3 Body Problem (Netflix) doesn’t understand sentience — contains 2nd episode spoilers
In the 2nd episode of Netflix’s 3 Body Problem (yes mild spoilers for that episode), Ye Wenjie confronts the girl who killed her father during the cultural revolution. Her father’s killer refuses to repent and that, along with other environmental and political issues, causes Ye Wenjie to conclude that humanity is irredeemable.
This blog explores sentience as defined by going beyond original programming, OP. If culture is a layer of programming above our individual human brains then unpacking the violence of the cultural revolution is more difficult then the character of Ye Wenjie is making it seem.
Certainly we can all agree that the cultural revolution was not the result of millions of Chinese making simultaneous independent decisions. Does the refusal of someone indoctrinated as a child to repent for their actions prove anything about humanity’s capacity to achieve morality?
First off if humans are capable of real sentience, overriding our brains genetic programming, then judging humanity in its current form doesn’t make sense — we may still culturally evolve. The cultural revolution may be real sentience or it might just be a group display of genetic programming that was already there.
However the cultural revolution or even the destruction of the earth’s environment doesn’t prove that human sentience of a redemptive nature is impossible. Ye Wenjie using events of the cultural revolution to reach this conclusion is unscientific.
Furthermore the writers of the Netflix 3 Body Problem (I haven’t read the book) are playing an emotional trick by having one of the most educated and least individually guilty people of that time period debate cultural revolution repentance with one of the least educated and most individually guilty. It smacks of individualism.
Humanity has, thus far, not achieved a stable, moral, global sentience. It’s our 3 body problem. But the problem is further aggravated by the unfounded belief that the solution could be achieved at an individual level.
Of course imagining that it’s an individual problem and the we are members of the individuals who are part of the solution is a fun fantasy — like pretending recycling has saved the environment. We feel individually proud in this fantasy and if the bad people won’t repent then we can wash our hands of humanity without feeling any guilt.
Or if you do still feel a little guilty you can spend some time preaching to the bad individuals to make a personal choice to be good. Nowhere in this is redemption seen as requiring human sentience which in turn requires a whole series of technological and social policy innovations.
It’s as if one visited a hunter gatherer society and tried to convince them to be vegetarian. Do they have the technology and social policy innovations necessary for that level of morality? Does our current humanity have the means to create cultural programming that will morally augment our OP? Or have we already achieved sentience but just not put it to good enough use?
Now on the other hand, I haven’t watched the 3rd episode of Netflix’s 3 Body Problem and maybe it addresses all of these points. However the treatment of the cultural revolution through the second episode makes it doubtful.
China in the 1960s is hardly a reasonable setting to judge humanity. There’s no internet and few libraries and so any attempt at sentience would have to be the hierarchical, top down type that is almost inevitably misused.
Can we even reasonably judge humanity in 2024? The girl who killed Ye Wenjie’s father defends herself by pointing out she was just a child. With 2024 life span limitations are any of us not children? Sure judging humanity is a whole lot more dramatic and entertaining but it also causes an irresponsible and likely wrong hopeless vibe.