WWYCD: Omelas

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

I still think that most of these arguments against "unbelievable elements" are equally as contrived as the elements they so casually dismiss. Even ignoring the age of the story (and' date=' come on, how much did they know back [i']then[/i] about how real science would develop?), it's still a stretch to assume that with Technology A "available", Technology B must also have been available. I mean, just look at Microsoft and other companies that are licensing their technology; can we really accept that, in the future, everyone shares hardware freely and doesn't try to make money off of their patents on life-saving devices?

 

Some of the issues that have been pointed out are based on the same physics the story says it supports. The girl's mass would have noticable almost immediately, checking the boat for stowaways or just locking the door would have been simple precautions that prevented the entire situation from happening, the passangers in the liner weren't informed about the policy for stowaways yet it seems to have been long established and the boat had a great deal of items laying about that could have been jettisoned to balance out the girl presence. That designing a emergency vessel with essentially 0 margin for error would be pretty dense considering the hundreds of things that could go wrong. They are probably other things more engineering and tech savvy people than I could point out. I haven't been talking new technologies personally, just common sense.

 

As I've said before, I like the story but flawlessly realistic hard science fiction it isn't.

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Hey, look, it's the classic comeback of last resort, "Let's see you do better." This is, of course, why none of us should be criticizing anyone who manages to become POTUS, right?

 

I don't recall saying anything about fair or unfair. I reject the whole thing -- question, story, and all -- because it's contrived and forced, a shallow morality play dressed up in a spacesuit, intended to shove a lesson down the reader's throat.

 

That's OK, though, a lot of "classic science fiction" from 50 years ago that people adore and revere doesn't actually stand up to a critical reading today. Most of what I read is science fiction, but most of the genre is pretty shallow and vapid, just like most of fantasy, and romance, and litfic, and every other genre.

 

Maybe the people who love the story in question and/or think it has some kind of deep and meaningful point should stop whining ( ) when someone expresses a different opinion about it.

You're not expressing a different opinion, you are trying to cram your opinon down our throats by stating it ten times, so far. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." You claim to be poking holes in the story, but all you've done is said that you don't believe anyone would ever have margins of error so thin, which obviously means you have a much higher opinion of human nature than I do. We can henceforth refer to this as the Intelligent Design interpetation of "The Cold Equations."

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

You're not expressing a different opinion' date=' you are trying to cram your opinon down our throats by stating it ten times, so far. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." You claim to be poking holes in the story, but all you've done is said that you don't believe anyone would ever have margins of error so thin, which obviously means you have a much higher opinion of human nature than I do. We can henceforth refer to this as the Intelligent Design interpetation of "The Cold Equations."[/quote']

 

That's clever.

 

Utterly meaningless in that bizarre non-sequitur kind of way, but clever sounding none-the-less. It has nothing to do with what I've been talking about, nothing to do with the subject at hand, and literally doesn't follow from your premises. Which are flawed anyway.

 

I'm a bit stunned by the kind of vehement reaction that's been directed towards any criticism of TCE. And really, I think I've had multiple criticisms and expanded on them, so I'm not that concerned with your accusation of repetition. I've repeated my reasoning as part of my responses to various attacks against my character for daring to criticize TCE, yes, but I'm not sure what else I could have done besides either never express my opinion of a story I consider a piece of tripe, or just let people run their mouths about me. People keep saying, "What's wrong with you? Why won't you answer the question?" And so I have to keep explaining why I won't answer the question.

 

Seriously, what offends you more, McCoy: that I don't like TCE, or that I won't answer the question it's trying so hard to ask?

 

Thing is, I'd never find myself having to answer that question, because I'd never be stupid enough to take that kind of mission with those kinds of parameters on that kind of ship.

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Thing is' date=' I'd never find myself having to answer that question, because I'd never be [i']stupid[/i] enough to take that kind of mission with those kinds of parameters on that kind of ship.

 

That's assuming you're given the choice . . .

 

And really, that's what sort of crisis stories like this are really designed to make us confront: that, sure, while we would never enter into such a situation by choice, we aren't always able to avoid unpleasant situations.

 

Informed of such a possibility, some of us react by saying "Well, 99.9% of us will never need to, so I won't worry about this.", and going on with their lives.

 

And some of us react by thinking "Gee, that 0.1% has to be someone, it might turn out to be me.", and take responsibility for that potential.

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

That's assuming you're given the choice . . .

 

And really, that's what sort of crisis stories like this are really designed to make us confront: that, sure, while we would never enter into such a situation by choice, we aren't always able to avoid unpleasant situations.

 

Informed of such a possibility, some of us react by saying "Well, 99.9% of us will never need to, so I won't worry about this.", and going on with their lives.

