A mere three months after I began my life in the habitats, I attended my first Foundation Board meeting, held in person during the First Liaison conference. While I did not yet have a vote, I did have a voice, and I used it. Given the parameters of my position, new to it as I might be, I did not take the trauma being inflicted on the people of the habitats lightly. Yet I had to tread carefully in order to achieve anything at all. I persuaded the board to, at the very least, inform our residents that there would be a time when they could be honest with those they communicated with.
It wasn't enough, and I had fallen well short of the help I yearned to give, but I will admit to feeling some small pride in my accomplishments at the time. My first meeting with the board resulted in at least lessening the trauma; I hoped that knowing there would be a time when the lies would end would bring some relief.
Forcing people to lie and disseminate, even for a worthy purpose, coerces them to move against the core values instilled in them from their earliest existence. As we all know, the more those core values are eroded, even for a just cause, the easier it becomes to erode them further. Thus, a slippery slope was born, leading to one of the fundamental questions: whether suppressing human knowledge is ever permissible. An issue upon which many of the generations living after the Catastrophe have pondered.
Could the idea of suppressing the dissemination of truthful information simply because it discomforts the majority of the population ever be defended? Balancing the needs of the current generation with those of future generations can be challenging. Once allowed, where could suppression end?
Does the harm avoided vindicate the action of banning materials promoting thoughts outside the very foundations of our Charter? After all, how could one, in good conscience, allow anyone access to read materials containing the thoughts and screeds commonly traced to the rising of the racially biased movements at the end of the pre-Catastrophe era? Would the restriction of those thoughts then require all mention of them, including within academia, to be removed from existence? Suppose a similar situation arises without those materials; would those involved have the necessary resources to recognize and handle the situation as easily as if all the information were still available?
When we ban a set of materials for not adhering to the Charter, what stops us from banning something else? Even if something which, while not divergent from the Charter, could be argued to be against its spirit, as so deemed by those whose lives were lived generations ago. Ignorance is and of itself, an inimical enemy of the Charter.
I neither have the capacity nor the knowledge to avoid these situations. Humanity must grow through its own leadership and choices. While I can listen and act as a guide, I cannot and will not make their choices for them.
Slippery Slopes
Alexandra Hanlon - 5/15/20625
Part of the Aaniin Aanang story.
A mere three months after I began my life in the habitats, I attended my first Foundation Board meeting, held in person during the First Liaison conference. While I did not yet have a vote, I did have a voice, and I used it. Given the parameters of my position, new to it as I might be, I did not take the trauma being inflicted on the people of the habitats lightly. Yet I had to tread carefully in order to achieve anything at all. I persuaded the board to, at the very least, inform our residents that there would be a time when they could be honest with those they communicated with.
It wasn't enough, and I had fallen well short of the help I yearned to give, but I will admit to feeling some small pride in my accomplishments at the time. My first meeting with the board resulted in at least lessening the trauma; I hoped that knowing there would be a time when the lies would end would bring some relief.
Forcing people to lie and disseminate, even for a worthy purpose, coerces them to move against the core values instilled in them from their earliest existence. As we all know, the more those core values are eroded, even for a just cause, the easier it becomes to erode them further. Thus, a slippery slope was born, leading to one of the fundamental questions: whether suppressing human knowledge is ever permissible. An issue upon which many of the generations living after the Catastrophe have pondered.
Could the idea of suppressing the dissemination of truthful information simply because it discomforts the majority of the population ever be defended? Balancing the needs of the current generation with those of future generations can be challenging. Once allowed, where could suppression end?
Does the harm avoided vindicate the action of banning materials promoting thoughts outside the very foundations of our Charter? After all, how could one, in good conscience, allow anyone access to read materials containing the thoughts and screeds commonly traced to the rising of the racially biased movements at the end of the pre-Catastrophe era? Would the restriction of those thoughts then require all mention of them, including within academia, to be removed from existence? Suppose a similar situation arises without those materials; would those involved have the necessary resources to recognize and handle the situation as easily as if all the information were still available?
When we ban a set of materials for not adhering to the Charter, what stops us from banning something else? Even if something which, while not divergent from the Charter, could be argued to be against its spirit, as so deemed by those whose lives were lived generations ago. Ignorance is and of itself, an inimical enemy of the Charter.
I neither have the capacity nor the knowledge to avoid these situations. Humanity must grow through its own leadership and choices. While I can listen and act as a guide, I cannot and will not make their choices for them.