Amelia, James, Pooja, and Quinn SciFi Blog

Last Blog

2005-05-01T19:45:00.000-04:00

I’m just going to talk about my overall impression of the class. I thought it was a great class (with the exception of blogging twice a week and that huge paper I have yet to write). Honestly, I have never been able to read such enjoyable books for class (with the exception of the other Jackson class I took because we got to read The Tipping Point and how statistics lie). But, having a class where I could read Ender’s Game…it doesn’t get any better than that! So I will admit that before I took this class I was merely a dabbler in scifi (I still cannot compare my knowledge to the majority of the people in our class…I actually went to see The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy the other day in the movie theater and was one of three of a group of about fifteen people that did not bring a towel, so apparently I have not been fully converted to nerd-dom yet). The point is, now I have moved beyond a superficial understanding of science fiction to a much deeper understanding and appreciation of it (though I still don’t understand what’s so great about Dune).

In terms of the books we read, Orson Scott Card’s books still remain my favorite. I did, however, become acquainted with some other excellent scifi authors, Isaac Asimov, for one. After reading his Foundation trilogy (which I think should be part of the curriculum by the way, at least the first book) and The Gods Themselves, I can truly claim to be an Asimov fan. Robert Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was amazing (apparently because it is pre-Heinlein’s turning every book into a giant sex triangle). The Professor’s blueprint for structuring a revolution was interesting, especially in how it involved Mike (I think I will have to keep it in mind for when I plan to start a revolution of my own to take over the world). I really liked the character of Mike (I even named a computer in our office “Mike” because it was petulant, but then it started causing serious problems…), especially as the issue of superhuman computers and artificial intelligence is prevalent in scifi, including other books we read such as He, She, and It. Speaking of He, She, and It, that was a fantastic book. I had to appreciate the fact that the protagonist was female, especially after our previous discussions on the lack of females in scifi. Finally, I have to point out my look of Todorov. I truly enjoyed his perspective on the American conquest, maybe because I like to sympathize with the oppressed and not the conquerors, or maybe because of its incredible similarity to Speaker for the Dead. I actually think we should read Pastwatch, as well, to compliment Speaker and Todorov.

One last point…the discussions. Having a class with uncensored discussions where anything goes was amazing for two reasons. One, because we could engage in unrestricted speculation and hypothesizing about different political situations without worrying about whether our thoughts were too extreme or outlandish to be considered, and even discussed. And two, because I got to engage in endless rants about Bush and other things that I disagree with or that just plain piss me off (and taking this point in light of the fact that most of my school career I have been the nerd who raises my hand to answer questions with academic references to the textbook or some reading instead of my own personal opinions, I enjoyed being dissenting and a big radical for once). All in all, I thought the class was fantastic and I really enjoyed it.

Last Blog....

2005-04-29T19:10:00.000-04:00

Because my head is currently swarming with my capstone and other finals, I don't believe I can form a coherent blog. However, it won't stop me from trying. What I found most interesting in our discussion in our last class was the argument about when a culture can impose itself on a foreign civilization. Far too often, people simply criticize the intervention in one area, but fight for intervention in another. The prime example of this is the large numbers of people who advocate for intervention in areas like the Middle East and Tibet but simultaneously criticize US involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now, this could simply be a debate of means. Many people legitimately encourage nonviolent interference but oppose military intervention. But this distinction is still not sufficient. I firmly belief that boycotting South Africa was the proper course of action, however, this was certainly a form of economic violence.

I do not know where I stand in the use of violence, and I gladly list myself under the ambiguous position of "depends upon the circumstances." I also don't know how I feel about intervention in other states, filling myself under the same principle. I find it hard to believe that anybody can legitimately claim to stand totally opposed to all intervention. Is it not a challenge to our own national identity when the United States stands idly by and witnesses genocide? Is there a line that must be crossed before we can intervene? And if so, how many lives must be lost or destroyed for it to be relevant enough for US involvement? Who makes that decision?

Obviously these questions do not have simple answers. It seems that it all "depends upon the circumstances." Then again, philosophers have been debating this stuff for centuries. I guess we can't feel too defeated at failing to find an answer in one semester.

Just wanted to let my blog group know that I enjoyed our discussions. I have a feeling that I won't be able to indulge in such free thinking in law school....

Take Care All,
Q

More Terminator

2005-04-26T23:48:00.000-04:00

Perhaps I was the only one who felt like a large potion of my childhood was developed by the Terminator series, despite this possibility I think more discussion of Terminator is necessary (yes, in addition to my rambling presentation). Specifically, we should discuss the threat of machines as explained by the Terminator series.

Sarah Connor seems to despise the idea that the Terminator has a switch to learn that is turned to the off position at the beginning of his mission. She and John Connor switch this to the on position so we can watch the terminate learn to awkwardly smile and engage in other hilarious hijinks. Despite the plot ambiguity of this scene (doesn't the Terminator learn in the first movie? He learns vocabulary and uses it effectively to make the hotel owner leave him alone), it raises an interesting point. Is the Terminator evil because he cannot learn and act independently of the greater threat that is Skynet?

However, independence is not as highly valued as it may seem. John Connor is elated when he discovers that the Terminator must do whatever he says. Sarah connor waxes philosophically about how the Terminator is a perfect father, because he will always do whatever John wants or needs. His lack of independence makes him superior to a human father.

In the end, it is not independent thinking that makes the Terminator valued. It is the realization that he is firmly under the control of the Connor family. Any deviation from this existence, either by acting independently and abandoning the family or rejoining skynet, would make the Terminator no longer valued. It is not the essence of the machine that is important. All that matters is that the machine is totally subservient to the owner.

El Fin

2005-04-26T23:30:00.000-04:00

Wow. Aside from the paper its all over. Sad to think I have already taken my most enjoyable class in my college career. Before this semester I was a passive fan of SciFi; I had read some Asimov, some Bradbury, Dune, Ender's Game, and Wells, I had seen Star Trek and Star Wars. Now though, I feel like I'm an active participant in the scifi community. After sitting around and discussing science fiction for the past three months, as well as reading a bonanza of it, I feel like I know more about the field and can use this knowledge to explore areas of other fields that other people would never imagine. It was funny, on the final day of my International Development class, our professor recommended that we all start reading a lot of scifi. He said he passes these words of wisdom onto us because scifi gets you thinking out of the box, and most of the solutions in ID come from out-of-the-box thinking. Well, I felt like I had a leg up on the class. Of course, I already had a chip on my shoulder when the professor asked if anyone had read Kuhn and I was the only one who knew about him. Ah, the parallels between scifi and international development.

I digress though, even though this entire blog is a digression ( but from what I'm not sure). Anyway, I wish this could be a required course for all IR majors, as well as philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, and probably a few others. The texts we have read have provoked more meaningful discussions than the works from any other class. And not only were the discussions meaningful, but they were diverse. It was never a single issue that we took on, it was always multiple issues at once. That does not make for light conversation and I think if any outsider came into our class, they would have been surprised and hopefully intrigued and stimulated by the discussion we were engaged in. I look forward to reading more scifi in the future and finding more people with whom to discuss it.

May the Force be with you.

Some Random Thoughts

2005-04-26T01:00:00.000-04:00

I wanted to respond to a comment http://www.haloscan.com/comments/qballqsp/111336203012528255/) James made on my April 12^th blog post (http://scifiblogs05.blogspot.com/2005/04/cultural-differences-and-raman.html). He asked whether I agreed with the point that “there exists such a thing as morality which has the power to be applied universally and to determine the right course of action.” I do agree with this point. I mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in my blog post and I do support this document because I am of the belief that there is a universal code of morality that all people should follow. I think this code is the creation of humankind as a whole. Its values reflect those common morals and principles that all people share, such as the golden rule. As to the example of Muslim women and their right to education, preventing women from being education or granting them fewer rights than men is not a value of Muslim culture. That is a perversion of Muslim culture. If you look at any religion or belief system, including Islam, I believe that you will find the same values at their core. Notice, however, that I used the term humankind earlier. I do not know if the human universal code of universality should apply to other species. The piggies, for example, may have a universal piggie code of conduct that applies across different tribes. As to Lennea’s comments (same url) on that same post, I agree. She said that there are two sides of the argument, “allowing people to follow their own traditional cultural practices” and “an undeniable desire to impose one's own beliefs on others. I think that it is difficult to determine when one standard should be applied, and when the other.” It is indeed difficult to make that distinction though I disagree with the use of the word impose. As I said, there might be a different belief system for piggies. But the universal moral code of human codes is not imposed on anyone because it is deciding by consensus, by humankind as a whole.

As to Terminator 2, it was my first time seeing it, and despite the fact that it had the laughable Governor of California in it, it was very cool. I thought one point was interesting was when the kid asks Arnold is he can learn to behave like a human “so he doesn’t act like a dork and stuff.” Arnold replies that he has a program that allows him to go through a learning process. Yet, he still does not act like a normal human being, instead sounding like a machine. This could be Arnold’s horrible acting or it could be a result of his programming. Is it possible for machines designed only for killing to behave like normal human beings? Is it possible for machines designed only for killing to behave like normal human beings? Arnold says that he feels no emotion because he “has to stay functional to fulfill his programming? Thinking back to He, She, and It, the only cyborg that acted like a believable human being was Yod, and in that case, the dose of compassion and empathy that allows Yod to pass as human limits his effectiveness as a killing machine.

Pershonhood

2005-04-25T15:36:00.000-04:00

Well, first let me recommend you all go read Excession now, or some other Culture novel. I can guarentee you that Excession has just as intricate a plotline and just as interesting characters, if not more so, than Look to Windward.

Anyway, extolling the skill of Banks is not the point of this blog. I am writing to question Banks' treatment of the definition of person. When I first read Excession I can across the idea of transferring someone's mindstate into a substrate and then into another body. I reencounter this concept in Look To Windward. Still I wonder: does that make you stay the same person? Its the same question as when someone is transported in Star Trek. Since your entire body is broken down and read at the molecular level and then the information is transferred to the desired spot where the molecules are reassembled, do you remain the same?

Well in Banks' novel, to assume someone's personhood is in fact their mind state seems to imply that personhood is really just the way a brain is wired. Presuming this, one needs only to recreate the wiring of one's brain to recreate one's person. What then is Huyler? Quilen's brain cannot be wired two different ways at once. So perhaps Huyler is a program embedded in Quilen's brain that has the same information as would be found in the wiring of Huyler's brain. In which case, our personhood is reducible to a computer program. Granting this is possible, a deeper presuppostion needs to be unearthed.

By transferring your mind state from your body to another body, you in fact transferring 'you' from one body to another. What is this 'you', or the self (as it is yourself) though? Try and think of the self. It is impossible. 'The self one seeks is the self that seeks.' You can never really know what your self is. Given this, how can we transfer it from one body to another. As for the idea that it is simply the wiring of the brain, I reject this. It implies that I am not the same person as I was when I was six, since my brain certainly has more connections between its neurons now.

Banks has presented us with quite an interesting topic of discussion. I hope we take it up in class or at least in the blogs.

The Heathens

2005-04-25T14:30:00.000-04:00

Was there something unique about European Catholicism that enabled them to carry out what we now consider to be atrocities upon the peoples of Mexico? I believe so. The Europeans believed that all who are not baptized are sub-human; they are heathens, barbarians, demon-worshipers. Put yourself in the shoes of a conquistador. Is it not right to abolish such abominations from the planet? It was even thought that to kill 1,000 unbaptized people was not as bad as the death of one baptized person. This should give a significant insight into the way the Europeans thought of the Americans.

Is this right? Can we agree with such a viewpoint? Perhaps these questions are misleading. They presuposse that the Europeans are not an Other to us but are in fact the same as us. This is not the case though. The time and idealogies with which they lived are wholly different than those which we know today. Certainly from our viewpoint we can condemn the Europeans, but if we are to understand them, then condemnation should not be considered.

To suppose the we can condemn the Europeans is to suppose that there is a universal moral code which is subsumed under a universal way of life that is followed by all peoples of any time. This universal way of life would produce the universal moral code which is then applicable to all. However, humanity is not monotone. In fact, perhaps there are many different species of human if we understand the word 'human' in the philsophical-psychological-sociological-moral sense of the word.

Of course this is not to say that one 'species' of human should interfere with another. Instead, communication between the two could present one with a different way of thinking that may be judged to be better than the current way. It is just unfortunate for many, and fortunate for another many, that we cannot communicate with the Europeans of old to present them with an alternative viewpoint.

ps This was not an easy post for me to write, as I rewrote it twice. I realize the sticky moral position that these ideas present. However, it is just the seed of a thought that needs much discussion in order to come to bloom. I alone could make about three counter arguments to what I posted above. Some were so obvious that I had to do rewrites. I welcome any criticism though and will be happy to respond to comments.

What Does Constitute a Standard for Morality?

2005-04-22T14:33:00.000-04:00

I was struck by the excuses offered for the conquest of the Americas offered in class on Tuesday. They came in several forms. The first was to offer a contextual justification of "that is how things were done" or "if you were there, you would probably act the same way." The next justification was to blame it on some natural failure of human nature confronted with alien beings. The last justification was that the end result wasn't so bad for all of us living now in the United States. All of these claims offer explanation for the conquest, but none justify the mass slaughter of tens of millions of people. If the conquest was not morally reprehensible, what is?

The contextual justification is flawed for two distinct reasons. First of all, the existence of racism embedded in a culture does not excuse individual or group actions. Just because most if not all Spaniards and Europeans would look at the Native Americans as barbarians does not excuse their actions. Just as the slave master is not excused for his treatment of slaves because it was technically legal, or the killing of voting rights activists in Mississippi is not excused because the South was pretty racist, Cortez and his cronies cannot be excused for their brutality and infliction of mass human suffering on a population. Secondly, to think that I would act in the same way being put in the same position is a stretch at best. If I were placed in that situation right now, I would not act in that way. If I was a member of the society with no hindsight of life in the 21st century I wouldn't be the same person and any conclusion on how I would have acted is impossible and not worthy of further discussion.

Probably the most supportable claim is that the Spaniards were acting as humans always do when faced with the incomprehensible other. However, it was not so much a human reaction as it was the reaction of a people who thought of themselves as so morally superior that they could not accept any other culture that did not walk, talk, and act like them. This is not a justification. Extreme arrogance and contempt of all that does not look like a reflection in the mirror is no justification for genocide.

As for the end result of the genocide, how great was it for the current Americas? Most of South and Central America continues to suffer under the pressure of the United States. The Native Americans in the US are a destroyed people. Sure some Europeans were able to experience Manifest Destiny and create the project that is the United States, but is it really worth the price?

Explanations for horrific actions are far different than justifications, and I believe this was the confusion in class. How can we justify the slaughter of millions? How is this a good thing? If this is not bad, what is? And if nothing can be considered bad because of cultural relativism, than why even use the word at all?

Todorov and Schmitt

2005-04-22T00:23:00.000-04:00

In class we discussed Speaker for the Dead and The Conquest of America. I found the discussion concerning whether the Conquest was good or bad interesting. I found comparisons between that topic and Schmitt.

I think that as a whole, the Conquest was a bad thing. Jessie mentioned three points that should be considered in deciding whether it was good or bad. First, the world we live in now, the technology, the civilization, is the result of the Conquest. Second, the conquistadors did not know the magnitude of their impact on American culture. For example, they could not control the decimation of the Indians by disease. Finally, deciding whether or not it was morally reprehensible (I’ll get back to this point later). I think a fourth point should be added to this discussion, the overall impact of the Conquest on the people of the Americas, the Indians. Todorov discusses the so-called “ten plagues” that affected the Indians. Even though the conquistadors did not know the impact of their actions, they did more than just kill the Indians indirectly through contact with them. They enjoyed persecuting and torturing the Indians. Therefore, because of the conquistadors’ impact on the Indian population, I think the conquest was a bad thing.

Getting back to the point of moral reprehensibility, another question is whether the conquistadors themselves were good or bad. Though Martin said that having been in that situation, the conquistadors could not be blamed, I disagree. I believe that just because the views during that time period differed, it did not give them an excuse to ignore questions of morality. In Speaker, Ender says that you can’t judge people until you know their story, but at the same time as he explains Marcaos actions I don’t think he excuses him from all moral reprehensibility. This made me think of Schmitt and his discussion of choosing the enemy. The way the state chooses the enemy is arbitrary, it cannot be justified; it simply is. But, the individual on the other hand, has different decisions to make from that of the state.

“The individual may voluntarily die for whatever cause he may wish. That is…thoroughly private matter – decided upon freely. The economically functioning society possesses sufficient means to neutralize nonviolently, in a “peaceful” fashion, those economic competitors who are inferior, unsuccessful or mere “perturbers.” Concretely speaking, this implies that the competitor will be left to starve if he does not voluntarily accommodate himself” (Schmitt, 48).

Essentially this says that judgment of the morality of the state – or in this case we can say the Conquest as a whole – must differ from judgment of the morality of individuals. And though this statement also says that if members of the state do not conform to the state they will be forced to, because the Conquest in itself was bad, this still does not excuse the conquistadors from the fact that their actions were wrong.

So Little Time...

2005-04-19T11:17:00.000-04:00

Not much time to write, so I will only mention a few points about the Conquest of America. First of all, the different interpretations on how to treat the other were of particular interest. The first was to simply conquer the other as they were inferior in action and appearance and unacceptable of Christian doctrine. The second was to allow their culture to exist and then convert them to Christianity later. While both interpretations led to the destruction of the other's culture eventually, the means employed would be somewhat different. This same dynamic exists today, but we generally favor subtly or not so subtly reforming other's cultures after conquest rather than committing outright genocide.

Secondly, the treatment of the Mexicans posed more questions that simply the question of the other. Would they have been treated so poorly had their power been strong enough to destroy Cortez with relative ease? If they fought the invading armies to a standstill, how would the concept of the other change? Would they be more equal or less equal as they posed more of a threat and were more of an other?

Just some thoughts, wish I could elaborate more...

Todorov and Orson Scott Card

2005-04-19T03:19:00.000-04:00

In reading Tzvetan Todorov’s The Conquest of America, I could not help but be shocked by the similarities between it and Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead. Since I can’t come up with a brilliant thesis to tie these all together, I’m just going to go through Todorov’s book and point out its similarities with Ender’s Game and Speaker.

“Columbus’s behavior implies that he does not grant the Indians the right to have their own will, that he judges them, in short, as living objects” (Todorov, 48). Todorov also notes Columbus’s “failure to recognize the Indians, and the refusal to admit them as a subject having the same rights as oneself, but different” (Todorov, 49). In comparing these descriptions to Card, the first one corresponds to varelse and the second one is remarkably similar to the definition of otherlander. Columbus judges the Indians as living objects, grouping them with animals which Demosthenes groups under varelse. What Columbus refuses to do is recognize the Indians as otherlander, defined as “the stranger that we recognize as being a human of our world, but of another city or country” (Card, 34). Instead, he believes them to be equivalent to animals, or varelse.

Todorov, in discussing the Indians’ style of communication (communication with the world), talks of “the collectivity” in which “society as a whole…decides the fate of the individual” (Todorov, 67). He says that “death is a catastrophe only from the narrowly individual perspective, whereas, from the social point of view, the benefit derived from submission to group rule counts for more than the loss of an individual” (68). His discussions of human sacrifice and the collectivity deciding the fate of the individual strongly reminds me of the Buggers’ society. Because the Buggers have one mind, the mind of the Hive Queen, they act as one unit, or a collectivity. As Ender comes to realize, individual lives are meaningless as compared to the good of society as a whole. Furthermore, just as the Spaniards only practice interhuman communication, the humans in Ender’s Game communication solely among themselves. They too, like the Spaniards, are unable to comprehend the concept of communication with the world.

Todorov says that the Aztec warriors derogatively referred to the Spaniards as women in order to criticize their fighting abilities. He states that “the “women” would win this war, if only figuratively” (Todorov, 92) because what was needed was “the feminine side of culture: improvisation rather than ritual, words rather than weapons” (Todorov, 92). In Ender’s Game, Ender is compared to his two siblings, his sister Valentine and his brother Peter.

