On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Joel VanLaven wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Michael Marc Levy wrote:
>
> > This is also an important secondary theme in the work of such Quaker or
> > Quaker-influenced SF writers as Joan Slonczewski (A Door into Ocean), Molly
> > Gloss (The Dazzle of Day) and Judith Moffett (Pennterra, The Ragged World,
> > Time, Like an Ever-Flowing Stream).
>
> Hmmm. I am very unimpressed by this last implied connection. Which is
> rare with regard to your posts.
>
> First of all, I disagree with your assessment of Joan Slonczewski and _A
> Door Into Ocean_ (The only mentioned book that I have read though I
> have read other books by her). In _A Door Into Ocen_ the sharers were far
> more technologically advanced than those other "normal" people. Their
> technology was completely biological (So it didn't LOOK like technology)
> but it was very advanced technology none the less. She even
> emphasizes herself that it is real technology. It was also a still
> scientific technology in that the sharers were still doing new things with
> it and knew how it worked.
>
> Secondly, Quakers are not anti-technology. Many people have some
> misguided "Quaker Oats" view of horse and buggy Quakers. Guess what, they
> don't exist, those are the Omish. I'm sure you know all of this, but
> unless you are Quaker and have to explain yourself to the common
> mis-informed masses all of the time (especially as an engineer) I'm sure
> it is easy forget. In fact, there are a number of quaker web-sites and
> e-mail lists and a huge number of quaker-related schools including (for
> example) Swarthmore which is as far as I know one of the only small
> liberal arts colleges with a respested engineering major. I know you
> didn't come right out and say that Quakers are anti-technology, but I
> think the implication was very strongly evident in what you said.
>
> Finally, I know that it was just an off-hand remark, and sorry for getting
> all steamed about it, but I really don't want any misconceptions about who
> and what a very important part of my life is about spread among the some
> of the people that I most respect and think hold my same basic beliefs and
> values (whether they call it Quakerism or not... :)
>
> -- Joel VanLaven
>
Joel,
I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I said and got upset. Perhaps
I wasn't as clear as I might have been. I did not mean to imply in any way
that Quakers are anti-technology. I have several friends who are Quakers,
including Joan Slonczewski by the way, and none of them are anti-technology.
In fact, now that I begin counting them up on my fingers, the majority are
science fiction readers!
What I meant to say, and obviously didn't say clearly enough, is that the
Quakers, and the Sharers in A Door into Ocean for that matter, believe in
living in equilibrium with the environment and in minimizing the use of
unnecessary or destructive technology. Yes, the Sharers are a high tech
people, but they carefully design their technology to avoid environmental
damage. Similarly the Quaker settlers of Pennterra in Moffettt's novel of
that name, get on just fine with the quasi-intelligent environment of
their world by using only necessary agricultural and other technology,
only to see their colony brought to the point of collapse, when
non-Quaker colonists arrive and begin to use less responsible farming
methods, methods that are not necessarily higher tech, but that are more
technologically intrusive. In Molly Gloss's the Dazzle of Day, which I'd
love to hear your opinion of, Quakers build a generation ship and travel to a
new world, hardly anti-tech. Within the ship they use high tech too, but
they also set things up so that everyone has plenty of physical labor to do.
The good civilizations of Russ's The Female Man and Piercy's Woman on the
Edge of Time, although not Quaker, have a very similar attitude toward
technology. Both use technology when it is beneficial to do so and in
some ways are very high tech, but at the same time, both attempt to
minimize its intrusion on their lives.
I hope this clears things up. I don't pretend to know that much about the
Quaker faith but, based on what I do know, I don't think that you and I are
really in disagreement.
Mike Levy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:37 PDT