but human morality is what is going to save us, not the deluded ramblings of something akin to a mass murdering AI.
Our will to survive is saving us in ME3's scenario. As evidenced by people's frequent responses to the scenario, even to the point of Refusing for morality's sake regardless of the outcome, our morality is more of a hindrance here.
Our whole cycle worked on cooperation. Probably most species in the ME universe had a pretty similar morality in regard to their own species at least. Pretty unlikely that someone makes it into space without a vast coordinated effort.
It won´t save us here, because the little boy doesn´t care, but it´s rather interesting that the AI who was created to oversee the relations between organics and synthetics is unable to grasp the basics, perhaps because it´s grown in a master-thrall society, by the apex race who knows everything better ofc. Which raises the question, if the Catalyst hasn´t huge blindspots in regards to its own calculations, working with data from a completely different cycle, where morality, opinion and probably your whole culture was imposed and shaped by the tentacle overlord, unless he was too peoccupied orgying with your tribute.
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.
They don't need it though. They can make all kinds of implements of war if they need them. They have Reapers. Reapers are ships and far hardier than Harvesters. The Reapers had no need to morph those animals. It may have been out of convenience but it certainly was not out of necessity.
True but we've done a lot to mitigate that or go the other direction. We haven't wiped out all other life. Why must Synthetics be different?
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.
That's not an appropriate analogy. He didn't say they wouldn't be killed, he said the Reapers wouldn't shoot. Of course he forgot that they will still erase much of the other aspects of civilization so they probably would still shoot. That said, this guy says enough dumb things so you don't need to put more in his mouth.
No they would still hurt. Funny thing about female anatomy is that when they are not aroused they tend not to produce lubrication. This when dealing with skin on skin in the tight quarters can cause small tears in the lady parts which isn't very comfortable. But when is rape not rape? When both parties mutually agree to something. To that extend the lady parts produce lubrication and the problem from above is no more. When both parties agree it is not rape anymore.
But even using the rape example it isn't war. A rapist isn't declaring or enacting war against their target. It is conflict but it isn't war. Unless you count every single instance of two or more people getting into a fight as war.
Reapers have no aggression towards races being harvested. They don't even think they are worth the time to talk to. Is it war when you step on a cockroach? Is it war when you spread ant killer on your lawn? We kill them because they displease us. Because we don't like that they exist. Because they can cause problems. Is that no similar reason why Reapers harvest each cycle?
We kill animals and insects just because we think they will do something we don't like all the time. We don't declare it is war against them no matter how many ants or mosquito we kill. Yet the grand hubris throws a **** fit when a similar set up happens to them.
You have a very odd selection of what to go in depth on. That little anatomy/physiology lesson served no purpose. Then you just repeat and rephrase the Catalyst's "fire" argument. Unfortunately, it was worthless then and it's worthless now. The Reapers "feelings" on what the do are irrelevant because their actions are worth opposing. As to your examples, people don't claim to be doing those things to save cockroaches, ants, mosquitoes or any other life. Sovereign seemed to make that "organics are pests" argument, much like Smith's "Virus" speech in The Matrix. But the Catalyst and Harbinger certainly don't fit with that.
They don't need it though. They can make all kinds of implements of war if they need them. They have Reapers. Reapers are ships and far hardier than Harvesters. The Reapers had no need to morph those animals. It may have been out of convenience but it certainly was not out of necessity.
True but we've done a lot to mitigate that or go the other direction. We haven't wiped out all other life. Why must Synthetics be different?
Air transport. They used those beasts as air transports for troops as well as intimidation impact.
You have a very odd selection of what to go in depth on. That little anatomy/physiology lesson served no purpose. Then you just repeat and rephrase the Catalyst's "fire" argument. Unfortunately, it was worthless then and it's worthless now. The Reapers "feelings" on what the do are irrelevant because their actions are worth opposing. As to your examples, people don't claim to be doing those things to save cockroaches, ants, mosquitoes or any other life. Sovereign seemed to make that "organics are pests" argument, much like Smith's "Virus" speech in The Matrix. But the Catalyst and Harbinger certainly don't fit with that.
The fire one is fairly appropriate. It does what it does nothing more and nothing less. No we kill animals to serve the greater purpose that we feel should be done. We think we make the world a better looking place by killing ants that can brown or kill off yards. We think we make the world more sanitary by killing off nasty cockroaches.
We do what we think is best for the planet and to hell with what anyone who isn't us thinks about it.
Our whole cycle worked on cooperation. Probably most species in the ME universe had a pretty similar morality in regard to their own species at least. Pretty unlikely that someone makes it into space without a vast coordinated effort.
It won´t save us here, because the little boy doesn´t care, but it´s rather interesting that the AI who was created to oversee the relations between organics and synthetics is unable to grasp the basics, perhaps because it´s grown in a master-thrall society, by the apex race who knows everything better ofc. Which raises the question, if the Catalyst hasn´t huge blindspots in regards to its own calculations, working with data from a completely different cycle, where morality, opinion and probably your whole culture was imposed and shaped by the tentacle overlord, unless he was too peoccupied orgying with your tribute.
Indeed so. Does it matter though? Blind spots or not, the Catalyst has imposed the scenario and it's powerful enough to enforce our compliance. For the story it only matters if its scenario could be plausible - which it could IMO - and whether it was brought home to us in a manner liable to make us accept it - which it wasn't.
Indeed so. Does it matter though? Blind spots or not, the Catalyst has imposed the scenario and it's powerful enough to enforce our compliance. For the story it only matters if its scenario could be plausible - which it could IMO - and whether it was brought home to us in a manner liable to make us accept it - which it wasn't.
Except when you get down to it, it's not the Catalyst that's "forcing our compliance" it's Bioware.
Air transport. They used those beasts as air transports for troops as well as intimidation impact.
I repeat: Reapers are ships.
The fire one is fairly appropriate. It does what it does nothing more and nothing less. No we kill animals to serve the greater purpose that we feel should be done. We think we make the world a better looking place by killing ants that can brown or kill off yards. We think we make the world more sanitary by killing off nasty cockroaches.
We do what we think is best for the planet and to hell with what anyone who isn't us thinks about it.
We don't claim to be ascending the cockroaches, nor do we seek to eliminated all cockroaches or all ants, but rather only the ones in our small space where we don't want them. And there are other types of pests we just shoo away without killing.
Except when you get down to it, it's not the Catalyst that's "forcing our compliance" it's Bioware.
If you stay in-world, it's the Catalyst and there is neither protagonist nor antagonist in the scenario. That's why I say that most of the endings' problems only exist on the storytelling level. The problem is that the total lack of any reliable in-world info about your choices motivates you to leave the in-world perspective and look at the scenario as part of a story and presenting certain themes, and then, of course, the ME team becomes the target of your ire, or rather, Casey Hudson and Mac Walters specifically, for having written a story ending that feels as if the villain wins.
Indeed so. Does it matter though? Blind spots or not, the Catalyst has imposed the scenario and it's powerful enough to enforce our compliance. For the story it only matters if its scenario could be plausible - which it could IMO - and whether it was brought home to us in a manner liable to make us accept it - which it wasn't.
It´s just one of the things you should be able to ask. You can´t, but you can dismiss that claim internally and pick destroy, if you consider the collateral damage acceptable.
On the storytelling level it´s one more thing to complain about.
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.
Which means the Reapers wage war against the organics.
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.
"Oh, right, dinosaurs," that have nothing to do with what the Reapers are doing, as dinosaurs perished because of a natural catastrophe and not because somebody was afraid that they might one day develop synthetics and kill themselves. Two completely different problems that have nothing to do with each other.
I've already mentioned it about twice that they talk in general and that's why it makes no sense that the harvesters get destroyed and yet the yahg or primitive asari or primitive humans don't.
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,
Let me be very clear:
The Reapers:
- are alive
- have minds of their own
- can plan and decide on direction
- are led by an intelligence
- what they do they do on purpose and with purpose
Fire:
- isn't alive
- is an object
- has no mind of its own
- can't plan and decide on direction
- can be used to destroy, but can't decide to do it on its own, can't decide how, when, where, etc.
So, unless you think the Reapers and the Catalyst are just mindless forces of nature that don't know and can't control what they're doing, no, the comparison doesn't work, and it's one of the dumbest parts of the Catalyst's dialogue.
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.
I know it is the worst example. That's why I had a problem with you making it in the first place. Because those things just aren't the same. We kill SOME cattle because we eat meat, etc., and in no way do we try to exterminate ALL of them for bullshit reasons. We breed MORE so that there's always enough and we let the wild ones be. The Reapers try to kill ALL members of a species because they think they're preventing conflict between organics and synthetics and they use the nastiest methods to do it.