 

And some of us react by thinking "Gee, that 0.1% has to be someone, it might turn out to be me.", and take responsibility for that potential.

 

Just to be clear, I'd never get in one of those ships. I'd rather be spaced for refusing before the mission even started, at least that's honest and direct instead of the Russian Roulette of getting on an under-supplied coffin ship for a mission designed by penny-wise pound-foolish miserly idiots.

 

"Take responsibility for that potential"? Again, it seems like my character is being attacked for refusing to play along with the contrived premises of the story.

 

Never mind that I'd check the damn closet* before launching, with the delta-V margins that slim. And please, no more "But what if..."

 

*It's been 20 years since I read the story, so forgive me if I don't have the little details memorized. Only read it once, for obvious reasons.

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Just to be clear' date=' I'd never get in one of those ships.[/quote']

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that any specific story is what we really will encounter in real life. Just that they help. It's very rare, actually, to encounter in real life a situation exactly like that prophesied in a story; but if we've thought about a similar situation in the past, we can remember that and adapt.

 

These hypothetical questions won't solve any real problems, but they can help. That's all I'm saying.

 

"Take responsibility for that potential"? Again' date=' it seems like my character is being attacked for refusing to play along with the contrived premises of the story.[/quote']

 

Like the possible answers to the stories themselves, there is no "right" answer. If you choose not to take responsibility for what might happen in the future, I won't blame you - the odds are certainly against you, or any other individual for that matter, ever being in such a situation. But that's the problem with statistics; they can lie to us. Take, for example, the 6-sided die (a subject we should all be extremely familiar with). The odds are 6 to 1 against it landing on any specific side, but virtually 100% of it landing on a side. Some of us like to be prepared, just in case. For any one of us, it only could happen - but for all of us, that such situations will happen is a certainty.

 

It's easy to be a hero when the moment of action presents itself, and there is something you can do, right away. It's a bit more difficult to put in the work ahead of time, when there's no immediately forthcoming reward, and only the possibility that your hard work might someday pay off. I just hope that, should the odds not favor you, and a situation like those described in the tales (of this type, not just the ones above) confront you, you'll remember that there are people you can call to ask for advice.

 

But, to be fair, it's one thing to make such decisions rationally, and at our leisure, and quite another to be faced with the harsh reality, far away from the eventual larger consequences that might come from our actions. Even with all our preparation, would we still remember it and agree with ourselves, in the heat of the moment? Or would we allow our passion to overwhelm our reasoning?

 

Hmm, that gives me an idea for a campaign mechanic. Off to the System Discussion board with me.

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Seriously' date=' what offends you more, McCoy: that I don't like [i']TCE[/i], or that I won't answer the question it's trying so hard to ask?

Neither. I didn't answer the question either, and I stated why. What offends me is your presenting your opinion, which you are entitled to, as objective fact, with the strong implication that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they are talking about. You have stated your opinion, why the need to repetedly state it?

[Brandi]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

 

Don't chafe, boys.

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

The purpose of TCE is pretty clear: it wants to get you to an angst ridden decision thats just oh so dramatic. Maybe it was big in its time; I'd consider it pad web page filler by todays standards.

 

It tries to get to its 'grand' purpose to do so in an unbelievable and clumsy way. Even by early sci-fi standards, its handled pretty badly. But the quality of the story isn't whay you will like this story, its if you like angst filled melodramatic questions that try to make you ponder real human nature through an artificially created situation. Like the story of Omelas, TCE is pretty fantastic situation--the weight can't be made up, the oxygen margin was cut stupidly thin, and the screen door to the rocket weas left open, or the key was under the mat. whatever, the story had a point it wanted to make, and logic can't get in the way. (Much like the impossibility of Omelas occuring didnt matter to the writer, it was hand waved away in fashion similar to the worst of fan fiction we see today) At least TCE presents a somewhat sympathetic situation of an accident, unlike the degenrerate inhabitants of Omelas.

[teh bunneh]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

I like my Omelas with ham, cheese, and onions, with a side of those nice seasoned potatoes. Pour some green chili over it and yum!

 

Bill.

(Or has that joke already been done? I haven't read the whole thread...)

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Neither. I didn't answer the question either' date=' and I stated why. What offends me is your presenting your opinion, which you are entitled to, as objective fact, with the strong implication that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they are talking about. You have stated your opinion, why the need to repetedly state it?[/quote']

 

Because different people keep saying similar things to me, but my opinion hasn't changed, so my reply doesn't change.

[Whitewings]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

(Much like the impossibility of Omelas occuring didnt matter to the writer' date=' it was hand waved away in fashion similar to the worst of fan fiction we see today)[/quote']

LeGuin, by her own statement, wrote "Omelas" to illustrate the moral dimension of pragmatist philosophy. It was never intended to be a realistic setting, so that particular criticism is invalid.

