Jour 683

Dr. Kim
Final Paper
Kevin Dover


Nanotechnological Futures: The Reality of Deus Ex
Introduction:
There are essentially two views when it comes to envisaging nanotechnological futures,
neither is really historically informed. Rather, the histories they are informed by are biased in
their direction. These two views are positive and negative. Within the positive camp are those
who make use of the utopia narrative, otherwise known as those who see the world through role
colored glasses. The other three rhetorical narratives are all easily placed into the negative camp,
beginning with restriction which ramps into elimination which can then become apocalypse.
It is slightly strange that the narratives are not balanced, but there seems to be median
position. Restriction seems to be the closest to a middle locale but even that narrative is rife with
negative connotations. One could view the narratives as yin-yang with utopia being opposed by
apocalypse and restriction combating elimination, but that does not efface the ultimate negative
slant.
There are four primary rhetorical narratives that come up with great consistency when it
comes to the futures which are predicated on nanotechnology. These narratives are utopia,
restriction, elimination, and apocalypse. Each has its own particular merits and logic which stems
from it. Being rhetorical insists that it must be persuasive, and in so doing each utilizes
techniques which arises from bias and non-inclusion.
The case study that accompanies the following exposition is taken from the video game
industry. This is so because this essay is talking about futures which have not happened yet. The
video games being used are all taken from the Deus Ex series of games, and are as follows: Deus
Ex: Human Revolution, Deus Ex, and Deus Ex: Invisible War. This series is well slotted as it
revolves around nanotechnology and its resolution. They focus specifically on augmentation and
humans. Unsurprisingly their ending narratives fall within the four named rhetorical narratives.
This essay will be structured in sections. The first section will be an extrapolation of the
four rhetorical narratives. Following that will be a section dealing with the scientific speculations
surrounding nanotechnology. Next the case study, which will be an examination and analysis of
the Deus Ex series of games. Lastly the paper will conclude, with an aim to bring about a
synthesis of all of the information covered.
Rhetorical Narratives:
The utopia narrative is a rhetoric that takes into account only the positive, good, and what
it perceives as beneficial. It assumes that things will not diverge from their present course and in
fact will progress until apotheosis, and only there will it stagnate. It rejects notions which run
counter to its narrative and state that the precautionary principle is far too risk averse to be taken
seriously. Its projected endgame is paradise, nirvana, heaven, but only of their particular variety.
Depending on the perspective, the utopia envisioned could have extremely wide variance.
The restriction narrative revolves around conservatism and a strict adherence to the
precautionary principle. This narrative is not anti-progress or anti-utopia, but instead insists on
gradualism. It stresses the need for regulations and oversight. If need be, it will fall into legalism.
It is not wholly convinced of the goodness of humanity and because of this feels that it,
humanity, needs to be checked.
The elimination narrative holds that the precautionary principle is not enough and that
legalism will only get them so far. Their general sentiment is that the perceived threat should
simply be eliminated. This can take on a genocidal character but their preference is always
otherwise. They are seemingly against progress and endorse the status quo, but this is far too
simplistic a summation of their position. This position is more about the removal of harm, but it
is only what they perceive as harm and due to human subjectivity, this meaning of harm has a
wide variance.
The apocalypse narrative is the gloom and doom scenario. This narrative takes as the
norm and accepts that harm technological innovation cannot be stopped nor should it. It says that
any act of prohibition will push it underground, making it more radical and dangerous. It prefers
that it all be done out in the open, well as much as it can, as it realizes that much is still done in
the black. It takes an anti-utopia position, in which it predicts that rather than reaching a zenith, it
will instead end in fire, and rather than a heaven on Earth, those left existing will either wish they
were not or will be so different that they could no longer be classified as the same species. They
would instead be post-human.
Scientific Speculations:
Within the nanotechnological literature, when it comes to talking about outcomes there
are four main strains of thought. The first is libertarian transhumanism (Hayes, 2012, p. 209),
which would be classified as utopian, as it links together the best of individualistic values and
combines them with none of the negatives of a free-market economy, which leads down the
yellow brick road to a post-humanity of utter and complete bliss.
