What is happiness and prosperity worth?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by VinceG

There is the saying, "A man cannot survive by bread alone." If it were merely a matter of calories, then sure, self-sufficiency would be easy.

That saying is from The Gospel of Matthew, and is usually understood as a reference to spiritual sustenance. But you're probably referring to social interaction to keep from going crazy? Well, that's important, but it's not a "survival need" necessarily.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by VinceG

The people who try to end suffering in the real world are similar. Nobody knows what they're trying to do, as far as they're concerned, all these idealists are doing is cutting themselves off from the benefits of society without any real benefit to themselves or others. The city is these people's worlds, and the oppressive reality of our world is reality to most people here. People who try to end it are branded as communists, utopian dreamers, hopeless.

This just doesn't make sense. Why do I have to cut myself off from the benefits in order to help the suffering?

I enjoy lots of benefits, but I can still work towards ending suffering. Win-win is not a fantasy. It's real.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by yossarian

This just doesn't make sense. Why do I have to cut myself off from the benefits in order to help the suffering?

I enjoy lots of benefits, but I can still work towards ending suffering. Win-win is not a fantasy. It's real.

The longer you live, the more cognizant you get of the never-ending brutality of the world. It's all around you. This world can be a hellish nightmare if you're not lucky enough to be born amongst the world's affluent. All of these "benefits" you're embracing involve the blood and sweat of innocents. Everything from the school you go to to the food you eat involves some kind of grisly sacrifice. Even the food you eat got to your mouth through a long series of inhuman and seemingly nonsensical sacrifices. The cows are kept in cramped conditions, the people tending them are underpaid, as is the truck driver who brought them to your supermarket, using oil that's doing double duty destroying the environment.

When many people see this reality, this inescapable reality, they do one of two things. They accept the necessity, and so perpetuate it, or they rebel, refusing to accept reality and instead labor to escape it as forcefully as possible. You can slot just about everyone you meet into one of those two categories. Bill Gates is an example of the former, Richard Stallman an example of the latter.

You think you're making the perfect choice, but actually, you're the former. You're falling right into the trap of society. You're buying into the necessity and believe you're working towards a better world. But in fact you're whipping that child just as badly as the citizens of Omelas. You are, in fact, whipping him worse than the citizens, because you're doing it without even knowing it, taking liberally from the horn of plenty while deluding yourself into thinking you're trying to free the child.

You cannot be simultaneously whipping and freeing the child. It's either one or the other. You have to walk away if you don't want to live in Omelas. That's the ultimate lesson of the myth.

[VinceG]

The child is told by all the people that to even say a kind word to it would destroy Omelas. Everything that makes Omelas great depends on that child. It reminds me of the ancient Hawaiians, who ordered their society around the artifice of kapu. Kapu means "forbidden." The ancient Hawaiians believed to their deepest beings that their actions, should they violate kapu, would cause their downfall.

When Captain Cook and later explorers made landfall, of course they didn't accede to any silly ancient laws. This caused them to be looked at as gods in the eyes of the Hawaiians.

What made Hawaiian society was this law of kapu, without it, it Hawaii wouldn't be Hawaii, but just another of hundreds of Polynesian nations. Kapu organized the Hawaiians, it gave them an identity. Destroying kapu, as the explorers did, destroyed the Hawaiians. You can look at it straight on, and in doing so, you'll make the judgment that the Hawaiians were silly to have ever dreamt up this wild notion of kapu.

But there's the proof of the pudding. Only with a shared, cultural identity, the notion of kapu, could the Hawaiians have escaped the fate of thousands of tiny Polynesian nations. Their child, their sacrifice, involved such things as disallowing women to eat pork. Religion organized their society, and religion became their ultimate downfall.

So it is with Omelas. The city is utterly dependent on the suffering of that child. The author is leading you through an examination. She's not drawing a real city, but an imaginary one, the city was never intended to be taken seriously. What would be believable, she asks. She adds this thing and that to the city, until the story is believable. It doesn't become so until we learn about the child. It's not technology that makes the city, she muses about differing levels of technology that the city has.

She's exploring narrative as well as society. You won't believe the story until you learn of the child. At the beginning she derides the masochistic focus on suffering, and claims that happiness can be just as interesting. She even refuses to describe the child definitively, perhaps she's deformed, maybe it's a he. The entire thing is shadowy.

If someone went and let the child out of basement, she says, what would be gained? Not much, unfortunately. Maybe the child will gain a little happiness of its own. But the city's identity would be destroyed. The people would have no more reason to be happy. It would no longer be Omelas, but just another city. The child, even though nothing directly relies on it's squalor, is absolutely key to the city. Now the city is believable.

Nobody lets the child out because everybody understands this. They tell the children first off, as soon as they can understand such hard truths. To indoctrinate them.

The only way out is to leave. That's what the ones who leave Omelas understand. Had someone freed the child, the whole city would descend on them and destroy them, then promptly re-install the child and hope everyone forgets.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by yossarian

But that's the same as answering yes, because if the underground movement was successful, but definition Omelas would crumble.

This is ONLY assuming that there was truth behind the subjugation of the child. Logically, it makes no sense It could have been something built into the belief system of the culture. There are lots of WEIRD belief systems in our own culture that people have, so why not in that culture? Logically there's no reason why imprisoning and torturing a child should lead to prosperity. Hmm it's like... the belief that you need to sacrifice a newborn child or a virgin in order for the crops to be successful for the year. Obviously, that's not true at all... but to many people in the past it WAS true and thus it was practiced!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by votoshka

This is ONLY assuming that there was truth behind the subjugation of the child. Logically, it makes no sense It could have been something built into the belief system of the culture. There are lots of WEIRD belief systems in our own culture that people have, so why not in that culture? Logically there's no reason why imprisoning and torturing a child should lead to prosperity. Hmm it's like... the belief that you need to sacrifice a newborn child or a virgin in order for the crops to be successful for the year. Obviously, that's not true at all... but to many people in the past it WAS true and thus it was practiced!

votoshka, the story sets that as a basic and fundamental assumption. Lateral thinking tends to be useless in thought experiments because you invalidate the entire point of the thought experiment with them. Take the problem of theodicy: if God is omnipotent and good, then why does evil exist? If you move laterally (God doesn't exist), then it's a moot question.

For Omelas, if the suffering of the child is not the reason for the happiness of Omelas, then the question to walk away is moot. There is nothing to walk away from.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

votoshka, the story sets that as a basic and fundamental assumption. Lateral thinking tends to be useless in thought experiments because you invalidate the entire point of the thought experiment with them. Take the problem of theodicy: if God is omnipotent and good, then why does evil exist? If you move laterally (God doesn't exist), then it's a moot question.

For Omelas, if the suffering of the child is not the reason for the happiness of Omelas, then the question to walk away is moot. There is nothing to walk away from.

I guess all stories are open to interpretation And as I don't have access to Ursula, I can't really chat to her about it!

I think there's the interpretation that the suffering of the child IS necessary to maintain the structure of the society. BUT there's also the interpretation that the Omelasians simply BELIEVE that the child's suffering is necessary. Just as primitive cultures believed that human sacrifice was necessary! Nobody there really takes the chance that maybe, just maybe, it's all a myth, and freeing the child would have no impact on the downfall of their society.

That being said... at the end of the day I will stick with my choice and that is NO I wouldn't leave. I haven't left my own society, even knowing as I do that it IS responsible for suffering, and thus I wouldn't leave Omelas either, because I'm not a martyr, and even if I did leave, nothing would change!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by votoshka

I guess all stories are open to interpretation And as I don't have access to Ursula, I can't really chat to her about it!

She's not dead. You could just find her email or send a message to the publisher to pass on or something. *digs* Here: Ursula K. Le Guin: Mail, autographs, permissions

The Wikipedia article on this story gives sources for where she came up with the name of Omelas and where the "psychomyth of the scapegoat" comes from. Her rendition is merely the most famous in our time, and the one that includes a child.

