Novelty

Who could have done a better job? First of all, we should reassess our criteria. What is a good outcome? What's a bad outcome? Before that, though, let's distinguish between the two "fronts" of change on Rakhat and their sources. These must be considered separately to avoid confusing distinct influences. The landing on Rakhat in turn set off two waves of change, one centered on Gayjur Palace, and the other around the VaKashan Runa.

I believe the changes implemented by the Reshtar are the result of Contact with foreigners and little more. The nature of the first crew did not cause the changes so much as their mere presence. What happened to Emilio had more to do with the aspirations and character traits of the Jana'ata than ay of his own actions or traits. Supaari was waiting for an opportunity to gain foundership. The Reshtar was uniquely receptive to anything that might upset the status quo. Rgardless of who went, as long as they made any kind of contact, Kitheri would have started to sing new songs. One way or another, anyone would have been the catalyst.

The second wave, the Runa gardens and eventually Sofia's role in fomenting revolution, could probably have been avoided, this I do not deny. Instead, I question our framing of foreign influence as somehow unnatural, something to be rejected. Humans, Runa, and Jana'ata alike evolved out of what is natural, and are themselves a part of nature. Where are the rules that decide what will be considered "unnatural"? What does it mean that this standard itself changes over time? We have a false conception of a bunch of closed-systems. This tribe over here cannot be influenced by the outside world, and nw this planet is somehow off-limits. We arbitrarily define these boundaries, and I think it is futile, counterproductive to do so. In fact, one of the traits we as humans have come to value is communication, contact within our species, the cross-pollination of ideas. Why should we be so selfish as to deny this to the species on Rakhat?

Modern hypnotists claim that people under hypnosis will not do anything they would never do while "awake;" there is no way to coerce someone using hypnosis. While I'm not so sure I believe hypnotism, I do think that this distinction applies to what happened on Rakhat. Sofia did not force anything on the Runa. The landing party did not make them plant gardens. The Runa encountered novelty, and decided the new ideas were worthwhile. I just don't see how someone can say in one scenario that it is okay to share an idea (example: the entire purpose of schools), and in another case, the other person/group/cultures does not have the right to encounter it and decide for themselves its worth. One could frame schooling in terms of interference. I would never have known about the chemical properties of water if a teacher hadn't told me. I would never have discovered that on my own. Does this mean I don't have the right to know it?

YAQMOG (Yet Another Quantum Model of God)

Kind of a heavy title, but hear me out.

On page 213 of Children of God, Frans explains Schrödingers cat to Nico. This is one of the most famous quantum physics thought experiments, and many people's introduction to subject. Frans tells Nico that according to Schrödinger, "a thing isn't true unless there's someone to observe that it's true." Now, I'm no expert on quantum mechanics, but I have taken Changing Views of the Universe, and that's gotta count for something. First of all, it's tricky to frame QM in terms of truth; that sort of epistemology is more suited to postmodernism (a close cousin to quantum mechanics, if you ask me). Let's change the words up a bit: "an event doesn't happen unless there's someone to observe that it happens." Now, this doesn't jive with the quantum mechanics I learned about. I would instead say, "an event both happens and does not happen until someone observes that it either does or doesn't happen." In this manner, Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, exists and doesn't exist, at the same time.

At this point people usually do one of three things (not both, because of course I'm observing closely). The physicists will have left the room already, tired hearing about this stupid cat. The honest ones look at me like I'm crazy, like I've got more in common with a cat lady than a physicist. The others will just nod their heads to appease me. I haven't even gotten to the crazy(er) part. A good response to the thought experiment is "so what?" Once you open the box, the cat's either alive or dead. Whether or not quantum physics "works," the result is the same.

Well, it turns out that it does matter. On the particle level, scientists have found out that not only does a particle take all possible paths to it's destination, but in fact each of these potential paths will interfere with each other. For a more detailed description, read up on the double-slit experiments. There is scientific evidence that quantum mechanics "works" and is not just for interesting thought experiments.

And finally, after taking all possible paths, we arrive at my point. Nico says, "I think we're like the cat. I think that God is like the man outside the box. I think that if the cat believes in the man, the man is there. And if the cat is an atheist, there is no man" (213). I don't follow Frans's reasoning, so I will substitute my own. God is the cat in the box. We are outside. For all practical purposes, God both exists and does not exist. Even the most devout believers or atheists must have at some point vacillated, even for a moment and acted counter to their beliefs. Obviously that's an assumption, but I think it's pretty safe. In other words, if life is a double-slit experiment (I hope you took a look at the link!), one hole is "God," the other is "no God." Each slit is tied to belief. According to Newtonian mechanics, you can only pass through one hole. This would mean that you acted on the assumption that either God exists or doesn't your whole life. I say that this is impossible. Everybody goes through both slits, and everything that they might have done has an effect on what they actually do (ie. someone feels guilty for not believing in God).

Please help me make this make sense. Comment!