• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Sinclair's Pacifist Answer

QMCO5

Member
Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

This turned out a bit long, but I think you'll find it intellectually engaging. In response to an ISN reporter’s question in the episode Infection about whether space exploration is “worth it,” Sinclair says, “there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars.” (In watching the episode again I caught a contrast with Dr. Hendricks who gives a list of notable scientists to Dr. Franklin.)

I find it interesting that a fan challenged JMS on the appropriateness of the question, but apparently nobody has commented on the meaning of the answer. In reality, the answer sounds more like something JMS himself believes than what a person like Sinclair would actually say. It’s also possible that JMS with his degree in psychology and certainly acquainted with developmental psychology constructed an answer that could be interpreted in at least two ways.

COGNITIVE LEVEL
From this POV Sinclair’s answer is ridiculous and inane. If you listen to the arguments now about going to the stars the principal reason is utilitarian, that is, outer space exploration will somehow improve life on earth. And, indeed it has. As for scientists, they have an interest because they are naturally curious and want answers to scientific questions. There is also the appeal of exploration, “to go where no man has gone before” (a familiar purpose statement).

Instead of the expected (and good) reasons Sinclair offers a philosophical answer that borders on nihilism. He offers a list of people whose deaths he would supposedly consider tragic and meaningless (and everyone else’s) except for the redemption of space travel. However, the truth is that there are millions of people who have lived and died since creation who to this day are unnamed and unremembered. Going to the stars will not make their lives any more meaningful.

No reason is given for the choice of names and it is more likely the list has special meaning to JMS. I was surprised at the seemingly out of place mention first of Marilyn Monroe, a cult sex symbol who died in 1962. Lao-Tsu lived in the 6th century and was the reputed founder of Taoism. Einstein, familiar to all, was a German scientist who proposed a special theory of relativity and won the Nobel prize; he died in 1952. Maruputo is a totally fictional person, so one can’t assess his/her significance in this context. Buddy Holly, was a pop music artist who died in 1959, an event memorialized among rock and roll enthusiasts in the song “The Day the Music Died” and no doubt remembered by JMS with a replica of his guitar in the B5 museum. Aristophanes was a 5th century Greek dramatist who wrote plays that ridiculed political figures, an archetype for many in the Hollywood left.

Of the names in the list only Lao-Tsu and Einstein (IMHO) have made anything resembling a major impact on civilization and world history, although it can be said that Holly and Monroe have their thousands, if not millions, of adoring fans. Given the occupation of the writer it is probably no accident that three of the six names come from the performing arts. Taoism is probably the basis of the alien belief systems in B5 so give a nod to Lao-Tsu. (You could call the Vorlons and Shadows representative of Yin and Yang in B5). Without Einstein’s relativity there is no theoretical model upon which to build a B5 universe.

The irony is who Sinclair does not mention. I find it difficult to believe that a military officer who comes from a long line of fighter pilots would not mention a single military strategist, such as Sun Tzu (6th century), perhaps the most famous military strategist, or those who contributed to the development of manned flight, such as the Wright Brothers or Chuck Yeager. I find it even more difficult that the Jesuit-trained Sinclair would omit Jesus Christ from his list who has had the most significant impact on civilization than anyone else in history. It’s also odd that Sinclair mentions Aristophanes, but not his beloved Tennyson. Maybe JMS didn’t know Sinclair loved Tennyson at this point. :) There are also many famous people from other fields of human endeavor that could have been mentioned. Of course, maybe Sinclair had the deer in the headlights syndrome (camera, microphone) and said the first stupid thing that came into his head. Maybe he offered a politically correct to avoid adverse reaction by EarthGov as happened the last time he talked to a reporter. The answer can sound noble while being utterly pointless.

