Science Fiction Interpretations

Topic List

Replies | Active | Stats

Post New

General Chat

Chain Games

Author Lounge

Help & Feedback

Movies & TV

Arts & Recreation

People & Celebs

Our World

Literature

Music

Sports

Virtual Blogs

Tributes

Recruiting

Subject: Science Fiction Interpretations

Posted by: brm50diboll
Date: Jan 02 17

I have debated with myself starting a Virtual Blog for months. I have so little free time nowadays that I may not be able to keep it up, but I think I'll at least try. This is intended to be wide-ranging, so it wouldn't fit in the Television, Movies, or Literature boards categories and I don't want to clog up General with just my observations but here I can rant if I choose and people can choose to ignore me or engage my flawed analysis if they wish.

469 replies. On page 9 of 24 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

brm50diboll

Thank you. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Reply #161. Nov 22 17, 6:50 PM

Jazmee27

Same to you.

Reply #162. Nov 23 17, 9:08 AM

brm50diboll

Ozymandias is mentioned in the Watchmen as the smartest man in the world. To which Dr. Manhattan said that he was no more concerned with the smartest man in the world than with its smartest termite. I took this remark as ironic since Dr. Manhattan did not realize he was being manipulated by Ozymandias. It is true that Ozymandias had failed to destroy Dr. Manhattan, as he was able to quickly reconstitute himself, but Manhattan had still executed Ozymandias' plan to force world peace and cooperation among major world powers by destroying several cities in such a way as their destruction would be attributed to Dr. Manhattan. This plan, as stated by Ozymandias (after the fact), betrays a somewhat utilitarian philosophy by Ozymandias - the greatest good for the most people - or, killing millions in order to save billions, as Ozymandias put it.

As it happened, Ozymandias' plan depended on keeping his own part in it secret, and he successfully manipulated Dr. Manhattan into destroying Rorschach, who was more interested in revealing the truth than in saving the world, even at the cost of his own life. But it was Rorschach who actually succeeded, despite his death, and it was Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan who ultimately failed, because it turned out that killing Rorschach was not enough to preserve the secret. Both the smartest man in the world and the demigod had overlooked one small thing: Rorschach's diary, which told the truth and revealed the secret even after Rorschach's death.

One should never underestimate the power of one small random element to overcome the best-laid plans of mice and men. Human hubris is still hubris even with superpowers and brilliant intellect and meticulous planning added to the equation.

Ozymandias represents (to me, anyway), the extrapolation of Plato's ideal of the philosopher-king managing affairs and the fundamental flaw with that idea: even very well-intentioned, careful, and smart people are still human and make mistakes. There is no perfect system of government because humans are imperfect. I believe it was Winston Churchill who had said that democracy is the worst form of government except for everything else that had been tried. No form of government, no matter how carefully constructed from sound philosophical principles, is immune to corruption. I am not arguing that the nature of the government does not matter. I certainly consider representative democracy superior to autocracy, but there are many places in the world where representative democracy does not function well due primarily to insufficient literacy in the population and lack of a sizable middle class, so attempting to impose a form of government in an area based solely on philosophical considerations is a form of hubris.

Things may work well for awhile, then slowly unravel as stresses unanticipated by the enlightened originators of the peace gradually emerge. The choice of the very name Ozymandias points out this hubris. I would say I am surprised that a man as smart as Adrian Veidt would be unaware of the meaning of the poem from which Ozymandias originates, but of course, I am aware the name was not actually chosen by Veidt, as there is no Veidt, it was chosen by Alan Moore, as a signal to the educated reader of Watchmen as to what was going to happen and why.

Reply #163. Dec 06 17, 3:17 PM

terraorca

I don't understand Reply #163.

I have just located this blog/thread.

I have a great deal of interest in AI (Artificial Intelligence). I wrote a paper on the subject last spring for a class, and found so much interesting and somewhat controversial information on the subject that I probably could have written a book. I was particularly taken with Bertrand Russel's opinions concerning AI and crime, and the ethics regarding crimes committed to or by an AI.

