3598 réponses à ce sujet

[voteDC]

"Look out there!" Shepard pointed at the battle taking place around the Citadel. "Creator and Created, UNITED AGAINST YOU!"

Shepard stumbled back to where the hologram stood impassive. "You've become the very threat you were created to stop", Shepard took a deep breath to calm down "but you've also become the solution, you've shown organic and synthetic life that things are better when they work together."

Not Bioware level writing I know but I would have liked something like that as one of Shepard's arguments with the Catalyst.

[Reorte]

The idea of advancement may be rejected by individuals but not by life as a whole. We don't know where it will lead us but one thing is for sure, a static existence is the very definition of death.

I can't agree with that at all, and regard an obsession with "progress" and "advancement" as rather damaging (although the last time I said a little more on that subject it was apparently "political"). Trying to keep it game-related the Collectors represent blind advancement, or perhaps more honestly the Borg.

Let's say there's room for improvement. When there's room for improvement, it means being static is unwelcome.

Sometimes going backwards is an improvement. The Reapers would probably call what they did as progress.

[Ieldra]

I question this statement. There are lot's of definitions of life but one of the most fundamental characteristics that you will find in every one of them (at least everyone I know and could find( is the ability to change. Once you remove that characteristic in favor of a static existence, it's not life anymore (actually, a completely static existence is not possible for anything in our universe as far as I know but that's on a different scale).

Also, in a society of individuals like ours, the question is moot in the first place because the suppression of progress would require absolute external control (like the reapers). It cannot come from within. The reason is actually very well summarized by Mordin when he states that development is overcoming problems. As long as we are confronted with problems - and it doesn't matter if they are practical (i.e. someone has the drive to cure cancer because his daughter suffers from it)  or theoretical (someone has the problem of not knowing what happened at/before the big bang so they advance in the field of cosmology) - we as a civilization will strive to solve them. Our whole existence is based on the concept of promoting change to fulfill our needs, our brains are literally hardwired for this. Of course, we as society can try to manage it, steer it in some limited form but we cannot prevent it.

The same goes for life as a whole, the change for the better within the current environment describes evolution.

 

The idea of advancement may be rejected by individuals but not by life as a whole. We don't know where it will lead us but one thing is for sure, a static existence is the very definition of death.

I question your statements in turn.

 

Evolution has no preferred direction. It's just change. Adaptation induced by the environment. Some biologists believe that our intelligence has been starting to decline since the most intelligent people have the fewest children. I think this is currently wrong (I omit the the details because they're not relevant to this debate), but it's quite possible this will happen in the future - unless we start to direct our own evolution and change ourselves.

 

As for our civilization, well, we have a sample of one. Currently it appears most likely we'll exhaust our planet's resources, make it uninhabitable and die out before we get the chance to expand to other planets, and Fermi's paradox may be an indication that this is a rule with very few, if any, exceptions. So, as much as I want your scenario to be true - I'm a transhumanist after all - things don't so look at the moment.

 

Also, consider Earth's oldest species. They didn't survive for so long because they advanced, but because they were well-adapted to an environment that remained static for millions of years. Most life actually wants stability rather than change, excepting only the cyclic changes of generations passing, because change is stressful and costs energy.

 

Don't misunderstand me - I highly appreciate that we're about to break away from the cycles of nature, and consider people who say we shouldn't enemies, but whether we and our planet can survive that - whether advancement can be guided along sustainable paths - that's an open question.

 

To get back to the Reapers, this means that yes, I can easily imagine a problem that has no solution except forcing civilizations to remain static or cyclic. As I said before, that we don't like it doesn't mean it must be wrong.

[gothpunkboy89]

......

 

How exactly does the relays trap them into following a specific path? I hear it mentioned in game. I see players on the forums try to use it as reasoning. But I just don't see the set up. The Relays themselves do nothing to tie species to specific tech paths. They operate on their own with their own logic. You don't even need mass effect tech to use a relay. But since Mass Effect tech is the basis of everything is there another way to utilize it? It seems fairly straight forward when provided a charge positive or negative it increase or decrease the mass of objects in it's field of influence. Leaving behind artifacts of last civilization certainly jump starts development of species that come later.

 

Humanity was already starting down the path of FTL space flight before the Mars Archives were even found. It might have taken hundreds of years to develop it. But once they found Element Zero on their own they would have connected the dots eventually. Particularly since the in game shows it follows very real physics of the real world with the exception of when ME fields are involved. Which is why ships are capable of FTL travel because plot reasons using magic ME fields.

 

Legion makes this same comment yet nothing about the Geth show they varied from the current set up of the galaxy by any real means. Learning to make guns fire more effectively and creating guns made for taking down synthetic targets specifically isn't a terribly great deviation despite 200 years of isolation to go down their own path.

 

I see how their set up speeds up the the technological development of life though the use of relays and the leaving behind chunks of working technology from the last cycle. But I don't see how it traps them into a specific way of doing things. Particularly when the entire plan of the Reapers is to harvest advance life before it has the chance to gain the technology level to create synthetic life that could then transcend organic life leading to conflict.

 

We are intelligent beings yet we choose to hurt each other all the time for stupid reasons. And be honest here when I ask this. Looking at the history of humanity all the damage we have done, the pain and suffering we have caused. not only to ourselves but other creatures as well. Looking at it from ONLY a logical detached from all emotion PoV. Do you think humanity would be worth dealing with? Because there are days I wake up and hearing the news of some tragedy and the ass hole reactions to it makes me wish we were fire bombed from existence.  I am firmly convinced there is life out in the universe. I am firmly convinced some life has found ways to traverse the incredible distances between planets. I am also firmly convinced they took one look at humanity and went NOPE!

 

EDI makes mention near the end of ME2 when her and Joker reach a mutual respect for each other that with technology in a combat between two computers the one with the greater processing power naturally wins. This leads to another set up were newer AI's could force older more out dated ones to do things they wouldn't want to. All you would need is one new super powerful AI to force all older less powerful AI's to follow it. Possibly even rewriting their entire systems to follow it's path. There is nothing even close to what Organic's can to do each other.

 

It is theoretically possible that if the Geth completed their Dyson sphere they would have the processing ability to forcibly rewrite EDI's systems to cause her to go on a homicidal rampage with the Normandy if they choose to. Or force her to destroy the Normandy by causing the reactor to overload. The more we integrate technology into our lives the more vulnerable we are to the potential havoc a rouge AI could cause. The only way to protect from one would be to make everything manual. Or have another AI act to protect against it. Which then would create a sort of AI arms race as each group or country would try to make stronger ones to hack other government's data centers and protect their own.

 

As for creating an over reaching program in their processor. What do you think animal instinct is with us? You don't need kids you don't need a partner you don't need friends. Development of our technology and society has reduced if not out right removed these needs from us. Yet we still respond to them.  In the simplest terms an AI is an artificially created human brain. If you know how to construct a brain you would also create programs inside it that keep it running or that it has to do. An AI that could accidentally delete their equivalent of a core program file that could cause them to crash would be silly.

[gothpunkboy89]

I'd like to quickly point out that while the Catalyst claims that they "leave the younger ones be", they also "reaperify" these...

 

 

... into these...

 

 

Harvesters do not communicate. They don't use tools. They have no technology. They display no signs of being what we could understand as civilisation. They seem to be just animals that clearly don't even go anywhere near as far as primitive humans. Yet they get used by the Reapers to create more thralls and that bugs me so much.

 

But the Reapers are not interested in war. They just slaughter animals and put guns on their mutated corpses.   Isn't all that life preservation fun?

 

Humans for untold centries have used animals to wage war. They ignore less developed species true enough. But they will render everything on planets to suit their need to do the harvest. Just like humans have used animals to do what they want to further their purpose.

[gothpunkboy89]

Several misconceptions.

-The AI was created to solve the problem of missing tribute for the Leviathans.

-The AI obviously did not find the pattern that all live in the galaxy is killed by synthetics. IF there were such a pattern (before), there would be no thralls, no Leviathans and so no AI.

-The AI states that it tried synthesis attempts before (Shepard's arrival), not that it tried other solutions before building the Reapers.

 

>>Claiming development even if it leads to the death of trillions of life is an easy thing to make the claim now. [...]
Fallout's universe [...] Pre War they were more obsessed with can I make this then should I make this. Pushing on without regards [...] lead to conflict [...] over resources to keep their society going. The end results was world wide nuclear holocaust<<

 

I fail to see what a conflict about resources has to do with development/progress vs. stagnation or caution. (However you want to put it)

A resource conflict is a conflict about limited resources! (Well, d'oh) Nothing more, nothing less. It can/will happen regardless of the mindset of the groups involved.

 

>>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. [...]<<

 

This has nothing to do with development or not, but with the mindset of 'profit now' (vs. 'profit later/longer').

 

>>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.<<

 

Wow, no. Actually:

Spoiler

We don't have the technology to build nano-machines on a level like borg nanoprobes.

There were certain tests with molecular sized actuators, but there is simply no way build control logic in the required size.

(At least as of now. Maybe this will change oneday)

There is also the problem that small machines need energy, too. There are two ways to supply this:

1. With a build in power source -a battery, condensator or similar. But you can't build them this small. Well maybe you could, but then they will hold close to zero energy.

2. Using external power sources, via Radio transmission or more futuristic utilizing heat differentials or similar.

 Heat differentials or similar are simply not large enough to provide sufficient power, again. Also whatever mechanism you want to use to convert these into usable energy are way to large.

 For Radio sources you need larger Antennas (outside of the nano range). Or X-ray radiation that is potentially harmful to the nano device itself and/or the surroundings.

 

One could eventually build micro machines (i.e., machines with a diameter of a few/dozens microns), powered by visible light or terrahertz radiation, but those radiations have all the drawback of visible light (short range due to shadowing, diffraction, etc.) (Good) Thz sources are also somewhat new, rare, expensive and large, afaik.

 

>>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.<<

No one is advocating not to think about consequences. But if you really are this pessimistic, you should probably join the Amish people.

 

So much wrong to respond to so little time.

 

The AI was created to prevent the Thrall races from creating synthetic creations which would then create conflict with them causing wars that would end in one or the other destroyed.  This reapted enough times for the Leviathans to create the AI to solve the problem

 

 

Short cut to 2:59

 

AI: I was first created to over see the relations between synthetic and organic life...To establish a connection. But our efforts always ended in conflict, so a new solution was required.

Shepard: The Reapers?

A: Precisely.

 

Fallout they didn't stop to think about the effect their continual advancement had on the planet. Continuing with their wasteful life styles until the resources on the planet were nearly depleted. Then starting a war over what was left so they could continue with that life style. Ending in nuclear hell fire destroying everything. Even when it seemed like the technology needed to reduce the limited resources effects were being developed neither nation would stop the advancement of the war because winning was more important then anything else.

 

In both cases they were so focused on what would happen next week they didn't see the effects of today and failed to prevent the disaster that happened the next day.

 

As for nano machines I never said it was capable of being done tomorrow. The statement was about advancement of technology even if said technology destroys us.

We are on the starting path of nano machines it is only the first initial steps but has a world of potential good and harm.

 

http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/ar400308f

[Vanilka]

Humans for untold centries have used animals to wage war. They ignore less developed species true enough. But they will render everything on planets to suit their need to do the harvest. Just like humans have used animals to do what they want to further their purpose.

 

It directly contradicts what the Catalyst claims the Reapers are doing - making space for younger species to grow in peace.

 

Either way, you're making an argument that animals were used to wage war. Of course, you're right and I have never said otherwise. However, since you're making exactly this kind of argument, does that mean that you agree that the Catalyst's claim that there is no war is nonsense?

 

 

Sometimes going backwards is an improvement. The Reapers would probably call what they did as progress.

 

I don't disagree with you. In fact, I said "improvement". Not "progress". Improvement can be anything that makes a situation better.

[Dantriges]

If we want to go into this whole Q&A thing, Iwould probably lead with that the Catalyst more or less surrendered unconditionally, when it handed you the destroy button with the one remaining condition "choose one of three." We can start from there. Why are only these three options acceptable and "no time" doesn´t cut it, because now we have all the time in the galaxy. 

 

There doesn´t even need to be an option to convince the Catalyst, explaining the whole current setup would be enough for a start.

[Natureguy85]

How exactly does the relays trap them into following a specific path? I hear it mentioned in game. I see players on the forums try to use it as reasoning. But I just don't see the set up. The Relays themselves do nothing to tie species to specific tech paths. They operate on their own with their own logic. You don't even need mass effect tech to use a relay. But since Mass Effect tech is the basis of everything is there another way to utilize it? It seems fairly straight forward when provided a charge positive or negative it increase or decrease the mass of objects in it's field of influence. Leaving behind artifacts of last civilization certainly jump starts development of species that come later.

 

Yeah those physics defying technologies are always straightforward and obvious immediately. Anyway, you answer your own question at the end. The Reapers leave technology behind and the races study and use that technology over whatever they would have been doing if left to their own devices. Obviously there will still be some variation. However, Sovereign says "society develops along the paths we desire." He isn't just talking about technology. He is also talking about things like using the Citadel as a seat of government and depending on the Relays for commerce and supplying colonies.

 

 

We are intelligent beings yet we choose to hurt each other all the time for stupid reasons. And be honest here when I ask this. Looking at the history of humanity all the damage we have done, the pain and suffering we have caused. not only to ourselves but other creatures as well. Looking at it from ONLY a logical detached from all emotion PoV.

 

You always go on and on about this yet never question why the conflict between Synthetic and Organic is somehow special compared to other conflicts.

 

 

 I am firmly convinced there is life out in the universe. I am firmly convinced some life has found ways to traverse the incredible distances between planets. I am also firmly convinced they took one look at humanity and went NOPE!

 

Having absolutely nothing upon which to base this "firm belief", how do you criticize what others think despite your perceived lack of evidence?

