406 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvianus]

No.

[The Night Mammoth]

roryw2203 wrote...

And how do you think they forced the improvement of a population's gene-pool back when eugenics was created in the 20s or 30s? They forcibly sterilised those whose genes were considered to be 'undesirable', they didn't just force people with 'desirable' genes to procreate, they attempted to eliminate the possibility of 'bad' genes mixing further into the population.

Wasn't much genetic engineering at the time I'm afraid.

Yeah, and? 

We aren't in the 1930's, are we? 

Eugenics has evolved to become something a little bit different in the past 8 decades. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 30 juin 2012 - 10:08 .

[roryw2203]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

roryw2203 wrote...

And how do you think they forced the improvement of a population's gene-pool back when eugenics was created in the 20s or 30s? They forcibly sterilised those whose genes were considered to be 'undesirable', they didn't just force people with 'desirable' genes to procreate, they attempted to eliminate the possibility of 'bad' genes mixing further into the population.

Wasn't much genetic engineering at the time I'm afraid.

Yeah, and? 

We aren't in the 1930's, are we? 

Eugenics has evolved to become something a little bit different in the past 8 decades. 

Not really, you couldn't really enforce Eugenics now without using the same methods that were used back then could you?  I mean maybe you could alter a kid in utero, but that's time consuming and expensive at the moment.  Eugenics on an national scale would still use the same methods really.

Also since the belief of Eugenics means the same thing now as it did then, then it hasn't evolved at all.  Maybe the methods might be different, but the belief would be pretty much the same. 

[The Night Mammoth]

roryw2203 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

roryw2203 wrote...

And how do you think they forced the improvement of a population's gene-pool back when eugenics was created in the 20s or 30s? They forcibly sterilised those whose genes were considered to be 'undesirable', they didn't just force people with 'desirable' genes to procreate, they attempted to eliminate the possibility of 'bad' genes mixing further into the population.

Wasn't much genetic engineering at the time I'm afraid.

Yeah, and? 

We aren't in the 1930's, are we? 

Eugenics has evolved to become something a little bit different in the past 8 decades. 

Not really, you couldn't really enforce Eugenics now without using the same methods that were used back then could you?  I mean maybe you could alter a kid in utero, but that's time consuming and expensive at the moment.  Eugenics on an national scale would still use the same methods really.

You're talking about the potential practical applications. 

I'm talking about the actual concept, which is what synthesis essentially is. 

Also since the belief of Eugenics means the same thing now as it did then, then it hasn't evolved at all.  Maybe the methods might be different, but the belief would be pretty much the same. 

It doesn't mean the same thing. 

[Moirai]

Redbelle wrote...

Moirai wrote...

I would not, no. And I disagree strongly with the Synthesis option as a whole.

As I've mentioned elsewhere:

Synthesis, like Control, is just a bad idea. Unlike Destroy, neither of them have any tangible consequences to them. You have to base your entire judgement of the benefits and downsides of such changes purely on the word of an arguably psychotic AI who thinks that murdering you in your trillions is a legitimate course of action and is in your best interests.

So, would I genetically violate every species in the galaxy based on what I'm told by the very same AI, who has just used broken logic and presented no evidence to justify that slaughter...?

You have got to be kidding me...

The thing is........ and this is based on environmental theory........ killing the advanced races who could make AI does make sense. It is the logic pathway of having one problem and coming up with one solution.

Now before I saw this branch I'm hanging off from behind me, consider this. The Cat was given a probelm and told to come up with a solution........ and that's it. No criteria such as, 'don't make sentient robot ships made out of the pureed corpses of advanced races'.  Just a straight forward, 'here is the problem, what is the best solution?'

If only the 1st race had programmed a sliver of understanding as to organic life tendency to preserve itself in it's own form the Cat may not have constructed a plan that marginalised the basic rights of all living races that may equate to the bill of human rights we have today.