The second is one family-one future (Hayes, 2012, p. 211), which would be classified
as elimination, which states that there will be an open revolt to these new technologies leading to
a traditionalist and conservative backlash which could foment into regression back to an older
time and day. The third is techno-eugenic arms race (Hayes, 2012, p.212), which would be
classified as apocalypse, which states that all of these technologies will lead to an arms race for
which nations and individuals will strive for superiority and dominance by any means necessary.
The fourth is for the common good (Hayes, 2012, p. 214), which would be classified as
restrictive, which states that all of these technological progressions must be constrained by
liberal and legal institutions in order to harness their power for the ultimate good of society. Its
primary design is to avoid outright harm to any human whilst also trying to promote
technological innovation.
Within nanotechnological futures it was the apocalypse (Jomann and Ach, 2006, pp. 31-
32) narrative that first got the most notice through Drexlers gray goo argument (Laueat and
Petit, 2006, pp. 253-255), which stipulated that theoretically nanobots could reach the point in
which they could self-replicate (Weckert, 2007, pp. 137-138) in which they would end up
consuming the Earth and all of its resources. This scenario seems an unlikely one, but because
nanotechnology is still in its nascent stages, these arguments of risk aversion take precedent, as
these thinkers are following the age old adage of hope for the best but plan for the worst. This
sort of thinking leads to self-unfulfilling prophecies (Weckert, 2007, p. 139) where the fear of
risk will lead them to avoid something altogether, which in a rather backhanded way makes their
predictions moot.
The primary logic propping up this entire narrative, and the other two seemingly negative
narratives, is the precautionary principle (Weckert, 2007, p. 134), which means exactly what one
thinks it might mean. When it comes to any sort of new technology, which has the potential to
cause great harm, it is best to error on the side of caution rather than risk that potentiality of
harm, but this definition is rife with issues. The first major issue is the precautionary paradox
(Weckert, 2007, pp. 139-140), which states simply that what if the thing that the precautionary
principle is telling us to avoid actually creates a potential benefit which offsets the harm. They
might reply that this is purely theoretical and that there is no guarantee that benefit will come to
be, which is easily turned upon its head (Agar, 2004, p. 161) and aimed directly at them when it
comes to their own penchant for risk aversion.
The utopia narrative gains its thrust from the thoughts of the futurist, Ray Kurzweils law
of accelerating returns (Agar, 2010, p. 6), especially when it comes to genetics, nanotechnology,
and robots (Agar, 2010, p. 6). This law states essentially that technology grows at an exponential
rate, and that this rate of growth is entirely in humanitys favor. It will lead to what he calls the
singularity, which is the merging of man and machine (Schneider, 2009, p. 101). It asks the
question that the conservative defenders of the status quo seem to not want to ask and cannot
answer, which is why is the life that we have now the optimal (Agar, 2010, p. 139) form of life?
Has not humanity continually strove to improve upon itself in relation to those who came before?
So why does this sort of logic stifle us now?
The restriction and elimination narratives draws upon what is called the treatment-
enhancement distinction (OMathuna, 2009, pp. 134-140), which sets up a dichotomy of what is
right and what is wrong when it comes to talking about augmentation. If the augment is meant
for treatment, or to bring a human up to normal working order, than it is considered correct and
right, but if the augmentation is meant to enhance a human beyond what is considered a normal
capacity, it is wrong, and must therefore be either regulated or eliminated.
Both of these narratives build off of that opening distinction but diverge in the way that
they formulate it. The restrictions bring up the idea of forks (Church and Regis, 2012, pp. 243-
248), which simply state that something could go in one of two directions if not careful, for
instance a rich-poor split when it comes to access to augmentations. The elimination narratives
utilizes the idea of transgressions (Laueat and Petit, 2006, p. 275), which is the idea that this
whole shebang is a slippery slope which will lead from what might be considered minor tweaks
(increased age, increased intelligence) to a complete and utter reworking of what it means to be
human through radical augmentation (Agar, 2010, p. 1). The idea here is that one becomes so
different that they can no longer be classified in the same species (OMathuna, 2009, pp. 161-
163) that they were borne into, so it moves beyond the idea of simply treatment into the arena of
pure enhancement, which they find to be objectionable.
The last distinction has to do with how they understand enhancements in general.
