1256 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

I'm the one asserting organic life is flawed. Ever watched someone die of a disease you couldn't even pronounce a few weeks before? Or to know that it's a matter of when, not if, you'll lose the ability to care for yourself? Synthetics don't get sick. So I'll take the gamble and pray it does something about that.

And it seems all life is affected. There's no more pure anything.

[jla0644]

Reorte wrote...

jtav wrote...

And that's great for you, Taboo. But other people have game universes that are different from yours. In mine, they are alive.

I do not--will not--view Synthesis or Control as terrible.

but Synthesis is simply undefensible by anyone who claims to have an ethical bone in their body.

Remember that you'd be imposing it on plenty of people here who've said that they don't want it. Who the hell are you to force that on us? The only way I could ever consider it the lesser evil would be if it was the only alternative to certain destruction by the Reapers. Fundamentally changing every species in the entire galaxy just to save one does not add up. Killing the geth isn't as bad as the most invasive imaginable to everyone (and the same would be true if it was humans, asari, krogan, quarians, anyone you care to think of).

Plus the fact that morality aside the very idea is so stupid, and that it doesn't do anything to change the one thing it's claimed that it will...

Get over yourself. And remember, it's a role playing game. Some people play it in a way that is the complete opposite of their own ethics/values/personality.

Also, when did anyone tell you they didn't want Synthesis? My Shepard never got the chance to ask anyone. And who are you to force Destroy or Control on everyone? You are forcing your decision on the galaxy, no matter what you choose.

And you don't know how invasive the change is. It could be a subtle as what Shepard has. And why couldn't the changes be positive things?  The point is, there are different ways of looking at it each choice. You don't get to dictate how other people want to interpret the endings.

Modifié par jla0644, 11 juin 2012 - 07:08 .

[antares_sublight]

jtav wrote...

I'm the one asserting organic life is flawed. Ever watched someone die of a disease you couldn't even pronounce a few weeks before? Or to know that it's a matter of when, not if, you'll lose the ability to care for yourself? Synthetics don't get sick. So I'll take the gamble and pray it does something about that.

And it seems all life is affected. There's no more pure anything.

Synthetics never have errors or hardware failures? Really?

Yes, all life currently existing is affected (including those countless species you've caused to go extinct). But what would stop new organic life from evolving? Or what would stop pure synthetics from being created?

All you've done is create another tier of life.

[Taboo]

Ethics matter. Stop Romanticizing content in order to justify it's inclusion. The Dark Knight isn't very popular in certain places in Europe for example, because it too has fascist aesthetics.

That's what art is. You take it as a whole. Stop denying it's inclusion. Making the choice is the issue, the aftermath is yours to interpret, but the primarily set up is still the same.

[antares_sublight]

jla0644 wrote...
And you don't know how invasive the change is. It could be a subtle as what Shepard has.

That's one of the few things the Catalyst does explain. It's the most invasive change possible: the very "framework" of all life everywhere has been changed. Life forms are totally different now. That's not subtle.

[CrutchCricket]

jtav wrote...

Because I know an exposition dump when I see one and either I believe him about the consequences or I just pick a choice at random. So I chose the one that would lead to what I wanted. Pure organic life is flawed, infirm. Here's a hope of fixing it. It might not work, but I have to try.

So your enemy who was intent on wiping out everyone has just said some crap you don't believe and presented you with three options and he's not so subtley pointing you to his favorite. Your response is to... go along with it?

If you don't believe him about his founding premise, why should you believe him about any consequences? But you're right, if you don't believe any of it, how are you to decide?

Let's look at risk vs reward.

Destroy- you shoot a vent that somehow kills the threat you've been trying to face. Unless the holokid lies in which case... you die?

Control: You grab some electrodes and maybe take control of the Reapers and force them to back off. Unless he's lying again in which case you become indoctrinated like TIM.

Synthesis: You throw yourself down a freakin laser beam and rewrite all life in the galaxy to be supposedly better. Unless he's lying again in which case you potentially **** over all life in the galaxy and the Reapers are still out there...

So....
Destroy: Certain victory or minimal defeat (you die, but then again you're probably gonna die anyway).
Control: Possible victory or greater defeat ( you lose yourself and become a Reaper tool)
Synthesis: Possible victory? or complete defeat. (you fundamentally alter all life in a way that, for all you know, might make it easier for the Reapers, who are still around to digest. Or maybe you insta-husk everyone- they're a type of synthesis aren't they?)

So if we're skeptical about all of this, why not choose the option with smallest risk and greatest reward?

[Taboo]

Furthermore the Catalyst presents a fallacy when he speaks, nothing he says about the singularity has any basis in reality. Anything spoken by him is mere conjecture based upon millions of years of being in a loop.

He doesn't lie, but he doesn't present facts either.

The only thing that could possibly make it worse for Synthesis people is if it really does mix DNA.

[Rhazeal]

jla0644 wrote...

Rhazeal wrote...

Forcefully changing a single unwilling or unaware entity to conform to your subjective definition of perfection is reprehensible. I'm not certain the vocabulary exists to accurately descrbe such an action committed against an enitre galaxy.

Where did this idea of "pefection" come into it? Or the idea that once Synthesis occurs, people will no longer be who they were before, that their entire personality and way of thinking will completely change?

The games gives very little to work on, which is the main reason I don't choose Synthsis. There certainly isn't anything there to suggest the radical changes people seem to think occurs. It's all speculation. Understand that the people who prefer Synthesis are not looking at it in the horrifying way you are.

The first time I played through it, I took Synthesis to simply be a way to solve the problem the Reapers were created to solve. We don't know anything beyond that. Will people even notice that they are part synthetic? Will the changes be like what Shepard has? Will it change the way they think or act? Will it make everyone the same? Will it change everything about society and government and culture? We don't know. You can think that all that happens, but it's your own opinion. It's possible to think that it does none of that, and no, there is no harm or danger in that.

"Synthesis is the final evolution of life." Synthesis is the catalysts subjective definition of perfection.

It is obvious to any historian that synthesis would change very little, if anything at all. Any time resources are needed by two groups they will have to vie for them. But thats irrelevant to the debate on whether synthesis is or isn't morally reprehensible.

Modifié par Rhazeal, 11 juin 2012 - 07:23 .

[MisterJB]

General User wrote...
For the entire series the Reapers have been the weapons of the enemy.  The minds supposedly inside a Reaper have endured trauma and abuse that we, quite literally, can't imagine.  To assume that "awakend" (ie post-Synthesis) Reapers would be friendly, or even sane, is ridiculous.

I'm not assuming anything. I am accepting the possibility that, like all other free willed life forms, Reapers have the potential for war and peace.

I'm not following.  The First Contact War ended in a negotiated settlement.  Both sides sat down across a table and hashed out an agreement they both could live with.  Nothing of the sort occured in Synthesis.  How could it?  Until the Synthesis actually takes place the Reapers are all under the Catalysts control.

FCW ended in negotiation because both sides understood they would stand to lose more in a war than to win. That might not always be true in which case, war will return.
Why is this sort of thinking not applicable to relations between organics and Reapers?

Rubbish.  I've yet to see a single supposed "benefit" of Synthesis that was much more than a mere shortcut to doing something we were doing already.

Unlike what the krogan would have you believe, technological shortcuts don't always lead to disaster. Humanity did just fine after finding the archives on Mars.
And these advancements would always be limited by resources which would make them available only to those who can afford it. Not so with Synthesis.

Modifié par MisterJB, 11 juin 2012 - 07:18 .

[Sisterofshane]

antares_sublight wrote...

All you've done is create another tier of life.

To address this one sentence, many believe that this is a form of life that is already on it's way to being created.

The issue I take with Synthesis is forcefully upgrading everything without them being culturally and mentally ready.  The game has shown us many times what happens with this (EDI and the geth gaining sentience, the Krogan uplifting), and it will be no different for us.  Can you imagine a synthesized Yahg?  How about an entire planet of them?  Because that's just what you did when jumped into that beam.  There WILL be consequences to this.

The fact of the matter is that unless Synthesis also forces some sort of uniformity amongst the galaxy (either in mind set or physical ability), that there will still be disparity between different synthesized individuals.  Old conflicts will still be there (including the Reapers vs. everything else), and certain species will still have advantages over others.  Therefore, a synthesized galaxy is going to take much, much longer to return to a state of "normalcy" than a galaxy in which you have just chosen to destroy the Reapers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

jtav wrote...

