50 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabooooom]

It is a bit of a stretch that every species would be less genetically diverse than humanity, a species that isn't diverse at all thanks to a severe genetic bottleneck. Essentially it requires every known space-faring species to have had its own version of the Toba catastrophe, except more recent and/or more severe.

Human genetic diversity being tied heavily into ME2's plot was perhaps the worst example of the always bad Humans Are Special trope, because it was birthed from the writer(s) being unfamiliar with humanity's genetic history. A google search that would have taken the writer(s) about 30 seconds, would have told them genetic diversity being the Reapers' reason for interest in humanity was a bad idea.

Han wrote a more eloquent response than I could, and as usual I agree. It would be a huge stretch, especially since once a species becomes spacefaring it becomes incredibly hard to eradicate them, and genetic diversity would be expected to exponentially increase with time.

The Asari thing was always confusing too, since Bioware basically made up their physiology as they went. It seems they reproduce by parthenogenesis, but they use some sort of mechanism for induced mutation or genetic rearrangement to create diversity. I have a hard time believing they actually incorporate the DNA of entirely alien species into their own.

[In Exile]

It is a bit of a stretch that every species would be less genetically diverse than humanity, a species that isn't diverse at all thanks to a severe genetic bottleneck. Essentially it requires every known space-faring species to have had its own version of the Toba catastrophe, except more recent and/or more severe. 

 

Human genetic diversity being tied heavily into ME2's plot was perhaps the worst example of the always bad Humans Are Special trope, because it was birthed from the writer(s) being unfamiliar with humanity's genetic history. A google search that would have taken the writer(s) about 30 seconds, would have told them genetic diversity being the Reapers' reason for interest in humanity was a bad idea.

 

Is it a stretch that humans are one of the least genetically diverse species on Earth? We're talking about a series powered by comical ignorance of biology. The Humans Are Special Trope started in about the first 30 seconds of ME1. Whether that's tied to some intrinsic natural superiority of humans or science-gibberish like genetic diversity, it's the same story. 

 

It's incredibly unlikely - but not logically impossible - that humans are the most genetically diverse of the sapient species in existence. We have other things that are quite impossible - like Quarian immunology. Yet no one gets up in arms about that one. 

 

The idea that every single species on Earth has greater genetic variability than any other species in the universe, ever, would be the most biologically grounded and well-reasoned part of all of ME. In fact, it would probably be one of the most hard science features of this entire series, which is a cascade of laughable nonsense when it comes to science. 

 

I mean, this is a series where space travel is powered by magical neutrons that also are basically the Force. 

[In Exile]

The Asari thing was always confusing too, since Bioware basically made up their physiology as they went. It seems they reproduce by parthenogenesis, but they use some sort of mechanism for induced mutation or genetic rearrangement to create diversity. I have a hard time believing they actually incorporate the DNA of entirely alien species into their own.

 

The Asari are magic. They read minds. Their gibberish reproduction is the least of Bioware's problems when it comes to the nonsense they invented about the Asari. 

[Han Shot First]

That the series has story elements that are equally or more implausible than humanity being the most genetically diverse space-faring species in the galaxy, doesn't exactly work as a defense for the overuse of the Humans Are Special trope, particularly when it relies on bad information regarding our own biology. Humans exist in the real world, unlike say eezo and the mass effect, so the requirement for willing suspension of disbelief is going to be higher on dealing with issues related to our own biology than it is for fictional elements and their equally fictional effects.

 

Bioware could have gotten away with humans being a genetically diverse species if humanity's history was wildly different than our own. Take the Star Wars universe as an example, with humans originating on a planet other than Earth. That isn't the case with the Mass Effect universe however. It is supposed to be our universe, with a history before the present that is identical to our own. Toba still happens in the ME universe.

 

I agree that the Asari mind-reading ability might as well be magic, but their method of reproduction is far from being Sci Fi gibberish. It is one of the more plausible elements of Mass Effect's lore, in that similar methods of reproduction have been documented on Earth. All female species that reproduce via parthenogenesis is actually a thing that exists in the natural world. Nature is often as bizarre as anything from the imagination of Sci Fi writers.

 

 

The desert grassland whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis uniparens) is an all-female species of reptiles. It was formerly placed in the genus Cnemidophorus. A. uniparens have limited social stimuli, having only two basic needs: finding food and avoiding predators.[2] A common predator of the whiptail lizard is the leopard lizard, that prey on A. uniparens by using ambush and stalk haunting tactics.[3][4][5] These reptiles reproduce by parthenogenesis. In this procees, eggs undergo a chromosome doubling after meiosis and developing into lizards without being fertilized. However, ovulation is enhanced by female-female courtship and "mating" (pseudo-copulation) rituals that resemble the behavior of closely related species that reproduce sexually.

 

Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard

[In Exile]

That the series has story elements that are equally or more implausible than humanity being the most genetically diverse space-faring species in the galaxy, doesn't exactly work as a defense for the overuse of the Humans Are Special trope, particularly when it relies on bad information regarding our own biology. Humans exist in the real world, unlike say eezo and the mass effect, so the requirement for willing suspension of disbelief is going to be higher on dealing with issues related to our own biology than it is for fictional elements and their equally fictional effects.

 

Bioware could have gotten away with humans being a genetically diverse species if humanity's history was wildly different than our own. Take the Star Wars universe as an example, with humans originating on a planet other than Earth. That isn't the case with the Mass Effect universe however. It is supposed to be our universe, with a history before the present that is identical to our own. Toba still happens in the ME universe.

 

I agree that the Asari mind-reading ability might as well be magic, but their method of reproduction is far from being Sci Fi gibberish. It is one of the more plausible elements of Mass Effect's lore, in that similar methods of reproduction have been documented on Earth. All female species that reproduces via parthenogenesis is actually a thing that exists on Earth. Nature is often as bizarre as anything from the imagination of Sci Fi writers.

 

 

 

 

Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard

 

The asari don't actually reproduce by parthogenesis, though. They apparently reproduce by some type of space magic that allows them to steal DNA from their partner species. ME1 explains parthogenesis correctly. It gets weird afterward, though.

 

But on the genetic diversity point, while humans exist, aliens don't. We can't even have a real conversation about the nature of complex biological life that evolved elsewhere than on Earth. We have no baseline of comparison for what might be standard. For all we know, Earth is a bizarre fluke, and the natural state of the universe for self-replicating organic life is a totally different and standard baseline whereas we are just a weird outlier. 

 

ME1 never asks us to believe we're genetically diverse. It just asks us to believe we're more genetically diverse than non-Earth species. As for why Reapers don't just start reaping cats or something, well ... we get into the ME3 problem of "intestinal fauna is organic life too." 

[Han Shot First]

The Asari do reproduce via parthenogenesis. There is no genetic material passed on by the 'father,' whether or not the mother's mate is Asari. It was explained in one of the games, though it has been awhile and I forget where exactly. Basically the whole thing about Asari children inheriting traits from their fathers was explained as a common cultural belief, and common knowledgeis quite often wrong.

 

If Liara or Samara were to have a child with Shepard, the child would obtain all of its genetic coding from the mother. Essentially Shepard would be playing the part of the whiptail lizard that takes on the male role during the pseudo-copulation with its partner. Shepard would not be a biological parent.

 

...that also may be the dorkiest thing I've ever posted on this forum. 

[In Exile]

The Asari do reproduce via parthenogenesis. There is no genetic material passed on by the 'father,' whether or not the mother's mate is Asari. It was explained in one of the games, though it has been awhile and I forget where exactly. Basically the whole thing about Asari children inheriting traits from their fathers was explained as a common cultural belief, and common knowledgeis quite often wrong.

 

If Liara or Samara were to have a child with Shepard, the child would obtain all of its genetic coding from the mother. Essentially Shepard would be playing the part of the whiptail lizard that takes on the male role during the pseudo-copulation with its partner. Shepard would not be a biological parent.

 

...that also may be the dorkiest thing I've ever posted on this forum. 

 

ME1 is the one that explains it right. Liara says that the Asari assign some belief to it, almost religious-like. ME2 and ME3 start throwing in things about taking DNA (or genes, can't recall now) from the "father". Which isn't parthogenesis. 

[Drone223]

Is it a stretch that humans are one of the least genetically diverse species on Earth? We're talking about a series powered by comical ignorance of biology. The Humans Are Special Trope started in about the first 30 seconds of ME1. Whether that's tied to some intrinsic natural superiority of humans or science-gibberish like genetic diversity, it's the same story. 

 

It's incredibly unlikely - but not logically impossible - that humans are the most genetically diverse of the sapient species in existence. We have other things that are quite impossible - like Quarian immunology. Yet no one gets up in arms about that one. 

 

The idea that every single species on Earth has greater genetic variability than any other species in the universe, ever, would be the most biologically grounded and well-reasoned part of all of ME. In fact, it would probably be one of the most hard science features of this entire series, which is a cascade of laughable nonsense when it comes to science. 

 

I mean, this is a series where space travel is powered by magical neutrons that also are basically the Force. 

No it isn't, quite the opposite actually as Han pointed out. Suspension of disbelief does have its limits and "human genetic diversity" defiantly breaks the limit, its extremely far fetched for humanity to be the most genetically diverse species in the universe (let alone the galaxy). 

[Ahriman]

The Asari do reproduce via parthenogenesis. There is no genetic material passed on by the 'father,' whether or not the mother's mate is Asari. It was explained in one of the games, though it has been awhile and I forget where exactly. Basically the whole thing about Asari children inheriting traits from their fathers was explained as a common cultural belief, and common knowledgeis quite often wrong.

 

If Liara or Samara were to have a child with Shepard, the child would obtain all of its genetic coding from the mother. Essentially Shepard would be playing the part of the whiptail lizard that takes on the male role during the pseudo-copulation with its partner. Shepard would not be a biological parent.

 

...that also may be the dorkiest thing I've ever posted on this forum. 

Mostly right, but 'father' is used as sort of randomizer for changing second genome set.

 

Although asari have one gender, they are not asexual. An asari provides two copies of her own genes to her offspring. The second set is altered in a unique process called melding.

During melding, an asari consciously attunes her nervous system to her partner's, sending and receiving electrical impulses directly through the skin. The partner can be another asari, or an alien of either gender. Effectively, the asari and her partner briefly become one unified nervous system.

Pure space magic tbh, but I guess that's expected from race of blue chicks.

[In Exile]

No it isn't, quite the opposite actually as Han pointed out. Suspension of disbelief does have its limits and "human genetic diversity" defiantly breaks the limit, its extremely far fetched for humanity to be the most genetically diverse species in the universe (let alone the galaxy).

No, it is not. The very idea of alien races is pure fantasy. There's no workable scientific framework to even begin talking about a sapient species that is non-human. We don't even have a second sapient species on planet earth. We have no idea how life might evolve or appear on another planet. We have no idea and no way of knowing whether the evolution of life on Earth is typical or wholly atypical.

Your argument on implausibly is self-defeating because as it's very premise it has to accept as true things that are even MORE implausible (alien life exists and behaves according to rules we know).

[saladinbob]

Humans are more gentically diverse than the asari, who breed by selecting genetics from other species to keep themselves diverse?

Righto, bioware.

 

Wasn't that a sociological viewpoint, rather than a scientific one? 

[Dantriges]

Unless the localisation is total crap and Mordin says something totally different n english, he talked about genes.

[Gothfather]

I believe I read once in Unie that isolated groups on earth seem to have a survival threshold of around 5000. If your population had connections to a larger cultural group 5000 was the threshold for sustainability. Go below this and you risk extinction for said group, which is not to guarantee extinction of the smaller group but rather this is the tipping point where you are at risk.

 

The truth is that diversity would be lost in the ark but lost diversity isn't the same as not having enough genetic diversity to sustain a healthy population. Europe, Africa, the Americas, East and South Asia all have relatively low levels of Diversity until the last 200 years when the ability to travel around the globe quickly became a common place technology. And within these continents there were smaller regions of even less diverse peoples. Which is why you can see differences today between people from different countries let alone different continents.

 

It will take a LOT of humans to maintain the current genetic diversity of the earth but it wont take nearly so many as to create a pocket of humanity with enough genetic diversity to survive with zero contact with the source population.

 

If there was 2500 couples all signing consent forms to be surrogates for 2 frozen children upon arrival + 1 of their own. you Create the first generation with 5000 people the second would have 12500 people in 20 years of which 10000 would be unrelated to each. That is more than sustainable with very little difficulty. Modern fertility science makes this more than possible today let alone in the future of ME. The key is to have willing mothers and the resources to sustain your population when 60% is unproductive. This may sound difficult but to have population growth you need more than 50% of your population unproductive as that just replaces the current generation. Having 60% to 75% of the population not fully productive is actually not a problem for societies that have at least 5000 members. It seems dip below this and you get problems with not enough hands and not enough diversity.

 

The key here is to have a society that encourages large families and creates systems in place to support large families. Do this for a couple of generations with modern medicines and you get a significant population boom with enough genetic diversity to thrive.

[Jeffonl1]

In other threads people have talked about the minimum number of people for a generation starship or to repopulate the earth. Here are a couple of real world examples:

Tristan da Cunha (current population 264) was populated from eight men and seven women.

Pitcairn (current population 50 after extensive emigration) did the same with 15 men and 12 women.

Both islands are extremely isolated and survived for 200 years. Only Tristan da Cunha had problems with inbreeding and they were relatively mild.

[Drone223]

No, it is not. The very idea of alien races is pure fantasy. There's no workable scientific framework to even begin talking about a sapient species that is non-human. We don't even have a second sapient species on planet earth. We have no idea how life might evolve or appear on another planet. We have no idea and no way of knowing whether the evolution of life on Earth is typical or wholly atypical.

Your argument on implausibly is self-defeating because as it's very premise it has to accept as true things that are even MORE implausible (alien life exists and behaves according to rules we know).

No it isn't, "Because alien's aren't real" is a poor excuse as to why human's are some how the most genetically diverse species in the galaxy. Human's are real so Bioware has no excuse getting their facts about human genetic diversity wrong.

[Kabooooom]

We don't even have a second sapient species on planet earth.

This depends wholly on how one defines the term "sapient". It doesn't help that the terms sapient and even sentient are carelessly thrown around and ambiguous within the literature. As a comparative neurologist, my opinion on the most scientifically valuable definitions of these terms (which are themselves arbitrarily defined even here) are:

Sentience - the possession of consciousness, the experience of subjective awareness and qualia.

Sapience - a sentient being that also possesses reflective self-awareness (ie: Thinking about oneself, thinking about thinking, etc.)

And most neuroscientists would agree with me on these definitions, or differ slightly in their opinion on them. Any other definitions become murky, or are scientifically useless - whereas these definitions, while arbitrary, are very useful. Almost no one would disagree on the definition of sentience, and it is now abundantly clear that multitude of species on earth are sentient. But which are sapient? Obviously we are, but what test can one conceive to evaluate whether another species is sapient under that definition?

The only test which even remotely comes close, and is itself highly flawed (in the sense that it actually underestimates whether a species is sapient) is the mirror test for self-awareness. Dont even get me started on that. But if we use that as an extremely crude evaluation, then I would say that a number of other species are sapient - including the Great Apes, Cetaceans, elephants and certain avian species. It is no surprise that the species which exhibit this, belonging to both mammals and birds independently evolved a highly developed cerebral cortex.

We often like to think that we take sapience to a whole new level, but really - we don't. Yes, we are intelligent, but we are also endowed with an advanced aptitude for language, culture, and the ability to interact with our environment and create in a way that these other species aren't. With the exception of language, that is less a testament to our brain, and more to the rest of our anatomy as apes. And we were just the lucky ones to survive. For a long time, multiple species of ****** coexisted (edit: Bioware hilariously censors the name of our genus).

So, all of that makes it apparent to me that sapience is not particularly an evolutionary fluke. To the contrary - once a brain evolves enough to provide for sapience, you could predict that common descent and convergent evolution would ensure that multiple sapient species would evolve and often coexist. And indeed, that is exactly what has happened on Earth.

And I have no reason to suspect that the same wouldn't be true on any world as old as Earth and with a rich enough biosphere. But that would be entirely speculative, as you point out.

[Han Shot First]

In other threads people have talked about the minimum number of people for a generation starship or to repopulate the earth. Here are a couple of real world examples:

Tristan da Cunha (current population 264) was populated from eight men and seven women.

Pitcairn (current population 50 after extensive emigration) did the same with 15 men and 12 women.

Both islands are extremely isolated and survived for 200 years. Only Tristan da Cunha had problems with inbreeding and they were relatively mild.

 

Both populations suffer from genetic diseases related to the founder effect. Pitcairn is a famous example. 

 

Though with the state of medical technology in the Mass Effect universe, perhaps that wouldn't be an issue. Gene modifications could eliminate undesirable mutations. 

[In Exile]

This depends wholly on how one defines the term "sapient". It doesn't help that the terms sapient and even sentient are carelessly thrown around and ambiguous within the literature. As a comparative neurologist, my opinion on the most scientifically valuable definitions of these terms (which are themselves arbitrarily defined even here) are:

Sentience - the possession of consciousness, the experience of subjective awareness and qualia.

Sapience - a sentient being that also possesses reflective self-awareness (ie: Thinking about oneself, thinking about thinking, etc.)

And most neuroscientists would agree with me on these definitions, or differ slightly in their opinion on them. Any other definitions become murky, or are scientifically useless - whereas these definitions, while arbitrary, are very useful. Almost no one would disagree on the definition of sentience, and it is now abundantly clear that multitude of species on earth are sentient. But which are sapient? Obviously we are, but what test can one conceive to evaluate whether another species is sapient under that definition?

The only test which even remotely comes close, and is itself highly flawed (in the sense that it actually underestimates whether a species is sapient) is the mirror test for self-awareness. Dont even get me started on that. But if we use that as an extremely crude evaluation, then I would say that a number of other species are sapient - including the Great Apes, Cetaceans, elephants and certain avian species. It is no surprise that the species which exhibit this, belonging to both mammals and birds independently evolved a highly developed cerebral cortex.

We often like to think that we take sapience to a whole new level, but really - we don't. Yes, we are intelligent, but we are also endowed with an advanced aptitude for language, culture, and the ability to interact with our environment and create in a way that these other species aren't. With the exception of language, that is less a testament to our brain, and more to the rest of our anatomy as apes. And we were just the lucky ones to survive. For a long time, multiple species of ****** coexisted (edit: Bioware hilariously censors the name of our genus).

So, all of that makes it apparent to me that sapience is not particularly an evolutionary fluke. To the contrary - once a brain evolves enough to provide for sapience, you could predict that common descent and convergent evolution would ensure that multiple sapient species would evolve and often coexist. And indeed, that is exactly what has happened on Earth.

And I have no reason to suspect that the same wouldn't be true on any world as old as Earth and with a rich enough biosphere. But that would be entirely speculative, as you point out.

 

You misunderstand. I'm not saying our cognitive architecture is a fluke, using "our" in the sense of human. I mean, the evolutionary development of life on Earth and the selective pressures which led to intelligent life as we understand it developing the way it did. We can - according to the rules following which human life developed in our ecosystem - come up with theories about how similar life might develop in an ecosystem operating under similar rules. But my position is that the assumption about "similar rules" and "similar ecosystems" is an unsubstantiated leap. The reasons for us to assume a uniformity of rules with physics doesn't and chemistry doesn't extend to biology and evolution, because the latter two are just statistical processes, and depend a great deal on starting conditions and the subsequent interactions between elements. 

 

That aside, I have quite divergent views on how sapience is defined -  largely because I think our "surprising" conclusion that a multitude of species are sapient is just a consequence of our general arrogance as a species, which ironically leads us to undervalue those things that do make us distinct and unique as a species, i.e., the peculiar and distinct interaction of our cognitive architecture leading to the kind of higher functions we exhibit and experience. 

 

The view that most life is not sentient - most complex life, with partly recognizable neurological architecture - was never a persuasive idea to me. It was never persuasive because it was, among other things, predicated on the idea that there was just this special type of assortment of neurons that - like a switch - would take something that was the equivalent of a robot and turn into a subjectively aware. It's just the "right stuff" hypothesis for brains again from machine learning, and that view is stupid (it's the idea that a machine can't be self-aware because only brains can be self-aware). 

 

Beyond that, though, I think the technical distinction between sapience and sentience is dumb. It's dumb because it requires us to define into existence a subjective experience that's impossible for us to comprehend - subjective experience of qualia without self-awareness. I am of the view that the demarcation for sapience has to be a great deal more nuanced and complex, involving not just awareness but a kind of awareness based in language and expressiveness, with a distinctive capacity for, among other things, problem solving. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

ME1 is the one that explains it right. Liara says that the Asari assign some belief to it, almost religious-like. ME2 and ME3 start throwing in things about taking DNA (or genes, can't recall now) from the "father". Which isn't parthogenesis. 

