Herbert and the Future of Environmentalism

[Khan]

I watched Leonardo DiCaprio's film on environmentalism last Sunday and while the film in and of itself was quite uninspiring I was interesting by one particular aspect of it. Several of the scientists pointed out that many materials that we used, steel and kevlar being the most memorable, and the majority of our methods of construction are completely unnatural. They were proposing that the need to use extreme temperatures and pressures to make steel and kevlar were not only extrremely damaging but unnecessary. Nature creates very strong structures, in spiders' webs and turtles' shells that don't require the extreme conditions which we use. Now obviously these processes are a lot slower but if they could be made viable we could start to see the world around taking on a more natural vision. Cities might begin to emulate forests, supportive structures could be more similar to bee hives and spider webs, soldiers would be equipped with shells not flak jackets. That's not even starting on transport, communications and many other aspects of life which will be affected by this new way of thinking.

Now I'm sure you're wondering what this lengthy green waffle is doing in the Duniverse board (Although I'm sure some of you have twigged). Herbert envisioned a society not completely unrelated to the plans of these scientists in the Tleilaxu. Could it be that the pressure for environmental support will lead us straight into the visions of the anti-technological lifestyle of the tleilaxu. Rejection of oil dependence and the industrialisation which comes with it could take us away from the machines of the IX and the Butlerian Jihad and towards more alternate methods of invention and development. Instead of robotics could cloning come to be our major source of labor, as Brave New World suggested was in the future. Will environmentalism not rely on the stereotypical 'hippie' image reverting to a more natural (or simply archaic) way of living, but on the ability of scientists to merge the comforts of the modern age with the methods of nature? Will Herbert's Tleilaxu be the future, rather than Asimov's Robots?

[Hypatia]

For cloning to even begin to be acceptable to the masses, two things need to happen:

1. Would the American voters please stop voting in Republican governments that tend to be made up primarily of fundamentalist-minded people who see science as evil and unnatural? I'm Canadian; therefore, I can't do anything to help along with that, although I do my best in Canadian elections to help along our more open-minded parties/candidates.

2. Cloning must be seen to be profitable. If the multinationals see a way to make money from it, they will find a way.

And now I've got a vision of cops patrolling their beats while encased in turtle shells...  ;D

I'm old enough to remember the "hippie" era, although too young to actually be considered one. However, the basic idea of harmony with nature has always been important to me. My mother despairs that I don't severely trim my trees back, and the lawn service businesses wish I'd hire them to put all sorts of noxious chemicals down to kill everything that doesn't line up perfectly. Well, my trees can grow however they please, and I only trim them when they prevent people from using the sidewalk without getting slapped in the face from branches or stuck with prickles, or if there's storm damage. Otherwise, they can do as they like. It was their yard several decades before it was mine. And they do work hard to produce fruit every year. :)

[MrFlibble]

AFAIK, there are lots of things in human technology that have been "inspired" by natural phenomena. On the other hand, we have a long history of ruining the environment in the course of our civilization. The problem with environmentalist-oriented attitude is that environment-friendly production, for example, is still often viewed as not cost-effective, and therefore not worth implementing (damn capitalism, right, Edric O?).

Our specifically human type of adaptation involves actively modifying our environment, yet many of such modifications have proven to have negative side-effects in the long run. I believe that in the course of our evolution, we'll learn to establish a certain "harmony" with the environment (meaning that adaptive benefits will not come with harmful side-effects), but I don't think we're bound to become more "natural" or "closer to nature". Unless, of course, we won't get thrown back into new Dark Ages or something...

Many humans have yet to learn that benefit is not only in taking, but in giving, too.

[Anathema]

Spider threads are tougher then steel, but not as durable. And I'm sure that turtle shells don't stand up to bullets as well as kevlar.

It's not that long ago since we switched from horse-drawn to motorised traffic. I'm not to well versed in the economics behind it, but it's obvious that taking care of a horse is a much more time-consuming (and expensive) effort than maintaining a car.

An interesting point is bio fuels: fascist Italy actually used these in the 40'ties, after they lost access to the oil in north Africa. The reason why we use oil now is because it used to be plentiful and therefore expedient.

[SandChigger]

I'm not quite sure I understand why you think the Tleilaxu were "anti-technological". They were just into a different kind of tech..."gentech", not "mechtech" like Ix and Richese.

