Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

2BR02B by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is our April 2026 Short Story/Novella Read.

This discussion will open on April 1

Beware Short Story Discussions will have Spoilers

I have admired this story for years. This is my fourth reading. I am happy to see that it has won this month's short story read. However, this story invites strong reactions because it touches directly on politics, ethics, and deeply personal beliefs about life, choice, and the role of society. That’s exactly what makes this worth discussing. This also makes it potentially argumentative, and arguments can lead to personal attacks. That is the line we will not cross.

To make sure we have a thoughtful and engaging conversation, here are the ground rules:

Challenge ideas, not people. Disagree as much as you like with a perspective. It allows for spirited discussion, but do not direct criticism at the person sharing it.

Assume good faith. Everyone participating is here to think through a difficult story. It’s not about winning an argument.

Be clear but be respectful. Strong opinions are welcome. Personal attacks are not.

Use “I think” or “I read this as…” rather than framing your view as the only correct one.

This story doesn’t offer easy answers, and neither should we. I am hopping and looking forward to this discussion.

I can't wait to read it!

The story can be read and downloaded from Gutenberg.org
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/auth...

I read it many years ago since it was a free download. At the time the only Vonnegut story. Now there are two. I just read The Big Trip Up Yonder. Wroth reading too.

I will probably re-read 2BR02B soon.

Re-read 2BR02B for this discussion.

Here it seems like the right to have a child is almost like land you inherit. A family with end up with a fix number of people. One person has to die, to make room for a new. Like land: There is only a fixed amount.

A more humane option would be for society to manage the birth allocation. It would not be anyone’s personal problem to go around and beg. BUT – and it is a big but – it would likely be an even more stagnant society with even less birth.

Another option would be to have the right of birth be traded. If you have the money you can buy the right to have children. In (no actual spoiler, it is not an important part of the story) (view spoiler)[Red Mars, Blue Mars and Green Mars (hide spoiler)] people are born with the right to have 0,75 child. This means a couple can have 1,5 child. They can have one and sell 0,5. Or buy 0,5 and have 2.

The Big Trip Up Yonder deals with some of the same problems but in a society with another approach to the solution.


I have read three of Vonnegut’s short stories and they where all good. Anyone want to recommend other of his short stories?

One more Vonnegut short story: EPICAC can be read online here:
https://au.pcmag.com/ai/115919/love-i...

I cannot resist a story that begins "Everything was perfectly swell." 😊 Will read it soon.

Great story, and interesting ideas J_Blueflower. They include what I think is important to remember when we make these "advancements," that there is always a tradeoff.

I thought of the novel Brave New World, and the sacrifices those characters were expected to make for a more comfortable life, sacrifices of all that was messy (and human).

Also, a Margaret Atwood poem I read recently called "Blackberries" (interesting that this story also touches on blackberries). The end of the poem explores the reality that blackberries that grow in sun are small, while the ones that grow in shade are the best. We cannot thrive in a world with only sunshine. We need the shadow. We need the dark side, the messiness of life.

Maybe the problem of death (that they thought was solved by extending healthy lives) is really unsolvable.

(I also now have an old James Taylor song running through my head: BSUR(SUCSIMIM).)

Kathleen wrote: "when we make these "advancements," that there is always a tradeoff. ..."

Eyeglasses? Clean drinking water? ;-)

One thing I liked a lot is that the story talks about the practical problems, not the usual psychological issues. The last is far more common.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "when we make these "advancements," that there is always a tradeoff. ..."

Eyeglasses? Clean drinking water?"

Yep, even the stuff I may like has a price, like the necessity for vision insurance and expensive utility bills. 😊

Kathleen wrote: "Maybe the problem of death (that they thought was solved by extending healthy lives) is really unsolvable.."

I think you need to define sharply what the “problem” is. It could be that technological progress the next 10 or 100 years will make it possible to scan the brain to such detail that allows it so run on other hardware like a computer. The consciousness could live on when the body is dead. Would that solve the problem?

I read this story about an hour ago. My initial reaction was that it was alright, but nothing special. I suppose what I meant by that is that it tackled an idea, but didn't make much of an emotional impact on me. But I find that in the hour since I read it, I've already thought of several different ways to interpret it. I think it has more depth than I initially thought, and that, as Bob says, it's a story made for discussion. I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing (it's only been an hour), but I thought I should write down what I've got so far. (And first I'll say that I personally agree with J_BlueFlower that controlling conception would be more humane; but I think that solution has to be put aside in the context of this story, because it makes the entire story irrelevant. Perhaps we need to imagine that we're working here with a situation where that isn't an option. As a side note, regarding the 0.75 child example: (view spoiler)[I remember enjoying that small section of the Mars trilogy, with the 0.75 child allotment. Kind of a clever solution, though they didn't quite have immortality to deal with, just longer lifespans. (hide spoiler)])

On the surface, this is a story about one solution to the overpopulation problem, and the upsides and downside of that solution. I think just about any solution that involves limited space (just one planet) will be bound to have some down sides (as Kathleen has pointed out). Whether or not you think the solution here is more good than bad is very personal. To me it's clear that Vonnegut did not think so, although he also acknowledges (through the painter) that the alternatives so far are pretty terrible (war, plague, etc.).

But I think it's also possible to understand this story as an exploration of the tension between a philosophical idea and the practical application of that idea. Here the culture as a whole has accepted this philosophy (a life for a life, prioritizing population control, etc.). But that accepted philosophy has put the father in a terrible position: he has four members of his family (3 new babies and a grandfather) and he has to choose which three of them will die that day. This is an impossible affront against his humanity. In this interpretation, the murders of the doctor and the hostess can viewed as vengeance against the system that put him in this position (of which they are representatives), or as the father experiencing an emotional or psychotic break under the pressure of his situation.

I also think that the story can be interpreted as a response to the Cold War (it was first published in the 1960s), and a statement against Communism. In this interpretation, the system represents a Communist philosophy that prioritizes the health of society as a whole, and the father represents an American outlook that prioritizes the rights of the individual. (I don't know enough about Vonnegut's politics to know whether this is likely to be an intended interpretation. From reading his books I know he saw plenty wrong with America and also saw plenty wrong with Communism; I suspect he would find plenty wrong with any political system, especially once it moves from philosophy to implementation.)

One final thought for now is that the father's solution for keeping all three children wouldn't work. He killed three people to make up for the three new lives, but only one of those people (himself) was a volunteer. I can't imagine the system allowing the two additional babies to live as a trade for two murders. If people found they could keep their kids through murder rather than voluntary death, murder would be way up and all the advantages of the new system (peace, etc.) would be lost.

Those are my thoughts so far.

Great thoughts, Wobbley. I was particularly interested in your last paragraph, because this was a second reading for me and I thought at the end, this time, I don't think the father accomplished what he wanted. Even if the painter would count, the grandfather would still need to die to save them all. I also doubted that the murders would be allowed to count.

The overall take away for me did not change. When governments institute "solutions", individuals are seldom considered. Longer life (which has now been extended for some) means no life for others, and those who have had their lives extended are not happier if you judge from the painter, who is given to us as a typical citizen. Some of the greatest joys of life have been left behind, among them a chance for a family and to raise children. Most people in this society could not manage even one child, because those who are willing to make the sacrifice of their own life would be increasingly difficult to find.

Another thought that came to me was that the father would never experience his children, nor the children their father. The mother just lost her spouse. Even procuring life for someone would be no guarantee of happiness, unless you think happiness comes for ONLY those material goods a person possesses. Are the rich necessarily and always the happiest people? I would say no.

Maybe Vonnegut would like us to consider quality vs. quantity and what exactly comprises a quality life.

