I recently watched a show on The Science Channel called Robosapiens. Most of it was about the challenges of creating interfaces to bridge biological neurons to technological devices like computers and artificial limbs. The report focused on accident victims, and the technology as a way of restoring some of what they lost in mobility and/or communication. However, at the end of the show they brought up the possibility (probability) of some people wanting to use the technology to enhance themselves to become "more" than human (smarter, faster, stronger, etc). They only gave this question a cursory look, basically showing a couple of scientists who seemed to think it would be a boon to humanity, and one scientist who flat out said the possibility scared him and we should find a way to stop it, but that it was probably inevitable.
The two big objections I gathered were: 1. people would be "forced" to undergo technological enhancement just to survive in competition with those who welcomed the enhancements, and 2. it would increase the gap between the rich elite and the poor who won't be able to afford the new technology.
I think there are some obvious arguements against both these points, (even though they are valid questions) but what struck me was the idea of actually stopping those who would voluntarily undergo such enhancements. My gut reaction is that the government shouldn't be able to stop me from getting, say, a memory augmentation device or built-in math co-processor (for instance) if I can afford one and proper medical procedures are followed. They don't stop me from getting a face lift or pec implants if I want them, and those could give me just as much an advantage over Joe Common in certain careers.
What do you think?
Aside from the normal safety and ethical regulation of medical experimentation, should the government regulate research into human augmentation technology? (transhuman tech??)
Would you be interested in any kind of technological enhancement if it were available and you were relatively sure of its safety? If so, what kind?
What social ills do you think the introduction of such technology would bring upon us, (or exacerbate), if any?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I say now (as long as it's purely science fiction) that I would be interested in some technological boosts. If it became reality, though, I'm not sure what I would do.
The only way I can see to avoid creating a class of rich 'super-elite' people would be to make the upgrades free. Or, if not free then at least make their availability not dependent on personal wealth. Like financial aid, make it available on the basis of need. Rocket scientists need brain augmentation, jackhammer operators do not.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Asimov's short story (I can't remember what it was called - it's in Robot Visions) highlights what I think will ultimately become the biggest issue: at what point do you cease being human if you keep replacing parts of yourself with augmentations? The size and scope of the inevitable bias against "modified" human beings will be interesting to see. After all, where WOULD we draw the line? People with artificial organs & limbs are still more or less universally considered people these days, but what happens when we start approaching the outer limits of this sort of thing: to give an extreme example, is someone with four artificial limbs and nothing but artificial organs still human? What about a person with a completely artificial body, barring the brain? What about a person with a completely artificial body, including the brain, with the contents of their original organic brain transcribed in exact detail to the artificial one?
The above has, of course, been argued ad nauseum, but the issue has never seemed quite so pressing to me.
quote:Aside from the normal safety and ethical regulation of medical experimentation, should the government regulate research into human augmentation technology? (transhuman tech??)
No.
quote:Would you be interested in any kind of technological enhancement if it were available and you were relatively sure of its safety? If so, what kind?
I say now (as long as it's purely science fiction) that I would absolutely not be interested in some technological boosts. If it became reality, though, I'm not sure what I would do.
quote:What social ills do you think the introduction of such technology would bring upon us, (or exacerbate), if any?
See above. The theological implications are also astounding: the ability to repair, augment or replace even more of the human body artificially will be met with all sorts of responses. I'd be interested to hear some religious opinions on the implications.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Would you be interested in any kind of technological enhancement if it were available and you were relatively sure of its safety? If so, what kind?
I totally see this coming, and probably sooner than people think. And, if I could afford it, I would want to have all the capabilities of my smartphone (organization, communication, file transfer, etc.) internalized.
I'm not sure I really see the theological implications. I certainly see the sociological ones, though.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: The size and scope of the inevitable bias against "modified" human beings will be interesting to see. After all, where WOULD we draw the line?
I think it's irrelevant whether a sentient being is "human" or not in any physical sense. I think the appropriate response to the challenge would be to broaden the definition rather than to narrow it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
That sort of thing already happens, it isn't as though it's new.
