One theme which keeps recurring throughout The Expanse is how people can have good intentions and still do terrible things. It also demonstrates that life is complicated, often requiring people- and governments- to take morally questionable actions to prevent even worse things from happening. There are multiple examples of this but I'll focus on one in particular. When Holden and his team track down the hacker on Ganymede, he at first refuses to help them find footage of Prax's daughter unless they pay him. Amos persuades him to cooperate by slamming a can of chicken against the side of his head until he agrees to find her location. And Holden keeps a horrified Naomi from stopping Amos because they need the information to try to stop the protomolecule from spreading and killing more people, and to save Prax's daughter. The hacker is a bad man; he capitalizes on the desperation of people trying to find missing loved ones following the Ganymede disaster by forcing hungry people to give him what little food they have for information. And by forcing women to sleep with him for it. Amos later tells the shocked Prax that a degenerate bully like the hacker will only respond to physical force. This all leads to a few questions, one being: is it morally acceptable to extract information from an unwilling source by force, if that information can save many innocent lives? Also, is this act rendered more or less objectionable depending on the character of the individual in question? Who gets to decide what causes, if any, make this behaviour okay? Finally, Holden would never brutalize someone himself, but he was willing to allow Amos to do it for them, because they needed the information... does this make him any more civilised? And please don't think that I've got all the answers to these questions because, like I said, it's complicated. In my head I can acknowledge that this behaviour is wrong, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't feel a twinge of satisfaction when Amos repeatedly clonked that creepy little weasel on the head with a can of chicken. And I can't say with any degree of certainty that I, like Holden, wouldn't stand by and let it be done if lives- especially those of children- were at stake. That's something which I really appreciate about this show: it presents you with ethical dilemmas, demonstrates a number of angles from which they can be viewed, and then leaves you to mull them over rather than preachily telling you what to think.
In season 2 of The Expanse, we get a clearer view of what the political and social systems are like on Mars. It seems to have a curious mix of capitalism and communism... commerce and scientific advancement are very much encouraged, but not for individual gain. Martians seem raised to put the interests of the planet first, above their own needs or desires. All efforts- and resources- go into funding their military and toward developing a dome to provide Mars with an atmosphere. We are introduced to a new character: Gunnery Sergeant Roberta Draper of the Martian marines, often called Gunny, or Bobbie. When we first meet her, Bobbie is all gung-ho for Mars, and is scornful of Earth and its inhabitants, convinced that they are unmotivated and have wasted the gift of a planet full of natural resources. Her ardent belief in Mars takes a beating, however, when she discovers that their drive to be a military and technological powerhouse has led her government to get involved with dangerous and immoral protomolecule experiments, which are what killed her entire team and left her grievously injured. When a government believes that its citizens exist to serve the state, it's not surprising that at some point it will demand their lives be given for the advancement of that state, if it's deemed necessary. Through Bobbie's eyes we also get to see what Earth is like at this time. It's not great; the planet has a world government headed by the United Nations- a recipe for disaster all on its own. They seem to have at some point embraced socialism, and kudos to this show for not pretending that this would cause Earth to become some futuristic Utopia. Instead- more realistically- the U.N. is managing Earth's decline. They are rapidly being outpaced by Mars in innovation and advancement, with no plan to turn this around. Because there are far more people than jobs, there's a universal basic income; it allows people to live, but not particularly well. There are long waiting lists for jobs and training of any kind. Anyone who has experienced a form of socialized medicine will recognise this scenario, even if they won't admit it: everyone gets treatment, but it's frequently not the best care, and the wait times for treatment can be prohibitive and even fatal. Unless of course you have the money and means to get preferential or alternate care. In The Expanse, their system has resulted in a class of well educated, very comfortable people with employment and opportunity, and a much larger group who get by but have little hope of ever improving their lot- at least, not legally. Moral of this story: never let those weirdos at the U.N. get their grubby hands on actual governmental power. The Belt, meanwhile, is kind of the wild west of the System. There's no central government, no laws, and no policing except that paid for by companies looking to protect their business interests. The OPA is attempting to unite the Belters, but those seeking to lead the organisation frequently disagree on means, methods, and objectives. It gets messy as various groups and individuals with various motives jockey for positions of power. And with no law to speak of, this sometimes results in political rivals being tossed out an airlock rather than faced at a ballot box. One theme which keeps recurring throughout The Expanse is how people can have good intentions and still do terrible things. It also demonstrates that life is complicated, often requiring people- and governments- to take morally questionable actions to prevent even worse things from happening. There are multiple examples of this but I'll focus on one in particular. When Holden and his team track down the hacker on Ganymede, he at first refuses to help them find footage of Prax's daughter unless they pay him. Amos persuades him to cooperate by slamming a can of chicken against the side of his head until he agrees to find her location. And Holden keeps a horrified Naomi from stopping Amos because they need the information to try to stop the protomolecule from spreading and killing more people, and to save Prax's daughter. The hacker is a bad man; he capitalizes on the desperation of people trying to find missing loved ones following the Ganymede disaster by forcing hungry people to give him what little food they have for information. And by forcing women to sleep with him for it. Amos later tells the shocked Prax that a degenerate bully like the hacker will only respond to physical force. This all leads to a few questions, one being: is it morally acceptable to extract information from an unwilling source by force, if that information can save many innocent lives? Also, is this act rendered more or less objectionable depending on the character of the individual in question? Who gets to decide what causes, if any, make this behaviour okay? Finally, Holden would never brutalize someone himself, but he was willing to allow Amos to do it for them, because they needed the information... does this make him any more civilised? And please don't think that I've got all the answers to these questions because, like I said, it's complicated. In my head I can acknowledge that this behaviour is wrong, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't feel a twinge of satisfaction when Amos repeatedly clonked that creepy little weasel on the head with a can of chicken. And I can't say with any degree of certainty that I, like Holden, wouldn't stand by and let it be done if lives- especially those of children- were at stake. That's something which I really appreciate about this show: it presents you with ethical dilemmas, demonstrates a number of angles from which they can be viewed, and then leaves you to mull them over rather than preachily telling you what to think.
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |