Escape Artists
January 24, 2017, 02:17:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
  Print  
Author Topic: EP519: Artemis Rising – In Their Image  (Read 3427 times)
Moritz
Lochage
*****
Posts: 434



« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2016, 12:30:37 PM »

I think I am filing this episode as one of those "could be useful for an anthropology course" ones...
Logged
Unblinking
Sir Postsalot
Hipparch
******
Posts: 8595



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2016, 12:54:34 PM »

Quote
but I don't think being taking a strong stance that murder is bad is a reprehensible one.
If the followers are dying in accordance with their will (for instance, the in-story killing we see), is it really murder?  Sounded like people were only killed at their own request, at least within the narrative.

I think that there's an argument for saying that people who ask to be killed should be allowed to be killed. 

Tricky question, though, if you believe that they are only asking to die because society expects them to ask to die, does that actually mean they WANT to die?  I don't know about you, but society expects a lot of things from me that I don't want to do but I feel pressured to do.  And, at a certain stage of my life (especially the teenage years) if there was a strong societal expectation for me to ask for death, maybe I would've, because at that age pushing back against expectations felt like death.  That doesn't mean I would've wanted it, and it doesn't mean it would be right.
If they want to die now and you save their life, and later they are grateful for you saving their life, does that mean that it was good to save them or not? 
If they do truly want to die, but only because they have been entrenched in a belief that appears to be provably untrue (that one can only ever have a single purpose), is it worth at least trying to delay the death to share a point of view that involves NOT dying?  Dying is, after all, irrevocable.

If one is to go by the argument that stopping people from dying who wish to die at the time, then where does that leave suicidally depressed human beings?  By that philosophy, is it ethically wrong to try to prevent a suicide when someone is in a downswing of depression?  What if the person thanks you for it later after their depression has been treated and is under some control? 

Logged
Fenrix
Curmudgeonly Co-Editor of PseudoPod
EA Staff
*****
Posts: 3471


Have you found the Yellow Sign?


« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2016, 12:59:13 PM »


I think that there's an argument for saying that people who ask to be killed should be allowed to be killed. 


One of the most fascinating arguments I've seen to encapsulate this concept: if you are not allowed to choose the means and time of your death, then who owns you?
Logged

I always lock the door when I creep by daylight.
matweller
EA Staff
*****
Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2016, 01:35:37 PM »

If one is to go by the argument that stopping people from dying who wish to die at the time, then where does that leave suicidally depressed human beings?  By that philosophy, is it ethically wrong to try to prevent a suicide when someone is in a downswing of depression?  What if the person thanks you for it later after their depression has been treated and is under some control?  
I think the right to make decisions on your own behalf trumps "what if." I mean, if someone can talk someone else out of it, great. But if not, there should be no burden on the living for it. I mean, what about the ones who are saved and continue horribly tortured lives just to make someone else happy?

And there's something of an argument to be made for mental illness being a function of natural selection. I'm not arguing the moral/ethical side here, I'm just saying, the human race grew and prospered before Zoloft, and arguably we did so in much better physical and mental shape.
Logged
Unblinking
Sir Postsalot
Hipparch
******
Posts: 8595



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2016, 02:39:45 PM »

Quote
One of the most fascinating arguments I've seen to encapsulate this concept: if you are not allowed to choose the means and time of your death, then who owns you?


I am not sure that the teddies in the story are actually choosing their time of death, though, or if they are just doing what is expected of them.


I think the right to make decisions on your own behalf trumps "what if." I mean, if someone can talk someone else out of it, great. But if not, there should be no burden on the living for it. I mean, what about the ones who are saved and continue horribly tortured lives just to make someone else happy?

Absolutely.  I'm not saying it's a clear-cut issue.  I am saying that is NOT.  There are many different angles.  If someone is in the throes of depression but can recover and live a regular life with treatment, whether you are doing what they want depends on when you consider the question.  Maybe the day before they wanted to live, the day after they wanted to live, is it okay to let a person die in a brief time that they want to die, knowing that once the action is taken there is no way to take it back?

And there's something of an argument to be made for mental illness being a function of natural selection. I'm not arguing the moral/ethical side here, I'm just saying, the human race grew and prospered before Zoloft, and arguably we did so in much better physical and mental shape.

The human race makes lots of decisions that altered natural selection.  Diabetics, myopia, schizophrenia, cleft palate, any of these things would've been likely to kill someone at some point in history. 

Were we really in better physical shape, when life expectancy was in the 30's?

Were we really in better mental shape?

Logged
FireTurtle
Hipparch
******
Posts: 879



« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2016, 02:42:49 PM »

Ultimately what I'm seeing in this tangential thread is an argument over an individual's right to direct their fate. Whereas, the question might be "Does the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few?" It seems that the teddies have circumvented this conundrum by just designating the outliers as "Outliers" and consigning them to their fate.

