Can you opt out?
Synthesis is a solution for a perceived problem. If enough people refuse the solution and manage to reverse it, how would the reapers react to that?
If a few folks deliberately downgrade themselves, and thus cede the future to AIs and upgraded organics, I don't see why it's of any particular concern to the Reapers.
1)The geth received Reaper help in desperate self-preservation. They did not 'opt' for the upgrade.
2)Legion was one platform that sent the upgrade to other geth, again in self-perservation since the Quarians were going to destroy them.
The geth did never reach anything close to a 'healthy consensus' of sorts about the upgrade. They only went for it because they had to. Legion does not = all Geth.
Legion makes a choice for all Geth even as Quarians can urge otherwise. Wrex+Eve+Mordin/Padok make a choice for all Krogan even as Salarians can urge otherwise.
As you say, the Catalyst deems this the solution to "the problem" at the center of organic/synthetic relations. But the ways in which this solution is brought about can give benefits valuable in their own right. If the answer to organic inferiority to synthetics is the integration of tech, and the ability for organics to improve at an exponential rate, then we can assume organic DNA is being combined with technology in a way that allows them to progress dramatically on the technological front.
It may be important to remember that, at that level, what constitutes a desirable benefit is a matter of personal perception; just because John thinks something is a benefit for him does not mean Jane also desires to endure the same improvement.
For synthesis to be widely accepted, the benefits have to be perceived as such at an individual level, but also have to be perceived as a benefit by almost everyone. Plus the change has to be perceived as both outweighing the costs and being the only way to ripe those benefits. If it is not, then wide scale resentment and anger are, imo, unavoidable.
The bolded is irrelevant, since the population does not have this information. It knows that its been changed on some fundamental level, which ended the Reaper war.
We actually don’t know that. We do know that apparently EDI does know Shepard’s role, to some extent, as it is implied in her speech. Do others as well?
Plus, do the reapers reveal what synthesis does or why was it implemented? What do they say about it?
Still it doesn’t take much to someone start figuring it out: The reapers stopped their war after the transformation, why?
Reason would suggest that the new situation must be beneficial for them; after all, they were winning, and now they stopped. Some goal they must have achieved through synthesis.…
Sour grapes that no downsides were presented. Personally, I agree that Synthesis need not be presented as so positive with no negatives. But it is indeed presented this way, so when arguing about the effect on the galaxy post-war, this is the reality with which you need to deal.
Definitely not sore grapes. Imo, the writer could have presented synthesis with no downsides, provided that he managed to give us a reasonable reason why it was so. He didn’t, and since those downsides are logical to expect, that breaks the believability of the option. It is not about what “I” want, but rather about the reaction to synthesis being minimally believable.
To reiterate: the degree to which this transformation is "invasive" ends with those invaded: the first generation. With no visible downsides presented, there is no reason to suspect the next generation will hold any ill will whatsoever to a transformation which provided tangible benefits and prevented extinction. If new information comes to light that Synthesis did more harm than good, then I will reevaluate my opinion of this.
I also disagree with HYR that the transformation is reversible. This is a permanent new state of life in the galaxy, at least until something drastic like Synthesis happens again.
Sorry but I cannot agree. If one thing we can learn from History is that old hatreds are hard to die. They may even lay dormant for centuries, only to awake at unexpected times. The kind of trauma resulting from the Reaper war is not going to fade in a single generation, most especially when some of the survivors will be around to remember the events to others for a thousand or more years.
Besides,I suspect that resentment against synthesis and the Reapers would likely result in new events being set into motion well before the first generation being dead.
As for the reversible synthesis: imo, depends of understanding of how it works and how it was achieved is attained. Of course, if it is reversible, that could very well invalidate Reaper goals…
The unique thing about synthesis and Tuchanka is that Wreav's ending is inexplicably identical to Wrex's (apparently, he even tries his krogan rebellions 2.0 in control). It's one of the biggest reasons why people think synthesis involves some kind of brainwashing.
Wasn’t aware of it, thanks. 
