Pitcairn's Island

Television, Movies Games and Books BSG-2003
#1

I was (again) mulling over the decision of Lee and the survivors to “abandon” technology and attempt to co-exist (or whatever the right word is) with the indigenous population of 150,000 years ago Earth.

In the history of “real” Earth I cannot come up with a similar attempt by a more “modern” society to do so with a more “primitive” (excuse this choice of words) society. Some may have claimed to be attempting this, but in every instance of which I am aware, the true goal was subjugation.

As for “modern” men, placed in a primitive enviroment without any one around to “conquer” - not that many instances come to mind, but those that do (I don’t know - The Donner Party?) did not turn out well.

Which caused me to start thinking about fictional scenarios. I cannot even think of a work of fiction in which things have worked out well for “modern” men placed in a hostile (or at least not a “modern”) enviroment. From “Pitcairn’s Island” (based on a true story, as you all know) to “Lord of the Flies”. Can anybody come up with a work of fiction in which things turned out “OK” (use your own definition) for the “survivors”?

#2

An interesting question. The first thing that comes to mind is this infamous argument from an episode of Angel:

//youtu.be/eCZksevg9dQ

Without spoiling anything, ultimately a conclusion is reached: “Of course the cavemen win.” :frowning:

I can’t help thinking that the same is true for our merry band of spacemen. Without their technology, their lives will be full of toil. Many will not survive. Even considering that some of them, like Baltar, have knowledge of farming – and presumably the military have basic wilderness survival training – they don’t know the plants, the animals, or the environment of this new world. The native humans, of course, do, but it seems likely that the gulf between a spacefaring society and a pre-agrarian one would be almost insurmountable without conquest or genocide or both. But who’d be on which side? Arguably, without their technology, our crew would be at a significant disadvantage to the greater numbers of the natives, not to mention their familiarity with “primitive” weapons. It seems more likely that the natives would subjugate this crew that overcame so much, for so little.

Of course the cavemen win. :frowning:

#3

I would agree with the above, as I have been thinking much of the ending and if it was a good or bad ending for the humans of the 12 colonies. It reminded me much of the Arthur C. Clarke’s novel Childhood’s End, which is one of my favorite books if not my favorite book of all time; and in high school we debated the ending in class during my senior year. The debate was basically the question of if ending of (almost gave the ending away there) the novel positive for humanity or negative for humanity. And I must say I find myself having a similar debate in my own head over the ending of BSG.

I suppose this, they all there history, (does anyone here from Earth remember the colonies, no) all there medicine, if a large comet or meteor hits the Earth now all of humanity dies, and the list goes on. I guess it seems that the Cylon attack really did end Human Civilization, or at least that Human Civilization.

Perhaps this post isn’t best in this thread, but that is where my brain went to.

#4

Just wondering if you guys are watching Harper’s Island? It could be the new GWC podcast obsession :smiley: