136 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The problem with your idea is that you are living in an imagined Utopia. The world isn't like that. This stuff isn't going to be available to everyone. We have over 7 billion people on this planet right now and that number is growing. You are speaking from the viewpoint of those privileged to be in a society of the "haves." What about the "have nots?" What will they do? There are more of them than the "haves."

There isn't going to be a magical switch that gives all of this wonderous technology to everyone. It isn't going to happen. That isn't the way people work. Those who are in power will retain power through control of this technology. New era of peace? Hardly.

This is a pretty big argument for Synthesis  it makes sure everyone has access to the upgrades.

I agree that's probably not how the singularity will happen. Assuming our AI don't simply wipe us out before we get there, it's more likely that tthe rich will gain access and oppress the rest of us. Once synthetics are capable of catering to their manual labor needs, the need for uneducated and unskilled labor will fall dramatically and the equity gap between the rich and poor will grow further.

It's a bit bleak but, the poor would probably rebel at that point. And maybe get cut down.

[Liamv2]

Edit screw it i can't be bothered

Modifié par Liamv2, 15 mai 2013 - 07:22 .

[Vaneheim]

TL;DR. Destroy FTW.

[Ecrulis]

Meh the whole thing read as a rather long winded "Synthesis is better and this is why"

But I am being far too serious for my tastes, I DEMAND MORE ENTERTAINMENT!

[PsyrenY]

Argolas wrote...

Integrating with technology at a reasonable pace is indeed an inevitable process. Resistance against it is futile in the long run, however that doesn't mean it's bad. Generally speaking, progress tends to be good and resistance against it tends to be bad, but both are justified to exist. Skepticism against new dangerous technology leads to careful consideration how much work it still needs which can prevent catastrophes. If you find a cure for cancer of course it should be used, however don't release it before you know about the side effects.

The idea behind Synthesis is not an abomination. Synthesis is an abomination.

Your analogy doesn't work because it relies on  imagined and unintended consequences/side-effects. What if Synthesis simply doesn't have any? If you're going to argue against it, you should do so on its own merits (or failings), rather than inventing drawbacks we have no evidence for out of sheer pessimism and arguing against those.

For your analogy, what if someone developed a cure for cancer that had no side-effects or drawbacks? Would you argue against its deployment then?

Massa FX wrote...

The act of synthesis took away free will. The right to choose our own fate is fundamental. Shepard's choice overruled billions of others right to choose.

ALL the choices do that. Synthesis is not special in this regard. Shepard chooses on behalf of trillions without consulting with any of them. Even not choosing (Refusal) is itself a choice.

[Nole]

Why make it so complicated, it's just a game. I mean, the first thing that came to my mind when the catalyst told me about Synthesis was: "Oh, so everyone will be perfect and happy...good".
I chose Destroy that time though

[Argolas]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Integrating with technology at a reasonable pace is indeed an inevitable process. Resistance against it is futile in the long run, however that doesn't mean it's bad. Generally speaking, progress tends to be good and resistance against it tends to be bad, but both are justified to exist. Skepticism against new dangerous technology leads to careful consideration how much work it still needs which can prevent catastrophes. If you find a cure for cancer of course it should be used, however don't release it before you know about the side effects.

The idea behind Synthesis is not an abomination. Synthesis is an abomination.

Your analogy doesn't work because it relies on  imagined and unintended consequences/side-effects. What if Synthesis simply doesn't have any? If you're going to argue against it, you should do so on its own merits (or failings), rather than inventing drawbacks we have no evidence for out of sheer pessimism and arguing against those.

A genetic alteration on all life at once that we don't understand on the hunch that it solves a hypothetical problem is inacceptable.

Optimystic_X wrote...

For your analogy, what if someone developed a cure for cancer that had no side-effects or drawbacks? Would you argue against its deployment then?

Of course not. I was arguing against that, say, a scientist developed the cure and then decides to give it to every sick person in the world the moment it started to work.  The right thing to do is make tests, check for side-effects and eliminate weaknesses until the medicine is as good as it gets in a reasonable amount of time, then deploy it. If the result is that it has no side-effects, as many sick people should get it as quick as possible, no question.

[Massa FX]

I like diversity. I love different cultures. I love different races. I am unique and eternally grateful for the fact that there's nothing like me in the universe. Synthesis removes that option. Everyone has full understanding. There's no mystery. There's nothing to learn, to grow. Evolution is at its apex.

Seems to me that is when the Maker should step in and wipe everything out and start over. There is a reason for our uniqueness in the universe. Gaining full understanding by becoming 1 with everything is not the way we are designed. Synthesis isn't evolution its the death to individuality.

