Some weeks ago, I was chatting with zaiah online (which, by the way, is great fun, and I heartily recommend it), and she directed me to an online work of fiction called The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect.
The last time someone did that, I lost many hours’ sleep. That time, it was Shelly, who discovered the (very long) online novel John Dies At the End, one of the best pieces of amateur fiction I’ve ever read and a work that sucked up several of my nights. (I was up until nearly sunup reading at one point…but I digress.)
At any rate, The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect is a neat little transhumanist (or, really, anti-transhumanist) story, that echoes some of the themes of Iain M. Banks’ “Culture” series–Look to Windward, The Player of Games, and so on–but from a very different angle.
It’s a good read. datan0de, zensidhe, and smoocherie, you guys in particular might like it…though you may find yourselves disagreeing with the author about the inability to find meaning in a virtualized world, as I did.
By the way, this is not a story for the squeamish. Extremely graphic and explicit sex, some of which is more than a little bizarre.
The idea that people cannot find meaning if they live in an environment where all their needs are met instantly, and that human meaning is only possible against a backdrop of struggle and death, is not a new one in science fiction, and I wonder why that is. I personally do not believe that my lifew is given meaning only by death; in fact, quite the opposite–death robs life of meaning, by destroying all those experiences that make us who we are.
Sounds fascinating, I have to check this out.
(I’m a huge fan of Banks’s work, and have transhumanist leanings myself, so I’m curious and a little apprehensive about this angle you describe).
Sounds fascinating, I have to check this out.
(I’m a huge fan of Banks’s work, and have transhumanist leanings myself, so I’m curious and a little apprehensive about this angle you describe).
Thanks for the recommendations. I’ve got a stack of new H+ books gathering on my library shelf just waiting to suck up more of your nights. 😀
Thanks for the recommendations. I’ve got a stack of new H+ books gathering on my library shelf just waiting to suck up more of your nights. 😀
I can’t believe you beat me to the punch with having an old-style Extropy symbol as a userpic! Curse you! I’ve got a nice animated one, but haven’t gotten around to downsizing it for LJ use.
Oh, and I remember you telling me about MoPI. I’ll read it when/if I get a chance. I suspect I’ll arrive at the same conclusion you have.
I can’t believe you beat me to the punch with having an old-style Extropy symbol as a userpic! Curse you! I’ve got a nice animated one, but haven’t gotten around to downsizing it for LJ use.
Oh, and I remember you telling me about MoPI. I’ll read it when/if I get a chance. I suspect I’ll arrive at the same conclusion you have.
I’d forgotten about “John Dies at the End,” which I’ve read part of, but not all of.
I don’t think death gives life meaning, but I don’t believe it robs life of it, either. Our experiences are often the experiences of others, both directly and, through the way we affect our environment, indirectly. An experience can’t be destroyed, and while it can be forgotten, you don’t have to look very hard to find experiences that have been remembered for thousands of years.
The idea that death gives life meaning isn’t new in science fiction, I’d suggest, because it isn’t new in philosophy. In one sense, it follows in the path of all the other dualities that we deal with, opposites that are effectively defined in terms of one another. In a larger sense, though, it’s arguably the central question of most theology and philosophy: how do we deal with knowing that the only certain thing in our life is its end?
The question of what we find meaningful in a world where virtually anything we might want can be obtained with almost no cost/effort is a different one, though, I think. Experiences that are rare, or unique, truly once-in-a-lifetime, are often held to be more valuable than experiences that are easily attained. And most of tend to find successful struggle, overcoming challenges, rewarding. Furthermore, these axioms seem to be universal across cultures, even if the idea of what makes an experience unique, and what defines a challenge, may change radically. If you posit a setting where those axioms no longer apply, is it utopia or dystopia? It’s my suspicion that in a post-scarcity society, those axioms wouldn’t be abandoned, but rather the ideas of “challenge” and “uniqueness” might start to seem pretty alien.
I’d forgotten about “John Dies at the End,” which I’ve read part of, but not all of.
I don’t think death gives life meaning, but I don’t believe it robs life of it, either. Our experiences are often the experiences of others, both directly and, through the way we affect our environment, indirectly. An experience can’t be destroyed, and while it can be forgotten, you don’t have to look very hard to find experiences that have been remembered for thousands of years.
The idea that death gives life meaning isn’t new in science fiction, I’d suggest, because it isn’t new in philosophy. In one sense, it follows in the path of all the other dualities that we deal with, opposites that are effectively defined in terms of one another. In a larger sense, though, it’s arguably the central question of most theology and philosophy: how do we deal with knowing that the only certain thing in our life is its end?
The question of what we find meaningful in a world where virtually anything we might want can be obtained with almost no cost/effort is a different one, though, I think. Experiences that are rare, or unique, truly once-in-a-lifetime, are often held to be more valuable than experiences that are easily attained. And most of tend to find successful struggle, overcoming challenges, rewarding. Furthermore, these axioms seem to be universal across cultures, even if the idea of what makes an experience unique, and what defines a challenge, may change radically. If you posit a setting where those axioms no longer apply, is it utopia or dystopia? It’s my suspicion that in a post-scarcity society, those axioms wouldn’t be abandoned, but rather the ideas of “challenge” and “uniqueness” might start to seem pretty alien.
Cool, I’d forgotten about this story from back when I use to read k5 heavily (really I think k5 is best for the fiction). Not sure it was completed when I read it.
Cool, I’d forgotten about this story from back when I use to read k5 heavily (really I think k5 is best for the fiction). Not sure it was completed when I read it.
My take on it was simply that – belief creates reality.
Each of the two important people to Prime came to believe that the life with a safety net wasn’t worth surviving.. and so that is the reality they made for themselves.
I really agreed with the story on the angle that preserving a set of quality and ideals for our own sake at the destruction of the potential of future civilizations was the catalyst. Choosing to live a harder life now, personally, so that others might be born and grow and live and love and create still more wonder and variance and power to the world (universe) is a powerful one to me.
There is a short story by the same author which does a lovely job equating currency and the perception of wealth with misery. Makes me think about how Icelanders view themselves as the happiest people on earth (by subjective evaluation) and are, concidentially?, one of the most homogeneous populations ..and how most people equate their level of happiness according to their relative stature within society. A blanket owning person in a population without blankets generally views themselves as happier than a ‘better off’ blanket owning person in a population of waterbed owners…
I’m glad it ‘entertained’ you. *wry*
A blanket owning person in a population without blankets generally views themselves as happier than a ‘better off’ blanket owning person in a population of waterbed owners…
And doesn’t that just *suck*? You’ve nicely summarized something that’s bugged me about the human condition for some time. We tend to view our situation only relative to those around us, rather than as an absolute.
The example that I’ve used in the past is this: if you could press a button and extend your healthy lifespan to 200 years would you do so? Most people, even non-transhumanists, would do so eagerly.
Then consider this: would you do so if the same button that extended your lifespan to 200 years also made everyone else on the planet effectively immortal? Again most people would do so, but there’s a selfish bit of the brain that’s somehow less satisfied with this outcome. I think that’s sad.
Another example which doesn’t get wrapped up in immortalist issues is “would you go back in time 1000 years (assuming no language barriers) if it meant that you would become the king/queen of whatever country you chose to inhabit?”. I haven’t posited this question to very many people, but it does seem like most (at least most non-transhumanists) would jump on the idea.
To me this makes no sense. The average wage slave in the US today has a much higher standard of living than even the wealthiest ruler 1000 years ago. Our lifespans are only a few years longer than most kings of old, but our homes are much more comfortable, we have better food options available to us (whether we avail ourselves of them is another matter), the quality of our entertainment is immeasurably better, travel is faster and more comfortable, we are safer, our health care is better, and we have instant access to information and technology undreamt of in past eras.
As Milton said, “It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.” What a dork! 🙂
My take on it was simply that – belief creates reality.
Each of the two important people to Prime came to believe that the life with a safety net wasn’t worth surviving.. and so that is the reality they made for themselves.
I really agreed with the story on the angle that preserving a set of quality and ideals for our own sake at the destruction of the potential of future civilizations was the catalyst. Choosing to live a harder life now, personally, so that others might be born and grow and live and love and create still more wonder and variance and power to the world (universe) is a powerful one to me.
There is a short story by the same author which does a lovely job equating currency and the perception of wealth with misery. Makes me think about how Icelanders view themselves as the happiest people on earth (by subjective evaluation) and are, concidentially?, one of the most homogeneous populations ..and how most people equate their level of happiness according to their relative stature within society. A blanket owning person in a population without blankets generally views themselves as happier than a ‘better off’ blanket owning person in a population of waterbed owners…
I’m glad it ‘entertained’ you. *wry*
A blanket owning person in a population without blankets generally views themselves as happier than a ‘better off’ blanket owning person in a population of waterbed owners…
And doesn’t that just *suck*? You’ve nicely summarized something that’s bugged me about the human condition for some time. We tend to view our situation only relative to those around us, rather than as an absolute.
The example that I’ve used in the past is this: if you could press a button and extend your healthy lifespan to 200 years would you do so? Most people, even non-transhumanists, would do so eagerly.
Then consider this: would you do so if the same button that extended your lifespan to 200 years also made everyone else on the planet effectively immortal? Again most people would do so, but there’s a selfish bit of the brain that’s somehow less satisfied with this outcome. I think that’s sad.
Another example which doesn’t get wrapped up in immortalist issues is “would you go back in time 1000 years (assuming no language barriers) if it meant that you would become the king/queen of whatever country you chose to inhabit?”. I haven’t posited this question to very many people, but it does seem like most (at least most non-transhumanists) would jump on the idea.
To me this makes no sense. The average wage slave in the US today has a much higher standard of living than even the wealthiest ruler 1000 years ago. Our lifespans are only a few years longer than most kings of old, but our homes are much more comfortable, we have better food options available to us (whether we avail ourselves of them is another matter), the quality of our entertainment is immeasurably better, travel is faster and more comfortable, we are safer, our health care is better, and we have instant access to information and technology undreamt of in past eras.
As Milton said, “It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.” What a dork! 🙂
Well, “and they all had deviant sex and played deathsports happily ever after” makes for less dramatic tension..
I liked Greg Egan’s Diaspora for a more positive spin on the same idea, although in that universe beings are merely functionally immortal barring disaster, as opposed to being embedded in a substrate which simply forbids death.
(The idea being “How funcional immortals would find meaning in life.”)
Well, “and they all had deviant sex and played deathsports happily ever after” makes for less dramatic tension..
I liked Greg Egan’s Diaspora for a more positive spin on the same idea, although in that universe beings are merely functionally immortal barring disaster, as opposed to being embedded in a substrate which simply forbids death.
(The idea being “How funcional immortals would find meaning in life.”)