Sara, I really like your interpretive thoughts on this. Your takeaway about government solutions not considering the individual is very similar to my interpretation about the tension between a philosophy and its individual application. But I hadn't thought of the angle on the value of immortality (especially at this price), and what really makes a quality life. Good point, I suspect you're right that this was something Vonnegut was trying to achieve with this story.

Fascinating layers that you've added, Wobbley and Sara.

I was interpreting this fairly simply, more along the lines of Sara's last point about quality versus quantity. Some would say that the limitation on our lives, while tragic, has one benefit which is that it increases the enjoyment of them. No one is for wars and plagues (well, most aren't anyway!), but maybe the reduction of suffering should be the goal rather than the extension of life.

I really liked that you brought up "the culture has accepted this philosophy," Wobbley. The story tells us while this is true, the painter has not accepted it, which brings us to Sara's important point about individual not being considered.

It was certainly a story to highlight that there are no easy answers to this problem.

Kathleen wrote: "It was certainly a story to highlight that there are no easy answers to this problem."

Yes, I think this is very true. It's a difficult problem with no good answers.

Wobbley wrote: "Yes, I think this is very true. It's a difficult problem with no good answers."

Amen.

As Edward Wehling sat in the Chicago Lying-in Hospital, I don’t think he thought it would be the last day of his life. I think his agony was tied up in the thoughts that today his conscience and soul would forever bear the scar of being a killer. Shortly, he will pick one of his triplets to live, condemning the other two to death. By choosing one triplet, he would also condemn his grandfather to death in order to obey the bureaucratic law of one in, one out. The triplet he chooses to live makes him the killer of three, even if not directly by his hand.

Whether planned or a simple hapenstance, the arrival of Dr. Hitz and Lenora Duncan turned the hospital waiting room into Wehling’s own personal "Sheepdip." Is their death morally worse than the state killing two of the triplets? In this whole affair, they are the only innocents. Is Wehling’s soul anymore damaged by his direct actions using a gun, then his action of choice by picking whose to die at the hands of others? Sheep dip, a liquid preparation used to rid sheep of external parasites. Whose more parasitic, Dr. Hitz, the creator of population control, Lenora Duncan, who happily smiles as she euthanizes people suffering from too much utopian happiness, or two newborn babies? I can’t help myself, I like Wehilng’s choice.

For the record, if you can’t already tell, I don’t think much of this utopian society. If it is so perfect, why then is there a need for “Ethical Suicide Studios”? I don’t think Vonnegut thought much of it either. I think he wrote it more as a warning. Too much of a good thing, especially if it involves government control, is destined to be terrible. I think in one of the above posts, someone wrote that Wehling’s actions were for nothing because the government would not reward his actions by letting two of the triplets live, as it would send the wrong message to society. I don’t disagree.

However, this bureaucratic authority, whose emotionless and nonchalant attitude toward life and death is still doomed to failure. If, in order to dissuade others from doing what Wehiling has done, they kill the two remaining babies, as a warning to others not to repeat Wehiling’s actions. This results in the authorities punishing a dead murderer by murdering his innocent surviving children. This government's idea of punishing a murderer by murdering is not justice. It’s a no-win scenario and will plant the seed of moral rightness and wrongness in society's mind, and the result will be the end of this utopia.

What would you suggest a society do, if there was a cheap drug that made it possible for people to live forever?

J_BlueFlower wrote: "What would you suggest a society do, if there was a cheap drug that made it possible for people to live forever?"

I don’t think that a drug that lets people live forever is the premise of Vonnegut’s story. For me, the story is about a government that chooses coercive population control over any other possible solution. My point isn’t that society has no options, it’s that this society chose euthanasia via assisted suicide, and infanticide as acceptable population control methods. Government-mandated death, can you get any more dehumanizing than that?

J_BlueFlower wrote: "What would you suggest a society do, if there was a cheap drug that made it possible for people to live forever?"

