Morals

What i thought to be interesting, and something not really discussed in class, is that in a society whith unlimited resources and endless backups of lives, does conventional morality exist? What is to stop someone from going on a killing spree just because they can? The people they kill will be fine, just reborn a few hours later, minus the trauma of dying. Indeed, with the odd sort of envelope pushing sports the people of the masq hub like, i could imagine it becoming a new sport, the new version of Lava rafting. Getting killed clubs would sprout up all over the place. There could even be versions of it like that mini story the greatest hunt or whatever it was called with humans being the prey. Why wouldn't there be hunting clubs set off to kill people, or sniping clubs, set to kill people remotely, suddenly.
The reason we don't kill people in normal morality is because we have been taught it's wrong, and we've been taught that because to us, death is final. Not so with the Culture. Death is merely an inconevnience if you so chose. WIth the endless ablility to hit the "do over" button, anythin can be come allowed, because anything can be undone. The only moral taboo in the culture seems to be the raping of a sentient persons mind, a thought invasion, the only part of a being that truely matters. The body can be rebuilt or changed, the mind is forever.

This has been a great class, and I've enjoyed most of every minute of it. Thank you to my classmates and Prof. Jackson for making it so enjoyable.

First of all I must say that I rather enjoyed the part in class where we solved the triangle problem despite the fact that I forgot most of the principles we used to solve it many years ago. Having said that I find it interesting that in class we never touched on the whole issue of the Culture's intervention in Chelgrian society. It seems like something we should have jumped on given the ominous similarities to the United State's involvement in Iraq, but since we didnt I will endevor to discuss here. There are of course obvious differences between the example of Chel and Iraq. For starters the Culture didn't invade Chel as we did in Iraq, but I still think an attempt could be made at drawing a parallel. Both examples saw a major power interfere in the affairs of a much weaker state with the best of intentions and in both cases things did not go exactly according to the plan. In the book a viscious civil war erupted amongst the Chel and in Iraq the same perhaps could be said (I dont really want to get into the political squabbles over the use of the term civil war. Suffice to say things are not so good there now). However I think the key difference that I mentioned earlier between the intervention on Chel and the intervention in Iraq really hampers the efforts to draw effective parallels. I think that the Culture's intervention on Chel is closer to the old style great power moves of the great powers in the 19th century where they would influence the smaller nations but do it all unofficially. They would not have any formal control over these small countries they would just be in their "spheres of influence." All of which was just a fancy way of saying that they really were in fact under the control of whichever great power whose "sphere of influence" they were in.

Going of the theme of great power politics this book reminded me of some of what I have learned in my Modern Revolutions class. In class we learned how the great European powers began to penetrate and intervene in the civilizations of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East in the 19th century. The Europeans were much more powerful than these other civilizations and were able to dominate them and extract various concessions from them. This in turn lead to nationalists to despise the West, but they were not powerful enough to take on the Europeans so instead they went after their own governments and vented their frustrations on them via revolution. I sort of see the same thing with the Civil War on Chel. The Culture intervened and the Chel took out there anger on their government through the civil war. Of course this is far from a perfect parallel since the Chel did not even know the Culture had meddled in their affairs until after the civil war broke out, but I think the end result is somewhat similar.

Essentially in my mind the whole issue of the Culture meddling in Chelgrian affairs reminded me of the interventions by both superpowers in smaller countries throughout the Cold War and the interventions of Europeans in non-European states throughout the 19th Century. Although really the truth is stronger states have meddled in the affairs of weaker ones since the dawn of time. It is in my opinion a very interesting topic and one that I wish we had had more time to discuss in class.

Well, that was an interesting last class.

On a totally unrelated note: humor.

Okay, now that I've poked fun at Trekkies, back on topic.

Actually, let's run with that. What the devil is wrong with these freaks? Subsuming their (as far as anyone knows) one real life in their obsession with the fantastical creation of someone else's mind, learning Klingon and the code of Vulcans; are they the epitome of the social leech, not even able to take charge of their own passtimes, or are they just deviant? Same question about World of Warcraft players, and anyone else who spends a significant portion of their time engaged in a fantasy world. What is wrong with these people, that they turn away from real reality to a fantasy one?

Note that this isn't quite the same question as the one we discussed in class: What is the difference between heaven, World of Warcraft, and the life backed-up Culture citizens lead? I'm concerned with the relative value of "real life" measured against fantasy lives of all sorts. Why do we as a society think less of a twenty something year old who makes just enough to support his WoW (or crack, whatever) habit and pay for food and rent, than we think of a Horatio Alger type Master of Mathematics holding computer programmer? Certainly, mainstream society rewards this type of personality, and glorifies it, to some degree.

