(Updated 02 January 2011, added thoughts)
Having finished Deus Ex: Human Revolution at last, I found some nice thought-provoking concepts in the game that I think mirrors real world. In fact, a few such thoughts were portrayed in the 2009 film Surrogates. Issues regarding the boundary between human-technology integration, ethicality of actions done through a non-sentient being and so forth. DEHR allows you some form of choice in the way some things are accomplished, although unlike Dragon Age (1) and both Mass Effect games (All 3 from Bioware), you don’t really alter the course of the game that drastically. Instead, you get to choose, at the end of the game, what ending you want, regardless of your stance(s) throughout the game. Kind of pointless to do it this way, oh well.
I’ve thrown together transcripts of Adam Jensen’s monologues after each ending (presumably to justify his course of action), and my own thoughts on the matter (Pending). If you have not finished the game, spoilers ensue. If you proceed with reading after the pagebreak…well, you were warned.
‘Sarif ending’
David Sarif envisioned a future where humanity and technology undergo fusion to become one integrated existence. His agenda was simply that technology should merge with humanity to create an overall better human society.
Eliza: If you do this, the focus of hatred may shift to those responsible for unleashing biological warfare, leaving corporations free to experiment with human evolution.
Adam:
“Sarif was right about one thing, it’s in our nature to want to rise above our limits. Think about it. We were cold, so we harnessed fire. We were weak, so we invented tools. Every time we met an obstacle, we used creativity and ingenuity to overcome it. The cycle is inevitable…but will the outcome always be good? I guess that will depend on how we approach it.
These past few months, I was challenged many times, but more often than not, didn’t I try to keep morality in mind, knowing that my actions did not have to harm others? Time and time again, didn’t I resist the urge to abuse power and resources, simply to achieve my goals more swiftly? In the past we’ve had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never have to feel weak or morally conflicted again? What if the path Sarif wants us to take enables us to hold on to higher values with more stability? One thing is obvious: for the first time, we have a chance to steal fire from the gods. To turn away from it now, to stop pursuing a future where technology and biology combine – leading to the promise of a Singularity – would be to deny the essence of who we are. No doubt the road to get there will be bumpy, hurting some people along the way. But won’t achieving the dream be worth it? We can become the gods we’ve always been striving to be. We might as well get good at it.”
Personal Thoughts
This is still my favoured ending, not because it appears to be the ‘easy way out’, far from it, but because it echoes most with my innermost thoughts and convictions. Technology should be embraced and if possible, integrated, into our lives. We’ve always done it over the years, without losing our ‘humanity’. What does happen in reality, is that we gain increased power, while thinking along outmoded lines of governing that power. The popular Spiderman quote “With great power comes great responsibility”, no truer words. But that should not be a reason to stifle technological advancements: we should not say “Let’s stop science in its tracks” simply because we have not adapted to control the newfound power of new discoveries. Rather, we should uncover as much as possible, and learn as much as possible about it, and undergo the process of learning, through trial-and-error if need be.
Scientific advancements cannot simply be un-discovered, or shoved into the back of a filing cabinet and forgotten. Not everyone will object to exploring a radical or controversial area of science, and what happens if they do so in secret? Who then will know enough about it to perform a check and balance counter? Instead, by exposing it to the world and introducing guidelines for it, we stand a better chance of learning how better to exercise responsibility for it.
This may sound much like Bill Taggart’s message, but what he basically is getting at, is to use regulations to ‘govern’ science. It’s just not actionable. Rather, one should adjust the standards of society according to advancements in science. Talking at a flat screen would have gotten you locked away for mental illness prior to the advent of televisions or computer displays, not any more. Same situation here.
‘Darrow ending’
Eliza:
“If you do this, the unadulterated truth in Darrow’s confession may well convince mankind to cast all science and technology aside, to ensure that future generations grow up free and whole.”
Adam:
“Albert Einstein said, “Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.” Took me a while, but I finally see his point. How often have we chased the dream of progress, only to see that dream perverted? More often than not, haven’t the machines we built to improve life shattered the lives of millions? And now we want to turn that dream on ourselves, to fundamentally improve who we are. Experience has shown me how dangerous that can be. How many times, in the call of duty, did I almost fall into the trap of taking shortcuts, abusing my abilities or resources at hand? I resisted — barely at times — because I valued human lives and considerations. But can I truly despise others who fall?
Technology offers us strength, strength enables dominance, and dominances paves the way for abuse. Darrow understood this. He knew that using technology to become something more than we are risks losing our ability to love, aspire, or to make moral choices – the very things that make us human. It also risks giving some men the power to make others what they choose – regardless of the cost to human dignity. The suffering Darrow inflicted is not the end of the world – it is merely the seed for change, and change never comes without pain.”
Personal Thoughts
This constitutes a ‘back to humanity-basics’ ending, if you will. It almost exactly mirrors the ending of the film Surrogates, where humanity’s over-reliance on mechanical clones, ‘surrogates’, leads to the final wave of ‘disabling’ or ‘destruction’ of the surrogates by the inventor, Cantor. Here, augmentations, for better or worse, developed from the basis of Darrow’s work, subverts the people implanted with them, and drives them into a state of mental instability, to the extent of becoming mindless, ‘zombie’-like people.