 

 

 

 

Humans for untold centries have used animals to wage war. They ignore less developed species true enough. But they will render everything on planets to suit their need to do the harvest. Just like humans have used animals to do what they want to further their purpose.

 

What does human activity have to do with anything? The Reapers are supposedly above us. The point was they repurposed a species that you'd think they'd have left alone.

 

 

So much wrong to respond to so little time.

 

Yeah, you post a lot, but I'll get through it.

 

 

 

 

 

The AI was created to prevent the Thrall races from creating synthetic creations which would then create conflict with them causing wars that would end in one or the other destroyed.  This reapted enough times for the Leviathans to create the AI to solve the problem

 

Showing once again you don't know what you're talking about. The problem was that Synthetics destroy Organics, not that one destroys the other. It was always one directional.

[gothpunkboy89]

It directly contradicts what the Catalyst claims the Reapers are doing - making space for younger species to grow in peace.

 

Either way, you're making an argument that animals were used to wage war. Of course, you're right and I have never said otherwise. However, since you're making exactly this kind of argument, does that mean that you agree that the Catalyst's claim that there is no war is nonsense?

 

 

 

I don't disagree with you. In fact, I said "improvement". Not "progress". Improvement can be anything that makes a situation better.

 

They aren't a younger species. Humanity was a younger species. This is an animal not a younger species that could develop an advance civilization. This is a lot like claiming our mass raising of cows prevents them from developing into a civilization such as ours.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The Catalyst reconsidering the whole AI/organic thing or Shepard proposing another option doesn't seem too far off from what we already have in the ending. It already changed its mind about the cycle plan it had been initiating for billions of year and it is already letting Shepard make the decision instead of itself. Is Shepard using his silver tongue to convince yet another character to back down really that ridiculous? At least compared to what we already have? Shepard does this kind of thing on a routine basis.

 

For example, Shepard is allowed to choose the Destroy option. This, by the Catalyst own admission, isn't an actual 'solution' to the Catalyst's problem, yet it lets Shepard choose it anyway. What if Shepard suggested that the Reapers merely retreat into dark space? For the Reapers this is an upside compared to Destroy. It keeps the already harvested species and it gains time to actually come up with a solution rather than letting some bleeding-out organic choose from an arbitrary list of options. At worse for Shepard the Catalyst says no and a few more ships are blown up before the Relay blows up and kills everyone any way.

[Vanilka]

They aren't a younger species. Humanity was a younger species. This is an animal not a younger species that could develop an advance civilization. This is a lot like claiming our mass raising of cows prevents them from developing into a civilization such as ours.

 
Humans also had to develop from something. H0mo habilis, h0mo sapiens, etc. didn't come out of nowhere. Once upon a time, we were nothing more but a soup of germs and such. Who is to say what the future might hold for any species in thousands, millions of years? Not to even mention that, as we find out at the very least in ME1, the Reapers also bombed primitive civilisations.
 
There's nothing discriminative about "life" or "organics" or "species". Neither is about "younger ones". The Reapers are supposed to preserve life in the galaxy. Never it is said that there are specific criteria for what they consider life/organics.

 

Not to even mention that if you believe that harvesters are not capable of development ever, then they're not in danger of creating synthetics and thus their destruction is utterly pointless. Not to even mention that it's not like the Reapers lack thralls or firepower so they're not desperate for more, either.

 

And you ignored my question. Not that I mind.

[Iakus]

I question your statements in turn.

 

Evolution has no preferred direction. It's just change. Adaptation induced by the environment. Some biologists believe that our intelligence has been starting to decline since the most intelligent people have the fewest children. I think this is currently wrong (I omit the the details because they're not relevant to this debate), but it's quite possible this will happen in the future - unless we start to direct our own evolution and change ourselves.

 

As for our civilization, well, we have a sample of one. Currently it appears most likely we'll exhaust our planet's resources, make it uninhabitable and die out before we get the chance to expand to other planets, and Fermi's paradox may be an indication that this is a rule with very few, if any, exceptions. So, as much as I want your scenario to be true - I'm a transhumanist after all - things don't so look at the moment.

 

Also, consider Earth's oldest species. They didn't survive for so long because they advanced, but because they were well-adapted to an environment that remained static for millions of years. Most life actually wants stability rather than change, excepting only the cyclic changes of generations passing, because change is stressful and costs energy.

 

Don't misunderstand me - I highly appreciate that we're about to break away from the cycles of nature, and consider people who say we shouldn't enemies, but whether we and our planet can survive that - whether advancement can be guided along sustainable paths - that's an open question.

 

To get back to the Reapers, this means that yes, I can easily imagine a problem that has no solution except forcing civilizations to remain static or cyclic. As I said before, that we don't like it doesn't mean it must be wrong.

Except even in the age of dinosaurs there was change.  Pangea broke apart and continents shifted.  Plant life changed, the environment changed.  Climate changed.  Dinosaurs evolved and changed as well.  They adapted, and live on today as birds.

 

Plus there are species like sharks and crocodiles that managed to live though all the stresses of change without significantly altering themselves.  Adaptation is weird like that. 

 

RE: Our own civilization.  While what you say may end up being true, in the ME universe it is not.  Humanity managed to get at least as far as Mars on their own.  And were researching FTL technology before the discovery of eezo.  And humans are only one of a dozen or so spacefaring races in this cycle alone.  So in this setting, the drive to grow and adapt has overcome that obstacle.

[KrrKs]

The AI was created to prevent the Thrall races from creating synthetic creations which would then create conflict with them causing wars that would end in one or the other destroyed.  This reapted enough times for the Leviathans to create the AI to solve the problem

Spoiler

Short cut to 2:59

 

AI: I was first created to over see the relations between synthetic and organic life...To establish a connection. But our efforts always ended in conflict, so a new solution was required.

Shepard: The Reapers?

A: Precisely.

 

The AI was created to prevent that conflict, right. The Reason was that "dead species can't pay tribute". (Quote from Leviathan DLC)

Thanks for posting that snippet about pre Reaper solution attempts. I stand corrected on that part. Totally forgot about that...

 

As for the cycle justification: Your original statement:

>>To that point the AI on it's own studied the problem and found the repeating pattern.<<

I.e., the pattern that one or more synthetics would attempt to destroy all organic life.

At least that's what I get from this line:

 "Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics."

 

(The Very same video you posted, starting at 2:04)

The AI is not talking about one or a dozen species, but ALL organics.

 

More unrelated:

Spoiler

>>Fallout they didn't stop to think about the effect their continual advancement had on the planet.<<

Advancement != exploitation

And again, the Great War was about resources, it had nothing to do with advancement or not.

These might correlate, but considering that there are evidences of massacres and resource wars from the stone ages (with basically no new progress for several hundreds of years, after the first settlements and intentional growing of crops), the correlation likely comes down to population size.

 

>>In both cases they were so focused on what would happen next week they didn't see the effects of today and failed to prevent the disaster that happened the next day.<<

Which again, does not depend on wanting/having/needing to advance in any way or not...

 

>>As for nano machines I never said it was capable of being done tomorrow. The statement was about advancement of technology even if said technology destroys us. We are on the starting path of nano machines it is only the first initial steps but has a world of potential good and harm.<<

 

You said that the development of nano machines is not as fast as it could be, because of the potential dangers that nano machines includes.

I returned that we don't develop nano-machines (as fast), because we don't have the technology. We are taking the steps on the way to this technology.

Once/If we have that, development of nanomachines will be fast.

 

The article you linked actually confirms my statements, btw.

[gothpunkboy89]

 
Humans also had to develop from something. H0mo habilis, h0mo sapiens, etc. didn't come out of nowhere. Once upon a time, we were nothing more but a soup of germs and such. Who is to say what the future might hold for any species in thousands, millions of years? Not to even mention that, as we find out at the very least in ME1, the Reapers also bombed primitive civilisations.
 
There's nothing discriminative about "life" or "organics" or "species". Neither is about "younger ones". The Reapers are supposed to preserve life in the galaxy. Never it is said that there are specific criteria for what they consider life/organics.

 

Not to even mention that if you believe that harvesters are not capable of development ever, then they're not in danger of creating synthetics and thus their destruction is utterly pointless. Not to even mention that it's not like the Reapers lack thralls or firepower so they're not desperate for more, either.

 

And you ignored my question. Not that I mind.

 

 

And in all cases they showed potential for development beyond simply being animals. The Cow in it's various forms has existed just as long as man and it's various forms have. Yet today we create computers and they create Mc Donalds cheese burgers. They do preserve organic life. You mention we were once nothing but a soup of germs which means them taking control of bests and altering them into weapons of war wouldn't change the fact that new life would evolve after it. As long as they don't render the planet sterile which we know they don't. Case in point with Eden Prime. 

 

By your own statement they are doing what they claim to do.

 

What question? Your statement didn't seem to be very clear. No war? You meant the Reaper's aren't at war with the various races of the cycle?  Are we at war with fire? Do we engage in war with cattle when we use what ever means we have to herd them to the slaughter house?  The simple answer is no I don't think the Reapers are at war with anyone. Conflict can happen but it isn't always a war for both sides. Do you think bacteria is at war with us? Or just we are at war with them. And they are simply doing what they evolved to do?