The reason why the Cat's solution to the problem is so problematic is that it ignores the problems that it's solution will cause...... because it was never programmed to consider those problems as being detrimental to the life it was trying to preserve. The additional problems created by the solution are merely a by product of the solution itself which answers the intial problem. Or to put it another way.......... It's first priority is to take care of the problem is was given to solve by any method that results in a solution......... it's second priority? See first priority.......... it's third....... etc etc.

The other reason why the Cat's logic is so warped is that is has no empathy. No logic pathway that says 'If you reach this point.......... Stop!'

Lemme put it this way. When we burn down a forest to release biomass and permit seeds that require extreme temperatures to being viable for germination........... do, we care? Do we wring our hands and wail over the loss of tree life and the wildlife that get's caught in the blaze? Or do we closely monitor the situation so that a controlled burn does not esculate into a wildfire?

This is the Cat's perspective........ Our's is shock and horrer but the Cat........ this is just another day at the office and any protestations are deemed as of secondary concern to the task at hand. The Cat lacks the empathy of a living being.

Which in itself is an argument for pro control as Shep has this capacity. He may be an overlord who get's to decide what is right and wrong.......... but his empathy should make him open to arguments for and against............. unless like the Catalyst he is also set on a fixed solution to a problem that could see problems arise around the solution as time moves forward and species wants and needs alter the situation that made Shep becoming the Catalyst neccessary.

I understand what you're getting at, and I agree on the aspect of empathy, and lack thereof, being a significant factor.

I also understand where you're going with the forest fire analogy. But only if you are implying that the Reapers do not view organics as being individual species, but consider us to be all one big 'species'. Then the analogy makes some sense, inasmuch as burning off the dead wood to make way for the new. Although, in reality, it's not that straightforward or simple, given their stated reasons for doing so.

They are not just making room for younger growth for the sake of it. They are stunting our natural development and evolution through some unsubstantiated notion that we will cause our own destruction, even though there is no concrete evidence in this cycle to back up that assertion.

My main problem with their 'logic' (and this is not an argument against anything you've said. I'm just venting here) is that it is pure assumption at best and downright broken at worst. A good example of this is that Reaper Shepard kills on Rannoch. It postulates that the war between the Geth and Quarians is an example of the chaos that they, the Reapers, are there to bring order to. And yet, it is the very interference of the Reapers themselves which has inflamed the situation and escalated the 'chaos'. The worrying thing is that this Reaper seems blind to that fact. There is simply no evidence that the Geth would have caused the downfall of all organics in the galaxy. Not one jot of it. Not without the interference of the Reapers, that is.

The other important aspect of their 'broken' logic, and one that is arguably more important, is the fact that the only indication of this apparent 'chaos' is the existence of the Geth. One example, created by one species. And yet that, in the Catalyst's mind, is ample reason to exterminate every high level organic creature in the galaxy...

The point is, if they really wanted to protect organics, then the obvious solution would be to wipe out the Geth. And yet, instead, they encourage them and inflame them, thus feeding and escalating the chaos.

I see that as seriously broken logic. And possibly a twisted logic purely driven by the need to legitimise their own existence and narrowly defined purpose.

But anyway, moving on, the point about Control...

From my perspective, I see the above issues as being an argument against the legitimacy of controlling the Reapers. As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I feel that this is the real issue here.

Whatever Shepard actually becomes in the Control scenario may initially retain much of the thought processes and morality of the organic Shepard. But for how long exactly? That is a complete unknown. And that is why I cannot in good conscience choose it.

At what point over the next tens of thousands of years does 'Shepard' decide to involve itself more and more in the development of the galaxy. At what point does it decide that 'it' can see the bigger picture better than the organics and needs to act on that bigger picture for the 'good' of all species...?

We would all like to think that 'our' Shepard's character and morality is immutable, irrespective of the passing of millennia. I know I would. But that is simply wishful thinking and unrealistic. Giving any one individual, no matter how good their intentions were initially, that level of supreme power and effective control over all the species of an entire galaxy is just asking for trouble in my viewpoint.

