Aller au contenu

Photo

Why is everyone so against Synthesis?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
1300 réponses à ce sujet

#776
Malditor

Malditor
  • Members
  • 557 messages

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

savionen wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Eating/drinking/breathing are necessities to live whereas doctor visits and medicine are not, they prolong live by curing/preventing illness. Not the same thing.


Okay - then I guess eating cheese is out of the question - And garlic too.

Apparently you have run out of even semi-logical responses. No point in further discussion.


I think the point was that eatting healthier foods will prolong your life, and eatting some foods is self destructive.

If done to specifically prolong life that it is against  his previous statement that you should not try to do that and just accept death as it comes. So the statement works against him if that's the case.


I do not agree. I see a different in:

Eating a pill or having a doctor fixing a broken arm to having machines installed in body. That's all...

That was not your original argument/statement in this discussion.


Crap! My statement:

Natural evolution. I'm born - I live - and I die.................................. I accept that as a fact!
Yes to being born
Yes to living
Yes to death

It is not that hard....

I said:
Interesting, following this idea anyone who gets sick should just be allowed to die instead of finding ways to cure them or prevent others from getting the same illness. We are constantly finding ways to improve ourselves and become more able to survive. However, by your philosphy we should just accept death in whatever form it comes in because it's the law of life.

You said:
Yes! When death comes - well it bloody well comes! You can fight it all you want but it comes anyway. You accept life but not death? The you should not have swum as fast as you did when you were a merly spem.

That statement directly conflicts with going to the doctor and taking medicine, eating healthy/exercise *improve ourselves* etc.

#777
Shadowvalker

Shadowvalker
  • Members
  • 203 messages

Malditor wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

savionen wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Eating/drinking/breathing are necessities to live whereas doctor visits and medicine are not, they prolong live by curing/preventing illness. Not the same thing.


Okay - then I guess eating cheese is out of the question - And garlic too.

Apparently you have run out of even semi-logical responses. No point in further discussion.


I think the point was that eatting healthier foods will prolong your life, and eatting some foods is self destructive.

If done to specifically prolong life that it is against  his previous statement that you should not try to do that and just accept death as it comes. So the statement works against him if that's the case.


I do not agree. I see a different in:

Eating a pill or having a doctor fixing a broken arm to having machines installed in body. That's all...

That was not your original argument/statement in this discussion.


Crap! My statement:

Natural evolution. I'm born - I live - and I die.................................. I accept that as a fact!
Yes to being born
Yes to living
Yes to death

It is not that hard....

I said:
Interesting, following this idea anyone who gets sick should just be allowed to die instead of finding ways to cure them or prevent others from getting the same illness. We are constantly finding ways to improve ourselves and become more able to survive. However, by your philosphy we should just accept death in whatever form it comes in because it's the law of life.

You said:
Yes! When death comes - well it bloody well comes! You can fight it all you want but it comes anyway. You accept life but not death? The you should not have swum as fast as you did when you were a merly spem.

That statement directly conflicts with going to the doctor and taking medicine, eating healthy/exercise *improve ourselves* etc.


By having a broken arm fixed by a doctor does not improve me as a human! After the visit to the doctor I am still me - as I was before I went to see him.. You would be right if I went to see him and had my arm removed and a mechanic device put in its place.

Why complicate things?

#778
Malditor

Malditor
  • Members
  • 557 messages

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

I said:
Interesting, following this idea anyone who gets sick should just be allowed to die instead of finding ways to cure them or prevent others from getting the same illness. We are constantly finding ways to improve ourselves and become more able to survive. However, by your philosphy we should just accept death in whatever form it comes in because it's the law of life.

You said:
Yes! When death comes - well it bloody well comes! You can fight it all you want but it comes anyway. You accept life but not death? The you should not have swum as fast as you did when you were a merly spem.

That statement directly conflicts with going to the doctor and taking medicine, eating healthy/exercise *improve ourselves* etc.


By having a broken arm fixed by a doctor does not improve me as a human! After the visit to the doctor I am still me - as I was before I went to see him.. You would be right if I went to see him and had my arm removed and a mechanic device put in its place.

Why complicate things?



You are changing the basic premise of this discussion from generally prolonging life to artifical/mechanical additions to the body. But hey, since we are talking that and someone brought up a pacemaker I guess those people should have just been allowed to die, or people with insulin pumps? People on dialysis? These people are still "them" but have some sort of mechanical device helping them stay alive. Try to not change what you are saying if you want to have a debate. Definitely done here, since you will just twist around and try to find another loophole.