IDEALIST LEVEL
Interestingly, Aristophanes, Einstein, Holly and Lao-Tsu were all pacifists and Monroe was once married to a noted pacifist, William Miller. JMS may have been having a bit of fun with the audience by having Sinclair, the war veteran and hero, to give these names. (Is JMS a pacifist?) From the standpoint of the character maybe Sinclair was just playing with the dumb blonde reporter who probably wouldn’t have recognized such subtlety in his list. Perhaps the list was intended as an echo of Sinclair’s opening narration, “to prevent another war by creating a place where humans and aliens could work out their differences peacefully.”

In the context of answering the reporter the statement “All of this was for nothing” probably refers to the building of Babylon 5 as the extension of all the efforts of pacifists down through the centuries, principally utilitarian and commercial pacifists, although it can be debated which type of pacifist would fit the names in Sinclair’s list. Unfortunately, the absolutist form of pacifism has been more willing to coexist with evil than doing justice for victims. It was true in the 1930s and 1940s when Hitler and Stalin were murdering their millions and its still true today.

JMS has not provided enough evidence in the record of Babylon 5 to determine whether or what kind of pacifist Sinclair is supposed to be. I’ve never known a military officer that wanted to go to war for its own sake. So, in the end I am struck with the enigma of Sinclair’s answer and the cleverness of JMS.

QMCO5
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

:) I'm sorry but I think you missed a much more obvious meaning here, and delved into philosophical depths that don't exist. The thin reed of this amusing little speech simply cannot bear the weight of your analysis. Also Monroe was married to playwright Arthur Miller. :) I'm not sure about his pacifist credentials, but I think he served in WWII, and I know he visited the troops in Korea as part of a USO tour.

Where I believe you are mistaken:

Sinclair's statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the deaths of these individuals qua individuals. He's talking about the loss of their work, the intellectual, cultural and relgious contributions that them made to society - and they all did make contributions, even poor, sad Marilyn. She didn't just become a sex symbol, she became the sex symbol, the archetype of the archetype. Buddy Holly helped launch rock'a'roll and as long as that lives as an art form, his name will be remembered. The names are merely a shorthand way of saying "We'll lose all Human culture, civilization and history if we remain tied to one planet because that planet is someday going to die. When it does it will take all we have ever been, and all we can ever be with it." Why does he not name military figures? He's talking to a civilian reporter and through her to a civilian audience. He picks some names out of the air that will mean something to those people, to get an idea across to them. If I wanted to talk about the importance of preserving our musical heritage to a mass audience, I might mention Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. Are they necessarily the best or most representative musical figures from all of Human history? Of course not. But they are names the even people who have never heard their work would recognize and associate with great music. The point of the exercise is communication. Sinclair's list of names works very well as cultural shorthand. (And he does sort of laugh when he mentions Marilyn.)

The names are merely symbols for this idea. He could equally well have used the names of thing rather than people. "We'll lose War & Peace, The Bible, Kama Sutra and The Qu'ran, My Fair Lady and King Lear." The idea is the same. I you watch Sinclair in the scene you can see O'Hare playing it as Sinclair having the idea and then plucking names out of the air, some of them for fun, like Monroe. They are a miscellany, but then, that's what you get when you're trying to defend something complex. As G. K. Chesterton said in a different context, if someone walked up to you and said, "Why do you prefer civilization to barbarism?" how would you answer? Most people would simply look around the room... "Well, there's TV - and electricity. Washing machines, contract lenses, modern drugs..." That's an odd list, too, hardly a heirarchy of good things about civilization, much less a comprehensive list, but it is a start, and the point is that there are so many wonderful things that it is hard to think of them all on the spur of the moment, much less order them according to some plan.

Sinclair's point is that we must go into space or the universe will forget us when our star eventually vanishes and we will, as a species, have left no mark on it. He says nothing about the death of any individual. And, of course, JMS finds a way to show that Sinclair is right. Although the Sun goes nova by some artificial process, nova it does go, and we see the last remaining Human completing an act of filial piety - gathering up the last of the records of our species and seeing them safely trasferred to "New Earth" before the old Earth dies. Our homeworld and cradle are gone. Our species lives on.

This is a much more compelling argument for going into space and ultimately to the stars than any utilitarian argument. We can get minerals in space? We can get them here, too. There may be advantages to going into space, but there is no necessity. Except for the necessity that says only by leaving the cradle will the child Man be able to outlive his first home.

That's a lovely thought, not a silly or inane one, and it has nothing particularly to do with pacificism. (Nor, I suspect, does JMS. All of his heroes are quite prepared to do violence in the defense of right, or to overthrow evil, including Delenn. I think you really have got hold of the wrong end of the stick on this one. Your essay was still interesting to read, but I believe your premises to be completely mistaken and your conclusions therefore necessarily wrong.

Regards,

Joe
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

Going to the stars will not make their lives any more meaningful.
No... unless they wanted their contribution to live, and perhaps benefit others. Would they want such a thing?

-------

In my opinion, Sinclair was making two major points.
For those points, space travel is essential.

1) Survival

Limiting itself to a single planet, a civilization would tempt fate... invite destruction either via environmental change or violence. Loss would make in unable to contribute -- and indeed, render its achievements meaningless.

2) Interaction

Without input, growth, challenge, learning and sharing knowledge, hopefully competition instead of conflict... without interaction... life is boring and meaningless. A civilization which believes it has something to offer (and something to gain)... should interact with others.

-------

Babylon 5 was serving exactly those functions.

Being a center of population, trade, science and industry outside Earth... it was doing its part to ensure the long-term survival of humanity.

Being a hub of interaction, it was exchanging knowledge with people of other kinds. It was offering to them what humanity could offer, and returning to humanity what they could offer.
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

Excellent points have been made already. I’ll only add that at the time he gave his answer, Sinclair (as well as the reporter, presumably) knew that Earth had already established colonies in other star systems (Proxima, Orion, etc.). This somewhat lessens the urgency of preserving our shared culture. Although, as in the case of the Markab plague, this does not guarantee continuation of the culture.

And, you’d have a hard time convincing me that JMS, Sinclair or any of the other characters are “pacifists.” Even Dr. Franklin, as committed as he was to the sanctity of life, handed out the occasional beating to those in desperate need of one. :)
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

IIRC, the reporter's question wasn't about Babylon 5 alone, but about the entire principle of humanity's presence in space. I figure this would include the other colonies and stations anywhere around the galaxy. In answer to that, Sinclair's response was right on the money...

Why do we need a presence in space?

Because one day (either in a week or a hundred billion years) our home will cease to exist. If we are going to preserve our race, our culture, and our achievements, then we must find another home somewhere else.
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

Exactly right on both counts. An excellent summing up of the actual question, the actual answer, and the meaning of both. :)

Regards,

Joe
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

Thanks, Joe, for your also lengthy, but excellent answer. You are correct re: Monroe's husband's name (I can only plead brain fog). Arthur Miller was a reputed Viet Nam War pacifist (http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxvi/11.19.98/ae/miller.html).

I disagree that the names Sinclair listed are an adequate summary of human culture, but then I shouldn't expect an atheist like JMS to appreciate the history and contribution of Christianity to art, literature, architechture, education, the sciences and protection of the family. Since I believe in God I'm not worried about the inanimate universe forgetting about us.

QMCO5
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

I thought the key to Sinclair's speech (and JMS's beliefs) was contained in the sentence "All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars." It's not the survival of the species that Sinclair was talking about, its the survival of the ideas, of the history and all the contributions that individuals made to it.

Indeed, the species will die out eventually, but if the human race has gone to the stars and shared its culture with others and taken the others' ideas onboard, then all races leave a heritage to the community of races that will outlive even the race itself.

