214 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

There are several questionable assumptions in your reasoning.

 

First and foremost, all life on Earth shares the same DNA. That, as observational evidence shows, does nothing to reduce diversity of life, or individual differences of all kinds in humans. Thus, making organics and synthetics connectable on a molecular level does nothing to preclude diversity of life or of thinking.

 

Second, the difference between "natural" and "artificial" is a delusion. Organics and synthetics alike are both completely "natural", since nothing we can build, being natural ourselves, can not be natural in itself. This delusional dichotomy is itself the result of ideologies that place a particular kind of sacredness on the so-called natural, based on the assumption that life's deepest roots are, and should forever remain (alternatively: inevitably will forever remain) untouched by human artifice. However, that self-aware synthetics exist in the ME universe proves that we can create life and that this basic assumption is false. The typical way out for proponents of that reactionary ideology is to claim that synthetics aren't true life. Well, you can do that, and then of course you would never choose Synthesis, but I would question the value hierarchy behind such a decision.

 

Third, as for "playing God", that's a typical phrasing coming out of the same reactionary ideoiogy that claims the roots of life should remain untouched by human artifice. At the end of the ME trilogy, we are not "playing". We are called upon to assume a god's responsibility whether we like it or not. Every choice we can make is of that kind. Regardless of the choice you actually end up making, if you think one of the choices is fundamentally better than another, will you really refuse to make it just because you are, in fact, assuming a god's responsibility, determining the fate of all life in the galaxy? Making a decision about making a fundamental change about the biochemistry of life is no different than making a decision about becoming an AI god or consigning a whole domain of life to extinction. People just feel different about it because of our cultural history of seeing the so-called natural as sacred. This idea, btw, is less than two-hundred years old, being a legacy of classical romanticism. It is a legacy that, as Shepard, I am glad to consign to the graveyard of cultural history.

 

So in the end, you may or may not see Synthesis as the best choice for the galaxy, but your stated objections are a flawed basis for judging its merits, rooted, as they are, not in evidence but in your own preconceptions. You can legitimately  answer the question "Do I dare make such a fundamental change" with "no", for various reasons, but your assumptions about the outcome are flawed. You can, of course, fear such an outcome and decide not to take even a small risk of creating it, but there's a similar risk of bad outcomes of different kinds in every other decision: will Destroy ultimately result in the extinction of organic life? Will Control-Shepard become like the Catalyst? Assuming that there is a risk of either, I can refuse to see those choices as valid just as easily.

 

Personally, I choose Synthesis because it's the most interesting outcome. The others are variants of things people have done to solve problems for time immemorial: killing and autocratic rule. Synthesis does something new. I prefer to risk jumping into an unknown future.

Correction. All "modern humans" have the same DNA. The only other animal on the planet near our own are chimpanzees. Otherwise, you largely generalize how diverse life is on just Earth alone. We aren't even considering how different the DNA of every single organic is in comparison to humans. Thus, my point is merely reinforced as the Catalyst clearly states everybody's DNA, organic and synthetic, is replaced with one new type of DNA.

 

You don't know what "natural" and "artificial" mean. Synthetics are created by organics. They are not "natural" because their existence hinges on organics using technology to build them. Being "self-aware" is irrelevant as it doesn't make synthetics anymore "natural." You are either born through the natural process of evolution or you are not. Synthetics are highly-advanced machines and nothing more.

 

You misconstrue what "playing God" means. To be God is to be omnipotent and omnipresent. That is what Control is as well as Synthesis. Shepard loses his bodily form in order to either cement control over the reapers, dictacting the rules of the galaxy, or by forcing the "evolution" of all organics and synthetics into what the Catalysts believe is "ideal." Destroy is a rejection of this God premise, putting the fate of the galaxy back in the hands of all organics and synthetics. All Destroy accomplishes is removing the reaper threat and allowing things to go back to the way they once were.

 

On the contrary, it appears to me that you are the one that is coming up with strange and unorthodox reasons to try and rationalize why Synthesis is "good." I understand what Synthesis was intended to be, but that doesn't mean the choice isn't any less worse because of what the intent was. Synthesis and Refuse are, by their definition and execution, horrendous paths to take. Neither one provides a reasonable future as everything will change forever, whether the cycle starts over or you create a new form of reaper.

 

That is your choice. I will not risk the livelihood of trillions in the entire galaxy because of genuine curiosity of the potential implications of Synthesis. There are enough bad reasons for me to avoid that choice at all cost. Destroy is what the galaxy always intended. Destroy is what I will deliver. No one has the right to dictate the fate of the galaxy. Not the Catalyst, the Leviathans, or the reapers. Organics and synthetics should have the power to determine their own future. If it is for the worst, so be it. Given how the Quarians and Geth were able to resolve their differences, it's far more likely that Destroy would be a practical and beneficial outcome for all parties concerned.

[fraggle]

I think Iakus is right about agreeing with the Catalyst about the issue when choosing Destroy. There is room for interpretation here though IMO. The Catalyst says "all synthetics will be targeted". If you take it literally than you destroy all the synthetics, those not connected to the Reapers included. This comes out as agreeing with the Catalyst about the existence of the problem and choosing a temporary solution to clear the galaxy of synthetic life. I, however, think that the line about all synthetics refers only to synthetics the Reapers know about - geth and EDI, and both of those have Reaper code/technology. So Destroy destroys Reaper-related technology and that's why geth and EDI die. So by choosing Destroy in this case you reject the Catalyst's perception of the problem and destroy anything Reaper-related. That's another perception of Destroy. Personally, I think that the problem he mentions exists but I also think that the organics will be able to deal with it so I shoot the tube

 

I can agree the Catalyst has a point (if it were present in our real world I would probably even support its views, as I believe we can never live without wars and destroying each other, but that's another topic ), I just don't think I prove its point by choosing Destroy. I choose it so Organics and Synthetics can live in peace together from now on. Like you said, it's probably all a matter of interpretation

 

... and in every case, someone who chose that ending is saying they did not do so for those reasons. You cannot claim to know their motives better than they themselves do. Rather than making assumptions of others using your own beliefs, how about instead trying to understand why others made the choice that they did (<-- hey, trying to understand! that thing that everyone insists they do so well without 'space-magic' synthesis...)?

 

Yes, you're right, and I also said this in a post before. No-one here is wrong or right for choosing any of the endings, as we all shape and interpret it the way it's best for each individual. There shouldn't be arguments between people which ending is better, because each choice can be justified somehow.

Anyway, I guess you're right, it's quite pointless to throw in personal motives, but I do like to see people's different views.

 

 I could be wrong, but I think Iakus meant it a different way. Not that you agree with the Catalyst, necessarily. But by choosing Destroy, you are proving the Catalyst's point. Organics and synthetics cannot coexist.

 

But they can coexist! In the future Jokes aside, I see what you mean, but I still don't believe I proved the Catalyst's point because I chose to sacrifice the Synthetics in order to have a chance of peace between Organics and Synthetics in the future. If anything I proved I'm ready to go for a peaceful, co-existing solution from now on.

 

Yep. Pro-Templar here. It's funny because lots of folks think I am some sort of right-winger for having that stance, when in truth, I simply support joint-regulation of magic just as I support that approach to weapons and economic policy (more leftist stances).

 

I'm generally pro-mage, but I see why templars are necessary, especially when you look at blood mages. I always believe in the good and bad in both sides and try to understand each faction, and that is something that Bioware pulls off really well imo. That's why I found Cassandra's idea about circles really appealing, as she has the point of view that many are lacking. We always need to consider both sides. What we do with it in the end is up to each of us.

Are you more pro-Vivienne then or would you support Cassandra?

 

The Catalyst is a true artifical intelligence. It can't be shackled, otherwise it would never have deviated from its original programming and turned on its masters. The mere fact it hasn't moved on to something else isn't an indication that it lacks "free will." It merely is content to follow its original functions, much like EDI, at her core, is a cyber warfare suite and remains an expert in that field. If you recall, EDI could not deviate from her original programming either until Joker unshackled her. This allowed her to actively counteract any plots by TIM to cripple the Normandy and her mission.

[...]

Synthesis is not "ideal." The Catalyst had tried it before and it failed miserably, largely because it deduced you cannot "force" evolution on unwilling participants. The circumstances haven't changed. Synthesis is still forcing unwanted "evolution" on the entire galaxy as if they are "ineviably doomed" because of some preconceived notion that organics and synthetics are destined to destroy one another.

 

Is it really unshackled though? It only "turned" on its masters because it was tasked by them to preserve life at all costs, that isn't free will IMO. It's hardly its fault that the Leviathans themselves are a part of the very problem they see. So for me, yes, the Catalyst just did what it was tasked to do, it did not betray its masters. In fact, I do see both the Catalyst and the Reapers controlled by it as mere tools, used to fulfill their tasks and therefore pity them. They are not an enemy in a traditional sense, but they are a threat to all life, and therefore I'd rather see them destroyed.

 

Yes, the Catalyst has tried Synthesis before, but IIRC it said it didn't work back then because Organics weren't ready. They are now. So for some people Synthesis is a good solution. I agree on your points of forcing unwanted evolution, as I see it the same way, but other people might see it differently and I accept that

 

I still think this ending is brilliant, so many opinions, and so many right, yet we still can't all agree with each other

[fraggle]

 Given how the Quarians and Geth were able to resolve their differences, it's far more likely that Destroy would be a practical and beneficial outcome for all parties concerned.

