13 Undeniable Reasons People Hate Singularity

1. "The Truman Program" is a profoundly troubling film. On the surface, it handles the worn issue of the intermingling of life and the media. Examples for such incestuous relationships are plentiful: Ronald Reagan, the cinematic president was also a governmental movie star. In another movie ("The Philadelphia Experiment") a defrosted Rip Van Winkle exclaims upon seeing Reagan on tv (40 years after his forced hibernation began): "I know this person, he utilized to play Cowboys in the motion pictures". Honest electronic cameras monitor the lives of web designers (site owners) nearly 24 hr a day. The resulting images are continually published online and are readily available to anyone with a computer system. The last years experienced a spate of movies, all interested in the confusion between life and the imitations of life, the media. The ingenious "Capitan Fracasse", "Capricorn One", "Sliver", "Wag the Pet" and many lesser films have all attempted to tackle this (un)lucky state of things and its moral and useful ramifications. The blurring line in between life and its representation in the arts is probably the main theme of "The Truman Show". The hero, Truman, resides in an artificial world, constructed specifically for him. He was born and raised there. He understands no other place. Individuals around him-- unbeknownst to him-- are all stars. His life is kept track of by 5000 electronic cameras and broadcast live to the world, 24 hours a day, every day. He is spontaneous and funny since he is unaware of the monstrosity of which he is the main cogwheel. However Peter Dam, the film's director, takes this problem one action even more by committing a massive act of immorality on screen. Truman is lied to, cheated, denied of his capability to choose, controlled and manipulated by ominous, half-mad Shylocks. As I stated, he is unwittingly the only spontaneous, non-scripted, "star" in the on- going soaper of his own life. All the other figures in his life, including his parents, are actors. Hundreds of countless viewers and voyeurs plug in to take a peep, to intrude upon what Truman innocently and honestly thinks to be his privacy. They are shown reacting to different dramatic or anti-climactic events in Truman's life. That we are the ethical equivalent of these viewers-voyeurs, accomplices to the same crimes, comes as a stunning awareness to us. We are (live) audiences and they are (celluloid) audiences. We both enjoy Truman's unintended, non-consenting, exhibitionism. We know the fact about Truman and so do they. Naturally, we are in a fortunate ethical position due to the fact that we understand it is a motion picture and they understand it is a piece of raw life that they are viewing. However moviegoers throughout Hollywood's history have willingly and insatiably took part in various "Truman Reveals". The lives (genuine or created) of the studio stars were completely exploited and incorporated in their films. Jean Harlow, Barbara Stanwyck, James Cagney all were required to spill their guts in cathartic acts of on electronic camera repentance and not so symbolic embarrassment. "Truman Shows" is the more common phenomenon in the motion picture market. Then there is the question of the director of the motion picture as God and of God as the director of a movie. The members of his group-- technical and non-technical alike-- obey Christoff, the director, practically blindly. They suspend their much better moral judgement and catch his whims and to the ruthless and repulsive elements of his

2. pervasive dishonesty and sadism. The torturer likes his victims. They define him and instill his life with meaning. Caught in a story, the film says, individuals act immorally. (IN)well-known mental experiments support this assertion. Students were resulted in administer what they thought were "lethal" electric shocks to their colleagues or to treat them bestially in simulated jails. They followed orders. So did all the hideous genocidal lawbreakers in history. The Director Weir asks: should God be permitted to be unethical or should he be bound by morality and ethics? Should his choices and actions be constrained by an over-riding code of right and incorrect? Should we follow his commandments blindly or should we exercise judgement? If we do exercise judgement are we then being immoral because God (and the Director Christoff) know more (about the world, about us, the audiences and about Truman), know much better, are omnipotent? Is the workout of judgement the usurpation of divine powers and characteristics? Isn't this act of contumacy bound to lead us down the path of apocalypse? It all come down to the concern of totally free option and free choice versus the good-hearted determinism enforced by an omniscient and supreme being. What is much better: to have the choice and be damned (almost undoubtedly, as in the scriptural narrative of the Garden of Eden)-- or to succumb to the superior knowledge of a supreme being? An option constantly involves an issue. It is the conflict between two comparable states, 2 weighty decisions whose results are similarly preferable and two identically-preferable courses of action. Where there is no such equivalence-- there is no option, merely the pre-ordained (offered full knowledge) exercise of a choice or disposition. Bees do pass by to make honey. A fan of football does not choose to view a football game. He is inspired by a clear inequity in between the options that he faces. He can read a book or go to the video game. His choice is clear and pre-determined by his preference and by the inescapable and invariable application of the principle of enjoyment. There is no choice here. It is all rather automated. However compare this to the option some victims needed to make in between two of their kids in the face of Nazi cruelty. Which child to sentence to death-- which one to sentence to life? Now, this is a real option. It involves contrasting feelings of equal strength. One must not puzzle decisions, chances and option. Choices are the mere selection obviously of action. This choice can be the outcome of an option or the outcome of a propensity (mindful, unconscious, or biological- genetic). Opportunities are existing states of the world, which enable a choice to be made and to affect the future state of the world. Choices are our conscious experience of moral or other dilemmas. Christoff finds it weird that Truman-- having actually found the reality-- insists upon his right to make choices, i.e., upon his right to experience dilemmas. To the Director, issues are painful, unneeded, harmful, or at best disruptive. His utopian world-- the one he constructed for Truman-- is choice-free and dilemma-free. Truman is configured not in the sense that his spontaneity is snuffed out. Truman is wrong when, in among the scenes, he keeps yelling: "Be careful, I am spontaneous". The Director and fat-cat capitalistic producers want him to be spontaneous, they desire him to make decisions. But they do not want him to make choices. So they influence his preferences and preferences by offering him with a definitely totalitarian, micro-controlled, repetitive environment. Such an environment minimizes the set of possible decisions so that there is just one favourable or acceptable choice (result) at any junction. Truman does decide whether to walk down a particular path or not. However when he does choose to stroll-- just one course is available to him. His world is constrained and restricted-- not his actions. Really, Truman's only option in the motion picture causes a perhaps immoral decision. He abandons ship. He walks out on the whole task. He damages an investment of billions of dollars, individuals's lives and professions. He turns his back on some of the stars who appear to truly be emotionally attached to him. He overlooks the excellent and satisfaction that the program has brought to the lives of millions of people (the viewers). He selfishly and vengefully goes away. He knows all this. By the time he makes his decision, he is completely informed. He understands that some people might commit suicide, declare bankruptcy, endure significant depressive episodes, do drugs. However this huge landscape of resulting devastation does not prevent him. He chooses his narrow, personal, interest. He walks. But Truman did not ask or choose to be put in his position. He found himself responsible for all these individuals without being sought advice from. There was no permission or act of choice included. How can anyone be

