Read:
Genesis by the editors of the Pentateuch;
Paradise Lost by John Milton;
Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley;
Genesis by Poul Anderson.
If we write "conscious rational entities" instead of "human beings," then we can also include sf about robots by Isaac Asimov and others. Asimov etc come between Shelley and Anderson.
God created Adam and Eve.
Viktor Frankenstein created his monster who quoted Milton.
US Robots and Mechanical Men Incorporated manufactured robots and programmed them with the Three Laws of Robotics because of the "Frankenstein Complex," the fear that robots would destroy their makers.
One post-organic intelligence re-creates extinct humanity in a remote future.
We have progressed from the Biblical Genesis set in a remote mythical past to Anderson's Genesis set in a remote fictional future. Is Anderson's penultimate novel the ultimate culmination of this literary sequence?
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The short answer: of course it is right for human beings to procreate! How else could the human race survive?
I do not consider the Creation accounts in Genesis to be merely myths. Rather, they are to be understood as allegories thru which we can learn revealed truths about God and his creation. E.g., at some point in the distant past, God used one of the pre-human honinid species ancestral to mankind to infuse the first soul into a creature which became the first man.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The human race would not have to survive if its population were reduced and if the few survivors preferred to remain celibate.
At some point hominids cooperatively acting on their environment began to speak and to think about it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree with your first sentence, which I also find puzzling. Procreation is the means by which the human races survives. Unless the species succumbs to despair and dies out, as we see happening in GENESIS.
And hominids not only began to act cooperatively, they also became competitive with each other! Kermit Pattison, in his book FOSSIL MEN, described how the palaeoanthropological team headed by Dr. Timothy White discovered not only evidence of ancient hominids being slain by directed, intelligent violence, but also of cannibalism!
So competition and violence also played a role in how ancient hominids lived 4 million years ago.
Ad astra! Sean
Humans make reproductive decisions two by two mostly, one by one sometimes.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That is true, altho I was thinking more broadly or generally.
And it was because of you that I got Pattison's book! What I've been reading in it confirms what you have been telling us how humans and hominids behaved millions of years ago.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sometimes individuals prefer celibacy. We do not know how they will be motivated in a completely changed situation.
I do not deny conflict, cannibalism etc. My point was only that a family or tribe cooperates and this is enough to explain the emergence of speech, then internalized speech, thought.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I was thinking of the human RACE, not of a small number of individuals. If the race is to survive procreation will be necessary.
And, historically, those families and tribes have often fought with or preyed on other clans and tribes. War and conflict are also cooperative endeavors. And thus contributed to that emerging of speech and internalized thought.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course, procreation is necessary for racial survival but is racial survival necessary? There could be circumstances in which it is not regarded as a priority. If a community of monks and a community of nuns thought that they were the only survivors of a global catastrophe, then at least some of them would prefer to maintain their monastic way of life rather than to pair off into married couples.
We seem to have lost the point. My argument is that cooperation and not the infusion of a soul explains human intelligence.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your question astonishes me! Yes, I believe it would be RIGHT for the human race to survive.
While the extreme example you suggested, small communities of monks and nuns being the only survivors of a global catastrophe is intriguing, some caveats apply. First, there would have to be SOME monks and nuns young enough to have children (esp. women). Second, granting that, such persons would need to be convinced they could legitimately change their wave of life. Say by being granted release from monastic vows by legitimate authorities, such as their bishops or abbots/abbesses.
I do agree that intelligence had to exist first before hominids and then humans could start learning the various forms of cooperative efforts.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, I think that cooperation generated language which generated inner reflection and that the infusion of a soul is not necessary to explain human self-consciousness. I am disagreeing with something that you said earlier in this thread.
Paul.
In philosophy and sf, we ask every question.
Kaor, Paul!
Then that is another point of disagreement we have, unfortunately. I believe both intelligence and infusing of a soul were necessary before hominids could become humans.
And the point of asking questions is to find their answers.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Both intelligence and a soul? We were taught that the soul comprised intellect + will, thus that there was no intelligence without a soul.
A question like "To be or not to be?" cannot be answered like a factual inquiry. It requires a value judgment by each of us. I know someones who thinks that life involves so much suffering that it would have been better if the universe had never begun.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first point: and that remains what I believe is what happened. A soul is composed of intellect plus will.
Yes, some questions can only be answered by making value judgments. And I disagree with your acquaintance's view of the universe. To paraphrase Genesis, God created the universe and found it good.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment