Could Andrew Ryan have the right idea?

[Cynical skeptic]

Okay, I'm not really going to tackle your thought because the problem is you want to throw out why Rapture failed. The Plasmids, the Big Daddy's, etc. But in Ryan/Rand's world you can't throw out these things.

Anyone with the knowhow to create a product should be allowed to do so, according to their philosophies. Anyone who wants to buy it, should be allowed to, regardless of whether or not it is harmful. It is your choice, and you are in complete control of your choices. In other words, if someone created a genetically enhanced human embryo, and sold it, they would be completely allowed to.

If you say you are going to throw out the random desires of humans, you are ignoring one of the biggest problems with all theoretical Utopian propaganda. Humans, when given the freedom to do whatever they want, will. That includes the bad things, like Plasmids. Plasmids are just an extreme stand in for all the harmful yet potentially desirable things people will do when faced with this kind of society. You could easily insert the words "Addictive Drug" wherever plasmid shows up, but still have the same problem.

The problem with comparing plasmids to, say, heroin, is plasmids directly enabled the harming of others. The only reason drug addicts harm other people is desperation for more drugs and fear of withdraw.

All of these aspects of addictive drugs works in favor of criminal interests. Heroin and other drugs are actually cut with substances to make withdraw worse and highs shorter.

If recreational drugs were legal, it would be in a company's best interest to "correct" these issues. Longest possible high, no detox or withdrawal, just $29.99 per syringe.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Ayn Rand.
Just so I'm the first one to say it.

The philosophy upon which Rapture was built did indeed come from Rand. The trouble is, the objectivist philosophy is not one of social collective, but rather of the individual. In this sense, the philosophy is inherently damaging to the social fabric in the same way other systems have been historically including the most famous Nihillism. Such philosophies work perfectly fine at the individual level and indeed a certain adherence to such a system is often required by one's station. Dale Carnige wasn't an objectivist, but he did certainly adhere to many of the principles espoused by Rand for example.

The problem of course is that a society, in a very general way, works thanks to the simple fact that most people will very loosely adhere to a philosphy or ethic set that allows for cooperation, negotiation and, to a varying degree, a willingness to do what one is told. So long as a sufficient portion of the population adheres to such things much of the time, society exists. When you have an entire society built on a philosophy that my own rules are the only ones that matter, and entire civilization built upon the idea of progress without regard to cost or consequence, and entire population who seek only to lead and never to follow, problems will inevitably arise. The fall of Rapture was not due to the Hubris of man, nor was it because of a reckless disregard for petty moral concerns associatedwith progress. Rapture fell because it was filled with people who seek to dominate in their respective fields. More precisely, rapture fell because of the nihilistic principle of the will to power - because people sought power for the sake of power. Adam was not the cause of this, it was simply a tool that served to help the self destruction of the society.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Isn't it kind of similar to Libertarianism? You know, minimizing the laws of the state while maximizing the rights of the citizen. I am no expert on these things they just seem kind of similar. Now I have not looked into detail in this, but at a glance I must say I do support the ideas of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand's ideas seem very similar to this. Are there any major differences? Or is it just another word meaning the same thing.

Also, keeping on the topic of Libertarianism, I was talking to a friends about it, and I mentioned that Anarchy is basically just extreme libertarianism. Now that sounds a lot like how Rapture ended up to me. Anyone agree?

Objectivism is, according to Ayn Rand in her opus 'Atlas Shrugged': "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".

 

[maninahat]

No.

^This.

Plus Andrew Ryan (and Galt) are exceptionally childish. At points in the story, they both raze their valuable property to the ground whenever someone threatens to take it from them. "If I don't have it, no one will" is their belief.

 

[Kollega]

Unfortunately, the whole idea of Objectivism ultimately hinges on one assumption: that people will not use Force (you've made a better product, therefore you must die/go out of business), Fraud (hey look, i've made a better product... HAHA, it's actually crap, but i already have your money!), or Coercion (don't you dare make a better product, or else...) in order to win any sort of competition. In reality, even if most would refrain from those, some amount of douchebags still would use them to the fullest and reign supreme. [footnote]DISCLAIMER: i did my research on Objectivism with TV Tropes Wiki, so i may actually misunderstand "no Force, Fraud, or Coercion" part - but i'm pretty sure that it's how it's supposed to be.[/footnote]

In short: there will always be some amount of bastards, and without a system of checks and balances they end up stomping over everyone else. So let's be realistic, and use said checks and balances to the fullest.

tl;dr version: humans are flawed, that's why Objectivism does not work.

And oh, there's the fact that Rand's philosophy was created as an anthithesis of Communism because she lost some property in Russia due to Great October Socialist Revolution and hated commies... but that dosen't really matter, because Objectivism's main flaw is the same as of Communism: the neccesity of zero-percent bastardry in the utopian society.

 

[The_Echo]

Every political/societal ideology has their own ups and downs. While the base belief that started Rapture is a spiff one (Everyone is entitled to whatever they do, no one else can take that from them.), it also has its shortcomings, which are mostly derivative of the delivery.

There's also the whole Andrew-Ryan-might-have-been-batshit-insane idea, but that's arguable.

 

[bz316]

Okay, I'm just going to come out and say this. Ayn Rand's philosophy, while interesting and not without some measure of value, ignores one very important fact: the ideas of brilliant men are only made possible through the toil of average men. Do you think Imhotep could've built the stepped pyramid without the effort of thousands of conscripted laborers? Do you think Spielberg could've made "Jaws" (the first one) without the efforts of hundreds of non-visionaries backing him up? I'm not saying we shouldn't celebrate and reward the brilliance of our historical luminaries, just that we can't disregard the important contributions made by less exceptional human beings.

 

[Flamingpenguin]

Yeah, OP, look up anything based on ayn rand, you've got your answers. I personally think there's a grain of truth in it, but as someone stated, it falls under the weight of human nature. If everyone was in the same mindset and no one was going to take advantage of the system (the great chain, as ryan puts it) then maybe it'd work, but that's speaking in the most idealistic of terms.

Short answer: No, the game is a criticism of Ayn Rand. Kinda like "LOOK! THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE TRIED THINGS HER WAY! BAD, HUH?"

And also I believe the full anagram is:

Andrew Ryan

We R Ayn Rand

 

[Danzaivar]

Ayn Rand.
Just so I'm the first one to say it.

Bloody Ninjas...

...yeah, OP. your late to the party. Go seek out Ayn Rand and the various discussions involving her, cos Andrew Ryan's character is pretty much based on her work. Andrew Ryan as a character, and the effects his beliefs have, are in effect just a discussion on Ayn Rand's ideas.

And in short, I would have to disagree. Leaving the poor behind while watching the rich grow richer is kind of hard to avoid with this kind of thinking. it also, to me, seems to be a very primal, selfish and fairly backward way of thinking.

Well I just assumed that most of the gaming community had never heard of atlas shrugged(unless they read the wiki) or did not know who Ayn Rand is. So I did not mention it.Especially since the topic was bioshock, not ayn rands works. There were not any underwater cities or superpowers in atlas shrugged.

But you're not on about the underwater cities or superpowers. You're on about ideology.

And yes, I'd like to see a nation like this. Some argue Singapore or Hong Kong or Dubai are fairly close already tho.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

Nah, but i'm a communist, so naturally I wouldn't

 

[Meggiepants]

Okay, I'm not really going to tackle your thought because the problem is you want to throw out why Rapture failed. The Plasmids, the Big Daddy's, etc. But in Ryan/Rand's world you can't throw out these things.

Anyone with the knowhow to create a product should be allowed to do so, according to their philosophies. Anyone who wants to buy it, should be allowed to, regardless of whether or not it is harmful. It is your choice, and you are in complete control of your choices. In other words, if someone created a genetically enhanced human embryo, and sold it, they would be completely allowed to.

