201 réponses à ce sujet

[ElSuperGecko]

...there is however something incredibly repugnant and abhorrent about what should be a natural evolutionary process being fast-tracked and arbitrarily enforced upon all of creation by a being that understands absolutely nothing whatsoever about the "human condition".

The Catalyst doesn't think, believe, dream, empathise or emote.  It exists, and it calculates.  That is all.  And that's why it's solutions - ALL OF THEM - end up becoming a galactic horror.  Synthesis as a final evolutionary step is fine.  Synthesis as a mandatory and irrevocable genetic alteration, instigated at the whim of a being which believes that the cyclical and violent extermination of all advanced organic life to be an acceptable method of preserving life as a whole is nothing short of an abomination.

The Catalyst's solutions are fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's logic is fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's reasoning is fundamentally flawed.  The Reaper harvest was fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's suggestion of Synthesis is fundamentally flawed.  Because the Catalyst itself is fundamentally flawed.  Why?  Because it does not and cannot comprehend or take into account the very nature of life itself, the very thing it was created to protect.

addendum:

For the record - I don't pretend to know what Synthesis does, how it works, the effects it has on the citizens of the galaxy (whether instant, short term or long term), whether it leads to galactic peace, whether it actually solves the as-yet hypothetical synthetic/organic conflict or simply creates new conflicts.

I don't pretend to know because I don't know.  It's impossible to know.  All you can do is speculate and interpret the few little miniscule tidbits of information we are given.  Which - when the concepts within the endings are this vaguely defined - basically amounts to nothing more self-serving headcanon.

I prefer to actually ROLEPLAY my Shepard, and since Shepard's fate is unknown, the roleplay ends with the final decision.  I judge the final choices on what we actually know when MAKING the final decision.  And, as outlined in the OP, I find any suggestion for a solution from the Catalyst to be abhorrent given what we know about:

-  The cycle of extinction
-  The Reapers
-  Indoctrination and Reaper manipulation of organics
-  The fate of previous cycles
-  The fate of the Protheans
-  The creation and purpose of the Catalyst
-  The methods and logic of the Catalyst
-  The actions of the Catalyst

Everything we learn about the enemy throughout the entire trilogy leads me to consider Synthesis to be nothing more than a remarkably bad idea.  The same with Control.  I argue with TIM - based on what we actually KNOW about the Reapers and their methods - for 20 minutes that attempting Control will lead to nothing but disaster, and 20 seconds of platitudes from the creator of beings that have an established history of toying with people's ambition is not going to change my mind.

If Sherpard choosing Control is hypocrisy, then Shepard choosing Synthesis is simply surrender; you take the Catalyst at it's word.  You accept it's faulty logic, you embrace it's flawed "perfect solution" and place the final decision about the galaxy's future back in the hands of a being what has systematically exterminated all advanced organic life for billions of years.  Synthesis was not your idea, it never will be.  You don't understand what will happen, all you can do is hope.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 29 avril 2013 - 02:22 .

[Xilizhra]

This, again, depends on what you think Synthesis actually does. If all it does, for instance, is make it easier for organics to tech-augment themselves, which I think is closest to making sense, this "violation" has absolutely no effect on peoples' daily lives beyond what they want it to.

[Ecrulis]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

...there is however something incredibly repugnant and abhorrent about what should be a natural evolutionary process being fast-tracked and arbitrarily enforced upon all of creation by a being that understands absolutely nothing whatsoever about the "human condition".

The Catalyst doesn't think, believe, dream, empathise or emote.  It exists, and it calculates.  That is all.  And that's why it's solutions - ALL OF THEM - end up becoming a galactic horror.  Synthesis as a final evolutionary step is fine.  Synthesis as a mandatory and irrevocable genetic alteration, instigated at the whim of a being which believes that the cyclical and violent extermination of all advanced organic life to be an acceptable method of preserving life as a whole is nothing short of an abomination.

The Catalyst's solutions are fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's logic is fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's reasoning is fundamentally flawed.  The Reaper harvest was fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's suggestion of Synthesis is fundamentally flawed.  Because the Catalyst itself is fundamentally flawed.  Why?  Because it does not and cannot comprehend or take into account the very nature of life itself, the very thing it was created to protect.

I cannot second this hard enough

[Jukaga]

I kind of look at Synthesis as being something similar from the 'Culture' series of novels. In that storyverse, the culture known as 'The Culture' is composed of post-humans who can exist as data in a network, a biological body, and augmented body or a robotic body of any size or shape. The citizens of 'The Culture' are free to change their forms almost on a whim. They are a true Type-II civilization with some elements of a Type-III civilization creeping in.

