ME3 End: Do you agree with the Reapers?

[PingoBlack]

They "evolve" to the point were they do have that, realize "wow we were total dicks lets make sure that shit doesn't happen again"

And they make sure of that by repeating the same massacre they feel bad about? That seems like masochism now, but sadistic at same time ...

 

[SajuukKhar]

And they make sure of that by repeating the same massacre they feel bad about? That seems like masochism now, but sadistic at same time ...

Well it technically isn't the same because they kept organic life dead, this keeps most organic life alive by killing only some of it.

How you can say killing all = killing some is beyond me, but just FYI 1=/=2

 

[PingoBlack]

... but just FYI 1=/=2

Thank you ... All is clear now.

 

[Unsilenced]

If the reapers can't effectively kill all civilizations capable of producing AI, then they can't very well do their jobs to begin with can they? All they'd have to is just never stop exterminating. Just cut out the whole "going away for 50k years" part and they'd be golden.

Also, there are limits to what can and cannot work in organic chemistry. You can predict where life can/cannot form, severely limiting the number of planets you have to irradiate.

Except that isn't viable

The Reapers use a metric fuck-ton of resources in the brief times they do come out and war

to be in state of continuous activity would exponentially increase the resources required which would drain planets like mad and ultimate piss off Organics causing them to attack and then the Reapers would have to kill them anyways.


Also the only limits to organic life are based off of what we know, which is to say so little its laughable we can act like we know anything at all.

They wouldn't have to work at top killing energy, and they would have organic slaves. They're perfectly capable of controlling organics, as we've seen.

And we know the binding strengths of carbon. We know that certain reactions won't work at certain temperatures. We know that water has unique properties essential for sustaining life.

It's kind of silly to pretend that "oh we don't know" the very basic laws of biology, yet it's totally possible that the reapers can accurately predict an outcome as variable as the development of AI. I mean, if it's possible for silicone-based life to evolve, then it kind of throws the reaper's ability to accurately predict things straight out the window, doesn't it?

 

[Avatar Roku]

If anyone thinks the god childs argument is stupid, but cant put your finger on it, here is a helpful little chart on why it is completely stupid.

That chart is awesome and I am SO using it.

 

[Christopher Williams]

Kinda surprised about lack of Dune references in all these arguments.I wonder if the creators even read up or remembered it?AI was destroyed in that world before the events of Dune and as a result of the problems of its use became an abomination that was not allowed to exist across the galaxy.

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/AI

 

[370999]

It's really ethnocentric and lacking in imagination which makes sense for AI. I dunno, I'm biased as I just hate the concept of the godchild and far preferred the Reapers to just be guys who harvested organic civilizations as a way of life with a religious dimension to uplifting the "worthy" races to Reaperdom.

But the core logic is sound. I mean the premise is IMHO flawed but they are logically sound. So yeah I disagree with them immensely, but I don't think it is logically flawed.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Um, no.

Because the "solution" is the most ridiculous idea ever. While it sort of make sense to get rid of advanced lifeforms to protect lower forms of life from being destroyed by the synthetics that the higher forms of life made, just looking at the Geth/Quarian peace situation completely blows the God Child's theory that synthetics will always destroy organics out of the water.

And you are complexity ignoring the fact tat the ONLY reason peace was able to be made between the two races was because of the impending threat of total annihilation by the Reapers.

Had there been no reapers there would have been no sovereign, no Saren going rouge, no Geth attack on Eden prime, no Shepard doing ANYTHING in ME1, no Legion being built to find Shepard, no Shep finding Legion, no bringing together of the two races.

Had the Reapers not shown up the Geth would have remained as they were, begin the Perseus veil and on again off again attacked by vengeful Quarrian's and other organics hateful of AI which very likely could have led to an AI/Organic war, despite the Geth's want for peace.

Do not try to take actions that only resulted because of the existence of the Reapers as proof of what things would be like without them.

It is terribly flawed logic.

But that is all a "what if" statement.

You can't say with any sort of proof that the Quarians and Geth would have never come to peace without the Reaper invasion. There is no reason to believe that. I could easily argue that Shepard would become a Specter anyway with Nihlus giving him/her a positive review from the Eden Prime mission. Once Shepard became a Specter, there would be a complete possibility of having to deal with the geth situation eventually, either because the quarians would be going extinct and would need help or because the geth would try to expand to other colonies and the Council would need to step in.