My Shep has been brought to the final room. All choices are open to me. I can live in Destroy. Not only that, I have a LI on Earth. And yet, I chose Synthesis. Why? I could have my happy ending. All I have to do is blow the Reapers to hell. It would be so simple…

Except it's not just about me. I've been handed an earthshaking revelation about my enemy. The Reapers are controlled by the Catalyst. Not led. Controlled. They have, at worst, diminished capacity for their actions, and may be de facto indoctrinated themselves. They are victims. Killing them isn't justice. It's vengeance. A couple of major choices excepted, I'm a Paragon. I've tried throughout the series to steer people away from vengeance and offer redemption where I could. If I can't offer my enemy mercy, then I become a hypocrite. No matter what I do, the Catalyst is gone, either because I replaced him or because the Citadel blew up. The one responsible for the mass genocides has been dealt with. And the Reapers leave. They are free to do as they please. The geth who are now well and truly alive will live on and hopefully there will be true peace.

And what about the life that I fought so hard to save? I just altered them in a fundamental way. How dare I? Well, first, humility and seeking consensus really isn't an option here. All choices thrust an enormous change on life in the galaxy. The death of every single synthetic who has chosen to fight by my side. Usurping the power of the closest thing the universe has to a god. I have to choose and choose alone. I'm a Paragon, so killing synthetics when there are other options on the table is right out. Which means the Reapers are still going to be around. Free or under my control, they're still vastly more advanced than organics or the newly-ascended geth. Not only that, whenever I choose it is going to destroy the relay network (except maybe Control-- evidence is contradictory here). Things are going to be very rough for a long time. I choose the option that I believe will give life the best chance going forward. This whole partly-synthetic deal has worked out fairly well for Shepard, with enhanced strength and resistance to poison, and he seems to be the template for going forward. And if I the player go back to the leaked script, the fact that the Catalyst is trying to stop the technological singularity is made explicit. So Synthesis must make it possible for organics to keep up with synthetics. Since the Reapers are still out there, I consider that a very bad thing. And just in case someone decides to create something else along similar lines,organics can contend with them as equals. No more techno-gods cowing us and using technology we can't hope to understand. And we didn't do it by killing them. We took their power for our own and now they must recognize us as equals.

"I did not ask for this." -- and this must be spoken in the voice of Adam Jensen.

The races who were taken and put inside the reapers did not ask for this either. The Catalyst forced it on them, then indoctrinated them into its beliefs so that they would do the same to others. Whatever races they were died a long time ago. So what was it that is aware? Was it that one you spoke to on Rannoch? "Shepard. Harbinger speaks of you. Blah blah blah. We represent order. You represent chaos. Every organic race must be harvested to bring order to the chaos. Blah blah blah." Is that all that's left of them? Destroying them is giving them peace. And if you want to look at it as vengeance, go right ahead. I make no apology. It is vengeance for the quintillions of people killed by them over the billions of years, and there were quintillions killed and made into abominations, not just "processed and harvested" as you can romantically look at it.

BTW, Shepard is not the embodiment of synthesis like the Catalyst would have you believe. Shepard has had synthetic augmentation that allowed her/him to become alive again. Since the reanimation, Shepard has had synthetic augmentation done voluntarily. This is transhumanism, not synthesis.

You as a Paragon allowed yourself to become corrupted by your own self-loathing. Your guilt which all paragons have. You have taken away one thing that makes us who we are. Freedom of choice. Individuality. Yes, it's chaos. Yes, it could bring about the technological singularity, but that is not a certainty. Nothing is a certainty. Taking freedom of choice and individuality away from people is a crime, and you did it not for just this one generation, but for the rest of the life of the galaxy. Even if you were to have had to sacrifice the Geth, you stole that away from the rest of us. This is not a compromise. You chose the evolutionary path of the galaxy for us, and in doing so you became exactly what you were fighting against. You represent order. We represent chaos. You brought order to the chaos.

I did not ask for this.

[Rhazeal]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Furthermore the Catalyst presents a fallacy when he speaks, nothing he says about the singularity has any basis in reality. Anything spoken by him is mere conjecture based upon millions of years of being in a loop.

He doesn't lie, but he doesn't present facts either.

The only thing that could possibly make it worse for Synthesis people is if it really does mix DNA.

Exactly. Synthesis doesnt even make logical sense when considering the Catalysts stated goal of preserving organic life.

Synthesis eradicates pure organic life more comprehensively than any reaper force, galaxy wide super skynet or tech singularity ever could.

[Reorte]

jla0644 wrote...

Get over yourself. And remember, it's a role playing game. Some people play it in a way that is the complete opposite of their own ethics/values/personality.

Fine, if you want to play it as the type of character who likes doing unpleasant things then that's fine but as far as I can see I haven't seen anyone say "I chose synthesis because I'm an unpleasant renegade in-game" (which is fair enough) but because they actually think that it would be a good thing to do. So don't come out with childish nonsense like "get over yourself."

Also, when did anyone tell you they didn't want Synthesis? My Shepard never got the chance to ask anyone. And who are you to force Destroy or Control on everyone? You are forcing your decision on the galaxy, no matter what you choose.

Your defence against doing something that personally affects everyone's bodies is that they never had a chance to tell you that they didn't want it? That's incredible. And in Control and Destroy I'm not doing anything at all to most people.

And you don't know how invasive the change is. It could be a subtle as what Shepard has. And why couldn't the changes be positive things?  The point is, there are different ways of looking at it each choice. You don't get to dictate how other people want to interpret the endings.

So what if they are subtle and beneficial? It's still revolting to dump it on everyone without consent (and they can't be that subtle if the Catalyst is to be believed otherwise they would do nothing about his so-called problem). I do get to disagree with interpretations that don't stack up thank you very much. If you're going to hide behind something that boils down to "don't argue" then don't say anything in the first place.

[clennon8]

Every time I see someone trying to justify Synthesis, I want to pull my hair out and scream in frustration. It is just WRONG. It is about the wrongest, most misguided thing I can imagine a good person doing.

*sigh* I don't feel like arguing in circles today.

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...
I'm not assuming anything. I am accepting the possibility that, like all other free willed life forms, Reapers have the potential for war and peace.

You're assuming the Reapers are fully sapient individuals who are just being repressed by the Catalyst. 

FCW ended in negotiation because both sides understood they would stand to lose more in a war than to win. That might not always be true in which case, war will return.
Why is this sort of thinking not applicable to relations between organics and Reapers?

Trust? 
Reapers not wanting to negotiate?

Unlike what the krogan would have you believe, technological shortcuts don't always lead to disaster. Humanity did just fine after finding the archives on Mars.

Well 1. it wasn't that massive a shortcut, and 2. it wasn't the uplifting of an entire culture to an entirely new technological tier. 

[akenn312]

MisterJB wrote...

akenn312 wrote...
Oh my. It's not anyones place to do something they think that is good for everyone else without those people's consent or knowledge. That would be totally unethical, no extremely unethical. Romanticizing this as a type of simple upgrade is...shocking.

The example of breast implant is just silly. Breast implants are completely cosmetic and beauty is subjective.
However, a father will vaccine his child despite the child's complaints that the needle is scary, won't he? It is for the child's own good.

You cannot relate a physical change on the genetic level to a simple vaccination of a child. That is romanticizing this unethical concept and synthesis is unethical. The point of my example was not about cosmetics it was about ethics, a procedure cannot be forced on someone, cosmetic or medical without their knowledge or consent. That is playing god and it's unethical to do so even in a RPG game.

Your example of a father consenting to a child being vaccinated is a nice try but synthesis is much worse than that. First the father is informed on what the vaccine will do to the child. Second the child will not be changed genetically by the vaccine forever. Also the child knows maybe not what the vaccine does but that he is going to get one.

No matter how you try to clean this synthesis concept up so you can have your genetically perfect cyborg master race. It still is unethical to force it on the galaxy. People can never return to being what they were if they don't like the change. It's forcing them into something you want them to be. What ever happened to people being okay just the ay they are?

Anyone remember that concept? Having differences being a good thing?

[Taboo]

akenn312 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

akenn312 wrote...
Oh my. It's not anyones place to do something they think that is good for everyone else without those people's consent or knowledge. That would be totally unethical, no extremely unethical. Romanticizing this as a type of simple upgrade is...shocking.

The example of breast implant is just silly. Breast implants are completely cosmetic and beauty is subjective.
However, a father will vaccine his child despite the child's complaints that the needle is scary, won't he? It is for the child's own good.

