I get it now. I love Peter Watts' "Blindsight". Still, its issues I described earlier stand. Today, out of respect for the work, I want to elaborate on the novel's problematic postulates I only briefly mentioned before. I will provide the exact words that, in their respective contexts, made it feel like those were the postulates the author believed in.
- Everyone commits war crimes. There's nothing unusual about them.
Direct quote: "No matter that the four who'd died had been guilty of multiple counts of rape, torture, and homicide; that's just what people *did* in wartime. It's what they'd always done. There was nothing *polite* about war, no honorable code beyond the chain of command and the circling of wagons. [...] There may be murderers and rapists in our midst, but by God they're *our* murderers and rapists."
You don't have to dig deep for this one. There are definitely societies that take war crimes seriously, systematically punish their own side for misconduct, and keep the number of those misconducts as low as humanly possible. There are definitely societies that celebrate war crimes, reward their war criminals with the highest government-issued orders of merit, and have phrases such as "it's not a war crime if you had fun" embedded in their culture. I won't dignify this senseless piece of cynicism with any more of my attention.
- Every bleeding-edge human ought to be an atheist. - Every atheist facing something horrific or traumatic ought to question their beliefs.
Direct quote: "But Isaac Szpindel had been an atheist. All of us were. We'd all started out that way, at least."
It was said as if it were obvious or natural that all of the crew members were atheists. And why would it be obvious, natural, or even casually possible for all of them to be atheists, except for the author's own bias? Look at the bleeding-edge humans today: scientists, billionaires. Even when they don't mention God directly, they often say something like, "Yeah, it's entirely possible we live a simulation created by someone." Why won't those people be open-minded? Why must they firmly believe no agency was involved in the creation of the universe, and no overarching agency has been present there ever since?
As for the atheists turning believers, statistical data confirms trauma increases religiosity. However, there are also many instances when people's beliefs remained unaffected. I just didn't like that part. It felt cheesy. If atheism is an obvious choice for you, then it shouldn't be easily undermined.
- Everyone who tortures people and then goes and plays with their kids as if nothing happened does so because they dehumanize their victims.
Direct quote: "She'd just fallen back on the oldest trick in the Torturer's Handbook, the one that lets you go home to your family after work, and play with your children, and sleep at night: *never* humanize your victims."
Many of the people in the West masturbate to this word, "dehumanization". They think it's the sin of all sins, the root of all the world's problems. But when you dig a little bit deeper, you realize it is, in fact, irrelevant.
Have you seen a torturer in your life? Ever researched any information on any sociopath, sadist, serial killer, war criminal? How many of them were trying to convince themselves their victims weren't really human? They don't give a fuck about your dehumanization crap. They are just different. Different values, different mindset, different mental issues.
There's also another definition for this word: you dehumanize someone when you are being a meanie: you call them pieces of shit, you think them worthless, etc. But such a context would make it even more asinine. Those who draw an alarming connection between this so-called dehumanization and heinous crimes cannot tell correlation and causation apart. Humans are being mean to each other all the time. It's a healthy response to wrongdoing. How often does it lead to actual tortures?
However, I may have misinterpreted that piece. Maybe the Torturer's Handbook wasn't meant to illustrate how torturers think. Maybe what was meant is if you're a normie, and you must torture someone against your will, a friendly piece of advice is that you imagine they are not human and have no humanlike attributes. Even in this context, I've doubts about that technique's effectiveness.
- Every capitalist corporation only cares about brainwashing you into consumerism.
Direct quote: "They're calling it an entertainment device with massive applications for online gaming. Uh huh. And if you can implant sights and sounds into someone's head from a distance, why not implant political beliefs and the irresistable desire for a certain brand of beer while you're at it?"
The underlying cause for such an opinion must be the same old omnipresent "poor people = good, rich people = bad." The idea that businesses can genuinely want to create a good product without any hidden malicious intent can never fit peacefully in their mind. Have you ever had any business owner friends? Have you ever watched those interviews where big CEOs casually talk about their lives? I had such acquaintances. I saw those interviews. And the conclusion is clear: the vast majority of business owners do what they do because they love doing it and want to make an impact. You don't even need any of that experience to see it. All you have to do is realize you aren't that drastically different from other humans and put yourself in their shoes. Take the author himself. If he only cared about maximizing profits, he'd be busy running scams instead of writing niche novels.
Those were the postulates. It's not a complete list. The novel is saturated with similarly themed messages. Perhaps those were the most intrusive and memorable to me at the moment.
Some of the postulates may feel far-fetched based on the provided quotes; that's because they were extrapolations rather than paraphrase.
In case those opinions were not of the author but of the protagonist, the protagonist was not as perceptive as he was portrayed. Nevertheless, next time I read Blindsight, I will try to apply that "shallow and cynical Twitter user" archetype to the protagonist and see if it fits neatly and doesn't look like the annoying and unasked-for injections of the author's wisdom.
Wow. German women are amazing. So many of them showed up on a recent protest against the decision to force young German men into the army. [1] Let me tell you this: there are countries in the world where women think men *must* be forced into the trenches, while their own carefree life in safety *must* be financed. With all those rotten societies, with all those screeching feminists pushing for widening the gap even further, for even more punishments exclusive to men, for even more benefits exclusive to women, it's easy to become bitter and not see the beauty. [2]
The German women of today reminded me of the German women of a distant past. The siege of Weinsberg, AD 1140. Conrad III, "in his exasperation at the protracted resistance made by the garrison, vowed to put all the men to the sword, but promised to spare the lives of the women." He allowed them to take with them whatever they could carry on their shoulders. What did the women of Weinsberg do? On their shoulders, they carried their men.
Even if this story wasn't historically accurate, it was still a part of the local culture for a long time, which is perhaps even more important.
I would even feel uncomfortable from this patronizing. My factory settings tell me I should rather die than be seen, a big able-bodied man, carried to safety by a woman. This can't be healthy, right? Can it?
Do death-embracing but short-living people bring more value to the world than those who are equally capable but readily-humiliated and long-living? I can't tell. Sometimes you have to embrace death. But when a town changes its owner? Perhaps not.
===
[1] A sardonic doubt creeps in on me: did they even understand the punishment was intended for men only?
Not quite relevant to the point I was making in this entry, but still: judging by their signs, a lot of it was less about freedom and more about abolishing all security guarantees. But that's fine. When one side tugs toward "let's force our people into the trenches," and the other side tugs toward "let's get naked and reveal our most vulnerable spots to dictators and terrorists," a reasonable middle ground is found. Germany can easily protect itself with a voluntary army. So-called russia, their most obvious threat, has the economy of one German village, while the Chinese with the Americans won't invade them for at least another half a century. So why introduce compulsion? This is embarrassing. They need to pump those fat stacks into their military technology and infrastructure, research, allies, soft power, gray-zone operations, etc. For example, a lot of the casualties in modern warfare come from drones. The fraction of drone operators in an army is big and only grows. Is it so hard to automate it fully? Do it. (Please.)
[2] Not everything categorized as feminist today is bad. For example, I support women's right to murder their babies.
Me: I am mighty scared of pain.
Also me, every time the anesthetic wears off: I don't mind that. I want to be cognizant of my body status. I *want* to feel it, I want to *endure* it, I want to *learn* pain is just a signal to the brain.
A lot of Mr. Robot vibes, maybe some of The Expanse.
I used to dislike those who thought highly of themselves on the basis of their habit of reading fiction. "Yeah so what if I'm a worthless parasite. At least I *read*. Not like those *plebs* who watch TV and play videogames." But now that I read some fiction myself, I dislike them even more. Most fiction is bloody trash, mate. I'm interested in this medium, pure language, and wish I could enjoy it more, but it's hard. In rare cases when the author's writing seems impeccable, I just don't care what they write about.
What would I like to read about? Right now I wish there were a novel with the vibes of these images:
There's decay, growth, desolation, fragility, peril, and exquisite beauty in everything. It's unearthly. The vibes of these songs:
Desimal — VoidwalkersCurrent Value — Truly Yours
It's oppressive, but not aggressive. It's cold, structured, solemn, and atmospheric.
It's dark. It is the mind of the reader that must be kept submerged in the murky waters. The universe must not be cruel or depressive for the sake of being cruel or depressive. It must be real. Indifferent. Graceful, tender light can be there, too. Aesthetics must be central to the novel. I want it to feel organic, non-conscious somewhat, like the growth of mold, or the undulations of deep-sea creatures. The novel should induce awe, pensive melancholy, and maybe terror, sometimes.
Plot twists are undesirable. Character developments are unnecessary. There must be no place for petty quarrels. I don't want the novel to focus on regular everyday humans at all. Focus should be shifted to the exploration of the world and ideas. If there were humanlike characters, I imagine they'd be regally beautiful and even rot with grace. They'd be calm and impassive, like dreamers or machines, like the characters of the Matrix movies, or the Japanese kuudere characters. In a way, they'd mirror the universe itself. It would be nice not to be reminded of Earth. No traffic jams, office workers, coffee shops, social media, politicians.
It doesn't have to follow a conventional plot structure, but it should be no more surreal than "I Have a Special Plan for This World" by Current 93, either, which is otherwise a good match for the mood. What else is there? Liu Cixin's "Remembrance of Earth's Past" did a great job at being dark and exploring the world and ideas, but it's problematic in many other ways. Nemo Ramjet's "All Tomorrows" nails the non-conscious feel, although it's not very novel-like. Frank Herbert's "Dune" series is brilliant and checks a lot of the items off the list, but its focus ain't quite right; there's too much politics and interpersonal relations. Peter Watts' "Blindsight" must be the closest novel that comes to mind. The more time passes, the more I love it. It was recommended to me earlier by AI, when I asked exactly for the type of novel I describe here.
How long till AI can write a book according to your specifications better than any human? For how long will you be able to enjoy it? Might be you won't be able to. Might be some artificial worldwide cataclysm will erase all progress. Might be the book-writing step will be skipped, and violent singularity will ensue early. The world today feels more fragile than ever. I hope there will be a transition prolonged and gentle.
