EP116: Ej-Es

[ajames]

I have to disagree with what ajames and schark said.  It's not the same as someone you love being brainwashed.  Esefeb never knew what the real world was like.  Her infant brother had the same hallucinations as she and her mother. 

I have to admit I didn't give this part of the story enough weight in my initial assessment.  It really doesn't change my views overall, but it does make me sympathize a bit more with Esefeb and the difficulties she faces after the cure.  And psychological care would definitely be a necessary component of an ethical cure, as Zathras points out.

I still can't see the reluctance on the part of some to intervene.  This is not an alien race, nor are we led to believe it is a group of humans who have willingly decided to let themselves be infected.  Rather it is a colony of humans overcome by a virus that leaves them a shell of their former selves.  What are the traits you admire most in others?  Tenacity in the face of adversity?  Courage?  Never giving up hope?  Generousity?  Kindness?  Are any of these traits existent in Esefeb?

Would you really withhold a cure from your newborn child if they were inflicted with this condition?

Sure, we all want happiness.  But what Nancy Kress has done here is present us with a fine thought experiment, separating happiness from everything else that would be meaningful to humans, and asking us each if we would want it at that price.  Many of us have been brought up on Star Trek and the Prime Directive and have gotten enough diversity training to hesitate before imposing our values on others, but this case the others in question can't speak for themselves.  Put yourself in their shoes - based upon what you know of them, what you know of human beings, what do you think they would want?  Most humans, if not all, think happiness is important.  Some humans think happiness is more important than anything else.  But few humans, if any, think happiness is the only important thing.

Obviously, I don't put much store in the nature of Esefeb's hallucinations.  I don't think she has found a pathway to the meaning of life, or anything else that would give me pause to curing her.  I don't think she is living a full and rich fantasy life.  If I believed she might be, that would make the decision to cure her, and others, more difficult. 

Especially if instead of curing a newborn child, I was faced with curing a senile parent living in pain.

Thanks to Chodon, Mr. Tweedy, and others for giving me some more to think about, and enriching my appreciation of the story!

[johnhummel]

I still can't see the reluctance on the part of some to intervene.  This is not an alien race, nor are we led to believe it is a group of humans who have willingly decided to let themselves be infected.  Rather it is a colony of humans overcome by a virus that leaves them a shell of their former selves. 

I felt much the same way.  While I still had a very emotional reaction to the end of the story, and could sympathize with the feeling of loss (even if that loss is of a fictional person that Esefeb believed was real, and possibly had been her companion her entire life) - I still couldn't conceive that the other researchers would just go "Eh - they must like it that way".

In a sense, the population had lost the ability to have Free Will - their perceptions were so far clouded they could *not* make choices any more.  And, like a child or a mentally ill person, they needed others who could exercise choice to make the decision for them.  So on that part of the story I had to disagree - but perhaps that was just to establish how powerful the moral choice by Mia was:  willing to give up everything *she* knew (much like the colonists were about to give up everything they once knew as she cures them) for her ideals.

Odds are, many will not be pleased with Mia and what she will do to them.  But I do wonder what future generations will think of her.  Will they see her, as one commenter mentioned, as a Lucifer like figure that took them from paradise, or as a Prometheus character who brought them wisdom and freedom from the evil that plagued them? 

[Thaurismunths]

First off, I really enjoyed this story, even though I really thought I was distracted by thinking our narrator was going to get herself infected and live with Esefeb. It’s given me a lot to think about this week, and was a pleasure to hear.

Onto my point: I get the religious parallels, but religion is a choice and it isn’t something you can cure. Schizophrenics live in their own worlds and often suffer from massive depression when their "friends" are taken away, but we force them in to treatment programs (and so I presume they are in the future OR medicine has advanced to a point where such illnesses don’t exist any more). If viewed as the drug addiction it is, it seems painfully clear that the people would benefit from rehab. So why did the counsel decide to leave them alone? Just because the population isn't in pain?
I mean, I heard what they said in the story about this being a cultural difference and the population is growing; but culture suggests civilization, and the population is only getting bigger based on luck.
I agree with ajames about this not being an alien race. We have a baseline for standard human civilizations, and I'll bet that this planet falls pretty far outside of it. Their life style doesn't exist by any choice we can see (such as intentionally contracting or inflicting the disease on others), nor is it based on necessity like the religious laws referenced in the marine guidelines. The other maladies are not side-effects of the one infection, they are known diseases (the “fungus” on her head was ringworm) that take advantage of the human in a weakened state.

Also: How do offspring survive to maturity with no maternal instincts?

[Chodon]

So why did the counsel decide to leave them alone? Just because the population isn't in pain?

I think they were too nervous about being infected themselves.  They didn't want to chance taking the disease off-planet so they decided to just bug out.  At least that's what I got from it.  It seemed like their withdrawl was pretty hasty.

One big question mark I had about this story was how this disease was transmitted.  They mentioned during birth and sexually transmitted,  but never really confirmed it.  They suspected whats-his-face had sex with Esefeb, but never really said one way or the other.  If that was the means of transmission why did they get out of there so fast?  Just keep your junk put away and treat them.

I'm beginning to see both sides of this story.  I think I see a bit more of a moral dilemma than most posters here, but I think the infected do need to be "cured".  Living without personal freedom is no way to live, no matter how happy you are.  Like others, I would have expected Mia to provide some sort of psychological care after the fact.  Why didn't Mia stick around to start treating others?  Why did she just cure Esefeb, then take off into the woods?

Also: How do offspring survive to maturity with no maternal instincts?

This made me wonder how do they made babies at all.  I mean I know HOW they did it,  but they seemed to live pretty isolated lives, and sex had to be pretty lame compared to the halucinations.  What would be the point?

[johnhummel]

It sounds like we liked the basic concepts and message, but some of the specifics (breeding, child care, etc) are niggle points that are bringing us down.  Or at least that's how I feel.  But for the emotional impact of the effect Mia's actions had on Esefeb - combined with the great voice acting - really hit me at my emotional core, so I'll say I enjoyed the story, I like how it tied back into the song, and I found myself really liking Mia, and the lengths she was willing to go through to do what she thought was right.

Her actions reminded me of the best description of Good and Evil I've ever read:  You have to choose between doing what is Right, and what is Easy.  Mia choose what was Right - the others on her team, I'm afraid to say, took the Easy way out.

[Dex]

Her actions reminded me of the best description of Good and Evil I've ever read:  You have to choose between doing what is Right, and what is Easy.  Mia choose what was Right - the others on her team, I'm afraid to say, took the Easy way out.

Why can't what is right also be easy or what is evil difficult?

The Laches, also known as Courage, a Socratic dialogue written by Plato might be of interest to you.

You could also say that Mia's team took what their procedures told them to do for self preservation which is the first step to help people in need.  Second the people on the planet have been living in their state for quite some time.  So Mia's team did the right thing - self preservation; study the disease and then you have the opportunity to return and help.

Wasn't Mia the leader?  And didn't she abandon her post?  Is this good leadership?  I don't see much objective good in her actions.

[johnhummel]

Her actions reminded me of the best description of Good and Evil I've ever read:  You have to choose between doing what is Right, and what is Easy.  Mia choose what was Right - the others on her team, I'm afraid to say, took the Easy way out.

Why can't what is right also be easy or what is evil difficult?

The Laches, also known as Courage, a Socratic dialogue written by Plato might be of interest to you.

You could also say that Mia's team took what their procedures told them to do for self preservation which is the first step to help people in need.  Second the people on the planet have been living in their state for quite some time.  So Mia's team did the right thing - self preservation; study the disease and then you have the opportunity to return and help.

Wasn't Mia the leader?  And didn't she abandon her post?  Is this good leadership?  I don't see much objective good in her actions.

I'm not sure if you're pulling a Socrates and being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but:

1.  Didn't say it can't.  But let's face it:  people usually do what's wrong because it's easier to steal than to earn, it's easier to put a person in jail and not have a trial than to put your evidence up for inspection and let them go free.  It's easier to lie about why you're doing something to gain support than to lie and possibly lose support.  Evil *can* be more difficult (see "Freakonomics" and the chapter on drug dealers who barely make minimum wage) - though it doesn't always have to be (usually, though, we call that "stupid" when you do more work being rotten than it would take being good).

2.  I wouldn't say that Mia's people were "evil" or "bad" - they made the decision they thought was right - but it was also the far easier one, with far less risk.

3.  Mia was *a* leader, but listening to the story it was clear she was not *the* leader (or else she would have pulled rank and forced them to stay).  The story made it clear in the beginning that this was her last mission anyway, so you could probably say she "deserted the Core" - so the story gave us that out to begin with.  After this mission, she was free to do whatever she wanted - she choose to stay on the planet.

As for "...much objective good in her actions" - I can not disagree more.  What is more noble, more giving, than to be willing to risk your life for other in need?  Who knows what other dangers she could experience as an older person, alone among natives (some of whom, once cured, might be less than happy with her in their new state)?  What about the odds that, vaccine or not, she still couldn't contract this disease or some derivitive?  By staying alone, she removed the risk of spreading it to other colonies.  She is removing a disease that while it gives "happiness" to the victims, also robs them of true free will and the ability to choose.  She is ridding people of parasites that reduces their life, saving children from malnutrition as parents become more aware of their surroundings.  How can this *not* be defined as a good thing?

So I am sorry, but I must respectfully disagree:  Mia made a hard choice to leave all that she knew, to go help people she hardly knew, to wipe their butts and sweat and spit as they are rid of their disease, to make them better than they were before - even if they do suffer from the loss of their delusion.  If you feel they are better in their current state, I'll respect that opinion - but disagree all the same.

[Dex]

Her actions reminded me of the best description of Good and Evil I've ever read:  You have to choose between doing what is Right, and what is Easy.  Mia choose what was Right - the others on her team, I'm afraid to say, took the Easy way out.

Why can't what is right also be easy or what is evil difficult?

The Laches, also known as Courage, a Socratic dialogue written by Plato might be of interest to you.

You could also say that Mia's team took what their procedures told them to do for self preservation which is the first step to help people in need.  Second the people on the planet have been living in their state for quite some time.  So Mia's team did the right thing - self preservation; study the disease and then you have the opportunity to return and help.

Wasn't Mia the leader?  And didn't she abandon her post?  Is this good leadership?  I don't see much objective good in her actions.

I'm not sure if you're pulling a Socrates and being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but:

1.  Didn't say it can't.  But let's face it:  people usually do what's wrong because it's easier to steal than to earn, it's easier to put a person in jail and not have a trial than to put your evidence up for inspection and let them go free.  It's easier to lie about why you're doing something to gain support than to lie and possibly lose support.  Evil *can* be more difficult (see "Freakonomics" and the chapter on drug dealers who barely make minimum wage) - though it doesn't always have to be (usually, though, we call that "stupid" when you do more work being rotten than it would take being good).

2.  I wouldn't say that Mia's people were "evil" or "bad" - they made the decision they thought was right - but it was also the far easier one, with far less risk.

3.  Mia was *a* leader, but listening to the story it was clear she was not *the* leader (or else she would have pulled rank and forced them to stay).  The story made it clear in the beginning that this was her last mission anyway, so you could probably say she "deserted the Core" - so the story gave us that out to begin with.  After this mission, she was free to do whatever she wanted - she choose to stay on the planet.

As for "...much objective good in her actions" - I can not disagree more.  What is more noble, more giving, than to be willing to risk your life for other in need?  Who knows what other dangers she could experience as an older person, alone among natives (some of whom, once cured, might be less than happy with her in their new state)?  What about the odds that, vaccine or not, she still couldn't contract this disease or some derivitive?  By staying alone, she removed the risk of spreading it to other colonies.  She is removing a disease that while it gives "happiness" to the victims, also robs them of true free will and the ability to choose.  She is ridding people of parasites that reduces their life, saving children from malnutrition as parents become more aware of their surroundings.  How can this *not* be defined as a good thing?

So I am sorry, but I must respectfully disagree:  Mia made a hard choice to leave all that she knew, to go help people she hardly knew, to wipe their butts and sweat and spit as they are rid of their disease, to make them better than they were before - even if they do suffer from the loss of their delusion.  If you feel they are better in their current state, I'll respect that opinion - but disagree all the same.

First let me say you present your points well and we may be discussing this from different points of view - subjective Vs Objective.

1 - Socrates - I think you will find more insight into the discussion about courage (includes what is good and bad) it will be found with him rather than what is in this story.

2. People - we have a basic disagreement here - I think people are basically good and they learn (usually incrementally) to be evil.  I don't think it is an issue of easier or not.

