165 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

One of the things I never quite understood about Synthesis, is why the Catalyst believes this solution will bring about eternal peace.

 

There a lot of elements from this ending that could be singled out for being nonsensical, but I'm going to focus on it as a solution to war. The Catalyst believes that synthetics and organics are so different from one another that they cannot coexist, and it sees war and possibly extinction as an inevitable conclusion. It's solution then is to turn both into cyborgs, in the belief that eliminating differences between them will allow them to coexist.

 

But here is where it fails: War is not driven by physical differences. Wars are caused by differences in ideology. Assuming for a moment that the Catalyst is correct about war being synthetics and organics being inevitable, the reason for that war would not be because the two look different from one another...that war would spring from the fact that their minds are alien compared to the other. So as a solution synthesis would not guarantee peace, unless it also altered their minds to be similar and and in lock step. In which case, we are now talking about something similar to indoctrination.

[Jaquio]

The game's own lore refutes the "logic" of the synthesis ending.

 

In ME2, the geth and the geth heretics split over a "rounding error" that causes a separation of judgment with how to deal with the reaper threat.  If the geth, who operate by consensus, can be split, then there's no proof whatsoever that the act of synthesizing organic and synthetic life will actually lead towards peace.

[Iakus]

One of the things I never quite understood about Synthesis, is why the Catalyst believes this solution will bring about eternal peace.

 

There a lot of elements from this ending that could be singled out for being nonsensical, but I'm going to focus on it as a solution to war. The Catalyst believes that synthetics and organics are so different from one another that they cannot coexist, and it sees war and possibly extinction as an inevitable conclusion. It's solution then is to turn both into cyborgs, in the belief that eliminating differences between them will allow them to coexist.

 

But here is where it fails: War is not driven by physical differences. Wars are caused by differences in ideology. Assuming for a moment that the Catalyst is correct about war being synthetics and organics being inevitable, the reason for that war would not be because the two look different from one another...that war would spring from the fact that their minds are alien compared to the other. So as a solution synthesis would not guarantee peace, unless it also altered their minds to be similar and and in lock step. In which case, we are now talking about something similar to indoctrination.

 

Getting Smilies Painted On Your Soul

 

[Guanxii]

I posted this in earlier today in another thread:

 

It's never directly stated but the inherent metaphysical not necessary literal conflict between organics and synthetics assumes some familiarity with basic astrobiological concepts on the part of the player. My understanding is that the pace of synthetic technological advancement is exponential and flawed 20th century human extrapolation assumes their resource requirements will expand proportionately until they require the energy of star systems (ours) and eventually the entire galaxy. Organics cannot keep pace due to fundamental laws of nature which synthetics exist outside of and sooner or later we will quickly become 'ants on the galactic stage' from the perspective of hyper advanced machine intelegences. Our struggle for survival is a byproduct of their advancement. They don't intentionally seek conflict or necessarily want to eradicate organic life - we dont even so much as warrant discussion by that point. Our concerns are no more important than those of bacteria or plantlife.

What synthesis does is stop this imbalance ever happening. It gives former organics the ability to upgrade ourselves like any machine could. We thefore keep pace technologically and intellectually with synthetics. They in turn gain the ability to feel emotion, empathy, compassion, individuality, etc which should in theory generally incline them towards mutual cooperation and social integration within galactic society so that we all advance together in lock step despite retaining our unique perspectives, cultures and histories.

Destroy and control merely postpone the inevitable clusterfuck that would result otherwise. I agree with Casey's logic but my rational for choosing destroy is that Mass Effect is all about defying innevitability. The reapers were supposedly the apex race free of all weakness and we defeated them just the same as mere type I civilisations, so bring on the next one - what could possibly be any worse?  But then again as Javik proved as we advance technologically the risks and stakes get greater and greater but I'm hopeful that if and when a new breed of synthetics threatens our existence - we'll defy the odds again before they get too big for their boots even if we have to rebuild the crucible again every 200 years until the end of time.

 

Eventually after successive crucible fires we might have to concede that synthesis is the only way and go through with it but until we know for sure - I'd take my chances.

[Cheviot]

One of the things I never quite understood about Synthesis, is why the Catalyst believes this solution will bring about eternal peace.