#779
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

Aylyese wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction. 


That really does not make it better. It is outright saying that the solution to problems of differences is to remove the differences. 

Example, you are a Catholic and I am a Muslim. We can never get along with these differences, so lets synthesise us both to Scientologists. 

Horrible, disgusting precident and bioware should be ashamed.


Catholics and Muslims can get along, but an important point to note is that they can't both be right.  Plus, it is a terribly weak analogy as neither religion created the other, neither side has an obvious advantage in self-improvement, neither is immortal, etc.

#780
Shadowvalker

Shadowvalker
  • Members
  • 203 messages

memorysquid wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction. 


That really does not make it better. It is outright saying that the solution to problems of differences is to remove the differences. 

Example, you are a Catholic and I am a Muslim. We can never get along with these differences, so lets synthesise us both to Scientologists. 

Horrible, disgusting precident and bioware should be ashamed.


Catholics and Muslims can get along, but an important point to note is that they can't both be right.  Plus, it is a terribly weak analogy as neither religion created the other, neither side has an obvious advantage in self-improvement, neither is immortal, etc.


Oh boy... Okay for your sake I'll not be eating garlic and other things that "prolong" life... Are you happy...

#781
vallore

vallore
  • Members
  • 321 messages
OP Question: “Why is everyone so against Synthesis?”



Hmm, Syntesis as a solution causes a series of problems related to how it works, here is my take on them:

How it is implemented.
It offers no real logical explanation for how it is achieved, and the player is left with either accepting that it somehow does work and leaves it at that... or is forced to content herself with a number of conjectures that really don’t seem to give a satisfying answer.

What it Achieves.

It is supposed to stop the possibility of war between synthetics and organics. OK, great…how?

Hypothesis one: it makes organics and synthetics in fundamentally the same, ruthlessly leveling what makes them unique and distinct.

It seems not to be the case; as others pointed out, Turians appear to be still mostly Turians, the Geth still seems to be fundamentally Geth, etc.

But if they are still distinct, then the possibility of war remains. It has been sometimes said that it is the different speed of organic and synthetic evolution that causes the possibility of war by creating a dangerous technological gap, a gap that slow evolving organics would fear, leading to war. But since organics would remain mostly organics and synthetics mostly synthetics, what would stop this from occurring anyway, even after synthesis?

Hypothesis Two: it creates a control override in all synthetics and organics. Every thought from every sentient being would be analyzed and filtered, according with what was the original goals of the catalyst: to avoid a synthetics vs organics war. (The catalyst doesn’t even need to survive; this new program may be installed into every organism and acting from within). A dangerous thought would either be impossible to formulate or would be erased and substituted with an acceptable one. Diversity would therefore be possible in this scenario; the problem would be elsewhere…

Hypothesis Three & +: I'm sure others would be able to offer different theories.

How it achieves it

In either of the previous hypothesis it requires the acceptance of the inevitability of the war, and the willingness to accept the costs. If you disagree with the former or think the costs are too high, synthesis is not for you.

Note: Minor edit for clarity

Modifié par vallore, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:48 .


#782
Aquilas

Aquilas
  • Members
  • 187 messages

memorysquid wrote...
 

RebelReya wrote...
 
You guys do realize that no matter how happy and 'perfect' (to quote TIM) they paint it, Synthesis is still the elimination of all organic life? Their is NO more organic life, because only one person out of unknown trillions decides so. Even the plants are synthetic.

 
You're biasing your argument. Synthesis eliminates the distinction. It doesn't make everyone one or the other or even a mix of both. It is transcendent. That's not even my headcanon, Mike Gamble actually tweeted that there's no distinction post-synthesis, just 'life.' The writers' intention has been plain since pre-EC. It's Hegelian dialectic.
 
The writers viewed AND wrote synthesis as a way to overcome the old organic/synthetic dichotomy. You can disagree with their premise, but the writing is clear enough that the fiction is clear. You just don't like the fiction then, which is better to deal with than continually demanding everyone accept your headcanon rewrite as what ME3 REALLY means.

 
Mike Gamble's retconning Tweets are just that: retconning. The EC presents fairly strong evidence that ME3 writers studied critiques and analyses of the original endings and tried to cover as many plot holes and inconsistencies as possible. Well, that's impossible (and in fact, the EC created plot holes of its own). Gamble's Tweets just sprinkle more sparkles on the turds that are the ME3 endings. Are his Tweets "canon?" Sure, because they're Gamble's Tweets. That doesn't make them consistent with established ME themes and lore. It just makes them retcon.
 
Here's a link to a vid presenting the entire EC extended dialogue. The Synthesis discussion begins at 9:20--
 
Mass Effect 3 Synthesis Extended Cut Ending HD + Full Dialogue with Catalyst (Starchild) - YouTube
 
The Catalyst specifically says “the chain reaction will combine all organic and synthetic life into a new framework, a new...DNA." So the resulting “DNA” will most definitely be a mix of both. The new life form will be a hybrid. The Catalyst says so.
 
Clearly, the Catalyst bases its definition of organic life in biology. So, it bases its definition of synthetic “life” in...what, exactly? EDI and the Geth feel alive because they realize they have -souls-. Shepard helps EDI realize this through several discussions, and EDI confirms it just before the assault on the Teleporter Beam. Tali confirms this principle when Legion asks the question that started the Morning War and she answers, “Yes.”
 
So the Crucible-Catalyst Magic Space Beam will not only combine organic DNA and Synthetic..code-electron-energy-molecules. It will combine organic and synthetic -souls-, because for the Catalyst-Crucible’s process to work, the soul must reside in organic DNA and synthetic code-energy-electron-molecules. Otherwise, you just get a hybrid jumble of biosynthetic stuff and no understanding.
 
Why? Again, because the Catalyst says so. Note the Catalyst says, "Organics seek perfection through technology. Synthetics seek perfection through understanding. Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology. Synthetics, in turn, will finally have full understanding of organics. It is the ideal solution.” Shortly afterwards it says, …synthetics are already part of you. Can you imagine your life without them?”
 
Say what? What the hell? So organic species have never sought to understand the nature of the soul? Their place in the grand scheme of things? The universe’s relationship to them? The proper role of technology in organic society? The ethical uses of technology? What the hell? And synthetics have never sought perfection through technology? The Geth have done it for centuries. And we organics seek perfection when we go to the gym and eat a healthful diet.
 
Depending on how things go on Rannoch, Shepard can point out one reason he’s the first organic in aeons to stand before the Catalyst is because organics—the Quarians; and Synthetics—the Geth—have resolved centuries of…oh say, organic-synthetic conflict and are allies. In fact, the Geth have begun a symbiotic relationship with the Quarians to aid Quarian adaptation to Rannoch’s environment.
 
But the writers don’t give Shepard the opportunity to tell the Crucible any of these things. The Crucible says Synthesis is the ideal solution, Shepard gets to say, “I don’t know..” and then run into the Magic Space fountain if he so chooses.
 
I’m not even going to discuss the ridiculous, preposterous, ludicrous Catalyst-Crucible space magic that underpins all solutions—especially Synthesis—except Reject. You can read Parabolee77’s excellent post, and the part of mine on page 23 of this thread that deals with the fantastical Space Magic wand.
 
Bottom line: Gamble can retcon all he wants, but what’s in-game is what’s in-game. Though, since BioWare has adopted Tweeting as a way to fix what’s in the game--or not in the game--I guess it’s standard procedure.

Modifié par Aquilas, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:57 .


#783
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

Caenis wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Caenis wrote...

Ok...so then why are you people f*** getting angry that in our choice we achieved something everyone was all happy with...and telling us our choice was worse than your choice because of what happened in YOUR HEADCANON?


Because you're violating all galatic life and  appeasing their enemies that slaughtered friends and family by the truckload. 

It's the ultimate insult to everyone who fought and died so Shep could make that decision. Far more than Reject could ever be.


YES but that's in YOUR HEAD. Apparantly Not everyone agrees that's a violation...SO deal with it.


How is that in my head? That's exactly what Shep does! Hell he even screwed with plants and non-intelligent animals! He modified ALL organic life. NOT SOME. ALL.

And yes it's a massive violation. Deal with it.


You can call a change like that a violation, perhaps it would be for you.  It wouldn't be for everyone.  Deal with it.

Plus, you are weighing that choice off against genocide and implementing a practically unbeatable tyranny.  The choices aren't made in a vaccuum.

