Aller au contenu

Photo

Great argument against Synthesis made by meronym on Tumblr


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
230 réponses à ce sujet

#76
OhoniX

OhoniX
  • Members
  • 508 messages

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.


Because she doesn't see other valid options. Shepard is also perfectly content with annihilating Rachni and Geth like pests until presented with valid alternatives, and the a Paragon Shep takes a different path than annihilation. There are numerous points in the games where Shep is presented with choices in which there is a deadly, threatening life form or organization, and you are given the opportunity to wipe them from existence. . . or, you could choose to spare them, on the basis that they promise to behave. This is never a certainty, you always take the risk that they will return to do harm again, but to a Paragon Shep, wiping out the enemy is not the goal, saving the victims is the goal, and if that can be achieved without killing, then Paragon Shep will take that option.

Now you can fairly claim that a Paragon Shep would choose Destroy anyways, but she would definitely think very hard about it first.

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


I didn't mean it as the "end of the story," I meant it as in the phrase "means to an end", as in a "goal." To Paragon Shepard, killing the Reapers is not her goal, saving life in the Galaxy is her goal, she just sees killing the Reapers as the only way to do that under the circumstances. If there is another path that she sees as valid, then she is likely to consider it.

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!


True, and there's no promise of that. The Synth ending by no means ensures eternal peace, the only point to it is that it ensures that there will never be a war of annihilation in which synthetics will wipe out organics, because those distinctions no longer exist. It's a bit like if all the religions in the world decided that all religions are the same religion, and thus there would never again be any reason to fight over who's religion was "right," people would still fight over all sorts of other things, just not over religion anymore.

Plus², are all those who have been reaped/ harvested already now connected to the others? Are the husks now sentient beings again? What horror.


Eh. They seemed content with it. It's unclear how developed the Husks and other humanoid reapers are, but I highly doubt that they would retain their original human or alien memories. They are likely completely new entities, a bit like the Geth, who don't seem to mind their own existence. Either that or they remain as a sort of hive mind entity, with each physical body only being a limb of the greater whole. Either way they don't seem to be bothered, they didn't break down screaming or anything.

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".


Not really. Rewriting the Geth would have changed who they WERE, it would change their MINDS. The Synth ending does not claim to alter anyone's minds, it just alters their physical bodies. They have all the same memories and personalities they had before, and are free to make their own choices based on that.

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.


It's a fairly standardly understood evolutionary endgame. Look up the "technological singularity." It's pretty much assumed that if humanity continues to exist for the next few hundred years, and unless deliberate action is taken to retard our growth as a species (like laws against it), humans will continue to chemically and mechanically augment our bodies and minds to the point that we become indistinguishable from machines. The Geth are our future.

Modifié par OhoniX, 29 juin 2012 - 12:18 .


#77
Neol Shendis

Neol Shendis
  • Members
  • 35 messages

clennon8 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.

I agree 100%.

Forced synthesis is a utterly revolting concept to me. 

#78
Aylyese

Aylyese
  • Members
  • 221 messages

OhoniX wrote...

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.  


Humanely altering all life in the galaxy is the same as slaughtering an entire species. They stop being an individual species. Sure they may look like Asari with green glowy crap, but they are still genetically altered to be pseudo-Shepards. 

Some people may commit suicide. An entire race, too young to be space faring, may panic and genocide themselves. Of course, the writers have written that everyone is perfectly happy and all that, which as the OP said, is just further proof that more than their DNA has been altered. Heck, we can't even all agree in the same thread - there is no way the whole entire universe is going to be happy about being genetically raped. 

Both options are as abhorrent as each other. 

Synthesis is the same as saying everyone on the planet must become scientologists and we get no say in it. AND everyone must undergo skin altering surgery to change the colour of their skin to orange and their eyes all the same, and we get no say in it. AND we all have to learn and speak a new universal language and we get no say in it. Why? Because if we change all these things, we will have perfected ourselves, and will understand each other better because we have eliminated our differences.

