587 réponses à ce sujet

[BleedingUranium]

Wayning_Star wrote...

But, what do you do when nature/space it's self poses the greates risk? Live with it if you can, or change the game to suit your given structure/society?

Tell me what "human" would actually pick destroy? Wouldn't happen if the MEU was in realtime...

(goes directly against self preservation instinct, the one that controls sex drives'n such..

You're not making any sense.

And most people would pick Destroy, it's consistantly way, way higher in polls. I can say with certainly it is by far the preferred ending.

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is this an argument that Synthesis isn't a rational choice for Shepard to make on the evidence presented, or is this an argument that Synthesis goes badly even if the game doesn't show any such thing?

I honestly don't think that it matters whether or not it ends badly (although if certain things said about it by the Catalyst are true, namely ending evolution, then it certainly will).

[Eterna]

Argolas wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

But, what do you do when nature/space it's self poses the greates risk? Live with it if you can, or change the game to suit your given structure/society?

Tell me what "human" would actually pick destroy? Wouldn't happen if the MEU was in realtime...

(goes directly against self preservation instinct, the one that controls sex drives'n such..

You seem to have lost the bigger picture. Everything was fine until the Reapers came. Destroy removes them again, it's that simple.

Everything was not fine. 

[Reorte]

Wayning_Star wrote...

But, what do you do when nature/space it's self poses the greates risk? Live with it if you can, or change the game to suit your given structure/society?

Tell me what "human" would actually pick destroy? Wouldn't happen if the MEU was in realtime...

(goes directly against self preservation instinct, the one that controls sex drives'n such..

What, picking the only choice that we're not explicitly told will kill us goes against self preservation instincts?

[Dr_Extrem]

live = a sexually transmitted disease, that has a 100% mortality rate.

you risk your life every day. i am a danger to myself, the moment i leave the bed. i could slip in the bathroom, fall down the stairs, have a fatal car accident or kill myself at work (wich is pretty easy btw).

this also applies for the macro-kosmos, we are all living in - earth. this is about choice. if one society chooses to end itself, the others have to accept that. this is self determination. keeping the status quo for the sake of it, is putting advancment on the leash.

without advancement, our live is meaningless.


all the endings go against this instinct. all options confront you with certain death - therefore, what "human" would choose on of them at all?

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 11 février 2013 - 11:07 .

[ruggly]

Phone is not format friendly, but the post below summerizes me feelings really well. good intentions, but it still makes me very wary. how long till it becomes a race, and what happens to those left behind.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I choose Destroy.

I oppose Control because it is a fascist fantasy.  But that's a discussion for another thread.

I also oppose Synthesis.  On that matter, let's get a few things straight.

I reject Synthesis because I do not find the source to be trustworthy, nor do I find the explanation of it to be credible.  Is this simply because I'm paranoid?  No.  It's because the game went out of its way for over a hundred hours to show us how the Reapers screw with your head and make organics believe fantastic things that are bad for them.  One of their favorite fantasies?  Synthesis.

I do not oppose Synthesis because I think technology is evil or because I fear technological advancement.  That would make me a luddite.  I am not a luddite.  Technology is good.  Or, rather, it is beneficial.

While I'm at it, I also eschew any romantic notions about the "sacred nature of organics" or any of that baloney that is sometimes imbued upon Destroy choosers.  If there's an ending that celebrates that kind of mysticism, it's Synthesis.  In spades.  Disagree?  Okay, remind me, in which ending does Shepard infuse the galaxy with his organic essence? 

Interesting post. It does reflect my viewpoint.

I think Bioware's initial take on the Destroy ending where "technology = evil" and the mass relays were destroyed along with technology as well, and put everything in a 10,000 year galactic dark age went way too far. Yet I chose it over Synthesis because I do not trust its source -- a genocidal AI that has been carrying out mass murder for over a billion years and whose death count is up in the quadrillions. It does make one wonder. And it is done without consent. I also reject Control for the same reasons you did.

I also reject Bioware's assertion that Synthesis is inevitable. It may be, but to whom will it be inevitable? Will it be made available to everyone who wants it? OR will it be made available only to those who can afford it? And how will it be used? Will it be used as a means to Control the masses? OR will it be used as a way for peoples to connect with one another in ways never before possible?

