tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-42831343043001560632024-03-12T16:00:38.995-07:00We are the BlogResistance is FutileSartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-83173185302327207232010-05-03T18:41:00.000-07:002010-05-03T19:08:07.421-07:00Reflection: Look to WindwardI came up with the idea during class but it kind of stuck with me: this notion that, what we really see in the Culture with its pseudo-immortality is not a definitive continuation of life. The idea of posterity, however, has been eradicated--you will live on, in some form, and so the creation of art, the productivity, is virtually gone. These people no loner have to work toward a future because they know that they will be in that future, and post-scarcity means that no one has to support themselves. But these future avatars--will they be us?<br /><br />The first thing I thought of was <span style="font-style: italic;">Dune</span>. In all six books, the only consistent character is Duncan Idaho, but, having been killed in the first book, he has returned as a ghola, a clone of a dead man. By the end of the second book, he has recovered, somehow, the genetic memory of the first Duncan Idaho. In the fourth, we have yet another Duncan, revived by the same process, in the fifth--you guessed it, another Duncan, but this one with the memories of all the other Duncan gholas (gholae? I don't know). So while Duncan Idaho of <span style="font-style: italic;">Heretics of Dune</span> is the culmination of centuries of different Duncans, he is not the original, and that means that the Duncan who first died on Arrakis ended when he died. Ghola Duncan is him, but he is not ghola Duncan.<br /><br />A similar situation comes up, in a different way, on the show <span style="font-style: italic;">Caprica</span>. My understanding of BSG et al. is rather diffuse, given that I'm working my way through the second season, but one of the things they talk about in <span style="font-style: italic;">Caprica</span> is the creation of avatars. Prior to her death, Zoe Graystone creates an avatar of herself composed entirely of her memories, her data, her personality. When Zoe dies in a tragic accident, this avatar is all that remains of her--but is it a person? It thinks, it apparently feels--which is proven in some pretty upsetting ways, thanks to Daniel Graystone's colossal ruthlessness--but it is not, in effect, the same Zoe who stepped on a train and died. And the Zoe avatar becomes the first Cylon--who definitely believe that they have souls. The monotheist cult to which Zoe belonged believes that the virtual Zoe is proof that life goes on--but is it true?<br /><br />Yesterday we sat around and talked about what would be best in an alien-human interaction. I didn't contribute, mainly because I've been thinking it through all semester and I'm still not sure I've come up with an answer. It would be nice if we had someone like Ender circa <span style="font-style: italic;">Speaker for the Dead</span>, a man so empathic that he is capable of understanding something totally alien. But remember--the only reason that Ender works so hard toward some kind of reconciliation with the piggies is because he knows the terrible consequences of xenocide. A lot of people suggested Lem's conclusion, which was pretty ambiguous. Frankly, I'd want the Doctor.<br /><br />I swear, it's not because of David Tennant. But in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Christmas Invasion</span>, the Doctor essentially uses an infinite understanding of other cultures to peacefully repel an alien invasion by the Sycorax--and when the Prime Minister then chooses the Schmittean option, and destroys the alien spaceship, the Doctor becomes livid, and threatens to take down her entire government. But we won't ever get anyone like the Doctor, because he's an alien enamored with Earth. So who do we send?<br /><br />Do we send Tomas, the guy who basically agreed to disagree with the Martian? Emilio, the linguist? Do we send a brilliant but ruthless empath like Ender? Maybe Marjorie? I frankly don't know. At all. I agree with Stephen Hawking: whatever happens, it won't be pretty, so we should probably hope it doesn't happen. Ideally, though, we'd try to make some sort of understanding rather than kill each other, but as Graff says, species are wired to survive. It creates an odd occasion of mutually assured destruction.Sartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-74913928857427635462010-05-03T11:35:00.000-07:002010-05-03T11:48:58.008-07:00Right to life? If you're a good guyI recently viewed a threat on my facebook between two friends. One had made a joke about killing Hitler in a comical way mainly because he was evil and deserved it. The other friend, who is against capital punishment in all forms, became offended and stated that no one deserves to be killed based on their moral alignment. In truth, I believe many of us don’t mind seeing Indiana Jones push a Nazi off a tank or James Bond shoot an arms dealer. It is interesting that the reason we hate such people is because they violate the right to life of another, yet we feel this right should be stripped from them. This phenomenon seems t have occurred in Children of God. Although the Runa try to spare some of their oppressors, they still drive them to near extinction, violating the Schmittian policy of only driving an enemy back within their borders. This paradox seems to occur a lot in speculative fiction. Has anyone thought about an orc’s right to life? I believe Buffy can also be used as an example of this. Buffy’s actions are not viewed as murder when she slays countless demons and there is only one episode in which a demon’s right to life was brought up. Ironically this was only done because the demon was a humanoid Native American ghost. This is not to critique Buffy’s heroism or altruism, but don’t vampires have feelings too? In Angel this sort of thinking led to Angel killing a heroic and righteous warrior from a stereotypically evil race. It would be unfair to note that when such creatures are killed it is mainly to save innocent lives and combat an existential threat, thus making right to life a secondary concern. Nevertheless, it is food for thought. Perhaps orcs view us as evil.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-25742666246439275432010-05-03T09:53:00.000-07:002010-05-03T09:54:31.179-07:00Live long and prosperI would like to discuss the concept of immortality as it is portrayed in “Look to Windward.” Personally, I do not believe the system described in the book ensures immortality and I agree with Phil. Memories and personality is not consciousness. Each individual mind has its’ own consciousness, which, at the moment of death, ceases to exist. Yes, an exact copy of the consciousness can be imprinted, but it is not the same consciousness and never could be. Instead, think of the system like the pony express. One horse rides to one checkpoint carrying the same rider, who takes a different horse at the checkpoint and continues on. The rider (aka the memories and personality) are the same, but the horse (aka the consciousness) is left behind. Thus, if I were a citizen of Culture I would be a bit more hesitant about going lava rafting. Concerning an artificial heaven, how can something synthetic be comparable to the supernatural or an article of faith? A synthetic heaven is a heresy and a substitute. For this reason, how can one’s faith be affirmed by it?<br /> As a final note I would like to thank everyone for a wonderful semester and you all have my best wishes. As I stated in class, I’d like to end on a good note. Although many of the stories we read are discouraging concerning first contact, I’d like to warn against a self fulfilled prophecy. If humans go into a first contact scenario with the belief that we will make erroneous mistakes and are doomed to disaster we will ultimately fail. Instead I say chins up. Yes, mistakes will be made and conflicts will ensue, but humanity is not defined solely by a capacity for evil, but by a capacity for good as well. This world is filled with Emilios and Picards. Let us not limit ourselves with generalization about human weakness, but strive to break our highest expectations.