685 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater
I should really make a list of ridiculous claims about Synthesis. It's "serving the Reapers", "makes everyone the same", "destroys free will".... Where the hell does the nonsense end? To what length will you go to hammer your propaganda into everyone's brain?

Yes, Shepard doesn't ask people if they want to be synthesized. He also doesn't ask if they want to live under the guardianship of a synthetic overlord with the mind of an ascended human (aka Control-Shepard), or if they want to live with the risk that their descendants and their complete species will be killed by post-singularity synthetics. And as I said, results matter. I am approaching this from a consequentialist viewpoint. If I can reasonably expect the results to be beneficial to the great majority, and I don't have the means to apply the decision on an individual level, I might be justified in making that decision for all. Public decision making often goes that way, even today. Also, in my interpretation the change is reversible on an individual basis. A few billion dropouts won't matter for the bigger objective.

Synthesis is serving the reapers because they go off the hook unpunished for the trillions of murders they have committed. It's like "Thanks for all the genocides. All those races you have exterminated must have been glad you did so. If only they knew. The horrors you inflicted on them were not in vain, because we are now happy in lala land."

Control is serving the reapers, because they again get off the hook and Shepard has become an undead dictator of the cyclical maniacal genocidal reapers. The reapers are so brilliant and beyond our comprehension that they in their infinite wisdom have decided to trust leadership to an inferior human who can fire guns.

Destroy is serving the reapers once again, albeit for the last time, by destroying the geth, EDI, their technology and interstellar space travel. And maybe even Shepard.

I think with "makes everyone the same" you mean that I said that with synthesis the races will lose their features and their identity. Look at the synthesis ending. All now have that new beautiful glow and techie feel about them. But that's not all.

In a couple of thousand years there will be new races. Maybe these create synthetics and maybe they don't. Who knows? What are we supposed to do: Exterminate those new organics or send our saviors the reapers to them. After all, they are still out there. Our saviors can help us with another genocide, right?

If synthesis really prevents creating new synthetics then how does that work? If we still got free will then maybe we would create some new synthetics. But, no, synthesis is designed to prevent it. Does the space magic destroy free will? Must be.

You may call the above whatever you want, but synthesis as an option to solve the synthetics problem it is pretty unbelievable. Especially, because it is a solution to a non-existent problem. We went already into that, didn't we?

Like many have tried to explain to you, it is unknown what the consequences are, because the reapers exterminated the races before a singularity could even occur.

In order to hide any suspicion I went as far as writing propaganda in a Wikipedia article many years ago (of course anonymous), because I knew we would have this discussion today...

Technological Singularity.

The term "technological singularity" reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how such a new world would operate.[22][23] It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion of this kind would be beneficial or harmful, or even an existential threat,[24][25] as the issue has not been dealt with by most artificial general intelligence researchers, although the topic of friendly artificial intelligence is investigated by the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity Institute.[22] Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including Jeff Hawkins, John Holland, Jaron Lanier, and Gordon Moore, whose Moore's Law is often cited in support of the concept.[26][27]

A date given for the singularity is 2045. According to the above article, that had to do with Moore's Law. Even Moore didn't believe it. Shepard lives many years past that and it didn't happen.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 03 juin 2012 - 12:31 .

[Lord Goose]

Not killing the Reapers is only side effect of other benefits. Like, saving lifes of the innocents or allowing humanity to evolve.

[yukon fire]

Synthesis is the antithesis of life, to take freedom from all living entities in the galaxy is a crime that dwarfs the reapers. At least they are honest about their intentions and were not the saviour of the universe.

[111987]

yukon fire wrote...

Synthesis is the antithesis of life, to take freedom from all living entities in the galaxy is a crime that dwarfs the reapers. At least they are honest about their intentions and were not the saviour of the universe.

Actually they refused to explain their true intentions (turning people into Reapers) and did see themselves as saviors of the universe.

Unless you were being sarcastic?

[yukon fire]

111987 wrote...

yukon fire wrote...

Synthesis is the antithesis of life, to take freedom from all living entities in the galaxy is a crime that dwarfs the reapers. At least they are honest about their intentions and were not the saviour of the universe.

Actually they refused to explain their true intentions (turning people into Reapers) and did see themselves as saviors of the universe.

Unless you were being sarcastic?

I am getting by on only 5 hours of dark a night, I am probably not clear in ...words

[Oldbones2]

JakeJynx wrote...

 Hi everyone! I'm new to the forums, and only recently completed ME3. I was completely immersed in it for days, and after it was all over, I felt an incredible sense of loss, and quite a bit of confusion. So I analyzed, I read other people's theories about the endings, and the interpretations and implications of the possible explanations. I have to say that, for a long time, I felt that the Indoctrination Theory made the most sense. It was the only one that indicated some sort of hope for Shepard--that choosing the destroy option meant you fought off the Reaper influence, and were able to survive. It's so tempting to believe, but I just can't.

I know this has probably been discussed multiple times, but I want to provide my opinion on what the endings meant to me, and my theory of why synthesis is the "best" choice for the outcome. Please note that when I say "best" choice, it's only my opinion based on how I played the game, and my personal character and beliefs about What It All Meant.

Honestly, I'm hoping to get some real feedback on this (not just one-liners), because I want to dissect my theory and get input from others to see if I missed something. So please, try to sway me, if you have the time!

Prepare for a bit of a read. Sorry.

If you think about it, the three choices given to Shepard are pretty much in line with what you'd done through the whole game. The Renegade option of Destroy causes you to sacrifice a lot of people (because as the game mentions more than once, synthetic life is still life). This is reminiscent of the typical Renegade character who does whatever is necessary to get the job done. The Paragon option has you completely sacrifice yourself in order to save everyone, but you lose who you are in the process. You basically become a Reaper. So while the choice itself is self-sacrificing, and in line with the Paragon character who would die to save another, you are no longer the same Shepard, and you become what you spent so many years trying to destroy.

The problem is lack of resolution. With both Paragon and Renegade, nothing is resolved. You still have the issue of an impending destruction via synthetic uprising. They merely suspend the inevitable. In Control, you yourself, controlling the Reapers, will have to one day figure out a solution to the problem, the chaos. In Destroy, chaos remains, and life will eventually succumb to synthetics. This is a pretty prevalent idea in sci-fi and AI theory, and I think that's sort of what Bioware was borrowing against. So I pretty much accept the "synthetics destroy advanced life before it has a chance to destroy all life" explanation at face value. I don't take the Geth and Quarians getting along, and EDI helping your cause, as being an argument against this inevitable conclusion. I view it as hope and optimism--right now, it's not a threat. In the future, it will be, especially when synthetics far surpass organics.

Further, the Geth cannot really be used as an example of how "organics and synthetics can get along." Why? Because they're no longer true synthetics after Legion uploads the Reaper code fragments. They synthesize. They are given the equivalent of a human brain. It's only after this occurs, only after this synthesis, that the Geth and the Quarians are able to cooperate as equals. I see this as foreshadowing--that a change must be made to life before there can be peace.

That is why synthesis, to me, makes the most sense.

I can't recall ever seeing it mentioned by someone who subscribes to the Indoctrination Theory that the synthesis option is only available with the highest GR and EMS scores. As with previous games, it is the reward you get for busting ass and doing everything you can to prepare yourself for the upcoming battle. The better prepared you are, the better, and more ideal, the outcome. Changing that mechanic this late in the game seems unlikely.

The Destroy option means destroying all synthetic life (including the Geth and EDI, whom you spent so much time befriending and defending), and the cycle continues. Control means that you do exactly what you just said to TIM shouldn't be done, because "we're not ready," and the cycle continues as well (only this time, it's Shepard in the distant future who has to devise a solution to the inevitable conclusion of synthetics destroying all life). In Synthesis, you're told that this choice raises all species to a new level where this chaos is no longer an issue. There is never another fight between organic and synthetic, and the cycle finally ends. 

I believe that the Catalyst is called the Catalyst because it brings about change. It may not be the change you wanted, but it is the only option where a change occurs, and the cycle is broken. In the end of the game, you see the scene after the Normandy crashes, and Joker and EDI both step out of the ship and embrace, seeming to imply that synthetics and organics merge and are now equals. To me, that sort of says "happily ever after."

As a sort of aside, I want to mention the Relays exploding, and how I initially felt that with the explosions, all of the choices you made and all of the work you did to save humanity was in vain, because the explosions no doubt took out all of the advanced life you were trying to protect. But the Normandy survived. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that it plays back to the theme of "you can't save everyone." In the end, the goal was not to save everyone, or even every species. The goal was to stop the Reaper threat forever and break the cycle. Only with Synthesis does this happen. Shepard knew the relays would explode, but he also knew he had no other option. The Crucible had to be used. What was the term used in the game? "Ruthless calculus?" Trillions died so that future species would be forever spared. Luckily, the Normandy crew was able to escape, and humanity itself was able to survive the destruction and pass down the legend of The Shepard. Let us not ignore the iconography depicted by our character's name. The shepherd icon exists to lead people to enlightenment and salvation. Maybe Synthesis, and the ending of the cycle of destruction, is that enlightenment.



So I think that about wraps up my viewpoint of why I choose to believe that Synthesis was the right choice for me to make. It was the only option that was presented to you as yours and yours alone (Control and Destroy were TIM and Anderson's choices, respectively, hence the scenes depicting them engaging in them), and it was a compromise made between the two choices that allowed life to continue peacefully from then on. It was not ideal, by any means, but the game is very clear on the fact that not everyone will survive. There is loss and sacrifice in the name of peace. But loss and sacrifice are the only way peace could be achieved.

Thanks for reading, and I welcome any feedback you may have!

1.  There is MORE evidence in the Mass Effect universe that disproves the Catalysts so called facts about an inevitable synthetic genocide of organics than there is evidence proving it to be true.
- Your opinion on synthetics is perfectly valid.  However consider that in the time that they were true AI and not hybrids with Reaper code, only a small fraction expressed an interest in destroying organics.  The far larger portion attempted to isolate themselves.
- A technological singularity isn't an inevitable outcome.  Take the Geth.  They've had 300 years to advance.  By TS theory, Geth should have created several new generations of computer, each smarter than the last, leapfrogged ahead of EVERY organic race in technology and eventually conquered the universe.  In ME3 we see that, they have at best kept pace with currect technology and advanced in a few small areas ahead of organics.  Woo fricking hoo.

2.  Synthesis won't bring lasting peace.  There is literally nothing stopping any of the hybrid races from creating a race of pure organics or synthetics as slaves.  And chances are they will.  After all we need technology.  We are dependant on it in every aspect of our lives.  So are synthetics.  Geth have computers, robo miners, spy satelites, combat drones (in ME1).  And the Geth would make these things as synthetics for the same reason the US military makes drones today.  To preserve life.  And don't even try to tell me that organics wouldn't make pure synthetics to do their **** work.

3. "We're not ready."  You're damn right we're not.  And if there is one lesson ME likes to teach, its don't give society an advancement that it hasn't developed on its own and thus doesn't know the consequences of its use.  Non of the Citadel races or the Geth, would have any clue as to how to create the synthesis solution.  Not a single one.  And if we didn't make it, we shouldn't use it.

4. If the relays wipe out as much life as you seem to think (and I'd be inclined to agree) then the galaxy is toast.  (note that BW has explicitly stated that we are both wrong and that these explosions are a different kind of explosion that doesn't hurt things or something)  The point of this game wasn't to usher in a new age, a new galaxy.  It's to save the current one.

Frankly in the ME universe.  If you can't use those relays, space travel is permanately over.  You can make it to another systeme with FTL, but that's about it.  And that ignores relativity and all those horrible implications.  Simply put, those relays were irreplacable.  And if they're gone, then there is nothing left to save anyway.

5. All the endings are a violation of series lore and thematically misguieded, but synthesis holds a special place of hate, in my heart, because everything is promotes, everything it stands for, is what the Reapers wanted.  And what EVERY Shepard fought against.  It doesn't matter what kind of Shep you play, all of them fight for the right to choose and (as of ME3) the right to be different.  It's what Shepard canonically believes in.

The Reapers on the other hand, believe in advancing a preserving chosen races by force, often against their will.  They believe in unity throughy conformity and free will sacrificed for immortality. 

6. Evolution is all about reproduction vs death by competition.  Thus if sythetics are destinied to become the strongest species no matter what, and reproduce organics into extinction, then sythetics, not hybrids are the final evolution of life.

7. My thread on Synthesis; http://social.biowar.../index/11152094



At some point you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of a Reaper?  To preserve organic life.  Preserve it for what?  For an eternity of slaughter and sleep?  Death is not the opposite of life.  It's a part of life, just like birth and all things eventually die.  Even the Reapers can't stop the heat death of the universe.  To try and stave of death only leads to more suffering.  To years of false life as a horrific abomination that feeds and expands on more death.  Only to eventually die anyway.  And that is what the Reaper species is.  A race of monsters, kept alive long after they should have perished.  Who in gods name would want to be a Reaper?  Who would want to be MERGE with a Reaper?  To become like them? 

If rejecting synthesis means that someday all organics will be wiped out, then I say bring it on. 'There are some fates worse than death'.  And synthesis is one of them.

Modifié par Oldbones2, 03 juin 2012 - 04:02 .

[MisterJB]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Synthesis is serving the reapers because they go off the hook unpunished for the trillions of murders they have committed. It's like "Thanks for all the genocides. All those races you have exterminated must have been glad you did so. If only they knew. The horrors you inflicted on them were not in vain, because we are now happy in lala land."

Control is serving the reapers, because they again get off the hook and Shepard has become an undead dictator of the cyclical maniacal genocidal reapers. The reapers are so brilliant and beyond our comprehension that they in their infinite wisdom have decided to trust leadership to an inferior human who can fire guns.

The first thing to point out is that, as far as we know, the Reapers have not commited a single genocide. The races from the previous cycles were preserved in Reaper form. Technically, by destroying Reapers, Shepard has commited more genocides than they did.

We wouldn't claim becoming a Reaper is a favorable experience but will killing the Reapers give organic bodies to the people composing them? No, but Synthesis and Control have the potential to drastically improve our civilizations. One day we might even restore the races that form Reapers.
You are putting your wish for a revenge that will benefit no one ahead of options that do.

I think with "makes everyone the same" you mean that I said that with synthesis the races will lose their features and their identity. Look at the synthesis ending. All now have that new beautiful glow and techie feel about them. But that's not all.

Almost all species have eyes and limbs. Exterior look is not what creates a race's indentity.

In a couple of thousand years there will be new races. Maybe these create synthetics and maybe they don't. Who knows? What are we supposed to do: Exterminate those new organics or send our saviors the reapers to them. After all, they are still out there. Our saviors can help us with another genocide, right?

If synthesis really prevents creating new synthetics then how does that work? If we still got free will then maybe we would create some new synthetics. But, no, synthesis is designed to prevent it. Does the space magic destroy free will? Must be.

Maybe the point of Synthesis is not to prevent the creation of new synthetics. Maybe it's point is to create a greater potential for empathy and mutual understanding by blurring the lines that separate the two forms of life. Or maybe it simply raises organic/hybrid capabilities to the point we can compete with true AIs and, even if technological singularity is achieved, hybrids won't risk  being destroyed.
Neither of those options involve the destruction of free will.

You may call the above whatever you want, but synthesis as an option to solve the synthetics problem it is pretty unbelievable. Especially, because it is a solution to a non-existent problem. We went already into that, didn't we?

Like many have tried to explain to you, it is unknown what the consequences are, because the reapers exterminated the races before a singularity could even occur.

That the Catalyst doesn't expand on its reasons to believe organic extinction is inevitable is a problem with presentation.
But we can't disregard the words of a billion of years old super-intelligence simply because we haven't seen it happen. It obviously is more knowledgeable than us.

Modifié par MisterJB, 03 juin 2012 - 04:37 .

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

The first thing to point out is that, as far as we know, the Reapers have not commited a single genocide. The races from the previous cycles were preserved in Reaper form. Technically, by destroying Reapers, Shepard has commited more genocides than they did.

We wouldn't claim becoming a Reaper is a favorable experience but will killing the Reapers give organic bodies to the people composing them? No, but Synthesis and Control have the potential to drastically improve our civilizations. One day we might even restore the races that form Reapers.
You are putting your wish for a revenge that will benefit no one ahead of options that do.

So killing off various species over the course of at least 1 billion years isn't genocide? They don't "uplift" everybody. Never mind that the Reapers "uplifting" is inherently horse sh*t in itself, seeing how their entire bodies are melted down in goop. Remember Lilith's face when she is melted? Or Kelly's? If the Reapers are acting as a "nation", like Sovereign says, why do they refer to themselves in first person, using pronouns like "I" and "me"? They seem pretty individual for being constructed from billions of people. If anything exists of the old civilizations, for some reason I doubt they are cool with the idea of routine omnicide.

Maybe the point of Synthesis is not to prevent the creation of new synthetics.

Defeating the purpose of the Catalyst's dialogue, but whatever.

Maybe it's point is to create a greater potential for empathy and mutual understanding by blurring the lines that separate the two forms of life. Or maybe it simply raises organic/hybrid capabilities to the point we can compete with true AIs and, even if technological singularity is achieved, hybrids won't risk  being destroyed.
Neither of those options involve the destruction of free will.

Hybrid doesn't mean immortal. They aren't self upgrading, nor is there ANYTHING to suggest that they are remotely near the level of a full synthetic. A human augmented to be super intelligent and super strong still has material and psychological needs, which a geth or EDI doesn't.

But we can't disregard the words of a billion of years old super-intelligence simply because we haven't seen it happen. It obviously is more knowledgeable than us.

Actually, we can, since he has ALWAYS prevented the actual execution of a singularity before it's come to fruition, with every piece of evidence either disproving his argument, or playing down his argument to a non-issue. He literally has NOTHING to support his case other than his word. Never mind that a singularity is much more likely to be beneficial rather than a negative, but whatever. Bioware must really clamor for the unnecessarily fatalistic mindset when constructing their stories.

[Ieldra]

o Ventus wrote...

But we can't disregard the words of a billion of years old super-intelligence simply because we haven't seen it happen. It obviously is more knowledgeable than us.

Actually, we can, since he has ALWAYS prevented the actual execution of a singularity before it's come to fruition, with every piece of evidence either disproving his argument, or playing down his argument to a non-issue. He literally has NOTHING to support his case other than his word. Never mind that a singularity is much more likely to be beneficial rather than a negative, but whatever. Bioware must really clamor for the unnecessarily fatalistic mindset when constructing their stories.

This is a non argument. A nuclear war hasn't happened yet, nonetheless it's a good idea to do everything to prevent one from happening. That it hasn't happened yet is no argument.

The singularity is a premise. You can't argue with a premise. If a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI tells you that it will likely happen - well, it *may* be wrong, but you'd be well advised to think hard and long before rejecting it. Because the least it means, given the presentation, is that is this fictional universe, it has some validity. The only reason to reject it would be if it was internally inconsistent. But it isn't.

Besides, I already outlined scenario where a singularity had been contained and resulted in the destruction of both sides, in an answer to you of all things, which you conveniently ignore:

For instance, imagine it had been built by an organic species at war with post-singularity synthetics. This organic species was every advanced in other areas before it ever started to build synthetics, and it could hold its own for a while while it built the Catalyst, which is not a seed AI and cannot self-improve, so it doesn't fall under the same category of synthetics which will eventually destroy organics. Eventually, the Catalyst was finished, and shortly thereafter the post-singularity synthetics and the organic species that build them destroyed each other. The Catalyst was left with a lot of data about the behaviour of both parts.

So yeah, it can be a valid premise. People must really be desperate to invalidate the ending they don't like. I've never seen such a determination....even desperation....to be negative.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juin 2012 - 08:40 .

[Kushan101]

Ieldra2 wrote...

This is a non argument. A nuclear war hasn't happened yet, nonetheless it's a good idea to do everything to prevent one from happening. That it hasn't happened yet is no argument.

