Simon Ledder
Imagine if you could be smarter, stronger, healthier. What if you could even have amazing powers, light fires with your mind . . . That’s what Plasmids do for a man.
Contrary to the optimism of Atlas’s words above, my first discovery of Plasmids in BioShock was quite unpleasant. I walked up to a vending machine and, before I knew it, flashes of lightning flew between my arms. I lost control of motor function and fell over a railing into unconsciousness. After this first shocking interaction, my use of Plasmids and gene tonics became an intuitive way of dealing with my surroundings, and especially my enemies.
My first encounter with Plasmids in the world outside BioShock was not nearly as eventful. In the contemporary field of bioethics, there is a discussion about Plasmids. Well, not exactly, but about something similar: the so-called human enhancement technologies, for both physical and cognitive improvements. Naturally, this raises questions: Should we prohibit such enhancement technologies? Or are we morally obliged to use them? Are they problematic in themselves; and what would be the consequences of using them?
In the bioethics literature, there is a distinction between therapeutic practices and enhancement technologies. Some types of medicine, such as pharmaceuticals, or some invasive procedures into the brain that allow individuals to “restore” themselves to “normal” abilities, seem to be met with universal approval. But what do we think about “healthy” individuals who want to “enhance” their own biology?
The Plasmids in BioShock are essentially enhancement technologies for “healthy” individuals. You can actively use your EVE to fire electric bolts from your hand, or manipulate the minds and bodies of others, or trick the sensors of bots and cameras. To access these abilities, the human body in BioShock has to be altered with ADAM, stem cells harvested from sea slugs and then genetically manipulated to produce cells that the human body does not have naturally. The process results in enhanced humans like the Little Sisters and the Big Daddies.
Although the sea slug in BioShock is a work of fiction, in the real world researchers are investigating species-transcending gene technology. In fact, synthetic biology is based on the idea of sewing genes together artificially. The results of this research might someday be applied to make enhanced humans like the Big Daddies.
Of course, BioShock takes place in a cruel world. No researcher in our world is allowed to experiment on human subjects without their informed consent. That means no Little Sisters or Big Daddies in the immediate future. Real-world scientists have to deal with what they’ve got. For example, scientists have developed forms of gene therapy, such as somatic cell therapy, that allow them to prevent future illnesses, disorders, or abnormalities. Or on a more radical level, your germ line can be altered. This means that some DNA in your cells is changed or eliminated so that the problematic sequence of genetic material will not be passed on to your children or any future generations.
Also of interest is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, a process in which embryos are produced in an environment that is not a womb (in vitro). The embryos are then presented for the parents to select. Only the selected embryo survives and is transplanted. The selection process means that parents have the opportunity to design a child. They can decide the sex of the child, remove undesirable genetic traits, and choose which parent the child will resemble. But is it moral to manipulate a child in its biological core? And if so, what criteria should guide the design?
In Rapture, Dr. Suchong developed methods of mental conditioning and growth acceleration. Likewise, Dr. Tenenbaum designed a genetic process to turn small girls into ADAM-harvesting Little Sisters. BioShock science also produces the Big Daddies, equipped with strength above human average; their bodies and their diving suits are grafted together.
BioShock makes apparent the usefulness of biological enhancements, but also warns us about the potential dangers of playing with biology. If future developments in the real world made it possible to have a third arm, or extra-sensory perception, would you be tempted? Some researchers—and artists like Stelarc and Orlan—actually try to find out if that’s possible and what that means.
Not everyone is in favor of human enhancement technologies. Their opponents fear that some procedures might change what it means to be human on a fundamental level. But what is human nature? For some thinkers, human nature is best represented in the idea of a “species-typical normal functional organization.”1 This means that humans have some specific needs (like food, sleep, communication) and the necessary abilities to fulfill these needs (like two arms, two legs, and a clearly defined organism). What if our human dignity depends on these endowments? What if human nature has an essential core that is not changeable without threatening our sense of morality and the social order?2
Some opponents of human enhancement even go a few steps further. They ask what will happen to non-enhanced mortals if we create enhanced superhumans. What if the latter have the power to subdue us?3 The advent of Splicers in Rapture might give a preview of what it would be like to be overwhelmed by uncontrollable, enhanced individuals that don’t have any connection to humanity.
There is also the question of authenticity. Does a human lose a part of herself when she merges her body with technology? If our body has been formed by nature, how can we dare to change that?
On the other side, some philosophers enthusiastically favor enhancement technologies. A few consider themselves “transhumanists,” which means they want to develop a kind of human that goes beyond our current understanding of human nature. Like their opponents, these proponents of biotechnology also argue that humans have limits; however, they claim that humans can and should overcome these limits with the help of technology. The promises of enhancement are great: not only could combat and hacking skills be increased—which we can experience when playing BioShock—but our daily lives could be much easier. Why carry heavy bags if it’s possible just to float them through the air with telekinesis? No philosopher, of course, mentions this particular possibility, because telekinesis is too far out of reach to happen any time soon. Yet, there are some ideas—like uploading a person’s consciousness to a gigantic electronic network and being rid of the physical body—that transhumanists actually do consider.4 This sounds a bit like the mind and memory storage that Eleanor Lamb does while collecting ADAM in BioShock 2.
