3592 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

 

Herein already lies the problem for me. This reason is already theoretical, imaginary even. The reapers have no proof of this future which they declare inevitable (they cannot have the proof because organics still exist). Therefore, I have to reject the premise before even considering whether or not the cost is justified.

For this reason alone, the justification for the horrible things I have to commit during any ending choice is in my opinion standing on very shaky ground.

This has nothing to do with the fact the reapers believe in their premise but it has everything to do with the question whether or not I believe in it.

And in addition, the very being that came up with this solution is now telling you what the "new solutions" are.  Shepard is not finding another way, but is being told what to do (from a narrow selection) by the very being responsible for the pointless deaths (assuming you believe the Reapers are wrong)  of untold trillions

 

"Congratulations!  By being talented at not-dying, you are now rewarded by putting another one of my plans into motion!"

[gothpunkboy89]

Atomic weaponry is not sentient. A warhead does not decide to fire itself. Humans have to do that. This is not a valid comparison.

 

Actually quite valid comparison. Both were created to address a conflict and solve it. Both are stated to help continue conflict though their very existence.  It is a very valid comparison.

[Iakus]

Who told you they are saving humanity,huh?They are saving organic life.To them organic life is the same wheter it's turians humans,batarians etc.

 

They are killing organic life, which they claim to be "helping to ascend"

 

And organics are not all the same.  Every individual is unique.  Even EDI or Legion can see that, calling the Catalyst's sapience even further into question.

[Dantriges]

The player is not supposed to agree with the Catalyst's cycle solution, though things become murky when we talk about whether the player is supposed to agree that organic/synthetic conflict is inevitable.

 

Seems the player is supposed to agree, you aren´t allowed to question that line of reasoning.You have to swallow it all, bait, hook and line.

There is no "are you sure", "WTF", or "what´s the last time you did an system integrity check? Ever checked your billion year old ram."

[Iakus]

Actually quite valid comparison. Both were created to address a conflict and solve it. Both are stated to help continue conflict though their very existence.  It is a very valid comparison.

And one is (supposedly) intelligent and the other is not.

[gothpunkboy89]

And one is (supposedly) intelligent and the other is not

And yet both of them are tools to be used in both cases.

 

Reapers are tools of the AI to solve the conflict between organic and synthetic. Who's continual existence is claimed by people on this forum to continue on the conflict.

 

Atomic weaponry are tools created by humans to solve the conflict between Ally and Axis powers. Who's continue existence is claimed by people of the world to continue on the conflict by them simply existing and doing just what they were created to do.

 

There is more connection then you and others want to admit to.

[MrFob]

@gothpunkboy89:

You are honestly comparing the workings of the universe to a calculator? I am not going into that.

 

My point is, the reapers cannot know the future any more than us, they can only make projections, simulations, etc. but in the end, no matter how good they are at it, they will not be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy (which is already evidenced in the game by Sovereign's failure and the endings themselves but is also something we once argued on a more general level).

 

Now, I get that the catalyst was created because the Leviathans saw a pattern. But this doesn't change the ultimate facts. The catalyst is either an AI, in which case it should be able to make decisions just as freely as organics and therefore it chose to continue the cycles. It chose to maintain this cycle of fear from a possible future. I have no fear of the future. Development, even if it will eventully lead to our doom is preferable to stagnation (especially in this cycle that ends in the most horrible death). Therefore, I reject the AI's premise and I despise the catalyst on the account that it willingly and deliberately kept up a cycle of genocide for a billion years.

 

Now, an alternative is that the catalyst is just a VI (your atomic weaponry scenario), that has no free will and acts according to variables, which were set at some point. In this case, I have to choose to commit one of three different atrocities just to appease what is essentially a broken calculator (and here the metaphor actually fits). In this case, your atomic weaponry analogy might fit but then the ending would be a cruel joke.

