1009 réponses à ce sujet

[Volc19]

Synthesis has too many parallels to Sci-Fi antagonists for me to take it seriously as an option. Synthesis is the Cybermen of Doctor Who, the Collectors from ME2, the Antispirals from Gurren Lagann, and the Composer/Prometheans from Halo 4.

This isn't about some juvenile claim that the Reapers and Saren liked it, so it's automatically bad. This is using previous information to make a logical assessment of the idea. I don't think that everyone walks away indoctrinated and without freedom, I just think it will devolve into our galaxy becoming an antagonistic force for the rest of the life in the Universe at some point.

I have no real problems with Control or Destroy that aren't a matter of preference and circumstance (Low EMS Destroy and Renegade Control, to be specific), Synthesis is the only ending that I wholeheartedly disagree with.

[Volc19]

Reorte wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Wich begs the question - what ARE the Reapers exactly in Synthesis?  Alive, but uncontrolled?  Do they have personalities?  If so, are their personalities domineering like Harbinger and Sovereign?  Are they each the embodiment of the species they were created from?  If so, what if that species was warlike, aggressive and expansionist, like the Krogan, Yagh or Batarians?

The limited sample we get to speak to (Sovereign, Harbinger, the one we kill on Rannoch) all seem pretty similar in that regard and also act like they're acting independently enough, even if they've got to answer to the Catalyst. Shepard was right when (s)he told the Rannoch Reaper that whatever species was used to create them was long dead. Which makes sense - if you're going to create a big nasty machine to do your bidding you create one that's entirely in agreement with you so you don't need to keep it on a leash. If the Reapers turn friendly it's because they're either being coerced or have had their personalities completely replaced (which, to an individual at least, is as good as killing them and using their body for something else, husk-like).

Not a bunch that you want roaming around the galaxy doing whatever they want.

What I gathered was that the Reapers had no reason to kill everyone after Synthesis, because the reason that they were killing in the first place stopped being a problem. Since the whole 'chaos problem' was just swept under the rug, they have no need to kill everyone.

Granted, this only applied to Synthesized life. If they ever go out of the galaxy and find anyone who isn't synthesized... well, I hope they had fun with all that 'life' they had.

[ziloe]

SSPBOURNE wrote...

It's been 9 months. We are well aware.

And? Some of us just replayed the whole series, and are feeling a bit nostalgic and thus want to talk about it again.

[Dama733]

My personal opinion regarding Synthesis is that it is the death of evolution, all species in the galaxy are at that point artificially brought to their peak of evolution, Synthesis basically causes the stagnation of every sentient organic species currently living in the galaxy, no more mutations no more changes or adaptions, evolution is stopped dead in its tracks all across the galaxy.

In my mind its the worst possible ending next to Refusal.

Modifié par Dama733, 25 décembre 2012 - 04:48 .

[Wayning_Star]

Dama733 wrote...

My personal opinion regarding Synthesis is that it is the death of evolution, all species in the galaxy are at that point artificially brought to their peak of evolution, Synthesis basically causes the stagnation of every sentient organic species currently living in the galaxy, no more mutations no more changes or adaptions, evolution is stopped dead in its tracks all across the galaxy.

In my mind its the worst possible ending next to Refusal.

it would seem that that is impossible considering the varibles in the cosmos and that effect on everything within. If evolution is an actuality, more than theory. Nature is a very big place, we're not privy to it's equation, so we cannot really see that evolution, in it's purest form, is altered in any way. Apparently if it can happen in space time, it will happen, or not. All part of the equation.

I've often wondered why entire galaxies are sucked into black holes for kicks'n giggles.. who am I to wonder about that stuff, in any event? (that sentient plant life on planet 1?

[wizardryforever]

Didn't read all 13 pages (read the OP and the last page), but let me see if I can distill this argument to its base components, without all the rhetoric.

• "Synthesis makes us all the same!"
• "Synthesis is what Saren or the Reapers want, so it must be bad!"
• "Synthesis is stupid space-magic and I can't take it seriously!"
• "Synthesis violates everyone on some level, and Shepard would never do that to them!"

Is that the gist of it?  Have I missed anything?  I don't want to be accused of strawmanning, so please inform me if I have misrepresented any of the typical arguments against synthesis.  I'll make a rebuttal after I get a response.

