Jour 683Dr. KimFinal PaperKevin 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 Drexler’s 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 Kurzweil’s 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 humanity’s 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 (O’Mathuna, 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 (O’Mathuna, 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 anyone’s 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 narrative’s

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 Revolution’s 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 character’s 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 character’s 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 Sarif’s 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: Invisible 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 Jensen’s 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 Sarif’s

and Megan’s 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. Tong’s 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.

ReferencesAgar, Nicholas. (2004). Liberal eugenics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Agar, Nicholas. (2010). Humanity’s 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.

O’Mathuna, 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