A fairly common idea of sci fi...

[Holsety]

What is the worth of an individual versus the survival of a community, and how far can we push our humanity before it is worthless? These are two of many questions I've found worth asking from my readings of science fiction, especially after reading the works of Donaldson (the gap) and Reynolds (Revelation Space triology and other works). In the gap series, Holt feels the survival of humanity can only be ensured by taking on the characteristics of the Amnion and tossing away the feelings of humans. To him, humanity as it is is worthless.

In the Revelation Space series, Reynold's Inhibitors are a group of machines which surge into sentience when intelligent species in the Milky Way trigger traps, designed to draw species which have achieved starflight. They destroy the species, and in the meantime use their highest levels of technology to guide the milky way around a collision with another galaxy tens of millions of years in the future. This is to protect the sentient life that will emerge after that point, because the creators of the inhibitors (hinted to be bipedal warmblooded organisms that transformed themselves into machiens, but still feel vague familiarity with humanity even as machines) believed that intelligent life could not organize itself to stop the collision. Furthermore, the transformations that humanity undergoes to combat these machines reaches, at the furthest point, a sort of uncomfortable coldness; so many nanomachines enhancing thought processes that feeling is somewhat left behind.

Is the death of one individual something that can be accepted for a community if anything less could ever be achieved? Is the death of one sentient race permissible so that more races can later evolve? Is the death of a galaxy permittable, if the universe will survive because of it? Do we draw the lines based merely on numbers? What do we need to keep in our own hands, what feelings do we need to retain, to be worth saving?

[Avatar]

Interesting question. I tend to think that the individual, every individual, is more important. Maybe that's merely individualistic selfishness speaking.

But communities are made up of individuals. Save the individuals, and communities will eventually reform.

Sacrifice the individual for the community, and perhaps there will one day be no individuals to form communities. *shrug*

--A

[ur-monkey]

Verily I say unto you, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Matthew 25:40

...Jesus obviously had an angle on this. So did the three musketeers. (One for all...)

I agree, Avatar. Might sound a bit treehugging and wishy-washy, but it's nice to have the founders of major world religions and 17th Century French Special police both sticking up for the littly guy. If the whole is ever to be greater than the sum of it's parts, it behoves us to take care of all the parts.

Of course, individuals being what they are and all, there will always be the odd 'bad cog'. The tricky bit is productively incorporating such into a cohesive unit...and every-one deciding and agreeing as to the function / direction / ethos of said community.

And - remember High Lord Mhoram's take on the importance of one snake-bitten little girl in a different world.

'The Land will not be undone by making such choices'. Or something to that effect.

[Avatar]

But what about cases where it would be undone? Would he have had a different opinion if he'd known that it was the Land or the girl? You know, somehow, I don't think so.

Still, much as I agree, I might have a different view if I was responsible for a whole bunch of people...

--A

[ur-monkey]

I always took it to be an insight into the indomitable faith Mhoram had in the Creator, his choices, and the integrity of his Creation.

As far as this Universe is concerned, though...I don't think there are many of us who would consistently act according to the ethic that one individual's wellbeing is the equal in importance of everyone's. It's a fine sentiment in principle, but like you say - the implications of ever bearing the cost is more than most of us individuals would be able to bear.

See, this is where I think personal collective responsibility comes into the equation. If the individual is in a position to understand that their suffering could benefit the collective (not to mention easing the burden of the Big Decision Makers) - a highly evolved individual may choose to suffer or die for the sake of the greater good.

[Sandgorgon rider]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one

-Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan

although it may have been in some earlier work

[ur-monkey]

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I think Spock first said it in an original ST episode. Haven't the foggiest which one, though!

[iQuestor]

I think this is a great question, so here is my

Now, before I answer, let me just say that I believe we as humans impose our own order on the universe in an effort to make sense of what we experience, and also to affirm our own existance. In short, in my opinion, there is no universal good or evil, those are tags we place on objects or events that fit into our own world view. Murder, rape, theivery, buggery, disease, etc are bad from my point of view because they go against (in varying degrees) the basic instinct of self preservation.

It's like watching a wolf chase a rabbit. The rabbit runs for its life, it doesn't want to be eaten. From its point of view, the Wolf is bad, evil... but the rabbit is food to the wolf, food to feed its young. If not for the wolf, we would be overrun with rabbits. That, from our some of our point of view, would be very bad. But we also feel sorry for the rabbit.

So what is "good" or "bad" for a community is certainly relative to the individual participants in that community. There would never likely be a consensus on any given matter, so we humans invented the concept of the majority. Any answer would therefore have to establish the viewpoint from which the determination is made in order to be valid. This viewpoint would have to arise from the said "many".

Humanity, and by extension, most races depicted in fantasy and SciFi necessarily have the built in instinct for self preservation and survival, as well as the need for a social network. The need for self preservation extends to the community, because without the community, the self would be far worse off. For most of our history, this is been the extended family, then a group, community, tribe, city, nation, on up to civilization itself. We are a communal race, a social animal, and there have always been those who would sacrifice themselves or their own efforts to support the greater good. One example is that we send our young boys (and girls) off to war, for the "greater Good" of the nation.

So to the question, do the needs of the few (or the one) outweigh the needs of the many? I think we have to take a close look at that need. And we have to base Good or Bad based on the majority of the participants viewpoint in that community. There can be no definate answer one way or another without establishing these viewpoints.

Mhoram's assertation that the Land would not be damned by Covenant's decision to save the snake-bitten girl over answering the Land's need meant that such an act was itself a confirmation against despite.

[stonemaybe]

It's odd that a community that sets the individual above the community is normally seen as good or righteous, and yet the ultimate good or righteous individual will choose to sacrifice him/herself for the sake of others in their community.

That's not phrased right but I've had a long day and hopefully you get the message!

[Holsety]

But what about cases where it would be undone? Would he have had a different opinion if he'd known that it was the Land or the girl? You know, somehow, I don't think so.

Still, much as I agree, I might have a different view if I was responsible for a whole bunch of people...

--A

I think Mhoram might say something to Quaan like "if it had been land or girl" (and not just girl, or land now) "we'd still have no right to question his decision".

It's odd that a community that sets the individual above the community is normally seen as good or righteous, and yet the ultimate good or righteous individual will choose to sacrifice him/herself for the sake of others in their community.

That's not phrased right but I've had a long day and hopefully you get the message!

Agreed, I think you said what you needed to. The best case scenario is where community and individual owe each other something.

[CovenantJr]

It's odd that a community that sets the individual above the community is normally seen as good or righteous, and yet the ultimate good or righteous individual will choose to sacrifice him/herself for the sake of others in their community.

That's not phrased right but I've had a long day and hopefully you get the message!

Ah, a conflict. The good community refuses to allow the good person's sacrifice, and the good person refuses to allow the good community's sacrifice. No-one makes the sacrifice and everyone loses.

[Avatar]

The rights of the one outweigh the wants of the many.

--A

[ur-monkey]

Well, draw lots, then. Let blind chance determine one's nobility if you have so many volunteers!

[spacemonkey]

In the epic series Dune, Paul Mua'dib KNEW that humanity has stagnated,that a cataclysmic event was required to shake humanity to it's core and to begin forward growth once again.I must agree with Inquestor on this one,the relative terms of bad and good,evil and pure are distinctly human terms that reflect what we as a species has wrought upon ourselves. The addage by Spock in StarTrek

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,or the one.

In this quote in a perfect universe would work,however my idea of paradise may be another person's hell,That statement has it's basis in Leninism(communism) and further reflected in Plato's misleadingly titled book The Republic. Seek george Orwell's Animal Farm or 1984.In retrospect however without teamwork as a species we are doomed to fail.....So,in closing, we're doomed....... But you have to admit it's been a great ride!!

[Avatar]

It sure has.

(If you're a Dune fan, check out the Dune thread here for links to the Hangar, where we're dissecting it. )

--A

[Zarathustra]

I don't think this is question should be addressed as if it only had a binary set of solutions. The individual and society are obviously not mutually exclusive. The general social evolution on this planet has been increasing individual freedom at the same time we've seen increasingly complex and powerful societies. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

In fact, NONZERO by Robert Wright, shows how there is something kind of "inevitable" about this convergence. Societies which don't take care of their individuals--or repress their individuals--don't survive as well and compete as well as societies which place an emphasis upon individual freedom and prosperty. It makes sense, since societies are made up of individuals. This is why even in repressive societies like China, the government is grudgingly allowing their citizens things like internet access, in order to compete on the world market. Top-down mananagement of billions of people is extremely inefficient. It is more productive to give people power to manage their own lives.