I am not afraid of technology. Were it not for technology, I would not be able to create music the way I do. Were it not for technology people would never hear my songs. I do not have the money to hire the quality musicians I want, and book studio time I need, and pay recording engineers. With this technology I can do all this myself now, and produce quality that is getting close to majors.

I am simply wary of how technology gets abused. I would love for there to be advancements in say cochlear implants to the point where they can detect pitch and sound level like a human cochlea. That way I could hear in my right ear again. I would love for there to be cybernetic implants available to help people with early onset alzheimers so that they could remember things and live normal lives. Or even enhancements. I am not afraid of these things.

The reality is that I don't see the enhancement side being a level playing field aspect. That is going to be reserved for the few who can afford it. It is just our nature.

What should we do? When the technology becomes available make sure no one gets left behind, but do not force it on people.

[Argolas]

Eterna5 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

But, what do you do when nature/space it's self poses the greates risk? Live with it if you can, or change the game to suit your given structure/society?

Tell me what "human" would actually pick destroy? Wouldn't happen if the MEU was in realtime...

(goes directly against self preservation instinct, the one that controls sex drives'n such..

You seem to have lost the bigger picture. Everything was fine until the Reapers came. Destroy removes them again, it's that simple.

Everything was not fine. 

Of course there have been problems. There always have been. And there always will be as long as free will exists. However, Shepard managed to solve many of them. The Reapers only created more, and a lot more.

[Reorte]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I am simply wary of how technology gets abused. I would love for there to be advancements in say cochlear implants to the point where they can detect pitch and sound level like a human cochlea. That way I could hear in my right ear again. I would love for there to be cybernetic implants available to help people with early onset alzheimers so that they could remember things and live normal lives. Or even enhancements. I am not afraid of these things.

Well said. I'm not afraid of such things. I might very well chose to make use of them if I needed to (or others that would improve my life beyond fixing things that have gone wrong). I would utterly reject having any of them forced on me against my will and so, I think, would every court in the world. There are very good reasons that surgery, no matter how beneficial, is only permitted without consent in very limited circumstances.

[Iakus]

clennon8 wrote...

iakus wrote...

I oppose Synthesis in part because the source is untrustworthy. Yeah the explanation is laughable, but this is the series that gave us the Lazarus Project, so space magic doesn't automatically invalidate the veracity of the claim.

But the biggest part is that it's forced. Not just on Earth, or the Fleet, but to the entire galaxy. Every living thing, everything will will live in the future.The Catalyst claims it can't be forced, but the ending and the epilogue show that isn't so. While I'm sure some would embrace transhumanism (or transkroganism, transturianism, etc) others would be less receptive, and many I'm sure would be horrified at having it forced on them.

Then there's the races that didn't participate in the war. What would the yahg think of what's happeneing? Or other prespaceflight races? They have it forced on them without even understanding what happened.

I didn't touch on the morality issue concerning violation of consent, but I agree that it is a very valid concern.  Many pro-Synths at least have the decency to admit that much.  But they do it anyway because Synthesis is just so darn wonderful, in their minds, that it's worth forcing this decision on everyone, just this once.

We could go around and around with the "Do the ends justify the means?" argument, but to me that amounts to a tacit acceptance of the legitimacy of Synthesis as a near-perfect realization of a transhuman utopia.  I prefer not to grant them that much.

Well, saying "Playing around with technology we don't understand has led to no end to hilariuous hijinks in Mass Effect" didn't seem to totally convey what I felt 

[clennon8]

Free will is an illusion, just to get that out of the way. Go to youtube and search on "Sam Harris free will" if you want to hear a fascinating discussion of the topic.

However, that does not exonerate one from the consequences of their actions.

But this tangent runs the risk of derailing the thread. Let's not let that happen.

[Argolas]

clennon8 wrote...

Free will is an illusion, just to get that out of the way.

I am neither talking about philosophy nor about science, I am talking about opression.

[clennon8]

Argolas wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Free will is an illusion, just to get that out of the way.

I am neither talking about philosophy nor about science, I am talking about opression.

I know.  And I agree.  I just wanted to get out in front of that argument, acknowledge that free will is an illusion, and point out that it doesn't matter.  Choices still matter, consequences still matter, and people must still be held accountable.

[Argolas]

clennon8 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Free will is an illusion, just to get that out of the way.

I am neither talking about philosophy nor about science, I am talking about opression.

I know.  And I agree.  I just wanted to get out in front of that argument, acknowledge that free will is an illusion, and point out that it doesn't matter.  Choices still matter, consequences still matter, and people must still be held accountable.

That's okay, I also might rephrase to this:

Of course there have been problems. There always have been. And there always will be as we are allowed to act according to our nature.

[Wayning_Star]

Nature/intergalactic space and random intellect match wits?

o k... Everthing is fixed, and you can't change it...

[mvaning]

Here's the problem with the ending

3 Choices

a) Synthesis makes you choose universal Trans humanism. (No choice)

Destroy makes you choose a sort of neo-luddite.

c) Control is kind of fascism.


Now before you disagree with my analogies, please note I am not stating them as fact. Whether they are as I have stated them or not, we can all agree that we are given 3 choices.

Of those 3 choices, alot of people dislike all 3 choices and those people have valid reasons for disliking them.

So now instead of making choices that we WANT to make, we are left trying to figure out which one is the lesser evil.

I chose destroy but not because I am a neo-luddite.  I embrace technology but I don't embrace this ending.

The human mind works most efficiently with positive reinforcements. This ending is not positive when we are forced to pick which of these sad endings is the least saddening.      AND, it definately does not mean that we believe in the ideologies that some of these endings are analogous to.

Modifié par mvaning, 11 février 2013 - 11:29 .

[DeinonSlayer]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I think Bioware's initial take on the Destroy ending where "technology = evil" and the mass relays were destroyed along with technology as well, and put everything in a 10,000 year galactic dark age went way too far. Yet I chose it over Synthesis because I do not trust its source -- a genocidal AI that has been carrying out mass murder for over a billion years and whose death count is up in the quadrillions. It does make one wonder. And it is done without consent. I also reject Control for the same reasons you did.

I also reject Bioware's assertion that Synthesis is inevitable. It may be, but to whom will it be inevitable? Will it be made available to everyone who wants it? OR will it be made available only to those who can afford it? And how will it be used? Will it be used as a means to Control the masses? OR will it be used as a way for peoples to connect with one another in ways never before possible?

I am not afraid of technology. Were it not for technology, I would not be able to create music the way I do. Were it not for technology people would never hear my songs. I do not have the money to hire the quality musicians I want, and book studio time I need, and pay recording engineers. With this technology I can do all this myself now, and produce quality that is getting close to majors.

I am simply wary of how technology gets abused. I would love for there to be advancements in say cochlear implants to the point where they can detect pitch and sound level like a human cochlea. That way I could hear in my right ear again. I would love for there to be cybernetic implants available to help people with early onset alzheimers so that they could remember things and live normal lives. Or even enhancements. I am not afraid of these things.

The reality is that I don't see the enhancement side being a level playing field aspect. That is going to be reserved for the few who can afford it. It is just our nature.

What should we do? When the technology becomes available make sure no one gets left behind, but do not force it on people.

I'm having a vision here:



"Do I trust Mankind to save itself? That's what Eliza was asking. The truth is, I don't know. After everything I've seen, all the fighting, and the chaos around me. I only know what I want to believe: somehow, human decency will triumph. These past few months, I faced many life-threatening situations. I could have given up many times, but my need to know the truth, to uncover the secrets that others were hiding, and to survive, forced me to keep on going. Most of the time, I tried to keep my values in mind, knowing my actions did not have to harm others. I held on to my humanity, resisting the urge to abuse power or resources in order to meet my goals. And in the end, I got the job done. But does this mean I have the right to choose for everyone? No. Because it isn't up to me. It isn't up to Darrow, Sarif, or Taggart, either. Ordinary men and women will have to decide together what course mankind should take. The kind of people who, time and time again, have picked and chosen the future in highly practical ways - slowing change when it's negative, speeding it up when it's good. Can they do it again? I don't know. But I do know I'm not about to let anyone in this station, including myself, stand in their way."

[Eterna]

Argolas wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

But, what do you do when nature/space it's self poses the greates risk? Live with it if you can, or change the game to suit your given structure/society?

Tell me what "human" would actually pick destroy? Wouldn't happen if the MEU was in realtime...

(goes directly against self preservation instinct, the one that controls sex drives'n such..

