138 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Yeah, but Mass Effect isn't even promoting an understanding really. No one even knows who the hell the Keepers are. So much for an understanding of the Citadel... the very foundation of their entire civilization. They're all mindless consumers.

ME is schizophrenic. On one hand it promotes the idea of finding things out for yourself beyond any reasonable limits, and then it presents Reaper tech with an aura of "things we weren't meant to know". As with so much else, it appears as if the writers put things in their part of the story without thinking about how it fits in the greater picture.

[BioFan (Official)]

You and me both I have always wanted to explore the universe, but the more physics classes I take, the more lectures I attend, and the more reading I do I don't think its really possible. That makes me super sad. I wanted to be a starship captain!

 

Ya never know, could happen someday. It's possible for particles reach that speed, but the problem is figuring out how to make humans travel that fast without turning into "pink mist". 

http://www.techtimes...ight-travel.htm

 

 

That or create wormholes.... good luck with that. 

[In Exile]

ME is schizophrenic. On one hand it promotes the idea of finding things out for yourself beyond any reasonable limits, and then it presents Reaper tech with an aura of "things we weren't meant to know". As with so much else, it appears as if the writers put things in their part of the story without thinking about how it fits in the greater picture.

 

I don't think it presents it as "weren't meant to know" so much as "incredibly stupid to try and use" since the default setting is "mind control" and "melt brain to mush". And the collector base choice is about some weird moral parable about how the fruits of technology take on the moral character of their creation, except totally in the reverse way from the Krogan cure questline.

 

Basically, the less we think about what moral ME was trying to tell us about technology, the better. 

[RoboticWater]

I don't think it presents it as "weren't meant to know" so much as "incredibly stupid to try and use" since the default setting is "mind control" and "melt brain to mush". And the collector base choice is about some weird moral parable about how the fruits of technology take on the moral character of their creation, except totally in the reverse way from the Krogan cure questline.

 

Basically, the less we think about what moral ME was trying to tell us about technology, the better. 

And then Mass Effect would have us believe that using the Reaper code on Rannoch is the best thing for the Geth and that the Crucible is our only salvation.

[In Exile]

And then Mass Effect would have us believe that using the Reaper code on Rannoch is the best thing for the Geth and that the Crucible is our only salvation.

 

After the whole point of the Geth (or the new Geth) in ME2 was for them to blaze their own path, independent of the influence of the Reapers. Pure nonsense. 

[AresKeith]

Oh


Oh I wouldn't go that far.

 

Given ME2 and ME3 I'd say it's pretty close if not surpassed it already

[Arcian]

But there has to be some dividing line - and the fact that a setting is heavily dependant on technology and has well-articulated rules of nature can't be enough to make it sci-fi. Though I think the real debate is between people who think the genre is defined by an aesthetic (and connection to historical Earth and humanity) or a particular adherence to science.

It's both, but the aesthetic should be defined by the science. That makes it way more immersive.
 

I hate this idea of technology having been "earned". I see it as a conceit of Protestant work ethics and completely irrelevant. Technology exchange has been part of human civilization ever since it exists. The source of a technology doesn't matter, only that we understand it.

Of course I like it if an advancement is an achievement for a civilization rather than a gift from another, if only because I want "my" people to be creative and test their limits and generally be at the forefront of advancement, but the idea that we wouldn't deserve it if we had it from somewhere else is completely ludicrous.

I would argue that we earn the right to technology by developing an understanding of it, even if we didn't invent it ourselves. I mean, just look at how our technology has been shaped by the ingenuity of the animal kingdom.

Given ME2 and ME3 I'd say it's pretty close if not surpassed it already

ME2 and ME3 are comparable to the Matrix sequels in how much they shat over the first installment.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Given ME2 and ME3 I'd say it's pretty close if not surpassed it already

 

Bro You're an INTERNET legend! Your post count is more than mine in all forums around the interwebz which is like 25000 now!

 

But no. ME2 was cool and in another good direction. If it was just the continuation of ME1 it would be boring.

[Ieldra]

You and me both I have always wanted to explore the universe, but the more physics classes I take, the more lectures I attend, and the more reading I do I don't think its really possible. That makes me super sad. I wanted to be a starship captain!