It indeed seems to imply something suspicious
If a few folks deliberately downgrade themselves, and thus cede the future to AIs and upgraded organics, I don't see why it's of any particular concern to the Reapers.
You seem to be assuming a number of things:
That people would see it as a downgrade and that only a few would opt for it.
To be fair, with enough EMS (enough to unlock Synthesis in itself... so...), all the 3 options don't focus on the more implicit downsides.
Destroy - Yeah synthetics are destroyed and we lack any information the Reapers might provide for us, but let's not dwell on that
Control - Yeah Reapers are around and some kinda Shepard is the overlord, but let's not dwell on that
Synthesis - Yeah everyone is changed at the genetic level and beyond, but let's not dwell on that
I would say that Synthesis goes even beyond brainwashing. It is making new people. Ones very similar in most ways to what the old people were, but still new people.
It's at that point that one can argue that during a lifetime we become different people a few times (biologically), but that still doesn't change the drastic nature of Synthesis.
Destroy - Personal
Control - Societal
Synthesis - Universal
Synthesis is Shepard making an individual choice for everyone. Destroy is Shepard making a widely approved choice for the fewer. 'Few' depending on if you think the Reapers count or if what might be programs of preserved individuals counting either.
There have been some hints that by killing a Reaper, we kill the last parts/versions/etc of trillions of people. That's not something that most people IRL will even be on board with, but many posthumanists would be.
We actually don’t know that. We do know that apparently EDI does know Shepard’s role, to some extent, as it is implied in her speech. Do others as well?
Plus, do the reapers reveal what synthesis does or why was it implemented? What do they say about it?
Still it doesn’t take much to someone start figuring it out: The reapers stopped their war after the transformation, why?
Reason would suggest that the new situation must be beneficial for them; after all, they were winning, and now they stopped. Some goal they must have achieved through synthesis...
You seem to be assuming a number of things:
That people would see it as a downgrade and that only a few would opt for it.
It may be important to remember that, at that level, what constitutes a desirable benefit is a matter of personal perception; just because John thinks something is a benefit for him does not mean Jane also desires to endure the same improvement.
For synthesis to be widely accepted, the benefits have to be perceived as such at an individual level, but also have to be perceived as a benefit by almost everyone. Plus the change has to be perceived as both outweighing the costs and being the only way to ripe those benefits. If it is not, then wide scale resentment and anger are, imo, unavoidable.
Okay. So now you'll argue why, based on the game, the galaxy doesn't believe Synthesis's benefits outweigh the costs, and on what basis they presume that anything except what happened was what it would take to stop the Reapers.
But technological advancement is widely accepted as a given and desirable by those already integrated into a society where such progression is the norm. So much so that populations that actively reject it are known for it - such as the Amish.
We actually don’t know that. We do know that apparently EDI does know Shepard’s role, to some extent, as it is implied in her speech. Do others as well?
Know what? You'll have to be more specific. Sure she knows Shepard had a role in it. They know he activated the Crucible. Then some time later, it fired. That's it.
Plus, do the reapers reveal what synthesis does or why was it implemented? What do they say about it?
What makes you think the Reapers know about Synthesis at all? This is a hypothetical that really doesn't have enough information to be a concern.
Definitely not sore grapes. Imo, the writer could have presented synthesis with no downsides, provided that he managed to give us a reasonable reason why it was so. He didn’t, and since those downsides are logical to expect, that breaks the believability of the option. It is not about what “I” want, but rather about the reaction to synthesis being minimally believable.
What downsides? Are we talking about Synthesis specifically or a reaction to Synthesis? Moreover, you keep lumping in the reaction to Synthesis with the reaction to the Reapers, which is not the same thing at all.
Sorry but I cannot agree. If one thing we can learn from History is that old hatreds are hard to die. They may even lay dormant for centuries, only to awake at unexpected times. The kind of trauma resulting from the Reaper war is not going to fade in a single generation, most especially when some of the survivors will be around to remember the events to others for a thousand or more years.
Besides,I suspect that resentment against synthesis and the Reapers would likely result in new events being set into motion well before the first generation being dead.
Your argument is largely based around hatred for the Reapers, not Synthesis. What's to say the galaxy won't believe the Reapers weren't reprogrammed by the wave, instead of merely satisfied by it?
I would say that Synthesis goes even beyond brainwashing. It is making new people. Ones very similar in most ways to what the old people were, but still new people.
It's at that point that one can argue that during a lifetime we become different people a few times (biologically), but that still doesn't change the drastic nature of Synthesis.
Damn, Alan. It's scary how similar our posts are.
Just respond to Alan if you want val so you don't waste a bunch of time.
IRL, I do not want kids ... for various reasons. If I were a krogan, I would want the genophage cured for my species' survival. Not for myself, though. No pregnancy-scares for ole H!
Should Shepard have withheld the cure because the dispersal wasn't voluntary? Should he have cured Wreav's krogan because they wanted it?
^ It's stuff like that which makes me question the wisdom of public/popular opinion.
Anyone else remember the old Poul Anderson story Brain Wave? It turns out that the K-T extinction was caused by Earth entering a region of space with a funky electromagnetic effect that, among other things, badly inhibited neurons' function. So everything got very, very stupid. Most life died, a few species survived and evolved efficient brains that could handle the field. And then Earth exits the field, and everything becomes super-intelligent. Rats understand how traps function, chimpanzees figure out how to use rifles, and men..... well, besides being super-intelligent, we've also lost our entire culture, since now that we're all super-smart Shakespeare and Aristotle suddenly have all the depth of Goodnight Moon.
Some folks want to go back.
Damn, Alan. It's scary how similar our posts are.
Just respond to Alan if you want val so you don't waste a bunch of time.
Woah! We even went for the same metaphor.
She knows that Shepard activated the Crucible, but that's hardly a secret. Does she say anything to indicate that Shepard ever had any options besides Synthesis and failure? I didn't hear it.
Would they know anything? The Catalyst might know, assuming he's still functional following Synthesis. He also might be dumb enough to talk about it, since he's demonstrated no real understanding of organic psychology. OTOH, a Synthesized Catalyst would be better at that.
But the Reapers themselves have been transformed by the Crucible. We see that happen to some husks, for instance, at which point they stop fighting. Reason would also suggest that the Crucible changed the Reapers to be non-hostile.
How can the Reapers not know?
If they didn’t know that the Catalyst desired it and considered it the most desirable outcome, why would they stop reaping?
Regardless the question remains:
Why did they stop reaping? How come it did transform the reaper’s aggressively and no one else, or did it?
And even if some accept your hypothesis, what guarantee do you have others will not suspect of the reapers still?
It would be a downgrade. Synthesized organics are more capable. That's the point of synthesis. That's the only thing we know it does.
And I don't think that many people would reject it. People generally don't reject technology. Sure, we'd have some space Amish eventually. (Someday reversing the process will be sorted out; I'm agnostic about how long that would take). They wouldn't matter.
The point of synthesis is to solve a problem external to what the individual may need or want. There is nothing that guarantees that the results are perceived as an improvement at an individual level, and if not, there is no reason to assume individuals would perceive it as an upgrade, instead of merely (unwanted) change.
People don’t generally reject technology, but people usually reject forced change, especially if they don’t perceive a clear gain (or need) that cannot be gained otherwise and especially if it has such an intrusive nature…I suspect that, given a clear clean easy way to opt out, their numbers would not be irrelevant at all…
Okay. So now you'll argue why, based on the game, the galaxy doesn't believe Synthesis's benefits outweigh the costs, and on what basis they presume that anything except what happened was what it would take to stop the Reapers.
But technological advancement is widely accepted as a given and desirable by those already integrated into a society where such progression is the norm. So much so that populations that actively reject it are known for it - such as the Amish.
Except it is not even remotely the same thing. Wrong analogy I’m afraid. Rejecting one technology does not make you a technophobe, the same way that accepting one does not makes you a technophile.
For instance, rejecting nuclear power does not make one a technophobe, nor embracing Windows 8 makes you a technophile.
For every technological innovation accepted by the public, others were not, because of a variety of reasons. One may have been deemed too dangerous, another too impractical, yet another pointless, and so on… in the case of a rather intrusive technology, resistance is natural and the benefits much be all the more clear.
Know what? You'll have to be more specific. Sure she knows Shepard had a role in it. They know he activated the Crucible. Then some time later, it fired. That's it.
What makes you think the Reapers know about Synthesis at all? This is a hypothetical that really doesn't have enough information to be a concern.
How can they not know? Why would they stop reaping otherwise? Besides, isn’t it implied that the catalyst is, to some degree, the collective intelligence of the reapers? (serious question, I seem to remember something of the sort in his speech but I’m not sure)
What downsides? Are we talking about Synthesis specifically or a reaction to Synthesis? Moreover, you keep lumping in the reaction to Synthesis with the reaction to the Reapers, which is not the same thing at all.
Do you think that being changed at a molecular level to solve someone else’s perceived problem (or to solve an unknown purpose in an unknown way for an unknown reason) would not be seen as an undesirable event into itself by many of the affected?
Actually I just assume some people would connect the dots, and not just a few.
Your argument is largely based around hatred for the Reapers, not Synthesis. What's to say the galaxy won't believe the Reapers weren't reprogrammed by the wave, instead of merely satisfied by it?
No, the argument is based in hatred of the reapers and resentment/distrust/potential conection with Synthesis. Regardless, an action against the later is arguably an action against the former goals, is it not?
What makes you believe almost everyone would believe in the reprograming theory?
What's amusing is that ME1 has the closest thing to an actual Sophie's Choice scenario at Virmire.
Silly, too, given you were forced to pick either Kaidan or Ashley instead of from your entire crew.
Normandy definitely needs some redshirts. If they insist on the three man squad in ME:N, I hope they introduce a SM mechanic for bigger missions where you nominate other teammates for support teams. Death should be a real possibility, one you could mitigate (at the cost of the squad's effectiveness) by substituting redshirts in lieu of full NPCs.
I actually have not been able to do a trilogy run since ME3 was released.
Honestly I don't mean to offend, but why are you even still here? ME3 is a finished product, the Shepard story is done. We all like to still complain and come up with our own ideas on how things could have been done better but I thought by this point the only thing keeping people around is that we are still compelled to sit down and pour another 90 hours of our life into a new trilogy run every month or so.
Well, arguing on the forums is always fun.
...Though I'm still here because I quite like ME1, ME2, and ME3. I guess I can kind of get 'stay for the quabbling', even if it's not something I'd do.
Also I now know who to support walking around on the Citadel to get the Max war assets there.
I like how you have to mix in Paragon and Renegade choices to get the optimum CDF.
What sort of increased capability would not be seen as an improvement? I'm willing to entertain the possibility, but you're not putting anything on the table.The point of synthesis is to solve a problem external to what the individual may need or want. There is nothing that guarantees that the results are perceived as an improvement at an individual level, and if not, there is no reason to assume individuals would perceive it as an upgrade, instead of merely (unwanted) change.
I suspect that, given a clear clean easy way to opt out, their numbers would not be irrelevant at all…
Besides it being true? The other thing we know about Synthesis is that it radically alters synthetics' minds.No, the argument is based in hatred of the reapers and resentment/distrust/potential conection with Synthesis. Regardless, an action against the later is arguably an action against the former goals, is it not?
What makes you believe almost everyone would believe in the reprograming theory?
...Of course, one can argue that people would come up with any crazy theory they wanted in order to keep hating the Reapers; that our great triumph was actually a Reaper trap. That works. Reason is the servant of the passions, right? I imagine there would be a fair number of idiots. I just think they'd die out.
It seems like one of the only constants of human history is that we fear what we don't understand (and refuse to understand whatever we don't like,) and hate what we fear. If the green space magic takes that away, then whatever is left isn't really human any more, is it?
It seems like one of the only constants of human history is that we fear what we don't understand (and refuse to understand whatever we don't like,) and hate what we fear. If the green space magic takes that away, then whatever is left isn't really human any more, is it?
Retour en haut