Hominids: The Neanderthal Parallax 132
| Hominids: The Neanderthal Parallax | |
| author | Robert J. Sawyer |
| pages | 448 |
| publisher | Doherty, Tom Associates, LLC |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | Robin Ward |
| ISBN | 0-312-87692-0 |
| summary | When worlds collide, and one of them is full of Neanderthals ... |
The story of the two universes, and their interactions are told in parallel. After the failed experiment, a Neanderthal named Ponter finds himself in rural Ontario, in the world famous Sudbury Neutrino observatory. Back in the Neanderthal universe, his partner Adikor is blamed for his absence, and is put through an extensive trial.
Sawyer has obviously done his research. The alternate version of Earth where the Neanderthals exist is amazingly well thought out. Everything from the social ramifications of an enhanced sense of smell to the 1984-esque communicators that monitor everything the Neanderthals do is integrated into the story perfectly.
There is very little action to be found in the novel, but it remains exciting nonetheless. Personally, I was fascinated with the dialogue Sawyer presents between the character Mary Vaughan and Ponter the Neanderthal. Although I believe that Sawyer has a love for humanity and our technological prowess, he uses the conversations between the human and the Neanderthal as a way of exposing some of our atrocities in the thousands of years that have passed since we developed intelligence. You have to admire the honesty of the character Mary for willingly exposing things in our past that we'd rather forget, but towards the end of the book it almost becomes too much. In fact, I had a hard time believing that Ponter had anything good to say about us at all to his fellow Neanderthals.
The lack of privacy that the Neanderthal society lives with might be of particular interest to the Slashdot crowd. All Neanderthals are required to wear a communicator implant in their arm that transmits everything they do to a central recording center. Interestingly enough, Sawyer argues in favor of such technology, saying that it virtually eliminates crime (who would murder someone knowing fully well that it could be played back by the authorities?) and that we don't really have any privacy anyway. In fact, the book begins with a quote to that effect.
Sawyer's writing is simple and to the point. He has a way of explaining complicated concepts without being overly confusing or long and drawn out. The 400+ page novel is actually a fairly quick read. Unlike some oth-er authors that I'm familiar with, you don't have to go back and re-read passages to find details you might have missed. Don't get me wrong - although the book is easily digested, it manages to inspire. Also, despite the fact that this is the first novel in a series of three, it stands very well on its own. In fact, had I not known that there were two more novels dealing with the same characters being released over the next year or so, I would have been completely satisfied.
Hominids comes highly recommended. If you're at all interested in hard-SF, you owe it to yourself to head down to the bookstore and check it out.
You can purchase Hominids from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to submit yours, read the book review guidelines, then hit the submission page.
Get your hands off me you damned dirty apes! (Score:3, Funny)
privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
If a person is disturbed enough to make them commit a murder, putting a locator implant in their arm will not make them less disturbed. It will not lead to a happier society.
Their anger will simply be manifested differently. Would you want to work in the same office with a person like this? Would you want to live in the same building? Treating the Symptoms != Solving the problem.
Re:privacy (Score:1, Offtopic)
You're correct that it won't change the person, but that doesn't matter.
What they do is to sterilize anyone who shares 50% of the same genetic material as the person who commits the crime. In this way, the 'bad' genes are removed from the gene pool.
Re:privacy (Score:2)
(a bit more explained below)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's been a months since I read the story, but I think you don't find out about the 50% DNA gene pool purge until later into the story.
Sorry about that.
At least I didn't say that the lone gunmen were killed.
Which reminds me of the best spoiler I've ever seen. In the credits to, I think, Loaded Weapon, near the end, they had
Gaffer -
Best Boy -
The secret to the crying game - The girl's a guy
Property Manager -
Re:privacy (Score:1)
Re:privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Biology does not make people into criminals, for the most part. It's criminal law that does that. But that's not my main objection, and I don't care to argue the merits of it -- my main objection is that the human gene pool is dangerously homogeneous already, and we should not, at this point, be going out of our way to make it more so.