It is possible, though not for our generation, and not in ways familiar to us. Exploring the galaxy will require generation ships and/or cryosleep, and our civilization will have to start thinking in centuries and millenia, a significant adjustment in human psychological disposition. But then, we'll have to start thinking that way in order to survive in the first place, so that would be a good additional motivator. Also, living that long shouldn't be too much of a hurdle once humanity gets over its silly reluctance to make itself subject of its own artifice.

 

What, most likely, it will never be is easy. Zipping around the galaxy like Commander Shepard, that won't happen. But that won't make it any less fascinating. Explore those SF worlds where FTL isn't possible and you'll see that. The most disappointing thing that could happen is that we won't find any traces of other civilizations. Unfortunately, given Fermi's paradox and the size of the galaxy, that appears to be rather likely.

[Laughing_Man]

It is possible, though not for our generation, and not in ways familiar to us. Exploring the galaxy will require generation ships and/or cryosleep, and our civilization will have to start thinking in centuries and millenia, a significant adjustment in human psychological disposition. But then, we'll have to start thinking that way in order to survive in the first place, so that would be a good additional motivator. Also, living that long shouldn't be too much of a hurdle once humanity gets over its silly reluctance to make itself subject of its own artifice.

 

What, most likely, it will never be is easy. Zipping around the galaxy like Commander Shepard, that won't happen. But that won't make it any less fascinating. Explore those SF worlds where FTL isn't possible and you'll see that. The most disappointing thing that could happen is that we won't find any traces of other civilizations. Unfortunately, given Fermi's paradox and the size of the galaxy, that appears to be rather likely.

 

"Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying." Arthur C. Clarke

 

I'm somewhat pessimistic regarding the possibility of humans starting to think long term, if it is about saving the planet or conquering Mars etc.

I mean, look around you and see for yourself what the hot button issues for millennials (in western culture) are, most of them are about self-interest and self-image.

 

Humans are simply not wired to think in terms of far future generations, at least not most humans.

 

That said, I hope to be proven wrong, and I hope that future technology will manage to somehow solve the conundrum of space travel, FTL, time dilation, etc.

[Ieldra]

Humans are simply not wired to think in terms of far future generations, at least not most humans.

Then we will not survive for long, that's for sure. Having said that, for most of our species' history, including the present, most humans couldn't afford to think long-term since the problems of everyday life took all their attention. If we can change that, there will be a chance.
 

That said, I hope to be proven wrong, and I hope that future technology will manage to somehow solve the conundrum of space travel, FTL, time dilation, etc.

I can imagine a few advancements that would make interplanetary space travel almost easy (maybe one of them is just around the corner, if the odd results of NASA's EmDrive experiment prove to be more than a shielding issue), but the lightspeed barrier is a pretty hard limit, since it's basically built into the structure of the universe. Given that scientific theories are rarely just proven wrong but rather found to be special cases or to have exceptions in specific conditions, I wouldn't expect science to reveal that local FTL is possible after all, just like that.

[Laughing_Man]

Then we will not survive for long, that's for sure. Having said that, for most of our species' history, including the present, most humans couldn't afford to think long-term since the problems of everyday life took all their attention. If we can change that, there will be a chance.
 
I can imagine a few advancements that would make interplanetary space travel almost easy (maybe one of them is just around the corner, if the odd results of NASA's EmDrive experiment prove to be more than a shielding issue), but the lightspeed barrier is a pretty hard limit, since it's basically built into the structure of the universe. Given that scientific theories are rarely just proven wrong but rather found to be special cases or to have exceptions in specific conditions, I wouldn't expect science to reveal that local FTL is possible after all, just like that.

 

That's all it takes... 

 

Hopefully.

 

You just need to find the correct loophole, how to cheat the system.

[heinoMK2]

Of course there will be eezo. Nearly ALL of the technology in Mass Effect depends on eezo. If there was none, then most of our technology wouldn't work and we'd be done for.

But exactly this dilemma could be the centerpiece of ME:A.

 

Suddenly, after arriving in Andromeda, the refugees/colonists discover that there is no Eezo whatsoever in the vincinity of the reachable locations. They face complete and utter civilizatory collapse, their true cosmic Dark Age - no space flight further than inside a solar system afer existing space drives break down, no more mass effect fields for all the high tech industry needed to support their current civilizatory level and probably no more biotic powers whatsoever after just a few generations.