But then we've got movies like Fight Club, which reflect ennui (in the movie, insomnia) and discontent with the worker bee role, and The Matrix, whose popularity must have been in part due to identification with Thomas Anderson, and a desire to be similarly called to a life that, though dangerous and uncomfortable, is at least interesting.

Of course, the popularity of these movies is, interpreted differently, just an indication that there are a lot of half-disconnected individuals out there. The question remains unanswered, except in the fact that survival and propagation is due to being connected to physical reality, not electronic, emotional, or spiritual fantasies. If WoW addicts have children or an impact on anything outside Azeroth, Lordaeron, Kalimdor and Outland, it is because they disconnect from the game long enough to take the time to eat and raise a family. So, is there anyone out there who can prove that survival is worth the effort?

Not only was the last class really fun but this has definitely been one of my favorite classes at AU. That said, I'll move on to Look to Windward:

Maybe I just can't imagine what a world would be like without scarcity and without inevitable death, but I think that life in the Culture would be less satisfying than mine is now. I think that I feel pleasure in my life because I also feel pain. I have negative emotions to compare my positive emotions to so that I know when something is good or bad. If I lived in the Culture I would be the one lava rafting and not teleporting out at the last minute because I think that rushes of fear and discomfort are necessary for happiness. I also do not think that I would want to be stored in a soulkeeper because coming back to life as only a mind is only half of the human package. I think that I would be depressed without a body.

To extend this same thought process to Chel, their institutionalization of heaven and religion is a wonderful commentary on the role that religion plays in our society, today. Religion is hope, faith in something greater than us that both "gives" us a system of ethics and allows us to feel that if things are not going well now, that if we are good they will go well later (if not on earth, in heaven). Faith is no longer necessary in a world without scarcity because there is no need to believe that something greater will either help you out of your current situation or allow you access to heaven because there are limited situations where you feel that you can not solve your problems. Scarcity breeds problems that you alone can not solve and this, I think, is why so many people turn to religion (in our society today). Soulkeepers have become faith and replaced religion. The need for a higher being has been replaced by the idea that advanced science can remove death and uncertainty. In our society today, religion helps people deal with uncertainty. With soulkeepers there is no more uncertainty, you know that you can "live" after death and that you can go to "heaven". I think that Quilan has faith because the certainty of his wife's soul being stored was lost. He can no longer believe that science will save him because he feels extreme pain. Quilan, in a way, understands why people have faith in a higher being in our society today...to help save us from the uncertainty, despair, and scarcity that we can not deal with. Quilan wants to die not only because he is unable to recover from his wife's death but because he can not believe in the system that has been created to institutionalize heaven and remove certain death. He can not continue to live in a world that can't support him emotionally.

I think that the structure of Culture is interesting in that it is called a democracy but it is really a society controlled by all-knowing, ever-accessible minds. In the novel Kabe, Zillner and the avatar had a discussion about Culture as a democracy when they were talking about the building of the cable car system. Mr. Latry wanted to (and did) build the cable cars. There were people for his idea and people against it and groups were created and votes occurred. They eventually settled on an "agreement" but Mr. Latry basically won. The avatar made two comments about the dispute, (p. 237): "they had a name by this time; always a bad sign" (in response to groups naming themselves on either side of the debate) and "Believe me; democracy in action can be an unpretty sight." (in response to the whole voting situation). The Culture in a sense is the perfect democracy because people are happy (with unlimited resources) and they are free and have a say on issues that they feel are important (in the cable car instance), but instead of having to deal with manipulative politicians who are always trying to "sell" issues and viewpoints to them citizens of the Culture instead have an impartial, all-knowing, god-like computer system that can solve problems and in a sense not bother the population with political issues. The population is not told about the threat that Quilan posed to the people of Culture, because it is not necessary (because the Hub removed the 3 objects that Quilan displaced). So is this better, that the culture "knows" who the enemies are and how it should act and so it in a sense doesn't involve civilians in any sort of policy or manipulation about how they should feel about the other. If Quilan had tried to destroy 10% of the population of the U.S., for example, our politicians would have manipulated the situation to make us hate the responsible "other". Is it better that the essential policies of the Hub are unknown or not necessary to be known to the citizens of Culture? Does this make Culture more humane to the "other"? It seems as though the Culture can appear to be humane and accepting of "others" especially because it has a few ambassadors living on Culture. However, the reason why people like Zeller and Kabe are called ambassadors is because the Culture wants them to go back home and talk about how great Culture is. Also, by the Culture having such great technology and doing most of its action in secret it is actually able to manipulate the other so that the Culture can benefit. I really enjoyed Look to Windward and I think that it can be used as a great tool to look at contemporary society and the "other".

