I know, Dune and yeah, i get it - science fiction aint real life - but im still into these vibes.
Anyone wanna start a club?
I know, Dune and yeah, i get it - science fiction aint real life - but im still into these vibes.
Anyone wanna start a club?
Yeah, I'm in. Let me know when and where the meetings are held.
The machines didn't enslave anyone in this scenario. "Men with machines" did. I think of the techbro oligarchs who decide what a feed algorithm shows.
I wish we had machines that actually thought because they'd at least put an end to whatever this is. In the words of Schopenhauer, this is the worst of all possible worlds not because it couldn't be worse but because if it was a little bit worse it'd at least cease to exist. It's just bad enough so that we're stuck with the same dreck forever. This isn't the Dune future but the Wall-E future. The problem with the Terminator franchise and all those Eliezer Yudkowsky folks is that they are too optimistic.
<spoiler>
I interpreted Thufir Hawat's massive misunderstanding of Lady Jessica's motivation (which was a huge plot point in the book but sadly didn't make it into the films) as evidence that the conclusion that humans are capable of the exact same undesirable patterns as machines.
Did I read that wrong?
</spoiler>
Dune's a wild ride man!
Taking the first book by itself, it doesn't speak much about the relationship between man and machine. The fundamental themes are rooted in man's relationship with ecology (both as the cause and effect).
If you take the first book alone you're left with only one facet of a much grander story. You're also left with the idea a white savior story that says might makes right, which really isn't what was going on at all.
I think the first book is more nuanced than that. It's a demonstration of the nietzschean perspective, but it doesn't make any assertions about morality.
The story shows us how humans are products of their environment: Striving for peace or "morality" is futile, because peace makes men weak, which creates a power vacuum which ends peace. Similarly, being warlike is also futile because even if you succeed, it guarantees that you will become complacent and weak. It's never said outright, but all of the political theory in the book is based on the idea that "hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make bad times". It's like the thesis of "Guns Germs and Steel": frank herbert proposes that in the long term, no cultural or racial differences matter; that everything is just a product of environmental factors. In a way it's also the most liberal perspective you can have. But at the same time, it is also very illiberal because in the short term race and culture does matter.
The "moral" of dune is that political leaders don't really have agency because they are bound by their relationships that define power in the first place, which are a product of the environment. Instead, the real power is held by the philosopher-kings outside of the throne because they have the ability to change the environment (like pardot kynes, who is the self-insert for frank herbert). The book asks us to choose individual agency and understanding over the futility of political games.
From the use of propaganda to control the city-dwellers in the beginning of the book to the change in paul's attitudes towards the end of the book I think the transactional nature of the atredies's goodwill is pretty plainly spelt out for us. I mean we learn by the end that paul is part harkonnen by blood, and in the same way as the harkonenn use of the "brutal" rabban and "angelic" feyd, it's all public relations. Morality is a tool of control.
I think the reason you are uneasy about the idea of the "white savior" playing a role in the book is because you actually subscribe to this fake morality yourself, in real life. You are trying to pidgeonhole the story like it's "Star Wars" or something. Dune is against the idea of "morality" itself. By bringing up the "white savior" concept, you are clearly thinking in terms of morality. By having some morality, this puts you at odds with the real point of the book, which is where the unease comes from. You want the dissonance to be resolved, but the real story of dune is open-ended.
Saying that the first book alone doesn't make any assertions about morality is somewhat hilarious. The baron is queer coded, so too is feyd, the "good guys" are strong manly men. Even just the idea that "hard times make strong men, .." is a morality in and of itself.
I never said I was uneasy about the idea of a white savior, you are reading far too much into my beliefs and ideals. I would also appreciate that you do not project onto my any of your imaginings of my own beliefs. You do not know me.
That said, if you have only read the first books you truly are getting only one small facet of the story that Herbert was trying to tell. A lot of what is laid out in the first novel is inverted and overturned by the 3rd and 4th novels.
Finally, you have written a lot about one book out of a long series of books. I would suggest that, like your wont to project some sort of belief onto me, you, too, are projecting too much upon just the first entry of a much, much, larger epic.
If there were a new kind of "machines that think"--and they aren't a dangerous predator--they could be a contrast to help us understand ourselves and be better.
The danger from these (dumber) machines is that they may be used for reflecting, laundering, and amplifying our own worst impulses and confusions.
???
Why does that matter? Isn't it all the same? No, because I'm human, and I can make special exceptions for humans.
Isn't that perfect hypocrisy? Yes, but I'm human, and it's okay because I get to decide what's okay and I say it's okay because I'm human.
See also: why can I eat a burger but Jeffrey Dahmer went to prison?
A thinking machine is a total unknown. If human intelligence and machine intelligence are not aligned, then what?
You would not be the first, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Funny thing is that we still have hand made fabric today, and were still employing a frighting number of people in the manufacturing of clothing. The issue is that we're making more lower quality products rather than higher quality items.
I will never bow before the machine god