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-7701599907953929912010-05-03T09:51:00.000-07:002010-05-03T10:11:59.696-07:00Substantive on Look to WindwardI found <a href="http://wearetheblogssf.blogspot.com/2010/05/substantive-look-to-windward.html">Andrew’s substantive </a>on Look to Windward to be though provoking and raised two important points for me. One was that the novel is unique in providing us with a post-scarcity society and the second was that the Culture is not conflict immune. To me, these statements raise questions on the nature of conflict. One may say that because the Culture is a post-conflict society, their impetus for war is not based on economic causes. My answer to this is twofold. For one, the Culture might be driven into conflict by a society plagued by scarcity and requires resources. My second statement is that although scarcity has been eradicated by the Culture, base desires have not. Humans have a tendency to want what they cannot have, and although most demands have been meet, this does not ensure satisfaction. There is a reason why our society is plagued by phenomena such as “conspicuous consumption” and “affluenza,” and that is that many humans simply want more. Thus I doubt there is such a thing as a post-scarcity society. Yes, perhaps a general level of wellbeing can conceivably be obtained, but as humanity expands it will come into contact to new kinds of goods. Wars have been fought over oil and opium, why not Romulan ale and dilithium crystals? My other feelings on conflict are that even if an enemy is not an existential threat, they may be a threat to one’s ideology or position. If the Culture were conquered by a civilization that viewed synthetics as unprivileged citizens, it would threaten not only the power of the Minds, but the ideological basis of equality in the Culture’s culture. <br /> One thing that intrigued me about the culture was there tolerance for various forms of alien life. Citizens of the Culture seemed blasé and nonchalant about non-human species within their society. Where there was intolerance and conflict was with groups that did not vibe with the egalitarian beliefs of the culture. This I found very interesting… that an advanced society discriminated not on appearance, but on values and culture. Although it was refreshing to see so many sentient groups come together, it was disheartening to think that discrimination does not become extinct but evolves. In America, for example, discrimination seems to jump from group to group: women African Americans homosexuals, illegal immigrants. This is not to deny the existence of racism or sexism, but one cannot deny that such issues have moved out of the limelight in the face of other forms of intolerance. Perhaps one day we can live in a world where the only intolerance is of those who willingly hate and negatively discriminate against others.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-23153229503172032112010-05-03T09:49:00.000-07:002010-05-03T09:51:27.120-07:00Knowledge: Facilitator of Peace or Tool for WarIn class we talked about whether or not knowledge of the other necessarily leads to empathy and peace. On this subject Professor Jackson stated that it is this reasoning that drives the Fulbright program and student exchanges, which he is right in saying. Fulbright himself is quoted with saying “The Fulbright Commission aims to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship.” Personally I believe that knowledge can help expedite peaceful relationships, but does not guarantee them. Sun Tzu is quoted with saying “know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.” Really it is up to a persons’ mentality and motives to determine what knowledge will do. In the case of Jake Sully, getting to understand and empathize with the Na’Vi led to him becoming part of their tribe and fight against his own species. This seems to be the case of some frontiers people in the US who learned to live with the Native Americans rather than drive them back after being placed in a “Dances with Wolves” like scenario. On the other hand, some frontiers people also used knowledge of the Native Americans to destroy their society with alcohol and exploit them during transactions. Cortez seems to have understood the Aztecs and used this knowledge to try dominating their society rather than view them as human beings. Thus, it would seem that while knowledge can help spur some to empathy, it can be utilized for nefarious reasons. <br />Can knowledge bring about hate? When we learn about Muslim woman being oppressed in the Middle East are we swayed more by our disgust at the sexism prevalent in their society, or by thoughts of cultural relativism? Even though we can learn why the Nazis did what they did, does this mitigate their crimes when we learn the full extent of the horror they perpetrated against their fellow human beings? As stated before, I believe what effect knowledge has a person depends both on the individual and the individual’s motives. Some wish only to know their enemy in order to succeed. Some people are wholly swayed by argument of cultural relativism. Some people simply find another appealing and wish to empathize. For better or worse, knowledge has an essential and dynamic effect on relations between groups.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-61493924279314298972010-05-03T09:48:00.000-07:002010-05-03T10:09:01.040-07:00Reflection on EifelheimI’d like to touch upon two questions raised in class. The first is about the interaction between religion and science and the concept of science as a doctrine. Mginsberg said a great deal about this in their <a href="http://engagepage.blogspot.com/2010/04/intersections-of-theology-science-in.html">two blog </a><a href="http://engagepage.blogspot.com/2010/04/synapses-between-seen-and-unseen.html">posts on Eifelheim </a>and I found two statements very interesting. One was that we humans generally view science as knowledge about something tangible while religion is faith in the unseen. Thus, when left with unseen and incomprehensible forces such as sub-atomic particles, do our scientific beliefs come to resemble more of a religious faith? The second statement was that they found that when both creationism and the big bang theory are explained concurrently, they are not mutually exclusive. I personally agree with the idea that religion and science, while two separate subjects and lenses, are not at war with one another. How would it be heretical to say that God created neutrons and the natural forces that govern this world? Evolution does not negate the existence of God any more than the cancellation of Firefly mean that it wasn’t a work of genius. An all powerful being can create natural mechanisms, or natural mechanisms are simply there and the being is just along for the ride and works around them. Concerning the second question, science can indeed take on aspects of religion. Like religion, science can be used as a lens through which to view events. Rather than attributing a hurricane to Poseidon, one with a more scientific lens would attribute it to George Bush. I say George Bush not because he’s a deity, but because he contributes to global warming by the hot air that comes out of him and his unsustainable energy policies. That or such a person would simply blame meteorological conditions. Nevertheless, whether an outlook is based in faith in the supernatural or in reason, both still remain to be lenses and part of a person’s mentality. Concerning the unknown and the unseen, science can be used to comprehend phenomenon just as religion is. Instead of a miraculous recovery being attributed to a faith healing, it could instead be attributed to the placebo effect. Again this is not to say either is mutually exclusive. I personally believe that the laws of physics and nature are what make the world the way it is. However, if a car that’s spinning out of control nearly misses me I’ll attribute that near miss not to centrifugal force or friction, but providence.