Unpopular opinion: Project Zero Dawn was unethical and indefensible
The more I replay this game (which I do often), the more unsettling the entire premise becomes to me. The first few times I played I didn’t really get all the characters saying how awful it was, but I think collecting the data and realizing the whole scope of it all has slowly changed my mind. I’ve seen this discussed a time or two here, and most people defending it (which is also most people) argue that whether or not it was ethical or moral or any of that doesn’t matter, because it was the only possible way for life and/or humanity to survive and have a future, and because the only alternative was extinction.
My problem with that is the entire argument depends upon the underlying assumption that “life,” whatever form that takes, is inherently better than no life. Existence of organic beings, and humans specifically, is inherently good, and that the existence of humanity is not just neutral but inherently better than the lack of existence, and therefore worth any cost.
But why? If no life exists, would that be inherently bad? There are endless planets in the universe or even a few rare habitats on earth where no biological life exists, and that’s not good or bad or moral or immoral - it just is. The mere existence of life, or the lack of it, doesn’t have an inherent value. It is amoral.
So if we don’t just assume out of hand that “life” > “no life” and therefore is worth whatever it takes to preserve or maintain, it really becomes a pretty horrible thing. Yes, everyone was going to die either way. That’s true in real life too. The most any of us can hope for is to die on our own terms, and that’s what PZD denied the existing humans. How many of those soldiers, if given the choice, would have chosen to die fighting an unwinnable war over being with their families? How many of those families (like the wife we hear recordings from at USRC) would have rather died with their loved ones instead of alone? How many people might have preferred the route of the betas we learn about in Aloy’s childhood ruins, if given the chance to make an informed decision?
Worst case scenario in current-day: they suffer and die horribly for a lie, whereas the worst case for the future humans we meet in the game is just…nonexistence. Not suffering, because you can’t suffer if you never exist in the first place - just not existing at all. Denying agency and increasing suffering of existing humans is not better or preferable to the non-existence of hypothetical future humans.
*To clarify, while I find the entire thing wholly immoral and indefensible, I also have a lot of empathy for the people involved. The concept of extinction is probably unfathomable for most people, especially when it’s imminent and not just hypothetical, and I can’t pretend to understand what facing it must feel like. I don’t want to judge them too harshly as individuals. I mean this mostly as a discussion of the overarching concept and not to excoriate the actual (fictional) people.
Except Ted Faro. Fuck Ted Faro.