296 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabooooom]

A bit of both, actually. I believe that we can create devices with the appearance of sapience, maybe a superficial sense of adaptability. As for truly being able to feel, or create, or think independently, I'm doubtful. I see Artificial Intelligence as it generally appears in fiction as fantasy creature, and I accept them in the context of each story.

I'm aware, as I say this, that I sound a lot like a beta villain in a robot movie. The one who through close minded skepticism and inaction causes half the problems. But if I learn anything I don't know, something that seriously supports the current existence of self aware artificial intelligence, I'll rethink my position.

Like I said, I'm a comparative neurologist (I study the nervous system and consciousness of animals), so my opinion is different than yours. I see no magic life-force that makes information processing in a biological brain fundamentally different than information processing in a synthetic one, and thus I see no fundamental barrier to creating sentience OR sapience "synthetically".

However, I do see a technical barrier to doing so. The brain of a fruit fly is more complex than anything that can be simulated today. And for decades, artificial intelligence researchers were going about it completely wrong by ignoring how brains actually work. I've seen a couple recent publications from people who are probably more on the right track, but creating an artificial intelligence by 2050 like many people believe is probably a pipe dream.

Thanks for the reply though, this topic and people's view of it is fascinating to me as I suspect that it may become a major hot topic in the next generation and maybe, just maybe, within my lifetime.

[Statichands]

How would you guys feel about playing as a synthetic? 

[Il Divo]

not really. Making the final choice doesn't require the scientific method. You're the only one subscribing to it. You say the Geth are collateral and that their death is necessary in order to get rid of a greater evil in the Reapers.

 

 

Making the final choice? No, it doesn't require the scientific method. Shepard can throw himself into the Synthesis soup without a care in the world. Making your/the Catalyst's argument effectively? Yeah, that is kinda important. 

 

There belies the irrelevance of the how and why. You view the Reapers as evil (subjective), you view it as necessary to destroy and that the Geth are an acceptable sacrifice (again, subjective)

 

 

This is a perfect demonstration of the confusion. 

 

Catalyst Claim: Organics and synthetics cannot coexist. 

 

This means there are no set of operable conditions under which the above can happen. This is an absolute statement and allows no room for moderation. Which means it requires a lot of evidence. 

 

This is exactly why, in science, we test the most basic theories under innumerable sets of conditions (as money allows) to effectively determine that the consequence will always occur so we can confirm claims that are far weaker than what the Catalyst is asserting. 

 

Hence the insanity of arguing that "Destroy" proves the Catalyst right. You cannot prove an absolutist assertion using a single, extremely unconventional, particular. The same way you can't point to accidentally blowing up a civilian with a grenade as proof that coexistence is impossible. We can actually test that in theory: remove the need for a grenade and see what happens. 

[Mcfly616]

Snip

 unfortunately your hypothetical grenade was a necessity to eliminate the Reapers. You didn't have to use it, but you did. It wasn't an accident that it killed the Geth. You knew it would.

 

Again, it asserts organics and synthetics don't coexist. Regardless of why you choose destroy, by choosing it you're only lending credence to its claim. You're choosing against coexistence. Pretty black and white. When it says we can't coexist, and you go ahead and choose the one choice that absolutely precludes coexistence....doesn't help your argument.

 

You don't want to believe the Catalyst (that's fine, a lot people feel the same way). But if you understood that I'm entertaining the idea that it may be right about all that it asserts, then you'd realize we're never going to agree on the subject. 

[Il Divo]

 unfortunately your hypothetical grenade was a necessity to eliminate the Reapers. You didn't have to use it, but you did. 

 

 

Once more, we can conduct this experiment. Change one variable, see what happens. 

 

In this case, what was the variable? Synthetics had to die, in a scenario where no matter what the protagonist does involves war crimes as a consequence. That can't by itself prove that Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist.  

 

Again, it asserts organics and synthetics don't coexist. Regardless of why you choose destroy, by choosing it you're only lending credence to its claim. You're choosing against coexistence.

 

 

This is exactly what I'm referring to. A single particular cannot be used to prove a universal statement. 