And if that happens, then nothing any human has done is in vain, even if their contributions are not remembered individually and the whole is only remembered dimly or by scholors.
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

Thanks, Joe, for your also lengthy, but excellent answer. You are correct re: Monroe's husband's name (I can only plead brain fog). Arthur Miller was a reputed Viet Nam War pacifist (http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxvi/11.19.98/ae/miller.html).

I disagree that the names Sinclair listed are an adequate summary of human culture, but then I shouldn't expect an atheist like JMS to appreciate the history and contribution of Christianity to art, literature, architechture, education, the sciences and protection of the family. Since I believe in God I'm not worried about the inanimate universe forgetting about us.

QMCO5

I disagree with that assessment of JMS's appreciation of religion. As a Christian, I've always admired JMS's respect for all religions--Sinclair's Jesuit upbringing, Brother Theodore's order, Ivanova's Jewish heritage, to name a few instances.

You're right in that the list is not an "adequate summary of human culture," but that's not what Sinclair was trying to do. He was trying to make a point, and he was using what are culture touchstones to make it. As Joe already pointed out, Sinclair was pulling names off the top of his head--it's not meant to be comprehensive. Reading anything beyond that is looking for something that simply isn't here, and missing Sinclair's point entirely.

And I seriously doubt that a Jesuit would list Jesus Christ as one of those whose work would disappear with the death of Earth. :)
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

Thanks, Kalen for your response. I still think that Joe and others missed the sub-text. Since I regard JMS as a genius I believe he is capable of injecting subtlety in an otherwise straightforward comment by a B5 character. The fact that all of the names Sinclair mentioned are connected with pacifism cannot be dismissed out of hand. That is why I suggested that one could analyze Sinclair's comment on two different levels and everyone has chosen to discuss at the cognitive level. Since I believe that a design presumes a designer, I also believe that a design or pattern in B5 dialog reflects something of its creator, even if that purpose does not seem readily apparent. You can say that "Sinclair" just spontaneously generated the list of people who lived centuries apart (or did the list evolve in his brain?), but JMS the master of psychology offers the intriguing irony of a military hero holding up known pacifists as examples of what would be missed if (most would say "when") our sun goes nova. Even if JMS never owns up to it, it's still masterful writing.

QMCO5
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

It is my opinion that most reasonable people are pacifist to some degree. Meaning... they do not seek needless fighting... and if non-violent solutions exist, they prefer those solutions.

Absolute denial of need for any fighting in any situation... does not qualify as pacifism in my eyes... it qualifies as unrealism.

-------

Einstein's waryness of science being used for weapons first and peaceful applications later... and his well-known comment about the probable weapons of Wold War IV... remain realistic concerns today.

He was naturally a person of notable public visibility, and did not keep his opinion secret -- so his concerns reached others. But the question remains... was he any more pacifist than other people informed about our increasing capability to build weapons, and continued dependence on a planet easily harmed by such weapons?

I would say that if Einstein was pacifist, most reasonable people are pacifist. If most people are pacifist, mentioning Einstein does not specially highlight his pacifism (although knowing of his concern for future does provide a sidenote to his achievements).

-------

The same may easily apply to other of the aforementioned people. So if one mentions them... is one really highlighting pacifism, or something else?

If it was pacifism, I certainly did not notice it easily. Perhaps because I take a healthy degree of pacifism for granted.

Or perhaps I am not... sufficiently informed to notice. Whilst I know a bit about Lao Tzu... I must admit near-complete unawareness about Marilyn Monroe and Buddy Holly.
 
Re: Sinclair\'s Pacifist Answer

It might help you to know that when I began to research the Internet on the subject I discovered that there are different forms of pacifism, such as utilitarian pacifism, commercial pacifism, religious pacifism, absolute pacifism, etc. It was in that research that I turned up the pacifist references to even Monroe and Holly. I actually started my article ready to argue with JMS on the merits of the list and just to be safe I thought I had better find out more about the people Sinclair mentioned. I was amazed at the results and had to rewrite my article. JMS is a very crafty fellow in my book.

QMCO5
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top