I agree a 100%.
Evolution is not a ladder, it doesn't have an end "goal"
The morality of synthesis is on par with a totalitarian government forcing everyone to get brain implants against their will or consent.
Great argument against Synthesis made by meronym on Tumblr
Débuté par
CroGamer002
, juin 29 2012 06:49
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 08:22
Bill Casey
-
- Members
- 7 609 messages
Rohirrim wrote...
To even imply that there is a general evolutionary "endpoint" is ridiculous. Somebody should have told Hudson & co. about the importance of genetic diversity or at the very least something about basic biology.
That supposed evolutionary endpoint goes all the way back to Mass Effect 1, with Sovereign...
"We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence"
A similar line is uttered by the Illusive Man in Mass Effect 3.
"Use their power. Harness their very essense to bring humanity to the apex of evolution."
Modifié par Bill Casey, 29 juin 2012 - 08:23 .
#53
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 08:28
CroGamer002
-
- Members
- 20 673 messages
Bill Casey wrote...
Rohirrim wrote...
To even imply that there is a general evolutionary "endpoint" is ridiculous. Somebody should have told Hudson & co. about the importance of genetic diversity or at the very least something about basic biology.
That supposed evolutionary endpoint goes all the way back to Mass Effect 1, with Sovereign...
"We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence"
A similar line is uttered by the Illusive Man in Mass Effect 3.
"Use their power. Harness their very essense to bring humanity to the apex of evolution."
Just because they claim that, it doesn't mean they're right.
Remember, they are lead by the Catalyst.
A flawed design of it's creators with flawed "solution".
#54
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 08:33
SimKoning
-
- Members
- 618 messages
Bill Casey wrote...
Rohirrim wrote...
To even imply that there is a general evolutionary "endpoint" is ridiculous. Somebody should have told Hudson & co. about the importance of genetic diversity or at the very least something about basic biology.
That supposed evolutionary endpoint goes all the way back to Mass Effect 1, with Sovereign...
"We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence"
A similar line is uttered by the Illusive Man in Mass Effect 3.
"Use their power. Harness their very essense to bring humanity to the apex of evolution."
Such crude misunderstandings of evolution are often used as justifications for racism by white supremacists and neo ****s. Anyone who knows anything about evolutionary biology will cringe when they hear or see misunderstandings like this.
Their other big mistake is the whole "humans are special because we are genetically diverse" crap. The belief that there are significant genetic differences between human "races" is ALSO used as a justification for racism. The reality is that we are practically clones of each other compared to others species; we are the result of a genetic bottleneck 70,000 years ago. The idea of human races are largely a social construct and little else.
Modifié par SimKoning, 29 juin 2012 - 08:35 .
#55
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 08:36
Xamufam
-
- Members
- 1 238 messages
SimKoning wrote...
Bill Casey wrote...
Rohirrim wrote...
To even imply that there is a general evolutionary "endpoint" is ridiculous. Somebody should have told Hudson & co. about the importance of genetic diversity or at the very least something about basic biology.
That supposed evolutionary endpoint goes all the way back to Mass Effect 1, with Sovereign...
"We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence"
A similar line is uttered by the Illusive Man in Mass Effect 3.
"Use their power. Harness their very essense to bring humanity to the apex of evolution."
Such crude misunderstandings of evolution are often used as justifications for racism by white supremacists and neo ****s. Anyone who knows anything about evolutionary biology will cringe when they hear or see misunderstandings like this.
Their other big mistake is the whole "humans are special because we are genetically diverse" crap. The belief that there are significant genetic differences between human "races" is ALSO used as a justification for racism. The reality is that we are practically clones of each other compared to others species; we are the result of a genetic bottleneck 70,000 years ago. The idea of human races are largely a social construct and little else.
mordin said All life is precious. Universe demands diversity.
#56
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 08:42
SimKoning
-
- Members
- 618 messages
Troxa wrote...
SimKoning wrote...
Bill Casey wrote...
Rohirrim wrote...
To even imply that there is a general evolutionary "endpoint" is ridiculous. Somebody should have told Hudson & co. about the importance of genetic diversity or at the very least something about basic biology.
That supposed evolutionary endpoint goes all the way back to Mass Effect 1, with Sovereign...
"We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence"
A similar line is uttered by the Illusive Man in Mass Effect 3.
"Use their power. Harness their very essense to bring humanity to the apex of evolution."
Such crude misunderstandings of evolution are often used as justifications for racism by white supremacists and neo ****s. Anyone who knows anything about evolutionary biology will cringe when they hear or see misunderstandings like this.
Their other big mistake is the whole "humans are special because we are genetically diverse" crap. The belief that there are significant genetic differences between human "races" is ALSO used as a justification for racism. The reality is that we are practically clones of each other compared to others species; we are the result of a genetic bottleneck 70,000 years ago. The idea of human races are largely a social construct and little else.
mordin said All life is precious. Universe demands diversity.
Right, but when you have someone that believes that evolution is a ladder to be climbed, that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and that some races are superior to others (higher on the ladder) then you often have yourself a racist.
#57
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 08:48
drinkurmilk
-
- Members
- 231 messages
This is a well thought out article. The writer curtails from the issue occasionally, and the meme stuff is shallow crap.
What I would argue, however, is Bioware understand perfectly well the ramifications of each choice, particularly Synthesis. Whether people choose to believe it or not, these endings were thought out far in advance and the fallout from each decision will have been mapped extensively. I find it unfortunate that we cannot see their vision in the level of detail they have provided in a notebook somewhere.
With that in mind, people ought to first realize that there is only so much that they can actually fit into the ending. No one argues against the original ending being too blunt and mind-boggingly 'out there' to not be better presented. The EC fixed a lot of this, and on the flip side of the coin, the interrogatory aspects of the starkid conversation now feel a bit too drawn out for my taste. It's so difficult to strike that balance between maintaining the pace of the game while giving the player enough information for meaningful decision-making. Bioware had little choice, though, people wanted the Catalyst's true nature explained, and rightly so.
I digress. The issue I am raising is that of time: obviously this is instrumental. They simply don't have the time to weigh up every possible positive/negative outcome for you. This is our job, as Commander Shepard. We have been weighted by significant - often difficult - decisions throughout each game. It just so happens that this outweighs every single one nearly tenfold. This decision-making process also reflects the nature of wartime decision-making. History tells us the best leaders are those who are swift, forthright in their actions. You don't really have the time to spare to ponder on every ramification. You can see Bioware are aiming at this by the simple fact you get 'critical mission failure' if you dilly-dally that little too much.
Looking at Synthesis specifically though, it is quite easily the most morally gray choice of the lot. Destroy, yes you wipe out synthetic life. This accounts for a portion of the Mass Effect universe, and it's a more readily-expendable one than, say, the genetic construct of the human race. Control is first-hand decision-making in every sense. This decision is entirely subject to the whim of Shepard, potentially a less far-reaching choice than Synthesis should Shepard act, as he/she says - a "watchful Guardian" whom oversees restoration and maintains peace and nothing more.
Synthesis, as this piece points out, is the complete neuroanatomical manipulation of every single living being in the galaxy. A big deal, to say the least. If you are Bioware, it's clear that your players will immediately recognize this and eyebrows will be raised. If it was left entirely unexpanded and was described as simply "Joining of Synthetic and Organic life - aka Green" then it is highly doubtful anyone would rush to choose it. The harm of this choice should strike you (the player) immediately. Everything that is mentioned in this article.
It makes sense for Synthesis to be explained, even championed by the Catalyst. If it didn't, who would? Without this advocation of Synthesis, it would be a no brainer to avoid it. It's painted as the tough choice that no one but Shepard can make - you're supposed to see the "greater good" as outweighing all the cons which are mentioned here. In theory, this transcendence is the 'best' choice because it can avoid future conflict. That doesn't make it right for Shepard to be the one to make that choice.
If we weren't at least given a glimpse of the good that can come of this choice, it would be completely disregarded. I stress the word can - nothing is certain from any of the outcomes.
What I would argue, however, is Bioware understand perfectly well the ramifications of each choice, particularly Synthesis. Whether people choose to believe it or not, these endings were thought out far in advance and the fallout from each decision will have been mapped extensively. I find it unfortunate that we cannot see their vision in the level of detail they have provided in a notebook somewhere.
With that in mind, people ought to first realize that there is only so much that they can actually fit into the ending. No one argues against the original ending being too blunt and mind-boggingly 'out there' to not be better presented. The EC fixed a lot of this, and on the flip side of the coin, the interrogatory aspects of the starkid conversation now feel a bit too drawn out for my taste. It's so difficult to strike that balance between maintaining the pace of the game while giving the player enough information for meaningful decision-making. Bioware had little choice, though, people wanted the Catalyst's true nature explained, and rightly so.
I digress. The issue I am raising is that of time: obviously this is instrumental. They simply don't have the time to weigh up every possible positive/negative outcome for you. This is our job, as Commander Shepard. We have been weighted by significant - often difficult - decisions throughout each game. It just so happens that this outweighs every single one nearly tenfold. This decision-making process also reflects the nature of wartime decision-making. History tells us the best leaders are those who are swift, forthright in their actions. You don't really have the time to spare to ponder on every ramification. You can see Bioware are aiming at this by the simple fact you get 'critical mission failure' if you dilly-dally that little too much.
Looking at Synthesis specifically though, it is quite easily the most morally gray choice of the lot. Destroy, yes you wipe out synthetic life. This accounts for a portion of the Mass Effect universe, and it's a more readily-expendable one than, say, the genetic construct of the human race. Control is first-hand decision-making in every sense. This decision is entirely subject to the whim of Shepard, potentially a less far-reaching choice than Synthesis should Shepard act, as he/she says - a "watchful Guardian" whom oversees restoration and maintains peace and nothing more.
Synthesis, as this piece points out, is the complete neuroanatomical manipulation of every single living being in the galaxy. A big deal, to say the least. If you are Bioware, it's clear that your players will immediately recognize this and eyebrows will be raised. If it was left entirely unexpanded and was described as simply "Joining of Synthetic and Organic life - aka Green" then it is highly doubtful anyone would rush to choose it. The harm of this choice should strike you (the player) immediately. Everything that is mentioned in this article.
It makes sense for Synthesis to be explained, even championed by the Catalyst. If it didn't, who would? Without this advocation of Synthesis, it would be a no brainer to avoid it. It's painted as the tough choice that no one but Shepard can make - you're supposed to see the "greater good" as outweighing all the cons which are mentioned here. In theory, this transcendence is the 'best' choice because it can avoid future conflict. That doesn't make it right for Shepard to be the one to make that choice.
If we weren't at least given a glimpse of the good that can come of this choice, it would be completely disregarded. I stress the word can - nothing is certain from any of the outcomes.
Modifié par chrisutd, 29 juin 2012 - 08:53 .
#58
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 08:54
Ultra Prism
-
- Members
- 1 456 messages
The point of any Sci Fi is put some fictional nonsensical elements ... my opinion initially for ME3 endings was hate now I love them. Sythesis is ideal solution but there is ethical or weird Green LED eyes lol. It had most hopeful and promising future...but in reality or by our beliefs, it never possible so it sounds stupid....after all mass effect 3 ending was based to reflect player morality ... the ending became quite too deep from previous choices making it difficult experience and yet emotionally satisfying
#59
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 09:29
OhoniX
-
- Members
- 508 messages
Wow, that was ridiculously angry. And wrong.
The reaosn that the Synthesis ending leads to a lack of conflict between Synthetics and organics is because it erases the distinction. As it says, Organics lacked the physical capability to keep up with Synthetics, and Synthetics lacked the true empathy (though they could simulate it) to understand Organics. The Synthesis merged the two, giving each the traits that they lacked. Does this ensure total peace for all time? No, I'm fairly sure conflict would arise between individuals just as it does now, but it would no longer be monolithic battles between man and machine.
Also, are the post-synth people "the same" as before? Not really, but neither are they brainwashed puppets. They just understand things differently than they did before. It'd be like if you had really bad eyesight and therefore insisted that you "hated art" because you couldn't understand the appeal. But then you're given glasses so that you can see the art perfectly well, and suddenly you realize that art is actually pretty cool. It's not that you were implanted with an unavoidable notion that "art is pretty cool," that's still your choice, it's just that you're given better perspective to choose from.
And yes, Shep made this major choice without consulting anyone, but she actually mentions this in the dialog, that it's a pretty heavy choice to make. And it is, but given the alternatives, it's hardly the most invasive. If she chooses Destroy, she's slaughtering an entire sentient species (two if you count the Reapers). If she chooses Control, she's enslaving an entire sentient species in a way that Synth never does, and putting everyone at risk of future conflict. If she chooses nothing, then everyone dies, which I think is worse than getting glowy green eyes and cyber-acne. No matter what Shep does at the end, she's making a choice with MASSIVE ramifications for everyone in the galaxy.
It would, it just might take more time than humanity has left. The basic idea is, "natural" evolution procedes until such time as sentience developes. At that point, "natural" evolution stalls, because instead of growing claws to open a coconut or whatever, a human would just make a tool to do it generations faster. At this point, "evolution" becomes one of intelligent creation rather than natural forces. As this new "intelligent evolution" progresses, people use machines to do work for them (like cars), to process their intelligence (like the Internet), and even start implanting it in their bodies to overcome shorrtcomings (like pacemakers). The eventual endpoint of this development would be a perfect man/machine hybrid, but it's the Catalyst's assertion that Apocalyptic war between pure synthetics and organics would result before this could happen, and thus organics would never be given the time to allow this hybridization to occur.
Also, keep in mind that while people are "happy" in the Synth ending, it's not like they are "lobotomized happy," they're just normal happy that things worked out for the best. They're still capable of expressing sadness that Shep's gone, for example. If you compare the three endings, people are no more "happy" in the Synth ending than in the other two, they are just healthier and better positioned to recover from the war since the Reapers are their friends now and nothing was blown up.
The reaosn that the Synthesis ending leads to a lack of conflict between Synthetics and organics is because it erases the distinction. As it says, Organics lacked the physical capability to keep up with Synthetics, and Synthetics lacked the true empathy (though they could simulate it) to understand Organics. The Synthesis merged the two, giving each the traits that they lacked. Does this ensure total peace for all time? No, I'm fairly sure conflict would arise between individuals just as it does now, but it would no longer be monolithic battles between man and machine.
Also, are the post-synth people "the same" as before? Not really, but neither are they brainwashed puppets. They just understand things differently than they did before. It'd be like if you had really bad eyesight and therefore insisted that you "hated art" because you couldn't understand the appeal. But then you're given glasses so that you can see the art perfectly well, and suddenly you realize that art is actually pretty cool. It's not that you were implanted with an unavoidable notion that "art is pretty cool," that's still your choice, it's just that you're given better perspective to choose from.
And yes, Shep made this major choice without consulting anyone, but she actually mentions this in the dialog, that it's a pretty heavy choice to make. And it is, but given the alternatives, it's hardly the most invasive. If she chooses Destroy, she's slaughtering an entire sentient species (two if you count the Reapers). If she chooses Control, she's enslaving an entire sentient species in a way that Synth never does, and putting everyone at risk of future conflict. If she chooses nothing, then everyone dies, which I think is worse than getting glowy green eyes and cyber-acne. No matter what Shep does at the end, she's making a choice with MASSIVE ramifications for everyone in the galaxy.
Just one thing. If synthesis was the natural form of evolution...
then why doesn't it happen by itself? Why does it have to be forced?
It would, it just might take more time than humanity has left. The basic idea is, "natural" evolution procedes until such time as sentience developes. At that point, "natural" evolution stalls, because instead of growing claws to open a coconut or whatever, a human would just make a tool to do it generations faster. At this point, "evolution" becomes one of intelligent creation rather than natural forces. As this new "intelligent evolution" progresses, people use machines to do work for them (like cars), to process their intelligence (like the Internet), and even start implanting it in their bodies to overcome shorrtcomings (like pacemakers). The eventual endpoint of this development would be a perfect man/machine hybrid, but it's the Catalyst's assertion that Apocalyptic war between pure synthetics and organics would result before this could happen, and thus organics would never be given the time to allow this hybridization to occur.
Also, keep in mind that while people are "happy" in the Synth ending, it's not like they are "lobotomized happy," they're just normal happy that things worked out for the best. They're still capable of expressing sadness that Shep's gone, for example. If you compare the three endings, people are no more "happy" in the Synth ending than in the other two, they are just healthier and better positioned to recover from the war since the Reapers are their friends now and nothing was blown up.
#60
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 09:32
Peranor
-
- Members
- 4 003 messages
Great article. I agree with it 100%
Synthesis is so revolting and insanely idiotic and nonsensical it completely breaks the suspension of disbelief for me.
It doesn't matter that it is an option that I can just skip if I don't like it.
The mere fact that it's there in the game makes we want to puke. It completely destroys the story. I know that it's there whether or not I pick it. What has been see can not be unseen.
Synthesis is so revolting and insanely idiotic and nonsensical it completely breaks the suspension of disbelief for me.
It doesn't matter that it is an option that I can just skip if I don't like it.
The mere fact that it's there in the game makes we want to puke. It completely destroys the story. I know that it's there whether or not I pick it. What has been see can not be unseen.
#61
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 09:43
Aramintai
-
- Members
- 638 messages
I like how the Starbrat says that previous forced attempts to synthesize organics failed and just after that tries to persuade Shepard to synthesize organics without their approval..by force.
He started to creep me out when he said that he made the organics, who created him, into a first Reaper by force, but with Synthesis speech he just confirmed what a retarded, stuck in his flawed logic, AI gone rogue monster he is.
Besides all the moral ambiguity, nonsensical prattle about the "final stage" of evolution and baseless premise of an Utopian future, Synthesis is just a poorly thought out, out of place Space Magic in it's purest form.
Oh, and about evolution - how does he even know that Synthesis is the final stage? Last I've heard there is no limit to evolution of organic life.
He started to creep me out when he said that he made the organics, who created him, into a first Reaper by force, but with Synthesis speech he just confirmed what a retarded, stuck in his flawed logic, AI gone rogue monster he is.
Besides all the moral ambiguity, nonsensical prattle about the "final stage" of evolution and baseless premise of an Utopian future, Synthesis is just a poorly thought out, out of place Space Magic in it's purest form.
Oh, and about evolution - how does he even know that Synthesis is the final stage? Last I've heard there is no limit to evolution of organic life.
#62
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 09:44
clennon8
-
- Members
- 2 163 messages
Pro-Synths are incapable of making arguments without utilizing false equivalence fallacies and/or strawmen.
Sacrificing a few million geth (who knew they might die) is not the same as biologically altering quadrillions of organisms (many of whom don't even know what the hell is going on) against their will. You can try to equate those things until the cows come home, and you will never succeed. The latter is far worse, by orders of magnitude.
Sacrificing a few million geth (who knew they might die) is not the same as biologically altering quadrillions of organisms (many of whom don't even know what the hell is going on) against their will. You can try to equate those things until the cows come home, and you will never succeed. The latter is far worse, by orders of magnitude.
Modifié par clennon8, 29 juin 2012 - 09:54 .
#63
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 10:01
Peranor
-
- Members
- 4 003 messages
clennon8 wrote...
Pro-Synths are incapable of making arguments without utilizing false equivalence fallacies and/or strawmen.
Sacrificing a few million geth (who knew they might die) is not the same as biologically altering quadrillions of organisms (many of whom don't even know what the hell is going on) against their will. You can try to equate those things until the cows come home, and you will never succeed. The latter is far worse, by orders of magnitude.
Agree
#64
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 10:03
Firmijn
-
- Members
- 468 messages
This guy managed to put in words what has been in my mind since the first time I saw synthesis.
I set out to do one thing, and one thing only. Destroy the reapers, at all cost.
Thats what I did, and im damn proud of it.
I set out to do one thing, and one thing only. Destroy the reapers, at all cost.
Thats what I did, and im damn proud of it.
#65
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 10:35
priestess of blood
-
- Members
- 240 messages
Earthborn_Shepard wrote...
By the way, I noticed something a few days ago, and I think it might be really interesting.
When you talk to EDI before the Cronos station mission, she talks about how she can't understand why some people would sacrifice themselves for other people they don't even know. At some point, Shepard turns around to her and asks "Are you saying that submission would be preferable to extinction?"
Does that ring a bell?
No?
Go back to ME1. One of Saren's lines on Virmire is "Is submission not preferable to extinction?"
Good point, In Synth, people are no longer getting reaped, that's true, but they are still being perfected by the their design, just that you've done it willingly this time rather then fighting.
control to me still seems like agreing with the illusive man which you only just killed minutes before.
Modifié par priestess of blood, 29 juin 2012 - 10:36 .
#66
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 10:43
Earthborn_Shepard
-
- Members
- 1 306 messages
priestess of blood wrote...
Earthborn_Shepard wrote...
By the way, I noticed something a few days ago, and I think it might be really interesting.
When you talk to EDI before the Cronos station mission, she talks about how she can't understand why some people would sacrifice themselves for other people they don't even know. At some point, Shepard turns around to her and asks "Are you saying that submission would be preferable to extinction?"
Does that ring a bell?
No?
Go back to ME1. One of Saren's lines on Virmire is "Is submission not preferable to extinction?"
Good point, In Synth, people are no longer getting reaped, that's true, but they are still being perfected by the their design, just that you've done it willingly this time rather then fighting.
control to me still seems like agreing with the illusive man which you only just killed minutes before.
I didn't intend for this to be an argument for Synthesis. Just found it funny how alike the lines are. Maybe just an easteregg. When Shep said it, she even sounded like she was reminded of Saren.
#67
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 10:51
OhoniX
-
- Members
- 508 messages
Sacrificing a few million geth (who knew they might die) is not the same as biologically altering quadrillions of organisms (many of whom don't even know what the hell is going on) against their will. You can try to equate those things until the cows come home, and you will never succeed. The latter is far worse, by orders of magnitude.
Anti-Synths are incapable of making arguments without utilizing false equivalence fallacies and/or strawmen.
Humanely altering all life in the galaxy in a way that improves their physical and mental capabilities is not the same as slaughtering an entire sentient species (many of whom are not engaged in the fight itself) against their will. You can try to equate those things until the cows come home, and you will never succeed. The latter is far worse, by orders of magnitude.
I set out to do one thing, and one thing only. Destroy the reapers, at all cost.
And that's fair enough, for you, but I was playing a Paragon Shepard, and I set out to STOP the Reapers, at all necessary costs, in order to preserve sentient life throughout the galaxy. Destroying the Reapers was a potential means towards that end, but it was never the end itself for my Shepard.
#68
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 10:59
clennon8
-
- Members
- 2 163 messages
Mmmeh. I give that troll attempt a 2 on a scale of 1-10.
Btw, as much as you might like to headcanon otherwise, it's actually impossible to make a Shepard (paragon, renegade, paragade, whatever) who ever says he wants to do anything other than destroy the Reapers. Until the last 10 minutes of the game, anyway.
Btw, as much as you might like to headcanon otherwise, it's actually impossible to make a Shepard (paragon, renegade, paragade, whatever) who ever says he wants to do anything other than destroy the Reapers. Until the last 10 minutes of the game, anyway.
#69
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 11:02
Vigilant111
-
- Members
- 2 477 messages
OhoniX wrote...
Sacrificing a few million geth (who knew they might die) is not the same as biologically altering quadrillions of organisms (many of whom don't even know what the hell is going on) against their will. You can try to equate those things until the cows come home, and you will never succeed. The latter is far worse, by orders of magnitude.
