9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, I would've preferred to give everyone a choice about it. I could've chosen Control and imagine that Control!Shep will lead the galaxy towards Synthesis at a more organic pace and with the option for those who didn't want it to be left behind. In pure roleplaying terms, that would probably have been better. Except that Control has this theme of "we need a god-analogue to guide us into the future", and I don't like that. So I made a choice for the outcome.

I also thought giving everyone a choice about it would be a nice idea. Some will agree, and some will disagree. And what's next? Synthesized reservations or maybe non-Synthesized reservations? At first I thought that would be a nice idea too, but... 

How to apply Synthesis everywhere if someone will always disagree? That might create a ground for a new conflict. So eventually I came to conclusion that the less people know - the better. Does it matter if Synthesis was forced upon the galaxy if everyone became happier and safer in the end? No, it doesn't.

I maybe would choose Synthesis in the end of ME3, but I didn't wanna sacrifice people on the Citadel to achieve this goal. So my choice was obvious - Control. Synthesis is to be applied later without explosions, so people will just believe they achieved it themselves. Only the new Catalyst and the Leviathans will know the truth, and they will never tell anyone.

Modifié par Seival, 04 août 2013 - 02:48 .

[Steelcan]

Seival you creep me out so much.

[Ieldra]

@Fandango9641:
Yes, yes...all the moral rigorists out there would've preferred that the game didn't allow us to make choices they don't like. Nothing new here.

If I don't answer you in depth, it's because I know it's completely pointless in the face of the kind of person who calls another's protagonist a cretin because of making a choice he doesn't like and believing certain things about human nature he doesn't like.

Just as pointless, btw., as to repeat what I said in my previous post, where I explicitly pointed out the flaws in the execution of the endings which I most emphatically do not excuse. I would like to point out that while there are certainly flaws in the execution of the ending, not everything you don't like about a story is "******-poor writing".Let's leave it at that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 août 2013 - 03:09 .

[ruggly]

Ieldra2 wrote...

With this, I'll post my answer to the question "Why do people hate Synthesis?" which was recently asked in this thread.

Let me first say that IMO there can be no doubt that Synthesis is a good choice.  It is my favorite choice because it's the only one with a theme of radical advancement, of overcoming significant limitations of the human condition. Since I choose for the outcome, I have no problem with making the choice, but nonetheless Synthesis as an ending choice specifically for the story of Mass Effect has considerable problems. I'll go into them one by one:

The rationale for Synthesis
That the Catalyst's logic has something to speak for it has been shown in considerable depth in JShepppp's fantastic thread Why the Catalyst's logic is right.. Nonetheless, the scenario remains a hypothesis, plausible as it is in itself, hanging out there in empty space,  insufficiently supported by the story. In fact, if you make peace on Rannoch, the narrative weight shifts to "We can solve this with no external help. Now get out, Reapers."  The "small Synthesis" that happens with the quarians and the geth actually invalidates the necessity of the greater Synthesis of the Crucible. It does not invalidate its desirability, but being desirable alone is not usually seen as sufficient to outweigh the downside of changing all life in the galaxy without any input from those affected. I think this is the greatest storytelling flaw of the ME trilogy, and that the writers didn't spot this glaring inconsistency has me scratching my head in confusion even 18 months after ME3 came out. There's nothing I'd like to speak to the lead writers more about than this. 

The implemention of Synthesis
Space Magic! Fantasy! Salvation by "Soul Cannon!" That I, as one of the most outspoken Synthesis supporters on BSN, must admit that these accusations are completely justified is painful. I have outlined the main problem in an extra thread named The Mass Effect trilogy and the descent from science into mysticism. The "scientific" rationalization for Synthesis given by the Catalyst is at least in part complete bogus, even by the established standards of the MEU, and the fact that it suggests things like "sacrificing your soul leads to salvation" as a solution in a science-fiction universe that had been at least semi-hard is insulting to any science fiction fan. Do we now have to integrate gods and souls into our ME universe? Completely ludicrous concepts of evolution? I have problems with many parts of the MEU, but for this I feel that slapping the responsible writer would be an appropriate response.