#784
Siansonea

Siansonea
  • Members
  • 7 282 messages

Caenis wrote...

Question: What is the point of this conversation?

Everyone has different opinions on for why their choice is the best choice. If people don't agree that their choice is wrong then at the end of the day we're setting ourselves for conversations that go in circles...how is there any point in a conversation where people are equally convinced their choice is the right one?

We're arguing morals, and morals are SUBJECTIVE. In the eye of the beholder. At the end of the day. We all got our happily ever after, regardless of how it happened. We all made choices based on our values, priorities, and what we were willing to sacrifice for it. Some people thought Destroy was the best choice, others Synthesis or Control. I have stated in other threads that the game was set up so that there are NO wrong choices, no wrong endings, they all come out great in the game.

So what's the problem? What's the point of this discussion? Where do people hope to go with it? I for one would rather just have people understand my choices, just as I would rather understand other peoples choices without it becoming a nose flinging contest...


The problem is, if you choose Synthesis, you tacitly—or even explicitly—support something unconscionable. You support altering the fundamental framework of life for something as nebulous as "peace". It is the nature of life to be in conflict, it is one of the most basic principles of evolution. Species live or die according to their suitability to the natural environment. Intelligent species circumvent evolution by adapting their environment to suit them. But again, this is a natural process, it just happens. But to artificially reprogram your own software to make yourself "better"? That's questionable, it raises all sorts of ethical questions and concerns. Eugenics is a form of genetic engineering, it is selective breeding to improve the human species, and, well, let's say it's gotten a bit of a bad rap thanks to some folks in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Genetic engineering is debated in science circles today—how much intervention is too much? It's one thing to cure diseases and chronic conditions, but what about changing traits just because we can? "Slippery slope" doesn't even begin to describe it. 

Now take away choice. Now force this change on someone. Regardless of how "improved" YOU think they've become, they didn't ask for this change, some of them probably would have refused it, and EVERYONE has a right to make that determination for himself or herself. 

Modifié par Siansonea II, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:03 .


#785
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

Aquilas wrote...

memorysquid wrote...
 

RebelReya wrote...
 
You guys do realize that no matter how happy and 'perfect' (to quote TIM) they paint it, Synthesis is still the elimination of all organic life? Their is NO more organic life, because only one person out of unknown trillions decides so. Even the plants are synthetic.

 
You're biasing your argument. Synthesis eliminates the distinction. It doesn't make everyone one or the other or even a mix of both. It is transcendent. That's not even my headcanon, Mike Gamble actually tweeted that there's no distinction post-synthesis, just 'life.' The writers' intention has been plain since pre-EC. It's Hegelian dialectic.
 
The writers viewed AND wrote synthesis as a way to overcome the old organic/synthetic dichotomy. You can disagree with their premise, but the writing is clear enough that the fiction is clear. You just don't like the fiction then, which is better to deal with than continually demanding everyone accept your headcanon rewrite as what ME3 REALLY means.

 
Mike Gamble's retconning Tweets are just that: retconning. The EC presents fairly strong evidence that ME3 writers studied critiques and analyses of the original endings and tried to cover as many plot holes and inconsistencies as possible. Well, that's impossible (and in fact, the EC created plot holes of its own). Gamble's Tweets just sprinkle more sparkles on the turds that are the ME3 endings. Are his Tweets "canon?" Sure, because they're Gamble's Tweets. That doesn't make them consistent with established ME themes and lore. It just makes them retcon.
 
Here's a link to a vid presenting the entire EC extended dialogue. The Synthesis discussion begins at 9:20--
 
Mass Effect 3 Synthesis Extended Cut Ending HD + Full Dialogue with Catalyst (Starchild) - YouTube
 
The Catalyst specifically says “the chain reaction will combine all organic and synthetic life into a new framework, a new...DNA." So the resulting “DNA” will most definitely be a mix of both. The new life form will be a hybrid. The Catalyst says so.


He most certainly doesn't.  You quote him saying that a NEW framework will be created.  I have elsewhere pointed out the framework they are using is Hegelian synthesis, in which a third option combining a thesis and its opposition antithesis creates a new transcendent framework.  Given that this is literally what the Catalyst says, rather than "We're mixing the two old paradigms into a hybrid" as you state it, you're misstating the scene you are quoting.

Just in general, you are unaware of how to combine two things to make a third new one with entirely different properties? 

