The Speaker for the Trees is an astonishing sci-fi novella in its ability to touch on the myriad of pragmatic, logical views we can take of existence and humanity, then point to the sheer beauty in sometimes ignoring all that, and benefiting instead from the sheer empathy gained from shared experience.
It's not complex to read. But it is a complex novel in its depth and intellect, and one that I suspect will be read and discussed for a great many years after being written -- and perhaps, unfortunately, only a great many years after.
Author Sean DeLauder is obviously a very bright guy. Here, he uses miles of metaphor to demonstrate that mankind's binary nature -- both individualistic and communal -- offers value no matter which side is called into question. Logically, sometimes the group decision is right and sometimes the individual, and we're healthier when we don't consistently only pick one over the other.
He suggests that there is unifying logic to all things ... even the illogical, when it serves a broader purpose.
In this, he is quite correct. As more of human behavior becomes comprehensible via the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, neurobiology and neurotheology, it's evident that there is purpose to all things with respect to how we behave. He also holds out the (irrational but practical) olive branch that perhaps believing in a higher power is as simple as how we define higher power. It's why a lot of us are agnostics. It's the nicest way to hold out hope, even when there's no actual evidence (the absence of something can't be a logical proof) of any greater source.
In all, it's a staggeringly impressive book. Good story too, full of heart, even though the hero doesn't have one. He's a Hedge, after all.
OKAY, HEAVY THEORETICAL SCIENCE DISCUSSION FROM HERE ON DOWN. IGNORE IF INCLINED.
I believe most of the romanticism inherent to his story and optimistic view of human social evolution can be explained away in equally pragmatic, logical fashion due to biochemistry and its relationship to survival instinct as a massive subconscious driver (and interpreted by many as self-interest).
All human behavior stems from our originating emotional driver: survival instinct, the ultimate form of self-interest. At birth, it's all we have. So we bond to protectors (our parents) and accept their beliefs in return from emotional support and group affirmation. Our brain chemistry adapts to this and becomes addicted to it. In fact, all addiction is, in a form, a way of seeking peace of mind.
Belief in security is then intrinsic to healthy brain chemistry. Some achieve it through limited communal interaction but maximum self-enrichment(and consequently lose empathy for other people); financial power and social influence produce the same sense of security to some as communal support does to others.
In fact, it could be said that the anxiety-reducing rituals in numerous religions -- as evidence in Aquilla and Newberg's neurotheology studies -- exist for the same reason: using familiarity to produce relaxed-but-active thought, reducing anxiety (which by extent is just low-grade cognitive dissonance, a conflict between community and self.)
It also allows us to "anthropomorphize" existence, which is the only constant we know, by suggesting a prevailing force may have directed our existence for a purpose, and may offer a purpose beyond this frame of existence.
So all human belief, conflict and behavior can in most part be understood by examining its relationship to survival instinct. In that respect, Hedge is right when he admits he has "become human." What we interpret as "empathy", is after all the familiarity of circumstance reaffirming our bond to our protective community.