3. "Mia's people" - followed proceedure that saved the team, allowed them to study the disease, advise their headquarters, possibly find a vaccine that would allow them to return and help the victims.  Assuming that this was easier for them is to assume that they did not want to help the people to some appropriate degree.  If you assume that they really wanted to help the people infected then it was a hard decision.

4. Mia a leader & her last mission - She abandoned her post in time of crisis - let down those who depended upon her.  Being her last mission doesn't justify anything.  Imagine that happening in Iraq. When you are in a unit those to the right and left of you expect that you will be them for you.

5. What is more noble, more giving, than to be willing to risk your life for other in need?  Doing it without shirking your responsibilities to her comrads.  The point you made about helping does not acknowledge the following:
A.  The people infected have been living on the planet for many years - there was no immediate urgency to "cure" them
B. By leaving the planet the team and homebase could have studied the disease; found a vaccine and helped those infected.   

There was nothing noble about Mia's actions.

Using your definition "You have to choose between doing what is Right, and what is Easy."  Mia did the easy thing.  She stayed to help some of the infected people.  Instead of doing the hard thing (hard because she wanted to stay) and going with her comrads helping to find a vaccine and influencing those in authority to get back and help ASAP - she did the easy thing.

[johnhummel]

Mia did the easy thing.  I still can't believe that.  She knows that the ship that leaves without her will be gone for some hundreds of years.  She has remained on the planet to die.  She will have no other people she can talk to.  No shelter save the crude huts.  Only the food that she gathers herself.

She could have remained perfectly safe and comfortable as she traveled at light speed.  Others could come up with a better cure - they hardly need her for that.  And, though this is my interpretation, it was my understanding that the "vote" taken at the planet by the senior staff members was pretty much it - they vote, then when the infection started to spread, they left.  They can go back, work on a cure if they choose - or not.  They might return some hundreds of years later to cure what remains of the population later - or not.  We don't know the politics of this universe, and how likely it was.  It's not a wrong decision made by the commader - his loyalty lay to the people directly under his responsibility, but it certainly was the easier one.  (Side note:  the quote was from Harry Potter, so please don't think that I think that *all* easy choices are "evil" - but I do believe that most "right" choices are the harder ones.)

I am not arguing that the choice to leave was the right one for the rest of the crew - if I was the leader of the team, I might have done the same.  At the same time, Mia's choice was still heroic:  give up everything in her life, to die among strangers for no other reason than she could.  If there are people dying of AIDS, you don't sit back and say "Well, we'll be back when there's a cure - have fun!" 

In this case, Mia decided to stay.  Perhaps she is a filthy, rotten traitor to the Core for having deserted her post.  Fine.  But she still made the harder choice, the choice that will involve toil, and possible danger, and possibly even hatred by a people who will only know she took away her disease induced "happiness", and death away from nearly all modern trappings (since now these people will have to rebuild her civilization, depending on how much still works from the original colony's technology, already some centuries old).  Is her decision full of "honor", leaving her post?  Maybe not - but it is full of compassion to those who are suffering *now*.  And for that, this character has my respect, and my appreciation.

[KnitWitch]

I was really struck by this story and went back and listened to it again today.  The reading was incredible and helped ring home several provocative issues - particularly the need for an always troublesome policy like the "Prime Directive".  Many of my thoughts on this have already been covered in previous messages, so I won't reiterate the analysis that has already been presented.  Did the inhabitants need to be cured - IMHO without having heard any information about their society before the plague my first inclination is to think, "No".

However, I don't think that Mia's decision to stay was necessarily the "easy" one.  In many way I think Keenan's decision to have the team leave so quickly (considering the suspected method of transmission) with the support of regulations was actually easier.  It seems to me that Mia wanted to spend the last of her life doing what she felt was a worthwhile, though misguided, pursuit in "curing" the natives...

I'll wrap up with saying that although I didn't quite grasp it's relevance in the beginning the tie in with the song lyrics at the end was particularly poignant for me, making Esefeb's sense of loss all the more touching. :'(

I have a distinct feeling that I will be listening to this story again soon.

[Dex]

Mia did the easy thing.  I still can't believe that.  She knows that the ship that leaves without her will be gone for some hundreds of years.  She has remained on the planet to die.  She will have no other people she can talk to.  No shelter save the crude huts.  Only the food that she gathers herself.

The story only says that the corps was taken "off planet" - not going home.   So I would think that coming all that way the crew would have worked on a vaccine on the ship; communicated with the home base for what to do next.

Also, aside from all that and from wanting to "cure" the inhabitants she wanted to stay for her own personal reason.  All in all I do think she did the easy thing - to use your terms.  If she had a great life she wanted to return to I might agree with you.

[SFEley]

I'm not sure if you're pulling a Socrates and being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but:

This is a great discussion and I'm happy to see it, but let's please not be too uncharitable about the motivations of others.

By the way, John: your name and fedora both strike me as intensely familiar.  Did you once have a column at a gaming reviews site?  Something about games as art?  If so, I was a big fan of your style.  I contributed letters to your column under the handle "The Spoony Bard."

(If that's not you, then never mind.)  >8->

[johnhummel]

I'm not sure if you're pulling a Socrates and being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but:

This is a great discussion and I'm happy to see it, but let's please not be too uncharitable about the motivations of others.

By the way, John: your name and fedora both strike me as intensely familiar.  Did you once have a column at a gaming reviews site?  Something about games as art?  If so, I was a big fan of your style.  I contributed letters to your column under the handle "The Spoony Bard."

(If that's not you, then never mind.)  >8->

Actually - yes, that was me, back when Gameforms was about.  They kind of vanished off the face of the earth, but - yeah.  Me.  Same guy.  Just - older now .

[ajames]

Did the inhabitants need to be cured - IMHO without having heard any information about their society before the plague my first inclination is to think, "No".

Since we know it was a somewhat advanced human society, my inclination would be "Yes".  But I am very interested in knowing why others would think "No".  Is it because happiness is so important, and so hard to come by, that once found it should be kept, no matter the circumstances [or the quality of the happiness]?  Or is it because the virus is seen to create a rich inner life, somewhat like the Matrix only happier?  Or is it a belief that we should never interfere in such things unless we know for certain that our interference is wanted?  Or is it a cost-benefit analysis, and the cost is simply seen as too high for Esefeb, especially if Mia doesn't provide any after-care?  For those who think "No", do you also think 'No' for Esefeb's baby brother, if Mia did provide after-care?  I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to better understand.

I'm not sure if you're pulling a Socrates and being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but:

This is a great discussion and I'm happy to see it, but let's please not be too uncharitable about the motivations of others.

I totally agree.  Socrates has been dead more than 4,000 years, leave the poor man alone already.

[Chodon]

Since we know it was a somewhat advanced human society, my inclination would be "Yes".  But I am very interested in knowing why others would think "No". 

My thought on why they didn't need to be cured IMMDEIATELY was simply that they were still alive by the time Mia's party arrived.  It was at least long enough for the city's inhabitants to die, completely decay, and their bones to become bleached, which is probably on the order of (I'm guessing here) decades?  Considering the distance between star systems also, unless Mia's party happened to be VERY close (with 10 light years, assuming they can go .999 the speed of light) it could have been as long as a hundred years.  Plus there's some sort of time-dilation effect at near light speeds that makes my brain hurt, so it could have been even longer.  Mia mentioned how everyone they knew back home was long dead because of the relativity of time at high speeds. 

In other words, Esefeb's people weren't in any immediate danger of dying off.  This would have either given Mia's party time to go off-planet and come up with a cure, or to just leave them be since they seem to be surviving on their own.  Depends how "hardcore" you are on the prime directive, I suppose. 

Also, I was trying to think of why Mia would just leave before treating everyone else in the area, and I could only come up with one reason: she infected herself after curing Esefeb.  It wouldn't be a bad way to go out, since she knew she was getting old and tired.  I wouldn't mind having euphoric hallucinations before I kick off...  Thoughts?

[johnhummel]

Since we know it was a somewhat advanced human society, my inclination would be "Yes".  But I am very interested in knowing why others would think "No". 

Also, I was trying to think of why Mia would just leave before treating everyone else in the area, and I could only come up with one reason: she infected herself after curing Esefeb.  It wouldn't be a bad way to go out, since she knew she was getting old and tired.  I wouldn't mind having euphoric hallucinations before I kick off...  Thoughts?

I had worked under the assumption she was going to cure other people, though first she probably would want to set up her own base camp to work from, having learned from the techniques on Esefeb.  That was my understanding:  Esefeb was the first, and then Mia was going to start on everyone else one at a time (probably going to Esefeb's little brother first - though she would probably want to fatten the little guy up first so he'd survive the treatment).

[ClintMemo]

Excellent story.
Excellent reader.

This was certainly one of the most thought provoking storied we've had on escape pod.
Just to toss out my thoughts on a few ongoing topics...

I was sure that Mia was going to intentionally get herself infected and was pleasantly surprised when the story didn't to that way.

I got the impression when the team was leaving, they had decided that they were done - they were not going to take any actions towards helping the people on the planet.  Seen in that light, I think Keenan (and the rest of the council) took the easy way out and left once they knew they could be infected, simply justifying it by trying to invoke their non-interference directive.   Mia definitely made the hard choice of staying. She wasn't happy where she was, but she  certainly wasn't going to be happier where she ended up, unless the happiness she gained from helping them out weighed the misery of what her living conditions would be.

On the question of why the need to help them right away instead of later:
While it's true that their civilization was not in immediate danger of collapsing, leaving things as they were for a several decades would be condemning unknown millions of individuals to living in the same deplorable state as Esefeb.  If they needed to be cured at all, then they needed to be cured ASAP.

[johnhummel]

On the question of why the need to help them right away instead of later:
While it's true that their civilization was not in immediate danger of collapsing, leaving things as they were for a several decades would be condemning unknown millions of individuals to living in the same deplorable state as Esefeb.  If they needed to be cured at all, then they needed to be cured ASAP.

Maybe that's where the balance between how "good" Mia's actions were:  if you consider the weight of the civilization, then waiting a few hundred years wasn't going to matter one way or the other.

If you value the individuals more than the survival of the civilization at large, then acting "now" rather than "later" makes a big difference to your conscience.

[DigitalVG]

I really enjoyed this story and feel it is definitely one of the better things you've run.

I've noticed a lot of people were apprehensive about it because they see it as being like religion but I suppose I saw it more like schizophrenia.  Also fair to point out that religious groups have long had a habit of attempting to cure so-called heathens, cargo-cults, homosexuals, etc.

Most important, this story challenged the very idea of 'good' and 'evil'.   Should religion be 'sacred' even to the injury of it's practitioners?  Faith-healers can go to jail for neglect yet our media condemned Saddam Hussien for banning a religious practice that involved men gashing their heads and beating themselves.  Was Mia following a god-complex, seeing herself as a savior of these people?  Was she selfish, feeling a maternal love for Esefeb?  Was she right?   And Esefeb...  She cries out for her lost imaginary friend at the end of the story, but what about ten years later?  Will she see Mia as friend or foe?  Her disease as paradise lost, or a curse that stole her childhood?  Will she always feel empty and lost?  How does the love of Es-Ej compare with the love a mother feels for a child?  Something they were incapable of with the disease?

This story offers no answers.  It doesn't paint anyone as heroic, good, or evil.  A very VERY refreshing change in a time where it seems common to believe that everyone on the net except for one's self is a demon straight from the smoking pits of Hell or overwhelmingly mentally deficient.

[Leon Kensington]

Most important, this story challenged the very idea of 'good' and 'evil'.   Should religion be 'sacred' even to the injury of it's practitioners?  Faith-healers can go to jail for neglect yet our media condemned Saddam Hussien for banning a religious practice that involved men gashing their heads and beating themselves.

The difference is that Saddam Hussien killed those people for their religion.  I'm not saying that the jailing is always right (just look at this http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/194007.php ) but sometime stuff like what happened last saturday here in Phoenix happens and then jailing is justified is it not?  Hussien just gassed Kirds(sp) for the Hell of it, there is where the difference lies.

[Roney]

Did the inhabitants need to be cured - IMHO without having heard any information about their society before the plague my first inclination is to think, "No".

Since we know it was a somewhat advanced human society, my inclination would be "Yes".  But I am very interested in knowing why others would think "No".  ...  Or is it a cost-benefit analysis, and the cost is simply seen as too high for Esefeb, especially if Mia doesn't provide any after-care?  For those who think "No", do you also think 'No' for Esefeb's baby brother, if Mia did provide after-care?  I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to better understand.

