First things first, there's a quote button to use so we don't get such a dreadful formatting issue here. Learn it, live it, love it.
Anyway, first paragraph:
Umm...Anyone can. It's not hard at all. If you can't imagine other options to the Catalyst's ridiculous solution, then I don't know what to tell you.
That's not true. You'll have to actually give me a definitive example of a greater solution than either the Reapers themselves or Control and Synthesis that actually solve the Catalyst's mandate.
If you don't believe that it has a valid mandate, then the writers would like to speak with you. You're wrong after all.
I don't believe that you can honestly create or find a greater solution than what has already been presented, and I am prepared to back that up once you try to prove otherwise.
The only other solution to the Harvest (the Reapers), Synthesis, or Control, is to not create any kind of synthetic intelligence for the remainder of galactic civilization, however long that time period lasts.
Otherwise, there are no other long-term solutions that permanently solve the problem of organic and synthetic life.
No, millions of years later isn't "right off the bat". And with all the Catalyst's brain power, the fact that it didn't have the insight to understand why its "solution" was a colossal fail speaks volumes. It speaks of organics being ready or advanced enough to move past all this Reaper harvesting stuff to something better, well if it wasn't having the Reapers commit genocide on them all the time, they would have been ready a long time ago.
On what basis are you deciding that millions of years later is the actual application period for the Catalyst? You seem to be pointing to something and saying that it's true/not true and not giving a reason for it. As well, you're not accounting for the amount of time the Catalyst has to wait before it can test its own theory each cycle. If it comes up with any given number of solutions with different parameters that alternate variables each cycle, it could wait potentially infinite amounts of time before it achieves the right concoction within time to implement a solution.
How is the Catalyst's solution a 'colossal fail'? Because you want it to be or are emotionally and psychologically repugnant of the idea?
Said organics were also creating synthetics that would have wiped out the organics had the Reapers and the Catalyst not intervened. Such organics would never be ready, as if the Catalyst waited too long or ignored its mandate, synthetics would advance to a point beyond the scope of organic ability to interface or synchronize with (as well as be in conflict with the organics in a perpetually escalating station where they would overwhelm and annihilate them). As well, for many a cycle there was no Crucible for the organics to use to enact some kind of synthesis or singularity to prove their completion.
Simply put, it's not the Catalyst deciding on when the organics are ready, it's they, the organics themselves, that are unconsciously determining whether or not they have achieved such a point.
Thank you Mr. Spock. Yes, they're monsters. And that is an objective label, not an irrational one. They define themselves by their actions. They commit genocide and their method of elminating organic civilizations is to do it in the most horrific and terrifying way possible. They do not engage in this task in a coldly logical way, but clearly demonstrate hatred and malevolence. If that shouldn't be the case, then chalk it up to bad or cheesy writing. They look scary, they are given evil personas. And it's obviously more entertaining to have people getting overrun by zombies than to have the Reapers eliminate species in a more clinical and boring way. That was the intent of the writers, to make them monstrous, so they do not fit into your interpretation of them. If the writers had written them in a more coldly rational way, then your argument would stand up better.
I see no need for insults Doctor McCoy.
Incorrect, categorically and fundamentally. If you label this an objective fact, then you are prepared to defend how you label them as monsters, and how your perspective is an objective position. And if you do, you must realize that you're position is incorrect. It is entirely, irrational. There is nothing of objective value in your statement whatsoever. Facetious statement: Have you no regard for relativism? Or difference? Or logic?
The Reapers define themselves via action? Then you'll know that they define themselves as the wall of order, stemming the tide of chaos and imposing their will on an entropy laden galaxy. You'll know that the Leviathans labeled them as errant progeny fulfilling a purpose laid about by their own perspective on the cosmos.
They commit genocide, yes. This is not objectively bad. It is a statement ladled with is/ought deontological ideology, one I do not share as a subjectivist and as a relativist.
As well, there is a logical reason for being such; it breaks the will of resistance and rebellion against their ranks. It psychologically destroys their enemy. To you, a victim of such slaughter, it might seem like wanton malice, but it is actually a practical tactic. It's a form of psychological warfare, a form of the art of war that the Reapers are masters of. We in the United States military have a term for it: "Shock and Awe". To break down and terrorize the enemy into submission, thus negating or eliminating resistance and rebellion. To call it 'evil' and 'illogical' is to demonstrate a lack of awareness in the practical application of the technique.
Never once did I get any implication that the Reapers hate or despise any organic species. Any and all context we get is either from speculative organics (and their constructs, such as Vigil), a small number of Reapers such as Sovereign, which, despite demonstrating indifference and apathy to organic life and piping its own greatness never overtly states that it 'hate's' organics, or the Catalyst itself, a being largely alien and bizarre enough for standard definition of 'evil' and 'hate' to not apply.
That they look scary is purely subjective in nature. Afterall, they're based on the aquatic creatures that their forerunners were, the Leviathan race. Biology and evolution doesn't dictate what is scary or not. I know people who are afraid of spiders and snakes. Because they look scary to those people, does that make those creatures evil? I think not, unless you don't hold to conventional rationality. That the Reapers look scary is not correlated to a question of evil about them.
As for evil persona's, I entirely disagree. Grandiose, boisterous, and thunderous, but not evil. They speak on their actions. They don't twirl their mustaches and go 'muahahaha' as they assault organic society.
The thing is, they're not monstrous because they decided to be or are; they are because of their targets point of view. This is entirely their purpose. They aren't intrinsically or inherently evil, as I've stated, and that, in the ending, is reflected when we get our share of information on them and their mandate. To be frank, they are clinical and boring. Read the codex entries on them, and listen to how they are described. Patient, calculating, methodical, clinical. They take their time, attack worlds one by one, divide and conquer, and do what they need as they need to. You may think they act differently, but as a target of them, you're of course going to have a skewed perspective as a potential victim.
This is not something that you can deductively argue. The Reapers are repeatedly described in the way I said they were, by the very writers you claim I am contradicting. In short, my logic is fine. Your interpretation of it is in error. Adjust.
No, the Reapers simply follow orders, and it is clearly beyond them to do anything differently than their original instructions. The Catalyst is completely lacking in foresight and any intrisic understanding of the species, organic and synthetic, it has been eliminating. You also leave out the key failing point of the whole Catalyst/Reaper solution, that it is based on the faulty assumption that synthetics always destroy organics. To believe that, you have to believe in a deterministic universe, where you get the same out come a million out of a million times. And in the current galaxy the writers have created, not only is there just a single advanced synthetic race, the Geth, but it is possible for organics to destroy them. So that nixes the Catalyst's argument right there. And even if the catalyst was right, that doesn't mean the end of organic life in the galaxy, it means the end of organic civilizations...which the Reapers destroy anyway. So the end result is identical. The Reapers serve no logical purpose, they just replace one annihilation with another. The data they collect on all these civilzations benefits no one, as they don't share it and never will share it. Anyone who becomes advanced enough to draw the Reapers' attention is summarily destroyed. So they are archiving all this information for nothing, it just sits with them in dark space until they wake up to go kill and harvest again. The Reapers are nothing more than nihilism at its most logical extreme. And the synthesis "solution"is even worse. At least under the current plan, organic life continues. With syntheis, all organic life is forever compromised.
They follow orders in the way in that they are a collective unity of minds focusing on the mandate given by the Catalyst, separate in identity, yet singular in purpose. Otherwise, they have no reason to deviate from their original instructions: they have no other viable means of achieving their goal of preserving galactic races and ensuring galactic stability other than their cycle. Obviously, this is changed in the ending, but it is not through the participation of the Reapers, lest you choose synthesis or control (in which case, your dead wrong as the Reapers are shown... changing and deviating from their initial instructions 
)
This is a claim about the nature of the Catalyst, based on emotional response rather than reasoning, and it is a claim not supported by the in-game portrayal of the Catalyst. It has foresight. That is why the cycles exist, and that is why it idealizes synthesis as the ultimate completion of its mandate. It has involved and intrinsic understanding of each race. That does not mean that it is compliant or subject to such a race's ideology of morality or ethics. Those ideologies are secondary to practical and rational considerations about the furthering of organic/synthetic relations and ultimate preservation of such species via Reaper.
This is not a faulty assumption. This is stated to be fact within game, and there is no evidence that proves otherwise, up to and including the Geth and EDI. The premise is that once synthetics get rolling, they don't stop, and continue to exponentially grow at rates faster than any organic could ever hope to match. While this alone is not indicative or presumptuous of conflict, any that were to break out would be entirely one-sided in favor of the synthetics. This is what happened with the Reapers themselves and the Leviathan afterall, even if the Catalyst realized that this was an inevitable outcome.