 

Then unexpectedly, they discover ruins of an ancient civilization which offers a revolutionary possibility of technological development, also based on a unique and exotic element. Example would be the a new star drive allowing very fast space travel as demonstrated in the ME:A trailer. But now you need/want to find more of the ruins to aquire more of the new element, to discover more pieces of this knowledge, to find out if there is a way to synthesise more of the new ressource or any hints to its natural deposits, and because the exploration of these ruins promises unimaginable technological advancements.

 

After the initial rush you encounter a race that firmly believes(with probably a VERY good reason) that disturbing the ruins will utimately lead to the return of whoever left them behind and this would be a Very Bad Thing™, which instantly makes this new race your enemy. So you are suddenly faced with civilizatory collapse on the one side and an interstellar war on the other.

 

I wished i came up with this idea a year or two ago, seems pretty solid for a good story foundation.

[Ieldra]

I would argue that we earn the right to technology by developing an understanding of it, even if we didn't invent it ourselves. I mean, just look at how our technology has been shaped by the ingenuity of the animal kingdom.

I would argue that the terms "having earned something", "being deserving of something" or "having a right to something" are not applicable to "possessing or not possessing a technology" at all. Any value systems that might make you want to make such judgments lie outside the philosphical grounding of the idea of technological advancement itself, and are highly arbitrary and dependent on the specifics of someone's personal ideology.

The only exception is in an economic context, where being the creator of a technology may earn (!) you some temporary exclusive right to its benefits. But even that I would contest as a general principle, since I find the idea of a right to keep scientific or technological knowledge to yourself fundamentally problematic.

[Ieldra]

Then unexpectedly, they discover ruins of an ancient civilization.....

Why the heck must it always be ruins of an ancient civilization? I'd rather see a technological breakthrough for a change.

[heinoMK2]

Why the heck must it always be ruins of an ancient civilization? I'd rather see a technological breakthrough for a change.

I'm just going along the lines of the leak and what we know about the possible story of ME:A so far.

On the other hand, IMO nothing else gets a collective to think about their own cultural and technological development and their future like being confronted with the extinction of another culture.

[Ieldra]

I'm just going along the lines of the leak and what we know about the possible story of ME:A so far.

On the other hand, IMO nothing else gets a collective to think about their own cultural and technological development and their future like being confronted with the extinction of another culture.

Yes, but we had that topic in the trilogy. I think it's time for something different.

[Gwydden]

Also, living that long shouldn't be too much of a hurdle once humanity gets over its silly reluctance to make itself subject of its own artifice.

Hmm. I find ideas like cybernetic implants, brains in a vat, or brain uploading to be both unfeasible and fundamentally undesirable. Any improvements in life extension technology would have to be biological.

 

And don't even get me started on the singularity. Why anyone would ever want that escapes me entirely.

 

Yes, but we had that topic in the trilogy. I think it's time for something different.

I doubt colonists will have the time or infrastructure for significant breakthroughs.

 

However... What if instead of the ruins of an ancient civilization, they find the living remnant of a very advanced one? That would be a very different dynamic, trying to get advanced technologies from aliens who are not dead.

[Ieldra]

Hmm. I find ideas like cybernetic implants, brains in a vat, or brain uploading to be both unfeasible and fundamentally undesirable. Any improvements in life extension technology would have to be biological.

And here we are in the middle of a debate. Why do you find cybernetic implants undesirable? What about nanomachines that repair your cells as a life-extension measure? What I said should be interpreted as referring to human enhancement as such, regardless of whether it's biological or not. As for desirability, what I find desirable for myself is for me to say, and nobody else.
 

I doubt colonists will have the time or infrastructure for significant breakthroughs.

They had lots of time while travelling to their destination, and as for infrastructure, that depends on the specifications of the ship.
 

However... What if instead of the ruins of an ancient civilization, they find the living remnant of a very advanced one? That would be a very different dynamic, trying to get advanced technologies from aliens who are not dead.

It would be interesting, but I've always been more attracted to the idea of finding something new. Getting it from somewhere else, while equally feasible and not less valuable, is less of an achievement.

[Gwydden]

And here we are in the middle of a debate.

