N.Y. Times article (super annoying registration required - you can use fmhreader / fmhreader for name / password) on military training using computer simulation.One notion involves a scenario quite literally torn from the pages of a science fiction novel, in which a virtual training system becomes the actual means of waging war. "Ender's Game," a cult classic by Orson Scott Card, tells the story of a group of young soldiers battling aliens in a video game. In the end, they emerge to find that their victory has saved humankind, and that it was not a game.
" 'Ender's Game' has had a lot of influence on our thinking," said Michael Macedonia, director of the Army's simulation technology center in Orlando, Fla., which plans to build a virtual Afghanistan that could host hundreds of thousands of networked computers. "The intent is to build a simulation that allows people to play in that world for months or years, participate in different types of roles and see consequences of their decisions."
The Times neglects to mention that Ender saved the human race by completely exterminating the enemy. By failing to tell him "it was only a game," his handlers allowed/encouraged him to commit Xenocide. Sorry to be a downer, but there it is.
While I guess Xenocide is a downer, this is what makes the mention interesting. Apparently this book is very well known in military circles.
For instance, Ender's Game is on the Marine Corps reading list. This from frescopictures.com, a website by author Orson Scott Card: Others are intrigued by the military aspects of the book. When the Marine University at Quantico required students in one class to read Ender's Game, it wasn't for the strategy -- tactics in 3D space aren't really a big deal for the Marines. Rather, it was because Ender's Game is virtually a textbook in how to develop a strong relationship between a commander and his troops -- with plenty of examples also in how to fail as a commander. It's not being used as a text book for genocide, although you can't get around the facts of the plot. But there is more to it, no? Especially that might be of interest to military thinkers.
That this was lost on the Times is probably true.
Ender's Game is a fascinating book and an enjoyable guilty read for antiwar types with a passing interest in things military (I'm describing myself here). Nevertheless it's flawed and also kind of sick, and its cult in the military should be questioned. Here's a quick, dashed-off criticism for anyone who hasn't read the book.
(1) The book envisions a society shaped by years of war against a relentless enemy from space. The government is coldly totalitarian and kids are watched for special aptitudes and recruited at like, age 6. Family members are pitted against each other in competition for coveted slots in the military.
(2) The military training passages are well-imagined and I can see where they'd be useful in educating troops in a total-war mindset. But they're kind of gratuitous in terms of the plot, since Ender ultimately saves the world not through bonding with his buddies but with his solitary videogame-playing skills. More than one critic pointed out that the book, which came out in the early '80s, flattered the adolescent reader who was spending a lot of time hanging out in arcades.
(3) Card, the author, is a practicing Mormon and, just like our President, thinks in terms of Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, so a plot like this is not farfetched to him, but it's still an escapist fantasy, and to imagine we have enemies as implacable as the Buggers from outer space just plays into the neocon propaganda line.
(4) Gratuitous editorial: A strong, well-trained military is of course necessary when your country is threatened militarily. But otherwise, it's a dangerous thing to have because then you feel like you have to use it. Thus, you send it off periodically to keep it in trim conquering weaker countries (always in the service of humanitarian goals, of course).
It deeply concerns me that SF and Fantasy indulges the little Fascist in the reader with genocidal, wipe-out-the-aliens scenarios.
The idea of interstellar space war is, realistically speaking, absurd. The Milky Way contains some 200 or 300 BILLION stars. Why bother fighting over one star among so many? (The argument that some planets are richer than others does not hold up: it's easier to colonize an uninhabited world where life is absent or primitive, than taking over one with indigenous natives.)
The real reason people write these overblown war stories, is projections of megalomania. When the commander of an interstellar armada is shown as a little boy, the absurdity is even more apparent - or pitiful.
In ENDER'S GAME, after the hero has made the decision that wiped out an entire alien species, the writer tries to slip the reader a shameless "Get Out Of Guilt Free"-Card: "The boy didn't REALLY want to do it - the grown-ups tricked him into pushing the button!" This is morally dishonest on two levels:
1) Assuming that adults are so incapable of making a horrible decision, that only a six-year-old can. "Shall we bomb Hiroshima? Oh, the agony of indecision! Send in young Melvin from first grade to do it for us."
2) Offering the reader the vicarious satisfaction of a "heroic" atrocity commited... then excusing the same deed with a pathetic "I was tricked!"
To all SF writers and readers, I want to say: GROW UP! So you're a lonely, insecure little person? Guess what - after reading about the Little Boy Who Saved the World, you're STILL going to be a lonely, insecure little person! True maturity does not come from being infallible and doing impossible things.
|
- jim 4-05-2003 10:14 pm
The Times neglects to mention that Ender saved the human race by completely exterminating the enemy. By failing to tell him "it was only a game," his handlers allowed/encouraged him to commit Xenocide. Sorry to be a downer, but there it is.
- tom moody 4-06-2003 12:25 am
While I guess Xenocide is a downer, this is what makes the mention interesting. Apparently this book is very well known in military circles.
It's not being used as a text book for genocide, although you can't get around the facts of the plot. But there is more to it, no? Especially that might be of interest to military thinkers.For instance, Ender's Game is on the Marine Corps reading list. This from frescopictures.com, a website by author Orson Scott Card:
That this was lost on the Times is probably true.
- jim 4-06-2003 3:10 am
Ender's Game is a fascinating book and an enjoyable guilty read for antiwar types with a passing interest in things military (I'm describing myself here). Nevertheless it's flawed and also kind of sick, and its cult in the military should be questioned. Here's a quick, dashed-off criticism for anyone who hasn't read the book.
(1) The book envisions a society shaped by years of war against a relentless enemy from space. The government is coldly totalitarian and kids are watched for special aptitudes and recruited at like, age 6. Family members are pitted against each other in competition for coveted slots in the military.
(2) The military training passages are well-imagined and I can see where they'd be useful in educating troops in a total-war mindset. But they're kind of gratuitous in terms of the plot, since Ender ultimately saves the world not through bonding with his buddies but with his solitary videogame-playing skills. More than one critic pointed out that the book, which came out in the early '80s, flattered the adolescent reader who was spending a lot of time hanging out in arcades.
(3) Card, the author, is a practicing Mormon and, just like our President, thinks in terms of Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, so a plot like this is not farfetched to him, but it's still an escapist fantasy, and to imagine we have enemies as implacable as the Buggers from outer space just plays into the neocon propaganda line.
(4) Gratuitous editorial: A strong, well-trained military is of course necessary when your country is threatened militarily. But otherwise, it's a dangerous thing to have because then you feel like you have to use it. Thus, you send it off periodically to keep it in trim conquering weaker countries (always in the service of humanitarian goals, of course).
- tom moody 4-06-2003 4:25 am
It deeply concerns me that SF and Fantasy indulges the little Fascist in the reader with genocidal, wipe-out-the-aliens scenarios.
The idea of interstellar space war is, realistically speaking, absurd. The Milky Way contains some 200 or 300 BILLION stars. Why bother fighting over one star among so many? (The argument that some planets are richer than others does not hold up: it's easier to colonize an uninhabited world where life is absent or primitive, than taking over one with indigenous natives.)
The real reason people write these overblown war stories, is projections of megalomania. When the commander of an interstellar armada is shown as a little boy, the absurdity is even more apparent - or pitiful.
In ENDER'S GAME, after the hero has made the decision that wiped out an entire alien species, the writer tries to slip the reader a shameless "Get Out Of Guilt Free"-Card: "The boy didn't REALLY want to do it - the grown-ups tricked him into pushing the button!" This is morally dishonest on two levels:
1) Assuming that adults are so incapable of making a horrible decision, that only a six-year-old can. "Shall we bomb Hiroshima? Oh, the agony of indecision! Send in young Melvin from first grade to do it for us."
2) Offering the reader the vicarious satisfaction of a "heroic" atrocity commited... then excusing the same deed with a pathetic "I was tricked!"
To all SF writers and readers, I want to say: GROW UP! So you're a lonely, insecure little person? Guess what - after reading about the Little Boy Who Saved the World, you're STILL going to be a lonely, insecure little person! True maturity does not come from being infallible and doing impossible things.
- anonymous (guest) 1-18-2004 9:14 pm