Love and Lust on the Alligator River

The "Alligator River Story" is full of flawed characters. The character that is least deserving of respect in my opinion is Abigail. She was faced with many choices and yet proved time and again that she had pitiful morals. She was in love with a man that was a good distance away. She could have been patient and waited for the bridge to be rebuilt, seeing as it would only take a few weeks. She also could have driven to see him on her day off of work. Seeing as she had a car, I would assume that she had a telephone. She could have called him and kept in contact that way to pass the time until she could meet him in person. Going to see Sinbad for a ride across the river was an acceptable decision. Showing disgust for his price was another good choice. Abigail then went to her friend Ivan for help, but was turned away. This is when her bad choices began. She chose to have sex with the river boat captain in order to see a man she could have waited to see. She was rejected by this man and she then proceeded to complain to her thug friend. She obviously did not see that what she did was wrong, therefor she only told the perspective that made her look like a victim. She then took joy in the fact that her actions brought about pain to someone that had rejected her. This is why Abigail is ranked 5th in the order of respect for this story.

The riverboat captain, Sinbad, is ranked 4th as far as respect goes for the characters in this story. The man disrespected his position as a captain, his ship and whatever crew he had when he propositioned Abigail in return for a ride across the river. He should have chosen an acceptable form of payment such as money or a favor. He did not force Abigail to accept his terms. She chose this of her own volition. She saw this as her only option apparently. The only person she spoke to was Ivan, who is ranked third amongst the characters in this story. Indifference is a cowardly choice. In past wars, those who would not choose a side were killed. If Ivan had acted, perhaps Abigail would not have much such a foolish choice as accepting Sinbad's offer. Ivan could have helped take steps to help Abigail and Gregory be together. His reasons for indifference are not obvious, therefore one can only guess.

When Gregory rejected Abigail, she turned to Slug with her tale of woe. Slug's reactions are what ranks him as second amongst the characters. Abigail told him her story and he responded out of blind faith. He went off of the details she had given him out of grief and sorrow. He was right to show compassion, but compassion thru violence is nearly an oxymoron. Slug took it upon himself to attack Gregory. Abigail took great pleasure in this, leading me to believe that she manipulated slug. He obviously was far more emotional than rational, but he still outranks the others in his actions.

The character in this story that I most highly respect is Gregory. He loved a woman that turned out to be impatient and unscrupulous. She turned vengeful and vindictive, lashing out at him purposefully manipulating a thug and laughing at Gregory when he was brutally beaten. Gregory had every right to make the decision that he made. Abigail proved to be of terrible moral fiber and he chose to have nothing more to do with her. He could have been slightly more compassionate but his choice was the right one.

Technological Evolution

Technology is our greatest boon. Science is the one unarguable truth. Science is the understanding and mastering of the world around us. Science gives us limitless potential. Our world changes every day due to the process of technological evolution. Our lives are shaped around our machines. Computers, vehicles and telephones are all examples of how technology has changed the way we live. George Gilder, publisher of the Gilder Technology Report (www.gildertech.com) seems very paranoid about the future. He even goes on to quote Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber. This is exactly the sort of paranoia one would expect from someone who feared technology, but to be sited by someone who embraces it? This particular event was described by Bill Joy, Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html#1) Joy, overall, seems like he is extremely paranoid. This man has too much time on his hand and appears to have read more Asimov and Bradbury than one should in any one particular seating. Paranoid notions about humanities subservience to machines or proclaiming that 1984 was set forty years too early seem to garner some sort of fad-like respect.

I do see humans as coming to rely completely on machines to the point of not being able to live without them, but this is not in the near future. I would say this would start occuring at least one-hundred years down the line. Humans rely on it now, there is no doubt, but not to the point of being forced to use it to survive. I support a broadening of the spectrum of allowed technological and scientific advances. Advanced robotics will make human life easier. It will take jobs at first, but eventually it will be more of a matter of freeing up human hands. I do believe that human life may reach the "Good Shepard" point that was quoted by Joy. I do not think it will reach Orwell proportions whatsoever, but I can see a world where man will rarely work. A world of science and leisure. But that is too far down the road to accurately time. Humans are too apt to explore.

Space will be our next big goal in technology. It is the most logical jump. I foresee humans colonizing other worlds. The only reason we would do so to begin with would be to further our scientific knowledge. After that, we would colonize simple because we could. Technology has become the new natural course for human evolution. I realize that is an oxymoron, but it is the standard nevertheless. Just picture a world where vehicular technology had been limited to bicycles. Envision a place where it had been decided that the telephone was too impersonal and that we should stick to writing letters. In an invention's early days, it is often difficult to accurately depict what effect it will have or to what degree it will effect humanity. If we set limits on technology, we are limiting our potential.