284 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@Wayning_Star:
What's this about the original creators?

[Wayning_Star]

Xameoh wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Xameoh wrote...

DRTJR wrote...

Conflict is absent, death is absent, famine in absent. That is Utopia, which is naturally unobtainable, so forcing "Utopia" on the Galaxy is abhorrent, because there is nothing to strive for. Society is based on trying to reach Utopia, the Closer we get the further the goal is, for a reason.

Why is it abhorrent? I'm tired of the lesson that the media tries to pound into us; tradegy is a part of life, freedom and the risk that comes with it s more important than safety, articifial life is necessarily flawed.

Anyone that rejects immortality in favour of war and bloodshed obviously doesn't have the best interests for society in mind.

Do you honestly have no idea of the problems of immortality and it isn't only about war-nothing would kill people.  Have you ever heard of any conflict and horrible war that resulted from over-population?

And I totally don't get your thing about freedom and safety.

Full freedom is not secure.  But everytime you reject freedom over security you have to judge the value of life at that point.  You can be fully secure if you decide you want a totalitarian regime that controls everything.  Does that sound like fun?  Ask people that have lived through that.  People that live under freedom take it for granted because it's there.  It starts to get stripped away bit by bit and reaches a tipping point where you go from not noticing it to having lost it.  That's why people refuse to give an inch quite often. 

I can tell you that it's not a great feeling when you all of a sudden find yourself under suspicion for maybe having breached some form of security aimed at really bad people, especially when you know you've done nothing wrong.  I made a mistake once of making a big payment on a credit card.  I tried to make a purchase with it and found my account had been suspended because under the rules of the Patriot Act I was being looked at for possible money laundering.  And I assure you all I did was take my paycheck and make a credit card payment.  Six months later I found my credit had been released so I could use the card again, never had been accused of doing anything wrong, never heard one more word about it.  But, I can tell you as someone who has always loved my country, worked in law enforcement, always tried to abide by the law, and believed if you are honorable and do the right thing, you have nothing to worry about, this made me feel dirty and depressed and worried.  And this was a minor thing.  It still bothers me to this day and it's been a few years now.

Once you begin to give up an important thing for another thing (freedom for security, life worth living for any kind of life at any cost), you have given up what makes it all so dear. 

Sorry, I am probably not the best person to have this debate with because I do actually like the idea of a totalitarian state (I am a political extremst).

But I do agree that authoritarian legislation doesn't work in an, otherwise, libertarian society because it is clumsy and isn't able to account for a lot.

No, I reject the idea that you give up what makes it dear; what makes one life lived to the full and one life cut short better than two lives lived under repression?

actually, as an extremist,the last thing you'd need is totalalitarian government isn't an option, as your politics are moot. Unless of course you're the despot..then you have the rest of the world setting on your head stacking bb's..not fun or productive..lol

[Taboo]

He's referring to whomever created the Catalyst Ieldra.

Synthesis is a way to solve the hypothetical issue that he was programmed for.

Being a machine however, he seeks a simpler solution, the Reapers.

You stated that this was a cosmic tradgedy Ieldra, it is.

I liken it to people not taking responsibility for their creations.

They can coexist, but only if they make the effort.

Victor Frankenstein had this issue.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Wayning_Star:
What's this about the original creators?

oh, sorry, it's the ones that created the catalyst and instructed it to govern the problems between(apparently at that time) and the stigma surrounding synthetic life and organic life. As we all know that he (catalyst of the cycle) turned his program around on them and made the first reapers out their civilization, it was never made clear how the catalyst did this without reapers tho. I'm under the strong impression that they are responsible for Shepards abilities and his come back to the MEU . I just calle'm that cause it's catchy, and the codex doesn't have a name for them anywhere.

[Wayning_Star]

crap real time sucks, gotta go..get synthesised right quick..keep up with them joneses..lol

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Just as an comment on some of the anti-Synthesis arguments here: What I am seeing is a widespread belief that the life we have, with the limitations we have, is basically the end of things, and that because people cannot imagine how life without those limitations will be, that there will be no meaningful life beyond them.

I think that's a misperception caused by a lack of imagination, and the misperception that meaning is made by anything else but ourselves. SF literature has created quite a few interesting futures which are very different from what we know, where some fundamental limitations have been overcome. See, for instance, Iain M Banks' Culture novels. Still, life can be interesting in those places if you want. Well yeah, it can be static if you don't have the drive to do something interesting. But hey, the same is true in some present-day cultures, and if people prefer their lives static, why shouldn't that be an option as well? The difference in those places is that people have a choice. I can't see that as bad. The misperception is that there is nothing interesting to do anymore for those who want it. I can't see that ever happening.

You really do need to look at the things you say.  Stating that something is a misperception caused by a lack of imagination is an insult and you constantly do this.  I get it now.  You postulate all these theories formed within your own vast imagination and if one disagrees they lack true perception and imagination.  You have at times used your own imagination to say that one that thinks certain morals are irrelevant because they come from conceipt-because they disagree with your dystopic/utopic view of synthesis.

Everything you postulate is speculation, but if others postulate then it is to be rejected because it is speculation.  You love synthesis, it's so intellectual.  Yeah right.  You fail and will not discuss what it is and in fact what the game is at the end.  You say synthesis is the right choice, or imply it.  And I say no choice is a good choice and I lack imagination and blah blah blah.

It is forced upon people against their will when it is not a given that every one of them would admit there are no other solutions.  Even the Protheans did find another way.  If not to save everyone, but to save some INTACT and in their natural form, on Ilos.  But because this became a game of numbers and because it's become a game that values any life over quality of life, I say it does have a corollary.  Let me again impart my imagination.

The game is saying that basically life is like a person that's dying slowly.  That person must be kept alive using external or internal means-life support.  One family member thinks life needs to go on no matter what-the patient may never have a good quality of life ever again and may live on indefinitely.  But there's the slim chance that left alone the patient may still have some hope or may just end up dying and not linger on in some unknown state.  It's also not known how much the patient can perceive.

This patient has made it clear s/he didn't want to be kept alive if it meant something invasive or artificial is done.  In fact, the patient has even said eutthanasia would be preferable.

The doctor must make the decision.  He will decide if quality of life and the patient's written wishes is to be denied in order to achieve longevity.  He can even decide to let nature take its course to see if the patient might just heal on his/her own.

[DirtyPhoenix]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes, scientists do "cure" disease but have you ever heard of theories on Gaia?  That nature or the Earth continually finds new obstacles once one is overcome.

Which is why I don't think acieving immortality would shatter the world. Mother nature/Space grandpa will find new obstacles to entertain us.

Modifié par pirate1802, 28 juillet 2012 - 06:18 .

[Taboo]

pirate1802 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes, scientists do "cure" disease but have you ever heard of theories on Gaia?  That nature or the Earth continually finds new obstacles once one is overcome.

Which is why I don't think acieving immortality would shatter the world. Mother nature/Space Grandpa will find new obstacles to entertain us.

There are biological factors that would come into play.

As you age your mind processes things faster. Eventually eons would go by in the blink of an eye. This is fact.

Also, being immortal, you run the risk of becoming trapped in a place where no one could find you. You sit for all eternity.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Taboo-XX wrote...

There are biological factors that would come into play.

As you age your mind processes things faster. Eventually eons would go by in the blink of an eye. This is fact.

Also, being immortal, you run the risk of becoming trapped in a place where no one could find you. You sit for all eternity.

Yes, if it is indeed so, then people wouldn't opt for immortality. What I'm trying to saying is, achieving immortality wouldn't immediately set the galaxy to a path of self-destruction. There would be checks and balances, like the one you mentioned.

Regardless, synthesis doesn't immediately lead to immortality. All EDI says is in future it may. The same thing we can say about our world. 

Modifié par pirate1802, 28 juillet 2012 - 06:26 .