But yes, I do believe that this is a deterministic universe. The outcome is inevitable, and it is one to be avoided. Especially when you increase time scales to limitless periods with no set end-period. The Geth are one race, but they have already come into conflict with organics, on several occasions. Peace with them does not preclude the possibility of further war and conflict in the future. The Organics destroying them is only indicative of the fact that the Geth were not yet sophisticated or capable enough of defeating organics. That does not nix the Catalysts argument, only shows that the organics were able to stomp out the synthetics before they became too advanced and powerful to handle. Given enough time, this may not be the same in the future. You're trying to argue that rolling a die every time and having a 50/50 odd is better than not rolling any die at all and eliminating a need to gamble altogether, no matter which solution you choose.
The Catalyst is right, and, yes, it does mean the end of organic civilizations. Permanently. The synthetics need only win once. The Reapers at least allow new societies to grow and prosper before resetting the board. Another synthetic race would wipe the board once, and then burn it. This is contrary to the Catalyst's agenda. It wishes to prevent permanent chaos, not to enable total survival for everyone and everything. Synthetics coming on top once is all it takes for the board to be destroyed. So no, the end result is not identical. The Reapers are preventing the permanent destruction of all organic civilization by destroying the civilizations that rise in a specific time period.
As for the data they collect, the purpose is not to share the information on each civilization, the purpose is to preserve it and ensure that it survives. Now, you can argue that this is in functional perpetuity, but that would still belie the fact that such information would not be lost period. As well, the existence of both Synthesis and Control completely contradicts your theory, where the Reapers do in fact share their knowledge once their agenda and goal has been fulfilled.
Anyone drawing the Reapers attention is destroyed. Yes. Why? Because they pose a significant risk of creating synthetic intelligence that could (and given time and resources, would) eliminate organic civilization in permanence. So there is indeed a logical reason for what the Reapers do. They're better than the alternative.
I have no idea where or why you're drawing nihilism into this conversation at all. I can only conclude that you're not using it correctly, to which I quote the memorable Mandy Patinikin in 'The Princess Bride': "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
And I'll have to ask how Synthesis is a terrible alternative solution. I don't see how that viewpoint makes sense? How is all life being 'compromised'? How is that a bad thing? On what basis are you judging the status quo to be superior to the possibility of transcendence, connection, immortality, and evolution, on progress? Keep in mind the consequences of the naturalistic fallacy here: to say that it would wreck your argument would be a fallacy fallacy, but to not state its effect on your psychology would undermine my goal of showing you how alienating your premise and principles are.
Sorry, the Catalyst and the Reapers are not on some "higher scale" rationally or intellectually, and you have said nothing which proves this. They are simply far more advanced technologically. The Reapers in particular have never deomnstrated any degree of wisdom, insight, or enlightenment. You can fault the writing on that. They are cartoon villains, crude antagonists and nothing more. I have seen far, FAR better villains in various mediums of fiction where the villain actually was insightful, enlightened, even wise, aware of their own flaws, and understanding of the opposing position...they simply just saw things differently. But the Reapers are nothing more than the equivalent of a nation claiming moral, rational, or intellectual superiority simply because they have the most atom bombs
They are indeed on a higher scale of rationality and intellect. They operate on sheer data gathering and core logical processing, unclouded and unfettered from emotion and feeling. As synthetic intelligence, or machines with the ability to think, they are able to be intellectually superior to our own neurological and chemical based biology, being infinitely faster and capable of crunching numbers and physics on much higher scales than we can. They are able to input data and variables into any equation and calculate conclusions and solutions at rates much faster and more powerful than our own.
The very fact that they are much more advanced technologically proves this in fact. You have to be of a higher rationality and intellect to advance. To advance greater, faster, and higher, you need to have greater intellect and rationality.
Otherwise, this statement is false. It comes more down to an opinion on your end of incredulity that the Reapers might have such position, given your predilection for demonizing them.
To call them cartoon villains is disingenuous to their position in the story, and to bring up alternative examples is a non sequiter to this discussion. What other villains have or do not have over the Reapers is not the topic of discussion here. It's an analysis of the Reapers and their nature, not a comparison and contrast with others franchises. On a note however, you are false. The Reapers can be seen as villains who simply have a different perspective. It's alien, it follows a blue and orange moral system unlike our own, and it has its own purpose that does make sense when willing to be vicarious enough to view it from its own position.
Retour en haut