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-8551803468439284212010-05-03T09:47:00.000-07:002010-05-03T10:04:35.363-07:00Vikings: Hope for ChangeAlthough we often view Cortez and Columbus as some of the best indicators of first contact, I think by doing so we do injustice to the Norse explorers of North America. The first contact between the Norse and the Skraelings consisted not of warfare or exploitation, but mutual trade and gift giving. The Norse also generally seemed to settle outside of Skraeling territory and did not encroach on their lands. It is believed by some professionals that this symbiotic relationship lasted for almost 400 years. Such a figure is without a doubt encouraging. Conflicts between the two groups, however, did occur. According to the Greenland Saga a bull from one of the Norse Warriors charged the Skraelings, leading to them to return aggressively in force. Although this goes to show that misunderstandings are indeed great detriments to first contact, it is refreshing to see that conflict did not result from a “friend-enemy’ dynamic or attempts to exploit. Perhaps a beneficial trading relationship and economic interdependence can help ensure peace between two groups. <br /> I enjoyed <a href="http://wearetheblogssf.blogspot.com/2010/04/reflection-conquest-of-america_10.html">Morgan’s reflective post </a>on Conquest of America and how it tied in the Mass Effect series. The Reapers, like the conquistadors, almost wiped out an entirely sentient species for the purpose of conquest and slavery. They did this because they viewed their foes, the Protheans, as an entirely different race that was in no way on par with their own synthetic race. The conquistadors viewed the Aztecs in a similar fashion, as an inferior and inherently different species that was expendable. Will humans make such erroneous judgments in the future? Even today in America with education, reasoning and great stores of knowledge we encounter problems of religious fanaticism and racism. In the last twenty years the world has seen genocides in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Darfur. If faced with an extra -terrestrial group that was technologically inferior or needful such as in District 9, would we repeat the same actions as Cortez? Will we view extra-terrestrials as equal sentient beings or “prawns?”CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-54862615600607885142010-05-03T09:45:00.000-07:002010-05-03T09:47:11.769-07:00Substantive on EifelheimIt appears that Eifelheim provides us with a situation where hope does exist for human-alein interactions. In many ways this novel reminded me of the alien captain’s reasoning in the Star Trek episode “Darmok,” that desperate situations can help bring two groups together. In the episode, which is the one we watched in class, Captain Picard and his alien counterpart must learn to work together against a dangerous predator despite being unable to communicate with one another. The severity of the situation allows the two captains to bond and set a peaceful precedent from which both of their societies can work together from. In this scenario both the humans and the Krenken are faced with dire and existential threats, compelling them to work together. Although both sides suffer defeats, the two groups are able to connect and make headway in understanding one another, as well as establishing peaceful relations. Desperate situations do not necessarily produce cooperation though. For example, during WWII Japan bombed Pearl Harbor after the US cut off its’ vital oil supply rather than attempt to work with the US. In the min-series V, the aliens which are running low on resources attempt to conquer Earth in order to harvest humans. These aliens take this sinister action without considering working with the humans to secure resources such as bovine or poultry stocks. There are real world examples of desperation leading to groups coming together though. The US and the SU, for example, both collaborated against the threat of fascism during WWII. <br /> One flaw I found with the novel was the aliens’ belief in the coming of Christ. Of course its’ understandable how miscommunication occurred at first, but I am surprised that a post-Einsteinian society wouldn’t recognize that what the villagers were describing were religious or superstitious tales. Especially since the humans in the novel had such a primitive technological level. However, perhaps because they have a mentality based on logic and reasoning, and may have had said mentality for centuries, that concepts such as religion and a lens based on supernatural reasoning might be alien to them. However, it is easy to see how the basic tenants of Christianity might appeal to a species that has overcome the Fermi’s paradox.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-73518914885811368592010-05-03T09:43:00.000-07:002010-05-03T10:02:14.048-07:00Allegories and InterventionI found <a href="http://wearetheblogssf.blogspot.com/2010/04/substantive-children-of-god.html">Andrew’s substantive </a>on Children of God to be thought provoking and agree with him on multiple issues. For one, the God in the Sparrowverse does to appear to be a vengeful Old Testament figure. Emilio undoubtedly resembles a Job-like figure that is tested by God at every turn and has everything that he values, from his dignity to his family ripped from him. Although Emilio turns his back on God in some aspects, he never truly does in the sense of upholding his Christian values. Throughout both novel Emilio still continues to be a morally upright individual. The emancipation of the Runa appears to resemble the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. The Jana'ata resemble the Egyptians in multiple regards. For one, the way they kill the Runa children is reminiscent of the slaughter of Jewish babies conducted by the Pharaohs, such as the one that led to Moses being put in the river. The Runa actually discuss drowning their babies in a river, perhaps just like jewish children were drowned in the Nile? The geniocracy, nobles, river trading, city l descriptions and harems also remind me of an ancient civilization. Supaari also seems to be a Moses like figure. Just as the Egyptian prince risks all to save an innocent person from death and lead enslaved people to freedom, Supaari endangers himself by saving his baby and then leading the Runa against the Jana'ata. Besides this, just like Moses Supaari is never allowed to eneter the “promised land.” The author, Ms. Russell, is a convert to Judaism, which plays an important role in her life. For this reason it would not be illogical to find Biblical symbolism in the novel. <br /> There also appears to be a great deal of debate over whether or not Sophia’s rebellion is justified. In truth, it is difficult to weigh the emancipation of over ninety percent of a planet’s population to the near genocide of a species. Personally, I believe if the Runa have had ill will towards the Jana'ata before human contact than the rebellion is not necessarily as illegitimate as it appears to be. The Runa must have had feeling of ill will or else they would not have mustered forces so quickly or be so enthusiastic to challenge the status quo. It was also mentioned in the novel that the Runa did give Jana'ata nobles fair warning before attacking. However, Sophia should have tried to emphasize to her Runa army that mercy and the sparring of civilians was a priority. However, I am sure no words she could have uttered would have quelled thousands of years of anger at being repressed. One must also realize that the Runa were also the victims of eugenics and selective breeding, as well as undermined intellectually by limited diets. Besides this, as sentient being don’t the Runa have the right to self determination and civil rights? Sophia proposed an alternative to enslavement and maltreatment and the Runa took it as they found it more appealing to a culture of subjugation. Besides this, Sophia came from a life of prostitution and from a people who have been persecuted for millennia, how could we expect her not to take a stand?CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-84031672420156682082010-05-03T09:41:00.000-07:002010-05-03T10:00:12.612-07:00A Mandate for First Contact?Although the team’s intention in the Sparrow was one of goodwill, I was frankly offended that the Jesuit Society and the team would act unilaterally. Humanity only has one chance to make first contact with a species. From thence on future relationships are greatly affected by this one incident. I believe it was wrong for this one team, which was questionably qualified, to go forth without the consent of the international community at large. If a group is meant to represent humanity as a whole, it should undoubtedly be composed in a way that at least has some sort of limited international consensus and legitimacy. The team seems to know this was the case as it wouldn’t have snuck away without alerting anyone outside of the Jesuit order and Catholic power elite. What right did the group have to take this action, no matter how altruistic its’ intentions? <br /> This creates the question of who has the right to decide who makes first contact with extra-terrestrials. If it were desired to represent humanity at large perhaps international and regional forums such as the UN and the EU could be used. There’s also the option of creating an ad hoc organization open to all nations just for the express purpose of deciding