 

Could the Catalyst's statement be true? It's possible, sure. Is destroying the geth a particular example? Sure. But again, that by itself means nothing, much like the civilian and the grenade. I'll reiterate the question: does accidentally targeting a civilian to remove a greater threat (something very common in Mass Effect), mean that you and the civilian could not coexist under any circumstance? Because that is the consequence of accepting the Catalyst's logic based on destroy. 

 

You don't want to believe the Catalyst (that's fine, a lot people feel the same way). But if you understood that I'm entertaining the idea that it may be right about all that it asserts, then you'd realize we're never going to agree on the subject. 

 

 

The goal isn't to foster agreement regarding the Catalyst's overall claim. I think he's crazy, but that's beyond the scope of what I'm pointing out. And I actually don't mind people buying into the Catalyst's overarching logic.

 

The assertion I disputed was that Destroy proves the Catalyst correct, which doesn't work. 

We can't prove the Catalyst's claim (a universal statement) from a single particular (the Destroy ending). More evidence is ultimately required. 

[Mcfly616]

Snip

so, your beef is with the word "prove/proven". Seems a bit nitpicky, but okay. Fair enough. I'll just reiterate the fact that choosing Destroy doesn't help in disproving the Catalyst. While it proves nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt, it absolutely lends credence to its assertions. 

 

It is yet another instance where we cannot/will not coexist. This time due to the player choosing not to.

 

 

 

Could the Catalyst be wrong? Sure. Maybe. But there seems to be a lot more evidence on its side, than there is against it. Imo.

 

 

You say: "We can't prove the Catalyst's claim (a universal statement) from a single particular (the Destroy ending). More evidence is ultimately required. "

 

It has had a billion years to gather evidence for its assertions (us not being around for it, hardly negates that fact). The destroy choice is just another notch in the belt. Another instance that adds to its stack of evidence.

[wass12]

 yes, it does. You're knowingly choosing against coexistence. It's the only choice that doesn't allow for it, and you're choosing it. Regardless of why you're doing it, you know exactly what it'll do, and you do it anyway.  Human nature.

 

This is important. Your other options achieve the same goal without casualties. Killing a civilian with that grenade is not acceptable when your other options were a rifle and a taser.

[Quarian Master Race]

Except that's not what Destroy reinforces. Destroy indicates that the only way to remove the Reapers is to inadvertently remove synthetics. 

 

There's a reason why Destroy is considered the most optimistic of the endings in terms of the organic-synthetic conflict; it's a rejection of all values the Catalyst supports. The Geth are destroyed; the opportunity for organic-synthetic cooperation without outside interference is now possible because the Reapers can't interfere any longer, if/when more synthetics are built. 

 

Hypothetical scenario: Say I throw a grenade and hit a civilian in addition to my main target. That doesn't mean that I couldn't have coexisted with the person I accidentally blew to bits; that would be insane. Their death was a byproduct, in an extremely unusual circumstance, not the main result. I'm gonna be charitable here and say that when the Catalyst talks about how organics/synthetics can't go exist, he's not referring to the accidental crossfire from hurling grenades.    

What game were you playing, exactly? Destroy the most optimistic? The Catalyst directly states that "soon your children will create synthetics, and the chaos will come back". If not for the Crucible and it's magic, "toasters are all broken, meatbags win" function I'd say that Destroy is basically organic suicide, because the only way the latter can avoid extinction is by continuing to build Crucibles and exterminate the synthetics whenever the become uncontrollable. They don't even have the Reapers attempting to find a "solution" to the problem anymore.

Moreover, it isn't a rejection of anything the Catalyst says. Why do you think it intentionally (no, not collaterally) targets only highly advanced synthetic AI technologies? We know that the Crucible is capable of targeting only the Reapers (as in Control) or every living organism and technology in the galaxy (as in Synthesis and arguably low EMS destroy, which scorches toasters and meatbags alike). If the Catalyst wished to provide you with the option of rejecting its logic via Destroy, there would be no need to destroy anything but the Reapers. But it doesn't. It gives you the choice of accepting that coexistence as equals is impossible and destroying the synthetics. The only way you can "reject" its logic is by refusing to use the Crucible entirely, thus losing the game.

Your analogy is flawed. A grenade indiscriminately targets everything within its blast radius with shrapnel. The Crucible in (High EMS) destroy only targets synthetics, even though it has a displayed, explicit capability at targeting anything and everything, or simply targeting the Reapers. The purpose of destroy IS to eliminate the synthetics, not just the Reapers, but all of them.

There is no possible opportunity for sustainable organic-synthetic cooperation. A billion years and over 20,000 galactic level experiments worth of empirical evidence all leading to the same result is against your uninformed, grossly optimistic speculation.

This doesn't paint the picture of teeth-clenched teamwork to me. The current vector of geth-quarian relationship points towards "they will get along just fine" - at least, not worse than most organic species.

What? How does holding the quarians over the fire and forcing them to unconditionally accept domination by synthetics equate to "getting along just fine"? Sounds pretty teeth clenching to me, at least for one side of the equation. Han'Gerrel doesn't stop trying to eliminate the geth because he has a change of heart, realizes the error of his ways and goes to give Legion a big hug. He realizes that he is defeated upon being informed of the geth's reacquisition of Reaper upgrades, and is being given a choice between submission or extinction. Much like Saren before him, or the geth earlier in the war when faced with the Faustian bargain of submission to Reaper control for "survival" or destruction by the quarians, he chooses the former.

 

If anything, such a situation is going to create huge levels of resentment and increase the chances for conflict as soon as the quarians (or any other organic, since geth dominance of the galaxy will not be limited to just them) develops new technology and thinks themselves capable of victory again. And no, those feely scenes with Tali and Legion do not represent majority consensus on either side. Those two have a unique history that no one else in the two factions has the experience of, and even they aren't exactly very trusting (Tali has comparatively little issue destroying Legion and apparently couldn't give two shіts about any other geth judging by comments, and Legion will genocide Tali's species in its pursuit of code upgrades without even considering other options).

Admiral Raan states that the quarian and geth forces are kept completely segregated to avoid the huge likelihood of violent incidents. If both the geth and quarians survive the war (which can only happen with the Control ending, and no the altered....things in the green ending are no longer geth and quarians) their slides show them completely segregated (with quarians still in their suits despite Tali's lofty prediction that within a few years they wouldn't be needed with geth "help") suggesting that the nascent "cooperation" was short lived, with only the threat of Galactic Dick-tater Shepard VI keeping the "peace". In the initial script, Admiral Xen was supposed to even go rouge after Rannoch and start reprogramming geth to self destruct, causing a huge diplomatic mess and further driving this point of continued unrest home. The files are even still on the disc, and some have accessed them and gotten the cutscenes describing this event in youtube videos.

 

The only reason they work together at all is because the quarians are rendered incapable of destroying or controlling the geth once the latter acquires Reaper technology, and the geth (logical machines that they are) would rather have quarian assistance against a more dangerous enemy in the short term. Greater causes are all good and well, until those causes cease to exist and everyone remembers the original conflict. Remember when the United States and the Soviet Union became best friends forever after helping each other defeat the Nazis? No one does. Natural enemies are still enemies, and the cycle that has happened thousands of times over billions of years will repeat itself without the fundamental changes brought about by the endings. Nothing about the geth forcibly subjugating the quarians suggests the cessation of conflict, or does anything to refute the Catalyst's logic. That's a patently silly interpretation of the events presented.

[Il Divo]

so, your beef is with the word "prove/proven". Seems a bit nitpicky, but okay. Fair enough. I'll just reiterate the fact that choosing Destroy doesn't help in disproving the Catalyst. While it proves nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt, it absolutely lends credence to its assertions. 

 

It is yet another instance where we cannot/will not coexist. This time due to the player choosing not to.

 

 

 

Could the Catalyst be wrong? Sure. Maybe. But there seems to be a lot more evidence on its side, than there is against it. Imo.

 

 

You say: "We can't prove the Catalyst's claim (a universal statement) from a single particular (the Destroy ending). More evidence is ultimately required. "

 

It has had a billion years to gather evidence for its assertions (us not being around for it, hardly negates that fact). The destroy choice is just another notch in the belt. Another instance that adds to its stack of evidence.

