1256 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

I get it, Ieldra. Open-mindedness and all that. But I'll say it again. Not all ideas are precious butterflies. Synthesis doesn't deserve to be treated with kid gloves. Sorry. I'm going to keep on hating it with the heat of a trillion suns and bashing it with the biggest cudgel I can find.

[o Ventus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@clennon8, o Ventus et al:
Note that I understand the reasoning for Destroy - the "ruthless calculus of war" and the judgment that letting the Reapers go is A Bad Thing and that it's best for the galaxy if they're just gone. It's not my perspective, but I understand. What I'd like others to accept is that it's quite possible to reasonably adopt a different perspective, that this different perspective is supported by in-game evidence and that that perspective doesn't make you evil, fascist or any such thing.

You don't see me trolling the forums with "people who choose Destroy are all evil genocidal monsters" or "I hate this decision with the power of a trillion suns". I could, you know. Except that I don't look at things like that. Results matter, and if you think that it's best for the galaxy if the Reapers are dead, and that this is important enough to take on the responsibility for killing them all, whatever that may mean, that's that. I may argue against it, but I won't condemn anyone for it. I'm not expecting anyone to agree that Synthesis is the best decision, but I damn well expect people to accept that other perspectives than theirs are possible and reasonable. We won't get anywhere with these debates if people insist on "my morality is superior and everything else is evil". In the real word, such an attitude lead people to fly airplanes into skyscrapers.

Why did you mention me here? I have never argued against someone else's subjective interpretation. That's retarded, not to mention impossible.

But I am going to huff and puff at the arrogance of people who say to me "Look, this is what happens..." in defense of Synthesis. Hell, any of the endings.

[Ieldra]

@o Ventus:
I just wanted to clarify that the fact that I support Synthesis doesn't mean I don't see any merit in the other decisions. In the end, I'd rather discuss what each decision may actually result in without prejudice, how to get out of the dark age and how to wrest something emotionally satisfying from this piece of "storytelling suicide" (California Literary Review) Bioware has delivered to us.

The perspective I approach this with is "The ME trilogy is a heroic story. Heroic stories may have tragic ends where the hero dies and the world is fubared, but they don't have outright evil ends". Thus, even though it is possible to interpret Synthesis in a way that everyone ends up mind-controlled by synthetic symbionts in order to prevent the creation of new synthetics, this is against the spirit of the story. There are similar issues with some Control scenarios. This in my view rather obvious principle gets obfuscated by the fact that Bioware has delivered a really bad ending, so we end up confused about which kind of story this is. I prefer to stick to what the rest of the trilogy is like. As much as Bioware lets me, anyway.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 09:16 .

[Noxis6]

What I'm wondering is in case of the green ending what is stopping the new cyborg master race or whatever you paint the post synthesis species to be from wipping out the reapers anyway since they kind of invaded the galaxy killing billions or is everyones brain reprogramed to love them now.

All in all my personal problem with the green ending is simply it leaves the reapers as a wild card with no guarantees that they would remain peaceful or rebuilt the relays while at least red guarantees they are stopped permanently
As for post synthesis I dont see this as the perfect new world it just solves some problems and gives you a ton of potential new ones depending on how you pitcure it if you go with the nanobot aproach you would just need someone to figure out how to affect another persons and the way is pretty much open for a whole new bunch of nightmares
Also it begs the question is "empowering" already potentialy dangerous races like the yagh really that wise,who is to say that will work out great

In the end though what I'm wondering the most is how are they going to work with all three colors in the future blue and red are somewhat easy the reapers are gone either way the universe is more or less the same while green presents an fundamental change to the existing universe

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
It was my "standard list of things Synthesis doesn't do", not restricted to the things you said.

As for your points:
(2) The thing is, the divide between organics and synthetics does not exist on the biochemical level. There can be no such thing as a "hybrid DNA-analogue" because the difference lies in design, not in biochemistry. I could build a synthetic from organic carbon compounds and it would still be a synthetic. I could grow an organic with silicon-based chemistry and it would still be organic. That's why I see no way out of interpreting the "new....DNA" as a metaphor if you want to create a coherent picture. If you disagree, please tell me how "hybrid DNA" makes any sense.