Human beings have, since distant prehistory, slaughtered many millions of minority ethnic groups. "Parallax" does not shrink from that fact. What we are not acknowledging, however, is that their genes are gone forever. By committing so many atrocities, we have made ourselves incredibly (and nearly irreverseably) vulnerable to diseases that depend on common genetics. By killing people with different genetics, it leaves only those with similar genetics to reproduce with each other. It makes each of us genetic siblings, to a degree...and I shouldn't have to tell you why siblings can't reproduce...
Re:privacy (Score:2)
The genetic risks associated with interbreeding are, according to some studies, overblown. Interbreeding of closely related individuals also has benefits of bringing out other traits, which actually increases genetic diversity.
In short, the situation is more complicated than 'incest=bad'. Animal breeders regularly interbreed their stock, usually with no problems at all.
Re:privacy (Score:1)
In addition to that, I should have also more explicitly explained that too little genetic variation makes us more vulnerable to infectious agents that depend on our genetics.
For example: at some point along this path, a catastrophic disease that might have wiped out 10% of the world's population will be successful at wiping out 40% of it, because so many more people have the same genetic vulnerabilities. I am not merely bluffing about this, it is a statistical inevitability.
Thanks for clarifying.
Interbreeding (Score:2)
Interbreeding of closely related individuals also has benefits of bringing out other traits, which actually increases genetic diversity.
Confirmed.
Indeed interbreeding is very common in thoroughbred Horses, Pigs, Cattle and pretty common in Pedigree Cats and Dogs. That is why today we the most productive farm animals and most attractive pets in history. Typically interbreeding in not so bad when a very strong selection mechanism against defects is at work. In both these cases a only repeat winners (Races/Shows) are bred and very widely. Though this *can* result in a homogeneous group, it is not certain. Indeed it aid the development of new species, there is considerable genetic difference between the various type of horse, so much so that some types of horse can considered seperate species because they cannot interbreed successfully.
The main issue is the accumulation of recessive genes and since breeders think in terms of breeding lines (not individuals), a strong selective mechanism is at work against recessive genes when they are defective.
Interestingly in Humans almost the opposite mechanism is at work, modern medical science, indeed all social security diminish selective breeding and even legal prevents it. The obvious consequence is that Human species is moving from a qualitative nurturing strategy towards an quantitative nurturing strategy.
Re:Interbreeding (Score:2)
Facinating, I hadn't heard that before. I wonder if there are any examples of deliberate experimental speciation through selective breeding?
True about Humans and recessive 'bad' genes. Its intersting to me that people in general value highly even exceptionally poor (genetically speaking) specimins of humanity (and allow them to breed). In the long term I expect that genetic therapies and technological implants will eliminate the 'disadvantaged' though. In normal societies there just isn't any other option, unless people start to realize that reproductive freedom has an impact on the rest of society.
Re:privacy (Score:1)
What they do is to sterilize anyone who shares 50% of the same genetic material as the person who commits the crime
Ummm... wouldn't that mean sterilizing everybody, then? IIRC, humans share a high percentage (well over 90%) with other mammals, let alone with other humans.
Re:privacy (Score:2)
In the novel, though, people who commited horrible crimes such as murder, had to have their genetic code cleansed from the gene pool. It may sound to be an easy fix for crime just there, but to ensure that any of the "bad genes" would not be around, *ANYONE* who shared at least 50% of their genes (brothers, sisters, children), were ALSO sterilized.
It makes it a little more involved to have your family ensure that you're an angel, knowing that their crimes can end your ability to have a family.
Re:privacy (Score:1)
I seem to recall a similar practice carried out by some tribe or other here in our own, pleasant little universe. Fo a particularly egrigious crime, you, and anyone related to you within one degree (parents, children, aunts, uncles, first cousins, neices and nephews) were all put to death. This was, as I recall, supposed to prevent a single crime from turning into a generations-long clan feud, by the simple expediency of eliminating anyone who'd care enough about you to go to war for you, so nobody has any interest in perpetuating a cycle of revenge.