The ME civs are all Type-I, synthesis transitions them to a Type-II. I don't think synthesis is abhorrent at all, my beef with it is that I really like the 'new kid on the block' vibe with the Terrans and we've not even had 50 years of galactic civilization to grow and spread our wings. It's way too damned early in the universe from a storytelling perspective to apply an 'end of history' solution to it. I want more conflict, more problems to solve, more adventures and synthesis, as I understand it steals that away from me.

[CDR David Shepard]

Whether or not Synthesis is "repugnant or abhorrent"  is purely subjective.

Modifié par CDR David Shepard, 24 avril 2013 - 05:00 .

[Enhanced]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

...there is however something incredibly repugnant and abhorrent about what should be a natural evolutionary process being fast-tracked and arbitrarily enforced upon all of creation by a being that understands absolutely nothing whatsoever about the "human condition".

But, he didn't design Synthesis, the creators of the Crucible did. 

Modifié par Enhanced, 24 avril 2013 - 05:01 .

[Phatose]

You can not slow down or speed up evolution. There is not a specific speed it is supposed to happen.

You can not fast track or arbitrarily enforce evolution. It is adaptation in any number of forms to the environment, and everything that can have any effect whatsoever is part of the environment.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Phatose wrote...

You can not slow down or speed up evolution. There is not a specific speed it is supposed to happen.

You can not fast track or arbitrarily enforce evolution. It is adaptation in any number of forms to the environment, and everything that can have any effect whatsoever is part of the environment.

What's all this "arbitrary" talk about? You speak as if nature does not force species to evlovle and alter already, but nature has and probably will continue to do this since the beginning of life.

That's why mass extinctions occur, a rapid and sudden shift in the entire climate or habitat forces the animals living in it to either adapt, or die.

True, the number of years that it takes to faucility this change is in the decades to centuries(yes, it can happen that fast and often needs to if a species wants to survive), but the result is still pretty much the same. You change the very nature of most animals who survive this process forever, with no way for them to reverse their evolutionary path.

Nature is such a repugnant and abhorrent thing sometimes.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 24 avril 2013 - 05:37 .

[Spartas Husky]

OP, There is nothing wrong about dung beetles liking their food either.

[Phatose]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Phatose wrote...

You can not slow down or speed up evolution. There is not a specific speed it is supposed to happen.

You can not fast track or arbitrarily enforce evolution. It is adaptation in any number of forms to the environment, and everything that can have any effect whatsoever is part of the environment.

What's all this "arbitrary" talk about? You speak as if nature does not force species to evlovle and alter already, but nature has and probably will continue to do this since the beginning of life.

That's why mass extinctions occur, a rapid and sudden shift in the entire climate or habitat forces the animals living in it to either adapt, or die.

True, the number of years that it takes to faucility this change is in the decades to centuries(yes, it can happen that fast and often needs to if a species wants to survive), but the result is still pretty much the same. You change the very nature of most animals who survive this process forever, with no way for them to reverse their evolutionary path.

Nature is such a repugnant and abhorrent thing sometimes.

Arbitrary was the ops term particularly for Crucible induced synthesis.

Nature just does what nature does. 

But everything is a part of nature, thus the idea of any evolution being arbitrary is absurd.  Sapient species are part of nature.  Even AIs and their space magic.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
This, again, depends on what you think Synthesis actually does. If all it does, for instance, is make it easier for organics to tech-augment themselves, which I think is closest to making sense, this "violation" has absolutely no effect on peoples' daily lives beyond what they want it to.

Pure speculation, headcanon and wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid, backed in no way by the in-game evidence.  You may be happy to risk it all on wild unsubstantiated hopes, but some of us prefer assurances - or at the very least, minimising risk.

Enhanced wrote...
But, he didn't design Synthesis, the creators of the Crucible did. 

Pure speculation, headcanon and wishful thinking on your part, I'm afriad, backed in no way by the in-game evidence..  We don't know who originally designed the Crucible, or when, all we know is the design has been altered and added to across several cycles.  The option for Synthesis is not something ANY of the builders of the Crucible in this cycle considered or envisaged, so it was clearly NOT a prominent feature of the design.  The ONLY being that suggests or endorses the concept of Synthesis is the Catalyst.  You're free to believe otherwise of course, but doing so ignores the facts of the Crucibles construction that ARE revealed to us.

[Xilizhra]

Pure speculation, headcanon and wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid, backed in no way by the in-game evidence. You may be happy to risk it all on wild unsubstantiated hopes, but some of us prefer assurances - or at the very least, minimising risk.

Backed up by an ounce of logic, at least, unlike your alarmism. What do you think is happening, then?

[SpamBot2000]

Xilizhra wrote...

Pure speculation, headcanon and wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid, backed in no way by the in-game evidence. You may be happy to risk it all on wild unsubstantiated hopes, but some of us prefer assurances - or at the very least, minimising risk.

Backed up by an ounce of logic, at least, unlike your alarmism. What do you think is happening, then?

Looks like there's going to be circuitry in tree leaves. Salads are probably going to be extra crunchy.