 

In any case, Shepard never even tries to find out. That question I quoted is the only time where Shep actually questions the catalysts premise. I would have liked to see more of it because it would have eventually allowed us to find out whether we deal with a broken VI or a malevolent AI and we could have tried to deal with the situation accordingly. As it is however, we can only adhere to this unknown entity and that to me is unsatisfying and frustrating.

 

@leidra:

My problem is not the plausibility of this specific scenario. My problem is that the reapers impose stagnation in order to prevent it. They are not addressing their projected problem with measures aimed specifically at the problem, they basically prevent development in it's entirety because they are afraid of it. This is because they see it as inevitable. In order to proclaim something as inevitable, you'd need proof (not evidence, which - as you correctly say - just measures probabilities). This of course is a paradox, The catalyst doesn't make a scientific statement of cause and effect, he states his belief as an inevitable truth. it is a logical flaw in the catalyst's reasoning and it would be there even without the rest of the story (geth-quarian peace, etc.). That's my problem right now. Mind you, if the catalyst were to talk about possibilities instead, then I'd expect Shepard to argue that even if the possibility for failure is high, the cycles are not an answer to something that may or may not happen. S/he might not succeed to persuade the catalyst but at least s/he should be able to argue.

 

By the way, I liked the idea behind the dark energy ending in part because in this case, the reapers could have made a scientific statement. If their reason would have been "we have been monitoring/measuring the decay of the galaxy due to dark energy for the past billion years and it's steadily progressing. During this time, we have been trying to find a solution by experimenting with organic civilizations for reason XYZ." I would have been fine with that. Because in that case, their treatment of of organics would have been a way to specifically address a clear and present problem/danger. (This is why I went with it in my fanfiction of the ending.) But here, they call clean slate on the belief that a problem will eventually occur.

 

Also, there are two more unrelated points in this argument:

First: If synthetics can wipe out all organics, then it may also be that organics can wipe out all organics (we faced this very threat of extinction in our own limited universe on earth during the cold war for example). So unless all conflict is put to rest forever, how do the three solutions even help?

- Destroy wouldn't help at all

- Control might help but will abolish freedom

- Synthesis can only help if we alter the minds of the entire galaxy to prevent aggression, which would be as abominable as harvesting them into a reaper

 

Second: Even if synthetics wipe out all organic life, well, I'd have to ask so what? How is this worse than the cycles? If synthesis can be seen as an evolutionary step that changes us completely, so couldn't the shift from organic to synthetic life be seen as something similar? What is the value of preserving organic life in a stagnant state, especially if the catalyst is an AI, not a VI?

[Vanilka]

Wasn't keeping watch Sovereign's job? I don't think that there's anything that rules out 50 000 years just being a typical cycle length rather than a ticking clock.

 

If my memory doesn't fail me, most we were presented with in ME1 were uncertain theories, Sovereign's speech and a few small things here and there. According to Vigil, Protheans thought that Sovereign was indeed left behind to lurk and monitor the situation. I'd be inclined to believe that. I have a feeling, though, that the "every 50,000 years" thing's started being taken really seriously since ME2...

 

[Iakus]

 

"Now the Council is forced to respond to evidence that the Reapers-enormous machines that eradicate all organic civilizations every 50,000 years- have returned"

 

 

[Monica21]

Actually quite valid comparison. Both were created to address a conflict and solve it. Both are stated to help continue conflict though their very existence.  It is a very valid comparison.

Sure. Because now I remember that one time that nuke in Utah gained consciousness, launched itself, and wiped out Moscow.

[Monica21]

There is more connection then you and others want to admit to.

It's "whose." And there's no connection because there is no connection. Not just because you have diverse people with diverse backgrounds all disagreeing with you.

[Ieldra]

My problem is not the plausibility of this specific scenario. My problem is that the reapers impose stagnation in order to prevent it. They are not addressing their projected problem with measures aimed specifically at the problem, they basically prevent development in it's entirety because they are afraid of it. This is because they see it as inevitable. In order to proclaim something as inevitable, you'd need proof (not evidence, which - as you correctly say - just measures probabilities). This of course is a paradox, The catalyst doesn't make a scientific statement of cause and effect, he states his belief as an inevitable truth. it is a logical flaw in the catalyst's reasoning and it would be there even without the rest of the story (geth-quarian peace, etc.). That's my problem right now. Mind you, if the catalyst were to talk about possibilities instead, then I'd expect Shepard to argue that even if the possibility for failure is high, the cycles are not an answer to something that may or may not happen. S/he might not succeed to persuade the catalyst but at least s/he should be able to argue.

I don't see that term "inevitable" as hard as you do. It's shorthand for "99.9999999999% likely according to my simulations", because few people understand how these things work. So I don't have a problem with it. I agree, though, that Shepard should be able to question this at least once.
 

Also, there are two more unrelated points in this argument:
First: If synthetics can wipe out all organics, then it may also be that organics can wipe out all organics (we faced this very thread of extinciotn in our own limited universe on earth during the cold war for example. So unless all conflict is put to rest forever, how do the three solutions even help?

We didn't face that scenario. Life would have survived, only humans might not have. Organic extinction on a galactic scale is astronomically unlikely, and anything less wouldn't concern the Catalyst.
 

Second: Even if synthetics wipe out all organic life, well, I'd have to ask so what? How is this worse than the cycles? If synthesis can be seen as an evolutionary step that changes us completely, so could the shift from organic to synthetic life be seen such. What is the value of preserving organic life in a stagnant state?

That's a value judgment that can go either way.

[Dantriges]

All this talk about AIs and nukes reminds me of this:http://www.schlockme....com/2003-07-21

[MrFob]

I don't see that term "inevitable" as hard as you do. It's shorthand for "99.9999999999% likely according to my simulations", because few people understand how these things work. So I don't have a problem with it. I agree, though, that Shepard should be able to question this at least once.

Yes, especially because even if you assume that he was talking about probability, he does not even present evidence for that, he just states it.

We didn't face that scenario. Life would have survived, only humans might not have. Organic extinction on a galactic scale is astronomically unlikely, and anything less wouldn't concern the Catalyst.

I actually agree, this would have concerned only sapient life, not all organic life but if we assume that the catalyst, being an AI is interested in more than just bacteria and plants, then this is a relevant question in the terms of what then would have to follow for AIs.
 
Because I also agree that eradicating all life in the galaxy is an enormous task. And maintaining that state forever is even more enormous and would require an insane amount of maintenance to sterilize all those garden worlds where some of those pesky protein chains might form. I can't even think of a plausible reason why any intelligence (organic or synthetic) might do this. Yet, the catalyst arrived at the conclusion that this extremely unlikely event will inevitably happen and be the maintained for all eternity after that. Honestly, that doesn't seem like a ridiculous argument to you?
Maybe this is what they meant when they said they are beyond our comprehension, they dreamed up a scenario that is just so implausible that I can't wrap my head around it.

 

There is btw one way organics could wipe out all organic life in the galaxy: They could use the crucible and the relay network to convert it all into an orgnic-synthetic hybrid life. Now of course, that depends on how narrow your definition of organic life is.

That actually makes me wonder what happens to newly evolving organic life in the galaxy after the synthesis ending. If it forms from scratch at some point it will not be synthesized but purely organic. Will we make sure it is eradicated right away because it poses a danger?
 

That's a value judgment that can go either way.

It is one that I would have liked my Shepard to ask the catalyst.

[Vanilka]

 

I also love how it says, "The search for answers is just beginning..." Yeah, I wish.

[gothpunkboy89]

@MrFob

 

In the simplest sense yes I am comparing a calculator to the galaxy. Because that is what happens. Different species come in different forms but follow the same paths over and over again that continues to come to the same conclusion. This statement is supported by Vendetta mentions the Protheans found the same patters of development and conflict have happened again and again. Difference in each cycle but fundamentally the same.