Re:privacy (Score:2)
Exactly. The disturbed-but-clever people will just find better ways to make it look like an accident or a natural death.
Oh well. It's fiction, so I suppose it's okay. Better that we devote our efforts to combating real abuses rather than fictional ones.
Re:privacy (Score:1)
A symptom of being deranged could be a strong desire to kill people. Catching the person after the first time allows you to treat the disease, and stop the symtoms.
I would be happier if I knew that multiple-homicides were far less likely. Wouldn't you, or are you just scared you'd get caught ?
Re:privacy (Score:2)
No. I think this cost of catching serial murderers that you propose is too high. It forces the assumption that the majority of people will commit a crime worthy of pursuit by law enforcement. I do not want to live in a society like this.
"Those who would trade a little freedom for a little security deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin
Re:privacy (Score:1)
First would come sterilization of those who took drugs or looked at pr0n. Next comes those who are too liberal, or too conservative. Then those who ever voted for the other party, or who don't worship the same God. Finally comes execution of those who favor baptism by sprinkling rather than dunking.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Garg
Re:privacy (Score:2)
Didn't seem to stop 19 jerkwads from pulling off 9/11, did it?
Murder (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Murder (Score:2)
It has solved it for many societies on Earth after all. If you give it a thought in some societies things like pe**philia are almost unheard of.
Which one is a different matter. There are many statistic handbooks on crime - look into them and find out for yourself. This data also gives a very nice perspective on the idea of the effect "tough stance on crime - more jails and more police" and the real effect it has on crime.
Re:Murder (Score:1)
Firstly, your view presupposes that we act on our genes. While it may be the case that each of us has genetic predispositions, those dispositions are not an absolute predictor of action. Take, for example, a person who is predisposed to alcoholism. He drinks too much and becomes addicted to alcohol but later decides to stop. Succeeding in stopping, he is now acting in opposition to his predisposition, which still encourages him to drink to excess. The same might be said for a depressive person who never kills himself. He may very badly want to do so and may be predisposed to the mental condition which produced that desire, but if he doesn't, he acts independently of his genes.
Secondly, the end result isn't much of a solution. Where is the line drawn between crimes worthy of sterilization and those which need not be purged from the genome? Murder? Rape? Dishonesty? Breach of Contract? Active racism? Passive racism? Conscientious objection? A given disorder or disease?
Further, once one has decided whom to purge, has one eliminated our negative tendencies? I say the answer is no. One has just seen to some of them. As Ghandi put it, an eye for an eye would leave the world blind. Remember also that ideas have inertia. Once one starts purging, the purge may stop only because there is no one left to be purged. Eventually, that line of thought - purge from the gene pool the capacity for [insert crime here] - would drive the race to extinction. We would all be dead or sterile. Then we would all be dead. Or, in pseudo-XML:
Re:Murder (Score:2)
It is a question of the actual society model. You are judging the idea of applying genetic selection based on social criteria by our own rules and that is where your mistake comes from. First, your rules may be correct for your society. They are definitely incorrect for the society described in the book.
In btw, application of genetic selection to intelligent species based on social principles is not such a novell idea. This book is not revolutionary by any means. Let's take for example David Brin's Uplift series. There this idea is most prevalent.
Cutting a long story short this is nothing but the general theory of evolution applied where the society requirements are the actual evolutionary pressure.
Myself I am not sure that is right. But looking at the frequencies of certain crimes in some of the human societies it suddenly starts gaining a considerable appeal.
Re:Murder (Score:1)
Granted. In that society, it might work. I haven't actually read the book, or the David Brin series. How were those societies able to contain the purge effects or set limits on who would and would not be purged?
Again, however, the questions to be raised are "What are the requirements? Who sets them? Who has the right to set them?" Remember that the Nazi purges had societal underpinnings. Those in power wanted a pure race, so they killed or sterilized those who were impure or could introduce impurities to their supposed master race. To a lesser degree, so did the Stalinist purges have societal goals, though those may have had less to do with ideology and desirable citizens than the need to populate the GULag and rapidly industrialize an agrarian socity. The same can be said of the Killing Fields of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge was trying to achieve a certain kind of society - one made up of Workers. The intelligentsia were an impediment, so they were removed. Millions died in each case.