You seem to have lost the bigger picture. Everything was fine until the Reapers came. Destroy removes them again, it's that simple.

Everything was not fine. 

Of course there have been problems. There always have been. And there always will be as long as free will exists. However, Shepard managed to solve many of them. The Reapers only created more, and a lot more.

What happens when Shepard is gone?

[BleedingUranium]

mvaning wrote...

Destroy makes you choose a sort of neo-luddite.

Not true, because that's not the purpose of choosing it. You don't choose it to destroy AIs and some other tech, you choose it to destroy the Reapers, and the rest is just collateral damage.

[JMJ_91]

How cynical :-D

But I agree....

Modifié par JMJ_91, 11 février 2013 - 11:51 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Eterna5 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

But, what do you do when nature/space it's self poses the greates risk? Live with it if you can, or change the game to suit your given structure/society?

Tell me what "human" would actually pick destroy? Wouldn't happen if the MEU was in realtime...

(goes directly against self preservation instinct, the one that controls sex drives'n such..

You seem to have lost the bigger picture. Everything was fine until the Reapers came. Destroy removes them again, it's that simple.

Everything was not fine. 

Of course there have been problems. There always have been. And there always will be as long as free will exists. However, Shepard managed to solve many of them. The Reapers only created more, and a lot more.

What happens when Shepard is gone?

events will follow their natural, chaotic order. kingdoms rise and fall ... nothing is made for eternity - not even the reapers.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 11 février 2013 - 11:52 .

[BleedingUranium]

Eterna5 wrote...

What happens when Shepard is gone?

The galaxy goes on with whatever legacy Shepard built. For a lot of people, that means everyone finally getting along.

To think that Shepard is needed for everything to work is the same kind of mentality as choosing Control: you don't trust that others can to things right.

The galaxy only needed someone like Shepard to get their act together, but once he has, he's not needed anymore. Shepard is basically jumper cables.

[wright1978]

BleedingUranium wrote...

mvaning wrote...

Destroy makes you choose a sort of neo-luddite.

Not true, because that's not the purpose of choosing it. You don't choose it to destroy AIs and some other tech, you choose it to destroy the Reapers, and the rest is just collateral damage.

Agree completely.

[DeinonSlayer]

BleedingUranium wrote...

mvaning wrote...

Destroy makes you choose a sort of neo-luddite.

Not true, because that's not the purpose of choosing it. You don't choose it to destroy AIs and some other tech, you choose it to destroy the Reapers, and the rest is just collateral damage.

Exactly this. We build our own future, we own our achievements, and we own the consequences of our own actions - whatever those might be. We don't need some unassailable, unaccountable overlord "protecting" us from something we might do.

[DirtySHISN0]

clennon8 wrote...
I oppose Control Synthesis Destroy.

 because I do not find the source to be trustworthy, nor do I find the explanation of it to be credible.

I do not oppose Synthesis because I think technology is evil or because I fear technological advancement.  That would make me a luddite.  I am not a luddite.  Technology is good.  Or, rather, it is beneficial.  Although there's something to be said for not handing a bazooka to a caveman.

While I'm at it, I also eschew any romantic notions about the "sacred nature of organics" or any of that baloney that is sometimes imbued upon Destroy choosers.  

I couldn't fully express my views by chopping yours, so here is the rest.

Refuse is basically a glorified "i give up". 

If backed into a corner i choose synthesis, purely because i like the ideals it tries to represent. Although admittedly the methods are immoral, unplausable and ludicrous. Generally i don't really play past cronos station anyway.

[Argolas]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

What happens when Shepard is gone?

The galaxy goes on with whatever legacy Shepard built. For a lot of people, that means everyone finally getting along.

To think that Shepard is needed for everything to work is the same kind of mentality as choosing Control: you don't trust that others can to things right.

The galaxy only needed someone like Shepard to get their act together, but once he has, he's not needed anymore. Shepard is basically jumper cables.

That's true. Again, as long as freedom exists, future is NEVER certain. That's kinda the point. I think that Paragon Shepard quote from the ending sums it up pretty good.

But you’re taking away our future. Without a future, we have no hope. Without hope… we might as well be machines, programmed to do what we’re told.

Modifié par Argolas, 12 février 2013 - 12:16 .