Anti-Synths are incapable of making arguments without utilizing false equivalence fallacies and/or strawmen.
Humanely altering all life in the galaxy in a way that improves their physical and mental capabilities is not the same as slaughtering an entire sentient species (many of whom are not engaged in the fight itself) against their will. You can try to equate those things until the cows come home, and you will never succeed. The latter is far worse, by orders of magnitude.I set out to do one thing, and one thing only. Destroy the reapers, at all cost.
And that's fair enough, for you, but I was playing a Paragon Shepard, and I set out to STOP the Reapers, at all necessary costs, in order to preserve sentient life throughout the galaxy. Destroying the Reapers was a potential means towards that end, but it was never the end itself for my Shepard.
First bolded text is a subjective opinion, you do not know what exactly these improvements are, you do not know what the repercussions are
Second bolded text, I would propose that the journey does not end with Shepard choosing a particular option, and synthesis certainly does not entail the end of anything
#70
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 11:03
weltraumhamster89
-
- Members
- 571 messages
[quote]Mesina2 wrote...
Well. I disagree. If you ask me, they’re all gone now; who came in their place might be happy being what it is.
[/quote] [/quote]
I sign that.
Plus, making synthetics .. i dont know.. feel emotions.. means that they now are able to feel hatred, jealousy, greed etc as well. So this by no means grants eternal peace!
Plus², are all those who have been reaped/ harvested already now connected to the others? Are the husks now sentient beings again? What horror.
Plus³, synthesis is pretty much like rewriting the geth- heretics back in ME2, it was very morally questionable but we did it to not kill the Geth altogether, but Legion said that it would alter them, I hope I remember right when I say they said it was like "brainwashing".
Well. I disagree. If you ask me, they’re all gone now; who came in their place might be happy being what it is.
[/quote] [/quote]
I sign that.
Plus, making synthetics .. i dont know.. feel emotions.. means that they now are able to feel hatred, jealousy, greed etc as well. So this by no means grants eternal peace!
Plus², are all those who have been reaped/ harvested already now connected to the others? Are the husks now sentient beings again? What horror.
Plus³, synthesis is pretty much like rewriting the geth- heretics back in ME2, it was very morally questionable but we did it to not kill the Geth altogether, but Legion said that it would alter them, I hope I remember right when I say they said it was like "brainwashing".
#72
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 11:25
General User
-
- Members
- 3 315 messages
Something that got me was: how can the Catalyst, on the one hand, claim that it had any idea what the "final/ultimate/whatever evolution of life" would and/or should be, and on the other hand, claim that it doesn't understand organics.
I mean, if it doesn't understand us, than you'd have to be a fool to think that the Catalyst could have a handle on something "beyond" us.
I mean, if it doesn't understand us, than you'd have to be a fool to think that the Catalyst could have a handle on something "beyond" us.
#73
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 11:44
Obadiah
-
- Members
- 5 757 messages
I believe it hasn't happened as yet because the Creations and Creators keep wiping each other out (or, not the Reapers keep doing it).Mesina2 wrote...
Earthborn_Shepard wrote...
True.
Just one thing. If synthesis was the natural form of evolution...
then why doesn't it happen by itself? Why does it have to be forced?
Because whoever wrote Synthesis doesn't understand how evolution works.
#75
Posté 29 juin 2012 - 12:14
Deltateam Elcor
-
- Members
- 783 messages
The range of evolution as an pure being, is no doubt much larger than a hybrid, also with the synthetic parts of that being probably stopping biological evolution altogether.
We simply don't know because Bioware neglected to explain it.
Of course the problem with any argument against your character is the simple fact that Shepard was the only one that saw the choices, everyone else would be non the wiser to the crucibles intention, all wonderfully apart of its deus ex machina atmosphere.
We simply don't know because Bioware neglected to explain it.
Of course the problem with any argument against your character is the simple fact that Shepard was the only one that saw the choices, everyone else would be non the wiser to the crucibles intention, all wonderfully apart of its deus ex machina atmosphere.