Half-memories formed in his mind:  his body in warm fluid, fed by tubes, massaged by machines, probed and questioned by Tleilaxu observers.

I also don't understand why you see cloning as some sort of solution...to what problem? Rather than grow clones for labor why not train people already here?

If you clone a full human being, you get a full human being with human rights, not a born slave. Or is that not clear to you?

[Khan]

That's why I brought Brave New World into play, or was that not clear to you? Make sub-humans to perform menial tasks which could slightly drain the economy were they left as open positions. Undesirable which, at the moment create class divides and social problems would be easier to fill in Huxley's vision of the future.

Of course I'd prefer just to go the socialist route but I don't think that'll happen for a while.

I'm not quite sure I understand why you think the Tleilaxu were "anti-technological". They were just into a different kind of tech..."gentech", not "mechtech" like Ix and Richese.

Hmm I thought the post was clear on this. Obviously the use of anti-technological was a poor choice and I should have said something like industrial or robotic. Still I think the rest of my post showed that I was trying to open a discussion about the synthesis of natural solutions to problems, worker ants was what I was thinking for clones, with the current scientific thought. Instead of robots/kevlar/blah blah I'm just repeating now.

Spider threads are tougher then steel, but not as durable. And I'm sure that turtle shells don't stand up to bullets as well as kevlar.

It's not that long ago since we switched from horse-drawn to motorised traffic. I'm not to well versed in the economics behind it, but it's obvious that taking care of a horse is a much more time-consuming (and expensive) effort than maintaining a car.

See that is why it is a difficult point for science to tackle. The current trend is to steer away from heavily industrialised, and thus heavily polluting, methods of construction. Yet we cannot move completely away from the comforts that we have created as we are too used to having them. The balance, if we ever reach it, should create and interesting mix of ideas. The only real problem is whether people are willing to spend the time trying to develop the solutions to environmental problems, and whether people are willing to invest money to see if they can really work.

I'm going to say yes and no.

[Hypatia]

The Brave New World reference was obvious to me. What SandChigger missed was not the training angle -- but the job satisfaction angle. In Brave New World, each class of people is conditioned to love what they are and take satisfaction in what they do: "I love being a Gamma;..." "I love being an Epsilon;..." etc. With the combination of drugs (soma) and conditioning, each individual is programmed to be happy in his/her niche and never want to be anything else. Therefore, you have Alphas who are happy and fulfilled being leaders, all the way down to Epsilons who are happy cleaning the toilets and performing dangerous manual labor. There are no labor strikes, no demands for raises, not even demands made on each other for fidelity -- it's looked on as an unspeakable perversion to be monogamous.

[Egeides]

In Dune, I think that both Tleilaxu and Ixians were dismissed. They're there as radicals gone off-track and opposite extremes: the Tleilaxu comes as the extreme of "nature" and the Ixians as extreme of "science".

The Tleilaxu's "by all means" philosophy make them to be ludite fundmentalists using skill (technology/etc) in any wicked way.

The Ixians... well you know the Ixians.

Chigger:

I guess that the idea of ludites heavily using technology for their goals looks counterintuitive. If we look at some ludite anti-ugly-modernization radicals like Nazis though, they did use technology all they could for their goals.

I think that this presence of opposite extremes (Ix/Tleilax) serves a purpose, it's not random. In Dune, each of the two factions is there to push a given field to its maximum ("natural sciences"/"understanding nature" and "artificial sciences"/"exact sciences" types of knowledge). (And this all the while Leto II and FH dismissed their view of the truth.) So it's like if humans need to rely on radicals - fundamentalists and mad-scientists - to push things further ahead. I don't personally think we are to base ourselves on extremists...

The irony is that they're portrayed as being the ones getting the research done, all the while both groups' view of the truth is dismissed by Leto II and FH in Dune.

[MrFlibble]

I don't see why Ixians have to be radicals. They're businessmen in the first place, profiting from the Imperium's demand for technological goods. The Tleilaxu, on the other hand, are radicals for being secretive religious fundamentalists whose ultimate goal is to conquer the human universe, no matter how ridiculous this might sound :D

[Egeides]

I guess I have to at least partly agree there. The Ixians wouldn't all jump up and down in frenetic ectasy. It would rather be radical in their stance, keeping it up whatever happens around.

(I also see that both go towards fully extern ideals, all-machine or all-non-human-sentience. For philosophers: 100% telos?)

[SandChigger]

I think what threw me here was the suggestion (or do I misread?) that Huxley's vision in <i>Brave New World</i> was of a good thing. It wasn't. A harmonious, well-ordered society is a desirable goal, to be sure...but the fare for getting there along certain routes is far too dear. What point is there is speaking of human happiness if the happy things are no longer human?

I also still think the OP is reading into FH's Tleilaxu more than was originally intended. I find no indication in the books that they were Green as well as religious fanatics.

You'll have to forgive me, but tree-huggers and Luddites have always held a special place in my heart: they bring me much joy. And laughter.

I'm sure gentech will play a more important role in the future, and that our civilization will become Greener, but there's also another way to be kinder to the planetary biosphere: move the industrial production offworld. We need to establish a presence offworld anyway, and what better excuse?

[MrFlibble]

I also still think the OP is reading into FH's Tleilaxu more than was originally intended. I find no indication in the books that they were Green as well as religious fanatics.

Green, no. But certainly full of religious zeal, as displayed by Master Waff, for example. And their goal to make the human universe a Tleilaxu universe (as Taraza put it) certainly included imposing their religion upon the powindah.

[SandChigger]

Um...right. I wasn't questioning the religious part. ("Not Green in addition to/along with being fanatics.") :)

[Khan]

I think what threw me here was the suggestion (or do I misread?) that Huxley's vision in <i>Brave New World</i> was of a good thing. It wasn't. A harmonious, well-ordered society is a desirable goal, to be sure...but the fare for getting there along certain routes is far too dear. What point is there is speaking of human happiness if the happy things are no longer human?

Huxley took it too far, that much is obvious, but I wasn't suggesting that we become 'Brave New World', merely we borrow the idea of creating a class of clones to undertake undesirable and unskilled jobs. Replace the disgruntled factory workers with genetically manipulated people who don't know any better and you free a large sector of the work force to be retrained and put to work at more skilled professions without leaving a gap in production.

[SandChigger]

Are you for real, or just letting off steam here online?

Genetically manipulated people who don't know any better? You would seriously create a subclass of intellectually inferior human beings fated to become slaves?

That's fucking criminal.

[Khan]

You don't seem to actually argue against me. You've yet to actually refute anything anyway. I wonder why,

[chanilover1]

Huxley took it too far, that much is obvious, but I wasn't suggesting that we become 'Brave New World', merely we borrow the idea of creating a class of clones to undertake undesirable and unskilled jobs. Replace the disgruntled factory workers with genetically manipulated people who don't know any better and you free a large sector of the work force to be retrained and put to work at more skilled professions without leaving a gap in production.

I quite like that idea.  Where do you see yourself fitting in that system? 

[MrFlibble]

Um...right. I wasn't questioning the religious part. ("Not Green in addition to/along with being fanatics.") :)

Well yeah. "Tleilaxu" and "Green" are mutually exclusive ;D

[Khan]

I quite like that idea.  Where do you see yourself fitting in that system? 

Well I'm graduating from university next year so hopefully some academic role.

[SandChigger]

No, he asked "in <b>that</b> system", meaning the unconscionable one you imagine with the genetically modified subhuman slaves, not the real world.

Why wouldn't you want to be one of the blissful created workers, happy to have a job to do and to be of service to society? There's nothing wrong with that existence, is there? I mean, you wouldn't wish on some other what you wouldn't be willing to accept for yourself, would you?

Oh, right. They're creatures, literally "created beings", not fully human...so they wouldn't enjoy the same rights as we naturally born, unmodified, full human beings, right? They would be property, owned. (Created as needed, disposed of when worn out or superfluous, I assume?)

Wow...that certainly is a Brave New World, that hath subpeople in it!

You're right, I certainly can't refute the cold logic of such a vision. Bravo!

But...if you wouldn't mind humoring me a bit, could you explain to me why these clones, which would have to be fed and watered and housed and clothed and cared for when damaged (but not enough so to warrant disposal), not to mention needing access to waste disposal facilities, etc., would be a more efficient and economical

[Khan]

Well I'm just going through a possibilities, we could move to off world production, but how would it work? How would it be more efficient than what I have proposed? You've given a fantastically wonderful idea but where is the good economic basis for it?