 

It's quite funny because I think that due to the Reapers, and everyone working together, the races are more open for peaceful approaches and see that it can actually work, they achieved the impossible by sticking together. Maybe it needed something as horrible as the Reapers to make all factions see this.

[Iakus]

 I could be wrong, but I think Iakus meant it a different way. Not that you agree with the Catalyst, necessarily. But by choosing Destroy, you are proving the Catalyst's point. Organics and synthetics cannot coexist.

Yes, thank you.

[Iakus]

Yep. I don't buy his logic either. It's a contradiction. If people actually analyze the ending scenes closely, the Catalyst is absolutely against Shepard choosing Destroy. It is fine with Control, but it ultimately wants Shepard to choose Synthesis. Refuse is fan service and is the worst choice because the Catalyst wins and the cycle resets. It's just another way of proving the Catalyst is "right" because organics are too chaotic and would rather kill synthetics than have order.

 

 

Given how Refuse ends up, I'd hardly call it "fan service"  more like "fan disservice" 

 

But just because the Catalyst disagrees with the particular method, doesn't mean it disagrees with the goal of a particular action.  In this case, separating organics from synthetics.

 

 

All synthetics being wiped out in Destroy is hardly an affirmation that "the Catalyst was right and organics and synthetics can't co-exist." That's faulty logic and misses the point of the choice. Destroy took a sacrifice, unlike Control and Synthesis. It wasn't just sacrificing Shepard, but an entire race of synthetics. None of the other choices had that kind of repercussion. It in no way validates the Catalyst's warped logic. It merely reinforces in order to save the lives of trillions of organics and synthetics in the future, a price had to be paid. It was no different from Shepard sacrificing the Batarians in Arrival. The right decision is never an easy choice and there is always a sacrifice.

 

Control sacrifices the freedom of the galaxy, putting everyone under the thumbs of the Reapers for all time.  Synthesis, well, we know what Synthesis does.  

 

And I wouldn't compare the events of Arrival to Destroy.  Arrival is awful, but in the end, it's one colony.  A colony Shepard can even try to warn.  The batarian species continues.  Destroy wipes out all synthetics, everywhere.  The scope is staggeringly higher

[timebean]

There are several questionable assumptions in your reasoning.

 

First and foremost, all life on Earth shares the same DNA. That, as observational evidence shows, does nothing to reduce diversity of life, or individual differences of all kinds in humans. Thus, making organics and synthetics connectable on a molecular level does nothing to preclude diversity of life or of thinking.

 

Second, the difference between "natural" and "artificial" is a delusion. Organics and synthetics alike are both completely "natural", since nothing we can build, being natural ourselves, can not be natural in itself. This delusional dichotomy is itself the result of ideologies that place a particular kind of sacredness on the so-called natural, based on the assumption that life's deepest roots are, and should forever remain (alternatively: inevitably will forever remain) untouched by human artifice. However, that self-aware synthetics exist in the ME universe proves that we can create life and that this basic assumption is false. The typical way out for proponents of that reactionary ideology is to claim that synthetics aren't true life. Well, you can do that, and then of course you would never choose Synthesis, but I would question the value hierarchy behind such a decision.

 

Third, as for "playing God", that's a typical phrasing coming out of the same reactionary ideoiogy that claims the roots of life should remain untouched by human artifice. At the end of the ME trilogy, we are not "playing". We are called upon to assume a god's responsibility whether we like it or not. Every choice we can make is of that kind. Regardless of the choice you actually end up making, if you think one of the choices is fundamentally better than another, will you really refuse to make it just because you are, in fact, assuming a god's responsibility, determining the fate of all life in the galaxy? Making a decision about making a fundamental change about the biochemistry of life is no different than making a decision about becoming an AI god or consigning a whole domain of life to extinction. People just feel different about it because of our cultural history of seeing the so-called natural as sacred. This idea, btw, is less than two-hundred years old, being a legacy of classical romanticism. It is a legacy that, as Shepard, I am glad to consign to the graveyard of cultural history.

 

So in the end, you may or may not see Synthesis as the best choice for the galaxy, but your stated objections are a flawed basis for judging its merits, rooted, as they are, not in evidence but in your own preconceptions. You can legitimately  answer the question "Do I dare make such a fundamental change" with "no", for various reasons, but your assumptions about the outcome are flawed. You can, of course, fear such an outcome and decide not to take even a small risk of creating it, but there's a similar risk of bad outcomes of different kinds in every other decision: will Destroy ultimately result in the extinction of organic life? Will Control-Shepard become like the Catalyst? Assuming that there is a risk of either, I can refuse to see those choices as valid just as easily.

