617 réponses à ce sujet

[mvaning]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

This just goes back to the idea of "we build our own path." That is, technology is fine, it just must come from us.

Please elaborate. There is no one else to build our technology if we don't do it ourselves.   Or more exactly, what is the counter-argument you are trying to pose?

HYR 2.0 wrote...
It would be more accurate to say that the Reapers represent a solution to organic extinction. They didn't solve the conflict.

The reapers have the mandate to preserve life. However, the catalyst states that he is looking for a solution to "chaos" because "the created will always rebel against their creators" So I believe that my statement is correct. The mandate is the goal of the solution.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Suffice it to say, I disagree. But this one's a bit loaded, so I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough.

Modifié par mvaning, 15 février 2013 - 07:38 .

[BleedingUranium]

dreamgazer wrote...

Galbrant wrote...

I know one way to opt out of synthesis.

*slides a Carnifex across the table*

You know what to do.

I honestly can't tell if you're advocating destroy or pulling a Saren.

Likely Destroy, as there you use a Carnifex (or more correctly a Carnipredafexator), while everytime someone breaks indoctrination (with a bullet), it's done with a Predator.

[Ieldra]

mvaning wrote...
To follow up on this. . . I'm going to post the exact definition of "Romantized"

Romanticized
Verb
Deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion: "the tendency to romanticize nonindustrial societies".

When I use the term in context of the discussion about the ME3 endings, I am always referring to (classic) Romanticism, the artistic and intellectual movement of the late 18th and 19th century. To indicate that, I always capitalize the term. Romanticism consists of a set of ideas covering a wide range of topics, among them "we understand the world primarily through emotions", "We are dependent on mysterious, instrincally unknowable forces", "our (human) nature, and nature in general, is beautiful" and "inspiration is more important than truth". Romanticism contrasts the natural with the artificial, the emotional with the rational, the artistic with the scientific, and finds the latter lacking or even damaging to the human spirit, emphasizing instead the primal in us and our dependence on primal forces.

The claim that we should "let evolution happen" is Romantic in this sense because it emphasizes the primacy of the natural. The Romantic mind would also consider this, at its deepest roots, beyond our understanding and thus beyond our ability to interfere with in a meaningful way, and asserts that this is good and as it should be. 

Romanticism was, and continues to be, very influential in literature and art. It is responsible for the prevalence of the "nature is good" intuition in modern western culture (which is, btw, not shared by large parts of the asian cultural sphere). Before the Romantic movement, nature was more likely to be considered as antagonistic, Rousseau notwithstanding.

As a general rule, all claims of the instrinsic desirability of non-interference in natural processes are either Romantic or religious in nature, contrasting with position of Enlightenment thinking (the preceding intellectual movement), which would see man's rule over nature as fundamentally desirable.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 07:48 .

[Voodoo2015]

Boring or not. Destroy The Reapers's been the main thing in the game without losing our humanity.
In any case, as I have played and understood the game. Kill the Reapers and save the universe.
Destroy is allways my choice.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

mvaning wrote...
To follow up on this. . . I'm going to post the exact definition of "Romantized"

Romanticized
Verb
Deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion: "the tendency to romanticize nonindustrial societies".

When I use the term in context of the discussion about the ME3 endings, I am always referring to (classic) Romanticism, the artistic and intellectual movement of the late 18th and 19th century. To indicate that, I always capitalize the term. Romanticism consists of a set of ideas covering a wide range of topics, among them "we understand the world primarily through emotions", "We are dependent on mysterious, instrincally unknowable forces", "our (human) nature, and nature in general, is beautiful" and "inspiration is more important than truth". Romanticism contrasts the natural with the artificial, the emotional with the rational, the artistic with the scientific, and finds the latter lacking or even damaging to the human spirit, emphasizing instead the primal in us and our dependence on primal forces.

The claim that we should "let evolution happen" is Romantic in this sense because it emphasizes the primacy of the natural. The Romantic mind would also consider this, at its deepest roots, beyond our understanding and thus beyond our ability to interfere with in a meaningful way, and asserts that this is good and as it should be. 