The singularity is a premise. You can't argue with a premise. If a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI tells you that it will likely happen - well, it *may* be wrong, but you'd be well advised to think hard and long before rejecting it. Because the least it means, given the presentation, is that is this fictional universe, it has some validity. The only reason to reject it would be if it was internally inconsistent. But it isn't.

Besides, I already outlined scenario where a singularity had been contained and resulted in the destruction of both sides, in an answer to you of all things, which you conveniently ignore:

For instance, imagine it had been built by an organic species at war with post-singularity synthetics. This organic species was every advanced in other areas before it ever started to build synthetics, and it could hold its own for a while while it built the Catalyst, which is not a seed AI and cannot self-improve, so it doesn't fall under the same category of synthetics which will eventually destroy organics. Eventually, the Catalyst was finished, and shortly thereafter the post-singularity synthetics and the organic species that build them destroyed each other. The Catalyst was left with a lot of data about the behaviour of both parts.

So yeah, it can be a valid premise. People must really be desperate to invalidate the ending they don't like. I've never seen such a determination....even desperation....to be negative.  

But one could argue that the threat of nuclear war has made the possibility of a genuine actual war far more remote. I can't honestly believe that the cold war wouldn't have gone "hot" if not for the threat of mutually assured destruction. As horrible as it sounds, I think the world without nuclear weapons would be a far more dangerous place.

I'm not going to take the "billion year old super intelligent AI's" word on ANYTHING, its logic is completely circular and wouldn't stand up to any sort of outside scrutiny. Just because it is "super intelligent" - doesn't mean it is not just insane and merely trying to justify its continual mass murder - it has given us NO reason to trust it.

I disagree that the Synthetics vs. Organics premise is even relevant to the Mass Effect universe, its never been a major point in the games up until the ending. The Geth we fought in ME1 were following the Reapers - Machines so advanced that the Geth saw them as Gods. Yet a sizeable number still didn't follow them. The Geth in ME3 were losing against the Quarians and turned to the Reapers for help. Neither of these actions tell me that they are automatically hostile against Organics and the Reapers made the conflict in its entirety in ME1 and excacerbated the conflict in ME3.

AI's are completely independant, you cannot predict that Synthetics will go to war with Organics anymore than you could predict what all the races of the Earth will eat for breakfast in a weeks time. They are completely free thinking - to assume they will ALL come to the same conclusion is to assume that all people across the face of the earth have the same thoughts, at the same time with no variation.

How about the Rachni? a completely organic race who were on the brink of annihilating all the races of the galaxy (with some evidence suggested it was caused by Reaper indoctrination - without them the conflict wouldn't have happened. Again.), but according to the Catalyst, they wouldn't be a problem because it wasn't organics vs synthetics. If the Krogan were not discovered then the galaxy would have been "Rachni only" not long afterward.
The catalyst wants to exterminate "advanced" organics to stop the probability of them creating AI's that could end up destroying them. Should he also incorporate insect races into this? They have the same "capability"? whether or not they would use it seems to be of little consequence to this mass murdering child.

The scenario you outlined is headcanon - you cannot use it and expect others to make a defense from it, since you can make indefensible points about anything in such a fashion. If it isn't in the game, its fanfic.

I think people are seeing the negative because thats all I, for one, can see. Enforcing change on billions without so much as a "by your leave"? Enforcing a change that we have NO IDEA what it is going to do, by the StarGit and his lack of explanation, we could have been turning all the galaxy into cannibals, banshees, marauders and he wouldn't have been lying.
I think it was one of the dev's on his twitter who said that synthesis is the best ending because its no longer about all the different races and was just about "life". If you couldn't see that they were all equal life forms before, than you are a bigot. Diversity is a good thing. Uniformity is not. The Angry One's post about "turning everyone into white aryan and ending racism" was perfect.

Modifié par Kushan101, 03 juin 2012 - 09:32 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

MisterJB wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Synthesis is serving the reapers because they go off the hook unpunished for the trillions of murders they have committed. It's like "Thanks for all the genocides. All those races you have exterminated must have been glad you did so. If only they knew. The horrors you inflicted on them were not in vain, because we are now happy in lala land."

Control is serving the reapers, because they again get off the hook and Shepard has become an undead dictator of the cyclical maniacal genocidal reapers. The reapers are so brilliant and beyond our comprehension that they in their infinite wisdom have decided to trust leadership to an inferior human who can fire guns.

The first thing to point out is that, as far as we know, the Reapers have not commited a single genocide. The races from the previous cycles were preserved in Reaper form. Technically, by destroying Reapers, Shepard has commited more genocides than they did.

We wouldn't claim becoming a Reaper is a favorable experience but will killing the Reapers give organic bodies to the people composing them? No, but Synthesis and Control have the potential to drastically improve our civilizations. One day we might even restore the races that form Reapers.
You are putting your wish for a revenge that will benefit no one ahead of options that do.

Nah. Not a wish for revenge. It's an observation of things one can learn by listening to the in-game dialogue and banter and reading the codex.

I think you are missing something. Complete annihilation is one form of genocide. Read this: Genocide. Now that we are on the same page, let's continue.

The reapers have committed genocide against civilizations in each cycle. Play ME1 and talk to Sovereign. He'll tell you exactly that. Then also talk to Vigil. He'll explain in great detail how the reapers did that in their cycle. Talk to Javik. He'll confirm it. He even got some pictures from some of the events. In color. I must say the reapers were masters in their craft. Their extermination methods were State of the Art. Very thorough. Very systematic. Hats off.

On top of that you can hear the messages reaching you from all the planets which the reapers have conquered and where they exterminated the population. I am sure you have played the game and encountered those. Or visit Liara and read that list from planets that aren't responding anymore. I am sure they were not busy playing cards. On top of that you were a witness yourself on a couple of planets. Nasty business, don't you think so?

The reapers describe their cyclical genocides as "ascension through destruction".

Shepard: "I think we rather keep our own form."

Child: "No. You can't."

Ow! Force. I would describe that as a violation of the right of self-determination, don't you think so?

MisterJB wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think with "makes everyone the same" you mean that I said that with synthesis the races will lose their features and their identity. Look at the synthesis ending. All now have that new beautiful glow and techie feel about them. But that's not all.

Almost all species have eyes and limbs. Exterior look is not what creates a race's indentity.

True. But the new look helps to identify change. Those races gave me the green light to find a way to destroy the reapers and to save their ass. Changing their skin color was not in the deal. And like I said, there's more.

MisterJB wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

In a couple of thousand years there will be new races. Maybe these create synthetics and maybe they don't. Who knows? What are we supposed to do: Exterminate those new organics or send our saviors the reapers to them. After all, they are still out there. Our saviors can help us with another genocide, right?

If synthesis really prevents creating new synthetics then how does that work? If we still got free will then maybe we would create some new synthetics. But, no, synthesis is designed to prevent it. Does the space magic destroy free will? Must be.

