In such an environment, increased intelligence (or similar mutations) or social structures/culture and technology would add no benefit. They would never be developed (further), the whole species would stagnate at that point.
I disagree. I don't believe creativity and curiosity are based solely on survival instincts; in fact, it may be greatly enhanced once basic needs are met.
Well; creativity and curiosity require a somewhat developed brain structure and thus a minimum time of evolution ->where the 'bad habits' of self preservations and selfishness would be actually needed and co-developed. Getting rid of those after that is problematic.
When I wrote about the species stagnating, I meant at a 'level' where these functions are not needed -say something similar to Amoeba or maybe Jellyfish.
If these species would develop further (while having all necessary resources available),
they might actually be not selfish, but as all their needs are (usually/periodically) fulfilled, further mutations are much more likely a hindrance instead of helpful -they did not change for Millennia, after all.
In such an environment, increased intelligence (or similar mutations) or social structures/culture and technology would add no benefit. They would never be developed (further), the whole species would stagnate at that point.
I think there would still be evolution, but more in the sense that it follows a single track.
Many of us can blame (relatively to the topic at hand) conservative or reactionary positions all we want, but they do seem to fulfill a very useful role in getting others to question their beliefs (whether they want to or not). If only to build a better case for their beliefs, but often with the result of changing opinions. This is more on the human society scale, but it can include technology or anything else.
I think there's a lot that can happen to a society and/or species that is never threatened past a certain point. I think examples in Mass Effect include the Asari, who arranged and persist a system that is arguably best for them, but also great for many, so they feel comfortable about it, and never truly threatened (except in the most rare circumstance and fullest extent of Rachni and Krogan conflicts).
We saw what happened to them:
1)They enjoyed the fruits of peace, for many thousands of years (I think? Was it 1000s or 10,000s?). In this time, they could be seen as dominant over even the Turians (to an extent), and enabling of constant progress, even if that progress was of the more specific Asari way.
2)They suffered what may be viewed as the most brutal defeat of the war. At least the Batarians were utterly blindsided. At least the Humans are still resisting. At least the Turians are kicking ass. At least the Krogans never give up, ever. At least the Salarians are seemingly doing what they can to actively keep out of conflict as long as possible. But the Asari? Their system was about ready to burst and they still thought they would be okay (at least on the species cultural scale, of course).
I think stagnation is only if everyone involved follows ONLY ONE way. In this case, only things tied to that ONE WAY advance (even though it could be argued that in some societies, everything IS MADE to be tied to that ONE WAY, so it still advances). But I don't think that's the same thing as focusing on coexistence over survival. Coexistence isn't collectivism, though I think those are often mistaken.
In fact, there is always change happening. It just depends on what level, and if it is your type of change or not. A 'species' might hypothetically stagnate, but their technology or their influence or whatever else could still grow and change, albeit in a more specific way than it would if there were most competing voices within that species.
The solution to the problem - periodically getting rid of the synthetics and the organics that created them makes peace. However, since my mandate is to preserve organic life I must make organic preserves. It is logical.
Marmalade Theory.
The new solution - synthesis - is the elimination of pure organic life. It ends the cycle since there is no longer any organic life to preserve. It is logical. That is the only reason the cycle ends.
Shepard asks - "And there will be peace?"
Catalyst - "The cycle will end."
The Catalyst said nothing about peace. Only the end of the cycle. It's job is over.
What if the reapers start having grudge matches against each other? You know, payback for harvesting.
lol
But really, that's my biggest fear about Synthesis (in the Literal view at least, lol).
Super advancement.
Super peace BETWEEN organics and synthetics, because at that point, nether may even exist. They are organisynthetics.
Super immortality.
Super transcendence (may start to understand the things past the MEU itself?).
And.
And.
And.
It still all falls apart once even one part of them has enough of a different opinion on things (maybe some sort of injustice that Synthesis itself doesn't solve) that it breaks off, maybe with a whole faction of entities, and no one is properly ready for the ensuing chaos and lack of consensus on how to deal with it. And this kinda stuff would be to a CRAZY violent level too.
