@OP
A very refreshing perspective. Not unlike a cold shower on a hot, sweaty day. There's been a bad smell about the BSN, lately, and this washes it away.
I've often presented the perception of the Catalyst as an immortal child, so I couldn't agree with you more, there. I've also pointed out that the perceptions and understanding of the Catalyst are tied to the way in which it was created, the views it had at the time of creation, and the 'evidence' it's observed over aeons from the perspective of those views.
There is, however, one problem with a sub-section of humanity: The belief that nothing changes.
It's a weird problem, really. You'll have some people (like me!) who'll embrace any new ideas, but then you have a certain creed of person who believes that their lifespan dictates whether something is natural or an abomination. (I will say that it's mildly amusing that I'm more open to new things and generally more open-minded than most of the kids on BSN. That's really funny.) See, the issue tends to be that some people are weak of character, so they cling to familiarity because they see the unknown as a danger.
They hold onto familiarity with dear life, and they don't want the world to change. Anything that existed before they were born is natural, anything that exists beyond that point goes from unusual to an outright abomination. I remember when, for example, abortion was a big issue and how you had some kids who were freaking out over how unnatural and strange it was. These days it's just a fact of life, but you'll always have those that cling to their familiarity. (See Bush and his 'special snowflakes.')
To me, anything new and beneficial that happens is cool and interesting. I read science journals and sites on a regular basis because I love staying on top of current events. I'd rather read about the latest breakthroughs than celebrity gossip, but that's just me. I mean, earlier today I was reading about how a vaccine had been created to help deal with the symptoms of Autism -- that is amazing. It's also an advancement that we didn't have before. This is why I see Synthesis as almost the symbolism of
science itself. The ideal of science, if you will.
I also read an article which talked about how sociopathic/psychopathic people physically lack the neurophysiological architecture required for empathy. I see a lack of empathy a lot. But I can imagine a day when that's cured and all people have the capacity for empathy. I'm sure that a lot of people around here would flip out about that, freak out, have a riot. Why? Because a cure to that would be essentially creating a new human condition. If we could cure this at birth, we'd essentially be creating a posthuman condition, one where that flaw never existed.
That's what I see Synthesis as being representative of.
Contrary to me, though, you have people who cling to familiarity and believe earth will be the same forever. They take comfort in it, and believe that nothing will ever change. If anything does change, or if anything is contrary to the beliefs they were taught in their youth, then they balk at the changes and consider them wrong, or abominable. What's funny is that, as you pointed out, with new generations these views of what is and isn't abominable can change, thus creating conflict.
I think, outside of roleplaying a Shepard, whether you'd choose Destroy, Control, or Synthesis is based upon a sliding scale of how much you desperately want familiarity. If you're okay with diving off the deep end into the unknown (as I am), and see that as exciting (as I do), then you're going to pick Synthesis. If you're almost there, but you're still a little cautious, you can pick Control. If you cling to familiarity and want the Universe to stay the same forever, you pick Destroy.
That's why Destroy is essentially ludditism at the core. Ludditism for simple people, with simple desires, and a need for familiarity. It might not be that they can't comprehend Synthesis, but maybe more that they wilfully don't want to, because they're scared of any changes threatening their sense of familiarity. They basically want every tomorrow to be like every yesterday, a position of the purest stagnation. And that's a very dangerous thing to want.
Of course, these people would be the first to fire weapons/raise torches at aliens or artificial life. They're the mob mentality that arises whenever the world changes, they are the will of base animal fear at its most primal level.
Safety. See, Destroy is pure security, it's safety, it's a warm, cozy blanket where the big, bad Reaper men are gone, and everything stays juuuust as it was. It's stagnation, it's living in a moment forever.
This is essentially the view eschewed by the Templars in Deus Ex. They want to create a new dark age where people are tribal and everything is small and easy to understand, where nothing is beyond the comprehension of the weakest of character. Contrary to that, you have Helios. The Helios solution is simply to improve all humankind to the point where everyone is equal in their strength of character, and able to face the changes ahead.
It's funny, the Templars, the Illuminati, and Helios show
exactly the same sliding scale as Mass effect. If you aren't familiar with this, then I urge you to go and either watch or play the Deus Ex games. Especially the culmination of the story in Deus Ex: Invisible War (whilst admittedly not a great game, it did have a brilliant storyline). In Deus Ex the perceptions of all elements of the scale are laid out by various individuals who all have their own perceptions. Perhaps this is why my perceptions are so refined, because I've played Deus Ex.
Have I mentioned that more people need to play Deus Ex?
More people need to play Deus Ex. :I
But what you see in Deus Ex is basically the sliding scale of humanity. At one end you have those who fetishise familiarity and are terrified of any kind of change. At the very far end of that scale you have those who'll violently, vociferously, and aggressively fight all manners of change in any way they can (even if it means killing us all, or killing whomever they need to to make it happen). On the other end of the scale, you have those who believe that a world can exist for everyone, they are creatures of novelty and pacifism who believe that no one has to die to achieve any given dream. Occupying the centre you have the Illuminati, who possess qualities of both.
It's represented in other games, too!
Let's look at Fallout: New Vegas...
Caesar's Legion: A very tribal world where everything is small and easy to understand. The obvious similar ideologies here are the Templars and Destroy.
NCR/Mr. House: These are variations on the middle of the world, taking baby steps towards change, not to upset the rabble. These groups represent the Illuminati and Control.
Independence: The most radical change for New Vegas, it changes everything but in a positive light, leaving nothing as it was before. This is reminiscent of Helios and Synthesis.
I'm using the most common examples I can, here, so that more people will grasp where I'm coming from. This scale is very prevalent in human thinking, as it basically is an allegory of the perspective of progress. Those who hate it, those who fear it, those who want to granularly control it, and those who embrace it.
Progress is the enemy of stagnation. As such, progress is the enemy of familiarity. It's always surprising to me just what levels people want to go to to fight progress.
So there you go, that's my take on it.
Thanks for having me think about this, OP. It was indeed refreshing and very welcome.
Edit: Heh, I'm reminded now of that one Charr in Guild Wars 2. The one that talks of how he thinks progress is a negative thing, how he hates it, and how he finds the current peace unsettling. That he preferred the days when everyone was killing each other with swords.
Modifié par Auld Wulf, 25 avril 2013 - 01:09 .
Retour en haut