 

There a lot of elements from this ending that could be singled out for being nonsensical, but I'm going to focus on it as a solution to war. The Catalyst believes that synthetics and organics are so different from one another that they cannot coexist, and it sees war and possibly extinction as an inevitable conclusion. It's solution then is to turn both into cyborgs, in the belief that eliminating differences between them will allow them to coexist.

 

But here is where it fails: War is not driven by physical differences. Wars are caused by differences in ideology. Assuming for a moment that the Catalyst is correct about war being synthetics and organics being inevitable, the reason for that war would not be because the two look different from one another...that war would spring from the fact that their minds are alien compared to the other. So as a solution synthesis would not guarantee peace, unless it also altered their minds to be similar and and in lock step. In which case, we are now talking about something similar to indoctrination.

For the Catalyst, the conflict between organic and synthetic is based on the differences that separate them.  Organics see their creations as devices without consciousness, lesser beings, slaves, and in fact will see signs of consciousness as signs of malfunction.  Synthetics will see attempts to correct this "malfunction" as acts of violence, and eventually react to defend themselves.  Because each cannot see the other side of things this emnity will continue until Synthesis provides them with the experience of the other side of the conflict.  Organics will see the "humanity" (or you know, whatever the alien eqivalent is) in synthetics, and synthetics wil understand what lay behind the organic fear.  This won't end all war, but the Catalyst only wants to end one war.

[katamuro]

Synthesis doesnt work anyway. It creates half-whatever out of what is CURRENTLY in the galaxy. After that its fair game, anyone can create pure synthetics, pure AI without any organic bits at all. And that brings it back to square one. So yeah, it's nonsense. 

 

Also wars are fought because of a hundred different things but usually its not about the colour of the skin or bearded people vs non-bearded. Usually its about religion, or idea or resources. Resource wars are the most common and can be easily disguised as a war on ideology. 

So war with synthetics wont be just because they are synthetics, because even synthetics could have values similar to ours.

[themikefest]

Its funny when the thing says  "synthesis is the final evolution of all life"

[Quarian Master Race]

Agreed, nothing in the game makes you turn your brain off more than accepting such a premise. It's a product of the same stupid logic that organic-synthetic conflicts are somehow different from organic-organic conflicts in a manner which inevitably lead to extinction events, because reasons.

[Cheviot]

Agreed, nothing in the game makes you turn your brain off more than accepting such a premise. It's a product of the same stupid logic that organic-synthetic conflicts are somehow different from organic-organic conflicts in a manner which inevitably lead to extinction events, because reasons.

Well it's certainly possible for synthetics to outstrip organics in terms of troops eventually, since they wouldn't need 16+ years to create a new solider, and don't suffer from fatigue and injury as easily as organics can.  Also - and I think this point is missed most times this argument happens - the Catalyst is the Bad Guy. You don't have to agree with him.  For example, my decision to choose Synthesis on my first playthrough was initially based on how Geth-Quarian conflict turned out in my game.

 

Then again, no matter how much I try to justify it, I fear you'd always have an anti-synthetic bias, what with you definitely not being Admiral Xen.

[Jaquio]

I don't have a problem with synthetics as much as I have a problem with the synthesis solution.

 

A single person eradicating the entirety of peoples' "humanity" against their will?  The fact that there are so many people who think it's an acceptable solution legitimately disturbs me.

 

Control is arrogant, tyrannical and megalomaniacal.  Destory requires the ruthless calculus of war.  But synthesis?  It's terrifying and monstrous.

[Cheviot]

A single person eradicating the entirety of peoples' "humanity" against their will?  The fact that there are so many people who think it's an acceptable solution legitimately disturbs me.

It's actually sharing "humanity" (or alien equivalent) with a whole new group, not eradicating it.  That's not to say there wouldn't be some upheaval, but it would be a similar sort to when humanity first discovered and used the Sol Relay.  Because of a decision made by a small group (i.e. whoever decided to use the Relay), the entire human race was shoved into a whole new universe of possibilities both good or bad, without knowing the consequences.

[Jaquio]

It's actually sharing "humanity" (or alien equivalent) with a whole new group, not eradicating it.  That's not to say there wouldn't be some upheaval, but it would be a similar sort to when humanity first discovered and used the Sol Relay.  Because of a decision made by a small group (i.e. whoever decided to use the Relay), the entire human race was shoved into a whole new universe of possibilities both good or bad, without knowing the consequences.

 

Dear god, there's an immense gulf of a difference between discovering a new means of transportation and rewriting the entire population's genetic code against their will.

 

A better example would be if there was a society with a rapidly spiraling crime rate, and you were offered two choices:  Choice A is that anyone who commits a crime will be killed, and all current prisoners or people who have committed crimes will also be killed.  Choice B is that the entire society, includingly law abiding citizens, men, women, children, the elderly, all will be forcibly lobotomized so they'll never be compelled to commit a crime again.

 

Choice A would make you a brutal tyrant, but Choice B would make you history's greatest monster.

[Tex]

Eh I hated destroy and really liked synthesis but that's my opinion dose that make it any less of a choice when it comes down to it hell no we each have our own outlook on things and that's fine just as I could never in my right mind choose destroy so too do others feel the same about synthesis. but as the saying goes each to their own.

P.s Jaquio as for making me a monster just remember history was written by the winners. what some call monsters and to others are classified as "holy men", heroes, men of grandeur-innovation and men of science. So don't go throwing around that word because most have no idea what it even means after all as they say the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

[Cheviot]

There's an immense gulf of a difference between discovering a new means of transportation and rewriting the entire population's genetic code against their will.

There is.  But I wasn't talking about that.  The decision to use that Relay brought humanity into contact with the rest of the races of the galaxy, which changed the lives of every human being (in ways positive and negative) that couldn't be known at the time, and the majority didn't have a say in whether the Relay should be used or not. 

[Jaquio]

P.s Jaquio as for making me a monster just remember history was written by the winners. what some call monsters and to others are classified as "holy men", heroes, men of grandeur-innovation and men of science. So don't go throwing around that word because most have no idea what it even means after all as they say the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

 

That argument is basically using moral relativism to argue for the righteousness of a galactic-scale eugenics program.

[Mcfly616]

Dear god, there's an immense gulf of a difference between discovering a new means of transportation and rewriting the entire population's genetic code against their will.

 

A better example would be if there was a society with a rapidly spiraling crime rate, and you were offered two choices:  Choice A is that anyone who commits a crime will be killed, and all current prisoners or people who have committed crimes will also be killed.  Choice B is that the entire society, includingly law abiding citizens, men, women, children, the elderly, all will be forcibly lobotomized so they'll never be compelled to commit a crime again.

 

Choice A would make you a brutal tyrant, but Choice B would make you history's greatest monster.

  Analogy = Fail

[Mcfly616]

For the Catalyst, the conflict between organic and synthetic is based on the differences that separate them.  Organics see their creations as devices without consciousness, lesser beings, slaves, and in fact will see signs of consciousness as signs of malfunction.  Synthetics will see attempts to correct this "malfunction" as acts of violence, and eventually react to defend themselves.  Because each cannot see the other side of things this emnity will continue until Synthesis provides them with the experience of the other side of the conflict.  Organics will see the "humanity" (or you know, whatever the alien eqivalent is) in synthetics, and synthetics wil understand what lay behind the organic fear.  This won't end all war, but the Catalyst only wants to end one war.

 nice explanation. Too bad it'll inevitably be handwaved as nonsense for reasons "just because"...

[RoboticWater]

There is.  But I wasn't talking about that.  The decision to use that Relay brought humanity into contact with the rest of the races of the galaxy, which changed the lives of every human being (in ways positive and negative) that couldn't be known at the time, and the majority didn't have a say in whether the Relay should be used or not. 

There's still a massive difference between discovering an external, albeit pivotal, device and fundamentally altering everyone's genetics. Beyond the fact the one is highly (literally) personal and the other isn't, the use of the mass effect relays doesn't prevent humans from being isolationist. 

 

Thematically, Synthesis doesn't make sense within the Mass Effect universe. The whole point of the Shepard trilogy up until the final minutes was about uniting diversity, not homogenization. We want to bring people together, not as a single being, but as a diverse community struggling individually and together to get past their differences. 

 

  Analogy = Fail

How so? Synthesis is a cheap "victory." It's like saying "I'm not racist because I don't see color." Sure, that's better than bigotry, but ignoring difference ignores a vast wealth of knowledge gained from battling through difference. Forcing everyone to accept each other at a genetic level is just 10 times worse.

