The terrible tragedy of the recent fires (in Victoria, Australia) literally leaves one speechless. Given that a Royal Commission has been announced, any public comment must be made with care. It is with some sadness and despair that I note that not
all Christians are capable of this. It is true that the expression 'natural disaster' begs theological questions. However, announcements of judgment from God on relaxed abortion laws or any favourite target of some elements of the church does little but bring the gospel into disrepute.
An event like this is complex in its causes and its ramifications. Fire has been part of the Australian landscape for a long time, and we need to learn how to fit in with this (once more Germane Greer may have had a valid point but made it in a less than helpful manner). Sometimes the clash is tragic. Humanity is called to till and tend the Earth. In a drying and warming climate this is a big ask. Likewise, arson points to the evil ever present in the human heart. Likewise, the reactions do not necessarily point to all that is good in human nature. The accused in question is still a human being who deserves justice and not lynching, and there has been a great deal that has been said that has simply been irresponsible.
The role of the church in all of this is clear, to pray for the good of the whole of the society in which we live, to show love to all who have suffered, to work for the preservation and care of God's world, and to point forward to its setting free from the bondage of decay even as we look forward to our own (Romans 8)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
A long break
Having been sucked up in the vortex that is Facebook I've been more into speaking directly people than thinking and writing in depth. Not that this has been a bad thing - Facebook is an amazing social networking site, capable of wasting much time but also building relationships - both old and new. But, I'm back.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Generous reading
I've just started the book A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren. It is an attempt by the author to present an approach to Christianity that looks at what we believe in a far more humbler and gentler way than many Christians approach each other. Given that so many turf wars occur (literally as in the Holy Sepulchre or doctrinally such as happens all of the time), this is a potentially sobering book.
I understand his book has been critically received as being far more generous than orthodox - but McLaren does two things early on that caution against judging the book by its cover so to speak. Firstly, he affirms the classic creeds. He notes that these don't say everything that might be fundamental and orthodox, and have been misused as clubs to beat others down (starting with Constantine).
Secondly, he identifies orthodoxy not merely with a body of knowledge that one group has securely in its grasp (a modernist notion) but in a humble and diligent process of seeking and cherishing truth. It seems also to be far most associated with the person of Jesus than a collection of dogma. Further, he seeks to identify generous orthodoxy with orthopraxis (what we do). Amen to that.
I'm looking forward to trying to understand what McLaren believes myself, and not pre-judge him.
I understand his book has been critically received as being far more generous than orthodox - but McLaren does two things early on that caution against judging the book by its cover so to speak. Firstly, he affirms the classic creeds. He notes that these don't say everything that might be fundamental and orthodox, and have been misused as clubs to beat others down (starting with Constantine).
Secondly, he identifies orthodoxy not merely with a body of knowledge that one group has securely in its grasp (a modernist notion) but in a humble and diligent process of seeking and cherishing truth. It seems also to be far most associated with the person of Jesus than a collection of dogma. Further, he seeks to identify generous orthodoxy with orthopraxis (what we do). Amen to that.
I'm looking forward to trying to understand what McLaren believes myself, and not pre-judge him.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Thoughtless implicit racism
The continuing scandal over the Olympic games and the farce which is the torch relay (with all the naive comments over sport being separated from politics) was overshadowed for me by a comment made in Canberra. The relay attendance was dominated by pro-China (an interesting way in putting it given Tibet was a separate country before invasion so any chants of 'one China' are meaningless in this context) and pro-Tibet.
One 16 year old "Australia" made the comment (from ABC website)
Spectator James Taylor, 16, was surprised by the lack of Australians cheering the flame on.
"I think they were lazy and were watching it on TV," he said.
"It's like playing spot the Aussie here."
Spot the Aussie?! He means spot the Anglo. Having dated an ABC (Australian Born Chinese) at University, I never thought of her as anything but Australian because she was born here (though obviously partly culturally Chinese, but obviously less so than the Singaporian and Malaysian Chinese I knew). No doubt her parents had a right to claim the same since they moved here.
