What's So Great About Ushas?

David Duffy · 05 Jun 2008, 23:21 · from 2008-June.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: David.Duffy at qimr.edu.au (David Duffy)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:21:30 +1000 (EST)
Subject: (urth) What's So Great About Ushas?
In-Reply-To: <4E82554550FE5149AD4B30A4FEA224920153E3AF at xchange.briercrest.ca>
References: <1bf4dd40806051203ne80adf4j5286cf3e0a07faab at mail.gmail.com>
	<4E82554550FE5149AD4B30A4FEA224920153E3AF at xchange.briercrest.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806060908060.20337 at orpheus.qimr.edu.au>

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Eric Ortlund wrote:

> From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net]
> On Behalf Of Dave Tallman
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:03 PM
> To: urth at urth.net
> Subject: Re: (urth) What's So Great About Ushas? [mx][spf]
>
>
>
> thalassocrat wrote:
>
>
> I've argued at length previously for just that inversion. Was it
> worth killing almost everybody on Urth to restore the Sun, just one
> star among many with human-populated worlds?
>
>
> b sharp wrote:
>
>
> For me, it is clear that Wolfe means to depict Urth as populated
> by a flawed race of people.  For the universes to have a better future, 
> this flawed race needs to be wiped out, starting over from scratch.
>
> Both of these moral arguments are missing something, in my view. They
> are only concerned with what happens to the human race.
>
> What's so great about Ushas?  It might be awesome in the long run. When
> Sev asked to find the garden, the Autarch opened a way to the Garden
> (though he thought Sev wouldn't be permitted to enter, and he was
> right). It might be the Edenic future of humanity in harmony with nature
> (as the Green Man also indicated).
>
> I agree with what's said above here.  I find the "moral inversion"
> argument unconvincing for two reasons.  First, Urth of the New Sun has

These arguments all sound similar to traditional theological attacks which 
give us theodicy ie how can a good God send a flood to drown everyone, 
earthquake to China etc; therefore the agent of these things is evil.

So, pestilences and disasters (as opposed to war) ultimately come 
from God in this best of all possible worlds, therefore the suffering they 
engender is not evil per se.  [As a strong atheist, I don't necessarily 
agree with these statements, you understand, but I suspect Wolfe does in 
some way].

Cheers, David.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net