553 réponses à ce sujet

[Caldari Ghost]

XI BlackHawx IX wrote...

I don't see how synthesis is evil, its just morally wrong to make that choice for everyone

if you're a destroyer.............

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his own way.

Do YOU see any evil in Synthesis?

unless there is something major i missed, synthesis seems to be the most resonable and considerate choice. also, least selfish and arrogant. and petty. and short-sighted.

Can you explain why you feel this?

[Caldari Ghost]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his own way.

Do YOU see any evil in Synthesis?

unless there is something major i missed, synthesis seems to be the most resonable and considerate choice. also, least selfish and arrogant. and petty. and short-sighted.

Can you explain why you feel this?

there was a question in there somewhere........

[Indy_S]

Auld Wulf wrote...

xlegionx wrote...

It does matter if there's no explanation.

Oh you kids and your fetishism with current day reality and the inability to look beyond the very moment we're in right now. Even Star Trek didn't explain much, it just had technobabble hokum that anyone with a modicum of physics education wholly recognised as such. Technobabble hokum isn't an explanation, it's filler. Whether there's technobabble hokum as filler or not is a matter of taste.

Want an example? Star Trek transporters work because of Heisenberg Compensators. That's the explanation, that's a fine example of technobabble hokum right there. I mean, their lead technical director got a call once from someone asking them how those Heisenberg Compensators work. His reply was to say 'very nicely, thank you' before hanging up the phone. He found that amusing.

Most Star Trek fans are able to recognise what technobabble hokum is. Mass Effect fields are technobabble hokum, biotics is all technobabble hokum. It's all "space magic" at the end of the day, because that's the very definition of something we've imagined that doesn't exist yet. That's what both fantasy and sci-fi are about: something we've imagined that doesn't exist yet. That's the crux.

You may be too young to remember, but "fantasy" as called such is actually a fairly new genre. It used to just be sci-fi. Everything was sci-fi. Dragons, spaceships, laser rifles, and magic could exist within the same space, because it was all sci-fi. That's how things were back then, before things got stratified into much less interesting sub-genres. (Less imaginative ones, at that, since ideas used to be bigger than they are now and fiction used to be wilder and less segmented.)

Fiction is, essentially, to say it: Something that hasn't happened, yet.

So, sci-fi is... deep breath... Things we've imagined that don't exist, happening in scenarios we've imaginedt hat haven't happened. It's sad that I have to teach people this, because this is basically storytelling 101, and I'd like to think that schools should be teaching this sort of thing. This is the cornerstone of fiction, right here. If it's not fiction then it's a documentary of some sort, that's what separates the two. Things that happen in fiction are things that haven't occurred in reality.

As such, if you set something far enough in the future, you cannot explain it. You can fake the explanation, but people educated in the correct fields are going to see right through that and it's going to be embarrassing. Or you can just say "to heck with it" and not explain how things work. You can just throw the odd bit of hokum out and say you're done with it -- and that's exactly how Star Trek is. How much hokum you have is just a matter of taste, but at the end of the day, it is still just hokum.

Look at Doctor Who -- how does a TARDIS work? A TARDIS in and of itself is what you BSN kids would call "space magic" because it can't be explained yet. It's something that we desire in that we'd like to know, and we'd one day like to be able to create it. But you can't explain it according to modern day science. You can't explain it because if you could we'd be building them. So all you can do is put it there as an ideal that one day we might be able to create.

And if anyone asks? All you can do is throw in the hokum. The technobabble. The utter nonsense. And hope that no one is looking too closely. Project Lazarus is no different than Warp Drives, Synthesis is no different than Transporters. And none of this is ever explained. Show me something from Star Trek that stands as an explanation and... well, I'm sorry, I'd just have to laugh at you. It's technobabble hokum, not an explanation.

Again, some people like technobabble hokum, but that is not an explanation. There are no valid explanations in sci-fi. So what, pray tell, do you want? If it's bad for there to be no explanation, then all sci-fi ever written must be awful by your standards.

Sigh.

This all amounts to the "anything can happen at any time for no reason" argument. In any work of fiction you can point to, there are rules. These rules do not - and never have had to - match the rules governing reality. But the rules do have to be upheld throughout or you return to the "anything can happen" argument. If that happens, the meaning of cause and effect is lost, events, characters and actions no longer relate to each other and the story is deprived of any and all depth.

Element Zero exists in Mass Effect. Because of that, mass effect fields exist in Mass Effect. From there, the manipulation of mass effect fields by a person's mind, biotics, exist in Mass Effect. These are rules established by the setting. These things are permissable. Transporters and warp drives in Star Trek are well established and obey the rules that have been established around them. The TARDIS has rules. But Synthesis has none of this.

"But but Element Zero is nonsense!" I parody you in saying. This is where we get to conceits of the setting. These are things in the setting that straight up ask you to suspend your disbelief. This is where we get the fantastical elements, the impossible sciences. These are established early in the work in order to define the rules. But all of this might be beyond you, you don't appear to have progressed so far as storytelling 102.

If you do take the time to respond to this, please do it without the childish condescension.

[jstme]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

XI BlackHawx IX wrote...

I don't see how synthesis is evil, its just morally wrong to make that choice for everyone

if you're a destroyer.............

No.
Rewriting DNA of every organic creature is morally wrong regardless if you are destroyer or not.
Rewriting DNA of intelligent creature that can understand what it means and does not want it - is morally wrong whether you are destroyer or not.
Even if you believe that the change is benefitial.
 

[Caldari Ghost]

jstme wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

XI BlackHawx IX wrote...

I don't see how synthesis is evil, its just morally wrong to make that choice for everyone

if you're a destroyer.............

No.
Rewriting DNA of every organic creature is morally wrong regardless if you are destroyer or not.
Rewriting DNA of intelligent creature that can understand what it means and does not want it - is morally wrong whether you are destroyer or not.
Even if you believe that the change is benefitial.
 

what if the change is beneficial.? what if the change is necessary? what if we refused to evolve into ****** sapiens? what if we refused to accept the evolution of medicine? what if we refused to accept the general laws of civilization? of science? of morals? of education? of the universe? no big bang, no galaxies, no room for star formation......

[jstme]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

jstme wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

XI BlackHawx IX wrote...

I don't see how synthesis is evil, its just morally wrong to make that choice for everyone

if you're a destroyer.............

No.
Rewriting DNA of every organic creature is morally wrong regardless if you are destroyer or not.
Rewriting DNA of intelligent creature that can understand what it means and does not want it - is morally wrong whether you are destroyer or not.
Even if you believe that the change is benefitial.
 

what if the change is beneficial.? what if the change is necessary? what if we refused to evolve into ****** sapiens? what if we refused to accept the evolution of medicine? what if we refused to accept the general laws of civilization? of science? of morals? of education? of the universe? no big bang, no galaxies, no room for star formation......

Your examples are not relevant.Rewriting DNA of every organic creature has no connection to evolution or scientific advancement or social functions. Nor it is nessesary in ME3 synthesis.
And whether it is benefitial - should be decided by an individual and not you.
In any case - forcing it is not moral regardless of your intentions. 
  

[Stormcutter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's not the only consideration. There are the remnants of civilizations preserved in the Reapers. If you think they're alive in some way and enslaved by the Catalyst - and the story heavily suggests that they are - then they deserve some consideration.

What proof? There is no proof for this. They break people down to their very genetic material to form Reapers, killing them outright. Paragon Shepard says it best. The only Reaper who shows any degree of independence, of existing outside the cycle, is Harbinger and he's morally the worst of them all. The Collectors were his pet project after all. If anything, what little we see of Reaper mentality suggests that it is far worse than the Catalyst's. Mordin says it best: The Collectors were a final insult. The Catalyst has no need for insults.

Ieldra2 wrote...
As for forcing a choice, my stance is this: Taking only Destroy and Synthesis into account, it is justifiable to force such a choice because Destroy does irrepairable damage which can be avoided by choosing Synthesis and the results of Synthesis can reasonably expected to have no bad effects. Being partly synthetic is not bad from any rational point of view, regardless of how people feel about it.