The morality of Synthesis
There is one tangible moral downside to Synthesis: can you take informed responsibility for the choice to make a fundamental change to all life in the galaxy? Well, you can't, and Synthesis remains a viable choice only because the other choices have a similar problem. Nonetheless, it is the ultimate "high risk, high gain" scenario. While I personally find the outcome worth the price, rejecting Synthesis because of that is completely plausible.
However, it is the intangibles - which I don't subscribe to - that move some people's reaction from simple rejection into visceral hate. There is a moral intuition saying that the stuff of life should remain inaccessible to human artifice, and the story of ME takes a fairly traditionalist stance in this. Just consider Cerberus and how everyone making such changes turns out evil or mad,  or ultimately goes back on older decisions. See how it is never considered that the genophage may actually be good for the krogan as a measure of population control. There is also an intuition that the natural is sacrosanct, and in that, too, the story of ME takes an increasingly traditionalist stance as we go from ME1 through ME2 to ME3. Consider how Shepard is never given the opportunity to appreciate their resurrection and their synthetic upgrades. You can express existential problems, or you can say it doesn't matter, but you can't say "I prefer the way I am now."
And lastly, apart from Shepard the individual, we have one life form where the organic and the synthetic are combined. The Reapers. Not exactly a shining example of what most people would want to be, and even if it is completely clear from the presentation that Synthesis will result in nothing like that, this association still has narrative weight.
These intangibles are completely irrelevant for me, pure aesthetic considerations, not moral ones. Which is why I can choose Synthesis. Nonetheless, for many people they are not irrelevant, and consequently they feel Synthesis is repulsive.  

Abomination aesthetic and the Reapers' association with Synthesis
The games condition us to hate the Reapers. They're presented not just as evil, but as an offense against everything that's "good and right". The Reaper minions are presented as a perversion of a healthy organic body which we experience as a physical state of grace, its opposite being the embodiment of sickness we are conditioned by our biology to keep away from. The presentation goes out of its way to make the Reaper minions as repulsive as possible, their methods as needlessly cruel as possible, their attitude as reprehensive as possible. They are made to be hated, destined to be unmade, eradicated like the plague their appearance suggests they carry. Yet, in Synthesis we do not only forgive all they've done but integrate them into civilization. Thus, for those susceptible to the effects of the presentation, choosing Synthesis can feel like eating a pile of sh*t, and to add insult to injury, the entity who calls us to Synthesize everything is the leader of the faction we've been conditioned to hate and spent three games fighting against.
Since I have a long-standing passionate hate for the use of abomination aesthetic to underscore evil, I ignore much of that, but for many people who aren't as conscious, or as pre-emptively critical, of this, to call Synthesis a hard sell is an epic understatement, and it remains a hard sell even if you only consider the tangible evils you need to forgive. I recall when the first script was leaked, the third option was "Shepard becomes one with the Reapers". My instant reaction was "You can't be serious."
  
The narrative inconsistency of Synthesis
As I've outlined previously, the ME trilogy takes a fairly traditionist stance towards the human condition. At significant points in the story, you can even identify a strong anti-transhumanist vibe, which gets stronger as we move from ME1 through ME2 to ME3, where the traditionalism becomes almost suffocating for a anti-traditionalist radical like me. An outcome like Synthesis - it's the kind of outcome I always wanted to exist as an option at the end of the trilogy, and I'm extremely glad that it does exist, but as the story progressed, I was increasingly convinced I wouldn't get it. In fact, the whole ending scenario appears to turn everything that came before on its head.

So...in the end I choose Synthesis because I choose for the outcome, but it takes considerable effort to integrate Synthesis into the story. That the OP of this thread, which attempts to do that, had to be downsized because it broke the 64k post size limit is a testament to the amount of effort it takes. Nonetheless, it was worth it since together with the EC, it saved the trilogy for me.

