My world view's fine, certainly better than a deranged meddling brat. I don't accept your argument, the future is unwritten nothing is inevitable. Conflict will always exist and is good, whether that be between organics and organics or vs synthetics, or even in your loony genetically raped future between greeny one and greeny two.
There is no argument to accept. Your view is, plain and simple, deductively untrue with the premises of the conflict put forward by the Catalyst. You not liking it doesn't mean that its incorrect, no matter how much you think it is.
Why do you dislike the Catalyst and what it represents? Why do you dislike its solution? Why do disbelieve in the long-term problem? I'm going to try and get to the bottom of your feelings. The self-examination turned me from an ardent anti-ender into someone who is rather pro-ending (at least as far as the concept and intent of the ending goes).
The future is always inevitable, yet is never set: You have just demonstrated the irrationality of your perspective and opinion. You contradicted yourself. Is the future set, or is it not? Conflict is good insofar as mutual development goes, but with synthetics, you lose that mutual edge. They are capable of developing at utterly ascendant levels over us organics. Any 'conflict' with them in the long-term isn't going to be a conflict so much as it is an extermination from them. If conflict is inevitable, as you posit, then this is a fact that you have to take into account.
If you don't, then you're delusional and in denial. And irrational. If you do take it into account, then you're going to have to recognize that the only hope is to enact some kind of singularity (synthesis) to combine the terms of organic and synthetic life, and make no distinction between either. That way, everyone is permanently set on the mutual development track. As well, it increases collective awareness and communicative understanding between all beings. Any conflict would be much less reduced via consensus and capability for acknowledgement, understanding, and cooperative reconciliation. That's not to say that conflict couldn't exist, but that it would be hypothetically much more difficult to attain. The Catalyst is 100% right in this regard. Of course, going by the very definition of a singularity, it's not necessarily predictable, but then again, short-term synthesis isn't really a true singularity so much as it is the catalyst for one.
As I've said, the Catalyst's problem is also Shepard's problem, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Your belief isn't required, only your participation. The issue is over conflict, over change. There is conflict, and with conflict comes change.
Thus, it's illogical to say that conflict is good, yet to reject change. Especially on the scale of what you're proposing with the Catalyst. And that's what you're doing. That's part of why your worldview is invalid for looking at this problem. That's why your choice in the matter would be withheld.
Synthesis will happen. It has to happen. Whether or not you enact it with the Crucible is up to you. I don't. I destroy. But I acknowledge the problem and understand what the Catalyst is going for. My goal after Destroy is thus to enact Control, and use that Control to achieve a later Synthesis.
The only other options are:
Let the cycle continue,
Annihilate all life,
Don't develop synthetic or inorganic sentient lifeforms (which isn't very conducive to long-term development). It's stagnation.
4 choices. These are the only conclusions you have. 3 of which aren't very attractive to the alternative. Only one allows for progress and change. That solution is synthesis.
Retour en haut
. Esoteric craziness more like.