Romanticism was, and continues to be, very influential in literature and art. It is responsible for the prevalence of the "nature is good" intuition in modern western culture (which is, btw, not shared by large parts of the asian cultural sphere). Before the Romantic movement, nature was more likely to be considered as antagonistic, Rousseau notwithstanding.

As a general rule, all claims of the instrinsic desirability of non-interference in natural processes are either Romantic or religious in nature, contrasting with position of Enlightenment thinking (the preceding intellectual movement), which would see man's rule over nature as fundamentally desirable.

Ieldra2, I am absolutely sure u are NOT romanticizing about reaper technology right now

Another point, non-interference in nature is not always a manifestation of romanticism or religious ideas. Have you heard of the Green Movement? Carbon Tax? Humanity must limit its interference to nature in order to preserve the balance of life, so that conditions condusive to life can be sustained - this is coming from a scientific perspective, not mumbo jumbos from religious scriptures or art textbooks

[Obitim]

Argolas wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

You're right. What I think is being glossed over though is that for the majority? It's the only choice they can choose. I have to say that that makes me really sad on the inside.

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books.

*did not even bother to read the rest because of this*

I know I might be falling for a troll and should feel stupid for it, but you are starting to annoy the hell out of me with insults like that. Do you realize that you are calling the clear majority of the people here in this BSN section stupid?

I find it a bit insulting that you assume most people pick destroy.  I didn't, I'm not a fan of the way Auld Wolf has put his argument across about this and think it comes across as condescending to other people, everyone has their own reason for picking the ending that makes most sense to them within the game or by metagaming...Don;t assume others are the same as you, but in the same vein, Wold, don;t assume others are stupid or binary thinkers...

[mvaning]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As a general rule, all claims of the instrinsic desirability of non-interference in natural processes are either Romantic or religious in nature, contrasting with position of Enlightenment thinking (the preceding intellectual movement), which would see man's rule over nature as fundamentally desirable.

Absolutely not.   In the MEU and in real life, we have hundreds of years of the use of knowledge to show that forcing changes in evolution has always ended badly.      The desire not to interfer with nature is neither romantic nor religious.   It is based on fact and sound evidence.

The ENLIGHTNEMENT brought about ideas such as the scientific method, which are completely in favor of the ethical mandate that we should not be attempting to construct our future using evolutionary tactics.   Don't confuse the Romantic period's argument for natural epistemology with this.   The idea of evolutionary ethics is a direct product of the scientific method and a result of ideas that are clearly based on principles founded in the Enlightenment period. 

Modifié par mvaning, 15 février 2013 - 09:03 .

[Argolas]

Obitim wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

You're right. What I think is being glossed over though is that for the majority? It's the only choice they can choose. I have to say that that makes me really sad on the inside.

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books.

*did not even bother to read the rest because of this*

I know I might be falling for a troll and should feel stupid for it, but you are starting to annoy the hell out of me with insults like that. Do you realize that you are calling the clear majority of the people here in this BSN section stupid?

I find it a bit insulting that you assume most people pick destroy.  I didn't, I'm not a fan of the way Auld Wolf has put his argument across about this and think it comes across as condescending to other people, everyone has their own reason for picking the ending that makes most sense to them within the game or by metagaming...Don;t assume others are the same as you, but in the same vein, Wold, don;t assume others are stupid or binary thinkers...

I was just quoting poll results where Destroy always gets at least roughly 2/3 of the votes. I am sorry if you felt insulted by me, I know realize that I shouldn't have stated this as fact although the polls said so, I realize that they may not necessarily represent the whole forum.

[clennon8]

Most people *do* pick Destroy. I haven't seen a poll yet where it didn't win handily.

[Ieldra]

mvaning wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As a general rule, all claims of the instrinsic desirability of non-interference in natural processes are either Romantic or religious in nature, contrasting with position of Enlightenment thinking (the preceding intellectual movement), which would see man's rule over nature as fundamentally desirable.