 

Actually in this case it can predict things with 100% accuracy. The AI isn't predicting that the next species will be 4 foot tall, vomit colored and speak in nothing but farts. Lines on which society will develop is predictable. How they will advance in technology is predictable. What will happen once technology reaches a certain point is predictable.  Never does it claim they all follow the exact same path. Only that they follow the same pattern.

 

The AI was created to solve the problem that kept happening with it's thralls. To that point the AI on it's own studied the problem and found the repeating pattern. Created the Reapers because all other methods to solve the problem failed. Thus the Reapers were created to protect organic life.

 

Claiming development even if it leads to the death of trillions of life is an easy thing to make the claim now. Because you would never have to live to see the after effects. 

 

Fallout's universe does a fairly good job of showing the end result of that kind of mentality. Pre War they were more obsessed with can I make this then should I make this. Pushing on without regards for if this is a good move or not lead to conflict with what was it again? China wasn't it over resources to keep their society going. The end results was world wide nuclear holocaust that killed billions instantly and killed billions more slowly. Now every day of living is a struggle. A good day for them is simply being able to wake up in the morning and be able to go to bed at night alive.

 

So that idea that development even if it leads to our doom is better then stagnation is stupid.

 

If we apply this logic to use in the present continuing development regardless of possible consequences the only thing we on this planet will be able to do is poison it to the point it can't support life anymore. Go tell the people of Flint Michigan that their complaints about the water they are drinking is pointless. Because advancement even if it causes problems like polluting the hell out of the water supply. Or how about small 3rd world nations that our technology is shipped off to when we junk it. Were they burn and melt parts with no safety precautions because it would be to expensive. Exposing adults, teens and children to toxic chemicals so we can get a new I phone every year.

 

That is a statement born out of the knowledge they will never have to face the music for their actions. Do you know why everyone isn't running full steam a head with nano machine development? Even though it has great potential to do good. The grey goo apocalypse is why. They advance slowly with it because of the same great potential for disaster. And in the end I do think society and scientists would prefer stagnation to advancing without thinking or care for the consequences and creates and releasing something that could kill everyone.

 

The AI's statement and brushing it off fits with it's theme. It isn't interested in the individual it is interested in keeping organics as a whole a live and continuing from now till the heat death of the universe. The Allies sent millions to their death to stop the advancement of Axis powers in WW2. They didn't care about the individual solider. All countries part of the Allies forcibly conscripted soldiers from their home lands and forced them to fight even if they didn't want to. Facing harsh punishment if they tried to avoid it. By forcing these people to fight they were taking away their futures.

 

AI doesn't care about the individual. The individual is irrelevant when dealing with the big picture Organic survival continuing on until the heat death of the universe.

[Iakus]

 

Fallout's universe does a fairly good job of showing the end result of that kind of mentality. Pre War they were more obsessed with can I make this then should I make this. Pushing on without regards for if this is a good move or not lead to conflict with what was it again? China wasn't it over resources to keep their society going. The end results was world wide nuclear holocaust that killed billions instantly and killed billions more slowly. Now every day of living is a struggle. A good day for them is simply being able to wake up in the morning and be able to go to bed at night alive.

 

I wouldn't call Fallout the most thought-out universe ever made (fun though it is to run around in)

 

I mean the Great War was fought over dwindling resources in a world where fusion power was so common and so advanced that cars were running on it!  

[Dantriges]

Ah Vendetta, the VI that wasn´t there when the cycles happened. that´s of course totally different from that other VI whose statements you dismiissed.

Anyways this whole little scene was about the thing that someone orchestrated events to play pretty much the same in a cyclical fashion.

Using that as proof is a good old scientific tradition some scientists exercise: "When results don´t match my theory, make them match, grab research money for it."

[MrFob]

@MrFob
 
In the simplest sense yes I am comparing a calculator to the galaxy. Because that is what happens. Different species come in different forms but follow the same paths over and over again that continues to come to the same conclusion. This statement is supported by Vendetta mentions the Protheans found the same patters of development and conflict have happened again and again. Difference in each cycle but fundamentally the same.
 
Actually in this case it can predict things with 100% accuracy. The AI isn't predicting that the next species will be 4 foot tall, vomit colored and speak in nothing but farts. Lines on which society will develop is predictable. How they will advance in technology is predictable. What will happen once technology reaches a certain point is predictable.  Never does it claim they all follow the exact same path. Only that they follow the same pattern.

I didn't know that Asimov's psychohistory actually existed in the real world. Please tell me more.
 

The AI was created to solve the problem that kept happening with it's thralls. To that point the AI on it's own studied the problem and found the repeating pattern. Created the Reapers because all other methods to solve the problem failed. Thus the Reapers were created to protect organic life.

Even if the AI saw this pattern with everyone of their thrall races, that is evidence, not proof (as leidra wrote). Besides, their theory already failed in the only case where development wasn't stopped arbitrarily, i.e. the Leviathans. They are the only ones who managed to create an AI that wasn't wiped out by the reapers and that AI didn't kill all orgnaic life in the galaxy. The catalyst is its own best counterexample.
 

Claiming development even if it leads to the death of trillions of life is an easy thing to make the claim now. Because you would never have to live to see the after effects.

As opposed to horribly killing trillions every 50.000 years because you are afraid of it?
 

Fallout's universe does a fairly good job of showing the end result of that kind of mentality. Pre War they were more obsessed with can I make this then should I make this. Pushing on without regards for if this is a good move or not lead to conflict with what was it again? China wasn't it over resources to keep their society going. The end results was world wide nuclear holocaust that killed billions instantly and killed billions more slowly. Now every day of living is a struggle. A good day for them is simply being able to wake up in the morning and be able to go to bed at night alive.

No, Fallout is fictional. Our own reality shows what comes out of this mentality.
 

So that idea that development even if it leads to our doom is better then stagnation is stupid.
 
If we apply this logic to use in the present continuing development regardless of possible consequences the only thing we on this planet will be able to do is poison it to the point it can't support life anymore. Go tell the people of Flint Michigan that their complaints about the water they are drinking is pointless. Because advancement even if it causes problems like polluting the hell out of the water supply. Or how about small 3rd world nations that our technology is shipped off to when we junk it. Were they burn and melt parts with no safety precautions because it would be to expensive. Exposing adults, teens and children to toxic chemicals so we can get a new I phone every year.
 
That is a statement born out of the knowledge they will never have to face the music for their actions. Do you know why everyone isn't running full steam a head with nano machine development? Even though it has great potential to do good. The grey goo apocalypse is why. They advance slowly with it because of the same great potential for disaster. And in the end I do think society and scientists would prefer stagnation to advancing without thinking or care for the consequences and creates and releasing something that could kill everyone.

What you propose might be the end of suffering but it would also be the end of what life is all about. If no one can change anything, grow or make a difference beyond their own self, what is the point of our brief existence?

 

Also, I never said that progress, technology and new inventions cannot cause problems if applied irresponsibly and none of what you go for here is an extinction level event. What I am saying is that stagnation is not the answer to the dangers inherent in development. Just because we run into trouble doesn't mean that giving up is a solution (without an external enforcer like the reapers it isn't even an option).
Ultimately we create technology to solve problems. As another poster in another thread very aptly put it, tool building is our evolutionary niche. You may not like it but this kind of development is part of our species' evolution. If you see life in the context of information theory, than it has to change. If there is non, it is questionable if it can even be see as life at all.
It is painful and in many cases it lead to suffering but the same could be said for the theory of maintaining the status quo. Can you claim that you can calculate the number of people that suffered due to progress against the number of people that would have suffered if we didn't have it?

 

There is a difference between attacking specific problems of certain developments and just resigning to stagnation.

 

All your examples above are not about inventions, about progress, it is about specific problems with application, not discovery or development. (By the way, I am working in the field of neurobiology and what you say about that is simply not the case.).

 

I am also surprised you didn't go with climate change.
 

 

The AI's statement and brushing it off fits with it's theme. It isn't interested in the individual it is interested in keeping organics as a whole a live and continuing from now till the heat death of the universe. The Allies sent millions to their death to stop the advancement of Axis powers in WW2. They didn't care about the individual solider. All countries part of the Allies forcibly conscripted soldiers from their home lands and forced them to fight even if they didn't want to. Facing harsh punishment if they tried to avoid it. By forcing these people to fight they were taking away their futures.
 
AI doesn't care about the individual. The individual is irrelevant when dealing with the big picture Organic survival continuing on until the heat death of the universe.

Please read my last post as well as the linked thread from before. The small picture justification of the catalyst is atrocious in terms of cost-benefit and the really big picture doesn't work as it would have to include an infinitely long time span. If the catalyst is just interested to preserve organic life until the heat death of the universe (if that theory holds for him), then I'd have to ask, why bother?

[gothpunkboy89]

Ah Vendetta, the VI that wasn´t there when the cycles happened. that´s of course totally different from that other VI whose statements you dismiissed.

Anyways this whole little scene was about the thing that someone orchestrated events to play pretty much the same in a cyclical fashion.

Using that as proof is a good old scientific tradition some scientists exercise: "When results don´t match my theory, make them match, grab research money for it."

 

 

Vendetta repeats what the AI states. That life follows the same patterns over and over again. Not only do you have from a Reaper perspective but you have from an outside perspective as well

[Dantriges]

So and how does that outside source got that info? That was your problem with Vigil.

Anyways.

Liara: We thought that the Reapers were responsible for the pattern.

Vendeatta: Perhaps but I believe the Reapers are only servants of the pattern. They are not its master.

 

Vendetta wasn´t talking about what you think he´s talking about. He confirms the Catalyst´s/Reapers meddling, not that the Catalyst is right.

[Iakus]

Vendetta repeats what the AI states. That life follows the same patterns over and over again. Not only do you have from a Reaper perspective but you have from an outside perspective as well

Yes.  It follows the same pattern.

 

The pattern the Reapers make.  The Reapers (and the Catalyst), and the cycles of destruction are the pattern!

 

"We bring order to the chaos of organic life"

[gothpunkboy89]

I didn't know that Asimov's psychohistory actually existed in the real world. Please tell me more.
 

Even if the AI saw this pattern with everyone of their thrall races, that is evidence, not proof (as leidra wrote). Besides, their theory already failed in the only case where development wasn't stopped arbitrarily, i.e. the Leviathans. They are the only ones who managed to create an AI that wasn't wiped out by the reapers and that AI didn't kill all orgnaic life in the galaxy. The catalyst is its own best counterexample.
 

As opposed to horribly killing trillions every 50.000 years because you are afraid of it?
 

No, Fallout is fictional. Our own reality shows what comes out of this mentality.
 

I never said that progress, technology and new inventions cannot cause problems if applied irresponsibly and none of what you go for here is an extinction level event. What I am saying is that stagnation is not the answer to the dangers inherent in development. Just because we run into trouble doesn't mean that giving up is a solution (without an external enforcer like the reapers it isn't even an option).
Ultimately we create technology to solve problems. As another poster in another thread very aptly put it, tool building is our evolutionary niche. You may not like it but this kind of development is part of our species' evolution. If you see life in the context of information theory, than it has to change. If there is non, it is questionable if it can even be see as life at all.
It is painful and in many cases it lead to suffering but the same could be said for the theory of maintaining the status quo. Can you claim that you can calculate the number of people that suffered due to progress against the number of people that would have suffered if we didn't have it?

 

There is a difference between attacking specific problems of certain developments and just resigning to stagnation.
 
All your examples above are not about inventions, about progress, it is about specific problems with application, not discovery or development. (By the way, I am working in the field of neurobiology and what you say about that is simply not the case.).

 

I am also surprised you didn't go with climate change.
 

