Spoilers VOY: Atonement by Kirsten Beyer Review Thread

[black_dranzer]

Waterstone in the UK have the epub version available to buy on their website, bought it yesterday and absolutely loved it!

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Woo, dear. Sorry Deks, and anyone annoyed by thread derailment. I got off on one again.

By my standards that wasn't a very bad one, though, so I'll just take a breath and carry on.

I need to work these things through my system sometimes.

 

[DimesDan]

Woo, dear. Sorry Deks, and anyone annoyed by thread derailment. I got off on one again.

By my standards that wasn't a very bad one, though, so I'll just take a breath and carry on.

I need to work these things through my system sometimes.

And maybe not write them at three in the morning after a few beers.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Woo, dear. Sorry Deks, and anyone annoyed by thread derailment. I got off on one again.

By my standards that wasn't a very bad one, though, so I'll just take a breath and carry on.

I need to work these things through my system sometimes.

And maybe not write them at three in the morning after a few beers.

No beers.

But, yes, less writing when tired and emotionally strained would be a wise thing.

I appreciate the comment, Dimesdan. You're the Tellarite to my Andorian, you know?

 

[Deks]

That's culture, which is entirely different. Of course they're not going to automatically acquire culture and language - but they are all wired for its acquisition. You keep responding as though the differences are paramount and ignoring the underlying similarities. The human body, and the human mind, works to a particular plan. The actual acquisition of language, or a language, is environmental: the underlying capacity for language, and tendency to respond to that stimuli in certain ways, is innate to the human animal as it has evolved.

Uhm, excuse me, but I was talking about influence of environment on Human behaviour and that shifting away from the current garbage socio-economic system is possible via exposure of the general population to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving. as well as actively shifting towards a new way of thinking.
You seem to have been stating that this is not possible due to Humans being 'hardwired'.

I already provided names of 2 figures that are considered experts in the fields of neuroscience and epigenetics and they seem to disagree with you.

Furthermore, peer-review also seems to disagree with you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756412/

I can break a baby's arm in three places and it will grow up with a deformed arm. That doesn't change the fact that all human DNA encodes for the growth of healthy arms. The fact that humans growing up away from contact with other humans utilizing language will never acquire language skills, or at least have great difficulty doing so, doesn't mean that the human brain is not innately structured in such a way that language will emerge with the right stimulus.

Genes as far we know control physical features, behaviour is a lot more intricately complex and genes alone cannot possibly account for it.
As for language emerging in Humans who grew up away from other Humans... only in the sense that they might develop one that is utterly unrecognizeable to other Humans. If the child in question was raised by animals, then the Human is very likely to develop 'language' as used by those animals.

Learning and adapting seems to be part of Human biology... but these traits seem to be shared by other species on the Earth too, so its not exclusive to Humans.
We seem to have been more adaptive than others, or more specifically, lived in an environment that allowed us to develop more 'complex' (as we see it) ways of doing things.

Interestingly, the more we study animals as well, they also seem to be exhibiting very complex patterns of behaviour which is directly prompted by environmental stimulus.

You implied it very strongly, particularly as I never challenged or disagreed with what you say here, yet you keep stressing environmental factors and epigenetics to the point that you flat out deny there is any such thing as human nature. How is what you say supposed to read other than as a defence of the blank slate?

Then perhaps I should have been more specific to state 'the concept of Human nature as currently perceived by others that it means Humans are born greedy, selfish, violent, etc.'.

We have the capacity to become selfish, violent, greedy, etc. if exposed to environment where these traits are dominant.
In Capitalism, they are, ergo why a large group of Humans exhibit them.
Even ones who do not behave like this all the time exhibit these notions in a diminished way because they are surrounded by a large majority who do.


You were consistent, which I appreciate. No backtracking to preserve political status.

But my underlying nature has not changed - I have worn these different clothes over time, but my body remains my body. My body itself has grown and changed over time, but it remains my body. You keep insisting that change can override that, that people can essentially cease being what they are. A human is a human and not another animal, and carries with it certain capacities and possibilities while not carrying certain others.

I was not claiming that your body can undergo a metamorphosis and turn into something else.
I was stating that environment can and does change ones behaviour.

Do you think I of all people need to be told how environment helps make you what you are? I've frequently banged my head against peoples' refusal to understand that experiences in early life, whether remembered or not, have very real and substantial effects on people as they grow; on their developing physiologies and so on their developing psychologies, developing personalities. My entire problem here is that no-one is doing anything to change the environment, but instead exposing the young to, and reinforcing and promoting, the exact same social environment that I was exposed to. While insisting and believing that they represent change. While they defend the idea that people can change wildly while never actually showing any indication of it. Because they will not act against their social, political and sexual instincts, and all other concerns are secondary to these, which means that reason and ethics and ideals don't mean a thing, because they last only so long as they don't conflict with those needs. People act and think on the basis of what feels right to them, and what feels right is that which satisfies the impulses and drives that feed that animal's particular needs.