Absolutely not.   In the MEU and in real life, we have hundreds of years of the use of knowledge to show that forcing changes in evolution has always ended badly.      The desire not to interfer with nature is neither romantic nor religious.   It is based on fact and sound evidence.

The ENLIGHTNEMENT brought about ideas such as the scientific method, which are completely in favor of the ethical mandate that we should not be attempting to construct our future using evolutionary tactics.   Don't confuse the Romantic period's argument for natural epistemology with this.   The idea of evolutionary ethics is a direct product of the scientific method and a result of ideas that are clearly based on principles founded in the Enlightenment period. 

Tell me, do you even read YOUR OWN sources? If I may quote:

"We inherit our impulses and our tendencies from our ancestors. These impulses and tendencies need to be modified. They need to be curbed and restrained. So much goes without saying. The question is regarding the nature of the modification; the nature of the restraint, and its relation to the original impulses of self-assertion. Surely, w do not want to suppress our animal inheritance; nor do w wish to restrain it absolutely,—that is, for the mere sake of restraint".

Nowhere does this article affirm the intrinsic desirability of letting nature run its course. Quite the opposite, in fact. What makes an interference desirable or not is its nature, what it does.

A further quote from Dewey may illustrate his stance:

"What Humanism means to me is an expansion, not a contraction, of human life, an expansion in which nature and the science of nature are made the willing servants of human good"

As opposed to Romanticism, which would affirm the intrinsic desirability of retaining the sovereignty of primal forces over the human condition.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 09:23 .

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

What the hell are we even talking about in here at this point?

[BleedingUranium]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

What the hell are we even talking about in here at this point?

Space magic

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...
Another point, non-interference in nature is not always a manifestation of romanticism or religious ideas. Have you heard of the Green Movement? Carbon Tax? Humanity must limit its interference to nature in order to preserve the balance of life, so that conditions condusive to life can be sustained - this is coming from a scientific perspective, not mumbo jumbos from religious scriptures or art textbooks

Do I need to argue with the sledgehammer to bring my point across? I was speaking of the intrinsic desirability of not interfering with natural processes, that means, beyond any practical considerations. I am a pragmatic environmentalist btw. I am in full support of limiting interference in a way that damages the ecological balance on a large scale. I am, however, also in full support of any interference that serves human interests without damaging the large-scale balance. I'd even be in favor of creating a new balance once we understand how. Also that many interventions, at the moment, are undesirable is a result of our lack of understanding of the consequeneces, not of any intrinsic undesirability. 

[Ieldra]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...
What the hell are we even talking about in here at this point?

We are arguing about whether or not Romanticism (as defined in one of my posts above) is a theme in the Destroy ending. I am arguing that it is in the original Destroy ending and generally in the original endings, less so in EC Destroy but still present as an undercurrent.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 09:56 .

[nos_astra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...
What the hell are we even talking about in here at this point?

We are arguing about whether or not Romanticism (as defined in one of my posts above) is a theme in the Destroy ending. I am arguing that it is in the original Destroy ending and generally in the original endings, less so in EC Destroy but still present as an undercurrent.

And how does this make Destroy more boring than any of the other endings?

[Meltemph]

I am arguing that it is in the original Destroy ending

How you view allegory with the endings largely depends on how you look at the catalyst, I'm not sure how you could argue one way or the other, because of this.

[nos_astra]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Do I need to argue with the sledgehammer to bring my point across? I was speaking of the intrinsic desirability of not interfering with natural processes, that means, beyond any practical considerations. I am a pragmatic environmentalist btw. I am in full support of limiting interference in a way that damages the ecological balance on a large scale. I am, however, also in full support of any interference that serves human interests without damaging the large-scale balance. I'd even be in favor of creating a new balance once we understand how. Also that many interventions, at the moment, are undesirable is a result of our lack of understanding of the consequeneces, not of any intrinsic undesirability.

From my point of view changing variables in very complex systems does have unpredictable consequences. I think that's a pragmatic enough stance. You don't want to bite of more than you can chew. I believe, you said it was a conservative choice. True that. But when it comes to the future of a galaxy on the brink of annihiliation I wouldn't want to play games.

Going back to a (technological) state the galactic civilization has successfully outgrown several times is something I can relate to. Jumping ten steps ahead is something I don't have any data about. I'd have to believe that everything will work out ... because I was told by my enemy that this was what was going to happen. 

Modifié par klarabella, 15 février 2013 - 10:11 .

[d-boy15]

klarabella wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...
What the hell are we even talking about in here at this point?

We are arguing about whether or not Romanticism (as defined in one of my posts above) is a theme in the Destroy ending. I am arguing that it is in the original Destroy ending and generally in the original endings, less so in EC Destroy but still present as an undercurrent.

And how does this make Destroy more boring than any of the other endings?

well... according to OP, it's because the galaxy isn't change (which I disagree... it's changed)

it just didn't change to match you taste OP, no transhumanism, no AI god pretender flying around. 

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
Another point, non-interference in nature is not always a manifestation of romanticism or religious ideas. Have you heard of the Green Movement? Carbon Tax? Humanity must limit its interference to nature in order to preserve the balance of life, so that conditions condusive to life can be sustained - this is coming from a scientific perspective, not mumbo jumbos from religious scriptures or art textbooks

Do I need to argue with the sledgehammer to bring my point across? I was speaking of the intrinsic desirability of not interfering with natural processes, that means, beyond any practical considerations. I am a pragmatic environmentalist btw. I am in full support of limiting interference in a way that damages the ecological balance on a large scale. I am, however, also in full support of any interference that serves human interests without damaging the large-scale balance. I'd even be in favor of creating a new balance once we understand how. Also that many interventions, at the moment, are undesirable is a result of our lack of understanding of the consequeneces, not of any intrinsic undesirability. 

Why do we need to talk about the intrinsic desirability to not interfere with nature? After all, it is only a feeling, a sentiment. Or are you saying you opposed destroy because certain undertone was embedded, that you would rather ignore all other practical considerations (your words) about destroy?

And since when does destroy present any aspects of romanticism? Isn't this only your own intepretations? By choosing destroy, I may be placing future organic survival in danger, does this sound like romanticizing the sanctity of organic life? The reapers are gone, but new synthetics could be rebuilt, perhaps this time, we will treat them with respect and care, this doesn't sound like non-desirability to interfere with nature, we can still use technology to grow food in ships, defeat enemies with biotics...

By choose synthesis, aren't you not ensuring that organics will survive in the long term? that you are upholding the sanctity of organic survival? Sure, u interfered with evolution, but obviously u value the worth of organic life above all other ethical considerations (you know, does a Geth want human feelings?), that the destruction of all organic life is utterly unacceptable, so unacceptable that you resort to such a drastic measure. Is synthesis not part of organic evolution? The Catalyst clearly states that synthesis is inevitable, so, is allowing synthesis to happen really a non-interference of nature?

[Ieldra]

klarabella wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...
What the hell are we even talking about in here at this point?

We are arguing about whether or not Romanticism (as defined in one of my posts above) is a theme in the Destroy ending. I am arguing that it is in the original Destroy ending and generally in the original endings, less so in EC Destroy but still present as an undercurrent.

And how does this make Destroy more boring than any of the other endings?

It doesn't. This is a side issue, unrelated to the claim in the thread title. In fact, Destroy would be more interesting if the epilogue explicitly referenced some of the Romantic themes.

[Obitim]

Argolas wrote...

Obitim wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

You're right. What I think is being glossed over though is that for the majority? It's the only choice they can choose. I have to say that that makes me really sad on the inside.

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books.

*did not even bother to read the rest because of this*

I know I might be falling for a troll and should feel stupid for it, but you are starting to annoy the hell out of me with insults like that. Do you realize that you are calling the clear majority of the people here in this BSN section stupid?

I find it a bit insulting that you assume most people pick destroy.  I didn't, I'm not a fan of the way Auld Wolf has put his argument across about this and think it comes across as condescending to other people, everyone has their own reason for picking the ending that makes most sense to them within the game or by metagaming...Don;t assume others are the same as you, but in the same vein, Wold, don;t assume others are stupid or binary thinkers...