To be honest, I'm a little disturbed by the "colonialist" perspective that seems to be dominating this tangent. Murder is a human concept. Teddies are not human, therefore can we really apply our morality to their existence? Time and again here on earth certain cultural practices have been deemed barbaric and attempts have been made to eradicate them to "benefit" the participants with the somehow unpredictable result of total societal collapse. Why do we know better than the Teddies?
Logged

“My imagination makes me human and makes me a fool; it gives me all the world and exiles me from it.”
Ursula K. LeGuin
Not-a-Robot
Hipparch
******
Posts: 810


Now 100% biological and 3 x more optimism!


« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2016, 03:49:04 PM »

To be honest, I'm a little disturbed by the "colonialist" perspective that seems to be dominating this tangent. Murder is a human concept. Teddies are not human, therefore can we really apply our morality to their existence? Time and again here on earth certain cultural practices have been deemed barbaric and attempts have been made to eradicate them to "benefit" the participants with the somehow unpredictable result of total societal collapse. Why do we know better than the Teddies?

Hah.  I had the same feeling.  I just failed to articulate it above.
Logged
Unblinking
Sir Postsalot
Hipparch
******
Posts: 8595



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2016, 04:48:25 PM »

To be honest, I'm a little disturbed by the "colonialist" perspective that seems to be dominating this tangent. Murder is a human concept. Teddies are not human, therefore can we really apply our morality to their existence? Time and again here on earth certain cultural practices have been deemed barbaric and attempts have been made to eradicate them to "benefit" the participants with the somehow unpredictable result of total societal collapse. Why do we know better than the Teddies?

I may have not conveyed myself unclearly, but I wasn't trying to say that that protagonist was correct.  Especially when dealing with an alien species, our understanding may have no basis whatsoever.  Speaker for the Dead was very good at conveying that ambiguity and it's one of the reasons I liked that story and this one.

I think the protagonist thought she was doing good by trying to prevent teddies giving themselves up for death.  I can understand why she believes that.  I don't necessarily think that she is doing a good thing thing, and like I was trying to say about her behavior being dictated by the church's desire to expand (a kind of colonialism as you say) but which isn't necessarily in anyone's best interest. 

But, I also don't think it's clear cut that just because a teddy has asked for death, that it means that the teddy WANTS death.  Those are very different things, and I feel like, in her position, that would at least be a thing worth thinking about and discussing with the teddies.  For instance, that starving teddy's purpose is to starve, but when offered food it snatched that food up and ran.  If that teddy really WANTED to starve, then why does it do that?  From that it seems to me that it's at least possible that none of the teddies (or just some subset of the teddies) want to die any more than I want to die, but that they feel obligated to seek death by social pressures acting upon them. 

If one supposedly wants to starve but finds it very difficult to starve because your body makes you want to eat, is it okay to feed you?  Maybe the teddies would view that act like giving a recovering alcoholic a shot of whiskey--something that would be hard to resist but is ultimately going to wreck you.

I'm not really taking a stance on any of this, just saying that I think there's a lot of interesting ambiguity and I love that about this story.
Logged
matweller
EA Staff
*****
Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2016, 12:05:42 AM »

Were we really in better physical shape, when life expectancy was in the 30's?

Were we really in better mental shape?
I don't know. Have you ever worked in a nursing home?

I'm not really taking a stance on any of this, just saying that I think there's a lot of interesting ambiguity and I love that about this story.

Agreed completely. I wasn't stating facts or even opinions, just throwing out possibilities to consider. Thinking all sides of a question is my specialty. Deciding on the best path after isn't always... Tongue

One of my favorite aspects of the recent rash of apocalypse stories in the world is the number of authors that acknowledge and account for the survivors that suddenly find themselves without a source for their meds.
Logged
Lionman
Peltast
***
Posts: 129


Next time, I'll just let sleeping dogs lie.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2016, 12:47:56 AM »

Overall, I really liked this story.  For me, and my personal experiences, it really connected.  At first, I wasn't sure if I liked the use of the scents the Teddy's gave off or not, but then later, as we encounter the Teddy whose purpose is to starve, I felt like that writing mechanic really started to work the way the author hoped it might.
Logged

Failure is an event, not a person.
Not-a-Robot
Hipparch
******
Posts: 810


Now 100% biological and 3 x more optimism!


« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2016, 03:30:19 AM »

Were we really in better physical shape, when life expectancy was in the 30's?

Were we really in better mental shape?
I don't know. Have you ever worked in a nursing home?