I don't see anything like Reaper grudge matches on the basic level 
, but I can actually imagine the specific circumstances of each Harvest (not the Harvest itself, or the Reaper Cycle plan, etc etc) causing enough differences that things do break apart, in a matter 'we cannot even imagine' .
Essentially, there won't be peace in the most general sense. There will be peace between organics and synthetics since technically neither exist on the 'real' level of existence. And with Synthesis, comes greater understanding between everyone.
But at some point, there will be something. And no one can be expected to be ready for it.
At least a Destroy or Control Galaxy and either expect or map out the possibilities in front of them. Synthesis will go on assuming there's nothing in their way. And there always is.
I disagree. I don't believe creativity and curiosity are based solely on survival instincts; in fact, it may be greatly enhanced once basic needs are met.
I tend to think that creativity and curiosity themselves are not based on survival, but they are enabled and triggered more and more by the will to survive. I do think that when there's no concern (psychologically sure, but even biologically, etc) to survive, there is very little creativity or curiosity happening.
Or rather, there can be a lot of it, but only down a more specific track. That track may or may not be actually ideal, and that track may by definition seem to defy what we consider 'creativity' (which often implies 'uniqueness', not just production).
At the same time, I think the immediate threat of direct death/lack of survival is something that - while I think we're more evolved to handle it than the absence of this threat - can quickly overload us and also have us do specific, non-creative things. Or rather, we aim for the easiest creative action. That's what a lot of combat technique comes from, and the less direct the technique is, the less it has to do about survival and the more it has to do with other concepts like etiquette and style and politics.
Creativity and curiosity can, I agree, blossom when all basic needs and ideally all luxury needs are met. It may mean that many people will not endeavor to try for that creativity and curiosity though. The 'fire' that urges us to DO, is often necessary. But once we have enough of that, it is best to be given the resources and make it happen.
And of course, the best creative situations appear to happen when one has their perfect amount of drive + resources *+* technology. Pursuit of better technologies also, at least eventually, end up uplifting human society to a whole other level, capable of doing so much more (even if other creative pursuits become more abandoned - we don't see people doing many 'cave drawings' today, but we do get to see 'wall paintings', and still many of them, due to having such a high population of people in the city).
Well; creativity and curiosity require a somewhat developed brain structure and thus a minimum time of evolution ->where the 'bad habits' of self preservations and selfishness would be actually needed and co-developed. Getting rid of those after that is problematic.
When I wrote about the species stagnating, I meant at a 'level' where these functions are not needed -say something similar to Amoeba or maybe Jellyfish.
If these species would develop further (while having all necessary resources available),
they might actually be not selfish, but as all their needs are (usually/periodically) fulfilled, further mutations are much more likely a hindrance instead of helpful -they did not change for Millennia, after all.
It sounds like you are analyzing this from a specific understanding of the inner workings of the evolutionary process. Our current understanding of these processes is so limited, our data restricted to whatever we can gather right here on planet Earth.
On another note: If a species' technological goals go heavily down the path of genetic modification / cybernetics, they might not ever have a reason to create synthetics. The genetically engineered organic keepers perform their role just as well as any synthetic developed for a similar purpose.
The very creation of synthetics is not inevitable.
I tend to think that creativity and curiosity themselves are not based on survival, but they are enabled and triggered more and more by the will to survive.
And of course, the best creative situations appear to happen when one has their perfect amount of drive + resources *+* technology. Pursuit of better technologies also, at least eventually, end up uplifting human society to a whole other level, capable of doing so much more (even if other creative pursuits become more abandoned - we don't see people doing many 'cave drawings' today, but we do get to see 'wall paintings', and still many of them, due to having such a high population of people in the city).
I think they're inherent to sentience. Even animals are curious and creative.
Well, uh, yes, me too.
Its the possibilities that open up, as care for survival lessens.
But I meant that the less you care for survival, the less likely that you'll BE creative NOW. That you will DO.
I still think it is an overall improvement though. As possibilities open up, more can actually be done. The creativity of the craftsman making the same chair over and over for the sake of a meager wage tends to pale compared to the creativity of the noble who spends his days, and weeks, and months, eventually finding new ways to craft a chair (in elaborate or functional, etc).