I was just quoting poll results where Destroy always gets at least roughly 2/3 of the votes. I am sorry if you felt insulted by me, I know realize that I shouldn't have stated this as fact although the polls said so, I realize that they may not necessarily represent the whole forum.

Fair do's, no worries, we're good!

[TurianRebel212]

The most compelling argument against destroy is if you trust the reaper's logic for 'chaos' and their master. If so, then green and blue are the colors for you.

[Ieldra]

Vigilant1 wrote...
Why do we need to talk about the intrinsic desirability to not interfere with nature? After all, it is only a feeling, a sentiment. Or are you saying you opposed destroy because certain undertone was embedded, that you would rather ignore all other practical considerations (your words) about destroy?

No, I opposed the original endings in part because they embraced Romanticism wholeheartedly and with a vengeance. With EC Destroy, it's a side issue though it's still a factor in my thematic dislike of Destroy.
(1) I do not choose Destroy because I want to avoid destroying the Reapers if I can.
(2) I oppose Destroy on the narrative level because I find the epilogue boring.

And since when does destroy present any aspects of romanticism? Isn't this only your own intepretations? By choosing destroy, I may be placing future organic survival in danger, does this sound like romanticizing the sanctity of organic life?

"We cleave to our nature even if it means our extinction?" Yes, very Romantic.

The reapers are gone, but new synthetics could be rebuilt, perhaps this time, we will treat them with respect and care, this doesn't sound like non-desirability to interfere with nature, we can still use technology to grow food in ships, defeat enemies with biotics...

Clearly that's possible. In the end, Destroy is as open as Synthesis as to what may happen. What happens *IN* Destroy, however, is "destroy the unnatural abominations" and "cleave to our nature even if means our extinction". Just as in the other endings, you can headcanon your way out of things you don't like, just as I do with Synthesis by claiming it gives us the means for self-improvement while leaving it largely open what exactly we may change in ourselves. Both are supposed to be good endings, and they are open exactly because we are expected to interpret them in ways that make them good to us, individually. It's just that a Romantic has an easier time of making something she likes from Destroy.

By choose synthesis, aren't you not ensuring that organics will survive in the long term? that you are upholding the sanctity of organic survival? Sure, u interfered with evolution, but obviously u value the worth of organic life above all other ethical considerations (you know, does a Geth want human feelings?), that the destruction of all organic life is utterly unacceptable, so unacceptable that you resort to such a drastic measure. Is synthesis not part of organic evolution? The Catalyst clearly states that synthesis is inevitable, so, is allowing synthesis to happen really a non-interference of nature?

The organic/synthetic problem is a side issue for me personally. I want that hyper-advanced transapient future, and I want to avoid destroying the Reapers but profit from their technology and knowledge instead.
As for the "natural", in the end the dichotomy between nature and artifice cannot be maintained. Everything we do is part of the cosmic process, and normative notions of what is natural are wrong. If Synthesis is inevitable, it is nonetheless contingent on our survival, and choosing a fast track to Synthesis means that I skip the transitional periods with the greatest danger of extinction.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 11:13 .

[BleedingUranium]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I do not choose Destroy because I want to avoid destroying the Reapers if I can.

How many of the characters that wanted something other than the Reapers dead were indoctrinated? That's right, all of them.

[TurianRebel212]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I do not choose Destroy because I want to avoid destroying the Reapers if I can.

How many of the characters that wanted something other than the Reapers dead were indoctrinated? That's right, all of them.

No, no, no. Saren and TIM's ideas are good ones. So were the prothean splinter group of indoctrinated agents that sabataged the last cycle. 

They're good. It's a good thing.

Not like any of these people brought down empires, or committed henious acts or hung out with reapers or anything. 

They're good people. And Saren's ideas of merging the best of machines and organics into the final perfect evolution of life sounds nothing like synthesis. And TIM's idea of control was never tried before. And TIM is perfectly mentally stable and making his own decisions. 


It's a good thing. 

Modifié par TurianRebel212, 15 février 2013 - 11:29 .