If you say you are going to throw out the random desires of humans, you are ignoring one of the biggest problems with all theoretical Utopian propaganda. Humans, when given the freedom to do whatever they want, will. That includes the bad things, like Plasmids. Plasmids are just an extreme stand in for all the harmful yet potentially desirable things people will do when faced with this kind of society. You could easily insert the words "Addictive Drug" wherever plasmid shows up, but still have the same problem.

Uh it's not like there are plasmids in real life. My topic was how would it work in real life. Do you really expect someone to find superpowers underwater?

See the part where I said, "Insert addictive drug for plasmid?" Read from there.

The problem with comparing plasmids to, say, heroin, is plasmids directly enabled the harming of others. The only reason drug addicts harm other people is desperation for more drugs and fear of withdraw.

All of these aspects of addictive drugs works in favor of criminal interests. Heroin and other drugs are actually cut with substances to make withdraw worse and highs shorter.

If recreational drugs were legal, it would be in a company's best interest to "correct" these issues. Longest possible high, no detox or withdrawal, just $29.99 per syringe.

The drugs comparison was mostly to address the "Plasmids made people crazy. Without them, Ryan's plan could work." statement. Plasmids made people act crazy to get them. They had an addictive quality. They also had the added effect that you could hurt people by using them more. Drugs, like heroin, also make people desperately crazy to get more. They rob and hurt even their loved ones to get what they need.

In Ryan's world, no one is regulating those drug companies. A company would actually make a drug more likely to addict you, with higher withdrawal effects. Like tobacco. You also are assuming that business has a long term goal. In all of my business courses, this was not true. Businesses typically work 5 years out. They don't really look at long term stability. See the Wallstreet meltdown.

But if you must have a different analogy, let's go with nuclear weaponry. In Ryan's world, if you could create a small nuke, then you are allowed to. You can also sell them to whoever could pay you enough. Despite the obvious threat is poses to the rest of society.

Or my original thought of a genetically enhanced embryo. You could order designer babies that were part lizard hybrid. If people wanted it, it could happen. Even if these lizard babies would one day take over the world. Not to mention the fact that at some point, somebody would create a morlock, and we all know how that ends.

 

[lacktheknack]

It would have worked out without the plasmids, little sisters, and big daddys.

Doubtful, some other unchecked horror would have eaten Rapture. It's like saying "Communist Russia would have worked if it wasn't for the food shortages, secret police, and war on capitalism". If it hadn't gone bad one way, it certainly would have gone another.

 

[FaustCainus]

There is scientific merit that was brought up, not having your research constrained by civil morality, we would make great scientific breakthroughs!... we would also likely kill the shit out of our people by ignoring said civil moralities though...

 

[Marowit]

I thought the whole point of the games narrative (on the cerebral level) was that blind idealism on one side or the other doesn't work?

Andrew Ryan believes that individuality and individual ability should trump all. So what does Rapture end up with? A crazed surgeon deforming people, a gangster king pin who controls large parts of the economy, and a geneticist who turns little girls into monsters. Rapture doesn't fail because of plasmids it fails because of humans doing what they will with no checks and balances.

So, what if Andrew Ryan's ideas were right? Well, then I'd argue that we were no longer what we think of as human - possibly Vulcan or some other being that bases decisions solely on logic.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Ryan had the right idea in that we can see the nobility of his ideals and what he honestly tried to do but the nature of all ideologies is that they all fail if rigidily adhered too, Fontaine brings down rapture because he has no conceren with rational self interest to contain his actions and seeks only to take what he wants by force if needed.

It is what makes Andrew one of the best villians because he is ultimatly flawed with human failings



"Rapture... the keenest minds in the world, united under the ocean... yet somehow expected to subscribe to the same model of self-interest? Ryan could be staggeringly naive."
Sofia Lamb

 

[iLikeHippos]

The society was horrible. But the idea was not all bad... Well, it's not good for a society in any ways what-so-ever.

It'd be only good for a private person who wants to be left alone indefinitely.

 

[science girl]

It would have worked out without the plasmids, little sisters, and big daddys.

I don't think so it was flawed because of one word GREED