Why would anyone want to live forever? That people do not is evidenced by the last phone call in this story. I would suggest that the drug, when it results in this outcome, is immoral. As with all such scenarios the question I want to ask is "who gets to decide which person is one person too many?" You might agree with this approach right up until it was your child or your grandfather being exterminated. I think Vonnegut saw government overreach as more dangerous than overpopulation. Since the situation here is hypothetical, I think we are meant to ask how this applies to our own, very real, world.

Sara wrote: Why would anyone want to live forever? ..."

You only need some in each generation, and then there will at some point be a problem: Lets say that the maximum number of people the Earth can feed is 20 billions (or some other number, the exact number is not important). If some people from each generation does not die, and people have children, the total population will grow. At some point the limit is reached and food, water, …. (or maybe oxygen) will become a limiting resource. Also it need not be strictly forever, but maybe a 1000 years. .... Why would anyone want to live past 100?, 80?, 70?..... 50? I think many people do.

It will likely be food that is the first limit. Who gets to not starve to dead? Who gets to decide who does not starve to dead?

Bob: “Government-mandated death, can you get any more dehumanizing than that?”

In my eyes death by starvation of people who has no part in causing the problem is worse. Or living in a world that needs to start wars.

I think in this situation, the two “extra” children should have been allowed to live and the country as a whole would need to wait for two deaths before anyone could have children again.

Wobbley wrote: "Yes, I think this is very true. It's a difficult problem with no good answers."

Absolutely

Love the discussions here getting perspectives I hadn't thought of in my initial reading.

I personally have a very soft spot for right to die situations, so that was at the top of my mind reading this. Obviously in this world, disease isn't a problem, but I think the situation we get to witness (between both the father and the artist) shows that mental health can still be quite strained. At what point does living not even matter? At what point would you choose to just stop? Would you give up your life so someone you don't know and is just being born could live?

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Sara wrote: Why would anyone want to live forever? ..."

You only need some in each generation, and then there will at some point be a problem: Lets say that the maximum number of people the Earth ..."

I see what you’re saying, mass starvation would be horrible, but it’s usually a consequence of mismanagement or scarcity. I don’t think overpopulation or starvation is the premise of Vonnegut’s story. I think his warning is that governments in times of crises are reactionary, and their solutions are often knee-jerk reactions. Vonnegut is showing a government that chooses killing as an official, normalized solution. Were there other solutions to be considered? We don’t know, Vonnegut starts his story about two hundred years after the state allows ‘scientists to step in and lay down the law’. What is the scientific solution? The creation of a bureaucratic policy designed and administered by the state. Its purpose is rigid population control, allowing that one life may be born only when another is surrendered. One in, one out.

Your post also questioned, “Who gets to not starve? Who decides? We don’t know how Vonnegut’s world reduced the population to the number of people the scientists decided was perfect. We only know how the population is kept in control. The question of ‘who decides’ is worth some speculative pondering.

Vonnegut tells us that the world's population was 40 billion, on its way to 80 billion. We also know that “the population of the United States was stabilized at forty million souls”. Being curious, I asked the Empirical Wizard Google about the population of the United States in the early 1960’s. The answer, 179,323,175. That’s a long way from 40 million. Vonnegut doesn’t provide this information, but simple math tells us that roughly 139 million people needed to be exterminated in order for this new world paradise to begin. The fact that this government must have committed mass extermination in order to create a society that proudly uses euthanasia and infanticide as its mandated population control method is precisely what makes it so dehumanizing.

What a great discussion. It's covered key issues so well.

A few thoughts and stories came to mind while reading the discussion.
1. The ethical situation posed by the trolley problem.
2. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.
3. The Lottery.

Update:
I meant to add to the list:
4. The 1944 Alfred Hitchcock film, "Lifeboat":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboa...

In the society Vonnegut lays out, what is the meaning of life?
If almost no one dies, what would be the point of having children, especially if they would be born into a system where they will have to face the same dilemma if they too want children.

In Julian Barnes novel, A History of the World in 10½ Chapters:

A hero dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there his guide explains how it works. She says, "This is heaven. Here you can have anything you want."

The hero thought a moment, and then―like Aladdin with the magic lamp― asked for several things, among them wealth, women, fame, and feast.

After many hundreds, perhaps thousands of years (he wasn't sure), he grew progressively more and more bored. One day he mentioned this to his guide.

The guide said, "Well, everyone here has the option of dying, of truly ending their lives."

He thought a minute. Then inquired, "How many people ask for that option?"
The guide answered, "Everyone does, eventually."

Klowey wrote: " 2. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. "

I haven't read it yet, but:
Why Don't We Just Kill The Kid in the Omelas Hole

Can be read here https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kim_...

"In the year 2000, ... before scientists stepped in and laid down the law, there wasn't even enough drinking water to go around, and nothing to eat but sea-weed—and still people insisted on their right to reproduce like jackrabbits.

Bob, I somehow missed the part about United States and forty-million. that is almost a scarcity of people! A ninth of today! That is a crucial bit of information. In my opinion that completely changes the story. I guess I should read it again. Why did Vonnegut set the number so low?

Klowey wrote: "In Julian Barnes novel, A History of the World in 10½ Chapters:..."

It is the Sense of an Ending-Julian Barnes. Looks like an interesting book. Maybe worth a nomination?

J_BlueFlower wrote: ""In the year 2000, ... before scientists stepped in and laid down the law, there wasn't even enough drinking water to go around, and nothing to eat but sea-weed—and still people insisted on their r..."

What perspective. ;-)

When I was born in the U.S. we had about 150 million people, about 40% of what it is today.

The U.S. had about 40,000,000 in the 1870s, when my great grandparents were children.
I didn't even blink when I read forty-million. LOL

Vonnegut was exactly my dad's age.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Klowey wrote: " 2. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. "

I haven't read it yet, but:
Why Don't We Just Kill The Kid in the Omelas Hole

Can be read here https://clarkesworldmagazi..."

Looks fun. Thank you!

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Klowey wrote: "In Julian Barnes novel, A History of the World in 10½ Chapters:..."

It is the Sense of an Ending-Julian Barnes. Looks like an interesting book. Maybe w..."

The section about the hero going to heaven is in A History of the World in 10½ Chapters (1989), the final section, “The Dream.” However, Sense of an Ending looks good. I might be up to add that to my reading if you want to nominate sometime. In the current New School poll my vote is on The Denial of Death. That really piqued my interest.

"When I get to heaven I mean to spend a considerable portion of my first million years in painting, and so get to the bottom of the subject".

At random saw this quote by Winston Churchill today.

Klowey wrote: "J_BlueFlower wrote: "Klowey wrote: "In Julian Barnes novel, A History of the World in 10½ Chapters:..."

It is the Sense of an Ending-Julian Barnes. Looks like an inte..."

Sense of an Ending is from 2011. You will have to wait till 2031 for the nomination...

I heard about The Denial of Death in Lex Fridman podcast "#117 – Sheldon Solomon: Death and Meaning". https://lexfridman.com/sheldon-solomon/ For Sheldon Solomon it sounds like The Book.

Sara wrote: "J_BlueFlower wrote: "What would you suggest a society do, if there was a cheap drug that made it possible for people to live forever?"

Why would anyone want to live forever? That people do not is ..."

I agree, Sara, how many Pietàs or Davids could Michealangelo create before he felt they were humdrum? In Vonnegut’s story, the painter is depicted as being about two hundred years old. During the conversation between the painter and the orderly, I got the feeling that in his youth, the painter was a true artist, proud of his work. His talent has not deteriorated with old age, arthritis, cataracts, etc. Yet, he is cynical and dissatisfied.