[Ieldra]

Dama733 wrote...
My personal opinion regarding Synthesis is that it is the death of evolution, all species in the galaxy are at that point artificially brought to their peak of evolution, Synthesis basically causes the stagnation of every sentient organic species currently living in the galaxy, no more mutations no more changes or adaptions, evolution is stopped dead in its tracks all across the galaxy.

In my mind its the worst possible ending next to Refusal.

The problem with that: there is no peak of evolution. Evolution isn't goal-oriented. Also, the Synthesis epilogue pretty much disproves that assertion, as it clearly shows - and tells - that life will change more. There will be no stagnation. The only way I can make any sense of that "final evolution" is by claiming that natural evolution will stop for all species with the technical ability to prevent it, replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. But you don't need Synthesis for that.

[Ieldra]

Finn the Jakey wrote...
You can't deny that transhumanism is portrayed pretty negatively (Saren, Reapers, Collectors, Overlord, Cerberus troopers) throughout the series, and before you bring up Shepard's cybernetics and biotic implants:

1. Shepard becoming a cyborg is barely mentioned, and its ethical implications are never highlighted until Chronos Station.

2. Biotic implants were simply a convenient excuse for using magic in space.

Ad 2: If I may mention Martin Burns and his Senate Subcommittee for Transhuman Studies. Biotics as an aspect of transhumanism are acknowledged in-world.

Ad 1: That's true, but that doesn't make Shepard's "biosynthetic fusion" (Miranda) any less relevant. The problem with using that as an analogy is that Synthesis is thematically very similar, but its ethical implications are more far-reaching since it applies to everyone.

What I'm seeing is a checkered picture, likely the result of several writers putting their personal preference in.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 décembre 2012 - 05:16 .

[Han Shot First]

wizardryforever wrote...
Didn't read all 13 pages (read the OP and the last page), but let me see if I can distill this argument to its base components, without all the rhetoric.

• Synthesis makes us all the same!"
• "Synthesis is what Saren or the Reapers want, so it must be bad!"
• "Synthesis is stupid space-magic and I can't take it seriously!"
• "Synthesis violates everyone on some level, and Shepard would never do that to them!"

Is that the gist of it?  Have I missed anything?  I don't want to be accused of strawmanning, so please inform me if I have misrepresented any of the typical arguments against synthesis.  I'll make a rebuttal after I get a response.

My main reason for not choosing Synthesis: The Reaper War ends in a stalemate, with a completely intact Reaper fleet that is still ruled over by the Catalyst.

I think Anderson and Hackett had it right. "Dead Reapers is how we win this."

[ziloe]

wizardryforever wrote...

Didn't read all 13 pages (read the OP and the last page), but let me see if I can distill this argument to its base components, without all the rhetoric.

• "Synthesis makes us all the same!"
• "Synthesis is what Saren or the Reapers want, so it must be bad!"
• "Synthesis is stupid space-magic and I can't take it seriously!"
• "Synthesis violates everyone on some level, and Shepard would never do that to them!"

Is that the gist of it?  Have I missed anything?  I don't want to be accused of strawmanning, so please inform me if I have misrepresented any of the typical arguments against synthesis.  I'll make a rebuttal after I get a response.

Nope. You're way off. It's more about the morality of it, and the consequences of the technology on a species still in its early growth of understanding.

Refer to this: www.youtube.com/watch

[geceka]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The problem with that: there is no peak of evolution. Evolution isn't goal-oriented. Also, the Synthesis epilogue pretty much disproves that assertion, as it clearly shows - and tells - that life will change more. There will be no stagnation. The only way I can make any sense of that "final evolution" is by claiming that natural evolution will stop for all species with the technical ability to prevent it, replacing natural evolution by deliberate change.

Whenever the argument about "stagnation of evolution" is brought up, I wonder how of a role natural evolution of the sentient species actually plays anymore in the ME universe (or, for that matter, in our very own timeline).

After all, at this level of civilization, there isn't really a driving, directing force in the form of selection pressure, which aids the propagation of potentially useful traits by heightening the chances to reproduce: If there is a problem to overcome, the solution will most likely be a technological one, rendering the point of selection pressure moot. If anything, previously useful traits will slowly disappear again: As an example, being able to resist extreme cold was probably a useful trait in harsh winters during the Stone Age, but it doesn't matter much anymore, now that people live in houses with heating. There is no need for this trait to persist, hence it could disappear, especially if it is a recessive trait.