It's not a case of asking if 'Shepard' will make a bad call or not, but when. And given that the Reapers themselves have not changed, only their 'controller', with a perspective worn by millennia of continued existence, it wouldn't take much in a change of viewpoint to start the ball rolling again.

I would like to think I could trust my Shepard, but I'm not even sure whether I could trust myself over that mind boggling time frame. It's just way too much of an unknown for me to be comfortable with committing to it.

Better to be rid of it once and for all. Better to destroy the shackles completely, rather than risk them being used again at some future point.

Modifié par Moirai, 30 juin 2012 - 11:07 .

[Hackulator]

In twenty years, when your kids none of your kids have gotten sick and nobody you love has died of AIDS or Cancer, and we have unlimited energy and resources from the combination of millions of years of technological advancement and our own enhanced capabilities, and war is almost an unknown because people don't need to compete for resources and have developed greater understanding of each other....

....I think you'll forgive Shepard for the green eyes and circuitry on your skin. If you don't, he's ok with that too, cause he has the balls to make the hard decisions.

[Kulthar Drax]

No. Just...no. No Synthesis.

[3DandBeyond]

Hackulator wrote...

In twenty years, when your kids none of your kids have gotten sick and nobody you love has died of AIDS or Cancer, and we have unlimited energy and resources from the combination of millions of years of technological advancement and our own enhanced capabilities, and war is almost an unknown because people don't need to compete for resources and have developed greater understanding of each other....

....I think you'll forgive Shepard for the green eyes and circuitry on your skin. If you don't, he's ok with that too, cause he has the balls to make the hard decisions.

No, Shepard would become a molester.  Imposing Synthesis without permission is molestation.  I will repeat this-there were people in ME that didn't even want tech implants.  So, they definitely wouldn't want this.

In 200 years when populations have exploded to where everyone has exactly 3 feet of space in which to live, those alive will begin to formulate a plan to "control" the population.  They will institute lotteries and find ways to get people to volunteer to die, but then will need to find a way to make it happen since everyone is immortal and nothing can kill them.  Shoot them and it heals.  Rip their heads off and they grow back.    They have been perfected and in perfection their DNA can self-replicate organs and internal systems that once was not possible.  Even if that's not the case, they will need something to take the place of disease and war for population control.

People will be cast adrift in space.  Worlds may be terraformed, but such possibilities are finite by design.  They will find a way to move beyond the galaxy and encounter new races to exterminate in order to find places for their master race to live.  And so it goes to infinity.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:03 .

[Moirai]

I think what would be interesting to know is just how many proponents of the Synthesis or Control options would still choose one of them if the Destroy option didn't mean the death of the Geth and EDI.

Now I'm quite sure there would still be those who would make the same choices. That's a given, and in its own way good. But I'm willing to bet that a large proportion would change to the Destroy option, since there would be no perceived downside to it.

If so, choosing Synthesis or Control purely because it avoids the loss of the Geth and EDI is an arguably poor and short sighted reason for making such huge and far reaching decisions for the future of an entire galaxy, especially one that involves the genetic manipulation of every species in that galaxy.

Modifié par Moirai, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:22 .

[zambot]

Absolutely, then I'd use my new green powers to enslave the poor saps that didn't take it.

[3DandBeyond]

Moirai wrote...

I think what would be interesting to know is just how many proponents of the Synthesis or Control options would still choose one of them if the Destroy option didn't mean the death of the Geth and EDI.

Now I'm quite sure there would still be those who would make the same choices. That's a given, and in its own way good. But I'm willing to bet that a large proportion would change to the Destroy option, since there would be no perceived downside to it.

If so, choosing Synthesis or Control purely because it avoids the loss of the Geth and EDI is an arguably poor and short sighted reason for making such huge and far reaching decisions for the future of an entire galaxy, especially one that involves the genetic manipulation of every species in that galaxy.