#786
Guest_Nyoka_*

Guest_Nyoka_*
  • Guests
I think my main problem with synthesis is that I don't believe space kid is right about organics and synthetics, so there's no point picking it.

#787
Guest_PurebredCorn_*

Guest_PurebredCorn_*
  • Guests

Siansonea II wrote...

Let's say that a scientist creates a virus that rewrites the genetic code of all humanity, and in the process cures all known diseases, as well as eliminating racism, sexism, hunger, obesity and intellectual inequality. Sounds good, right? Happiness for everyone!! Now we can survive on very little food if we have to, or we can eat as much as we want and never get fat, thanks to our improved digestive system. Instead of the multiplicity of ethnicities we once were, all of us now have a medium brown skin town and black hair, with brown eyes, all other variations have been eradicated from the genome. And like the asari, we're all female now, all new children that will be born will be female, and will reproduce through parthenogenesis. Aging has been eradicated as well, we remain youthful and pretty well into our senior years, and our lifespans have been doubled. Also, the human sex drive is gone, it was problematic, so it was eliminated. We've been upgraded! No, you weren't asked if you wanted to be upgraded, is that a problem?

THAT'S Synthesis. Whatever rosy fantasy there is of EDI becoming a real girl (she was already a RealDoll) and everyone living together in perfect harmony like some 1970s Coca-Cola commercial, it doesn't change the fact that all life has been irrevocably altered on a very basic level, without consultation or consent, by ONE person, at the urging of a murderous AI who could be telling Shepard all kinds of lies (and whose explanations are problematic at best).


Right-on. 

Honestly, I don't really care what others choose in their version of the game, but on a personal level and with the extended cut info, I just don't trust this ideal perfection that is shown at the end of the game.

Modifié par PurebredCorn, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:06 .


#788
Shadowvalker

Shadowvalker
  • Members
  • 203 messages

Malditor wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

I said:
Interesting, following this idea anyone who gets sick should just be allowed to die instead of finding ways to cure them or prevent others from getting the same illness. We are constantly finding ways to improve ourselves and become more able to survive. However, by your philosphy we should just accept death in whatever form it comes in because it's the law of life.

You said:
Yes! When death comes - well it bloody well comes! You can fight it all you want but it comes anyway. You accept life but not death? The you should not have swum as fast as you did when you were a merly spem.

That statement directly conflicts with going to the doctor and taking medicine, eating healthy/exercise *improve ourselves* etc.


By having a broken arm fixed by a doctor does not improve me as a human! After the visit to the doctor I am still me - as I was before I went to see him.. You would be right if I went to see him and had my arm removed and a mechanic device put in its place.

Why complicate things?



You are changing the basic premise of this discussion from generally prolonging life to artifical/mechanical additions to the body. But hey, since we are talking that and someone brought up a pacemaker I guess those people should have just been allowed to die, or people with insulin pumps? People on dialysis? These people are still "them" but have some sort of mechanical device helping them stay alive. Try to not change what you are saying if you want to have a debate. Definitely done here, since you will just twist around and try to find another loophole.


That depends on what the word prolong means in this context. If eating healty food is - then I am worng and I then I did contradict myself.  And if you belive that a pill or getting a broken arm fixed by a doctor is a mean to prolong life - Then I have contradicted myself.

I do belive in natural selection - and this means that I accept death as being a part of life. I belive that the strong suvives and the weak doesn't.
I belive that this also applies on a universel scale. Stars are born - stars dies. New elements are formed in the process. But I also belive that this has an end. What may or may not come after that is beyond me.

People who has an illness are free to choose what to do about it - just like I also have had to make some very difficult choices regarding my life and health.

#789
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

Nyoka wrote...

I think my main problem with synthesis is that I don't believe space kid is right about organics and synthetics, so there's no point picking it.


The point in picking it is it gives the best result in the game.  You then get to come on BSN and say, the writers are wrong, their idea they based this game on is foolish.  See it is really easy to deal with reality as it is, and then judge it after the fact.

#790
Quething

Quething
  • Members
  • 2 384 messages

memorysquid wrote...

You can call a change like that a violation, perhaps it would be for you.  It wouldn't be for everyone.  Deal with it.


"You can call my husband having sex with you a violation, perhaps it would be for you. I happen to like it, so deal with it."