 

This is Aethyta talking out of her ass. Just because it is Matriarch Aethyta doesn't mean she's right about it, does it? Is Matriarch Aethyta a scientist? No. She's a bartender. Think about it. Do you ask your local bartender for help with your genetics homework (unless they have a PhD in genetics)?

[In Exile]

This is Aethyta talking out of her ass. Just because it is Matriarch Aethyta doesn't mean she's right about it, does it? Is Matriarch Aethyta a scientist? No. She's a bartender. Think about it. Do you ask your local bartender for help with your genetics homework (unless they have a PhD in genetics)?

 

Then why do we take Liara - who is so comically removed from "biology" she might as well be a bartender - seriously? Does Mordin, the "scientist" add any more legitimacy to the genetic diversity point? Of course not. 

[ABASOVA]

This discussion reminds me...

 

 

 

“Krogan; sterilised race, potential wasted.”

 

“Drell; useless, insufficient numbers.”

 

“Salarian; insufficient lifespan, fragile genetic structure.”

 

“Quarian; considered due to cybernetic augmentation, weakened immune system too debilitating.”

 

“Geth; an annoyance, limited utility.”

 

“Asari; reliance upon alien species for reproduction shows genetic weakness.”

 

“Human; viable possibility, great biotic potential.” 

 

“Human; viable possibility, impressive genetic malleability.”

 

“Human; viable possibility, aggression factor useful if controlled.”

 

“Human; viable possibility, impressive technical potential.” 

 

“Human; viable possibility, if emotional drives are subjugated.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Turian; you are considered...too primitive.”

 

 

 

-Courtesy of Harbinger

[7twozero]

Pretty sure Aethyta gave up whatever else she may or may not have been doing as a profession to be a bartender so she could be closer to her daughter, but that was just a cover anyway. It's not explicitly stated in me2 but I'm pretty sure she comes right out and says so in me3. She's also a Matricarch with hundreds of years of life experience, who knows what she does and doesn't know? She's not dumb, she advocated building new mass relays and also more thoroughly training Asari maidens in combat. Later in me3 we hear the Asari in the bar talk about how Aethyta wants the commandos trained in the "way of the huntress" or whatever it was, Aethyta's somebody important with influence.

 

Edit- here's some good stuff on Aethyta - http://masseffect.wi...triarch_Aethyta

[Just Here For Popcorns]

I'm on the right thread!

I'm on the right thread!

I'm on the right thread!

I'm on the right thread!

I'm on the right thread!

I'm on the right thread!

I'm on the right thread!

I'm on the right thread!

....

 

And just run out of popcorns -___-

[Dantriges]

This is Aethyta talking out of her ass. Just because it is Matriarch Aethyta doesn't mean she's right about it, does it? Is Matriarch Aethyta a scientist? No. She's a bartender. Think about it. Do you ask your local bartender for help with your genetics homework (unless they have a PhD in genetics)?

 

You don´t need a degree in genetics to know how sex works. Should be covered in school in any advanced society which isn´t particularly prudish, which the asari don´t seem to be. Ok you don´t go into the fine technical details but they are talking about rather general stuff here.

[Ahglock]

This discussion reminds me...




“Krogan; sterilised race, potential wasted.”

“Drell; useless, insufficient numbers.”

“Salarian; insufficient lifespan, fragile genetic structure.”

“Quarian; considered due to cybernetic augmentation, weakened immune system too debilitating.”

“Geth; an annoyance, limited utility.”

“Asari; reliance upon alien species for reproduction shows genetic weakness.”

“Human; viable possibility, great biotic potential.”

“Human; viable possibility, impressive genetic malleability.”

“Human; viable possibility, aggression factor useful if controlled.”

“Human; viable possibility, impressive technical potential.”

“Human; viable possibility, if emotional drives are subjugated.”





“Turian; you are considered...too primitive.”



-Courtesy of Harbinger

You put up the smiley faces but I think that's exactly what they were shooting at for genetic diversity.

Asari would be a similar choice but they had a flaw. Basically some races have no biotic potential, humans have like 40 years of exposure and they already produce biotics on par with matriarchs, while new to the mass effect tech they already developed innovations like medi gel. Are salarians on average smarter sure but they have a short life span and I don't know if they have any biotics.

It's a lame trope but humans can do any of the carreers other races usually can't do one of them or have some other large flaw.