Maybe the point of Synthesis is not to prevent the creation of new synthetics. Maybe it's point is to create a greater potential for empathy and mutual understanding by blurring the lines that separate the two forms of life. Or maybe it simply raises organic/hybrid capabilities to the point we can compete with true AIs and, even if technological singularity is achieved, hybrids won't risk being destroyed.
Neither of those options involve the destruction of free will.

If "its point is to create a greater potential for empathy and mutual understanding by blurring the lines that separate the two forms of life" then both have changed in such a way to force that understanding. That's not what free will is about, is it?

If "it simply raises organic/hybrid capabilities to the point we can compete with true AIs" and/or prevent the "risk of being destroyed" then you have to ask yourself if we really need that. Of course, the answer is "no". Rannoch has proved that we can successfully unite the quarians and the geth. Even though the geth were attacked by the quarians more than once, they were willing to rebuild their homeworld and immune system. And if you talk to Javik then he'll tell you how they have solved their problem with the synthetics: They've exterminated them in the Metacom War. Not an elegant solution I might add. However, it did the trick. But after the threat was dealt with the protheans were exterminated anyway. Even when two consecutive cycles prove that their theory is wrong, they still commit genocide. And worse, if the cause of the problem has been removed, the solution, for that now non-existent problem, is still applied. That is not only a lovely example of violating the right of self-determination, it also doesn't make sense.

MisterJB wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You may call the above whatever you want, but synthesis as an option to solve the synthetics problem it is pretty unbelievable. Especially, because it is a solution to a non-existent problem. We went already into that, didn't we?

Like many have tried to explain to you, it is unknown what the consequences are, because the reapers exterminated the races before a singularity could even occur.

That the Catalyst doesn't expand on its reasons to believe organic extinction is inevitable is a problem with presentation.
But we can't disregard the words of a billion of years old super-intelligence simply because we haven't seen it happen. It obviously is more knowledgeable than us.

Obviously, expanding on its reasons was not the point. The point was that cyclical genocide was intended to prevent the domination of synthetics over organics and if they did there job properly then, obviously, it never happened. And if they did not prevent it then we cannot be sure it will happen. From the two cycles that we know of the synthetics have been dealt with one way or another. And none of these required interference of the reapers. It's that simple.

You know, if such a superior intelligence admits that its solution didn't work then maybe it is less smart than you think. And if it dreams up three options which turn out to be solutions to a non-existent problem then I really start scratching my head. It even asks my advice, because it has no idea what color to chose. And that's the only time I have seen the brat making sense. Because I cannot apply a solution to a non-existent problem either.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 03 juin 2012 - 11:03 .

[Ieldra]

I'll reply more in-depth later, for now just this: as long as nothing in-game (or rather, nothing coherent) contradicts my interpretation, then it's as valid as any other. The endings of ME3, especially Control and Synthesis, are pretty much sandbox endings. We're called to interpret and be creative. I've managed to create an interpretation that avoids the nonsense, makes for a solution to the problem the Catalyst poses and mitigates the moral quandary. Yes, it's not canon, but neither are the nonsensical claims of others like "it means serving the Reapers", "everyone is the same" and similar stuff. Also there is no canon. I claim that my scenario (the one I linked in the second post of this thread, for those who came late) is in the spirit of the Synthesis ending, as opposed to almost everything the anti-Synthesis faction has brought forward until now. The Synthesis ending is intended to be a good ending, thus I make it so! I claim the moral high ground of being creative and constructive with an ending that is unsatisfactory as it stands, instead of trying to destroy everything others create.

As for Mike Gamble's tweet: it's completely clear he didn't think this through. The nature of organics and synthetics must be based on something different than a mere difference in biochemistry, because if it were, then the Catalyst's assertions would make no sense at all. Yet again, I've explained it all in my thread.

Note that I'm approaching this from a different perspective than most: I say the Catalyst isn't stupid (why I assume that, I have explained - yet again - in my thread), and the apparent stupidity is the failure of the writers to bring that across accordingly. On that assumption I try to create scenarios that fit certain parameters. As Mordin would say: "No proof, but theory fits evidence".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juin 2012 - 11:05 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

That would be great, Ieldra2. I like to see your non-contradicting game examples.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

lol Synthesis and Control people make me laugh, they have to make support threads to trry and convince others their options are the best when they really are not.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
That would be great, Ieldra2. I like to see your non-contradicting game examples.

Note my caveat: I am only claiming that I don't contradict the things that are internally consistent. Thus, no "final evolution of life" because there is no such thing. Instead, a possible *suppression* of *natural* evolution and its replacement by deliberate change as long as the civilization is willing to keep that up. If they don't, natural evolution will resume. No "new....DNA" either (which I think is to be interpreted metaphorically anyway) because there can't be a hybrid DNA analogue (I'm willing to revise that should someone manage to explain to me how that is possible). The parameters are:

(1) Synthesis effects a combination of organic and synthetic life
(2) The scenario solves the problem the Catalyst posits
(3) It mitigates the moral quandary.
(4) The results (not the process) make *some* scientific sense.
(5) The Synthesis is *a* good ending judged by the results.

There is some difficulty with the notion of "hybrid plants" suggested by the Normandy scenario. I have a hypothesis how that might work, but I haven't included it my scenario yet because I think that was a presentation failure - the art guys didn't know what to do with the outline given to them by the writers, unsurprisingly I might add. At the moment I'm inclined to wait for the Extended Cut to see if they keep that. I certainly hope they won't, but I'll adapt my scenario if necessary.

The resulting scenario is in my thread A different ascension - the Synthesis compendium. I'm willing to refine it based on criticism.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juin 2012 - 11:24 .

[MisterJB]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Nah. Not a wish for revenge. It's an observation of things one can learn by listening to the in-game dialogue and banter and reading the codex.

I think you are missing something. Complete annihilation is one form of genocide. Read this: Genocide. Now that we are on the same page, let's continue.
[/quote]
I acknowledge that the destruction of the culture of civilizations could be considered as a form of genocide. However, the most commonly used form of genocide; that is the slaughter of the entire population of a certain group; has never been practiced by the Reapers as far as we know.
The species harvested are preserved as Reapers and while it is natural for an organic to see this as death; liquification involves death, as far as we know; the Reapers, who are clearly sentient, don't share this perspective. So, from their point of view, it is preferable to be rebirth in Reaper form and enjoy a new life than suffer complete extinction at the hands of Synthetics.

[quote]The reapers have committed genocide against civilizations in each cycle. Play ME1 and talk to Sovereign. He'll tell you exactly that. Then also talk to Vigil. He'll explain in great detail how the reapers did that in their cycle. Talk to Javik. He'll confirm it. He even got some pictures from some of the events. In color. I must say the reapers were masters in their craft. Their extermination methods were State of the Art. Very thorough. Very systematic. Hats off. [/quote]
Vigil and Javik saw immense numbers of their population being killed. We know the Reapers kill organics they deem unworthy of ascension like the Human Husks but they still attempted to preserve the human race as a Reaper.
We do not know if the same didn't happen to the prothean people.