The example is more broken the more you talk about it. Cow is a member one species and that means that by Reaper logic they should be ALL killed. That's not what we do. (Food industry does have its ethical issues, but it's still a separate thing from what the Reapers do.)
The Reapers don't even use "reproduction" as their reasoning. That theory was dismissed later in the franchise. It's all in the game. The Catalyst tells you that they're trying to preserve organic life, not reproduce.
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.
That's the difference between what the game shows us and what it tells us. The game says the Reapers are harvesting, yet we only see the Reapers shoot and kill. The Collectors are the only ones that actually got any harvesting done.
Not to even mention that they don't just harvest for the sake of harvest.
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.
Except that the Reapers attack Earth without even trying to negotiate in any way. They sent geth to attack Eden Prime without warning, as well. Not that I think that people would just sit there and accept it (nor do I think they should), but there's no proof of what you're saying.
If you stay in-world, it's the Catalyst and there is neither protagonist nor antagonist in the scenario. That's why I say that most of the endings' problems only exist on the storytelling level. The problem is that the total lack of any reliable in-world info about your choices motivates you to leave the in-world perspective and look at the scenario as part of a story and presenting certain themes, and then, of course, the ME team becomes the target of your ire, or rather, Casey Hudson and Mac Walters specifically, for having written a story ending that feels as if the villain wins.
Given the situation takes me right out of the story, I suppose I would have to agree with you.
Indeed so. Does it matter though? Blind spots or not, the Catalyst has imposed the scenario and it's powerful enough to enforce our compliance. For the story it only matters if its scenario could be plausible - which it could IMO - and whether it was brought home to us in a manner liable to make us accept it - which it wasn't.
Just want to clear up a misunderstanding from the last page, sorry if it's a bit out of context now.
When I was talking about progress and advancement in my last post (2 pages back), I wasn't making a judgement on the value of progress (I value it but that really is up to everyone to decide on their own). I also did in no way advertise technological or scientific advancement at any cost, without regulation through society or without care (I thought that was clear by my often repeated stance on the synthesis ending).
No, my argument was much more basic and that is that life is change (as opposed to a static form of existence). This is not something we have a choice in. It's not something that is up to us to decide. We can decide in some very limited form in which direction we want this change to go (throw the before mentioned regulation) but we cannot have life in a static existence.
Even those species that haven't evolved (much) in the last 500 million years or more were subject and catalysts for change. While these species themselves prevailed, offshoots into other directions evolved and co-existed. They themselves also always hold the potential for further change through mutations in between generations. If their environment changes drastically, they will, too in order to overcome limitations (I know in evolution terms this argument is backwards but you know what I mean(.
When I was talking about progress, i wasn't confining myself to human advancement (although that's part of it) but to life as a whole, as a concept. This is not an opinion by the way, the fact that life requires a dynamic as opposed to a static system is part of it's definition. If you can accept that change is one of the most fundamental attributes of life as a whole, than on a philosophical level, you have to ask yourself what the value of life is if that change is suppressed, if the potential for progress in whatever direction, good or bad is arrested. What is it's purpose or value if you discard individuals (as the catalyst obviously does).
A thought experiment: Suppose we stopped all our efforts in research, engineering and overall progress right now Furthermore, suppose that we find a way to halt our biological evolution as a species and remain in our current form forever. Further suppose that there are no natural disasters from the outside or the inside that will cause an extinction even. We, humanity live happily ever after at our current level of technology, knowladge, society and philosophy until in 5 billion years the sun goes supernova (for all intents and purposes the end of the world for those humans) and everyone just lays down and dies. Well, isn't it a fair question to ask what those 5 billion years were all about? What would be the difference to everyone of us just shooting ourselves in the head right here and now?
The reason why that last statement makes no sense (and probably sounds very horrible) is because we don't know what will happen in the future. And that lack of knowladge presents the hope that it's not just ending pointlessly some day. Of course, if you consider individuals, than goals and motivations get much more complex in the small picture but since the catalyst doesn't do that, the one challange that Shepard can give the catalyst is acutally a good one:
"You are taking away our future. Without a future, there is no hope." and to paraphrase the last sentence: Without this hope, the value of life itself can be questioned and "we might as well be machines". Because if it's just about metabolizing, than the reapers might as well just keep a couple of petri dishes with bacteria around.
Suppose the reapers manage to destroy the crucible and it's plans (as they tried before and as they try now) and they they can keep u the cycles forever. In 20 billion years, the universe might experience the heat death. Or maybe that theory is bogus and time will go on forever and so will the cycles. But without change, with just repeating the same thing over and over, what's the point? It's the same situation as in the above thought experiment all over again.
The catalyst certainly doesn't answer that question but without answering it, there is no motivation to the actions of the reapers. Sure, with the addition of the Leviathan DLC, we can take that burden off the catalyst and and say "because the Leviathans told him so" (and he never thought about it himself). But it doesn't answer the question. It doesn't solve the underlying problem. If the catalyst cannot resolve this issue, than the cycles have no basis and our choice has no basis because the reapers really should stop according to their own doctrines.
It is that connection between life, it's need for change, the resulting paradigm of progress which in turn presents us with an unpredictable future that then allows for the possibility of hope for purpose beyond individual concerns that I was getting at on a philosophical level. I am not proponent of irresponsible progress at any cost (or even worse, forced progress as in reorte's examples on the last page) but I think I made it clear that stagnation can only be forced and why I think that is inherently nonsensical.
And that's why I questioned a stagnating or static kind of existence as a viable form of life.
Of course, a straight-up utilitarian would just say that those billions of years are paying off plenty.
Why? How? A straight up utilitarian would need utility, meaning that something valuable or useful comes out of it. It may be valuable for the individuals that get to live within this time period (if they only think about themselves) but the catalyst is not interested in individuals.
A static form of life seems to have the least potential for utility to me (because it's got no potential at all).
Mass Effect 3's ending is absolutely brilliant!
If underwhelming and disappointing means brilliant than yes, it's brilliant. Absolutely.
The opposite is "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" and never being satisfied at all, which makes anything new achieved ultimately pointless.Why? How? A straight up utilitarian would need utility, meaning that something valuable or useful comes out of it. It may be valuable for the individuals that get to live within this time period (if they only think about themselves) but the catalyst is not interested in individuals.
A static form of life seems to have the least potential for utility to me (because it's got no potential at all).
The opposite is "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" and never being satisfied at all, which makes anything new achieved ultimately pointless.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we will come to a point where we transcend the problem all together or find a solution we can't even imagine today. The point is, not knowing the future doesn't assure anything and certainly holds risks but it also holds inherent potential.
Denying this uncertainty and forcing the future to be exactly like the present (or to be cyclic to more accurately describe the reapers) eliminates even that potential (while of course also eliminating the risk).
Mind you, this and the last post were just in response to Alcian9's strictly utilitarian viewpoint. My original point has this component but in addition was also more about the inherent characteristics of life itself.
......
Yes the Reapers very clearly state they harvest all organic and synthetic life and store it in the near immortal bodies of the Reapers. As for Dinosaurs you completely missed the point. Reapers are not interested in preserving individual organic life. They are interested in preserving organic life in general. Remove one animal from a food chain and over time a new one will evolve to take it's place. I used dinosaurs specifically because they are already species that have gone extinct that for filled many of the niche rolls in the food chain modern animals maintain. So if the Reapers were suddenly really interested in turning cows into 50MM machine gun tanks. As long as the planet kept it's bio diversity. Which it is shown to be true it will after the harvest. (Eden Prime) A new species over the course of millions of years would evolve to fill that role. Thus organic being continue to survive.
You seem to be looking at this in terms of days or months. Reapers are looking at this in terms of thousands and millions of years a head. And I already told you they were useful tools to act as aerial transports and intimidation factor. Yahg, Human and Asari were already well on their way to being the next advance life in the galaxy So they were passed over for that reason. This isn't that complicated stuff here. They don't harvest younger species that have potential to advance into the upper reaches of the galaxy. Specifically so they can harvest them next time. How ever animals that live alone side the current species being harvested are fair game if they serve a purpose. Which they did.
They are forces of nature. You don't need to be mindless to be a force of nature. Humans are forces of nature. Any time we enter into a new area we being the inevitable process of shaping and altering the land to suit our needs. At the expensive of planet and animal life in the area. We can not be stopped and we will not be stopped in our actions. I live in South Florida in my life time I've watch mostly grassland/marsh areas get transformed into shopping malls and gas stations. If you go back a generation just to my parents they have seen even more. And my grandparents have seen even more.
Reapers do not kill everyone we already covered this. They leave other species alive to be harvested next time. The food industry example works so well because that is the exact process we use. Your issue is you confuse the general cow as one species while Reapers harvest many. The cow represents the species harvested. All of them. They harvest the species that have reached the right age. While leaving the younger species alive till they mature as well for next time. Just like we harvest all the cows that have reached the right age while leaving the younger ones alive till they mature as well for next time. In an endlessly repeating cycle till the heat death of the universe. Or we create replicator technology like from Star Trek.
Roughly 32% of beef is harvested and never eaten. Lost at retail or consumer level due to various reasons. Mostly past expiration date at retail level and for many reasons at consumer level up to and including it was freezer burns so it wont' taste as good so in the trash it goes. This isn't even counting restaurants. That time the guy next to you at the table complained his steak was cooked wrong and demanded a new one that was slightly more pink inside? His perfectly good if only slightly over cooked for his taste steak has to be thrown away for health and safety reasons.
Organic life is used in the creation of a new Reaper. Said Reaper is then used to store all information about that cycle in it. So yes the harvest does act as a form of reproduction for the Reapers. The game only shows us being shot at by the Reapers because it only shows us shooting at them as well. This is a FPS not a survival horror RPG. The main point of this game is shooting, shooting and then just to mix things up more shooting. It is were all the action and excitement is. How ever if you pay attention to dialogue from people you can get the indirect picture of what is happening. One of the final conversations with EDI is about how humans were willingly refusing to give up information of people trying to escape Reaper harvesting camps. Choosing to die quicker rather then rat out their fellow man hoping they might at least escape.
There is a lot to what I say but to have that come to pass every person in the galaxy would have to accept they need to die. Which is something I doubt the entire galaxy would agree with. So the Reapers already knowing that they won't go down without a fight simply go in guns blazing. Seriously if I walked into your house and told you and your family that everyone has to die for the greater good of the galaxy. After telling me to go **** myself you would try to stop me. Which is exactly what the galaxy does. As for Eden Prime with the Geth. Sovereign told Saren to get the beacon's data and destroy it. How the fight went about is hard to say what was Sovereign's direct order and how much was Saren's idea of how to accomplish things.
(sigh)
I disagree, but I'm also done talking. You keep making the same broken arguments that are not supported by the game in any way. Arguments like:
Remove one animal from a food chain and over time a new one will evolve to take it's place.
Which is bullshit because the point of the Reapers was not removing species from the food chain or relying on it for warfare.
Or...
And I already told you they were useful tools to act as aerial transports...
Which is also bullshit because it's never said or shown in the game. Would it make sense? Sure, but it is not what actually happens in the game.
You keep making up "arguments" like that and many more because they seem to be making sense to you, and mostly just you if I can judge from the reactions of others in this thread. I say, cool headcanon. But that's all it is and I'm not going to argue about player-made-up facts unsupported by or contradictory to the primary source. I'm also not going to continue helping you derail this thread just so you can go on about random things that aren't even related to what we're talking about, like dinosaurs or St. Paul's Cathedral or female anatomy that have nothing to do with anything in this thread.
Therefore, I'm not interested in having this discussion any longer. Consider it dropped.
Yes the Reapers very clearly state they harvest all organic and synthetic life and store it in the near immortal bodies of the Reapers.
No, they don't. In fact, Harbinger clearly states the opposite.
Reapers are not interested in preserving individual organic life. They are interested in preserving organic life in general.
Then why not just store some bacteria in a jar and call it good? I guess that's sort of what Reapers are. What's the value in that again?
I already told you they were useful tools to act as aerial transports and intimidation factor. Yahg, Human and Asari were already well on their way to being the next advance life in the galaxy So they were passed over for that reason. This isn't that complicated stuff here. They don't harvest younger species that have potential to advance into the upper reaches of the galaxy. Specifically so they can harvest them next time. How ever animals that live alone side the current species being harvested are fair game if they serve a purpose. Which they did.
Once more, Reapers are ships. They can carry more troops and are far scarier, tougher, and capable of more destruction than Harvesters. Everything else in this paragraph is complete speculation. It would make sense but isn't stated by the game. It just says it harvests advanced life, leaving younger races behind. with Leviathan, you could argue it's all specific to sapient life.
They are forces of nature. You don't need to be mindless to be a force of nature. Humans are forces of nature. Any time we enter into a new area we being the inevitable process of shaping and altering the land to suit our needs. At the expensive of planet and animal life in the area. We can not be stopped and we will not be stopped in our actions. I live in South Florida in my life time I've watch mostly grassland/marsh areas get transformed into shopping malls and gas stations. If you go back a generation just to my parents they have seen even more. And my grandparents have seen even more.
So "force of nature" just means anything that affects change. If you can't differentiate between natural and forced change, the phrase has no meaning.
Reapers do not kill everyone we already covered this. They leave other species alive to be harvested next time. The food industry example works so well because that is the exact process we use. Your issue is you confuse the general cow as one species while Reapers harvest many. The cow represents the species harvested. All of them. They harvest the species that have reached the right age. While leaving the younger species alive till they mature as well for next time. Just like we harvest all the cows that have reached the right age while leaving the younger ones alive till they mature as well for next time. In an endlessly repeating cycle till the heat death of the universe. Or we create replicator technology like from Star Trek.
Roughly 32% of beef is harvested and never eaten. Lost at retail or consumer level due to various reasons. Mostly past expiration date at retail level and for many reasons at consumer level up to and including it was freezer burns so it wont' taste as good so in the trash it goes. This isn't even counting restaurants. That time the guy next to you at the table complained his steak was cooked wrong and demanded a new one that was slightly more pink inside? His perfectly good if only slightly over cooked for his taste steak has to be thrown away for health and safety reasons.
The food analogy doesn't work at all. Reapers don't need Organics for any other reason than creating more Reapers. The point of the Harvest isn't even the Harvest; it's resetting progress so nobody makes the dangerous super synthetics. You can't even keep the Reapers' motivation straight. Meanwhile the "harvest" of the cows is to make food. People need to eat food but the Reapers do not need to Harvest. That some food is wasted has no bearing on this. It just means people are wasteful. The intent was still to eat it.
Organic life is used in the creation of a new Reaper. Said Reaper is then used to store all information about that cycle in it.
1) There is no value in this
2) Not every advanced species is made into a Reaper
Seriously if I walked into your house and told you and your family that everyone has to die for the greater good of the galaxy. After telling me to go **** myself you would try to stop me. Which is exactly what the galaxy does.
Now this is a great analogy for the Reapers. I would shoot you, call the police, and report that some nut came into my house ranting nonsense. That's exactly what the Catalyst does. Both of you come out of nowhere telling me something insane without one thing to make me believe you.
I disagree, but I'm also done talking. You keep making the same broken arguments that are not supported by the game in any way. Arguments like:
Which is bullshit because the point of the Reapers was not removing species from the food chain or relying on it for warfare.
Or...
Which is also bullshit because it's never said or shown in the game. Would it make sense? Sure, but it is not what actually happens in the game.
You keep making up "arguments" like that and many more because they seem to be making sense to you, and mostly just you if I can judge from the reactions of others in this thread. I say, cool headcanon. But that's all it is and I'm not going to argue about player-made-up facts unsupported by or contradictory to the primary source. I'm also not going to continue helping you derail this thread just so you can go on about random things that aren't even related to what we're talking about, like dinosaurs or St. Paul's Cathedral or female anatomy that have nothing to do with anything in this thread.
Therefore, I'm not interested in having this discussion any longer. Consider it dropped.
Harvesters were shown to be used in combat. Tuchunka, Thessia, Namaki and Earth. All saw them used as troop transports and aerial support.
The sight of a Reaper Harvester in flight nearby is one of the first indications that a Reaper invasion is underway. Their massive wingspan allows them to quickly cover the distance between them and their prey.
In the Harvester's mouth are two heavy guns that fire in an alternating pattern. The Harvester's most fearsome quality, however, is that its appearance guarantees that Reaper ground troops are not far behind.
http://masseffect.wi...rvester_(enemy)
Abilities Spawn Husks
Post-Mortem Explosion
They used them specifically for a purpose in war.
18:22 mark
Harvester engaging in the Asari air ship.
...
Do you understand English at all? (And I have never argued most of those things.)
Reapers have troop transport ships, Reapers have fighters, they are even able to drop their troops from orbit. Build a dedicated craft that fits your needs and call it a day for the next billion years. Give it some glowing eyes and tentacles, if you want it to be scary.
Hunting and harvesting an organic species that occurs on several worlds is just a waste of time and there are probably insufficient numbers anyways. These creatures are as big as some dragons that´s not something you find roaming in packs.