- Aging researcher here

There are many therapies that extend life expectancy.  Many of those therapies also extend quality of life and have anti aging effects.  Are there some therapies that only extend life expectancy?  Yes, but most also extend quality of life.  Nevertheless, be are all going to age and die (if we're lucky) when it comes to that point, our bodies and minds go, but we have managed to push the biological age of an individual back with modern therapies. 

In other words, there are always going to be nursing homes, and we are always going to lose our bodies and minds before the end of life.  But this is something that has previously happened at a younger physical age.
Logged
matweller
EA Staff
*****
Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2016, 09:36:53 AM »

Were we really in better physical shape, when life expectancy was in the 30's?

Were we really in better mental shape?
I don't know. Have you ever worked in a nursing home?

- Aging researcher here

There are many therapies that extend life expectancy.  Many of those therapies also extend quality of life and have anti aging effects.  Are there some therapies that only extend life expectancy?  Yes, but most also extend quality of life.  Nevertheless, be are all going to age and die (if we're lucky) when it comes to that point, our bodies and minds go, but we have managed to push the biological age of an individual back with modern therapies. 

In other words, there are always going to be nursing homes, and we are always going to lose our bodies and minds before the end of life.  But this is something that has previously happened at a younger physical age.
I probably should have added enough smilies to make it obvious that was very tongue-in-cheek. Mostly because I know my answer to the original question is that yes, I think from a higher-level view of the human animal, our species probably was probably hardier in a lot of ways in those earlier times. Mind you, some of the biggest jumps in life expectancy have come not from surgical or pharmacological advances, but from simple habit changes like hand washing and I'm not above removing dysentery from the list of life span reducers. And while I wouldn't propose a stop to the search for knowledge, I've sometimes wondered about the long term benefits of technologies that weaken the species by keeping abnormalities in the gene pool that would have otherwise been weeded out.

Though, as has come up in discussion of other stories that explore the topic, I also love the idea that some of those abnormalities could actually become advancements in themselves or by being allowed to develop into their next evolution. For example, we believe autistics may be super-high functioning within their own minds, they just lack the ability to articulate what's going on in there, so what if the next evolution of that was telepathy that allowed them to communicate with each other, and the next evolution of that was complete physical transcendence?

Regardless, I'm secure in the belief that I am not an evolution of anything and have asked my wife that when I get to be on the edge of daftness, if I walk off into the woods, she should not send anyone to find me for at least a week, and then the search party should come with shoves and just bury me where I lay. I expect that will be sometime in the next 25 years or so.
Logged
SpareInch
Hipparch
******
Posts: 1099


Will there be sugar after the rebellion?


« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2016, 01:59:11 PM »

- Aging researcher here

You mean you research ageing? Or that you're  a researcher who's knocking on in years? Tongue
Logged

Smiley
Thunderscreech
Matross
****
Posts: 296



« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2016, 02:24:19 PM »

You mean you research ageing? Or that you're  a researcher who's knocking on in years? Tongue
We're allele curious, tell o'mere.
Logged
biomathics23
Palmer
**
Posts: 26


« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2016, 05:31:07 PM »

I'm not really taking a stance on any of this, just saying that I think there's a lot of interesting ambiguity and I love that about this story.

Precisely what I enjoyed about it too.  Great fodder for discussion, especially among the inquisitive and open-minded.  I would also enjoy a sequel with a second human church of a different religion in the area to see how that would shake things up for the preacher.
Logged
FireTurtle
Hipparch
******
Posts: 879



« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2016, 09:05:04 PM »

I'm not going to do quotes merely because my iPhone is a cumbersome mechanism for that. Suffice it to say I'm responding to the responses to my "colonialist perspective" mini-rant. I guess what I failed to say --in light of further clarifications- is that no one is talking about this (until now) from the Teddy's perspective. If someone comes along and tells you you no longer have a purpose (aka reason for being a part of God, reason for existing) whether it be starving or being a "worshiper" how's that gonna work for you?
The MC never questions her own purpose, but feels free to question the Teddy's. Hmmmm
Logged

“My imagination makes me human and makes me a fool; it gives me all the world and exiles me from it.”
Ursula K. LeGuin
johnnaryry
Extern
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2016, 05:04:00 PM »

This one is still rattling around loose in my psyche -- and will most likely continue to do so for quite some time. I plan to share it with my Dad who's a Deacon in the Catholic Church.
Logged
Unblinking
Sir Postsalot
Hipparch
******
Posts: 8595



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2016, 11:21:53 AM »

I'm not going to do quotes merely because my iPhone is a cumbersome mechanism for that. Suffice it to say I'm responding to the responses to my "colonialist perspective" mini-rant. I guess what I failed to say --in light of further clarifications- is that no one is talking about this (until now) from the Teddy's perspective. If someone comes along and tells you you no longer have a purpose (aka reason for being a part of God, reason for existing) whether it be starving or being a "worshiper" how's that gonna work for you?
The MC never questions her own purpose, but feels free to question the Teddy's. Hmmmm

I have been thinking about it from the Teddy's perspective, I guess I didn't say that?  I guess I thought that angle was clear enough from the story that we were all thinking it?  Maybe not?  