(1) There is no final evolution of life. Life changes until it dies, unless you take deliberate and ongoing steps to prevent it. There is change, yes, but there is no need for contents of thought processes to be affected. All that's needed is the integration of synthetic aspects, in whichever form they may come. You may think faster, but your thoughts are still your own, your memories are still your own, your continuity of identity is retained. You'd think those who designed the Synthesis wouldn't make any unneeded changes.
Yes, I am making that change without asking anyone. But that does not destroy anyone's ability to make choices. They just don't get to make a choice about this one thing. See jtav's OP about why that's still preferable to the alternatives in some people's view. I understand if you don't agree with jtav and me here, that's clearly the most problematic aspect of the decision, but I find it justifiable in the context of the situation we find ourselves in at the end of ME3.

Edit:
You could like the change to building new interfaces into a computer. The pre-Synthesis functionality (biochemistry) stays the same, but there are new proteins to interface with the synthetic aspects.

Of course your list did not address what I wrote, because it clearly gave away that you didn't read it.

Note: In the following "new framework" indicates your idea of how that is supposed to be implemented, including your above mentioned proteins, biochemistry and "synthetic aspects", with or without DNA. Whatever floats your boat. I will also limit myself to the effects on organics.

About #2: Whether or not the new form uses DNA is irrelevant. It's a technical detail. What is relevant is the change from DNA into its successor, the new framework.

In #1 you can claim that there is no final evolution of life, but Star Child disagrees with you. He tells that synthesis will provide organic life with just that. It is clearly the intention of Star Child's phrase to indicate that synthesis results in an improved being. It obviously is not the intention of synthesis to climb down the evolution ladder.

In #1 you also claim that the continuity of identity is guaranteed. It would be rather problematic if it wasn't, right? I do mention racial identity, though. That will be changed. DNA defines the looks and functionality of an organism. In your theory the resulting organism does rely on a new framework which, let's hope, at least preserves the original looks and functionality. Life is magically preserved during the transformation. That's fine, but what used to define that organism ceased to exist and the new mechanism is defined by something else, that new framework. Clearly the organism has changed to make that happen, even if it is partially based on that DNA. No matter how small the effective resulting changes are, nobody has asked for those changes. Shepard forces all who are involved to make that transition, whether they like it or not. That means that it violates the right of-self determination and this of course has serious implications for free will.

You probably won't like the following, but is the core of what I believe in. In #1 you finally acknowledge that it is you who forces this transformation without the consent of those involved. Yet, a second later, you wave that serious violation of the right of self-determination away with the attitude that is clearly elitist. It is not only about "that one choice". That single choice determines the future of all races involved. It makes the Lebensborn project sound like a dress rehearsal. There is absolutely no reason I can find to justify such a dictatorial decision.

In #1 you mention that your thoughts are always your own. Maybe. But consider this: (Begin thought experiment.) A cow thinks like a cow. A cow magically given the brain of Shepard, doesn't think like a cow. It thinks like Shepard. A limited brain which is transformed into an improved one clearly does not have its earlier limitation. (End thought experiment.) In similar fashion, no matter how small or how large the physiology change is, it must have an impact if synthesis is to succeed at all. It can be as small as only knowing about the change. Does it effect the average age of the species? Does it cure diseases or not? Does it allow new ones? Does it make brains think slower, faster or more effectively? Does the new tech need some special maintenance? Need doctors to be retrained? Do we need to adapt the medical and bio-technical industry? What functions does the new tech have and how can these be activated? What are its advantages and disadvantages? How do all the changes in the body effect their mental state? Can one feel them? Will the change shock them? Infuriate them? Make them lose their soul? Have impact on their religious views? And so on. Your action may have changed their way of thinking, by just invoking synthesis.

I am sure you will deny all the above questions being asked, because your new framework waves all that away. The DNA does not change, no doctor ever finds out about the new proteins (who mysteriously require no DNA change and come out of nowhere), nor does anyone find the new implants (or other tech required), and the change in looks is just to satisfy the gamer in the cinematics. The flu is worse.

The Catalyst is your savior, he is truly sorry that you need to die, and the reapers excuse them selves with "Oops. Sorry about those cyclical genocides. We really didn't mean to starve your fleet, either."

If Shepard would be allowed to live them I am sure he or she would be delighted by all that news.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 15 juin 2012 - 11:24 .

[N7 Banshee Bait]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You make a choice based upon an existential fear coupled with a hubris so large it transcends anything ever done by any being ever.

OK, seriously, WHO TALKS LIKE THAT???  Nobody talks like that!  

[N7 Banshee Bait]

You guys are NEVER going to agree on anything .That's why they need to make the extended cut, to clarify everything. They need to say this, this & this happened. Just to shut all of you up.

41 pages? Really? And what have you accomplished? Do you know what a "STUPID WASTE OF TIME" is? This thread!  You all should be ashamed of yourselves for making this thread drag on & go absolutely nowhere for 41 pages. 

Modifié par Steelgrave, 15 juin 2012 - 12:05 .

[InHarmsWay]

Steelgrave wrote...

You guys are NEVER going to agree on anything .That's why they need to make the extended cut, to clarify everything. They need to say this, this & this happened. Just to shut all of you up.

41 pages? Really? And what have you accomplished? Do you know what a "STUPID WASTE OF TIME" is? This thread!  You all should be ashamed of yourselves for making this thread drag on & go absolutely nowhere for 41 pages. 

It's called debating and philosophy.

While many here have difficulty on agreeing to what are the implications of the ending, to call crititquing a story a waste of time is a hugely asinine comment.

Should we no longer argue the themes behind books like Lord of Flies or King Lear? Should art critics no longer debate about what was Mona Lisa is smiling about?

Seriously get off of your high horse. People will debate about stories and artwork. What makes your post even worse is that our debate is contained within one thread, yet you come here into our thread and start calling everyone here idiots for debating.

GTFO.

Modifié par InHarmsWay, 15 juin 2012 - 12:16 .

[Carlthestrange]

Wow, I had no idea that Synthesis could generate so much rage...

[InHarmsWay]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Wow, I had no idea that Synthesis could generate so much rage...

You can't debate without some semblance of emotion. Passion is required to help make your argument seem more convincing, but emotion and logic are both required in balance.

People are passionate about the implications of the endings and so this thread has become very emotional.

[Memnon]

I think synthesis is such a polarizing topic because a lot of people - myself included - view it as what you have been fighting AGAINST the entire series. One of the themes of the series was self determination - Shepard even talks about it in ME3. Even if the Reapers are right, and at some point organics will build synthetics that will rebel and take us over, we still want to be given that chance to make it work. Machines and algorithms cannot predict the future, and we don't want ours forced on us or written without our input. We want the liberty to make mistakes, learn from them and correct them.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Note: In the following "new framework" indicates your idea of how that is supposed to be implemented, including your above mentioned proteins, biochemistry and "synthetic aspects", with or without DNA. Whatever floats your boat. I will also limit myself to the effects on organics.

About #2: Whether or not the new form uses DNA is irrelevant. It's a technical detail. What is relevant is the change from DNA into its successor, the new framework.

I didn't just say that there can't be a hybrid DNA. I said that there can't be a hybrid DNA analogue. This is because if something works like DNA, the resulting life form is functionally organic. Thus, as I see it, there won't be a successor to DNA. Yet again, if you insist that this is actually happening, give me an example how that's possible if genes cannot have an attribute "organic", "synthetic" or "hybrid"? This contradiction is the reason why I'm proposing synthetic symbionts.

In #1 you can claim that there is no final evolution of life, but Star Child disagrees with you. He tells that synthesis will provide organic life with just that. It is clearly the intention of Star Child's phrase to indicate that synthesis results in an improved being. It obviously is not the intention of synthesis to climb down the evolution ladder.

There is no evolutionary ladder. That's HollywoodEvolution. Even less is there a "final" evolution since evolution has no end. Though, if all you wanted to say with this is that an improved being is indicated by the phrasing, as judged on some scale of *artificial* evolution, then I agree.

Shepard forces all who are involved to make that transition, whether they like it or not. That means that it violates the right of-self determination and this of course has serious implications for free will.

Yes, I am forcing that transition. No it doesn't have implications for free will. Or do you lose your free will because the police doesn't ask for your consent before bringing you in as a crime suspect?

As for species identity: species will be as distinctive as they were before. There's no reason to believe otherwise given the presentation.

