Do you prefer ANDROMEDA? or Milkyway?

Here's what I suggest. A sequel features the main character traveling to another cluster. They find the planets occupied by species from the Milky Way. After the reapers were destroyed, they were able to build ships that could get to Andromeda in 300 years.  In the time they've been in Andromeda, they've built a relay connecting with the Milky Way.

Empty of the species we are most familiar with, but who can still exist because we bring them back from Andromeda.  Empty is not really empty... because new life/species could have also developed and advanced in the intervening 600 to 1200 years (600 minimum because that's already the time that has gone by in getting the AI to Andromeda).  The locations/buildings/ruins would still be there, along with a reason for studying them... the question in the minds of those in the AI returning would naturally be "What happened?"

The difference between what dmc1001 is proposing and what I am proposing is that I'm saying such an advancement in time could be sufficient to keep the references to what happened vague enough that they could change to reflect on whatever choice the player inputs and dmc1001 is proposing making the refuse ending canon (which then would mean that Bioware is telling us that's the only choice Shepard could have made).

What kinds of consequences would you have liked instead of the ones presented?

I think part of the point of the multiple endings was for the player to have to decide what matters most. I you can't bear to have EDI and the geth die, you wouldn't choose Destroy. If you can't stand that the Reapers live, you choose Destroy and live with the consequences of that decision (sacrificing beings that essentially became "human"). If you choose control, the Reapers live and YOU are sacrificed and basically downloaded into a Reaper. For me, being immortal but eventually watching everyone you knew and cared about aging and dying doesn't seem all that fun. Refuse sacrifices everyone with the hope that the next cycle would prevail by finding Liara's beacons and being prepared for the Reapers come. The theme is sacrifice and what are you willing to give up.

For me, I'll unhappily kill the geth and EDI in order to take out the Reapers. Even if the mass relays go down it's still better than letting the Reapers - and especially the Catalyst/Intelligence - go unpunished. It's a sad ending, and you might also die depending on EMS, but if it saves the galaxy then I'd find it worthwhile. I also mod the Catalyst out because I'm going to pick Destroy anyone and don't have to sit through that annoying Starbrat.

I don't think the only impetus for not choosing Destroy is "not bearing to have EDI and the geth die."  For me, it comes down to whether or not that particular Shepard of mine believes that "there's always another way" rather than totally annihilating ones enemies."  They introduced something about the Reapers that is also worth preserving... they hold the archival knowledge of all past advanced civilizations.  So, by having destroy affect the geth and EDI... it's destroying both the accumulated knowledge of the past and the advancements we've made towards the future... not just tech, but tech we ourselves have nurtured into being better than it was when we first encountered it (using the accumulated knowledge of the past represented in Reaper code to do it).

To me, it's more about EDI and the "new geth" being prototypes than being "human."  This philosophy of destroying all of one's past to rise stronger was expressed earlier in the game by the krogan (and it wasn't working all the well for them); the idea of constructing a prototype based on lessons learned from the past and sacrificing to preserve a prototype was also expressed in relation to the krogan (in O'Keer).  Xen expressed the idea that "what has been created, can always be recreated" (which is also expressed by the Catalyst in indicating that if you do destroy the Reapers and AI, "your children" will eventually rediscover how to make new ones (it would just take awhile because you destroyed the accumulated knowledge of the past), but the peace won't last (because you also destroyed the prototypes that had already gotten beyond the problem).  Proverbially, it's called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

The risks of adopting prototype tech without understanding the historical knowledge used to develop it is embodied in the Mass Relays and the Citadel themselves... and the willingness of the Asari to just start using it without understanding it.  Destroying the Reapers but continuing on with EDI and the "new geth" sets up that exact same scenario. 

I don't see destroy as an ideal solution at it's core... not just on some superficial contrived level.  I do agree with Element Zero - The ending themes were not ideally implemented.

In the story, we've already used what we learned to create our prototypes... and they're good prototypes.  They're AI tech that have moved beyond wanting to destroy their creators.  Who knows what other answers that past knowledge might hold for solving future problems.  Having destroy keep just the prototypes and destroy the Reapers would not solve the problems with it since the theme of the perils of just adopting tech we no longer understand is also written into the story in the form of the relays themselves and the Citadel itself.   Had someone not possessed some knowledge from the past (in the form of the keepers), the current species would not have even been able to maintain the Citadel.  Having the destroy ending also destroy EDI and the geth is not as contrived as you're making it out to be... it's consistent with the earlier themes threaded throughout the story.  If you do choose destroy, you are in effect indicating that you would not use what you could learn from the past to solve future problems (that you have no idea knowing what they might be). You'd choose to just destroy all that past knowledge, start from scratch, and literally reduce yourself to having to reinvent the wheel each time.  It's taking the "krogan solution." -- nuke it and rebuild from scratch.

It's like saying that synthesis would be the ideal ending if only it didn't alter everyone's DNA.  The negatives of that end run a little deeper than that and the same holds true for destroy.  There are negative consequences in each one of the endings that have beenalready  woven in the story throughout it.  What consequences you choose to accept are your choice... but they cannot and should not just be eliminated in a handwave like "if you just can't bear... sacrificing beings that essentially became "human."    It's the primary reason I'm personally so adamant about preserving them all as choices and not declaring any one of them canon.

Yet, you support the genophage... which was a non-destroy solution to the krogan problem that altered their DNA without their consent.  That's one theme of synthesis... and it's woven right into the story throughout it.

I don't care what you choose or whether or not you see any reason to choose differently.  I'm saying all three endings are woven into the story throughout it and you shouldn't "nuke" the other two just because you consistently choose only one of them.  There are people who do choose differently than you and have seen reasons within the story for doing so.  Your need to have Bioware rubber stamp your choice does not override the fact that Bioware gave us alternate choices in the first place.  To make any one ending canon breaks with that idea of choice; and that IS something they have actively avoided doing in the past.

Read my paragraph 2.

The game does give you reasons to choose them... you just choose to be blind to those reasons.  That IS your prerogative.

Some are the same reasons the salarians and turians chose not to destroy the krogan utterly, but chose to inflict the genophage upon them instead.  Some are the same reasons Wrex gives for hassling with unifying the weaker clans.  The game states those reasons.  I'm not going to list them so you can argue with me over them.

Those reasons are woven into those earlier themes in the story.  You are given reasons, you just choose to ignore them and choose to put priority on the reasons the game also gives you for choosing destroy.  The game gives reasons for choosing any of the endings the game provided.  What reasons you choose to consider and what reasons you choose to ignore are your prerogative... but it's inaccurate to say that the game doesn't give you any reasons.

... and you made three posts just to argue those semantics.

When have I put up a fuss about what you choose?.  I have consistently said it's your prerogative to choose what you want. 

You said the game gave you no reasons.  I said it did give reasons.  You said "what reasons?"  I told you where they appear in the game.  It wasn't until the third post that you finally acknowledged that the game gave you reasons that didn't work for your Shepard.

So, you can just quit the trolling, OK because I'm not going to snap or get upset or whatever else you also like to accuse me of here.