The Time Machine by HG Wells was written in 1895. Let's review our history for a little bit. This was during the "2nd" Industrial Revolution, where electricity was being used to help with labor such as in conveyor belts at factories. A little over a hundred years before, the first mechanical loom had been invented. In terms of history, a hundred years isn't that much. It stands to reason that many people during this era were freaked out by technology. Also, the factories in which much of the population of countries such as Britain (the leader in industrialization) had terrible working conditions. Picture dark, underground sweat-shops (the kind of places where your Nikes are probably made). Some people, the capitalists, were getting really, really rich off industrialization and living the sweet life, but most people, the workers, were making a solid two bucks a day by working in the terrible factories. Humans in a nutshell. Now to the book.
First-off, just so you know, I've only read a small portion of The Time Machine, so that's all I'll be talking about. The book is narrated by a gentleman from Richmond, England in 1895 who tells the tale at a dinner party of his travels in his time machine to Earth in the year 802,701. He meets two species of creatures who evolved from mankind. The first are the Eloi, simple, beautiful, child-like creatures who live in the sunshine. The second are the Morlocks, spider-like creatures who live underground. As he is reasoning out how the two species evolved, the narrator says that the Eloi must have evolved from the capitalists by becoming lazy and stupid over time, whereas the Morlocks must have evolved from "the Laborers," the guys working underground in sweat-shops. AND, long-story short, the Morlocks raise the Eloi like cattle and EAT THEM. How's that for a moral.
HG Wells saw the stark contrast between the factory workers and the factory owners. He figured that someday the factory owners would get so fat and lazy and stupid that they would eventually be prey to the factory workers, which is ironic because it was basically the other way around back then, with the owners, the "Capitalists," controlling the workers. I can see how someone with a crazy imaginative mind like Wells' could envision that back then, but now things are different. About 22.9 % of the world is middle-class, with another 8.4% being upper-class, according to this website. That still leaves 68.7% of the world, true, and a number that will increase as falling birth rates affect the middle and upper class population, true, but in terms of poor people controlling rich ones, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, especially with the fall of communism. However, I can see Wells' point about not treating your workers like sh*t. It's inhumane, and that bad karma will come around and bite you where it hurts.
I'm a middle-class American teenager who's lived a privileged life in many ways, not excluding having a reasonable yet totally sufficient amount of money. I have a lot on my mind these days, but it's all homework and friends and practicing guitar and stuff like that. For me, that stuff is very consequential and important, and it fills my thoughts. But this excerpt that I read from The Time Machine made me think about the people that are still working in sweatshops for two bucks a day. It's not a fun life-style, and survival is a hell of a lot more important to them than if they will be stuck in traffic again. I can't do a whole lot to help their situation, or more accurately I DON'T EVEN TRY. Most of us don't even try. We go on with our lives.
So here's a final moral for you. Just don't forget those people living in the shadows, and every once in a while try to donate some time or money to help someone. We get to live this wonderful lifestyle, so why not try to help those people out every once in a while?
Your writing undertone is very entertaining. The points you've brought up are very valid. I like how you brought it back to sticking up for the little guy. It's important to represent both sides of an argument and I feel that your post did just that.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of Peter Singer's dilemma about whether it's better to help someone who is close to you than far away. Now that we have helped the industrial workers in our countries and the remaining ones are on a different continent, are we still morally required to help them?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt was super cool how you compared the binary class difference in the Time Machine to our class system today.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you related it to our lives and had us think about what we are (or more accurately aren't) doing to help others!
ReplyDeleteGood post 10/10
ReplyDelete"Humans in a nutshell." Hah! Yes, thank you. Your quick survey of history in that paragraph is impressively in-depth. And when you think about it, yeah, 100 years is not much time. It seems like forever when you compare it to the speed of technological advancement today, but compared to technological progress that came BEFORE this time, the second industrial revolution was a stampede of progress.
ReplyDeleteI love your style, here. Did you write this all at one go? It's hilarious without being irreverent, and totally on point.
You know, I think Marx's brand of socialism is in some ways more utopian than a lot of what we see today (though that's a weird way to put it, I know). He truly believed that inequalities in power would right themselves when the masses of workers banded together to revolt. In the 21st century, that part looks less likely, doesn't it?