Kath
5th July 2008, 07:57 AM
Well, that's the nicely provocative topic-title out the way... :evil:
I've just finished a re-read of TSWS, and a few thoughts struck me as I went.
Let's start just with the opening few sentences:
She was born a thing and as such would be condemned if she failed to pass the encephalograph test required of all newborn babies. There was always the possibility that though the limbs were twisted, the mind was not, that though the ears would hear only dimly, the eyes see vaguely, the mind behind them was receptive and alert.
The electro-encephalogram was entirely favourable, unexpectedly so, and the news was brought to the waiting, grieving parents. There was the final, harsh decision: to give their child euthanasia or permit it to become an encapsulated 'brain'....
It's been very interesting reading this again. On the one hand, it's incredibly inspiring to see what Anne was capable of coming up with in the sixties. She got a lot of trends right, some of them wrong, but came up with a unique idea and played it to the hilt. There's a lot to be said about what truly makes us human, and that stays relevant even to today.
On the other hand.... I really would NOT like to live in the Central Worlds! There are undertones throughout which emphasise the importance of physical perfection, the necessity of human-rights organisations fighting active, institutionalised bigotry, and just look at the first two paragraphs: Helva is a living, breathing, functioning personality, with the possibility of a fulfilling life in a role which has existed for well over four centuries (Silvia had been in the job that long, and her number wasn't all that low at 422). And yet - she's referred to as an 'it', and her parents have the right to euthanise.
That's certainly a step backwards from the current day and age, especially when CW seems to have this life-venerating ethos (look at Kira's position, and the hoo-har over the actors!). It reminds me far too much of far too many dystopias - you get to live if you're healthy enough, but woe betide you if you want to break away from the norm. And the whole idea that computers run things behind the scenes - not even brains, but computers - that a thing is responsible for deciding who does what (look at the selection of Prane for the Corviki mission, and computer-influence on some of Helva's tasks) in society.... *shudder*
Still, that's SF for you. If you extrapolate, you're bound to get some things wrong.
Let's look at some of the details:
What she got right - the improvements in reproductive technology, and the options available to Kira. [And wrong - getting womb-to-womb fetal transfer developed in the 20th century prior to IVF techniques! On a side note, if you want other stories relating womb to womb transfers dating from roughly that era or a decade or so later, there's a lovely short story by Marion Zimmer Bradley which features that idea, or for a better-realised version, read Bujold's Barrayar in which the use of uterine replicators plays a very important role.]
And on the downside: look at the implications of the gene-banks run by central worlds. They can cook up children to order on a grand scale, they can share/use your genetic material without your knowledge or consent (when it's MANDATORY in the post-Kira age to bank your sperm or ova, it doesn't matter what disclaimers you get to sign), and they freely admit to breeding humans with the desired characteristics as mandated by the computers that run the place. Yes, they don't deny the 'less worthy' their chance to breed naturally, but in a rapidly expanding interplanetary population where humans are bred to order ONLY from favourable stock, is eugenics any less present on the grand scale?
Another niggle - all the conditioning. Brains are conditioned, brawns are conditioned, and you can't get into any position of influence without demonstrably toeing the party line. This place is one step removed from 1984, people!
So here's a question for the older members of MOM, who've been around longer than I have: is Anne's extrapolation in terms of control, eugenics, euthanasia and bigotry really that much more plausible (or should I say 'less implausible') from a sixties viewpoint than it is from today?
[And: is it implausible at all - or is Kath just too much of an optimist?]
I've just finished a re-read of TSWS, and a few thoughts struck me as I went.
Let's start just with the opening few sentences:
She was born a thing and as such would be condemned if she failed to pass the encephalograph test required of all newborn babies. There was always the possibility that though the limbs were twisted, the mind was not, that though the ears would hear only dimly, the eyes see vaguely, the mind behind them was receptive and alert.
The electro-encephalogram was entirely favourable, unexpectedly so, and the news was brought to the waiting, grieving parents. There was the final, harsh decision: to give their child euthanasia or permit it to become an encapsulated 'brain'....
It's been very interesting reading this again. On the one hand, it's incredibly inspiring to see what Anne was capable of coming up with in the sixties. She got a lot of trends right, some of them wrong, but came up with a unique idea and played it to the hilt. There's a lot to be said about what truly makes us human, and that stays relevant even to today.
On the other hand.... I really would NOT like to live in the Central Worlds! There are undertones throughout which emphasise the importance of physical perfection, the necessity of human-rights organisations fighting active, institutionalised bigotry, and just look at the first two paragraphs: Helva is a living, breathing, functioning personality, with the possibility of a fulfilling life in a role which has existed for well over four centuries (Silvia had been in the job that long, and her number wasn't all that low at 422). And yet - she's referred to as an 'it', and her parents have the right to euthanise.
That's certainly a step backwards from the current day and age, especially when CW seems to have this life-venerating ethos (look at Kira's position, and the hoo-har over the actors!). It reminds me far too much of far too many dystopias - you get to live if you're healthy enough, but woe betide you if you want to break away from the norm. And the whole idea that computers run things behind the scenes - not even brains, but computers - that a thing is responsible for deciding who does what (look at the selection of Prane for the Corviki mission, and computer-influence on some of Helva's tasks) in society.... *shudder*
Still, that's SF for you. If you extrapolate, you're bound to get some things wrong.
Let's look at some of the details:
What she got right - the improvements in reproductive technology, and the options available to Kira. [And wrong - getting womb-to-womb fetal transfer developed in the 20th century prior to IVF techniques! On a side note, if you want other stories relating womb to womb transfers dating from roughly that era or a decade or so later, there's a lovely short story by Marion Zimmer Bradley which features that idea, or for a better-realised version, read Bujold's Barrayar in which the use of uterine replicators plays a very important role.]
And on the downside: look at the implications of the gene-banks run by central worlds. They can cook up children to order on a grand scale, they can share/use your genetic material without your knowledge or consent (when it's MANDATORY in the post-Kira age to bank your sperm or ova, it doesn't matter what disclaimers you get to sign), and they freely admit to breeding humans with the desired characteristics as mandated by the computers that run the place. Yes, they don't deny the 'less worthy' their chance to breed naturally, but in a rapidly expanding interplanetary population where humans are bred to order ONLY from favourable stock, is eugenics any less present on the grand scale?
Another niggle - all the conditioning. Brains are conditioned, brawns are conditioned, and you can't get into any position of influence without demonstrably toeing the party line. This place is one step removed from 1984, people!
So here's a question for the older members of MOM, who've been around longer than I have: is Anne's extrapolation in terms of control, eugenics, euthanasia and bigotry really that much more plausible (or should I say 'less implausible') from a sixties viewpoint than it is from today?
[And: is it implausible at all - or is Kath just too much of an optimist?]