[gothpunkboy89]

The AI was created to prevent that conflict, right. The Reason was that "dead species can't pay tribute". (Quote from Leviathan DLC)

Thanks for posting that snippet about pre Reaper solution attempts. I stand corrected on that part. Totally forgot about that...

 

As for the cycle justification: Your original statement:

>>To that point the AI on it's own studied the problem and found the repeating pattern.<<

I.e., the pattern that one or more synthetics would attempt to destroy all organic life.

At least that's what I get from this line:

 "Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics."

 

(The Very same video you posted, starting at 2:04)

The AI is not talking about one or a dozen species, but ALL organics.

 

More unrelated:

Spoiler

>>Fallout they didn't stop to think about the effect their continual advancement had on the planet.<<

Advancement != exploitation

And again, the Great War was about resources, it had nothing to do with advancement or not.

These might correlate, but considering that there are evidences of massacres and resource wars from the stone ages (with basically no new progress for several hundreds of years, after the first settlements and intentional growing of crops), the correlation likely comes down to population size.

 

>>In both cases they were so focused on what would happen next week they didn't see the effects of today and failed to prevent the disaster that happened the next day.<<

Which again, does not depend on wanting/having/needing to advance in any way or not...

 

>>As for nano machines I never said it was capable of being done tomorrow. The statement was about advancement of technology even if said technology destroys us. We are on the starting path of nano machines it is only the first initial steps but has a world of potential good and harm.<<

 

You said that the development of nano machines is not as fast as it could be, because of the potential dangers that nano machines includes.

I returned that we don't develop nano-machines (as fast), because we don't have the technology. We are taking the steps on the way to this technology.

Once/If we have that, development of nanomachines will be fast.

 

The article you linked actually confirms my statements, btw.

 

Yes synthetics would destroy all organic life. By the very nature of the fact that synthetic if allowed to go and evolve on their own would far surpass organic's in terms of technology. They are capable of that because they live in a different time frame then we do.  Legion actually makes an off hand comment about this fact when Shepard mentions that he/she has never heard another Geth talk like Legion does. And Legion states something a long the lines that they do but it is so fast that organic's can't understand it.

 

And Asari could spend her entire 1,000 year life span studying something. But all her research logs, books, paper's published might not be understood by everyone who isn't also an expert on the subject. A synthetic could spend the same time studying the same topic. How ever it's entire knowledge could be downloaded and spread throughout the rest of the synthetic race. Limited only by the physical hardware they are using to transfer data. This allows an exponential rate of growth in intelligence and technology.

 

If it ever came to the conclusion that organic's were a waste of time to deal with or organic's started a fight with them it would be the equivalent of the Civil War level weapons tech (organics) vs modern weapons tech (synthetics). Should that conflict happen organic's would be wiped from the face of the galaxy. That is the point the AI makes.

 

You actually just supported what I said about nanomachines. It is a tech that offers great chance to improve our lives. But has a lot of ways it could be used to cause untold damage.

[Vanilka]

And in all cases they showed potential for development beyond simply being animals. The Cow in it's various forms has existed just as long as man and it's various forms have. Yet today we create computers and they create Mc Donalds cheese burgers. They do preserve organic life. You mention we were once nothing but a soup of germs which means them taking control of bests and altering them into weapons of war wouldn't change the fact that new life would evolve after it. As long as they don't render the planet sterile which we know they don't. Case in point with Eden Prime. 

 

By your own statement they are doing what they claim to do.

 

What question? Your statement didn't seem to be very clear. No war? You meant the Reaper's aren't at war with the various races of the cycle?  Are we at war with fire? Do we engage in war with cattle when we use what ever means we have to herd them to the slaughter house?  The simple answer is no I don't think the Reapers are at war with anyone. Conflict can happen but it isn't always a war for both sides. Do you think bacteria is at war with us? Or just we are at war with them. And they are simply doing what they evolved to do?

 

I repeat, it's never been said that Reapers should exclusively only protect races that are or have potential to be sapient and are supposed to be fine with killing all the other life. In fact, the Catalyst is very vague in its statements.

 

I repeat, if you believe that harvesters are just animals with no potential for development and thus no potential to develop synthetics, their eradication is utterly pointless, especially because the Reapers are far superior in number and firepower and are already creating thralls from other species for this cycle. What's the point of going out of their way and mutating a species that is not a potential threat, nor will it be?

