582 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Rhayak wrote...

The Zebra's post-Synth wisdom might go as deep as: "I die so that my descendants may become faster."

why should they become faster? this does not make sense.

out run the Lion?

how can it pass this information? via twitter? .. .

a dead organisms only influence on the system is, that it cant alter it anymore, by not being able to reprodude. but since the premise was, that it already has descendants, this point does not matter. the young zebra will not become faster, because its dead parent told it to outrun the lion. the biological premise is still the same.

[Wayning_Star]

Rhayak wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

why should they become faster? this does not make sense.

It's how Darwinism works: slower Zebras get eaten, while the faster survive and get to breed = the species as a whole tends to get faster.

About the final evolution: if organic life has indeed reached a "dead end", to use a horrible term, then perhaps it'll be able to keep evolving anyway through continued technological progress. That marries pretty well to the newfound harmony with synthetics.

And no, that doesn't have to mean The Borg.

or cease to exist, scary but the most rational conclusion. That's why humans would synthesis the universe in seconds if thats what it took to survive. All high brow immitations of honor aside. lol and screw diversity..rofl

[Mazebook]

It is important not to forget that this is the "final evolution" from the catalysts point of view. A view that is limited by his origin (the reason he was constructed). who knows how a synthesis world might evolve over time.

resources will still be limited. The will to survive will still be there.

[Dr_Extrem]

Rhayak wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

why should they become faster? this does not make sense.

It's how Darwinism works: slower Zebras get eaten, while the faster survive and get to breed = the species as a whole tends to get faster.

About the final evolution: if organic life has indeed reached a "dead end", to use a horrible term, then perhaps it'll be able to keep evolving anyway through continued technological progress. That marries pretty well to the newfound harmony with synthetics.

And no, that doesn't have to mean The Borg.

nope .. the faster zebra gets not eaten and reproduces with other fast zebras. faster zebras are the outcome. slow zebras are eaten and may not reproduce - keeping the genepool clear of its weakness.

the premise is, that the eaten zebra already has younglings (who will be slow)


you cant change genes by telling someone to run faster.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 01:58 .

[Wayning_Star]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Rhayak wrote...

The Zebra's post-Synth wisdom might go as deep as: "I die so that my descendants may become faster."

why should they become faster? this does not make sense.

out run the Lion?

how can it pass this information? via twitter? .. .

a dead organisms only influence on the system is, that it cant alter it anymore, by not being able to reprodude. but since the premise was, that it already has descendants, this point does not matter. the young zebra will not become faster, because its dead parent told it to outrun the lion. the biological premise is still the same.

have to ask a genoligist about evolution stuff.. I was just say'n that's what that poster meant, hence the ?

[Dr_Extrem]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Rhayak wrote...

The Zebra's post-Synth wisdom might go as deep as: "I die so that my descendants may become faster."

why should they become faster? this does not make sense.

out run the Lion?

how can it pass this information? via twitter? .. .

a dead organisms only influence on the system is, that it cant alter it anymore, by not being able to reprodude. but since the premise was, that it already has descendants, this point does not matter. the young zebra will not become faster, because its dead parent told it to outrun the lion. the biological premise is still the same.

have to ask a genoligist about evolution stuff.. I was just say'n that's what that poster meant, hence the ?

and thats why i wrote, that it does not make sense.

[shodiswe]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

Conflict is created when at least one party/group/whatever separates them from the others, be it social group, religion, etnicity, language, has a tough time and is facing hardship of some type.

but synthesis (if it does not effect the mindsets), does not stop people form forming new groups within the society.

- i doubt that hanar are suddenly not religious anymore.
- will turians stop having their "colonial attitude"?
- will humans stop to poof their value?

and synthetics are still synthetics .. the only thing that changes, is that they now understand us. thats all ... understanding does not prevent conflict. i may bmakes it harder for conflict to arise - but thats all.

Not only does it add a better understanding, but it provides people with new solutions to problems, which might actualy take way a lot of poverty and missery in the galaxy. There is an avina conversation in ME2 on how to remove all poverty and create a peaceful utopian future. Avina states that it would requier technology that is not currently available. So in away that forsadows such a solution back in ME2.

Will it solve all problems for all eternity? who knows, But it might help for at least a few thousand years and in that tiem galactic society evolves andvances and there is plenty of new space to explore and exploit for resources without having to go to war over it. The probelm woudl be when the whole galaxy is beign taped and that is no logner enough.
Then they would have to look outside the galaxy and those other galaxy might have life or civilizations in them aswell. But the slide doesn't cover a timeperiod that far into the future... Maybe new forms of life that evovles out of synthesis wont havethe same needs or will make do in some other way. There are several sugestion in Sci-fi on what coudl happen.. Like ascending to pure beings of energy whatever that accomplishes.... Not going to go into that since it's not mentioned by Bioware.

Modifié par shodiswe, 22 février 2013 - 01:43 .

[Wayning_Star]

[[quote]Rhayak wrote...

The Zebra's post-Synth wisdom might go as deep as: "I die so that my descendants may become faster."[/quote]

why should they become faster? this does not make sense.[/quote]

out run the Lion?[/quote]

how can it pass this information? via twitter? .. .

a dead organisms only influence on the system is, that it cant alter it anymore, by not being able to reprodude. but since the premise was, that it already has descendants, this point does not matter. the young zebra will not become faster, because its dead parent told it to outrun the lion. the biological premise is still the same.[/quote]

have to ask a genoligist about evolution stuff.. I was just say'n that's what that poster meant, hence the ?[/quote]

and thats why i wrote, that it does not make sense.[/quote]

well my laymans opinion is that other future zebra learn through experience and that is somehow transmitted genetics through decendents the urge to run faster to survive. It's a situation where you have to look at the long haul, over generations not just one example of one Lion vs Zebra. LIke dogs can paddle instinctually when in water. The don't have to learn to swim, it's an automatic response.

I've read that human babies can swim at birth, but later sink like a rock, instinctual but not fully 'learned', or adaptation?

hows that?

[Dr_Extrem]

no .. babies do not sink, because of this phenomenon:

automated laryngeal sealing


it prevents the baby from drowning in the mothers amniotic fluid.

this reflex is lost after apr. 11 months.

[Wayning_Star]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

no .. babies do not sink, because of this phenomenon:

automated laryngeal sealing


it prevents the baby from drowning in the mothers amniotic fluid.

this reflex is lost after apr. 11 months.

wow, I didn't know that Thanks Doc!


(and you ask me about evolution and genetics...hissss booo..lol )

[Indy_S]

The zebras would get faster because the faster ones survive. The quick and the dead. Because a fast one lives, its offspring is likely to be fast, leading it to surviving, leading it to having fast offspring and so on.

[shodiswe]

[quote]Wayning_Star wrote...

[quote]Rhayak wrote...

The Zebra's post-Synth wisdom might go as deep as: "I die so that my descendants may become faster."[/quote]

why should they become faster? this does not make sense.[/quote]

out run the Lion?[/quote]

how can it pass this information? via twitter? .. .

a dead organisms only influence on the system is, that it cant alter it anymore, by not being able to reprodude. but since the premise was, that it already has descendants, this point does not matter. the young zebra will not become faster, because its dead parent told it to outrun the lion. the biological premise is still the same.[/quote]

have to ask a genoligist about evolution stuff.. I was just say'n that's what that poster meant, hence the ?[/quote]

and thats why i wrote, that it does not make sense.
well my laymans opinion is that other future zebra learn through experience and that is somehow transmitted genetics through decendents the urge to run faster to survive. It's a situation where you have to look at the long haul, over generations not just one example of one Lion vs Zebra. LIke dogs can paddle instinctually when in water. The don't have to learn to swim, it's an automatic response.

I've read that human babies can swim at birth, but later sink like a rock, instinctual but not fully 'learned', or adaptation?

hows that?[/quote]


 /quote
 End of Quote.... I messed up the quoting there.. apparently.

The evolutionaly implications on a Zebra would be that Zebras who run faster will outrun the predators or prove to be harder to catch than their slower family members. This in turn meen that the lions will eat the slower zebras first and only the faster zebras will have progeny sharing the genetic profile of it's parrents who were fast enough to avoid getting eaten by the lions.
Evolution favors genetic benefits that allowws individuals to survive long enough to have ofspring and any abilities that helps them survive their early years so that that ofspring in turn can continue the cycle. Presumably it will be two "fast enough" individuals that will reproduce.
On the other hand evolution rarely cares about things that affect health or other problems beyonf the need to survive long enough to have ofspring or the ability to raise new copies of themselves. So in otherwords there is no benefit to lifing several years after your fertile lifespan, meening agediabetes, cancer and other problems arn't removed from the genetic pool since the individuals usualy manage to carry ofspring before those diseases kill you or criple you, leading to your death.

In otherwords, evolution favors reproductive capability but doesn't nessesarily perfect genetic herritage in other ways. It's usualy the most apparent physical attributes that are affected and considered.

Modifié par shodiswe, 22 février 2013 - 02:03 .

[Indy_S]

Putting the / in the quote box closes it. Do not put those in at the start of a quote.

[shodiswe]

Indy_S wrote...

Putting the / in the quote box closes it. Do not put those in at the start of a quote.

I think that happend automaticly, or maybe it was part of the original quoted text... Anyway, doesn't matter.

[Wayning_Star]

[/quote]


 End of Quote.... I messed up the quoting there.. apparently.

The evolutionaly implications on a Zebra would be that Zebras who run faster will outsun the predators or prove to be harder to catch than their slower family members. This in turn meen that the lions will eat the slwoer zebras first and only the faster zebras will have progeny sharing the genetic profile of it's parrents who were fast enough to avoid getting eaten by the lions.
Evolution favors genetic benefits that allowws individuals to survive long enough to have ofspring and any abilities that helps them survive their early years so that that ofspring in turn can continue the cycle. Presumably it will be two "fast enough" individuals that will reproduce.
On the other hand evolution rarely cares about things that affect health or other problems beyonf the need to survive long enough to have ofspring or the ability to raise new copies of themselves. So in otherwords there is no benefit to lifing several years after your fertile lifespan, meening agediabetes, cancer and other problems arn't removed from the genetic pool since the individuals usualy manage to carry ofspring before those diseases kill you or criple you, leading to your death.

In otherwords, evolution favors reproductive capability but doesn't nessesarily perfect genetic herritage in other ways. It's usualy the most apparent physical attributes that are affected and considered.[/quote]

good ol survival of the fittest clause..

unfortunately, the Lion learns to run faster as well..

[Applepie_Svk]

I don´t think that BioWare paid attention to tons of underline messages in the end of game, which is either very ignorant of them or very depresive.

[steinvegard]

My problem isnt spcecifically with synthesis(Though it certainly adds a whole "Brave new world"-like dystopian horror to proceedings)

My problem is, to try and sum it up, that when you finally meet the antagonist behind all this horror and you finally are going to know its motive, it basically goes on to tell you: "All the swans I have ever seen are white, therefore all swans are white" One of the most famous logical fallacies in philosphy is suddenly the the motivation of our supposed intelligent enemy. So we suddenly have cold logical AI, with appearently no understandig of logic at all.

So I am left with two possible interpretations, Either the star child, the reapers and their creators are complete idiots, which is bad storytelling(All that brainpower and they dont see the problem with induction) Or what the star child says is true; which says something nasty about the writers view of diversity and diverse creatures and intelligences ability to coexist peacefully in the long term.

[shodiswe]

Even if the lion learns to run faster it will take the easiest catch, the slowest of the fast running Zebras, or the sick or weakened individuals. Once the Lions has got food they let the others go... And the Zebra who survive keep breedign liek rabits, and keep feedign the Lions. and so on.

Modifié par shodiswe, 22 février 2013 - 02:11 .

[Indy_S]

Wayning_Star wrote...

good ol survival of the fittest clause..

unfortunately, the Lion learns to run faster as well..

You did it too. Stop putting the / at the start of the quote.

The Lion would learn to run faster. Alternately, other methods of attack and defense would arise. Ambushes negate a zebra's speed so the stealthier lions could grab them. Camouflage disrupts a predator's ability to recognise what it's seeing, so a zebra can hide by changing its appearance. This is likely what caused it to have its stripes in the first place.

[Wayning_Star]

in a weird way, synthesis is already in motion as you read this post...just say'n

[Abraham_uk]

steinvegard wrote...

 I`m sorry if this has been covered before, but I only recently played and finished the game(What I heard from people about the ending, made me wait until I had both a lot of spare time and absolutly nothing else of interest to play)

I was most surprised by the politial messaging in the endings: Diversity just doesn`t work over time. The only way to avoid conflict is either to destroy those who are different or to make everyone the same.

Since the game shows us synthetics and organics being able to get along just fine in the short term, but assures us that in the end it will end in conflict. (Listening to the star child was like listening to one of the vile representatives of the English defence league and similar modern nationalist movements who emphasise that despite things seeimg peaceful right now, diversity will eventually lead to war)

This would be reading to much into it if the game had stayed a heroic science-fantasy yarn all the way through, but since they chose to get all philosphical in the end, we have to ask what they are actually saying. And the only reasonable moral I can see is the same one that modern nationalistic movements stand for. Diversity, or multiculturalism, can seem like it is working right now, but ultimately it must end with only a monoculture surviving. I am surprised and dissapointed that Bioware would choose to spout such Samuel Huntington-Clash of civiliazitons like nonsene and even make it the ultimate message in their story.

It leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth for having supported them financially.

That is a first. An anti-ending thread that didn't make me want to puke.
Oh well. You do have a point, but I'm afraid to tell you that it's over. That ending isn't going to change.
If it makes you feel better, the Geth probably have their personality programs (souls) stored into a mainframe somewhere.

Perhaps the Geth can be brought back to life, undoing the genocidal after taste of destroy ending.
Same with EDI.


If that solution is implausible, perhaps after Shepard controls the Reapers, Shepard sends Reapers into a black hole. All dead, no Geth and other AI sacrificed.


So the only two endings that can cause you issue is Reject and Synthesis. Not too shabby when you think about this way.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 22 février 2013 - 02:13 .

[Indy_S]

The OP never said he wanted change. He wanted to understand why there is a counter-theme present in the ending.

[shodiswe]

The next stop would certainly be to go beyond the limitations of the limited parameters that drives natural evolution... It is however very controversial and as everythign else has it's risks. Like curing diabetes and cancer or at least makign it far less common by changing genetic code that causes severe health issues.

Then we got the issue with parrents who want's to "craft" the perfect childen.. Like Miranda in Mass effect...

Her father was according to that asari mercenary the richest person in the galaxy... and as we learn later a cerberus supporter/member... Anyway.. People will want to limit it and there will be people looking for way to accomplish it anyway.

I think Dr Bashir in DS9 was another example of excessive genetic tampering.

Modifié par shodiswe, 22 février 2013 - 02:17 .

[Abraham_uk]

Indy_S wrote...

The OP never said he wanted change. He wanted to understand why there is a counter-theme present in the ending.

Yeah. That does contradict the themes of un-forced mutual co-operation.

Genocide, brainwashing and alteration all scream the opposite.
I guess if one wants to stay true to the themes of the game, reject is the way to go.
You also get an awesome speech if you choose a diplomatic rejection as opposed to shooting Starchild.

Then again, you still get an unfavourable ending..

[RedBeardJim]

Wayning_Star wrote...
Besides the catalyst didn't decide, it's creators, thrall saving Leviathan thought that scheme up. lol

No, they didn't. They told the Catalyst to "preserve organic life at all costs". That's it. The actual Reaperizing was the Catalyst's idea.