Pandemonium
discussion
Would You rather be cured or uncured?
date
newest »
newest »
Uncured. Definitely uncured. I mean seriously. It's either living life like an unfeeling zombie or living life and feeling absolutely everything. I'd pick everything over nothing.
Honestly, I don't know who could answer this questoin truthfully, because right now, after reading about Lena's life, yeah it sounds like a great idea to say no and be uncured and love. But then, when you're living in that kind of society, and it's drummed into you from the very beginning that this is the safest way to live, I have no doubt that a LOT of people would still go along with it.... But maybe that's just me. Because I feel like I wouldn't be strong enough to fight back if I were in that situation.
Brittney, I think that's a different question altogether. Wishing to be a certain way and having the courage and strength to fight for what you want/believe in are two very different things. Personally I don't think any sane person would want to be 'cured', honestly understanding what it means. No matter how poor you are, freedom is always preferable.
uncured. i think that there's something to be said about being allowed to make your own choices without the hindrance of what society deems to be appropriate. everyone shouldn't be forced to get a lobotomy because there's a fear that you could be driven by your emotions.
Nobody wants to go though an operation to be deprived of love. Honestly, it's unrealistic how the American government approved this in the first place. Loved the book, but it does contain some flaws. I think though a scrawny annoying nerd might want to be cured- he can't find a girlfriend on his own!
Obviously i would want to be left uncured but if it came down to it i would probably be cured, im too much of a wimp to live in the wilds haha :P
Brittney wrote: "Honestly, I don't know who could answer this questoin truthfully, because right now, after reading about Lena's life, yeah it sounds like a great idea to say no and be uncured and love. But then, w..."i feel like i would want to be uncured but if i was born inside like lena i wouldnt have if i had met alex i might have been hesitant but idk if id take that cure after metting him
Fonni wrote: "Nobody wants to go though an operation to be deprived of love. Honestly, it's unrealistic how the American government approved this in the first place. Loved the book, but it does contain some flaw..."Actually in the past lobotomies were a pretty common treatment for physiciatric disorders. Even President John F. Kennedy's sister, Rosemary, underwent one. It left her permanently incapacitated. Many of the people who were forced to undergo lobotomies weren't actually “insane,” but had what they used to refer to “female hysteria.” These were often perfectly sane women whose husbands and doctors thought were too emotional. Also, if a man didn't want to be married to his wife anymore, he could lock her away in an asylum and have a lobotomy forced on her. People with even mild mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder, were often forced into having lobotomies at their families' insistence. Mental illness was looked upon as an embarrassment or disgrace to the family. Actually, the way they treated the uncureds in the book is pretty much how they treated the "mentally ill."
It really wouldn't be much of a stretch of the imagination for a corrupt group of leaders to decide to use lobotomies to control the masses. It removed not just their ability to love, but most of their emotions. They just didn't care anymore. They became mindless sheep, or zombies as the book called them. Very easy to control. Remember what Hitler did. It just takes one very persuasive person/group of people to convince a group of mostly good people to commit atrocious acts. And it wasn't just Hitler. There were concentration camps in America, too. They placed Japanese Americans in internment camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Many of them were American citizens who had never even been to Japan. You are kidding yourself if you think any government, including America, is impervious to corruption. If they can enslave one race of people while slaughtering another, they are capable of anything.
Emma wrote: "Fonni wrote: "Nobody wants to go though an operation to be deprived of love. Honestly, it's unrealistic how the American government approved this in the first place. Loved the book, but it does con..."Lobotomies and the procedure in this book are two different things.
Sure, they share some similarities, but the procedure in the book aren't as drastic. At least the people who've undergone them are still basically in their right mind and able to fully function.
And generally, no one signed up for a lobotomy. They were done to people without their consent and before the people doing them really understood the extent of the damage they were causing. Not to mention before they understood that mental illness isn't "cured" through that means, and that it was viewed as inhumane.
But I don't think that's what Fanni meant. I thought the same thing when I read it - that a society that so easily accepts this type of procedure to "cure" love is unrealistic. Not that the government would be willing to implement and force it on people if they are able to. It's happened before as you pointed out.