Consider that we all have access to a computer on the Internet, with which we can find out nearly any information known to man. It also gives us the ability to do many things that we otherwise couldn't do.
Nobody is rallying against the use of computers, because it gives an unfair advantage over someone who doesn't have a computer.
Taking the computer off the desk and putting int in your arm doesn't change it from a useful tool to an evil experiment in world domination.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
My theology already tells me I'm going to get a perfect body someday, and it will be immortal. It doesn't specify how, but I suspect we have to learn how to make them ourselves (or if we die before things progress that far, our descendants do). This seems like the path that will head us in that direction eventually. I don't find it problematic at all.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Rocket scientists need brain augmentation, jackhammer operators do not.
People saying stuff like this is why this possibility terrifies me, because look at how rocket scientists become rocket scientists in the first place. You're showcasing this "need-based" idea as a way to eliminate class discrimination; because education is increasingly the line between upper and lower classes, this solution would actually worsen the divide.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Besides, when that jackhammer operator has titanium skin to protect him from flying shards of concrete and a jackhammer built into each arm, the smart folks will let him have whatever brain augmentation he feels like.
If they don't, then I guess they weren't that smart.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
This concept is getting increasingly harder and harder for me to wrap my head around.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Nancy Kress's Beggars in Spain is the best exploration of this possibility that I've read.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:1. people would be "forced" to undergo technological enhancement just to survive in competition with those who welcomed the enhancements, and 2. it would increase the gap between the rich elite and the poor who won't be able to afford the new technology.
(I wrote part of a story about this, only the improvements were biological. The unmodified people were significantly inferior- mentally and physically and I wrote about pressure to conform and improve.)
I don't mind replacement bits and pieces at all. If I lost a leg, I'd definately want to be able to try and get a new one. Same goes with miracle cures for diseases- of course.
However, no I wouldn't be interested in improving myself in the same way I wouldn't take performance enhancing drugs.
This is one of the areas I'm unwilling to go forward on. I'm very much of the opinion that human beings are pretty good as they are and don't need that much artificial help of the non-replacement kind.
quote:Rocket scientists need brain augmentation, jackhammer operators do not.
I have a problem with this, not only because of what Kasie said, but also about necessity. Why do people who do smart jobs "need" brain augmentation? Aren't they doing just fine without 'brain augmentation'? Don't we create machines do things for us while still being our ignorant little selves?
Also, would there be bits of brain or muscle, say, that would become unused? Wouldn't they suffer some kind of degredation from years of under-use?
Going one step further: Supposing there is a kind of mental evolution resulting from the human consistent use and stretching of the brain- does this get halted? reversed?
Would it be possible to take to destroy the implants of another or corrupt or change them?
Also, as someone who's worn orthodontic headgear, I personal don't like the whole "attached metal appliance" thing very much. Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I'm afraid if someone got a math coprocessor, they wouldn't be able to travel very much because of laws against exporting high powered computers.
I would never want to have any chips because in a year they would be old technology and every year I'd have to have so many surguries to stay current that I'd start looking like Michael Jackson.
And I can imagine running Windows. All of a sudden I fall over and someone has to kick me to reboot my OS... hehehe
Seriously, they have OS'es for systems that can't afford downtime (space shuttle) and that can't be taken offline when performing upgrades (traffic light system).
But I like the comment about not using our own brain. I'm pretty sure that discipline is something we have to learn and practice. And just like people who rely on calculators, do they ever really learn how to do math? Any really young people here want to pipe in? I've heard that schools have shifted in this direction.
And we still have to learn how to use the devices. Can you imagine: "ok, think 5 * 6"... There still has to be an interface. And I'm positive nobody is going to want it to be thoughts because then there is absolutely NO privacy. So what would it be? Wiggling your fingers? Speaking? My cell phone supposedly has voice commands but i don't particularly feel like setting it up. And then the SONY QRIO is suppose to respond to voice commands. (who cares about an entertainment robot, I want something that will get rid of all the snails in my garden)
I suspect that the direction this will head will be where we already are going: increased communication and access to information. Eventually I imagine a life recorder, a video recorder of everything you do. The complete loss of privacy.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I have a problem with this, not only because of what Kasie said, but also about necessity. Why do people who do smart jobs "need" brain augmentation?
They don't, necessarily, but then I never suggested they did. I just said that those who wanted it should be screened by who would potentially benefit more from it.
Also, Kasie, the example was brain augmentation. Of course manual laborers don't qualify. Under my program, a rocket scientist wouldn't qualify for many physical augmentations, since he wouldn't necessarily benefit from it as much.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I've got a math coprocessor. I bought it in 1996 or so to help me in school. They called it a 'calculator', though, for some reason. It fits quite nicely in my pocket; why would I want it internal? Though, mind you, it would sometimes be nice if cashiers could subtract five from thirteen in their heads. I think that's the end we'd want to start augmenting in.
Now, I admit I'm being just a little snarky, but aren't we there already? You can certainly buy a digital watch with arbitrarily high calculator capability; I would be extremely surprised if the highest end of that wasn't programmable. If somebody wants a watch like that surgically implanted in their arm, why not? Being able to give it commands with mere thought rather than fingers is still a ways off, but again, what's the difference?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About the manual-labourers bit : We are talking about raw processing power, right? I really don't see where that benefits anyone. The manual labourer hasn't got the math training to set up the problem, and that's one thing no computer is going to do until we crack the strong AI problem; and then we're really in the realm of auxiliary minds not just math coprocessors. And the rocket scientist doesn't need it; trivial math he can do in his head anyway, complicated math needs a supercomputer, and mathematical intuition for actually solving new problems isn't going to be helped by any glorified calculator, internal or not.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I'm surprised no one brought up The Borg yet.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KoM, there are already some thought controlled computers used for people who are paralyzed, so that tech might not be all that far away now.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I read about how some people are getting small magnets implanted in their fingers. After they have healed, and their nerves have bonded to the magnet, they can actually sense electricity.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I read about how some people are getting small magnets implanted in their fingers. After they have healed, and their nerves have bonded to the magnet, they can actually sense electricity.
What was the point of it (in what you read)? I mean, I can sense electricity too, every time I rub my feet on the carpet and touch a doorknob.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It would be nice if my husband never lost his cell phone, but would that mean he couldn't work in a sealed courtroom or other place where privacy or secrecy is important?
I think nose jobs and pec implants already go to far- when there are people who can't afford medical treatment. Medicine is already an overinflated segment of the economy, but they will probably welcome this stuff in order to keep the industry growing through the years when the supply of patients starts to dwindle.
Final answer: It's inevitable, but I'm not happy about it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:They don't, necessarily, but then I never suggested they did. I just said that those who wanted it should be screened by who would potentially benefit more from it.
As far as this applies to charity funded augmentations, I can accept it. However, if someone can afford it I don't see why they should be prevented from having it whether some arbitrary panel would judge them "needing" it or not.
What I would like is a wireless brain/computer/internet interface. I'd like to be able to check Dictionary.com or Google, or Wikipedia without needing a browser, or Mapquest in my head so I'd never need to fumble with a map or get lost again.
This probably sounds really weird, but I'd love to be able to explore another person's brain (with their consent, of course), to know them as well as they know themselves and to be known from inside my own head as well. I think that would be the ultimate intimacy. I can see where such a thing could be very dangerous, but then again, all intimacy is dangerous in one way or another in its own degree.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I just suggested that an independent third party determine who gets what based on need/potential benefit in order to prevent the establishment of a big rich class-segmented society.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It would be nice if my husband never lost his cell phone, but would that mean he couldn't work in a sealed courtroom or other place where privacy or secrecy is important?
But a courtroom could be shielded from electromagnetic leaks (probably fairly easily enough with current technology). And just because one has an ability doesn't mean that they can't be expected to refrain from using it in certain situations, or that it can't be disabled when necessary.
I'll admit, though, that certain augmentations would dramatically change notions of privacy. What if every word said in any given situation could be recorded and remembered verbatim and forever? Would the benefits of this phenomenon outweight the disadvantages? Lying about the past could disappear completely. Witnesses could become unimpeachable, at least insofar as what they actually witnessed.
quote:I think nose jobs and pec implants already go to far- when there are people who can't afford medical treatment.
