We are in a series looking at the games in the Deus Ex universe. If you never played them or are a little rusty on the plot details, head on over to Wikipedia. If you haven’t played and still want to, beware of spoilers.
In this series we’re addressing the question presented in all of these games- How do we fix human imperfection? The ending of Deus Ex: Human Revolution provides four options for changing the natural order of the world. In this post we’ll continue to dissect the various ending options.
Regulated Augmentations
Choosing to send this message will blame a competing company for the problem which would essentially sink competition in the technology field and give full control to the Illuminati. They would be able to continue with their plans to widely distribute augmentations that would then be utilized for population control. Morality would fall into the hands of a few mysterious people.
This choice is similar to the previous option, but with one important difference. Whereas the unrestricted augmentations option would allow for a competitive market for this tech, this would give sole control to the Illuminati. This option implies a low view of individual morality as a means of maintaining society. People are too irresponsible to be left to their own devices and so they must be strictly controlled. The first problem is that there is not any person or group of people that would be completely trustworthy with that much control, although a Christian worldview would agree that humanity needs more accountability and guidance. However, this option takes away something that God gives all of us- free will. This option runs the risk of essentially having a society of mindless robots.
Humanity Chooses for Itself
Adam Jensen is given a fourth option by the A.I. that has guided you this far. The facility broadcasting the signal that would also broadcast the global message is in a carefully regulated arctic environment. You can choose to allow the facility to self-destruct taking down all the major players (including yourself) while not broadcasting any signal at all. With this option, humanity figures out the situation for itself and decides how to respond to this global event without any manipulation by those who were responsible.
Like this guy.
Since we don’t have the choice of using augmentations now, this option basically represents our current state. Augmentations and the advancement of technology have been portrayed to this point almost as humanity’s pathway to godhood. This option takes the previous important leaders out of the equation and lets the rest of the world decide if they want to pursue that option or not. Again, the problem is that no human or group of humans has proven that we are capable of making truly good decisions on our own. In a sense, this option represents the idea of deism which holds that god might exist, but he plays no real role in the events of our world. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it implies that we’re essentially left on our own to figure things out. Any study of history or observation of the news will quickly make one hopeless about our chances to survive on our own.
Questions:
Which did you choose?
What should we as a people do to appropriately use technology?
How will technology change the way in which we’re governed?
Reclaimer 105 
July 31st, 2012 at 1:35 PM
In the end, I choose Darrow’s way. All other options really conflicted with my basic morality. I couldn’t side with either Sarif or Taggert because they required me to lie for their benefit, and the 4th option was pretty much mass murder (I only killed 8 guys that level [5 by that robot], I wasn’t about to off the rest). I decided it was best that fire remain with the gods so to speak.
As far as the appropriate use of technology is concerned, I think that it should be used like a tool to accomplish a given task. An aid rather than a means to achieve a goal. The creation can never, and should never, transcend to or above the level of its creator. And if the creation cannot be a god, then neither than the creation help its creator be one either.
I don’t think technology will change the way we are governed so much as how we are governed. So long as humans exist we will always be governed the same way; by people that are put in positions above us. Even if a machine is carrying out all of the decisions, that contraption was made by someone. Therefore, the machine is merely en extension of the creator’s will.
Technology will change HOW we are governed, but specifics are yet to be determined. Like in the previous example, a machine being the extended will of the creator could be calling the shots. We could also have electronic voting. Hell, we could all have GPL implants that allow us to be tracked everywhere. Again, this affects how we are governed, not the way. As I said in regards to the previous question, technology is and should be regarded as a tool, an aid to accomplish a goal.
July 31st, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Thanks for the comment! I especially liked what you said about a creation being unable to help a creator become a god. I think sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking that we can use technology to get ourselves ahead, but it will never be more than a tool.
August 22nd, 2012 at 7:59 PM
David, I have included your blog on my resources page. I am trying to add images to each resource listed. Do you have an image you would like included with your blog’s listing? Please email me your file as an attachment. kirraantrobus@gmail.com.