That's because most people in the current socio-economic system do not have the individual ability to directly change the environment (namely, the system we use) because such a radical change requires money to put forth into practical use as well as education.
So they try to do the best they can... they expose their children to different ideas and patterns of behaviour so they would grow up to behave more like that - and these parents themselves also try to behave like that.

In

One particularly cannot work to change their behaviours and parameters when they refuse to acknowledge that those behaviours and parameters exist to begin with.

Except there is a consistency in that behaviour that makes human reactions mostly predictable, across cultures and across environments. There are also obvious trends, customs and patterns within any given society. To claim that human behaviour is not restrictive or confined by limits is to ignore the social dynamics around one. That is my central point here - that the vast majority of humans exist within a social dynamic that was evolutionarily advantageous for the species and thus which is rarely questioned or challenged.

The globe uses the same socio-economic system, as well as numerous ways of raising children and overall behaviours, hence why these repetitive patterns occur in the first place and are observable in most 'developed' cultures.

The social dynamic was at one time necessary due to living in scarcity-like conditions for most of our existence.
However, since development of science and technology and abundant production of goods and services, most people aren't aware of the realities.
How many know that we are producing enough food every year to feed between 10 and 17 billion people?
How many know that over 40% of the grown food in question is actively wasted?
How many know that we had the ability to tap into geothermal as a main power source since 1911, or that an MIT study in 2006 showed we can tap into 200 Zettajoules of geothermal power with technology we had at our disposal back then, and that 2000 Zettajoules will be extractable with improved technologies?

Very few.
Furthermore, most people live in a cycle of cyclical consumption, and were never exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving - resulting in people prone to manipulation and being used (smart enough to operate the machinery but dumb enough not to question the system).

Simply speaking, our problems are systemic.

In general, whether a change or a distinction is a meaningful one is mostly a matter of perspective. If a Christian, a Muslim and a Jew sit down and discuss theology, they may, from their perspective, be massively different and contradictory, with yawning gulfs between them. But from the perspective of one who is not religious, say, there is little difference, and that apparent gulf is no division at all. It's too easy to focus on the differences and the malleable aspects and so ignore the fundamental similarities.

Here is a fundamental similarity that most Humans seem to ignore: 'we are all humans, period'.
I try not to see people through their little societal distinctions of artificial concepts like religion, nationality, etc., because I observed long ago that these things only serve to divide people - create social stratification - and, incidentally, the less people are exposed to, the more they seem to focus on these small divisions that provide a false sense of stability.

Humans are, when you get down to it, all essentially the same and all working to the same innate plan; variety and environmental influence and plasticity aside. Like all species, they have the capacity and the imperative to adapt, and to experiment. But if there exist consistent behavioural tendencies across environments and across cultures - and there do - then these tendencies stem, in some measure, from what we might call human nature. This, in turn, is the consequence of the shared genetics and similar physiologies of all humans; we are all products of the same environmental pressures and thus are encoded for similar behaviours that have proven beneficial.

An 'innate plan'?
All I see is motion (which anyone with a basic understanding of science can use to extrapolate the likelihood a large % of variety will emerge).
And, I'm sorry, but you seem to be seeing some kind of 'mystical force' here as opposed to explainable natural phenomena.

Of course people change; like everything, they exist in motion and are never consistent; they develop from one moment to the next. Again, I am not disagreeing with any of this. But they hold the same general shape, and no amount of change can be realistically expected to make people into something they're not.

And my point was that we aren't talking about change of the physical body... we are talking about a change that shifts behavioural patterns from what we see today, into something different (or a potential 'polar opposite') on a global scale.

The vast majority of humans will never challenge or discard the tribalist mentality, and thus will never acknowledge that they are reinforcing an abusive system that destroys lives and other beings. They apologise for and defend the system, and talk change while obstructing it at every turn. One cannot solve a problem by reinforcing the cause of the problem.

The main reason people do not challenge or discard the tribalist mentality is because they are not encouraged to question everything (and by this, I mean, their culture, the system, themselves, etc.)
Critical thinkers who do this existed throughout the ages, and they exist today.
Science was based on the guideline that evidence is not proof and correlation is not proof of causation.
Science and the scientific method have no use of 'belief' or 'truth' (neither are mentioned in the definition) and instead focus on what is more probable to occur.