Hmm, as well writtin as Look to Windward is, I must admit that no particular theme jumped out at me. There is the thread of personal responsibility to one's parents, in the form of Ziller's relation to his species. There is the question of justice and vengeance, in the great scheme to destroy Hub. There is the question of Major Quilan's motives, his desire for a useful death (and who can entirely resist the allure of such a romantic end? Very Norse, that). There is even the question of whether the hypothetical plot by the rogue Minds might, on some level, be reasonable (justified is another question), in that the Culture really does seem a decadent and bourgeois. . . culture. I think this last point is the most compelling, in part due to the title of this week's discussion.


What happens when we eliminate scarcity? The people of the Culture seem happy, intelligent, well fed, and rather shallow. There is Uagen Zlepe, scholar, who breaks this trend, and his impassioned moment. "I'm Culture, he thought to himself. This is what you're meant to do in such a situation. This is what it's all about." Is this passion and verve a product of Uagen's personality (he is a scholar on a mission even before the novel starts, unlike any Culture individual we see), or is it one of his circumstances? This is, when humans are given enough of everything, do they retreat into virtual reality and games mania, with a few oddballs pursuing greater lives, or do they recognise that happiness is the only meaning in an empty universe, and would all go to the lengths Uagen does, were they called to duty?


Also: in case people read this who don't read PTJ's other blog:
http://profptj.blogspot.com/

One of the most interesting aspects in Look to Windward was the concept of backing up. I found the idea that you could be able to save a copy of your mind state and after the death of the body be able to bring yourself back whenever you like both intriguing and disturbing. I find it disturbing because it seems like this would cause problems. I mean people have to die. Otherwise you run out of resources and space, although I do realize that Banks basically solves this problem by giving his society infinite resources and infinite space in the form of well space and basically the ability to create worlds. Also I find it somewhat disturbing from a religious standpoint. It just seems to me that humans and really all living beings are supposed to die and when it becomes possible to repeatedly cheat death and effectively live forever that just seems wrong to me. Yet at the same time the whole idea is very interesting, perhaps exciting is a better word, becaue it seems that the ability to cheat death has been one of mankind's greatest dreams since the dawn of time. Having said all that I feel that if I was given the opportunity to back myself up I dont think I could resist that temptation. The other interesting thing about backing up is that in the Chelgrian plan to destroy the hub they said they expected five billion to die. Yet, four billion of these are backed up copies of people's mindstates. They arent actually physical bodies. So 80% of the people Quilan is expected to kill are actually already dead.

Another interesting issue is the whole cause of the Chelgrian Civil War. Everyone keeps talking about how it was the Culture's fault that it happened, but I really disagree with that assesment. I think it is unfair to lay the blame for the war soley at the feet of the Culture. Yes, perhaps their interference helped set things in motion but it did not cause the violence all by itself. Personally I think three thousand years of societal oppression based on a rigid caste system had much more to do with that. It seems to me that the Culture wanted to stop the war and they felt that the best way to do that was give the Chelgrians a common enemy so they claimed to have started the war (for those who balk at my use of claim, I am not saying that they didnt interfere but I think the claim of starting the war is a gross exageration), and the Chelgrians jumped at this idea because they didnt want to take the responsibility for what they had doen to themselves.

A final point I wanted to make is that when reading about the Idiran war I was struck by its resemblence to the Pacific theater in World War II. It mentioned that the Idirans were on the offensive in the early part of the war and maybe great gains and that it was all the Culture could do to retreat in an orderly fashion. This seems to me to be just like the Japanese initial attack in the Pacific where they gained much ground and the US was pretty much in full retreat. Then the Culture began to bring its massive industrial capacity to bear and it threw the Idirans back. This is just like how the United States turned the tide against Japan thanks to our superior industrial capacity. Finally the Culture demanded unconditional surrender, just like the United States did, and the twin novae I thought were similar to the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one key difference here is that the Idirans destroyed the two stars and in my reading they are the Japanese who most certainly did not bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.