You probably won't like the following, but is the core of what I believe in. In #1 you finally acknowledge that it is you who forces this transformation without the consent of those involved. Yet, a second later, you wave that serious violation of the right of self-determination away with the attitude that is clearly elitist. It is not only about "that one choice". That single choice determines the future of all races involved.

You forget the context: All decisions do that. If you choose Control, all organic life will live under the (hopefully benevolent) guardianship of an AI god. If you choose Destroy, all organic life will live under the continued threat of being made extinct by synthetics. To say nothing of the multiple genocide or mass enslavement involved. You are standing at the fulcrum of events and whatever you do, you are changing the future of life in the galaxy. It's not like you're sitting somewhere in an office at peacetime with a button "synthesize everyone" in front of you. You're at the cusp of a galaxy-wide conflict, and if you believe Synthesis will be for the best of the galaxy in the long-term, compared to the other decisions, then you need to seriously consider if it isn't worth the cost in "morality points". And that's the core of what *I* believe in.
Apart from that, jtav has covered the moral angle better than I can in her OP. Consider her quoted.

In similar fashion, no matter how small or how large the physiology change is, it must have an impact if synthesis is to succeed at all. It can be as small as only knowing about the change. Does it effect the average age of the species? Does it cure diseases or not? Does it allow new ones? Does it make brains think slower, faster or more effectively? Does the new tech need some special maintenance? Need doctors to be retrained? Do we need to adapt the medical and bio-technical industry? What functions does the new tech have and how can these be activated? What are its advantages and disadvantages? How do all the changes in the body effect their mental state? Can one feel them? Will the change shock them? Infuriate them? Make them lose their soul? Have impact on their religious views? And so on. Your action may have changed their way of thinking, by just invoking synthesis.

I can also change people''s way of thinking by talking to them, punching them in the gut, shooting at them and in countless other ways. This is a non-argument.

As for the details: I do not know, it's a jump into the unknown. But this is a damned story, and I suspend my disbelief and just accept that things aren't meant to go to hell if I choose Synthesis. Because you know, the story *does* indicate that. If you want details how things might be possible, I can provide them, but that's not what you ask. You are asking I should cease to suspend my disbelief. Don't you see that this would ruin any story? Any one? You can't reasonably expect the exposition dump the size of a skyscraper we'd need to answer all these questions. I could answer them for my scenario, but that's because I have lots of experience with worldbuilding. You're overthinking this way too much. Why? Well, because you want to undermine Synthesis as a viable decision. Believe me, you would never do this with an option you liked.

I am sure you will deny all the above questions being asked, because your new framework waves all that away. The DNA does not change, no doctor ever finds out about the new proteins (who mysteriously require no DNA change and come out of nowhere), nor does anyone find the new implants (or other tech required), and the change in looks is just to satisfy the gamer in the cinematics. The flu is worse.

Eh...what? Of course they will be found and researched. It would be stupid to assume otherwise. But yeah, otherwise I find it rather likely that the flu is worse. Synthesis is supposed to be a seamless process, right? Note that that doesn't mean there won't be some psychological fallout here and there. As I said, I'm not painting a sunshine-and-rainbows ending, only one where the good outweighs the bad.

And I better forget the tone in some of what you posted. I would prefer it if this attempt at a debate stayed polite.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 12:33 .

[Carlthestrange]

InHarmsWay wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

Wow, I had no idea that Synthesis could generate so much rage...

You can't debate without some semblance of emotion. Passion is required to help make your argument seem more convincing, but emotion and logic are both required in balance.

People are passionate about the implications of the endings and so this thread has become very emotional.

Sadly i'm seeing a lot of them disregard their logic in place of their passion. Which is how you lose an argument.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

There is no evolutionary ladder. That's HollywoodEvolution. Even less is there a "final" evolution since evolution has no end. Though, if all you wanted to say with this is that an improved being is indicated by the phrasing, as judged on some scale of *artificial* evolution, then I agree.

So, in your opinion the Catalyst is either lying or stupid, and should not be listened to?

[jtav]

Or it's a metaphor. A sloppy, poorly done metaphor but still a metaphor. I don't have to take it literally any more than I take the Biblical creation story literally. When literalism leads to something demonstrably false, figurative language is likely.