My immediate assumption was that it was the other form of cost-benefit calculation that bedevils health care: how do you best allocate limited resources to unlimited medical problems?  Did these people need a cure to bring them back to a normal level of human functioning?  I agree with ajames: yes, they did.  Did they need a cure to save the people and their colony from death?  No, they did not.  The very existence of the MedCorps suggests that other colonies may well be facing just such a threat to their survival.  While the team get sucked into a protracted, dangerous and uncertain mission to cure these people (and to teach them how to live), they may be neglecting others who more urgently need their help.

Having re-checked the regulations quoted in the story, though, this seems not to have been what Kenin was worried about.  Shame: it would have made Kenin's decision just as morally hard if the regs compelled her to turn her back on people who need her help.

This is the first time Escape Pod has podcast a story that I've recently read in print ("Nightfall" doesn't count because I read it so long ago) so I was curious to find out how the reading would affect my opinion of it.  I was lucky to get such a good reading for this experiment and it made a profound difference to my appreciation of this particular story.  On the page I felt that it was quite laboured, spending a lot of energy establishing a fairly arbitrary medical dilemma that was just a backdrop for the characters, who were what the story was really about.  It was structured a lot like an episode of ST:TNG and that made an awkward format for a short story.  Every line of dialogue had to advance the plot as well as portray the speaker's character, and many lines were overburdened with the amount of information they were required to convey.

It was transformed by a reader who could find a natural intonation for even the clunkiest lines, and add shades of character to some very dry exchanges.  The episodic structure worked naturally in audio and the pace seemed less forced.  In the EP version, I very nearly began to care about Mia and Esefeb.  Overall it was still a bit "meh", but it was a marked improvement for a story that I'd rather disliked.

(Incidentally, that means that Escape Pod has brought me 114 brand new stories (plus flash fiction!) for which many thanks to all involved.)

[DigitalVG]

Most important, this story challenged the very idea of 'good' and 'evil'.   Should religion be 'sacred' even to the injury of it's practitioners?  Faith-healers can go to jail for neglect yet our media condemned Saddam Hussein for banning a religious practice that involved men gashing their heads and beating themselves.

The difference is that Saddam Hussein killed those people for their religion. 

Having grown up spending many of my summers on Creek and Cherokee reservations, I'm having a difficult time finding the difference.  When Saddam Hussein's party came to power in 1968, it was still two years before the majority of schools in the United States were desegregated.  Homosexuals were still listed in the DSM-IV as 'mentally ill' in the same section as necrophiliacs and pedophiles.  They wouldn't be removed until 1973.  Transgendered people still bear that mark today, and it's only been two years since the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not charge someone with a FELONY and throw them in prison for up to 20 years  merely for whom they love.

It makes no difference whether you kill a man by the sword or a swipe of a pen.  They are still just as dead.  Do you think Hussien personally executed every man slaughtered under his reign, or were they 'aggressive indigenous people', a 'pushy minority', or a group which didn't support the religious values of the majority and were shipped off to prisons on ridiculous charges?

Perhaps you feel Hussein guilty for his inaction in stopping these atrocities, but I wonder how you feel about Reagan.  Not for youthful vows as Governor to get rid of the 'hippies' but rather for his deliberate inaction when the CDC presented him with the horror of an epidemic known at the time as GRID which had killed nearly 60 gay men.  They urged him to alert the nation.  They begged for research funding.  They warned him it would not be limited to the gay community.  He said GRID or AIDS as it came to be known was God's wrath on homosexuals  The disease was allowed to spread for another six years before the United States ever formally alerted its people to the dangers.

Perhaps, like the rest of the medics on the ship, he felt safe in the belief that the disease wouldn't kill everyone and it would create a unique culture that had visions of a God that others could not see.

[Loz]

This was one of the saddest stories I'd heard on the Pod in a good long while. Thank goodness it coincided with the end of my after-work commute so I was able to go and walk in the sunshine afterwards.

I think it all came down to the last five minutes. Stories about advanced explorers coming upon primitive societies they didn't understand are nothing new. Stories in which the main protagonist chooses to stay with the 'primitives' are nothing new (Iain M. Banks short about a member of the Culture deciding to stay on Seventies Earth springs to mind, I wonder if Steve would be able to get that for a future Pod?), but I think in the end that Nancy Kress has turned these old ideas around, as rather than someone benevolent it is the monster that stays behind. If Mia stayed with Esefeb, if she just cured her (or her and those around them) and taught them to live, then maybe, just maybe , I could accept her decision to play God. But she just assaults this poor girl, robs her of her illusions and dreams, and then leaves . That for me is the unforgivable sin. Mia has taken it upon herself that she knows best about what these people need, I like to believe that in leaving so soon after performing this act of violation on Esefeb Mia knows on some level that what she has done is wrong and can't bear to stay and face the consequences.

A brilliant story.

[Mr. Tweedy]

This was one of the saddest stories I'd heard on the Pod in a good long while. Thank goodness it coincided with the end of my after-work commute so I was able to go and walk in the sunshine afterwards.

I think it all came down to the last five minutes. Stories about advanced explorers coming upon primitive societies they didn't understand are nothing new. Stories in which the main protagonist chooses to stay with the 'primitives' are nothing new (Iain M. Banks short about a member of the Culture deciding to stay on Seventies Earth springs to mind, I wonder if Steve would be able to get that for a future Pod?), but I think in the end that Nancy Kress has turned these old ideas around, as rather than someone benevolent it is the monster that stays behind. If Mia stayed with Esefeb, if she just cured her (or her and those around them) and taught them to live, then maybe, just maybe , I could accept her decision to play God. But she just assaults this poor girl, robs her of her illusions and dreams, and then leaves . That for me is the unforgivable sin. Mia has taken it upon herself that she knows best about what these people need, I like to believe that in leaving so soon after performing this act of violation on Esefeb Mia knows on some level that what she has done is wrong and can't bear to stay and face the consequences.

A brilliant story.

I think you're being a bit uncharitable to Mia.  Since the rest of the Corps left, she is the only one on the planet who is able to administer the cure.  She is old and might catch the disease herself: She hasn't got endless time to work with.  She has to prioritize.  If she stays with Esefeb for a month or a year or ten years–however long it takes for her to adapt to her new perspective–then that means she will be unable to administer the cure to others during that time.  She has to choose between curing a few people and helping them along and curing many people but leaving them to fend for themselves.  (Hey, a second moral dilemma in the story!)

She stays until she is reasonably sure that Esefeb will survive, then moves on to cure others, even though that means Esefeb will suffer.  That might seem cold or unfeeling, but I think it is the logical choice, assuming that Mia's goal is to provide as much help as possible in her limited time on the planet.  Using this method, some of those she cures will probably commit suicide and some will probably end up in a state of despair that is no better than their original state, but, in the end, spreading the cure far and wide will probably produce more fully-functional people than sticking around to nurse a small group will.


Note on making the "easy choice": I don't think that deciding to live out the rest of your days in exile from your native society, in primitive conditions, among people will quite possibly come to hate you could reasonably be construed as taking the easy way out.  Mia made the hard choice, the one that took courage (although being hard does not, of itself, make a choice right).

-----------------------

The excellence of this story has motivated me to check out a copy of Nancy Kress' "Beggars in Spain."  I'm about halfway through it, and so far I would say it is one of the best things I have ever read.   The anticipation of finishing tugs at my mind as the mundane workday slogs by.

[Russell Nash]

Most important, this story challenged the very idea of 'good' and 'evil'.   Should religion be 'sacred' even to the injury of it's practitioners?  Faith-healers can go to jail for neglect yet our media condemned Saddam Hussien for banning a religious practice that involved men gashing their heads and beating themselves.

The difference is that Saddam Hussien killed those people for their religion.  I'm not saying that the jailing is always right (just look at this http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/194007.php ) but sometime stuff like what happened last saturday here in Phoenix happens and then jailing is justified is it not?  Hussien just gassed Kirds(sp) for the Hell of it, there is where the difference lies.

Wow, is this off.  You're comparing oranges and machine guns.  First, the gassing of the Kurds was a political retribution made in 1987 (before the first gulf war), because the Kurds were moving politically against Hussein.

Second, the ban was, IIRC, against self-flagilation in the celebration of Ede(sp?).  Hussein wasn't religious and only used his religion as a political tool (hence why Osama Bin Laden hated him). He didn't see why his country should have to pay for injuries (medical costs, loss of productivity, etc) for an unneccesary part of this religious observance.