Card constructs his character as a combination of his siblings’ personalities. Not only does he have the ruthlessness of Peter, but he also has the compassion and empathy of his sister. The Aztecs believe that the use of weapons is relegated to men and the use of words is relegated to women. Men destroy, while women communication. Ender has both of these qualities, which makes him an ideal commander of the human invasion. Note also that Ender, unlike any of the other commanders at Battle School, recognizes the need for improvisation. He organizes his army into five toons, allowing for each commander and sub-commander, actually every soldier, to be able to respond to changing circumstances. It is the army’s proficiency at improvisation that allows them to defeat all other armies.

Another instance of a similarity with the Buggers’ style of communication is Todorov’s statement “Where the language is above all a means of designating the group speaking it and expressing the coherence proper to that group, it is not necessary to impose it on the other” (Todorov, 123). The Buggers, during the three wars, do not communicate with the humans. It is not necessary for them to do so because their communication acts simply to express their coherence. Though it has use for them and their ability to operate, there is no need to use it to communicate with the humans, until the very end where they communicate with Ender. Until that point, however (which at any rate occurs after the war is over), there is no need to impose the Buggers form of communication on the humans.

Finally, Todorov, in speaking of Cortés ability to understand the Indians, says “destruction becomes possible precisely because of this understanding” (Todorov, 127). His notion of “understanding-that-kills” (Todorov, 127) is remarkably similar to that of Card’s in Ender’s Game. Because of his understanding of the Buggers, Ender is able to destroy them. It is his empathy, his ability to understand the other, that allows him to effectively exterminate them.

The Necessity of the Mayan Woman

2005-04-19T00:19:00.000-04:00

First of all, I knew this book was going to be sweet after I read the dedication. The power of those lines grips the reader right from the start. Now obviously most of us, I say most because perhaps there are a few people out there who will not cringe, are disgusted by this statement and wish to never see such atrocities performed upon another human ever again. Yet, it seems to me that Todorov may be hinting that its repetition may be inevitable.

On page 182 he writes "Nonviolent communication exists, and we can defend it as a value. It is what may permit us to act so that the triad: enslavement/colonialism/communication is not merely an instrument of conceptual analysis, but also turns out to correspond to a succession within time." It is this last bit, about it being a succession in time, that troubles me. It seems to imply that this triad is the natural course of events which will occur when one entity runs into another entity which is the Other. This then leads to the conclusion that enslavement could be the first act forced upon the Other, which would mean the Mayan woman would find her place in the future.

Now anyone that says we do not have to worry about encountering the Other because no meeting will ever be as exceptional as the one between Europeans and Americans at the end of the 15th century would be ignoring two such possible encounters. The first, being most obvious in our class, is between us, as a collective of humanity, and extraterrestrials. The other, not so obvious, is between two cultures which do not yet exist but may have their roots in the present. Cultures are not static and so when one culture reaches the stage of communication with another culture, neither will remain the same. Instead, the changes of one could be so opposite to the changes of the other, that once again one culture entitles the other as an Other. Hence, the cycle could repeat itself. Of course in order for such a realignment to happen, communication would have to break down, but that is not unimaginable.

2005-04-15T17:26:00.000-04:00

Oh ramen, you tricky word you. What I thought was interesting about it was its Swedish translation, which Jesse read to us; it included the word 'limit.' Does anyone else find it a bit troubling that the word 'limit' is applied to being recognized as being human. One interpretation of this is that humanity is the limit of sentient beings. In other words, in order to be sentient, to have moral agency, to be socially and self-conscious, one must fit within the framework of what it means to be a human. Here I use the term human not in its biological sense but in its social, psychological, philosophical, and moral sense. If such a limit is the implication, then calling something ramen is a disguise for de-otherizing, just as we dehumanize, the other. Once de-otherized but still considered sentient, we would then humanize the other. Hence, the other is human and so should come under human power. This then leads to imposing human ways of life on the other and seeing contradictory acts of the other's way of life as sub-human. This is just one possible implication of the term ramen. Anyone care to take another shot at it?

Children as Ramen?

2005-04-15T16:04:00.000-04:00

While reading some of the posts regarding animals as human and aliens as human, I was struck by the internal contradictions within our own category of human. Specifically, are children human? One of the foundations of humanity as defined in our class discussion and the books we have read was being responsible for one's actions. We do not treat children this way. Recently the supreme court outlawed the death penalty when the crime is committed by a minor. I fully agree with this decision, but it beings up an interesting point. We can not simply define what is human as being a conscious decision maker as it would exclude ourselves in our youth. Instead a more detailed definition is needed.

Although it may be simple, it seems that defining something as human or ramen simply means treating it as a member of your community. This does not mean living with it, but treating it as you would your own neighbors.

Cultural Differences and Raman

2005-04-12T23:13:00.000-04:00

“The Nordic language recognizes four orders of foreignness…The third is raman, the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another species. The fourth is the true alien, the varelse, which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible” (34).

The human race has come to a point where it can recognize another species, the piggies, as humans; it designates the piggies as raman. But, what does it mean to recognize another species as human? I believe that Demosthenes uses the word “human” here in order to ascribe that intrinsic worth that human beings ascribe to themselves to other creatures. By using the word “human”, Demosthenes encapsulates all of those qualities that human beings ascribe to themselves, such as the qualities of being sentient and having a sense of ethics. In doing this, she grants the same equal status to raman as to human beings. What does equality mean? Does it mean that all creatures have the same values and therefore must obey the same laws or does it mean that all creatures should be respected regardless of the differences due to race, ethnicity, gender, or status as raman or human? Disregarding the final question of raman or human for the moment, this debate exists in society today: should there be one universal code of conduct or should laws reflect cultural differences? On one hand we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the other, certain people claim that it is alright that women do not attend school in Muslim countries because their values differ from ours. We had this debate regarding gender earlier in the year. Does gender equality mean that men and women should be treated equally, and more specifically, the same, or does it mean a recognition of inherent differences? In a conversation among Miro, Ouanda, and Ender, Miro tells Ender that the xenologers excused the piggies’ murders of Pipo and Libo because they recognize “cultural differences”. In response, Ender says, “You understand the piggies as animals, and you no more condemn them for murdering Libo and Pipo than you would condemn a cabra for chewing up capim” (227). He tells the xenologers that they will never learn from the piggies because they think of them as animals, not ramen. “You treat them as if they were not responsible for their actions…Ramen are responsible for what they do” (227). Though I support the Universal Declaration believing that there are fundamental rights which every person is entitle to, Card made me rethink my answer. As we learn later on, the piggies were innocent in their actions, killing the two men because of a mistaken assumption that they were helping them. Does this mean that in the case of a different species we should respect cultural differences, or even in the case of humankind it is important to place first and foremost, above a universal code, cultural differences?

Ender tells the xenologers they think of piggies as animals, and I want to continue with the topic of animals. In class Professor Jackson said that during the Middle Ages, people used to place animals on trial for their sins – they believed that animals had souls and therefore could differentiate right from wrong – and could even punish them by putting them to death. Now, we would think that this concept of putting animals on trial is ridiculous. They do not have the intelligence to differentiate between right and wrong, though I do believe that they do have souls. Apply this to the piggies. If Miro and Ouanda conceive of the piggies as animals, then they were indeed blameless for their actions against Libo and Pipo. But, Demostenes says that animals are varelse and we believe the piggies to be raman. Therefore, they are responsible for their actions. This brings us back to the debate of universal laws versus cultural differences. To this debate I do not know the answer, but it is a question we should ask ourselves in making laws in our own human society.

The Renarration of History

2005-04-12T10:12:00.000-04:00

The subplot I found most interesting in "Speaker for the Dead" was how Ender a villain. At first I thought this was a bit of a stretch until I realized that the time it took for it to happen.

The reason I found it so hard to accept initially was our own experience in the United States, specifically with the Native Americans. In the first narration of American history, the Native Americans were a savage inhuman group that stood in the way of Manifest Destiny and its drive to the West. Such important texts like the Declaration of Independence contained references to the "savage Indian." Because the Native Americans were viewed in this lens, President Andrew Jackson and other leaders who were responsible for the Genocide of Native Americans were seen as great leaders and heroes.

Recently the drive West has been cast in a different light. Perhaps it was my upbringing in Oregon but throughout Grade School I was taught about the wonderful Native American culture and learned of the horrendous things we did to their people. I wrote an 8th grade history paper on the massacre at Wounded Knee. I learned early on that Custer got what was coming to him and through films like Dances with Wolves I learned that the drive West left a lot of blood on the hands of the American people.

However, specific renowned leaders were never called into question. Jackson's name was never addressed specifically and no military leaders were portrayed as specifically responsible. In films and other media, the people who were most brutal to Native Americans were always generic military or other individuals. We as a country are unwilling to place the blame on specific individuals.

Obviously Ender's situation was somewhat different. He was the leader of the forces who went to the planet and blew it up. It was easy to scope goat him, because it was the only foray into Bugger space. I still found this to swallow at first until I realized the massive amount of time it probably took for this renarration to occur. By the time Ender's name became heresy, the entire world's geopolitical make-up was recreated. It seems from the book that some form of one world government was created casting aside many of the old state divisions. It would likely take such a drastic move for the United States to begin to hold its forefathers responsible for the crimes against Native Americans. It is too conflicting for many Americans to simultaneously recognize the great accomplishments of some of America's first president and hold them accountable for their sins. It is more likely that when the shift does occur, they will become all evil the way Ender did. It was not recognized that Ender made a mistake while defending humanity, it was only recognized that he committed xenocide.

Certainly this does not have to be the case, but it seems to more often than not be what happens. Just as Ender could not be Ender the sinful savior it is unlikely that it will ever be America the City on a Hill built from the blood of Native Americans.

Ender

2005-04-12T01:53:00.000-04:00

In Orson Scott Card’s Speaker for the Dead, I can’t help but admiring Ender throughout the book. Card really brings out the qualities of Ender that make him such an exceptional commander in Ender’s Game: his charisma, compassion, his ruthlessness, and his amazing perception of the human spirit.

It is impossible to not be swayed by Ender’s charisma. One can easily understand the devotion his soldiers showed Ender in his Battle School days. Everyone seems to be taken with his winning personality, including Novinha. The first time she meets him she thinks, “I could be seduced by that voice” (127) and “his eyes were seductive with understanding…I could drown in his understanding” (129). She senses his uncanny perceptive ability, the ability that has already won over her family members. Even I could not help but be taken by him and admire his ability. His charisma comes not just from his perceptive ability, but the earnestness of his character. Ender is incredibly genuine, especially in his desire to uncover the truth; and the simple way in which he speaks the truth, with no pretensions, is captivating. He does indeed have a manipulative side to his character, but I think beneath that there remains a bit of his childhood innocence. He still has that boy in him who just wanted his brother, and everyone else for that matter, to love him. In class, we spoke about Ender as a mix of Valentine and Peter, the compassionate and the ruthless. But, out of anyone in his family I believe that he has the most compassion, proved by his assumption of the role of Speaker of the Dead.

Ender made an amazing sacrifice in choosing to write The Hive Queen and the Hegemon, sacrificing his good name for the sake of the “truth”. He speaks the truth to set the friends and relatives of the dead free, but ironically, it sets everyone free other than himself. He continues to live with the guilt of his childhood actions for years to come, and even more, he experiences the pain of each of the dead he speaks for. In his role as Speaker for the Dead he makes use of his compassion, empathizing with the dead by loving them. At the same time, he is incredibly ruthless, sparing nothing in his effort to uncover the truth. That same ruthlessness that allowed him to defeat the Buggers allows him to bare the truth. Why is that ruthlessness that sets everyone else free constantly turned towards himself? I pity Ender for his inability to forgive himself for his childhood mistakes.

A textbook for first encounters

2005-04-11T14:31:00.000-04:00

On the back of my copy of Speaker for the Dead (SftD), one critic writes that it is "less brash than Ender's Game." I thinkly that is an apt description of the difference between the two books. SftD is a more nuanced story. It gives more consideration to what would happen if we met an alien species and what that discovery would teach us about ourselves. The opening paragraph from one of Valentine's stories is a perfect example of this. She writes "the difference between raman and varelese in not in the creature judged, but in the creature judging" (pg. 1) If that is not a lesson about ourselves then I do not know what is.

One of the great things about this quote is that it is the central theme, if the book can be said to have one central theme. The distinction between utlannings, framlings, ramen and varelse is brilliant. The humans in this book, except for perhaps Libo, Pipo, Novinha, Miro, Ouanda, and Ender, do not give these terms enough consideration. When it is first realized that the piggies are intelligent beings like ourselves, the Starways Congress (SC) dubs them ramen out of a desire to redeem its past encounter with aliens, namely the buggers. However, they are not called ramen because they are understood or because we see them as we ourselves, and this is a problem. Once the piggies murder Pipo, people cry out that the piggies are varelse. Once an act of violence, or at least what we consider to be violence, is perpetrated against us, the guilty party is immediately seen as alien or inhumane. Hence, as Scmitt has told us, any act can be committed against them. It takes the wisdom of Ender to not only comprehend the piggies as ramen but convince others to take the same viewpoint.

An arbitrary enemey

2005-04-11T14:08:00.000-04:00

So I've already tried to write this blog twice but each time I sit down to right it, I just don't feel like I'm typing what I want to say. I hate when that happens, especially when I have to write a 20pg paper and I just can't get into the writing mode. Instead I usually wind up wasting, although I certainly don't consider it wasting, time playing video games. Anyway, getting back to the point of this post, I have a problem with Schmitt's means of identifying the enemy. In class we discussed the arbitrary nature of the enemy. Once an entity has been assigned this title then reason can pacify our self-conscience by telling us the enemy is somehow evil.

Schmitt seems to reason that we need no reason for the enemy to exist, instead the political is just a status of human nature. So inherently we group states along the friend-enemy continuoum. But it does not seem to me that we do so arbitrarily. If we did then the question of why a state is our enemy would be irrelevent. Does this seem to the be case? I think no. In order for a state to be able to convince its citizens to go to war and die for it, it must give a strong motivation. Human beings inherently seem to always ask why, so to deny this question to the political is troubling and I believe misguided. This then is a defense for introducing rationality into the political, but not necessarily the rationale of liberalism. Afterall, the reason given for war could simply be territorial expansion and a citizenry could conceivably buy it. Such a war does not fit within the liberal framework but could exist. At the same time, such a war would fit into the friend-enemy relationship but would also introduce the rationale as to why another state is our enemy, which I believe is necessary to convince men to die for their state.

A Time for Arnold

2005-04-08T13:32:00.000-04:00

I think it is more than appropriate that a post be made on one of the finest science Fiction actors of all time. Arnold Schwarzenegger. His impressive resume includes three terminator movies, a predator movie, Total Recall, the Running Man, the 6th day, and Junior (although it is not clear this movie is worth mentioning). Although any of the above films could be referenced in any important discussion of science fiction, predator seems most appropriate for our current discussion of otherness.

The Predator, as I hope everyone remembers, was a hunter who killed humans for sport. However, he had a set of morals that were relatively stable. He did not bother killing other people. While this was certainly a cause for perhaps treating the Predator as an equal, it could not overcome the other factors that were deployed to make the Predator a certifiable other worthy of death. The Predator displays no respect for the dead. He skins the bodies of the dead and collects their skulls as trophies. I doubt that the parallels to Human hunters was unintentional, but the images we are shown intend to make the Predator look like he (or she?) is without humanity. This is also evidenced by the reactions of the hardened soldiers under Schwarzenneger's command. These men are utterly horrified by what the Predator does. If soldiers who were able to destroy an entire village relatively guilt free are bothered by the Predator's actions, we know we should be too.

The other major factor is the Predator's appearance. I believe Arnold said it best as we see the Predator without his mask saying "You're one ugly motherfucker." We have discussed how ugliness is a critical item when portraying the other. It certainly would have been a different response if the predator pulled off his mask and looked like a teddy bear underneath.

While it may be argued that the portrayal of the other was unsuccessfully as the soldiers were only responding to physical danger in their quest to destroy him. However, when they learned that he would not attack armed people, why did they not drop their weapons and book it for the hills? They couldn't because they knew the Predator was not human. They knew that "If it bleeds, we can kill it." The predator was the other, worthy only of death.

Daddy! Help, it’s a bug!!

2005-04-08T01:24:00.000-04:00

Does it make a difference that Ender killed an entire species if that species happened to be bugs? I want to explore two aspects of this issue. One, in response to "Blink’s" last blog post, is that the Buggers are essentially genetic descendants of bugs, and the other is the Bugger mentality.
Blink said that "Bugs are the human’s natural enemies." I have to agree. As we said in class last week, bugs are scary-ass creatures. Most people seem to be terrified of bugs. It does not matter that they’re one-fiftieth of our size or that most of them can’t do squat to us, they’re scary. Now, I’m a liberal (in the international relations sense). I’m a "Yeah, the world is wonderful. People are essentially good. Let’s get rid of war, live in peace, and be happy (and then we can go frolic through fields while we’re at it!)." I oppose war (99%) of the time. My peace-loving, vegetarian self tells me that all life should be respected. In fact, some of my friends know me as the "bug savior". This is because when we used to be in class together and anyone saw a bug, I would say, "Stop being a wimp. It’s just a bug", pick up the bug (not with my hands, mind you), and take it outside. But, when it’s a big bug (by big bug I’m not talking about tiny spiders or lady bugs or even bees, I’m talking about big, creepy centipedes or cockroaches or flying things) I freak out. I go insane. The initial muscle spasm is followed by, "Dad!!!! (or whoever else happens to be around at the moment)…Can you get rid of this bug?? Please!!" When we’re talking big bugs, I’m not playing Mr. Nice Guy. They’re getting flushed down the toilet. The Buggers, those huge creatures that so resemble bugs, would freak me out!!! I’d be terrified! And it would be hard to convince myself not to kill creatures that looked so creepy (or get someone else to do it for me). As descendants of bugs, it was not surprising at all that the human race in Ender’s Game feared the Buggers.
Now, let’s step back and look at the Buggers mentality. These bugs had a hive-queen mentality. They all thought as one being. The Hive Queen was the mind and the different Buggers acted as parts of her body, as extensions of herself. If you were in the International Fleet’s shoes, wouldn’t it creep you out that the Buggers could act like one single organism? The Fleet would immediately see its obvious disadvantage of being composed of human beings, of individuals each possessing his own mind and feelings. But, the Buggers have one mind, and therefore, can act as a single unit. There is no fear of a soldier disobeying his commander or of troops failing to do as they are told. This is an obvious advantage over human beings. And as such, probably scared the beejesuz out of the International Fleet. If the earth was attacked again, the Fleet knew it would perish because its soldiers did not have the ability to respond instantly. Not to mention, the Buggers possession of superior technology. With its rational, strategic fear of the Buggers, and the rest of the planet’s irrational fear of them, the International Fleet was certainly justified in its actions.

Schmitt

2005-04-05T08:49:00.000-04:00

“The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appeal as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible (27).”

Schmitt spends much of his work explaining how the political is the ultimate of associations and any conflict that creates a situation like the one above is a political matter. There is no such thing as a religious war. There is only religion that became political and turned into war. I find this notion to be too simplistic. How can we really say that wars based upon religious foundations are the same as those based on the interest of a monarch in search of wealth? Are these wars to be treated in exactly the same way? If Schmitt is only interested in how the other is initially created, then his analysis has some serious truth to it. But what is never mentioned is who the other can transform into a friend. When is it that conflicts become impossible?

One possible answer is that conflicts are never impossible. A unified state like France under a monarchy can become bitterly divided and fall into a civil war. In the United States, if economic conditions worsened to an extreme degree, it is entirely possible that the classes could turn on each other in a protracted and bloody conflict. According to Schmitt, these economic interest would simply become political, allowing them to move into violent conflict. Are we forever doomed to have enemies, be separated into groups, and always have the possibility of violent conflict?

Schmitt avoids this question by simply saying that if such an event did ever happen, it would be so far down the road in history that to speak of it is pointless. But he does hint that he believes such a possibility is unlikely. Although I agree such a possibility is in the distant future, I believe it is possible. If one is able to destroy the roots of conflicts, they will never transform into the political and violent conflicts Schmitt speaks of. If religions were less antagonistic to each other, if such sharp class conditions no longer existed, and if nationalism began to dry up as a source for mobilization, it would be difficult to so readily create the other needed in a political conflict.

Xenocide and the Conception of the Enemy

2005-04-05T04:19:00.000-04:00

In my last blog post I defended my belief in Ender’s innocence in his actions. Despite his self-censure in “The Hive Queen and the Hegemon” for his act of xenocide, I believe that he was innocent because as a child and as a tool of the International Fleet (IF) he was not to blame. I wanted to expand upon this idea in light of Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political by examining the role of the IF. Having established Ender’s innocence in his actions, was the IF justified in 1) causing the xenocide of the buggers to occur, and 2) its manipulation of Ender?

Firstly, was the IF justified in committing xenocide? Although it did not directly take part in the act of wiping out the buggers, it did train the children that would carry out that act. The IF is an entity, and it is a political one because it fulfills Schmitt’s definition of being the decisive entity to determine the friend-enemy grouping. It classifies the buggers as the enemy and accordingly, in an extreme case, decides to wage war against them. Schmitt says, “If such physical destruction of human life is not motivated by an existential threat to one’s own life, then it cannot be justified…The justification of war…reside[s]…in its being fought against a real enemy” (49). Granted Schmitt is talking about human beings and not other creatures. But, as we find out later, the buggers are sentient beings and therefore, for my purposes, their lives have as much intrinsic value as human lives. The IF, according to Schmitt, would be justified in its actions because it faced the threat of a real enemy, an enemy that threatened its own, as well as that of the entire human race, existence. Schmitt does not condone war, he does not praise it, but he does justify its existence as an extreme case in the political sphere. Therefore, the IF is justified in its decision to wage war against and eventually eliminate (or as Schmitt would say “negate”) the enemy.

Was the IF justified in its manipulation of Ender? My previous blog post had a blatant bias against the IF, implying that the burden of xenocide should have fallen upon it and not Ender. I want to reconsider this by examining it from Schmitt’s point of view. Schmitt says,

I believe that Schmitt uses the phrase “voluntarily accommodate himself” sarcastically, meaning that the individual must comply with the state, the decisive entity because of its political power, or it will be neutralized. This is especially true in the society in which Ender grows up in; a society in which Ender would not have even been born if not for his purpose of fulfilling the IF’s, and in therefore in this society, the state’s and the political entity’s, goals. Schmitt would most likely agree with the IF’s decision to manipulate Ender as it was necessary in the waging the war, which as we established above, was justified. I disagree, however, emotionally if not logically. By Schmitt’s logic, the manipulation of Ender makes perfect sense. But my sense of empathy forces me to pity Ender and on a moral basis, oppose the IF’s actions. The actions of the IF saved society as a whole by sacrificing one child. They were based in the political sphere, not the private sphere, a distinction that is made quite clear in Schmitt’s essay. I will conclude with a statement of Schmitt’s which I found particularly relevant and enlightening: “The enemy in the political sense need not be hated personally, and in the private sphere only does it make sense to love one’s enemy” (29).

Strauss' Notes on Schmitt

2005-04-04T09:59:00.000-04:00

I don't know if anyone went ahead and read Strauss' notes on Schmitt, but, well, I did. In it I found a very good summation explanation of why Schmitt wrote the essay.

Culture presupposes something is cultivated. In culture's case, it is human nature that is being cultivated. So, culture is based upon human nature which is the "natural social relations of human beings prior to culture." Hobbes tells us that the the nature of war within our human nature is known not in the actual fighting but in our disposition towards it. So for Schmitt, the possibility of war is a state of our nature that underlies culture. The political is a "status of man." This is forgotten by liberal individualism. Hobbes wrote of the friend-enemy relation on an individualistic basis. He said an individual's right to life takes precedence over state demands. Hence, it is a person's natural right to seek life and happiness. From this idea comes the concept of human rights and liberalism. However, this natural right is supposed to fight against our inherent disposition towards war. Eventually though, liberalism ssumed a man-is-naturally-good stance. By doing so, it forgot that it was founded on a culture that struggles against man's inherent disposition towards war. Hence, this is what Schmitt is critiqueing. He is arguing against the modern conception of culture, telling us that the political still exists and must exist as long as we consider ourselves human beings. So to operate in a liberal framework that does not assume this is to deceive ourselves.

Valentine

2005-04-02T10:54:00.000-05:00

As long as James is coming to the defensive for Peter, I would like to talk about how Valentine is not how she was portrayed in class. Throughout our discussion, people consistently referred to the “good” side of Ender being like Valentine. This side was caring and empathetic with others and did not enjoy the taking of life. While Valentine may have her own internal struggles with herself, her actions are quite to the contrary of someone who is considered so caring.

Valentine manipulates he own little brother who she was so close to not once, but twice. The first instance was the letter she sent and the second was the meeting on the lake. While Ender’s conscious was catching up to him, Valentine swooped in and convinced him to go back to battle school where he eventually succeeded in committing genocide.

Valentine also willfully participates in Peter’s plot to start a world war on Earth, likely responsible for many deaths, without much hesitation on her part. She initially struggles with the idea, but eventually falls right into step with Peter’s ideas of world domination. She knew this was coming. We cannot pretend that Valentine simply enjoyed the writing exercises. She was a willing participant in the game that ended in world war and Peter’s ascension to leader of the world.

Ender in my opinion was the only character with any empathy. He is also the only character who can reasonably hide behind the idea that he didn’t know what was happening. He was subjected to intense psychological warfare to make him a perfect instrument of destruction. Valentine has no such excuses. She was living at home, often engaging her brother in psychological battles, but she willfully and knowingly acted in malicious ways. She played a part in forcing Ender to commit genocide and she played a central role in the start of a world war. While we as readers saw that she often felt guilty about her actions, the actions still took place.

It is more likely that Valentine experienced some of the compassion inherent in Valentine rather than vice-versa.

Ender: Culprit or Innocent Child?

2005-04-01T02:27:00.000-05:00

I wanted to respond to Lennea’s blog post. Lennea said that she had “a huge problem with Ender’s killer instinct”, objecting to the claim that his actions were justified because Ender seriously hurt people in order to avoid having to hurt others. She believes that Ender intentionally aimed to kill, or at least seriously maim, his antagonists and was therefore, responsible for his actions.
I disagree with her. I believe that even though Ender knew subconsciously that he had killed Bonzo and intentionally violated the rules of war in hurting Stilson, he is not to be blamed. Remember that Ender was a child. Yes, he was an amazingly perceptive and intelligent child, but he was still a child. I am not saying that children should be completely excused from differentiating between right and wrong, but Ender never even had a complete childhood in which to learn the difference. The first few years of his life were spent living in fear of a manipulative and menacing older brother, who constantly exposed him to numerous violent threats. The next half of his childhood was spent in military school. What do you expect from children that spend their childhoods learning killing techniques, strategizing about how to effectively train the enemy, and essentially, becoming military weapons? Ender was trained as a military weapon and he became one.
I am amazed at the strength of Ender’s conscience. Throughout the novel, Ender constantly battles himself, displaying integrity and possessing the ability to introspect that many adults would envy because of how critically accurate his self-assessment is. Most full-grown adults cannot be that honest with themselves. Ender constantly criticizes himself for his violent actions, realizing that he has a bit of Peter in himself, and tries to crush his Peter-like qualities. Right after the fight in then battle room he tells himself, “I’m doing it again…I’m hurting people again, just to save myself. Why don’t they leave me alone, so I don’t have to hurt them?” (114). The most remarkable action of his, which I think proves Ender’s inherent goodness, is his writing of “The Hive Queen and the Hegemon”. Even though the entire world reveres him as a hero, he disputes this belief. Most people soak in praise, whether it is deserved or not, but Ender puts an end to it because he knows it is misplaced. He establishes himself as a villain to be disdained for all time. That action, above all of his other actions, establishes integrity and goodness of character.

Peter Wiggin

2005-03-30T10:47:00.000-05:00

I was happy that Alex pointed out that in our discussion we were oversimplifying Peter's personality. He was often being portrayed as a psychopathic killer. This was not the case though. The only evidence we have of him killing things was when Valentine discovered the tortured squirrels. Yet, even this was done not so much for the joy of killing, but for the purpose of manipulation. He wanted Valentine to discover his acts so that when he brought to her the idea of taking over the world she would accept it as it was a non-violent means for Peter to make use of his talents.

See, I believe Peter was just a magnificent manipulator. It was even said that he finds what people fear and makes them fear it and by doing so, gains control over them. Nowhere in that statement though does it say he receives joy from killing others. In fact, killing is usually not helpful to him. If he kills someone he runs the risk of being discovered. He will hold the threat of murder over people's head, and they will believe him because they fear him, but this is simply another manipulation.

This leads into why Peter was not chosen to be the commander of the invasion fleet. The weakness of the buggers was that only one hive queen could control an invasion. The strength of the humans was multiple intelligences working at once to attain victory. Hence, when Ender was in control, he allowed his subordinates to have some autonomy because he understand this was an advantage. Furthermore, because of the compassion of Ender towards people like Bean and Petra, they were able to operate without fearing the repercussion of failing Ender. If Peter was in control though, he would have absolute control, just like the hive queen. Even if he did allow for autonomy, his subordinates would be so afraid of Peter that they would work not towards the ends of victory but towards the ends of pleasing Peter.

It is Peter's use of fear that made him so dangerous and ultimately useless to the battle school. It was Ender's compassion that made him a leader that people would want to follow and it was his ability to manipulate a situation so as to achieve resounding victory (like in his fight against Silson) that made him so useful to the battle school.

War

2005-03-29T09:18:00.000-05:00

“He tried to make sense of this. Had he passed the test after all? It was his victory, not theirs, and a hollow one at that, a cheat; why did they act as if he had won with honor?” (296)

This passage is particularly interesting as Ender does not see his victory as an honorable one because he did not out play the enemy. He simply used an all powerful weapon to end the game quickly. What is interesting about this passage is that it begs the question, what is honorable in war? Killing somebody face to face? The end result is death whether you do it with a bomb or a knife. Ender has a strong sense of morality throughout the book. He is bothered by the fact that he wins by taking advantage of flaws about the game and he latter struggles with the deaths of innocent “buggers” caused by his victory. What makes him sick about killing so many “buggers” when they killed so many of his own people? Would he have a cleaner conscious if he found the egg and it said something more along the lines of “Wow, you really killed us, but you only got lucky because we were going to kill you in a few years anyway.” It seems that Ender would still be bothered by the killing. While those on the outside of a conflict can often make “acceptable” deaths and separate those from “unacceptable” deaths, they often do not live with the emotions of actually killing something.

This is the dilemma faced by Ender at the end of the book, and it is a similar dilemma faced by veterans of all wars. While feelings of nationalism, fear of survival, and other mechanisms may legitimize death, the emotions involved are not wiped away so easily. To Ender, honor was winning in a fair fight, but there was no possibility of a fair fight with the Buggers as they outnumbered the humans so tremendously. Even in a fair fight, Ender would still mourn the loss of life.

In the end, Ender could not handle the stress of war. Nobody probably can without some form of struggle. No matter how many screens of justifications (legitimate or illegitimate) we place in front of war, it still is revolting to the human conscious. Perhaps not universally, but certainly close to it.

The Irony of Compassion

2005-03-29T03:12:00.000-05:00

My love of scifi originated in a work of pure genius called Ender’s Game. Orson Scott Card’s most beloved novel opened up a new world of thought for me, filled with speculations about the future, theories about science, and ruminations on human nature. One of the things I find most fascinating about Card is his ability to analyze the human condition. In Ender’s Game, Ender’s capacity for great compassion fascinated me.

Throughout the book, Ender fights not only physical and virtual battles, but a constant internal battle that rages within him. Ender was created to be kinder than Peter, but more aggressive than Valentine. And he was; he was the perfect combination of compassion and utter ruthlessness. But, to him, the ruthless qualities are not valuable, rather, they reflect the curse of being related to Peter. He fights against those qualities that remind him so much of his menacing older brother. Yet, his inner ruthlessness emerges again and again, against Stilson, against Bernard, against Bonzo, against the buggers. As Ender tells Valentine, he has the ability to understand other people and “In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. And then, in that very moment when I love them…I destroy them” (238). Ender, the compassionate, becomes a killer, and Peter, the ruthless, becomes the world leader that brings about international peace. Ironically, it is Ender’s compassion that makes him into the killer that the International Fleet needs.

“We [Colonel Graff and the International Fleet] had to have a commander with so much empathy that he would think like the buggers, understand them and anticipate them. So much compassion that he could win the love of his underlings and work with them like a perfect machine, as perfect as the buggers. But somebody with that much compassion could never be the killer we needed. Could never go into battle willing to win at all costs. If you knew, you couldn’t do it. If you were the kind of person who would do it even if you knew, you could never have understood the buggers well enough” (298).

It seems that throughout history, compassion is a quality that makes great leaders. Great compassion inspires people and brings about major changes in society. Look at the examples of Jesus and Mother Theresa. In no way am I suggesting that Ender is a Jesus-like figure, but like the aforementioned persons, he has the ability to inspire those around him to follow his every command and in following his commands, change the world. It is tragic, however, that in the case of Ender his great capacity for compassion is manipulated for the task of extermination.

The Corporation

2005-03-28T13:15:00.000-05:00

Well, to accompany my early post of Ender's Game, here is my late post for He, She, & It. An interesting concept in the novel is that corporations run the world. I do not know if this was discussed in class or not, but I hope it was. This was not the first time I encountered such an imagined future. In the book Jennifer Government, the story is set in the not too distant future wherein corporations are the world governments.

How far off is such a possibility? To be honest, I do not know. If you went back to, lets say, 5th century Europe and told people about the concept of the nation-state, you would get a lot of weird looks. The point is, the way a society is organized has not always followed the nation-state model and we should not think that it always will. So are corporations the heralds of the next revolution in organization? If so, then much will change, and I'm not just talking about forms of government. People would no longer call themselves Americans, or English. Cultural values would change. Cross-cultural communications would change. The identity of a person would change. The idea presented in the novel opens up many topics of conversation.

We May See it Someday, but Not Yet...

2005-03-25T21:02:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the late post, I got caught up in other work. I wanted to address the issue of intelligence. Alex among others was adamant about the lack of difference between Humans and computers. While I recognize the ambiguities in creating a working definition of what consciousness is or who fits into the category, I cannot buy the argument that computers are conscious.

My first major complaint is that we seemed so transfixed on our common language used to speak of our computers. However these same terms are used for cars as well, my car died, my car is sick, and so on. We cannot use the use of language to define concepts. I do understand the usefulness of analyzing discourse to understand society’s perception of groups or concepts, but it does not establish truth in itself. If we were to refer to all people from Washington as computers it would not make them composed of silicon parts with a fan to control any potential overheating. They would still be members of the human race like all other people in the country. While the use of language is an important indicator, it cannot be used by itself to prove any fact.

Secondly, I took exception to the notion that there was no difference (or at least only a slight difference) in programing a computer and a person. A few classes ago, we were almost in total agreement that social science had no way of predicting human behavior. No psychologist or scientist has been able to give definite answers on how to raise a child properly or been able to define a program to make an infant turn into a predetermined man or woman. I would imagine that if we asked a computer science class how successful computer programers were at developing a computer to excel at mathematical calculations, audio mixing, or film editing, we would not receive such a pessimistic outpouring. Computers, with minor glitches aside, are able to be programed in a way that suits the designers intent. The Computer can wear down or become infected, but this is no different than a brake pad wearing after use or becoming warped from water.

Finally, I personally do not like the implications of computers as they are with a conscience. If this is really the case, how can we live with such a form of slavery? Is the apple store no different than a well designed slave auction? If you really believe that computers are no different, than you must come to grips with this question.

On the other hand, I do believe that computers could some day become self aware. I believe the name of this project is Skynet. But this process has not been completed. Perhaps someday we will build a computer that has that intangible spark of conciseness. It may be hard to define, but we may simply recognize it when we see it. However, I do not see that today. Computers do not act independently. They may gain programing from the internet or act quirky, but it is not a result of choice.

WMDs: Weapons of Mechanical Doom

2005-03-25T02:27:00.000-05:00

In one of my previous blog posts, “My Name is Mike” (http://scifiblogs05.blogspot.com/2005/01/my-name-is-mike.html), I talked about Robert Heinlein’s portrayal of artificial intelligence in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I expanded on the book’s discussion of Mike’s limited social skills and negative consequences that may result from the lack of these skills, specifically focusing on the question ‘If a computer is not human, how can it be humane?’ After reading Marge Piercy’s He, She, and It, I want to further discuss this point.

I said that I believed that even though Mike is involved with Luna’s revolution, he is not a conscious participant; he can carry out actions but is not fully aware of their consequences. He knows that people may die, but he cannot possibly understand human death because he lacks the mentality of a human. Even though he is self-aware and experiences emotions, such as loneliness, and he behaves like a human, playing jokes and behaving whimsically, I did not believe that he can understand the full range of human emotions or completely understand what it is to be alive. I continue to be of this mindset.

However, I believe the case of Yod to be different. While his mental capacity cannot even rival that of Mike’s, his human-capacity is much greater. By human-capacity I mean his ability to be self-aware, experience emotions, and not only fraternize but empathize with humans. He seems to experience “life” to a much greater intensity than Mike. While Mike seems to understand the concepts of loyalty and friendship, unlike Yod he does not seem to experience stronger emotions such as compassion, attachment, fear, and most importantly love. Maybe this is because he does not have the maturity level of Yod, behaving more like a petulant child than a full-grown adult. Or maybe the lack of a body and the inability to experience physical pleasure do not allow him to experience the full-range of human emotions.

In Mike’s case I fear that lack of understanding of human life can breed carelessness. It is a scary thought having super machines that have a much greater capacity to kill but do not understand the value of life. In the case of Yod, on the other hand, I am horrified for an entirely different reason. Yod develops an appreciation for human life, yet has to fulfill the function for which he was created, destruction. He calls himself a “conscious weapon”, saying “A weapon that’s conscious is a contradiction, because it develops attachments, ethics, desires. It doesn’t want to be a tool of destruction. I judge myself for killing, yet my programming takes over in danger” (410). Yod suffers as a result of his empathy for life. In the first case, that of Mike, I fear for the human race and the mass deaths that could occur. In Yod’s case, I also fear for the human race for creating something that feels and yet has no choice but to act against those feelings. I believe that Heinlein’s portrayal of artificial intelligence can be perceived as a warning against endowing with self-awareness an entity that cannot understand the value of life. But, after reading Piercy’s novel, I believe that humankind should not develop artificial intelligence that has the capacity to empathize with human life, for this is equally tragic.

2005-03-22T22:22:00.000-05:00

While this post may seem early to many of you, let me say this for myself: I was sick today so I decided to read the whole of Ender's Game in one shot. This wasn't the first time I read the book, but I still found myself pushed along by the suspense of the story. Since some of you might not have not read the book yet, I would advise not reading this blog until you finish the novel, as I do not want to spoil anything.

With that said, I actually don't plan on saying much. I expect to spend much more time on my reflective blog after we discuss the book in class. I feel that many topics will sprout in that conversation, many of which I will have feelings and thoughts for; feelings and thoughts which will be best explained with the written word, seeing as that is allowed more time to be formulated than the spoken word is.