 

Personally, I choose Synthesis because it's the most interesting outcome. The others are variants of things people have done to solve problems for time immemorial: killing and autocratic rule. Synthesis does something new. I prefer to risk jumping into an unknown future.

These are all valid points, and I agree. Yes, we share DNA with all other living things (most folks don't understand this, but it is a failing of how biology is taught, I think). Yes, I believe life encompasses more than being "born".  And yes, the playing God argument can apply to all three choices.

 

But...I choose destroy because I believe coexistence does not require a cosmic rewrite. I believe the beings, both organic and synthetic, should have the opportunity, the right, to choose their own fate. They built the crucible, they see it can disperse energy throughout the galaxy.  So, if they want something like sythesis for themselves, let them choose it.  I got rid of the reapers for them. I give them the chance to choose for themselves the trajectory of their existence.  In my "god" moment, that is the choice I make for them. Because I believe that coming through mutual understanding and peace and cooperation can happen without this fundamental alteration. I believe they have the moxy to do it on their own. I may be wrong...they may end up destroying each other.  But I have hope that they will not.

 

Nice argument!

[Iakus]

 You don't know what "natural" and "artificial" mean. Synthetics are created by organics. They are not "natural" because their existence hinges on organics using technology to build them. Being "self-aware" is irrelevant as it doesn't make synthetics anymore "natural." You are either born through the natural process of evolution or you are not. Synthetics are highly-advanced machines and nothing more.

 

 

Just want to point out that by this measure, there are "organic synthetics"  organic beings constructed with technology:  Grunt (and all other tank bred krogan), Miranda, Oriana, CloneShep...

 

They are not highly advanced machines.

[Mcfly616]

So they say.

 They're the creators. Their word is absolute.

[Ithurael]

 They're the creators. Their word is absolute.

 

Lol..I just noticed something funny...

 

They created the ME universe and by extension created fans of that universe

 

Now, after the ending, the fans of that universe reject and rebel against the creators word because it either clashes with their headcanon or they just don't like it.

 

The Created have Literally Rebelled against their Creators!!!

 

So Meta

 

So....who is jumping into the beam?

[fraggle]

Lol..I just noticed something funny...

 

They created the ME universe and by extension created fans of that universe

 

Now, after the ending, the fans of that universe reject and rebel against the creators word because it either clashes with their headcanon or they just don't like it.

 

The Created have Literally Rebelled against their Creators!!!

 

So Meta

 

So....who is jumping into the beam?

 

Kudos, sir!

[AlanC9]

That is your choice. I will not risk the livelihood of trillions in the entire galaxy because of genuine curiosity of the potential implications of Synthesis. There are enough bad reasons for me to avoid that choice at all cost. Destroy is what the galaxy always intended. Destroy is what I will deliver. No one has the right to dictate the fate of the galaxy. Not the Catalyst, the Leviathans, or the reapers. Organics and synthetics should have the power to determine their own future. If it is for the worst, so be it. Given how the Quarians and Geth were able to resolve their differences, it's far more likely that Destroy would be a practical and beneficial outcome for all parties concerned.

 

This is reasonable -- but isn't it also ducking Shepard's responsibility for the choices? The galaxy intended Destroy without knowing the situation, or the other options available.

[Revan Reborn]

Given how Refuse ends up, I'd hardly call it "fan service"  more like "fan disservice" 

 

But just because the Catalyst disagrees with the particular method, doesn't mean it disagrees with the goal of a particular action.  In this case, separating organics from synthetics.

 

 

Control sacrifices the freedom of the galaxy, putting everyone under the thumbs of the Reapers for all time.  Synthesis, well, we know what Synthesis does.  

 

And I wouldn't compare the events of Arrival to Destroy.  Arrival is awful, but in the end, it's one colony.  A colony Shepard can even try to warn.  The batarian species continues.  Destroy wipes out all synthetics, everywhere.  The scope is staggeringly higher

Well that's a matter of interpretation. Suffice it to say, Refusal is not an ideal ending after investing hundreds of hours into three games, at least in my opinion.

 

We have evidence to suggest that the Catalyst does disagree with the goal of a particular action, in this case Destroy. What Destroy does is merely unravels all the work and effort the Catalyst has invested to "preserve" and establish "order" in the galaxy. Destroy undermines everything the Catalyst ever did and what it stood for. It is the epitome of a choice the Catalyst would never support, which is why he explains it first and then goes on the promote Control and especially Synthesis.