[Memnon]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

There is no evolutionary ladder. That's HollywoodEvolution. Even less is there a "final" evolution since evolution has no end. Though, if all you wanted to say with this is that an improved being is indicated by the phrasing, as judged on some scale of *artificial* evolution, then I agree.

So, in your opinion the Catalyst is either lying or stupid, and should not be listened to?

FWIW this actually is my opinion ...

[Erield]

Carlthestrange wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

Wow, I had no idea that Synthesis could generate so much rage...

You can't debate without some semblance of emotion. Passion is required to help make your argument seem more convincing, but emotion and logic are both required in balance.

People are passionate about the implications of the endings and so this thread has become very emotional.

Sadly i'm seeing a lot of them disregard their logic in place of their passion. Which is how you lose an argument.

You mean...screaming loudly at the top of your lungs and ignoring everything anyone says that is counter to you isn't the way you win an argument?  How can we convince people of this?  They just won't stop shouting

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes. It's just like the Cybermen from Doctor Who. They are completely incapable of knowing what they are doing. And do you know what happens when they become self aware? They panic. They freak out.

The Doctor believes it is more ethical to Destroy them, and I agree with him. I would never allow a race to exist with that amount of self hatred, especially when I caused it.

Nor will I control them, and be the same as the Catalyst.

I'm not saying you're wrong to use the Who universe as your ME template, but I think Bioware were aiming to portray a slighly harder sci-fi universe. Whilst Mass Effect is still pretty soft Dr. Who makes it look like diamonds.

Still, the Reapers are not just like the Cybermen, they are entities who exist on a completely different scale and are created by completely different means. The Doctor would certainly pick up on the clues that suggest the Reapers hold some echoes or constructs of their originator races and he's all about redemption and stuff. Besides he's managed to make several robots become human by believing it really hard, I'm sure he would have had the Reapers and organics singing songs and making nice long before the cycle even began.

[jtav]

Shouting goes hand in hand with the castigation of those with a different ethical system.

[clennon8]

Jtav, ever the martyr.

I haven't really seen that much "shouting" going on. Probably the worst posts have come from the randoms who pop in, read the last two posts, and feel compelled to say "HITLER ENDORSES SYNTHESIS. I'M OUT!" or "ZOMG! YOU LOSERS ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS!?!?" before vanishing.

[The Night Mammoth]

Steelgrave wrote...

You guys are NEVER going to agree on anything .That's why they need to make the extended cut, to clarify everything. They need to say this, this & this happened. Just to shut all of you up.

41 pages? Really? And what have you accomplished? Do you know what a "STUPID WASTE OF TIME" is? This thread!  You all should be ashamed of yourselves for making this thread drag on & go absolutely nowhere for 41 pages. 

I'm so glad this has been ignored. 

Go away, if people want to argue over inconsequensial nothings then let them, there's a trick normal people have callled "not clicking on the f*cking thread". Not every thread or discussion has to be a think-tank deriving wonderful new ideas. 

[Ieldra]

@clennon8:
She's right, though. If people are unwilling to accept that other people's ethics might work a little different from theirs, and that this is OK, you lose all possibility for a good debate.

Shouting, yeah, not so much of that lately (heh.....I just had to write this after Night Mammoth quoted that post above). But false assumptions and Godwinizing galore.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 02:53 .

[clennon8]

Steelgrave: *runs across town, flings open door to a library* HEY! KEEP IT DOWN IN HERE! DON'T YOU KNOW THIS IS A LIBRARY!? JEEZ!" *slams door and runs back out*

Modifié par clennon8, 15 juin 2012 - 03:18 .

[clennon8]

@Ieldra: But, but, the ethics of it are the thing we have the biggest problem with. That is the meat of the debate, as far as most anti-Synths are concerned.

However, even we get bored. So, we have also tried to discuss the technical aspects of Synthesis, just for kicks and grins. Can't seem to get anywhere on that front, either.

[Zix13]

clennon8 wrote...

Starchild isn't "lying." How many times must that point be conceded? But he is stupid and crazy and wrong.

Reapers are undead killing machines. Those people who were liquified and fused into organic metal died a long, long time ago. Destroying the Reapers is a friggin act of mercy.

The problem isn't that it's lying. The problem is that any sane person would think that it is, since you're their trying to defeat it.... why would it help you?