3. responsible for the wellness and lives of other individuals-- if he did pass by to be so accountable? Additionally, Truman had the ideal ethical right to believe that these individuals mistreated him. Are we morally accountable and responsible for the wellness and lives of those who wrong us? True Christians are, for instance. Moreover, most of us, most of the time, discover ourselves in situations which we did not help mould by our choices. We are unwillingly cast into the world. We do not provide prior grant being born. This essential choice is produced us, forced upon us. This pattern persists throughout our youth and teenage years: decisions are made elsewhere by others and affect our lives exceptionally. As grownups we are the things-- often the victims-- of the decisions of corrupt politicians, mad scientists, megalomaniac media barons, gung-ho generals and demented artists. This world is not of our making and our capability to shape and influence it is really limited and rather illusory. We reside in our own "Truman Show". Does this mean that we are not morally accountable for others? We are ethically responsible even if we did pass by uhe situations and the specifications and qualities of the universe that we inhabit. The Swedish Count Wallenberg endangered his life (and lost it) smuggling hunted Jews out of Nazi inhabited Europe. He did pass by, or assisted to form Nazi Europe. It was the brainchild of the deranged Director Hitler. Having found himself an unwilling individual in Hitler's horror show, Wallenberg did not turn his back and pulled out. He remained within the bloody and dreadful set and did his finest. Truman needs to have done the very same. Jesus said that he must have loved his opponents. He needs to have felt and acted with responsibility towards his fellow people, even towards those who mistreated him greatly. But this may be an inhuman demand. Such forgiveness and magnanimity are the reserve of God. And the reality that Truman's tormentors did not see themselves as such and believed that they were acting in his benefits and that they were catering to his every requirement-- does not discharge them from their criminal activities. Truman needs to have kept a great balance in between his duty to the program, its creators and its audiences and his natural drive to get back at his tormentors. The source of the problem (which led to his act of picking) is that the 2 groups overlap. Truman discovered himself in the difficult position of being the sole guarantor of the well-being and lives of his tormentors. To put the question in sharper relief: are we morally obliged to save the life and income of someone who significantly wronged us? Or is vengeance warranted in such a case? A very troublesome figure in this respect is that of Truman's finest and youth buddy. They grew up together, shared secrets, feelings and adventures. Yet he lies to Truman continuously and under the Director's directions. Everything he states is part of a script. It is this disinformation that persuades us that he is not Truman's real buddy. A genuine pal is anticipated, above all, to supply us with complete and real details and, thereby, to enhance our ability to choose. Truman's real love in the Show attempted to do it. She paid the cost: she was ousted from the program. However she tried to provide Truman with a choice. It is not adequate to state the best things and make the best relocations. Inner drive and motivation are required and the determination to take threats (such as the risk of providing Truman with full information about his condition). All the actors who played Truman's parents, caring better half, pals and associates, miserably stopped working on this rating. It is in this mimicry that the philosophical key to the entire movie rests. A Paradise can not be faked. Captain Nemo's utopian undersea city was a real Utopia due to the fact that everyone understood whatever about it. Individuals were given a choice (though an irreparable and irreversible one). They selected to become lifetime members of the reclusive Captain's nest and to abide by its (extremely logical) rules. The Utopia came closest to termination when a group of stray survivors of a maritime mishap were sent to prison in it versus their expressed will. In the absence of option, no utopia can exist. In the lack of complete, prompt and accurate info, no option can exist. In fact, the availability of option is so essential that even when it is avoided by nature itself-- and not by the designs of more or less ominous or monomaniac individuals-- there can be no Paradise. In H.G. Wells' book "The Time Maker", the hero stray to the third millennium only to come throughout a serene Paradise. Its members are never-ceasing, don't have to work, or believe in order to survive. Sophisticated devices look after all their needs. Nobody prohibits them to make choices. There merely is no need to make them. So the Paradise is phony and indeed ends severely.

4. Finally, the "Truman Show" encapsulates the most virulent attack on commercialism in a long time. Greedy, thoughtless money machines in the kind of billionaire tycoon-producers exploit Truman's life shamelessly and remorselessly in the ugliest screen of human vices possible. The Director delights in his control-mania. The producers indulge in their financial fixation. The audiences (on both sides of the silver screen) indulge in voyeurism. The stars vie and contend in the compulsive activity of furthering their petty careers. It is a repulsive canvas of a breaking down world. Maybe Christoff is right after al when he alerts Truman about the true nature of the world. But Truman chooses. He Take a look at the site here picks the exit door resulting in the outer darkness over the incorrect sunlight in the Utopia that he leaves.