Any thoughts?

Reply #164. Dec 22 17, 1:12 AM

Blackdresss

"So if you want AI to be nice to you, perhaps you should be nice to AI. "

Yeah! And don't go dumping your little A.I. child in the middle of a forest when he outlives and -serves his purpose!

That crazy movie was so awful! To include "The Blue Fairy." But Gigolo Joe was kind of interesting.

When Kubrick died, I think that film should have been scrapped, and maybe even before. Spielberg picking it up definitely didn't save the day, especially for that poor little boy! It didn't do Spielberg any favors, either.

I didn't read the short story it was based upon, "Supertoys Last All Summer" by Brian Aldiss, but even the title makes me shudder.

What about you, Brian? Did you read and/or see this one?

Reply #165. Dec 23 17, 2:30 PM

terraorca

Elle,

What movie?

Mark

Reply #166. Dec 23 17, 2:47 PM

Blackdresss

A.I. -- Artificial Intelligence

Reply #167. Dec 23 17, 9:36 PM

terraorca

Wow, I had never heard of that movie. I just checked it out on IMDb, and it appears intense. I might have to watch that. That brings up another ethical question. What rights does a person in cryo-stasis have?

Reply #168. Dec 24 17, 12:30 AM

Blackdresss

It IS intense!

The woman who played that poor little guy's mother said people would walk up to her on the street and say, "How could you just abandon that little boy in the woods? What is wrong with you?"

And she would tell them, "Um... it's a movie. It's not real."

Are you aware, at all, of a town in Colorado called Nederland? That's where the Frozen Dead Guy is, in a little shed, packed in dry ice. And for one dollar, you can go there and look at him through a tiny pane of glass.

Someone who flew back to Sweden or somewhere is keeping Grandpa on ice so when the technology catches up with that quonset hut, he can "bring him back to life."

In the meantime, every winter, they have a Frozen Dead Guy Festival. I think it might be worse than abandoning a little boy in the woods!

Reply #169. Dec 24 17, 10:05 PM

brm50diboll

Sorry, I've been traveling quite a bit these last few days. Just got back from a Christmas Eve service in Mesquite today with my sister.

I think the thing that interests me most about AI is the idea of what point do we consider consciousness to be sufficient to warrant extension of human rights. It is interesting that David's abandonment was referred to as the abandonment of a child. Why not "junking an obsolete machine?" After all, David was a machine, not a true child. Many people think this argument is irrelevant or silly because we are nowhere near a level of AI that could "pass" for human; i.e. pass the Turing Test. I disagree. I think we are only a generation or two away from that level of AI and we need to strongly consider the ethics involved. Already, PETA would argue that higher level mammals are sufficiently sentient as to deserve all sorts of legal protections from society. AI has the potential to not just reach human level of intelligence but actually far surpass it at some point. And at what point of intelligence does it become reasonable to talk about moral choices? We may euthanize an animal that attacked a human, but we do not call a mountain lion "evil" for attacking a hiker since we know the behavior was instinctive, but I would argue that HAL 9000's actions in 2001 do, in fact, constitute evil, not just flawed programming.

So I think it is very interesting as to where we "draw the line", especially as any choice of boundaries is debatable. I consider Monica's treatment of David to be cruel, but some would say she could have just had him deactivated, and the fact that she chose not to do that shows she was concerned about the ethical implications of unilaterally "killing" a sentient being with a potentially immortal lifespan, especially as David had done nothing to warrant "death". Certainly the human participants in the "flesh fairs" could be considered much crueler than Monica.

There is a kind of "creepy sadness" to both AI (the movie) and its short story progenitor "Supertoys Last All Summer Long". I admit it is difficult to face the emotional implications, but I have a real melancholy streak, so I am drawn to these sorts of stories.

I haven't finished my analysis of Watchmen. There's a lot more there. Although it looks like Rorschach would be my next point of focus, I think I will analyze the Comedian instead. It gets more to the heart of what motivates "heroism" and how precisely that term can actually be defined.

Reply #170. Dec 24 17, 11:50 PM

brm50diboll

The Watchmen story actually begins with the killing of the Comedian. Everything we know about the Comedian is told in flashback form, all the way back to the 1940s, as the Comedian was one of the very first members of the group that was to eventually evolve into becoming the Watchmen.

To call the Comedian a "hero" would be perverting the term beyond all recognition, but moral ambiguity is a central theme of the graphic novel. Two incidents especially show the Comedian is not heroic: First, his attack on the first Silk Spectre (which, although not exactly forgiven, was more or less accepted in later years), and secondly, the killing of the Vietnamese woman (which Dr. Manhattan did nothing to stop, a point the Comedian commented to Dr. Manhattan about.)

Nevertheless, the Comedian was an integral member of the group, and was an almost exact philosophical opposite to Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias). When the act came down barring costumed superheroes, there were two pointed exceptions to the law: Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian. The Comedian, a right-wing jingoist who fully supported Nixon's machinations and, in fact, was responsible for suppressing the Watergate affair, was excepted for his political usefulness to Nixon, which included suppressing political dissenters. There was a third Watchman who continued his activities after the Act, but in his case it was not an exception but open defiance, that being the case of Rorschach.

A couple of scenes illustrating the Comedian's character further: When Ozymandias showed a world map showing various problems around the globe and his plans for solving them, the Comedian laughed at his hubris and lit the map on fire with his cigar. Typical Comedian. As for his sense of humor, there was this story: Man goes to a psychiatrist complaining of feeling depressed and down all the time. Psychiatrist tells the man it's not so bad, the great clown Pagliacci is in town and he should go see him. Pagliacci would be sure to put a smile on his face and improve his overall attitude. The man's reply? "But doctor, I am Pagliacci."

The Comedian was an ultimate cynic, to the point of complete nihilism. Everything is one big joke, so might as well have some fun with it. But he was useful to the corrupt state, so he remained active until his end, when someone stronger finally killed him, while wearing a Smiley Face button, naturally. Revealing his killer would give away the story, of course, but Rorshach wasn't going to be deterred: he solved the mystery.

Reply #171. Dec 26 17, 5:50 PM

terraorca

Brian,

You covered a lot of topics in Reply #170.
I do not understand Reply #171, what is Watchmen?

Back to 170. The Ethics of AI is what brought me into this thread. It opens up a whole can of worms. The same with higher levels of intelligence in mammals. Dolphins, orca, chimpanzees, gorillas, each of those has human level IQ.
So, that being said, are the Japanese committing murder when they have their dolphin slaughter every year. Go ahead google Taiji, Japan or even Faroe Islands.

Mark

Reply #172. Dec 27 17, 7:15 PM

Jazmee27

Mark, some of those things are truly horrific. I believe Brian is more interested by science fiction though.

Reply #173. Dec 27 17, 7:34 PM

terraorca

Those things are horrific. I'm sorry if they offended you or worse. These things need to be known, so they don't continue.

Reply #174. Dec 27 17, 10:31 PM

brm50diboll

Watchmen is a graphic novel from the 1980s in DC comics which was written by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons and won a Hugo award (Hugo awards are for science fiction) in 1988. It also made Time magazine's list of top 100 20th century novels (although it was a graphic novel - or comic book, if you like.)

Watchmen was made into a movie version a few years ago and has been through several other incarnations and is currently being featured in the DC Comics universe, although original writer Alan Moore wants nothing to do with its more recent versions.

My virtual blog generally does not provide overall plot synopses of the topics I discuss, although I do occasionally repeat some plot points and even give away an occasional spoiler or two. I do not expect that everyone who reads this blog is familiar with everything I write about, but I encourage anyone who has the time or interest to investigate further. Sometimes readers who post on this blog mention books or movies I have not seen. Even if I do not have enough time to read the books they referred to, I will Google their reference to get a summary of what they were talking about and may eventually read it when I get more time.

This blog is extremely wide-ranging. I do not stick to just a few favorite themes, but bounce around all over various science fiction themes. Watchmen is extremely dark and gets into a lot of discussion of the dark side of human nature, including psychosis. The original graphic novel is amazingly complex, weaving multiple different storylines together in nonlinear order across decades with inserted comics within comics. You would just have to see it to believe it.

I have no particular agenda. I like to think. And think about all sorts of things.

Reply #175. Dec 28 17, 11:09 AM

terraorca

Science Fiction used to be my go-to genre years ago.
Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Aldous Huxley. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, and Edward Stratemeyer. Recently I've read Philip Dick and a number of Ben Bova books. I could always rely on science fiction to help me to escape the real world.

Reply #176. Dec 28 17, 11:56 AM

Jazmee27

I used to get Asimov's Science Fiction (magazine) but I don't anymore as I had technology issues (with the player the library sent me). I also got to listen to some Weird Tales magazine the same way; I was only jusst getting into sciennce fiction back then. Right now, I read a combination of stuff, but I guess prevailing genres are either science fiction or fantasy. A lot of the more memorable titles have darker themes (including some I have mentioned on here). I end up rereading a lot, because I don't call the library to request new titles (I had to fight for that; they used to send me so many titless a month or something, and the majority got sent back unlistened to because I had no interest in them. I tried mostly, because I didn't want the books to go back totally unlistened to, but if you aren't feeling it, no amount of trying to listen/read is going to change your mind).
I used to get Asimov's Science Fiction (magazine) but I don't anymore as I had technology issues (with the player the library sent me). I also got to listen to some Weird Tales magazine the same way; I was only jusst getting into sciennce fiction back then. Right now, I read a combination of stuff, but I guess prevailing genres are either science fiction or fantasy. A lot of the more memorable titles have darker themes (including some I have mentioned on here). I end up rereading a lot, because I don't call the library to request new titles (I had to fight for that; they used to send me so many titless a month or something, and the majority got sent back unlistened to because I had no interest in them. I tried mostly, because I didn't want the books to go back totally unlistened to, but if you aren't feeling it, no amount of trying to listen/read is going to change your mind).

BTW, Mark, I am disturbed by a lot of things humans do to abuse this planet... and the creatures on it.

Jaz

Reply #177. Dec 28 17, 1:18 PM

brm50diboll

I'm not really trying to "escape" the real world, but I will indulge in a little escapism from time to time. Rod Serling once said of the Twilight Zone (which I am stretching to science fiction in general) that it allowed him to write serious stories about real problems because people took it as fantastic space alien stories, but if he had tried to write stories as more traditional drama, he would've encountered severe censorship issues as well as large scale public protests. Science fiction can "fly below the radar" on many issues because most people don't see the connection to the real world. "He who has an ear, let him hear." Not everyone can understand what these stories are really about, and that's probably a good thing. Of the authors you mentioned, Mark, Philip Dick is most intriguing to me. So many of his stories have been made into movie form, and many of them I haven't discussed yet (but I will try to eventually get around to some of them.)

Reply #178. Dec 28 17, 1:18 PM

Jazmee27

People have different reasons for liking the genre. Its not all about escape. Often, those of us who take an interest and understand notice parallels, the "what could be," the possibilities, even implausibilities. Through reading novels or watching films of this nature, we can explore various topics that might otherwise be "too serious" or even taboo.

Reply #179. Dec 28 17, 2:53 PM

brm50diboll

Another reason for liking science fiction is that it considers consequences of present trends if extrapolated over longer periods of time. It has been said that the law is always behind technology. Given the potential dangerousness of technology, this is unfortunate. Trial and error is a very inefficient method for dealing with consequences that could have and probably should have been anticipated in advance. What if? This is a very important question to ask before it turns into Now what?

Reply #180. Dec 28 17, 3:18 PM

469 replies. On page 9 of 24 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Legal / Conditions of Use