You cannot relate a physical change on the genetic level to a simple vaccination of a child. That is romanticizing this unethical concept and synthesis is unethical. The point of my example was not about cosmetics it was about ethics, a procedure cannot be forced on someone, cosmetic or medical without their knowledge or consent. That is playing god and it's unethical to do so even in a RPG game.

Your example of a father consenting to a child being vaccinated is a nice try but synthesis is much worse than that. First the father is informed on what the vaccine will do to the child. Second the child will not be changed genetically by the vaccine forever. Also the child knows maybe not what the vaccine does but that he is going to get one.

No matter how you try to clean this synthesis concept up so you can have your genetically perfect cyborg master race. It still is unethical to force it on the galaxy. People can never return to being what they were if they don't like the change. It's forcing them into something you want them to be. What ever happened to people being okay just the ay they are?

Anyone remember that concept? Having differences being a good thing?

Having Obsessive Compulsive Disorder shapes my personality, I wouldn't be the same without it. I'm a very flawed human being and I like it that way.

The effect is galaxy wide. Strawmanning the argument by comparing it to a vaccine is indeed absurd, as the effect are FAR different.

Worse yet, you assume no responsibility in Synthesis. You label it as a sacrifice, but in doing so refuse responsibility for it as well, which makes the choice even worse. I would think a severed piece of flesh would be enough to enact the change, or a limb. It's a cop out.

[jla0644]

antares_sublight wrote...

jla0644 wrote...
And you don't know how invasive the change is. It could be a subtle as what Shepard has.

That's one of the few things the Catalyst does explain. It's the most invasive change possible: the very "framework" of all life everywhere has been changed. Life forms are totally different now. That's not subtle.

So there is no longer anything remaining of what they were? Yes, merging organic and synthetic creates a new framework, but why are you assuming that is going to change everything about who a person once was? You have no idea what any of it means. I doubt Bioware does either. It's a stupid solution to a stupid problem.

The whole thing is dumb, and that should be more than enough reason to not like Synthesis. I dont' have to get on my soap box and become a self-righteous Defender of Freedom and Choice to not like Synthesis.

[antares_sublight]

jla0644 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

jla0644 wrote...
And you don't know how invasive the change is. It could be a subtle as what Shepard has.

That's one of the few things the Catalyst does explain. It's the most invasive change possible: the very "framework" of all life everywhere has been changed. Life forms are totally different now. That's not subtle.

So there is no longer anything remaining of what they were? Yes, merging organic and synthetic creates a new framework, but why are you assuming that is going to change everything about who a person once was? You have no idea what any of it means. I doubt Bioware does either. It's a stupid solution to a stupid problem.

The whole thing is dumb, and that should be more than enough reason to not like Synthesis. I dont' have to get on my soap box and become a self-righteous Defender of Freedom and Choice to not like Synthesis.

Yes, it's a stupid non-solution to a stupid non-problem. But saying it's not a far-reaching effect when it's described as a fundamental change of the very definition of life is something a BioWare employee would say.

[MisterJB]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
You're assuming the Reapers are fully sapient individuals who are just being repressed by the Catalyst.

And I elaborated on why I believe this previously.

Trust? 
Reapers not wanting to negotiate?

And how is that any different from already existing relations between different nations?

Well 1. it wasn't that massive a shortcut, and 2. it wasn't the uplifting of an entire culture to an entirely new technological tier. 

Yes, it was. To both.

[Samtheman63]

so you make saren shoot himself cause he wanted sysnthesis, then go and do it yourself?

silly shepard

[MisterJB]

akenn312 wrote...
You cannot relate a physical change on the genetic level to a simple vaccination of a child. That is romanticizing this unethical concept and synthesis is unethical. The point of my example was not about cosmetics it was about ethics, a procedure cannot be forced on someone, cosmetic or medical without their knowledge or consent. That is playing god and it's unethical to do so even in a RPG game.

Your example of a father consenting to a child being vaccinated is a nice try but synthesis is much worse than that. First the father is informed on what the vaccine will do to the child. Second the child will not be changed genetically by the vaccine forever. Also the child knows maybe not what the vaccine does but that he is going to get one.

No matter how you try to clean this synthesis concept up so you can have your genetically perfect cyborg master race. It still is unethical to force it on the galaxy. People can never return to being what they were if they don't like the change. It's forcing them into something you want them to be. What ever happened to people being okay just the ay they are?