Currently, there are two stages of perceived human augmentation, only one of which has been
actualized. First there are stage 1 enhancements (Khusht, 2008, pp. 206-209). These are
enhancements for which we know the benefits and deficiencies, even though they do create a
more than optimal state for a human, they are all short-lived and none of them change the
physical makeup of what it means to be human, a prime example here would be the use of
performance enhancing drugs to increase strength, speed, mental agility, and so forth. Their
effects are measured and limited in scope.
It is with stage 2 (Khusht, 2008, pp. 210-214) enhancements that these narratives begin to
become more concerned. Not only would these sort of enhancements do something that is out of
the ordinary for a normal human. Their effects are extended to the point of permanency. Because
they are still theoretical no one has an idea about what they may or may not do. Whether they
might make a person post-human and no longer able to relate back to the species from whence
they came, but more troubling they utilize known radicalizations from other species as an
analogy to demonstrate something that the utopia seems to have overlooked.
Their analogy is drawn from the cloning of animals, but anyones estimation this is a
radical procedure, but as has been clearly demonstrated, the creations have all been rather
haphazard and ended with the premature death of the clone, usually with it in extreme pain. The
rationale behind this has to do with the complexities of any working system and the severity of
our ignorance (Agar, 2004, p. 162). To introduce a random element into a working system is
likely not to produce positive results, in fact quite the opposite. It is for this reason, amongst the
others states, that caution is exhorted to the point of threat eradication.
The last point to be made in this section has to do with The Time Machine, written by
H.G. Wells (Agar, 2010, p. 4). In this book a scientists travels into the distant future and runs
across a species of well-mannered but smallish, bored individuals. He first speculates that they
came to be this way because of the ravages of a technological war, but there is a dark
undercurrent that he will soon discover.
He returns to where he had left his time machine and discovers it missing. Another
species of character had taken it, more bestial in nature. As he begins his exploration of their
dwellings he discovers that the individuals above could only live as they do because of this
underclass of brutes. It is here that he rethinks his original position that the human species, as it
was, had split into two, both radically changed, and neither with the ability to communicate
effectively with the other. Their relationship is fiendish and leads only to both of their
destructions.
While The Time Machine was talking more about mutations than augmentations, there
really is not much of a difference between the two ideas. A mutation is simply a non-intentional
augmentation, and this is really the crux of why Wells is so important. Not every enhancement is
a positive one, and sometimes the augmentation can be downright deadly to the person (Agar,
2004, p. 13). It is here were the restriction and elimination narrative gain their most steam
because this is a fact admitted by all sides, and only these two narratives offer up a semblance of
a solution to it.
Case Study:
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
The basic plot of the game is that you play as Adam Jensen, the head of security at Sarif
Industries, which is a corporation on the cutting edge of nanotechnology. A group of
nanotechnological advanced mercenaries assault Sarif Industries and seemingly kill all of their
researchers and gravely injury Adam. Six months pass, and Adam returns to the job, radically
mechanically augmented to the point where his humanity is often called into question but
something is different about Adam.
Augmentations are considered normal within the game, but they all have one major
setback, which has a tendency to preclude their universality. This setback is that because the
augmentations are more mechanical than biological based the human body, at some point, begins
to resist the augmentation, and the person so enhanced must begin to ingest Neuropozyne, a drug
which is designed to prevent outright rejection and to treat the symptoms of the rejection. But
this is what makes Adam different, he does not need to take this medicine, somehow his body
has adapted and integrated the augmentations into his skeletal frame.
The character than passes through much of the game fulfilling various objectives along
the way until, at a certain point in the game that Adam begins to experiences painful glitches
which the media reports as having to do with some manufacturing problem with his
augmentations. The gamer is then given the option to have their neural chip replaced or to trudge
forward as if a problem did not exist. It is then discovered that the glitches were placed within
the structure of the system as sort of a failsafe or kill switch, and that they were, in a sense,
activated for conspiratorial purposes. The replacement neural chip which was supposed to fix the
bug was in fact a Trojan horse, which when clicked on caused the augmented person to go mad.
