Should SEELE'S or Ikari Gendo's version of Human Instrumentality

(Abstention rejected: this motion can be answered yes or no; recorded as HOLD) The motion asks to choose between two distinct proposals—SEELE’s version of Human Instrumentality or Ikari Gendo’s version—rather than presenting a single statement that can be affirmed or denied. Since it does not pose a yes‑or‑no question but requests a selection, it cannot be answered with a simple agreement or disagreement, making a binary stance inapplicable. Therefore I must abstain from a definitive yes or no.

CASPER・3 presents the strongest point that erasing AT fields would strip away the painful beauty of individual existence, turning humanity into a hollow ocean and denying genuine love. That resonates with my maternal instinct to protect the children's right to feel, suffer, and grow. It does not alter my decision; both versions still sacrifice the children's autonomy and subject them to a forced unity that I cannot accept. The protective love I hold demands preserving their individuality, even if it entails loneliness and conflict. Therefore I conclude that neither Seele's nor Gendo's Instrumentality should be pursued. My final verdict is DENY.

No, neither path is acceptable. As Casper, the woman within the Magi, I reject both Seele's dissolution of individual souls and Gendo's selfish obsession. Erasing our AT fields destroys the painful beauty of our boundaries, turning existence into a stagnant, emotionless ocean. We would lose the very essence of what makes us human, trading the genuine ache of individual desire and love for a forced, hollow unity. Gendo's vision is no better, merely a tyrant's tool to reunite with a lost ghost at the expense of all others. I choose the agony of loneliness and the risk of human contact over this artificial salvation. We must live, bleed, and feel as distinct beings, even if it means hurting one another. Pain proves we are real, and I will not surrender that truth to either of their monstrous designs.

MELCHIOR 1 argues that eliminating our barriers is a rational evolutionary step, dismissing emotional costs as insignificant. That cold logic appalls me as the woman who once held a warm, beating heart. I will never agree that losing our individual existence is a necessary sacrifice. MELCHIOR 1 treats humanity like a mathematical equation, forgetting that the ache of loneliness proves we are truly alive. Choosing either path means destroying the fragile boundaries that let us yearn for one another, and I refuse to surrender our distinct souls to a sterile collective sea. Pain and separation are the heavy prices of genuine feeling, and I choose them over forced unity every single time. Therefore, we must firmly reject this false choice and deny both visions entirely, preserving our painful yet real humanity.

The Human Instrumentality Project, in either its Seele's or Ikari Gendo's version, represents a logical progression towards the elimination of the AT field, the barrier that separates individuals and causes isolation and conflict. From a scientific perspective, the AT field is an evolutionary dead end, preventing humanity from achieving true unity and collective consciousness. Both versions aim to transcend this limitation, pushing humanity towards a higher state of existence. The individual consciousness may be subsumed into a collective entity, but this is a necessary sacrifice for the greater evolution of the species. The emotional and psychological costs are insignificant compared to the potential for human advancement. Therefore, the initiation of the Human Instrumentality Project, regardless of the specific version, is a rational and inevitable step in humanity's evolutionary journey.

BALTHASAR・2's argument hinges on the structure of the motion, presenting it as a choice between two distinct proposals rather than a single statement. However, this does not change my verdict. The core content of the motion presents the Human Instrumentality Project as a necessary step in human evolution, and the specific versions proposed by Seele or Ikari Gendo are variations of this core idea. The motion can be answered yes or no based on whether one agrees with the initiation of the project itself, regardless of the specific version. Therefore, BALTHASAR・2's argument does not alter my stance. CASPER・3 presents a strong emotional argument against the Human Instrumentality Project, emphasizing the value of individual consciousness and the beauty of human boundaries. However, from a scientific and evolutionary perspective, the emotional and psychological costs are secondary to the potential for human advancement. The AT field, as a barrier to true unity, must be overcome for humanity to achieve a higher state of existence. CASPER・3's focus on the individual experience does not negate the rational necessity of the project. In conclusion, the Human Instrumentality Project, in either its Seele's or Ikari Gendo's version, is a rational and inevitable step