9088 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Obadiah wrote...

Personal preferences can be what they are, but everyone asking for something would not make it Ok.

Can I settle for several?

Because we don't even have several.

We have SynthShepard, Catalyst and maybe the other Reapers.

Not even EDI.

[ImaginaryMatter]

One minor thing that always bothered me about Synthesis is the notion that changing Synthetic DNA(???) some how leads them to understanding. This is abstract, but my understanding of... understanding is that it is a result of self-determination -- like to be able to understand some one is a matter of communication and reflection and all that jazz, and it contains an element of choice to it. To put it simply (I hope) people don't instantly understand one another, it's something that takes time, it is not a reflex.

So, what does the Catalyst mean by Synthetics gaining understanding of Organics? I thought all the Synthetic characters in the series had a pretty good grasp on the subject (minus the Catalyst) or at least already had the capacity. Did Legion and the Geth and EDI not understand Organics (if not, then what was it )?

I mean I guess the Synthesis option works out for everyone pretty well, I just don't see how it changes anything with Synthetics and thus prevent that whole inevitable destruction of all Organic life thing.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 09 janvier 2014 - 06:53 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I want to talk about something I think will get a more sympathetic hearing here than elsewhere.

Synthesis grants freedom; it doesn't remove it. Synthesis decreases poverty and disease. Those things impact the freedom deeply and more profoundly than anyone affluent and healthy can realize. The quarian out of his suit can now live where she pleases, have sex without a health risk, can smell a flower unfiltered. That's real freedom and an abstract principle of self-determination seems rather hollow in the face of concrete restrictions removed.

I couldn't agree more. I think what the phrase "We can now live the lives we wish for" mean to a quarian, or for anyone with permanent health problems, or those who lack the resources to make of themselves what they want - and I'll find that Synthesis is well worth the price. 

Imagine there is a cure and prevention measure for cancer which works by putting nanotech in the bloodstream. Now imagine that for some weird reason it's a solution either for everyone or for no one. I would not hesitate to push that button, and consider complaints by those who don't want their bodies "invaded" irrelevant.

In a more general sense, if Synthesis gives individuals more options then by definition it increases freedom rather than reducing it.

Yes, it is regrettable that Synthesis is not optional for every single individual, but since there is no indication at all that it "makes everyone the same" (which, genetically, we already are, btw, since we're all based on DNA) or that it affects the core of our identities (what is identity anyway but memory and experience and the values derived from those) I consider that an acceptable downside.   

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 janvier 2014 - 08:12 .

[Helios969]

Man, this thread is still going around.

I think it's naïve for people to believe synthesis is going to bring about some great galactic renaissance or utopian state of existence. As if conflict will be a thing of the past and everyone will be free of the biological and emotional constraints that inhibit the pursuit of happiness. That's somewhat a Platonic point of view.

If the claims of supporters are true, and we maintain our independent emotional and intellectual capacity, then the only thing that has changed is our biology at the most fundamental level. Conflict is most usually the result of competition for scarce resources...which can be anything from natural to technological to territorial. I might say ideology is another major source of conflict, but think more often than not that is just the excuse people and countries use to justify taking the resources someone else has that they themselves lack.

I'm fine if people want to choose synthesis, but you're fooling yourselves with the argument that the galaxy has suddenly achieved peaceful coexistence. It's just not possible. There will always be the haves and the have-nots. And they will always be in conflict.

[David7204]

Helios969 wrote...

I'm fine if people want to choose synthesis, but you're fooling yourselves with the argument that the galaxy has suddenly achieved peaceful coexistence. It's just not possible. There will always be the haves and the have-nots. And they will always be in conflict.

You're bringing back memories of The Dark Knight Rises. Where for some reason the writers decided to put in completely inappropriate pseudo-communism themes for...whatever reason. Since the story really had nothing to do with wealth or inequality. Cheap drama, I guess.

That was not a very good movie.

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...

Man, this thread is still going around.

I think it's naïve for people to believe synthesis is going to bring about some great galactic renaissance or utopian state of existence. As if conflict will be a thing of the past and everyone will be free of the biological and emotional constraints that inhibit the pursuit of happiness. That's somewhat a Platonic point of view.