[The Night Mammoth]

Bo-o-o-o-o-ring. Conflict is interesting, overcoming disadvantages and hardship is engaging, differences create culture, limitations promote innovation. I can't think of anything more bland than Synthesis. Everyone is given a happy pill and love their kitchen appliances like children because transhumanism. I'd rather people work towards it themselves and see the advantages on their own, than have it forced on them. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 15 mai 2013 - 08:30 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

An Auld Wulf thread.

Is it even worth reading to see how many times I'm subtly or overtly called a racist and a luddite?

[AlexMBrennan]

Science exists because of curiosity

Let me make this very clear: NO. Science is way beyond curiosity - not just asking how things work but how we can know how things work.

I see science as being, essentially, just what I've written there.

What have you written? I can just see incoherent ramblings on curiosity and sentience. Your friend you've mentioned (robotics engineer) certainly is not a scientist (he's an engineer - it's even in the name).

Okay, so the first thing to understand about Synthesis is that it's entirely symbolic, it's not meant to be taken factually or at face value

And here we go off to fanfiction land - if you want to do that, fine, but why do you keep brining it up in a forum where people use that term in a very different way (the one it's given in the game compared to your fanfiction re-definition?)

The point here is that someone wrote a thread that pointed out that all roads lead to Synthesis anyway, because Synthesis is the Singularity

And if his thread had been convincing then we'd all be having waffles rather than continuing this discussion, so it's fair to assume that we won't be convinced by it this time either.

[Ecrulis]

Oh wulfie threads, how I do love them

[xlegionx]

Steelcan wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

This is going to be good. We had the set up. ... So nature is the biggest tyrant? Hence, we should kill nature and join the reapers. This, in essence, is the argument.

Wulfie, you don't sell vacuum cleaners that have shampoo attachments, do you? There's a stain on the carpet in my studio. I dropped Chinese food on it 12 years ago. I cover it up with a throw rug. If you can get it out of the carpet, I'll buy one. Seriously. 10 vacuum cleaner salesmen have worked 4-5 hrs each on it and all have failed. Now word has gotten around and they don't even bother ringing my doorbell.

Nature is chaos. FWIW I have two close friends who are terminally ill. I'm partially disabled. And another friend of mine is also partially disabled. We do the best we can. I'm all for robotics that can replace limbs that no longer work, genetic research that can correct defects, and medical research that can find cures for these diseases. Still I'm not about to make every living thing in the universe 1/2 machine and 1/2 organic and side with the reapers.

The problem with your idea is that you are living in an imagined Utopia. The world isn't like that. This stuff isn't going to be available to everyone. We have over 7 billion people on this planet right now and that number is growing. You are speaking from the viewpoint of those privileged to be in a society of the "haves." What about the "have nots?" What will they do? There are going to be more of them than the "haves."

There isn't going to be a magical switch that gives all of this wonderous technology to everyone. It isn't going to happen. That isn't the way people work. Those who are in power will retain power through control of this technology. New era of peace? Hardly.

Then the "have nots" realize they outnumber the "haves".

Then we prove Marx right when the world is awash in revolution against the priveliged.

Well if it happened like "1984" then that wouldn't be the case. But that scenario seems extremely unlikely

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Is it even worth reading to see how many times I'm subtly or overtly called a racist and a luddite?

This one, sure.  

His assertions and associations in regards to Synthesis are bunk, as usual, but the foundation is sound enough to "take seriously". 

[mcsupersport]

One of the quickest ways for a race to become extinct is to "Achieve Perfection and the Apex of Evolution". That simply means there isn't a reason to change and evolve and the race will stagnate and when the Galaxy changes again due to natural forces, the "Apex" race will die. My biggest fear of the future is when we as a race can take death out of the equation as far as human race goes. That will signal the end of our race as we know it, and result in either mass wars, or some incredible barbaric control of it by those with power. Death is the only thing that is the great equalizer to all our people...no matter how powerful you are, how rich you are, you still die just like everyone else. So no, I don't want to EVER see the human race advance to the Synthesis point where they live like the Asari or forever. People think it would be utopia...but they have no clue what it would really do and most don't bother to think of the little things in relation to it. I really don't even like Drones and the like in wars...anything that reduces the number of deaths on the side of the users of them I don't like....it just encourages war in the first place.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Is it even worth reading to see how many times I'm subtly or overtly called a racist and a luddite?

This one, sure.  

His assertions and associations in regards to Synthesis are bunk, as usual, but the foundation is sound enough to "take seriously". 

I read it, and it's bunk, but props to him for not actually insulting anybody. 

[tonofluck21]

Control......that is my argument.

[frostajulie]

KingZayd wrote...

If you're forcing synthesis on every living thing then you're behaving as the tyrant. Just because you're ready for it, doesn't mean everything else in the galaxy is.