[Shepard Wins]

*ahem* Reaper trap *cough, cough aahhhhrr flemmh*

No seriously, koobismo, who's comic is now officially canon ME3, says it's a Reaper trap. So Synthesis is actually a Reaper victory. Case closed. Good night.

[3DandBeyond]

Taboo-XX wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes, scientists do "cure" disease but have you ever heard of theories on Gaia?  That nature or the Earth continually finds new obstacles once one is overcome.

Which is why I don't think acieving immortality would shatter the world. Mother nature/Space Grandpa will find new obstacles to entertain us.

There are biological factors that would come into play.

As you age your mind processes things faster. Eventually eons would go by in the blink of an eye. This is fact.

Also, being immortal, you run the risk of becoming trapped in a place where no one could find you. You sit for all eternity.

Ha this is priceless.  Imagine that, someone gets lost in a cave and is never found and lives into eternity there.  Or they get kicked out an airlock and float in space forever.  Now that's fun.

Since synthesis is not formed by a natural process it could take forever for nature to adapt to it and find a way to eradicate this unnatural life.  What makes it harder is that all organic life (the natural breeding ground of contagion) is also synthesized.   Bacteria cannot thrive if it does not know how to "feed" on something.  It would have to adapt to feed on this new lifeform and any detritus from it.

New obstacles might need to be created in order to reduce the effects of immortality.  But see what that means?  You are giving people the authority to decide what to target to overcome the side effects of immortality.  No one's dying so either nature or people must find a way to stop immortality.  So, create a random bacteria to do that?  Well, isn't that chaos?  But maybe it would need to be a quicker solution or a more pernicious one.  Hmm, the genophage seemed to work.  And so the solution may be just as temporary and awful as the reapers.

[Wayning_Star]

Note: Just because some posters insist on including synthesis as a utopia, doesn't mean that the synthesis choice is choosing a utopia. They are not the same thing.. at all,and so choosing this option doesn't include utopia. So far utopia has gotten bad reviews,eventhough nobody has actually been there or done that. So its a given if you aren't defending the synthesis option, then calling it a form of utopia is in your best interest, but not a sound arguement. It just makes posters who do, feel better...for some reason.

Edit: forgot to mention that synthesis doen't make you immortal either, just pretty close to long lived. Well, maybe Asari even longer than their 1000+ years.. but after five hundred, who's counting?

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 28 juillet 2012 - 07:20 .

[3DandBeyond]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Note: Just because some posters insist on including synthesis as a utopia, doesn't mean that the synthesis choice is choosing a utopia. They are not the same thing.. at all,and so choosing this option doesn't include utopia. So far utopia has gotten bad reviews,eventhough nobody has actually been there or done that. So its a given if you aren't defending the synthesis option, then calling it a form of utopia is in your best interest, but not a sound arguement. It just makes posters who do, feel better...for some reason.

Edit: forgot to mention that synthesis doen't make you immortal either, just pretty close to long lived. Well, maybe Asari even longer than their 1000+ years.. but after five hundred, who's counting?

Problem with this is I don't see anyone actually telling someone that likes synthesis that that's because they see it as a utopia and the arguments are not even mostly over that idea at all.

Problems that exist are most based on how it's achieved (through magical mystery means and through the implementation of implied force on others without consent).  That it isn't utopia is icing on the cake.  It's the idea that it's ok to force it on people (the implication being that it's the best of ok solutions and the only real solution of the 3-even said to be the happiest or only happy win one by those that like it).  It's the idea that it's ok to do it because there's no other chance and the other choices are just awful whereas this is not.  And many of us reject that idea.  It's furthermore set up by some as THE canon ending, supported by the happy EDI narration and happy slide shows at the end.  If everyone is so happy then this is pretty close to utopia.