You want to know something equally interesting?  I think it is interesting, anyway.  There are people like me that wish they had shown a definitive Shepard's alive scene, maybe just one slide of a reunion, not Rannock, or blue babies, but just some moment of recognition that the people that survived did survive.  When I've said that I've had people tell me that they are glad Bioware didn't do that because it would make Destroy the canon choice.  My opinion is first that I actually have reasons for believing it already is (even as horrible as killing EDI and the geth is) and that a single reunion scene is something some people laugh at and wouldn't be enough to get them to choose Destroy.

I actually see that Destroy is the only mature, paragon choice and I know many don't agree.  I'm not saying people are childish for choosing other things-just that what they do treats people as children. It's my opinion and they are free to theirs.  It isn't done easily, even if Shepard lives and maybe because Shepard must live with what s/he had to do to make it happen.  Adults face their failures.  But even so, Destroy is the only choice that says people will go it alone from now on, free to make mistakes, and learn to do things for themselves.  They will find ways to get along and sometimes fail at this too, but they will learn that it works best for them all to find a way.  They may also find that the kid's choices for how to avoid conflict was no better than what the quarians thought would work.  Shepard showed that perhaps self-determination gave people a reason to be responsible and choose to be and do better, just like Legion or EDI.  The lesson of EDI wasn't that people needed to be more like her, but that she became better in being more like a person, when allowed to decide for herself.

I think it's a slap in the face to EDI or to Legion to then say that was wrong and then to have Shepard decide for everyone or decide to exert control over the reapers and thus, everyone.  Control IMO is a renegade act because it has the supposed least immediate impact on all races.  It's the fast and easy solution.  Synthesis is similar.  No easily seen consequences other than to how they change Shepard. But, they have some very negative long-term effects and possible problems, whereas Destroy may actually allow people to become something better in the long run.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:39 .

[Hackulator]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I think it's a slap in the face to EDI or to Legion to then say that was wrong and then to have Shepard decide for everyone or decide to exert control over the reapers and thus, everyone.  Control IMO is a renegade act because it has the supposed least immediate impact on all races.  It's the fast and easy solution.  Synthesis is similar.  No easily seen consequences other than to how they change Shepard. But, they have some very negative long-term effects and possible problems, whereas Destroy may actually allow people to become something better in the long run.

Wants people to become better.

Doesn't like Synthesis.

Fear rules you.

[3DandBeyond]

Hackulator wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I think it's a slap in the face to EDI or to Legion to then say that was wrong and then to have Shepard decide for everyone or decide to exert control over the reapers and thus, everyone.  Control IMO is a renegade act because it has the supposed least immediate impact on all races.  It's the fast and easy solution.  Synthesis is similar.  No easily seen consequences other than to how they change Shepard. But, they have some very negative long-term effects and possible problems, whereas Destroy may actually allow people to become something better in the long run.

Wants people to become better.

Doesn't like Synthesis.

Fear rules you.

Ha ha.  No, if that were the case I'd go with Synthesis.  I'm old enough to know that life is like the grandmother says in Parenthood (movie).  It's a roller coaster.  The low points make the high ones so much more precious.  Without strife, we experience neither.  And we are the sum total of our experiences, good and bad.  They make us, us.  Life is about living, not existing. 

[Hackulator]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I think it's a slap in the face to EDI or to Legion to then say that was wrong and then to have Shepard decide for everyone or decide to exert control over the reapers and thus, everyone.  Control IMO is a renegade act because it has the supposed least immediate impact on all races.  It's the fast and easy solution.  Synthesis is similar.  No easily seen consequences other than to how they change Shepard. But, they have some very negative long-term effects and possible problems, whereas Destroy may actually allow people to become something better in the long run.

Wants people to become better.

Doesn't like Synthesis.

Fear rules you.

Ha ha.  No, if that were the case I'd go with Synthesis.  I'm old enough to know that life is like the grandmother says in Parenthood (movie).  It's a roller coaster.  The low points make the high ones so much more precious.  Without strife, we experience neither.  And we are the sum total of our experiences, good and bad.  They make us, us.  Life is about living, not existing. 

When everything is better, you still have highs and lows. The highs and lows are just both better than they were before.