 

I think we are viewing "sacrifice" in different terms. I'm referring to actual loss of life, not the illusion of "free will" or lack thereof. Nobody dies or is lost with Control or Synthesis. That's not to say that their lives won't be impacted in other ways going forward, but they both provide a "safe" alternative to the unfortunate loss of the Geth and EDI with Destroy.

 

I think you are overexaggerating the severity of Destroy. The only synthetics Destroy has a definite impact on are the Geth and EDI. There is no question they are lost and there's no way of bringing them back. However, all other synthetics can and have been rebuilt. High EMS Destroy makes this rather explicit as Admiral Hackett illustrates, and we see that technology and synthetics are eventually rebuilt. That is exactly what the Catalyst was fearful of and what it believes to be the demise of everyone.

 

Just want to point out that by this measure, there are "organic synthetics"  organic beings constructed with technology:  Grunt (and all other tank bred krogan), Miranda, Oriana, CloneShep...

 

They are not highly advanced machines.

You are conflating two very different concepts. Grunt, Miranda, Oriana, and CloneShep are all examples of cloning, stem cell research, etc. A synthetic is something that is actually a machine, whether it's a basic VI, or as complex as something like the Geth. The former are by-products of advancements in health and science, but not actually "synthetic." Now, you could make the argument that perhaps Grunt, Miranda, etc. aren't "natural" as they were manufactured via technology, but they certainly aren't synthetic. They are organic in the actual meaning that the term connotes upon them.

 

This is reasonable -- but isn't it also ducking Shepard's responsibility for the choices? The galaxy intended Destroy without knowing the situation, or the other options available.

My point is the galaxy always saw the reapers as the existential threat that had to be destroyed. Thus, by extension, they wanted Shepard to destroy all reapers. Now, they may not have known the other choices at the time, but could you really see the galaxy agreeing on Control, Synthesis, or Refusal? Two of those are ridiculous and the other is rainbows and butterflies.

 

Control, Synthesis, and Refusal permanently infuses a fate on the galaxy because of conclusions reached by the Catalyst. Destroy is the only option that sets the galaxy free from the grasp and influence on the Leviathans, the Catalyst, and the reapers. I wouldn't say that Shepard is avoiding responsibility at all but rather doing what the galaxy expected him to do.

[AlanC9]

I'll grant you Synthesis there. Though there are reasons for picking Control that have nothing to do with the Catalyst, I can't really see a plausible argument for Synthesis that wouldn't require believing that the Catalyst was likely right.

 

As for Shepard "just following orders" -- thought experiment time. Let's say Shepard believes that the Catalyst is right, and choosing Destroy will lead to a long-term disaster for organics. Is it really your position that Shepard is morally obligated to cause that disaster rather than avoid it?

[Revan Reborn]

I'll grant you Synthesis there. Though there are reasons for picking Control that have nothing to do with the Catalyst, I can't really see a plausible argument for Synthesis that wouldn't require believing that the Catalyst was likely right.

 

As for Shepard "just following orders" -- thought experiment time. Let's say Shepard believes that the Catalyst is right, and choosing Destroy will lead to a long-term disaster for organics. Is it really your position that Shepard is morally obligated to cause that disaster rather than avoid it?

Yes, because this is ultimately not Shepard's decision to make, which is my point. The reason the God theory isn't applicable to Destroy is because it's not a choice Shepard is making in isolation. The entire galaxy wants the reapers destroyed. It is the other choices that Shepard has in isolation that would essentially be him playing God because he would decide what's "best" on his own judgment.

 

Regardless of how Shepard feels, he is obligated to do what is in the best interest in the galaxy, not what he perceives as being "right." Synthesis could very well be the "best choice" where everybody is holding hands and singing songs together. That's not Shepard's call to make, nor is it the Catalyst's, the reapers', or the Leviathans'. Shepard had one job to do and that was to destroy the reapers. The consequences of the aftermath is up to the galaxy to determine what kind of fate they will shape and whether they live in peace or turn to conflict again. Destroy is about accepting responsibility and being selfless. The rest of the choices are taking the galaxy in your own hands and decided what is best for everyone without their consent. That's the difference.

[Iakus]

Well that's a matter of interpretation. Suffice it to say, Refusal is not an ideal ending after investing hundreds of hours into three games, at least in my opinion.

 

We have evidence to suggest that the Catalyst does disagree with the goal of a particular action, in this case Destroy. What Destroy does is merely unravels all the work and effort the Catalyst has invested to "preserve" and establish "order" in the galaxy. Destroy undermines everything the Catalyst ever did and what it stood for. It is the epitome of a choice the Catalyst would never support, which is why he explains it first and then goes on the promote Control and especially Synthesis.