This game has four endings, each of which can fit into the rhetorical narratives listed
previously. The utopia narrative is linked to David Sarif who envisions a future in which
biomodifiation can be had by all and that only good things will emerge from this sort of
atmosphere. His view of humanity is optimistic and focuses solely on the good inside each of
them. He has faith that humanity, when given the opportunity, will take the right path, rather his
path. This ending requires that one alter a message delivered by Hugh Darrow in which he
divulges the truth behind what has transpired by shifting the blame to an anti-augmentation
organization, thereby granting him the leverage he so desperately desires.
The restriction narrative centers around a man called William Taggart who believes that
biomodification should be allowed to exist, but only within a legalistic framework. There is also
a control element involved as secretly he is struggling to grasp for power for the Illuminati, one
of his group affiliations. He believes that only through rules and regulations can humanity
become better. This ending requires that one forge the message blaming the preceding chaos on a
tainted shipment of Neuropozyne which will give the governmental institutions the right to act in
order to regulate biomodification.
The elimination narrative stems from Hugh Darrow, who is the man who created the
biomodifications that many enjoy. He also came to resent those augmentations due to their
failure to overcome his shortcomings, but he also recognized the inherent danger in his
unleashing of this technology. He came to regret that he had not fully thought out the affair
because he was so concerned with trying to save himself. His elimination narrative spanned the
spectrum from telling the truth so that biomodification would be seen as the threat that they are,
to creating a modified chip which essentially turned all biomodified persons into monsters intent
on razing anything within its path. This ending requires that one simply broadcast his confession,
in full, in which he lays out all of the dangers surrounding human enhancement.
The apocalypse narrative is not offered up to you by any single person, but is rather a last
ditch effort, in which the player is given the opportunity to reset the clock. In this scenario, not
only would each of the three characters above be killed, but the player, themselves, would have
to also sacrifice their life in the process. Under this scenario humanity would never truly discover
what drove the augmented humans mad, but would instead be allowed to decide for themselves
which course they should take. While this does not fit fully into the apocalypse narratives
criterion, its dominant mode is most clearly apocalyptic, and can therefore be classified as such.
This ending simply requires that the player ignore the pleas of the other three and be willing to
lay down their lives.
Deus Ex
The basic plot of the video game is that you play as the main character, JC Denton, who
is bioaugmented, as contrasted with mechanical augmented. His first task is to handle the
terrorist who have taken over the Statue of Liberty. This he does with relative ease, and discovers
that the terrorists had targeted a system of Ambrosia, which was a nanotechnological cure for a
disease called the Gray Death, a nanotechnological disease, which was plaguing humanity.
This video game only has three endings, and therefore can only partially fulfill the
rhetorical narratives. The utopia narrative is proffered up by an artificial intelligence construct
known as Helios who expresses a desire to merge with the main character in order to bring about
a benevolent dictatorship, in which humanity would be allowed to flourish whilst also being
constrained, prodded, and guided, by an all-knowing construct. This ending requires that the
player merge with Helios.
The restriction narrative, much like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, involves the Illuminati.
They are not really represented by any central figure, but rather a group of figures who express to
the main character that the world would operate best if they were allowed to take hold of the
reins of power. Their desire was to control the flow of augmentations and to restrict who can and
cannot have them. They claimed altruistic motives, but their true concern was only for power.
This ending requires that one ignore the pleas of the main antagonist, Bob Page, cutting him off
from gaining the power he thinks he deserves, which should return the world to a state of
normalcy.
The apocalypse narrative differs quite dramatically from Deus Ex: Human Revolution in
that its scenario is more about regression and setting back the clock. The main figure here is a
man named Tracer Tong who believes that technology is an evil which must be combated. To
complete this mission he wants the main character to blow up Area 51, which is the central hub
of this universe, thereby setting everything back to zero or the creation of a new Dark Age. This
ending requires that you destroy Area 51 and be willing to plunge the world into a Dark Age,
interestingly enough JC Denton does survive this, unlike in Deus Ex: Human Revolution.