 

This I agree with. 

 

Edit: Though I should point out that us not being around can be considered a relevant factor. If we don't know how the Catalyst came to its decision-making, that's a more than reasonable criteria to doubt it. Arguments from authority can be dangerous even when not coming from murderous/genocidal AI. Hell, looking at the entire basis for Control gives me pause as to the the Catalyst's reasoning. I've asked this before but why is Control plausible as an option now relative to when the Catalyst first initiated the cyles? His drone army was enough to remove the Leviathans at the height of their power, after all. 

[Quarian Master Race]

I like my toaster. I use it every morning for breakfast. hahaha

And when the stupid flimsy little plunger breaks off from the tray, and it refuses to perform as you direct it, what is the logical thing to do?

Fix it, or dispose of it. Synthetics are no different.

[Il Divo]

This is important. Your other options achieve the same goal without casualties. Killing a civilian with that grenade is not acceptable when your other options were a rifle and a taser.

 

But not necessarily when the rifle/taser can cause other, equally devastating collateral damage. 

 

When you're placed in a moral situation between genocide as a side effect to kill your enemy, establishment of a (potentially eternal) police state, or forcing biological alterations across every being in existence, you're in something of a "pick your poison type deal" or "pick your grenade" to keep the analogy going. It's not exactly accurate to extrapolate a principle like "organics and synthetics can never get along" from that scenario. 

 

That's why I say that Destroy provides very little support for the Catalyst's claims, given how improbable its circumstances are. More important I think is how someone chooses to evaluate his  (claim of) evidence and whether they're willing to accept his authority on the matter. Leviathan (and Javik) helps in this regard, since they're a less controversial source of information, but like anything, it's always better to have the evidence laid out more clearly. 

[AtreiyaN7]

And when the stupid flimsy little plunger breaks off from the tray, and it refuses to perform as you direct it, what is the logical thing to do?

Fix it, or dispose of it. Synthetics are no different.

 

And I suppose you'd do that with humans who end up "broken" then? What about those who suffer from paraplegia or quadriplegia? What about amputees who lose one or more limbs? What about those who suffer a stroke and subsequent aphasia? What about those who suffer from dementia as the result of their biology essentially going haywire to destroy their own brains? What about those who suffer massive brain trauma?

 

If a being is sentient, then the origins of that sentience shouldn't matter. If they have a silicon-based neural network or what-have-you but show the same (or superior) levels of intelligence and the ability to think and to feel and to express free will that we do, then they probably deserve the same level of respect that you would show to another human being (assuming that they're not hostile). They're not just broken toasters to be disposed of, regardless of their origins.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the human brain is nothing more than a bunch of interconnected neurons that process information - a biologically-based computer with the equivalent of many tiny chips and different layers/hierarchical systems that give rise to sentience. Though it's certainly a very complex computer, our biological origins don't make us more special or better than any other hypothetically sentient being. We're just the very lucky end product of hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection (or millions of years if you actually want to count the first mammals, etc.).

[Quarian Master Race]

And I suppose you'd do that with humans who end up "broken" then? What about those who suffer from paraplegia or quadriplegia? What about amputees who lose one or more limbs? What about those who suffer a stroke and subsequent aphasia? What about those who suffer from dementia as the result of their biology essentially going haywire to destroy their own brains? What about those who suffer massive brain trauma?

If a being is sentient, then the origins of that sentience shouldn't matter. If they have a silicon-based neural network or what-have-you but show the same (or superior) levels of intelligence and the ability to think and to feel and to express free will that we do, then they probably deserve the same level of respect that you would show to another human being (assuming that they're not hostile). They're not just broken toasters to be disposed of, regardless of their origins.

As far as I'm concerned, the human brain is nothing more than a bunch of interconnected neurons that process information - a biologically-based computer with the equivalent of many tiny chips and different layers/hierarchical systems that give rise to sentience. Though it's certainly a very complex computer, our biological origins don't make us more special or better than any other hypothetically sentient being. We're just the very lucky end product of hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection (or millions of years if you actually want to count the first mammals, etc.).

Butthurt Synthetic Justice Warrior detected.

You're a bit behind on the thread. I've already refuted throughly the absurd, antiscientific concept of toaster sentience. Your analogy is uselessly flawed. Of course the moral calculus is different for a Human who can suffer and a toaster which by definition cannot.

As far as the scientific community (both real and the MEverse one) is concerned, you're wrong. Sentience is much more complex than a simple and quite anti-intellectualism based false equivalence comparing the brain to a mechanial computer. Please, attempt to remove your prefrontal cortex and put it back as you could remove and reinstall your CPU, or delete and reinstall your Windows. I look forward to seeing the result (though given the low capacity for critical thinking displayed in your post, it is likely the effect on your level of intelligence will be comparatively minor).

[The Real Pearl #2]

How would you guys feel about playing as a synthetic? 

well ive been playing as a geth in the mp,I love it. It's already been confirmed that we are playing as a human but it would be nice to speculate though...

[The Real Pearl #2]

Butthurt Synthetic Justice Warrior detected.

Why is this a thing now? Great now we are developing demeaning lingo towards people with differing perspectives on the treatment of  fictional synthetics. We can imagine AI but we don't fully understand how to create it. I agree computers are incomparable to the network of neurons in our knoggins. That's why we can't look at AI's as computers, they are beyond just a simple laptop. But then again i don't want to argue with you. You seem like a nice person without the intimidating walls of text. 

[KaiserShep]

  And that's why we're never going to come to an agreement on the subject.

 

I suppose not. I consider what the Catalyst says to be horseshit, but then that's how I feel about the writers' premise of the whole inevitable conflict thing, so I'm basically not buying what the devs are trying to sell as a rule in the narrative. 

 

 

 

I'm gonna bet on the side of the billion years of observation, not on some wishful thinking of the possibility that change could occur (even though it never has)

 

But it did, or at least can, by Rannoch's conclusion. Any peace between warring factions is always going to start off as fragile. There's no getting around that. The point is that it can occur. Will it last? That's anyone's guess. This may not really matter to some, but I always factor in that Shepard has to die to keep them around at all. In his/her place, I wouldn't sacrifice my own life to keep them around. But then I wouldn't sacrifice myself to save the batarians or quarians or krogan or whichever other species either. 

[wass12]

Well, look who ignored my uncomfortable comment just like I predicted!
 

What? How does holding the quarians over the fire and forcing them to unconditionally accept domination by synthetics equate to "getting along just fine"? Sounds pretty teeth clenching to me, at least for one side of the equation. Han'Gerrel doesn't stop trying to eliminate the geth because he has a change of heart, realizes the error of his ways and goes to give Legion a big hug. He realizes that he is defeated upon being informed of the geth's reacquisition of Reaper upgrades, and is being given a choice between submission or extinction. Much like Saren before him, or the geth earlier in the war when faced with the Faustian bargain of submission to Reaper control for "survival" or destruction by the quarians, he chooses the former.

 
Domination? What domination? The geth and the quarians cooperate with each other. The geth are doing what they were originally designed: helping the quarians - but out of their own will, not because they are forced to do so. And those who have geth installed into their suits? They are volunteers. Calling this domination is like speaking about the Council's subjugation of human while you are playing the first human Spectre.
 
Also, Gerrel is still dedicated to his suicide attack upon hearing the geth's return to full force. 
 

Negative! We can win this war now! Keep firing!

 
It is the authority of Admiral Tali'Zorah and Zaal'Koris and Shepard's words are what actually convince him.
 

The geth are about to return to full strength. If you keep attacking, they'll wipe you out.
Your entire history is you trying to kill the geth. You forced them to rebel. You forced them to ally with the Reapers.
The geth don't want to fight you. If you can believe that just for one minute, this war will be over.
You have a choice. Please. Keelah se'lai.

-------------------------------------------------------------

(Tali has comparatively little issue destroying Legion and apparently couldn't give two shіts about any other geth judging by comments, and Legion will genocide Tali's species in its pursuit of code upgrades without even considering other options).

 
According to Legion themselves (itself? himself?), they considered other options and found none.
 

Admiral Raan states that the quarian and geth forces are kept completely segregated to avoid the huge likelihood of violent incidents. If both the geth and quarians survive the war (which can only happen with the Control ending, and no the altered....things in the green ending are no longer geth and quarians) their slides show them completely segregated (with quarians still in their suits despite Tali's lofty prediction that within a few years they wouldn't be needed with geth "help") suggesting that the nascent "cooperation" was short lived, with only the threat of Galactic Dick-tater Shepard VI keeping the "peace". In the initial script, Admiral Xen was supposed to even go rouge after Rannoch and start reprogramming geth to self destruct, causing a huge diplomatic mess and further driving this point of continued unrest home. The files are even still on the disc, and some have accessed them and gotten the cutscenes describing this event in youtube videos.

 
Some degree or separation between organic species is common. Colonization is rarely a joint-species effort, and even the Citadel has its asari, turian, salarian, etc. wards. Why would it be different between organics and synthetics? And if there are a smaller number quarian and geth living in the other's cities, you can hardly account for demographic distribution of minorities in a single picture. And they are living in separate cities, not the bombed-out remains of said cities. This shows that coexistence is possible, even if won't necessarily result in a utopia.
 
Xen's actions only prove my point in the earlier post: it's not that no organics can cooperate with synthetics, but that those few that refuse to do so try and destroy both synthetics and those organics who do.
 

The only reason they work together at all is because the quarians are rendered incapable of destroying or controlling the geth once the latter acquires Reaper technology, and the geth (logical machines that they are) would rather have quarian assistance against a more dangerous enemy in the short term. Greater causes are all good and well, until those causes cease to exist and everyone remembers the original conflict. Remember when the United States and the Soviet Union became best friends forever after helping each other defeat the Nazis? No one does. Natural enemies are still enemies, and the cycle that has happened thousands of times over billions of years will repeat itself without the fundamental changes brought about by the endings. Nothing about the geth forcibly subjugating the quarians suggests the cessation of conflict, or does anything to refute the Catalyst's logic. That's a patently silly interpretation of the events presented.

 
But that conflict doesn't ended with a nuclear exchange. It ended when Gorbachev, leader of the SU, introduced such American (well, with a big asterisk) ideas such as free market, democratic elections and freedom of expression. It was the reaching of a (partial) consensus that resolved (partially) this conflict of ideas that you consider only solvable by violence.
 
Yes, it wasn't a smooth process. Washing a mud-caked wound out with disinfectant is painful. But it's better than lopping off the limb it's on.

[wass12]

But not necessarily when the rifle/taser can cause other, equally devastating collateral damage. 

 

When you're placed in a moral situation between genocide as a side effect to kill your enemy, establishment of a (potentially eternal) police state, or forcing biological alterations across every being in existence, you're in something of a "pick your poison type deal" or "pick your grenade" to keep the analogy going. It's not exactly accurate to extrapolate a principle like "organics and synthetics can never get along" from that scenario. 

 

That's why I say that Destroy provides very little support for the Catalyst's claims, given how improbable its circumstances are. More important I think is how someone chooses to evaluate his  (claim of) evidence and whether they're willing to accept his authority on the matter. Leviathan (and Javik) helps in this regard, since they're a less controversial source of information, but like anything, it's always better to have the evidence laid out more clearly. 

 

Well, it comes how much "value" you place on the individual endings. I see Synthesis as largely beneficial, with only the no-questions-asked delivery problematic, Control as a huge all-or-nothing gamble on Shepard's own incorruptibility, and Destroy as the option that at best, gets you even, and at worst, results in all life wiped out in the Galaxy. Different values could justify the geth's destruction - and you and I obviously have different values.

 

I my earlier, edited post, I talked about how game theory makes the Catalyst's claims more probable. You have a point: its case doesn't need Destroy to be proven - but Destroy certainly doesn't disprove it either.

[Synthetic Turian]

How would you guys feel about playing as a synthetic? 

 

If he is anything like the Alliance Infiltration Unit in Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, I think I would probably enjoy it little too much.

[wass12]

If he is anything like the Alliance Infiltration Unit in Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, I think I would probably enjoy it little too much.

 

Heyoo!

