I would argue that it isn't anthropocentric, but consciousness-centric. If the alien notion of consciousness and suffering was different from ours, then it would fall on deaf ears.
My argument is that any advanced civilization will probably be highly polarized. They will either be authoritarian, taking what they want, or they will be like the Buddhists and show compassion for suffering. I believe that either of these is a stable paradigm. If they embrace compassion and gentleness were good to go. They should recognize us as intelligent, if somewhat primitive and unevolved. If they are not compassionate, we will rate like an anthill along the expressway.
My drama is science fiction. Science fiction is always about humans and is necessarily human centric. It was an exercise to show consistency and continuity in a belief system. This all gets down to belief. Some people think its okay for humans to run amok on the planet. Others don't. Most go for a middle ground.
I have to admit that I'm not this much of a character in 3D. That isn't to say that I'm not sincere here, but I think this medium tends to polarize. Of course, if a tribe in Africa was suffering, and they could do something about it, I think most would try. However, it is our outlook and core beliefs that sets the direction for future movements of humanity. I see a lot of callousness here. It is probably exaggerated, but I think it is the wrong paradigm.
I'm just trying to get people to question more of their core values and be a little more open minded. Speaking in these absolute terms is a kind of self-destructive act, IMO. It allows people to do extreme things and think it doesn't matter. I would consider it a success if some small crack in people's attitudes started as a result of these little mock-battles. Maybe it is only tilting at windmills. |