But in a futuristic society, this type of "compassion" and "cure" would never fly. Not realistically.
Kristen wrote: "Emma wrote: "Fonni wrote: "Nobody wants to go though an operation to be deprived of love. Honestly, it's unrealistic how the American government approved this in the first place. Loved the book, bu..."They made it less dangerous and less likely to incapacitate people, but it was virtually the same thing. Lobotomies did not always turn people into “vegetables,” some of them were actually a lot like they are in the novel. They were able to work and go about their business. The procedure in the novel was still potentially life-threatening and many people suffered debilitating side effects. It was mentioned that when the government first began enforcing it that it had been much more dangerous. I stated several times that lobotomies were forced upon the victims. The people in the novel didn't really have a choice, anymore than the victims of lobotomies did. They were living in totalitarian government that brainwashed them into believing that propaganda from infancy. Not only were they brainwashed, they would have had little opportunity of hearing/learning anything other than what they were told. They were constantly watched, books, movies, and music were censored/manipulated to suit their purpose. They were also controlled through fear. Anyone who showed even the smallest signs of doubt were forced into surgery, prison, or were killed. Their families were rejected from society and their means of living were taken away from them. Even people who were skeptical would have been terrified to do anything. They weren't even sure that the invalids even existed, as far as they knew going into the Wilds was walking into sure death.
As for it being realistic, unethical human testing/experiments are not unheard of. Not all of the subjects are unwilling. How many people undergo dangerous surgery because they would die otherwise? If propaganda can convince people that it is okay to drop an atomic bomb on a city full of innocent people, I am pretty sure it could convince people that love is a disease that will kill you. Am I saying that something like this will happen? Absolutely not. But I think it is naive to assume that the world is incapable of getting to this point.
If being uncured simply meant poverty, absolutely I would choose poverty. In the book however, it often meant death or imprisonment. If you did manage to escape it meant being hunted down like animals. I am not sure any of us can realistically say what we would choose unless we were in that situation. When it comes down to life or death people are often surprised at what they do to survive.
" The people in the novel didn't really have a choice, anymore than the victims of lobotomies did. They were living in totalitarian government that brainwashed them into believing that propaganda from infancy. Not only were they brainwashed, they would have had little opportunity of hearing/learning anyth..."I meant initially. It's not realistic to propose that very many people would believe that any and all forms of love is bad, let alone a disease needing to be cured. Obviously, once into this type of society, those born after the fact will accept it since they don't have a choice. But it's unbelievable that they would have gotten to that point.
Kristen wrote: "I meant initially. It's not realistic to propose that very many people would believe that any and all forms of love is bad, let alone a disease needing to be cured. Obviously, once into this type of society, those born after the fact will accept it since they don't have a choice. But it's unbelievable that they would have gotten to that point. "Perhaps, perhaps not. Large numbers of people have been convinced to do a lot of crazy things. People's Gate was a cult made famous when one man convinced the congregants to drink a cyanide laced drink and serve it to their children. Over 900 people died in this mass suicide. I believe around 40 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed mass suicide because they were persuaded that their souls would board a space ship. I watched a documentary about cults and you would be shocked at the things people are led to believe. Many of them are ordinary, sane people of average or higher intellect.
The propaganda would have been spread slowly over a period of time. It just takes a few corrupt men in a position of power. The original leaders probably would not have had the “cure” themselves, but they would probably swear that they did. They used the “love is a disease” thing as an excuse to perform a procedure that would make the people more malleable. It was never actually about love, it was about control. It may have just started with them preying upon a few unhappy/lonely/desperate people. Eventually the number grew. They got some so called “experts” on their side. People are so quick to believe the opinions of an “expert.” Expert opinions are even taken as evidence in court. People disagreed, they fought a war. Somehow the wrong side ended up with the big bombs. Any resisters who were left alive were chased out into the wilds. Have you read 1984 by George Orwell? If not, you should. It gives some interesting ideas about psychological manipulation. Obviously, the Delirium series does not even touch upon Orwell's genius, but I thought it was an interesting and conceivable, albeit improbable, concept.