As a whole Synthesis is a mess.  It seems to clearly be what the kid wants and people say it's what the devs want and that alone makes it suspect.  But beyond that there is the idea that some morality is just not fungible, no matter the cost.  If we abandon that, then life has no moral authority for existence.  And I'm not substituting my morality for someone else's version of it - life does have enough examples of where morality was seen as changeable to make certain decisions ok-to excuse bad deeds.  If we can be convinced that anything is justifiable because something bad will happen otherwise then we have no morality.  Some things are never justifiable.  And I don't subscribe to the idea that things are inevitable or ever even impossible.  I've seen the impossible done and seen the inevitable averted. 

[Ieldra]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Problem with this is I don't see anyone actually telling someone that likes synthesis that that's because they see it as a utopia and the arguments are not even mostly over that idea at all.

You should really read what Synthesis supporters say. In the OP of this very thread I made the point that I do NOT see Synthesis as an utopia. Neither do most other Synthesis supporters here.

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Note: Just because some posters insist on including synthesis as a utopia, doesn't mean that the synthesis choice is choosing a utopia. They are not the same thing.. at all,and so choosing this option doesn't include utopia. So far utopia has gotten bad reviews,eventhough nobody has actually been there or done that. So its a given if you aren't defending the synthesis option, then calling it a form of utopia is in your best interest, but not a sound arguement. It just makes posters who do, feel better...for some reason.

Edit: forgot to mention that synthesis doen't make you immortal either, just pretty close to long lived. Well, maybe Asari even longer than their 1000+ years.. but after five hundred, who's counting?

Problem with this is I don't see anyone actually telling someone that likes synthesis that that's because they see it as a utopia and the arguments are not even mostly over that idea at all.

Problems that exist are most based on how it's achieved (through magical mystery means and through the implementation of implied force on others without consent).  That it isn't utopia is icing on the cake.  It's the idea that it's ok to force it on people (the implication being that it's the best of ok solutions and the only real solution of the 3-even said to be the happiest or only happy win one by those that like it).  It's the idea that it's ok to do it because there's no other chance and the other choices are just awful whereas this is not.  And many of us reject that idea.  It's furthermore set up by some as THE canon ending, supported by the happy EDI narration and happy slide shows at the end.  If everyone is so happy then this is pretty close to utopia.

As a whole Synthesis is a mess.  It seems to clearly be what the kid wants and people say it's what the devs want and that alone makes it suspect.  But beyond that there is the idea that some morality is just not fungible, no matter the cost.  If we abandon that, then life has no moral authority for existence.  And I'm not substituting my morality for someone else's version of it - life does have enough examples of where morality was seen as changeable to make certain decisions ok-to excuse bad deeds.  If we can be convinced that anything is justifiable because something bad will happen otherwise then we have no morality.  Some things are never justifiable.  And I don't subscribe to the idea that things are inevitable or ever even impossible.  I've seen the impossible done and seen the inevitable averted. 

there are times when we cannot subject others to our sense of morality. Just as in combining their atom or not combining their atoms. In the MEU, the consensus was that it wasn't 'all that bad' as opposed to being reaped up, or enslaved by a SuperShep. I agree that the explanation of synthesis is vague at best and a bit flashy, but what isn't flashy in this universe. I don't think "the kid" has any agenda other than what its programmed to want, which is a dicy word for what might motivate a sentient VI like the catalyst.  On the moral issue with 'something bad happening' a bird in hand is better than any reapers in the neighborhood with 'harvest' on their main agenda. Survival trumps morals any and every day in real time. The game tosses billions of lives around like, another day another dollar, whats new with you. In the MEU things are impossible and improbable and bizarre alien weird stuff..taken for granted, just because that's the future and it ain't a pretty sight. All the time Shep is 'deciding' imagine the crap going on outside that frame of reference. Heck he's even under a kind of indoctrination just trying to communicate with that VI, but has to 'decide' what to do with those pesky billions of lifes..getting snuffed out/absorbed/harvested. The VI in charge of about everything, just prattling on about the choices. Not caring in the least which one he picks. No agenda, just its programming from the crucible. Sheps gotta go for it and quick.. The best quick fix for now is.. ??? 