[quote]On top of that you can hear the messages reaching you from all the planets which the reapers have conquered and where they exterminated the population. I am sure you have played the game and encountered those. Or visit Liara and read that list from planets that aren't responding anymore. I am sure they were not busy playing cards. On top of that you were a witness yourself on a couple of planets. Nasty business, don't you think so?[/quote]
Liara also says the Reapers have attempted to take many populations alive when Gliph relates the story of how the citizens of some city commited suicide when the Reapers came.
So, as I've said before, many people die but that doesn't mean the race itself is not preserved.

[quote]Shepard: "I think we rather keep our own form."

Child: "No. You can't."

Ow! Force. I would describe that as a violation of the right of self-determination, don't you think so?[/quote]
The right of self-determination ends when it puts in danger other people. If the synthetics we create pose a threat to all organic life that exists or will exist, then we are putting in danger all organic life and measures should be taken to prevent this.

[quote]True. But the new look helps to identify change. Those races gave me the green light to find a way to destroy the reapers and to save their ass. Changing their skin color was not in the deal. And like I said, there's more.[/quote]
They have been upgraded with synthetics abilities that can greatly improve their lives and prevent their extinction at the hand of Synthetics, Reapers or otherwise. How awful.


[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]If "its point is to create a greater potential for empathy and mutual understanding by blurring the lines that separate the two forms of life" then both have changed in such a way to force that understanding. That's not what free will is about, is it?[/quote]
I don't assume the understanding will be forced and happen from night to day.
And while changing everyone without consent could be seen as an attack on their free will, it is justified since it is meant to preserve organic life in the galaxy.
We don't simply let people commit suicide, do we?

If "it simply raises organic/hybrid capabilities to the point we can compete with true AIs" and/or prevent the "risk of being destroyed" then you have to ask yourself if we really need that. Of course, the answer is "no".
 Rannoch has proved that we can successfully unite the quarians and the geth. Even though the geth were attacked by the quarians more than once, they were willing to rebuild their homeworld and immune system. And if you talk to Javik then he'll tell you how they have solved their problem with the synthetics: They've exterminated them in the Metacom War. Not an elegant solution I might add. However, it did the trick. But after the threat was dealt with the protheans were exterminated anyway. Even when two consecutive cycles prove that their theory is wrong, they still commit genocide. And worse, if the cause of the problem has been removed, the solution, for that now non-existent problem, is still applied. That is not only a lovely example of a violation the right of self-determination, it also doesn't make sense.[/quote]
The answer is "yes".
Geth: Peace in the face of a common enemy is no unheard of. There is zero evidence it will last especially since the geth have proven to be quite hostile. A faction of them, the Heretics, chose to wage war on all organics in a bid to improve their lot in life, that a Reaper was involved is irrelevant. It can easily happen again. And the True Geth have also been known to kill organics beyond the point where they would be a threat  as seen during the Morning War and ME3 where they can even commit genocide. That they were attacked first is a point to them but it does not justify it.

Metacon War: We do not know enough about it but let's suppose the Prothean Empire was going to win it. That doesn't mean more synthetics could never be created and they might lose the next one.

You are also making the false assumpting organic extinction can only come through war. True AIs are capable of advancing at a much faster rate than organics, just look at EDI and then picture an entire race of EDIs (the geth are not true AIs until ME3). A technological singularity could produce AIs with the QI of billions. And a more advanced race won't take into consideration the well being of an inferior species when planning their expansion. We humans have caused the extinction of fauna we didn't even know was there beforehand. The same thing can easily happen on a galactic scale if we allow AIs to advance so far without having a way to keep up; in this case, Synthesis; they might bear organics no ill will but they can still cause our extinction.

[quote]Obviously, expanding on its reasons was not the point. The point was that cyclical genocide was intended to prevent the domination of synthetics over organics and if they did there job properly then, obviously, it never happened. And if they did not prevent it then we cannot be sure it will happen.[/quote]
The race that created the Catalyst could have seen AIs destroy a thousands organic races, render a million worlds incapable of bearing life. In this situation, they wouldn't need to wait until synthetics have exterminated all life to know it will happen.

[quote] From the two cycles that we know of the synthetics have been dealt with one way or another. And none of these required interference of the reapers. It's that simple.[/quote]
Two cycles we know of versus the billions the Catalyst knows of. And it is still convinced it will happen unless something is done.
And, like I've said before, we don't know if we've really delt with synthetics or simply bought organic more time.

[quote]You know, if such a superior intelligence admits that its solution didn't work then maybe it is less smart as you think.[/quote]
And it only took billions of years

[quote] It even asks my advice, because it has no idea what color to chose.[/quote]
The Catalyst can't interact with the Crucible, remember?

[quote]Because I cannot apply a solution to a non-existent problem either.[/quote]
The problem is very real.

[Xamufam]

synthesis is on a atomic level u have to know were every atom is for it to work & every person are diifferent that makes it impossible to do synthesis & running into a beam that would destroy things does not make any sense (it would not leave anything behind (no DNA))

Modifié par Troxa, 03 juin 2012 - 12:10 .

[Vigilant111]

MisterJB wrote...

I acknowledge that the destruction of the culture of civilizations could be considered as a form of genocide. However, the most commonly used form of genocide; that is the slaughter of the entire population of a certain group; has never been practiced by the Reapers as far as we know.
The species harvested are preserved as Reapers and while it is natural for an organic to see this as death; liquification involves death, as far as we know; the Reapers, who are clearly sentient, don't share this perspective. So, from their point of view, it is preferable to be rebirth in Reaper form and enjoy a new life than suffer complete extinction at the hands of Synthetics.

U are not making what reapers do sound any better, did organics willingly go to the reapers and ask for help?

Vigil and Javik saw immense numbers of their population being killed. We know the Reapers kill organics they deem unworthy of ascension like the Human Husks but they still attempted to preserve the human race as a Reaper.
We do not know if the same didn't happen to the prothean people.

I don't think reapers have the right to choose who to ascend, a race is best preserved in the original form

Liara also says the Reapers have attempted to take many populations alive when Gliph relates the story of how the citizens of some city commited suicide when the Reapers came.
So, as I've said before, many people die but that doesn't mean the race itself is not preserved.

No, u don't subject people in constant terror, the race will fall apart

The right of self-determination ends when it puts in danger other people. If the synthetics we create pose a threat to all organic life that exists or will exist, then we are putting in danger all organic life and measures should be taken to prevent this.

What is this?

