435 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

congokong wrote...
A theme throughout the series is the dangers of technology. The idea is that without Leviathan or the reapers eventually
all organics will be enslaved or killed by synthetics. So are the reapers right?

From a wider perspective, there is no reason why organic life should be preferable to synthetic life. If a million years from now, all existing intelligent life will be synthetic, so what?

Apart from that, should you accept that the organic perspective (if there is such a thing) is valuable enough to preserve, the Catalyst would of course have a valid rationale for intervention, assuming that the premise of organic extinction holds true with a high enough probability (which isn't all that outlandish actually, so I can suspend my disbelief for it).

The question, as I see it, is not "should the Catalyst have intervened", but about the shape its intervention has taken - the cycle - and about the methods used in its implementation, particularly the needlessly cruel Reaperization process and the question "wasn't there a less painful solution".

On the positive side, the cycle created countless civilizations and didn't interfere with their development until they reached a certain level of technology. A certain historical diversity of intelligent life owes its existence to the cycle. On the negative side, it also destroyed those civilizations again, keeping a remnant of those with the greatest potential according to some intractable logic of the Catalyst's.

Thus, it is possible to adopt a perspective where the net balance of the cycle is positive, and since in the end, a different solution *was* found, the cycle has also solved the problem by creating a civilization with the ability to change the variables - and changing the variables might just mean the premise no longer holds true, even post-Destroy. The price: trillions of lives and hundreds of civilizations. Was it worth it? Give me the Catalyst's knowledge and cognitive ability, but leave me my human perspective, and I may be able to cast judgment. With the knowledge I have, I can't.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 janvier 2014 - 01:56 .

[congokong]

Ieldra2 wrote...

congokong wrote...
A theme throughout the series is the dangers of technology. The idea is that without Leviathan or the reapers eventually
all organics will be enslaved or killed by synthetics. So are the reapers right?

From a wider perspective, there is no reason why organic life should be preferable to synthetic life. If a million years from now, all existing intelligent life will be synthetic, so what?

Apart from that, should you accept that the organic perspective (if there is such a thing) is valuable enough to preserve, the Catalyst would of course have a valid rationale for intervention, assuming that the premise of organic extinction holds true with a high enough probability (which isn't all that outlandish actually, so I can suspend my disbelief for it).

The question, as I see it, is not "should the Catalyst have intervened", but about the shape its intervention has taken - the cycle - and about the methods used in its implementation, particularly the needlessly cruel Reaperization process and the question "wasn't there a less painful solution".

On the positive side, the cycle created countless civilizations and didn't interfere with their development until they reached a certain level of technology. A certain historical diversity of intelligent life owes its existence to the cycle. On the negative side, it also destroyed those civilizations again, keeping a remnant of those with the greatest potential according to some intractable logic of the Catalyst's.

Thus, it is possible to adopt a perspective where the net balance of the cycle is positive, and since in the end, a different solution *was* found, the cycle has also solved the problem by creating a civilization with the ability to change the variables - and changing the variables might just mean the premise no longer holds true, even post-Destroy. The price: trillions of lives and hundreds of civilizations. Was it worth it? Give me the Catalyst's knowledge and cognitive ability, but leave me my human perspective, and I may be able to cast judgment. With the knowledge I have, I can't.  

As I said, the catalyst's equivalent to the self-preservation instinct in organics is to preserve organic life at any cost; not if that organic life is worthy of being preserved.

My whole argument here is based on several assumptions which many repliers don't want to accept for argument's sake because it might actually validate the reapers.

1) The catalyst has studied civilizations long enough to deem synthetic domination in the ME universe is "inevitable" if no intervention from a higher power is made.

Rebuttal: People keep citing the geth/quarian peace that has lasted a whopping few weeks, ignorant to the concern that the geth keep evolving while the quarians stay the same.

Rebuttal: People also keep arguing that synthetic domination is not certain to be inevitable, but for argument's sake I'm assuming in the ME universe it is based on the catalyst's long studies.



2) I'm also assuming for argument's sake that the catalyst could not find a better solution to the problem than the reapers. I mentioned in my OP that a large debate over the use of reapers is the "ends justify the means" justification for the atrocities the catalyst is responsible for.

Modifié par congokong, 16 janvier 2014 - 11:03 .

[AlexMBrennan]

ignorant to the concern that the geth keep evolving while the quarians stay the same.

I don't think that's quite how biology works.

[congokong]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

ignorant to the concern that the geth keep evolving while the quarians stay the same.

I don't think that's quite how biology works.

The speed that organics evolve is neglible to the extent the geth have evolved in merely 300 years. And evolution doesn't necessarily mean improvements but rather adaptation. The geth dramatically "evolved" in a way that makes them significantly more intelligent/improved if given the reaper code.

There isn't a real debate in the ME universe that synthetics can greatly surpass organics.

[ImaginaryMatter]

congokong wrote...

My whole argument here is based on several assumptions which many repliers don't want to accept for argument's sake because it might actually validate the reapers.

1) The catalyst has studied civilizations long enough to deem synthetic domination in the ME universe is "inevitable" if no intervention from a higher power is made.

Rebuttal: People keep citing the geth/quarian peace that has lasted a whopping few weeks, ignorant to the concern that the geth keep evolving while the quarians stay the same.

Rebuttal: People also keep arguing that synthetic domination is not certain to be inevitable, but for argument's sake I'm assuming in the ME universe it is based on the catalyst's long studies.

2) I'm also assuming for argument's sake that the catalyst could not find a better solution to the problem than the reapers. I mentioned in my OP that a large debate over the use of reapers is the "ends justify the means" justification for the atrocities the catalyst is responsible for.

I thought the point of the thread was to opine on whether or not those assumptions are right. Are we discussing the validity of the problem (all Synthetics will kill all Organics?) or whether or not the cycles were the correct solution? From an in game perspective we kind of have to go with what the Catalyst says since there is no other source of evidence (outside of DLC content), I believe that it was the attention of the writers to accept the Catalyst's word as absolute. My comments have mostly focused on why both assumptions were terrible from a writing perspective.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 17 janvier 2014 - 12:01 .

[Comrade Wakizashi]

The Catalyst has done absolutely no "long civilization" studies in which it bases it's assumptions. It bases itself solely on the war between Levithan thralls and their synthetics that happened millions of years ago, that's all. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

[congokong]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

congokong wrote...

My whole argument here is based on several assumptions which many repliers don't want to accept for argument's sake because it might actually validate the reapers.

1) The catalyst has studied civilizations long enough to deem synthetic domination in the ME universe is "inevitable" if no intervention from a higher power is made.

Rebuttal: People keep citing the geth/quarian peace that has lasted a whopping few weeks, ignorant to the concern that the geth keep evolving while the quarians stay the same.

Rebuttal: People also keep arguing that synthetic domination is not certain to be inevitable, but for argument's sake I'm assuming in the ME universe it is based on the catalyst's long studies.

2) I'm also assuming for argument's sake that the catalyst could not find a better solution to the problem than the reapers. I mentioned in my OP that a large debate over the use of reapers is the "ends justify the means" justification for the atrocities the catalyst is responsible for.

I thought the point of the thread was to opine on whether or not those assumptions are right. Are we discussing the validity of the problem (all Synthetics will kill all Organics?) or whether or not the cycles were the correct solution? From an in game perspective we kind of have to go with what the Catalyst says since there is no other source of evidence (outside of DLC content), I believe that it was the attention of the writers to accept the Catalyst's word as absolute. My comments have mostly focused on why both assumptions were terrible from a writing perspective.

No... As the title clearly states, the point of the thread is whether or not the reapers are right. Are their actions right assuming what the catalyst says is true?

[Gkonone]

The Reapers were not right, and this has been proven in game. Synthetics and organics can coexist.
Why this thread went 9 pages is beyond me.

[Obadiah]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

The Catalyst has done absolutely no "long civilization" studies in which it bases it's assumptions. It bases itself solely on the war between Levithan thralls and their synthetics that happened millions of years ago, that's all. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

How do we know it hasn't done this? I think if we can think of a potential solution, the Catayst being more intelligent than us has probably thought of it as well, and if feasible probably attempted it.

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 janvier 2014 - 01:19 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

So for the sake of argument, you're assuming that the catalyst is right, and this leads you to the conclusion that the Reapers must be right?

Amazing!

[bleetman]

The Catalyst is an artificial life form. It was created. It's synthetic.

Either it's right, in which case it itself is part of the problem and has therefore been perpetuating the very thing it's trying to solve for billions of years, rendering the Reapers completely pointless, or it's wrong and the Reapers are completely pointless.

Those are the two options.

Obadiah wrote...
the Catayst being more intelligent than us

Citation needed.

Modifié par bleetman, 17 janvier 2014 - 01:32 .

[congokong]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

So for the sake of argument,
you're assuming that the catalyst is right, and this leads you to the
conclusion that the Reapers must be right?

Amazing!