You don't know this. Synthesis is introduced in the last five minutes and it's effects are never explored. It's main and only in-game supporter is the being who thought harvesting people by turning them into organic goo was a good idea. The extent and effects are never brought up. Judging by the shock on everyone's faces when the beam hits them, the experience was not entirely pleasant.

And those minority of conservatives still likely outnumber the Geth and all other AI. Remember that conservatism is not the same as being a Luddite. Mordin believed that rapid advances in tech beyond a species cultural evolution were never a good thing. He also opposed 'utopian' technology, stating that life needs limits and challenges to push against. And Mordin, while not infallible, is generally one of the most reasonable characters in the game.

Ieldra2 wrote... Pitting Synthesis against (Paragon) Control is a much thornier issue. Yet again, from a rational point of view Paragon Control is the ethically least problematic decision. Nobody dies, and the epilogue suggests that the new Control entity acts as a benevolent protector who ensures that everyone has a voice in shaping the future. I would feel compelled to choose Control every single time, where it not for the thematic implication that "we need a god-like authority figure to protect us from ourselves". Those thematic concerns cannot be simply brushed away because this is a story, and we cannot, and should not forget that it is - there is a message in these things, and a suggestion.  

I agree that the implication is bad, but the implication that we cannot deal with our own problems without being forcibly changed by a god-like figure into something else is even worse overall. If we're going purely thematically, then I could make the point Destroy represents the ability of people to make sacrifices to overcome a problem, regret those sacrifices but then still move on by their own strength, their own will. I mean, even if the Geth are dead by Rannoch, we still have our technology damaged and any remaining AI's like EDI are destroyed. That's a sacrifice, but life continues.

There's a positive and a negative side to almost everything.

...I should really stop getting drawn back into this thread.

Modifié par Stormcutter, 23 mai 2013 - 12:00 .

[Caldari Ghost]

jstme wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

jstme wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

XI BlackHawx IX wrote...

I don't see how synthesis is evil, its just morally wrong to make that choice for everyone

if you're a destroyer.............

No.
Rewriting DNA of every organic creature is morally wrong regardless if you are destroyer or not.
Rewriting DNA of intelligent creature that can understand what it means and does not want it - is morally wrong whether you are destroyer or not.
Even if you believe that the change is benefitial.
 

what if the change is beneficial.? what if the change is necessary? what if we refused to evolve into ****** sapiens? what if we refused to accept the evolution of medicine? what if we refused to accept the general laws of civilization? of science? of morals? of education? of the universe? no big bang, no galaxies, no room for star formation......

Your examples are not relevant.Rewriting DNA of every organic creature has no connection to evolution or scientific advancement or social functions. Nor it is nessesary in ME3 synthesis.
And whether it is benefitial - should be decided by an individual and not you.
In any case - forcing it is not moral regardless of your intentions. 
  

try a little harder.......
 
the nessesary part i probably agree with you on.
 
and the whole point of evolution is genetics.....alleles....... whatever.

[jstme]

Evolution is constant adaptation to changing environment. Survival of the fittest. 
AI rewriting genome is as far as it can be from the evolution. It is reprogramming.
Also, there is no final stage of evolution as long as environment is not static which is clearly the case in an infinite universe of ours.
"Whatever", "try harder" and even allpowerfull "alleles" do not change the fact that sythesis in ME3 is immoral. All 3 choices are immoral - by stupid speculations for everyone design,you just choose what immoral option speaks to you more. Or install MEHEM .

Modifié par jstme, 23 mai 2013 - 12:45 .

[Ieldra]

Stormcutter wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's not the only consideration. There are the remnants of civilizations preserved in the Reapers. If you think they're alive in some way and enslaved by the Catalyst - and the story heavily suggests that they are - then they deserve some consideration.

What proof? There is no proof for this. They break people down to their very genetic material to form Reapers, killing them outright. Paragon Shepard says it best. The only Reaper who shows any degree of independence, of existing outside the cycle, is Harbinger and he's morally the worst of them all. The Collectors were his pet project after all. If anything, what little we see of Reaper mentality suggests that it is far worse than the Catalyst's. Mordin says it best: The Collectors were a final insult. The Catalyst has no need for insults.

Read this thread. There is reasonable extrapolation, suggestion and interpretation. There is no more "proof" than that for anything in any of the endings. Choose Destroy and be wiped out by synthetics 1000 years down the road? Possible? Paragon Control!Shep loses it 1000 years down the road? Possible. Synthesis results in mental co-optation by some faction 1000 years down the road? Possible. Nonetheless, even apart from my reasoning in the linked thread, we know what kind of story this is, we know that the high-EMS endings are supposed to be good endings, and so we can infer that none of these things will actually happen.

Stormcutter wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
As for forcing a choice, my stance is this: Taking only Destroy and Synthesis into account, it is justifiable to force such a choice because Destroy does irrepairable damage which can be avoided by choosing Synthesis and the results of Synthesis can reasonably expected to have no bad effects. Being partly synthetic is not bad from any rational point of view, regardless of how people feel about it.

You don't know this. Synthesis is introduced in the last five minutes and it's effects are never explored. It's main and only in-game supporter is the being who thought harvesting people by turning them into organic goo was a good idea. The extent and effects are never brought up. Judging by the shock on everyone's faces when the beam hits them, the experience was not entirely pleasant.

Actually, I do know. The way this is presented to us suggests that it may be confusing, but that the results can be reasonably expected to be seen as desirable. It's just the way things work in a story like this. I know it the same way that I knew there wouldn't be significant bad side effects for saving the Rachni queen in ME1. Even more to the point, I predicted most of what the EC Synthesis epilogue would tell us before it came out. The only things I was surprised about was that the Reapers stick around instead remaining remote from the rest of civilization, and that they didn't change the nonsensical "final evolution" phrase. It should be clear at that point that there is no such thing.  

Stormcutter wrote...]And those minority of conservatives still likely outnumber the Geth and all other AI. Remember that conservatism is not the same as being a Luddite. Mordin believed that rapid advances in tech beyond a species cultural evolution were never a good thing. He also opposed 'utopian' technology, stating that life needs limits and challenges to push against. And Mordin, while not infallible, is generally one of the most reasonable characters in the game.

I don't see Synthesis as an utopia - and it's never said that it is. I see this impression as an unfortunate side effect of the ME3 team's attempt to make clear to everyone that Synthesis is supposed to be a good ending. Mordin is also  wrong, in two fundamental things: (1) cultural evolution is triggered by technology, it doesn't precede it. We could never have been ready for television or the internet before they existed, for instance. Evolution means adapting to what exists, not pre-empting what will possibly exist. (2) If technology removes one limitation, it will bring the next limitation to our attention. Maybe there is some end to this process, but I can imagine a lot of advancement far beyond anything suggested by Synthesis. I can't see an end to limits to push against for quite some time.

If we're going purely thematically, then I could make the point Destroy represents the ability of people to make sacrifices to overcome a problem, regret those sacrifices but then still move on by their own strength, their own will. I mean, even if the Geth are dead by Rannoch, we still have our technology damaged and any remaining AI's like EDI are destroyed. That's a sacrifice, but life continues.

Absolutely. Destroy emphasizes autonomy, while Synthesis emphasizes advancement. Both are good things valued with different priorities in the endings. Which ending I prefer says something about me, but thematically, none of them are bad. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2013 - 01:25 .

[Enhanced]

jstme wrote...

Evolution is constant adaptation to changing environment. Survival of the fittest. 
AI rewriting genome is as far as it can be from the evolution. It is reprogramming.
Also, there is no final stage of evolution as long as environment is not static which is clearly the case in an infinite universe of ours.
"Whatever", "try harder" and even allpowerfull "alleles" do not change the fact that sythesis in ME3 is immoral. All 3 choices are immoral - by stupid speculations for everyone design,you just choose what immoral option speaks to you more. Or install MEHEM .

https://encrypted-tb...loKa71k1lkfUPDY

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...