However, there is a bit of a flaw here in your reasoning.
On social networks, there is a growing amount of Humans who discard the current system and question the tribalist mentality.
Why?
We live in a day and age of global communications where information is proliferated very fast between people (of both bad and good quality).
People also have access to varied sourced of information they read so they can see which sources are more or less credible.

This results in people with more exposure to relevant information (as its bound to cross their eyes sooner or later, and even if initial information clashes with their world-view, it in many cases it will be enough to prompt questioning).
Even now we see protests of very large proportions happening in various cities.
Granted, some merely want to make adjustments to the current system (which as we observed from past attempts doesn't work), and others call for massive change where the current system is completely discarded in favour of a new one (this one being met with more resistance as it means that radical change would be experienced by those who reap the benefits from the current system).

The only possible explanation is that they are naturally hardwired for this. There's no point in being angry about it, it's who and what they are. If you disagree - if you think that people in general can be something other than that - then show it. I want to be proven wrong here. But the years have instead just piled on ever more instances of people prioritizing their status in the social group over the very reason and ethics they otherwise defend and exhibit so eloquently. You say people can choose to change - indeed, yes, but it would never occur to them to change or to want to, it likely wouldn't register with them that they were working within a certain system anyway, because they are given to certain behaviours that satisfy the instinctual needs and drives of the human animal, statistically insignificant outliers aside.

I have provided 2 prominent figures in the fields of neuroscience and epigenetics that show people can change, as well as linked to articles and even peer-review demonstrating that mental processes and ways of thinking in adults can (and do) get altered.
Furthermore, you might be interested in reading this:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...kably-malleable-and-capable-of-new-feats.aspx

I am not angry - there is nothing to be angry about.

But realistically, I have provided several citations already and relevant resources that back up my claims while you hadn't.

Granted, I don't want to derail the thread any further, so I will not continue with this discussion once I post this reply.

Constantly, for me growing up, there was the binary - in history, in politics, in academia, in science, there were the behaviours and attitudes that were identical to those that left me in the state I was in, and the values and virtues I aspired to. It used to confuse and demoralise me to see the two so closely intertwined, but I still assumed that you could separate one from the other. But eventually I realized that the civilization I was a part of emerged entirely from the social instincts of tribalists - the same instincts that caused them to relate to me the way that they did. The entire thing was a sham. You can't separate them, you can't tell yourself it's all a big misunderstanding, that people can turn around and demonstrate those worthy qualities without marinating it in the same assumptions and behaviours that led to me losing my grip on life. I've been waiting for years to be proven wrong, but always there is the same implicit message - that you can't have civilization without kowtowing to social, political and sexual dynamics, and those dynamics render all virtues, in practice, meaningless.

As I tried pointing out earlier, there is little to 0 backing that 'instincts' exist.
I tried demonstrating this before by pointing out different sensory inputs between animals and Humans and how environment affects them.

Behaviour does seem to be influenced to some level by all fields (science, politics, academia, etc.).
When have I tried to deny or separate this?
People won't suddenly turn around and demonstrate 'worthy qualities' unless they are educated to understand that there is a different way to go about things and they are prompted to question what they already know.
We are coming back to education here (which is just one factor - you also need to pair this with an active change of the environment, or work towards that goal), which is necessary to facilitate change of the environment/system we live in.

What does objectivity and reason and compassion matter when you'll exhibit them with such admirable commitment only to turn your back on them whenever they threaten to challenge tribalist instinct?

Assuming much?
Just because you may have predominantly met people who do this, doesn't mean everyone will do it.
I certainly encountered my share of people who did exactly what you describe, but even then I realized that not all Humans are like this - merely that the Humans who did that were simply uneducated in relevant matters - and upon initial conversations with them, they demonstrated a really big lack of exposure to many relevant subjects - repeating only what the politicians, the news, and culture keep telling them.
But they also demonstrated a potential to go beyond that... and once you show this to them on their terms, usually they will go along with it.

Intricately, I don't expect the whole world to suddenly change... but a sufficient amount of people have changed, or are changing as we speak, and they are trying to educate others.

In the end, those who are hardcore proponents of the existing system and ways of doing things probably will not change their stance until the system itself collapses and threatens their livelihood (at which point, people are usually far more open to change).

Again, these distinctions are irrelevant. To swear or not to swear is on a level far removed from the basic nature I'm talking about. Pointing to different clothing styles or hair styles doesn't make the underlying similarity in body plan go away.

The differences may seem irrelevant to you, but one change lead to another and as I tried pointing out before when it comes to environmental influence on Human behaviour, all those little things add up.
You may try to deny or discard it, but the premise remains it is a contributing factor which affected my overall behaviour and approach to life.

Obviously. Because people change. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the idea that these superficial changes mean that there is no innate human nature that governs behaviour and perception, and more specifically the idea that people will question the assumptions their nature gives them.

Can you prove there is 'innate human nature that governs behaviour and perception'?
And perhaps we should clarify what you think 'human nature' means for you.
I was stating that the concept of 'human nature' as perceived by most others (that we are born greedy, selfish, etc.) doesn't exist for very simple reason: 'environmental influence' (meaning, education, culture, where you live, how you live, etc. will create an individual or people who will conform to certain parameters as they exist in their environments).
External forces impacting Human sensory inputs and creating certain responses. Since we all have a different biochemical makeup, each person will experience these stimuli in a different way (perhaps not markedly different, but enough to differentiate between the two people in question), and not everyone will be exposed to identical stimulus in the same environment.

The issue is: it is not a "radical" change. You keep making these changes out to be more important than they are. Moreover, you can only become "informed" if you want to be. If stimuli go against your instinctive preferences or threaten to challenge your social and political status, you would likely ignore them - indeed, when presented with information that conflicts with the beliefs that bring them security, people will usually double down on those original beliefs and aggressively reject the new input.

I see... so you don't see concepts such as fundamental respect for all life, sharing personal resources and knowledge, actively helping others and not asking for rewards in return (let alone money) as 'radical change' from behaviours such as: stomping over others as well as actively cheating and lying to get what a person wants, consume in an excess fashion as the culture we live in dictates, go into debt, and contribute to murder and torture of animals (just to name a few)?

I'll grant you that these may seem like 'superficial changes', but realistically, when you contrast how these 'superficialities' affect the real world around us, they don't seem as... insignificant as you seemingly portray them.

But let me ask you a question... what would you personally see as a 'radical change' in that case?

Again, these are superficial differences and changes that say nothing regarding the capacity to actually change one's nature. Flexibility in diet in response to perceived needs is hardly some daring challenge to innate human behaviour - it is innate human behaviour.

Can you describe what you mean when you say 'ones nature'?
The term is being overly used by people to describe a plethora of different things, hence the need for distinction.

Exactly. And when one's instinctual nature will not permit them to break ranks or question certain understandings, they will not look for that information, or will not accept it when presented it, and will not make the decision to change - though they'll probably wrap their general conservatism in the rhetoric of change and insist that they're altering the way they function, that they're "progressing". That because they've painted it a different colour it's now a different object entirely.

I would disagree. Mainly because most people were never encouraged to question themselves and what they were told.
Hence, when they are presented with notions that seemingly 'attack' their personal values, they get 'defensive'.

Science has no such hangups, and neither do actual scientists. They change their perceptions and stances (usually) when new (and more accurate) evidence is presented - but they also do not necessarily think that previous ones were 'true' to begin with.
Namely, they followed the evidence on where it lead them and they presented it as such, but they usually wouldn't claim the results in an 'absolute' way.

What you are describing seems to echo 'belief' and 'truth'.
Most Humans are brought up to incorporate these notions into how they view life, and usually, it creates a mental block because a 'belief' (by definition - not talking about religious one) points to accepting something as 'truth'.
It provides stability to those who were taught to behave in these ways (and most cultures rely on tradition to be passed on to others in order so it continues - meh, this seems to mainly keep people locked in the past and limits their perspective).

How many Humans were taught not to incorporate 'belief' into their life?
I hadn't met such people in my life yet (though that doesn't mean much), but I can tell you that I had to work my rear end off to eliminate this ridiculous notion from my way of thinking - a deprogramming if you will.

And while many will argue that this is not possible... there is a very interesting (and large) read online under the title: 'the problem with beliefs' that I think they might benefit from reading to gain better insight.

Slow change, over millions of years. An individual can change much of the superficial detail, but a change to the underlying humanity requires widespread environmental shift and most likely generations. Yes, I am aware that certain changes can happen in what many would have called surprisingly short periods. But can you demonstrate that all these gradual changes in behaviour were not made in accordance with certain universal human requirements and attributes?

And yet, in just some 200 years since the industrial revolution, as a society we changed quite a bit in some aspects, while also being ridiculously stuck in the past on others.
Namely, we still use an outdated socio-economic system (monetary system) that is fit for the 19th and early 20th century, certainly not mid/late 20th century and early 21st century.
Our social, educational and political institutions did not keep up to accommodate a technologically developed world.

Why are we still stuck?
Because we live in a world that intricately depends on science and technology for survival, and yet the general population knows next to nothing about science and technology.

Has the Christian converted to Islam, or has he actually rejected monotheism or organized religion? These are very different degrees of change.

They are different degrees of change, but they point into the direction that for the people who initiated those changes and many people around them, it may seem 'radical' - and it likely wouldn't be easy - or actually, in some instances, it IS easy... depending on the type of information they are presented with and how this info affects them.

My problem is this: why speak of change if you're not going to change? If you're going to constantly replay the same perspectives and biases and social dynamics? If you're going to be reasonable and responsive to objective realities and new revelations in one breath and then slam the door on them the next? This is exactly what I mean about people here - you're a cruel trap that promises so much, but when we get right down to it there's no escaping the tribalist system: the same system that is the cause of the things you're ostensibly trying to change, and the same system that unapologetically destroys lives, that neglects and abuses and exploits. That is mired in blind hypocrisy.

Who says that (for example) I, would constantly replay same perspectives, biases and social dynamics?
You seem to be projecting personal assumptions on people you know little to nothing about.
Just because you think of something in your mind, doesn't mean it correlates with reality.
At best, it can be a theory, but in order to see whether this is accurate, you need to test it to see whether it works or not... and in case of Humans (or even animals), you cannot simply assume your results will be applicable to EVERYONE.

Show me the capacity for change. Show me that ideology that strokes and conforms to innate assumptions won't be embraced, that instinct can be successfully overturned in favour of something better. Show me allegiance to ideals and not to status. Show me the understanding of what innate qualities you need to be aware of so you can challenge them, rather than refusing to acknowledge their existence. Show me that you can think outside of the tribal system.

Show me that I can join and learn from you, and not have every lesson rendered meaningless.

I think I provided more than enough evidence on this, and even went as far to provide scientific peer-review data on this too.

Now if you'll excuse me, I will not return to this subject again as I do not want to derail the thread any more.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

...shifting away from the current garbage socio-economic system is possible via exposure of the general population to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving. as well as actively shifting towards a new way of thinking.

I would certainly hope so.

Then perhaps I should have been more specific to state 'the concept of Human nature as currently perceived by others that it means Humans are born greedy, selfish, violent, etc.'.

Is that how "human nature" is perceived? I perceive the nature of most humans in terms of social dynamics and group affiliation, rather than any particular descriptive traits - particularly not loaded ones like those.

We have the capacity to become selfish, violent, greedy, etc. if exposed to environment where these traits are dominant.
In Capitalism, they are, ergo why a large group of Humans exhibit them.
Even ones who do not behave like this all the time exhibit these notions in a diminished way because they are surrounded by a large majority who do.

I don't think you can place blame for these things on a socioeconomic system alone. Others have made these claims in the past - that disliked or perceived-negative traits in human behaviour can be eliminated simply through dismantling certain systems, that people are simply products of the social system and can be "re-educated" into something more appealing to the thinker by changing the system. I still think you over-emphasise environmental factors and undervalue innate factors in your view of humans.

I was stating that environment can and does change ones behaviour.

Definitely. There was never disagreement on this.

So they try to do the best they can... they expose their children to different ideas and patterns of behaviour

How different, though? That's what the dispute here boils down to. If the patterns are exhibited within the same tribal structure, they will remain subordinate to it and the same cycles will repeat. Too often I see people reinforcing old assumptions while insisting they're challenging them; repackaging, rather than questioning.

The social dynamic was at one time necessary due to living in scarcity-like conditions for most of our existence.
However, since development of science and technology and abundant production of goods and services, most people aren't aware of the realities.
How many know that we are producing enough food every year to feed between 10 and 17 billion people?
How many know that over 40% of the grown food in question is actively wasted?
How many know that we had the ability to tap into geothermal as a main power source since 1911, or that an MIT study in 2006 showed we can tap into 200 Zettajoules of geothermal power with technology we had at our disposal back then, and that 2000 Zettajoules will be extractable with improved technologies?

Very few.
Furthermore, most people live in a cycle of cyclical consumption, and were never exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving - resulting in people prone to manipulation and being used (smart enough to operate the machinery but dumb enough not to question the system).

Simply speaking, our problems are systemic.

Well said. I agree entirely. The issue is that to move past this - to move away from that social dynamic that was (pre)historically evolutionarily advantageous and which humans therefore reproduce and operate on despite its current unsuitability - is difficult. How many can actually do it? My position here is that most apparent change is simply rearranging the deckchairs, so to speak, and represents attempted tweaks to that dynamic rather than moving past it. Because people have great difficulty escaping their social dynamic; indeed, great difficulty recognizing or acknowledging it to begin with (you're insisting it essentially doesn't exist other than as something imposed from without). So, in practice, solutions and changes are ineffective, because they stem from the same systems that cause the things people are trying ostensibly to move away from. The solution is the problem.