If people choose to upgrade themselves later on, that's their choice. They can do it after the Reapers are dealt with.

I will add this is the first pro synthesis thread I have read that I enjoyed.  Your perspective is unique and I can see where you're coming from but the above quote sums up my own feelings.

It was very sad that the first responses from my side of the argument were Didn't read and Synthesis is stupid.  Your opening post was worthy of better.

[Yestare7]

Auld Wulf thread!!

...without insults...

You getting grey Wulf?

[Auld Wulf]

Ecrulis wrote...

Then the question you should ask is does one post redeem a lifetime of board trolling?

Honestly? A "troll" in this context, by its very merit, is someone who disagrees with you passionately and won't step down. I stand by my sense of ethics and my convictions, I take pride in that. How many others can say the same? What some see as guilt-tripping, I see as matter-of-factly stating the obvious, from a position of ethical thinking. I recognise that I am an outlier in regards to common thought, but as I said, I am less and less of an outlier all the time. I'm just waiting for hte rest of the world to catch up with me.

A desire for a future sans war, sans suffering, sans meaningless death is trolling? Having a personal distaste for these things, even in a narrative, is trolling? Desiring ethical and equitous treatment regardless of social standing or personal disability is trolling? Going against the grain to speak out against black & white systems of over-simplified morality that just don't work any more is trolling? Recognising and being proud of my own ethical stances is troling?

I'm just a passionate person of convictions and pride. What you perceive as trolling is on you.

[Yestare7]

Auld Wulf wrote...
A desire for a future sans war, sans suffering, sans meaningless death is trolling? Having a personal distaste for these things, even in a narrative, is trolling? Desiring ethical and equitous treatment regardless of social standing or personal disability is trolling? Going against the grain to speak out against black & white systems of over-simplified morality that just don't work any more is trolling? Recognising and being proud of my own ethical stances is troling?

Those things are not trolling.

Insulting people for months on end, using Hitler comparisons and hinting at racism are most definately trolling.

You give me a good apology, stop insulting people, and I might take you serious again.

Your move.


Y

[adayaday]

Auld Wulf wrote...
 A "troll" in this context, by its very merit, is someone who disagrees with you passionately and won't step down.

Is that a confession?becuase this can discribe most of your posts,if not all of them.

Modifié par adayaday, 15 mai 2013 - 09:57 .

[KingZayd]

adayaday wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...
 A "troll" in this context, by its very merit, is someone who disagrees with you passionately and won't step down.

Is that a confession?becuase this can discribe most of your posts,if not all of them.

That's his point. He's saying you guys are applying a different definition of troll when using it on him.

[Auld Wulf]

Also, I've a bit of an addendum. I'm sure this will be seen as guilt tripping, but I mean it matter-of-factly, from experience. If you were to ask a veteran what they'd want from life, and whether it would be 'more war,' the answer would very likely be a panic attack. It's fine with videogames and all, but if you're trying to do anything involving believable people, then no one actually likes war. And people involved in war who've seen death aren't ever going to want to be involved in another -- not unless they've lost their sanity in a bad, bad way.

I think that having had a variety of life experiences just tends to lead you to a certain point where you have to think about the future, and I prefer to be optimistic. It's fun for a narrative to be bleak and all, but I wouldn't want reality to go that way. And personally, I've always held the romantic notion that when the initiation happens that changes everything, it's going to be some idealistic scientist that was responsible for getting the ball rolling, rather than a CEO or a political/military figure. Since I figure soon enough, we will make something better than us, something that will change everything -- and I prefer to be optimistic about that.

A future mostly of peace and understanding is the one I choose for this reality, if I have any say in it. And after a life of bleak experiences, I'm all worn out on the whole bleak and grimdark thing, really. I'll leave that to souls younger than mine.

[Phatose]

Massa FX wrote...

The act of synthesis took away free will. The right to choose our own fate is fundamental. Shepard's choice overruled billions of others right to choose. There is nothing natural about that. How this is OK for players is disturbing. What if the effect of synthesis turned organic skin inside out? Or removed bones, or added tails and extra eyes? Or removed eyes but added ears where eyes normally exist. Exaggerated examples for a reason. Forcing synthesis on the universe is ....

Its already been said enough times in enough threads.

It's ignored for a very simple reason.  This right to choose our own fate?  It's not actually fundamental, and in fact we don't even have it.

It makes for a nice soundbite, but it's a vast oversimplification.  We don't get to choose where we're born, who we're born to, the world we're born into.  Technology, other people's behaviors, totally random chance, history - these are all that that vastly effect our lives and we get no say in them whatsoever.

We do not choose our fates.  We are not entirely helpless in the arms of fate, but we're one force out of many, and that's the best anybody ever gets.