I'm skeptical of the cause/effect relationship implied here. On the contrary, profits from "unnecessary" medical procedures like these, normally paid for by the patients themselves, are one of the ways some hospitals can offset the costs of charity medical work (or so I've heard). And even if that's not the case, I'm not convinced that even Michael Jackson's clearly unnecessary and undesireable surguries prevented anyone else from getting medical treatment they needed. I'll agree that medicine in the US has problems that need to be addressed, but I don't think that particular issue is one of them, or at least not by far the most pressing one.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I just suggested that an independent third party determine who gets what based on need/potential benefit in order to prevent the establishment of a big rich class-segmented society.
Whereas I think we already have that, so prevention is moot. By and large, in our society, it is the rich who fund the innovations that benefit the poor. If there were never a time when MRIs were expensive and rare, they certainly wouldn't be relatively cheap and available now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: KoM, there are already some thought controlled computers used for people who are paralyzed, so that tech might not be all that far away now.
That is why I chose my words with care and used the phrase 'a ways off'. For all you know, I intended to imply 'the next couple of months'. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: KoM, there are already some thought controlled computers used for people who are paralyzed, so that tech might not be all that far away now.
...huh?
Either I'm severely misunderstanding, or severely behind on technological advancement. Can someone please link a source on this? "Thought controlled computers" sounds suspiciously like media-spinnage to me.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Here's one, for your reading pleasure. It's been tested, but I don't think its being widely used yet.
--j_k
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Ah - see, when I think of "thought controlled computers," I think "PC where the only input device is your brain," not "artificial limbs & external devices use computer as limited neuronic interface."
Still, cool stuff.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote: What was the point of it (in what you read)? I mean, I can sense electricity too, every time I rub my feet on the carpet and touch a doorknob.
You would feel electric current, without having to touch it. Need to know if something is on? You can already feel it. You can tell the difference between high and low voltage.
On the down side, it hurts going through a metal detector.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
on the question of whether this kind of thing should/will be regulated:
I have to say that it will be, and there is some justification behind it. Many of the potential augmentations could have the capabilities to serve as security risks (as previously mentioned) as well as serve as "weapons" of some sort.
Think of a spy that can directly link his optic nerve to an upload site on the net likely with a chip that wouldn't be picked up on many scanning devices.
Or what happens when people can get replacement muscles that allow them to run 60 mph or lift a 10-ton truck? this brings up issues of public safety in causing accidents or making our current security/police forces obsolete.
I'm not necessarily saying that this kind of usage is right around the corner, but when it's coming up I think we'd have to regulate it just like guns are regulated.
It's things like this that make me appreciate the fact that X-Men and similar things are coming closer and closer to home as technology continues to advance.
But it's also interesting if you start thinking of things in the utilitarian vs humanitarian: It's certainly more effective to hire that jackhammerer that has titanium skin grafts, but by hiring him you are "forcing" all the other jackhamerers out there to get this procedure done even if they don't really want to.
though you could argue a similar line on a jackhammerer that works out incessantly during his off-time and therefore is a more effective worker, so perhaps the point is moot.
Or does it start becoming an issue as individual productivity rises 300% instead of 10% with a given self-improvement?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm a late adopter of technology. I'd be leery of any enhancements because it would suck to stuck with last decade's X-ray vision. Picture your brain as a Commodore 64.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Not to name drop, but there are some really good resources out there that examine this exact question. One of my favorites is a book by futurologist Ray Kurtzweil called "Age of Spiritual Machines", where he examines what will possibly happen when machines start to claim consciousness and humans slowly "meld" with these machines. I for one, am of the opinion that the possible benefits of this type of augmentation (mostly mental, not so much physical) far outweigh the risks. Wouldn't it be incredible to download all of the books ever writen by human beings into your head? I think this could easily solve alot of problems (if everyone has access to the same knowledge, alot of misunderstandings could be avoided), but it would be a huge step to get to the point where we could reep all of the good from this type of technology. Like many have said, it will certainly start off in the elite class of society, and take a while to get to the poor (certainly unfair, when we consider that this is not only an economic issue, but one that could change the nature of humanity), and there will surely be a luddite movement that takes form, which could even become a huge global conflict.