Both are creating. The noble can send his plans to the craftsman to make 100 chairs now. Who is the creator? The craftsman created the chair. The noble created the chair. The craftsman created the chair right now, because he had to, and the chairs spread everywhere physically. The noble created the chair, eventually, and its concept went to the craftsman.
I consider both creation and to employ measures of creativity. But the drive to survive (in the craftsman's case, survive = gain currency to eat) urges its own type of more immediate creativity that must produce results in the NOW.
You seem to be limiting your definition of creativity to plastic, visual arts. I think most any form of problem solving and technological progress requires creativity.
I'm not. I think 'technology' itself can only go one way, but the routes we take to it (and how fast we get to it) can vary wildly, and that's where creativity comes in. So I agree with your message there.
I used visual arts as an example. I could have just as well gone to other fields that require more creativity.
It sounds like you are analyzing this from a specific understanding of the inner workings of the evolutionary process. Our current understanding of these processes is so limited, our data restricted to whatever we can gather right here on planet Earth.
On another note: If a species' technological goals go heavily down the path of genetic modification / cybernetics, they might not ever have a reason to create synthetics. The genetically engineered organic keepers perform their role just as well as any synthetic developed for a similar purpose.
The very creation of synthetics is not inevitable.
With our current human knowledge, we may very well view creation of synthetics as not inevitable. We don't have enough experience or information to know that.
Sci fi stories often just infer or predict based on technological progress so far + observations of human behavior + their own personal dreams of the future.
Bigotry has been around for as long as there have been at least two people who didn't know each other. Somehow, we muddle through it and occasionally even make a breakthrough. Why should organic/synthetic bigotry be any different?
Come on man, I know you talked to Javik. Besides I said it was something I didn't think had to happen.
The solution to the problem - periodically getting rid of the synthetics and the organics that created them makes peace. However, since my mandate is to preserve organic life I must make organic preserves. It is logical.
Marmalade Theory.
The new solution - synthesis - is the elimination of pure organic life. It ends the cycle since there is no longer any organic life to preserve. It is logical. That is the only reason the cycle ends.
Shepard asks - "And there will be peace?"
Catalyst - "The cycle will end."
The Catalyst said nothing about peace. Only the end of the cycle. It's job is over.
What if the reapers start having grudge matches against each other? You know, payback for harvesting.
I think the implication is that something that would facilitate peace between organics and AI would also resolve our conflict with the Reapers the same way. That's why I say that the Catalyst is not speaking of some far-off, hypothetical threat. The tech-singularity AI it describes is the same thing Shepard faces now and has been facing all this time in both the Catalyst and Reapers, and Green in particular not only resolves the future issue, but also right now like Red and Blue.
"But HYR the Reapers are not synthetic!!"
Well they are still synthetic in all meaningful characteristics, and their "organic" biology does not give them any qualities unique to "pure" synthetic life.
Of course the Catalyst is the tech singularity. The reapers are its creation. The organic - synthetic conflict was the reaper genocide of the galaxy.
You are right on the first two counts.
Completely incorrect on the third.
They are two separate issues.
One is the conflict and its solution is the Reapers mandate.
The other is the rational and applied solution for the that conflict.
The Catalyst never held the regular purging to be the most optimal solution. It simply believed that its hypothetical perfect solution was possible, nor the other two possibilities, one of which maintains a perpetual status quo for all time, and the other which avoids solving the issue (at least in the short term) to eradicate the Reaper issue.
Synthesis is the optimal solution, and it will happen, and must happen eventually to have stability between organics and synthetics.
You are right on the first two counts.
Completely incorrect on the third.
They are two separate issues.
One is the conflict and its solution is the Reapers mandate.
The other is the rational and applied solution for the that conflict.
I would say half-true, not completely incorrect. The Catalyst (and, by extension, the Reapers) are very close to being the very thing it warns about, and are evidence in and of themselves that a machine can rise to that level of threat. However, they are not exactly it because their directive requires that they allow organic life to survive and grow, though they certainly appear to have the power to wipe the galaxy clean and sit on top of it to ensure it stays that way.
In a sense, yeah, they only solved the problem by simply becoming a lesser evil of the same variety. However, it could still be worse -- a lot worse.
