Sayre is "'...the head of the Security Police...'" (p. 46) He and a copy of download Guthrie disagree philosophically and politically and argue irreconcilably. Anderson backs Guthrie. If I were present, then I would agree with some of what Sayre says but not with his dictatorial way of enforcing his ideas. However, where we stand in this argument is not the main point of the present chapter. Sayre switches off that copy of the download. Then his technicians bring in an altered copy of Guthrie who now says that he was wrong, that he had not really understood Xuan's philosophy, that his mind is changed and that he has become Sayre's ally. That has to be the most horrible passage that Anderson ever wrote. Yet it is so understated that a reader might miss its significance. If human personalities ever are downloaded, then their integrity will have to be protected by law.
18 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
You are right, this forcible, but UNDERSTATED description of how download Guthrie was unwillingly made to have changed beliefs was horrible. And it was so deftly and skillfully understated by Anderson that I completely missed that ghastliness in my previous readings of HARVEST OF STARS.
While I remain skeptical of it being possible to download human personalities into artificial neural networks, I agree with your last point, about protecting the integrity of their personalities by law. The problem being, of course, how laws can and will be violated!
Ad astra! Sean
Yup, Poul could do understated horror very well.
As for protecting by law... well, that's never stopped people killing each other, has it?
No, indeed. But it does make some difference that there are laws. In Britain, when we still had a death penalty, Alfie Rouse was hanged for murdering an unknown hitchhiker. By law at least, Rouse would have suffered no worse fate if he had assassinated the King, the Archbishop or the Prime Minister. Legally, the unknown hitchhiker (still not identified) was regarded as just as important as anyone else. So hopefully the same would apply to downloaded personalities and, if any were mistreated, then some at least of their abusers would be brought to justice.
Incidentally, one of the things that boggled foreign observers in Britain in the 1760’s was a member of the House of Lords being taken in a cart to Tyburn and hung for killing his valet…
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Both: True, laws, by themselves, have not always managed to stop people from committing crimes. But it does help to have such laws.
And a British PM was assassinated in the early 19th century--and his murderer's life was spared! Because the court ruled at his trial that the assassin was a lunatic and hence could not be held responsible for a crime committed while of unsound mind.
And that's the way it should be done: justice should be the same for the peer as for his valet.
Ad astra! Sean
Right on! I don't agree with the death penalty but I do agree with equality before the law. Also, equality of opportunity + racial and sexual equality + equal voting rights. "Equality" in the abstract does not mean much but it can be made specific. (And it doesn't mean sameness or equality in intelligence or other aptitudes.)
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe some crimes are so horrible that only capital punishment would be the right penalty for offenders. That said, persons so convicted should have the right of appeal.
Considering how often "equality" has been warped, abused, or misunderstood, I would prefer "even handedness before the law."
And you can't have absolutely equal voting rights. Persons who are minors or are insane cannot vote, quite rightly.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is the danger of executing someone innocent.
Those qualifications about voting rights apply to every social function.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Which is why it is important to have rights of appeal
Of course, which is why we have laws regulating ages of minority and majority, etc. Or guardians, trustees, regents, etc., managing properties or the powers of an office in special circumstances.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I tried to forestall possible misunderstandings of "equality" by making it as specific as possible. "Equality of opportunity" means that everyone with relevant qualifications should be encouraged to apply for an advertised post but each job should go to the best qualified applicant. Workforces should not be "equalized" by appointing people of different backgrounds even if they are not the best candidates for specific vacancies.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That I agree with. And no nonsense about "affirmative action," using racial quotas to make sure workplaces have a fixed percentage of blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, or wahtever, even if that means excluding better qualified whites and Asians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, when employers advertise vacancies, they should make it clear that they welcome applications from members of all social groups and minorities. That should counteract anyone afterwards saying, "I didn't apply because I need that I would not be considered anyway."
Paul.
knew
Kaor, Paul!
It might be simpler for employers to say: "We welcome applications from all who believe themselves qualified for these positions."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A bit more. Members of minorities can believe, rightly or wrongly, that they will be discriminated against. Sometimes they have good reason to think this. A job ad can say "This organization is an 'Equal Opportunities Employer' and welcomes applications from all regardless of race, religious belief, sexual orientation etc."
As Careers Advisers, a group of us visited a Motor Vehicle Training Scheme where we were told that garages were still resistant to accepting young Asians as trainees. I said, "We can get employers into a lot of trouble if they say that." I was told, "But they do not come out and say it..."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I understand that point. But I don't like the idea of forcing people to be better than they are, against their will, if all they do is being "resistant" to hiring this or that kind of people.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, I don't think we can force them. But the government can announce that it is an EO employer and encourage private employers to advertise as EO as well. Then job applicants would see which employers were and which weren't.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I can live with that, as long as the gov't doesn't make lists employers who refuse to advertise as EO and publish them.
My views is that if a black car repair and body shop owner doesn't want to hire whites or Asians that's his business and loss.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment