Lifeboat stories
Mar. 17th, 2013 06:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydySo somebody, I don't remember who, has a new novel out where the general theme is that the only way for the human race to survive is for the main character (who is genetically neuter) to commit mass murder. James Nicol, who has a much lower tolerance than I do for lifeboat stories, is mocking it, and people on his blog are helping out. I can't say they're wrong. But it leads me back to the ultimate sf life boat story, "Cold Equations." (Quick definition: lifeboat story: there are X number or people on a lifeboat, which will only support X-1. Who do you throw overboard?)
I continue, into my old age, to like "Cold Equations." Part of it is sheerly nostalgia. In all honest truth, "Cold Equations" was the first time that I ran into the concept that physics trumped wishful thinking. The idea that the world was really, truly real and that good people and good intentions couldn't make it different than it was was an eye opener for me. There are problems with the story, of course. There are legitimate arguments about the set-up. But, if you accept the givens, the answer is logical, reasonable, and inevitable. (I hereby disregard as foolish the argument than the pilot could have done radical leg-ectomies on himself and the girl and thereby saved both their lives. There is no reason to believe, based on when the story was written and the amount of tech likely available to the protagonists, that the two of them would have survived the amputations. Or managed to pilot the capsule to the ground after the leg-ectomies. And that's the closest argument to realistic I've seen that doesn't alter the basic parameters of the problem that might work.)
I find myself wondering what the attraction of life boat stories is, though. Is it just that we want to be able to justify killing innocent people? Is there some base instinct we have to want to be able to kill people? I don't remember where it is that Lois McMaster Bujold says that hard choices are hypnotic, but she's right. But I think that the thing we find hypnotic is not just the hardness of the choice, but its certainty. There's a clear, defined, understood reason why some people die and other people live. Yes, we throw the crippled 12 year old over-board, but we all understand that there's a reason. It will preserve other lives. That's one of the reasons why the usual life boat argument is so unsatisfactory. In real life, even real life involving life boats, we don't know what's going to happen. We don't know if rescue will come in a day or a thousand days. In a day, we didn't need to kill the crippled girl. If in a thousand, then we were all dead anyway, and we didn't need to kill the little girl, we could all have died together. Who knows when or if it will rain? Who knows what fish we may or may not be able to catch from the sea. (Life boats tend to attract life, actually, and the hard equation of X amount of food and water is anything but a hard equation, in the end.) "Cold Equations" doesn't have any of those fuzzy edges, which is why it's so satisfactory as a story, but so unsatisfactory as a model for real life.
In real life, we don't know why people live and die. We don't have any good answers for why him and not her, why me and not him, why them or us and not us or them. It's complicated and scary, and there aren't any actual, simple equations deciding all these scary things life and death and disease and happiness. It's why people reach to a God, a hope that there is somebody in charge of all these big, scary, random events that change us into things we never expected to be, sometimes change us into things that are not at all. Even if we have to be the crippled 12 year old on the life boat, we'd like to believe that there's a reason, a point, a clear choice being made. And there isn't. There's us, every day, making choices, in a world where things aren't clear, aren't precise, aren't easy. And you know, maybe it'll rain. Maybe we'll be able to catch some fish. Maybe there'll be a desert island. Maybe we'll be rescued. Maybe we can rescue ourselves. It seems, you know, worth trying.
I continue, into my old age, to like "Cold Equations." Part of it is sheerly nostalgia. In all honest truth, "Cold Equations" was the first time that I ran into the concept that physics trumped wishful thinking. The idea that the world was really, truly real and that good people and good intentions couldn't make it different than it was was an eye opener for me. There are problems with the story, of course. There are legitimate arguments about the set-up. But, if you accept the givens, the answer is logical, reasonable, and inevitable. (I hereby disregard as foolish the argument than the pilot could have done radical leg-ectomies on himself and the girl and thereby saved both their lives. There is no reason to believe, based on when the story was written and the amount of tech likely available to the protagonists, that the two of them would have survived the amputations. Or managed to pilot the capsule to the ground after the leg-ectomies. And that's the closest argument to realistic I've seen that doesn't alter the basic parameters of the problem that might work.)
I find myself wondering what the attraction of life boat stories is, though. Is it just that we want to be able to justify killing innocent people? Is there some base instinct we have to want to be able to kill people? I don't remember where it is that Lois McMaster Bujold says that hard choices are hypnotic, but she's right. But I think that the thing we find hypnotic is not just the hardness of the choice, but its certainty. There's a clear, defined, understood reason why some people die and other people live. Yes, we throw the crippled 12 year old over-board, but we all understand that there's a reason. It will preserve other lives. That's one of the reasons why the usual life boat argument is so unsatisfactory. In real life, even real life involving life boats, we don't know what's going to happen. We don't know if rescue will come in a day or a thousand days. In a day, we didn't need to kill the crippled girl. If in a thousand, then we were all dead anyway, and we didn't need to kill the little girl, we could all have died together. Who knows when or if it will rain? Who knows what fish we may or may not be able to catch from the sea. (Life boats tend to attract life, actually, and the hard equation of X amount of food and water is anything but a hard equation, in the end.) "Cold Equations" doesn't have any of those fuzzy edges, which is why it's so satisfactory as a story, but so unsatisfactory as a model for real life.
In real life, we don't know why people live and die. We don't have any good answers for why him and not her, why me and not him, why them or us and not us or them. It's complicated and scary, and there aren't any actual, simple equations deciding all these scary things life and death and disease and happiness. It's why people reach to a God, a hope that there is somebody in charge of all these big, scary, random events that change us into things we never expected to be, sometimes change us into things that are not at all. Even if we have to be the crippled 12 year old on the life boat, we'd like to believe that there's a reason, a point, a clear choice being made. And there isn't. There's us, every day, making choices, in a world where things aren't clear, aren't precise, aren't easy. And you know, maybe it'll rain. Maybe we'll be able to catch some fish. Maybe there'll be a desert island. Maybe we'll be rescued. Maybe we can rescue ourselves. It seems, you know, worth trying.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-03-18 04:49 pm (UTC)...for some reason which God understands but which humans can't understand, what with not being God and all.
This is how I feel about the whole God question: if there is a being capable of creating the universe, it is totally beyond our understanding. If we could understand God, we would BE God. Therefore, whether or not God exists is irrelevant to me, and if God exists, I'm pretty sure whether I believe in God is irrelevant to God.