I don't see Synthesis as an utopia - and it's never said that it is. I see this impression as an unfortunate side effect of the ME3 team's attempt to make clear to everyone that Synthesis is supposed to be a good ending. Mordin is also  wrong, in two fundamental things: (1) cultural evolution is triggered by technology, it doesn't precede it. We could never have been ready for television or the internet before they existed, for instance. Evolution means adapting to what exists, not pre-empting what will possibly exist. (2) If technology removes one limitation, it will bring the next limitation to our attention. Maybe there is some end to this process, but I can imagine a lot of advancement far beyond anything suggested by Synthesis. I can't see an end to limits to push against for quite some time.

Technological advances diffuse gradually through society.  When the television was invented, everyone didn't automatically have one poof into homes.  It existed for decades before it became commonplace.  Same with the Internet.  Over time, what is strange becomes common, and eventually the new normal.

Imagine the rold if everyone suddenly had omnitools implanted in their arms, complete with cryo blast and incinerate functions, hacking capability as well as near-instantaneous 3D printer technology.  Every man, woman, child, and the family dog too, all have this now.  It's in their DNA and can't be taken away.

How would society react to that? 

[jstme]

Enhanced wrote...

jstme wrote...

Evolution is constant adaptation to changing environment. Survival of the fittest. 
AI rewriting genome is as far as it can be from the evolution. It is reprogramming.
Also, there is no final stage of evolution as long as environment is not static which is clearly the case in an infinite universe of ours.
"Whatever", "try harder" and even allpowerfull "alleles" do not change the fact that sythesis in ME3 is immoral. All 3 choices are immoral - by stupid speculations for everyone design,you just choose what immoral option speaks to you more. Or install MEHEM .

https://encrypted-tb...loKa71k1lkfUPDY

Dude would never forcefully rewrite the DNA of all organic life forms, he knows it is objectively immoral. Plus, Catalyst ruined his rug.

Modifié par jstme, 23 mai 2013 - 01:53 .

[Stormcutter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Read this thread. There is reasonable extrapolation, suggestion and interpretation. There is no more "proof" than that for anything in any of the endings. Choose Destroy and be wiped out by synthetics 1000 years down the road? Possible? Paragon Control!Shep loses it 1000 years down the road? Possible. Synthesis results in mental co-optation by some faction 1000 years down the road? Possible. Nonetheless, even apart from my reasoning in the linked thread, we know what kind of story this is, we know that the high-EMS endings are supposed to be good endings, and so we can infer that none of these things will actually happen.

Fair enough points, but still based on speculation rather than fact. The simple truth is that the Destroy ending is made very explicit in what it does down to quite fine detail, while Synthesis is not. The Destroy ending might bring synthetics to wipe out Organics 1000 years later, but that's not something that is even suggested within the ending cutscene itself. Synthesis is vague enough that nearly anything could be happening within the ending.

Ieldra2 wrote...
Actually, I do know. The way this is presented to us suggests that it may be confusing, but that the results can be reasonably expected to be seen as desirable. It's just the way things work in a story like this. I know it the same way that I knew there wouldn't be significant bad side effects for saving the Rachni queen in ME1. Even more to the point, I predicted most of what the EC Synthesis epilogue would tell us before it came out. The only things I was surprised about was that the Reapers stick around instead remaining remote from the rest of civilization, and that they didn't change the nonsensical "final evolution" phrase. It should be clear at that point that there is no such thing.  

The results are not always clear, though I admit they are most of the time. Rana Thanoptis comes back to bite you in the ass storywise, as does sparing that Eclipse merc in the Samara recruitment mission. The effects of these are relatively minor, but they show that things don't always work out perfectly.

Ieldra2 wrote...
I don't see Synthesis as an utopia - and it's never said that it is. I see this impression as an unfortunate side effect of the ME3 team's attempt to make clear to everyone that Synthesis is supposed to be a good ending. Mordin is also  wrong, in two fundamental things: (1) cultural evolution is triggered by technology, it doesn't precede it. We could never have been ready for television or the internet before they existed, for instance. Evolution means adapting to what exists, not pre-empting what will possibly exist. (2) If technology removes one limitation, it will bring the next limitation to our attention. Maybe there is some end to this process, but I can imagine a lot of advancement far beyond anything suggested by Synthesis. I can't see an end to limits to push against for quite some time.