Please read my last post as well as the linked thread from before. The small picture justification of the catalyst is atrocious in terms of cost-benefit and the really big picture doesn't work as it would have to include an infinitely long time span. If the catalyst is just interested to preserve organic life until the heat death of the universe (if that theory holds for him), then I'd have to ask, why bother?

 

When your an advance life form you already know what will happen technology wise. When it is created can vary depending on a lot of factors but the fact it will exist is already known. There are only so many paths in technology. Once you have walked them already you know what will and will not happen. Chemical reactions stay the same. Physics stay the same. Quantum mechanics stay the same regardless of what planet you are on.

 

And your solution to conflict between organic and synthetic life that has resulted in entire species being removed from existence is? They already tried group counseling.  Trillions die by the Reaper or trillions die in a war against synthetics. The difference is one at least serves a purpose of sorts while perserving all their information. The other is just wanton slaughter.

 

When we create tools that are capable of thinking for themselves. We create tools capable of hurting us. That is the culmination of what AI's are. They are synthetic creations that are capable of independent thought. Their minds would work faster then ours. Their reaction times only limited by any physical hardware they are currently using. Which can always be upgraded.  Because it has it's own mind we can not predict what will happen. We can not assume that every AI will be the same. We have no idea if one AI would be able to convince another that maybe listening to a bunch of slow idiots is a good thing.

 

But the point is they have the ability to hurt us by their own choice unlike any other tool or creation we make. Players like to use the Geth as examples why the claim is bogus. The fact is the Geth don't for fill the criteria the AI states to cause conflict. The Geth are not true AI's at all. They are at best a single AI fragmented into thousands of pieces. And they due to their fragmented nature never advanced beyond organics.

 

Their ships and weapons look better then organics but only because they can ignore important things organics usually need. Remove need for food, sleeping quarters, toilets and life support systems and they can use that extra space and power for more armor or more weapons. They could make use of 90% of the space in the ship due to minimal need for physical bodies while organics would need to make use of 80% of the space inside the ship to fit their organic bodies. Everything about this isn't them being more technologically superior to us. It is simply them not having to deal with the same limitations organic bodies inherently have to deal with.

 

Climate change usually kicks start a whole other argument so I avoid it when I can. Flint water issue is one that was created when industry and citizens advanced without worry about the after effects on the planet. Dumping and polluting the water of the river till it isn't even vaguely drinkable anymore.

 

Why bother with what? Keeping organic life intact? Because that was the purpose of it's creation. Created initially to be the catalyst of peace between organic and synthetic. When that was found to be impossible it created the Reaper solution. It keeps doing what it is doing because the Leviathans created an over riding priority to preserve organic life. It's version of heart beat. Something it can't stop or alter on it's own because it is build into it's programming. But even then the AI acknowledges that the Reaper solution is flawed. But it is the only working solution at the time. The second the variables alter enough the AI jumps on the chance to let Shep change what happens. Destroying all it has done and worked for, giving up control of the Reapers to a new intelligence to deal with the problem in another way. Or push for what it sees as the ultimate solution to the problem by breaking down all the barriers that can cause the conflict to start with.

[gothpunkboy89]

Yes.  It follows the same pattern.

 

The pattern the Reapers make.  The Reapers (and the Catalyst), and the cycles of destruction are the pattern!

 

"We bring order to the chaos of organic life"

 

At that point in time Protheans were already well aware of Reapers. They acknowledge the reapers are part of the cycle but that doesn't change how organic life continued to evolve in the same areas. Follow the same paths of development. Repeating the actions over and over again before the Reapers harvested each cycle.

 

 

Same conflicts done in different ways before the Reapers finally move in to harvest.

[Iakus]

At that point in time Protheans were already well aware of Reapers. They acknowledge the reapers are part of the cycle but that doesn't change how organic life continued to evolve in the same areas. Follow the same paths of development. Repeating the actions over and over again before the Reapers harvested each cycle.

 

 

Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire