1256 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

Aurora313 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
If you choose Destroy, you kill the synthetics, and countless billions of conjoined organic minds who had been enslaved by the Catalyst.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Hold the phone.

You're talking about the reapers right? You're perfectly fine with billions of enslaved minds, minds that were once people, staying in their hellish state?

It wasn't their choice to exist in that form. True. However, they have the right to choose whether or not to contiune to existance. If every or any of them choose not to, then they can choose to commit suicide, by setting a course into a sun or a blackhole. If they wish to attempt some form of cooperation with the Cycle races, perhaps as giant manual labours to rebuilt the relay network as one example, then they have the right to decide which path they will take.

Destroy them, and even as a slave race, its still a genocide.

The same ones who were perfectly content to slaughter everyone we know? I have no problems killing them.

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...
leldra2's theories are perhaps the most harmful. The nanites proposed are simply parasites that act as puppetmasters to all life in the galaxy, forming and reforming lifeforms as they see fit to operate inside the framework of galactic life they choose. Pretty horrible future.

I would appreciate it if people stopped misrepresenting my scenario. There are no puppetmasters. And of course you'd say my scenario is harmful. Afraid it may come across as convincing, are you?

Lies. Your theory presents nanites that control the evolution of all species. You say that for intelligent species, the nanites allow them to purposefully adapt - self-driven evolution (except that it's only acceptable in the bounds of what is allowable in the galactic balance). For non-intelligent species, as you say, the nanites are controlling ther biological development. They are parasitic puppetmasters.

Your theory is laughable, feel free to buy super bowl ads.

Small but significant difference: the nanotech symbionts I propose allow post-Synthetic intelligent life to direct their own development. They're tools, not masters. For non-intelligent life I have said the symbionts would remain inert if it's really necessary to include the ridiculous "hybrid plants" notion. Again, they're tools, not masters. I'll wait for the EC until I say more about the latter though. I hope they'll retcon it.

So....your assertions have no logical connection with my theories. You're just trying to sabotage my efforts to explain Synthesis.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...
leldra2's theories are perhaps the most harmful. The nanites proposed are simply parasites that act as puppetmasters to all life in the galaxy, forming and reforming lifeforms as they see fit to operate inside the framework of galactic life they choose. Pretty horrible future.

I would appreciate it if people stopped misrepresenting my scenario. There are no puppetmasters. And of course you'd say my scenario is harmful. Afraid it may come across as convincing, are you?

Lies. Your theory presents nanites that control the evolution of all species. You say that for intelligent species, the nanites allow them to purposefully adapt - self-driven evolution (except that it's only acceptable in the bounds of what is allowable in the galactic balance). For non-intelligent species, as you say, the nanites are controlling ther biological development. They are parasitic puppetmasters.

Your theory is laughable, feel free to buy super bowl ads.

Small but significant difference: the nanotech symbionts I propose allow post-Synthetic intelligent life to direct their own development. They're tools, not masters. For non-intelligent life I have said the symbionts would remain inert if it's really necessary to include the ridiculous "hybrid plants" notion. Again, they're tools, not masters. I'll wait for the EC until I say more about the latter though. I hope they'll retcon it.

So....your assertions have no logical connection with my theories. You're just trying to sabotage my efforts to explain Synthesis.

Really, your theories sabotage themselves.

So, these nanites reside dormant inside of non-intelligent life forms (do they exit from a dead body and enter a seed/fetus?) waiting, watching their inhabited organism for any signs of intelligence, and as soon as they do they activate and take over the organism, changing it fundamentally. Sure, not parasites AT ALL.

Also, in-game canon: glowing plants in the same manner as Joker. Not quite inert.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 12 juin 2012 - 02:34 .

[jtav]

Except the Catalyst says it Controls the Reapers. Their will is subverted by the Reapers. Once the green light goes out and the Catalyst explodes, the Reapers leave. They are free and they chose peace.

[The Night Mammoth]

jtav wrote...

Except the Catalyst says it Controls the Reapers. Their will is subverted by the Reapers.

There's a significant leap of logic from the first statement to the second.

We speak to three Reapers. None of them seem particularly 'repressed', they're all individual. 

Once the green light goes out and the Catalyst explodes, the Reapers leave. They are free and they chose peace.

That's just headcanon. 

[Haargel]

The more I think about Synthesis, the more I find it disgusting imo.

So you and only you have the choice to turn the galaxy in to .... the Borg or something.
In destroy the reapers are gone, and perhaps also the Geth and EDI.
In control you just control the reapers or something.
Nothing happens to the all the races. They are the same as they always have been.

Then in green you meld synthetics and organics together. I think I would freak out if all the sudden I became half a robot or whatever you become. And that without giving my consent.

[InHarmsWay]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

jtav wrote...

Except the Catalyst says it Controls the Reapers. Their will is subverted by the Reapers.

There's a significant leap of logic from the first statement to the second.

We speak to three Reapers. None of them seem particularly 'repressed', they're all individual. 

Once the green light goes out and the Catalyst explodes, the Reapers leave. They are free and they chose peace.

That's just headcanon. 

I would assume that if there was any sort of remanant consciousness of anyone within the reapers, they would have gone completely insane by now from being stuck in hell for millions of years. It's a mercy act to kill them.

[InHarmsWay]

Haargel wrote...

The more I think about Synthesis, the more I find it disgusting imo.

So you and only you have the choice to turn the galaxy in to .... the Borg or something.
In destroy the reapers are gone, and perhaps also the Geth and EDI.
In control you just control the reapers or something.
Nothing happens to the all the races. They are the same as they always have been.

Then in green you meld synthetics and organics together. I think I would freak out if all the sudden I became half a robot or whatever you become. And that without giving my consent.

Let's not forget the primitvie races who are tribal who would see this green glow as a punishment from their gods and so kill themselves on-mass.

Modifié par InHarmsWay, 12 juin 2012 - 02:45 .

[KingZayd]

jtav wrote...

Except the Catalyst says it Controls the Reapers. Their will is subverted by the Reapers. Once the green light goes out and the Catalyst explodes, the Reapers leave. They are free and they chose peace.

We don't know what they've chosen, or why they've left. For all we know, it could just be them "awakening" in the middle of battle and regrouping to try and figure what just happened/ fleeing in a panic.

Modifié par KingZayd, 12 juin 2012 - 02:53 .

[clennon8]

Synthesists want to keep the conversation about results. They want to simply describe a post-Synthesis world free of disease and unhappiness, where everyone has superpowers and gets along. And, yes, that is the world they have been describing thus far. No more depression! No more mental disease of any kind! All physical ailments and other shortcomings are cured! Robots and people will get along for all time! But you're still you, honest! See what a wonderful thing Shepard has done for you? He was right to force this change on everyone!

Yeah, that scenario always ends well. And a big sarcastic "SURE" to the possibility of everybody just being happy and getting along without having their minds messed with.

Undoubtedly, the Synthesists will backtrack now and re-describe a few things, possibly even throwing in a downside or two or two so we don't all continue to gag on the saccharine taste of what has been presented so far. It doesn't matter, because I'm not willing to seriously discuss fairytale consequences to a choice that if actually chosen by Shepard would represent the most arrogant, reckless decision ever made by any person.

It's clear that Bioware didn't think this through, or expect us to. I'm not going to bail them out with rationalizations. My Shepards pick Destroy, and I don't try to pretty it up. I accept that I'm most likely killing the geth and EDI. I used to lean on Indoctrination Theory as a crutch, but I've long since thrown that crutch away. Destroy is what it is, and I accept it, warts and all.

Modifié par clennon8, 12 juin 2012 - 05:04 .

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

Except the Catalyst says it Controls the Reapers. Their will is subverted by the Reapers. Once the green light goes out and the Catalyst explodes, the Reapers leave. They are free and they chose peace.

If you call a temporary ceasefire peace. There's no suggestion the Reapers change from their original mission statement. If synthesis fails to stop creation of AI's reapers will return to cull everyone.

[ToaOrka]

Good job, you robbed everyone in the galaxy of their individuality.

[Heeden]

InHarmsWay wrote...

I would assume that if there was any sort of remanant consciousness of anyone within the reapers, they would have gone completely insane by now from being stuck in hell for millions of years. It's a mercy act to kill them.

It's a heavy assumption that the Reapers would store the harvested races in a hell. They are morally ambiguous to us at best so I don't see any reason for them to create a punitive environment.

The term "ascension" implies Reaperisation elevates a society to post-scarcity status making it more akin to the idea of heaven than hell. At worst it could be like the Cryptosphere in Iain M. Banks' Feersum Endjin, an ultimately chaotic arrangement where only strongly individualistic conscousnesses remain sentient whilst others are reduced to variations within an abstract that represents the whole.

[Haargel]

InHarmsWay wrote...

Haargel wrote...

The more I think about Synthesis, the more I find it disgusting imo.

So you and only you have the choice to turn the galaxy in to .... the Borg or something.
In destroy the reapers are gone, and perhaps also the Geth and EDI.
In control you just control the reapers or something.
Nothing happens to the all the races. They are the same as they always have been.

Then in green you meld synthetics and organics together. I think I would freak out if all the sudden I became half a robot or whatever you become. And that without giving my consent.

Let's not forget the primitvie races who are tribal who would see this green glow as a punishment from their gods and so kill themselves on-mass.

Oh yea, that as well. I also wonder what happens to all animals and even plants and trees, do they also become half a robot ? And if it's supposebly so good, why is Joker still limping ?

Meh.

I'll just patiently wait for the EC, where I can be recovered from the rubble and patched up, and continue the fight. At least that's why I hope/think. (not sure what it would look like, not saying that I'm an IT believer, yet I think something big is on it's way)

[jtav]

And there's no evidenced post-Synthesis individuals lose their individuality. We see three, and all seem very much themselves.

[antares_sublight]

jtav wrote...

And there's no evidenced post-Synthesis individuals lose their individuality. We see three, and all seem very much themselves.

I don't remember hearing them say anything, or do much of anything. It's a 5-second snap. For all they know, Shepard is dead, earth was destroyed and they're marooned on an unknown planet. They are not behaving normally at all given their circumstances.

Of course, they behave the same in all 3 endings, but that only serves to emphasize that you're just speculating, drawing a galaxy-wide implication of a fundamental change to all life forms based on a silent, 5-second clip in which the characters are behaving strangely.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 12 juin 2012 - 03:44 .

[akenn312]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@akenn312:
We've been over that about 10000000000000 times. Shepard stands at the fulcrum of events. Shepard's choice will shape the galaxy for millenia to come, regardless of what you choose. If you choose Destroy, you kill the synthetics, and countless billions of conjoined organic minds who had been enslaved by the Catalyst. If you choose Control, you set yourself up as some kind of godlike guardian of life, guiding civilization along the same old paths until a new solution is found. Maybe forever. I happen to think that sacrificing everyone's organic purity is preferable to both other options, since it kills no one and still leaves the old paths behind, especially if it comes with benefits.

It's not as if I'm - as Shepard - sitting at a desk somewhere in peaceful times, thinking about pressing a button "synthesize everyone". Put yourself in Shepard's place - standing there, with everything you know about the Reapers. Suppose you know every Codex entry and did all conversations with Legion about the Reapers' nature. Well, maybe you'd come to the conclusion it's best to kill them all, but that's not how I think. jtav has explained it in her OP.

I don't care if we have been over it 1000000000 times then we will go over it 2000000000 times, results that you feel are nessesary does not give you the right to force them on another. Your choice to sacrifice everyone's organic purity is a selfish violation. Actually all of the choices are bad, but to win a game they should not make someone sacrifice ethics and the ideal of basic freedom to beat the Reapers. You have no right to make me into what you think is a better person or organic.

You can not turn me into a Caucasian or a Mulatto just because you want to defeat the Skinheads and it might stop racism. I have the basic right to live and die as I am. I must be given the right to be who I am and live the way I was meant to live. If I choose to be something else by my own choice then its okay, but you cannot force me to do it or do it without my consent.

You keep trying to invent reasons why changing everyone is good. nano-tech or singularity is not a good reason to violate everyone. This does not wipe out the fact that you have violated everyones basic right to exist the way they were meant to exist. I don't care if you make this choice at a desk or at a critical moment you have no right to do it.

Modifié par akenn312, 12 juin 2012 - 03:45 .

[Ieldra]

Ah...the strange workings of the mind of a moral absolutist. I'm sorry, but context matters, and results matter. There are no actions independent of context and results, there are no rights independent of context or results. You may or may not agree about whether Synthesis can be justified, and if you don't, I understand. But that principle holds, and if you stick to your absolutism, we might as well stop talking, for I'll never agree with you.

Edit:
I don't sacrifice anyone's basic freedom. I make *one* choice without asking anyone.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 juin 2012 - 03:55 .

[clennon8]

Yes, I guess we might as well stop talking, because I think those who disagree with you are going to stick to their quaintly absolutionist stance that violating body sovereignty on a galactic scale is bad. How archaic and unforward-thinking of us.

So, who's going to stop talking first?

[Ieldra]

I find it rather more acceptable than multiple genocide, yes. "Organic purity" isn't very highly-placed in my hierarchy of values.

[akenn312]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ah...the strange workings of the mind of a moral absolutist. I'm sorry, but context matters, and results matter. There are no actions independent of context and results, there are no rights independent of context or results. You may or may not agree about whether Synthesis can be justified, and if you don't, I understand. But that principle holds, and if you stick to your absolutism, we might as well stop talking, for I'll never agree with you.

Edit:
I don't sacrifice anyone's basic freedom. I make *one* choice without asking anyone.

I find it strange that you do not see this and do not care about people having a choice or say on how they end up.
You are showing why informing everyone on this choice is extremly important. Because this choice effects eveyone.

Again you have no right no matter how many heroic acts you have done or data that tells you that you are correct change everyone or force anything on them. The choice is against human rights, democracy and consent. I will stick to any thing that supports basic rights. Your need to disagree and to romaticize this concept is disturbing.

Bioware putting in this concept is also disturbing.

[akenn312]

Not me, I will always fight against Synthesis.

Never trust a Reaper concept

Reapers = bad

[jtav]

Bodily sovereignty is important, but the right is not absolute. Granted, it would take extraordinary circumstances to justify it, but we have those. I'll let my belief in "thou shall not kill" override my desire to obtain consent.

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I find it rather more acceptable than multiple genocide, yes. "Organic purity" isn't very highly-placed in my hierarchy of values.

I'm getting that.  To be fair, "organic purity" isn't the drum I'm beating to either.  I'm much more concerned with the issues of body sovereignty and consent.  Apparently, those aren't high on your list of values, either.

Look, I understand your stance.  You would change a quadrillion (quintillion? more?) organisms at a fundamental biological level, with unknown (but hopefully good) consequences, rather than kill a few million geth.  I think that is a completely insane stance, but I understand that is the stance you are taking.  And as you've stated, we are never, NEVER going to agree.

@jtav:  Every time the issue of body sovereignty comes up, you try to straw man or rationalize your way out of it.  Seat belts, vaccines, whatever.  Don't bother.  Please, don't anybody bother with that garbage.

Modifié par clennon8, 12 juin 2012 - 04:17 .

[jtav]

I am not strawmanning. I am saying that sovereignty is somewhere in the middle of my list of priorities and not killing those geth or Reapers that now apparently have questionable responsibility for their actions trump that. As does doing something to take the sting off the relay destruction.