Where's that poll where 75% of people said that given a choice between Reject and Synthesis, they'd pick Reject? I'd say it's a pretty extreme violation. And pretty good evidence that Synthesis does something fishy to people's thought processes in light of the fact that significantly fewer than 75% of the characters we see reacting to Synthesis have any problem with it.

#791
Guest_Nyoka_*

Guest_Nyoka_*
  • Guests

memorysquid wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

I think my main problem with synthesis is that I don't believe space kid is right about organics and synthetics, so there's no point picking it.


The point in picking it is it gives the best result in the game.  You then get to come on BSN and say, the writers are wrong, their idea they based this game on is foolish.  See it is really easy to deal with reality as it is, and then judge it after the fact.

wat

#792
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 424 messages

Quething wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

You can call a change like that a violation, perhaps it would be for you.  It wouldn't be for everyone.  Deal with it.


"You can call my husband having sex with you a violation, perhaps it would be for you. I happen to like it, so deal with it."

Where's that poll where 75% of people said that given a choice between Reject and Synthesis, they'd pick Reject? I'd say it's a pretty extreme violation. And pretty good evidence that Synthesis does something fishy to people's thought processes in light of the fact that significantly fewer than 75% of the characters we see reacting to Synthesis have any problem with it.


It's in my siggy. Small sample size though.

#793
translationninja

translationninja
  • Members
  • 422 messages
I think the problem here is simply people see synthesis and subconsciously being reminded of every cheesy sect flier out there hence it must be bad.

The fiction as presented to us in ME3 gives no clue that synthesis as it plays out in the EC has anything to do with "brainwashed" or "huskification" or anything like that. Some people just interpret that in there, whether conciously or subconciously, dun matter.

Synthesis is no better or worse than the other options, it just comes with a different set of moral implications.

I can't for the life of me figure out how one would come to the conclusion that everyone was "brainwashed" or lost their "individuality" from the statement that understanding was brought and that understanding led to peace. That is entirely personal interpretation.

One person may see all the evil in the world in Soilent Green whereas another may perceive it as a sensible solution to world hunger (moraility aside, it would be).

What kinda edges me in this whole conversation is how people present their headcanon and conclusions as if they were written canon.

Again, nothing in the epilogue even hints at everyone being "brainwashed", "death", "huskified" or anything like it. The only thing that is certain and written canon is that people now have a green glow.

People also make a big fuss about everybody's "choice" and "free will" so my question is this:

If Shep had the time to conduct a galaxy wide survey before deciding to the effect of "Uhm would you rather glow green, not sure why, or would you rather be death, what's your guess how that poll would come in?

Pretty sure everyone would be like GIVE ME DEATH BEFORE GREEN /sarcasm off

Modifié par translationninja, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:47 .


#794
Quething

Quething
  • Members
  • 2 384 messages

translationninja wrote...

I think the problem here is simply people see synthesis and subconsciously being reminded of every cheesy sect flier out there hence it must be bad.

The fiction as presented to us in ME3 gives no clue that synthesis as it plays out in the EC has anything to do with "brainwashed" or "huskification" or anything like that. Some people just interpret that in there, whether conciously or subconciously, dun matter.

Synthesis is no better or worse than the other options, it just comes with a different set of moral implications.

I can't for the life of me figure out how one would come to the conclusion that everyone was "brainwashed" or lost their "individuality" from the statement that understanding was brought and that understanding led to peace. That is entirely personal interpretation.

One person may see all the evil in the world in Soilent Green whereas another may perceive it as a sensible solution to world hunger (moraility aside, it would be).

What kinda edges me in this whole conversation is how people present their headcanon and conclusions as if they were written canon.

Again, nothing in the epilogue even hints at everyone being "brainwashed", "death", "huskified" or anything like it. The only thing that is certain and written canon is that people now have a green glow.

People also make a big fuss about everybody's "choice" and "free will" so my question is this:

If Shep had the time to conduct a galaxy wide survey before deciding to the effect of "Uhm would you rather glow green, not sure why, or would you rather be death, what's your guess how that poll would come in?

Pretty sure everyone would be like GIVE ME DEATH BEFORE GREEN /sarcasm off


Didn't read the last couple posts, huh?

#795
translationninja

translationninja
  • Members
  • 422 messages

Quething wrote...


Didn't read the last couple posts, huh?


Did, seen nothing but personal interpretation and speculation tho...

#796
RadicalDisconnect

RadicalDisconnect
  • Members
  • 1 895 messages
How many of these threads do we need?