To me, the idea has no appeal. The work of fiction that kickstarted this discussion is just that - fiction. If one tries to apply those ideas here on Earth, one gets another result entirely. History is already witness to what kinds of things happen when one group decides whether another is worthy to live or not. I don't accept the theory of macroevolution and I certainly don't accept the idea that a government is entitled to dub itself the agent of that evolution.
Re:Murder (Score:2)
It happened, it's just that no-one talked about it.
Re:Murder (Score:2)
Note also that rates of murder conviction among women are rising rapidly; this may be an unintended consequence of the success of feminism (equal rights => equal access to and willingness to use the tools of deadly violence) or it may be simply that juries are now more willing to convict women of serious crimes, being less blinded by the belief that A Poor Little Innocent Woman Could Never Do Such A Horrible Thing. IIRC, the rates of murder convictions have been traditionally been about 90% male / 10% female but are now around 80%/20%.
Re:Murder (Score:1, Interesting)
No, it just looks to hold true because of the way the statistics are gathered. The first part ("most murder victims are murdered by someone they know") is true. But this includes things like prostitute/pimp, drug dealer/user, and other criminal relationships. The number of females (or males) that are murdered by a "family member" is much lower when "family member" means a relationship by blood or marriage.
This myth (most people are killed by family members) was started by a bogus study done by Arthur Kellerman. One of the "statistics" that he came up with was the often repeated (and completely incorrect) "you are 43 times more likely to be killed by a family member". But if you look at the actual study (and the data) the real number is only about 5 times. And even that number includes the previously mentioned (criminal relationships) familiarity.
Re:Murder (Score:1)
As for random murder, it is reduced via genetics (the sterilization), peer influence & perhaps medication (pg 296-7 mentions family role and Mary mentions a biochemical role) and counseling which Ponter goes to control his temper. Nature & Nurture are both important.
The only person who supports sterilization in strong terms is Mary (pg 304) for obvious reasons. She may be the character used to advocate extreme views in the later books (I wonder what will become of the sample she took).
The interplay between both worlds and the reflection of our own is imaginative and stimulating. Great entertainment.
I recommend this book, "Golden Fleece", "Iterations" and "Illegal Alien". From Iterations the short story " Above it all" still gives me chills, I cannot look at the ISS in the same light now. "Iterations" has a neat idea for why SETI hasn't found anything yet (I haven't yet proved to myself yet that the idea is valid but it warrants further examination).
Re:Murder (Score:1)
Re:Murder (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Either that or the Flintstones... *shrug*
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
I'm just a simple caveman...
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
I second this review (Score:5, Interesting)
What struck me the most about this whole series was the striking differences in our culture and the one developed by the Neanderthal alternate universe culture. Yes, it's fiction, but it did an excellent job pointing out how historical changes can influence generations of culture, beliefs, and technology. For example, the Neanderthals decided to have everyone monitored with personal monitoring devices, so in the event of a crime, there was a 100% chance of proving or disproving who did the crime. The ultimate in police state monitoring, and yet, the entire Neanderthal culture agreed to not abuse this monitoring, and had it set up in such a way that the monitoring would only be accessed during the event of a crime. Privacy wasn't an issue with this culture, so it came as quite a shock to the main Neanderthal when he was transplanted to our universe that we had such issues.
The parallels and contrasts between such two entirely different, and yet very possible cultures that could have happened here on earth make this series well worth reading. I'm looking forward to more work from the author.
Rob Sawyer is a good writer! (Score:2)
At CAN-CON, we have had Rob and his wife Carolyn as guests many times, and they are wonderful people. Take the time to listen to either of them if you ever get a chance at a Science Fiction convention.
And, of course, read his books!
ttyl
Farrell
co-founder of CAN-CON, a conference promoting Canadian SF Writers, Poets, Artists and other creative people for over a decade!
privacy and a great book (Score:1, Informative)
The "permanent record" non-privacy angle really irked me at first. Then I realized that there were strong safeguards and oversight in place.
...Which is what we in the US could benefit greatly from these days. Where's the oversight to all the new ways of watching in the US?
Re:privacy and a great book (Score:1)
Re:privacy and a great book (Score:1)
As Thomas Jefferson Said... (Score:1)
Re:privacy and a great book (Score:1)
And of course, they live in an eco-paradise. The Neanderthal homes are some kind of biologically sculpted trees. They have a dangerously small population that has somehow survived millenia without being wiped out by disease (apparently the Black Plague missed their quantum reality. It killed 25% of the world's population in ours). They won't eat carbohydrates, only meat (I think) and "fresh fruit and vegetables".
In short, it's a laughable and completely implausible fantasy about all the things that a far-left hippie imagines would make a better life. That includes the selective breeding program that has (almost) removed violent tendencies from the Neanderthal race.
Did I mention the homo sapiens female characters in the story? One is a French bombshell and the other is a rape victim. The rape victim requires a total of perhaps 1 week to develop a strong interest in screwing a particular Neanderthal.
The whole thing is really a pile of junk. If it presented a more realistic culture with some internal consistency, if it presented a believable or appealing cast of characters, and if it it wasn't sodden with "free love", "eco-harmony", and eugenics, it could have been an interesting idea.
Am I the only one who feels that sci-fi is running out of ideas? We get so many alternate-history and alternate-reality stories these days. How about a story from a future version of *this* universe?
Sawyer's site, more stories, etc. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sfwriter.com/ [sfwriter.com]
Best way to support an author is a direct sale. (:
who wouldn't? (Score:2)
How many here would willingly fight to their own deaths to start a revolution against such an authority? I would.
Re:who wouldn't? (Score:1)
I have to agree. To put monitoring devices on every person, no matter what the safe-guards, is to be one step away from a society without any freedoms at all. Whoever can control and manipulate the implants and the data from the implants can control everyone's lives.
Unfortunately, the price of freedom is to endure a certain amount of criminal violence. It's great for the Neanderthals that they belong to such an ideologically homogenious population (I assume it is, since they all agree with the monitoring). However, I think it's better to live in an ideologically diverse population, where people are willing to endure freedom and its dangers, as well as its blessings.
PS, the most heinious violent crimes are performed by people who don't care if they are caught and end up killing themselves afterwards.
My little 2c review (Score:2, Interesting)
I know the concept sounds goofy. I wasn't all that keen on reading a "Neanderthals run around Toronto" story either, considering the crap that's been made using plotlines like this in movies.
Nevertheless, the book's well researched, well written, and altogether enjoyable. You do owe it to yourselves to at least thumb through this one.
I mean, we all know someone with an Analog subscription, right? Just go bug them for a couple of back issues.
You could have read this earlier (Score:5, Informative)
Not a bad story, but I found it to be a bit too much "Humans Bad, Neanderthals Good" to really accept it. Basically, neanderthals have no Crime, Rape, Theft, Pollution, Overpopulation, and they have far more advanced in many physical sciences.
The sole good thing he had to say about Humans was we landed on the moon,and then he figured out a way to make us look bad over that.
Hopefully the future books become a little less one-sided
Re:You could have read this earlier (Score:2)
Stupid book reviews... (Score:1)
There are never any real opinions or insights in the reviews. They're completely devoid of personality. I might as well read the blurb on the back of the cover.
Re:Stupid book reviews... (Score:2)
The people writing the books don't read magazines like the Atlantic, New Republic, New Yorker, or the NYTimes Review of Books and have no idea what a real book review looks like.
That being said, the reviews here are occasionally interesting because they tend to summarize what's interesting about the book (SF plot, technical details from tech books).
I've read plenty of literary reviews that spend half their time describing the review subject's rumored anal sex experiences and how they might have influenced their writing, and that's not always helpful or insightful, either.