Not to be callous, but 900 people is a relatively small number when compared with actual population. You will always have extremists and crazy people in any given group, but I don't think something so universally craved and viewed as good, like love, could ever be twisted into being viewed as a disease. Not by more than a handful of people maybe. If it were something else, maybe I could buy the premise, but not love. It's too much of a drastic change no matter how much propaganda you throw at people.
Besides, not that I'm saying mass control could not happen. It has and probably will again, but people in general are more skeptical. We've seen alot of bad stuff happen in history. Drinking the kool aide may happen to a few cult followers now and again, but you won't ever convince a relatively large number (relative to population, I mean) to buy it.
Kristen wrote: "Not to be callous, but 900 people is a relatively small number when compared with actual population. You will always have extremists and crazy people in any given group, but I don't think something..."Right, and that is why I said "improbable." I never said it will happen, or even that it is likely. I just think saying that something like it could never happen is a bit naive and optimistic. People, as individuals, might be skeptical and intelligent, but people as a group are stupid, suggestible, controllable animals just looking for someone to follow. I do agree that the concept of love as a disease is extremely far-fetched. In fact, the idea was so ridiculous to me initially that I almost quit reading the book. I was referring more to the general idea of a large proportion of the population believing some outlandish ideas.
To me, the idea of going to war is the equivalent of committing mass suicide/murder and yet large numbers of people are convinced to fight for something they do not fully understand (not speaking about any particular war/country, just the general idea). Leaders are constantly using civilians as pawns in their squabbles with each other. Many of these wars are completely unjustified, and yet people are willing to lay down their lives just because their leaders told them to.
Just want to add, I do respect your opinion and it has been fun debating with you. This has all been lighthearted for me and I am not trying to fight with you. I just thought I should make that clear as sometimes people get overly excited and turn a silly debate over a fictional story into an all out war. I was not sure if you could tell from my writing.
Uncured all the way i would want to live in the wilds
Uncured i would fight it all all the cureds so that i would be able to live feeling everything the good and the bad acceptance and rejection because that's life
As horrible as living in the Wilds- struggling to stay alive and fearing the possibility of an entire wipe-out of the Wilds' population by bombs dropped by the government- sounds, I'd say uncured. Even though I would be happy as a cured (because my mind would be totally manipulated and forced to believe so), knowing that I'd be living a lie for the rest of my life before the procedure, is absolutely horrible and scary.
I would be cured, it would solve so much. The only harm that people see in being cured it that zombie-like state that I see as not really being zombies. They still talk and have feelings and they still function. All everything is just minimized. The only problem I have is what they do to people that fail to be born perfect and those that get damaged in the procedure.
Fonni wrote: "Nobody wants to go though an operation to be deprived of love. Honestly, it's unrealistic how the American government approved this in the first place. Loved the book, but it does contain some flaw..."I don't think that it's completely unrealistic that there would be people that would want to be cured. There's plenty of people in our society that suffer from depression after losing a loved one or getting divorced. A lot of suicides have to do with the people feeling like no one loves them and no one cares. "It's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all" I'm sure there are people who would disagree and would want the pain of lost love erased.
I think that it is extremely far fetched that the whole country would go along with the cure for it to be approved in the first place but I do see how it would appeal to some people. The cure would definitely be an easy way out.
Personally I would want to be uncured, I'm in love and I have a loving family. I would fight to keep that. However, if I lived in that society and I didn't know love I wouldn't know what I was missing. I would have no reason to rebel. Living an easy sheltered life would be better than being hunted down in the Wilds.
Uncured. I mean I would love to be able to control my emotion better but cured means lobotomy and there is no way I'll let anyone cut a part of my brain.Plus that world is like a propaganda, it's not really about people being unable to love and feel any more, it's more about control of population and raids which seem all right with everyone. If you look very closely the characters still has emotion. Not caring by itself is a form of care.
Uncured. I could not see how children grow up in that society without the love from their parents. True that things like that happen now but it is not the norm to just not care about your child and be looked down upon for showing any type of affection towards your child.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
[image error]