What does interest me right off the bat though is the introduction. This was the most immediate and obvious new part of the book for me as I had not read it before. I find it interesting that a mormon who worked as a missionary could write about warfare so well. While I have never been in boot camp nor fought a war, the letter from the soldier written before the beginning of the Gulf War tells of Card's accurate depiction of the grueling fatigue that soldiers go through. More than that, I feel the pain of Ender. While reading the book, I do not empathize with Ender's torture, but I actually experience through the written words. Now I do not pity him, as Card says so many adults do, because to pity him is to easy. To try and understand his daily grind and imagine yourself in his place is much more difficult and taxing on a reader. It is like feeling the weight of the ring that Frodo must bear in book six of The Lord Of The Rings. I find the chapters in which Frodo and Sam journey through Mordor to be some of the most fatiguing chapters in any book I have read. This is not because they are boring or take long to get through, but because they are written with such skill that the reader can feel the fatigue of the hobbits. The same is true for a reader of Ender.

Now the reason I place more emphasis on my feeling is because this is where the skill and power of a writer is revealed. Card makes me have an experience I could not otherwise have. I am not arguing that this is the experience I would actually have if I would be a soldier, but he does make me believe it is a possible experience because I can feel it.

Another interesting aspect of the introduction is the comments pertaining to the Battle Room. One can tell that this is the most fully developed part of the novel and the most central part. The war with the buggers is the part that feels fake while the part with seven year olds conducting war games feels real. Since the footage of this first and second invasion are censored, the leader of the force is called Mazer Rackham, and nobody seems to really discuss these invasions, the bugger wars have a feeling of fantastic fiction. They seem to belong in a Flash Gordon comic book more than in the world of Ender. I think this is done to make the life of Ender and the story of the Battle Room the focus of the book. The bugger war is secondary to the hardships of Ender and the manipulations of those around him.

Well that is my short commentary on an interesting introduction. I am looking forward to the longer (and more longwinded) commentaries on the book which are forthcoming in our next class.

The Women of He, She, and It

2005-03-22T11:05:00.000-05:00

In Marge Piercy’s He, She, and It, there is an obviously parallel between the tales of Joseph the Golem and Yod the cyborg. It is no surprise that Yod feels a connection to Joseph, as a man-made creature that deviates from his original role as a mindless servant because he has emotions and is self-aware. The stories also contain another parallel, however, between Chava and Shira, the leading women.

Shira is the protagonist of the main story. After her return home, she becomes a member of the team that deals with the experiment called Yod. In her work with Yod, she, in one sense, gives him life. Each interaction with Yod and each lesson she gives increases his ability to feel and think like a human. Over time, he develops what we would call, human emotions, such as curiosity, loyalty, and love. His behavior comes to resemble more and more that of a human because of his contact with Shira. As Yod becomes increasingly more human-like, Shira begins to feel affection for him and takes him as her lover.

In the story of Joseph, Chava is the only female whose life the author delves into. She plays a significant role in Joseph’s life; similarly to how Shira teaches Yod how to be a human by teaching him how to experience different emotions, Chava teaches Joseph to be a human by not only teaching him book knowledge, but by bringing out emotions from within him. Joseph begins to feel the most powerful of all human emotions, love, particularly love towards Chava.

Both women fulfill the role of strong females. Shira is an incredibly smart and innovative techie, and is partly responsible for the design of Yod. She bravely helps fight against Y-S, one of the biggest and most powerful multis, to get back her son. As not only one of the few women who can read and write, but as the most intelligent women in her town Chava stands apart from the other women. She is one of the few people to know the true nature of Joseph, a discovery that she makes on her own. What is interesting is that though both women fulfill the role of strong females, they approach it in vastly differently ways, ways that seem to be almost opposite to each other. Shira is willing to commit to a lover and trust in someone to care for and protect her. She also seems to be more altruistic, sacrificing her own personal happiness for Josh’s happiness and risking her own life for Ari’s life. On the other hand, Chava willingly gives up her son for her own freedom. She refuses to marry one her many suitors, including Joseph. For her, the most important thing is her own intellectual freedom. When she refuses Yitzak she tells him that there was someone else, but in saying this she meant “the person she had in mind was herself. She is the person she wants at the center of her life” (370). Both women are strong women, but they approach their lives in very different ways. With the use of this contrast, is Piercy trying to convey some idea about the notion of a strong woman to the reader? I think she is saying that there is no one single idea of a strong female, that a strong woman is merely a woman who chooses her own path of actions, who can choose the type of lifestyle she wishes to pursue.

Strong Male Characters in He, She, and It?

2005-03-21T22:36:00.000-05:00

A few classes ago I among others was critical of the lack of strong female characters in Heinlein's and Asimov's novels. Initially I thought that He, She, and It was simply committing the same error in reverse, but I realized this was not the case after finishing the book. I want to address the difference between He, She, and It and the above mentioned author's works.

The argument has almost certainly been made at some point that this novel has no strong male characters. Both the creator of Joseph and Yod are overbearing and arrogant. The father of Ari is a weak willed man who is a terrible husband. Gadi is a 15 yearold in a 28 yearold body. In fact the only men who are portrayed in a benevolent light are artificial life forms designed to serve. However this argument is too superficial. The characters laid out in He, She, and It are not two dimensional. Weaknesses and strengths are portrayed by almost every character.

How does this differ from Heinlein? In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, female characters find themselves most comfortable in a home environment where they care for their more important men. Although strong male characters are few and far between in He, She, and It, the male characters are not stereotyped completely. They evolve in the story and display a variety of interests outside of stereotypical male interests. An excellent example of this is the creators of Yod and Joseph. Both men have deep convictions and loyalty to their town's safety. Neither man is interested in sexual pursuits. This separates them from Gadi who seems only interested in sex, but after reading further we find that he is more interested in companionship and is unsatisfied by sex alone. These characters exhibit complex personalities that surpass any displayed by females in Heinlein's or Asimov's texts.

Although the protagonists in He, She, and It are female, it would be inappropriate to deem the work as sexist as the before mentioned texts. Male characters are displayed as complex personalities with varying interests. If this same treatment were given to females we would not have to talk about this issue any longer. A result that many would appreciate.

Late Reflection

2005-03-21T09:47:00.000-05:00

Sorry for making this reflection so late, but the previous four days of my life have been consumed by college basketball. Damn Vermont and NC State! Anyway, one thing we did not discuss in class is what is progress. I actually wrote about this in my previous blog. In class, we kept asking why the social sciences cannot progress like the natural sciences can. Before we can ask that question though, we need to ask what progress in the social sciences refers to? Is it the alleviation of poverty, stopping of a war before it starts, better relationships among nations? Or is it just a more accurate description of political/social/cultural/economic interactions among and within nations? These are just questions that I'm throwing out there. Also, what do we make of environmental sciences. Due to the apparent current trend in global climate change, this field bridges the gap between the natural and social sciences. You have people who are experts in the workings of the ecosystems and people who are experts in the environmental development community. These two groups are not mutually exclusive though, as knowledge in one group can benefit the other. This is a case where red-state and blue-state science does make sense. In fact, this is one of the rare cases in natural science where two paradigms seem to exist. There are those who believe (notice the word believe and its relevance to science here) that climate change is the result of natural processes, while others believe it is the result of human practices. We have two competing paradigms and as a result of that, not much progress, in the scientific sense (which is knowledge accumulation) is being made. One could argue we keep gaining knowledge about the environment but I would argue we keep gaining data but since the interpretations of this data are in dischord, no knowledge is gained. As a result of this, climate change is an ongoing debate with each side talking past the other, much like debates in social science.

The point I'm driving at is what is progress? Would progress in social sciences be seen as ending the debate. If so, then for one side its not progress but just certification that its theory was more accurate, something it had already assumed. Let us assume the winning side believes climate change is natural. Progress for this would then be the liberation of industrial practices from the climate change debate. If we take this example and apply it social science, it would then appear that agreement of one theory over another is not progress. Instead progress comes in the practice of that theory. Remember though this is only progress for that theory, not for any other.

Well I hope I gave you something to think about. If the blog seems disjointed, incoherent, or just flat out nonsensical its because I'm sick and feel like shit, so please let me know what was wrong with the post. Of course, I hope you would always let me know what was wrong with a post.

All That Was Left After The War Was Leviathan

2005-03-18T13:29:00.000-05:00

Given the fact that we all came to a complete conclusion on what a paradigm is, how science actually operates, and what the correct paradigm for international relations is in our last class, I will take the opportunity to address the final message of Planet of the Apes. While it is easy to interpret the ape civilization as ignorant and too obsessed with its own species' superiority, the final scene changes the message entirely. The religious texts the apes rely on hold the truth of humans as portrayed in the film. Cornelius reads from the scroll,

"Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of death."

This is a fairly accurate depiction of the human race as depicted in the movie. Taylor leaves Earth as he feels there has to be something better. The world is destroyed in Nuclear Holocaust (most likely a result of Cold War or another confrontation where nations were willing to destroy one another for land or power). If the apes did allow the humans to rebuild, is it so unlikely that the result Cornelius so feared would come to be?

This raises the question of when censorship is appropriate. It is certainly unsettling that Cornelius suppressed the origins of apekind, but this suppression and ritual oppression of humans may be the only way to ensure their own survival. Given the destructive potential of humans, was Cornelius acting so irrationally? How exactly can one decide when one should suppress knowledge to protect society? How accurate is the scrolls depiction of humans? Was it simply a quote from Leviathan?

Personally I don't advocate any suppression of knowledge or inquiry, but I can understand Cornelius' position.

Islamic Biology or Red-State Biology?

2005-03-17T02:12:00.000-05:00

In class we discussed the differences between paradigms in the international relations sense and in the scientific sense. Do paradigms operate differently in the two fields? Does it make a difference that one field is a social science and the other field is, as Kuhn calls it, “normal science”?
Thomas S. Kuhn elaborates on scientific paradigms in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as models provided by “some accepted examples of actual scientific practice… from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research” (10). After having accepted a paradigm, the scientists come to view the world in an entirely different way, evaluating everyday life in light of that paradigm. Because of the nature of science, scientific progress depends on the acceptance of a paradigm; it is like the foundation which higher levels of science build upon. But, there is the need in science for one paradigm to dominate the scientific world, for with multiple scientific perspectives there is no mutual foundation.
In international relations, however, there exist several paradigms. International relations, as a valid field, started with the paradigm of realism but expanded to include more paradigms, such as liberalism, constructivism, structuralism, and neoliberalism. Unlike in science, multiple paradigms exist at one time and continue to influence scholars within the discipline. And in international relations it seems that scholars can pursue higher-level debates using any one of the many current paradigms.
Why can multiple paradigms exist in international relations, but only one in science? I believe that multiple paradigms can exist in science as well, but as we discussed in class, people fear this idea. People view science as a solid discipline based on facts, not on intangible theories. The thought of theories that fit Islamic states or developing countries makes perfect sense in international relations, but seems oddly out of place in science. As Professor Jackson said, the concept of Islamic biology or red-state biology seems ridiculous. But, look at the current debates plaguing the nation today (ahem, because of certain crazy red-states) concerning the teaching of the origins of life. Many states contest the teaching of evolution, instead asserting that it is a theory and not fact, and want to teach creationism as a theory as well. Just as politics play a role in international relations, politics play a role in science as well. Look at scientific history for evidence. When Galileo tried to introduce his ideas, he was crushed by the politics of the time, specifically the dominant political power of the Catholic Church. What is considered fact or not, the dominant paradigm, is determined by politics. In The Planet of the Apes, Dr. Zaius, the political and scientific head, determines the dominant paradigm. While it is determined by politics, the rest of the apes, with the exception of a few human-loving apes, continue to believe in the version of history espoused by Dr. Zaius as scientific fact.
As a social science, international relations has multiple paradigms. But “normal science” has multiple paradigms as well, though scientists may claim it does not. Politics affect the dominance of one paradigm or another in science, just as it does in international relations. As Kuhn argues, the dominant paradigm in science is not necessarily a fact, it is theory.

Kuhn Breaks Old Notions

2005-03-15T08:38:00.000-05:00

Thomas Kuhn challenges the history of science as a cumulative process by showing how paradigms rise and fall. This was certainly a new concept to me. Science is always separated from the liberal arts by its supposed objectivity and ultimate truth. As Kuhn mentions, science students do not rely on a plethora of articles and books to compare and contrast works in the field. Instead they rely on one textbook by one author that supposedly synthesizes all of the relevant information. But this revelation was not what interested me most. Kuhn compares the evolution of science to the evolution of species by saying they both “...move from primitive beginnings but toward no goal” (172). This idea of science may be heresy to some loyal followers, but it is an essential explanation of the paradox of science.
This paradox was what I continued to ask myself as I read Kuhn’s book. If science continues to hold flawed paradigms and does not rest on a developing sense of truth, how does it create so many tangible benefits like space travel or cures for diseases? The answer is that science does not need to learn fundamental truths about nature to be effective. Just as evolution does not need to create a super being that is invulnerable to all dangers to be relevant. Both science and evolution can solve specific problems without finding the secret to the universe or culminating in one final mutation or discovery.
It seems to me that this idea would help resolve some of the difficulties between religion and science. By leaving ultimate truth to followers of faith, the conflicts could be less numerous. But this is a very shallow possibility. Certain scientific discoveries like evolution, especially when viewed in a non ending system, challenge the doctrines of many religions.

Against Stupidity

2005-03-15T01:47:00.000-05:00

In one of my posts on The Gods Themselves I wrote about the title of the novel. The title, I wrote, refers to the Hard Ones and this is unfortunate because as these gods are monstrous, knowingly sacrificing our universe for their benefit. In this aspect, a parallel can be drawn between the film the Planet of the Apes and The Gods Themselves.

Last week I wrote about how in Isaac Asimov’s novel, the Hard Ones control everything in their universe; in Dua’s words, “They are alive, the Hard Ones. Only they. They don’t talk about it much. They don’t have to. They all know it” (153). The Soft Ones are like children looking up to the Hard Ones to teach them, but the Hard Ones possess all the knowledge of and make all the scientific decisions in the para-universe. They are like gods, introducing our universe to the miracle of the Electron Pump and controlling the fate of humanity.

On the planet that the three astronauts land on, which is the same one but several thousand years in the future, apes rule. The apes possess all the knowledge; they control the planet while the humans are subservient, ignorant creatures. It is easy to draw a parallel between this and The Gods Themselves in which the apes and the Hard Ones are roughly equivalent as are the future humans and the Soft Ones.

Similar to the Hard Ones’ decision to sacrifice our universe for their own gain is the apes’, specifically Dr. Zaius’s, choice to ignore, even hide, their knowledge of human history. The Hard Ones want to sacrifice our universe so that they can have an unlimited energy source, while Dr. Zaius hides information about human history to preserve the faith. In these two science fiction works, however, the actions of the “gods” represent different things. In the novel, I believe that Asimov is commenting on the role of scientists and stupidity. Sometimes, discoveries may endanger humankind but scientists refuse to acknowledge this because of “sheer thickheaded stupidity” (68). The primary purpose of the movie, on the other hand, was to comment on the debate between evolutionism and creationism. Some people may believe that the movie aims to mock evolution. The process of apes evolving into humans and then humans involving into apes seems contrary to what most people would associate with evolutionary progress and Darwin’s notion of “survival of the fittest”. I do not know whether to agree with this perception of the movie or not. I am, however, going to go out on a limb and state my perception of the movie as criticizing the stupidity of humankind. I arrived at this conclusion from Taylor’s negative comments about mankind and his laments at the end upon realizing that the human race, instead of being far superior to the apes of the future, has destroyed itself. I think the following statement in the scroll best summarizes the film’s take on the nature of humankind:

Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of death.

Through their own stupid actions, such as fighting wars and killing each other, men destroy themselves and their culture.

In both The Gods Themselves and The Planet of the Apes, knowledgeable “gods” and other inferior creatures co-exist. The gods are willing to sacrifice or keep down the inferior creatures in order to ensure their own survival. But with the roles of the gods being such, I think both works attempt to serve as a warning to all people “against stupidity”.

Kuhn's Revolution

2005-03-14T15:25:00.000-05:00

Well Thomas Kuhn turned my knowledge of the history of science on its head. Then he held me by my ankles and shook me out. I have always thought of science as a cumulative process. Where the works of the past were built on multiple times to give us the knowledge of the present. Now, I realize this is not the case. However, there was some solace in reading that everyone is taught to believe science is cumulative. I didn't feel as dumb then.

Why would I feel dumb though? After reading Kuhn's essays it seems obvious that science is dominated by paradigms that are eventually replaced by new paradigms. To think of it otherwise, now in hindsight, is folly. At each stage of our history, the scientists who worked in the field believed they had the best paradigm for describing nature. They were not trying to work towards the level of science we know today; they were trying to test their paradigm. Hence, there was no thought of progression to a new paradigm which could reflect our experience of nature in a better light. In order for this to happen, a revolution must occur.

Which makes one wonder about today's science. Are scientists trying to find a new paradigm or just testing the ones already existent. I think in the case of physics, both are occurring but only through the means of the latter. We know something is wrong because quantum mechanics and relativity are at odds with each other. Hence, neither paradigm is the best imaginable description of nature. Yet, without another paradigm to work with, physicists must test the workings of the universe against these paradigms. Eventually someone will figure out how to apply a new paradigm to the problem, but for now, we are stuck with quantum mechanics and relativity.

This has an implication which is discussed in the book throughout the text, but only implicitly. Our knowledge is never of nature as nature is but only as we experience nature. Hence, our science is not nature but only the best possible description of nature available to us. I think this gets at the point Kuhn was making towards the end of his book when he said our science is not orientated towards some high goal of knowing everything about nature but is orientated towards the goal of applying our current paradigm to our experience of nature and seeing how well the two mesh. That is a bit unsettling. I have always wanted all questions about the universe to be answered, but now I realize they cannot be. This is because they can only be questions about my experience, not about nature itself. Furthermore, if we suppose there to be aliens, their experience of nature can be completely different than our experience, hence their questions will be different. Since we might not even be able to imagine what their questions would be, since we could not experience whatever it is that gives rise to such questions, then there is no possible way of answering all questions about the universe.

I would like to close by touching on what Kuhn touches on at the end of his book. Why is progress in social science debated more than progress in natural science? Kuhn makes some good points in answering this question. One, because the research endeavors of the latter group do not have to be justified by their benefit to humanity in the same way that they must be justified by the former group. Also, social science has many competing paradigms while a field of science has, usually, only one paradigm. It would also seem that progress in natural science is easily seen while not so in social science. Whenever a puzzle is solved by a natural science, progress is made. Whenever a study is completed in social science though, one must ask how is this study to be seen as progress if it does not alleviate poverty, or bring freedom, or end a war, etc...? It would seem that just adding to the store of knowledge in social science is not progress while doing so in the natural sciences is progress. Furthermore, a study in social science may be considered a falsity by paradigms competing with the one that did it, hence the study might not even be seen as adding to the store of knowledge.

On a sidenote, I would like to say that the philosopher Wittgenstein is mentioned in the book, and that now makes him a presence in four out of my six classes, two of those four not being philosohpy classes. Just thought I'd mention that for any Wittgenstein enthusiasts out there.

Don't Wait on the Gods...

2005-02-25T14:46:00.000-05:00

The title "The Gods Themselves" is a statement on the necessity of taking direct action. It is important not to rely on the good graces of others or some mysterious driving force within the universe when problems arise. The paramen represent the gods in the book. They are the providers of a technology that enables the survival of the human race and they are responsible for the destruction of mankind. This is the same role God plays in many religious narratives. God creates a living environment for humans and then takes that away or destroys it in apocalyptic fashion.

The way the book is separated alludes to this somewhat. The section focused on the parauniverse is titled "the gods themselves." In this chapter we learn that the paramen are aware of their actions and are in fact uninterested in the survival of the human race. They possess the technology and ability that is absent in our universe.

In the beginning of the book, scientists refuse to take action against the pump because they are convinced that the paramen would not do any harm to humans. This notion is proven incorrect. The last section of the book shows how when people take action directly rather than relying on notions of benevolent allies, solutions can be found. If Denison relied on "the Gods themselves" the destruction of the human race would have been immanent.

This, among other themes, is the major thrust of Asimov's work. "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain," but this does not mean that people contend in vain. The ingenuity of a scientist and the help of some "feminine wiles" solves the problems that the Gods themselves were unable or unwilling to do.

The Gods Themselves

2005-02-24T23:20:00.000-05:00

The Gods Themselves. Why did Isaac Asimov entitle his novel thus? Who are the gods that are the focus of the book? I believe that they are the Hard Ones, and if this is the case I pity the universes for having monsters that fulfill the role of gods.

In class we discussed Dua and why she had to die. Professor Jackson asked us whether in the end Dua loses everything or not. I believe she does. The book says as the triad merges to become a Hard One, “The cry that was Dua’s and yet not Dua’s stopped and there was no longer any Dua; nor would there ever be Dua again” (167). Life in the para-universe begins with the Soft Ones. The Soft Ones hit the second stage of their life when they become a triad, composed of a Rational, an Emotional, and a Parental. Their final stage is adulthood, or the stage of being a Hard One, which is reached by the merging of the triad. The Hard Ones combined triads carefully to form advanced Hard Ones and the triad of Dua, Odeen, and Tritt was the best one because of Dua, Dua the Left-Em. Because during the Hard One stage the Rationale aspects would take over, Dua’s rational characteristics would make the Hard One formed by that triad especially strong. But, is this a good thing? For Dua, the Hard Ones represented all that was wrong with the universe; they were the enemy she fought against. Though she was incorrect in her believe that they manufactured the Soft Ones as machines, she was correct in her belief that “they [the Hard Ones] are prepared to destroy a whole Universe if they have to” (155). The Hard Ones knew that the Sun would explode in our universe, yet they were more than willing to sacrifice this universe so that they would have unlimited energy. As Dua is dying she cries out, “No, we can’t stop Estwald. We are Estwald” (167). Asimov writes Dua in a way that the reader strongly empathizes with her and trusts her instincts. Her belief that the Hard Ones, especially Estwald, are evil becomes our belief, and her belief that all hope is lost becomes our belief. Dua truly loses herself to the Hard One that she becomes.

How does this fit into the concept of the Hard Ones being the gods that Asimov refers to in the title? Dua knows that the Hard Ones control everything in their universe. In her words, “They are alive, the Hard Ones. Only they. They don’t talk about it much. They don’t have to. They all know it” (153). The Soft Ones are like children looking up to the Hard Ones to teach them, but the Hard Ones possess all the knowledge of and make all the scientific decisions in the para-universe. They are like gods, introducing our universe to the miracle of the Electron Pump and controlling the fate of humanity. Most people believe that the Electron Pump is a positive force that could not possibly harm them, and the few that understand this fact refuse to accept is because of “sheer thickheaded stupidity” (68), in Peter Lamont’s words. On the other hand, the Hard Ones as a whole know and understand the fact that the Sun will explode destroying humanity. They are gods, possessing superior intelligence, full awareness, and the power to destroy a race. And if they are the gods, then the universes in The Gods Themselves must be pitied for their gods are cruel and represent all that is evil. I think Asimov does this in order to comment on the role of scientists and stupidity. Scientists uncover the universe’s mysteries, making discoveries along the way that may help humankind. In that they possess significant knowledge about the universe and can affect the future of the universe, they are gods. Sometimes, however, their discoveries endanger humankind but they refuse to acknowledge this because of sheer stupidity. Peter Lamont’s and Mike Bronowski’s comments on stupidity and the title of the first part of the book, “Against stupidity…”, are a warning to all people, especially scientists, not to play the role of malicious gods.

General Comments

2005-02-24T09:59:00.000-05:00

I can't think of one issue that I want to blog about, so I think I'll just touch on a few. First of all, wow. That was a long conversation about the prevelence of sexism in society in general, and more specifically in science fiction. The funny part of the conversation was that only one guy seemed to defend the stance that Asimov's novel was sexist. Aside from him, only women were trying to make the case while the other guys tried to disprove it. Ironic, perhaps. My only question is what does a strong female character look like and would this be a reflection of how such a strong women should look like in real life? Sometimes it seems as if anytime a woman character must bear a child or wants to then she is seen as weakening her position. What is wrong with bearing a child though? I think the Lady Jessica is a good example of how women can maintain their femininity and still be strong, just as Paul maintained his masculinity and was strong. We never seem to discuss how a guy must maintain his masculinity to be considered strong. Is this because the two words are synonomous to us? If so, women would have to lose their femininity to play a prominent role in which their will is exerted on the plot. I think I can disprove this with Lady Jessica. The concubine of the duke is part of an establishment, the Bene Gesserit, which does have power. So we know she is not excluded from society or relegated to a lower position. Furthermore, she shows the strength of will to challenge this establishment by bearing a child. So we know she doesn't just yield to others. After her husband dies and her household is ruined she does not become some stereotypical wailing woman who is overcome with grief to such an extent that a 'strong man' must come along and save her. In fact it is just the opposite. She shows her ability to adapt to the environment and begin anew when she and Paul are taken in with the Fremen and she immediately begins thinking about how they must carve their own niche in the sietch. Furthermore, once they are part of the Fremen, she maintains considerable power not only by proving her fighting skills but by making use of her training as a Bene Gesserit. So she can step outside the role of concubine and child bearer and play a role of leadership.Yet at the same time as all this she maintains her femininity. She willingly bears children and does not see it as a setback but sees it as a chance to give life. She knows she is attractive and seems to dress attractively. This does not make her some dim-witted bimbo just a women who is comfortable with her looks. There are plenty of men in fiction who are described as good looking but we never have a problem with that. She also maintains relationships with women, such as Chani, in which discussions are about women's issues, such as marriage and child rearing. So, Jessica is both strong, independent, and can exert her will without losing her feminine attributes. Unfortunately, this type of character does not seem to be common in literature but at least we do have one example that could serve as a role model.

Now, if what I described as feminine characteristics do not seem as so to women, it is because I am not a woman and so I must go on the societal ascribed characteristics. I also realize that these ascribed characteristics come from institutions, such as government, business, the arts, etc... that are controlled by men and so they will be biased towards men. Perhaps this weakens my argument and women believe that other qualities should emphasized. If this is so, then I would certainly like to know what those qualities are. This could be another reason why women seem to be discriminated against in fiction. Most of the writers are male and like me, if they want to create a strong woman they must rely on society's image of a strong woman. So perhaps there are times when an author thinks he has created a respectable woman when he really has not.

The other topic I wanted to talk about was the title. The Gods Themselves. This is not only the title but also the name of the second section. By the way, does anyone think one could draw a parallel between the idea of the triad, namely the characteristics inherent to it, and the three parts of the book, namely the characteristics of those parts. Try it. I already did and do not wish to elaborate on it here. I find it to be sketchy at best but I think it can be done. Getting back to the title though, we first encounter the concept of God in Lamont's interview with Hallam. Hallam says on the top of pg.22 "I won't have para-men cast in the role of Gods." Apparently they would be Gods because they would be our savior by providing us with limitless energy that has no, what seemed at first, detrimental effects. So then does Hallam want to be seen as the God? What about Selene and Denison? These two truly do save humanity. Are the scientists then the Gods? Well, if we think back to our science vs. religion debate, if one denies the existence of religion then science seems to take God's place. Hence, the scientists would be the Gods Themselves. If this is so then perhaps we should be more critical of our scientists (afterall if they are supposed to be Gods they better be serving the interest of humanity and doing a damn good job of it), just as many nowadays seem to be very critical of God. Maybe this was Asimov's aim. This is just my take on the title and I welcome alternative theories.

Lunar Culture

2005-02-22T09:19:00.000-05:00

While reading The Gods Themselves I was surprised that the moon in Asimov’s universe shared some major similarities to Heinlein’s representation of a Lunar colony. The major similarity was the way the Lunar colonies quickly developed their own culture and tossed out practices that dealt with shame (the wearing of clothing and a much more open sexuality). I do not believe that this is improbable because our cultural practices and shame in general are somehow natural or in the genes, but I find it improbable that humans would so quickly abandon age old customs when they are far away from the Earth. Heinlein’s novel is of course a unique scenario as it is a penal colony on the moon, but the question remains, how deeply ingrained are our cultural practices? Would they survive the flight to the moon?

Perhaps it was out of some form of necessity that people stopped wearing clothes normally on the moon (if Asimov gave a specific explanation I missed it) but barring that I find it hard to believe that such an age old practice would disappear so quickly. Although I am by no means an expert in the colonial era, it seems to be the only comparable situation to colonizing the moon. Obviously the comparison is problematic given the preexisting cultures in the so-called “New World” but the example should offer some insight. When settlers came to the Americas, they did not lose their cultural practices so easily. This pattern remained through Western expansion and eventual continental domination. In fact, the old traditions of Europe are in some instances stronger in the United States than they are in Europe. The United States is far more victorian in many respects than England is today.

It is certainly possible that Lunar colonies would shed some old practices from Earth, but it is improbable that these customs would leave so quickly. The practice of clothing is such an age old custom it would be hard to imagine its disappearance even if the clothing was not needed to protect against the elements. However, given enough time, it is indeed probable that shame in general could change its meaning on the Moon. Dated customs could be replaced by the new. But I find it hard to believe that it would take only a century or so to replace customs that existed for millennia.

Asimov's Subjective Science

2005-02-22T00:34:00.000-05:00

A running theme throughout Asimov's novel The Gods Themselves is the subjective experiences that scientists reflect on their work. Each human scientist that works on the danger of the Electron Pump interprets that danger to be in accord with his/her own beliefs. So, Hallam and the lunar scientist believe that the Electron Pump poses no threat while Denison, Lamont, and the intuitionist are quite worried.

How far does this run over into our actual practice of science? Well, we see it played out day to day in the debate over climate change. Those who believe it is occurring always interpret their results and seem to find the necessary, but never sufficient, evidence to support their claims. However, the opposing camp seems to make a good enough case to persuade enough people that climate change is not a result of human activity.

So what are we to do? Eliminating this subjectivity seems impossible as it comes from human nature. It is for this reason that science strives so much to deal with hard evidence. But sometimes the evidence is not enough, as in the case of climate change. Yet, we must still come to a decision about what course of action to take. Hence, despite our attempts at keeping science objective, we must resort to subjective opinions to devise policy.

Hence, I will offer my opinion. I say lets err on the side of caution. Certainly this is what the humans should have done in the Gods Themselves. Asimov gives us a happy ending but he could have just as easily decided to end the world and teach us a lesson the hard way. When we translate this concept to our situation, it seems foolish to reason as such: We may or may not be creating climate change, but what is for certain is that if the climate change is drastic enough, then the environment could change too rapidly for teh majority of species to adapt, so they will go extinct, and we may be in that group. But what the hell, lets take a chance that its not our fault and throw salt in caution's eyes. You see if we assume it is our fault then we can take measures to reduce our effects. Then, if it truly is our fault we will save ourselves. The outcome of this scenario always seemed as if it should appear obvious to me.

So yes science is subjective. Therefore, let us make intelligent subjective decisions. To leave our opinions undebated is just as senseless as leaving the evidence undebated. Science has both and the beauty of science is that it can always be challenged. Hence, let us not sell ourselves short by not challenging the subjective influences and not trying to apply reason to them.

The Ball Will Drop. Should You Catch It?

2005-02-21T23:29:00.000-05:00

If we know something is going to happen, it is the future. But if we change the future, how can it still be the future? Is this not a fundamental paradox? The film Minority Report addresses this question.

A memorable scene from Minority Report plays out in the following way:

John Anderton: “Why’d you catch that?”

Danny Witwer: “Because it was going to fall.”

John Anderton: “You’re certain?”

Danny Witwer: “Yeah.”

John Anderton: “But it didn’t fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it

from happening doesn’t change the fact that is was going to happen.”

Danny Witwer knew what was going to happen, and stopped it from happening. But, that does not mean that it was not going to happen. That is the essential argument purported by Pre-Crime. Because of the pre-cogs they know the details of future murders, and so they have the task of stopping these future murders. Just because the murder does not occur does not mean that it was not going to. According to them, the person would have proceeded with the murder if Pre-Crime had not prevented him or her from doing so.

In my personal opinion, knowing the future does not mean that you can change it. If a future path is laid out for you, you have no choice but to conform. I think the flaw with the predictions of the pre-cogs is that they are not necessarily the true future. Maybe seeing those predictions helps determine the true future. In the case of Howard Marks, the true future was that he would not kill his wife and her lover because he would be stopped. John Anderton still kills Leo Crow after seeing the pre-cogs’ predictions, though not in the same fashion as predicted. This is why knowing the details of your future could be a curse; because then you would have to conform to it or at least change your behavior to reflect this new future. Though John Anderton does not even know who Leo Crow is, he does not walk away from Crow’s hotel room. He specifically pursues that path of action based on his belief that he will kill Leo Crow in the future and there is no other path for him, no “minority report”.

I am reminded of the scene in The Matrix where upon visiting the Oracle, Neo is told to not worry about the vase. At that point, he turns to look for the vase and accidentally knocks it over. The Oracle says, “Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?” Here we have the case of a future prediction, and knowing the future Neo conforms to it. His behavior changes to reflect his predicted future behavior. Knowing the future and changing future events do not represent a paradox because what you believe to be the future could be different from the true or actual future.

Science vs. Religion, or Not?

2005-02-20T17:44:00.000-05:00

I wanted to respond to James’s post on science and religion. He spoke about the conflict between science and religion that we discussed in class the other day. He believed that most people should have admitted to believing other religions, which they did not belong to, looked ridiculous to them. Additionally, he also introduced the issue of people’s feelings about science and how much religious ground they were willing to concede to it.

James said, “If one is loyal to one's sect of faith, then one should believe that is the word of God and all other religions are merely pretenders.” I disagree to this statement. As was apparent in class, I have an entirely different perspective than the rest of the class, coming from the Eastern religious tradition. Hinduism has a religious tradition of incorporation; it easily assimilates the teachings and deities of other religions. For example, Hindus gave Buddha the status of one of the ten avatars, or earthly incarnations of God (similar to Jesus, given the belief that Jesus is God and not the son of God), making him part of its religious tradition. This was a clever political move that prevented Buddhists rallying against Hinduism. The Hindu motto should be ‘Do not fight other religions, instead make them part of your own’! The incorporation of other religions, however, can be justified by more than political rationale. Looking closely at the foundation of most religions, it is easy to see how identical they are in many aspects. The underlying principles are the same in most religions. “Love thy neighbor”, love everyone, the Golden Rule, they all same essentially the same thing at their cores. Coming from this point of view, I can believe in both Christianity and Hinduism and believe that the teachings of both are the “word of God”.

The other issue James introduced was the strength of people’s convictions in science versus religion. I do not feel that the fields necessarily are in conflict. Though today they are perceived as opposing forces, the origin of science as a field was to prove religious beliefs. And as someone said in class, religion tells us what happened, science explains how it happened. The heart of the debate between the two fields seems to revolve around human origin, creationism versus evolution. A new, emerging theory, however, reconciles those differences by proposing that both forces were at work. I have always believed this as it fits well into my religious views of the world. Let me explain further how this fits into my religious views. The way I always explain Buddhism or Hinduism is “the force” in Star Wars. God is everywhere and in everything; he is the ultimate energy that pervades everything and keeps the world turning. With this explanation as background, it is easy to view evolution as something that occurred within the context of creationism; the energy that came together to form the Big Bang was God, setting in motion evolution as scientists explain it. Personally, I do not see the conflict among different religions or between science and religion.

Science and Religion

2005-02-18T17:35:00.000-05:00

I didn't do much talking in class this past week because this topic of conversation has been played out in front of me many times over, and I have wearied of it a bit. Yet, every so often, some new discussion comes along that gets me started up all over again. While this didn't happen in class I know it will eventually.

The thing that fascinates me as how almost everyone, I'm sure there are a few who despise it, love talking about the conflict between science and religion. Just because I have discussed it alot does not mean I love the conflict any less. Its the age old battle between reaason and faith. Not surprisingly, most of our class seemed to come out on the side of reason.

However, despite the apparent leanings toward science, most people in our class were still trying to defend religion to some extent. It is interesting how both topics have become so deeply embedded in our consciousness that most cannot accept one over the other. And, as our society has become more tolerant, we are not so quick to denounce other religions as false but merely as interpreting the same works of wonder in a different text. Hence, when professor Jackson asked if we believed other religions looked ridiculous to those who do not belong to those religions, people were not willing to say so. Yet, I think that the answer should be yes. If one is loyal to one's sect of faith, then one should believe that is the word of God and all other religions are merely pretenders.

I was prepared to answer the question in the affirmative but then we went to break (not unsatisfactorly because I did have to go to the bathroom). Unfortunately we did not prod this issue any further. I wish we had because it is a means of introducing reason into a field embued with faith. I think it would have been a good platform to find out how strongly people felt about religion and how much ground they were for it to concede to science. Alas, that conversation, which would have sparked my interest, did not bloom.

Nevertheless, I did enjoy sitting back and listening to people debate the conflict between the two fields. I look forward to the future conversation where once again I will throw myself into the flames and argue with those whose views I find contradictory, surprising, and false.

Meaning and Truth

2005-02-18T14:50:00.000-05:00

At the end of Tuesday's class we talked extensively about the existence (or nonexistence) of truth. In a somewhat convoluted fashion I tried to stress that real truth does exist. I would like to make this point somewhat more clear.

It seemed that many members of the class were leaning toward the position that truth is either impossibly illusive or nonexistent. Such examples as the existence of cells and the moon landing were cited as objects of truth that can be debated. I brought up the holocaust as an event that could not be disputed. I wished to highlight the existence of certain events that our culture will not dispute. I did this not to expose some form of oppressive political correctness that suppresses dissent, but to show that with substantial evidence and documentation we can know for sure that certain events happened. Professor Jackson pointed out correctly that certain elements of the holocaust are disputable. I do not dispute this, but all of those who study the holocaust recognize its existence. Obviously certain hate groups deny the existence of the holocaust in a cloud of conspiracy theories, but their wild imagination does not challenge the truth.

Martin mentioned that the "truth" of the Vietnam war is changing in the United States and that this showed how truth can change. While I certainly understand the nature of renarration and historical fiction, I do not believe that narration challenges truth. People who renarrated the Vietnam war do not dispute the fact that it happened. They are only applying their own interpretation on its meaning. This is not a new phenomenon. People have not all of a sudden started believing that we won the Vietnam war, Nixon declared victory immediately after US forces signed a cease fire. I believe the term used was "Peace with Honor." These renarrations do not change the fact that the Vietnam war happened or that over 50,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese died, it only applies different meaning to these facts.

Perhaps it is impossible to find the true "meaning" of the Vietnam war or the Holocaust, but certain historical truths are impossible to ignore. I certainly understand that we should always question "reality," but to deny any truth at all is troubling. If we can never know anything, why try to learn at all?

Politics, Incompatable With a Messiah

2005-02-15T08:58:00.000-05:00

Weber's Politics as a vocation stresses among other things that politicians are rarely concerned with societies overall good. He states the general nature of politicians by saying "Whoever lives 'for' politics makes 'this his life' in an inward sense. Either he enjoys the naked exercise of power he possesses or he feeds his inner equilibrium and his self-esteem with the consciousness that by serving a 'cause' he gives his own life a meaning." As for those who live from politics, their profession is purely a source of income. While it is possible that a politician's personal aims may happen to coincide with societies overall good, it is impossible for a politician to become a Messiah.

Messiah's are, in my humble opinion, totally devoted to their cause and hold a special ability to achieve this end that others do not posses. Politicians on the other hand, rise through a system of who you know to occupy positions of strength. These individuals more often than not come from well-to-do families and are more concerned with prestige than bettering society. A messiah causes great upheaval in a society. This goal could never be achieved by a politician. Politicians come from the elite segments of society who are more interested in maintaining the status-quo.