You know, I do find that repugnant.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 avril 2013 - 06:44 .

[Gixxer6Rdr]

Why do people argue over opinions? Every ending leaves a lot of room for speculation and head canon, pick your ending and have a nice day. Sheesh.

[Xilizhra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Pure speculation, headcanon and wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid, backed in no way by the in-game evidence. You may be happy to risk it all on wild unsubstantiated hopes, but some of us prefer assurances - or at the very least, minimising risk.

Backed up by an ounce of logic, at least, unlike your alarmism. What do you think is happening, then?

Looks like there's going to be circuitry in tree leaves. Salads are probably going to be extra crunchy.

You know, I do find that repugnant.

The idea that an energy wave could actually install circuitry on all organic life in its path is completely insane, so I'm fairly sure that it's supposed to be symbolic, as a sign that it's become more mutable.

[SpamBot2000]

Gixxer6Rdr wrote...

Why do people argue over opinions? Every ending leaves a lot of room for speculation and head canon, pick your ending and have a nice day. Sheesh.

See, I can't pick "my" ending because "my" ending doesn't involve collaborating with the Reapers.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 It's explicitly stated that Sync comes from the Crucile, not the Reapers.


"Add your energy to the Crucible, and (...)"

[SpamBot2000]

Xilizhra wrote...

The idea that an energy wave could actually install circuitry on all organic life in its path is completely insane, so I'm fairly sure that it's supposed to be symbolic, as a sign that it's become more mutable.

Yet there it is. If you assume that you can just ignore it as "symbolism", you could just as well pick ANY detail in the game and decide it's only "symbolic", leaving nothing securely solid. As in, "There was no Jack, she was symbolic." Etc.

"... what seemed corporal melted as breath into the wind."

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 avril 2013 - 06:56 .

[Xilizhra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The idea that an energy wave could actually install circuitry on all organic life in its path is completely insane, so I'm fairly sure that it's supposed to be symbolic, as a sign that it's become more mutable.

Yet there it is. If you assume that you can just ignore it as "symbolism", you could just as well pick ANY detail in the game and decide it's only "symbolic". 

Well, given that Shepard's body had previously been disintegrated, I assumed that it wasn't literally a tiny version of her walking through a Reaper's eye in Control. I also assumed that the flashback slides during the final moments weren't those people literally appearing out of thin air to smile at Shepard.

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 It's explicitly stated that Sync comes from the Crucile, not the Reapers.


"Add your energy to the Crucible, and (...)"

. Synthesis comes from the Crucible and Citadel working in tandem.

Destroy comes from the Crucible alone, Control from the Citadel.  One is an organic construct the other synthetic. N working in tandem they make Synthesis possible.

Modifié par Steelcan, 24 avril 2013 - 06:58 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CDR David Shepard wrote...

Whether or not Synthesis is "repugnant or abhorrent"  is purely subjective.

Indeed. 

I would rather refuse than subject the galaxy to it.

[SpamBot2000]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, given that Shepard's body had previously been disintegrated, I assumed that it wasn't literally a tiny version of her walking through a Reaper's eye in Control. I also assumed that the flashback slides during the final moments weren't those people literally appearing out of thin air to smile at Shepard.

Different presentation. Gilligan's Planet is shown through a neutral point of view, unlike Shep's visions. 

[Auld Wulf]

@OP

You're not being very bright about this. We've been "fast tracking" ourselves ever since we could make tools. The first human tools were technically "unnatural" because they exist outside of the animal kingdom. The wheel is abhorrent and repugnant--by your logic--as it stands against nature. The wheel.

Synthesis is the modern equivalent of the wheel. Just... think about it for a little while before snapping back. This is what you're missing, this is where your understanding is lacking. The issue with your flawed reasoning is that you believe that there is some smooth, preordained, god given path to evolution. Every scientist worth her or his salt will tell you that this is not the case. Evolution happens in sudden leaps and jumps, sometimes it even goes backwards.

Evolution is based upon mutation. Intelligence is a mutation. Synthesis is merely a new mutation. There is nothing abhorrent or repugnant about it. You just need to broaden your understanding of what evolution is, and how we work as a species.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 24 avril 2013 - 07:03 .

[Xilizhra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, given that Shepard's body had previously been disintegrated, I assumed that it wasn't literally a tiny version of her walking through a Reaper's eye in Control. I also assumed that the flashback slides during the final moments weren't those people literally appearing out of thin air to smile at Shepard.

Different presentation. Gilligan's Planet is shown through a neutral point of view, unlike Shep's visions. 

And the tinyShepard thing?

[CDR David Shepard]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

CDR David Shepard wrote...

Whether or not Synthesis is "repugnant or abhorrent"  is purely subjective.

Indeed. 

I would rather refuse than subject the galaxy to it.

I personally feel the same.