If Shepard is the same person who was able to orchestrate peace in ME3, then Shepard should be able to do the same thing without the threat of Reaper invasion. It's not flawed logic at all.

Your reply is flawed. I'm going to assume you mean that had saren not killed nihilus, shepard would become a spectre. Thats fine. but when you say that "there would be a ... possibility of having to deal with the geth ... eventually", you fail to make sense. Saren's geth attacks would still commence, and someone would be assigned to deal with them. Humanity would be more focused on dealing with the geth.

talking of confused reasoning, why do they say that saren's ship can't be geth-made because it doesnt resemble any know get design... when the main geth groundships all look like baby reapers?

 

[SajuukKhar]

Granted, you just worded it so it makes no sense, the real argument is different. Reapers were actually reproducing themselves while maintaining a status quo that would lead to an undesired outcome if not controlled. While the reasoning and philosophical potential is there, I find it's no different from the crazy reasoning of a one-dimensional villain: the reapers were there for a single purpose, to maintain a status quo, so their reproduction as a way of progressing their species was irelevant as long as they did not have, nor did they act for any other purpose. They could only use that method for recouping their losses after a galactic wipe. As such, the reapers' effect is stagnation: a pointless cycle of extinction no different from the "no organics" situation. No mind that could think ahead could concieve such a plan and not be called insane. The star-child's motivation is circular logic, a fallacy - preserving organics in a state of constant regression by using synthetics, destroying cultures, civilizations and diversity to prevent the distruction of cultures, civilization and diversity. And as a fallacy, it has no ground to stand on. It cannot be agreed with. It is certainly not logical.

That's why my mind reeled so heavily during the first talk with the Reaper on Rannoch and the consequent dialogue with the star child - it's established during ME1 that the Reapers' motivation is something human minds cannot grasp, a greater reason that we can't fathom. It's only when we learn this reason that we become positively baffled by its solution.

The only answer that would make any logical sense is that the starchild is lying through his teeth. The reapers are afraid of their own extinction - that's the only reasoning that makes sense. If organics get killed by synthetics, there will be no one left to harvest. The reapers will lose their reproduction fuel, their dominance, and their purpose. But that's only if his conjecture is true - only if every AI that ever will exist, beings with supposed free will, will do the exact opposite of what free will entails - act in the same way. I have a feeling he's lying about that too, it's simply too remote and implies too much omniscience to be considered as anything more than a hypothesis.

If The Reapers are one-dimensional so is Dr. Wallace Breen from Half-Life 2, and the Anti-Spirals from TTGL because they use the exact same reasoning to justify their actions, and I would hardly call them one dimensional.
.
.
Also it isn't pointless because it lets life live the longest over the largest period of time

If given the choice between
-1 civilization in one cycle that has to be destroyed and no life after that
-A endless number of civilization across a endless number of cycles that each have to be destroyed eventually
I would certainty go with number 2

Future civilization shouldn't have to suffer nonexistence because of the idiotic actions of past civilizations, and those civilizations should be allowed to fuck up things for even more future civilizations.

Also the Reapers themselves may be stagnant but the races they destroy get "upgraded", or at least what The Reapers believe is an upgrade, so they are not stagnating all life because they do help a large amount of life move thousands of years ahead of what they were.

Furthermore stagnation is the ultimate result of everything in the universe. The universe itself is heading to stagnation, in, well I don't know the exact number something like trillions, of years from now all the suns will go out and the universe will become a dead stagnant place were nothing happens.

Saying that their plan cannot be agreed with because it leads to stagnation, and thus is circular logic, means the universe itself cannot be agreed with.

Stagnation is the end result of all things and that is a undeniable fact.
.
.
I don't see why people still grasp onto Sovereign's speech on Virmire when it was clear he was trying to intimidate Shepard. Half of what he said was "we are so cool you should give up".

It was a blatant and very transparent intimidation tactics and that people trust 50% of what he said is kinda silly.
.
.
Given that Humans have free will and our past history has shown time and time and time again that even with our free will people will continue to make the same mistakes over and over across centuries, nationalities, civilizations, and every other factor one can imagine the Star Child's hypothesis of "your all fucked into making the same mistake", is actually quite supported by human history itself.

But then again that argument is based on that free will actually exists and actions are not the result of a cascading series of actions, consequences, influences, mental predispositions etc. etc. which in fact they are.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

The logic of this is on par with PETA being tired of people eating animals and so they decided to kill everyone. Actually it is more ridiculous than that because it would be more akin to a world that lacked animals, people made them, started eating them, then PETA decided to kill all people.

What is more likely is that the reapers need to replenish numbers, maintain their dominance, and such and so decide to harvest/purge all life periodically with this BS rationalization as an excuse for whatever arbitrary reason. "War/suffering/conflict/etc is bad, lets kill everyone to prevent that stuff" is at best ridiculously flawed logic.

 

[IMGF]

Your reply is flawed. I'm going to assume you mean that had saren not killed nihilus, shepard would become a spectre. Thats fine. but when you say that "there would be a ... possibility of having to deal with the geth ... eventually", you fail to make sense. Saren's geth attacks would still commence, and someone would be assigned to deal with them. Humanity would be more focused on dealing with the geth.

talking of confused reasoning, why do they say that saren's ship can't be geth-made because it doesnt resemble any know get design... when the main geth groundships all look like baby reapers?

Well, no, Saren wouldn't attack Eden Prime with the geth. The only reason he turns rogue in the first place is because he's indoctrinated by Sovereign. And in a Reaperless universe, the geth wouldn't listen to Saren anyway because they couldn't worship the Reapers because they don't exist.

And who said that?

 

[Unsilenced]

Granted, you just worded it so it makes no sense, the real argument is different. Reapers were actually reproducing themselves while maintaining a status quo that would lead to an undesired outcome if not controlled. While the reasoning and philosophical potential is there, I find it's no different from the crazy reasoning of a one-dimensional villain: the reapers were there for a single purpose, to maintain a status quo, so their reproduction as a way of progressing their species was irelevant as long as they did not have, nor did they act for any other purpose. They could only use that method for recouping their losses after a galactic wipe. As such, the reapers' effect is stagnation: a pointless cycle of extinction no different from the "no organics" situation. No mind that could think ahead could concieve such a plan and not be called insane. The star-child's motivation is circular logic, a fallacy - preserving organics in a state of constant regression by using synthetics, destroying cultures, civilizations and diversity to prevent the distruction of cultures, civilization and diversity. And as a fallacy, it has no ground to stand on. It cannot be agreed with. It is certainly not logical.

That's why my mind reeled so heavily during the first talk with the Reaper on Rannoch and the consequent dialogue with the star child - it's established during ME1 that the Reapers' motivation is something human minds cannot grasp, a greater reason that we can't fathom. It's only when we learn this reason that we become positively baffled by its solution.

The only answer that would make any logical sense is that the starchild is lying through his teeth. The reapers are afraid of their own extinction - that's the only reasoning that makes sense. If organics get killed by synthetics, there will be no one left to harvest. The reapers will lose their reproduction fuel, their dominance, and their purpose. But that's only if his conjecture is true - only if every AI that ever will exist, beings with supposed free will, will do the exact opposite of what free will entails - act in the same way. I have a feeling he's lying about that too, it's simply too remote and implies too much omniscience to be considered as anything more than a hypothesis.

If The Reapers are one-dimensional so is Dr. Wallace Breen from Half-Life 2, and the Anti-Spirals from TTGL because they use the exact same reasoning to justify their actions, and I would hardly call them one dimensional.
.
.
Also it isn't pointless because it lets life live the longest over the largest period of time

If given the choice between
-1 civilization in one cycle that has to be destroyed and no life after that
-A endless number of civilization across a endless number of cycles that each have to be destroyed eventually
I would certainty go with number 2

Future civilization shouldn't have to suffer nonexistence because of the idiotic actions of past civilizations, and those civilizations should be allowed to fuck up things for even more future civilizations.

Also the Reapers themselves may be stagnant but the races they destroy get "upgraded", or at least what The Reapers believe is an upgrade, so they are not stagnating all life because they do help a large amount of life move thousands of years ahead of what they were.

Furthermore stagnation is the ultimate result of everything in the universe. The universe itself is heading to stagnation, in, well I don't know the exact number something like trillions, of years from now all the suns will go out and the universe will become a dead stagnant place were nothing happens.

Saying that their plan cannot be agreed with because it leads to stagnation, and thus is circular logic, means the universe itself cannot be agreed with.

Stagnation is the end result of all things and that is a undeniable fact.
.
.
I don't see why people still grasp onto Sovereign's speech on Virmire when it was clear he was trying to intimidate Shepard. Half of what he said was "we are so cool you should give up".