how first contact should be conducted. Whatever organization is used, each nation could bring forth distinguished academics and figures to provide greater insight and advice. The UN would probably be the best institution to utilize as it is widely respected and generally viewed to be a forum on international issues. A UN envoy would also be more likely to provide a more diverse representation of human ideals and mentalities than a purely Catholic centric one. Although the UN envoy in the Sparrow was met with disaster, I believe this can be attributed to the results of the Jesuit team’s actions rather than their own follies. <br /> I would also like to say that I agree with <a href="http://wearetheblogssf.blogspot.com/2010/04/reflection-sparrow.html">Morgan’s point</a> about the Jana'ata’s society . Cruelty and inhumanity are subjective concepts that are defined differently for each person and society. While you and I might view the Jana'ata with distaste, their society might appear natural to the Vikings who based their livelihood on slaving and raids, or the Mongols whose empire was based on extracting tribute from other peoples. One is allowed to feel outrage at certain acts, but one should also try to step back and examine a phenomenon in context. For this reason, I am hesitant to praise Sofia’s choice to lead the Runa in a riot against the Jana'ata. In issues of culture and mentality, reasoning with and offering alternatives to other groups so that they can make their own decisions is also an option to imposing one’s own morality upon them. Objectively speaking though, Sophie’s choice to intervene is also a valid and legitimate viewpoint. Frankly, if I were in her position I probably would have intervened as well after becoming overwhelmed by emotion. My staunch belief in liberty and the right to life probably would have also overridden any of my attempts to be objective.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-80988583493581335272010-05-03T09:38:00.000-07:002010-05-03T09:40:59.011-07:00The Cream of the Crop?In class this week the question was raised as to what the expedition did wrong and if its’ members were poorly chosen. Personally, I believe that changes indeed could have been made to the composition of the team. For one, chemists and pathologists should have been brought along in the journey. On Earth, the interactions between people from different continents have lead to the deaths of millions of beings from the same species. What are we to expect when beings from different planets interact? I think it was reckless to attempt first contact without taking severe precautions to prevent contamination of another world with fatal diseases. Although the team took precautions, they were not very extensive. One microbe from a breathing human could let loose a cell that can multiply exponentially in an alien environment as well as dominate native forms of life. The team should have done months of experiments with the native plants and wildlife on the lander, as well only explore the planet in environmental suits until it was better determined that the human presence posed no risk.<br /> I would have to agree with my classmates’ proposal that sociologists and social scientists would be useful in a first contact scenario. Although faced with the challenges of unfamiliarity, these professionals are trained to deal with such scenarios and be conscious for the most subtle of meanings in things ranging from art work to facial expressions. Granted such professionals would not be a panacea or able to comprehend everything, but they would be able to look for and understand much more than say a musicologist. Concerning whether the team should have had so many religious people, I would be hesitant to say no. Yes, I first contact team should not represent one religious mentality or have a sectarian agenda, however it would be wrong to represent humanity as an entirely secular species. Religion is a guiding force in human history and life and to hide or ignore this is not only a disservice to aliens but us as well. Thus, I would advise a team to act secularly and not be driven by a wholly religious agenda, but also be open to sharing human beliefs to extraterrestrials as well. <br /> Generally I feel the team acted with compassion and patience, thus allowing it to bond easily with the Runa. These are indispensible characteristics that are needed to make not only a good first impression but to truly establish communication and relations. Two groups that feel empathy towards one another are much more likely to be open than two groups that hold mutual suspicions. However, the team did make the fatal flaw of giving the Runa agricultural techniques. Not to sound snobbish, but even I, who was not concerned about contaminating Runa culture was able to catch on that this was mistake based on my knowledge of history. One only has to look at how the introduction of agriculture or the expansion of food sources has an enormous impact not only population but a society’s fundamental way of life. Such examples can be the Green Revolution and the introduction of American foodstuffs to Europe. Even if the team could not have foreseen the negative effects of agriculture expansion amongst the Runa, it should have made a more informed decision and taken time to consider the consequences of such actions.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-82224250819713317712010-05-03T09:36:00.000-07:002010-05-03T09:38:50.171-07:00Cosmic Silence?For me, His Master’s Voice raises a very a number of important questions. For one, why haven’t humans been contacted yet? Even if human weren’t to be the target recipients of a message, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that we would come across some sort of “radio chatter” between different planets or ships? The fact we have not come across any intergalactic chatter doesn’t necessarily meant though that aliens do not exist. Perhaps means of intergalactic communication entail technological methods that we cannot detect. For example, it has been proposed that quarks, a sub atomic particle we barely understand, can be used to send faster than light messages. It might also be possible that extra-terrestrials communicate telepathically, such as in “Ender’s Game” or “Speaker for the Dead,” and we would not know what forms of energy to look for. There is also the theory of mediocrity, which is the concept that even though we humans are anthropocentric and take pride in humanity, to other civilizations we may not be at all intriguing. Perhaps other species are also operating under some sort of Prime Directive and do not believe we humans have reached a technological level to be interfered with yet. <br /> Another question that intrigued me about the novel was the purpose of the Senders’ message. Personally I believe the message had an altruistic intent. As stated in the novel, the Senders would have had to exert a substantial amount of power to send an intact message throughout the galaxy. This rules out that it was simple “radio chatter.” It would also be illogical to believe that the Senders had a malicious purpose to send the message. They would have nothing to gain by sending the blueprints for a plague or disease millions of light years away to an unapproachable planet where they could not gain a military advantage or even consider conquering. Even if they sent a blueprint for a gateway or portal to bring their armies to the planet, by the time the message was decoded thousands or tens of thousands of years would have passed. Though, it would be wrong to rule out malicious intent entirely. Perhaps the Senders had a sadistic psyche such as the Hippae and would have reveled at the idea of intergalactic genocide. What appears to be the case, however, is a well intentioned case. The humans were able to decode formulas for energy producing substances and life. Perhaps the Senders wished to aid themselves as well as other species by enabling civilizations to produce cheap energy, thus removing the catalyst for many conflicts. The formula to create organisms was perhaps done to make a statement that path to success lies not in destroying life, but creating it.CCChevallierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05042291861368415220noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-25544092710742827602010-05-02T17:59:00.000-07:002010-05-02T18:53:08.979-07:00Reflection: Look to Windward<span style="font-style: italic;">Look to Windward</span> presents a weird problem for us in this social science fiction class. Until now, we've dealt with encounters with the other under certain social parameters. We've know that things are limited in the worlds we've explored. Sure, some beings have been more powerful than us or somewhat incomprehensible, but they've been somewhere within our sphere of interaction. They were capable of being interacted with, and that in itself is worth noting (the obvious exception to this is <span style="font-style: italic;">His Master's Voice</span>, but we'll leave that by itself for now). But the Culture? They've gone beyond scarcity, and gone beyond typical conventions that hold humans back. And we're still faced with huge societal questions.<br /><br />If we can't blame problems on our natural state of scarce resources, and notably death itself, then we've reached the end - we can't blame our natural need for material goods and survival on our conflicts. Admittedly, Culture doesn't really have too much internal conflict. There doesn't seem to be an ounce of racism (we covered in class just how damn diverse they are), and in general they seem accepting of outsiders (see Ziller). But they haven't escaped their origins - they still have some about of conflict with the other. Chelgrians, while not exactly capable of wiping out Culture, are certainly in conflict with them! It seems as though conflict with the other is inevitable, even if you take out factors which limit human potential. Moreover, we suspect that the Mind overlords of Culture made the mission possible by backing the Chelgrians. Their own internal elements are turning against them.<br /><br />The pessimistic view of <span style="font-style: italic;">Look to Windward</span> is that conflict is inevitable - it cannot be contained despite how many resources you have and if you can conquer death. Can we imagine a situation where Culture wouldn't be involved in conflict? There's precedent in the book for other peoples making conflict with Culture, but being retaliated against severely - so even if Culture remains insular, there's probably not a great chance they'll completely avoid conflict with others. And their current system still has that margin of error, that 1% chance that things will go wrong.<br /><br />But even if Culture isn't conflict immune, it shows us something - obviously conflict really isn't as common as it is today in their world. Even if perfect peace can't exist, there is still some kind of peace that is present in their lives. Whether or not Culture's peace is the kind you want is up to the reader. If we bear in mind that these kinds of conflicts are inevitable for us as humans, perhaps we can better learn to avoid them. PTJ left tonight with a call to humility, not a call to end conflict with the other once and for all. We must be humble as we tread into the universe, and recognize that which makes us human makes us capable of great conflict, but also makes up capable of great peace.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-85468739482026160432010-05-02T11:53:00.001-07:002010-05-02T12:06:24.379-07:00Substantive: Look to WindwardOkay, let's get straight to the point about <span style="font-style: italic;">Look to Windward</span> right now. It's not really about post-scarcity technology or aliens from another world getting revenge. It's about Americas activity abroad functioning as a "world police" entity. All of this is too obvious in the book - Culture's decadence rings of America, from the extreme sports to the fashion flings which seem pass as soon as they arrive. Chel, on the other hand, seems to be the "other" to America. Seeing as though the novel was written for Gulf War veterans, the Chel can't NOT be designed around a Middle Eastern nation or people. In the end, it appears to be a tale of a terrorist attack against America (or the West in general, seeing as though Banks is Scottish).<br /><br />This isn't to say that <span style="font-style: italic;">Look to Windward</span> isn't worthy of an in-depth analysis - it simply just has a generally more obvious analogy to the real world. We've gone over in class what the moral implications of interference has on other people. Culture, on the whole, seems to have the opposite policy of the prime directive - interference whenever possible. And who could blame those humans? We saw how those on Chel have a caste system so severe a member of a higher caste can throw a lesser person of society off a cliff and not suffer the consequences! That seems like a pretty clear-cut travesty to me. But we face the same problems here on Earth! Should the US interfere in countries that we feel will benefit from our own culture?<br /><br />The message of <span style="font-style: italic;">Look to Windward</span> is pretty clear cut in that regard, too. Culture started the war with Chel, and the Caste War, because they helped and armed the lower castes. It might of been benevolent to Culture, but it meant the deaths of many. Banks shows that this kind of help isn't only deadly, but it forms groups that attempt to retaliate against you! Quilan wouldn't have a motive to destroy Masaq if his mate hadn't been lost in the war. The war created the kind of person Quilan had to be in order to kill himself in that way. And that is freakishly like the world we live in, where the United States, functioning almost just like Culture, is creating wars and interfering, only to create people who want to kill US citizens from an act we see as benevolence. The message is obvious: interference doesn't always work.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-64945015197049784462010-05-01T17:05:00.000-07:002010-05-02T12:40:08.163-07:00Substantive: Look to Windward"Donna Noble has left the library. Donna Noble has been saved."<br /><br />When reading <span style="font-style: italic;">Look to Windward</span>, these words kept rebounding and rebounding through my head. Anyone who has been exposed to Steven Moffat's writing (incidentally, another Scotsman, although his realm is mainly television) knows that he can do some scary things with very common ideas. One of the concepts he comes up with (in the Doctor Who episode <span style="font-style: italic;">Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead</span>) is that people--their hopes, their dreams, their lives--can be preserved in technology. When the Library starts going to hell, the computer literally saves everyone in it--by placing them in its hard drive. It creates a weird kind of stinted immortality, preserved in the body of a large computer, who essentially coordinates scenarios for its various inhabitants in a way that is eerily Matrix-esque.<br /><br />I thought about this during <span style="font-style: italic;">Look to Windward</span> because of the Chel concept of an afterlife, which they have apparently made literal with the advent of the SoulKeepers, with the Sublimed Chelgrian-Puen as gatekeepers to a literal afterlife. And yet, there seems to be something in that that is...less than ideal. Someone in the book makes a comment about how nothing can happen in eternity as it would not therefore be eternity. Which means that this Chelgrian heaven is probably pretty boring. No wonder Quilan craves oblivion.<br /><br />I've also been thinking about what Andrew posted above (I know this says Saturday, but that's because I started it last night). Having spent a semester in Scotland (and believe me, Iain Banks is everywhere in the University of Edinburgh bookstore) I thought Andrew's note about the Culture representing American imperialism was particularly apt, but not getting at the entire picture. I'm all for being wary of biographical fallacy but one of the general feelings one gets in Scotland is a sense of proud isolationism combined with a brutal wariness. It's very hard being treated as England's satellite nation, and it's something they've struggled with since the Acts of Union. There's a particular insistence in Scotland that what combining into a United Kingdom has essentially done is leave Scotland neglected in favor of English interests, to the extent that the group in power now in Scottish parliament is a secessionist group known as the SNP:<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8553367.stm<br /><br />I'm wondering if maybe some of what Banks is showing us in the contrast between the humans of the Culture and the nature of the other species has something along these lines, or if it is merely a commentary on the horrific decadence of Western culture in general. While he does seem to criticize Chelgrian culture for being exceptionally caste-devoted, the one person (Ziller) who seems so adamantly against it isn't much of a hero and in fact turns out to be fairly annoying.Sartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-26592163162138971372010-04-25T14:02:00.000-07:002010-04-29T16:38:43.923-07:00Reflection: EifelheimSo I was rummaging through Cracked.com the other day and I came across something that I thought had a peculiar relevance to our course:<br /><br />http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case485.htm<br /><br />Basically, it's a 16th-century woodcut from Basel, Switzerland which seems to depict some kind of space battle. There also "Madonna with San Giovannino":<br /><br />http://conspiracypage.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/renaissance-ufo/<br /><br />Which seems to have a UFO flying in the background. The interesting thing that Cracked points out, however, is that some people consider this a typical Renaissance depiction of the "Holy Spirit." And I thought that, if this is how Medieval and Renaissance people (the word Renaissance in this case being somewhat relative, given that it started much earlier in Italy than, say, England) perceived religion, then <span style="font-style: italic;">Eifelheim</span> is odd in that Dietrich doesn't seem to consider the Krenken as anything other than outlanders. He doesn't really seem to translate them into that kind of religious context, instead thinking of them the same way Christians (and particularly Catholics) have historically had a tendency to think of other peoples: as potential converts.<br /><br />I think part of my confusion at this perspective is that it switches that situation we see in <span style="font-style: italic;">Conquest of America</span>. The humans aren't the invaders, here, and yet they're behaving like missionaries, unable to understand or help the Krenken but willing to convert them nonetheless. The Krenken, on the other hand, keep hoping that Jesus will come out of the sky--literally--and save them. Their conversion is practical, not spiritual, and by the time they more or less realize that it's spiritual it's too late. The presence of religion in this book seems to be countered by an absence of faith, in the sense of belief in that which cannot be seen, but felt. This may, in some way, have to do with the fact that Dietrich is highly educated, but the fact that the Krenken are not perceived as something holy except in the sense that all men are potentially holy confuses me in the light of how UFOs seemed to be depicted.Sartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-65711166560735227692010-04-22T15:05:00.001-07:002010-04-25T14:30:09.677-07:00Reflection: Eifelheim<span style="font-size:85%;"><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wMFPe-DwULM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wMFPe-DwULM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></embed></object><br /><br />As you can probably guess, my post is going to be based on that YouTube video. Go ahead and watch!<br /><br />Feynman, in this set of interviews from the 1980s, almost outright refuses to answer the interview's question. "How do you answer <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> something happens?" I think this has important implications for <span style="font-style: italic;">Eifelheim</span>, especially as we watch the Krenken try to decode <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> things are happening around them. As Feynman points out, a visitor from another planet has no concept of basic answers to the question <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span>, since they're unaware of the social underpinnings of the answer; they don't understand the context of the answer. "I'm telling you how difficult the <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> question is... </span><span style="font-size:85%;">I can't understand magnetic forces in terms of anything that you're familiar with because I don't understand it in terms of anything you're familiar with."<br /><br />The concept of "how we know" is deep in the heart of <span style="font-style: italic;">Eifelheim</span>. The most obvious examples of faulty logic is Dietrich's trust in the sometimes erroneous Greek and Christian philosophers. Compare this to the Krenken's "post-Einstein" stellar knowledge, the world views, and the answers to <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> is drastically different. But the logical extension of this is ask if Dietrich's supposedly erroneous claims are valid. What makes them not true? This takes us to the fundamental question posed in class - what is the difference between science fact versus religious faith?<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> "That's just one thing you'll have to take as an element in the world." Feynmen sounded a little fundamentalist there, didn't he? It sounds<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>a lot like faith, at least on the surface. <a href="http://5brainsinajar.blogspot.com/2010/04/tackling-mass-energy-equivalence-john.html">On our sister blog</a>, the poster said that faith has no underlying metonymic qualities; it is irreducible to data-points. This fits nicely with my pre-existing world view, and something akin to what PTJ defined faith as in class. But how do we reconcile that with Feynman, who is making a pretty clear point that if you can't do high level mathematics, you have to take a physicists <span style="font-style: italic;">word for it</span>. The layman's understanding of physical phenomenons is something akin to faith.<br /><br />Therefore, I call for another definition of faith, a more personal version at that. Faith is belief in an idea when oneself is incapable of answering the <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span>. This, of course, has wide implications on the religious and scientific spheres of influence, as it puts personal knowledge we thought we were sure of to the test. Let me add a reminder: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is the "scientific" principle that tells us that we cannot be sure of anything in the world which we perceive. If we connect the two, our result is almost dumbfounding: all human knowledge as an element of faith in it. And if all human knowledge is as easily disproven as Dietrich's world view, we are in a shockingly naive state as humans.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-50712821171324148862010-04-22T14:38:00.000-07:002010-04-22T18:14:55.221-07:00Substantive: Eifelheim<span style="font-style: italic;">Maybe there are successful stories!</span><br /><br />So, maybe my last blog post was a little downcast. Maybe it's a bit premature to call for SETI to shut down! <span style="font-style: italic;">Eifelheim </span>has changed my opinion, and perhaps for the better!<br /><br />What aspects of <span style="font-style: italic;">Eifelheim</span> make it seem that humans and aliens won't end up killing each other? We could chalk it up to author's discretion, but Flynn throws in so many other depressing scenarios (the down being struck by the Black Plague) that it seems that he had other intentions when it came to dictating the fate of the Krenken. The scenario is like <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sparrow</span>, but at the same time, distinctly different. The humans seem as innocent as the Runa in this case (perhaps <span style="font-style: italic;">Eifelheim </span>is <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sparrow</span> in reverse with no Jana'ata?) And maybe there's something to that kind of innocence, or even ignorance.<br /><br />In <span style="font-style: italic;">Conquest of America</span>, Todorov listed three primary ways of understanding the other. The most familiar was the simple factual level. Cortes knew many facts about the Aztecs, but still destroyed them. Clearly this kind of understanding doesn't necessarily save lives. But what about the opposite? Does complete ignorance allow survival? The Runa and humans in <span style="font-style: italic;">Eifelheim</span> seem to be models of this kind of ignorance - they are incapable of any kind of greater understanding of their situation. It's no coincidence that neither of them truly recognize the "alien-ness" that surrounds them. Of course, its difficult to pinpoint the exact reason why a kind of ignorance allows for peaceful interactions. There are clear factors which influence their "acceptance" of the other: inability to realize the full extent of "alien-ness", and the inability to understand the other on an intellectual level.