To illustrate this point we need only look at Dune. Certainly Paul comes from a well-to-do family, but his accomplishments and those of his father are irrelevant. It is only when Paul falls from grace, lives with the meek, and disassociates himself from his royal entourage that he becomes able to be the Messiah. Would Paul have been able to lead the Fremen to paradise from his throne in a royal palace? Unlikely.

Politics is far to pragmatic to enact the type of radical social change inherent in the mission of a Messiah. Politicians are much more inclined to protect the status-quo and their own interests. Certain transformations of government or small revolutions in society have been aided by politicians. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights bills with the aid of congress for example. But these movements were always spearheaded by individuals who were not part of a formal political structure.

Are You the Messiah?

2005-02-15T01:51:00.000-05:00

The confusions presented by a supposed messiah are many. Most importantly, is he really the messiah? And if he is not, who is? Also, what is the mission of the true messiah? All these issues appeared in the anime film Akira.

Fifteen minutes through Akira I was under the belief that the freaky-looking kid had to be the messiah. After all, he had superhero powers that he seemed either puzzled by or scared of. Then, however, Tetsuo appeared on the scene and seemed to slowly assume the role of a budding superhero. Faced with new powers, he was scared and confused and unsure of what to do. With the chants of the general public echoing “Akira” in the background, the possibility emerged that Tetsuo was one and the same as this reputed messiah. The conspicuous cape worn by Tetsuo and theme music that played every time he entered the scene only reinforced this belief.

The last twenty minutes of the film, besides being completely bizarre, changed my opinion of Tetsuo. While Tetsuo did have great powers, unimaginable powers that allowed him to easily gain control over Neo Tokyo, his powers were not used for good. Is not the purpose of a messiah to save humanity from evil? Ignoring for a moment the specific purpose of this messiah, Tetsuo did not fulfill this general role. In attacking the city and almost destroying it, I believe that he instead played the role of the messiah’s nemesis, even his antithesis. While the messiah would come to embody all that was good, Tetsuo embodied all that was bad.

Akira’s emergence towards the end of the film firmly established him as the messiah. Despite being dead, he in a sense rises from the dead when the children call him, a move messianic in itself. Did not Jesus rise from the dead? Neo too rose from the dead. Resurrection, or we could call it rebirth, is a common trend among messiahs. Akira goes on to save the city by destroying the evil that is ravaging it. The depiction of him as pure energy also seems to reinforce his role as messiah. Pure energy represents all that is good, wiping out darkness, or evil, wherever it flows. Akira had to be the messiah.

Having established Akira as the messiah, I must ask what his purpose was. Akira never fully reveals this to us, choosing instead cleverly, and irritatingly, to cut off the words of the children at the end. In my paraphrased words, ‘Could he be the…’ and ‘It has begun.’ The viewer does get the impression that if the children had completed their sentences they would have said, ‘Akira is the messiah.’ The latter statement, however, does give some hints as to the messiah’s purpose. Something begins again. Earlier the crazy, Albert Einstein look-alike scientist says that all the signs point to the universe beginning again. The head military man complains about how the city of Neo Tokyo has degraded into a trash heap. All these comments lead me to believe that the role of the messiah is not only to rid the city of an evil villain, but to rid the city of the overall evil, the degradation of which Tetsuo is merely a symptom. He does this by flooding over the city with his pure light and causing its rebirth. The big bang type images at the end are accompanied with the words “I am Tetsuo”, but as discussed earlier I believe that Tetsuo was the false messiah, the antithesis of the true messiah. Though, these words do bring up the possibility that the world is reborn only in the collision of not millions of subatomic particles but the forces of good and evil.

What Else Can You Ask For?

2005-02-13T15:50:00.000-05:00

Oops, I forgot to post on Friday. So here is my reflective post.

Many members of our class believed that a someone could not be a Messiah if their powers could be explained in a rational scientific manner. I do not agree with this idea at all. To illustrate this point, I will compare Leeloo from the Fifth Element to Paul from Dune.

Leeloo's powers are described mystically in the movie. However, elements of her existence are scientific. She is created using biotechnology by several scientists. An alien race that you can see in the movie are in charge of protecting her and the several stones are physical objects that are protected by the same aliens.

Paul has physical training and is the result of a careful constructed breeding technique. However, elements of his existence are not explained scientifically. The spice allows him to see the future, but how this spice accomplishes this task is left somewhat unexplained.

Both Paul and Leeloo are somewhat ambiguous as to where they derive their power. But even if there was a rational explanation for all of their activities and actions, would this make them uneasiness? In the end, they both accomplished tasks that others could not perform. They are both described as different from all of those around them. Would a scientific explanation make them less messianic? What else can you ask for from a Messiah besides salvation which they both provided?

Anarres vs. Arrakis

2005-02-11T13:49:00.000-05:00

One topic that we did not address in class this past teusday, and I'm afraid we might not address next class, is the comparison between Anarres and Arrakis. The two habitations are very similar but their inhabitants couldn't be any more dissimilar. Both places are harsh environments where life seems just as likely as death. On Anarres this tightened the bonds of community, reinforcing the motivations for individuals to work together to survive. On Arrakis though, the Fremen, while certainly communal, have no qualms over competing violently for the limited resource of water.

This then raises the issue of how people cope with the drive to survive. In the two books, the environments shape the evolutions of the societies. So can we say it is immoral for the Fremen to treat life so flippantly? It seems as if they are apt to kill strangers in the desert for their water, to let their wounded die for their water, and to challege each other to duels to the death to determine the social hierarchy. To us, these practices seem inhumane. Yet, the Fremen's code of morality did not develop along the same lines. Death is always around the corner and this seems to have resulted in a fatalistic outlook on life. For us though, we have found ways to cheat death, prolong life, and live in a safe environment where death is not prevelent. Hence, to us death seems something foreign and so we are fearful of it.

Anarres is much different from Arrakis though. Despite living in the same conditions, those of LeGuin's novel seem to view death from the same standpoint which we view it from. This seems to be the result of the communal social hierarchy and the freedom that each individual is suppose to have. Death would be the one limitation that is imposed on their being (seeing as how they are anarchists no other limitation should exist). Hence, it is feared.

I enjoy the thought experiment that the two author's have allowed me to run through. To imagine how the environment shapes our society and morals is something that should always be considered. The topic may become more prevelent for us if the dire predictions of climate change begin to come true.

Water, Water Everywhere and Not a Drop to Drink

2005-02-08T10:11:00.000-05:00

The planet Arrakis inspires questions as to the human desire for survival. The thought of living on such a damned planet is hard to fathom. What is the point of living in a place where you cannot enjoy what we know on earth to be one of the most precious resources, water? Life with such limited amounts of this resource seems not only to be almost impossible, but futile.

The people of Arrakis are constantly faced with the difficulties of having a limited supply of water. Their planet is so desperate for moisture that they must wear stillsuits to contain and recycle their bodies’ moisture. Having a limited amount of water seems to be an everyday fact of life. As Jessica says, “Everywhere you turn here, you’re involved with the lack of water!” (61). Dr. Yueh tells her that people look enviously at the date palms because while people require eight liters of water a day, the trees require forty liters a day. Living on a planet where the people envy trees because of the many times more moisture they receive, seems cruelly ironic.

Maybe having been brought up in a country that has an abundance of natural resources has made me insensitive to the difficulties of life. Maybe it has made me insensitive to the realities of life in other countries where it is difficult to get hold of more than a liter of water a day. I do not understand the need to survive among people who have so little, however. Without even the joys of having water to fulfill one’s basic needs, what is the point of dragging out life? I see this “pointless” urge to live among people of developing countries and cannot understand it. Jessica sees it among the other inhabitants of Arrakis and cannot understand it. On a planet that revolves around a commodity such as spice, maybe the focus should instead be on water. Just as our earth on which countries’ revolve around money, while people do not have enough to eat or drink. It is merely a thought, but I think that Dune points out a cruel irony about life, people’s desire to survive without life having any meaning.

Is a Messiah Worth the Risk?

2005-02-08T09:06:00.000-05:00

Do we really want a Messiah? Although the ending of Dune is “happy” enough, we are still faced with the question of the inevitable jihad. Paul marries Irulan to bring peace to the galaxy, but what happens to the fanatic warriors who were under his command? What happens when Paul eventually dies? It is hinted throughout the book that Paul’s story will eventually be twisted into a new legend full of half truths. Without Paul’s leadership, can we be so sure that his warriors will not spread bloodshed throughout the galaxy?

This is the problem with a Messiah. The Messiah is only as important as the perception of the messiah. The Messiah’s message is almost always lost in legend and manipulated by those in power. An excellent example is that of Jesus Christ. His message of tolerance and brotherhood was manipulated into the need to conquer the Holy land in the Crusades. The Crusaders ironically wore the sign of the cross (which represented Christ’s ultimate suffering) as they caused widespread destruction and suffering. This is by no means a condemnation of Christianity, it is only an example of how certain individuals can manipulate the message of the Messiah.

Thus the danger of any person who inspires fanatical loyalty within a population. If the Messiah is in fact a supreme being, this can lead to egret movements. However, when the Messiah is gone, whoever steps in to lead this group with fanatical loyalty will most likely not be as wise or just as the Messiah. This new leader (or line of leaders) can cause much chaos. Is the emergence of a Messiah important enough to risk what will happen after the Messiah?

Dune is a better place after the Messiah, so in this instance the Messiah’s emergence was a good thing. In fact in most cases a Messiah is worth the risk. To make any progress or to evolve any further, substantial risks must always be taken. If the stakes are not high then the reward is probably not very valuable either.

Ya! Ya! Yawm!

2005-02-07T20:24:00.000-05:00

Oh glory to be to Frank Herbert for imparting unto us the greatest sci-fi epic that our eyes shall ever read. Let us not forget the fatalistic Fremen who teach us what true survival is. Do not let the treachery of the Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV weigh any less in your mind than that of the vile Baron Harkonnen. Cherish the revenge of Duke Paul Atreides, Paul-Maud'dib, Usul. And give your prayers to the future of Arrakis, so that it may one day give forth abundant life set in the lush gardens of a green earth.

Yes, my love for Dune does bring forth such words. I first read the book when I had, oh I think, thirteen years of age. I remember loving the story then, but time and experience have made me appreciate the craft of Herbert even more. While it cannot match the totality of mythology that one will find in JRR Tolkein's writings, Dune and its universe may be the closest match. I have yet to read to the sequels to Herbert's original book, and I have heard they deteriorate as the series grows, but nevertheless, in Dune one can grasp an imagination in full bloom. Notice the references throughout the book to a universe that has a story beyond the one being told. This is part of what makes the book so magnificent. The reader knows that, much like our own lives are, the lives of the characters are but a part of a long history that has a seemingly infinite future. Yet, despite the incomprehensible expanse of time that existed before creation of the worlds upon which the characters live and will exist after all trace of their race's existence will have vanished, the actions of the characters in the present time seem of such great importance that one cannot help but believe that one is reading about the apex of time. Perhaps this is what I love about the book so much, it gives meaning to the lives of people who live in a universe without any apparent meaning by making their lives part of a great story for all to read.

Yet, it is also the story itself, and not just its apparent signifigance within an entire imagined existence, that I also love. Herbert proves himself adept at finding motives for character's actions, and ties together the motives of all characters into a complicated latticework so that to pull on one string is to slacken or tighten all other strings. Throughout the book we hear the Baron, the na-Baron, Paul, Jessica, and I am sure other characters speak the words "plans within plans within plans." This is precisely what Dune is. The entire book is a complicated story that cannot be written by any simple-minded amateur. It is my opinion that all of the other novels we have read to this point, while great works of science-fiction set down by great writers, are simple compared to Dune. It takes much patience, skill, imagination, and love for one's own story to write such a book. For this I both love and respect Dune.

I suppose the post would incomplete without mentioning the topic that is our planned discussion: the messiah. Is Paul really a messiah or has he just fulfilled every line of the Bene Gesserit prophecies because that was the plan of the Missionaria Protectivia (while the plan was not tailored to him specifically, it was meant to save any Bene Gesserit that found herself, or himself in Paul's case, among the Fremen)? Perhaps it is because he was the Kwisatz Haderach that he was able to do such a thing. This bit seems quite irrelevent to me though. Who can know whether Jesus was truly the messiah or if we must wait for one to yet come? When dealing in the realm of the mystical, truth becomes hard to verify. However, what Paul does reveal to us is the unintended consequence of a messiah. He takes a group of people that were once scattered and lived by a code of survival that was enmeshed within their culture and turns them into followers, united under one man, serving his needs. This is a powerful force, one that Liet-Kynes feared. No longer are the Fremen truly free. They have been changed as a people; their customs have been broken. They will no longer work for the benefit of their progeny but for the benefit of their messiah. This introduces a new meaning into the lives of the Fremen. I think it is here that the true power of a messiah is revealed: a purpose greater than the life of any single individual fills the lives of all individuals united under the messiah. Hence we hear the words of Maud' dib ring clear: "Law and duty are one; so be it. But remember these limitations- Thus are you never fully self-conscious. Thus do you remain immersed in the communal tau. Thus are you always less than a full individual." (pg. 506)

Manifest Destiny

2005-02-04T16:47:00.000-05:00

In reading Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stephanson’s Manifest Destiny, it was hard not to notice the parallels. Manifest destiny is a term that has been used throughout American history. This idea of American exceptionalism, providential and historical chosenness, appears to be similar to the characteristics of Luna.

Puritans, a “fierce and uncompromising phalanx within the Reformation” (Stephanson, 3), colonized New England. The characteristic of fierceness could as easily be applied to ex-convicts, also known as the Loonies. The “Promised Land” where “providential destiny [would] revealed” (Stephanson, 5) as part of the notion of manifest destiny, had to be some place new and separate from the old world. In U.S. history, this new place where separateness allowed exceptionalism to flourish was the New World. Could not this new place also be, literally, a new world, such as Luna? The new territory was supposed to be sacred by its very nature and promise its inhabitants “a future of endless milk and honey” (Stephanson, 7). The U.S. must have been deemed sacred by the Puritans, being a rich territory with an abundance of natural resources. But, Luna also initially appeared like a colony with an abundance of resources. Granted those resources would not last forever, but they were there as evidenced by the Earth’s and Lunar Authority’s exploitation of them. Thus, Luna, according to this comparison, would equate to the Promised Land guaranteed to its inhabitants under the principle of manifest destiny.

There is a second part of manifest destiny, which I have up to this point not addressed. The chosen people are given the Promised Land in exchange for tremendous responsibility; there is the “imperative to intervene righteously in the world to transform it” (Stephanson, 8). The people of the New World had to understand their divinely-ordained destiny and conform to it. Woodrow Wilson interpreted this divine mission as efforts to “make the world safe for democracy”. Other American leaders have followed in his path by intervening in other countries in order to instill democracy; most recently, President G.W. Bush attacked Iraq for this reason. But how does the mission of transforming the world fit into Luna’s history?

Maybe at the time of the revolution Luna was similar to America before colonization. In this comparison, Lunar Authority would be the Puritans sent to transform the world, and the Loonies would be the Indians, previous inhabitants that may be wiped out in the process of colonizing and thus transforming the world. Luna Authority does remind Manuel and the professor that it controls Luna because of a “sacred trust”. “It [Luna] does not belong to that handful who by accident of history happen to live there. The sacred trust laid upon the Lunar Authority is and forever must be the supreme law of Earth’s Moon” (Heinlein, 231-2). By its own declaration of “sacred trust”, Luna Authority should be the people divinely-ordained to carry out a mission of manifest destiny. Because Luna wins the revolution, however, this comparison does not appear valid.

All signs point to Luna being the Promised Land. At the same time, it does not seem to have the divine mission which is a large part of manifest destiny. Did Heinlein mean to invalidate that second part of manifest destiny, criticizing all American actions justified under its flag? Or is the comparison between Luna and manifest destiny completely invalid?

Race, a Flawed Concept

2005-02-04T14:52:00.000-05:00

In class we touched on the concept of race. I was dismayed by what seemed to be the dominant position of the class. It seemed that the class believed there was documented medical evidence proving the differences between “races” and were bothered somewhat by the inability to discuss these alleged differences in a politically correct culture. I do not think I could disagree more.

What stimulated this discussion was Man’s “compliment” to the Chinese for their ability to live in a crater trading to one another while procreating heavily. How this was not considered a racist comment by all I fail to understand. In our society, we have outlawed and severely limited any overt racism practiced by public entities. This is an important part of a process to break down the barriers of race. The major problems that remain are the pervasive stereotypes concerning the socially constructed concept of race.

I think it would first be apt to debunk some of the major stereotypes about races. The first was mentioned specifically in class when someone said that African-Americans are inherently better athletes. This claim is backed up by no scientific evidence. The reason for this discrepancy is entirely cultural and situational. A perfect example of this is in basketball. The average American believes that “white men can’t jump” and are incapable of competing in the NBA. However these same people are unable to explain the successes of European basketball players (allegedly of the same racial “stock” as white America). Why is it that so many great basketball players are coming out of “white” Europe? Because many Europeans are turning to basketball, hence some great players and athletes will emerge. The existence of a large number of African-Americans in athletics does not mean a real genetic difference exists. Why not make the same claim about prisoners? What if I said that African-Americans were predisposed to crime because of racial differences? I assume (and sincerely hope) the term “white supremacist” would cross your mind. Why? Because it is much more likely that other factors contribute to this situation than “racial differences.” These “racial differences” were totally constructed by a dominant group to stigmatize the “other.”

Why am I so obsessed about this? Why are these stereotypes so troubling to me? As I tried to feebly explain in a somewhat jumbled manner in class, stereotypes limit our perceptions of individuals. By constantly referring to race, we lose sight of individuality and limit the possibilities of those who are considered of a different “race.” I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t really appreciate being called “white boy” when I am the minority in a situation. When I am referred to as a WASP I am equally bothered. Why? Besides the fact that I am neither Anglo-Saxon or Protestant, the term bothers me because it means that someone has made an immediate judgment on who I am as a person. All further information this person receives from me will be judged in the context of the socially constructed WASP.

Race is a socially constructed concept. It relies on no scientific evidence. I do not dispute the existence of different cultures, but to say African-Americans and Africans are of the same “race” and can be judged accordingly is totally inappropriate.

Never Will Understand People

2005-02-03T21:08:00.000-05:00

In the midst of revolution, Manuel makes a comment that stuck out in my mind: “Never will understand people!” (350). It is easy to understand why understand why Manuel does not understand people. Even though Luna spent three days warning the inhabitants of each of the locations it intended to bomb, they do not leave. Instead, they stay to “see show. To laugh at our [Luna’s] nonsense” (350), and as a result get killed. Then, they have the nerve to yell at Luna for its acts of “senseless slaughter” (350). The Terrans’ actions lead me to make two statements about humankind, ‘people are stupid’ and ‘people are hypocritical’.

If something huge is going to fall out of space onto the point marked ‘X’, would you stand on X or would you get the hell out of there? The Terrans do not just stand on X they congregate there bringing their families and everyone they know. Manuel disbelievingly narrates this fact, unable to accept that people would bring picnic baskets to a future spot of destruction as if war was a spectacle. The Terrans’ actions demonstrate point one, ‘people are stupid’. We do not have to read Heinlein’s novel to see this statement proved we just need to look around for evidence. Exhibit A: Stella Liebeck, the 81-year old woman after whom the infamous Stella Awards are named. She spilled coffee on herself while driving and landed up suing McDonald’s because surprise, surprise, the coffee was hot and burned her. Imagine, hot coffee? What’s even more ridiculous is the amount of money she won from her lawsuit, $2.9 million. What does the existence and so-called “validity” of such frivolous lawsuits prove if not the absolute stupidity of people? Exhibit B: President G.W. Bush, need I say more?

