550 réponses à ce sujet

[Luviagelita]

"A final branch of evolution" sounds like dead end. Life should evolve by the laws of nature, and one person can't and mustn't destroy those laws - that's what synthesis does. That's what the Reapers do. It's just a rape of nature.
I hate synthesis, yes, that's the main reason. But I also hate any option to let the Reapers live.

[Helios969]

legion999 wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

Please stop with the "playing god is baaaad" ****. Seriously! This is the kind of Christian moral concept that everybody agrees with but never really thinks about it...
YES I DO WANT TO PLAY GOD.
If we could "play god" as some of you say we would have built a much better world much more suited for us with much more perfect beings, much more evoluated and happy population.

Who's the one playing god? What are his/her intentions, ideals, motives? What if I or others don't want percieved changes wrought upon us? 

If you don't accept evolution and improvement then it's your problem.

If you don't see an issue with forcing Synthesis on everyone then you have a problem.

Look, I find synthesis the most distasteful of the options, but you can't argue against synthesis because it eliminates individuality and then blast someone for have a differing viewpoint.

I might have considered synthesis if it was choice-based.  Meaning each individual organic/synthetic could choose to follow that "pinnacle" of existence.  Hell, I might follow that path myself if I were presented with the full rammifications of such a choice.  I could definitely see some potential advantages.  Unfortunately the writers really didn't expand upon the consequences of such.

[legion999]

Helios969 wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

Please stop with the "playing god is baaaad" ****. Seriously! This is the kind of Christian moral concept that everybody agrees with but never really thinks about it...
YES I DO WANT TO PLAY GOD.
If we could "play god" as some of you say we would have built a much better world much more suited for us with much more perfect beings, much more evoluated and happy population.

Who's the one playing god? What are his/her intentions, ideals, motives? What if I or others don't want percieved changes wrought upon us? 

If you don't accept evolution and improvement then it's your problem.

If you don't see an issue with forcing Synthesis on everyone then you have a problem.

Look, I find synthesis the most distasteful of the options, but you can't argue against synthesis because it eliminates individuality and then blast someone for have a differing viewpoint.

I might have considered synthesis if it was choice-based.  Meaning each individual organic/synthetic could choose to follow that "pinnacle" of existence.  Hell, I might follow that path myself if I were presented with the full rammifications of such a choice.  I could definitely see some potential advantages.  Unfortunately the writers really didn't expand upon the consequences of such.

No I believe it takes away someones freedom to choose away not their personality (though it might do that). But I see your point.

[Whybother]

My toaster oven is now refusing to make toast without a raise. Damn synthesis!

[The Night Mammoth]

Sir MOI wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

Please stop with the "playing god is baaaad" ****. Seriously! This is the kind of Christian moral concept that everybody agrees with but never really thinks about it...
YES I DO WANT TO PLAY GOD.
If we could "play god" as some of you say we would have built a much better world much more suited for us with much more perfect beings, much more evoluated and happy population.

Who's the one playing god? What are his/her intentions, ideals, motives? What if I or others don't want percieved changes wrought upon us? 

If you don't accept evolution and improvement then it's your problem.

That's a deeply ethically questionable stance to take on things. Whether improvements are being wrought is subjective, and regardless, I don't want some self-righteous idiot making the decision for me. 

[zovoes]

Sir MOI wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

Please stop with the "playing god is baaaad" ****. Seriously! This is the kind of Christian moral concept that everybody agrees with but never really thinks about it...
YES I DO WANT TO PLAY GOD.
If we could "play god" as some of you say we would have built a much better world much more suited for us with much more perfect beings, much more evoluated and happy population.

Who's the one playing god? What are his/her intentions, ideals, motives? What if I or others don't want percieved changes wrought upon us? 

If you don't accept evolution and improvement then it's your problem.

not to pull a "godwin's law" but that is the same argument that was use to prop up eugenics, that you were standing in the way of the progress evolution. thing is it's natural selection, key part of that being that it is "natural". what you are saying is not evolution it's forced mutation, it's unethical to say the least and body horror at worst.

Modifié par zovoes, 27 mai 2012 - 04:33 .

[jaktuk]

Luviagelita wrote...

"A final branch of evolution" sounds like dead end. Life should evolve by the laws of nature, and one person can't and mustn't destroy those laws - that's what synthesis does. That's what the Reapers do. It's just a rape of nature.
I hate synthesis, yes, that's the main reason. But I also hate any option to let the Reapers live.