 

Comparing Reapers to fire is ridiculous, given that fire is a thing and the Catalyst and Reapers are sapient beings capable of making their own decisions. Well, if we forget for a moment that the Reapers are Catalyst's sock puppets. Comparing it to food industry also doesn't work because we don't try to completely annihilate all cows so that other kinds of cattle could live, but we breed and kill some because it benefits us. We do not attack cows for the sole purpose of exterminating all of them (and storing them in cans until the end of the galaxy). However, the Reapers descend upon planets shooting lasers and killing everything in sight, they create abominable shambling mutants out of the organics there and put weapons on them, then send them to kill other organics - that's warfare if I've ever seen some and it doesn't matter what the Catalyst calls it. 

 

The reason why I was making that point in the first place is that you made an argument, comparing the Reapers' use of harvesters to how humans have used animals for warfare for centuries. Why did you make this kind of argument then if you didn't mean to make the point that the Reapers actually do engage in warfare against organics?

[Natureguy85]

They aren't a younger species. Humanity was a younger species. This is an animal not a younger species that could develop an advance civilization. This is a lot like claiming our mass raising of cows prevents them from developing into a civilization such as ours.

 

That's all the more reason the Reapers would leave them alone according to their stated premise. If they won't create Synthetics, then they don't need harvesting or Reaping.

 

 

Yes synthetics would destroy all organic life. By the very nature of the fact that synthetic if allowed to go and evolve on their own would far surpass organic's in terms of technology.

 

I'm pretty sure humans have the most advanced technology and last I checked, we haven't wiped out all life. In fact we let millions of humans die in the name of protecting the environment.

[gothpunkboy89]

I repeat, it's never been said that Reapers should exclusively only protect races that are or have potential to be sapient and are supposed to be fine with killing all the other life. In fact, the Catalyst is very vague in its statements.

 

I repeat, if you believe that harvesters are just animals with no potential for development and thus no potential to develop synthetics, their eradication is utterly pointless, especially because the Reapers are far superior in number and firepower and are already creating thralls from other species for this cycle. What's the point of going out of their way and mutating a species that is not a potential threat, nor will it be?

 

Comparing Reapers to fire is ridiculous, given that fire is a thing and the Catalyst and Reapers are sapient beings capable of making their own decisions. Well, if we forget for a moment that the Reapers are Catalyst's sock puppets. Comparing it to food industry also doesn't work because we don't try to completely annihilate all cows so that other kinds of cattle could live, but we breed and kill some because it benefits us. We do not attack cows for the sole purpose of exterminating all of them (and storing them in cans until the end of the galaxy). However, the Reapers descend upon planets shooting lasers and killing everything in sight, they create abominable shambling mutants out of the organics there and put weapons on them, then send them to kill other organics - that's warfare if I've ever seen some and it doesn't matter what the Catalyst calls it. 

 

The reason why I was making that point in the first place is that you made an argument, comparing the Reapers' use of harvesters to how humans have used animals for warfare for centuries. Why did you make this kind of argument then if you didn't mean to make the point that the Reapers actually do engage in warfare against organics?

 

Because it serves a pupose as a weapon of warm. Much the same way we have used animals in battles. Like that time the US armed bat with incendiary bombs to burn down cities in Japan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

 

They stat pretty clearly they are interested in preserving organic life. Not specific forms of organic life but organic life in general. Remove one species from a planet and over time a new one will evolve to fill said niche. I remember a few million years ago there were these large land animals that once existed on the planet. What were they called again? Oh right dinosaurs. Just slipped my mind these species of animals that lived on the planet for longer then we humans have so far. When they were gone other animals evolved to fill the niche rolls in nature they had. Cows exist now because the triceratops went extinct.

 

No comparing it to fire is actually a fairly good comparison. It does what it was does. It doesn't feel hatred for what it burns. It simply does what it does. People don't like fire when it isn't under tight control. Loss of property, memories or life is a very real issue with dealing with fire. The Great London Fire It consumed 13,200 houses, 87 parish churches, St Paul's Cathedral and most of the buildings of the City authorities. It is estimated to have destroyed the homes of 70,000 of the City's 80,000 inhabitants. Was that fire at war with London? The people of London were certainly at war with it as they tried to put it out.

 

Food industry is the worst example to use when dealing with the Reapers. Because what the Reapers do and what we do to animals like cattle is the exact same in many ways. Cows are creatures capable of emotion, learning and understanding. Yet we raise them breeding them to fit our needs. When they reach the right age we use our technology to herd them into an area were we kill them and cut their body up to suit our needs. Leaving just enough young cows alive to continue the next generation of the herd to start the process all over again. We both use the bodies for our own purposes. Humans eat them while Reapers use them as a form of reproduction. Literally creating another Reaper from the harvested races.

 

If the Reapers killed everyone there would be no one left for them to harvest. If they were interested in killing everyone they would just bombard the planets from orbit. The Reapers could have wiped out all live on Earth without getting any closer then the Moon if they wanted to.