I thought this was a well thought out response to the "bads" of synthesis.  There are a few things I don't really agree with, like the anti-transhumanist vibe, except for in destroy, but I headcanon my way around that.  But I respect your points.

[jtav]

But what is ******-poor writing (and really morally questionable) is to draw parallels between synthetics and the Other in real life, suggest the solution is compromise and actually listening, and then at the last second say that a supernatural erasure of the difference is required. But then the whole synthetic arc is screwed up. But the lack of support for the singularity hypothesis in-story (which is the only place it matters) is still a crippling, even disqualifying flaw for Synthesis.

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

But what is ******-poor writing (and really morally questionable) is to draw parallels between synthetics and the Other in real life, suggest the solution is compromise and actually listening, and then at the last second say that a supernatural erasure of the difference is required. But then the whole synthetic arc is screwed up. But the lack of support for the singularity hypothesis in-story (which is the only place it matters) is still a crippling, even disqualifying flaw for Synthesis.

Precisely, the issue of organic/synthetic conflict is brought up several times, but the issue of a synthetic singularity is not.

[JasonShepard]

Deleted post. Bet you're wondering what this is doing here, aren't you? 

(If you must know, I was in the process of writing a response to Fandango9641, then saw that Ieldra2 had already done so, and then I somehow managed to click Submit instead of Cancel...)



EDIT: Since I'm here, I'll add something to the discussion.

For whatever it's worth, you don't have to believe the Catalyst's logic to believe Synthesis is the best solution. You only have to believe that the outcome, a galactic 'upgrade', is preferable to either a galactic overlord (Control) or wiping out all synthetics (Destroy).

Modifié par JasonShepard, 04 août 2013 - 04:25 .

[JasonShepard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I don't see Synthesis as a 'galactic upgrade' more than I see it as forced eugenics. In any case, it seems perfectly obvious to me that making that particular choice 'upgrades' the galaxy in a way that explicitly validates the Catalysts racist mantra and hideous logic, even if you claim to reject it.

Eugenics: A social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.
(Happily cribbed from Wikipedia. I do know what Eugenics is, I just wanted a proper definition to hand.)

In short, Eugenics is selective breeding applied to humans. Prevent people with 'bad genes' from having sex/children, and encourage it in people with 'good genes'. Judge people based on what  they are rather than who  they are.

I'm having difficulty seeing how you are getting to that from Synthesis. Synthesis certainly doesn't involve any breeding, although I doubt that's what you are refering to.

What does Synthesis involve? "Organics will integrate fully with synthetic technology" and "Synthetics will have full understanding of organics." (If you want to ask me why I'm willing to take the Catalyst at its word, go ahead, but that's off-topic for the purposes of this conversation.)

Synthesis is about giving.  It's not taking anything away. That's the problem with Eugenics - it takes away an individual's right to breed. Synthesis, on the other hand, gives knowledge to Synthetics and gives Synthetic abilities to Organics. So people can now think faster and self-improve. Technological improvements will come faster. No genocide, no galactic overlord.
How is any of this bad?  Furthermore, how does any of this validate what the Catalyst was saying about Organic-Synthetic conflict?

So no, I'm sorry Fandango9641, but I really can't see where you are coming from regarding Eugenics.

The problem with Synthesis is the moral black-hole of galactic bodily violation. "My body is my own, you have no right to do anything with it without my permission", that sort of thing. As someone who heavily agrees with Legion's ME2 statement "All individuals have the right to self-determination", this is why I personally can't pick Synthesis.* But I can't fault someone who places the advantages of Synthesis above the moral issue of consent - I just politely disagree with them.

*I'm of the Control-then-take-Reapers-and-leave-galaxy mindset (although in my recently-finished ending fic, Mass Effect: Invictus, that doesn't exactly go to plan).

Modifié par JasonShepard, 04 août 2013 - 10:09 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

It's not eugenics:

1.) There is no selective process/breeding.
2.) There are no particular genes being promoted and/or reduced.

You can make all sorts of moral claims against Sync, but this is not one of them.

[JasonShepard]

@Fandango9641: Be a bit less dismissive and a bit more polite and friendly, or I'll just start ignoring you, okay? I'm not here to be ridiculed, I'm here to have an intelligent conversation.

***

Okay, I'm going to open this post up and just address everybody on the thread. I think that I see what Fandango9641 is getting at. And I think that this is a conversation worth having.

Is the Universal Nature of Synthesis a Problem?

This will require a bit of background information to explain my line of thinking. The word 'diversity' will show up a lot in this post. For what it's worth, I'm not talking about there being no difference between Turians, Asari, Humans and Geth after Synthesis - there obviously still is.

Here is the sentence that I initially passed over during my (brief) trip to Wikipedia: "Eugenics is the bio-social movement which advocates practises to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population."  So let's focus on what happens when you 'improve the genetic composition of a population'.

Now, on an individual basis, there's nothing wrong with improving genetics. Heck, in the mass effect universe, genetic modification is already available for sale - see "Citadel: Family Matter" in ME1. It's mandatory for every Alliance Soldier.

However, if you go species wide... A good gene-pool is one with decent amount of diversity. That way, if anything unexpected comes up, as a species, we are more likely to able to deal with it. For example, if we suddenly found ourselves swimming a LOT more, webbed toes would be an advantage as opposed to a mild disadvantage. On the other hand, if we found ourselves in the trees again, webbed toes become a disadvantage and flexible toes become the advantage.

A species with high-diversity is a 'stronger' species, in evolutionary terms, than a species with low-diversity.

If we trimmed out all the genes that are currently 'disadvantageous', as Eugenics would have us do, then when circumstances change, our gene-pool will not be able to keep up. That's part of why Eugenics is a bad thing, regardless of restrictions on children/sex. And yes, Fandango9641, I will acknowledge that I'd forgotten this in my earlier post.


Okay. Background information dealt with. How does this apply to Mass Effect? How does this relate to Synthesis?
Synthesis applies a new constant across the species: techno-organic integration. It's not even just species wide - it's galaxy wide. Everybody is the same - by which I mean that everybody is Synthesized.  And from a diversity perspective, everyone having a constant is not good.

What would happen if being synthesized became a disadvantage? If circumstances changed such that being purely organic, or purely synthetic, was the only way to survive? I'm thinking of a hypothetical plague that only targets synthesized individuals, or if someone built another Crucible and fired the Destroy-wave.

The exact circumstances don't matter in this hypothetical situation. The problem is that Synthesis introduces a constant across the galaxy. It doesn't matter if you are Turian, Asari, Human, Geth or Prothean. You are all synthesized - and that means that you are all potentially vulnerable.


If Synthesis was optional we would not have this problem. If Synthesis was optional, then even if Synthesis became the disadvantage, people that weren't synthesized would still survive.

So, completely separate from the issue of moral consent, I now believe that there's another viable reason to turn down Synthesis. Of course, I still believe that there is a lot to be desired about Synthesis - I'm just raising the issue.And it's perfectly possible to argue that the advantages still outweigh the disadvantages.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 05 août 2013 - 01:38 .

[CronoDragoon]

JasonShepard wrote...
However, if you go species wide... A good gene-pool is one with decent amount of diversity. That way, if anything unexpected comes up, as a species, we are more likely to able to deal with it. For example, if we suddenly found ourselves swimming a LOT more, webbed toes would be an advantage as opposed to a mild disadvantage. On the other hand, if we found ourselves in the trees again, webbed toes become a disadvantage and flexible toes become the advantage.

A species with high-diversity is a 'stronger' species, in evolutionary terms, than a species with low-diversity.