Conversely, there are other chances for evolution, such as random mutation or genetic drifting, but without selection pressure/bias, there's no "force" there directing this for either good or bad. It's all (mostly) chance. In a technologically advanced society, it's more likely that "bad" traits are just eradicated (or cured) by medicine, whereas positive ones would most likely disappear again, as they do not constitute a factor in making reproduction (and thus perpetuation of the trait) more likely.

You could easily argue that any sort of technological advance is also "weakening" the potency of natural evolution. Then again, if you count as natural evolution the ability of organic organisms to self-evolve with the help of technology departing from a point in their evolutionary stage where they are intellectually able to conceive such technology, then, well, synthesis doesn't interfere with evolution at all – It then becomes pretty much the organic equivalent of the technological singularity the catalyst was talking about, e.g. the point where the respective entities can take their "evolutionary" forging into their own hands.

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The problem with that: there is no peak of evolution. Evolution isn't goal-oriented. Also, the Synthesis epilogue pretty much disproves that assertion, as it clearly shows - and tells - that life will change more. There will be no stagnation. The only way I can make any sense of that "final evolution" is by claiming that natural evolution will stop for all species with the technical ability to prevent it, replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. But you don't need Synthesis for that.

Whilst of course you're right that there's no peak of evolution I don't see where the Synthesis epilogue disproves it, seeing as it only goes a very short time into the future instead of the (minimum of) many tens of thousands of years. It could be the Catalyst's twisted idea of ideal and it's not implausible (don't believe I'm using that word for anything to do with Synthesis) that such low-level invasive changes could prevent random mutations from occuring and hence stop further evolution - which would be great for individuals on that point alone (no more cancer at any rate) but long-term utterly disastrous for life. Otherwise what did the Catalyst mean? I work on the principle that it's at least right on its basic facts about what's happened and what the choices do (otherwise no-one has a clue about anything that happens), even if the conclusions it draws and its idea of what's best are completely bonkers.

[Reorte]

geceka wrote...

Whenever the argument about "stagnation of evolution" is brought up, I wonder how of a role natural evolution of the sentient species actually plays anymore in the ME universe (or, for that matter, in our very own timeline).

Synthesis affects everything, not just the sentient space-faring species that we know of.

[Rifneno]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dama733 wrote...
My personal opinion regarding Synthesis is that it is the death of evolution, all species in the galaxy are at that point artificially brought to their peak of evolution, Synthesis basically causes the stagnation of every sentient organic species currently living in the galaxy, no more mutations no more changes or adaptions, evolution is stopped dead in its tracks all across the galaxy.

In my mind its the worst possible ending next to Refusal.

The problem with that: there is no peak of evolution. Evolution isn't goal-oriented. Also, the Synthesis epilogue pretty much disproves that assertion, as it clearly shows - and tells - that life will change more. There will be no stagnation. The only way I can make any sense of that "final evolution" is by claiming that natural evolution will stop for all species with the technical ability to prevent it, replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. But you don't need Synthesis for that.

Vorcha disagree.

[geceka]

Reorte wrote...

Synthesis affects everything, not just the sentient space-faring species that we know of.

Yes, the endings don't really address this: Just as well as you can see them as "doomed" now, you could also say that they probably don't make much of the change as it happened to them, because they don't know (yet) how to access the new possibilities created by it – They have to evolve their intellect and/or technology to a point where they can.

Imagine if in 50 years, controlling appliances with our minds (while wearing a fancy electrode-covered hat :-)) is commonplace. Imagine 100 years later, it is discovered that a race long before us meddled with our evolution to shape our brain in a way that it becomes very easy to interface to transistor-based electronics – Would this really have changed anything in hindsight? The ability has always been there, but without us coming to a point where we could access it, it simply didn't matter, but as soon as we could, it became a great boon.

[Wayning_Star]

geceka wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Synthesis affects everything, not just the sentient space-faring species that we know of.

Yes, the endings don't really address this: Just as well as you can see them as "doomed" now, you could also say that they probably don't make much of the change as it happened to them, because they don't know (yet) how to access the new possibilities created by it – They have to evolve their intellect and/or technology to a point where they can.

