|"STOP! In the name of love! Before you eviscerate my heart!" Who knew Dues Ex would turn out a sing star clone?|
On rpg.net recently I briefly entered a debate about the game Deus Ex and public access to augmentation (augs).
I don't know if I'm recounting the arguments put to me poorly, but they basically broke down to "You should be able to do anything you want with your body and some government stopping you is wrong!/As long as your not infringing other peoples rights, what you do is okay!" BUT ALSO "And people would need augs to keep up with others who have augs in the global economy!"
And it's like they don't recognise that if you have an aug and are competing with someone else, then you are affecting that other persons body (as in, the amount of food and shelter that body might get in future).
It's like they just can't connect the two - the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. I think it's because the morality of the human brain is used to a prehistoric context and can't keep up with this stuff. If, for example, you had someone take an aug that emits death pheromones (ala Omega Red from X-men comics) then *CLICK* it becomes clear that that person is not just affecting their own body. But as soon as you obfuscate the situation even a little by putting in some buzzwords like "compete in the global economy" the drawing a connection between someone getting augs and someone ending up living under a bridge suddenly evaporates. And augs just seem wonderful and gosh, we'll need them all to compete! So they have to be wonderful (subtext: Or otherwise were screwed!).
Or am I drawing a false connection between the augmentation and impoverishment?