I can’t say I remember this episode. I haven’t restarted my Paramount + account yet and God knows when I will, but I think I was only a few episodes away from there.
You're an immensely powerful writer, and you're using your power to scare, for reasons I completely understand. I'd ask whether that makes you, or us, feel more empowered to act or less. The way you describe a cube, as a support, a weapon, or an abstract shape, changes completely what you think you might do with it. I'd suggest rather than dreading an inflection point in the near future, that it's probable we've already passed that inflection point, and some time ago. Rather than dreading a particular horrifying moment to come, I'd say that we're in it now, and we want to decide what to do next. If it doesn't feel horrifying enough yet, I'd argue that millions, billions of people over the last 80 years have had apocalyptic moments, reasons to despair beyond return, and also moments of renewal and hope, and it's our particular vantage point that makes us think the whole world is on the brink. You may disagree, but again I'd ask, does describing it that way make us feel more or less empowered?
Well I was thinking practically, as in about the next election. I’m not sure what we as individuals can do until then, other than reading, thinking, and talking. Perhaps giving money.
Beyond that, what I was mainly getting at is that this is different than, say, Vietnam. Yes plenty of individuals have faced apocalyptic situations over the past 80 years, but to my eye this is potentially a tectonic shift in the world order. It may (almost certainly will) result in apocalyptic moments for lots of people but the significance of this is greater than that. It’s civilizational.
I probably did make it sound like I’m expecting the apocalypse, but what I’m really expecting is a crisis--a decision point. I think the West could potentially come out of it stronger, or it could fade. To reach the former is going to take a lot from governments, and my opinions about what that entails are pretty clearcut (e.g. Ukraine must win decisively and soon). What it entails of individuals I’m not yet sure, but I think it’s time for everyone to be thinking about it. And if possible, writing about it, which I’ll probably continue to do.
I regret having to take a position that's in any way skewed from yours, because at a fundamental level I see and feel the same things you do. It's just that I'm leery of "writerly" approaches. Hemingway's quote is really great isn't it? What a prediction. Did he actually do anything to make any world situation better, or did he just write things that we can admire years later? Grand pronouncements are very seductive, especially to the people who write them, because we all want to be the one who "said the thing" that made the difference, that everybody quotes. But those powerful statements are like the "I have a dream" speech, which suggests it was the thing, when it was actually MLK's years of boring and gritty work in the field that did the thing. It's boring people doing boring things that really solve the problems.
Regarding the decision point, wasn't there a decision point when we found out about Pol Pot? Did the utter disasters that befell Cambodians not count because they're so far away? What if America falls under, but Europe turns out to be ok. Will that count because we're the ones who are hurting? If we describe it as an inflection point we force ourselves to see it that way, for good or for ill, and in reacting to it we'll react the way you react in a car crash, when we might have months or years. I understand the danger is that we don't act at all. Again, I bring it back to the question: how do you describe a situation in a way that empowers and motivates people?
Well yeah, he went to Spain and published photos and essays in American magazines trying to persuade people to wake up. He failed unfortunately, but the words he left behind can still be a warning.
On Cambodia: what happened there was terrible. For Cambodians mainly. I don’t mean to minimize what happened to them but it wasn’t the end of the rules-based world, writ large, and however imperfect that world may be (particularly when it allowed things like Cambodia to happen), we‘ll miss it when it’s gone.
Now I definitely would be upset about a future where Europe survives unscathed while the US falls into autocracy or chaos. It‘s where I live. It’s where my family lives. Naturally I have a stronger connection and a more compelling responsibility--otherwise I’d be calling for us to take up arms and head to Ukraine or Israel. Obviously that’s not a plausible response to hurt in the world. We’d be paralyzed if we felt everyone’s pain as deeply as our own.
But the crisis as I see it does extend well beyond what happens to the US or Europe. We’ve got another crisis, climate, that’s simply on the back burner right now. That will unambiguously require levels of international cooperation we haven’t often reached, and instead the institutions that could facilitate that cooperation are being revealed to be weak and decayed.
Consider a very tiny example: ships at sea are required to identify themselves at all times. You can look on various websites and see where every ship in the world is and who it belongs to. This is a good thing! Especially if you’re a sailor that doesn’t want to be attacked by pirates.
Problem is, Russian ships have been turning off their transponders. Who told them they could do this? Well they just did it. That’s what concerns me: when everyone starts making their own rules, the world becomes more dangerous for everyone. It’s like English roads in the 18th century--once you were out of view of the nearest town you were likely in view of highwaymen. Highwaymen!
I concede though, that I’m probably not really motivating anyone. I can’t say I have answers as far as that’s concerned. Not even embryos of answers. There only thing I know for sure is that people like Tommy Tuberville or George Santos are not serious and should not be in positions of power. If I could convince people to not vote for them that’d be great. It’d also be great if I could shoot laser beams out of my eyes. I just don’t know.
Whatever brought you to this groove, you need to stay in it. Best Bestiary yet. IMO.
Necessity, mother of invention, etc etc.
I don't remember this episode of Star Trek...
Best episode evar.
The thing is, you probably could find an episode that fits the current mood
How very true. Which film was it where the Klingon Empire collapses?