Out of the mouth of babes - if you ain't white, you ain't Aussie. Leah from Play School not so long ago lamented always either being told to go home or asked where she came from because one of her parents was Sri Lankan.
Does this country have a long way to go? Looks like it.
One 16 year old "Australia" made the comment (from ABC website)
Spectator James Taylor, 16, was surprised by the lack of Australians cheering the flame on.
"I think they were lazy and were watching it on TV," he said.
"It's like playing spot the Aussie here."
Spot the Aussie?! He means spot the Anglo. Having dated an ABC (Australian Born Chinese) at University, I never thought of her as anything but Australian because she was born here (though obviously partly culturally Chinese, but obviously less so than the Singaporian and Malaysian Chinese I knew). No doubt her parents had a right to claim the same since they moved here.
Out of the mouth of babes - if you ain't white, you ain't Aussie. Leah from Play School not so long ago lamented always either being told to go home or asked where she came from because one of her parents was Sri Lankan.
Does this country have a long way to go? Looks like it.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Holy ground requires holy living
One of the amazing things about visiting the 'Holy Land' must be walking around places where Jesus and his disciples did. It must help put you in touch with Jesus in a way that feels more tangible than living elsewhere. This is because Christianity is an historical faith, making claims about historical events that happened in real places.
However, Jesus is quoted as saying in the fourth gospel (John) that worship of God was no longer to be limited to one place that one group of people (be they Samaritan or Judeans) had control of. The recent carry on at the Holy Sepulchre, the supposed site of Jesus burial (kind of funny in a sense since he is meant to have been raised from the dead) is disappointing. Greek Orthodox and Armenian believers came to blows over control of this site. While it is understandable in a sense, is it not an exercise in missing the point when they are coming to physical blows? If it really is Holy ground, then shouldn't they be behaving in a holy way? I am no iconoclast, but when a place becomes a source of such bickering, then the point has long since been lost.
However, Jesus is quoted as saying in the fourth gospel (John) that worship of God was no longer to be limited to one place that one group of people (be they Samaritan or Judeans) had control of. The recent carry on at the Holy Sepulchre, the supposed site of Jesus burial (kind of funny in a sense since he is meant to have been raised from the dead) is disappointing. Greek Orthodox and Armenian believers came to blows over control of this site. While it is understandable in a sense, is it not an exercise in missing the point when they are coming to physical blows? If it really is Holy ground, then shouldn't they be behaving in a holy way? I am no iconoclast, but when a place becomes a source of such bickering, then the point has long since been lost.
Olympics & politics
I've avoided commenting on this up to this point, thinking that I needed to do some more reading before saying anything. Having said that, there really are some things that should be obvious.
The suggestion that politics should be kept out of sport is a naive and disingenuous one. The charter states:
"Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."
Olympic Charter, Fundamental principles, paragraph 2
How then can one give the games to a country like China that not only tramples on human rights, invading countries, exterminating aspects of cultures it does not likes and executes more people than all other countries put together and then bleat when representatives of the persecuted (read Tibetans) is bringing politics into sport? There is nothing ethical about China's rule in other countries like Tibet.
It is also amusing when you see protesters bloodied up and then abuse them for being violent!
As for Australia's sportsmen and women, well they do it for them in the end. Glory, sponsorship and ego. Good on them for their hard work, their natural abilities. Now show some moral backbone.
Engagement won't always work. Was that model applied to South Africa during Apartheid?
In the end, sport like everything else in life is tied to politics. In a globalised world it is time to 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Love the Tibetans by not participating in this Olympics and ignore the self interest of repressive governments and self interested Olympians and officials.
The obvious postscript: Australia has screwed up indigenous issues over 200+ years, but at least people own up to it and are trying to work towards a solution with an apology and programs. A long way to go. I wonder if a Tibetan will be involved in the Beijing opening ceremony?
