Doomed multitudes

Chris · 09 Apr 2005, 00:14 · from 2005-April.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: rasputin_ at hotmail.com (Chris)
Date: Sat Apr  9 00:14:38 2005
Subject: (urth) Doomed multitudes
In-Reply-To: <4253362D.7010603 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY102-F420CC5A897AB7365BF5208863F0 at phx.gbl>

Measuring by worlds is at best one step removed from what you're really 
trying to get at. There are hidden premises required which can at best be 
contingently true, if that. For one thing, to make "worlds" be the limiting 
factor it would require that humans find and eventually fill to capacity all 
available worlds. For another thing, why couldn't the planet be 
"rehabilitated" after the ice future comes to pass and repopulated by human 
cultures that left earlier? All they need is enough science to whip 
themselves up a white fountain.

This perspective perhaps treats all humans as equal, but just in the sense 
of being equally valueless.  No number of presently existing human beings, 
no matter how large, is capable of outweighing infinite "potential" future 
generations. Actual human beings, in this view, can count for nothing.

On another note, I think that to some extent we are not thinking of Urth as 
just a planet like any other. Through the framing device of the play, we are 
at some level being led to treat Urth as a sort of microcosm. Its death and 
rebirth are in some way treated as the death and rebirth of *everything*. 
I'm not sure if this sort of allegory should be attributed to Wolfe, or if 
it would be better to attribute it to Severian.

>...
>You know what I mean.
>
>But the reason I am using worlds as a measurement is that
>that is the simplest way of saying it.  I could say something
>along the lines of all these 'containers' are necessarily the same size
>and so you couldn't separate into six containers; or I could say something 
>along
>the lines that if you take Urth out of the picture you have irrevocably 
>reduced
>the future potential of the worlds of man, and this reduced potential will 
>more than
>outweigh the people spared a New Sun. And so on.
>
>The perspective that makes this a valid way of measuring is a long-term, 
>universal
>viewpoint, which treats all humans as equal.
>
>~Maru
>
>Chris wrote:
>
>>That's actually not a difficult question at all; in fact it *seems* so 
>>obvious how he "can say" it that I won't bother to try to answer it. 
>>Instead I'll ask a more productive question:
>>
>>Why are you using "worlds" as a unit of measurement instead of individual 
>>human lives?
>>
>>Related: What kind of perspective would it require to make this a valid 
>>way to measure?
>>
>>To bake a cake for six people: put two containers full of the relevant 
>>ingredients into one container, and process appropriately. Separate 
>>contents into six containers and serve.
>>
>>Maru said:
>>
>>>Please explain to me how you can say that N worlds of people (where N 
>>>represents the totality
>>>of worlds colonized by man, including a revitalized Urth/Ushas) could 
>>>possibly only
>>>equal or be less (!) than N-1 worlds of people.
>>>
>>>~Maru
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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