I feel like I'm rambling, I'm sure we could all each write a 5000 word paper on this topic and not talk about the same thing twice. The legal and societal infrastucture alone required for this kind of advancement is mind boggling (and I think will become the central issue in the world one day). But suffice it to say, I'm game. I'd love to have mental and sensual augmentations. I would say "anything goes" right up to the point where we are actually abandonning our physical bodies, in which case I think much more thought (and a whole other topic here) will be needed.
Might also want to check out "Ghost in the Shell" though, a really good anime movie that explores some of these questions (there's also a tv show and some sequels I believe).
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Thank you Hatrack. I've recently decided to take up writing again, and this thread has given me lots of inspiration and ideas to develop one story in particular.
As for stories regarding national technocratic revolution, which country do y'all think would make the best setting? I'm thinking England, because it's a developed nation and yet so small (Japan's been done to death) and thus the easiest to "wire up", so to speak.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Since alot of this technology might be controversial when it first starts to come out, maybe a less developped country (where regulations and tax laws are lax, so many rich and powerful figures, or scientists wanting to avoid the controversy, move their businesses there) would be a cool environment. Almost like a testing ground... and that way you could also address the whole rich and poor thing.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I love Ghost in the Shell, both movies and the Stand Alone Complex which is the name of the collected TV shows.
Angiomorphism, you and I will have to hook up with Slash the Berzerker someday. He and I are already planning to get together after the transition to post-humanity. Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
That does make a lot of sense.
East Asia bores me when it comes to Technocracy stories, even Indonesia.
China's already seen as a major world power, so a bit too predictable, no? Besides that, by the time this kind of thing could happen, China looks as if it wouldn't exactly be a "less developed country" in any sense, IMO.
India India India. Opinions on India?
No-one's going to believe an African Country could pull off such a techno-atrocity anytime soon. Maybe a Union of African Nations, like the EU.
Australia is too big, with too much desert and not enough population density for any sort of class warfare to happen on a national level. In Sydney, yes, Melbourne, yes, but I want this to happen on a National level.
No-one believes New Zealand's population is going to exceed 5 million any time soon.
Hollywood has ruined any interest I'll ever have of setting a story in America. Aliens attack Earth, they're invasion would just have to start and finish in America. The Core is unstable; leave it to the Americans to figure out how to fix it. A giant lizard wants to procreate in a harbour, it'd have to be an American harbour.
Canada too big, too cold.
Mexicans are more interested in the US than Mexico.
Okay, I've narrowed it down to India, England, an African Union sort of thing, and South America.
Edit: I just realised I left out Continental Europe. Too many countries to go through to bother. They're really not that insanity-primed anyway.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I'll see you in the virtual tactile world Karl!
and cheiros, what about a small island off the coast of south america or africa? or do you want to have a larger setting?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Well the original story was set in London (though I want the storyline to have a national influence, hench the capital city), and that size seems to have worked, but your less developed nation idea would set a much better stage for conflict, greed, political strife, etc.
I don't think I have the creativity to write a story about a technocratic island; even Cuba or Madagascar (which are the first ones that come to mind with your island suggestion).
Okay, I've now narrowed it down to Madagascar or Sri Lanka.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
And they're buddhist. Which just leaves so much room for originality.
Yeah... it's perfect. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
And there's already internal conflict, ethnically and religiously. Hundreds of people have died this year already from suicide bombers (pregnant and otherwise). Corruption is widespread. Yeah, even more conflict as a result of enhancements is entirely plausible.
