Sorry about that!
I’ve come back to
writing the blog a little later than I promised. Just after I wrote my little
note on the 4th September I got a lovely stomach bug and then a headache
that lasted about a week, and so looking at the computer was limited to work
and not much else!
Oh – and I said that I
was going to talk about “Stranger Things”, but I got the name wrong. I’m going
to talk about “Wayward Pines” instead. If you haven’t seen it and plan to I
will try not to give any spoilers.
The premise of the
show is that a select group of people have been selected to be put in cryostasis
by a particular man who predicts that something bad is going to happen to
humanity. The people are woken up some time later (a long time later) and often
don’t even know that they were put in cryostasis, so they wake up rather
confused.
Anyway – that’s a
pretty all over the place, brief description of the show.
What got me thinking
though, is that one of the key aims of the community of Wayward Pines is to
increase the human population. And anyone who could not produce children was
seen as unnecessary and were…well…I’ll say no more on that.
It’s a real commentary
on what is important to humanity. Would it be the case if something happened to
humanity and only a certain number of people could be saved that those unable
to have children would automatically be left behind?
What if a brilliant
poet or philosopher or teacher or scientist was unable to have children? Would
they be left behind? Okay – so the scientist may not be as they would have
something to “contribute” – which is another issue altogether on what is valued
in society and what is not.
If Charlotte Bronte,
or Plato, or Degas, or Beethoven, or Confucius were around and couldn’t have
children - would they be left behind?
If the only thing that
is of value when push comes to shove is the ability to procreate, then what would
we lose? Who’s to say that those who can’t have children have nothing to
contribute that is worth saving?
Art has been around as
long as humans have been. Storytelling, music, all of that – crude as it might
have been – were part of early human society.
Of course it isn’t an either/or
– having a child doesn’t mean you can’t be an artist too!
I’m getting myself all
confused now. What is the point of this entry?
I guess my point is
that people are much more than just their ability to procreate, but when it all
boils down, people who can’t procreate are seen as “not as worthy”, not as
valuable.
But, we are. I say we
are. I say we have a lot to give. We have a lot to give future generations. No matter
what society says.
