Let Me Go, Never - Part 1

In 1853, Commodore Matthew Perry landed on the shores of an isolationist Japan with a modern fleet in tow, and the Meiji Restoration of rapid modernization began. In the 1870s, as part of this modernization, the decision was made that Japanese names would follow the western convention of given name, family name, when translated to western languages. On January 1st, 2020, that decision was reversed. It is now the official wish of the Japanese government (and polls show most of its people) to say "Ono Yoko", "Abe Shinzo", and possibly "Kondo Marie". Of course, Canadians with Canadian names like "Joe Nakamura" will continue with that convention, so the truth might be complicated for some Japanese expats.

With that great intro, I'm going to talk about Never Let Me Go by Ishiguro Kazuo, because I just read it, it poses great questions, and my sister asked me about it. I'll spoil the heck out of the main plot point, so if you want to read it first (and it's great), please do. It's also a movie that I want to see.

In truth, I don't need to spoil the plot at all, I need to spoil the setting. In this version of Britain, clones are brought up in glorified orphanages so that, at the appropriate age, they can act as organ donors for the main population. The plot follows a group of friends growing up in this orphanage to their time as donors. In many ways it's a classic dystopia novel, with many of the normal tropes - Aggressive use of euphemisms, invasion of the state into reproduction. But their is one general and two specific challenges I read into it most strongly - a challenge to utilitarian ethics, a contrast to animal agriculture, and questions around organ donation right now.

First, I'm a fairly strong utilitarian (consequentialist also works). This might be a post in itself, but it's the basic idea that the best choice is whatever leads to the best consequences. I think most challenges to consequentialism just ignore some of the consequences in making a choice, but some of the strongest critiques have absolutely come from dystopian literature - Brave New World comes to mind. In Never Let Me Go it states that the donor system has cured almost all diseases in Britain, leading to a major improvement in quality of life for most citizens, as well as peace of mind.

I actually think this would be much harder if it were clear that all of the donors lives were net positive, if brief. As is, it's made clear that most donors have a rather bad life, and I think the veil of ignorance by John Rawls is a useful refutation of this world. If we're creating a world where we have no idea who we will be in that world, it's obvious why we might take out exceptionally bad options. There might still be some arithmetic where I would pull the trigger (One quite bad life to cure cancer seems worth it), but if truly bad options are on the table, we should get rid of them where we can. If all donors had rather blissful lives, I think it's harder to dismiss. This wouldn't be an absolute maximum on the peaks of well-being, but it might be a local maximum, better than our world now perhaps.

Quickly running through the other two, I'm not moved by the comparison to animal agriculture. The idea that any use of animals for our own purposes is immoral is a real view, and people who think pet dogs are a form of slavery. I think veganism has a compelling case in this universe because of how net-negative the lives of farmed animals are (with some other environmental issues as well). The main difference for me is I can imagine a utopia with ethically farmed animals living their best lives. I think humans are clearly too intelligent for their best lives to be predetermined organ donors.

Continued Saturday in Let Me Go, Never - Part 2