Synthesis does not neccesarily destroy the laws of nature. Shepard is already pretty much a mix of organic and synthetic, which the catalyst even implies, and nothing in the game suggests that Shepard can not have children in other words replicate his genes. In other words Organics will still develop but the evolution just jumped to a whole other level.

[frylock23]

Helios969 wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

Please stop with the "playing god is baaaad" ****. Seriously! This is the kind of Christian moral concept that everybody agrees with but never really thinks about it...
YES I DO WANT TO PLAY GOD.
If we could "play god" as some of you say we would have built a much better world much more suited for us with much more perfect beings, much more evoluated and happy population.

Who's the one playing god? What are his/her intentions, ideals, motives? What if I or others don't want percieved changes wrought upon us? 

If you don't accept evolution and improvement then it's your problem.

If you don't see an issue with forcing Synthesis on everyone then you have a problem.

Look, I find synthesis the most distasteful of the options, but you can't argue against synthesis because it eliminates individuality and then blast someone for have a differing viewpoint.

I can see your point right up until your point starts to infringe upon my rights. Your rights end where mine begin. The problem with accepting that choosing synthesis is a valid choice is that I have to accept that forcing one viewpoint on everyone regardless of their own feelings on the matter is valid when someone else feels it is according to their own personal ethics. That forces me to compromise my own. Now, instead of me saying synthesis is wrong, period. I'm boxed into saying synthesis is wrong except when it isn't.

That's moral relativism.

Put another way.

I feel that murder is wrong and it's always wrong. however, in some cultures out there, it's acceptable to murder a family member if they have damaged your family honor. It's called an honor killing. If we accept the moral relativist premise that all cultures are perfectly valid and we shouldn't judge, then an honor killing is not murder because it's acceptable within the bounds of those cultures. Therefore, for those who believe in moral relativism, murder is always wrong except when it isn't, and it's not in those cultures. So, murder is therefore now acceptable to you if you believe in moral relativism.

So, to get back to synthesis. Since it is a decision that does not stay confined only to you but asks you to impose your personal ethics on every living thing (organic and synthetic) in the galaxy, it's not as simple as respecting that your view is as valid as mine because your view does not stay within the realms of the merely personal. If it did, I could agree with your point.

[Malditor]

There's a couple issues I have with the main reasons to hate synthese.

Playing God: Actually, any choice you make you are basically doing this as you are deciding what is best for everyone regardless. Not everyone would agree with your choice.

Making everyone the same: This is obviously not accurate because everyone retains their individualism as far as we can see at the end. Everyone isn't turned instantly into exact replicas of each other.

Nobody's decision is more right than anyone elses. You can point fingers, get indignant, spout religious jargon, but this is a game. Things we say/do in a game most typically we wouldn't in real life. If you play a game with the seriousness that you face life then you really miss the boat, in my opinion, on what games are for. To escape reality, to BE A GOD, to enjoy yourself!

[Uncle Jo]

jaktuk wrote...


Synthesis does not neccesarily destroy the laws of nature. Shepard is already pretty much a mix of organic and synthetic, which the catalyst even implies, and nothing in the game suggests that Shepard can not have children in other words replicate his genes. In other words Organics will still develop but the evolution just jumped to a whole other level.

Yes it does. 'Cause you're artificially trolling "enhancing" every single living thing in the galaxy.

Shep was dead. It's not like (s)he did have any choice. Furthermore, Shep has synthetics implants, Cerberus didn't mess with her DNA, on the contrary to the forced galactic genetic experiment Synthesis.
Why? Because TIM wanted him/her pretty much as his/herself.

Space Troll (aka Catalyst): "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" There is nothing more after that. We will all live happy for ever as cyborgs/husks (depends on which side you are).

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 27 mai 2012 - 06:05 .

[Unit-Alpha]

Two words: genetic rape.

[Malditor]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Two words: genetic rape.

I'll never understand this "argument"
Other than it's an emotional response. I don't see it as anything like this.

[jaktuk]

Uncle Jo wrote...

jaktuk wrote...


Synthesis does not neccesarily destroy the laws of nature. Shepard is already pretty much a mix of organic and synthetic, which the catalyst even implies, and nothing in the game suggests that Shepard can not have children in other words replicate his genes. In other words Organics will still develop but the evolution just jumped to a whole other level.

Yes it does. 'Cause you're artificially trolling "enhancing" every single living thing in the galaxy.