If the claims of supporters are true, and we maintain our independent emotional and intellectual capacity, then the only thing that has changed is our biology at the most fundamental level. Conflict is most usually the result of competition for scarce resources...which can be anything from natural to technological to territorial. I might say ideology is another major source of conflict, but think more often than not that is just the excuse people and countries use to justify taking the resources someone else has that they themselves lack.

I'm fine if people want to choose synthesis, but you're fooling yourselves with the argument that the galaxy has suddenly achieved peaceful coexistence. It's just not possible. There will always be the haves and the have-nots. And they will always be in conflict.

Yes, there will always be some conflict, I am not denying that, but the point - in answer to the bolded claim - is that technological advancement can reduce the scarcity of some resources, mainly those material resources you would need to make of yourself what you want. The so-called "post-scarcity society" is a frequent theme in transhumanist fiction, but it does not mean that everyone is suddenly happy, just that material wealth (up to a certain point) and health are no longer primary concerns. There are still the power-hungry, there are themes of enslavement by technology, new crimes like mind-hacking, there are conflicts about ideology, about political influence and so on, but some concerns do no longer exist.

I see Synthesis as moving forward beyond what the human (or human-like, in the case of nonhumans) society had been. New arenas of conflict arise where old ones are removed, there are new wonders - and new horrors, too. Undoubtedly there will be some in this new galaxy who will argue that things had been better before, and in some case they might even have a point,but ultimately I see more merit in moving forward and take the risk of peering into the unknown dimension of what happens if we change ourselves rather than being stuck in old paradigms for fear of what this fast-tracked technological advancement might bring. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 janvier 2014 - 11:01 .

[Hela]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Yes, there will always be some conflict, I am not denying that, but the point - in answer to the bolded claim - is that technological advancement can reduce the scarcity of some resources, mainly those material resources you would need to make of yourself what you want. The so-called "post-scarcity society" is a frequent theme in transhumanist fiction, but it does not mean that everyone is suddenly happy, just that material wealth (up to a certain point) and health are no longer primary concerns. There are still the power-hungry, there are themes of enslavement by technology, new crimes like mind-hacking, there are conflicts about ideology, about political influence and so on, but some concerns do no longer exist.

I see Synthesis as moving forward beyond what the human (or human-like, in the case of nonhumans) society had been. New arenas of conflict arise where old ones are removed, there are new wonders - and new horrors, too. Undoubtedly there will be some in this new galaxy who will argue that things had been better before, and in some case they might even have a point,but ultimately I see more merit in moving forward and take the risk of peering into the unknown dimension of what happens if we change ourselves rather than being stuck in old paradigms for fear of what this fast-tracked technological advancement might bring. 

This post echoes my own thoughts - collected together neatly into two paragraphs.

I am doing another trilogy playthrough after a long time, and while still in ME2 ATM I come to the forums often in search of such threads. Mainly to drown the ending themes out for myself so that I could just freely go about playing a Shepard from 1st to 3rd and not pause at the end conversation wheel to agonize over which one to pick. Sometimes I come across a post such as this one that serves as a nice wrap up for me, letting me actually roleplay and not metagame.

So, thank you for your thoughts.

[ImaginaryMatter]

jtav wrote...

I want to talk about something I think will get a more sympathetic hearing here than elsewhere.

Synthesis
grants freedom; it doesn't remove it. Synthesis decreases poverty and
disease. Those things impact the freedom deeply and more profoundly than
anyone affluent and healthy can realize. The quarian out of his suit
can now live where she pleases, have sex without a health risk, can
smell a flower unfiltered. That's real freedom and an abstract principle
of self-determination seems rather hollow in the face of concrete
restrictions removed.

This is pure speculation (and I'm not counting it against Synthesis at all, it's just something I always wondered about after seeing that the plants too became Synthesized). I always got the idea that viruses and bacteria would also become Synthesized, which just seems very dangerous to me, or at the very least result in some sort of stalemate with some of the advantages gained by Organics.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 09 janvier 2014 - 07:09 .