"Errand of Mercy" would be a good place to start, with Organia standing in for Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errand_of_Mercy
I intend to write more on this subject. I probably don’t need more input, but I’ll find it and watch it anyway.
I can’t say I remember this episode. I haven’t restarted my Paramount + account yet and God knows when I will, but I think I was only a few episodes away from there.
You're an immensely powerful writer, and you're using your power to scare, for reasons I completely understand. I'd ask whether that makes you, or us, feel more empowered to act or less. The way you describe a cube, as a support, a weapon, or an abstract shape, changes completely what you think you might do with it. I'd suggest rather than dreading an inflection point in the near future, that it's probable we've already passed that inflection point, and some time ago. Rather than dreading a particular horrifying moment to come, I'd say that we're in it now, and we want to decide what to do next. If it doesn't feel horrifying enough yet, I'd argue that millions, billions of people over the last 80 years have had apocalyptic moments, reasons to despair beyond return, and also moments of renewal and hope, and it's our particular vantage point that makes us think the whole world is on the brink. You may disagree, but again I'd ask, does describing it that way make us feel more or less empowered?
Well I was thinking practically, as in about the next election. I’m not sure what we as individuals can do until then, other than reading, thinking, and talking. Perhaps giving money.
Beyond that, what I was mainly getting at is that this is different than, say, Vietnam. Yes plenty of individuals have faced apocalyptic situations over the past 80 years, but to my eye this is potentially a tectonic shift in the world order. It may (almost certainly will) result in apocalyptic moments for lots of people but the significance of this is greater than that. It’s civilizational.
I probably did make it sound like I’m expecting the apocalypse, but what I’m really expecting is a crisis--a decision point. I think the West could potentially come out of it stronger, or it could fade. To reach the former is going to take a lot from governments, and my opinions about what that entails are pretty clearcut (e.g. Ukraine must win decisively and soon). What it entails of individuals I’m not yet sure, but I think it’s time for everyone to be thinking about it. And if possible, writing about it, which I’ll probably continue to do.
I regret having to take a position that's in any way skewed from yours, because at a fundamental level I see and feel the same things you do. It's just that I'm leery of "writerly" approaches. Hemingway's quote is really great isn't it? What a prediction. Did he actually do anything to make any world situation better, or did he just write things that we can admire years later? Grand pronouncements are very seductive, especially to the people who write them, because we all want to be the one who "said the thing" that made the difference, that everybody quotes. But those powerful statements are like the "I have a dream" speech, which suggests it was the thing, when it was actually MLK's years of boring and gritty work in the field that did the thing. It's boring people doing boring things that really solve the problems.
Regarding the decision point, wasn't there a decision point when we found out about Pol Pot? Did the utter disasters that befell Cambodians not count because they're so far away? What if America falls under, but Europe turns out to be ok. Will that count because we're the ones who are hurting? If we describe it as an inflection point we force ourselves to see it that way, for good or for ill, and in reacting to it we'll react the way you react in a car crash, when we might have months or years. I understand the danger is that we don't act at all. Again, I bring it back to the question: how do you describe a situation in a way that empowers and motivates people?
Well yeah, he went to Spain and published photos and essays in American magazines trying to persuade people to wake up. He failed unfortunately, but the words he left behind can still be a warning.
On Cambodia: what happened there was terrible. For Cambodians mainly. I don’t mean to minimize what happened to them but it wasn’t the end of the rules-based world, writ large, and however imperfect that world may be (particularly when it allowed things like Cambodia to happen), we‘ll miss it when it’s gone.
Now I definitely would be upset about a future where Europe survives unscathed while the US falls into autocracy or chaos. It‘s where I live. It’s where my family lives. Naturally I have a stronger connection and a more compelling responsibility--otherwise I’d be calling for us to take up arms and head to Ukraine or Israel. Obviously that’s not a plausible response to hurt in the world. We’d be paralyzed if we felt everyone’s pain as deeply as our own.
But the crisis as I see it does extend well beyond what happens to the US or Europe. We’ve got another crisis, climate, that’s simply on the back burner right now. That will unambiguously require levels of international cooperation we haven’t often reached, and instead the institutions that could facilitate that cooperation are being revealed to be weak and decayed.
Consider a very tiny example: ships at sea are required to identify themselves at all times. You can look on various websites and see where every ship in the world is and who it belongs to. This is a good thing! Especially if you’re a sailor that doesn’t want to be attacked by pirates.
Problem is, Russian ships have been turning off their transponders. Who told them they could do this? Well they just did it. That’s what concerns me: when everyone starts making their own rules, the world becomes more dangerous for everyone. It’s like English roads in the 18th century--once you were out of view of the nearest town you were likely in view of highwaymen. Highwaymen!
I concede though, that I’m probably not really motivating anyone. I can’t say I have answers as far as that’s concerned. Not even embryos of answers. There only thing I know for sure is that people like Tommy Tuberville or George Santos are not serious and should not be in positions of power. If I could convince people to not vote for them that’d be great. It’d also be great if I could shoot laser beams out of my eyes. I just don’t know.
It’s a hard thing to write about, and honestly what I put on the page is about 10% of what was bubbling in my head.
That’s harsh.
Yeah. C’est la vie.