So true, so true. But I'm not so much bothered by people rejecting Synthesis on the basis of the ethical implications. That, after all, is a completely valid reason to reject it, and if choosing it nonetheless makes me a small minority, then so be it. If others' value hierarchy makes Synthesis unacceptable for them, it shows nothing more than that their worldview is different from mine. I don't exactly appreciate that moral diversity, but it's the price of living in a reasonably free society.CosmicGnosis wrote...
Goodness, I wish BioWare had handled these endings differently. Just as so many people feel like BioWare ruined their Destroy ending, I feel like they ruined my Synthesis ending.
Despite the space magic, the weird presentation of the choices from the villain, and the crushing ethical dilemma, I love the idea of Synthesis. I really do. When it was first presented to me, I was certainly confused about the entire situation, but I really liked the idea of Synthesis. I stood there for a while thinking about Synthesis vs. Destroy. I had already written off Control (although I like it more now than I did then), Destroy was the obvious default choice, and Synthesis had its amazing benefits challenged by its ethical problem. And this ethical problem has caused the majority of the fanbase to utterly reject the choice, and I'm sometimes implied to be a vile person for even considering it.
Truly annoying are those who claim it's stupid or even worse, indoctrination. Denigrating others' choices just to feel superior is an obnoxious trait, and too many people here on BSN are prone to it.
Indeed. The main problem lies with the original ending I think. That had strong implications of unifying biochemistry in spite of that making no sense at all. While it didn't actually remove diversity among organics, the message that came across was that in this case, the diversity between organics and synthetics is a bad thing. That message still exists in the form of "true life is like organics", between the geth gaining individuality and EDI's "I am alive", as if that wasn't true before.Based on the evidence, Synthesis does not destroy diversity. It doesn't even eliminate organics and synthetics; EDI states that the distinction still exists, and that the line has merely been blurred. The most radical and fantastic aspects of Synthesis won't even occur until a time set in the far future (example: immortality is something that will be achieved later, not now).
The humans are still humans, the krogan are still krogan, the leaves are still leaves. It's not about what your are made of. Rather, it's about who you are. Because I accept that EDI and the geth are actual living beings, I don't care that they are made of non-organic materials. Thus, why should I care if I have a synthetic aspect added to my body? I'm still me, and all the evidence indicates that my mind is intact. I'm not less of a person all because I have nanites wrapped around my DNA.
The EC, however, firmly rejects the interpretation that all diversity is removed. What we are may have been changed, but we are still the same people, as evidenced by various slides, among them those showing the ME2 team members doing things completely appropriate to them.
I love that aspect of "embracing the unknown" and "deciphering the other", though I don't interpret it as becoming part of the "other" rather than simply connecting to it as the Catalyst says. For now. What we do with it lies in the future, the important aspect is that we don't reject it as "abomination" any longer just because it doesn't fit our erstwhile normative notions of what is natural. If I may remark that the advanced technology and advanced knowledge about life processes the Reapers show may be considered as evidence that they are indeed "ascended" in some way (not all kinds of ascension are good) from their constituent species. Synthesis sets us on the tracks to our own ascension, but it doesn't determine what it will be. It's a different ascension.I also believe that we should "ascend". We should change. We should embrace the unknown. We should explore new frontiers. That's what Synthesis represents to me. By choosing Synthesis, you almost literally vanquish the impossible. You dismantle the Lovecraftian mystique of the Reapers; they can be known and understood. You embrace the "other", and become a part of the "other".
Edit:
I get the impression you let others have too much influence on your interpretation of things. That's not good. I'll never jump ship because of another's interpretation if I don't find it convincing.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 décembre 2012 - 11:31 .
Retour en haut