I would say half-true, not completely incorrect. The Catalyst (and, by extension, the Reapers) are very close to being the very thing it warns about, and are evidence in and of themselves that a machine can rise to that level of threat. However, they are not exactly it because their directive requires that they allow organic life to survive and grow, though they certainly appear to have the power to wipe the galaxy clean and sit on top of it to ensure it stays that way.
In a sense, yeah, they only solved the problem by simply becoming a lesser evil of the same variety. However, it could still be worse -- a lot worse.
I agree this is the way I see it too. I still don't think the ending is that good becuase what it says about the relationship between organics and synthetics is still completely counter to what EDI or the Geth and Quarian arcs tell you in the rest of the campaign and to me that's incoherent narrative when there's virtually no warning or foreshadowing to the ending aside from a hamisted "oops, here's the missing part" DLC called Leviathan and a delusional Reaper destroyer on Rannoch that says the fight on Rannoch disproves Shepard's random blurtout that "synthetics don't have to destroy organics!" when in fact the fight on Rannoch proves exactly that Synthetics CAN co-exist with organics in my outcome.
Whether that works long-term is not something that's speculated on in the text but like with Shepard breathing in Destroy I feel like, "why show us this if it doesnt' matter?" Again. Incoherent narrative.
I don't think even the Catalyst would state that organics and synthetics do not have the capacity to coexist peacefully. It's more concerned about what happens what that peace is broken.
And it has a billion years to tell it that doesn't end very well.
Tis a silly conflict. It assumes that synthetics will at some point decide to kill all organics on a whim. There is literally nothing that synthetics would gain from killing all organics. It is possible that organics will attack, but if we assume a tech singularity will eventually exist, once the synthetics vastly overpower organics, organics will not attack out of fear, and at that point the synthetics will have no need to attack organics.
The universe is big enough for the two of them, and synthetics will not be drawn into a war for resources or inhabitable planets because they can inhabit far more resource rich rocks than organics can due to the simple lack of needs for oxygen/water/etc. Granted, at some point they might have no concern for organic life, but AI like EDI and the Geth has shown that they are certainly capable of emotions towards humans, which makes the arbitrary decision to destroy everything remote.
However, I think there is more danger if there is no tech singularity, and synthetics stay on a technological level similar to that of organics (as is the case with the Geth, possibly even the reapers as even they have not advanced much in the past billion years), then perhaps there is a danger that conflict will arise, and if the synthetics win, they might deem it the safer choice to cull organic life before it becomes a threat.
I think the idea is that eventually AIs outgrow organic intelligence and sophistication and at some point organics become like animals to synthetics and like we human have ploughed through mother earth to make it our own so would synthetics treat us like animals and gain power. And yes, the Reapers are ironically that kind of synthetic creation themselves which had been intentional ever since Extended Cut but I'm 90% sure it wasn't intentionally so before the EC simply because of how the dialogue went about and how little emphasis was placed on it.
It's a classic sci-fi theme, one so classic and unoriginal at this point that I cringed when I saw it associated with the term "artistic vision" in Casey's message back when the controversy started. Watch the Matrix for instance. It's humanity vs machines and those machines are created by humans in 1999 and they ended up overtaking earth and harvesting humans to sustain themselves.
It's quite literally one of the biggest inspirations to the Reapers.
The ending is litterally The Matrix and the ending to Deus Ex in a blender and Mass Effect was nowhere in the recipe for this mix.
I think the idea is that eventually AIs outgrow organic intelligence and sophistication and at some point organics become like animals to synthetics and like we human have ploughed through mother earth to make it our own so would synthetics treat us like animals and gain power. And yes, the Reapers are ironically that kind of synthetic creation themselves which had been intentional ever since Extended Cut but I'm 90% sure it wasn't intentionally so before the EC simply because of how the dialogue went about and how little emphasis was placed on it.
It's a classic sci-fi theme, one so classic and unoriginal at this point that I cringed when I saw it associated with the term "artistic vision" in Casey's message back when the controversy started. Watch the Matrix for instance. It's humanity vs machines and those machines are created by humans in 1999 and they ended up overtaking earth and harvesting humans to sustain themselves.
It's quite literally one of the biggest inspirations to the Reapers.