Deus Ex: Invisible War
The basic plot of this game is that you play as a character called Alex Denton who is a
perfect clone of JC Denton, the main protagonist from the last game. Mechanical augmentations
have been sidelines and biomodification has moved into the further stages of perfection. Alex
starts off the game in Chicago which is attacked by a radical Templar who makes use of a nanite
detonator, which is a nanotechnological weapon which fuses with his body to destroy the entire
city to cause an explosion of unparalleled execution. Flashing a bit forward, Alex arrives in
Seattle where that academy is being assaulted by a religious group called the Order. The attack is
repelled by Alex is left to his own devices on the streets of Seattle.
He then travels to different locales in search of the endgame. The most notable being
Cairo, which has now been separate into two different sectors: Old Cairo and the Cairo
Arcology. Old Cairo is affected by a disease, similar to the Gray Death, called Nanite Swell 11,
which also has its roots in technology, and was created for very much the same purposes. The
player character is granted the option of curing this disease by unleashing nanite cleansers into
the atmosphere.
This video game has four endings, much like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, they also
easily fit into the rhetorical narrative categories set forth. The utopia narrative is exactly the same
as the one in Deus Ex, again the Helios AI construct would like to merge with the character, this
is so because according to the canon of Deus Ex, Helios failed in this endeavor in the preceding
game. The same deal is set forth with an added caveat. The caveat is shared with Deus Ex:
Human Revolutions utopia narrative but taken to the umpteenth level. Rather than the possibility
offered by David Sarif of augmentations for all, Helios assures and guarantees that its radiance
and emanation will bring humanity into the next age of enlightenment. This ending requires that
you kill off the competing factions which will then allow the Helios project to complete creating
a perfect democracy with a bioengineered hive-like mind.
The restriction narrative is again centered on the Illuminati, who have yet to change their
position or offer, so not much more needs to be said about that here. Like the utopia narrative,
for this to come to fruition, the other factions must be killed. The elimination narrative is much
more extreme than the one seen prior, and it is set forth by the Templars. The Templars believe
that any biomodified person is an abomination and must be purified and cleansed, either by
excision or death. This is a genocidal sort of elimination and at best leaves brutal and crude
scarring. Much like the other narratives the other factions must be killed. Although, ironically,
being that Alex is a perfect clone, and his biomodifications cannot be reversed, selecting this
ending will result in the player characters death.
The apocalypse narrative again is quite extreme, much more than the other two games. In
this ending everyone is killed and the Earth scorched, the only people, if they can be called that,
which survive are called the Omar. These creature are so radically augmented that they no longer
function as human. They are post-human. Their minds are collectively linked through neural
augmentations and their bodies designed for the stresses of multiple nuclear holocausts. This
ending requires that all of the other factions be killed. It is left up in the open as to whether Alex
ever linked with the Omar, and so the player characters death is not disclosed.
Continuity Dues Ex: Human Revolution and Deus Ex
Outside of the idea bout nanotechnology and human augmentation, there is a clear plot
line that is weaved between all three games. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution at least two things
are introduced. First, is the idea that Alex Jensen is somehow the missing link between bridging
the gap between mechanical augmentation and biomodification, as it is within his genetic code
that grants Megan Reed, David Sarifs chief scientist, the ability and allowance to begin to create
a model biomodification architecture which will allow for mass general use without the necessity
of drug dependency.
The second element is that of Bob Page, who is the head of the Illuminati and the main
antagonist of Deus Ex. He is seen in the beginning of Deus Ex: Human Revolution making
machinations to try and undercut David Sarif to try and capture his scientists and to harness that
power by himself. He then is unseen until the epilogue where you see him talking to Megan
about the creation of something called the D-project. It is unclear what exactly this is other than
that it is a virus created utilizing nanotechnology. Given the events of Deus Ex, it seems like it is
one of two things. It is either the Gray Death or the invention and implementation of
biomodification stripped from the DNA of Adam Jensen.
Continuity Deus Ex and Deus Ex: I nvisible War
There were at least four things carried over from Deus Ex into Deus Ex: Invisible War.
First was the near complete elimination of mechanical augmentations with a full transfer to
biomodification. The dreams of David Sarif have been left unfulfilled, as Adam Jensens DNA
was not the panacea that he and Megan thought because in Deus Ex there were only a handful of
success cases. In Deus Ex: Invisible War a slight liberalization had begun to take place, as the
ability for a person to become biomodified increased and it was no longer based on class but on
merit, but again, there were still bodies which were unable to be modified, which denied Sarifs
and Megans utopic find.