Wholescale bigotry should NEVER be presented as a solution to millions of people. 

Modifié par Aylyese, 29 juin 2012 - 12:30 .


#79
rumination888

rumination888
  • Members
  • 1 297 messages
http://en.wikipedia....cal_singularity

To understand synthesis, read the link. All of it. Comprehend it. Learn from it.

Super AI supplanting organics as the top of the food chain is one of the paths to technological singularity. This path is the path that the devs chose for ME's setting.

Intelligence amplification of organic minds is another path to technological singularity. This path is the synthesis ending. It is the solution the ME devs chose to prevent the above scenario.

#80
SolidRevolver

SolidRevolver
  • Members
  • 26 messages
I dont understand how people are quick to call Sythesis 'Space Magic', when we are talking about an AI ABOVE the Reapers. And its the Reapers who can stab you with a spike and it turns you into a Husk... Are we retroactively calling BS on something established in the first mission on ME1? o_O
I view Synthesis as a modified version of that.

#81
CroGamer002

CroGamer002
  • Members
  • 20 673 messages
^Haven't you read Codex on that?

#82
Naerivar

Naerivar
  • Members
  • 183 messages
Personally I wouldn't really mind synthesis, even if forced upon me. But I'm social(?) enough to see that some people might not and it would therefore be a violation of their person.
As declared in the Law, a person has sovereignty over his/her own body. And while there are a lot of laws I do not agree with, I do agree with this one.

Anyway, so yes, forced synthesis is a violation. But is it really worse than Destroy? I'm not talking in orders of magnitude here. Of course, wiping out one entire race pales in comparison to violate the sovereignty of some 15 plus entire races.
I'm also not talking about all the husk that became self-aware (that'd be a mind****).

Lets make my question short and simple. Would you rather force synthesis on a person, or kill that person? In order to prevent the wiping out of most advanced life of course.

#83
eddieoctane

eddieoctane
  • Members
  • 4 134 messages
I've been saying all along that synthesis reeks of eugenics. After WWII, the concept became so deeply tied with the National Socialist German Workers' Party that I'm timid of even allowing the suggestion of eugenics to be protected under free speech laws. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you shouldn't be allowed to suggest you can make people "perfect" by forcibly altering their DNA. Even if the similarity between fascist ideals and synthesis was unintentional, it's so painfully obvious that any competent editor would have caught it if the ending was subject to any kind of review. If their is no review process, than we know BioWare doesn't have the corporate structure to produce decent games and has just gotten lucky so far. If there was, I think the implications are far worse.

I'm a bit amused by the fact that the Catalyst admits forcing synthesis has failed in the past, but this time will be different because one person in the entire galaxy was willing to go for it and no one was ever willing to consider the idea in the past because absolutes are so reliable. Honestly, it seems like the writing just got worse.

#84
cellotlix

cellotlix
  • Members
  • 39 messages
This is a fantastic article, and the point about Javik is especially salient. Honestly, if you think that Synthesis is a Paragon option, you need to consider your crewman. You need to consider if he actually knew what was happening to him and what he became, would he be fine with it or horrified and repulsed? The Javik I knew wouldn't hesitate to blow his brains out rather than become a synthetic-hybrid.

Synthesis is repulsive on a moral level alone, and that is enough for me to stay the hell away from it. You can argue that the genocide of the geth and EDI is comparable, but it's war. There never was going to be a press a win without loss button. If you somehow think altering not only the physical structure but the personalities, priorities, moralities, and goals of every living creature in the galaxy is an acceptable solution, you are no paragon.

#85
eddieoctane

eddieoctane
  • Members
  • 4 134 messages

SolidRevolver wrote...