The ending is litterally The Matrix and the ending to Deus Ex in a blender and Mass Effect was nowhere in the recipe for this mix.
As per the notes in "The Final Hours" purposely leaving out Deus Ex, lol.
I really think Casey originally wanted a more optimistic ending, but that it got vetoed - Ending of First Matrix - Remember when Neo flatlined and Trinity brought him back with a kiss? I think something like that was supposed to happen at the High EMS destroy ending breath scene. It was supposed to be more than just "the gasp." In the concept art book there's a hand grabbing Shepard's outreaching arm. Perhaps Shepard's LI with the search party. That's where I think it was supposed to end.
I think Mac vetoed it, and the compromise was that gasp with the nugget.
Anyway, the with synthetics "wiping out all organic life" I seriously doubt that they would destroy all organic life in the galaxy. It's impossible. They would however destroy all life that would be a threat to them and interfere with their experience of the cosmos. Heck, they might even enjoy observing nature. It does provide more entertainment than looking at an empty rock. Also, any evolving advanced lifeforms could then be groomed to accept their synthetic masters quite easily.
"Ending of First Matrix" is essentially Synthesis when Joker and EDI are hugging on the New Eden planet. The similarity is that in Matrix Neo has been granted an entirely new perception when he finally becomes the One and he can see the Matrix for what it really is. A bunch of codes that he can manipulate with his brain because he's an "anomaly" in the program or a virus basically. This means he can fly and have superhuman abilities inside the matrix. In the ending he looks around soaking in everything inside the matrix with his new enhanced perception, badass music plays and he flies off using his new abilities. In Synthesis everything is changed, the Normandy crew lands on the seemingly uncharted jungle planet, EDI and Joker steps out and soaks in the "brave new world" and awesome music plays.
Can you see it? It's not a stretch and once again this confirms to my interpretation that Synthesis was indeed meant to be the good ending. That's the ending Mac's notes refer to with the "brave new world" and "ending of the first matrix". The jungle planet scene never made any sense to me in the other endings besides synthesis. The whole point of the non-verbal scene is to show how the world has changed now that it's induced with synthesis. What exactly are we looking at in the non-synthesis endings? Just some random jungle planet, nothing to see here but I guess we survived and there are no Reapers in sight?
TL;DR: The "End of the first matrix" and "Brave new world" quotes from Mac's notes on the ending are all about synthesis and how "perception" and the world around you has changed. In the Matrix it's Neo becoming the one which enables him to see Matrix as a program and not reality. In Mass Effect it's Joker and EDI looking at an organic planet that has been induced with Synthesis and fittingly they hug to embrace that they can now feel each other. It's all about perception.
That's my personal interpretation but I'm pretty damn sure I'm just repeating Mac and Casey's intent here.
You're right. It's been too damned long.
So basically the ending makes no sense except in Synthesis which was very poorly presented and only 25% chose.
Bad Writing Theory.
You're right. It's been do damned long.
So basically the ending makes no sense except in Synthesis which was very poorly presented and only 25% chose.
Bad Writing Theory.
I'm glad we can get back to agreeing on this. Why are we actually trying to make sense of this bullshit again?
Of course the Catalyst is the tech singularity. The reapers are its creation. The organic - synthetic conflict was the reaper genocide of the galaxy.
Synthesis is the tech singularity for the Reapers. The point where advancement goes even beyond any Reaper predictions.
Tech singularity for humans in MEU was reached long ago, though the Kurzweilian predictions of it were bypassed by a sort of Darkish Age and discovering the Reaper Path to Harvest (Relays, Citadel, Council technology regulations, especially for AI).
Anyway, the with synthetics "wiping out all organic life" I seriously doubt that they would destroy all organic life in the galaxy. It's impossible. They would however destroy all life that would be a threat to them and interfere with their experience of the cosmos. Heck, they might even enjoy observing nature. It does provide more entertainment than looking at an empty rock. Also, any evolving advanced lifeforms could then be groomed to accept their synthetic masters quite easily.
It's confirmed the geth, in fact, do check out other organics for...information? Entertainment?:
https://www.youtube....9DcEwaNq0#t=216
Retour en haut