No, he asked "in <b>that</b> system", meaning the unconscionable one you imagine with the genetically modified subhuman slaves, not the real world.

I already exist so it is a little pointless in answering but anyway... If I was created like that then I would have no choice, I wouldn't know any better. You seem to be blowing out of proportion in your own head what I'm suggesting. I don't want a world full of mindless drones. It would just be a way of filling jobs which are currently automated. Since the creation of such robots is viewed with skepticism by certain parts of the science communities. I'm not even hugely interested in this at all, I'm just thinking through ideas.

Now tell me how would you see off world production working and being viable considering just how expensive and time consuming it is to send small amounts of materials into space? And what if something goes wrong? How would you deal with injuries there or computer malfunctions?

"Oh dear. We're going to be planet-bound forever, aren't we, in your vision? So we'd best make the best of it here and develop a few servant subspecies and then throw ourselves backwards technologically a few hundred years, what? Nose to the grindstone, feet in the mud, forget about the stars!

You're right I forgot about all the 18th century clones running about. Since when is finding less industrial replacements to technology going backwards? Surely it is merely sidestepping in order to avoid environmental damage.

"Fascinating. I understand now, and kinda love the whole Khmer Rouge vibe."

Oh gosh you really don't understand do you? Well maybe one day.

[SandChigger]

IF we are going to survive long-term, we need to get off this one planet. At the very least we need an offworld presence to be able to intercept potential planet-killing asteroids, etc. There are any number of resources and environments that can be exploited for an economic justification of the expenditure needed to get there and establish such a presence. Since we're going to be there anyway....

With the use of mechanical robots, at least, there is a least no moral problem.

There are alternatives to our current method of transporting cargo to and from orbit, but they are currently just "pipe dreams" and will require continued materials development research to become feasible.

Ah well.

[Khan]

You see that is all really just a restatement of what you've said a number of times. The main problem is that a to actually move all industry off-world would border on the impossible, especially if we are going to preserve anything of the earth. To make ourselves as redundant in terms of power as you want to by switching to solar and wind power would limit industry so as to make it impossible to move off world. Solar and wind power are so limited by comparison to other energy sources that the investment required to get them up to a truly commercial scale would push any dreams of space back even further.

The only way that we could possibly move off world is either to go completely the other way to environmentalism, damning  the planet and those not able to move away, relying on more and more fossil fuels so that we can build the technology to allow the rich, developed countries; or to invest in technologies which are slower and more costly to produce, but don't damage the environment, allowing developing countries to undergo the same developments that we have already undergone. I'm all for moving off world but so far I've seen no realistic arguments for how it could actually come to be. At the moment I'm far more concerned with making earth habitable so that we can survive long enough to move off world while still being able to live on the earth.

There are alternatives to our current method of transporting cargo to and from orbit, but they are currently just "pipe dreams" and will require continued materials development research to become feasible.

Such as?

[SandChigger]

The only way that we could possibly move off world is either to go completely the other way to environmentalism, damning the planet and those not able to move away, relying on more and more fossil fuels so that we can build the technology to allow the rich, developed countries; or to invest in technologies which are slower and more costly to produce, but don't damage the environment, allowing developing countries to undergo the same developments that we have already undergone. I'm all for moving off world but so far I've seen no realistic arguments for how it could actually come to be. At the moment I'm far more concerned with making earth habitable so that we can survive long enough to move off world while still being able to live on the earth.

Well, ignoring the noise in the signal, here at least I understand what you're getting at. I think it would be a delicious irony, however, if this concern for the environment and developing countries and its effect of slowing the establishment of a presence offworld should ultimately result in an inability to prevent an event which will either significantly compromise the biosphere or even sterilize it.

All academic, though. (Since I have no investment in the future or survival of the species, this is the part that is just playing with ideas for me. ;D )

Such as?

Like I wrote, "pipe dreams".

Think GIANT pipeline. Straight up. ;)

[Khan]

All academic, though. (Since I have no investment in the future or survival of the species, this is the part that is just playing with ideas for me. ;D )

To be honest it is the same for me. I care little for children so theorizing about the future leaves infinite possibilities.