Just got around to finishing this and wanted to add my thoughts.

Does anyone else find it narratively unsatisfying when characters act like they have 'solved' a philosophical conundrum, and the story doesn't rebuke them even a little bit? All of the "world leaders" spoke from an obviously shared perspective, going through the motions of deciphering the definition of good/evil and overlooking more arguments than they should have, if their diverse ethnic backgrounds are to be taken at face value...

A trained pastor concedes that the Bible doesn't 'explicitly' forbid suicide but doesn't infer the implication that the Bible makes when declaring the human body as a temple that life might have inherent value? There are other convenient omissions, but in recognition of the concessions of fitting the exposition into a limited television series, I can ignore them. But to act like other arguments don't exist is a bit... unsatisfying is the word I come back to. That was my problem with the end of the show; it skimped on its exploration of a relevant and interesting topic.

My frustrations with the ideological parlay aside, Babylon was still interesting to watch in that it had constant twists and turns throughout and always teased potential greatness. I'm also glad they never delved deeper into the villain's voice/seduction powers, but kept them as a basically supernatural tool to preserve a sense of dread and fear, as there was no effective countermeasure against it.

Don't get your hopes up too much about the ending, and I daresay it was a good watch.