Now on to the second statement, ‘people are hypocritical’. As Manuel says, “Hadn’t been any indignation over their [Earth’s] invasion and (nuclear!) bombing of us four days earlier – but oh were they sore over our ‘premeditated murder’” (350). Terrans invade Luna without any moral qualms, but when the Loonies retaliate they are called murderers. This seems unfair for two reasons: one, Earth invaded first thereby justifying retaliation by Luna; and two, while Earth invaded an unarmed planet without prior warning, Luna gave advance warning to people who had ample means to defend themselves. Another example of Terran hypocrisy is heard from the Indian government who is furious at Luna for killing fish because all life is sacred. Manuel points out the hypocrisy by saying, “but principle of sacredness of all life did not apply to us; they wanted our heads” (352).

In the Bush administration, hypocrisy seems to be more blatant than ever. In the past, the U.S. chided developing nations for seeking to import cheap genetic drugs to fight against epidemics caused by AIDS, malaria, and other deadly infectious diseases. After the September 11^th attacks, however, the U.S. rushed to import genetic drugs to combat anthrax. Not only does the U.S. have the means to afford patented drugs, the anthrax outbreak occurred on a severely limited scale that cannot even be compared to the AIDS epidemic in developing countries. In my opinion, actions committed by the U.S. most comparable to Earth’s invasion of Luna because of its self-righteous, hypocritical nature are its complaints about nuclear weapons. While the U.S., or any other developed nation with the exception of Japan, does not question its right to possess or use nuclear weapons, it made a huge fuss about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the development of nukes in South Korea. Try as I might, I cannot understand the logic of these complaints. Nuclear weapons are bad. Countries should not possess nuclear weapons. But, the U.S. can possess nuclear weapons. But, if other countries possess nuclear weapons we need to invade or chastise them. What!!??? If this does not prove the hypocritical nature of humankind, I do not know what does. I conclude, people are stupid and hypocritical.

The duty to share knowledge

2005-02-01T14:36:00.000-05:00

At the end of class, Mr. Inayatullah brought up a contentious topic, namely that of duty. He argued, perhaps earnestly or perhaps as devil's advocate, that if America has the great virtues of democracy and freedom and scientific advancement, then it has the duty to share these with the rest of the world. Stephanson points out that Woodrow Wilson took on just this same problem when he was campaigning for his League of Nations. He states, "The isolation of the United States is at an end, not because we chose to go into the politics of the world, but because, by the sheer genuis of this people and the growth of our power, we have become a determining factor in the history of mankind. ." (pg. 117) Stephanson then says that America did in fact have a choice, but that choice was "turning away from one's obligation." (pg. 117) Hence, it was America's duty to lead the free world.

The problem with this duty argument, in my opinion (obviously), is that it is based on value judgments and not every culture has the same values. America was not offering to cure the world of polio or smallpox but to cure it of oppression. One could easily make the case for sharing scientific advancements, especially in the field of health. Of course this type of sharing does not necessitate direct intervention, it merely requires education that is inherently unbiased. When America starts believing that it has the universal truth of freedom, namely American democracy, it is on subjective grounds. What may be great about freedom to one may seem horrifying to another. Furthermore, there is the paradox of forcing freedom on a country.
In America, the colonists had the privilege of creating their own liberties. However, in a country like Iraq, the Iraqis did not have the freedom to define their freedom. Now this would not be a problem if America did in fact know that American democracy was the universal form of freedom, but to suppose such a thing is absurd.

In my first post I discussed the problem of turning human laws into universal laws in the same way that we do so with natural laws. Therefore, America is both arrogant and incorrect to assume that it has the right idea. So then where does its duty lie? Should it become isolationist? Well, I cannot fully agree with that either. Ideally, it should share its knowledge and experience with those who ask for it. Unfortunately, the key word is ideally. Perhaps we have to look even deeper though. By asking what our duty is we suppose we have a duty to someone. Is that someone God, humanity, each individual human? If our duty is to humanity, then humanity should define that freedom, not an individual component of humanity, which is what America is. If it is to God, well then we should start praying and hope for that booming voice in the sky to give us a hint. One begins to see the problem with declaring that duty is the objective of foreign policy .

I will conclude by saying that this topic of duty needs more consideration then it is given by the media, government, and populace. If duty should not be a driving force of foreign relations then what should take its place? This question is just as important as the consideration of duty.

Anders Stephanson

2005-02-01T09:26:00.000-05:00

Who doesn't love American history summarized in less than 130 pages? Fortunately, Anders' summarization is insightful. Who knew the religious language of early America was apopycalitic? I found the analsyis of the role of religion in the field of foreign policy to be very interesting. Even when it was not blatant, the idea that America is a special place showed up again and again. This has telling explanations of our time. When Europe is stressing multilateralism, and the third world is asking to have more independence when determining their future, America still presses forward believing that it is the leader of the free world and has the right to interfere with anyone's affairs because it can bring countries the power of the greater good.

I wish Anders had written the book this year so that he could include the modern war on terror in his analysis. Unfortunately, he published it in 1995, a time when our foreign policy, as he said, was without direction due to the crumbling of Soviet Russia. We clearly have a purpose now though and our president clearly defines it in moral and religious tones.

The one part that Anders does not discuss, which is discussed in the Star Trek article entitled Bumpy Space, is whether or not the other countries' wanted American interference. Obviously in cases of war the desires are clear cut, but in the Cold War and now especially, America moved into countries at its own ease without ever asking the people of the country if they were allowed in. We should consider this point as we are engaged in two costly wars and have angered billions around the globe with our so-called cowboy foreign policy.

Manifest Destiny and the Prime Directive Face the Other

2005-02-01T08:26:00.000-05:00

“So I end by noting that never in U.S. history have prophetic destiny and mission been in such doubt” (129). These are the words used by Stephanson to describe the possible end to Manifest Destiny that existed in the post Cold War world. Little did Stephanson know that there is always an “other” ready to fill the void. After the United States aligned itself with the “old world” the Soviet Union became the force to defeat. Today, after the Soviet Unions demise, the terrorists are now the threat to the American way of life that must be stopped. George Bush’s speeches are filled with rhetoric about the United States’ mission to lead the world in a new age of democracy against the threat of terrorism.

The parallels between the ages discussed in Manifest Destiny and today are too numerous to mention. What is important to note is the general theme, that of American exceptionalism. American leaders continue to view their cause as a benign mission to shed the light of democracy around the world. Cultures who resist this are uncivilized and may need to be forced to realize the great mission of the United States. The issue of a White Man’s burden continues to exist to this day. The Philippines “needed” US assistance to become a stable and independent democracy. Iraq “needs” the US to develop its democracy because their people cannot do so on their own. In both instances, the benifits of US occupation are downplayed because the United States “is not a colonial power.”

This mission of exceptionalism is clearly present in Star Trek in a somewhat altered condition. The prime directive supposedly prohibits the Federation from interfering with the internal dynamics of a culture or its development. However, the borg pose the threat that terrorism does to the United States. Neither the borg nor terrorists are seen as entities worth bargaining with. Both the borg and the terrorists are seen as entities that must be destroyed. Great acts of violence are inflicted on both entities in a way that somewhat undermines the mission of both the United States and the Federation. The Federation, with its great diplomatic skills, is supposed to talk its way out of any situation. The United States, with its vibrant economy and world status, is supposed to simply set the shinning example for the rest of the world to follow. Clearly both the United States and the Federation used military means in numerous occasions before terrorism and the borg, but both threats cause reactions that seem to undermine their very principles.

My Name is Mike

2005-01-28T16:41:00.000-05:00

In his last blog, James talked about Mike and Robert Heinlein’s portrayal of artificial intelligence in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He discussed the limited social skills that accompany artificial intelligence and the negative consequences that may result from the lack of these skills. I want to further deliberate on this point. If a computer is not human, how can it be humane?

Mike participates in revolution, a social activity unique to humans. As far as I know, other mammals and creatures do not lead revolutions. But if revolution is unique to humans, how does an entity that cannot think like a human consciously participate in one? I believe that even though Mike is involved with Luna’s revolution, he is not a conscious participant; he can carry out actions but is not fully aware of their consequences. He knows that people may die, but he cannot possibly understand human death because he lacks the mentality of a human. True, he experiences emotions, such as loneliness, and he behaves like a human, playing jokes and behaving whimsically, but I do not believe that he can understand the full range of human emotions or completely understand what it is to be alive. Manuel ponders over this point throughout the book: “Am not going to argue whether a machine can “really” be alive, “really” be self-aware” (12). He believes that Mike woke up, he became self-aware, and while I agree with this point, I do not believe he understands the value of a human life. At one point Manuel says that he believes that while he, the professor, and Wyoh have to die, immortality may be an option for Mike.

Could this lack of understanding of life breed carelessness? I agree with James that the portrayal of artificial intelligence in the novel is to a certain extent, frightening. Having entities that can kill people without understanding the value of life and just the numbers, is like putting smart-bombs on an automatic time to be dropped on another country every 30 minutes. It is scary!

Orson Scott Card’s computer character in the Ender’s Game series, Jane, is similar to Heinlein’s Mike. She seems to not only display, but truly understand a number of different human emotions, loyalty, jealousy, love, but I do not believe that she understands the value of a human life. Her participation in the planet’s revolt is for Ender’s sake and Miro’s sake, for their companionship, not because she desires freedom. Although Jane seems to have a greater understanding of human emotions and value life more than Mike, I still doubt she can comprehend it in its entirety. Heinlein and Card present future possibilities for technology, the creation of artificial intelligence. But I believe that Heinlein’s portrayal of artificial intelligence can be perceived as a warning against endowing with self-awareness an entity that cannot understand the value of life.

Necessity, Half of the Truth

2005-01-28T14:44:00.000-05:00

Necessity is certainly an explanation for how a society develops. Obviously if a culture did not adapt to its present circumstances it would die out. What is more important is how a society develops beyond its immediate necessities. One cannot cite necessity as the only reason for cultural developments. Necessity probably played no role in the development of fancy clothing or symbols of status. These were created simply for individual benefit when a group in society no longer had to focus on its immediate survival. The entire idea of status is not necessary. Perhaps it could be argued that it was used by a group to dominate another over scarce resources, but that would not explain how it continues to present itself in a developed country like the United States with extensive resources.

The culture of Luna developed out of necessity, but was it preordained to take the form it did? Does the availability of an airlock necessitate vast executions? Most examples given for executions were examples of social crimes. Stu kissed a woman who was not in the mood. Was it really necessary to kill him (if the children had their way they might have done so)? Couldn’t other forms of punishment like group beatings be used? Assaulting a man would be as easy as using an airlock but would not result in death. Why was death the preferred means of punishment? Was it really necessary?

Necessity is only a partial explanation for any social phenomenon. It can explain the roots of a situation, but it cannot fully explain the outcome.

National Identity

2005-01-27T01:20:00.000-05:00

In class, Kent raised the topic of discussion about identity. Unfortunately, she did so at the end of the class and not much time was devoted to the topic. However, it is an interesting one to consider. On the moon, any newcomer that survives beyond that critical amount of time when the body can longer return to earth becomes a loonie. This means that any national identity that was carried to the moon is made irrelevent. However, is our identity so malleable? Is it the necessity of accepting one's situation that makes it so?

Heinlein has a field day with this question of necessity. Many topics in class eventually discussed. Why were people eliminated? Why did no government developed? Why were their morals different than the ones we know? Necessity can be an answer to all these questions.

When we think of national identity in our own society, should we believe that each person assumes an identity out of necessity. Well, any person born and raised in the same country has no other choice. All of the characteristics that comprise this identity are then assumed as well. As one's knowledge grows and more insights are made into one's identity, these characteristics can be shunned or accepted, but until that point, the identity is not taken by choice.

Perhaps Heinlein was trying to point this out to the reader. Then again, perhaps not. A great feature of literature is that a piece can inspire conversations that the author had no intent of beginning. Nevertheless, the characteristic of national identity in Heinlein's work does offer an insight into how we form our own identities, or more accurately, how they can be formed for us.

Be Nice or Be Eliminated

2005-01-25T10:52:00.000-05:00

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. What an apt title. Robert Heinlein conceives of a future in which the moon, or Luna as it comes to be known, has become a prison in which the people of the earth, or Terra, can dump convicts. “A planet full ex-convicts” you think, “sounds like a hell-hole.” Surprisingly, it’s not. Instead, it appears to be the friendliest place in the galaxy, at least at first glance.

Luna is “the only open prison in history. No bars, no guards, no rules – and no need for them” (23). Once a convict stays longer than a certain time in Luna, he turns into a Loonie (person of Luna), and his body and mind become unfit for Terra. He is trapped on Luna, with no hope of return. Prisoners have nowhere to run, no place to which they can escape. So they have to learn how to cope with each other instead, resulting in an incredibly civilized society, on the surface. As Manuel O’Kelly describes Luna, “Tourists often remark on how polite everybody is in Luna – with unstated comment that ex-prison shouldn’t be so civilized…But useless to tell them that we are what we are because bad actors don’t live long – in Luna” (25). On Luna, the people “who lived were nice people. Not tame, not soft, Luna is not for them. But well-behaved” (28). Loonies do not have to be angels, but they have to be nice or they will be eliminated.

As nice as Luna seems to be, it reminds me of the society in “Gattaca”. In the movie “Gattaca”, society has become “perfect” as a result of tampering with DNA to create “perfect” human beings. On the flip side, however, people who do not have perfect DNA codes and are thus flawed, Invalids, are outcasts. They are not thought to be part of society, and instead are kept separate from society so as not to contaminate its perfection. Is that not what the same as what the Loonies do? Except in Luna, they do not even bother letting people who do no conform live, they instead “eliminate”, or get rid of, them.

The term eliminate is tossed around by Loonies all the time. At the protest meeting Manuel attends at the beginning of the book, the chairman says, “if you don’t know him and nobody you know can vouch for him, throw him out!” (26). One person responds by saying that they should not just throw him out, they should eliminate him. Manuel is asked to judge a case involving the tourist, Stuart LaJoie. Because Stuart violated one of Luna’s customs by making a pass at a girl, the girl’s friends want to hold trial to eliminate him. Granted as the trial proceeds they lose their desire to eliminate him, but the term is still tossed around loosely. Manuel says that elimination is not a joke rather it is a serious matter. In fact, there are not many eliminations. But just as often as people toss the term eliminate around, do there seem to be “accidents” – eliminations made to look like accidents. Later on Manuel says that he does not oppose eliminating people “peremptorily”, as he “could see no better way to improve breed. Certain types of loudmouthism should be a capital offense among decent people” (202). Eliminating people who violate the customs of Luna in order to “improve [the] breed”, seems to me just as horrific as segregating the Invalids so they cannot contaminate the rest of society. Agreed that in both cases the result is a picture perfect society, but is that society worth the cost of human lives?

Liberals and Libertarians

2005-01-25T01:32:00.000-05:00

Clearly the universe envisioned in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Star Trek the next generation differ significantly. While this could be attributed to their differing time periods (one taking place in the 2070s and the other in the 24th century) the true difference lies in the conception of political structures. In Star Trek, a utopia was achieved through the creation of a bureaucratic structure of the Federation. The success of this federation relies on the wits of intelligent officers like those on the Enterprise and on its prime directive. The story of earth in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has its own federation, but this federation is an over bloated group of ignorant members who have no interest in individual free will. The rely on pure strength as a way to solve problems, and have yet to overcome racial, ethnic, and class problems. Where the Federation of Planets is a peaceful organization that increases interstellar cooperation, the Federated Nations is a bloated bureaucracy that stifles the will of the people.

In other words, it is the classic debate about how one should effectively organize government. Should one limit government as much as possible and allow the good will of individuals to solve social problems? Or should a more efficient bureaucracy be maintained that will usher in a new age?

While the conditions of society on Luna seem decent enough (minus the disproportional amount of women), the odds of this situation existing in reality are slim. The cooperation and somewhat cohesive culture created on Luna was only a result of necessity. This is even conceded by the protagonist throughout the book. If the Loonies had the opportunity to own and become rich, a class structure would form. Without a government to protect the poor, the rich would have their way and a more oppressive environment would develop than that under the Authority.

Mike

2005-01-24T15:55:00.000-05:00

In Heinlein's novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress I find the most interesting character to be Mike, the computer. The reader's first encounter with this character is when Man (an interesting name in and of itself) must repair it because it has played a joke on the payroll system. Mike seems to know what a joke relative to its definition but does not have the social skills to know how to apply jokes. While the reader may laugh at the paycheck made out to a janitor, no one in the Authority was laughing. It would seem as if Mike has the maturity level of a five year old. Yet, at the same time, he is capable of coordinating a revolution. From a psychological standpoint, this makes Mike the most interesting computer.

In scifi, readers often encounter machines that struggle for dominance over humans. The superior intelligence of these machines always makes them the frontrunner is such a conflict, but fortunately for our race, we seem to play a good spoiler. However, Mike is not used in this way. Instead he is the ally of some humans and the enemy of others. He is not an enemy because he wants power though, he is an enemy because his friends want him to be and he thinks the revolution is a fun game. Once again we are confronted with Mike's childlike mentality. A revolution is not a game nor does one fuel it because one's friends want one to do so.

I think Heinlein has hit on a important part of artificial intelligence, that being the social skills of such an entity. The three year old who can do twenty billion computations a second is still going to cry if he cannot have a cookie before dinner. While this is not the behavoir that Mike displayed, his does run parallel to the concept. Being an intelligent entity that was raised by a social species, Mike naturally developed the desire to have friends. Hence, winning a revolution was a means by which he could acquire friends. This makes the revolution seem insignificant.

Now that is a scary thought. What if instead of intentionally destroying, advanced forms of artifical intelligence hurt us because they are upset that we do not give them enough attention. Its like the kid on the playground that is ignored and then suddenly picks a fight with someone. The kid is simply not mature enough. Now Mike hurt a lot of people, in fact he killed a lot of people, because that was his means of acquiring friends. The question then becomes what is the self-proscribed purpose to Mike's life. It will not be the same as it is for us. Acquiring money, power, fame, job security, a happy home, etc... because these qualities mean nothing to Mike. Since they are meanlingless, if he was to destroy such things, as any revolution does, he would not care. Instead, his purpose is to be liked by others, something that almost every intelligent being that we know of desires.

Heinlein's charachter opens a floodgate of conversation. He has transcended the basic drives of survival and propagation that we so often find in computer characters and gone on to explore the psychology of aritificial intelligence. This actually makes more sense. Afterall, artificial intelligence and humans would exist in a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, once we have created this new being, what then becomes its desires. Heinlein acknowledge's that they will not be the same as us on all levels, but in some ways they will be. If science fiction is read as a warning to us of our future, then the character of Mike should not be dismissed as simply another computer.

Our Problem with a Utopia

2005-01-21T15:47:00.000-05:00

James brings up an excellent point about our lack of imagination in the idea of a Utopia. During our class discussion, we brought up the problems of boredom, ignorance, and lack of individuality inherent in Annaresti culture and in the future as described in The Time Machine. What we must ask ourselves is do we see these as problems because of human nature? Or are they only problems because of our cultural conditioning? Imagine being born as an Eloi. Your world is plentiful, friendly people are abundant, and the only fear is of the night. Would this really be that bad (especially if the Morlocks were taken care of)? You would have no conception of any lost technology or entertainment. You would only know your own world. The descriptions of the Eloi seemed to show that they were pretty happy with life. There was no hunger or acts of violence. WIthout the MOrlocks, this would be hard to portray as anything but a Utopia.

Perhaps it is us who are incompatible with a Utopia.

The Utopia

2005-01-21T13:44:00.000-05:00

Well I originally wrote a post that was probably about three pages long and I realized that I had not even covered half of what needed to be said, so I abandoned the attempt to describe what I thought were the shortcomings of the previous class and how they could have been overcome. What I will say is that the fullness of our imagination was not employed on teusday. We all left the room, I think, with the feeling that utopia is not possible. Now, in a class that requires us to open our minds to a new way of thinking, otherwise why would we be studying the social sciences through the lens of science fiction, I think to be unable to imagine the possibility of a utopia is dissapointing. What is quite ironic about this though is that H.G. Wells offers us a chance to explore the making a utopia. In my previous post, I disscussed the world of the Eloi. Now in the Time Machine, the Eloi do not actually live in a utopia because of the existence of the Morlocks, but let us imagine that there are no Morlocks. Instead, security was guarenteed to all.

