33 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

I have to admit I never knew about the Hayflick Limit.  Generally it is applied to aging and says that a human being's cells can only divide so many times before they cease to divide.  So, at the point they stop, aging is more predominant and death is near or certain.  It makes the current maximum age for humans about 125 years.

 

My point here in this is that the Hayflick Limit states that human cells have a finite ability to divide and replicate.  Synthesis certainly is shown to attach some thing to human DNA which could potentially expand cell division in some way, but this calls into question a number of things:

 

The human part of the cells provided by Shepard have a finite ability to replicate/divide, therefore it would be impossible for them to be shot out into every organic thing out in the galaxy; they'd have to be divided beyond the point at which a human being's cells can divide.

 

If the human (Shepard) DNA is enhanced beyond the Hayflick Limit then it is no longer human which again calls into question exactly what its purpose is and why it is pre-supposed and therefore could possibly be believed by Shepard to be anything good.  The notion here is that a Shepard that would choose Synthesis in believing that it is good was far more likely to believe in the power of humans (organics) to determine their own future, and yet the promotion of Synthesis is completely antithetical to that idea.

 

The Hayflick Limit would be in direct conflict with believing that the mingling of Shepard and synthetic DNA leaves the human being intact.  The very act of synthesis enhancing the ability of the Shepard cells to divide almost infinitely also leads to the certainty of at least near immortality since it is postulated that this Limit directly relates to the aging process as well as death of the body.  Anything that overcomes that limit creates an extension of life.  Synthesis by virtue of what happens must extend it virtually indefinitely.  And that would be replete with its own set of problems as Krogan, Rachni, and everything else over-populate the galaxy.  The very thing that created many of this cycle's problems (exploding populations of warring factions) would be set with no end in sight.

[KaiserShep]

You dare question the space magic?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The fallacy here is that as peoples life expectancy grows, they tend to have fewer children. Fertility rates seem to lower. Look at the birth rate in Europe for example, and compare it to the less developed nations.

 

One would expect reproduction to tank with extended lifespans.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Interesting, but I wouldn't bet a penny that the writers(writer?) spent more than a minute thinking about the implications of Synthesis.

 

I'll probably come back with a better response once I think about it a little and continue to procrastinate on this paper.

[Iakus]

3D, you're thinking rationally again.

 

Stop it, and just enjoy the "organic energy" 

[AlexMBrennan]

The human part of the cells provided by Shepard have a finite ability to replicate/divide, therefore it would be impossible for them to be shot out into every organic thing out in the galaxy; they'd have to be divided beyond the point at which a human being's cells can divide.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that a magic space beam has he same limitations as ordinary human cell division (to get around this scan one cell and have nanobots assemble copies)

If the human (Shepard) DNA is enhanced beyond the Hayflick Limit then it is no longer human

So you define humanity by telomere shortening? Ok...

why it is pre-supposed and therefore could possibly be believed by Shepard to be anything good

Because Harby said that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable and will eventually wipe out all life if you don't press Green.

The very act of synthesis enhancing the ability of the Shepard cells to divide almost infinitely also leads to the certainty of at least near immortality

That might be the case if the initial premise wasn't incorrect.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The fact of the matter was this:

 

"Okay we've got destroy on the right and control on the left, and there's this beam in the middle. What do we want to do with it?"

"Mac, it's simple! Synthesis. Shepard gives his energy to the crucible."

"What?"

"Who cares? It's the end of the story! Just make Shepard do a swan dive into the beam and make everything half synthetic and half organic."

"You're kidding me?"

"No. Think of it like the pizza we ordered. Half sausage and half pepperoni. Now don't forget the breath scene at the end of the destroy ending. We're done."

"Okay."

*ding dong*

"Hey, Casey, I need $15. Pizza's here."

[Darks1d3]

Interesting, but I wouldn't bet a penny that the writers(writer?) spent more than a minute thinking about the implications of Synthesis.

 

I'll probably come back with a better response once I think about it a little and continue to procrastinate on this paper.

I know. I still have 18 to 20 pages of essays to write by the end of this month, 5 of them due on Tuesday. Yet, here I am....BSN is almost as bad as alcohol.

 

To the OP, you're trying to make sense of nonsense, which isn't usually productive. Still, it's an interesting post. I might be back later to give some feedback.

[Bob from Accounting]

It's pretty sad how quickly posters will agree with anything remotely scientific-sounding in order to denounce anything they don't like. Synthesis has plenty of problems, but the Hayflick Limit is not one of them.

 

The notion that Synthesis is somehow bad and takes away from the 'choice' of the people of the galaxy because it leads to immortality (which is already assumption piled upon assumption) is just silly.

[ImaginaryMatter]

It's pretty sad how quickly posters will agree with anything remotely scientific-sounding in order to denounce anything they don't like. Synthesis has plenty of problems, but the Hayflick Limit is not one of them.

 

The notion that Synthesis is somehow bad and takes away from the 'choice' of the people of the galaxy because it leads to immortality (which is already assumption piled upon assumption) is just silly.

 

Well David has spoken guys.

 

No discussion is to be had on the subject.

[SwobyJ]

It's all Reaper code so who cares. It's like wondering if the gun Shepard is holding in the Geth Consensus will eventually fall apart in 100s of years.

 

 

 

 

(Ok I'm actually serious about my thoughts there, but I don't mean to be rude OP, but instead wanted to say something silly).

[von uber]

stuff

 

I'm still awaiting your response to my query on your strawman explicit sex argument; in your own time matey.

 

Anyway, Synthesis is clearly a load of bollocks.

[Bob from Accounting]

Explicit sex, nudity, - it's the same problem. There's no 'strawmen.'

 

Only the simple and obvious fact that some developers aren't interested in showing it.

[von uber]

Explicit sex, nudity, - it's the same problem. There's no 'strawmen.'

 

Only the simple and obvious fact that some developers aren't interested in showing it.

 

No, it isn't; and correct thread please.

[AlanC9]

So... 3D makes an assumption about how synthesis works, the assumption causes problems, and we're supposed to conclude that anything's going on here besides a bad assumption?

[Iakus]

So... 3D makes an assumption about how synthesis works, the assumption causes problems, and we're supposed to conclude that anything's going on here besides a bad assumption?

 

EDI speculates that mortality itself can be overcome thanks to Synthesis

 

3D postulates how Synthesis can do this via alterations to the genetic code (Synthesis explicitly alters DNA) and therefore EDI's speculation is anything but idle.

 

3D also mentions how overpopulation among all the problems will lead to more conflict and Bad Things.

 

I fail to see the problem here, Alan.  This is not a "bad assumption"  This is a very real problem with Synthesis.

[CrutchCricket]

The example in the OP is one specific case of a more general question: If synthesis adds features which push current DNA outside the limits of what it can do, that DNA ceases to be what it was and becomes something else, as the definition of a thing necessarily includes its limits.

 

If x is defined by limit y and z and you add to it such that it exceeds those limits, it is by definition not x anymore.

 

And some people would find the idea of one man forcibly changing every x in the galaxy into something not x a little troubling. Particularly when done at the behest of a holographic child in charge of an army of murdering killbots.

 

And if synthesis does make everything immortal, then overpopulation and resource exhaustion is a very real concern. But that is admittedly not proven.

[3DandBeyond]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that a magic space beam has he same limitations as ordinary human cell division (to get around this scan one cell and have nanobots assemble copies)
So you define humanity by telomere shortening? Ok...

Because Harby said that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable and will eventually wipe out all life if you don't press Green.
That might be the case if the initial premise wasn't incorrect.

 

The example in the OP is one specific case of a more general question: If synthesis adds features which push current DNA outside the limits of what it can do, that DNA ceases to be what it was and becomes something else, as the definition of a thing necessarily includes its limits.

 

If x is defined by limit y and z and you add to it such that it exceeds those limits, it is by definition not x anymore.

 

And some people would find the idea of one man forcibly changing every x in the galaxy into something not x a little troubling. Particularly when done at the behest of a holographic child in charge of an army of murdering killbots.

 

And if synthesis does make everything immortal, then overpopulation and resource exhaustion is a very real concern. But that is admittedly not proven.

Yes, exactly.  I'm not saying that extending beyond the Hayflick Limit would render one not human, but the outside presence causing it to happen would essentially mean that is so.  It's the fact that cells do have a finite limit on division, so taking one human and expecting to be able to pass along his/her DNA rendered from cells and have it force fed into everything from goldfish to ferns to blades of grass would be something I'd think of as impossible given that limit.

 

As for the question of immortality-no, none of the stuff is proven.  As to Julia's point, I tend to think we're only thinking of current possible models.  We look at overpopulation anywhere and yes, fertility rates drop but this cannot be applied here.  They drop because of the sustainability of resources-the lack of and the inability to provide nutrition and suitable provisions for shelter and so on.  But what tends to happen is that in order to sustain the group, women begin to have more children but they don't survive to adulthood.  Women also are tasked to bear children at earlier ages just to help insure that some reach maturity.  In the case of immortality where one cannot die-the same things don't apply.  So yes that might mean that fewer children are born (to any one woman), but it's the difference of multiplying by 2 instead of multiplying by 10 and subtracting 5.  What I mean is if (and that's a big if) all those that want to have children and are immortal do have children then the populations would boom.  And since those children would be immortal too, there would be no subtraction from the population ever.  The assumption also being that tech would not let bad things happen to the internal organism (human or whatever).  And we are clearly shown that the races go forth and multiply.

 

It wouldn't be so much about a fight over resources because taking it for granted that immortality means just that-that you can't die that isn't a consideration, but space would be.  Consider a never-ending, unwinnable war where no one dies but where people are injured and the internal tech patches them up, forever.  Now, we could question whether that tech is smart enough to assess the situation and decide that something's wrong and change it all, but well who knows?  And that's the crux of all of this-the lack of even a shred of an idea of how this all would be beneficial is a big part of the equation.  The other, whether one person could have this done to them and have it spread into every nook and cranny in the galaxy, and of course whether anyone has that right.

[3DandBeyond]

It's pretty sad how quickly posters will agree with anything remotely scientific-sounding in order to denounce anything they don't like. Synthesis has plenty of problems, but the Hayflick Limit is not one of them.

 

The notion that Synthesis is somehow bad and takes away from the 'choice' of the people of the galaxy because it leads to immortality (which is already assumption piled upon assumption) is just silly.

But that isn't my main assertion and I'm not trying to sound all scientific-since I specifically said I had never heard of the Hayflick Limit before.  I was simply saying that it says that there is a limit to how many times human cells can divide before they cannot do so any longer.  And I never said it was the idea that it takes away from the choice of the people of the galaxy by leading to immortality.  I'd make the assertion that it intrinsically takes away their choice by having something foreign fused with their DNA without their permission and yes, that makes it wrong.

 

The idea of immortality comes from what EDI says as well as the notion that if that tech is supposed to change and support the organism it's inserted into, then what else is it for, if not immortality at the very least?  We approach such questions already today, in wondering if it's alright to do certain things, to explore medical nanites, to replace human organs with synthetic ones and so on, and at what point do we stop?  Those are things people already think about and we're nowhere near finding immortality.

 

The point here about immortality is that tech within the organism is most likely there to be beneficial, to support the continued existence of the organism.  We have no idea if it does this, but we have a hint from what EDI says.  And going further, we have no idea if it has an off button, that says when to stop.  We don't know far more about it than we do know.  And yet, some are all gung-ho to swallow the green beam space magic and say it's wonderful.  Unless someone can state categorically using what we're shown in-game that all this would lead irrefutably to some great outcome, then I'd say it's ridiculous that Shepard would choose it.  Beyond that the idea that it goes against any logical assumption of what we're allowed to do to others just because (because we don't know what this will do to the people and the galaxy ultimately) then it's doubly ridiculous.

 

It's like never having seen a gun before, never having shot one, not being told what it will do if loaded and pointed at someone's head and if the trigger is pulled other than that it will help, and then believing that pulling the trigger will do something good. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Humans can live up into their 150's thanks to modern human scientific and medical breakthroughs, according to the lore, and that was before they made contact with the rest of the galaxy. It is presumable that the hayflick effect can be altered by simple genetic manipulation, and that the crucible would be capable of accounting for its effects in the same way it can somehow effect levo, dextro, and metalo based lifeforms in the same manner across the galaxy.

[SwobyJ]

A Synthesis world looks more like it'd expand beyond the Milky Way anyway. Overpopulation? Whatever - we'll see in millions/billions of years.

[AlanC9]

 
3D postulates how Synthesis can do this via alterations to the genetic code (Synthesis explicitly alters DNA) and therefore EDI's speculation is anything but idle.
 

Don't be silly. 3D's talking about actual cells from Shepard being beamed into creatures across the galaxy. That's her own conjecture, and a bizarre one.

[Iakus]

Don't be silly. 3D's talking about actual cells from Shepard being beamed into creatures across the galaxy. That's her own conjecture, and a bizarre one.

No more bizarre than "organic energy"

 

Did you stop reading the post after that part or something?

[Astrogenesis]

For me, Synthesis falls on its head when the Catalyst says,

"Yo dawg, we totally tried synthesis before, but it didn't work 'cos it was forced."

 

And I'm all like,

"How is one dude making an executive decision to alter all like in the galaxy, not forcing?"

 

And the Catalyst be like,

"I cannot brain today, I haz the dumb :/ "

[Iakus]

For me, Synthesis falls on its head when the Catalyst says,

"Yo dawg, we totally tried synthesis before, but it didn't work 'cos it was forced."

 

And I'm all like,

"How is one dude making an executive decision to alter all like in the galaxy, not forcing?"

 

And the Catalyst be like,

"I cannot brain today, I haz the dumb :/ "

 

It fails even sooner than that.

 

"Add your energy to the Crucible"

 

Wait, what?  My energy?  Am I hooked up to the Matrix?  Did Joker plug in the overlord?