Over time, this natural tension between society and individual will continue to produce more power and freedom for individuals, especially as technology empowers us to control our environment.

Thus, the question as to which is more important misses the point. They are equally important. Without individuals, there is no society. Without a society, individuals would be more likely perish, too.

[spacemonkey]

All right Malik,however in those types of situations the individual's desire to worship their heroes will still out power any society.To elaborate,there's ALWAYS one who may or may not be suited to the task appointed to them and they succeed wonderously,or fail.That individual will be held in high regard for the attempt;BECAUSE,throughout history the individuals INSIDE the society are craven cowards.Better to let the one die than all of us.....SO, society still further stagnates,yet sinking itself further into it's own quagmire.Even the greatest societies will fall from stagnation,for proof look at the Greeks,Roman empire,Egyptian empire,the Huns,history is resplendant with examples.However,not to be the nay sayer- I do indeed hope for humanity as a whole.But history has shown that we are destined to destroy ourselves................

[ur-monkey]

I've always suspected that the stagnation of a society was apt to be a function of widesperead decadence, which I think could be related to Specemonkey's idea of individual cowardice within a society. (ie. the more we surround ourselves with comfort and eradicate pain and risk, the more cowardly we will naturally tend to become). Of course, stagnation is not the inevitable destiny of all societies by any means. Only those that attain a certain size, stability, longevity. I suppose it boils down to generations of pain avoidance slowly and insidiously dulling our senses. Perhaps one of the inevitable consequences of this is reflected in our attitude towards individuals. Because comfortable and protected lives are somehow that much less intense or frantic than lives of struggle and hardship, because individuals in such a society would take so much of their lifestyle for granted, a sense of community and support becomes considered much less necessary. This leads to isolation which leads to a diminishing ability to empathise with other individuals.

Spacemonkey - I'm not sure if I understand the idea that the 'craven cowards' within a stagnating society might result from misplaced hero-worshipping, though it sounds like an intriguing thought. Could you possibly elaborate? [/i]

[spacemonkey]

You've basically have hit the mark there Mr.Monkey...The "heroes" are the ones who dare to take the risks.They either have nothing to lose or are appointed(soldiers for example) to mount a task so great that the "craven cowards" refuse to even attempt.The CC's as we shall call them are the ones who no longer have the primal instinct to fight for food-shelter-mates and have stagnated to the point they must send someone else to do the task.By worshipping those who can ,whether they succeed at the task or fail is irrelevant,they have mounted that which no one else can do or refuses to do,they further stagnate into a further state of atrophy within the society.After a given amount of time the society will continue to hold dear the heroes who can do and further lose their own will to survival.The CC's will eventually not be able to birth or raise children who can rise to this level,further atrophying the society as a whole.When population pressure mounts to a mighty crescendo and the society is called upon to fight or die,the "Craven Cowards"no longer have the will nor the ability to fight and all is lost.That particular society will fail and a new one will take it's place within history.As you see the process will eventually repeat itself again.The only reason that it will take place again is that humanity cares very little for the ensuing generations.The society concerns itself with the now not tomorrow.So when the new society does not have to fight for food-shelter-mates the process will repeat itself,ad infinum.
Idon't know if this helped or not,if not post back to me and I'll have to dig further back into my studies and give you a better answer.

[Avatar]

Hmm, some interesting point sof view here.

Certainl every society up until the present day has eventually collapsed either under its own weight, or under the weight of attackers. Often after, as SpaceMonkey points out, having become too decadent and corpulent for its own good.

However, as Malik will no doubt hasten to add, the level of technology that we possess is also currently unlike any previous level.

We are currently reducing the necessity of the food/shelter/mate fights already. And yes, some might say that this is starting to lead to stagnation.

On the other hand, it could always be the dawn of a new era of unprecedented co-operation and unity.

--A