Are we racist for helping the Geth in ME3?

Apparently it isn't "obvious" since several people seem to think it is a poor choice of words.


The two are not mutually exclusive. Compounded micro changes lead to a macro change (when viewed over a long period of time). "Final" means no change. How is that so hard to understand?


Properly define your terms.

Are you talking about modern computing power, or some far off future processor that exists in the realm of imagination? Because one we can quantify (as demonstrated by the link) and the other is a theoretical wonderland.

Either way this is so far from the topic on hand. Let's move on.


Do you care to elaborate?

[/quote]

Who's shifting the argument again?
Because I made it very clear that Synthesis being the so-called "final evolution" both macro and micro evolution stops. You are intentionally misconstruing my words for reasons I cannot begin to fathom.

Thanks!
I should just ignore him but his remarks are so baiting it illicits a kneejerk reaction from me.

Yes and several people will inevitably think it is a good choice of words. So what is your point there? English language is full of similar examples of speech. When someone says they are so hungry they could eat a horse. Or they are drying of hunger. 99.9% of the game it is not literally capable of eating a horse or about to die from starvation. Yet when someone says stuff like like they we know what they actually mean.



You didn't' answer my question. What Macro evolution could take place post Synthesis?



Yes theoretical wonderland call Mass Effect Universe. What the heck do you think EDI and the Geth are? What do you think synthetic life is? AI's who have the capability to copy how the human mind works to create a sentient self aware being who can think and learn on their own. Who are capable of thinking and reacting as speeds far beyond what organic bodies are capable of.

The entire point of EDI being included on the SR-2 was for cyber-warfare because she can react at speeds no organic life form could match. Which is shown when she goes toe to toe with the technologically enhanced by the Reapers Collector General.

EDI even directly says any attempt to help her take over Dr. Eva's body would have been counter producted limited to reaction time.





Technological advancements allow a form of evolution. Namely allows us to live longer without any actual physical changes. Or for example we develop the ability to eliminate genetic disorders. So no more kids being born with predisposition to kidney failure because of genetics. Or kids not being born with down syndrome. None of those would in act a physical change on the human race. We won't all suddenly become 6 foot tall blonde hair blue eye super soldiers capable of fests of strength that Captain America would blush at. Nor would it allow all of us to suddenly be able to understand particle and quantum physics significantly easier.

By every definition it is a micro evolution. Yet with that there is no physical change and the elimination of those genetic problems.



Ok show me the parts were the Catalyst is talking about Micro evolution in the Organic vs Synthetic conflict.

There is a difference between using a word with a specific meaning and using a figure of speech. Unless you are saying you used "obvious" figuratively... :/
Maybe you also just used "inevitably" figuratively too! Like, instead of meaning "to no other conclusion" you meant it to mean, "well, if you scramble your brain with an electric mixer and misuse enough words, it could make sense."


I did answer it. You even quoted it. NONE!
Forfukxsake!


Fine, I'll play along. I'll concede that it might be a "natural progression" for humans to begin augmenting themselves with technology (am I not merciful?). I have reservations as to whether that counts as actual evolution, but whatever...

So gene modification is not a physical change? Implanted cyberware is not a physical change? Organ replacement is not a physical change?



Ohh, very clever!
You invented your own definition for a word and expect me to defend a position I never held.
You might have a future in politics.

Eat a horse/starving to death have very specific meanings. Since there are things that can eat a horse and people have died of starvation. The english language is full of terms and sayings that have very specific meanings but are often used to mean something else. Context is very useful for helping establish what it actually means.

If you saw someone bone thing laying on the floor saying they are starving to death you would try to help them by feeding them because they are in fact starving to death. How ever someone says it walking around the middle of a big city with expensive cloths and the new smart phone in their hand it is obviously not a literal statement.

And in this case the context is the grand physical change that would result from integrating technology fully into organic life on a level never seen before.  Which leads to the 50 million dollar question. If the statement is wrong or flawed what possible grand evolutionary change could happen post synthesis and your own responds



kind of causes a problem for your stance and for your issue with wording and context of the use of final. Because even before I picked up the Trilogy I saw a synthesis like set up as the next form of evolution for the human race.  Not only from popular pop culture like Star Trek and Star Wars. But watching our own advancements in technology as they strive to over come and improve our lives.  And synthesis is the logical end point of that endeavor.



Small changes wouldn't be evolution. Someone getting a bionic arm to replace the one they lose isn't evolution.  Getting a better replacement bionic arm 40 years down the road isn't evolution. Least not evolution for humans. But eventual integrating technology so much with the human body would be an evolution. Because at a point you would be something different from the starting point. Much like Neanderthals were different from homo sapiens. Both are humans but there are enough distinct difference to classify them as a completely different species.

Removal of genetic disorders though gene therapy? No that isn't a physical change. Because they are simply being normal humans.  Replacement of organs and such is a physical change but is it evolution? Because by that definition my car a non living being has evolved. Because I rebuild the transmission, put a new radiator, spark plugs, etc.



No the game was talking about the grand change. The final evolution due to the integration of technology into organic body to create new form of life because of it. You brought up macro and micro to try and defend your point. Catalyst was talking macro or the grand change. Show were it was bringing up micro.

My questions were in response to this statement:



To which your response is:


So... all the little changes individually are not evolution, but enough little changes together are evolution? But then aren't the individual little changes part of the process of evolution? And hence, still considered evolution?



So you are saying that by physically altering the genome you aren't making a physical change because it still results in a "normal" human.

That makes about as much sense as saying, "the chicken caesar salad I just ate wasn't food because it's only going to turn into shit."


I wouldn't call it evolution.