 

I think we are viewing "sacrifice" in different terms. I'm referring to actual loss of life, not the illusion of "free will" or lack thereof. Nobody dies or is lost with Control or Synthesis. That's not to say that their lives won't be impacted in other ways going forward, but they both provide a "safe" alternative to the unfortunate loss of the Geth and EDI with Destroy.

 

I think you are overexaggerating the severity of Destroy. The only synthetics Destroy has a definite impact on are the Geth and EDI. There is no question they are lost and there's no way of bringing them back. However, all other synthetics can and have been rebuilt. High EMS Destroy makes this rather explicit as Admiral Hackett illustrates, and we see that technology and synthetics are eventually rebuilt. That is exactly what the Catalyst was fearful of and what it believes to be the demise of everyone.

 

 

There are no ideal endings after ME3.  But being able to avoid the nonsense of the Catalyst's choices would have at least been salvageable.

 

The problem the Catalyst has is "the chaos will come back".  It's basically trusting organics to do what the Reapers did:  Keep one side from advancing too far before war comes about.  Only in this case it's organics that need to harvest synthetics rather than vice-versa.  Even at this point, the Catalyst has no faith that organics and synthetics will ever be able to coexist.

 

I've explained why I dislike Synthesis.  Control is dooming the galaxy to living in a cage, even if it is potentially a gilded one.  So the loss of life is less.  It's still trading liberty for security.  "Peace in our time"  Bah.

 

The quote in my sig says it all as far as I'm concerned.

 

And I am not overstating Destroy.  I'm stating precisely how it is described "The Crucible will not discriminate, all synthetic life will be targeted.  Even you are partly synthetic"  All.  Synthetic.  Life.  Even cyborgs are at risk.  And even if it's "only" the geth and EDI, that's still too high a price.  

 

 

You are conflating two very different concepts. Grunt, Miranda, Oriana, and CloneShep are all examples of cloning, stem cell research, etc. A synthetic is something that is actually a machine, whether it's a basic VI, or as complex as something like the Geth. The former are by-products of advancements in health and science, but not actually "synthetic." Now, you could make the argument that perhaps Grunt, Miranda, etc. aren't "natural" as they were manufactured via technology, but they certainly aren't synthetic. They are organic in the actual meaning that the term connotes upon them.

 

I am interpreting synthetic=created life.  Whether they are carbon based or silicon.  They were built with technology, and are as alive as EDI.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I'll grant you Synthesis there. Though there are reasons for picking Control that have nothing to do with the Catalyst, I can't really see a plausible argument for Synthesis that wouldn't require believing that the Catalyst was likely right.

 

How about: the Catalyst is not necessarily right, but the benefits of this outcome could be worthwhile in ways beyond that.

[Ieldra]

Agreed.

 

As for the rejection of multiculturalism, I think this is part of Bioware's MO. And basically all (post) modern liberal thought. It espouses sameness and getting along, but by rejecting the importance of individual and cultural expression. It would rather handwave differences, rather than work through them. I prefer that people work together despite their differences and understanding each other... not by ignoring the differences. I grew up this way (being half Euro and half Asian), and you don't just ignore this stuff.. nor did my family. It's a struggle, but you find a way to make it work. I don't think the average 40 something white suburban "progressive" knows anything about it (and from what I can tell, this is a common demographic for Bioware's writers). They're afraid of acknowledging how different people can be, and think the solution is to just play dumb and say we should all get along....just because. It's well meaning, but comes from fear and ignorance. The same as racism does... just without the negative actions. 

 

Ahem! But that's a can of worms, I suppose.

People actually don't value real diversity. They value it where it's meaningless, where it's nothing more than aesthetics, where it makes for a colorful tapestry of intelligent life without ever challenging what's important to them. As soon as things get *really* different however, such as in value hierarchies and dimensions of morality, the most you can hope for is tolerance. 

 

The problem with the presumption of inescapable conflict in the ME trilogy is that it never clarifies its dimensions. it is said to go beyond mere culture, mere value hierarchies. It is said to be inescapable based on differences in physical nature. This is certainly possible. I do believe that there is a bounding box we can't escape because of our physical nature, and that it would require a physical change to get beyond it. We are our bodies, and our minds are their emergent properties which may enable us to grow beyond ourselves - and eventually change our physical nature in order to overcome our limitations. However, none of the synthetics we communicate with, except for the Catalyst and the Reapers, are presented as sufficiently "other" to challenge our understanding. In fact, it is not hard to understand Legion's viewpoint in ME2 if you're reasonably open-minded, and it's all too easy to empathize with EDI in ME3. These characters are different, but the difference is of a kind we have already overcome repeatedly by the time we come to know of the Catalyst.