Control:Shep says he didn't know, shows immediate doubt, doesn't want to be supershepreaper/illusive indoctrinated guy..
 
Destroy: kill off any chance of returning lost civilization resources, maybe even a part of the people from those era...lose his friends and allies to be responsible for their and all their essence from the face of the MEU, just to probably have the reapers return later to start the process anew..shep really don't like reapers, hates what they stand for, and has a chance to upend their and anyone elses to renew their simple agenda/program

Synthesis: Overshadow the entire MEU with some strange coctail of syntho_organic patent, unknown risks, weighing the benefits and a slim chance he'd get to help everyone and best of all, get rid of the reapers right then and there, compare the right and wrong of the reaper threat to the risks of synthesis without the slightest clue as to the consequences. All in the flash of an instant, decide..

Walk away: Let the reapers have that day for now, in a slim hope that some generation will figure out how to utilze the catalyst to make the same decision he has to make.. in the flash of an instant?

Hard row to hoe, fur sure. Moral high ground? Under the weight of who knows what? Synthesis would likely win in the human context of that decision.

Renegade Shepard: Screw'm if they can't take a joke,, it's my butt up here doin all the work. It's the best I can do on short notice. Wheres that confounded beam, lets rock'n roll!!  (and good luck, you're gonna need it, as usual..)

[Jassu1979]

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Problem with this is I don't see anyone actually telling someone that likes synthesis that that's because they see it as a utopia and the arguments are not even mostly over that idea at all.

You should really read what Synthesis supporters say. In the OP of this very thread I made the point that I do NOT see Synthesis as an utopia. Neither do most other Synthesis supporters here.

At least you have the comfort of knowing that Walters and Hudson probably agree with you, and will keep on shaping the ME-universe along the lines of that "best" solution.

The rest of us? We can only watch in disgust as one of the most epic SciFi-series is perverted beyond recognition by its creators, betraying the very spirit that pervaded it for 90% of its runtime.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Problem with this is I don't see anyone actually telling someone that likes synthesis that that's because they see it as a utopia and the arguments are not even mostly over that idea at all.

You should really read what Synthesis supporters say. In the OP of this very thread I made the point that I do NOT see Synthesis as an utopia. Neither do most other Synthesis supporters here.

I never said you did and I said the exact opposite if you would read what I said.  I said the post synthesis scenes make it look like it's intended by the writers to be the win ending and even a happy ending (which pro-synthesis supporters have said).  And in my quote here I even have said that most people are not arguing that you see it as a utopia and I never once pointed anything at you directly in that post.

At this pont you are the one not reading things because you have continuously characterized me as cynical when I've said I find the endings cynical because I don't see things as inevitable or impossible.  You've questioned my integrity because I believe there are standards of morality, and basically when I've stated an opinion you have continued to characterize me personally and not my comments in a negative way.

I am not and never have said you personally see it as a utopia or that anyone, even the writers do and I even said that doesn't even matter. 

[3DandBeyond]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Problem with this is I don't see anyone actually telling someone that likes synthesis that that's because they see it as a utopia and the arguments are not even mostly over that idea at all.

You should really read what Synthesis supporters say. In the OP of this very thread I made the point that I do NOT see Synthesis as an utopia. Neither do most other Synthesis supporters here.

At least you have the comfort of knowing that Walters and Hudson probably agree with you, and will keep on shaping the ME-universe along the lines of that "best" solution.

The rest of us? We can only watch in disgust as one of the most epic SciFi-series is perverted beyond recognition by its creators, betraying the very spirit that pervaded it for 90% of its runtime.

This exactly.  Many that like it do support it as being the writer's canon ending and that is in keeping with their decision that they are now artists.  Well, artists are generally original but I do understand why Walters said that they couldn't write any other kind of ending--it's because no one else had written it first.

[3DandBeyond]

Wayning_Star wrote...


there are times when we cannot subject others to our sense of morality. Just as in combining their atom or not combining their atoms. In the MEU, the consensus was that it wasn't 'all that bad' as opposed to being reaped up, or enslaved by a SuperShep.



snipped

Sorry I have to stop you right there.  It isn't and wasn't the consensus ever that it wasn't all that bad when compare with others.  By and large it is seen as immoral and even undesired.  Polls here have even shown most wouldn't want that for themselves so making it happened is forced eugenics.  There's no equivocating the morality of that.  I'm not subjecting anyone to my sole and personal sense of morality but am stating what the laws are in most countries, statutes of International law, commonly accepted morality and so on.  I reject that there is no other way and that inevitability and the impossible are true concepts even against the reapers.  I also reject the idea that you abandon accepted standards of morality even if it means others will suffer if you do nothing.  But that's the thing-the choice is to assault others or do nothing.  People may die and probably will die because you refused to assault others.  That is a more moral decision.  And far better than altering people unnaturally. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 28 juillet 2012 - 08:37 .

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

As you age your mind processes things faster. Eventually eons would go by in the blink of an eye. This is fact.

…No, it’s not.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Jassu1979 wrote...


At least you have the comfort of knowing that Walters and Hudson probably agree with you, and will keep on shaping the ME-universe along the lines of that "best" solution.

The rest of us? We can only watch in disgust as one of the most epic SciFi-series is perverted beyond recognition by its creators, betraying the very spirit that pervaded it for 90% of its runtime.

[Ieldra]

@3DAndBeyond:
There is no "unnatural" life. What intelligent life changes is, by definition, as much part of nature as the agent itself. Well, perhaps you believe there are normative standards of what is "natural" or not, but I reject those notions. We've been changing life since the neolithic, would you want to destroy all that just because it's been touched by human hands? If you wouldn't, then you've already conceded the point in question, and you can't use the argument that some life is "unnatural" to reject something.

Also, your opinion of the results of Synthesis is based on your own speculation. That means it does not apply as a criticism to Synthesis scenarios different from yours, and you have not given evidence that Synthesis actually results in what you believe it results in. Basically, the morality of the decision aside, you're attacking a strawman.

I understand you feel offended that Bioware presents a morally problematic choice as having a good outcome (the same applies for all three main endings in different degrees) because you believe in absolute moral standards that should be followed regardless of circumstance. I, on the other hand, find the setup very interesting because I believe that circumstances modify what is justifiable and that consequently, using any of the three main ending options is justifiable in - and through - the circumstance we find ourselves in at the end. Doing nothing, in my view, is to place your own morality above survival of all life in the galaxy. I honestly cannot understand that way of thinking. Anyway, we won't come to an agreement on this point because we come from a different meta-ethical position, so I don't think it's of any use to continue this argument.

[Ieldra]

Jassu1979 wrote...
At least you have the comfort of knowing that Walters and Hudson probably agree with you, and will keep on shaping the ME-universe along the lines of that "best" solution.

Are you serious? Synthesis will never be made canon! It's far too odd. I think whoever makes the decisions is very much aware of the fact that it only appeals to a minority. I wouldn't even want that, actually. I'd rather let the version of the MEU I created with my choice continue to live in my mind. Anyway I don't think there will be any post-ME3 content at all, at least not for some time.  

The rest of us? We can only watch in disgust as one of the most epic SciFi-series is perverted beyond recognition by its creators, betraying the very spirit that pervaded it for 90% of its runtime.

Are you seriously telling me that the series is ruined for you because of the mere existence of an ending option you don't like? And do I understand it right that you would rather take see that option taken away, ruining others' games, than just ignore its existence and play your own story with a different option?

[clennon8]

@Ieldra2: It's ruined for some of us because Synthesis is clearly presented as the "best" or "ideal" ending (please, don't try to argue against this. just don't). Meanwhile, the Destroy ending got crapped on for the sake of trying to make the decision "tough." And, yes, quite frankly I would LOVE to see Synthesis ripped out of the game. It won't ever happen, so you can rest easy, but I would LOVE to see that happen.