it were the wealthy.  Thus, augmented individuals had an advantage over non-augmented individuals since they had a superior technological advantage.

While there very well might be some of those issues with synthesis as you said, at least the playing field is relatively equal in that everyone would be synthesized.

The point with Sarif´s ending was to make augmentations available to everybody who wished them, as most of the expenses were for the drug used to make augs compatible with biology. It would also give humanity such a push that the Illuminati would no longer be able to control it, main reason I went with that ending.

[Nerevar-as]

Ieldra2 wrote...
May I phrase "not good enough" in a more reasonable way:

Our psychology is circumscribed by our biology and needs to adapt to changing circumstances just like our physical traits. Organics as a domain of life (including baseline healthy humans as a species) are psychologically unfit for survival in the universe they are creating with their technology (including but not limited to synthetic life), because natural evolution is too slow and cannot make them adapt fast enough. Shortcuts in form of an accelerated artificial evolution (Synthesis) are necessary. The ability to Integrate synthetic technology Synthesis builds into organic biology will make it possible to bridge that "adaptation gap" on the collective level, meaning that indivuals may or not may not change their outlook based on the new physical traits, but on the collective level things will work out.

I see Synthesis as something that would happen anyway - "inevitable" as the Catalyst says - but only if organic life survives to that point. The scenario presented by the Catalyst tells us that without intervention, organic life will not survive to that point.

With this I completely disagree, whether you refer to the game or RL. Gamewise, the only reason organic life has never gone past a certain point is because Starbrat itself is preventing it. And listening to something with its sense of logic is just crazy. It doesn´t matter how old it is, it has never learned anything. In a way it´s quite fitting it appears as a child, it shows how immature it is.

And how do I quote different posts in a single answer?

[JasonShepard]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

... Organics as a domain of life (including baseline healthy humans as a species) are psychologically unfit for survival in the universe they are creating with their technology (including but not limited to synthetic life), because natural evolution is too slow and cannot make them adapt fast enough... 

With this I completely disagree, whether you refer to the game or RL. Gamewise, the only reason organic life has never gone past a certain point is because Starbrat itself is preventing it. And listening to something with its sense of logic is just crazy. It doesn´t matter how old it is, it has never learned anything. In a way it´s quite fitting it appears as a child, it shows how immature it is.

The point is that Synthetics advance faster than Organics (they think faster, they have more memory, they can self-optimise...) so once a Synthetic species is ahead, technologically, than an Organic species, it will always be ahead. Thus if the two ever come into conflict, the Organic species will probably lose. (The Crucible could be viewed as an exception to this rule.)

Look at the Geth. They only achieved self-awareness 200 years ago. In 200 years, they've advanced about the same as it took us 200,000 years. (Yes, Quarian tech will have given them a boost, but they were servant droids - there was no need to give them full technological knowledge, so the Geth likely had to reverse engineer everything.) Alternatively, look at EDI. She's only 3 years old, and she's flying the ship!

Synthesis presumably undoes this difference. Post-Synthesis, Organics would be able to advance as quickly as Synthetics. (This is where the assumptions kick in, since we're working off the vague statement: "Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology"...)

Nerevar-as wrote...

And how do I quote different posts in a single answer?

Copy and paste from one tab to another. Essentially, click on the first quote, write your reply, then copy it all. Then click on the next quote, paste in the previous response, and then write your next reply. Rinse and repeat.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 03 juin 2013 - 12:52 .

[Auld Wulf]

@Nerevar-as

The problem with pro-nature people is that their ability to perceive reality is somewhat blinkered -- this isn't an insult, but an objective observation. All you have to do to understand how wrong you are is look at the dinosaurs. They floundered for aeons, aeons that make us look like the blink of an eye, and then they all died. What's to say that couldn't happen to us? One lucky fluke of evolutionary mutation made us, but it hasn't really gone anywhere since.

There's no evidence that people 2,000 years ago are any different to people now. In fact, it's incredibly likely that if you took a good sample of children from 2,000 years ago and educated them with the current system, they'd do just as well as any other student. It's only our intellect, which truly is a mutation away from the natural standard, that puts us above and beyond animals. We mutated the ability to ask questions, and that's where our evolution comes from.

See, now that we can ask questions, we can ask questions about nature itself and whether it's actually going to provide us with anything. Sure, we can sit back, be lazy, and let nature and evolution handle everything, but... that didn't work out very well for the dinosaurs, did it? A little think about this reveals the absolute and undeniable objective truth of the matter -- that if we were to take a more Luddite approach to life and eschew technological evolution in favour of natural evolution, then eventually we all die. All of us. All humans. Everywhere. We all die.

