While reading Margaret Atwood’s novel Oryx and Crake I was fascinated by the dark
satire the author present’s in an almost light hearted manner. Essentially a story of the corruption of
mankind and the results of Homo Sapiens degradation. The story is told through the eyes of Snowman
and his recollections of his earlier life when he was known as Jimmy.
The memories of Snowman show us the levels to which human society had fallen. Untamed indulgences in vices and what seems to be a loss or weakening of humanities ability to empathize are the source for humanities corruption and eventual destruction.
In the recollections of Snowman we see virtually every vice humanity has been able to invent taken to its greatest potential.
Humanities unfettered indulgence in its vices leads to alienation between individuals and classes. In this futuristic society the rich live within their sequestered compounds out of sight of the pleebian classes. We learn of the different worlds of the pleebian and compound individuals through Jimmy’s interactions with Oryx. She relates her abuse at the hands of the privileged without bitterness, even acceptance that the horrors she experienced have brought her to a better place. But through her story we see strong parallels to our modern world in which the exact same story as she relates is genuinely played out in the poorest parts of the world.
The memories of Snowman show us the levels to which human society had fallen. Untamed indulgences in vices and what seems to be a loss or weakening of humanities ability to empathize are the source for humanities corruption and eventual destruction.
In the recollections of Snowman we see virtually every vice humanity has been able to invent taken to its greatest potential.
Humanities unfettered indulgence in its vices leads to alienation between individuals and classes. In this futuristic society the rich live within their sequestered compounds out of sight of the pleebian classes. We learn of the different worlds of the pleebian and compound individuals through Jimmy’s interactions with Oryx. She relates her abuse at the hands of the privileged without bitterness, even acceptance that the horrors she experienced have brought her to a better place. But through her story we see strong parallels to our modern world in which the exact same story as she relates is genuinely played out in the poorest parts of the world.
In the compounds we learn of the deliberate genocide
by pharmaceutical companies to create a demand for new drugs. The rich who are far removed from these
tragedies seek to prolong their lives.
With spare body parts which are grown from animals called Pigoons and
numerous treatments which are marketed as restoring youth.
The sharp divide between the life in the compounds
and that of the pleebs is a symptom, not the cause of what will eventually lead
to the decision by one individual to end the reign of humanity and begin a new
post-human race.
Your post gets at a critical point about the novel, that we are shown a symptom, not a cause. So what would you say is a key cause of humanity's divided-rich-poor symptom?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Johnny Nash "The optimum economic situation is not when the individual does solely what's best for themselves, or solely whats best for society, but when an individual does what's best for society and themselves."
ReplyDeleteThis does not exist, even apart from the greed/altruism paradox there subjectivity complicates what is perceived as best for society. The subjectivity of what is best for society would affect the social-economic divide if we work under the assumption that humans are not completely self serving.
Roussea believed that all men are not created equal. This is true, all individuals are not born into equal opportunities. And we are simply not equal. Some individuals are more intelligent, some are more physically gifted, some are more symmetrical.
Humans seek to achieve "happiness" which in the words of Aristotle is "Minimizing discomfort and maximizing comfort." (paraphrase)
In order to maximize comfort sometimes it is necessary to take away the opportunities for others. This leads to those with the necessary influence to alter the economic or social systems to better serve their interests.
So, putting aside the greed/altruism paradox and looking only at perception, is it possible for someone to actually KNOW when he/she is doing something that is best for self and society . . . or is that the INTERPRETATION of a need to take away opportunities to serve the balance is all we have? Part of the problem of all the inequality and interpretive nature of "best for both self and society" is that those with economic power/voice get to be the ones who typically wind up with the "necessary influence" upon the decision of what's "best." Maybe Rousseau and Aristotle describe the world as it is . . . but not what we could make of it.
ReplyDeleteAristotle defined Man as a "Rational animal." I pondered this idea and came up with a different interpretation, "Man is an animal capable of being rational." I will fully respond later.
ReplyDeleteIt's off to work I go!
To be more thorough, Man has the ability to rationalize. An individual can convince themselves that they are doing the right thing through the fallacies of belief.
ReplyDelete