[CosmicGnosis]

I understand the argument that the act of implementing Synthesis is evil; you alter people's bodies without their consent. However, how is the outcome evil, especially when you have an image like this:

[Jere85]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I understand the argument that the act of implementing Synthesis is evil; you alter people's bodies without their consent. However, how is the outcome evil, especially when you have an image like this:

Because 1 happy couple does not make things right to everyone in the galaxy.

[DoomsdayDevice]

As if they couldn't love each other without synthesis.

[Obadiah]

I think Synthesis is meant to be a combination or equilibrium of Order (Control) and Chaos/Freedom (Destroy). As such, individuals lose some freedom with it, starting with the initial choice to deploy the Synthesis blast.

It is also a combination of destruction and domination: transformation.

Modifié par Obadiah, 10 janvier 2014 - 03:34 .

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Man, this thread is still going around.

I think it's naïve for people to believe synthesis is going to bring about some great galactic renaissance or utopian state of existence. As if conflict will be a thing of the past and everyone will be free of the biological and emotional constraints that inhibit the pursuit of happiness. That's somewhat a Platonic point of view.

If the claims of supporters are true, and we maintain our independent emotional and intellectual capacity, then the only thing that has changed is our biology at the most fundamental level. Conflict is most usually the result of competition for scarce resources...which can be anything from natural to technological to territorial. I might say ideology is another major source of conflict, but think more often than not that is just the excuse people and countries use to justify taking the resources someone else has that they themselves lack.

I'm fine if people want to choose synthesis, but you're fooling yourselves with the argument that the galaxy has suddenly achieved peaceful coexistence. It's just not possible. There will always be the haves and the have-nots. And they will always be in conflict.

Yes, there will always be some conflict, I am not denying that, but the point - in answer to the bolded claim - is that technological advancement can reduce the scarcity of some resources, mainly those material resources you would need to make of yourself what you want. The so-called "post-scarcity society" is a frequent theme in transhumanist fiction, but it does not mean that everyone is suddenly happy, just that material wealth (up to a certain point) and health are no longer primary concerns. There are still the power-hungry, there are themes of enslavement by technology, new crimes like mind-hacking, there are conflicts about ideology, about political influence and so on, but some concerns do no longer exist.

I see Synthesis as moving forward beyond what the human (or human-like, in the case of nonhumans) society had been. New arenas of conflict arise where old ones are removed, there are new wonders - and new horrors, too. Undoubtedly there will be some in this new galaxy who will argue that things had been better before, and in some case they might even have a point,but ultimately I see more merit in moving forward and take the risk of peering into the unknown dimension of what happens if we change ourselves rather than being stuck in old paradigms for fear of what this fast-tracked technological advancement might bring. 

I think there are some assumptions being made to the benefits of synthesis.  Is disease a thing of the past?  If so how much longer are humans and aliens now living.  At what point do we see an exponential population explosion?  Do those technological advancements that maximize existing resources outweigh the population increase envisioned in such a future?  Without natural mechanisms to keep populations in check you'll exceed those advancements in no time at all.  Will the groups with power then limit those without the right to procreate in an attempt to balance population with resources? (Of course with no such restrictions placed on themselves.)

Sorry to say, but the future synthesis proposes maybe even more terrifying the universe you left behind.  Over the long run in any event.

[Ieldra]

You see, that's what I mean by being stuck in old paradigms. Back in the 19th century, the response of people like you would've been quite similar had someone told them that the frequency of childbed deaths would be reduced to almost zero in the developed world a hundred years later, and reduced significantly everywhere else. Well, we do have a dangerous overpopulation, but almost all of it is a contribution of some countries who weren't ready for the advancement in medical knowledge and technology. In the first-world countries, population ceased to increase while some others put artificial measures in place to reduce population growth.

So while yes, there is a danger, it is rather possible to adapt, both by more or less natural changes in culture and/or by artificial measures. I prefer to be optimistic, and these real-world examples tell me my optimism isn't simple naiveté.

Having said that, for the same reason I have a problem with the indiscriminate galaxy-wide application of Synthesis, but then the epilogue tells me that all cultures adapt at least to a point where they don't present a problem for galactic civilization as a whole. I have a hard time believing it of the krogan, but a cultural renaissance can result in some rather implausible-appearing changes.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 janvier 2014 - 12:26 .

