On seeing the title, I know many of you would assume that I am
writing about a flaw in myself. I assure you that is not the case. I am the Lord
Emperor remember, not the God Emperor.
The God Emperor Leto
Atreides II (from the Dune Series) has the power of prescience and also
lives for 4000 years to ensure peace and that humans survive in the universe.
The same is the case for R. Daneel
Olivaw (from the Robot series), the robot lives for a long time to
guide humanity to prosperity. Hari
Seldon (from the Second Foundation series) the poly-math who invents
the algorithm to predict the future, uses the algorithm to leave clues to that
ensure humans survive.
What’s common in all these three sentiment beings is that
they all make tough choices & scarifies to ensure humans survive in the
galaxy and spread across the galaxy/universe. They are all 3 also extremely
intelligent, considered the best minds to ever live. They are all 3 also
fictional characters, which is a minor point.
But there is a flaw that all these 3 have. Can anyone of you
guess the flaw? Of course the flaw can be excused in that Anomander Rake (from
the Malazan series) a sentient being (Tiste Andii) who lives for 100,000 years
himself had that flaw.
What is the flaw you ask?
The flaw is that they assume that the survival of their species is
requirement, a necessity. And they proceed on that premise. Let’s leave the
question of Anomander Rake for now and return to it later.
My question is that why do they (Leto, R. Daneel & Hari)
presume that the humans have to survive? I mean is survival of Humans really
that important? What if the survival of humans causes others species into
extinction as we have already seen happening on Earth? What if the survival of
humans leads to the eventual destruction of the universe? I mean does Leto who
has prescience see really that far into time? We do know that his father Paul
has prescience, but that he could see only a part of what Leto saw.
In the book Inferno, the protagonist (Bertrand Zobrist) is
seen trying to control the human population. Though, he chooses to do that by
control the reproductive ability of humans than by just killing them, a choice
that is supposed to “humanize” the character.
And even in this book which actually takes a good look at what humans
have done to the planet; it deals with the topic of human survival as a right.
It does not question, from where the right originates.
There was a book (Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy), in which a
radical fringe organization tries to introduce a virulent strain of Ebola
called “Ebola Shiva” into the world in order to kill off humans to save the
planet. In that book the organization is simply treated as a terrorist
organization and their arguments are simply brushed off as that of mad people.
I would rather take the approach of Ozzie Isaacs (Again a
fictional character from the Commonwealth Saga book series) who risks his life
in order to prevent a alien species(a sentient species) from being wiped out,
even though (and here is where you need to note) that alien species tries to wipe
out all humans. Ozzie argues what right do humans have to wipe out another
species (albeit there being only 1 member of the species alive as the others
having being wiped out by the surviving member, which Ozzie argues goes in
favour of preserving the lone member). Is Ozzie the only human who understands what I understand? Here, let me explain it to you.
What makes us assume that humans have to survive? Why do we
never consider human destruction could may be result in a better world for all
the other species? Why this question is never debated in schools and colleges?
I mean we have started debating about climate change and the impact of human
action. We do know for sure that human activity has leaded to the extinction of
many a species. But do we ever question on what basis do we assume human
survival as a right?
All our thoughts and knowledge are based on the Axiom of
human survival. My question is how did human survival become an axiom?
Is it because as Richard Dawkins so beautifully puts in the
Selfish Gene book, that our genes subconsciously makes us pursue that
survivability of the species? But as sentient beings should we not overcome our
base yearnings in order to do what is best for all rather than only ourselves.
When I mean all, I mean all the species.
So you now all see why I, the Lord Emperor the best of all.
For I question the very premise of all human knowledge. Why do I question that
premise? For my subjects are not only humans but all of life, from the basic
single organisms to the universe itself, thus the premise of all knowledge
should be the survivability of the universe or is even that an axiom that is
not self evident? What if the survival of this universe causes several other universes
to become extinct?
So what should be the
axiom on which to base all knowledge?
That is the question that drives me. To find the ultimate
axiom on to base all knowledge.