The only way to avoid the fate of the dinosaurs is to use the tools we were given. By some dumb-luck fluke of evolution, we were given the capability to ask questions, which lead to all of the scientific fields. All science derives from questions that people want answers to, and the more complicated the answers become, the more complicated the questions become. It's not evolution doing that, it's simply a process of logic and reason based upon the intellect we've had for millennia.

This is why I always saw the Human Revolution endings that cast aside augments as being akin to dinosaurs. "No, no technology! No medicine! No science! These things are bad! Let's sit back and let nature take the driver's seat again." But the thing is, and I will keep saying this so that it's understood, after seeing what nature did with the dinosaurs, I don't exactly have a lot of faith in nature.

Nature is, quite essentially, a drunken pathfinder being followed around by a road laying crew. Sometimes it goes backwards along its own roads, sometimes it criss-crosses them, sometimes it gets very confused about what it's doing, and sometimes it comes to a cliff and then waits there to die, because there's nothing else it can do. Evolution is hardly a straight line, we've observed plenty of times that even reverses can happen in evolution, we can head backwards along the evolutionary chain for no real reason. It's because there are so many variables that we don't control.

I'd rather not leave my fate to the chance of nature, because that's like buying a lottery ticket and hoping I become a millionaire. The mathematics and statistics are against nature ever actually doing anything useful again. Think of how long it took life on earth to fluke us up, and what we've achieved in the short period of time since that fluke. We have to take over, it's the only way to ensure that we actually go anywhere, rather than stagnating until we die, as the dinosaurs did.

Edit

I guess another problem, which I've been trying to highlight lately, is that some people prefer religion to science. What happens there is the belief that we are absolutely perfect creatures with no flaws. I picked up quite a few BSN members on thinking this way. We are flawed, it's egotism which borders on a lack of sapience to not realise the many and myriad ways in which we are flawed. We continually make war, we strive for dominance, we try to stamp out the unfamiliar or to assimilate to make it something more comfortable and familiar for us, we treat our worse off really badly, your lot in life is dictated very much by who's the better predator and relies more on chance than who's more intellectually capable, and so on, and so on. We are, ultimately, a very flawed species.

Unless someone wants to tell me that slavery is actually the by-product of a perfect species.

The problem I have is that I have no reason to believe that we'll ever be anything but a flawed species. We're turning into dinosaurs. We've hit this point where we're at the cliff and we're stagnating, and if anything we're just going to end up going backwards rather than evolution actually doing anything helpful. I have no reason to believe that this isn't the case. So we are flawed, and we can either stagnate as flawed creatures until we die, or we can become more flawed creatures and then die. OR... OR... stick with me here... we could take our fate into our own hands and actually embrace science and technology and what it could do for us.

This is why I like Synthesis on a symbolic level. It's a fix for the stagnation problem. If we can upgrade ourselves, we have no reason to be stagnant, we can embrace novelty and we can get to a point where we can hot-swap capabilities.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 03 juin 2013 - 01:07 .

[xlegionx]

@Auld Wulf:

Who and when said specifically that they believe humans aren't flawed? The only thing on that subject I've seen mentioned is the opposite, that people are flawed (not just from you).

Comparing our current state to that of the dinosaurs is also really not fair. Dinosaurs existed for tens of millions of years, while humans have existed for about 50,000. to say that we are stagnating really isn't fair. the dinosaurs were also animals that were extremely instinctive, almost exclusively so. Humans currently have reason, so the comparison to dinosaurs seems to be a moot point.

We aren't stagnant, at least not yet. evolution works at such a slow pace that we haven't noticed any identifiable changes in our brief history. Synthesis might improve us at the impatient rate you want it to, but it could stagnate evolution dangerously. if your implants (or whatever Synthesis officially does) defended against disease better than your immune system, what's the point of an immune system? it's a dangerous situation.

Also, don't put nature and religion in the same boat. They often aren't the same thing

[Ieldra]

xlegionx wrote...
Also, don't put nature and religion in the same boat. They often aren't the same thing

In this context they serve the same purpose. The statement "We should not interfere with natural evolution" is functionally equivalent to "We should not usurp God's prerogatives." Both are driven by the sentiment that (aspects of) a life form's current state of being should be held sacrosanct.

Since such claims are arbitrary and there is no consensus about them, but the sentiment still exists, this often drives people to overstate related issues where a reasonable level of consensus can be assumed, such as the consent issue, since many people still hold their own individual biochemistry sacrosanct regardless of whether any proposed change will actually change things they want to retain. I find this sentiment odd. It's like if being confronted with a proposal to increase your intelligence, people go and reply "Nooo.....that's not me. I want to stay stupid."   

As I see it, Synthesis adds potential. Some people will ignore it, some people will use it. That's ok, because for Synthesis to work against the Catalyst's proposed problem, it only needs to work on a collective level. The Catalyst's statement "organics are ready" means "once the new possibilities exist, enough people will take them up and use them for Synthesis to work as a solution on the collective level".