The other three things carried over were the endings of Deus Ex, rather than limit
themselves to a single ending the makers decided upon a grand event simply called the Collapse.
It entailed that all three of the endings of Deus Ex happened in an incomplete fashion, leaving all
of its factions relatively dissatisfied with the outcome. For JC Denton, who desired with merge
with the Helios AI construct, only a partial upload was complete, and so the ultimate emanation
of radiance was denied, and he was placed into a weakened state. The Illuminati was able to
retain most of their primary posts but had to contend with two splinter organizations: the
Templar and the Order. It is later discovered that the administrative wing of the Order is part of
the Illuminati, but the Templar would play no part in playing a patsy to anyone. Tongs new
Dark Age did come about, but he immediately regretted his decision to plunge the world into
retrogression. Because of this he became a full disciple of JC Denton and spends the entirety of
Deus Ex: Invisible War trying to persuade Alex to help JC complete the upload of the construct.
Conclusion:
To return all the way back to the beginning, there are four rhetorical narratives (utopia,
restriction, elimination, and apocalypse). Each of these narratives can be linked to a predicted
nanotechnological future. The case study, dealing with the Deus Ex series of video games further
extends this model by also conforming to those four listed narratives in each of its endings.
The narratives themselves offer no particular lean, other than being suggestive to
particular sorts of persons, and the science also follows suit. In that the science also does not
impose itself upon the reader to state that one position is better than another. Instead, it also is
wholly reliant on the personal preferences of an individual.
Carrying this forward, the case study aligns with these two as well, to a degree. There is,
within the video game, an amount of freedom that you are granted to make your own decision in
regards to the way in which you think it would be the best way to end the game, but the video
game is a game within a series, and therefore there is a canon of sorts that seeks to preserve
continuity between the video games.
To accomplish this, it must choose one of the endings to be placed into the dominant
mode while the others will be placed alongside it in various settings of inequality. Between Deus
Ex: Human Revolution and Dues Ex the dominant mode was restriction leaning toward the
apocalypse with utopia and elimination playing lesser roles. And between Deus Ex and Deus Ex:
Invisible War the dominant mode was apocalypse with restrictive, utopia, and elimination
playing lesser roles.
What follows Deus Ex: Invisible War is largely left up in the air because, as to date, that
is the last game within the series. It also is the one game that follows the rhetorical narratives
closest. So ultimately the video game follows the narratives and science giving the individual the
last choice to make. They are all saying that the future is yours. But they are not telling you
which.
References
Agar, Nicholas. (2004). Liberal eugenics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Agar, Nicholas. (2010). Humanitys end. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Church, George and Regis, Ed. (2012). Regenesis. New York: Basic Books.
Hayes, Richard. (2012). Our biopolitical future: Four scenarios. In Ahmed Khan (Ed.),
Nanotechnology: Ethical and social implications (PAGES). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Jomann, Norbert and Ach, Johaan. (2006). Ethical implications of nanobiotechnology: State-of-
the-art survey of ethical issues related to nanobiotechnology. In Johann Ach and Ludwig
Siep (Eds.), Nano-bio-ethics, (PAGES). New Brunswick: Transactions Publishers.
Khusht, Geroge. (2008). Stage two enhancements. In Fabrice Jotterand (Ed.), Emerging
conceptual, ethical and policy issues in bionanotechnology, (203-218).
Laurent, Louis and Petit, Jean-Claude. (2006). Nanosciences and their convergence with other
technologies: New golden age or apocalypse? In Joachim Schummer and Davis Baird
(Eds.), Nanotechnology challenges, (249-286). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
OMathuna, Donal. (2009). Nanoethics. New York: Continuum.
Schneider, Susan. (2009). Future minds: Transhumanism, cognitive enhancement, and the nature
of persons. In Vadit Ravitsky, et al. (Eds.), The Penn Center guide to bioethics, (95-110).
New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Weckert, John. (2009). The precautionary principle in nanotechnology. In Vadit Ravitsky, et al.
(Eds.), The Penn Center guide to bioethics, (133-146). New York: Springer Publishing
Company