Squee!!! 

 

Why do you find cybernetic implants undesirable?

Why on Earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) would I want to chop off my limbs or get foreign objects stuck to my skin or, gods forbid, my brain? Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all. You'd get night vision! What for? You could fly! What for? You could be invisible! What for? You could lift an elephant! What for? You could learn stuff in seconds! Now where's the fun in that?

 

What about nanomachines that repair your cells as a life-extension measure?

Depends. Strictly biological nanomachines? Maybe. Otherwise I just wouldn't trust foreign objects in my body... or the people producing and distributing them. Did you know Mountain Dew actually includes a carcinogen as one of its ingredients? Sad but true.

 

What I said should be interpreted as referring to human enhancement as such, regardless of whether it's biological or not.

'Make oneself subject to one's own artifice' seemed to imply a certain type of... artificiality.

 

As for desirability, what I find desirable for myself is for me to say, and nobody else.

True. And one's own happiness is important. The second most important thing in a person's life, I would say. The first one is the Golden Rule, without which we might as well give up on this whole society thing, go our separate ways and die off. It is sweet and all to say everyone would be free to augment or not in a hypothetical future... but in practice, I'd be willing to bet that those who refuse would get screwed over. Your freedom ends where other people's begin and all that.

 

By the way, I'm not sure this is strictly on-topic, but I'd be genuinely interested in your response. And more than open to listen to a differing opinion — after all, if mine' somehow faulty, I'd like to know. So feel free to answer via PM! 

 

They had lots of time while travelling to their destination, and as for infrastructure, that depends on the specifications of the ship.

If they're going to Andromeda on a generation ship, I agree. If they go via cryonics, not so much.

[Ieldra]

I'll continue this OT debate for a bit. If someone complaints, we can always take it to PM...

Why on Earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) would I want to chop off my limbs or get foreign objects stuck to my skin or, gods forbid, my brain? Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all. You'd get night vision! What for? You could fly! What for? You could be invisible! What for? You could lift an elephant! What for? You could learn stuff in seconds! Now where's the fun in that?

Learning stuff in seconds sounds rather appealing to me. Apart from that, I think if there is technology that lets you do something without sticking "foreign objects" into your body, that's usually preferable, but I can think of some pretty nice artificial traits I'd appreciate.
 

Depends. Strictly biological nanomachines? Maybe. Otherwise I just wouldn't trust foreign objects in my body... or the people producing and distributing them. Did you know Mountain Dew actually includes a carcinogen as one of its ingredients? Sad but true.

Well, yes, trusting the people who make that stuff would be a problem, but that problem already exists with medical implants and other medical technology. It'll never be perfect as long as people make money with these things, but it won't keep people from using them if they're useful enough.

 

True. And one's own happiness is important. The second most important thing in a person's life, I would say. The first one is the Golden Rule, without which we might as well give up on this whole society thing, go our separate ways and die off. It is sweet and all to say everyone would be free to augment or not in a hypothetical future... but in practice, I'd be willing to bet that those who refuse would get screwed over. Your freedom ends where other people's begin and all that.

I don't think you can use that principle to construct a right to impose your rules on others. That would be like deciding you don't want a car and then saying everyone else shouldn't have one either because those with cars can get better jobs and you feel disadvantaged. Granted, implants would be a little more fundamental, but the principle is the same. There are some things I wouldn't do to myself either, but if others do and get an advantage out of it, I have no right to complain as long as they don't actively try to screw me over - and then it's not the technology but their behaviour which is in question.

 

If they're going to Andromeda on a generation ship, I agree. If they go via cryonics, not so much.

I admit I'm curious about the setup. Won't make me buy MEA before I know its ending its prevalent themes, but they might have learned a few things since ME3...

[Gwydden]

Learning stuff in seconds sounds rather appealing to me. Apart from that, I think if there is technology that lets you do something without sticking "foreign objects" into your body, that's usually preferable, but I can think of some pretty nice artificial traits I'd appreciate.

The only trait I'm particularly interested in is being healthier, as in, less likely to die from natural causes at the least. Seeing as life expectancy and overall health have been going up steadily for a while now, I'm fairly hopeful in that regard. I don't think cybernetics would be necessary and, in fact, they could be detrimental. Even if you managed to figure out a way to integrate them with a biological body without problems, maintaining them would likely be more expensive than with a biological part.