[3DandBeyond]

Hackulator wrote...

When everything is better, you still have highs and lows. The highs and lows are just both better than they were before.

No soul, replaced by tech.  No strife, leads to stagnation.  A better person than I stated these things.

[Snoopy1955]

Would I have given Sheppard to turn everyone in the universe into organic-synthetic hybrids like the Reapers have been doing, but at a much faster rate, and with a higher success rate.

No. I don't think I would give Sheppard permission to fall into the Reaper trap.

[v TricKy v]

Hackulator wrote...

In twenty years, when your kids none of your kids have gotten sick and nobody you love has died of AIDS or Cancer, and we have unlimited energy and resources from the combination of millions of years of technological advancement and our own enhanced capabilities, and war is almost an unknown because people don't need to compete for resources and have developed greater understanding of each other....

....I think you'll forgive Shepard for the green eyes and circuitry on your skin. If you don't, he's ok with that too, cause he has the balls to make the hard decisions.

There was already genetic engineering without green space magic turning everyone into a hybrid. So I dont see your point.
If everyone has the same opinion nothing would change at all. Your are only sitting infront of your PC in your home because someone thought outside of Box. Eleminating that would be very bad.

[Aylyese]

Hackulator wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I think it's a slap in the face to EDI or to Legion to then say that was wrong and then to have Shepard decide for everyone or decide to exert control over the reapers and thus, everyone.  Control IMO is a renegade act because it has the supposed least immediate impact on all races.  It's the fast and easy solution.  Synthesis is similar.  No easily seen consequences other than to how they change Shepard. But, they have some very negative long-term effects and possible problems, whereas Destroy may actually allow people to become something better in the long run.

Wants people to become better.

Doesn't like Synthesis.

Fear rules you.

Forcing people to become "better" means that you are not better.

I want to seen an end to racism. My solution is not to forciably change everyones skin and eye colour.

Modifié par Aylyese, 01 juillet 2012 - 05:11 .

[Zero132132]

Aylyese wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I think it's a slap in the face to EDI or to Legion to then say that was wrong and then to have Shepard decide for everyone or decide to exert control over the reapers and thus, everyone.  Control IMO is a renegade act because it has the supposed least immediate impact on all races.  It's the fast and easy solution.  Synthesis is similar.  No easily seen consequences other than to how they change Shepard. But, they have some very negative long-term effects and possible problems, whereas Destroy may actually allow people to become something better in the long run.

Wants people to become better.

Doesn't like Synthesis.

Fear rules you.

Forcing people to become "better" means that you are not better.

I want to seen an end to racism. My solution is not to forciably change everyones skin and eye colour.

Then you don't have a solution, you have a wish. You wish people were better, that people wouldn't treat different people differently, and that familiarity (often with people that look similar to your family) wouldn't be the guide for how we decide to treat many.

If wanting something really bad worked, I'd be a billionaire, and I'd be married to [INSERT NAME OF ATTRACTIVE ACTRESS AND/OR MODEL]. Also, I'd live on Mars, because I'm a badass that way.

[Moirai]

Catalyst AI still 'alive' - Check
Reapers still alive - Check
Everyone genetically re-engineered with a variant of Reaper code - Check
Shepard dead - Check

Yeah, what could go wrong there?

Oh, wait... It already has...

[Aylyese]

Zero132132 wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I think it's a slap in the face to EDI or to Legion to then say that was wrong and then to have Shepard decide for everyone or decide to exert control over the reapers and thus, everyone.  Control IMO is a renegade act because it has the supposed least immediate impact on all races.  It's the fast and easy solution.  Synthesis is similar.  No easily seen consequences other than to how they change Shepard. But, they have some very negative long-term effects and possible problems, whereas Destroy may actually allow people to become something better in the long run.

Wants people to become better.

Doesn't like Synthesis.

Fear rules you.

Forcing people to become "better" means that you are not better.

I want to seen an end to racism. My solution is not to forciably change everyones skin and eye colour.