So many things seem like Utopia until we have them. I love your observation about the painter, Bob. Everything becomes humdrum if it goes on forever. The idea that we are running out of time is part of what spurs us to do things now, what makes us want to take in everything we can before it is too late.

This massive population is not a natural progression. Man has created this problem by circumventing the natural lifespan, now he is solving the problem by eliminating lives entirely. How many Michealangelos are murdered at birth in this society? And does that any longer matter? Like so much of what we do today, man in this society has traded quality for quantity and it was a bad trade. I'd rather have the shorter life of my ancestors and feel I had achieved something, had an adventure, LIVED instead of existed.

This really is an excellent discussion especially considering the challenging topics

Klowey wrote: "What a great discussion. It's covered key issues so well.

A few thoughts and stories came to mind while reading the discussion.
1. The ethical situation posed by the trolley problem.
2. [book:The ..."

I’m glad you are enjoying the discussion. I have read Omelas and The Lottery several times over the years. I think both are brilliant. I did a quick check on the trolley problem. Wow, a dive into that rabbit hole would be a very interesting discussion. A discussion on perspectives where everybody's right, and everybody's wrong. Thank you for posting the excerpt from the Julian Barnes novel, it’s excellent.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Klowey wrote: "J_BlueFlower wrote: "Klowey wrote: "In Julian Barnes novel, A History of the World in 10½ Chapters:..."

It is the Sense of an Ending-Julian Barnes. Loo..."

Buddy Reads is always an option.

Bob wrote: "Klowey wrote: "What a great discussion. It's covered key issues so well.

A few thoughts and stories came to mind while reading the discussion.
1. The ethical situation posed by the trolley problem..."

So glad you enjoyed the excerpt. Another short story (one of my favorites) that includes the subject is "The Immortal" by Borges. I have read it many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imm...

However, be aware, he reworked some of his stories, and there is possibly another version of it (by him) in this collection, The Aleph and Other Stories 1933-1969. However, I don't know since I have yet to read that collection.

More info on overlapping stories if you are interested.

I am continuing to read your thoughtful and thought-provoking posts :) I may come back later to respond to some of your posts.

I have responses of another sort, a sort I often do when reading texts of past--I put the story into historical context so that I can gain a shadow of understanding how the readers of then thought of the story. This important because this is the audience the writer was writing for. And in my mind I can time travel from then to now and back again.

In 1962 the year of publication

* The Baby Boom was slowing, yes, but still a very real social reality.
* Population control was possible with the use of The Pill which was FDA-approved in 1960.
* With so many children and young people everywhere, the culture was changing into a youth-loving culture.
* With so many young people and with ever-more medical advancements, there was a growing hope to live forever young.

That is the historical context. And then there is the satire that starts the with first line: Everything was perfectly swell. Since nothing is perfect or without exceptions and complications, this is a ringing satirical note. I can hear my dad and other dads speaking of things being perfectly this or perfectly that. Perhaps my mom and other moms spoke this way. I just remember the dads now.

Other thoughts, maybe philosophical, later.

Very nice job of putting this into context, Cynda. It is interesting that you mention the youth-loving culture, because this scenario makes people who look young but who are still old, but it eliminates the truly young, since it makes children virtually impossible. I couldn't help thinking, as well, that the few children there were would have no marriage options, unless they wanted to marry very old people. So, youth in this culture, is just an illusion.

It is an illusion, isn't it. From what I have read of Vonnegut, much of he is satirizing is our social or collective illusions. . . . .hmmmm. Let me think on that in the context of this story.

Something that worries me about Vonnegut's thoughtful satire here is the idea the way we get used to things. Bob pointed out above about Edward Wehling's mindset: "today his conscience and soul would forever bear the scar of being a killer." I wonder if everyone in this imagined society would have these pangs of conscience, after years of such a policy.