The suggestion that politics should be kept out of sport is a naive and disingenuous one. The charter states:
"Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."
Olympic Charter, Fundamental principles, paragraph 2
How then can one give the games to a country like China that not only tramples on human rights, invading countries, exterminating aspects of cultures it does not likes and executes more people than all other countries put together and then bleat when representatives of the persecuted (read Tibetans) is bringing politics into sport? There is nothing ethical about China's rule in other countries like Tibet.
It is also amusing when you see protesters bloodied up and then abuse them for being violent!
As for Australia's sportsmen and women, well they do it for them in the end. Glory, sponsorship and ego. Good on them for their hard work, their natural abilities. Now show some moral backbone.
Engagement won't always work. Was that model applied to South Africa during Apartheid?
In the end, sport like everything else in life is tied to politics. In a globalised world it is time to 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Love the Tibetans by not participating in this Olympics and ignore the self interest of repressive governments and self interested Olympians and officials.
The obvious postscript: Australia has screwed up indigenous issues over 200+ years, but at least people own up to it and are trying to work towards a solution with an apology and programs. A long way to go. I wonder if a Tibetan will be involved in the Beijing opening ceremony?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Quote of the day: John Wesley
What shalt thou do? ... Do good. Do all the good thou canst. Let thy plenty supply thy neighbor's wants; and thou wilt never want something to do. Canst thou find none that need the necessaries of life, that are pinched with cold or hunger; none that have not raiment to put on, or a place where to lay their head; none that are wasted with pining sickness; none that are languishing in prison? If you duly considered our Lord's words, "The poor have you always with you," you would no more ask, "What shall I do?"
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Of cameras, twitching, ticking and so on
I am fairly keen on bird watching (the feathered variety I mean, though I admire women too, but that is a topic for another post). I have been reading Sean Dooley's Anoraks to Zitting Cisticola which is a fun introduction to birding. I also recently read Alain de Botton's The Art of Travel. These two are part of a theme as I start thinking about a piece I am writing for Zadok Perspectives on Eco-pilgrimage. Bear with me.
There are birders who love to tick. Their goal is to see as many birds as they can before they die (in fact I seem to recall a book with a similar title). Sean Dooley identifies some of these as egotistical people. It isn't about the bird but the 'power' it gives the individual. Some tours cater for this sort of thing. A bird guide like Chris Dahlberg who has a boat on the Daintree River is excellent for the tickers. He is extremely knowledgeable, knows the Daintree really well and has an amazing ear for calls. I've been out a few times with him and come back with a list with a lot of ticks. However, as still a fairly inexperienced birder I can hardly claim to have identified all of these myself. Still, I highly recommend him.
Given my current inexperience, I am not a ticker. In fact, even if I were my main goals are rarely to maximize my sightings. Although I enjoy trips with people like Chris, I also spend far more time pursuing a small number of birds. I have often stayed at Chamber's Wildlife Lodge because I know I can see male Riflebirds displaying. I go back often to get the right photo. I also spent half a morning watching a Golden Bowerbird with Alan Gillanders (an excellent guide to the Atherton Tablelands.
What's the connection with de Botton? He refers to John Ruskin, who thought that photography took away from our appreciation of nature because it gave the illusion that we somehow captured it on film and didn't need to really look attentively the water someone who sketched or painted would. Possibly so. However, I spend a lot of time watching birds from behind my camera, admiring their plumage. I wait patently for them to appear. I am no ticker, satisfied with one or two quick sightings and a couple of photos. The image never quite captures the reality (after all, there is no movement or sound, but taking video would still not do it, that's missing the point). My point is that Ruskin isn't necessarily right.
I'm not claiming superiority over those able to identify lots of birds (they have better birding skills than me). However, for me this will never be enough, even though I hope to acquire better skills in spotting, call identification. In the end though, I'd much rather spend a lot of time observing interesting behaviour of a a few than identifying many.
What's the connection to eco-pilgrimage? Well, I claim that observing something really special (not necessarily beautiful, but then that is a fairly subjective concept) can be an act of praise and worship (if appreciated in the right manner) and a 'religious experience'. Religious experiences aren't well captured on film (or digitally in my case), but such medium do not necessarily attempt to do so nor ruin the experience.
At some point I hope to discuss this further, as well as show off some of my pics here.
There are birders who love to tick. Their goal is to see as many birds as they can before they die (in fact I seem to recall a book with a similar title). Sean Dooley identifies some of these as egotistical people. It isn't about the bird but the 'power' it gives the individual. Some tours cater for this sort of thing. A bird guide like Chris Dahlberg who has a boat on the Daintree River is excellent for the tickers. He is extremely knowledgeable, knows the Daintree really well and has an amazing ear for calls. I've been out a few times with him and come back with a list with a lot of ticks. However, as still a fairly inexperienced birder I can hardly claim to have identified all of these myself. Still, I highly recommend him.
Given my current inexperience, I am not a ticker. In fact, even if I were my main goals are rarely to maximize my sightings. Although I enjoy trips with people like Chris, I also spend far more time pursuing a small number of birds. I have often stayed at Chamber's Wildlife Lodge because I know I can see male Riflebirds displaying. I go back often to get the right photo. I also spent half a morning watching a Golden Bowerbird with Alan Gillanders (an excellent guide to the Atherton Tablelands.
What's the connection with de Botton? He refers to John Ruskin, who thought that photography took away from our appreciation of nature because it gave the illusion that we somehow captured it on film and didn't need to really look attentively the water someone who sketched or painted would. Possibly so. However, I spend a lot of time watching birds from behind my camera, admiring their plumage. I wait patently for them to appear. I am no ticker, satisfied with one or two quick sightings and a couple of photos. The image never quite captures the reality (after all, there is no movement or sound, but taking video would still not do it, that's missing the point). My point is that Ruskin isn't necessarily right.
I'm not claiming superiority over those able to identify lots of birds (they have better birding skills than me). However, for me this will never be enough, even though I hope to acquire better skills in spotting, call identification. In the end though, I'd much rather spend a lot of time observing interesting behaviour of a a few than identifying many.
What's the connection to eco-pilgrimage? Well, I claim that observing something really special (not necessarily beautiful, but then that is a fairly subjective concept) can be an act of praise and worship (if appreciated in the right manner) and a 'religious experience'. Religious experiences aren't well captured on film (or digitally in my case), but such medium do not necessarily attempt to do so nor ruin the experience.
At some point I hope to discuss this further, as well as show off some of my pics here.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
I was a teenage sci fi geek!
Known for its fair share of B-grade literature and films and the attraction of pimply teens with poor social skills, I know of no better genre that examines the post-human future than science fiction. With the appearance of works on the theology and philosophy of science fiction such as Mark Rowlands, author of The Philosopher at the End of the Universe, and many books on The Matrix trilogy - it is a fact that should be appreciated more.
The fundamental question posed when considering the post-human future is ‘What does it mean to be human?’ What is it about our present state that makes us human, and how might that change? There are two major ways in which the question may be addressed. Firstly, how might technology augment human bodies, and secondly, how might or indeed can our technology replace us? The former is addressed by issues of genetic engineering, biomedical advances, interbreeding and cybernetics, the latter typically with robotics.
Ideas of genetic engineering have been around for a long time. The Aldous Huxley novel Brave New World and the movie parody Demolition Man examined a society where procreation is performed in laboratories. Controlling reproduction is about controlling the personalities, characteristics and societal roles of the progeny. Genetic determinism is replaced with a humanistic one. Sex is purely a form of pleasure, although indirectly mediated in Demolition Man by technology to avoid disease. Both stories are dystopic in that people do not have any real free will (or even the illusion of it). Dictatorial governments decide who will be what - and anyone born naturally such as Huxley’s John the savage is outside of normal society. Perhaps the movie Gattica is closer to the mark, where the parent as consumer is the model. In either case, cynicism portrays the post-human future as one where humanity as a whole is not better off in any genuine sense. To allow chance to choose is preferable to human intervention. Something appears to be lost from what it means to be human. Are we comforted in a sense by our imperfections and finitude, or is it simply that we do not trust each other, governments and drug companies. Gene technology is still in its infant stages. The human genome has been sequenced, but we are a long way from understanding how these genes make us who we are. Only time will tell how readily these secrets are unlocked.
The addition or subtraction from human bodies and our identity is explored in the Dr Who episode The End of the World. The last ‘pure human’ is Cassandra, a woman who exists as a flat surface area of skin with a face and nothing else, requiring constant moisturizing. She rails against all those who have become inbred with alien species. What is it that makes her the last ‘pure’ human? This question is tied up ultimately with the telos or end goal of humanity. A purely evolutionary view would undermine Cassandra’s view of herself, since humanity continues to be subject to evolution by natural selection. The idea of purity is a nonsense if humans simply move forward all the time. Humanity is like a river, not a solid block of ice; being in becoming. Telos is something that occupies the very first episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Jean Luc Picard is captain of the Starship Enterprise (you probably knew that). Very shortly into their journey he and his crew encounter a being known as Q, part of the Q continuum. Their race is the nearest thing one can get to God. The idea that evolution by natural selection could produce beings that are virtually omnipotent and omniscient was recently discussed in Paul Davies’ book The Goldilocks Enigma. In a later episode (Hide and Q) Picard raises the suggestion with Q that the continuum fears what humanity might become, quoting Shakespeare "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!" How are we to reach this, by natural providence or our own bootstraps? The suggestion that human development should always be upwards is not one that has universally been adopted. The dangers of radiation are well known. In the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? on which the movie Bladerunner was based, radiation affects people’s ability to reproduce (hence the fashion of lead cod pieces) or think, reducing some of them to the status of chickenheads. Chickenheads are not allow to reproduce or emigrate off the Earth. They are, in effect sub-humans.
It has been suggested that humans are already cybernetic beings because of our close association with various forms of technology such as the internet and telecommunications. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? this idea is taken a step further with tow devices. The first is the mood organ, a device that can change your mood to anything you like (including the desire to watch TV, no matter what is on). In a post-atomic world slowly decaying into ruins, it would be all too easy to fall into despair. The irony is that the lead character’s wife recognises the futility of it all and chooses an emotion of depression. Authentic humanity in a post-human future appears to be to own our own feelings, to run to and not away from the truth. In a world where belief in the divine has declined, the cult of Mercerism and a device known as an empathy box allow humanity as a whole to share a transcendental experience. Dick’s novel defines humanity on the basis of empathy, separating it from androids. Androids cannot express empathy with anything. An android is able to tear the legs off a spider despite their rarity, to the horror of the chickenhead John Isidore. Ultimately, even those whom society considers sub-human still retain their humanity because not only does Isidore empathise with the spider as another living thing, but also with an android when they are ‘retired’.
An interesting twist on technology and what it means to be human arises in another Philip K. Dick story, We Can Remember it for You Wholesale, on which the movie Total Recall is ‘based’. It centres on the idea of human identity. Who are we? Douglas Quail (Quaid in the movie) visits Rekall in order to have false memories implanted, only for us to discover he already has lived what he wants to have implanted. In Total Recall, is Quaid really Quaid or is he Hauzer, the man who planned Quaid’s invention and designed his implanted memories? They are aspects of the same body, but have totally different memories and different attitudes. On the basis of the memory theory of identity they are different people. So when Quaid was created, Hauzer ceased to exist or at least went to sleep. If we were ever to reach the point where memories could be implanted (although hypnosis and brainwashing have moved in this direction), humanity will become even more liquid than some people suggest it is now. This is taken to the nth degree by examining Cartesian skepticism in The Matrix and sequels. Human experience is totally mediated through technology while we exist as organic batteries.
Cybernetic bad guys feature commonly. The salt shaker shaped Daleks show what happens when evolution is given a helping hand. A seemingly endless war between two humanoid races on the same planet, Thals and Kaleds has produced mutants due to the increasing atmospheric radioactivity. The evil (and yes, mad too) scientist Davros, himself a mutant, uses this as an opportunity to experiment with how radiation affects organisms and what the future of his race might be. This organism requires a transportation vehicle (the familiar salt shaker). In the process, Davros’ inner megalomaniac sees the opportunity for universal conquest and genetically engineers away the emotion of pity - which he later regrets as they wipe out the remaining scientists and attempt to murder him. It raises the interesting question as to whether specific emotions could be engineered away. Pity appears to be an emotion that animals lack (ever seen a cat with a mouse?) but that humans prize (except when it is for yourself, or you are Nietzsche). To be able to remove it would be a backwards step.
Another well known cyborg race are the Borg from the Star Trek series. Their policy is rather like that of many past Australian government to indigenous Australians, one of assimilation. Other cultures, civilizations and races are sources of raw material and information. Like much of today’s trends and fads, although there are external differences in appearance, everyone is the same. The Borg form a collective where individuality is irrelevant. It does not occur to them that other races might, in the words of the Klingon Worf ‘life my species the way it is’. The Borg are less than human in that individuality means nothing and community is deep in its integration but shallow in that unity relies upon diversity. Life is a Borg spaceship is a pale imitation of Christian eschatology. Mobile phones, the internet and other devices allow us to communicate with each other 24-7, but do not extinguish our individuality; yet.
The ultimate fear in science fiction is that humans will be replaced by their own creations; robots. Robots are often pictured as superior, being smarter and stronger than humanity. In I, Robot, the collection of short stories by Isacc Asimov (not the Will Smith movie), the major character and robo-psychologist Dr Susan Calvin finds them preferable to humanity and does not lament the fact that they take over the running of the world. One of the major selling factors of the robot is that they operate purely by logic. However, very often this is shown as a shortcoming and not an asset. In the Dr Who episode The Destiny of the Daleks, it is this logic that sees the robotic races the Daleks and the dreadlock wearing Movellans tied in an eternal deadlock in their war against each other. The android Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation seeks to be more human by trying to learn to move beyond logic and find emotions. Not being programmed to do so, he has to acquire his ‘brothers’ emotion chip to do so. Neural network brains are described as complex, but will an android ever replace us in every way by becoming creatures with complex inner emotional lives? Bladerunner and Terminator 2 answer in the positive whereas Dick in his short story answers in the negative. Robots in Sci Fi vary in shape and size, but their human like shape without the human like emotions and body language give rise is another Dr Who episode (Robots of Death) to the condition of robophobia. In order to deal with the concerns humanity might have with robots seeing us as irrelevant and hence expendable is the three laws of robotics. 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. The stories of I, Robot show how these can come into conflict and create Robot psychosis. What is interesting, if not disturbing is the suggestion by Susan Calvin that these three laws essentially sum up human ethics. The Golden Rule they are not.
Science Fiction is able to pose the sorts of questions we need to be asking now about technology and the post-human future, and as such plays a prophetic role. In not being the pronouncements of futurists, they can be spectacularly wrong and get away with it. That is not the point. The point is that we need to imagine the possibilities. Perhaps there should be more Christians writing Sci Fi, certainly there should be more reading it.
The fundamental question posed when considering the post-human future is ‘What does it mean to be human?’ What is it about our present state that makes us human, and how might that change? There are two major ways in which the question may be addressed. Firstly, how might technology augment human bodies, and secondly, how might or indeed can our technology replace us? The former is addressed by issues of genetic engineering, biomedical advances, interbreeding and cybernetics, the latter typically with robotics.
Ideas of genetic engineering have been around for a long time. The Aldous Huxley novel Brave New World and the movie parody Demolition Man examined a society where procreation is performed in laboratories. Controlling reproduction is about controlling the personalities, characteristics and societal roles of the progeny. Genetic determinism is replaced with a humanistic one. Sex is purely a form of pleasure, although indirectly mediated in Demolition Man by technology to avoid disease. Both stories are dystopic in that people do not have any real free will (or even the illusion of it). Dictatorial governments decide who will be what - and anyone born naturally such as Huxley’s John the savage is outside of normal society. Perhaps the movie Gattica is closer to the mark, where the parent as consumer is the model. In either case, cynicism portrays the post-human future as one where humanity as a whole is not better off in any genuine sense. To allow chance to choose is preferable to human intervention. Something appears to be lost from what it means to be human. Are we comforted in a sense by our imperfections and finitude, or is it simply that we do not trust each other, governments and drug companies. Gene technology is still in its infant stages. The human genome has been sequenced, but we are a long way from understanding how these genes make us who we are. Only time will tell how readily these secrets are unlocked.
The addition or subtraction from human bodies and our identity is explored in the Dr Who episode The End of the World. The last ‘pure human’ is Cassandra, a woman who exists as a flat surface area of skin with a face and nothing else, requiring constant moisturizing. She rails against all those who have become inbred with alien species. What is it that makes her the last ‘pure’ human? This question is tied up ultimately with the telos or end goal of humanity. A purely evolutionary view would undermine Cassandra’s view of herself, since humanity continues to be subject to evolution by natural selection. The idea of purity is a nonsense if humans simply move forward all the time. Humanity is like a river, not a solid block of ice; being in becoming. Telos is something that occupies the very first episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Jean Luc Picard is captain of the Starship Enterprise (you probably knew that). Very shortly into their journey he and his crew encounter a being known as Q, part of the Q continuum. Their race is the nearest thing one can get to God. The idea that evolution by natural selection could produce beings that are virtually omnipotent and omniscient was recently discussed in Paul Davies’ book The Goldilocks Enigma. In a later episode (Hide and Q) Picard raises the suggestion with Q that the continuum fears what humanity might become, quoting Shakespeare "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!" How are we to reach this, by natural providence or our own bootstraps? The suggestion that human development should always be upwards is not one that has universally been adopted. The dangers of radiation are well known. In the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? on which the movie Bladerunner was based, radiation affects people’s ability to reproduce (hence the fashion of lead cod pieces) or think, reducing some of them to the status of chickenheads. Chickenheads are not allow to reproduce or emigrate off the Earth. They are, in effect sub-humans.
It has been suggested that humans are already cybernetic beings because of our close association with various forms of technology such as the internet and telecommunications. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? this idea is taken a step further with tow devices. The first is the mood organ, a device that can change your mood to anything you like (including the desire to watch TV, no matter what is on). In a post-atomic world slowly decaying into ruins, it would be all too easy to fall into despair. The irony is that the lead character’s wife recognises the futility of it all and chooses an emotion of depression. Authentic humanity in a post-human future appears to be to own our own feelings, to run to and not away from the truth. In a world where belief in the divine has declined, the cult of Mercerism and a device known as an empathy box allow humanity as a whole to share a transcendental experience. Dick’s novel defines humanity on the basis of empathy, separating it from androids. Androids cannot express empathy with anything. An android is able to tear the legs off a spider despite their rarity, to the horror of the chickenhead John Isidore. Ultimately, even those whom society considers sub-human still retain their humanity because not only does Isidore empathise with the spider as another living thing, but also with an android when they are ‘retired’.
An interesting twist on technology and what it means to be human arises in another Philip K. Dick story, We Can Remember it for You Wholesale, on which the movie Total Recall is ‘based’. It centres on the idea of human identity. Who are we? Douglas Quail (Quaid in the movie) visits Rekall in order to have false memories implanted, only for us to discover he already has lived what he wants to have implanted. In Total Recall, is Quaid really Quaid or is he Hauzer, the man who planned Quaid’s invention and designed his implanted memories? They are aspects of the same body, but have totally different memories and different attitudes. On the basis of the memory theory of identity they are different people. So when Quaid was created, Hauzer ceased to exist or at least went to sleep. If we were ever to reach the point where memories could be implanted (although hypnosis and brainwashing have moved in this direction), humanity will become even more liquid than some people suggest it is now. This is taken to the nth degree by examining Cartesian skepticism in The Matrix and sequels. Human experience is totally mediated through technology while we exist as organic batteries.
Cybernetic bad guys feature commonly. The salt shaker shaped Daleks show what happens when evolution is given a helping hand. A seemingly endless war between two humanoid races on the same planet, Thals and Kaleds has produced mutants due to the increasing atmospheric radioactivity. The evil (and yes, mad too) scientist Davros, himself a mutant, uses this as an opportunity to experiment with how radiation affects organisms and what the future of his race might be. This organism requires a transportation vehicle (the familiar salt shaker). In the process, Davros’ inner megalomaniac sees the opportunity for universal conquest and genetically engineers away the emotion of pity - which he later regrets as they wipe out the remaining scientists and attempt to murder him. It raises the interesting question as to whether specific emotions could be engineered away. Pity appears to be an emotion that animals lack (ever seen a cat with a mouse?) but that humans prize (except when it is for yourself, or you are Nietzsche). To be able to remove it would be a backwards step.
Another well known cyborg race are the Borg from the Star Trek series. Their policy is rather like that of many past Australian government to indigenous Australians, one of assimilation. Other cultures, civilizations and races are sources of raw material and information. Like much of today’s trends and fads, although there are external differences in appearance, everyone is the same. The Borg form a collective where individuality is irrelevant. It does not occur to them that other races might, in the words of the Klingon Worf ‘life my species the way it is’. The Borg are less than human in that individuality means nothing and community is deep in its integration but shallow in that unity relies upon diversity. Life is a Borg spaceship is a pale imitation of Christian eschatology. Mobile phones, the internet and other devices allow us to communicate with each other 24-7, but do not extinguish our individuality; yet.
The ultimate fear in science fiction is that humans will be replaced by their own creations; robots. Robots are often pictured as superior, being smarter and stronger than humanity. In I, Robot, the collection of short stories by Isacc Asimov (not the Will Smith movie), the major character and robo-psychologist Dr Susan Calvin finds them preferable to humanity and does not lament the fact that they take over the running of the world. One of the major selling factors of the robot is that they operate purely by logic. However, very often this is shown as a shortcoming and not an asset. In the Dr Who episode The Destiny of the Daleks, it is this logic that sees the robotic races the Daleks and the dreadlock wearing Movellans tied in an eternal deadlock in their war against each other. The android Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation seeks to be more human by trying to learn to move beyond logic and find emotions. Not being programmed to do so, he has to acquire his ‘brothers’ emotion chip to do so. Neural network brains are described as complex, but will an android ever replace us in every way by becoming creatures with complex inner emotional lives? Bladerunner and Terminator 2 answer in the positive whereas Dick in his short story answers in the negative. Robots in Sci Fi vary in shape and size, but their human like shape without the human like emotions and body language give rise is another Dr Who episode (Robots of Death) to the condition of robophobia. In order to deal with the concerns humanity might have with robots seeing us as irrelevant and hence expendable is the three laws of robotics. 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. The stories of I, Robot show how these can come into conflict and create Robot psychosis. What is interesting, if not disturbing is the suggestion by Susan Calvin that these three laws essentially sum up human ethics. The Golden Rule they are not.
Science Fiction is able to pose the sorts of questions we need to be asking now about technology and the post-human future, and as such plays a prophetic role. In not being the pronouncements of futurists, they can be spectacularly wrong and get away with it. That is not the point. The point is that we need to imagine the possibilities. Perhaps there should be more Christians writing Sci Fi, certainly there should be more reading it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