 

As for learning stuff in seconds, the problem with that is that before you know it everyone has learned everything there is to learn (and new knowledge would be added just as easily) and then what? Seems rather pointless.

 

Well, yes, trusting the people who make that stuff would be a problem, but that problem already exists with medical implants and other medical technology. It'll never be perfect as long as people make money with these things, but it won't keep people from using them if they're useful enough.

I imagine that, when you're working with stuff that is supposed to alter your body at a fundamental level, nasty side-effects become a hundred times more worthy of concern and the ways of manipulating said stuff with questionable goals in mind grow exponentially. The word violation would take on a whole new level of disturbing.

 

The safest path seems to stay clear from any such modifications, but that brings its own set of issues.

 

I don't think you can use that principle to construct a right to impose your rules on others. That would be like deciding you don't want a car and then saying everyone else shouldn't have one either because those with cars can get better jobs and you feel disadvantaged. Granted, implants would be a little more fundamental, but the principle is the same. There are some things I wouldn't do to myself either, but if others do and get an advantage out of it, I have no right to complain as long as they don't actively try to screw me over - and then it's not the technology but their behaviour which is in question.

If I don't have a car, I can still work close to home or use public transportation. It is not a significant handicap, if at all. What is more, I may be more qualified than most people who do have a car. It's not an inherent disadvantage. Now, say there was an implant that allowed you to learn things in seconds, like we discussed earlier. And let's say that it was readily available to the average person for a decent price, sort of like a cellphone. Which it would eventually, since that is how technological diffusion works. The only people who wouldn't have it would be those who chose not to.

 

Those who did have it now would be able to learn a number of skills that would be utterly impossible for a regular person to acquire in a lifetime, let alone a short amount of time. And because it takes virtually no effort, people who had the implant wouldn't have to show dedication, or discipline, or even interest. It doesn't matter if you hate math and you've always sucked at it; you can learn advanced calculus just by downloading some stuff into your implant. Do you want to be an accountant, a chef, a historian, a musician, anything at all? All you have to do is download the required skills and you'll be good to go.

 

This is a ridiculous advantage that most people would immediately pick up because of course. Those who refused to take it up would be utterly unable to compete with those who did in any field whatsoever. Not just getting jobs, though that too. Were you hoping to participate in any sort of tournament? Well, if you don't have an implant, you might as well give up.

 

And that's only one example. What if there was a separate implant that allowed you to "sync" with other people who had a similar device, effectively allowing telepathy? No doubt it would quickly become a dominant form of communication and those who didn't participate would, by extension, be denied participation in society at large or having anything resembling a social life. As it stands, not having any sort of presence in social media is beginning to prove difficult in our day and age (I should know; I don't), and let's not even get started about not owning a cellphone. And this would be even worse as it's not just acquiring a new gadget or creating a profile on Facebook, but fundamentally altering your body.

 

Every time I hear transhumanists talking about morphological freedom I cannot help but think that it is easy for them to say. They're pretty much counting on everyone who opts out of augmentations to be phased out and lose all relevance.

 

I admit I'm curious about the setup. Won't make me buy MEA before I know its ending its prevalent themes, but they might have learned a few things since ME3...

Well, for the most part, it's an entirely different team. It could either be very good or very bad. Time will tell.

[Laughing_Man]

*snip*

 

Every time I hear transhumanists talking about morphological freedom I cannot help but think that it is easy for them to say. They're pretty much counting on everyone who opts out of augmentations to be phased out and lose all relevance.

 

Well, for the most part, it's an entirely different team. It could either be very good or very bad. Time will tell.

 

Well, that's more or less the usual fears you hear every time someone mentions trans-humanism, but I don't see how your right to not use those technologies supersedes my right to use them.

 

I am not sure that many of the things you describe are even possible, but even if they are, a degree of separation could be implemented between augmented people and not augmented in competitions, and some laws could somewhat control positive bias towards augmented workers. But yes, those that choose not to use this technology will encounter difficulties, just as those that chose to use them may encounter other types of difficulties.

 

And yes, those fears might be relevant for every type of enhancement, biological as well, but holding back technological advancement is historically a

losing position anyway, you either get on with the times, or you can continue living without using electrical appliances like certain communities do up to this day.