Shep was dead. It's not like (s)he did have any choice. Furthermore, Shep has synthetics implants, Cerberus didn't mess with her DNA, on the contrary to the forced galactic genetic experiment Synthesis.
Why? Because TIM wanted him/her pretty much as his/herself.

Space Troll (aka Catalyst): "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" There is nothing more after that. We will all live happy for ever as cyborgs/husks (depends on which side you are).

I think you are interpreting what the catalyst says about DNA a little too litterally. It is pretty obvious from his voice if you listen to it that "DNA" is symbolic speaking not to be interpreted litterally. What would synthetic "DNA" even be, it does not make any sense. You can not combine synthetic and organic DNA. For the resulting organism to be partial organic, it must retain its DNA, or it is not an organic being. The synthesis does not neccesarily have to mean anything more than each race having high tech cybernetic implants being implanted into them eg. Shepard Kai Leng and so on.

[o Ventus]

jaktuk wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

jaktuk wrote...


Synthesis does not neccesarily destroy the laws of nature. Shepard is already pretty much a mix of organic and synthetic, which the catalyst even implies, and nothing in the game suggests that Shepard can not have children in other words replicate his genes. In other words Organics will still develop but the evolution just jumped to a whole other level.

Yes it does. 'Cause you're artificially trolling "enhancing" every single living thing in the galaxy.

Shep was dead. It's not like (s)he did have any choice. Furthermore, Shep has synthetics implants, Cerberus didn't mess with her DNA, on the contrary to the forced galactic genetic experiment Synthesis.
Why? Because TIM wanted him/her pretty much as his/herself.

Space Troll (aka Catalyst): "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" There is nothing more after that. We will all live happy for ever as cyborgs/husks (depends on which side you are).

I think you are interpreting what the catalyst says about DNA a little too litterally. It is pretty obvious from his voice if you listen to it that "DNA" is symbolic speaking not to be interpreted litterally. What would synthetic "DNA" even be, it does not make any sense. You can not combine synthetic and organic DNA. For the resulting organism to be partial organic, it must retain its DNA, or it is not an organic being. The synthesis does not neccesarily have to mean anything more than each race having high tech cybernetic implants being implanted into them eg. Shepard Kai Leng and so on.

So why would the catalyst, an AI that operates on cold logic and blunt truth, suddenly turn into Shakespeare?

Why doesn't my iMac write everything in verse?

[Ravenard]

I don't understand the meaning of the synthesis. Is illogical, cyborg( organic hull with implants) are the high level of life ?

[Uncle Jo]

jaktuk wrote...


I think you are interpreting what the catalyst says about DNA a little too litterally. It is pretty obvious from his voice if you listen to it that "DNA" is symbolic speaking not to be interpreted litterally. What would synthetic "DNA" even be, it does not make any sense. You can not combine synthetic and organic DNA. For the resulting organism to be partial organic, it must retain its DNA, or it is not an organic being. The synthesis does not neccesarily have to mean anything more than each race having high tech cybernetic implants being implanted into them eg. Shepard Kai Leng and so on.

No. I don't believe a single word this damn liar is spitting out. I'm consequent, I'm not taking him litterally or not just when it's convenient to me. Please don't try to explain how synthesis works, 'cause no one can. All that it requires is (a lot of) space magic and the suicide of Shep.
But that's not the point. Even if I'm wrong, it doesn't change the fact that you're going to affect deeply the whole galaxy (in an unknown way just as you implied it) without anyone's consent.
I also don't buy the argument "it's for the greater good of everyone". I reject revolutions from above. The history is full from examples of people who thought like this and how it turned out when things went wrong.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 27 mai 2012 - 06:30 .

[frylock23]

Playing God: Actually, any choice you make you are basically doing this as you are deciding what is best for everyone regardless. Not everyone would agree with your choice.

There's making a choice that impacts everyone and making a choice that changes everyone at such an intimate level. The Catalyst implies that the changes from synthesis create an entirely new form of life while erasing the two old paradigms of organic life and sythetic life. In other words, you are completely erasing all organic and sythetic life to create this new form. That goes far and away beyond anything the other two decisions will have in terms of an impact unless you're a Geth or EDI.

Basically, you're rewriting all of known creation into something entirely other.

Making everyone the same: This is obviously not accurate because everyone retains their individualism as far as we can see at the end. Everyone isn't turned instantly into exact replicas of each other.

Things can look different and still be essentially the same. Humans and their domesticated animals express a wild variety of physical differences while still being essentially the same organisms at the genetic level. The Great Dane and the Chihuahua are still the same species genetically as are the Thoroughbred, Shire Horse and Shetland Pony. African Americans, Caucasians and Asians are also the same genetic species while looking quite different. It's not implausible at all to assume that humans, asari, turians and geth are now suddenly all the same species even with their wild superficial differences after the genetic changes of synthesis.

Nobody's decision is more right than anyone elses. You can point fingers, get indignant, spout religious jargon, but this is a game. Things we say/do in a game most typically we wouldn't in real life. If you play a game with the seriousness that you face life then you really miss the boat, in my opinion, on what games are for. To escape reality, to BE A GOD, to enjoy yourself!

Whatever you have to tell yourself to feel better about it, but the decision and the justifications for it still have troubling implications and what I see people saying are quite troubling. Certainly, I would never want some of you to be put in any position of true power over me because your idea of the "greater good" and mine are incompatible.

Modifié par frylock23, 27 mai 2012 - 06:31 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I am religious, monotheist. And I support Synthesis.

As for "playing god" - legitimate criticism, but an overblown one too.

[Malditor]

Essentially the same and the same.... Funny, either they are the same or they aren't. Every race still has their same dna+ the synthetic "additive", for lack of a better term. Therefore it's not making everyone the same.
You are right, nobody's idea of what is for the greater good will be universally accepted. Therefore why should what you think be any more valid than what I think?
By the way, I don't need any justification to "make myself feel better" about a decision I make in a video game. The decisions have no real ramifications and therefore mean nothing because you can always go back and redo if you don't like the outcome.

[Uncle Jo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I am religious, monotheist. And I support Synthesis.

As for "playing god" - legitimate criticism, but an overblown one too.

Cool story bro. Religion has nothing to do here.

[frylock23]

Malditor wrote...

Essentially the same and the same.... Funny, either they are the same or they aren't. Every race still has their same dna+ the synthetic "additive", for lack of a better term. Therefore it's not making everyone the same.
You are right, nobody's idea of what is for the greater good will be universally accepted. Therefore why should what you think be any more valid than what I think?
By the way, I don't need any justification to "make myself feel better" about a decision I make in a video game. The decisions have no real ramifications and therefore mean nothing because you can always go back and redo if you don't like the outcome.

So, are the Great Dane and the Chihuahua the same species?

What about the Thoroughbred and the Shire Horse?

How about an African American and a Caucasian?

You don't know what changes have been made to the DNA after synthesis. It's an entirely new framework. but the only way that what the Catalyst could be making everything all sunshine and roses is to make organics not organic and synthetics not synthetic but all to be the same making the difference superficial, and for the Adam and Eve reference of Joker and EDI to work, it's implied that they're compatible somehow meaning able to breed (however that works) which means they are the same species.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Uncle Jo wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I am religious, monotheist. And I support Synthesis.

As for "playing god" - legitimate criticism, but an overblown one too.

Cool story bro. Religion has nothing to do here.

You missed the part where 'haters call synthesis a dream ending for all the non-religious players.

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I am religious, monotheist. And I support Synthesis.

As for "playing god" - legitimate criticism, but an overblown one too.

Cool story bro. Religion has nothing to do here.

You missed the part where 'haters call synthesis a dream ending for all the non-religious players.

I am not religious.

Synthesis is the worst ending out of the 3. You could say it's the antithesis of a "dream ending" to me.

[Malditor]

Your questions don't match up to what I said. A great dane and chihuahua are both dogs, 2nd line both horses, 3rd both human. To match up to what happens in the game at the end you'd have to say a cat and a dog, horse and a cow, or even more accurately a human and any animal because when it comes to the other alien races we aren't even close to them.

You make a lot of assumptions on what happens and will happen. I do as well, difference is I don't tell you that you are wrong with what you think.
I don't assume that all races will be able to interbreed because of this change. And the catalyst never says that or hints at it ether. And if they can't interbreed they aren't the same species.

[Shepard Wins]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I am religious, monotheist. And I support Synthesis.

As for "playing god" - legitimate criticism, but an overblown one too.

Cool story bro. Religion has nothing to do here.

You missed the part where 'haters call synthesis a dream ending for all the non-religious players.

First time I hear that. Many more call synthesis simply an abomination, or better yet, "just bloody stupid".