Berserker

affix effix

“In this novel, (I think it’s called “Diaspora” by Greg Egan, but I can find out for sure later) the protagonist lives in a computer-simulated reality (it’s treated like a kind of nation-state) where one of the principal social mores concerns complete non-interference with anyone who does not consent to it. So far, so good. But, because the whole fabric of their reality is programmed, they’ve designed their universe such that you can’t even talk to or be seen by someone unless they give consent, and nobody occupies any sort of physical space (even in the simulated environment) because the notion of being able to stand in someone’s way is seen as violating their self-determination. One heck of a solution to oppression and social conflict.

“In a world where such a thing is possible, the principle of a morality based around the rejection of involuntary interference starts to seem pretty reasonable. In our world, though, where such a thing isn’t possible, can we still treat it as a moral ideal? In other words, is it enough to stand up against some injustices, or should free-thinking individuals take the fight all the way beyond the point of material transcendence? What do we do when the laws of physics are oppressive in and of themselves?

“Obviously, the point at which any of these issues actually comes up is probably too far away for it to really matter, but it seems like every system of ethics or morals must ultimately reduce down to a set of assertions which applies under all circumstances. When we watch “Roots”, we’re evaluating the actions of people from the 19th century according to the morality of the 21st century. Should we be trying to live our lives in such a way that historians in the 23rd century will see us as having been ethical?”