 

Why then choose Synthesis, you may ask, if the story indicates it's not necessary? I do not see the "ideology of sameness" in Synthesis. I see why people come to that interpretation, but I see different themes at work. The three main choices embody different ideas, all of which are good: stability (Control), autonomy (Destroy) and advancement (Synthesis). Every choice promotes its principle at some expense to the others. If I choose Synthesis, it's not for the purpose the Catalyst promotes it. It's to break out of the current bounding box. If that comes with an infusion of aspects from "other" sources, that is a price I am willing to pay, it may even be necessary for that breakout. It would, indeed, be very much preferable to let people make such choices for themselves, but the alternatives are genocide and autocratic rule - two "solutions" to problems humans have used since time immemorial. It was time for something new. 

 

It is true that the story that came before appears to condition players towards Destroy. However, I am always aware of such attempts to condition, and I resent them, and I'm an anti-traditionalist radical who believes it is the purpose of intelligent life to grow beyond itself, Synthesis is, in the end, the only choice I could make. It's just too bad that it was all shrouded in religious metaphor. I really hate that aspect.  

[BioWareM0d13]

For me it's not like this, I don't agree with the Catalyst one bit. My Shep took it as a chance to get rid of Catalyst and Reapers for good, so new Synthetics could be created and live together with Organics this time, for good.

 

This.

 

In my game Shepard didn't agree with the Catalyst at all. That the Geth and EDI would be destroyed was unfortunate, but an example of collateral damage rather than an intended consequence of Destroy. From his perspective the other two options would also shirk the tremendous responsibility placed on his shoulders, gamble with the galaxy's future, and betray the victims of the Reaper War...that they couldn't even be considered. Any outcome that allowed the Reapers to remain was not an option at all.

 

In the aftermath he would hope that the Quarians would rebuild the Geth. There certainly isn't any agreement with the Catalyst on its assertion that synthetics and organics can't coexist.

[timebean]

 

*snip*

 

Why then choose Synthesis, you may ask, if the story indicates it's not necessary? I do not see the "ideology of sameness" in Synthesis. I see why people come to that interpretation, but I see different themes at work. The three main choices embody different ideas, all of which are good: stability (Control), autonomy (Destroy) and advancement (Synthesis). Every choice promotes its principle at some expense to the others.

 

*snip*

Very well-stated!  Autonomy is exactly why I choose Destroy! And the argument of "Advancement for all" is a perfectly valid reason for choosing synthesis (although I rarely choose that one, personally). Also...I assume very few people choose  Control = stability because stability implies stagnation. And it is a bit creepy to become a god.

[timebean]

Also...just wanted to throw a little tidbit out there about the whole DNA thing...

 

I asked a biologist friend of mine about this (he also played ME, so I explained the argument to him as best I could).  He told me that humans share about 40% of their DNA with plants.  The differences in our DNA come from generations of recombination, mutations, transcription errors as DNA copies itself, and all kinds of other stuff.  But fundamentally, DNA is DNA.  He also pointed out the the amino acid based existence of earth-life would likely not be what other life in the galaxy would be built off of. Ie, aliens likely do not even have DNA...they would have a whole different construct. He said that his problem with the entire game is that it is more likely for us to mate with a plant than an alien. 

 

He also chooses synthesis...

 

Anyway...just throwing that out there cause I thought it was neat.  Any biology people in here will know more than me about it all, but I wanted to share!

[Revan Reborn]

Very well-stated!  Autonomy is exactly why I choose Destroy! And the argument of "Advancement for all" is a perfectly valid reason for choosing synthesis (although I rarely choose that one, personally). Also...I assume very few people choose  Control = stability because stability implies stagnation. And it is a bit creepy to become a god.

"Advancement" is a rather vague term. While one would assume "advancement" is a good thing, that's not always the case. Look at the Industrial Revolution. Look at Urbanization. It has led to deforestation, global warming, declining public health, human neglect, animal extinction, the list goes on and on. Not to mention the "advancements" of food through GMOs, corn-fed lots, gene alterations, every "advancement" has a subtle (or not so subtle) effect on our lives in more ways than what was originally intended. Thus, while "Stability" and "Autonomy" seem rather straight forward and obvious, "Advancement" does not. This is why I view Synthesis as a terrible option because its validity is entirely based on how "optimistic" and "hopeful" the person making the choice is. There is no evidence nor any reason to believe it will work and be a resounding success. It is, for all intents and purposes, a leap of faith. At best, your odds are 50/50 it benefits all. At worst, you've "advanced" the galaxy in ways that cannot be undone due to unforeseen circumstances and have to live with the consequences.

