9087 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

There's no self-destructing here. Shepard lives on the Citadel, and then in a magically grown long-lived organic super-body created by the Reapers. 

Doesn't the Citadel fall apart in the control ending too? I figured control to be a copy of Shepard being transmitted to every Reaper to overwrite whatever controls the Catalyst put in place (which would make rebuilding and reintegrating the varied personalities interesting but not impossible).

Nope, the Citadel closes up with the Crucible inside. 

I assume this means Shepard controls the Reapers through it. 

[Xandurpein]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

Here let me explain synthesis for you:

Evolution

New DNA

Got it?

Okay I donno what is the above but one of you already told me NEW DNA is a metaphor, and not just evolution, but THE END of it

Yes, the pinnacle of evolution. 

Something that cannot be reached. An impossibility. An idea so mind-numbingly stupid to anyone who has studied the concept in any depth I literally cannot play the end of this game anymore. 

Only the Reapers talk about "The Pinnacle of Evolution" and they are obviously static, unchanged and single-minded in their actions over countless milennia. They do not evolve, because they do not change. The Catalyst gives a much more nebulous definition; "the final stage of evolution". This statement can be interpreted as the end of evolution, but it could also be interpreted as a new ("final") phase of evolution, the phase when diversity and evolution is determined primarily by self-modification, rather than random mutation (although random change will never be eliminated, only partially superceeded). As I argued above, evolution would actually proceed at a vastly incresed pace in this stage. It's just open for many interpretations.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 24 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[Xandurpein]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

Here let me explain synthesis for you:

Evolution

New DNA

Got it?

Okay I donno what is the above but one of you already told me NEW DNA is a metaphor, and not just evolution, but THE END of it.

The OP says that the term "new DNA" is just a metaphor. I agree that it's necessary to interpret the statement as a metaphor in order for the OP's theory to fit what we hear in the game, but that doesn't mean it's a proven fact. It's only obvious if you accept the OP's premises. The fact that the Catalyst is the only one who knows what Synthesis actually means and the only real explanation it gives us is that it involves "new DNA" means that any theory that pre-supposes that this information cannot be taken literally, should at least acknowledge that this is a weakness in the argument.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 24 mai 2012 - 09:00 .

[Vigilant111]

Xandurpein wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

Here let me explain synthesis for you:

Evolution

New DNA

Got it?

Okay I donno what is the above but one of you already told me NEW DNA is a metaphor, and not just evolution, but THE END of it

Yes, the pinnacle of evolution. 

Something that cannot be reached. An impossibility. An idea so mind-numbingly stupid to anyone who has studied the concept in any depth I literally cannot play the end of this game anymore. 

Only the Reapers talk about "The Pinnacle of Evolution" and they are obviously static, unchanged and single-minded in their actions over countless milennia. They do not evolve, because they do not change. The Catalyst gives a much more nebulous definition; "the final stage of evolution". This statement can be interpreted as the end of evolution, but it could also be interpreted as a new ("final") phase of evolution, the phase when diversity and evolution is determined primarily by self-modification, rather than random mutation (although random change will never be eliminated, only partially superceeded). As I argued above, evolution would actually proceed at a vastly incresed pace in this stage. It's just open for many interpretations.

Good then, cos the OP pointed out to me the crew walked out or Normanday didn't look any different in the synthesis ending, so it must be harmless, and now u also told me that the evolution haven't quite reached the end yet, the effect of synthesis is only starting to show, right? but it is not apparent yet?

[Xandurpein]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Only the Reapers talk about "The Pinnacle of Evolution" and they are obviously static, unchanged and single-minded in their actions over countless milennia. They do not evolve, because they do not change. The Catalyst gives a much more nebulous definition; "the final stage of evolution". This statement can be interpreted as the end of evolution, but it could also be interpreted as a new ("final") phase of evolution, the phase when diversity and evolution is determined primarily by self-modification, rather than random mutation (although random change will never be eliminated, only partially superceeded). As I argued above, evolution would actually proceed at a vastly incresed pace in this stage. It's just open for many interpretations.

Good then, cos the OP pointed out to me the crew walked out or Normanday didn't look any different in the synthesis ending, so it must be harmless, and now u also told me that the evolution haven't quite reached the end yet, the effect of synthesis is only starting to show, right? but it is not apparent yet?

Think of it like this. Assuming that the OP's theory is correct, organic beings now have the ability to change themselves through self-modification. The crw of the normandy, apparently busy escaping the green energy beam, has barely had time to begin explore this new power. Over time they will begin experimenting with this and come up with various ways to improve their bodies and mental capacities. Some of them will come up with particularliy ingenous solutions and others will then copy them.

A very interesting question is what happens to the non-sentient organic beings. If non-sentient organic beings are not affected, then sooner or later some of these species will attain sentience somewhere and then we still have purely organic beings. The alternative, that non-sentient beings also get this ability, is even more frightening though. Imagine if all natural predators have the ability to self-modify themselves, growing stronger and more dangerous in the process.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 24 mai 2012 - 09:47 .

[Veneke]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Good then, cos the OP pointed out to me the crew walked out or Normanday didn't look any different in the synthesis ending, so it must be harmless, and now u also told me that the evolution haven't quite reached the end yet, the effect of synthesis is only starting to show, right? but it is not apparent yet?

 
OP was incorrect if he said that the effect of synthesis on humans was not apparent in the Synthesis ending. You can clearly see the changes in the Synthesis ending - different eyes, a green glow coming from Joker's body that emanates from circuitry of some description fitted under his skin.

<-- Skip to 4:10

Modifié par Veneke, 24 mai 2012 - 09:50 .

[Vigilant111]

Xandurpein wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Only the Reapers talk about "The Pinnacle of Evolution" and they are obviously static, unchanged and single-minded in their actions over countless milennia. They do not evolve, because they do not change. The Catalyst gives a much more nebulous definition; "the final stage of evolution". This statement can be interpreted as the end of evolution, but it could also be interpreted as a new ("final") phase of evolution, the phase when diversity and evolution is determined primarily by self-modification, rather than random mutation (although random change will never be eliminated, only partially superceeded). As I argued above, evolution would actually proceed at a vastly incresed pace in this stage. It's just open for many interpretations.

Good then, cos the OP pointed out to me the crew walked out or Normanday didn't look any different in the synthesis ending, so it must be harmless, and now u also told me that the evolution haven't quite reached the end yet, the effect of synthesis is only starting to show, right? but it is not apparent yet?

Think of it like this. Assuming that the OP's theory is correct, organic beings now have the ability to change themselves through self-modification. The crw of the normandy, apparently busy escaping the green energy beam, has barely had time to begin explore this new power. Over time they will begin experimenting with this and come up with various ways to improve their bodies and mental capacities. Some of them will come up with particularliy ingenous solutions and others will then copy them.

A very interesting question is what happens to the non-sentient organic beings. If non-sentient organic beings are not affected, then sooner or later some of these species will attain sentience somewhere and then we still have purely organic beings. The alternative, that non-sentient beings also get this ability, is even more frightening though. Imagine if all natural predators have the ability to self-modify themselves, growing stronger and more dangerous in the process.

cool now we can name the beam, the ginseng beam, or red bull beam or green bull beam

see, galactic peace between organics still remain in question

Modifié par Vigilant111, 24 mai 2012 - 09:56 .

[Ieldra]

Xandurpein wrote...
The OP still pick and chose what in the game is admissable as "evidence".

I interpret the things that make no sense as metaphorical or deliberately oversimplified to address the "moron" demographic.

Given the "final evolution of life" and "new DNA", of course I could throw up my hands and walk away, and I understand anyone who does that, but I'm attracted to the underlying themes so I'm going at it differently: I try to make it make sense.

In-world, I go from the assumption that "the Catalyst isn't stupid", so if it said certain things and they appear to make no sense, then it meant something different and the phrasing was just unfortunate. A communication problem, not one of concept. Thus, the "new DNA" is a metaphor addressed to the dumb (from the perspective of the Catalyst) human.

Then I asked myself: what can the expression "final evolution of life" mean if we can't take it literally as "life doesn't change any more" because that makes no sense. And what it can mean is that almost all change is now deliberate, because random changes, being disadvantageous most of the time, will be removed by technology. Life forms will be static in their basic makeup unless they choose to change.

Was that intended by the writers? Given the evidence at hand, I highly suspect not. Mac Walters' track record for dealing respectfully with science themes is almost nonexistent. I'm pretty sure he (no idea about Hudson) expected us to swallow the nonsense as is so yes, it's true that I am putting a lot more thought into it than the writers. It's true that I - and others who try to make sense of things instead of keep b*tching about - are doing the work the writers should've done.

It's also true that there are many other scenarios possible with the information we've been given. I have given the basic assumption I have made in order to pick the one I did in the OP, but I'll repeat it here and elaborate for your convenience:

The high-EMS endings are all meant to be "We win" endings. So except for the consequences explicitly told us like the destruction of the relays, adding so much bad stuff that an ending loses that quality is not in their spirit. This means that I have every right to reject dystopian scenarios others try to force on me, just because they wouldn't mean "we win" to me, in the same way I'd reject the ending interpretation "all relays go supernova and everyone is dead", which is one plausible outcome but rather obviously Not What Happens. 

So, here's what I think a plausible interpretation of Synthesis must do:

*present it as a "we win" scenario, a "good" ending, judged from the consequences.
*explain why it is a solution.
*explain how it combines organic and synthetic life.

For those who don't like my scenario, I challenge you to do better. For those who find the basic idea of combining synthetics and organics distasteful, I respect your position, but the underlined principle still applies. The scenario does not become worse just because you don't like it.

As an aside, I believe that a lot of the determination to paint Synthesis as bad comes from the absolute unwillingness to accept the possibility that morally questionable means may have a very good result. I've seen the same kind of attitude in debates about the Collector base decision. But here's the thing: that's the point. There is no necessary connection between the (deontology-based) morality of a course of action and the desirability of its results. So my Shepard says "To hell with the objections, I'll let history be my judge." And if that sounds like something a villain would say.....well, most stories paint consequentialism as bad and pander to the notion that bad actions always have bad outcomes. Not this one I'm afraid. Mass Effect 3 specifically makes the point that a choice embraced by a villain (Control) might actually have the best outcome, saving most of galactic civilization. Not that anyone will ever be in a position to judge Shepard, regardless of which ending you choose, because nobody knows there have been other options.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mai 2012 - 10:09 .

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In Control, it's up to Shepard. All we see is that they stop attacking and leave Earth. This ends the Reaper threat, but apart from that it's up to the player to imagine what happens.

In Synthesis, they also stop attacking and leave Earth. This aiso ends the Reaper threat, and here, too, it's up to the player to imagine what happens, but since it's not up to Shepard, there is less common ground for speculation. Between them flying away, never to be seen again, them staying around and establishingPEACEFUL contact after being freed from the Catalyst's mind control, or most of them flying away but a few scattered ones having to be defeated in the following years, everything is possible. All we know that they're no longer a serious threat to the galaxy. Even if some remain and a few remain hostile, they no longer have a unified purpose.

My favorite scenario is that they stay around, but simply have other priorities incomprehensible to the post-Synthesis civilizations who are just starting to explore their new potential. One or two might be persuaded to share their knowledge in order to help rebuilding the relays, one or two others' constituent minds might ask for help in restoring their old forms. A few might even be hostile. I don't think a scenario where they all do the same is plausible.

It's interesting to see how many people are fascinated by the Reapers especially their incredible power and the idea of controlling them or even make peace with them. Them, the biggest murderers in the long history of the Universe, who think of us as bacterias...

Sovereign:

"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident".

"We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness"

"Before us, you are nothing".

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

Harbinger: (believed as to be the oldest and the largest Reaper)

“I am the Harbinger of your ascendance.”

“The forces of the universe bend to me.”

“Your worlds will become our laboratories.”

“We are the beginning, you are the end.”

“We are superior.”

“You are bacteria.”

“You are vermin.”


The Star Brat:

"The Reapers are my toys, tools, slaves solution."

I'll oversee the nonsensical presence of the space brat as catalyst.
Because in this case, someone please explains to me:

What in the hell was Sovereign's purpose.
Why the catalyst did not activate the citadel as Mass Relay for the Reaper invasion in ME1.
Why did he let some Protheans hack the Keepers, although he's powerful enough to control the Reapers (I'd love to know how).
Were the Reapers (especially Harbinger) aware of him? Did he create them? Or were they just trolled without noticing it?

The Reapers are not just a random race. They are still the most powerful beings the galaxy ever known. What does prevent them to intervene once again if there is a similar problem as the technological singularity in the future?
They're at the apex of the "chain food", who will prevent them to take over, lead the galaxy if they feel like it? Or they won't, because it's something we can not comprehend?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 24 mai 2012 - 05:58 .

[Vigilant111]

Veneke wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Good then, cos the OP pointed out to me the crew walked out or Normanday didn't look any different in the synthesis ending, so it must be harmless, and now u also told me that the evolution haven't quite reached the end yet, the effect of synthesis is only starting to show, right? but it is not apparent yet?

 
OP was incorrect if he said that the effect of synthesis on humans was not apparent in the Synthesis ending. You can clearly see the changes in the Synthesis ending - different eyes, a green glow coming from Joker's body that emanates from circuitry of some description fitted under his skin.

<-- Skip to 4:10

oh yea I just remembered wondering :"his eyes look so cool" and forgot about it

Modifié par Vigilant111, 24 mai 2012 - 10:14 .

[Ieldra]

What I actually said was that "Joker and EDI look pretty much like themselves apart from cosmetic effects, Garrus looks like a turian, humans look like humans etc..". This was to counter baseless assumptions like "We're all turned into Reapers", "We will all be the same", "Total homogenization", "Individuality will be gone", "Everyone will be huskified", "All species will be destroyed" and similar ridiculous stuff. Plainly, this is Not What Happens.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mai 2012 - 10:25 .

[Xandurpein]

@Ieldra2. Thank you for your last post. I think the basic difference between us is that I reject the premise that Synthesis must represent an "I win" scenario. What was intended and what we got may differ, I assume that's why we will get an EC, but we only have what we have. I still maintain that analyzing the story "as is" is the only way to avoid endless butting one headcanon against another. I will reply to you later in more detail, unfortunately the pesky reality of my office does not permit me do so now, so I'll be back in a few hours.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 24 mai 2012 - 10:26 .

[kookie28]

Ieldra2 wrote...

What I actually said was that "Joker and EDI look pretty much like themselves apart from cosmetic effects, Garrus looks like a turian, humans look like humans etc..". This was to counter baseless assumptions like "We're all turned into Reapers", "We will all be the same", "Total homogenization", "Individuality will be gone", "Everyone will be huskified", "All species will be destroyed" and similar ridiculous stuff. Plainly, this is Not What Happens.

But if what you say is true . . .

. . . then Synthesis is an acceptable option. 



You know we can't have that.

[Vigilant111]

kookie28 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

What I actually said was that "Joker and EDI look pretty much like themselves apart from cosmetic effects, Garrus looks like a turian, humans look like humans etc..". This was to counter baseless assumptions like "We're all turned into Reapers", "We will all be the same", "Total homogenization", "Individuality will be gone", "Everyone will be huskified", "All species will be destroyed" and similar ridiculous stuff. Plainly, this is Not What Happens.

But if what you say is true . . .

. . . then Synthesis is an acceptable option. 



You know we can't have that.

@Ieldra2: being homogenius actually helps the argument that all war will stop between organics species, and that is important to me, and to me your argument is about individual being able to ascend to betterment of self, and that possibly leads to galactic peace, like being enlightened

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2: being homogenius actually helps the argument that all war will stop between organics species, and that is important to me, and to me your argument is about individual being able to ascend to betterment of self, and that possibly leads to galactic peace, like being enlightened

I don't think "all war will stop between organic-origin species" is implied by Synthesis. One would hope that self-improvement would lead to *less* conflict, but "no violent conflict at all" is utopian. It won't happen. The peace the Catalyst refers to is either meant to be between organics and synthetics, or between galactic civilization and the Reapers. Also, unlike the tools for self-improvement which the Synthesis would bring, the wisdom that would lead to less conflict can't be forced on people without mind-control. There is no sign that that happens. And lastly, learning to accept differences is something we've done throughout the games. It's a major theme. If synthetics and organics didn't have such immensely different advancement speeds, that would also be possible between organics and synthetics. Synthesis is only a viable option that doesn't break important themes if there is reason to say that the organic/synthetic divide is based on something different than your usual conflicts. That's why the singularity is important.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2: being homogenius actually helps the argument that all war will stop between organics species, and that is important to me, and to me your argument is about individual being able to ascend to betterment of self, and that possibly leads to galactic peace, like being enlightened

I don't think "all war will stop between organic-origin species" is implied by Synthesis. One would hope that self-improvement would lead to *less* conflict, but "no violent conflict at all" is utopian. It won't happen. The peace the Catalyst refers to is either meant to be between organics and synthetics, or between galactic civilization and the Reapers. Also, unlike the tools for self-improvement which the Synthesis would bring, the wisdom that would lead to less conflict can't be forced on people without mind-control. There is no sign that that happens. And lastly, learning to accept differences is something we've done throughout the games. It's a major theme. If synthetics and organics didn't have such immensely different advancement speeds, that would also be possible between organics and synthetics. Synthesis is only a viable option that doesn't break important themes if there is reason to say that the organic/synthetic divide is based on something different than your usual conflicts. That's why the singularity is important.

That synthesis is pointless then. Why do we have to impose something on everyone that doesn't solve the problem the star child brings up?

[Veneke]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I don't think "all war will stop between organic-origin species" is implied by Synthesis. One would hope that self-improvement would lead to *less* conflict, but "no violent conflict at all" is utopian. It won't happen. The peace the Catalyst refers to is either meant to be between organics and synthetics, or between galactic civilization and the Reapers. Also, unlike the tools for self-improvement which the Synthesis would bring, the wisdom that would lead to less conflict can't be forced on people without mind-control. There is no sign that that happens. And lastly, learning to accept differences is something we've done throughout the games. It's a major theme. If synthetics and organics didn't have such immensely different advancement speeds, that would also be possible between organics and synthetics. Synthesis is only a viable option that doesn't break important themes if there is reason to say that the organic/synthetic divide is based on something different than your usual conflicts. That's why the singularity is important.

That synthesis is pointless then. Why do we have to impose something on everyone that doesn't solve the problem the star child brings up?

 
Remember that Synthesis is meant to be the ultimate solution to synthetics destroying organics utterly. You'll still have warfare, you just won't have the destruction of all organic life.

[Uncle Jo]

Veneke wrote...

Remember that Synthesis is meant to be the ultimate solution to synthetics destroying organics utterly. You'll still have warfare, you just won't have the destruction of all organic life.

Yes and the Reapers in addition. No one wanted to answer me, but what will be their attitude in case of war ? Will they gently stay away and let every one deal with it as they like? Or will they think again that we're bacterias and wipe us out?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 24 mai 2012 - 12:09 .

[Vigilant111]

I am more concerned about technology going wrong when organics ignored the ethics regarding building artificial intelligence, I think the important task here is that organics must not let their lives to be so saturated with technological progress, and also not to abuse technology (building robot troops) because when these AIs are sentient enough (I mean a robot troop probably must be pretty smart and dynamic) they will seek vengence

[dreman9999]

Veneke wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I don't think "all war will stop between organic-origin species" is implied by Synthesis. One would hope that self-improvement would lead to *less* conflict, but "no violent conflict at all" is utopian. It won't happen. The peace the Catalyst refers to is either meant to be between organics and synthetics, or between galactic civilization and the Reapers. Also, unlike the tools for self-improvement which the Synthesis would bring, the wisdom that would lead to less conflict can't be forced on people without mind-control. There is no sign that that happens. And lastly, learning to accept differences is something we've done throughout the games. It's a major theme. If synthetics and organics didn't have such immensely different advancement speeds, that would also be possible between organics and synthetics. Synthesis is only a viable option that doesn't break important themes if there is reason to say that the organic/synthetic divide is based on something different than your usual conflicts. That's why the singularity is important.

That synthesis is pointless then. Why do we have to impose something on everyone that doesn't solve the problem the star child brings up?

 
Remember that Synthesis is meant to be the ultimate solution to synthetics destroying organics utterly. You'll still have warfare, you just won't have the destruction of all organic life.

If you think that then you don't understand the reason for the conflict with orgaincs and synthetics.
Take a look ateverything on rennock and why the geth rebelion happen and you'll understand that if organic fight with themselves after synthesis then theproblem is not solved.

[Vigilant111]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2: being homogenius actually helps the argument that all war will stop between organics species, and that is important to me, and to me your argument is about individual being able to ascend to betterment of self, and that possibly leads to galactic peace, like being enlightened

I don't think "all war will stop between organic-origin species" is implied by Synthesis. One would hope that self-improvement would lead to *less* conflict, but "no violent conflict at all" is utopian. It won't happen. The peace the Catalyst refers to is either meant to be between organics and synthetics, or between galactic civilization and the Reapers. Also, unlike the tools for self-improvement which the Synthesis would bring, the wisdom that would lead to less conflict can't be forced on people without mind-control. There is no sign that that happens. And lastly, learning to accept differences is something we've done throughout the games. It's a major theme. If synthetics and organics didn't have such immensely different advancement speeds, that would also be possible between organics and synthetics. Synthesis is only a viable option that doesn't break important themes if there is reason to say that the organic/synthetic divide is based on something different than your usual conflicts. That's why the singularity is important.

That synthesis is pointless then. Why do we have to impose something on everyone that doesn't solve the problem the star child brings up?

That's what I thought, cos synthetic/organic and organic/organic conflicts weight equally to me, it is important to me that true galactic is achieved, not just against the reapers

Modifié par Vigilant111, 24 mai 2012 - 12:12 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2: being homogenius actually helps the argument that all war will stop between organics species, and that is important to me, and to me your argument is about individual being able to ascend to betterment of self, and that possibly leads to galactic peace, like being enlightened

I don't think "all war will stop between organic-origin species" is implied by Synthesis. One would hope that self-improvement would lead to *less* conflict, but "no violent conflict at all" is utopian. It won't happen. The peace the Catalyst refers to is either meant to be between organics and synthetics, or between galactic civilization and the Reapers. Also, unlike the tools for self-improvement which the Synthesis would bring, the wisdom that would lead to less conflict can't be forced on people without mind-control. There is no sign that that happens. And lastly, learning to accept differences is something we've done throughout the games. It's a major theme. If synthetics and organics didn't have such immensely different advancement speeds, that would also be possible between organics and synthetics. Synthesis is only a viable option that doesn't break important themes if there is reason to say that the organic/synthetic divide is based on something different than your usual conflicts. That's why the singularity is important.

I am more concerned about technology going wrong when organics ignored the ethics regarding building artificial intelligence, I think the important task here is that organics must not let their lives to be so saturated with technological progress, and also not to abuse technology (building robot troops) because when these AIs are sentient enough (I mean a robot troop probably must be pretty smart and dynamic) they will seek vengence

Modifié par Vigilant111, 24 mai 2012 - 12:14 .

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2: being homogenius actually helps the argument that all war will stop between organics species, and that is important to me, and to me your argument is about individual being able to ascend to betterment of self, and that possibly leads to galactic peace, like being enlightened

I don't think "all war will stop between organic-origin species" is implied by Synthesis. One would hope that self-improvement would lead to *less* conflict, but "no violent conflict at all" is utopian. It won't happen. The peace the Catalyst refers to is either meant to be between organics and synthetics, or between galactic civilization and the Reapers. Also, unlike the tools for self-improvement which the Synthesis would bring, the wisdom that would lead to less conflict can't be forced on people without mind-control. There is no sign that that happens. And lastly, learning to accept differences is something we've done throughout the games. It's a major theme. If synthetics and organics didn't have such immensely different advancement speeds, that would also be possible between organics and synthetics. Synthesis is only a viable option that doesn't break important themes if there is reason to say that the organic/synthetic divide is based on something different than your usual conflicts. That's why the singularity is important.

That synthesis is pointless then. Why do we have to impose something on everyone that doesn't solve the problem the star child brings up?

That's what I thought, cos synthetic/organic and organic/organic conflicts weight equally to me, it is important to me that true galactic is achieved, not just against the reapers

Yes, especially ifthe entire organic/synthetic conflict is becauseofthe nature of conflict in organics.

[Veneke]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Veneke wrote...

Remember that Synthesis is meant to be the ultimate solution to synthetics destroying organics utterly. You'll still have warfare, you just won't have the destruction of all organic life.

Yes and the Reapers in addition. No one wanted to answer me, but what will be their attitude in case of war ? Will they gently stay away and let every one deal with it as they like? Or will they think again that we're bacterias and wipe us out?

 
Well, the impression given is that they won't think we're bacteria again - probably because we wouldn't be at that stage, we'd be half-machine, half-organic (huge oversimplification for purposes of avoid explanatory paragraph). I think I'll break out my favourite word in this thread again - relevance?
 
The short answer is no one knows, which I suspect is why no one replied to you. There's absolutely nothing to base an answer on ingame other than to say that they won't continue the existing war. At a guess, they'd probably do the same thing that the Geth had planned on doing after they built their Dyson sphere: they'd have to come up with new goals.

[Vigilant111]

dreman9999 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2: being homogenius actually helps the argument that all war will stop between organics species, and that is important to me, and to me your argument is about individual being able to ascend to betterment of self, and that possibly leads to galactic peace, like being enlightened

I don't think "all war will stop between organic-origin species" is implied by Synthesis. One would hope that self-improvement would lead to *less* conflict, but "no violent conflict at all" is utopian. It won't happen. The peace the Catalyst refers to is either meant to be between organics and synthetics, or between galactic civilization and the Reapers. Also, unlike the tools for self-improvement which the Synthesis would bring, the wisdom that would lead to less conflict can't be forced on people without mind-control. There is no sign that that happens. And lastly, learning to accept differences is something we've done throughout the games. It's a major theme. If synthetics and organics didn't have such immensely different advancement speeds, that would also be possible between organics and synthetics. Synthesis is only a viable option that doesn't break important themes if there is reason to say that the organic/synthetic divide is based on something different than your usual conflicts. That's why the singularity is important.

That synthesis is pointless then. Why do we have to impose something on everyone that doesn't solve the problem the star child brings up?

That's what I thought, cos synthetic/organic and organic/organic conflicts weight equally to me, it is important to me that true galactic is achieved, not just against the reapers

Yes, especially ifthe entire organic/synthetic conflict is becauseofthe nature of conflict in organics.

Could we even argue that the Quarians built the Geth so they could dominate other organic races?