[Ieldra]

This is a ridiculous advantage that most people would immediately pick up because of course. Those who refused to take it up would be utterly unable to compete with those who did in any field whatsoever. Not just getting jobs, though that too. Were you hoping to participate in any sort of tournament? Well, if you don't have an implant, you might as well give up.

I don't think such stuff will be as limitless as you describe. It'll be a gradual process, but yes, eventually it would come to it that unaugmented people won't be able to compete in certain fields. That's just how things go, and to take up your analogy: why the heck would anyone refuse to use a smartphone? It's their right of course, but if it incurs disadvantages, that was their choice and they'd have to deal with the consequences. Safety is a concern, yes, and I guess regulation would have to be pretty hard, but fundamental rejection is not something I feel I should have to consider. There are people in the present who refuse much of modern technology. It's the same with them. It's their right, and I'll defend that right if necessary, but if they're left behind, it *was* their choice.

Well, for the most part, it's an entirely different team. It could either be very good or very bad. Time will tell.

Uh...Mac Walters. Well, it may turn out he designed aspects of the main plot I liked and Casey Hudson was responsible for the unpleasant parts, but I remain skeptical.

[Gwydden]

Well, that's more or less the usual fears you hear every time someone mentions trans-humanism, but I don't see how your right to not use those technologies supersedes my right to use them.

I thought the usual fears were more along the lines of "but it's unnatural!" and "you're making Jesus cry!" but it is good to know that I'm not alone in my concerns. From my side, I don't see how your right to use them supersedes my right not to use them or, more accurately, I don't see how your right to modify your body supersedes my right not to modify mine.

 

I am not sure that many of the things you describe are even possible, but even if they are, a degree of separation could be implemented between augmented people and not augmented in competitions, and some laws could somewhat control positive bias towards augmented workers. But yes, those that choose not to use this technology will encounter difficulties, just as those that chose to use them may encounter other types of difficulties.

My point is that if some are augmented, people who choose not to will eventually be coerced into doing so themselves because the only alternative will be to become an ineffectual pariah and go live in reservations, or something along those lines.

 

I have no idea if those things will ever be possible either. I'm just repeating what I've heard transhumanists say in their sales pitch.

 

And yes, those fears might be relevant for every type of enhancement, biological as well, but holding back technological advancement is historically a

losing position anyway, you either get on with the times, or you can continue living without using electrical appliances like certain communities do up to this day.

Of course, there has never been a case where it was deemed that a certain technology was not worth using. Absolutely never.

 

I don't think such stuff will be as limitless as you describe. It'll be a gradual process, but yes, eventually it would come to it that unaugmented people won't be able to compete in certain fields. 

As I said, just repeating what I've heard proponents say. I took an extreme example to better illustrate my point, but I agree that it would be a gradual process and would progress as such.

 

That's just how things go, and to take up your analogy: why the heck would anyone refuse to use a smartphone? It's their right of course, but if it incurs disadvantages, that was their choice and they'd have to deal with the consequences. Safety is a concern, yes, and I guess regulation would have to be pretty hard, but fundamental rejection is not something I feel I should have to consider. There are people in the present who refuse much of modern technology. It's the same with them. It's their right, and I'll defend that right if necessary, but if they're left behind, it *was* their choice.

There's a significant difference between not wanting to use a certain technology and not wanting to alter your body. And people would inevitably be coerced to do the latter once augmentations became commonplace, even if not on purpose.

 

It is very easy to say "deal with it" if you're not the one who is going to have to deal with it. The way I see it, it is much more reasonable to say "you're going to have to remain as you are because that's what we're all doing, much as you may not like it" than "you can either fundamentally alter your body or go live in a reservation with the other bioluddites, much as you may not like it," even if neither is a perfect solution.

 

And I'd like to point out that I'm not saying that, if enhancements along the lines of the one I described became available, I wouldn't use them under any circumstance. Chances are I'd analyze the situation according to its particularities and make an assessment based on the risks versus the potential benefits and how much the latter interest me. So there's no guarantee I'd end up with the bioluddites in that scenario, since I'm not set in my ways. But I certainly wouldn't like to be given such a crappy ultimatum, if that were my choice.