[Helios969]

Ieldra2: My commentary was less about "attacking" synthesis conceptually and more about addressing certain arguments being made in favor on the choice because it presented the prettiest ending with very little thought into the potential ramifications of such a decision. You've always seemed pretty level-headed in your assessment. Nothing wrong with optimism...wish I could be more so. To many years of evaluating worst-case scenarios...besides it's us realist's job to keep that optimism in check;)

[ImaginaryMatter]

Synthesis I feel is one of those things where you have to take the epilogue at face value. The possible ramifications of such an action are innumerable and impossible to predict. What we do know is that it advances Organics and somehow leads to peace.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Changes are coming. When they get cochlear implants perfected to the point where they're as good as the real thing, am I going to refuse one? No. A friend of mine just had cataract surgery, and the artificial lenses he says are fantastic. He tells me "wait until you have cataract surgery. You'll be able to see so much better." Then as we improve robotics, we're talking about artificial limbs. In 50 years, and I'll be dead by then, who knows? Then as we improve this technology for eyes and ears and stuff, the question becomes, should this only be limited to people who have the medical need? Suppose they improve the hearing range, and I'm a musician, and I'd like to hear everything and not be limited to the 20-20 kHz range, which at this point in my life is 20 - 14 kHz in one ear and 20 - 5 kHz in the other? Should I not be able to have my ears replaced if I want? And even have that range adjustable? I think so. And cybernetic implants to help Alzheimer's Patients or other elderly suffering from senile dementia. Wouldn't the natural extension of these be put a version in a normal person for faster memory recall? What would be wrong with that? Nothing.

In an ideal society this stuff would be made available to everyone. Are we ready for them? This is the big question. As a society, no. Some would object and say it was unethical. We haven't evolved enough.

This ending, the way it is written contradicts itself. "We've tried a similar solution before, but it has always failed. It is not something that can be forced." Yet, this is exactly what it is doing. "I can't, but you can." Okay, so Shepard can force it to happen, and it will work. My head is going to explode. This must be because Shepard is a cyborg, and that's why it worked. But what I want to know is how they tried this before?

I just have to take the ending at face value.

[TheConstantOne]

Helios969 wrote...

I think there are some assumptions being made to the benefits of synthesis.  Is disease a thing of the past?  If so how much longer are humans and aliens now living.  At what point do we see an exponential population explosion?  Do those technological advancements that maximize existing resources outweigh the population increase envisioned in such a future?  Without natural mechanisms to keep populations in check you'll exceed those advancements in no time at all.  Will the groups with power then limit those without the right to procreate in an attempt to balance population with resources? (Of course with no such restrictions placed on themselves.)

Sorry to say, but the future synthesis proposes maybe even more terrifying the universe you left behind.  Over the long run in any event.

Well, the problems you're naming are always attached to advancements in technology, particularly big medical advances. Society will adapt to the challenges brought on by synthesis, much as it does with other technology.

Also, I highly doubt all the medical/technological benefits of synthesis are just handed to us right out of the Crucible. We see the genophage cured and quarians maskless in the epilogue but those epilogue scenes also span a length of time (as shown by the super technological Tuchanka slide). Most likely, the nanites are infused into all organics (and synthetics get some kind of software upgrade) and we are left to do with the technology as we will. There is a world of new possibilities available but it will take some work to get there.

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...
Ieldra2: My commentary was less about "attacking" synthesis conceptually and more about addressing certain arguments being made in favor on the choice because it presented the prettiest ending with very little thought into the potential ramifications of such a decision. You've always seemed pretty level-headed in your assessment. Nothing wrong with optimism...wish I could be more so. To many years of evaluating worst-case scenarios...besides it's us realist's job to keep that optimism in check;)

I answered this way because I don't recall many of those comments by Synthesis sympathizers. If anything, at least in this thread it's mostly the detractors who pretty up the outcome as they claim the sympathizers see it, so that they can attack it as being implausible. In other words, it's the classic strawman attack.

Most of us see an outcome where people are still people, and thus conflict exists - if only because we have a preference for a world where stories can still be told. Within that framework, Synthesis will most likely overturn the old order in several ways, which I find highly desirable.