I find synthesis distasteful and strongly dislike it because you are making significant alterations to every individual in the galaxy without consent. That in itself is a gross violation. We don't quite know what Synthesis does, which is another gripe I have about that stupid fantasy ending. Even with the EC, we still don't know what synthesis exactly does. Even if I did, I can still never make the decision for anyone else.

I do, however, find the mind control and everyone turned into husks/reapers way overblown. The fact is, the slideshows for synthesis are almost identical to the ones in the other endings. That alone makes me think that the whole mind control and turning people into reapers arguments are huge exaggerations. I interpret the lack of cheering as the soldiers being surprised at what happened to them and the reapers. If we really have to go with the brainwashing argument, then I think it would be more indicative that they're brainwashed if they cheered, i.e. instantly happy and friendly to the reapers. 

Nevertheless, I still find synthesis morally reprehensible, not to mention jumping from science fiction to pure fantasy, although I do think some of the criticisms against it are overblown. 

In a nutshell, did I choose synthesis? No. Are the criticisms exaggerated out of proportion? In many cases, I'd say yes.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:26 .


#797
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

Siansonea II wrote...

The problem is, if you choose Synthesis, you tacitly—or even explicitly—support something unconscionable. You support altering the fundamental framework of life for something as nebulous as "peace". It is the nature of life to be in conflict, it is one of the most basic principles of evolution. Species live or die according to their suitability to the natural environment. Intelligent species circumvent evolution by adapting their environment to suit them. But again, this is a natural process, it just happens. But to artificially reprogram your own software to make yourself "better"? That's questionable, it raises all sorts of ethical questions and concerns. Eugenics is a form of genetic engineering, it is selective breeding to improve the human species, and, well, let's say it's gotten a bit of a bad rap thanks to some folks in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Genetic engineering is debated in science circles today—how much intervention is too much? It's one thing to cure diseases and chronic conditions, but what about changing traits just because we can? "Slippery slope" doesn't even begin to describe it. 

Now take away choice. Now force this change on someone. Regardless of how "improved" YOU think they've become, they didn't ask for this change, some of them probably would have refused it, and EVERYONE has a right to make that determination for himself or herself. 


'Unconscionable' is just another way to say "I have no argument to support my position."  Is synthesis more or less ethical than genocide?  Is it more or less ethical than creating tyrant Shepard running the Reaper police?  Can you even pass judgement without recourse to the effects of each action?

What about changing traits because we can?  Is it a bad idea to marry someone because they have good heredity and you'd like to pass it on to your kids?  You should ignore whether or not you're going to be creating strong, healthy children?

The extinction of the dinosaurs was a natural process.  But from the viewpoint of the dinosaurs, was it a good one?  Abdicating the ability to make choices because you are paralyzed by fear of the consequences is a slippery slope itself.

Modifié par memorysquid, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:29 .


#798
translationninja

translationninja
  • Members
  • 422 messages
If you advocate genocide on a sentient race you have forfeited the right to argue on moral grounds

If you are fascinated by the lore of a sci-fi title where objects traverse the universe at a speed that is multiples of C, you have forfeited the right to argue space magic

#799
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

How many of these threads do we need?


Until the mods get in here and make one official and start locking the others, as many as people care to make.

I find synthesis distasteful and strongly dislike it because you are making significant alterations to every individual in the galaxy without consent. That in itself is a gross violation. 


Then you must have disliked every ending and many of the choices Shepard made throughout the game.  Because he never has time to gain informed consent from everyone his actions affect.  He doesn't have the Geth's consent to kill them all in preference to another course of action.  He doesn't have galactic consent to implement his tyranny, benign or otherwise.  He doesn't have galactic consent to refuse to act and preserve his morals at the cost of the ashes of trillions.  He doesn't have Batarian consent to nuke their solar system to delay the Reaper invasion for a few months that most galactic governments use to do nothing at all.  He doesn't have anyone else's consent to destroy or preserve the Collector base. 

In short, he often acts without consent and the consent issue is as overblown as demanding that everyone must be considered a husk in synthesis endings.

#800
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

translationninja wrote...

If you advocate genocide on a sentient race you have forfeited the right to argue on moral grounds

If you are fascinated by the lore of a sci-fi title where objects traverse the universe at a speed that is multiples of C, you have forfeited the right to argue space magic


/thread