You don’t have to be a transhumanist to favor enhancement technologies, though. What if you could be more productive by thinking faster or working longer hours? The promise of increased productivity through faster neural transmission and sustained concentration has highlighted the field of neuropharmacology. Pills have been developed to increase productivity. Although the side effects are still unclear, such drugs already are in use.5
In BioShock you won’t find Plasmids that increase your cognitive or emotional capabilities. BioShock is a digital game, and the types of Plasmids you are given are adequate to the challenges you encounter. But the game’s focus isn’t so far from reality. Much of the scientific research into enhancement technologies is done by the military, the purpose, of course, being to better equip soldiers for combat.
Contemporary philosopher Alan Sandberg argues in favor of the individual’s right to change the body.6 According to Sandberg, a government has no right to tell you what to do with your hair, clothes, or body as long as no harm befalls others (harming yourself is another topic). If you have ownership over your body, why shouldn’t you have the right to use enhancement technologies?
This would have to work on a voluntary, individual level. In Rapture, Andrew Ryan decided not to impose regulations on ADAM because he was certain the market would regulate any problems. Of course, we need to beware when the government gets in the business of human enhancement. Just think of the eugenics that started in the nineteenth century and culminated in the German National Socialist eugenics program in which 100,000 “disabled” persons were killed and 400,000 were sterilized.
The “morphological freedom”7 to alter yourself is already here in a sense. Technology is increasingly pervasive and invasive, altering the way we perceive and interact with the world. Some philosophers insist that humans have always altered themselves because it’s in humanity’s nature to improve itself. Wouldn’t it only be the logical, or even natural, next step to use technology to enhance our bodies?8
Some people might argue that our bodies are already altered anyway. In contrast to earlier times of human history, vaccinations are given as a standard preventive treatment to nearly everyone in the developed world. Some people use coffee and cigarettes all the time to manage their day—and according to BioShock, coffee and cigarettes increase your EVE. So what is the difference between coffee and cigarettes and other neuropharmacological enhancers? Is it that they are synthetically produced? Why should that be a problem? We live in the twenty-first century, after all. Instead of holding on to old-fashioned notions, perhaps we should use the scientific discoveries in any way that seems progressive for humanity. What if these enhancements, for example, would allow people to experience Mozart in a way never before possible?9 We can hear these dreams in Suchong’s praise of his work as well: “ADAM is a canvas of genetic modification. But Plasmids are the paint.”
One important criticism of human enhancement involves the question of social justice. Who could afford enhancements? What if only rich people could afford such technologies? The inequality of the haves and the have-nots would rise to a new level.10 Can we allow these technologies if we strive for a just society?11 But perhaps this would be only a temporary problem. At first the early adopters would have advantages, but eventually prices would decrease and everyone would have access to these technologies.12
Perhaps enhancement technologies would actually lead to greater social justice and equality by benefiting those who aren’t as genetically gifted as others. As things stand, we are subject to the genetic lottery, but enhancement technologies would shift our fate “from chance to choice”13 and level the playing field.
Then again, enhancement technologies may produce unwanted pressure, as when athletes feel they need to use steroids to keep pace with the competition. Likewise, if some people start to enhance themselves, others may feel pressured to do so as well.14 In Rapture, we see the results of this spiral in the arms race during the Civil War. Combat Plasmids were in highest demand, which is hardly surprising because competition is vital to survival in such situations. Those who did not enhance were easily disposed of by the Splicers.
As a player, I experienced this upward spiral for myself during the game. The Electric Bolt Plasmid, which killed many enemies in the first few levels, was ineffective in the latter parts of the game. Suddenly the Splicers became immune to my hits of high voltage, and this required me to enhance myself further with the Electric Bolt 2. Doesn’t this suggest that the use of enhancement technologies leads to a continual process of more and more invasive operations on ourselves to compete with other individuals—resulting, possibly, in addictions like the Splicers developed?
As some enhancement enthusiasts would say, this slippery slope is only dangerous if these technologies are unregulated. There should be regulations to ensure there is equal access to enhancements, and the use of enhancement technologies should not be made a prerequisite for any job that can be done without them. Wouldn’t that ensure that no one has to use such technologies if they don’t want to?15
Of course, maybe the whole idea of human enhancement technologies is just the latest manifestation of capitalism. In contemporary Western societies, people have to sell their powers of body and mind to earn money for food and shelter. They have to work constantly on their capacities, while also being flexible, to get a job in the current economy. In Andrew Ryan’s view, any other form of society would be “parasitic.” In our world, we all have to optimize ourselves to compete against others, sometimes by any means necessary. So wouldn’t it be a mistake to discuss enhancement technologies simply as an ethical issue, or even an issue of individual choice, without taking into account the socio-political context in which these technologies will be developed?16
In the real world there is also some concern about how research has merged in universities and in the pharmaceutical industry. Who regulates what research funding goes into the development of these technologies? And wouldn’t it be more useful to do research on some conventionally therapeutic issues, like curing cancer, instead of delving into luxury products that only a few people can afford?17
During my voyage through Rapture in BioShock, I learned that I am a son of Andrew Ryan. Despite its advantages, such as the Vita-Chambers, my heritage also had some negative consequences. For example, Fontaine used all the possible technology to make me a tool for his purposes. My body and my mind were conditioned to respond automatically to phrases like “Would you kindly . . .” or “Code Yellow.”
Since my birth in Rapture I was equipped to execute one task: to work against my father, Andrew Ryan, if Fontaine needed me to. This idea of “designing” people for specific purposes can also be found in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. As the contemporary philosopher Jürgen Habermas argues, if parents choose their offspring’s genes—like the sex, or a disposition to superior musical or physical abilities—do they not at the same time determine their child’s future?18 Wouldn’t this poor child always know that he only exists because of his parents’ preference for some genes? And if that’s the only reason for his existence, could this child see himself as anything other than his parents’ projection?
Of course, environment also has a major influence on a child’s development. Only due to interaction with other humans will a child develop into an autonomous subject with free will; and isn’t that the primary characteristic by which we define humanity? For Habermas, the human has its place somewhere above the biological. Culture is the precondition that allows us to talk on an equal level in rational discourse, and, again according to Habermas, the rational discourse between equal autonomous subjects is necessary for our society to thrive. If an individual had her genetic heritage manipulated, how could she still be such an autonomous subject? Could such an individual be held responsible for her actions?
Consider the connection to BioShock. As a player, I am shocked when suddenly, after hours of playing in the first-person perspective, I am stripped of all powers to act and just have to watch myself following the orders Andrew Ryan gave me to kill him. I am not able to express my free will, I am not the master of my actions. I act because I have to. We can read this experience of powerlessness as a metaphorical presentation of Habermas’s argument.
In BioShock, we find a typical argument concerning disability. An audio diary from Tenenbaum mentions a worker whose “hands were crippled” and who “could move his fingers for the first time after years” because he was bitten by a sea slug. Tenenbaum conducts her first experiments using this sea slug, eventually leading to the commercial production of ADAM.
Enhancement technologies are often described as beneficial for people who are disabled by our current standards, because with their bodies “improved” to the “normal” functioning, they will not “suffer” more in this world than anybody else will.19 Some people argue that defining enhancement as “better than average” doesn’t work. If those who are conventionally disabled use technology to get their bodies on to a “normal” level, this could already count as an enhancement.20
Generally speaking, the debate about enhancement technologies perpetuates the idea that a “disability” is a characteristic of an individual, and independent of any social or cultural factors that labeled something a disability in the first place. Different voices in the heterogeneous Disability Movement have criticized this individual perspective on disability for some time now. If our society’s rules suppose that everyone has to be treated equally, how can it be necessary to change one’s body and/or mind to fully participate?21
Some philosophers equate disability with “suffering,” but this doesn’t seem right.22 As many disabled people have argued, their life can be as rewarding and joyful as any other person’s, but they have to fight against many structural barriers. These barriers privilege people whose bodies fit normative ideals of ability. But a norm-adequate body is not required to live a happy life. There are many other factors that contribute to happiness and quality of life, which are overlooked or ignored in the current biomedical system. So maybe disabled people don’t “suffer” from the disability they’ve been labeled with, but from their lack of privileges.23 Then, there would be no need to dive into cyborgian fantasies. Instead of changing one’s body with technology, wouldn’t it be more fruitful to change the societal conditions that “disable” certain people in the first place?24
Perhaps the aforementioned idea of species-typical functioning is based on the ideology of non-disabled philosophers, who cannot conceive of living a disabled life as rewarding. Maybe we don’t have to interfere with anyone’s decisions at all. If people want to alter their bodies with technology—be it for “average” or “better than average” functionality—maybe they should be free to do so.25
If we follow the argument that “any body is possible,” we lose sight of the meaning that the whole debate has for the conventionally disabled. Only specific abilities are considered important while others are deemed unimportant. Historically, such a discourse has led to discrimination against certain people who were categorized as lacking certain abilities. For example, the exclusion of women from higher education was justified, at least partly, through the judgment that women didn’t have the requisite cognitive abilities. There are expectations about what abilities one must have to be fully included in society. Perhaps the way the enhancement enthusiasts instrumentalize people with disabilities just degrades those people.26
So, is it morally permissible to use human enhancement technologies? In BioShock and BioShock 2, we can experience what it’s like to survive in a society that has been ruined by an unregulated use of enhancement technologies. This apocalyptic presentation shows some of the most terrible consequences these technologies could have. Perhaps the BioShock games are a call for regulation, maybe even for a prohibition of these technologies. But the games are also a recognition of the possibilities. The debate needs to continue in the real world after the game is over.