Reflections on Survival and Wells' Intentions

After our last class I thought a lot about the question of whether or not we have an inherent “right” to survive. We instinctively have a desire to continue living, which stems from an instinct of self-preservation and exists in most instances, save depression. However, a right entails some sort of greater design for our existence crafted by a supreme being. For instance, it would be odd for a non-religious person to believe in such a right. In the natural world, we have fought and claimed this position through trial and error.

I think, if we do have a “right” to exist, that right holds true for everything else in the universe. Therefore, if we argue our right we better acknowledge that we are robbing other species of their equally deserved existence when we run them into extinction. I think this feeling of a “right” comes from our arrogance, our idea of “manifest destiny.” Wells poked right at this arrogance by titling the book The War of the Worlds for there was never a chance for humans, it was really a battle between Earth and Martian biology.

Another question from our class has been lingering with me – did Wells mean The War of the Worlds to be a critique on imperialism or justification for it? I had been pretty sure he meant it as a critique but since he does come to terms with the Martians as logical beings, it seems he might be providing a logical explanation for the behavior of the British. Perhaps by explaining their behavior rationally he merely meant to make the Martians, and by implication the British, full three-dimensional characters with understandable motives rather than give them the moral "green light."

I think I still believe Wells was speaking out against imperialism. He warned us of the dangers of abandoning our emotions with the full force of the description of the heartless Martians (p. 127). That is why I think it is a cautionary tale, for we are not yet “a mere selfish intelligence, without any of the emotional substratum of the human being” (127) but every violent inconsiderate act of imperialistic gluttony pushes us one step further in that direction.