I dont understand how people are quick to call Sythesis 'Space Magic', when we are talking about an AI ABOVE the Reapers. And its the Reapers who can stab you with a spike and it turns you into a Husk... Are we retroactively calling BS on something established in the first mission on ME1? o_O
I view Synthesis as a modified version of that.


Husks were explained to be constructed by nanites. A dragon's tooth is not a magic sword that transforms someone, it's a needle full of little robots that screw with your body and make you into a monster. It doesn't stretch the imagination that far. Synthesis, however, has no explanation offered. "Organic energy" and "the matrix of organic life" are not an explanation. Not like the ones we are given for how small arms work or how FTL functions. Given the assumption that eezo exists, both of those explanations work. The green magic doesn;t work just on allowing eezo to exist, which was the only real bit of disbelief we has to suspend. That is why we call BS.

#86
Skirlasvoud

Skirlasvoud
  • Members
  • 526 messages

Hudathan wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Because whoever wrote Synthesis doesn't understand how evolution works.

Btw, we don't really know how it works neither, that's why it's called a theory. Don't try to use real-world science to try and debunk anything in sci-fi, it assumes that we know everything there is to know about the universe which is absurd.


*Throws a copy of Campbell Biology and Concepts of Genetics at Hudathan.*

Welcome to the 21st century! Evolution has been a scientifically accepted concept for the last couple of decades.

#87
Naerivar

Naerivar
  • Members
  • 183 messages

Skirlasvoud wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Because whoever wrote Synthesis doesn't understand how evolution works.

Btw, we don't really know how it works neither, that's why it's called a theory. Don't try to use real-world science to try and debunk anything in sci-fi, it assumes that we know everything there is to know about the universe which is absurd.


*Throws a copy of Campbell Biology and Concepts of Genetics at Hudathan.*

Welcome to the 21st century! Evolution has been a scientifically accepted concept for the last couple of decades.


Not that I disagree with you or anything. but I do want to point out that Newton's law of Gravity has been scientifically accepted for centuries. But still proves faulty. Same as with Newtonian Mechanics. Just the fact that it is scientifically accepted doesn't mean it's correct.

#88
eddieoctane

eddieoctane
  • Members
  • 4 134 messages

Skirlasvoud wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Because whoever wrote Synthesis doesn't understand how evolution works.

Btw, we don't really know how it works neither, that's why it's called a theory. Don't try to use real-world science to try and debunk anything in sci-fi, it assumes that we know everything there is to know about the universe which is absurd.


*Throws a copy of Campbell Biology and Concepts of Genetics at Hudathan.*

Welcome to the 21st century! Evolution has been a scientifically accepted concept for the last couple of decades.


The Roman Catholic church has even accepted evolution as fact. This is the same group who once had people executed for proppsing heliocentrism. I think that more or less ends the "theory" debate.

#89
CroGamer002

CroGamer002
  • Members
  • 20 673 messages
I would suggest for people to click the link of that Tumblr post and see what responses it got.


Some give even additional problems.



Like this one from badgersprite:

"Synthesis is eugenics. You are being told that rewriting genes is the only way to create good life. To eliminate “inferior” lifeforms. Our genetic makeup makes us evil. It has to be altered. The very nature of synthetics makes them evil. Don’t even give them a chance. Even though the geth and EDI were explicitly shown to be entirely peaceful and only ever acted in defence of themselves. No. They’re bad. They have to be changed. They’re not like you. They have to become part of this master race.”


I think someone posted this similarly in this thread, but still read that entire post( profanity warning) and others as well.

#90
Uncle Jo

Uncle Jo
  • Members
  • 2 161 messages
I still don't know why the brat didn't take any other human to achieve Synthesis. Even Conrad Verner would have got the job done. Or was it just because Shep happened to pass by ?

"Organics seek perfection through technology".. Wow, that's something I didn't know. I always genuinely thought that we're seeking perfection through self-improvement and better knowledge/apprehension of the world and the beings around us. Technological/scientific progress is only one part of it.

Now that every one is upgraded and probably won't die anymore, the galaxy will get pretty crowded. How are we going to solve the problem of overpopulation ? Calling the Reapers again for cleaning up ?

Same question in case of conflicts/wars, which will inevitably arise. Upgraded Yahgs for example will be something worth to see...

Notice also that this time the brat said explicitely that Synthesis was always what the Reapers wanted to achieve.

Good point is that now you can mate a husk or a banshee...

Javik telling Shep what he thinks after being synthetised would also have interested me...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 29 juin 2012 - 01:57 .


#91
spirosz

spirosz
  • Members
  • 16 356 messages
I still don't buy into the whole Utopian vibe it's trying to represent. I like certain aspects of the idea, but I seriously just see it as making more efficient killers.

#92
rumination888

rumination888
  • Members
  • 1 297 messages

Uncle Jo wrote...

"Organics seek perfection through technology".. Wow, that's something I didn't know. I always genuinely thought that we're seeking perfection through self-improvement and better knowledge/apprehension of the world and the beings around us. Technological/scientific progress is only one part of it.


He didn't say "organics seek perfection through technological progress". He said "technology". A book is technology. Writing is technology. A treadmill is technology. Shoes are technology. A blender is technology. A farm tool is technology.

#93
Ridwan

Ridwan
  • Members
  • 3 546 messages
Is there a too long didn't read version of this?

#94
CroGamer002

CroGamer002
  • Members
  • 20 673 messages
^wut?

#95
The Night Mammoth

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

Hudathan wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Because whoever wrote Synthesis doesn't understand how evolution works.

Btw, we don't really know how it works neither, that's why it's called a theory. Don't try to use real-world science to try and debunk anything in sci-fi, it assumes that we know everything there is to know about the universe which is absurd.


Eh, what? 

We do know how evolution works, learn the conotations of the word 'theory' in context. 

#96
CroGamer002

CroGamer002
  • Members
  • 20 673 messages
^Yeah, that.


Someone should give memo on how evolution works to Bioware.

#97
Mojenator12345

Mojenator12345
  • Members
  • 447 messages
I think just about everyone outside of BW HQ agrees that synthesis is horrific and monstrous.

Personally, I think it's just them subconsciously trying to justify their marriage with EA. Which, of course, that is also horrific and monstrous. But like synthesis, they'll just put a happy spin on it and pretend that it's all happy cheery.

#98
Uncle Jo

Uncle Jo
  • Members
  • 2 161 messages

rumination888 wrote...


He didn't say "organics seek perfection through technological progress". He said "technology". A book is technology. Writing is technology. A treadmill is technology. Shoes are technology. A blender is technology. A farm tool is technology.

Agreed. However, technology is IMO about finding a solution (or improve it) to a given problem without fundamentally change what you are, which synthesis do.

We're organics, flawed and mortal, that's how the nature made every single living being. We evolve according to this postulate and that's our purpose : try to overcome our limits by ourselves, with the help of technology but without turning into something completely different.

Which is apparently not the opinion of the guy who came up with the insane idea of Synthesis.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 29 juin 2012 - 03:04 .


#99
BatmanPWNS

BatmanPWNS
  • Members
  • 6 392 messages
Great read and, damn, reminded me of the time I did AS RE in school, memories.

#100
glacier1701

glacier1701
  • Members
  • 870 messages
Good read and shows up the fallacies of Synthesis clearly. One point that should have had people scratching their heads when going through the explanations is that CONTROL also offers a new mode of existence though just for Shepard. And as shown pretty much seems to be as good as or better than the one in Synthesis. In other words stating that Synthesis is the final evolution is a lie when there is another option in evolution available in Control which is as powerful and DOES NOT involve a forced choice on everyone just ONE person. The Catalyst is simply so full of flaws that it is best to get rid of it which is what happens only in DESTROY.

Modifié par glacier1701, 29 juin 2012 - 03:23 .