Reminds me of Cirroc... (Score:1)
Re:Reminds me of Cirroc... (Score:1)
A while back I posted something about C-3PO's vaporators line, and got a response recalling the SNL Star Wars screen tests skit, with Richard Dreyfuss auditioning for 3PO.
this guy must be obsessed (Score:1, Interesting)
For another interesting read on this topic check out his book Frameshift.
Not only does it include neanderthals, but it also has telepathy, genetic manipulation by a Hunntington's disease patient, and an OSI agent chasing Ivan the Terrible. What else could you want in a Sci.Fi novel...
Another good book by Sawyer (Score:4, Informative)
I've thoroughly enjoyed his Far-Seer [sfwriter.com], which retells the story of Galileo using another planet and society (intelligent dinosaurs, anyone?) to educate. While there are changes in the empirical evidence available, done to compensate for the radically-different setting, the issues presented are the same.
While I'm already familiar with Galileo's story from reading other accounts of his life, Far-Seer put it into a personal perspective. The wonder of discovery, the process of reasoning how the solar system actually worked (including building on what others had written before) and the shock of being put on trial by society for upsetting the prevailing, comfortable world-view -- they are all here. So, too, is the punishment (again, changed, though I will not spoil it here.)
The Church didn't apologize to Galileo for 300 years. Give that some thought
Re:Another good book by Sawyer (Score:1)
Re:Another good book by Sawyer (Score:2)
part of a trilogy (Score:2)
I must be a real dumb ass.. (Score:1)
The only word I understood in that sentence is 'the'.
sawyer's great, but this isn't his best (Score:4, Informative)
1. Flashforward [amazon.com]
2. Calculating God [amazon.com]
3. Factoring Humanity [amazon.com]
4. Hominids [amazon.com]
Re:sawyer's great, but this isn't his best (Score:1)
The quick synopsis is that aliens crash land on earth and while we attempt to help them repair their ship, a murder is committed and one of the aliens is the prime suspect. Most of the book focuses on the trial.
K.C.
My bad review (Score:3, Informative)
First, the good points. The parallel universe is nicely done, well thought-out, and interesting. That's the main reason I continued on. And, um, I guess that's about all.
Bad points, wooden characters, horrible dialog, the "points" about humanity all boil down to "we're really pretty horrible" and they're made with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.
This is the first Sawyer book I've read. I hope the reviewer isn't right about it being consistent with his usual quality, but I probably won't be hunting out any more of his books any time soon.
Previously published in Analog + minor spoiler (Score:3, Informative)
Warning - minor spoiler
One issue dealt with the book was what happens when the all-knowing personal monitoring system is compromised or degraded. The ultimate ramifications were not completely explored by the end of the novel, but the chink in the armor was exposed.
Recommended.
Guaranteed punishment would not fix crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Sawyer's Keynote (Score:1)
Just to point out (Score:1)
Also, physical charicteristics of Neandertal are no chin, large jawbone (So that excludes Jay Leno), a sagital keel (think like a small bump that runs on the top of your head, where your jaw muscles would attach to), an Supra-Orbital Torus (eyebrow bone. It'd look like it were jutting out quite a bit), as well as strong, big neck muscles (charicterized by an Occipital bun on the back of the head.)
It is shown that Neandertal and Archaic Homo Sapiens lived during the same time, hell, evidence suggests that they lived close to each other. Campsites, tool kits (shared traits in those tool kits - i.e. Blades, Lavolla flaked hand tools like awls and needles)... It's possible that Neandertal did survive (according to my biological anthropology class) but rather unlikely. Neandertal is a different species and unable to produce viable offspring w/ Homo Sapiens Sapiens (see definition of species [dictionary.com]). So I wouldn't worry too much about them trying to score the chicks with their hairy basketball player looks (Hack a Shaq indeed)
SF writers get old and soft headed after a while (Score:1)
Re:"Consistent with Saywer's Quality" = SUCKS (Score:1)
"The Terminal Experiment" did it for me. This guy should be forced to relinquish his sfwriter.com domain to someone who can actually write...