Realistically, any such enhancements here would only be affordable by a very very few rich. It would make more sense to me that the enhancements were given to soldiers (the government could possibly afford this when no one else can), either to the ones in the army/navy fighting the Tamils or to the Tamils trying to gain the upper hand. That's based on my perception of reality, of course, not necessarily what you want out of a story. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
And the country is not entirely Buddhist. It's something like 70% Buddhist (Sinhalese), 14% Hindu (Tamils), 7% Muslim (Moors), and 7% Christian (Dutch Burghers). And there's yer conflict.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quid! I've missed you. Good to see you around. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Good to see you, too, Eljay! I've missed you, too. Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
And you timed your come back perfectly. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Glad to know you think so, cheiros. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Although I'm still surprised no one commented on my Borg comment. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
It is obviously way too early for intelligent debate.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I just got Anil's Ghost and In Contempt of Fate from the Library. Both really interesting (from what I've read so far); both set in Sri Lanka.
I've got to finish Guns, Germs and Steel first, though, and then these, and then I start writing my story.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I would like a memory upgrade.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Quid-
So the current conflict is between the Buddhist majority, and a Hindu minority? If so, that's quite surprising.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yes, and why?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I've just always thought of the two groups as peaceful, especially Buddhists. But then, the Tibetans had slaves, I think, so that's not so.
And also the major conflicts of cultures in that region, AFAIK, have always been between Hindus and Muslims... and the British.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
They're all human. With humans, some want power and don't care who gets in the way or who gets hurt or killed. Religion doesn't matter, nor does culture, socioeconomic status, or any number of things except perhaps in how they can manifest that grab for power. Corruption is everywhere - it just manifests itself in different ways depending on the environment.
While the war in Sri Lanka is a religious war, it's not religious - it's human.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well said, quid.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Thank you, Noemon.
As a side note, in Thailand, it's mandatory to study in a Buddhist monastery for a couple of years. Well, if you have mandatory requirements like that, then you WILL get people of all types - thieves, murderers, rapists, and so on - looking like, acting like, living like Buddhist monks at the Buddhist temples.
As for major conflicts of culture... Well, no, it can't be narrowed down to Hindu, Muslim, and British. There's a lot more than that going on here, and the British are more recent.
Let's talk about Sri Lanka in a bit more detail for a minute... The original occupants of this country - remember, it's an island, so the borders haven't changed over the years like they do when there's more than one country on a land mass - were Veddahs. Then the Sinhalese (Buddhist) invaded some 2500 years ago. The Tamil (from Tamil Nadu, which is southern India - and they're Hindu) people first came over - and took over - about two thousand years ago. There were a number of wars over the next thousand years or so between the Sinhalese and the Tamil. Well, really, the clashes never stopped...
The Moors (Muslims) arrived and settled some 600 or so years ago.
Well, the Chinese emporer even had his hands in the pie back in the 15th century, and for some 30 years, Sri Lanka paid tribute to him.
The Portugeuse arrived in about 1503 and stayed until the Dutch, who arrived in 1602, took over the island in 1660. In 1802, Ceylon then became a British colony and, from what I've read, the Brits did their part to foster enmity between the Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslims, and Burghers (those of mixed descent between Sinhalese and the Dutch or Portugeuse) by playing one ethnic group off another. The Brits stayed until 1948 when the country gained independence.
About the Dutch and Portugeuse - well, let's face it, European countries had their hands in a lot of countries out here, not just the Brits. Vietnam was ruled by the French for a century and a half. Cambodia was as well. The Portugeuse ruled a portion of India - Goa. The list goes on and on.
There's a much more complicated history here than saying it's always been between Hindus, Muslims, and the Brits.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Well I'm putting off reading two novels (my official research ) about Sri Lanka until I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel. But I'm now also putting off reading that until I've read all of Quid's and Fahim's posts about- you guessed it- Sri Lanka. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
You might want to read my blog as well. (Yeah, yeah, haven't updated it in a while - that's on my list of things to do this week.)
Also, Anil's Ghost - I've read part of it. It bored me. *sigh* It's sad, but I haven't yet encountered a Sri Lankan whose writing style appealed to me other than Fahim. Michael Ondaatje is Sri Lankan - Dutch Burgher. He's also written novels about life in Sri Lanka, so you could check him out, too. For that matter, if you want, I can give you a list of Sri Lankan authors and their books, although I haven't read most of them.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)