Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Is the Traveler's Current Explanation plausible?

Is the Time Traveler’s current explanation of the future plausible? His narrative states that his current views are debunked by future discoveries, but how reasonable are his explanations based on his current knowledge of the new world? The support that he provides focuses on evidence that already exists in the present world. He points out that technology is constantly being driven underground and away from premiere locations. Examples of this observation are subway systems and workrooms that exist underground. Meanwhile, land is set aside and purchased by the rich. The examples he states are of London where the country sides are gated from the poor. The result that these circumstances have socially is that the ties between the rich and the poor are completely severed. The rich are inbred and so are the poor. The rich become complacent and undergo a reverse evolution to become a backward but Utopian society. The poor are driven underground where they evolve into ogre-like people who lurk in the dark.

An assumption that the Time Traveler makes is the existence of Darwinism both socially and anatomically. This may be interpreted differently by those who have different religious beliefs. He assumes that technology and wealth become stimuli for mutations in the human race. The poor operate technology, which is driven underground, and evolve to better fit machinery and darkness. The rich live in open fields and evolve to become frail people.

This prediction of the future does not seem plausible. The Time Traveler neglects the middle classes between the rich and the poor. These middle class people live on decent land with sufficient housing yet work among both classes. What kind of creatures should the middle class evolve to? Another neglected fact is the interaction between the rich and the poor. It is unreasonable for the rich and the poor to be completely severed from each other. The rich need the poor for labor and productivity. The poor need the rich for money, governing, and more. Both classes need the other for survival.

In addition, there are always shifts and conflict for power. Wells states that the rich and poor are comfortable being in their respective classes. However, the poor people I know are not happy being poor. If the rich were to ever become helpless, weak, and numbered, the there would be an uprising from the poor. That is the beginning stage of tyranny.

The Time Traveler uses comparisons to the present day to support his prediction of the future. However, further observations reveal inconsistencies. It is implausible for the rich to be completely detached from the poor because there are constantly interacting and shifting. Also, he neglects that there is a middle class to account for in his version of human evolution.



Blogger kalphonso said...

I think the 'rich' need the 'poor' more than the other way around. The 'rich' are so fragil and easily fatigued. They would have a very difficult time handling the labor needed to survive on their own. The 'poor' living below ground already know how to survive in harsh conditions. And most likely, they don't need to be governed since they are already accepting of the fact that they are less 'civilized'. I think they would have no problem living in an anarchical society.

1/30/2007 10:34 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home