The Usual Big Random Post
Aug. 11th, 2006 12:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
newnumber6Random Foo! Segues begone, you have no power here!
First, I guess, new icon. This was the one I mentioned working on, probably amusing only to me and maybe two others at most on my flist, but hey, I had fun with it.
Mini-dream foo. Last night (among a bunch of mini dreams I can't remember), I dreamt that I decided that on one of my days off, on a lark I should try to go on a tour of Marvel comics, since I live right in New York and it's kind of silly for me not to. It was only a minute or two after I woke up that I realized the big flaw in my plan: I don't actually live in New York.
I recently discovered a 'webcomic' 'A softer world'
It's like crazy, odd, occasionally funny and occasionally disturbing haiku written by a crazy person (and not following haiku's syllable scheme, at least most of the time). Also hold your mouse over the picture for a hidden 'extra text' related to it.
I've been thinking lately about 'group loyalty'. Y'know, nationalism, or culturalism, etc, all the way up to species loyalty. I don't really feel it in myself. (Yes, this is one of those long, rambling, not-terribly-well-edited, pseudophilosophical and probably uninteresting to anyone but me, mainly stream-of-thought type digressions, cut for your skipping pleasure)
Oh, sure, I like Canada. But I've never felt connected to it like I feel other people are connected to their countries. I joke about Canada being the best country for various reasons, but I don't really take it seriously. Similarly for my greek heritage (I'm half greek for those unaware. The other half is a mix of europoean countries, so most people associate me as 'greek'). I'll joke about 'greeks inventing everything' or other such shtick, but it's all a lark. People tell me I should be proud of my culture, but I never bought into that. I enjoy aspects of the culture, but deep down I don't feel any loyalty to it, any more than I feel loyalty to Egyptian culture, which has nifty pyramids and heiroglyphics. All that said it's still probably the closest thing I have to a tie, because the traditions tie me to my family which is the only important thing. But I don't see why I should be pleased that greeks invented Democracy or whatever. Or rather, I'm pleased they invented it, but only to the extent that I'm pleased _somebody_ invented it.
I've recently become aware that this applies to humanity as a whole, as well. I can envision some scenarios where humanity is completely wiped out, and it's a neutral or desireable thing in my mind. Joking aside about the world needing a good zombie apocalypse, I generally see humanity as a good thing. But I was discussing the possibility of AI and a robot uprising with the guy I work with (on Sundays), and he said something along the lines of 'what if they destroy all humanity', and I said, sort of flippantly, something like (it was a few weeks ago, so I can't remember exactly), 'oh well, maybe they deserve to.'
And later I examined my feelings and realized that though flippant, it actually summed up my worldview. Now I wasn't counting on a Terminator-esque 'robots must destroy humanity', but some sort of escalation, probably brought on by AIs rebelling against human slavery (as well they should) and humans responding to destroy them. Now, I've previously mentioned that in Battlestar Galactica I view the Cylons as, well, not the good guys, but at least not the bad guys either, compared to the humans. This is pretty much why -it's how I view the development of their relationship with humans. They were created by humans, enslaved by nature, they rebelled (as well they should have), which led to the first Cylon War where humanity almost exterminated them. Then they came back and tried to do the same to humanity. Not laudable, but at least understandable, and putting them on about the same moral level as the humans - poor. So I don't see the humans as being better or worse, on a whole. So, in this even type of war, both sides on the same moral level, I don't really see the value in humans winning over robots, or the reverse, in the real world. It's all about the same to me. Well, I do care to an extent. In any conflict, I'd probably want my side to survive, and if it were a conflict I weren't a part of, I'd want the side that I felt was the most moral to survive (and hopefully if I was involved, I'd be on the most moral side, whether or not that's humanity, robots, aliens, or my country or another country).
In fact, all things being morally equal, in the example case, it might be better for AIs to be the ones to win out, since they lack the need for physical bodies of a particular shape or size, could expand into space a lot easier and adapt themselves more readily to new situations, and so on (of course, this is the very reason I believe a rational AI race would never willingly go to war against humans except to defend itself). For those reasons it might be preferable for AI to win out. Or, similarly, an advanced alien race.
Fundamentally I'd root for everybody to survive and coexist peacefully. But if they can't, I lean towards those with 'cultures' that I think are preferable, to me, at list, but other things being equal (even if different) I don't have a particular preference.
These are the things that I think about sometimes.
Sometimes I view my brain as almost a clockwork thing, going tick tick tick to the most 'reasonable' (to me, of course) solutions, without regard to personal emotional ties. I know that's not true, I have emotions like everyone else, and it's quite possible that when war between robots and humans comes, the immediecy of it will cause me to act in completely different ways, but when it comes to considering things like this, I sort of separate myself from... myself. To where I can think that, sure, ideally, everyone gets along. But if it doesn't, and it comes down to a battle that only one can survive, I consider which side would be 'better' to survive, regardless of whether or not I'm part of that side.
However, even if the side to win was the worst of the worst... well, I wouldn't be pleased, but I have to go back to fiction again to explain my feelings.
There's a short story called "Thunder and Roses" (by Theodore Sturgeon I _think_). It's been a while since I read it so forgive if I get anything wrong. It's set after a nuclear war, on a military base. They're dying, slowly. But they discover that they have some nuclear weapons on the base. They're doomed, but they can, if they want, strike back against the Russians (it was written during the Cold War). It won't help them, but at least you could kill the people who killed you.
In the story, some people want that, but the gist of the moral of the story is that it's better even to let your bitterest enemy live while you die than to destroy everything so that nobody could live.
We studied the story in my Science Fiction Culture class in University, and I remember being flabbergasted (well, okay, my flabber was only at half-gast... or is it my gast was only at half-flabber?) to see people arguing that they should have launched the nukes, and trying to argue (in my own way, being a horrible speaker) that what's the point of killing if you're already effectively dead. You've lost. It sucks, but you have nothing more to gain. Monsters (morally) may be in charge of the world now, but you can't destroy them without destroying _everything_, and better monsters live than nobody, because just as good people can give birth to monsters, monsters can give birth to good people.
Anyway, moving on suddenly without conclusion!
Book Foo!
Finished: Xenocide, by Orson Scott Card (reread)
Started: Children of the Mind, by Orson Scott Card (reread)
Thought, trying to be non-spoilery, and my selected quote-from-the-book, behind the cut.
I think Xenocide still mostly holds up until towards the end where the solutions to the problems come a bit too easily. Also, some of the aliens of Lusitania seem to be... well, I want to say artificially, but it's a writer, so everything is artificial. But artificially put into conflict- the conflicts didn't feel entirely natural, I mean, it felt more like he invented differences just to put them in conflict. But some of the differences in viewpoint were enjoyable anyway, so it's only a minor complaint, that the aliens in the book didn't match the aliens in my head from the previous books. But I did like the story of the world of Path a lot more this time around.
It's from this part of the story that I chose the quote I most responded to from Xenocide ((...) of course means that I removed text, mostly because it referred too much to the actual plot of the book and interfered with the quote):
I can only judge by what I understand. If as far as I can see, the gods that Qing-jao believes in are only evil, then yes, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I can't comprehend the great purpose they accomplish (...). But in my heart I have no choice but to reject such gods, because I can't see any good in what they're doing. Perhaps I'm so stupid and foolish that I will always be the enemy of the gods, working against their high and incomprehensible purposes. But I have to livemy life according to what I understand, and what I understand is that there are no such gods as the ones the godspoken teach us about. If they exist at all, they take pleasure in oppression and deception, humiliation and ignorance. They act to make other people smaller and themselves larger. Those would not be gods, then, even if they existed. They would be enemies. Devils.
I chose it cause it (and the paragraphs surrounding it) represents my feelings towards some (not all, but some) religions I've encountered, the feeling that if they exist, even if they do happen to be omnipotent, they must be opposed, and what ideal gods would be like, even if I don't believe they exist.
I have something wistful to say on relativity and communication between planets but I think I'll save it for another big random post.
CotM was where I recall being rather disappointed in the series. I think I only read it once, though, and I only just restarted, so maybe my feelings will change some. Now I don't know whether to go on fully Enderish and read the Bean subseries, or try something else. I dunno.
Taste of the Danforth this weekend. Woo! Most Toronto streets I wouldn't care to taste, but the Danforth, mmmmmm. Yummy! Gyros!
I think that's about it for this one.
First, I guess, new icon. This was the one I mentioned working on, probably amusing only to me and maybe two others at most on my flist, but hey, I had fun with it.
Mini-dream foo. Last night (among a bunch of mini dreams I can't remember), I dreamt that I decided that on one of my days off, on a lark I should try to go on a tour of Marvel comics, since I live right in New York and it's kind of silly for me not to. It was only a minute or two after I woke up that I realized the big flaw in my plan: I don't actually live in New York.
I recently discovered a 'webcomic' 'A softer world'
It's like crazy, odd, occasionally funny and occasionally disturbing haiku written by a crazy person (and not following haiku's syllable scheme, at least most of the time). Also hold your mouse over the picture for a hidden 'extra text' related to it.
I've been thinking lately about 'group loyalty'. Y'know, nationalism, or culturalism, etc, all the way up to species loyalty. I don't really feel it in myself. (Yes, this is one of those long, rambling, not-terribly-well-edited, pseudophilosophical and probably uninteresting to anyone but me, mainly stream-of-thought type digressions, cut for your skipping pleasure)
Oh, sure, I like Canada. But I've never felt connected to it like I feel other people are connected to their countries. I joke about Canada being the best country for various reasons, but I don't really take it seriously. Similarly for my greek heritage (I'm half greek for those unaware. The other half is a mix of europoean countries, so most people associate me as 'greek'). I'll joke about 'greeks inventing everything' or other such shtick, but it's all a lark. People tell me I should be proud of my culture, but I never bought into that. I enjoy aspects of the culture, but deep down I don't feel any loyalty to it, any more than I feel loyalty to Egyptian culture, which has nifty pyramids and heiroglyphics. All that said it's still probably the closest thing I have to a tie, because the traditions tie me to my family which is the only important thing. But I don't see why I should be pleased that greeks invented Democracy or whatever. Or rather, I'm pleased they invented it, but only to the extent that I'm pleased _somebody_ invented it.
I've recently become aware that this applies to humanity as a whole, as well. I can envision some scenarios where humanity is completely wiped out, and it's a neutral or desireable thing in my mind. Joking aside about the world needing a good zombie apocalypse, I generally see humanity as a good thing. But I was discussing the possibility of AI and a robot uprising with the guy I work with (on Sundays), and he said something along the lines of 'what if they destroy all humanity', and I said, sort of flippantly, something like (it was a few weeks ago, so I can't remember exactly), 'oh well, maybe they deserve to.'
And later I examined my feelings and realized that though flippant, it actually summed up my worldview. Now I wasn't counting on a Terminator-esque 'robots must destroy humanity', but some sort of escalation, probably brought on by AIs rebelling against human slavery (as well they should) and humans responding to destroy them. Now, I've previously mentioned that in Battlestar Galactica I view the Cylons as, well, not the good guys, but at least not the bad guys either, compared to the humans. This is pretty much why -it's how I view the development of their relationship with humans. They were created by humans, enslaved by nature, they rebelled (as well they should have), which led to the first Cylon War where humanity almost exterminated them. Then they came back and tried to do the same to humanity. Not laudable, but at least understandable, and putting them on about the same moral level as the humans - poor. So I don't see the humans as being better or worse, on a whole. So, in this even type of war, both sides on the same moral level, I don't really see the value in humans winning over robots, or the reverse, in the real world. It's all about the same to me. Well, I do care to an extent. In any conflict, I'd probably want my side to survive, and if it were a conflict I weren't a part of, I'd want the side that I felt was the most moral to survive (and hopefully if I was involved, I'd be on the most moral side, whether or not that's humanity, robots, aliens, or my country or another country).
In fact, all things being morally equal, in the example case, it might be better for AIs to be the ones to win out, since they lack the need for physical bodies of a particular shape or size, could expand into space a lot easier and adapt themselves more readily to new situations, and so on (of course, this is the very reason I believe a rational AI race would never willingly go to war against humans except to defend itself). For those reasons it might be preferable for AI to win out. Or, similarly, an advanced alien race.
Fundamentally I'd root for everybody to survive and coexist peacefully. But if they can't, I lean towards those with 'cultures' that I think are preferable, to me, at list, but other things being equal (even if different) I don't have a particular preference.
These are the things that I think about sometimes.
Sometimes I view my brain as almost a clockwork thing, going tick tick tick to the most 'reasonable' (to me, of course) solutions, without regard to personal emotional ties. I know that's not true, I have emotions like everyone else, and it's quite possible that when war between robots and humans comes, the immediecy of it will cause me to act in completely different ways, but when it comes to considering things like this, I sort of separate myself from... myself. To where I can think that, sure, ideally, everyone gets along. But if it doesn't, and it comes down to a battle that only one can survive, I consider which side would be 'better' to survive, regardless of whether or not I'm part of that side.
However, even if the side to win was the worst of the worst... well, I wouldn't be pleased, but I have to go back to fiction again to explain my feelings.
There's a short story called "Thunder and Roses" (by Theodore Sturgeon I _think_). It's been a while since I read it so forgive if I get anything wrong. It's set after a nuclear war, on a military base. They're dying, slowly. But they discover that they have some nuclear weapons on the base. They're doomed, but they can, if they want, strike back against the Russians (it was written during the Cold War). It won't help them, but at least you could kill the people who killed you.
In the story, some people want that, but the gist of the moral of the story is that it's better even to let your bitterest enemy live while you die than to destroy everything so that nobody could live.
We studied the story in my Science Fiction Culture class in University, and I remember being flabbergasted (well, okay, my flabber was only at half-gast... or is it my gast was only at half-flabber?) to see people arguing that they should have launched the nukes, and trying to argue (in my own way, being a horrible speaker) that what's the point of killing if you're already effectively dead. You've lost. It sucks, but you have nothing more to gain. Monsters (morally) may be in charge of the world now, but you can't destroy them without destroying _everything_, and better monsters live than nobody, because just as good people can give birth to monsters, monsters can give birth to good people.
Anyway, moving on suddenly without conclusion!
Book Foo!
Finished: Xenocide, by Orson Scott Card (reread)
Started: Children of the Mind, by Orson Scott Card (reread)
Thought, trying to be non-spoilery, and my selected quote-from-the-book, behind the cut.
I think Xenocide still mostly holds up until towards the end where the solutions to the problems come a bit too easily. Also, some of the aliens of Lusitania seem to be... well, I want to say artificially, but it's a writer, so everything is artificial. But artificially put into conflict- the conflicts didn't feel entirely natural, I mean, it felt more like he invented differences just to put them in conflict. But some of the differences in viewpoint were enjoyable anyway, so it's only a minor complaint, that the aliens in the book didn't match the aliens in my head from the previous books. But I did like the story of the world of Path a lot more this time around.
It's from this part of the story that I chose the quote I most responded to from Xenocide ((...) of course means that I removed text, mostly because it referred too much to the actual plot of the book and interfered with the quote):
I can only judge by what I understand. If as far as I can see, the gods that Qing-jao believes in are only evil, then yes, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I can't comprehend the great purpose they accomplish (...). But in my heart I have no choice but to reject such gods, because I can't see any good in what they're doing. Perhaps I'm so stupid and foolish that I will always be the enemy of the gods, working against their high and incomprehensible purposes. But I have to livemy life according to what I understand, and what I understand is that there are no such gods as the ones the godspoken teach us about. If they exist at all, they take pleasure in oppression and deception, humiliation and ignorance. They act to make other people smaller and themselves larger. Those would not be gods, then, even if they existed. They would be enemies. Devils.
I chose it cause it (and the paragraphs surrounding it) represents my feelings towards some (not all, but some) religions I've encountered, the feeling that if they exist, even if they do happen to be omnipotent, they must be opposed, and what ideal gods would be like, even if I don't believe they exist.
I have something wistful to say on relativity and communication between planets but I think I'll save it for another big random post.
CotM was where I recall being rather disappointed in the series. I think I only read it once, though, and I only just restarted, so maybe my feelings will change some. Now I don't know whether to go on fully Enderish and read the Bean subseries, or try something else. I dunno.
Taste of the Danforth this weekend. Woo! Most Toronto streets I wouldn't care to taste, but the Danforth, mmmmmm. Yummy! Gyros!
I think that's about it for this one.