Originally Posted by votoshka

I think there's the interpretation that the suffering of the child IS necessary to maintain the structure of the society. BUT there's also the interpretation that the Omelasians simply BELIEVE that the child's suffering is necessary.

That's a valid projection of your beliefs onto the story, yes. Personally, I also do not believe that there is a systematic necessity to suffering in human society (details for quibble), so the story does not bother me overmuch. I think people like VinceG do not share this belief, which is fine.

Originally Posted by votoshka

Just as primitive cultures believed that human sacrifice was necessary!

I have some ways of arguing that it was, in fact, necessary... but I don't particularly feel a need to defend said cultures. They are wrong, of course, present tense, but they are also mostly non-existent at the moment; I don't find this to be a coincidence.

Originally Posted by votoshka

Nobody there really takes the chance that maybe, just maybe, it's all a myth, and freeing the child would have no impact on the downfall of their society.

If you prefer to interpret it that way, then I would prefer to interpret it as that this is a proven experiment performed repeatedly time and again across many cities and Omelas is one city that keeps practicing it. Of many? Or alone? Doesn't matter. Perhaps it is only Omelas, but there have been dozens of children and well-established periods of diminishment.

In other words, it is proven and known. Sure, this is not in the story, but neither is your speculation. Though... your interpretation does require that you depict the entire population of Omelas as a group of cowards, whereas mine does not really need to add anything.

Originally Posted by votoshka

That being said... at the end of the day I will stick with my choice and that is NO I wouldn't leave. I haven't left my own society, even knowing as I do that it IS responsible for suffering, and thus I wouldn't leave Omelas either, because I'm not a martyr, and even if I did leave, nothing would change!

I'm not trying to convince you to leave Omelas, heh. I'm not comfortable by your labeling of the those who leave as martyrs, but I can't argue the technical definition as unfitting.

I am a little amused that no one commented on my suggestion that the crucifixion of Christ is what most Christians accept as necessary for their happiness, prosperity, and future permission slip to be in Heaven. They like sneering at people they claim helped nail him to the cross by being sinful, but they would never dare suggest that they ought to walk away from a salvation that cost so much. Of course it's different: the man died after a couple days and got back up and it was all just some aches and a couple holes in the wrist. But...

What if he were still hanging there, still alive, immortal and in pain, the only gate to Heaven, the way, the truth, the life, suffering for the sake of the world? What if you could fly to Jerusalem today and walk to Mount Calvary and stare into his thorn-framed eyes? I mean, it's not like an eagle is slurping up his liver every day.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by VinceG

To ask the question, "would you walk away?" is foolish, and misses the entire point of the story. The story is a metaphor. The city is our own society. The child is the poor. The ability to walk away is a luxury that we do not in fact possess. The engine of progress has and has always churned through the lives of millions with no choice but to labor for our pleasure.

I like this interpretation of the story - it rings true. It describes well idealism and political activism of many college students who are so deeply moved by poverty, inequality and abuses of human rights when they become conscious of these maladies. Yet as they get older, these worries - while ever present - get often overshadowed by more practical concerns.

There's no escape from the real city.

Walking away could stand for committing suicide - at least that would be a solution of existentialists of the beginning of last century. Buddha's solution was different - he walked away from the city upon discovery of the poor and came back enlightened with philosophy that would help reduce the suffering.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by VinceG

The child is told by all the people that to even say a kind word to it would destroy Omelas. Everything that makes Omelas great depends on that child. It reminds me of the ancient Hawaiians, who ordered their society around the artifice of kapu. Kapu means "forbidden." The ancient Hawaiians believed to their deepest beings that their actions, should they violate kapu, would cause their downfall.

When Captain Cook and later explorers made landfall, of course they didn't accede to any silly ancient laws. This caused them to be looked at as gods in the eyes of the Hawaiians.

What made Hawaiian society was this law of kapu, without it, it Hawaii wouldn't be Hawaii, but just another of hundreds of Polynesian nations. Kapu organized the Hawaiians, it gave them an identity. Destroying kapu, as the explorers did, destroyed the Hawaiians. You can look at it straight on, and in doing so, you'll make the judgment that the Hawaiians were silly to have ever dreamt up this wild notion of kapu.

But there's the proof of the pudding. Only with a shared, cultural identity, the notion of kapu, could the Hawaiians have escaped the fate of thousands of tiny Polynesian nations. Their child, their sacrifice, involved such things as disallowing women to eat pork. Religion organized their society, and religion became their ultimate downfall.

So it is with Omelas. The city is utterly dependent on the suffering of that child. The author is leading you through an examination. She's not drawing a real city, but an imaginary one, the city was never intended to be taken seriously. What would be believable, she asks. She adds this thing and that to the city, until the story is believable. It doesn't become so until we learn about the child. It's not technology that makes the city, she muses about differing levels of technology that the city has.

She's exploring narrative as well as society. You won't believe the story until you learn of the child. At the beginning she derides the masochistic focus on suffering, and claims that happiness can be just as interesting. She even refuses to describe the child definitively, perhaps she's deformed, maybe it's a he. The entire thing is shadowy.

If someone went and let the child out of basement, she says, what would be gained? Not much, unfortunately. Maybe the child will gain a little happiness of its own. But the city's identity would be destroyed. The people would have no more reason to be happy. It would no longer be Omelas, but just another city. The child, even though nothing directly relies on it's squalor, is absolutely key to the city. Now the city is believable.

Nobody lets the child out because everybody understands this. They tell the children first off, as soon as they can understand such hard truths. To indoctrinate them.

The only way out is to leave. That's what the ones who leave Omelas understand. Had someone freed the child, the whole city would descend on them and destroy them, then promptly re-install the child and hope everyone forgets.

It seems to me that every society has its kapu and once you de-veil it, another one pops up. It seems inevitable. The only hope is that through these cycles of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, Humanity, as the whole, is moving forward and up in a spiral.

Let's look at US. For a while, it derived a lot of economic benefits from slavery and slavery was a child everyone knew about. Once that child was brought out of the dark room, other children poped up. Today, a lot of benefits of living in US depend on China's cheap labor, sweatshops there, abuse of environment there, etc.

It seems like hierarchies and inequality are unavoidable in big groups - and hence there is always a child in the dark room - maybe somewhere very very far away. India had it's caste system which was based on divine order. Caste system of USA today is based on economic standing (SES). The advancement is that boundaries became softer and blurrier - but qualitatively, statistically, situation is the same.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I am a little amused that no one commented on my suggestion that the crucifixion of Christ is what most Christians accept as necessary for their happiness, prosperity, and future permission slip to be in Heaven. They like sneering at people they claim helped nail him to the cross by being sinful, but they would never dare suggest that they ought to walk away from a salvation that cost so much. Of course it's different: the man died after a couple days and got back up and it was all just some aches and a couple holes in the wrist. But...

What if he were still hanging there, still alive, immortal and in pain, the only gate to Heaven, the way, the truth, the life, suffering for the sake of the world? What if you could fly to Jerusalem today and walk to Mount Calvary and stare into his thorn-framed eyes? I mean, it's not like an eagle is slurping up his liver every day.

Trust me, I noticed. It's a pretty profound way to look at the whole Christ myth. It's an inversion almost.

It puts living Christians in the place of Omelas residents - they enjoy life and prosper but their enjoyment requires the suffering of the one they supposedly love the most.

Perhaps those who truly love Jesus would not want him to die and suffer for them.

But again since I agree with you that prosperity does not require the suffering of others (Jesus or otherwise) I don't think this applies to reality.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by agsags

I like this interpretation of the story - it rings true. It describes well idealism and political activism of many college students who are so deeply moved by poverty, inequality and abuses of human rights when they become conscious of these maladies. Yet as they get older, these worries - while ever present - get often overshadowed by more practical concerns.

A lot of people even mock their former idealism or anger. Stockholm, the end of 1984...take your pick.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Personally, I also do not believe that there is a systematic necessity to suffering in human society (details for quibble), so the story does not bother me overmuch. I think people like VinceG do not share this belief, which is fine.