Both Darrow and Cantor (of Surrogates) sing the same tune: regretting the fact that their work is used for means other than that which they invented. In both cases, their work started out to help disabled individuals to lead normal lives (or as close to it as possible), but in both cases, it ended up benefiting the ones who needed it least. As surrogates, it became a crutch for people, who soon learned that they need never step foot beyond their homes, or indeed, even their bedrooms, as they could accomplish everything and then some with their surrogates. As augmented people, what was not humanly possible before suddenly became commonplace, limited only by finances and the envelope of cutting-edge science. In both settings, there is widespread adoption of the ‘radical technology’, and yet there are fierce dissenters.
In a sense, I guess it illustrates the world to which we are headed to. Of the many new technologies we see today, an equal number of concerns pop up related to each of these new advances. Where there is technological convergence, oversimplification and over-reliance become concerns; where there is enhanced efficiency, ethical, security or privacy aspects become the focal point of concern; where there is improved, integrated communications, there is the issue of loss of non-verbal message processing.
What I’m trying to get at is, like Adam said, change never comes without pain. But it doesn’t have to always be seen as ‘pain’. It should be seen as a live test of our supposed ability to adapt and survive, as our predecessors did through the generations. And if some of us fail…well, I for one wouldn’t support the use of technology as a crutch for the weakened.
‘Taggart ending’
Eliza:
“If you do this, firsthand experience with corporate negligence on such a grand scale may convince mankind to enact harsh restrictions on human enhancement research.”
Adam:
“Freedom…to those who don’t have it, it’s more valuable than gold. But where should it start and end?
We humans often think we have the right to expand, absorb, convert, or possess anything we need to reach our dreams. But time and time again, hasn’t this led to conflict with others who essentially believe the same thing? Looking back at the challenges I faced — at the way I often resolved them — I realize morality can become our saving grace. Most of the time, didn’t I try to keep my values in mind, knowing how my actions would affect others? More often than not, I resisted the urge to abuse power and resources simply to reach my goals more swiftly. I managed to hang on to my humanity — but the temptation to ignore it was always there. It’s that temptation that so worries Taggart. He’s not afraid of freedom. He’s afraid of the chaos that erupts when individuals have nothing but morality to constrain them. He wants us to regulate enhancement technologies, because he fears all that power without limits, without guiderails to keep us from abusing it.
Absolute freedom is no better than chaos. Society needs laws and regulations to protect it. So if the men and women behind Taggart need to work in shadows, pulling strings to enable us to head in a safe direction, will supporting them be all that bad? If they’re as wise as Taggart says, how bad will their leadership be? I just hope they stand by what they say.”
Personal Thoughts
Oddly enough, Taggart’s message makes sense here. Unregulated anything is simply counter to the interests of scientific and technological growth. Then again, who’s to say what extent of regulation is beneficial and when it becomes a hindrance rather than a boon? This one leaves a very interesting debate question for us all to ponder.
‘Self-destruct ending’
Eliza:
“If you do this, the world will be left with questions, and may never reach a consensus.”
Adam:
“Do I trust mankind to save itself? That’s what Eliza was asking. The truth is, I don’t know. After everything I’ve seen, all the fighting and the chaos around me, I know only what I want to believe: that somehow, human decency will triumph.
These past few months, I faced many life-threatening situations. I could have given up many times, but my need to know the truth, to uncover the secrets that others were hiding, and to survive, forced me to keep on going. Most of the time, I tried to keep my values in mind, knowing that my actions did not have to harm others. I held on to my humanity, resisting the urge to abuse power or resources in order to meet my goals. And in the end, I got the job done.
But does this mean I have the right to choose for everyone? No. Because it isn’t up to me. It isn’t up to Darrow, Sarif, or Taggart either. Ordinary men and women will have to decide together what course mankind should take. The kind of people who, time and time again, have picked and chosen the future in highly practical ways – slowing change when it’s negative, speeding it up when it’s good. Can they do it again? I don’t know. But I do know that I’m not about to let anyone in this station, myself included, stand in their way.”
Personal Thoughts:
This is my least preferred ending among all four possible. Why? Because it simply places the power to govern humanity’s progress in the hands of the masses. Democracy, in other words, holds the final say on what happens. I personally do not subscribe to the idea of democracy, in its current form even less so. Representative democracy is, IMO, little more than a major popularity contest, and rarely are candidates chosen for outright merit. Rather, whoever learns how best to trivialize an opponent’s achievements while simultaneously embellishing their own, wins.
In a counter to Adam’s monologue, do I trust humanity to make the right decisions for itself? No. Time and again we have almost always settled into an existence of ‘barely tolerable’ ends, from the advances of science to the radical measures intended to curb negative effects of anything upon everything. We always seem to want to compromise, or strive for a win-win. The former’s almost always a cop-out, and the latter is few and far between. I believe that sometimes, people need to realize that not every situation is going to be a win-win. Live with the possibility of being on the losing side of things, and let science pursue its course. If it has to be tempered by expensive lessons of crashing and burning, so be it. We would only survive wiser.