It would certainly be troublesome for someone to come into your world and declare that every belief that has given you purpose, that is your path to seeking god, is wrong.  I also think that, to the starving teddy, it might not be the worst thing in the world to be told "Hi, have some food.  If you don't starve, it's worth considering that God maybe won't die because of it."

I certainly think that she SHOULD question her purpose there and should take a more nuanced empathetic approach, but I thought it was internally consistent for a missionary to NOT do so given that the occupation involves trying to bring others into the fold.  

Quote
For example, we believe autistics may be super-high functioning within their own minds, they just lack the ability to articulate what's going on in there, so what if the next evolution of that was telepathy that allowed them to communicate with each other, and the next evolution of that was complete physical transcendence?

For what it's worth, I don't think that autistic people need to reach another stage of evolution and I'm not sure there's evidence that they are a new evolutionary thing, rather than just normal variation in brain functionality that has been around for all of human history but not recognized as such.  I think that neurodiversity is as important as biodiversity to allow the human species to be as flexible as possible for survival.  If we all think the same way, then the species as a whole is vulnerable to environmental conditions that are less easily resolved by that kind of thinkers.  


(I also don't think it's necessary for every person or group of people to serve a purpose in a measurable sense to be valuable.  That line of thinking can start down a scary path of eugenics leading to a set of characteristics that define a master race and how best to engineer that master race)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 11:25:13 AM by Unblinking » Logged
matweller
EA Staff
*****
Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2016, 03:14:19 PM »

Quote
For example, we believe autistics may be super-high functioning within their own minds, they just lack the ability to articulate what's going on in there, so what if the next evolution of that was telepathy that allowed them to communicate with each other, and the next evolution of that was complete physical transcendence?

For what it's worth, I don't think that autistic people need to reach another stage of evolution and I'm not sure there's evidence that they are a new evolutionary thing, rather than just normal variation in brain functionality that has been around for all of human history but not recognized as such.  I think that neurodiversity is as important as biodiversity to allow the human species to be as flexible as possible for survival.  If we all think the same way, then the species as a whole is vulnerable to environmental conditions that are less easily resolved by that kind of thinkers.  

(I also don't think it's necessary for every person or group of people to serve a purpose in a measurable sense to be valuable.  That line of thinking can start down a scary path of eugenics leading to a set of characteristics that define a master race and how best to engineer that master race)

I don't think autistics need to evolve either. It was a story idea. I like fiction. It's why I'm here.

Nor was I advocating eugenics. Like most things humans do, it could be beneficial, but we cannot handle the responsibility. We can't get US citizens to agree that all children should be cared for and fed regardless of the circumstances of their birth -- we're clearly not ready for the moral questions involved in eugenics. Save that for when we get to Star Trek's post-economy civilization.
Logged
Unblinking
Sir Postsalot
Hipparch
******
Posts: 8595



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2016, 05:14:15 PM »

I don't think autistics need to evolve either. It was a story idea. I like fiction. It's why I'm here.

I didn't think you were saying autistics need to evolve but that you were suggesting autism might be a sign of an intermediate stage of evolution, and I was responding to that?  If we were just talking about potential ways to explore the topic in stories then I can't argue with that!  I really enjoyed "Movement" by Nancy Fulda here on EP, for example.

Nor was I advocating eugenics. Like most things humans do, it could be beneficial, but we cannot handle the responsibility. We can't get US citizens to agree that all children should be cared for and fed regardless of the circumstances of their birth -- we're clearly not ready for the moral questions involved in eugenics. Save that for when we get to Star Trek's post-economy civilization.

I didn't mean to say that you advocate eugenics.  But I've had conversations where the topic of the evolutionary advantage of this human trait or that human trait and whether these would be advantageous traits and it seems like those conversations tend to start getting into uncomfortable territory of eugenics more often than not (whether either person advocates it or not).  I guess I didn't have any specific point with saying that, other than that, even if we can all agree on what is a good survival trait and what isn't, deciding what to do with that information can lead down some paths that get uncomfortable pretty quickly.  I should have considered more carefully, I didn't mean to imply.




Aaaanyway...  maybe I should stop speaking up now?  We are rather far afield, and I think I may have caused offense with my previous post.   I should let people talk about the story.  Smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!