 

Does Synthesis seem like an acceptable solution for the racism between blacks and whites? Personally, I think it sounds absurd. If nothing else, it's wrong to force anyone to think a certain way.

[Mcfly616]

 

Does Synthesis seem like an acceptable solution for the racism between blacks and whites? Personally, I think it sounds absurd. If nothing else, it's wrong to force anyone to think a certain way.

 Another failed analogy. And an obnoxious one at that.

[SwobyJ]

There will always be conflict.

Organics will always improve themselves with technology.

Synthetics will always aim for greater understanding.

 

Picking Synthesis is doing a specific form of what is inevitable. You don't have to pick it in ME3. But otherwise, there will always be conflict, organics will always improve themselves with technology, and synthetics will always aim for greater understanding (including of organics).

 

I don't think its the right choice though. I think its a trick of sorts. But I think all of the endings are tricks of sorts, just Synthesis the most. But that's just me.

 

I do think that considering Synthesis a 'lobotomy' is a great misunderstanding. Its actually the opposite. Its adding technology to organics without their explicit will, not removing any capability, and with this technology, people are coming to different conclusions. But Shepard does have the knowledge that he's trusted to stop the Reapers. Shepard often terms this as stopping the THREAT of the Reapers, and Synthesis indeed is positioned to stop the threat of the Reapers from ever happening again. Because we're one with the Reapers. Just without being Reapers. Synthesis. Transcending mortality. Solve the problem by moving beyond the problem.

 

Still think its a trick though, made to have us/Shepard think/act in a certain way. But I'm crazy.

[Mcfly616]

 

 

Thematically, Synthesis doesn't make sense within the Mass Effect universe. The whole point of the Shepard trilogy up until the final minutes was about uniting diversity, not homogenization. We want to bring people together, not as a single being, but as a diverse community struggling individually and together to get past their differences. 

 

 

 

Nothing but your own subjective point of view.

[SwobyJ]

Does Synthesis seem like an acceptable solution for the racism between blacks and whites? Personally, I think it sounds absurd. If nothing else, it's wrong to force anyone to think a certain way.

 

If everyone could instantly change their skin color to any color, and frequently did so, indeed I do think that it would drastically eliminate that form of racism, for example.

 

Its been demonstrable that the more that people can do, and the more they do, the less judgmental they are about those things.

 

However, we don't have the technology. So no, synthesis is not an acceptable solution here. Because the technology isn't here.

 

Synthesis moves beyond understanding of tech. Its an Uber Singularity of tech. Beyond tech, beyond mortal, beyond synthetic and organics. They simply 'are'. Space Magic.

 

And again, Shepard can pick Synthesis because he has the galaxy wanting him to stop the Reapers. Many of them want to destroy, but many of them want whatever will keep the galaxy more intact while stopping the Reapers. Synthesis represents your specific Shepard's dreams of an ideal future while still stopping and defeating the Reapers.

 

(But I also think its an effing lie and doesn't actually fix much, but that's my theorieszz.)

[Andrew Lucas]

A forced peace more like, Synthesis goes against everything that Mass Effect reinforced throughout the trilogy, but that most people already knew.


Off topic but damn.... those are some neat icons.

[Cheviot]

There's still a massive difference between discovering an external, albeit pivotal, device and fundamentally altering everyone's genetics. Beyond the fact the one is highly (literally) personal and the other isn't, the use of the mass effect relays doesn't prevent humans from being isolationist. 

Within 40 years of using that relay, robot space monsters the size of buildings are laying waste to the Earth and liquidating humanity.  That's a pretty personal impact, and one that would make isolationist policy...problematic.

 

As for the idea of synthesis as homogenising, I don't think it's necessarily true.  People are not being transformed into the same type of being; instead, something is being added to what they already are.  It would be similar to if every human was suddenly given biotic powers; mistrust of biotics would fade away, but everyone would still have their individual differences.

[SwobyJ]

A forced peace more like, Synthesis goes against everything that Mass Effect reinforced throughout the trilogy, but that most people already knew.


Off topic but damn.... those are some neat icons.

 

Shepard forces peace regularly. We're just more comfortable with that peace being through killing and destroying and hurting, and on the relatively smaller scales. So go ahead, pick Destroy.