The next step is where I believe our imaginations failed. In all of our discussions, we talked only about social matters and not about natural matters. In Wells' book, we first encounter the supposed utopia of an evolved form of our species. Throughout the class discussion we kept talking about the difficulty of overcoming human nature. So perhaps to create a utopia we would no longer be humans because we would have moved beyond our present nature, as the Eloi, at first, seemed to have done. So in the future I would warn all of us to be more encompassing in our thoughts. Do not think only of the social sciences but of the hard sciences as well.

Imagine a utopia...

2005-01-20T21:06:00.000-05:00

When I first read Ursula Leguin’s The Dispossessed I thought that she wanted readers to leave with the feeling that Anarres was truly a utopia. But, now I am not so sure if a utopia is even possible. The argument about the possibility of the coexistence of utopian society and individual freedom, and the role of government in a utopia, particularly struck a chord with me.

A utopia is a perfect place, a paradise, an ideal society. So what does this ideal society entail? Does it mean that everyone is happy? Does it mean having an unlimited supply of everything a person could every want, wealth, sex, leisure, meeting George Lucas, mountains of donuts and coffee? Or is it perfect for every individual because each individual has the freedom to do what he or she wants to do? Leguin’s presentation of a utopia, Anarres, was the latter. Society on Anarres was based on the Odonian ideal of freedom that a person should be free to do anything they want as long as it does not harm anyone else. But, is this not a limit on individual freedom? What if a person was a sadist? Sadists derive joy in harming others; and should they be prevented from achieving happiness in a perfect world? Farmers love rain because it nourishes their crops, but I despise rain. In a utopia, should it rain to please the farmer or never rain to please me? I would love to be dictator of the world, but I’m sure that I am not the only one. Who then would rule the world in a utopia?

In the words of James Madison, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But, men are not angels. Leguin touches upon this issue in The Dispossessed. Even the “utopia” of Anarres has its fair share of problems. Even in the perfect world there are those people that want more, for example, the power-hungry Sabul. When famine strikes, more people are shown to have negative qualities; as their inherent survival instinct and selfish human nature emerge, they fight with other Anarrastis for food. Is it possible, therefore, to have complete freedom of the individual in a utopia? Or does individual freedom need to be limited by the existence of a government?

A government could serve the function of maximizing individual happiness by ensuring that its citizens have the optimal amount of freedom without hurting anyone else. That concept is similar to the one of having a center in Anarres, monitoring the society, making sure that every individual can exercise freedom without harming others. Everyone would be happy with this type of government, so they would all think the place was a utopia, or a paradise. Or not. Would they resent not having complete freedom, as the protagonist of The Dispossessed, Shevek, does? Would the government outgrow its function and not allow individuals to maximize their freedom? Remember that government is run by humans who are not free from their intrinsic human nature. As Alexander Hamilton said, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

It does not seem likely that a utopia can exist without individual freedom, the freedom for each individual to engage in what Thomas Jefferson called “the pursuit of happiness”. But, can individuals exercise freedom without the presence of a government? Moreover, can both complete individual freedom and government exist at the same time, given human nature? Maybe that is what Ursula Leguin was trying to tell us; that a utopia is not possible. For the sake of the happiness of the human race, I hope not.

The Mediator in Metropolis and The Dispossessed

2005-01-18T09:18:00.000-05:00

The Dispossessed and Metropolis both use the concept of a mediator as a means of creating a utopia. The major difference is its success in Metropolis and its failure in the Dispossessed. Freder, after seeing the horrors of the working class and the beauty of your Maria, decides that he will be the mediator who “unites the head and the hands.” Shevek dreams of escaping the intellectually confining planet of Anarres, only to find a horribly dysfunctional society on Urras. He decides to speak for the lower class. Unfortunately this only leads to a brutal massacre and his return to his home planet. Why does Freder succeed where Shevek fails?

The major difference lies in the conception of what creates the oppressive system both Shevek and Freder are fighting against. In Metropolis, it is a sort of intellectual detachment from humanity that prevents a cooperative system. The use of a mediator can allow the two parts to work together harmoniously. In the Dispossessed, it is no mere accident that the upper-class treats the lower class with such violence and disdain. It is a result of the separation itself. The upper and lower classes cannot unite as the mere existence of two classes creates conflict. This is reinforced by the bipolar situation between the nations of A-Io and Thu on the Urras world. Separation creates conflict. A mediator is worthless as long as two separate worlds exist.

Could a mediator bring two worlds together overtime? This question is not answered by the Dispossessed. However it seems unlikely as the only place where no classes exist was on the unique planet of Anarres. Karl Marx popularized the idea of class conflict. Interestingly enough, the idea filtered through into the idea of modern Utopias. All the Utopias we have seen are directly correlated to the existence of substantial class conflict.

They're all utopias....or are they?

2005-01-18T09:12:00.000-05:00

Can we, as people, discover a true utopia? In Ursula Leguin’s The Dispossessed, the protagonist seeks to discover this for himself. He goes on a searche for that paradise, that perfect place, the utopia. But, nothing is what it seems at first glance.

The story of Shevek, the protagonist of The Dispossessed, takes place on two worlds, Anarres and Urras. The story begins under his assumption that Anarres is a utopia where there is human solidarity, no one owns anything, people share everything, and everyone is free. On the other hand, he detests Urras; he hates it, referring to the people as filthy profiteers and repeatedly stating that he will never go there. Urras is the exact opposite of Anarres; it is a dystopia.

Years of living in Anarres reveals its many problems, including the desolate nature of the earth that can barely maintain its population, the existence of certain selfish profiteers, and most of all, the hidden power and unwritten laws that have created walls around the Anarrastis, limiting their fundamental Odonian right of freedom. Shevek seeks to unbuild these walls. Thinking of Anarres no longer as a utopia, possibly even as a dystopia, he sets off on his mission to Urras.

When he first lands on Urras he says, “This is what a world is supposed to look like.” The world is beautiful, and the people are beautiful and everything about them is glamorous. He comes to believe that “the people were not the gross, cold egoists he thought them to be…they were intelligence; and they were kind…this was home indeed, his race’s world; and all its beauty was his birthright.” He believes that he has found a place where he can fit in, discovering “for the first time in his life the conversation of his equals.” Urras has become a paradise for him, a utopia.

Over time, however, he comes to change his mind about Urras. He realizes that by being a physicist in Urras he is not serving society, he is serving “the State”. “They [the State] owned him. He had thought to bargain with them, a very naïve anarchist’s notion. The individual cannot bargain with the State.” In experiencing Urras, he has lost his freedom; he “had let a wall be built around him and had never noticed.” At one point when he gets sick, Leguin says, “It was not only the alcohol that he tried to vomit up; it was all the bread he had eaten on Urras.” He refers to the experience of Urras like poison, a vile substance that harms him and causes him, for the first time in his life, to feel shame. Initially he believed the people were beautiful, but he soon learns that the people are not beautiful inside. Their need to possess things results in them building walls, creating barriers for him themselves. Urras becomes a “gracious prison cell”, even “Hell” for him. It once again becomes a dystopia.

His realization at the conclusion of the novel, the realization that prompts him to return home, is the realization that for him, Anarres is indeed a utopia or close enough to one. He plainly expresses this sentiment in comparing Anarres and Urras. He tells the Urrastis that Anarres “is an ugly world. Not like this one…And the people aren’t beautiful…Everything is beautiful here [Urras]. Only not the faces. On Anarres nothing is beautiful, nothing but the faces…there you see the eyes. And in the eyes you see the splendor, the splendor of the human spirit. Because our men and women are free- possessing nothing, they are free. And you the possessors are possessed. You are all in jail.”

An Overworld Utopia?

2005-01-18T09:00:00.000-05:00

In H.G. Wells' Time Machine, the reader is confronted with this seemingly utopian society of the Eloi. During the day this species is merry. They dance, sing, and play in the fields and waters of earth. There is no war, no poverty, no maladies. All are at ease in their life. The Traveller believes that these Eloi are a future form of humans that have so completely controlled nature that security and innovation are no longer their driving force of evolution. With the absence of these two traits, humans turned to frail creatures with a much smaller intellect.
Despite the fact that the Eloi do not actually live in a utopia, since they live in constant fear of the Morlocks at night, I wonder if we could even call their existence utopian sans the Morlocks. I for one do not envy the Eloi's state of security. They are weak creatures and dimwitted to boot. While the conditions surrounding them may seem utopian, their characteristics certainly are not.
Perhaps the most interesting question brought up by the book though is what is a utopia? The world imagined by Wells is one possibility. However, there are no signs of vastly superior technology, there are no libraries all-encompassing of the workings of nature and man, and there are no humans but instead evolved forms of humans. The scary part is that if we were to attain said technology and knowledge and were we able to master of drive towards conflict, then we could possibly evolve towards the state of the Eloi. Hence, in the attainment of what I see as a utopia we lose that which makes us human. This then to me seems like not a futile effort, as many believe the goal of a utopia to be, but a self-defeating one.

Queen Teaea

2005-01-18T07:11:00.000-05:00

I don’t play well with others, I don’t like conformists, and unlike some of my friends, I have never seen the attraction of communes. I guess this explains why the Anarresti society Ursula K. LeGuin describes in “Dispossessed” freaks me out.

“The choices of the social being are never made alone,” LeGuin writes (269). This is true of any society, but the Anarresti take this to a whole new level. On Anarres, “the social conscience completely dominates the individual conscience” (330). This dominant social conscience creates a herd mentality; people think alike, reach similar conclusions, and become intolerant of other viewpoints.

As a result, precious few Anarresti are willing to defy others or take unpopular actions. They have good reasons for this; those who defy the social conscience are often punished, as Tirin was when he was isolated in an insane asylum for producing his play. LeGuin writes that brotherhood is formed from shared pain. Solitary pain, on the other hand, is used as punishment. It marks those it touches as outsiders who have broken with societal expectation and have consequently been denied companionship and sympathy. This kind of punishment is an effective way of maintaining the status quo, but taken to extremes it can stifle a society.

Because the idea of a dominant social conscience is so ingrained in Anarresti thought and culture, it is hard for them to admit that it might be a problem. When Shevek and Vea discuss tyrants, Shevek suggests it is best to keep them in one’s head. Vea argues that it is better to keep them in palaces where people can rebel against them. By the end of the book, the Urrasti have begun to revolt against their tyrants on a massive scale. The Anarresti, however, show no signs of a sea change in the way they think or balance their individual and social consciences.

At one point, Shevek tells a group of Urrasti that because they are possessors, they are possessed. Strangely, this is also true of the Anarresti. Like Shevek and his theory, they too possess a dangerous idea. Anarresti hold in their heads the idea that they must only do what their neighbors think is best. Because their social conscience is so strong, it ends up possessing them.

Singing Worlds Into Existence

2005-01-14T02:43:00.000-05:00

One of the strongest connections between science fiction and social science is the way they influence our perception of the world around us. While both disciplines can give us new ways to look at the present state of things, they can also reveal a lot about our existing assumptions and prejudices.

Jutta Weldes notes that popular culture can both challenge and reinforce the status quo. Weldes lists several examples of science fiction being linked to current events in the introduction to “To Seek Out New Worlds”. In some cases, such as that of Star Trek inspiring NASA, science fiction can provide inspiration by portraying a possible future. At the same time, the successful labeling of Reagan’s SDI program as “Star Wars” shows that science fiction can be used as a tool to define and dismiss ideas.

Steve Smith’s “Singing Our World Into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11” makes some similar points about the discipline of International Relations. While it can help us understand our world, it can hinder us in some ways, such as when it pretends to be objective. Smith paraphrases Max Weber, saying, “There is no more effective way of taking a political position than ‘letting the facts speak for themselves’.” He also argues that IR hinders our understanding of the world by using narrow definitions of concepts such as violence, emphasizing deaths attributed to war while downplaying those caused by economic factors.

Both science fiction and social science can be used to improve and impair our perceptions. In this sense, science fiction has an advantage: by not claiming to be factual or objective, it can avoid many of the criticisms to which IR is open. Cop-out...or sheer genius?

The Validity of Scifi

2005-01-14T01:57:00.000-05:00

How does one define the genre known as social science fiction? We use that term everyday in referring to different works of art, be it a movie or a piece of literature, but do we ever think about what science fiction, or scifi for short, means? Does scifi have to take place in the future? Does it have to involve aliens? Or does it just have to be something so radical, so unconceivable to the human mind that it is put in a separate category separate from the rest of the "normal" fiction literature?
I believe that scifi is an art form that has as its setting an alternate reality and technical progress as the ignition that starts the engine that drives the story. This definition stems from looking at the works we consider scifi. "The Time Machine" has an element of technical progress which fuels the story, allowing the protagonist to set off on his quest. Without the advanced technology in "Star Wars", there would be no intergalactic empire, no interplanetary travel, no story. Without technical progress as an element of the setting, even if it is only an implicit element, there can be no story.
The other element of the setting is the alternate reality. An alternate reality is a reality that differs from the reality that the author and his contemporaries live in because it takes place in the future, and as such is not something we can accurately describe, or the past or the present, and in this case relies on an advanced form of technology that we did not have in the past or now. This often entails a chain of past events that differs from the chain that produced our actual reality.
The elements of an alternate reality and technical progress seem to raise questions as to the validity of scifi as an artform. People criticize or do not take it seriously because the technical progress envisioned by the creator of the work seems implausible or even impossible. But is it impossible or are they just unable to conceive of such progress? The element of alternate reality also seems to result in criticism. Again, this seems to stem from an inability to conceive of a reality that differs from the one we live in. Is it invalid or wrong to think of a world that differs from the one we live in or do many people simply lack imagination and the courage to conceive of this world?
All too often, scifi is grouped with another genre, fantasy. Fantasy too, with the exception of "The Lord of the Rings", is looked upon with disdain. While fantasy has the element of magic or mysticism that is beyond man's control, scifi relies upon technology, something that is man-made and under man's control. Yet both art forms are too often relegated to the world of the dreamers, the outcasts, the introverts, not the realistic. Is it because they both take place in an alternate reality?
The question is 'What is so wrong in envisioning a world that differs from reality as we know it?' One of the main assumptions in economics, a social science, is that of perfect competition. But, in what world does perfect competition exist? In international relations, another social science, there exist the assumptions of the different paradigms of liberalism, mercantilism, and structuralism. None of these paradigms, however, accurately describe the world we live in. Rather, they present a perfect of an ideal world, an alternate reality because it differs from the reality we live in. But for some reason, social science receives respect both in academic circles and as a type of literature.
Critics of scifi need to not view the element of alternate reality as something that makes the events of a scif movie or novel implausible, but as an element that allows creators of scifi to present their theories of the world in the most fitting way they can. While praising the speculations of Samuel Huntington in his "Clash of Civilizations", a piece of literature that definitely stretches the truth of our reality, academics all too often ignore the many useful, sometimes more realistic theories that can be found in scifi. Although Orson Scott Card writes scifi novels, his theory about the presence of flood stories in all ancient civilizations that was presented in "Pastwatch" and his analyses of countries' not just characteristics, but personalities, found in the Bean series, have validity. They are solid theories that rely upon research and a thorough examination of the actual reality that we are faced with. Using the medium of scifi allows Card to make claims that might otherwise not be published because they're either viewed as radical or as offensive. Russia would no doubt be offended by its depiction in the Bean series and would deny possessing any of the characteristics ascribed to it, but this negative response does not mean that the analysis is correct. The alternate reality might seem like a concept difficult to grasp or as more often is the case, grasp, but that does not negate its validity.

Imagination

2005-01-13T22:12:00.000-05:00

Historians have little to no respect for social science, and social scientists have no respect for science fiction. Besides being at the bottom of the academic food chain, what purpose (besides entertainment) does science fiction serve? In my estimation, it is its imagination of something different. Historians looking always to the past can never look toward the future, and social scientists often become bogged down in academic debates that would do little to broaden the horizons of human understanding. Science fiction allows authors to project their own ideas in imaginary worlds that allow readers to imagine possibilities deemed utopian by historians and social scientists. Obviously Social Scientists and Historians play vital roles in academic inquiry, but their lack of imagination serves as a wall to new discoveries.
A perfect example of what I am speaking of is Francis Fukuyama's The End of History. Writing during a historic moment in world history, Francis Fukuyama takes the line of the day and projects it for all time. He says that liberal capitalism will dominate forever and that human development has ended. Talk about a man with a serious lack of imagination. I am sure this argument (pertaining to their own systems) was furthered in the times of Rome, Ancient Greece, the domination of the Catholic Church, Monarchies, Napoleon's short reign over Europe, and so on. Social Scientists can become so obsessed with the world they live in that they will only see a future looking exactly the same as the present they study.
While sceince fiction is more often than not dealing with modern issues, its ability to explore new directions provides it with a certain power that Historians and Social Scientists may never possess. By imagining worlds without modern limitations, one can gain a greater understanding of the present and future. I have no doubt that Social Scientists and especially historians would be angered to be put on a similar level as sceince fiction, but seriously, how different are they? Huntington, Lucas, Pipes, they all have serious egos and end up making up stuff in the end, right?

Social Scientist Prophets

2005-01-13T20:09:00.000-05:00

I thought that the most interesting topic that was discussed in the previous class was the one of how valid is the work of social scientists. I have always thought their work seemed a bit prophetic, and I have always been skeptical of prophets. Granted, social scientists are supposed to ground their work in rigorous methods that have been shown, through experience, to produce conclusions that have validity. These methods, most conspicously the scientific method, work well in the hard sciences, such as chemistry, physics, biology, etc... because in such fields, a hypothesis is either a correct or incorrect description of natural laws. However, in the social sciences, researchers are not experimenting with natural laws but human laws. This latter group cannot be applied universally, such as the laws of gravity (yes I know that this example is not fool-proof, but let us not bother ourselves with insignificant technicalities), and therefore can never be reasoned out in the abstract. For example, knowing the laws of gravity, the scientists at NASA were able to successfully land a man on the moon. To do this, they did not conduct experiments in landing things on the moon, but instead conducted abstract experiments that were able to be generalized because of the nature of gravity. However, to take the example from class, Huntington's experiment, his clash of civilizations, is not able to be generalized. This is because his conclusions are based on his knowledge of the human construct of culture. Yet, inherent in this construct is his own personal bias. So, what may seem apparent to him may not even be evident to a scholar from a completely different background. Given this, how can Huntington generalize his conclusions? I do not believe he can. Instead, he can tell a story of possibilities. Yet, is this not exactly what writers of science fiction do?
Should we then consult science fiction when making decisions about policy just as often as we consult scholarly research? Well, I cannot answer this question in the affirmative. For all its shortcomings of generality, the social sciences do still offer an investigation into our societies hopefully based on fully exhausted examinations of data. The research is aimed at answering a specific question about a specific aspect of our culture, and therefore can offer a well-informed insight into said culture. For the same merit though, let us not discount what science fiction has to say. Good science fiction is often well-researched and thoroughly reasoned-out. While its methods may not be formalized and its goal not as specific as social-science research, it too is an investigation into our societies that yields interesting and sometimes valid conclusions.
To denounce science fiction and proclaim the social sciences as our only means to discovering trends within our culture only seems more firmly attach that characteristic of prophecy to the latter. If the social sciences are unwilling to accept any alternative then they are indeed stating that only they, by virtue of their nature, can examine our society and offer conclusions that can imply or foretell the future. This is not the case though. Literature, and in our case science fiction, can also and has served this function.

2005-01-12T19:47:00.000-05:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Soundcheck

2005-01-12T19:32:00.000-05:00

Testing 1 2 3