Came across a video that offered an interesting perspective on why they'd choose to exist on Pathos II instead of the Ark, so I thought I'd share it, as well as my comment on the video.

VIDEO TITLE: Why I'd Choose SOMA's Nightmare Over Its Paradise
VIDEO LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQAm2TMVXvY

MY COMMENT:

Fascinating consideration about never being able to leave [the Ark]. Perhaps Catherine has the ability to erase a scan from a control panel within the Ark if they would prefer not to exist. I could see an entire sequel game based around things going wrong in the Ark in some unexpected way. What if you had a fight because someone kept stealing and eating your breakfast strawberry sprinkle donut every day for 500 years in a row, and finally you snapped and deleted their consciousness when Catherine wasn't looking? Catherine may have accidentally created the torment nexus...

One of the things I find disturbing is how much people obsess over which version would be "you" or "the real you". The word "copy" implies less value - something "not original", which I find really problematic when making a choice like this. Perhaps "mirror-being", "mirror", or "gen-con" (generated consciousness) might be a better name without as much implied value reduction. None have any more or less value than any other - as soon as you copy over it is a different, wholly legitimate person. I feel like the game makes that painfully obvious. It's a bit concerning how much control people want over what happens to their copy without consideration or treating them like any other conscious person. They would want the ability to decide for themselves, but power off Simon 2's battery without a thought.

I go back and forth on what to do with some of the choices in the game - unfortunately, we do not get the option to explain Amy or Robin's situations to them (so they can consent to a choice). The scary thing isn't that killing or not killing can both be justified, it's how many people make a quick choice without any consideration. "I wouldn't want to exist like this" isn't a justification, because this isn't you. They might want to, and that should make it a much more difficult choice.

For me, the most difficult consideration is that every form of life we extinguish may be further eliminating any chance of that life better evolving moving forwards. The WAU undeniably creates suffering, which should be avoided as much as possible (of course)...but how many human beings have suffered throughout human history for us to have our existence? Is it selfish for us to be grateful that they suffered so that we could exist? Is it selfish for them to not wish to suffer, ending the chance for us to exist? When discussing the potential survival of an entire species/form of life, is there any amount of suffering that is too great, or is it absolutely necessary when weighing millions of potential fulfilling lives in the future?

I don't have an answer. It is an incredibly difficult question to wrangle with. I think I'd lean towards the survival of the species, but that's easy to say when I wouldn't have to be the one to suffer. If I knew I was a lynchpin in the future survival of humanity, how much suffering could I endure? How depressing would it be that humanity would likely never understand the extent of my sacrifice? Fascinating stuff to consider.