Behemoth, by Scott Westerfeld, has some political powers moving the plot along. Then again, that makes sense considering the fact that the book is an alternate version of World War I. The difference between Behemoth’s war and ours is when Darwin has discovered evolution and DNA as well. Europe has become divided between the Clankers (Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire) and the Darwinists (England, France and Russia). The war has mostly to do with power, and whose ideas are better. Throughout the book, the question is asked, how many individual lives are worth the welfare of a nation?
What the major countries in Europe did was unacceptable. There was no justice in it. The war can be brought to an end, but how will that make it right with the families who lost members to the war? There is no comfort in, your child died because the Ottomans can’t decide whether they like England. The rulers of many of the countries involved didn’t even think about the people they were killing. They were fighting to win a game. It was like chess. If one pawn is captured it’s not the end of the world, they are just one of eight, a number. They are pieces to move around. If there is a strategy and if that involves sacrificing a pawn to capture a bishop, then so be it. What’s worse is that they are playing for TV privileges and bragging rights, things that no one besides those in power really care about. There is no justice in playing a game with peoples lives.
There are also smaller situations in the book where people die but the reason is more sincere. When Alek and Deryn help a rebellion in the Ottoman Empire, soldiers on both sides are killed as well as people who had nothing to do with it. The Ottomans are ridding themselves of a terrible sultan as well as saving the crew of the Leviathan, an airship. On the other hand, they are taking lives from real people. The rebels, of course, believe that is okay. Their deaths are for a just cause. But is a revolution really worth these people’s lives? That is a question more difficult to answer.
This particular situation made me think of the bombing of Hiroshima, during World War II. The United States dropped an atom bomb on Japan in order to end a war they feared would drag on. They killed huge numbers of people. They resulted in radiation and caused diseases for years to come. At the same time, if the United States had allowed the war to continue, no one knows how many more lives could have been lost. This is a “what if” situation where no one really knows what the “right” answer is.
In a perfect world the answer to the question how many lives are worth the welfare of a nation would have the simple answer of none. In some cases, like the general war in Behemoth this is the answer. But in some cases there is more of a moral grey area. Either way a life is never expendable.
No comments:
Post a Comment