<br /><br />The problem with this, of course, lies in the fact that the Krenken and humans in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sparrow</span> ARE capable of intellectually understanding their counterparts, yet THEY make other critical translation mistakes (Jesus as an actual person in the case of the Krenken). Therefore, I think there's a kind of set dichotomy here, at least in cases where one species is more advanced than the other. The case might be that, in interactions like these, the wild card is whether or not death will result from mistranslations and ignorance. In the end, it seems, things may just be up to chance.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-53684571104409501832010-04-21T18:19:00.001-07:002010-04-25T14:02:34.176-07:00Substantive: Eifeilheim<span style="font-style: italic;">Eifelheim</span>, to me, was this fascinating glimpse at an alien encounter that was, from our perspective, <span style="font-style: italic;">entirely</span> alien. While every other book this semester has been an alien encounter where we see the humans on one side and the aliens on the other, the humans in this book were almost as alien to us. The vision of the world that medieval Europeans had is totally different from what we perceive in the 21st century, and the fact that everything the aliens said was essentially translated through that perspective was so compelling. The unfortunate part about it, though, was that while we could see the pitfalls of their conversation, it didn't seem like they could.<br /><br />I'm not totally sure why neither the Krenken nor the humans could identify that there was a disconnect between what each comprehended. Medieval Europe was not exactly the height of technological civilization; the Krenken must have understood that when they talked about heaven it was metaphysics. Some of them converted so at least they somewhat understood the concept of religion. Or maybe not. I'm still not sure if it's that cut and dried, because the Krenken lived in this master-slave dynamic of hierarchy that means that maybe what they understood about Christianity was subordination. Perhaps they assumed that the humans were kept technologically stunted by virtue of keeping their Lord's superiority.<br /><br />There's no real happy ending to this book, but given that it's set in the future and writing about the past, that's hardly surprising. Everyone Tom and Sharon are learning about are by definition dead by the time they start researching them; it's a natural casualty of history. The kind of downer portion of it is the fact that Krenken who choose to stay also die, and the ones who leave are left to an uncertain fate. Yet this wasn't a total failure in communication, these aliens coexist peacefully with the people of Oberhochwald and some of them, as I mentioned before, even convert to Christianity. They are not trying to control humans, humans are not trying to control them, they're not trying to kill each other. Compared to some of the other encounters we've seen, this one is pretty successful.Sartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-56635592396925321452010-04-19T13:06:00.000-07:002010-04-19T14:46:21.410-07:00Reflection: Children of God<i>Who to send...</i><div><i><br /></i></div><div>As sad as it seems, in the closing month of our social science fiction class, I seem to have reached a unanimous decision: it's not worth it. Of all the books we've read, <i>Speaker for the Dead</i> seemed to have the best outcome, as far as alien interactions. Which is sad, really, because the entire scenario relied on the actions of a 3,000 year old super intelligent human. No one in our reality comes close to Ender. The next best bet would be <i>Grass</i>, but even then, the aliens almost managed to wipe out all of humanity before they were barely stopped. What gives here?</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, maybe PTJ has an affinity for humanity's destruction (I don't know if he'd ever admit to this), but more seriously, the situation calls for us to ask <i>whether or not a positive interaction is even possible</i>. By and large, isn't this an essential question for international relations? And on a more specific level, doesn't this answer the question posed by Russell in her duology? </div><div><br /></div><div>We can break up options into two categories: intervention and non-intervention. The non-intervention option is clearly the Trekkian option, a carbon copy of the prime directive. The problem with the prime directive is the limits of such a policy; at what point does following an absolutist non-intervention policy become foolish? Conversely, the problem of intervention is presented in Russell's duology. Intervention is risky, and more often than not, goes horribly wrong.</div><div><br /></div><div>I almost feel bad for suggesting this, but maybe in this case, we best prescribe ourselves a blissful ignorance. Hell, shut down SETI now, or at least pray we never gain the ability to meaningfully communicate with aliens. It's just not worth it. But then again, attempting to prevent humans from doing what comes natural; the process of reaching out, communicating, and interacting; would be oppression. </div><div><br /></div><div>What we reach is a sad conclusion - if we allow persons to find their own path of interacting with the other, human nature leads to chaos in interaction. Not necessarily chaos in terms of unpredictability (if IR wasn't predictable to some degree, we probably wouldn't call it a science), but chaos in terms of uncontrollability. You can't prevent someone like Emilio from going to Rakhat, if he truly wanted to go, without resorting to oppressive measures. And you can't prevent someone like Jimmy from discovering Rakhat in the first place. It doesn't matter if we send priests, poets, or scientists to Rakhat, or any other planet with intelligent life on it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whoever we send are always subject to basic human error - the inability to process the vast amount of variables needed to steer a situation to a guaranteed peaceful solution. We must be content with visualizing what we as individuals would like to happen, and accepting our inability to enact these steps to reach a guaranteed solution.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-5535344757269802212010-04-18T09:13:00.000-07:002010-04-18T09:44:18.756-07:00Reflection: Children of GodWhy is Sophia Jewish?<br /><br />It's a question I've been mulling around in my head over and over again. And along with the question, my brain started supplying this Yiddish song called "Donna, Donna," the lyrics of which I only know in English. In particular, the third verse:<br /><br />Calves are easily bound and slaughtered<br />Never knowing the reason why.<br />But whoever treasures freedom,<br />Like the swallow has learned to fly.<br /><br />The song was written during the days of Nazi Germany (I believe in 1940 or so) and that notion of human beings as cattle, to be ignorantly bound and slaughtered, is a Holocaust motif that I think runs very deep in Sophia's psyche. She sees the Runa sacrificing their children to the Jana'ata and she does not see population control, she sees a travesty--she sees Nazis, rounding up men and women and children like cattle and shipping them off to Auschwitz. Since World War II, it's been an inherent part of Jewish cultural memory, and one can hardly blame her for it. But I think, in a way, it runs deeper than that.<br /><br />Sophia is the only one in the first landing party that comes from a religion that does not proselytize. And yet she is the one to take serious action. I think this comes, in part, from the Jewish belief that good deeds are not buying time in the afterlife, but are important for their own sake, here and now. Jews don't believe in Hell, and notions about the afterlife are generally fairly ambiguous. Sophia therefore comes from a long line of people who act. She mentions Warsaw; my mind thought of things like Masada, Judah Maccabee, Miriam. I thought of Moses, killing the Egyptian slavemaster. And most of all I thought, as I believe I mentioned in class, of Abraham and Isaac, and the message of the story of Isaac's near-sacrifice: <span style="font-style: italic;">We do not kill children</span>.