Are we racist for helping the Geth in ME3?

Read what I wrote.  I didn't say it wasn't a physical evolution.  What I did say was that it's allegedly the "final evolution" according to the Catalyst.  That would mean no further changes will happen.  Also, at least in one post, I pointed out that boredom would be a big reason for death.  No change, no challenge, no reason to stick around.

All evolution is a physical change. Even what you might perceive to be a "mental evolution" is attributed to micro changes in brain size or synaptic nerve endings, etc.

The term "final evolution" implies that all beings will no longer experience those changes. Technology will advance only up to the point the galaxy can continue to comprehend it and no further. Evolution would be required to make that "mental leap" into the prospective unknown.

While I don't think a mass-suicide a la boredom would occur, the ultimate result of Synthesis (i.e., final evolution) is without a doubt stagnation.

And yet when people think about evolution they think of physical attributes. Hence why in just about any science fiction novel that involves one race evolving or another race being more evolved then another it is pure physical/mental attributes.  In Star Trek Q looks down on humans as unevolved because they are limited by their weak physical body. Compared to the Q who evolved the ability to understand far more then humans can and literally manipulate time, space and the very fabric of the universe. And by ever single set up in the game Synthesis is talking about a purely physical evolution. And the bonus side effects that come from that physical evolution.

Please the next time you are out and about with friends and family ask them what the first thought that comes to them when they think of evolution. Bet you 9 our of 10 times it will be the physical change of an animal from one form to the next. AKA humans evolving from monkeys. That is the most common and almost hardwired concept of evolution in the public's eye. While it might not be the only definition or use of it. It is certainly the most common. Much like if I said ejaculate most will think of sperm. How ever it also has a meaning of saying something quickly and suddenly. But if you asked any random person what they think of when you say ejaculate. It will 9 out of 10 times be male seamen.

We know the milky way galaxy was effected by the beam. How ever we have no idea about other galaxies and if they would be effected. Spread to new galaxies bringing the technology and understanding to allow peace to exist and new races to be uplifted to new heights.  Also who said it would be a utopia?

 

gothpunkboy89

Sure, 9 out of 10 times if you mention evolution the person's mind goes toward macro evolution (the vague "monkeys to humans" analogy you gave). But there are also micro evolutions happening everyday. Every birth/conception carries with it mutations, which are carried over to the next generation to possible mutate further. Polymorphisms within our DNA allow us to acclimate to different climates and conditions, often several times within our lifetime.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but nothing you said invalidates the claim that by using the term "final evolution" the writers have (albeit unintentionally) sloppily sealed the fate of the galaxy's races.

Are you at least willing to concede that it was a poor choice of words?

So no more killing people for stupid reasons is now definition of utopia?

People's perceptions of the meaning of a word is very important when discussing the reason for the use of the word. Hence why you don't see on Peppa Pig a children's cartoon. Saying that Peppa ejaculated at the sight of her mother's home made pancakes. Because the term and concept that would immediately jump to everyone's mind is the release of seaman from male genitalia. And would result in a lot of backlash for that line. Even though it has a meaning beyond that.

So when a game developer talks about evolution they are going along with the generalized perception of the word. In this case evolution talking about the physical changes of a species over time.

Interesting as all this is, I find the moral dilemma that BioWare posed, to be a compelling one.

More people sided with the Geth than the Quarians (or both).

The premise of synthesis is that organics will no longer be at odds with synthetics, but synthetics could still be at odds with each other before synthesis and as could organics like the Rachni wars, shanxi and Krogan Rebellions so it falls apart. How does making synthetics and organics more understanding of each other rid them of conflict or genocide "at some point?" It is just as likely to happen for organics or synthetics as it is likely to happen for organics and organics or synthetics and synthetics "at some point" - we just have zero indication of either scenario happening any time soon.

Who cares?  They said FINAL!  Does that one have difficulty for you?

I wonder how many meant to choose one side over the other, but then didn't want to go back to an earlier save to fix it.

When people think utopia, they think no hunger, war or death.  Simple enough for  you?

When people think evolution, they don't think just physical.  They think smarter, faster, longer-lived.  Smarter, while physical, falls under the mental category as well.  So, what was your point anyway?

No. I was saying "final evolution" is a sloppy choice of words. I very pointedly said that whether a person thought of macro evolution or micro evolution at the mention of the word is wholly irrelevant; "final" implies a stop to all forms of evolution.

I ask again, are you willing to concede that using the term "final evolution" is misleading and lazy, especially since the developers had the opposite in mind?



Not accurate.
www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second-of-human-brain-activity-takes-82944-processors



Uh huh. All evolution is a physical change on some level.



No. I am not. And your intentional attempts to misrepresent what I'm saying is very aggravating.