[timebean]

"Advancement" is a rather vague term. While one would assume "advancement" is a good thing, that's not always the case. Look at the Industrial Revolution. Look at Urbanization. It has led to deforestation, global warming, declining public health, human neglect, animal extinction, the list goes on and on. Not to mention the "advancements" of food through GMOs, corn-fed lots, gene alterations, every "advancement" has a subtle (or not so subtle) effect on our lives in more ways than what was originally intended. Thus, while "Stability" and "Autonomy" seem rather straight forward and obvious, "Advancement" does not. This is why I view Synthesis as a terrible option because its validity is entirely based on how "optimistic" and "hopeful" the person making the choice is. There is no evidence nor any reason to believe it will work and be a resounding success. It is, for all intents and purposes, a leap of faith. At best, your odds are 50/50 it benefits all. At worst, you've "advanced" the galaxy in ways that cannot be undone due to unforeseen circumstances and have to live with the consequences.

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

 

Ha ha!  But I agree, which is why I don't like the synthesis choice. I had a similar argument with a friend of mine years ago...she was very hopeful about the future. I pointed out the evils of advancement while she pointed out the good stuff.  She had a beautiful, idealistic view that the more we advance, the closer we come to taming the noble savage in all of us, etc.  It is a very hopeful view to imagine the possibilities of what we could achieve with technology (and to look at what we have achieved, good and bad). But the danger lies in outpacing ourselves, imo.  The catalyst claims we are 'ready' for the next step.  I don't think we are...for many of the reasons you have stated here, but also in the context of the game.  I think understanding should come before advancement, not vice versa. But I could be wrong, as I am limited always by my own narrow point of view. Ah well...

[Revan Reborn]

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

 

Ha ha!  But I agree, which is why I don't like the synthesis choice. I had a similar argument with a friend of mine years ago...she was very hopeful about the future. I pointed out the evils of advancement while she pointed out the good stuff.  She had a beautiful, idealistic view that the more we advance, the closer we come to taming the noble savage in all of us, etc.  It is a very hopeful view to imagine the possibilities of what we could achieve with technology (and to look at what we have achieved, good and bad). But the danger lies in outpacing ourselves, imo.  The catalyst claims we are 'ready' for the next step.  I don't think we are...for many of the reasons you have stated here, but also in the context of the game.  I think understanding should come before advancement, not vice versa. But I could be wrong, as I am limited always by my own narrow point of view. Ah well...

I could use World War I (The Great War) and modern warfare, in general, as perfect examples for why we are not any more "civilized" than we were two thousand years ago. On the contrary, "advancement" has led to more efficient ways of killing (Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, etc.) and weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons, ICBMs, aircraft carriers, tanks, drones, etc.) which could easily suggest we are less "humane" than we were before.

 

I don't even need to take that step, however. I can just look at Mass Effect, as we have a perfect example of how a race being given "advancement" too quickly can lead to one's demise. Has everyone forgotten about the Salarians and Krogans? Have we forgotten about the Racchni War? The reason Tuchanka turned from a thriving, flourishing, and beautiful place into a nuclear waste was because the Salarians gave Krogans technology they weren't mature enough nor ready to use. Sure, the Krogans defeated the Racchni, but this set off a catalyst of unintended consequences that eventually led to the "solution," the genophage.

 

I believe BioWare included this major topic since ME1 into the game for a reason. My argument is that it ties in directly with the implications of Synthesis and what it means. In many ways, the genophage and Synthesis are based on the same premise of "logic" and "reason" because they are deemed as "necessary." The Catalyst was wrong before and Synthesis failed miserably. Why should we be so certain it is right now? How do we know humanity, let alone the rest of the galaxy, is actually ready for these kinds of advancements? We know the results if they aren't ready and what that will lead to. I don't believe that risk based on an "idealistic" and "optimistic" outlook on life is rational nor is it doing anybody any favors ultimately.

[BioWareM0d13]

The biggest argument against Synthesis, besides that it allows the mass-murdering A.I. and the Reaper fleet to survive, is that the Catalyst's solution isn't even a solution at all. Even if we accept its argument that synthetics and organics cannot coexist, turning everyone into a cyborg isn't going to solve anything.

 

Lets pretend for a moment that Neanderthals didn't go extinct. In this alternate timeline they have survived to the modern day and also have advanced civilizations, and compete with us for resources. That occasionally leads to war. Now if someone could come along with a wand of space magic, and somehow turn every Neanderthal and every modern human into a hybrid of the other, would that prevent war? Of course it wouldn't. We are the only the sapient beings on our planet and that has never stopped us for from finding reasons to engage in war, mass slaughter, or genocide. A magic wand that made everyone the same wouldn't change that.

 

Synthesis would only work as means of preventing war or genocide if  it also fundamentally alters the minds of the people undergoing transformation. And at that point it is no different than indoctrination. Unless Synthesis denies the people it transforms the right of free will, it will not in any way work to prevent war or atrocities.