The elephant in the room

Synthesis on some level almost certainly is the next step for humanity. However, ME3 forces an unexplained version of it on every sentient being* in the galaxy. A version created by our arch enemies. There's nothing inevitable or preordained about that.

*non-sentient as well maybe? Who knows, it's never explained.

Edit: I see I've repeated what Iakus said above. Great minds etc.

You are not helping the case of Synthesis with that

I'd like to comment on the debate about the "next step in human evolution":

As a transhumanist, I am fully in favor of taking control of our evolution and use technology to overcome fundamental limitations of the human condition. However, how we get there, that's in no way obvious, predetermined or inevitable.

Personally, I see the route "merging of man and machine" as intrinsically problematic. It will happen to some degree, but whether it will ever be more than a niche solution for people with defective bodies, or very selective implanting, that will depend on several problems being solved:

(1) The problem of autonomy
With technology, we're always at the whim of those who make it. What I take into my body should be mine to control, as absolutely as I have control over my conscious natural functions, and where non-conscious functions are affected, I want a near-absolute guarantee of non-interference by third parties without my permission. I'm not seeing a solution to this problem any time soon. In fact, technology appears to get more integrated, which will make people understandably suspicious.

(2) The problem of reliability
Whatever you can say of our natural functions and their limitations, they're far superior to anything we've ever built so far in reliability, by an order of magnitude at least. Whatever I take into my body I expect to be either *more* reliable than my natural functions, or superior in function and at least *as* reliable - or else why would I ever do it? However, current technology trends do not emphasize reliability, so I'm not seeing a solution to that problem any time soon, either.

(3) The problem of superior external solutions
Why the heck would I ever want an implanted smartphone? Sure, I can never forget it and it's hard to steal, but even if it is extremely reliable, a new version comes out every few years. Do I want another complicated operation every few years just to keep my body up to date? I can imagine a cultural climate where exactly that happens, given some kind of standardized interface technology, but it emphasizes the dangers of problem (1) and (2), and there will be no solution to this one without a solution to those.

(4) The problem of alienation
People are afraid of taking technology into their bodies not just because of practical problems like those mentioned above, but because they experience technology as something intrinsically alien to their bodies. I suspect this can be overcome with experience - I've seen people with artificial legs walking perfectly naturally just this morning in a science report on TV - but it will probably mean that most people don't want any implants as long as there is no pressing necessity or external solutions work perfectly fine. We have an intrinsic regard for healthy natural bodies, and especially *replacements* by technology (as opposed to additions) will meet fundamental rejection. If the technology gets there, we may have something akin to Deus Ex' nanotech augmentations eventually, but a scenario like in Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, I'm rather confident to say it will never happen. It is a path that people will do their utmost to bypass.

In addition, all this will not affect our biochemistry, nor our offspring, and as long as that remains so, it will not be an evolution (except maybe in a cultural sense) since the species remains the same.

So where does that leave us? The fundamental statement that humans create technology to improve their own existence is obviously true. Beyond that, it remains unclear to which degree that technology will become part of our bodies. I suspect we'll eventually have autorepair and anti-aging nanotech in our bodies, and some health problems will be resolved by genetic engineering, but as far as actual functional enhancements go, that depends totally on the cultural climate and technological capabilities. The most potent drivers of evolution at the moment are stress factors created by our social environment, and I suspect the need for seamless cooperation will increase even further as our technological endeavours become more complex. Technology may enhance our capabilities there, and personally I would prefer a technological to a genetic solution since the former is elective. I consider the most important cultural divide that between autonomists and collectivists, and I think the permanent conflict between those aspects of our nature will (continue to) affect our evolution as a species fundamentally, regardless of whether it remains a matter of random chance or becomes controlled by human artifice.

I know. The problem I mentioned applies to other things, though. External solutions - "gadgets", if you want - have the advantage of versatility in application and easy maintenance, and you can temporarily get rid of them if they become inconvenient.

I am of the belief that transhumanism will to some degree be accepted by people. That degree being that which increases the overall quality of life and health of people: cybernetic limbs for amputees, gene therapies, various life-extending treatments and such. But at some point there is a line beyond which the definition of "human" becomes fuzzy. People, not all people, but a lot, I think, will resist crossing that line and becoming "posthuman".

What Synthesis does is force everyone to this state. There is no choice given. And not just to all humans, but to all asari, turians, hanar, even races we've never heard of. And every animal, every blade of grass, every microbe in the galaxy. Irrevocably changed at the genetic level.

Which leads to the other problem that this choice was not only made for all current life, but all future life as well. This is more than just giving everyone a smartphone. This is forcing unproven, untested technology that affects EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, gambling with everyone's lives, that this isn't actually an exploding Samsung you're putting in everyone's brains.

This might sound ridiculous, but they're not supposed to be the same thing.

Mass Effect 3 was actually my very first Mass Effect game, and I chose Synthesis. After playing part of Mass Effect 1 and beating Mass Effect 2 and 3 several times each, I still choose Synthesis. I like the idea of Transhumanism. Ending the cyclical struggle of extinction by the Reapers, and building a better future.

There's nothing really wrong with a victory by explosion, as long as it's done to preserve life.


"I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, I love only that which they defend."-Faramir

However, Destroy's friendly fire of, well, everyone not-meatbag makes it a non-starter for me.  That is what keeps it from being acceptable, it is defeating the Reapers by becoming Reapers ourselves.

And I cannot love Refuse.  I find it a passive-aggressive "Screw you!" from Bioware.

I'm a "Destroy always" kind of guy.  It's just my Shepard being a follower of Hackett and, especially, Anderson that helps make this so.  

I agree on Refuse.  I think my Shepard would risk Synthesis or Control over Refuse.  Definitely better than allowing every advanced species - and my freakin' LI - to go extinct for some lame principle.

It does show what seems to be a big issue with how people think in the real world.

Well, I didn't actually say it was impossible. It said the scenario - which is one where many, many people get mechanical and visibly nonhuman replacements for perfectly healthy natural parts with no pressing necessity - most likely won't happen. Mechanical replacements are already possible and more will become possible. What they won't be is as widely employed as in the DXHR/MD scenario. Widely employed augmentations will only become once they're almost invisible, and feel as natural as your natural parts they replace, both to yourself and those you interact with. If you don't believe me just think about sex.

Of course, the morphological freedom promoted by transhumanism may eventually result in much weirder stuff as people might start experimenting with non-human forms, but at that point we'll be way past the DXHR/MD scenario in terms of technology.