They have been upgraded with synthetics abilities that can greatly improve their lives and prevent their extinction at the hand of Synthetics, Reapers or otherwise. How awful.

Quick fix pipe dream, headcanon, assumption assumption

The answer is "yes".
Geth: Peace in the face of a common enemy is no unheard of. There is zero evidence it will last especially since the geth have proven to be quite hostile. A faction of them, the Heretics, chose to wage war on all organics in a bid to improve their lot in life, that a Reaper was involved is irrelevant. It can easily happen again. And the True Geth have also been known to kill organics beyond the point where they would be a threat  as seen during the Morning War and ME3 where they can even commit genocide. That they were attacked first is a point to them but it does not justify it.

Metacon War: We do not know enough about it but let's suppose the Prothean Empire was going to win it. That doesn't mean more synthetics could never be created and they might lose the next one.

You are also making the false assumpting organic extinction can only come through war. True AIs are capable of advancing at a much faster rate than organics, just look at EDI and then picture an entire race of EDIs (the geth are not true AIs until ME3). A technological singularity could produce AIs with the QI of billions. And a more advanced race won't take into consideration the well being of an inferior species when planning their expansion. We humans have caused the extinction of fauna we didn't even know was there beforehand. The same thing can easily happen on a galactic scale if we allow AIs to advance so far without having a way to keep up; in this case, Synthesis; they might bear organics no ill will but they can still cause our extinction.

No relevance, if u say that the Geth and Quarians peace is not evidence to refute Catalyst's view, then u cannot say it is evidence for synthetics being hostile and will wipe out all organics.

The fact that they are hostile only make them all the more similar to organics, they make mistakes, they do immoral things, just like the organics

Producing AIs and QIs are irrelevant as they still require bodies to keep organics under control

The race that created the Catalyst could have seen AIs destroy a thousands organic races, render a million worlds incapable of bearing life. In this situation, they wouldn't need to wait until synthetics have exterminated all life to know it will happen.

So it tells u that, cannot be used as evidence

Two cycles we know of versus the billions the Catalyst knows of. And it is still convinced it will happen unless something is done.
And, like I've said before, we don't know if we've really delt with synthetics or simply bought organic more time.

That is Catalyst's opinion, not Shepard's

And it only took billions of years

frankly I doubt that there is actually that many cycles, this "billions of years" thing is a myth, or intended to make the story mythical

[Xamufam]

Found This:
First off I am not even refering to the ending just the choices because they really irked me as being nothing but Impossible. Not even a Technological singularity could make this happen.

First Destroy, Fires a beam that some how can differentiate Software and not kill Organics. Despite the fact Software is nothing more then Electrical signals. Same as an organic brain. Now there is a weapon that can do this but its a very limited range and would not work in space. It's called an EMP, However one large enough to target Reapers would definitaly kill a human and organics. Yet it this Beam can also differentiate between what hardware has AI and what doesn't. It also somehow can maintan force throughout space despite the fact it has nothing to arc to. This is also created by a conviently created panel that requires a gun to destroy it. This would be a most implausable method since even if somehow you did manage to create the beam. This would shut it down not fire it. To fire it the beam would already have to be activated. Or it would make the Beam have a possibilty of just not firing right. This would require the beam to be Sapient and not Quantum Manipulation.

Control: This same beam somehow destroys your matter and converts it into a signal that allows you to control the reapers and presuably the geth and Edi. Since well Destroy can autotarget Software. So that means after one command they commence attacking and destroying the life of the cycle. Without the brain there would be no way to control the reapers. Also somehow this makes a blue beam despite it not even really needing one since if you managed to Control them wihtout losing your "Spirit" it wouldn't need to fire since they can basically communicate Via the quantum entanglments which would send the message faster. Also Harbinger has shown that reapers can communicate on their own just fine. But somehow touching a switch does this where shooting a panel does something else. It can only be assumed that this beam formats the reapers and Imprints shepards Brain waves into each reaper.

Synthisis: This is the biggest peice of Bs I came across no form of energy could modify DNa to grow circutry, nor could any beam make machines into organics. What its trying to say is this Green beam is a Sub Quantum manipulation device. This is impossible since DEstroy's energy is the same which would mean using destroy would render all life dead not just reapers. Quantum manipulation doesn't work this way. You cannot create one device that can do 3 completely different things and make it work. This series has alway's done its homework yet this is so lazy its aggrivating.
Syntisis makes even less sense since for Quantum maniplation shepard wouldn't need to jump. It's not powered by a sacrifice, a control panel with a keyboard would be the closest any of these would need.
No quantum manipulation is not an energy either. It is litterally breaking down every sub molicule and changing it.
It's not possible to make a wild fire device that can do this. If something went wrong atoms splitting and such would destory all life. IF everyone where stading absolutly still this might be slightly possible in a controlled tiny room. But your talking about blind firing something that could destroy the space time continuum. Especially when said device as a basically selfdestruct sequence (Destroy).

The destroy panel and absurd ways to activate the other two are why this would be more unstable and impossible to use then what we are led to believe.

Also explain how no one building this noticed it was basically a massive Quantum manipulation device that is more unstable then the hulk in a china shop filled with crying babies.

Artistic entegrity my butt

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Note my caveat: I am only claiming that I don't contradict the things that are internally consistent. Thus, no "final evolution of life" because there is no such thing. Instead, a possible *suppression* of *natural* evolution and its replacement by deliberate change as long as the civilization is willing to keep that up. If they don't, natural evolution will resume. No "new....DNA" either (which I think is to be interpreted metaphorically anyway) because there can't be a hybrid DNA analogue (I'm willing to revise that should someone manage to explain to me how that is possible). The parameters are:

(1) Synthesis effects a combination of organic and synthetic life
(2) The scenario solves the problem the Catalyst posits
(3) It mitigates the moral quandary.
(4) The results (not the process) make *some* scientific sense.
(5) The Synthesis is *a* good ending judged by the results.

There is some difficulty with the notion of "hybrid plants" suggested by the Normandy scenario. I have a hypothesis how that might work, but I haven't included it my scenario yet because I think that was a presentation failure - the art guys didn't know what to do with the outline given to them by the writers, unsurprisingly I might add. At the moment I'm inclined to wait for the Extended Cut to see if they keep that. I certainly hope they won't, but I'll adapt my scenario if necessary.

The resulting scenario is in my thread A different ascension - the Synthesis compendium. I'm willing to refine it based on criticism.

The first line sounds like u are making a disclaimer about your interpretation and I am guessing maybe u are not convinced of what u said or are afraid the EC would turn out to be different, so right now u are just making an ambiguous statement

2. the problem remains to be seen
3. moral quandry can be mitigated if the effects are reverseable
4. u cannot go to results straight away without talking about process, that called magic
5. no results have been seen

[Jenonax]

dreman9999 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I think we're arguing semantics here.

When I talk of controlling the ending I am talking about who is driving the plot forward not who controls each little bit of the set up.  There's a difference.

I don't know how the Crucible functions, I have yet to find anyone who does.  I don't trust the Catalyst but then again he has little reason to outright lie, he could have just left Shepard down there to die after all.

1. He hs every reason to lie. It's ether.
1. You about to kill him and the reapers.
2. You just applied this new tech into his system the he sees he can use as he please if only he had asses to.
3.To get Shepard to do what he wants.

He has every reason to lie.

You really giving the star child way too much trust.

I don't trust him.  I have never trusted him.  I have no reason to trust him.

I forget where and when but I had a lengthy argument with a pro-ender a few days ago in another thread over whether or not the Catalyst is a lying little **** or not.  I firmly believed he was but this particular poster managed to change my mind.

I don't think he is lying.  I think he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.  He infers that Shepard will die and he doesn't.  Therefore his trustworthyness is called into question.  I would outright go and say he's being manipulative and trying to force Shepard away from Destroy to save his own skin but I have to question why on Earth the Catalyst brought Shepard up to him in the first place and then told him there was an option for Destroy, rather than just leaving Shepard with Control or Synthesis or simply to die down with Anderson.

Hence why I think the Catalyst doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.  Which is why he can't forsee Shepard being alive, which is why I don't think Shepard will be able to Control the Reapers and why I can't in good conscience choose Synthesis when I believe the Catalyst is bluffing.

But trust him?  No.  Trust is earned and he has done nothing to earn my trust.

[wright1978]

Jenonax wrote...

I don't trust him.  I have never trusted him.  I have no reason to trust him.

I forget where and when but I had a lengthy argument with a pro-ender a few days ago in another thread over whether or not the Catalyst is a lying little **** or not.  I firmly believed he was but this particular poster managed to change my mind.

I don't think he is lying.  I think he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.  He infers that Shepard will die and he doesn't.  Therefore his trustworthyness is called into question.  I would outright go and say he's being manipulative and trying to force Shepard away from Destroy to save his own skin but I have to question why on Earth the Catalyst brought Shepard up to him in the first place and then told him there was an option for Destroy, rather than just leaving Shepard with Control or Synthesis or simply to die down with Anderson.

Hence why I think the Catalyst doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.  Which is why he can't forsee Shepard being alive, which is why I don't think Shepard will be able to Control the Reapers and why I can't in good conscience choose Synthesis when I believe the Catalyst is bluffing.

But trust him?  No.  Trust is earned and he has done nothing to earn my trust.

I think starbrat is a crazy idealogical extemist who fervently believes in its wackadoodle end of days theory  and has a wackadoodle solution too. Therefore i don't take its explanation of the ending consequences as neutral, they are full of its crazed idealogical fundamentalism bias.

[Jassu1979]

Lord Goose wrote...

Not killing the Reapers is only side effect of other benefits. Like, saving lifes of the innocents or allowing humanity to evolve.

Oh, you've got to be kidding me! "Letting humanity evolve"? Instant synthesis via green space magic is the  antithesis of that!

Here, let Mordin Solus explain it to you:

"Disrupts socio-technological balance! All scientological advances due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations: no limitations, no advancement. No advancement - culture stagnates. Works other way, too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous!"

Maybe a synthesis between organics and synthetics would be a viable solution in the face of an actual technological singularity, dissolving a potential conflict by finding a middle way.
But the galaxy is not faced with that situation right then and there, and it does not have the technological capability to actually achieve synthesis on their own.
So, even if we disregard the "space magic" factor, or the fact that every single life form is involuntarily turned into something else without knowing what's happening - at the end of the day, it's still a million times worse than having your culture shaped by the relays. It's like handing a gun to a caveman that hasn't even invented a spear.

Oh, and that nonsense about the "final step in evolution"?
There is no such step. Evolution is a continuous process of adapting to environments. It has no end point, no goal, no ultimate destination. No "higher" or "lower" steps.

[Jenonax]

wright1978 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I don't trust him.  I have never trusted him.  I have no reason to trust him.

I forget where and when but I had a lengthy argument with a pro-ender a few days ago in another thread over whether or not the Catalyst is a lying little **** or not.  I firmly believed he was but this particular poster managed to change my mind.

I don't think he is lying.  I think he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.  He infers that Shepard will die and he doesn't.  Therefore his trustworthyness is called into question.  I would outright go and say he's being manipulative and trying to force Shepard away from Destroy to save his own skin but I have to question why on Earth the Catalyst brought Shepard up to him in the first place and then told him there was an option for Destroy, rather than just leaving Shepard with Control or Synthesis or simply to die down with Anderson.

Hence why I think the Catalyst doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.  Which is why he can't forsee Shepard being alive, which is why I don't think Shepard will be able to Control the Reapers and why I can't in good conscience choose Synthesis when I believe the Catalyst is bluffing.

But trust him?  No.  Trust is earned and he has done nothing to earn my trust.

I think starbrat is a crazy idealogical extemist who fervently believes in its wackadoodle end of days theory  and has a wackadoodle solution too. Therefore i don't take its explanation of the ending consequences as neutral, they are full of its crazed idealogical fundamentalism bias.

Crazy people can 100% believe their own ideals even if they are evil and have only a shaky basis in reality.  Its like the number 1 attribute of a sociopath.  The Catalyst is the villain of the story, of course he is.  But he believes himself to be 100% correct when in fact he isn't and that makes him incredibly dangerous.  What makes the situation even more dangerous is number 1: we built his death machine in the first place and number 2: Shepard, our hero, believes him with little question.  The role of a protagonist is to have conflict with the antagonist, not to agree with him.

[Jassu1979]

Ieldra2 wrote...
This is a non argument. A nuclear war hasn't happened yet, nonetheless it's a good idea to do everything to prevent one from happening. That it hasn't happened yet is no argument.

And if we were to follow the Catalyst's rationale in this, we should try to prevent nuclear war by committing a holocaust on every nation who's on the brink of inventing that technology.
See? That does not make sense at all.

The singularity is a premise. You can't argue with a premise. If a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI tells you that it will likely happen - well, it *may* be wrong, but you'd be well advised to think hard and long before rejecting it. Because the least it means, given the presentation, is that is this fictional universe, it has some validity. The only reason to reject it would be if it was internally inconsistent. But it isn't.

Even supposing that this is the case: the galaxy is NOT faced with the imminent threat of this event right there and then. The danger they're faced with is the insane "solution" to this hypothetical problem.
And knowing of that potential danger (the tech singularity, that is), all races could work towards achieving synthesis on their own terms - as it should be.

In fact, the quarians and the geth are already on their way there.
The instant space magic solution, on the other hand, is more disastrous than uplifting the krogan.

Modifié par Jassu1979, 03 juin 2012 - 01:04 .