Anyone remember that concept? Having differences being a good thing?

The principle is exactly the same. The only difference is the scale of it.
Saying that it is unhetical is not a valid argument to me. If a procedure forced on a person will save or improve that person's life, then it was the right decision. Diversity is good and it will still exist after Synthesis. However, the only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

[General User]

MisterJB wrote...
I'm not assuming anything. I am accepting the possibility that, like all other free willed life forms, Reapers have the potential for war and peace.

Poor choice of words on my part.  Apologies.   My point was rather that given what we do know about the Reapers, there is simply no way to justify turning that sort of threat loose on the galaxy.

Now, I'm sure it hadn't escaped your notice that the Reapers aren't free-willed life forms!   They weren't designed to be.  Whether or not they even have the capacity to become such is a huge, and largely baseless, leap of faith all by itself.

FCW ended in negotiation because both sides understood they would stand to lose more in a war than to win. That might not always be true in which case, war will return.
Why is this sort of thinking not applicable to relations between organics and Reapers?

Because before Synthesis the Reapers are under the Catalyst's control, they can't negotiate or agree to anything.  After Synthesis, other than at Earth and a handful of other places, there's nothing to stop them from doing as they please.

Unlike what the krogan would have you believe, technological shortcuts don't always lead to disaster. Humanity did just fine after finding the archives on Mars.

It's not that shortcuts lead to disaster.  It's that they simply aren't that important in the first place.  Synthesis represents taking a enormous risk all for a relatively tiny potential reward.

And these advancements would always be limited by resources which would make them available only to those who can afford it. Not so with Synthesis.

In human societies (ALL human societies) the elites will have access to goods and services that others do not.  That's just how humans work.

Modifié par General User, 11 juin 2012 - 08:13 .

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

And I elaborated on why I believe this previously.

Yes, you're a ssuming something.

And how is that any different from already existing relations between different nations?

Other nations not having the capability to or inclination to kill everyone on the planet?

Yes, it was. To both.

It wasn't, really. 

You might be able to make a reasoned case for the first, but not for the second. That's the difference between this situation and the Krogan. The entire species was collectively uplifted from a low technology state, pre-industrial, to space-faring, their entire culture was changed in a very short period of time. On Earth, different nations remained largely the same. 

[jla0644]

Reorte wrote...

Fine, if you want to play it as the type of character who likes doing
unpleasant things then that's fine but as far as I can see I haven't
seen anyone say "I chose synthesis because I'm an unpleasant renegade
in-game" (which is fair enough) but because they actually think that it
would be a good thing to do. So don't come out with childish nonsense
like "get over yourself."

Your defence against doing something that personally affects
everyone's bodies is that they never had a chance to tell you that they
didn't want it? That's incredible. And in Control and Destroy I'm not
doing anything at all to most people.

So what if they are subtle and beneficial? It's still revolting to
dump it on everyone without consent (and they can't be that subtle if
the Catalyst is to be believed otherwise they would do nothing about his
so-called problem). I do get to disagree with interpretations that
don't stack up thank you very much. If you're going to hide behind
something that boils down to "don't argue" then don't say anything in
the first place.

I imagine anyone who thinks Synthesis is a good option, does so in relation to the other choices. And it is possible to look at it in a positive way. You choose not to. So don't choose it. But don't assume that people who choose it look at it as negatively as you do, and pick it anyway. Maybe they think Synthesis, with or without consent, is preferrable to the other options, maybe they think it won't change anything about the way people live, or who they are, or that any change won't necessarily be a negative thing.

My comment was directed more at you saying that no one with any ethics could ever choose it. If that's what you think, you do need to get over yourself.

You said people told you they didn't want Synthesis. I was asking when and how that happened. It wasn't a defense of anything. And you dump your decision on the galaxy, no matter what you do. Did they tell you they wanted you to wipe out every synthetic being in the galaxy? Did they tell you they wanted you to become the new Reaper King/Queen? No. The game forces you to make this decision for the galaxy. One of them in no more ethical than the other. It's all a matter of what you think is the least horrible option.

What interpretations "don't stack up"? Whatever they are, I didn't suggest you couldn't disagree with them. I said you don't get to determine how other people interpret their ending. You may think Synthesis is revolting, that it turns everyone into a husk, whatever you want. If someone wants to take it in a positive direction, who are you to tell them they can't do that?