[Seraphim24]

A bit of both, actually. I believe that we can create devices with the appearance of sapience, maybe a superficial sense of adaptability. As for truly being able to feel, or create, or think independently, I'm doubtful. I see Artificial Intelligence as it generally appears in fiction as fantasy creature, and I accept them in the context of each story. 

 

I'm aware, as I say this, that I sound a lot like a beta villain in a robot movie. The one who through close minded skepticism and inaction causes half the problems. But if I learn anything I don't know, something that seriously supports the current existence of self aware artificial intelligence, I'll rethink my position. 

 

On the contrary, skepticism and inaction are what solve half the problems. The plague of beta-ism is activity not inactivity.

 

As for this discussion generally..

 

Reapers are sentient, the inorganic/organic boundary is a pretty arbitary distinction in many ways.

[Ahglock]

This is important. Your other options achieve the same goal without casualties. Killing a civilian with that grenade is not acceptable when your other options were a rifle and a taser.

Funnily I see destroy as the option with the least casualties. 0 actually since toasters can't die. But even if you see them as alive it's still the smallest casualty end.

Control. Infinite power in one person. Yeah that ends well.

Synthesis you killed everyone and turned them into drones.

Destroy. You destroy toasters and everyone lives.

Take a few years build a catalyst that is less destructive to the relays and bug spray the galaxy once in a while.

[wass12]

Funnily I see destroy as the option with the least casualties. 0 actually since toasters can't die. But even if you see them as alive it's still the smallest casualty end.

Control. Infinite power in one person. Yeah that ends well.

Synthesis you killed everyone and turned them into drones.

Destroy. You destroy toasters and everyone lives.

Take a few years build a catalyst that is less destructive to the relays and bug spray the galaxy once in a while.

 

Shepard is supposed to be a representation of the player, morality-wise. If s/he was consistently paragon in the games, it Control could work. As I said, it's a terrible gamble.

 

I think your interpretation of Synthesis is absurd.

[Il Divo]

Well, it comes how much "value" you place on the individual endings. I see Synthesis as largely beneficial, with only the no-questions-asked delivery problematic, Control as a huge all-or-nothing gamble on Shepard's own incorruptibility, and Destroy as the option that at best, gets you even, and at worst, results in all life wiped out in the Galaxy. Different values could justify the geth's destruction - and you and I obviously have different values.

 

I my earlier, edited post, I talked about how game theory makes the Catalyst's claims more probable. You have a point: its case doesn't need Destroy to be proven - but Destroy certainly doesn't disprove it either.

 

I could definitely see Synthesis as beneficial (despite my posts, I'm actually not a Destroy advocate). ME3's ending doesn't go into this too much, but it still presents gives us that same dichotomy of whether or not it's acceptable to perform genetic engineering on that scale without anyone's input, similar to say Deus Ex Human Revolution's dichotomy, where Sarif forced far greater augmentations on Adam than he ever needed. In effect, as someone who does prefer Control/Synthesis for my own reasons, I still think of them as extremely deterministic in terms of not giving the galaxy (as a whole) a choice in how to approach the situation ahead. In the immediate future, Destroy's consequences do suck, but don't necessarily involve making decisions that will impact the galaxy for the next thousand years or even longer. 

 

Regarding the latter bit (sorry for missing your edited post earlier), that's essentially what I meant in regard to Destroy. If the Catalyst has a legitimate point, it's not really because of Destroy in itself, which represents an extremely unusual/specialized set of circumstances, but rather it's because of all the other examples we (believe we) have of synthetic-organic conflict. 

[Ahglock]

Shepard is supposed to be a representation of the player, morality-wise. If s/he was consistently paragon in the games, it Control could work. As I said, it's a terrible gamble.

I think your interpretation of Synthesis is absurd.

I find more optimistic takes on synthesis as absurd.

Are the krogan killing everyone. Do reapers stop reaping even though that's how they reproduce. Well eff me looks like you took what made them them flushed it down the toilet and turned them into like minded drones. So yup they are dead every one of them as what made them them is gone and replaced. Only edi speaks as the lack of life is easy to hide when it's a toaster that got changed.