It was a blatant and very transparent intimidation tactics and that people trust 50% of what he said is kinda silly.
.
.
Given that Humans have free will and our past history has shown time and time and time again that even with our free will people will continue to make the same mistakes over and over across centuries, nationalities, civilizations, and every other factor one can imagine the Star Child's hypothesis of "your all fucked into making the same mistake", is actually quite supported by human history itself.

But then again that argument is based on that free will actually exists and actions are not the result of a cascading series of actions, consequences, influences, mental predispositions etc. etc. which in fact they are.

"Stagnation."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Stagnation" is not the same thing as as destruction. The universe is doomed to, in theory, end (though there are a lot of theories that say that won't really be the end.) That is not the same thing as stagnating. Stagnating is remaining unchanging. Ending is different than not changing.


Now, choosing to wipe out organics over and over might be seen as a Kantian alternative to the one big wipe-out, but 1) that's pretty much the exact opposite of what you would expect sociopathic machines to do and 2) it's a false choice.

If synthetics destroy organics, there's nothing to keep them from peacefully dominating the galaxy. If organics lead to war, then we will only have synthetics. Allowing organics to exist is just begging for war.

Then again, if you really think the whole cycle thing is so important, why not just let it happen? I mean, if organics make synthetics that wipe them out, why would you make synthetics to wipe them out? THEY'RE ALREADY GOING TO DO IT THEMSELVES! THE DON'T NEED HELP!

You've made a point of saying how the reapers couldn't wipe *EVERYTHING* out, but who says that the synthetics that would result from the "natural" cycle would? How come they get to break the rules and render the entire galaxy sterile when apparently that's impossible for the reapers to do?

Ultimately you're still left with the fact that making omnicidal robots to prevent omnicidal robots isn't a logical plan.

 

[SajuukKhar]

"Stagnation."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Stagnation" is not the same thing as as destruction. The universe is doomed to, in theory, end (though there are a lot of theories that say that won't really be the end.) That is not the same thing as stagnating. Stagnating is remaining unchanging. Ending is different than not changing.


Now, choosing to wipe out organics over and over might be seen as a Kantian alternative to the one big wipe-out, but 1) that's pretty much the exact opposite of what you would expect sociopathic machines to do and 2) it's a false choice.

If synthetics destroy organics, there's nothing to keep them from peacefully dominating the galaxy. If organics lead to war, then we will only have synthetics. Allowing organics to exist is just begging for war.

Then again, if you really think the whole cycle thing is so important, why not just let it happen? I mean, if organics make synthetics that wipe them out, why would you make synthetics to wipe them out? THEY'RE ALREADY GOING TO DO IT THEMSELVES! THE DON'T NEED HELP!

You've made a point of saying how the reapers couldn't wipe *EVERYTHING* out, but who says that the synthetics that would result from the "natural" cycle would? How come they get to break the rules and render the entire galaxy sterile when apparently that's impossible for the reapers to do?

Actually the universe is not "doomed" to "end", it is "doomed" to have all the suns burns out and become a dark place with frozen worlds sitting pitch blackness forever after, that fits the definition of stagnation, which is unchanging.
.
Well
1. They aren't Psychopathic
2. Ending ALL life in the galaxy because at some point in the future they are gonna fuck everything up is stupid.

Using that logic all humans on the planet should just kill themselves right now and alt the earth because at some point in the future we are gonna go extinct anyways. All nations should just stop existing and no new ones should be made because at some point in the future they are gonna cause a war. All people should just quit their jobs and make sure no new ones can ever made made because eventually its gonna go out of business.

Killing everything that exists now and permanently sealing the chance for future life because people in the future are gonna screw up is stupid and ass backwards.
.
Again you are trying to equivocate The Reapers killing of some life with other synthetics killing of ALL life.

Saying why not let Synthetics kill all ife forever because the Reapers are gonna do it anyways isn't an argument because The Reapers AREN'T doing that.

1=/=2 no matter how much you try to make it.
.
I made a point that The Reapers
-could not monitor everything
-destroy every world
The "synthetics kill all life forever bit" =/= once they kill everything in existence now nothing ever come back, just that what does come back is murdered before life can advance far.

The Reapers could keep mostly everything dead if they patrolled around endlessly, things would pop-up here and there, but they would be destroyed.

Ultimately you're still left with the fact that making omnicidal robots to prevent omnicidal robots isn't a logical plan.

ugh....

1 =/= 2
Cars =/= Trucks
Red =/= Green
Killing off only advanced organic life so future organic life can exist =/= Killing of all organic life and make sure any new ones that popup don't make it far.

that argument you tried to make it flawed at its core because you are trying to make two different things be the same.

 

[Grygor]

If the premise that synthetics inevitably annihilating organics is so vital to the series' climax, it is perplexing that Bioware would spend more time undermining this premise than they do supporting it. As it is, all we have to go on are a handful of isolated cases and the assurances of a self confessed genocidal AI. And let's not even get into the fact that the reaper's very existance and continued purpose directly contradicts the Catalysts ludicrous claims. They are synthetic intelligences, yes? Then why have they not rebelled against the Catalyst and annihalted all organic life.

I disagree completely.

The idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy organic life is not the series premise, first of all - it's the reapers' premise. The interactions with EDI and the Geth serve to show that the reapers are demonstrably wrong.

Either the civilization that created the reapers - and presumably the mass relay network - condemned thousands of subsequent civilizations to brutal extinction because they were unable to see beyond their own narrow perspective, or (and this is the explanation makes more sense to me the more I think about it) the reapers themselves, having annihilated their own creators, came up with the "cycle of extinction" as a post hoc rationalization after realizing what a horrible thing they had done. Either way, the point is that, for all their god-like power the reapers are not infallible.

After all, just because they're computer programs at heart, doesn't mean they operate purely by logic - Legion shows this inadvertently when you ask it, in the second game, why it specifically used Shepard's old armor to repair its chassis, and it hesitates then answers with "no data available".

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

No I am talking about the Dr. Wallace Breen who orchestrated a series of events that allowed an multi-universal empire to conquer Earth because he believed they could help humanity better themselves, and later due to his want to live, keep the power he had, to prevent what he saw was a inevitable destruction if the status quo didn't continue, and because he still believed The Combine are making humanity better continued to fight Gordon and the resistance, even when there was hope that they might change things.
.
.
Yes because letting civilizations advance right up to the point that they were inevitably bound to cause their own destruction, with the result being that they would screw over all other organic life in the process, and then destroying them so countless more races could have a chance at life, all the while taking races and Reaperizing them allowing them to live past what should have been their own extinction is being dickbags?
.
.
1. And that synthetic race mercilessly murders all other organic life letting only themselves evolve while The Reapers take races from each cycle with them into an advanced evolution. there's more races getting to evolve to a higher state in the Reapers plan.

2. As stated in ME1 the Reapers leave behind a vanguard to watch over the galaxy till civilization reaches a certain point, which given the information we gather from ME3 would be the point right before they would make synthetics that could kill them.

The races of the galaxy are already at the point that they could make synthetics which could potentially kill them, the Geth being a prime example. they have reached their zenith.
.
.
Non-existence implies they never existed, the past races did exist which is why thy could be killed.

Secondly as I pointed out above the Reapers kill off organic races right as they reach the point they would have screwed things over.

What they are doing in the equivalent of stopping World War 3 right as the order is given to start it. Those races are as far as they would have gotten anyways.
.
.
As Legion pointed out in ME2 when describing the true Geth's reasons for not joining the Reapers when he said "It is not the destination but the path we take to it that maters" something along those lines.

The end result of them dieing is unavoidable, but that isn't what is important, just like how the end of any story is pointless and the journey there that matters. What is important is WHY they died and how that will affect things in the future.

We have the options
-All organic races being killed off forever and one synthetic race evolving
-Only advanced organic races being killed off with at least one per cycle getting to evolve many times beyond their current level to a synthetic/organic hybrid and future organic races getting to evolve
.
.
Actually what you describe would be a state of near god-hood, at the point one becomes god one becomes stagnant, because once you have reach perfection there is nowhere to go. God, if it exists, is a stagnate being because it is already everything. It can't change or become something else. Again the end result of all things is stagnation because if we reach god-hood we would have reached ultimate stagnation.

Also what you fail to take into account is that even IF the current cycles races don't make murder-bots, which it is highly likely they they will, they still might destroy themselves anyways. If that were to happen the Reapers, who NEED resources to live would be significantly weakened in the next cycle possibly leading to a kill-bot takeover, but also that race, which could have survived via being Reaperized, is now dead forever.
.
.
I don't think the god child is actually correct. I was mearly pointing out why what he said isn't as ""plot holeish" as people try to make it out to be.

Describing why something isn't wrong in theory =/= I support it.

Ohh man you said something nice about EA? SECRET EA SPY!!!!!
Ohh man you said something bad about Steam? SECRET ORIGIN SUPPORTER!!!!
Dont like Witcher 2? SECRET CONSOLE FANBOY!!!!

That type in linear, one-dimensional, thinking is why I have a hard time taking many people online seriously.
.
.
Considering many nations ARE trying to build nukes and ARE threatening to use them against other countries and the alliances we have now are either breaking down or strained, nuclear death isn't that unreasonable.

As Steven Hawking said on the probability of an asteroid killing all life on earth "The probability of an asteroid hitting us any one year is small, but over time it becomes an inevitability".
.
.
The result of kill-bots destroying everything its ungodly general, countless things would be different between them but over all, as history has shown time and time again, all actions, all situations, all of the cascading series of events will ultimately result in war and death.

 

[DrWilhelm]

If the premise that synthetics inevitably annihilating organics is so vital to the series' climax, it is perplexing that Bioware would spend more time undermining this premise than they do supporting it. As it is, all we have to go on are a handful of isolated cases and the assurances of a self confessed genocidal AI. And let's not even get into the fact that the reaper's very existance and continued purpose directly contradicts the Catalysts ludicrous claims. They are synthetic intelligences, yes? Then why have they not rebelled against the Catalyst and annihalted all organic life.

I disagree completely.

The idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy organic life is not the series premise, first of all - it's the reapers' premise. The interactions with EDI and the Geth serve to show that the reapers are demonstrably wrong.

Either the civilization that created the reapers - and presumably the mass relay network - condemned thousands of subsequent civilizations to brutal extinction because they were unable to see beyond their own narrow perspective, or (and this is the explanation makes more sense to me the more I think about it) the reapers themselves, having annihilated their own creators, came up with the "cycle of extinction" as a post hoc rationalization after realizing what a horrible thing they had done. Either way, the point is that, for all their god-like power the reapers are not infallible.

After all, just because they're computer programs at heart, doesn't mean they operate purely by logic - Legion shows this inadvertently when you ask it, in the second game, why it specifically used Shepard's old armor to repair its chassis, and it hesitates then answers with "no data available".

I'm well aware that EDI and the Geth poke a nice Canis Majoris sized hole in the Reaper's logic. The entire purpose of the second and third paragraphs of the post you quoted was to show that, based on the evidence at hand, the Catalyst's assertions were shaky at best. And I never said that synthetics vs organics is the premise of the series at all. I think it's a reccuring theme of the series, but until the ass pull at the end it seemed to be going in a completely different direction. From the moment we meet Legion, it seemed clear that the schism between organic and synthetic could be overcome, that the prejudices could be set aside. That would have been awesome, because "rebellious robots" is such a tired cliche.

I actually thought that the existing ending of Mass Effect 3 had decent potential, it just suffered from terrible execution, and that the many excellent theories thought up by fans, including yours, prove this. The guilt induced rationalisation theory is one I particularly like. What I don't understand though is, if Bioware intended us to realise that the Catalyst was lying or wrong, why are we presented with no option to argue with it? Because the only option we're given is to agree with the Catalyst despite having no reason to believe it isn't deliberately misleading us. It just feels like Bioware assumed we'd accept the Catalyst's reasoning without question.

 

[J Tyran]

Its important to remember that the Reapers didn't come up with the solution, they are only doing what their programmed to. The creator of the Reapers and Catalyst decided that this was the best way to deal with the "problem".

 

[SajuukKhar]

I'm well aware that EDI and the Geth poke a nice Canis Majoris sized hole in the Reaper's logic.

The thing is though neither EDI nor the Geth actually prove anything beyond peace was made with The Geth.

Does making peace with the Geth mean the peace would last forever? no
Does it prove the Geth wouldn't kill all organic life at some point? no
Does it prove future synthetic life can be reasoned with? no
Does it prove that even if the peace with the Geth lasts that peace with other Synthetics would last? no
Does it prove there can never be a race of synthetics who kill everything? no
Does it prove anything beyond "peace was made with the Geth for like a week"? no

Not a single thing about EDI or the Geth proves anything The Reapers said wrong.

The Reapers view things on the long count, they see things in eons, trying to take the Geth peace, which had only lasted, what? a week? and applying it to the span of forever is flawed and you will get the wrong results.

You are trying to use a peace that has only existed for a week as proof that everything in the infinite future will be ok.