[–] 2025461? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Read the rest of the book. Asimov is not saying that's the way it should be. Like many authors, in this case he is using his writing to show readers the kind of attitudes one should attempt to keep separate from humanity as well as ourselves as individuals. That apathy was a destructive force to humanity, equal to if not surpassing the threat they were subjecting themselves to...but I'm sure you'll note if you read the first part, that there were still people trying to fight against that attitude. They were a minority, yes, but they had the right idea.
Read the rest of the book to see if they prevailed in the end.
I'm not sure what you mean by "[e]ven in 1976." The book is very much a product of its time. It was written well into the Cold War after all. It was also written well into the lifetime of the baby boomers. The selfish impulse of that generation didn't invent itself in the 80s. It was part of the culture from the 50s when they were little kids just beginning to be spoiled, which can be blamed on prior generations (like Asimov's). It is not an unusual feature of writing of the time to recognize mankind's self destructive tendencies.
Right, but so what? What about him writing it in 1976 (as opposed to some other time) do you find remarkable or surprising? Stated differently, if you didn't know it was written in the 70s, when would you have thought it was written?
[–] beard0 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
You mean you read the first of three? You need to finish the other two. You might come back and reject what you've written here. Quite a lot of effort went into portraying the arrogance of intellectuals. In case you haven't read the rest, I won't say much more.
Your basic idea ("people will do nothing to save themselves as long as their comfort is satisfactory") is inconsistent with the totality of the work. I didn't try to read 1/3 of the story and draw definitive conclusions that grossly simplify something deliberately complex. Maybe if I had we could agree.
Regardless the year published, the stupidity belongs to the intellectuals that believe themselves to be gods- people who believe they have mastered the universe through science and mathematics only to find that they were about 1/3 as knowledgeable as they thought a person could be. Like reading part of a book and deciding you know the basic idea well enough to extrapolate the rest.
There are three parallel universes in The Gods Themselves. Because there is exchange amongst the three universes, the actions in one impacts the others. Ignoring the other two universes (or stories) is folly. But that much isn't knowable by someone unaware of the remainder.
[–] smokratez [S] ago (edited ago)
I said I only read the first one.
edit. bit too harsh.
[–] beard0 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
And I said it would be foolish to read the first and decide you understand the rest. Further, I'm saying that Asimov is making the same point. You are Hallam and the irony is delicious.