Here is a fundamental similarity that most Humans seem to ignore: 'we are all humans, period'.
I try not to see people through their little societal distinctions of artificial concepts like religion, nationality, etc., because I observed long ago that these things only serve to divide people - create social stratification - and, incidentally, the less people are exposed to, the more they seem to focus on these small divisions that provide a false sense of stability.

You could almost sound like me sometimes.

Science and the scientific method have no use of 'belief' or 'truth' (neither are mentioned in the definition) and instead focus on what is more probable to occur.

It's not science that is the issue - it's the people using it. Not all of them, by any means, but it's easy to have one's perceptions warped by assumptions and inherent biases - perhaps particularly when one insists or believes that they don't have them, that they are an objective creature with no innate directives. You can't and won't fight something you insist isn't there.

However, there is a bit of a flaw here in your reasoning.
On social networks, there is a growing amount of Humans who discard the current system and question the tribalist mentality.

I'm not sure I agree at all. But then I may be partially at fault here for not clarifying what I mean by what I call "tribalist" thinking. Tribalism isn't about competition with outgroups alone. A single unified tribe still has its tribalist structure and resulting complications. A unified, "one people" world can still be tribalist - and indeed will be if certain assumptions and means of thinking are not challenged and overcome. You insist they can be. I believe it's a lot more difficult than you think; mostly, it would seem, because I believe tribalism is innate to most humans and not primarily a matter of social construction or environmental influence.

...People also have access to varied sourced of information they read so they can see which sources are more or less credible.

In my experience, if they don't want to look at sources that challenge the assumptions that fit comfortably with that which reinforces their inherent understanding of how things work - whether we think nature or culture is the primary cause of those assumptions and understandings - then they won't. And often it's the very people who make a big deal out of supposed objectivity that do this.

I am not angry - there is nothing to be angry about.

Ah, but I wasn't saying that you were angry.

I certainly encountered my share of people who did exactly what you describe, but even then I realized that not all Humans are like this - merely that the Humans who did that were simply uneducated in relevant matters - and upon initial conversations with them, they demonstrated a really big lack of exposure to many relevant subjects - repeating only what the politicians, the news, and culture keep telling them.
But they also demonstrated a potential to go beyond that... and once you show this to them on their terms, usually they will go along with it.

Whether cultural or innate, some assumptions and certain subjects are more sensitive than others, and it is harder or less likely for people to question or discard them.

In the end, those who are hardcore proponents of the existing system and ways of doing things probably will not change their stance until the system itself collapses and threatens their livelihood (at which point, people are usually far more open to change).

Agreed entirely.

External forces impacting Human sensory inputs and creating certain responses. Since we all have a different biochemical makeup, each person will experience these stimuli in a different way (perhaps not markedly different, but enough to differentiate between the two people in question), and not everyone will be exposed to identical stimulus in the same environment.

There are obvious core similarities between all humans. We may be different, but those differences do not detract from the essential similarity. My point here is not that people aren't different, it's that stressing these differences in a way that downplays the universals isn't logical. It really does read like you want to deny that there even exists an inherent makeup to the human animal.

If there's no human nature, then it's easy to solve all of your problems by dismantling particular social systems and building new ones. It's easy to have faith in that dream. But if you're wrong, you might find that your social reconstructivist dreams turn rather dark when the people refuse to easily fit into them. That's how it's happened repeatedly over the last century.

I see... so you don't see concepts such as fundamental respect for all life, sharing personal resources and knowledge, actively helping others and not asking for rewards in return (let alone money) as 'radical change' from behaviours such as: stomping over others as well as actively cheating and lying to get what a person wants, consume in an excess fashion as the culture we live in dictates, go into debt, and contribute to murder and torture of animals (just to name a few)?

Why do you assume that those behaviours didn't already exist? Why is your model one of change from the latter to the former? Why not change the other way, why not shifts back and forth all over the place, especially since your position is that the latter is by no means "natural" or "innate"?

But let me ask you a question... what would you personally see as a 'radical change' in that case?

Rejection of the tribalist social dynamic and thus the freeing of the individual to truly be consistent in their ethics and reason. When I see an actual shift among those in positions of cultural and academic influence away from ideological power-plays and toward actual principles.

I would disagree. Mainly because most people were never encouraged to question themselves and what they were told.
Hence, when they are presented with notions that seemingly 'attack' their personal values, they get 'defensive'.

Science has no such hangups, and neither do actual scientists. They change their perceptions and stances (usually) when new (and more accurate) evidence is presented - but they also do not necessarily think that previous ones were 'true' to begin with.

That's an idealized view. Hopefully true in many cases, hopefully aspired for, but very idealized.

How many Humans were taught not to incorporate 'belief' into their life?
I hadn't met such people in my life yet (though that doesn't mean much), but I can tell you that I had to work my rear end off to eliminate this ridiculous notion from my way of thinking - a deprogramming if you will.

Yet your position here involves an awful lot of belief. Faith, even.

But, yes, we've covered enough, haven't we?

I hope you understand, Deks, that I'm not your opponent here, I'm someone who very much wants you to be right. But my own experience leaves me leery. And I don't see how denying the cause of much of our problems helps at all. Again: how can you overcome that which you insist doesn't exist? And the "we are social constructs and if we just destroy capitalism things will be great" approach is an angle that has been tried before.

 

[Idran]

Science has no such hangups, and neither do actual scientists. They change their perceptions and stances (usually) when new (and more accurate) evidence is presented - but they also do not necessarily think that previous ones were 'true' to begin with.
Namely, they followed the evidence on where it lead them and they presented it as such, but they usually wouldn't claim the results in an 'absolute' way.

I'm mostly on your side, Deks, but this is a very idealized view of science that doesn't reflect actual practice nearly as much as people would like. Look into the history of why Lorentz developed the idea of Lorentz contraction, for example; it wasn't from relativity, it was because Michelson and Morley couldn't possibly be right and the aether must actually be a thing. And this was Hendrik Lorentz.

And that's just one example. I'm pretty sure that in physics alone, for every major physicist you can name there's some significant incident you can find where they refused to believe in a new development because it went against their preconceived notions. Science as an overall construct continues moving forward, but individual scientists can be very much attached to their preconceptions regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

But individual scientists can be very much attached to their preconceptions regardless of evidence to the contrary.

As can most, if not all, "progressive", ostensibly self-questioning people with admirable values and ideals, which was my entire point to begin with.

Pretending that this isn't the case because your own personal religion of progress doesn't allow for it... that's why we don't get anywhere, because the very people who might take us there - admirable people such as Deks - don't want to fight the right target. They'd rather pretend their nature doesn't exist than challenge it.

I'm mostly on your side, Deks.

There are opposing sides? I thought I was mostly on his side, too.

I agree with him on a considerable number of things, and admire a lot of what he has said.

I simply don't share his faith in the idea that humans don't have innate qualities that render effective change such as that I'd like to see easy, and I believe that he stresses social and environmental factors over innate characteristics to a degree that is unconvincing.

My unfortunate veering into personal frustrations and traumas aside, I'm not opposing him, I'm petitioning him.

 

[Idran]

Debate side, Nasat; in terms of the areas in which you two disagree, I find myself agreeing more with Deks's positions than yours, no slight to you intended.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Debate side, Nasat; in terms of the areas in which you two disagree, I find myself agreeing more with Deks's positions than yours, no slight to you intended.

No slight taken!

We're all the products of our experiences and environments, and our own individual natures, after all. My perspective is mine, it couldn't be another's unless they travelled the same path and started from the same place, experienced the same input along the way - and had the same approach to interpersonal and social relationships. I happen to be looking for something, and sometimes this place and some of the people frequenting it get very close, only to - from my perspective - fall short of closing the deal.

I'm sure I'll be back in here when Atonement arrives - only a few days - and then I can clutter up the thread with talk of the actual novel instead. I'm sure it will be up to the high standard of the previous entries in the series.

 

[trampledamage]

Okay, back about 8 posts ago - Deranged Nasat apologised for the derailing. That's where it should have stopped, guys! If you want to continue a discussion about human nature, the ability to change etc. please start a new thread - I'll even let you start it here in Trek Lit if you want, but here in this thread keep it to the book itself please.

Thank you

and I hope the UK issues get sorted out soon, so you can all be discussing the novel

 

[Markonian]

The ongoing storyline of Voyager is fantastic. I love how we return to familiar people and species but also learn about new ones.

Spoiler: Kashyk

It's sad to see him go. The moment he returned to the playing field, I was hoping there'd be a face-to-face discussion between him and Janeay. Kashyk is fascinating because we disagree with his racist views but know that somewhere in there is a decent man. I liked, however, how Chakotay's jealousy was implied without turning into a melodramatic issue. His problems with Janeway were professional, or related to balancing the professional and private lives. Anyway, I'm going to miss Kashyk and hope that Voyager's efforts to make amends with the Devore by sharing intelligence will bear fruit.