True enough, but there are degrees. Giving nuclear devices or space travel to all civilisations in the 1800's would likely not turn out well. Technological development and cultural development naturally move at more or less the same pace. Technology may provoke an advancement in the culture, but the culture will have already adapted to the technological advances before that one. Artificial electricity leading to artificial light, artificial light leading to TV and so on. Synthesis is so far in advance of anything the Galaxy knows of that it's a far more violent and unnatural leap. No-one will know how it happened. It will be alien, difficult if not impossible to comprehend. It's jumping far too many levels in tech for people to easily adapt and be comfortable with it.

Ieldra2 wrote...
Absolutely. Destroy emphasizes autonomy, while Synthesis emphasizes advancement. Both are good things valued with different priorities in the endings. Which ending I prefer says something about me, but thematically, none of them are bad. 

I agree to an extent on this. None of the three main endings are bad per say. They all stop the Reaper harvest in some way, which is obviously a positive that outweighs nearly any negative.

It's just that personal morality will always lead to determining which of them  is best overall. And personal morality is not easily shaken by arguments on an internet forum.

It's nice that this debate is being civil, by the way.

Modifié par Stormcutter, 23 mai 2013 - 01:59 .

[Phatose]

If evolution is adaptation to a changing environment, then synthesis is evolution.
The AI and it's green wave are the environment, and the rewrite is the adaptation to that environment.

[jstme]

Phatose wrote...

If evolution is adaptation to a changing environment, then synthesis is evolution.
The AI and it's green wave are the environment, and the rewrite is the adaptation to that environment.

Sigh.
Phatose, i always respected that you never troll but speak civil and use rational arguements. In this case i find myself actually hoping that you are trolling because otherwise Kirk Lazarus might have a word with you.
In any case:
Green wave is the thing that rewrites the genes. It is no more an adaptation by genes to changing environment then this:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Vacanti_mouse 

[dorktainian]

Synthesis is the removal of all genetic diversity. It is the ultimate slap in the face for sentient life. Now everything will stagnate, wither away and die. Reapers win. We lose. Oh and can someone tell Biowares graphic artists what DNA looks like, because dang......

[Cheviot]

dorktainian wrote...

Synthesis is the removal of all genetic diversity..

No it's not.  All organic beings are still whatever they were, but with synthetic elements added to their DNA.

[KaiserShep]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his own way.

Do YOU see any evil in Synthesis?

unless there is something major i missed, synthesis seems to be the most resonable and considerate choice. also, least selfish and arrogant. and petty. and short-sighted.

How is it that the vaguest, most radical choice is considered to be the most reasonable? Throughout the entire trilogy, synthesis is only ever alluded to once, and in that one instance, it's presented in the worst case possible with Saren. I've seen people use the word arrogant and petty to describe the other options, particularly destroy, but I've never seen any sufficient explanation as to why. The great irony with calling it short-sighted is that the same could be said about synthesis, because there is absolutely no way to determine how it would affect life on a long-term basis, and it preserves the very things that have been killing people in trillions just moments ago. It presents the most unknowns. It leaves the most questions. So what makes it the most reasonable, considering how mysterious it really is when it's first told to us? 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 23 mai 2013 - 02:46 .

[Phatose]

jstme wrote...

Phatose wrote...

If evolution is adaptation to a changing environment, then synthesis is evolution.
The AI and it's green wave are the environment, and the rewrite is the adaptation to that environment.

Sigh.
Phatose, i always respected that you never troll but speak civil and use rational arguements. In this case i find myself actually hoping that you are trolling because otherwise Kirk Lazarus might have a word with you.
In any case:
Green wave is the thing that rewrites the genes. It is no more an adaptation by genes to changing environment then this:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Vacanti_mouse 

The thing is, that actually is evolution too.  And when the thing dies because it's not well adapted, that's evolution as well.  Or when the scientist decides that's enough of that, and euthanizes.

That's true whether it's predators adapting to their prey building shells, or moths in London growing darker to fit in with the smog,  cattle being selectively bred for being tasty, or green waves.

Environment is all encompassing.  It's nature, and  like "Natural", it's gotten some fairly odd connotations attached, where man and machine are somehow separate from it.  But they're not.  A man behaves in way way prescribed by the same physics as everything else, as does his inventions, or the reapers.  These words still get used in a way where man is not just another animal, a holdover from Religion - but that's outdated.

But just to be clear here, the fact that it's evolution does not make it good, right, or acceptable.  Evolution is completely amoral - it's a description of what happens, not a plan. 

[Manou1]

Well.. everyone will become the same so that will make ME universe boring and any future sequels pointless, IMO. I don't necessarily see anything evil about that though.

Secondly this, which I am wondering too (I am going to quote Jaimacobs's comment on Youtube):

"How far does Synthesis act within organics then? We see the husks become self-conscious (a horrible existence, one reason I don't pick Synthesis), but what other organics become part machine? Wild animals? Our pets? Insects? Bacteria?

Nothing can have a pinnacle of evolution, because of this, the food chain and many other "fights for survival" are now obsolete, since every organic is now "perfect," and because of this, all hell will break loose."

Modifié par Manou1, 23 mai 2013 - 02:57 .

[Cheviot]

Manou1 wrote...

Well.. everyone will become the same so that will make ME universe boring and any future sequels pointless, IMO.

But they won't be the same.   Krogans don't suddenly become humans. 

[jstme]

Phatose wrote...

jstme wrote...

Phatose wrote...

If evolution is adaptation to a changing environment, then synthesis is evolution.
The AI and it's green wave are the environment, and the rewrite is the adaptation to that environment.

Sigh.
Phatose, i always respected that you never troll but speak civil and use rational arguements. In this case i find myself actually hoping that you are trolling because otherwise Kirk Lazarus might have a word with you.
In any case:
Green wave is the thing that rewrites the genes. It is no more an adaptation by genes to changing environment then this:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Vacanti_mouse 

The thing is, that actually is evolution too.  And when the thing dies because it's not well adapted, that's evolution as well.  Or when the scientist decides that's enough of that, and euthanizes.

That's true whether it's predators adapting to their prey building shells, or moths in London growing darker to fit in with the smog,  cattle being selectively bred for being tasty, or green waves.

Environment is all encompassing.  It's nature, and  like "Natural", it's gotten some fairly odd connotations attached, where man and machine are somehow separate from it.  But they're not.  A man behaves in way way prescribed by the same physics as everything else, as does his inventions, or the reapers.  These words still get used in a way where man is not just another animal, a holdover from Religion - but that's outdated.

But just to be clear here, the fact that it's evolution does not make it good, right, or acceptable.  Evolution is completely amoral - it's a description of what happens, not a plan. 

Evolution is most surely amoral.Simply it popped up in thread after someone compared evolving to ****** Sapiens to synthesis and it evolved from there.
But you are still wrong. Creature living in post-synthesis universe will indeed be part of evolution process that would not stop after green magic. Green wave however is the force that actually physically rewrites the genes. It has nothing to do with being part of evolution , organisms do not adapt - they are changed. Whatever those are after synthesis - they are green not because they were fittest,but because they were rewritten by that wave.
To clarify - creatures adapting to sudden ice age  - this is evolution. Breeding sheep with long fur - this is evolution. Releasing cold-resistance-gene wave without any nessesity for such - this is artificial change. Creatures affected will live according to natural selection laws, but the change was not part of those laws, it was artificial.
 

[Paranoidal nemesis]

An Ai (the catalyst) says that the only way for synthetics to understand organics, and vice versa, is synthesis. The catalyst essentially admits that it doesn't understand organics since it is an AI.
In addition, it says synthesis is the final step in evolution, yet it harvested all organic life before it could evolve beyond a certain point. How would it know what the apex of evolution is?

Synthesis is the only ending I've ever experienced that actually made me upset. EDI waxes on about how much better everything is, and in the end I felt like I was wrong the whole time. Everything I fought for was a lie, the reapers really were right when they said how inferior organics were.