Imagine if in 50 years, controlling appliances with our minds (while wearing a fancy electrode-covered hat :-)) is commonplace. Imagine 100 years later, it is discovered that a race long before us meddled with our evolution to shape our brain in a way that it becomes very easy to interface to transistor-based electronics – Would this really have changed anything in hindsight? The ability has always been there, but without us coming to a point where we could access it, it simply didn't matter, but as soon as we could, it became a great boon.

my gist from that is that synthesis effects the basis of nature to point below plant life. Submolecular alterations, convenient form of association with organic DNA... fast, loose'n dirty.  The concept of adaptation, in fast forward.

The other idea coming to me from this is that question about survival and just how far to go to alter nature to assist survival? As animated sentient beings all alter their enviornment to, or control to acceptable levels...or not. Gas for cars vs pollution,etc. Abombs vs diplomacy,etc Moving the planet to avoid an ice age, etc. Synthesising the MEU to survive the reaper thread, etc.

What will organics 'sacrifice' to continue to exist, as is, within the MEU? Apparently, created intellects vary on the mode of extrapolation... (yikes) In reality, evolution has it's limitations, when space time is 'hurried'?

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 25 décembre 2012 - 06:00 .

[Reorte]

geceka wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Synthesis affects everything, not just the sentient space-faring species that we know of.

Yes, the endings don't really address this: Just as well as you can see them as "doomed" now, you could also say that they probably don't make much of the change as it happened to them, because they don't know (yet) how to access the new possibilities created by it – They have to evolve their intellect and/or technology to a point where they can.

Imagine if in 50 years, controlling appliances with our minds (while wearing a fancy electrode-covered hat :-)) is commonplace. Imagine 100 years later, it is discovered that a race long before us meddled with our evolution to shape our brain in a way that it becomes very easy to interface to transistor-based electronics – Would this really have changed anything in hindsight? The ability has always been there, but without us coming to a point where we could access it, it simply didn't matter, but as soon as we could, it became a great boon.

I was really thinking more of the implications on completely undeveloped worlds if it really does stop evolution from happening. That'll be a disaster for life when environments change, as they will over time. The advanced species might be able to intervene and create the necessary changes.

As technology advances the change will probably hold us back technologically because we'll get too tied to whatever fiddles your past aliens have made. Also, would you say the same if, in the past, the aliens had been a bunch of weird racists and decided to force human evolution in a direction that removed any racial traits they simply didn't like? Or some human group trying to do that in the past had actually been succesful? It wouldn't really make much difference now but that wouldn't justify it.

[Wayning_Star]

Reorte wrote...

geceka wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Synthesis affects everything, not just the sentient space-faring species that we know of.

Yes, the endings don't really address this: Just as well as you can see them as "doomed" now, you could also say that they probably don't make much of the change as it happened to them, because they don't know (yet) how to access the new possibilities created by it – They have to evolve their intellect and/or technology to a point where they can.

Imagine if in 50 years, controlling appliances with our minds (while wearing a fancy electrode-covered hat :-)) is commonplace. Imagine 100 years later, it is discovered that a race long before us meddled with our evolution to shape our brain in a way that it becomes very easy to interface to transistor-based electronics – Would this really have changed anything in hindsight? The ability has always been there, but without us coming to a point where we could access it, it simply didn't matter, but as soon as we could, it became a great boon.

I was really thinking more of the implications on completely undeveloped worlds if it really does stop evolution from happening. That'll be a disaster for life when environments change, as they will over time. The advanced species might be able to intervene and create the necessary changes.

As technology advances the change will probably hold us back technologically because we'll get too tied to whatever fiddles your past aliens have made. Also, would you say the same if, in the past, the aliens had been a bunch of weird racists and decided to force human evolution in a direction that removed any racial traits they simply didn't like? Or some human group trying to do that in the past had actually been succesful? It wouldn't really make much difference now but that wouldn't justify it.

the problem with evolution is that it's only a theory anyways. I've found the arguement there is NO evidence of existing examples of evolutionary changes. I don't particularly know what this means, other than it may take longer than is possible to measure actual real time changes in any given species.

Another factor could be 'intellect' something that resembles the flight of birds, eventhough birds are more accurate in flight. 

IN the the end, it's not the organics who decide the change, at least not exposed version of such. It's the association with survival and the NEED for technology, to the point of being part of it. The changes you speak of happen anyway, apparently, only quicker with synthesis. To use this arguement, that change is the enemy because it changes others without their consent seems only convenient, not instructive. Nature doesn't usually 'ask' before it does stuff to change us, just like we don't ask nature to do stuff that we think up as acceptable for our survival. We just 'go ahead' and do it, screw nature, it's out to wear us down, just like planets and other stuff it's strewn about the universe.. Stupid nature!!

Some stuff we just cannot control. We just don't know how to do that.

[Rifneno]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the problem with evolution is that it's only a theory anyways.

[Xilizhra]

the problem with evolution is that it's only a theory anyways. I've found the arguement there is NO evidence of existing examples of evolutionary changes. I don't particularly know what this means, other than it may take longer than is possible to measure actual real time changes in any given species.

And with that comes the signal to duck out of your side of the argument.

[Ieldra]

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The problem with that: there is no peak of evolution. Evolution isn't goal-oriented. Also, the Synthesis epilogue pretty much disproves that assertion, as it clearly shows - and tells - that life will change more. There will be no stagnation. The only way I can make any sense of that "final evolution" is by claiming that natural evolution will stop for all species with the technical ability to prevent it, replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. But you don't need Synthesis for that.

Whilst of course you're right that there's no peak of evolution I don't see where the Synthesis epilogue disproves it, seeing as it only goes a very short time into the future instead of the (minimum of) many tens of thousands of years. It could be the Catalyst's twisted idea of ideal and it's not implausible (don't believe I'm using that word for anything to do with Synthesis) that such low-level invasive changes could prevent random mutations from occuring and hence stop further evolution - which would be great for individuals on that point alone (no more cancer at any rate) but long-term utterly disastrous for life. Otherwise what did the Catalyst mean? I work on the principle that it's at least right on its basic facts about what's happened and what the choices do (otherwise no-one has a clue about anything that happens), even if the conclusions it draws and its idea of what's best are completely bonkers.

I think the writers have fallen into the trap (or fallen for the trope) of Goal-Oriented Evolution. It's a rather common failing in SF outside of literature, and it was used that way in ME earlier (Sovereign in ME1). Otherwise, I can't understand how anyone could write this stuff about perfection and the final evolution without being aware of the consequences, and even more in the in-world perspective, I can't believe an intelligence like the Catalyst wouldn't be aware of them.

So while you're correct that Synthesis can be interpreted that way, taking this at face value would require me to accept that the Catalyst is not knowledgable about some rather basic principles of biology. It's sad that it has come to this, but it's a question of "Which interpretation breaks my suspension of disbelief less?" and of course the fact that I don't like that interpretation comes into it as well. 

You know what's the simplest explanation of all these inconsistencies? I've heard it in smudboys Extended Cut review part 4 earlier this day, and while most of what he says is nitpicking, this was an instant moment of revelation. He said "The writer can't comprehend what he just wrote. These big ideas are simply too complicated." That's *exactly* how things come across.

@Wayning_Star:
Don't be silly. Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in biology, and anyway "only a theory" is a phrase suggesting you're ignorant about how science works. Theories become that by being the best fit for the existing evidence, supported by observations and not having been falsified yet. Anything less than that is called a hypothesis or a conjecture.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 décembre 2012 - 06:23 .

[Wayning_Star]

Rifneno wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

the problem with evolution is that it's only a theory anyways.

i'm just an old man, I meander.. lol

edit for clarity:

Ed Tom Bell: You know Charlie Walser? Has the place east of Sanderson? Well you know how they used to slaughter beeves, hit 'em with a maul right here to stun 'em... and then up and slit their throats? Well here Charlie has one trussed up and all set to drain him and the beef comes to. It starts thrashing around, six hundred pounds of very pissed-off livestock if you'll pardon me... Charlie grabs his gun there to shoot the damn thing in the head but what with the swingin' and twistin' it's a glance-shot and ricochets around and comes back hits Charlie in the shoulder. You go see Charlie, he still can't reach up with his right hand for his hat... Point bein', even in the contest between man and steer the issue is not certain.
http://www.imdb.com/...t0477348/quotes
the girl gives him a blank look...

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 25 décembre 2012 - 06:30 .

[ziloe]

Rifneno wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

the problem with evolution is that it's only a theory anyways.

LOLOL!

+9001

[Wayning_Star]

"No glands, replaced by tech! No digestive system, replaced by tech! No central nervous system, replaced by tech! Whatever they were... gone forever." - Mordin describes synthesis. cyborg assimilation.

Let's attempt to get lore correct next time, thanks!