 

Oh, and I think the "surfacing life pod" scenario presented earlier is an excellent basis for a lifeboat story.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Just to be clear' date=' I'd never get in one of those ships. I'd rather be spaced for refusing before the mission even started, at least that's honest and direct instead of the Russian Roulette of getting on an under-supplied coffin ship for a mission designed by penny-wise pound-foolish miserly idiots.[/quote']

 

[Adam West]Sure, Young Chum, there's a good chance the ship will never make it. But if I don't get on that ship, it's certain that the people of the Plague Planet will die. It's a slim chance but - for their sakes - one I have to take.[/Adam West]

 

Isn't taking those chances and saving the day what heroes do?

 

Yes, the ship is under-supplied and has a major risk of failure. Is it the only rescue ship ever built, or did the plague break out on more planets than we had better-equipped ships to get to? I'm not saying the situation is likely, but I am saying it's not impossible. Sometimes, every emergency medical response vehicle is occupied at the same time. SOmetimes, the police can't immediately dispatch a unit to a major crime because there are no units available to dispatch. And, in a world of space travel, maybe sometimes the optimal ships just aren't available when they're needed.

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Isn't taking those chances and saving the day what heroes do?

 

Taking a dumb chance whose danger is rather easily mitigated is what soon to be dead gloryhounds do.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Taking a dumb chance whose danger is rather easily mitigated is what soon to be dead gloryhounds do.

 

It is an assumption that the risk is easily mitigated, not a fact. It's easy to say "well, we should have a bigger ship/more margin for error/whatever". Yes, we should. But we don't. This is what we have to work with.

 

All this "I'd never get on the ship" discussion is, to me, akin to "Wht does my character have to risk life and limb fighting Dr. Destroyer? Why wouldn't the military be monitoring him better and deal with him? That's much more realistic."

 

"I want to be a hero and save the girl" doesn't ring true to me when coupled with "I don't want to take the risk of piloting the last-ditch medical supply mission."

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

It is an assumption that the risk is easily mitigated, not a fact. It's easy to say "well, we should have a bigger ship/more margin for error/whatever". Yes, we should. But we don't. This is what we have to work with.

 

And the artificial nonsensical conditions of the rescue mission is part of the problem of TCE. But even stories that look like 'hard' sci-fi often require some suspension of disbelief. TCE requires a lot, and diminishes some of its impact. The sensitive nature of the mission, the overly-narrow parameters, and key-under the mat security divert you from the 'tragedy' of the situation to thoughts about the unlikelyness of the scenario; you end up caring less about the story because the situation is so stupid to begin with. I guess we're supposed to be sorrier for the stowaway more than if she were just not a second crewman, and some catastrophic accident (as mentioned by someone else above) limited lifesupport. Thats a much less damaging and distracting premise.

 

But at least its just a technical matter, and doesn't just suck from the start like Those Who Walk Away from Bad Omlettes.

[David Johnston]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

 

"I want to be a hero and save the girl" doesn't ring true to me when coupled with "I don't want to take the risk of piloting the last-ditch medical supply mission."

 

The weakness in the story though is that there's no particular indication that they were operating in haste with stretched resources so this kind of mistake makes sense. From all the internal indications, operating with that kind of narrow margin for error was entirely routine, because, after all, the guy writing it was writing in a time frame where people really were launching into space with no margin for error, and this impressed him with how unforgiving space was so he wrote a story on that theme. Basically, he was writing the story of the Challenger disaster, in which people die because people have started acting as though something extremely dangerous is routine just because they've done it a lot and they've stopped taking necessary precautions.

 

But nobody's going to be setting up long term interplanetary colonies until our technology has advanced to the point where we can in fact build in that margin for error, so TCE is fundamentally an anachronistic story as written.

 

Note however, that TCE is entirely irrelevant to the issue of sacrificing the one for the many. The girl will die no matter what you do. It's just a question of how, so no sacrifice of her welfare is involved.

[Great Beyond]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Strangely enough there was a Doctor Who episode that was similar to this.

 

SPOILERS FOR SERIES TWO PENDING!

 

 

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

LAST CHANCE TO AVERT YOUR EYES!

 

In the opening of the second series: New Earth, there was a hospital run by the Sisters of Plenitude, a race of cat women renounded for their healing abilities. Diseases that were thought incurable were handled with ease like the common cold. The kicker was that the Sisters had been breeding humanoid stock in order to inflict them with every disease known to science to find these cures, but at the price of the life of the thousands of victims.

 

The Doctor, of course, stopped the sisters, saved the Lab Rats and shut the place down in a hot second.