I haven't "concluded" anything. I'm looking for valid rebuttals and alternatives if the catalyst is indeed correct in its "synethetics will dominate all organics if left alone" logic.

bleetman wrote...

The Catalyst is an artificial life form. It was created. It's synthetic.

Either it's right, in which case it itself is part of the problem and has therefore been perpetuating the very thing it's trying to solve for billions of years, rendering the Reapers completely pointless, or it's wrong and the Reapers are completely pointless.

Those are the two options.

I'm aware of the self-fulfilling prophecy there, but as I stated in my OP, in this way all organic civiizations have time to thrive until they get too technologically curious. The catalyst is saying that if there are no cycles then there will be no organic races free to thrive at all because synthetics left alone will dominate the galaxy including the primitive organics. I keep explaining this but people seem to ignore it.

[Obadiah]

bleetman wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
the Catayst being more intelligent than us

Citation needed.

7:30

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 janvier 2014 - 01:58 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Obadiah wrote...

bleetman wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
the Catayst being more intelligent than us

Citation needed.

That could just be Shepard's assumptions, after all, the only Reapers Shepard had met by that point were apparently exagerating or misinformed the entire time.

[Obadiah]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

bleetman wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
the Catayst being more intelligent than us

Citation needed.

That could just be Shepard's assumptions, after all, the only Reapers Shepard had met by that point were apparently exagerating or misinformed the entire time.

Or it might just be completely stupid to assume that the million year old entity that you're speaking to in the Decision Chamber that has outwitted 700 plus previous cycles including its creator is not more intelligent than us.

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 janvier 2014 - 02:05 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Eh, maybe, but the Reapers end up doing a lot of stupid things throughout the story (moving the Citadel to Earth, not backing up Sovereign, not turning off the beam, not ambushing the Victory fleet, etc). Maybe this was done for the sake of the plot or maybe they've just been relying on bigger guns the whole time.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 17 janvier 2014 - 02:14 .

[bleetman]

congokong wrote...

I'm aware of the self-fulfilling prophecy there, but as I stated in my OP, in this way all organic civiizations have time to thrive until they get too technologically curious. The catalyst is saying that if there are no cycles then there will be no organic races free to thrive at all because synthetics left alone will dominate the galaxy including the primitive organics. I keep explaining this but people seem to ignore it.

You asked if the reapers were right. The point I was making was that the Catalyst is synthetic, therefore either a) completely incorrect in its assertions that synthetics will always try to destroy all organic life (thus the reapers are incorrect, as they obey its will and follow its directive), or correct in that assertion. In which case, self fulfilling prophecy/perpetuating the problem they claim to solve aside, why haven't the Reapers obliterated all organic life yet? They've had billions of years. If all organic life is in inevitable danger of being destroyed by created synthetic life, why did the Catalyst not wipe out/dominate all organic life in cycle #1? It's synthetic. Is it somehow exempt from that inevitable cycle? And if so, how is that cycle then supposedly inevitable? For something that throws absolutist phrases around like candy, its mere existence is a contradiction.

Or to put it another way, the fact there's even a Mass Effect series and the galaxy didn't die out with the Leviathans means the Reapers are incapable of being right.

Obadiah wrote...

bleetman wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
the Catayst being more intelligent than us

Citation needed.

7:30

Well, I'll certainly agree that they're smarter than Commander 'this isn't about strategy or tactics' Shepard, at least.

Modifié par bleetman, 17 janvier 2014 - 02:34 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think Twilight Sparkle has a point. If the Catalyst is indeed preserving Organic life it has proven its premise flawed, as it is not inevitable that all Synthetics will destroy all Organics. If the Catalyst is victim of whatever lack of understanding or whatever that afflicts all Synthetics, then how come, after millions of years, it has yet to destroy all Organic life?

[Obadiah]

This is way I look at it.

The Catalyst made two separate statements
- Creators will always rebel again their creators
- Synthetics will wipe out all organics

This does not mean that every synthetic that rebels will wipe out all organics, since Synthetics have already rebelled and not wiped out all organics life. It means that after these conflicts repeat themselves enough times, eventually some Synthetics will wipe out all organics. The Catalyst foresaw this and was trying to stop that from happening, but it only succeeded in delaying it.

I don't see why it's so implausible. In this cycle Organics that use Destroy will wipe out all Synthetics. The only difference is that when Synthetics do it to Organics, since they don't need organics, we won't get rebuilt.

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 janvier 2014 - 02:52 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Obadiah wrote...

This is way I look at it.

The Catalyst made two separate statements
- Creators will always rebel again their creators
- Synthetics will wipe out all organics

This does not mean that every synthetic that rebels will wipe out all organics, since Synthetics have already rebelled and not wiped out all organics life. It means that eventually some Synthetics will wipe out all organics. The Catalyst foresaw this and was trying to stop that from happening, but it only succeeded in delaying it.

I don't see why it's so implausible. In this cycle Organics that use Destroy will wipe out all Synthetics. The only difference is that when Synthetics do it to Organics, since they don't need organics, we won't get rebuilt.

When Shepard asks the Catalyst how the Reapers solve anything (left side dialogue option, ) the Catalyst's response I think implies that the rebellion of the created will always lead to inevitable destruction.

[congokong]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I think Twilight Sparkle has a point. If the Catalyst is indeed preserving Organic life it has proven its premise flawed, as it is not inevitable that all Synthetics will destroy all Organics. If the Catalyst is victim of whatever lack of understanding or whatever that afflicts all Synthetics, then how come, after millions of years, it has yet to destroy all Organic life?

The catalyst was designed to preserve organic life at any cost. That's why it hasn't but I get what you mean. You're saying that not all synthetics will inevitably eradictate organics because the catalyst hasn't. But the catalyst doesn't claim that EVERY synthetic ever created will end up killing organics; just that inevitably "synthetics" will eradicate organics if no intervention is made.

[Obadiah]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

This is way I look at it.

The Catalyst made two separate statements
- Creators will always rebel again their creators
- Synthetics will wipe out all organics

This does not mean that every synthetic that rebels will wipe out all organics, since Synthetics have already rebelled and not wiped out all organics life. It means that eventually some Synthetics will wipe out all organics. The Catalyst foresaw this and was trying to stop that from happening, but it only succeeded in delaying it.

I don't see why it's so implausible. In this cycle Organics that use Destroy will wipe out all Synthetics. The only difference is that when Synthetics do it to Organics, since they don't need organics, we won't get rebuilt.

When Shepard asks the Catalyst how the Reapers solve anything (left side dialogue option, ) the Catalyst's response I think implies that the rebellion of the created will always lead to inevitable destruction.

I don't think it implies that. It was saying that the rebellion leads to conflict, destruction, and choas, not "the destruction of all organics." Why would it think every rebellion leads to the destruction of all organics? Before the Calayst, there had already been rebellions and though those lead to conflict, they did not lead the destruction of all organics.

[bleetman]

congokong wrote...

The catalyst was designed to preserve organic life at any cost. That's why it hasn't but I get what you mean. You're saying that not all synthetics will inevitably eradictate organics because the catalyst hasn't. But the catalyst doesn't claim that EVERY synthetic ever created will end up killing organics; just that inevitably "synthetics" will eradicate organics if no intervention is made.

As if the Catalyst didn't have enough absurd arguments from authority.

If this is the case, it can literally never prove this will happen nor point to anything that has happened as an example. The general concept of synthetic-organic conflict becomes background context. Now it's all about Hypothetical Future Synthetics that no one has ever seen and have never existed but apparently will do because... the Catalyst says so, I guess. Great.

And at this point I have to ask, if this is the case? Why bother preserving some destroyed species in reaper form? The Catalyst says it was to preserve them before they are lost to this conflict, but the conflict isn't even a  recurring one anymore. It's all hypothetical future conflict. What, do organic species just not go extinct naturally in Mass Effect?

Modifié par bleetman, 17 janvier 2014 - 04:22 .

[Obadiah]

Well, what level of proof are you demanding? An actual instance of Synthetics wiping out all organics?

The Catalyst has been alive for millions of years and has data from 10,000+ cycles. If you asked it for proof, do you think it's answer would be to just be stumped and with an "uh"... or maybe it will respond with reams and reams of data, mathematical predictive models, and accompanying explanations?

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 janvier 2014 - 05:01 .

[AlanC9]

bleetman wrote...

If this is the case, it can literally never prove this will happen nor point to anything that has happened as an example. The general concept of synthetic-organic conflict becomes background context. Now it's all about Hypothetical Future Synthetics that no one has ever seen and have never existed but apparently will do because... the Catalyst says so, I guess. Great.

Up until the moment Shepard's standing there, not neing able to prove his case isn't a problem for him.

And at this point I have to ask, if this is the case? Why bother preserving some destroyed species in reaper form? The Catalyst says it was to preserve them before they are lost to this conflict, but the conflict isn't even a  recurring one anymore. It's all hypothetical future conflict. What, do organic species just not go extinct naturally in Mass Effect?

Do intelligent technological species go extinct naturally?