I also agree about not wanting to live forever. The idea makes me shudder. Nature usually knows best, and I'm finding that while that idea might have sounded great when I was 20, it sounds like a nightmare as I approach 70. Again, it's quality versus quantity.

And Cynda's excellent point about the time this was written brings to mind the fact that today birthrates in the U.S. are starting to fall sharply, and some are pushing for another baby boom. I believe nature knows best about this big picture too.

Cynda welcomes prayers for health. wrote: "I am continuing to read your thoughtful and thought-provoking posts :) I may come back later to respond to some of your posts.

I have responses of another sort, a sort I often do when reading text..."

I like your deductions. It's like in your time travels you stopped at Vonnegut's office and looked over his notes. Surely these are the type of thoughts that were in his mind when creating this story.

Sara wrote: "Very nice job of putting this into context, Cynda. It is interesting that you mention the youth-loving culture, because this scenario makes people who look young but who are still old, but it elimi..."

I never thought of the minority young people in society. It would be a very small part of the population. Even Edward Wehling, at 56, is in the minority, given the population's average age is 126.

In this world that Vonnegut has created, an old grandfather artist has lost some of his abilities to be the great So-and-So and no longer wants to be known as that great artist because he cannot show the young people who demand: Show us! Show us! That is the science fiction.

The science that we are familiar with is that we humans now often our brains and our hearts--physically, emotionally, spiritually/energetically.

This story when read thoughtfully brings up uncomfortable topics.

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
— Frederic Bastiat

Vonnegut shows us a society where government control has become the accepted way of life—where a system originally created to solve a problem has become absolute, and life itself is managed through policy. We don’t see how it started, only what it became.

I tend to read this as a warning. Not that all government action is wrong, but that even well-intentioned systems can go further than anyone originally imagined. Becoming dangerous or overly intrusive.

It makes me think about how governments respond to crises. Whether it’s climate concerns, population issues, public health, or social stability. How often are those responses reactive in the moment, or shaped by urgency or politics? And once those systems are in place, how often do they become permanent?

Over the last 50-plus years, since Vonnegut wrote this, we’ve seen policies that deeply affect individual freedom, like China’s One-Child Policy, assisted dying laws in countries like Canada, the Netherlands (as well as some U.S. states), and government responses during COVID-19, including vaccine mandates tied to employment and enforcement of public health rules.

None of these is the same as Vonnegut’s world, but they raise similar underlying questions.

So, I’m curious how others see it:

Why do people in a free society accept increasing levels of control? Is it trust, fear, or a belief that the trade-off is worth it?

Do systems like this grow gradually in ways people don’t notice, or does there come a point where people consciously accept them?

Is there a clear line where necessary governance becomes something more overbearing—or is that line always subjective?

“Why do people in a free society accept increasing levels of control? Is it trust, fear, or a belief that the trade-off is worth it?”

That is a deep question. Some of it may be “we have this problem, and increasing control is a least doing something rather than nothing”. I may be naïve, but I would guess that “the trade-off is worth it” is the most common.

One place where I know there is extremely strict government control here (Denmark) is bird flu: If a farm has it, all the birds/chickens are killed and burned.

“during COVID-19, including vaccine mandates tied to employment and enforcement of public health rules“

Did this happen? Maybe I am forgetting already, but I don’t think we had anything like that here. If you wanted to go somewhere crowded you had to be either vaccinated or have had a negative test within the last 24 hours.

“And once those systems are in place, how often do they become permanent?” Do you have an example?

“Why do people in a free society accept increasing levels of control? Is it trust, fear, or a belief that the trade-off is worth it?”

I would guess that much of the time it is for protection, which is a little different than fear. We have a "government" to govern, to handle the big things we can't as individuals, like public health policies, defense from aggression, policing, managing resources (including food), etc. The problem is one person's "protection" is someone else's "unnecessary restriction." The best way to hold this in check that I can think of is the free-flow of information: facts, science, debate ... and books, of course! 😊