Which means thatJust want to clear up a misunderstanding from the last page, sorry if it's a bit out of context now.
When I was talking about progress and advancement in my last post (2 pages back), I wasn't making a judgement on the value of progress (I value it but that really is up to everyone to decide on their own). I also did in no way advertise technological or scientific advancement at any cost, without regulation through society or without care (I thought that was clear by my often repeated stance on the synthesis ending).
No, my argument was much more basic and that is that life is change (as opposed to a static form of existence). This is not something we have a choice in. It's not something that is up to us to decide. We can decide in some very limited form in which direction we want this change to go (throw the before mentioned regulation) but we cannot have life in a static existence.
Even those species that haven't evolved (much) in the last 500 million years or more were subject and catalysts for change. While these species themselves prevailed, offshoots into other directions evolved and co-existed. They themselves also always hold the potential for further change through mutations in between generations. If their environment changes drastically, they will, too in order to overcome limitations (I know in evolution terms this argument is backwards but you know what I mean(.
These are two very different questions.When I was talking about progress, i wasn't confining myself to human advancement (although that's part of it) but to life as a whole, as a concept. This is not an opinion by the way, the fact that life requires a dynamic as opposed to a static system is part of it's definition. If you can accept that change is one of the most fundamental attributes of life as a whole, than on a philosophical level, you have to ask yourself what the value of life is if that change is suppressed, if the potential for progress in whatever direction, good or bad is arrested. What is it's purpose or value if you discard individuals (as the catalyst obviously does).
A thought experiment: Suppose we stopped all our efforts in research, engineering and overall progress right now Furthermore, suppose that we find a way to halt our biological evolution as a species and remain in our current form forever. Further suppose that there are no natural disasters from the outside or the inside that will cause an extinction even. We, humanity live happily ever after at our current level of technology, knowladge, society and philosophy until in 5 billion years the sun goes supernova (for all intents and purposes the end of the world for those humans) and everyone just lays down and dies. Well, isn't it a fair question to ask what those 5 billion years were all about? What would be the difference to everyone of us just shooting ourselves in the head right here and now?
The thing is, IMO we *are* organic machines. We aren't made for a purpose, but life doesn't have some ineffable quality we'll never be able to decipher. Also, just that we would prefer things to have meaning, that we would like to see a different future (btw, not all people desire that), that doesn't mean there's any instrinsic value to that, nor any inevitable reality beyond the laws of thermodynamics.The reason why that last statement makes no sense (and probably sounds very horrible) is because we don't know what will happen in the future. And that lack of knowladge presents the hope that it's not just ending pointlessly some day. Of course, if you consider individuals, than goals and motivations get much more complex in the small picture but since the catalyst doesn't do that, the one challange that Shepard can give the catalyst is acutally a good one:
"You are taking away our future. Without a future, there is no hope." and to paraphrase the last sentence: Without this hope, the value of life itself can be questioned and "we might as well be machines". Because if it's just about metabolizing, than the reapers might as well just keep a couple of petri dishes with bacteria around.
Suppose the reapers manage to destroy the crucible and it's plans (as they tried before and as they try now) and they they can keep u the cycles forever. In 20 billion years, the universe might experience the heat death. Or maybe that theory is bogus and time will go on forever and so will the cycles. But without change, with just repeating the same thing over and over, what's the point? It's the same situation as in the above thought experiment all over again.
I didn't imply that you were a proponent of irresponsible progress. I implied - and I've made that explicit enough in this post I hope - that you were illegitimately extending a specific human viewpoint to all life.The catalyst certainly doesn't answer that question but without answering it, there is no motivation to the actions of the reapers. Sure, with the addition of the Leviathan DLC, we can take that burden off the catalyst and and say "because the Leviathans told him so" (and he never thought about it himself). But it doesn't answer the question. It doesn't solve the underlying problem. If the catalyst cannot resolve this issue, than the cycles have no basis and our choice has no basis because the reapers really should stop according to their own doctrines.
It is that connection between life, it's need for change, the resulting paradigm of progress which in turn presents us with an unpredictable future that then allows for the possibility of hope for purpose beyond individual concerns that I was getting at on a philosophical level. I am not proponent of irresponsible progress at any cost (or even worse, forced progress as in reorte's examples on the last page) but I think I made it clear that stagnation can only be forced and why I think that is inherently nonsensical.
Retour en haut