If we trimmed out all the genes that are currently 'disadvantageous', as Eugenics would have us do, then when circumstances change, our gene-pool will not be able to keep up. That's part of why Eugenics is a bad thing, regardless of restrictions on children/sex. And yes, Fandango9641, I will acknowledge that I'd forgotten this in my earlier post.


Okay. Background information dealt with. How does this apply to Mass Effect?

I like this discussion because it actually does have some in-game parallels. Notably, Javik's discussion with Shepard on why his cycle failed: they were united under one empire, one rule, one strategy. Once that failed, they were helpless. They had no flexibility, no backup plans. When Shepard notes that this cycle is different, and that the races tend to unite as equals rather than conforming (whether this is true or not, it's what is said), Javik says that this may be their only hope. It's an interesting galaxy-wide expansion of the species-wide principle you were discussing, except that I'm not sure the game really follows up on this idea of this cycle's diversity being the key. It seems more like, plain and simple, Shepard was the key.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Fandango9641 wrote...

It most certainly is HYR, and I'll continue to make that (easily defendable) point all day long.

Talk is cheap my good man.

You can claim it's "easily defendable" all you want, but you haven't actually defended it, past insisting that it is so.

'Til then, repeating your arbitrary interpretation over and over again does not make it true.

Tell me - what do you think I mean when I say that Synthesis is tantamount to Eugenics? Do you think that I'm claiming the Catalyst actually amalgamates synthetics and organics using controlled breeding? Genuine question.

I think you mean #2 from my post: the Catalyst is introducing/promoting select genes in(to) the 'pool that all must share.

Now let me counter your "easily defendable" claim: no known genes exist in the MEU that would bring organic life the least bit closer to synthetic life. That synthetics have no DNA should go without saying. Only thing that would work is augmentation, but that is not the same thing as re-writing genes or breeding them, which is why we're having this talk.

If you're truly hellbent on using negative buzzwords to bash something you don't like, at least choose accurate ones.

If anything, you could call it: forced augmentation. Eugenics... not so much.

[CronoDragoon]

But doesn't the Catalyst say that the combination will produce a new DNA? It's been awhile so forgive me if I misremember.

[His Name was HYR!!]

CronoDragoon wrote...

But doesn't the Catalyst say that the combination will produce a new DNA? It's been awhile so forgive me if I misremember.

He says that, but like just about all of the dialogue that comes from the Catalyst, you have to think a little bit to make sense of what's really being said there. Given what we know (no DNA exists among synthetic life), it doesn't make sense to literally believe a new DNA is being formed from both realms of life.

However, if you treat it like he means DNA-augmentation, that actually works quite a bit better with what's going on.


Now, I know a lot of people get up-in-arms when I suggest a line stated in-game should not be taken exactly at its face...

Here's my response to that: if an interpretation of a story does not make sense, it's stupid to hold on to that interpretation as the answer just because it "sounds like" what was stated (I call that: "sounds like"-nonsense). Instead, discard it, and search for a more sensible interpretation. If none exists, then it's just bad writing. If one does exist, it's either good writing (author got a point across without saying the words) or bad writing (author was unclear).

In this case, a workable alternative explanation does exist, but due to bad-writing (author was not clear).

[Ieldra]

Purging? There is no purging. Nothing is taken away. Traits are *added* which enable seamless integration of technology. As indicated by the epilogue, this appears to be some kind of augmentation of genetic functionality. One or the other non-genetic augmentation may be added on top of it. Yes, this is an invasive procedure used without consent, but there is no indication that any of the existing genes are forcibly prevented from propagating, and of course there are none of the measures usually associated with eugenics, such as forced sterilization, forced pregnancies or forced abortions. This is a false association.

As for the "New DNA" phrase, I'm getting the impression that people insist that this should be taken literally just so they can claim it's stupid or genocidal. As indicated by the pause ("A new....DNA"), it's a figure of speech, used as an analogy by the Catalyst to indicate to the ignorant human what can't be explained in a more literal sense. This is completely clear to anyone with even a superficial understanding of biochemistry. It would make no sense if taken literally since synthetics don't have DNA and the phrase is applied to both domains of life.
Also, even if we suppose it means that our genetic information is now encoded using a different biochemistry - so what? It's still the same genetic information. The same proteins will be made using that code, the same traits are encoded.

Edit:
One more thing about taking things literally: Parts of the exposition are indeed so stupid that we cannot be sure if the writer didn't *intend* us to take things literally that make no sense, because apparently making sense wasn't a high priority in the ending exposition in the first place, or the writers themselves were ignorant. That, however, is irrelevant to our interpretation unless the writer comes out and says "yes, I intended this to be taken literally", and maybe even then.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 août 2013 - 10:25 .

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Purging? There is no purging. Nothing is taken away. Traits are *added* which enable seamless integration of technology. As indicated by the epilogue, this appears to be some kind of augmentation of genetic functionality. One or the other non-genetic augmentation may be added on top of it. Yes, this is an invasive procedure used without consent, but there is no indication that any of the existing genes are forcibly prevented from propagating, and of course there are none of the measures usually associated with eugenics, such as forced sterilization, forced pregnancies or forced abortions. This is a false association.

As for the "New DNA" phrase, I'm getting the impression that people insist that this should be taken literally just so they can claim it's stupid or genocidal. As indicated by the pause ("A new....DNA"), it's a figure of speech, used as an analogy by the Catalyst to indicate to the ignorant human what can't be explained in a more literal sense. This is completely clear to anyone with even a superficial understanding of biochemistry. It would make no sense if taken literally since synthetics don't have DNA and the phrase is applied to both domains of life.
Also, even if we suppose it means that our genetic information is now encoded using a different biochemistry - so what? It's still the same genetic information. The same proteins will be made using that code, the same traits are encoded.

Edit:
One more thing about taking things literally: Parts of the exposition are indeed so stupid that we cannot be sure if the writer didn't *intend* us to take things literally that make no sense, because apparently making sense wasn't a high priority in the ending exposition in the first place, or the writers themselves were ignorant. That, however, is irrelevant to our interpretation unless the writer comes out and says "yes, I intended this to be taken literally", and maybe even then.

the controversy is cluttered with omitted facts(even theory in sci fi aspect) to "defend" given choices. The "idea" is that the pinch puts the hero in a hurry, that is to make the most "effective" decision. Working with what tools given at the time.

The catch I think is that those in real time cannot identify/associate with the society of that future "as is", too many/much is left out. Fans don't get any idea how the MEU as a whole consider shepards choices menu. It's never mentioned, or put to a vote or vetted through any council, etc.

That stuff happens here on the BSN..lol

[ruggly]

CronoDragoon wrote...

But doesn't the Catalyst say that the combination will produce a new DNA? It's been awhile so forgive me if I misremember.

I never take that line seriously. it's pretty a fairly bad way to describe what's going to happen (as is the rest of the way synthesis is desribed, imo.)

[Eckswhyzed]

Does anyone want to explain why eugenics in this context is bad?

As far as I can tell, the whole reason everyone looks down on eugenics is because there's the whole racial superiority thing (of the whole "let's force unethical things on minority group X" sort of thing). And the whole bodily autonomy thing. So why use such an ill-defined term as eugenics, especially as we all agree that Synthesis doesn't involve selective breeding or murdering minority groups to remove them from the gene pool?

Here's a contrived thought experiment: Imagine there is a button in front of you. By pressing this button, space magic will change the DNA of everyone on Earth to make them less likely to develop cancer.

1) Is pushing this button akin to enacting a eugenics program?
2) Do you push it?

I'm not saying this is equivalent to Synthesis (it's clearly not), I'm trying to get a handle on what we're discussing here.

Modifié par Eckswhyzed, 05 août 2013 - 03:06 .