Then you don't have a solution, you have a wish. You wish people were better, that people wouldn't treat different people differently, and that familiarity (often with people that look similar to your family) wouldn't be the guide for how we decide to treat many.

If wanting something really bad worked, I'd be a billionaire, and I'd be married to [INSERT NAME OF ATTRACTIVE ACTRESS AND/OR MODEL]. Also, I'd live on Mars, because I'm a badass that way.

Sorry, I don't follow. Is this an argument for or against Synthesis?

[clos]

I would rather die than become a green zombie.

[Hackulator]

Zero132132 wrote...

Then you don't have a solution, you have a wish. You wish people were better, that people wouldn't treat different people differently, and that familiarity (often with people that look similar to your family) wouldn't be the guide for how we decide to treat many.

If wanting something really bad worked, I'd be a billionaire, and I'd be married to [INSERT NAME OF ATTRACTIVE ACTRESS AND/OR MODEL]. Also, I'd live on Mars, because I'm a badass that way.

You ARE baddas that way man, you ARE.

clos wrote...
I would rather die than become a green zombie.

Good thing becoming a green zombie was never an option then.

Modifié par Hackulator, 01 juillet 2012 - 05:48 .

[Zero132132]

Aylyese wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I think it's a slap in the face to EDI or to Legion to then say that was wrong and then to have Shepard decide for everyone or decide to exert control over the reapers and thus, everyone.  Control IMO is a renegade act because it has the supposed least immediate impact on all races.  It's the fast and easy solution.  Synthesis is similar.  No easily seen consequences other than to how they change Shepard. But, they have some very negative long-term effects and possible problems, whereas Destroy may actually allow people to become something better in the long run.

Wants people to become better.

Doesn't like Synthesis.

Fear rules you.

Forcing people to become "better" means that you are not better.

I want to seen an end to racism. My solution is not to forciably change everyones skin and eye colour.

Then you don't have a solution, you have a wish. You wish people were better, that people wouldn't treat different people differently, and that familiarity (often with people that look similar to your family) wouldn't be the guide for how we decide to treat many.

If wanting something really bad worked, I'd be a billionaire, and I'd be married to [INSERT NAME OF ATTRACTIVE ACTRESS AND/OR MODEL]. Also, I'd live on Mars, because I'm a badass that way.

Sorry, I don't follow. Is this an argument for or against Synthesis?

Well, my RL solution to racism is racial interbreeding, so that ultimately, racial disparities won't exist. To be fair, that may just be an excuse, since I LOVE white women.

This isn't homogenization. It's ensuring that the differences we can bicker about are ones that actually have some substance to them, like our ideals, values, and whether or not we wear hats. It removes one variable that makes it easier to judge people by thing besides their merit as individuals.

The same, it seems, is true for synthesis. Takes away differences that form arbitrary barriers to peace, but individuality is maintained.

[Aylyese]

Zero132132 wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...


Then you don't have a solution, you have a wish. You wish people were better, that people wouldn't treat different people differently, and that familiarity (often with people that look similar to your family) wouldn't be the guide for how we decide to treat many.

If wanting something really bad worked, I'd be a billionaire, and I'd be married to [INSERT NAME OF ATTRACTIVE ACTRESS AND/OR MODEL]. Also, I'd live on Mars, because I'm a badass that way.

Sorry, I don't follow. Is this an argument for or against Synthesis?

Well, my RL solution to racism is racial interbreeding, so that ultimately, racial disparities won't exist. To be fair, that may just be an excuse, since I LOVE white women.

This isn't homogenization. It's ensuring that the differences we can bicker about are ones that actually have some substance to them, like our ideals, values, and whether or not we wear hats. It removes one variable that makes it easier to judge people by thing besides their merit as individuals.

The same, it seems, is true for synthesis. Takes away differences that form arbitrary barriers to peace, but individuality is maintained.

Ok, I am pretty sure that I don't need to mention that the Catalysts version of your solution to racisim would be incredibly horrific. You would never force interracial breeding upon humanity in quite the same way Synthesis is forced upon the universe.