"'De gustibus non disputandum est.'" (p.84)
(Matters of taste are not to be argued about.)
This version of Venus is a landless ocean because its solid surface is smooth, with no masses rising above the water to form islands or continents. That makes sense.
However, a scientist deduces how to terraform the planet, creating continents and a breathable atmosphere while, of course, destroying existing life forms. Thus, Venus would become as it had been imagined so it is doubly appropriate that this story was included in the anthology, Farewell, Fantastic Venus.
Convinced that the native cetoids are intelligent, our hero persuades his colleagues to suppress the information that the planet can be terraformed. That should have sufficed. Sure, the information will be rediscovered but the argument about whether to terraform Venus can be repeated if and when it becomes necessary. However, driven mad, I am convinced, by his early repressive upbringing, the viewpoint character goes further, murdering fellow human beings and cetoids in order to prevent any further human activity on the planet, thus, he hopes, ensuring that the possibility of terraforming will never be rediscovered.
As far as I am concerned, there is no moral dilemma here. Hawthorne cannot be certain that his crimes will ultimately have their intended effect and, even if he could be certain, he would still be very wrong to:
destroy the scientific base and its occupants;
destroy the cetoid "temple" (?) that his native friend, Oscar, has shown him;
machine gun cetoids, including Oscar!
His prayer to the God in whom he is supposed not to believe, "Please make a hell for me." (p. 135) is moral posturing. Just don't do it, Hawthorne.
4 comments:
Hi, Paul!
"Sister Planet" was a heart breaking story. I was unable to reread it for years, that was how strongly it affected.
I agree, Hawthorne should have not committed the crimes he perpetrated as part of his effort to make sure the intelligent cetoids would not be later exterminated by humans terraforming Venus. But, I don't agree it was his upbringing which drove him to murder and vandalism. He still could have CHOSEN not to commit his crimes.
This story is one of the TRAGEDIES Anderson sometimes wrote, showing how dark outcomes are as possible as happier ones. Another example being "Terminal Quest."
If the cetoids had not been intelligent beings, but merey animals, there would have been no moral conflict, of course. Humans could then have legitimately terraformed Venus.
Sean
No moral conflict?
When would exterminating a species not be a bad thing?
I can certainly think of circumstances in which it would be the least bad option, but few in which it would be an unequivocally a good thing.
Among those few would be the elimination of the smallpox virus, or the guinea worm.
A more equivocal situation is where a species introduced somewhere is driving native species to extinction. If it is possible to exterminate the introduced species, that is likely to be the least bad option.
Kaor, Jim!
I do not believe mere animals or PLANTS has rights which trumps those of mankind. If the cetoids of "Sister Planet" had been simply animals the way foxes or snakes are, I would regret their loss but that would not stop me from terraforming Venus.
Only people, human or non-human, can have rights.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that animals have rights but not human rights. If it is wrong to mistreat an animal, then the animal has a right not to be mistreated but it is not murder to kill it.
Paul.
Post a Comment