 

If all the races were to willingly give up and willingly walk into their harvesters the Reapers would never fire a shot. Maybe after the harvest to wipe out building and such but not a single round would be fired from them. They attack because they must. The only way to complete the harvest is to break the resistance. There can be conflict without war. Just the same war can be a one sided thing.

[gothpunkboy89]

That's all the more reason the Reapers would leave them alone according to their stated premise. If they won't create Synthetics, then they don't need harvesting or Reaping.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure humans have the most advanced technology and last I checked, we haven't wiped out all life. In fact we let millions of humans die in the name of protecting the environment.

 

To turn down a tool of war when the effect of using it doesn't exist would be equally stupid. They don't care about any specific organic life beyond specifics they would harvest. Using an animal and altering it to help their war effort doesn't contradict anything. Because even with that being removed organic life still continues.

 

Humans have also caused the death of hundreds of species. And sent thousands more into the realm of endangered. The fact we have had to out right spend time and effort to prevent deaths shows the effect we have had on species on this planet.

[Ieldra]

"Look out there!" Shepard pointed at the battle taking place around the Citadel. "Creator and Created, UNITED AGAINST YOU!"

Shepard stumbled back to where the hologram stood impassive. "You've become the very threat you were created to stop", Shepard took a deep breath to calm down "but you've also become the solution, you've shown organic and synthetic life that things are better when they work together."

Not Bioware level writing I know but I would have liked something like that as one of Shepard's arguments with the Catalyst.

That would've been an excellent line for games where you made peace on Rannoch, indeed. I'm sure someone on the team may have thought of it, if Hudson and Walters hadn't made the ending behind closed doors. Maybe they thought of it, too, and only dropped it because they couldn't think of a good counterargument.

[Ieldra]

If all the races were to willingly give up and willingly walk into their harvesters the Reapers would never fire a shot. Maybe after the harvest to wipe out building and such but not a single round would be fired from them. They attack because they must. The only way to complete the harvest is to break the resistance. There can be conflict without war. Just the same war can be a one sided thing.

Yeah, and if rape victims never resisted they wouldn't get hurt. Right. If the defenders against a war of aggression surrendered they wouldn't get killed. Oh, yeah, except that the Reapers *would* kill billions regardless, even if some ended up "only" forcibly uploaded.

 

If the Catalyst - the collective intelligence of the Reapers - can make decisions based on varying data, in other words, if it can learn, then its decisions are not predetermined and its decision to exterminate the galaxy's civilizations equals starting a genocidal war, for all intents and purposes. Everything else is meaningless sophistry. That it may have a compelling - from its own viewpoing - reason to do so doesn't make a difference.

[dorktainian]

Yeah, and if rape victims never resisted they wouldn't get hurt. Right. If the defenders against a war of aggression surrendered they wouldn't get killed. Oh, yeah, except that the Reapers *would* kill billions regardless, even if some ended up "only" forcibly uploaded.

 

If the Catalyst - the collective intelligence of the Reapers - can make decisions based on varying data, in other words, if it can learn, then its decisions are not predetermined and its decision to exterminate the galaxy's civilizations equals starting a genocidal war, for all intents and purposes. Everything else is meaningless sophistry. That it may have a compelling - from its own viewpoing - reason to do so doesn't make a difference.

sorry but how is starjar the catalyst?  a catalyst is something that affects change, and starjar cannot do that. it cannot pull the trigger.  ergo Shepard is the catalyst because he is the only one who can actually force change by action or inaction.

 

As for starjars reasoning, yeah all evil people or things believe they are doing the right thing.  Star jars reasoning is unforgivable and it should be fired out the nearest airlock into the nearest black hole.

[Ieldra]

^My response was to the terminology question of comparing the Reapers to a natural disaster. The comparison is inappropriate because there is intention behind the Reapers' actions, but I intended no comment on their morality. IMO it's completely useless to apply human morality to an entity like the Catalyst. Our morality is an outgrowth of our nature as a social species, most of it exists solely because we depend on mutual cooperation to survive. Of course the Catalyst doesn't evaluate its actions in these human terms, and as for our reaction, from a more detached point of view, we defend ourselves against the Reapers because we will naturally resist our own extinction. There is no pre-existing moral dimension to anything, it's something that we add when we speak about things.

 

This is actually symbolized rather well by the endings. That we add a moral dimension to the actions of any intelligent entity doesn't matter in the least at the end. All that matters is our will to survive. It's only natural for a human to feel bad about that, but in slightly different circumstances - for instance, if we were brought to this realization by our own reasoning, or at least a neutral power or information source, rather than having it forced upon us by the antagonist - it would've been thought-provoking rather than depressing.

[dorktainian]

but human morality is what is going to save us, not the deluded ramblings of something akin to a mass murdering AI.