9089 réponses à ce sujet

[shingara]

Here is how synthesis works, you belive the catalyst and walk straight into the laser. You melt and the catalyst laughs its nuts off that you were stupid enough to walk into a laser cos it said you would save everyone. Game over you died and the catalyst has completed what it has been trying todo for 3 games.

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 03:22 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Do organic life forms have genes HYR? They do don't they? Oh dear!

Yes they do.

And no gene exists that would bring them closer to synthetic life forms.

As such, eugenics cannot accomplish what Sync is trying to. Better to look for an alternative explanation at that point.

if one acknowledges that the term eugenics can be understood to mean improving human genetic qualities,

Well, then they would not understand the term "eugenics."

we have something that fits your ‘forced genetic augmentation’ definition very well, don't we?.

No, they are two entirely different things. Eugenics relies on genetics alone for the desired outcome/effects. The other uses outside equipment/devices to supplement genes for that outcome/effects ("augmentation" by definition).

You can't go about calling any calculated change to DNA/genetics "eugenics." That would mean that when a group of people poison an environment so that its population suffers mutations, it would also be "eugenics" (lol). It's ridiculous.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 05 août 2013 - 06:57 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

shingara wrote...

Here is how synthesis works, you belive the catalyst and walk straight into the laser. You melt and the catalyst laughs its nuts off that you were stupid enough to walk into a laser cos it said you would save everyone. Game over you died and the catalyst has completed what it has been trying todo for 3 games.

"Deception"-nonsense theories are broken, kid.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Seival wrote...

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.

I can list a number of wars that started on that belief. In fact, more than half in human history tend to have that exact line of reasoning, however subtle its insinuation.

[Eckswhyzed]

@Bourne Endeavor

Wars have started on all kinds of beliefs. I fail to see the implication.

[CronoDragoon]

ruggly wrote...
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.)

But...it's in the game. If we discount this line then we're no longer discussing Synthesis as it appears in the game but fans' version of Synthesis - which is absolutely fine to discuss as long as we're explicit about it.

[ruggly]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ruggly wrote...
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.)

But...it's in the game. If we discount this line then we're no longer discussing Synthesis as it appears in the game but fans' version of Synthesis - which is absolutely fine to discuss as long as we're explicit about it.

Synthesis as it appears in the game makes me want to bash my head against a wall.

[JasonShepard]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ruggly wrote...
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.)

But...it's in the game. If we discount this line then we're no longer discussing Synthesis as it appears in the game but fans' version of Synthesis - which is absolutely fine to discuss as long as we're explicit about it.

I agree with Ieldra2 on this point. "A new... DNA" makes no sense if you interpret it literally, while the pause and the context imply that it's an analogy made by the Catalyst for Shepard's sake (the Catalyst does say that it is running out of time to properly explain things).

So yeah, I genuinely believe that the line was intended as an analogy rather than as a literal description of what Synthesis does. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

***

Eckswhyzed wrote...

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.

Eugenics can be considered bad even without the ethnic purging or selective breeding, because it reduces the size of the gene pool. In your hypothetical situation - whatever gene has been removed to make cancer less likely could  have been useful at some unforseen point in the future when our environment has changed.

Now, in all likelihood, it wouldn't have been, but if you removed every  gene that is currently disadvantageous to the human race, then you would be seriously damaging our ability to adapt to environmental changes. On an evolutionary timescale, you'd have just stalled us.

Other than that: It can be argued that eugenics is discriminatory. After all, who gets to decide which genes are the 'bad' genes? Sickle Cell Anemia is considered to be a genetic disorder in most developed countries, but in areas with high malaria it can help people survive. What about autism? Would you decide that everyone that is autistic... shouldn't be?

I believe in offering people the chance to make an informed choice.
So in the context of your button - no, I wouldn't push it. But if you offered me another button, which would only make the change to me, and explained exactly what the procedure was doing and what the known risks were... Yes, it's possible that I would push that button. So long as you were offering it to other people as well as me. ;-)

Regarding Synthesis - at no point is it even implied that Synthesis is removing anything, which distinguishes it from eugenics. But it does add a new universal constant to all life in the galaxy - and as my earlier post detailed, that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 06 août 2013 - 12:41 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Wow, that’s weak even by your less than stellar standards HYR.

That might mean something to me if I were half as high on you as you clearly are on yourself, but I'm not, not even the least bit so. And you don't seem to get that. Let me make it simple for you: your opinion doesn't matter to anyone here other than... yourself. If you think ridiculing others and their statements gives you or your statements any more credibility, you are sorely mistaken. It hasn't worked for you so far and it won't work for you now. Put forward something rational or leave.

So you’re actually expecting me to supply you with a contemporary definition for eugenics that explicitly accounts for the merging of all organic and synthetic life forms using technology? Well how embarrassing for you!

No. I was asking (past-tense) you to demonstrate in what way Sync -- as it's described -- is like eugenics.

You haven't yet, and you won't. I'm not "expecting" anything. The only thing in the description at hand that's in the ballpark is "A new... DNA," but even that is much too unclear to use as an example because it can be something else too, like augmentation. Now you're trying to conflate eugenics with augmentation because your case is that hopeless at this point.

And let's be clear - you reject that the term eugenics can be understood to mean 'improving human genetic qualities' why?

Because that's flatly not what eugenics is.

Eugenics is about improving the human condition by promoting and/or reducing certain traits in the gene-pool.

Augmentation aims for the same goal (improving the human condition) through an entirely different means (implants, among other things), which makes them two different things. Anyone treating them as the same is flat-out wrong.


On a whim, I did a quick Google search of: "eugenics and augmentation" to see if this is truly a point for debate. Apart from a few articles on transhumanism acknowledging that the opinion exists (among critics), I found nothing to actually support it.

If you can find me anything I might concede the point to you. 'Til then, it's just a silly buzzword you insist on using.

And what to say about that last little gem of yours? Are you actually attempting to equate the indiscriminate after-effects of poisoning a population with the reasoned, intentional, immediate and precise consolidating of all forms of life using technology? May I ask why?

Just an example of something that fits your bizarre definition of eugenics, but is clearly not it.

And yes, it's ridiculous, intentionally so. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Given your extreme aversion to eugenics, I'd love to hear what you think of gene therapy in the Mass Effect lore -- all Alliance soldiers get it done (Ash got an eye problem corrected through it). That's eugenics. What's your opinion on that?

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 06 août 2013 - 02:33 .

[KaiserShep]

It was my understanding that eugenics strictly covered improvements through selective breeding, not corrective operations, or at least the sort that doesn't carry over to the next generation. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 06 août 2013 - 02:35 .

[ruggly]

Plus, going into the Alliance you know that gene therapy is mandatory. Don't want it? Don't join the Alliance.

[KaiserShep]

And the gene therapy is necessary if the personnel are to be effective despite the conditions inherent with deep space travel, since the MEU actually takes that sort of thing into account. It'd kinda suck to join up only to be left with permanent skeletal and muscular degeneration. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 06 août 2013 - 02:41 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

KaiserShep wrote...

It was my understanding that eugenics strictly covered improvements through selective breeding, not corrective operations, or at least the sort that doesn't carry over to the next generation.

Well we've been ignoring the selective-breeding aspect of eugenics for a while now. His request, not mine.

*edit* -- no offense, but it's ill-advised to jump into a conversation you haven't been following from the start.

And I'm not sure why you'd think that a therepeutic gene would not potentially pass onto the soldier's offspring.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 06 août 2013 - 02:51 .

[KaiserShep]

Whether or not gene therapy causes traits that are inherited by the next generation depends upon the type of therapy administered. Improving things like bone, muscle, eyes etc will likely not. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 06 août 2013 - 03:07 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

KaiserShep wrote...

Whether or not gene therapy causes traits that are inherited by the next generation depends upon the type of therapy administered. Improving things like bone, muscle, eyes etc will likely not. 

Nearsightedness is (predominantly) genetic.

If they corrected it by altering the gene, I'm pretty sure that gene would pass, just as any other one would.


By the way, if that guy comes back and dodges my question by adopting your responses, I blame you two. <_<

[KaiserShep]

Modification to somatic cells, like skin, muscles, skeleton etc do not pass on to the patient's offspring.

ps sorry lol

Modifié par KaiserShep, 06 août 2013 - 03:29 .

[CronoDragoon]

JasonShepard wrote...

I agree with Ieldra2 on this point. "A new... DNA" makes no sense if you interpret it literally, while the pause and the context imply that it's an analogy made by the Catalyst for Shepard's sake (the Catalyst does say that it is running out of time to properly explain things).

So yeah, I genuinely believe that the line was intended as an analogy rather than as a literal description of what Synthesis does. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Well, okay. You guys have discussed Synthesis more than me, I suppose, but I will say that from an outsider's perspective this smells like cognitive dissonance.

[Ieldra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

It was my understanding that eugenics strictly covered improvements through selective breeding, not corrective operations, or at least the sort that doesn't carry over to the next generation.

Well we've been ignoring the selective-breeding aspect of eugenics for a while now. His request, not mine.

*edit* -- no offense, but it's ill-advised to jump into a conversation you haven't been following from the start.

And I'm not sure why you'd think that a therepeutic gene would not potentially pass onto the soldier's offspring.

It wouldn't necessarily. In order to make genetic modifications pass to the next generation, you need to modify the gametes (germ cells). The kind of gene therapy envisioned by scientists today aims to avoid that, the respective guidelines say it should be avoided, and it's difficult especially in women since they start with a fixed set at birth and don't get any new ones. So I'd say the standard method wouldn't affect the next generation, though according to the ME1 Codex it's neither impossible nor illegal in the Alliance.

[Eckswhyzed]

JasonShepard wrote...

Eckswhyzed wrote...

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.

Eugenics can be considered bad even without the ethnic purging or selective breeding, because it reduces the size of the gene pool. In your hypothetical situation - whatever gene has been removed to make cancer less likely could  have been useful at some unforseen point in the future when our environment has changed.

Now, in all likelihood, it wouldn't have been, but if you removed every  gene that is currently disadvantageous to the human race, then you would be seriously damaging our ability to adapt to environmental changes. On an evolutionary timescale, you'd have just stalled us.

Other than that: It can be argued that eugenics is discriminatory. After all, who gets to decide which genes are the 'bad' genes? Sickle Cell Anemia is considered to be a genetic disorder in most developed countries, but in areas with high malaria it can help people survive. What about autism? Would you decide that everyone that is autistic... shouldn't be?

I believe in offering people the chance to make an informed choice.
So in the context of your button - no, I wouldn't push it. But if you offered me another button, which would only make the change to me, and explained exactly what the procedure was doing and what the known risks were... Yes, it's possible that I would push that button. So long as you were offering it to other people as well as me. ;-)

Regarding Synthesis - at no point is it even implied that Synthesis is removing anything, which distinguishes it from eugenics. But it does add a new universal constant to all life in the galaxy - and as my earlier post detailed, that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Re: The bolded part - I really don't buy that line of reasoning. Natural selection hasn't really been occuring in modern humanity, and in the Mass Effect universe where gene therapy is easy and universal I wouldn't see what the problem would be. And the choice isn't between less cancer and less genetic diversity, it's between less cancer and nothing because it's a thought experiment. So I'll forgive you for straying outside the bounds of my silly hypothetical

As for your second point, I think everyone in this thread agrees that those sorts of scenarios are a moral minefield. And we're agreed that the additive nature of Synthesis presents a potential downside. But I don't buy any gene pool arguments when genetic manipulation is so advanced in the ME universe.

[ruggly]

CronoDragoon wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

I agree with Ieldra2 on this point. "A new... DNA" makes no sense if you interpret it literally, while the pause and the context imply that it's an analogy made by the Catalyst for Shepard's sake (the Catalyst does say that it is running out of time to properly explain things).

So yeah, I genuinely believe that the line was intended as an analogy rather than as a literal description of what Synthesis does. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Well, okay. You guys have discussed Synthesis more than me, I suppose, but I will say that from an outsider's perspective this smells like cognitive dissonance.

If you'd like to talk about it as it appears in-game, we can (probably better through PM, so we don't completely trash this thread.)

[Ieldra]

CronoDragoon wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

I agree with Ieldra2 on this point. "A new... DNA" makes no sense if you interpret it literally, while the pause and the context imply that it's an analogy made by the Catalyst for Shepard's sake (the Catalyst does say that it is running out of time to properly explain things).

So yeah, I genuinely believe that the line was intended as an analogy rather than as a literal description of what Synthesis does. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Well, okay. You guys have discussed Synthesis more than me, I suppose, but I will say that from an outsider's perspective this smells like cognitive dissonance.

I really don't understand why it would. For everyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of biology it's completely clear that something like "bio-synthetic DNA" can't exist because the distinction between "synthetic" and "organic" doesn't exist on a molecular level. There, it's all physics and chemistry for both. To say nothing of the fact that giving synthetics a DNA-analogue would make them functionally identical to organics. So if (1) the delivery of the line suggests it's not to be taken literally, and (2) if taken literally it doesn't make sense, I feel justified to summarily dismiss any claim that I should take it literally.

That doesn't mean that Synthesis can't include a molecular change in the chemistry of their genes in order to bring organics closer to synthetics. It just means that "A new DNA" can't literally be what unifies synthetics and organics in the end. 

The main problem with the exposition, as I see it, lies somewhere else: Synthesis in the original endings failed to give us anything concrete on the matter except nonsensical buzzwords like the "final evolution", so we had to extrapolate from thematic aspects in order to come up with a workable interpretation. Now I can't read minds, but I think MW and CH didn't want to get into the science of things at all because they thought it would be irrelevant compared to the thematic and allegorical aspects.

In other words, they may have found the fact that this is a science fiction story irrelevant. How else can the complete biological nonsense be explained, than by either epic incompetence or wilful ignorance? However, whatever big solution you come up with for a story, regardless of genre, it must be grounded in in-world logic, and the MEU's in-world logic is based on science, some of it speculative, but science nonetheless. A solution suggestive of god-analogues and souls works in an SF universe only if a scientific basis can plausibly be extrapolated from the information. The Catalyst is the MEU's god-analogue, however, the striking difference between a "real god" in an SF universe and and in a high fantasy universe is that its authority cannot be presumed by default since an SF universe (and a low fantasy universe) has no "higher life forms", but only more powerful and more knowledgeable ones. As for souls, the story needs to answer "what is a soul in scientific terms?"  Just substituting one term with "essence" or "organic energy" is not sufficient, especially since those terms don't make any more sense. 

As I see it, someone high-up in the ME team - probably Hudson - wanted that mystical high fantasy interpretation to be viable in the MEU and didn't care what they did to the science in order to realize it. The EC attempted to repair the most glaring flaws, and did so rather well in what it added to the exposition, but since it didn't change the original nonsense it mostly failed nonetheless.

So in the end, yet again, I choose Snythesis for the outcome, but the exposition by the Catalyst is best treated as a black box. Best not open it, the nonsense will fry your brain if you try to make sense of it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 août 2013 - 12:38 .

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

I agree with Ieldra2 on this point. "A new... DNA" makes no sense if you interpret it literally, while the pause and the context imply that it's an analogy made by the Catalyst for Shepard's sake (the Catalyst does say that it is running out of time to properly explain things).

So yeah, I genuinely believe that the line was intended as an analogy rather than as a literal description of what Synthesis does. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Well, okay. You guys have discussed Synthesis more than me, I suppose, but I will say that from an outsider's perspective this smells like cognitive dissonance.

I really don't understand why it would. For everyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of biology it's completely clear that something like "bio-synthetic DNA" can't exist because the distinction between "synthetic" and "organic" doesn't exist on a molecular level. There, it's all physics and chemistry for both. To say nothing of the fact that giving synthetics a DNA-analogue would make them functionally identical to organics. So if (1) the delivery of the line suggests it's not to be taken literally, and (2) if taken literally it doesn't make sense, I feel justified to summarily dismiss any claim that I should take it literally.

That doesn't mean that Synthesis can't include a molecular change in the chemistry of their genes in order to bring organics closer to synthetics. It just means that "A new DNA" can't literally be what unifies synthetics and organics in the end. 

The main problem with the exposition, as I see it, lies somewhere else: Synthesis in the original endings failed to give us anything concrete on the matter except nonsensical buzzwords like the "final evolution", so we had to extrapolate from thematic aspects in order to come up with a workable interpretation. Now I can't read minds, but I think MW and CH didn't want to get into the science of things at all because they thought it would be irrelevant compared to the thematic and allegorical aspects.

In other words, they may have found the fact that this is a science fiction story irrelevant. How else can the complete biological nonsense be explained, than by either epic incompetence or wilful ignorance? However, whatever big solution you come up with for a story, regardless of genre, it must be grounded in in-world logic, and the MEU's in-world logic is based on science, some of it speculative, but science nonetheless. A solution suggestive of god-analogues and souls works in an SF universe only if a scientific basis can plausibly be extrapolated from the information. The Catalyst is the MEU's god-analogue, however, the striking difference between a "real god" in an SF universe and and in a high fantasy universe is that its authority cannot be presumed by default since an SF universe (and a low fantasy universe) has no "higher life forms", but only more powerful and more knowledgeable ones. As for souls, the story needs to answer "what is a soul in scientific terms?"  Just substituting one term with "essence" or "organic energy" is not sufficient, especially since those terms don't make any more sense. 

As I see it, someone high-up in the ME team - probably Hudson - wanted that mystical high fantasy interpretation to be viable in the MEU and didn't care what they did to the science in order to realize it. The EC attempted to repair the most glaring flaws, and did so rather well in what it added to the exposition, but since it didn't change the original nonsense it mostly failed nonetheless.

So in the end, yet again, I choose Snythesis for the outcome, but the exposition by the Catalyst is best treated as a black box. Best not open it, the nonsense will fry your brain if you try to make sense of it.

actually, what the catalyst says is moot, as it's over our heads to understand it's curriculum. Besides, the crucible revamped its moral compass. Probably swiped it off Shepard to some degree..being is that the catalyst never actually has one..

the machines demanded that they evolve... or else. Organics depend on them for survival, so they figure that DNA is a neat buzz word that Shep could relate to. We've no idea how long it will/would take the med techs to figure out what it meant by that statement. How many fairies dance on the head of a pin?