<br /><br />Phil mentioned in his post about the Jana'ata and the Garden of Eden. I thought about this too, in a way, because Jews don't believe in original sin. The Jewish concept of the Garden of Eden is as a spiritual paradise, not a physical one, and it's a place to which we can return only when we have become righteous. And even so, it does not trump good deeds done while living. The afterlife (or the possibility of an afterlife) is absolutely secondary to human action and life itself. So when Sophia steps out into that world, when she <span style="font-style: italic;">acts</span>, she believes she is doing what is right, regardless of the logistics of population control, environment, etc.Sartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-73995936835305914412010-04-14T20:51:00.000-07:002010-04-14T21:08:12.620-07:00Substantive: Children of GodAm I the only one who thinks there was something oddly touching about the way Supaari saved his daughter? And at the same time slightly troubling. I understand that, in a peculiar way, the circumstances of what happened to Emilio were the result of miscommunication (I can see how telling him that celibacy means "serving everyone" could be misinterpreted) but a society that treats other sentient beings as a form of cattle have a fundamentally different way of looking at things than we do. Or perhaps not. I suppose what I'm saying is that, by having sold Emilio into sex slavery, whether or not Supaari knew what he was, the Jana'ata was doing something that, by our standards, is morally wrong. They thrive (or at least Hlavin thrives) on Emilio's suffering.<br /><br />So it confuses me that a child conceived in what is essentially an act of rape is the focus of Supaari's own peculiar form of redemption. It was an unhappy marriage and, at the beginning at least, Supaari seemed content with that, but when he sees Ha'anala, it's like everything changes. He essentially becomes a traitor to his own race. Not to mention how horrifying it is that the Runa not only take him in but volunteer to sustain him by sacrificing themselves for his nourishment. I understand that it's an act of kindness but frankly it's baffling to me.<br /><br />Also: poor Emilio. We give him the opportunity for a real, lasting happiness--exempt from the struggles of his own faith, content to live a decent life, and then it's taken away from him. That moment when Gina comes back and Emilio's disappeared made me want to cry, because I knew that a) he was going back to Rakhat and b) he didn't want to. He's not Christ and, what's more, he's not an emblem for the redemption of the Society of Jesus.Sartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-57917138421664872182010-04-13T19:08:00.000-07:002010-04-13T19:54:48.993-07:00Substantive: Children of GodAnyone else immediately think the title of this book should have been <i>The Sparrow Episode II: The Emilio Strikes Back</i>? I crave a little bit of space dog fighting these days...<span style="font-style:italic;"></span><div><br /></div><div>Sure, <i>Children of God</i> doesn't feature cool space wars, but it does have one thing in great abundance: an Old Testament God. Perhaps it's once aspect of the author's own personality, but the God featured prominently in <i>Children of God</i> is not an infinitely loving God. Russell, while hinting at Emilio as a Jesus figure in <i>The Sparrow</i>, seemingly drops this pretense in her sequel; Emilio may have been resurrected, but he has assumed a more human form rather than a divine form. Emilio's suffering is no longer obviously akin to Jesus either - the battery and drugging he endures on the <i>Bruno</i> seem almost excessive, into the territory of a truly vengeful God. </div><div><br /></div><div>And if we are dealing with a vengeful God, than what of Sophia? If we do take her name to be the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)">embodiment of the wisdom of God</a>, then her crusade against the Jana'ata could be pictured as a righteous crusade. She even imparts much of her own religion and language upon the Runa (using "Hebrew for prayer"). So, is she right to do this?</div><div><br /></div><div>Russell makes Sophia's character very ambiguous. On one hand, Russell has purposely given her a Biblical name, and put religious power in her hands. At the same time, Russell makes Sophia a catalyst for war. A war which costs the lives of an entire species. At the end of the book, I feel quite alone in thinking that what Sophia led the Runa to do was theoretically <b>wrong</b>.</div><div><br /></div><div>I made this point in <a href="http://wearetheblogssf.blogspot.com/2010/04/reflection-sparrow_05.html">my original </a><i><a href="http://wearetheblogssf.blogspot.com/2010/04/reflection-sparrow_05.html">The Sparrow</a></i><a href="http://wearetheblogssf.blogspot.com/2010/04/reflection-sparrow_05.html"> reflection post</a> - that Sophia's actions lead the resistance of the Runa against the Jana'ata was fundamentally wrong. Personally, I find the actions of Sophia in <i>Children of God </i>vindicating my position. Although at the time of writing my blog post I had no idea Sophia survived, it seems appropriate that Russell continued Sophia's campaign. In the end, her radical views about the Runa flipped the situation completely, and went "beyond an eye for an eye". </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-89563763903625918492010-04-11T20:55:00.000-07:002010-04-11T20:57:30.777-07:00Just a thought<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ctoT7ezTE">The Babel fish</a><br /><br />"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation." (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy</span>, Chapter 6)Sartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283134304300156063.post-84367647777350081012010-04-10T10:11:00.000-07:002010-04-10T11:07:54.471-07:00Reflection: Conquest of AmericaWe spoke a lot in class the other day about what constitutes true understanding in cross-species communication. And one of the distinctions that we kept finding was this notion of manipulation. I mean, in Conquest of America, Columbus clearly didn't understand the Indians (to the extent that he basically kept insisting that Cuba wasn't an island) but he understood enough to manipulate them into thinking that he'd taken the moon away from them because they didn't understand the concept of a lunar eclipse. Cortes probably understood the Aztecs better--in fact, I think we voted in class that he basically exhibited greater understanding, but I think the caveat of that was that he understood them in the sense of being able to manipulate them into thinking he was Quetzalcoatl. And I started wondering, in a weird way, if that's the sense the Jana'ata have of understanding humans. Given, they seem pretty ethnocentric, but it seems like a lot of the interactions in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sparrow</span> have to do with the Jana'ata taking advantage of humanity--until the obvious, at the end.<br /><br />I've been thinking about it a lot because we have a tendency, even in positive interactions like we see in <span style="font-style: italic;">Speaker</span>, to think of ourselves as these horrible invaders and the alien race as basically benevolent if they don't kill or molest us. In <span style="font-style: italic;">Speaker</span> though, both the Buggers and the Piggies do have ulterior motives for human contact--the piggies individually seek their rough equivalent of eternal life, and the Hive Queen basically hangs on to Ender so she can reestablish herself and her civilization. Is that any different or better than the whole Gold, Glory, God thing we find in early American conquest? Given, in those cases we seem to be the aggressors but I can't figure out if the nature of the conquest necessarily lends moral points to one side or the other.<br /><br />I also wish we could bring up <span style="font-style: italic;">Mass Effect</span> in class sometime. I know it's a video game but it and its mind-numbingly beautiful sequel are so immersive and well-written that I have a tendency to think of the ME universe as being roughly on par with some sort of higher-class space opera. And one of the things ME addresses is this notion of how difficult it is to deal or cope with a species that is fundamentally different. The entire first game centers around finding out about this long-defunct alien race called the Protheans and their conquest by the Reapers, who aren't actually biological but are nonetheless sentient. And the thing about the Reapers is that because they're inorganic they have this idea that it is necessary to enslave and subsequently wipe out all life. How do you argue for the relevance of humankind with something like that?Sartre's Prodigyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02578757387919616797noreply@blogger.com0