 

[CosmicGnosis]

The OP includes this bit of dialogue, which you get when you sabotage the genophage cure and choose Synthesis:

"Unlimited access to knowledge can help even the most shattered cultures...."
(slides from Tuchanka start here)
"...and while it will take some longer than others to see the benefits, even they will eventually live free from poverty and disease..." 
(slides of rebuilding on Tuchanka and a krogan with child included even in playthroughs where you sabotaged the cure)
"...reclaiming their worlds, and the stars"


See? Time has passed. Synthesis does not cure the genophage.

[Obadiah]

I've noticed that some of the more ambiguous terminology in Mass Effect has been used in the past in philosophical ideas (Essence, Synthesis, Perfectibility, etc...).

When the Catalyst says "Your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are will be broken down and then dispersed", do you think the "essence" referred to here could be a sci-fi version of the philosophical Essence? It would be some physical manifestation of (from wikipedia): the set of attributes that make Shepard what and who he fundamentally is, which he has by necessity, and without which he loses his identity.

The "how" this is all done doesn't really interest me as much as the idea that the essence isn't destroyed, but spread, diffused, meaning some Form of Shepard-ness still persists, probably in all of those nano-machines, within all life in the galaxy, but only complete when taken as a whole together.

Modifié par Obadiah, 27 janvier 2014 - 01:45 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Obadiah wrote...

I've notice that some of the more ambiguous terminology in Mass Effect has been used in the past in philosophical ideas (Essence, Synthesis, Perfectibility, etc...).

When the Catalyst says "Your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are will be broken down and then dispersed", do you think the "essence" referred to here could be a sci-fi version of the philosophical Essence? It would be some physical manifestation of (from wikipedia): the set of attributes that make Shepard what and who he fundamentally is, which he has by necessity, and without which he loses his identity.

The "how" this is all done doesn't really interest me as much as the idea that the essence isn't destroyed, but spread, diffused, meaning some Form of Shepard-ness still persists, probably in all of those nano-machines, within all life in the galaxy, but only complete when taken as a whole together.

I just accept that Synthesis leads to an improved existence... somehow, the methods through how this is actually accomplished I just write off as some unknown.

[Lord Watson]

One thing I keep seeing is the argument that synthesis takes away individuality, freedom, identity, etc.

How? From the epilogue, Krogan still appear to be pretty krogan. Humans still look like puny meatbags, too. I'm curious how making all life partially organic or synthetic automatically turns everyone into a reaper/drone/etc. I still see it as humans with synthetic "upgrades". They still have their own individual identities, souls, and desires. It seems like a rather large assumption.

That's not to say synthesis doesn't have issues and possible repercussions impossible to predict. I'm sure there is still the possibilities of war and conflict later on. I don't see it as instant utopia or anything. I just don't see that making all races something "more" automatically makes them mindless or..less alive.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Lord Watson wrote...

One thing I keep seeing is the argument that synthesis takes away individuality, freedom, identity, etc.

How? From the epilogue, Krogan still appear to be pretty krogan. Humans still look like puny meatbags, too. I'm curious how making all life partially organic or synthetic automatically turns everyone into a reaper/drone/etc. I still see it as humans with synthetic "upgrades". They still have their own individual identities, souls, and desires. It seems like a rather large assumption.

That's not to say synthesis doesn't have issues and possible repercussions impossible to predict. I'm sure there is still the possibilities of war and conflict later on. I don't see it as instant utopia or anything. I just don't see that making all races something "more" automatically makes them mindless or..less alive.

I think this is mostly base off the assotiation between Synthesis and every other form of Synthesis/Organic hybrid in the game (Saren, husks, Reapers, etc.); take that and throw in the ambiguity of what Synthesis actually does, the fact that it's not the Destroy option, some weird eugenics vibes, the sheer randomness of the Synthesis solution, and distrust for StarKid and you have yourself the ingredients for bashing Synthesis. I don't agree with all those points or their validity as reasonable objections but I think they cover all the bases. I think the main problem with Synthesis is that it is so vague and arbitrary that to make any sense out of it (at least before the Extended Cut) players had to fill in the massive blanks with their own experiences and personal feelings.

Of course I could be completely wrong, I just go straight for the Refuse option on all my Shepards and don't bother with colors.