We should keep in mind that the Devore were able to cross vast interstellar distances already during the visit, as they had a colony in former Vaadwaur territory, a few thousand lightyears away.

It's great to see the Voth again, and I would be pleased if their development from Distant Shores: "Brief Candle and Myriad Universes: Places of Exile is picked up. Is it too late for Voyager to instigate the Delta Coalition (from PoE) or the Delta Alliance (from STO) in this timeline?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It's great to see the Voth again, and I would be pleased if their development from Distant Shores: "Brief Candle and Myriad Universes: Places of Exile is picked up. Is it too late for Voyager to instigate the Delta Coalition (from PoE) or the Delta Alliance (from STO) in this timeline?

The Voth are one of my favourite Star Trek races, used wonderfully both in "Distant Origin" and Places of Exile, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they're portrayed in this novel.

As for future developments, "The Collectors" suggested that the Voth and the Federation would eventually establish a peaceful relationship with the help of the Norolob, sometime after the 27th Century.

 

[Mage]

Very nice read, and some interesting developments I hadn't expected. Some moments made me shed a small tear, others had me laughing. All in all, a great example of why Kirsten is such a great author.

The only real issue I have, and it's a pet peeve I have with all of Kirsten's Voyager novels.... Everyone seems to suffer from some form of guilt or angst over something. I suppose we all have our crosses to bear, I know I do. But at some point, I would love to have our intrepid crew find some more lasting happiness in their lives.

But other than that, loved it. A solid conclussion to a great trilogy. Well done Kirsten, well done!!

 

[Deranged Nasat]

The only real issue I have, and it's a pet peeve I have with all of Kirsten's Voyager novels.... Everyone seems to suffer from some form of guilt or angst over something. I suppose we all have our crosses to bear, I know I do.

I suppose being only a year or so post-Destiny there's going to be a general solemnity and sobriety. A product of the times, perhaps?

 

[Mage]

The only real issue I have, and it's a pet peeve I have with all of Kirsten's Voyager novels.... Everyone seems to suffer from some form of guilt or angst over something. I suppose we all have our crosses to bear, I know I do.

I suppose being only a year or so post-Destiny there's going to be a general solemnity and sobriety. A product of the times, perhaps?

Hm... Most of the angsts and guilt do not seem to have anything to do with the Invasion. But I suppose PTSD's can take the shape of older stuff very easy. It's an interesting notion for sure.

 

[Paris]

I finished the book friday evening, after reading it pretty much straight through. I really enjoyed this outing and found it very hard to put down . The ongoing themes of family and loyalty are right at the center of this story, and I thought Kirsten handled them quite well. Definitely a Wonderful end to this trilogy.

I'm really excited that the next installment will hit shelves this upcoming January, and the news that Kirsten is most likely going to write at least 2 more Voyager books after Pocket Full of Lies.

Voyager has really benefited from the whole one-author situation. This series is fantastic! Keep it up Kirsten; I'll be back next time for sure

 

[Kilana2]

Question for the native speakers (I'm referring to the paperback version, but I guess the ebook text is the same)

on page 40, at the bottom, one sentence contains ........"proscribed penalty".....

It hast to be prescribed, anything else would be illogical. I guess I struggled with those words in the last Voyager novel. Only now I ran into it again.

proscribed = prohibited

prescribed = required

Did I miss something? Am I wrong? Is it a mistake? I'm confused.

 

[Idran]

Question for the native speakers (I'm referring to the paperback version, but I guess the ebook text is the same)

on page 40, at the bottom, one sentence contains ........"proscribed penalty".....

It hast to be prescribed, anything else would be illogical. I guess I struggled with those words in the last Voyager novel. Only now I ran into it again.

proscribed = prohibited

prescribed = required

Did I miss something? Am I wrong? Is it a mistake? I'm confused.

I'm pretty sure you're right that that's an error, but it doesn't seem to be an uncommon one in general; doing a Google, I see a few other people make the same one. So that's not on your English, no.

 

[Kilana2]

Question for the native speakers (I'm referring to the paperback version, but I guess the ebook text is the same)

on page 40, at the bottom, one sentence contains ........"proscribed penalty".....

It hast to be prescribed, anything else would be illogical. I guess I struggled with those words in the last Voyager novel. Only now I ran into it again.

proscribed = prohibited

prescribed = required

Did I miss something? Am I wrong? Is it a mistake? I'm confused.

I'm pretty sure you're right that that's an error, but it doesn't seem to be an uncommon one in general; doing a Google, I see a few other people make the same one. So that's not on your English, no.

I don't think that it is Kirsten's fault. Rather a matter of editing.