Theoretically, you are correct - suffering is not necessary for prosperity. However if I take a look at the world around me today, I see many who are suffering enormously. Whether or not there is a direct causal link between suffering of a child and prosperity of Olemas is not so relevant in my eyes (partially because causation in complex systems is not well defined). What is relevant is that they co-exist side by side. There was physical slavery of blacks in the USA. Civil War came and society got rid of it. Slavery of the past got substituted with economical and social slavery of segregation. Civil Rights movement came and we got rid of it. Now many black men are back in physical slavery of prisons. In some sense society is evolving. In some sense, it stays the same for hierarchies stay.

The story doesn't bother you much, but do starving children in Africa bother you more than the story? There are kids there today suffering at least as much the child in the story. For you (us) to bring them "to light" and out of suffering now will require forgoing some of your own prosperity (money, time, comfort, etc). Are you/we as society ready to do that? Couldn't we do just a little bit more - today?

As I said above, I want to take an optimistic outlook and believe that the Universe IS evolving. That we are progressing. Yet it seems like at every single moment there is a child in the basement. And the only way to leave Olemas is to off oneself. For as long as we live, we are a part of the city with a child underground.

I am a little amused that no one commented on my suggestion that the crucifixion of Christ is what most Christians accept as necessary for their happiness, prosperity, and future permission slip to be in Heaven. They like sneering at people they claim helped nail him to the cross by being sinful, but they would never dare suggest that they ought to walk away from a salvation that cost so much. Of course it's different: the man died after a couple days and got back up and it was all just some aches and a couple holes in the wrist. But...

Very interesting connection with Christianity. The big difference is that Christ came to this Earth to die. I wonder what choice would a child make KNOWING that prosperity of the city depends on his misery. Would that child choose to stay underground and be "Jesus Christ" or choose to see the sun and bring down the city.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

What if he were still hanging there, still alive, immortal and in pain, the only gate to Heaven, the way, the truth, the life, suffering for the sake of the world? What if you could fly to Jerusalem today and walk to Mount Calvary and stare into his thorn-framed eyes? I mean, it's not like an eagle is slurping up his liver every day.

Don't be getting Greek on us now!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by agsags

The story doesn't bother you much, but do starving children in Africa bother you more than the story? There are kids there today suffering at least as much the child in the story. For you (us) to bring them "to light" and out of suffering now will require forgoing some of your own prosperity (money, time, comfort, etc).

Untrue, but mostly because you misunderstand what prosperity is. It is precisely because of our prosperity that we can help bring Ye Generic Suffering African Child out of suffering. Treating prosperity as a finite and scarce resource is precisely why that suffering exists in the first place, because it makes people hold onto it that much more tightly.

Economics gives us the idea of scarcity, yes, but it also shows us that an entire economy can grow, in whole, altogether. The key to this White Man's Burden you've fabricated isn't to give up things, but to make sure that everyone has basic needs met. To raise the standard of what "basic needs" means, step by step.

Originally Posted by agsags

As I said above, I want to take an optimistic outlook and believe that the Universe IS evolving. That we are progressing. Yet it seems like at every single moment there is a child in the basement. And the only way to leave Olemas is to off oneself. For as long as we live, we are a part of the city with a child underground.

Change what you can. Don't be idealistic or optimistic or pessimistic or cynical. Look around you, see how things are, then fix what's broken, change what's wrong, encourage what's good, reinforce what's right.

Do what you can. If you are capable of doing more, then the opportunity will come. Don't beat yourself up for being less than omnipotent. If you feel you could be doing more, then do more. If you fail, then pick yourself up, scale back, and go about it a bit more cautiously.

If you look at things from the right perspective, every form of human enterprise contributes to overall progress. That doesn't mean every one ought to continue, or continue in the same manner it currently is conducted, but the contribution is there.

Originally Posted by agsags

The big difference is that Christ came to this Earth to die.

That's a popular interpretation. And yet,

Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

[VinceG]

The child of the story doesn't represent the poor starving African kids. It refers to our own downtrodden. The people whom are only fit to do menial labor, when they're not locked up. Those for whom drugs are the only real escape. The nature of our society makes it very, very, very difficult to escape poverty. We tend to look down on these people, consider them the products of their own unworth. Without these people, and their station, our society cannot exist. Someone must staff the Waffle Houses, maintain the buildings, collect our trash.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Without these people, and their station, our society cannot exist. Someone must staff the Waffle Houses, maintain the buildings, collect our trash.

There are people working on changing that, actually. Just saying.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

There are people working on changing that, actually. Just saying.

You're not quite getting the metaphor. The point of the story is not to make definitive statements concerning "the way the world works." It's there to point out a specific aspect of human nature.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by VinceG

You're not quite getting the metaphor. The point of the story is not to make definitive statements concerning "the way the world works." It's there to point out a specific aspect of human nature.

...we're not even talking about the same thing now.

You can draw as many metaphors out of a hat as you like, and ascribe them all to Le Guin if you wish, but I have yet to see a point in responding to your moralizing of the story.

[Lauxa]

I am enjoying the discussion in this thread.

How can the people of Omelas feel no guilt when they see the child locked in the basement?

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

...we're not even talking about the same thing now.

You can draw as many metaphors out of a hat as you like, and ascribe them all to Le Guin if you wish, but I have yet to see a point in responding to your moralizing of the story.

And you can figure anything you want from my posts, it doesn't mean you're right. She explores very specific themes, it's a very clear piece of writing. Everything you need to understand it is right there in front of you. It's not my fault if you can't read what's plain in your face. Art may be subjective, but that doesn't mean that it means whatever anyone wants it to mean. It's always an attempt to communicate a particular idea. It's hidden, that's the nature of art, but it's there if you look closely for it. You seem to think I'm moralizing, I'm not. I could care less about morality in my day-to-day life. I'm doing nothing ofthe sort, I'm just divining the author's intentions. Usually this is difficult; in this case it's not.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by VinceG

The child of the story doesn't represent the poor starving African kids. It refers to our own downtrodden. The people whom are only fit to do menial labor, when they're not locked up. Those for whom drugs are the only real escape. The nature of our society makes it very, very, very difficult to escape poverty. We tend to look down on these people, consider them the products of their own unworth. Without these people, and their station, our society cannot exist. Someone must staff the Waffle Houses, maintain the buildings, collect our trash.

I dunno... I disagree! I don't believe it's so hard to escape poverty, and I don't believe people who work in menial jobs are forced there by a cruel, uncaring population who exploit them for their own ends. It's entirely different to the child in the story who has no way out and is being kept there by force.

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by votoshka

I dunno... I disagree! I don't believe it's so hard to escape poverty, and I don't believe people who work in menial jobs are forced there by a cruel, uncaring population who exploit them for their own ends. It's entirely different to the child in the story who has no way out and is being kept there by force.

Maybe it's not hard to escape poverty individually, but how hard would it be to eradicate poverty altogether? It is necessary to have people work in menial jobs or else society cannot function. And there must be many many more working menial jobs than working educated affluent jobs.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

Maybe it's not hard to escape poverty individually, but how hard would it be to eradicate poverty altogether? It is necessary to have people work in menial jobs or else society cannot function. And there must be many many more working menial jobs than working educated affluent jobs.

Yes, absolutely... and I think the problem in the US is the minimum wage is just so abysmally low compared to so many other countries. Here in Australia the minimum wage is $15 an hour, which is significantly higher than that in the US.

That being said, I don't really think the story is about people in menial work

And back to the story... I find it interesting how many people say they would walk away from Omelas, when they haven't actually walked away from their own society

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by votoshka

And back to the story... I find it interesting how many people say they would walk away from Omelas, when they haven't actually walked away from their own society

Maybe they'll all be committing suicide shortly.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by VinceG

I'm just divining the author's intentions. Usually this is difficult; in this case it's not.

Considering the intentions are explained in the Wikipedia article, and aren't remotely similar to what you've dreamed up, I'd say you got it wrong.

[VinceG]

OK, then.