Copy and pasting my misplaced reply from the last post. About The Giving Plague: Reading between the lines of his unreliable narration, you can see Forry getting more and more altruistic throughout the piece, matching/exceeding the infected. But it's clear this behavior arises from a very conflicted inner process, in sharp contrast to the biological imperative that ALAS places on its hosts. This is underscored by Forry's final line, that suffering for others is what he chooses to do. This presents a neat dichotomy between conflicted, cynical and extremely reluctant altruism, and altruism that's born of an unquestioned dogmatic drive. It seems to me that Brin's asking us which is better. If the behavior is the same, does it matter whether it arises by choice or by default? By setting Forry up as a savior, it seems that Brin's saying choice is the better option. Then again, Forry is only a hero due to circumstance. If CAPUC hadn't cropped up, his choices would have instead led him to being a murderer and a thief. In contrast, the ALAS carriers contribute to civilization reliably and unfailingly, rain or shine, for years. So perhaps the message is that you need to have both. Dogmatic altruism can keep society slowly improving for years, but when shit hits the fan, you need the determination and drive brought by those who have CHOSEN to fight for their fellow humans. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts! If you had the choice to keep ALAS contained or help it grow to a pandemic, which do you think you'd choose?
I would say choice is always the better option, people just work better mentally when they feel that they have some control over their actions. This probably explains why the people in the story who become infected by ALAS try to become more altruistic outside of the blood-giving, so that they can tell themselves a story about their choices, and then maybe not feel so alarmed by their sudden need to give. That said, I would personally be very tempted to take Les' view and let the virus spread, because people are jerks and could use a hand in being kinder to their fellow humans. And now I am not sure how I feel about my desire to turn people into puppets even if it is 'for the greater good.'
I agree with you. To me, the basis of being a person is being able to choose and not being a slave to instinct. Further, I think life is a whole lot easier to deal with when you get to make your own choices and forge your own purpose. That being said, people are far from ideal and some will choose poorly. But I still think they shouldn't be forced to choose better, because who can objectively say what 'better' is?