Big G an analogy?!

[SpiderLover]

So yesterday my girlfriend picked up my Annihilation TPB and started to ask me questions as she read. When Galaxis(sp) showed up she said, "Ooh I know him, he's the human race analogy." I asked her to explain and it goes like this. Big G is human kind eating and using the worlds resources and the Silver surfer is nature that humans have mastered and fought back.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Navarre]

It's "Galactus", btw.  

I could see Galactus as analogous to the human race in the respect that we consume all around us, justifying it as necessary for our survival.

But Silver Surfer was brought into Galactus's service then rebelled against his master to save those resources. Surfer would not be analogous to nature.

Nature would be the world, aka the resources. Silver Surfer is not a resource being consumed. He is part of the overall system of consumption.

Silver Surfer is more like unhindered government, facilitating the consumption on the natural world. Now, he represents the Environmentalists.

[SpiderLover]

Yes it was a neat look at the character. I was just glad for the debate. Now I can see the environmentalist look for Silver Surfer.

[Navarre]

Maybe the Surfer can slap a Greenpeace sticker on his surfboard. 

[Beta Ray Bill Cosby]

So yesterday my girlfriend picked up my Annihilation TPB and started to ask me questions as she read. When Galaxis(sp) showed up she said, "Ooh I know him, he's the human race analogy." I asked her to explain and it goes like this. Big G is human kind eating and using the worlds resources and the Silver surfer is nature that humans have mastered and fought back.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think it's the other way around. Galactus is a metaphor for nature, since he just eats and eats without regard for what happens. He's a natural disaster. The Silver Surfer then represents Humanity's place in nature, first a part of it, then eventually rebels against it.

[Navarre]

According to Agent Smith, everything in nature maintains a natural equilibrium with its environment except humans and viruses. Since Galactus isn't replicating, is he not humans in that he consumes indiscriminately without any significant limiting factors?

[SpiderLover]

Well I think Rodrigo has a good point. He's a natural disaster. If you think in the terms of  say dino killing disaster, then yes he is apart of that nature in a sense.

[Navarre]

I do think he is a part of nature. I don't disagree with that part.

I believe he is even represented as an aspect of the universe in terms of that overall balance. But I also believe he is connected to the aspect of Death (the Marvel cosmic entity).

So a hurricane could be seen that way. I'll buy that.

But humans are the greatest source of death I know, both to their own kind and the world around them. We're a lot worse than any hurricane.

The different between a hurricane and humans (besides magnitude) is really one of conscious will. Galactus is aware of what he is doing. He is a cosmic genius.

So I guess the question, for purposes of finding the best analogy to Galactus, is whether Galactus is immoral or amoral.

[Beta Ray Bill Cosby]

But humans are the greatest source of death I know, both to their own kind and the world around them. We're a lot worse than any hurricane.

I think ants cause more death than humans. A conflict between two ant colonies probably results in more casualties than any given world war. Which I think reinforces the callousness of nature. Galactus HAS to eat planets, it's part of his nature. Earth has the tasty num-nums he needs for survival. He doesn't show up on earth because he wants to eat a planet with sentient life. It just happens to be inhabited.

[Navarre]

Yeah, I agree with all that.

Of course, I feel that killing sentient creatures (even for your own survival) is wrong unless it is in self-defense. Galactus does that all the time.

So, again, would we consider Galactus immoral or amoral?

Despite his angle of "I am only doing what I must to survive" I feel that is a lie he tells himself to justify an existence built on mass worldwide genocides. That sounds pretty immoral to me and, thus, far more human than ant-like.

[Marvel2099]

There are two discussions here.  One is, is Galactus an act of nature and is Humanity immoral or amoral.

Galactus is sometimes seen as an act of nature, however recently he has saved the universe more than eating planets.  The reason I don't think he's an act of nature is that he has fears.  It may be only one object but he does fear the Ultimate Nulifier.

Fear is what keeps us alive.  It is also why we are so good at killing.  If you fear something you will either stay away from it or develop a meathod of getting rid of the threat.  The running side helped in developing camoflage and panic rooms.  The killing side helped in the creation of more deadlier weapons and better detection equipment.

Humans kill as all animals do but we are the only ones who do it for fun or sport. When I say fun, I mean war games, FPS and paintball.  No one dies but you are still pointing a "gun" at someone and pulling the triger.  We hunt for food and sport.  Animals wil only kill in defense, for food or to take over leadership of a family/group.

Hope that wasn't too off topic  

[Ivdar]

Humans kill as all animals do but we are the only ones who do it for fun or sport. When I say fun, I mean war games, FPS and paintball.  No one dies but you are still pointing a "gun" at someone and pulling the triger.

I'm gonna go off topic just for a bit. First, I don't think wargames and the likes can really be compared to actual war and murder ; yes, it's a representation of the act of murder, but it's still radically different, because it's not real, as you said, nobody dies and it isn't fueled by the intent to kill.

We hunt for food and sport.  Animals wil only kill in defense, for food or to take over leadership of a family/group.

Humans will only kill in defense, for food or leadership. We start wars for conquest, political or economical power, which are really just extensions of the base urge to acquire and hold territory. The real kicker is the difference between hunting and murder. Animals hunt and kill members of other species, I don't think they kill their own kind, even for leadership. That's because their instinct tells them to perpetuate their own species, and killing one of their own for that would be contradictory. We fight and go to war for countries, communities and families, not for humankind as a whole.

Anyway, sorry for the digression. As for Galactus, immoral or amoral ? I think he's amoral, but I also think he is an individual being with some residual fears and feelings. After all, he used to be a sentient individual before he became Galactus. He may claim that he is as inhuman as a storm, but I think he is not as unfeeling as other cosmic entities, which is also what makes him more interesting as a character.

But even though he feels fear, I think he is completely amoral. To me, an immoral person is someone who knows that his/her actions are wrong, but commits them anyway, for any number of reasons. He/She acts in defiance of morality. An amoral person doesn't go against morality, because he/she doesn't acknowledge it. Galactus may be a sentient individual, but he believes that human beings are unfit to judge him and his actions. There's no morality involved, his devouring of planets is just a natural process, like life and death. He operates on another level, and his acts are just when seen from the cosmic scale.

In fact, isn't Galactus a moral being, from a certain point of view ? After all, by killing some planets, he is saving the universe as a whole. Isn't it possible that he thinks of himself as a force for good ?

[Navarre]

In fact, isn't Galactus a moral being, from a certain point of view ? After all, by killing some planets, he is saving the universe as a whole. Isn't it possible that he thinks of himself as a force for good ?

Possibly. But we shouldn't assume anything.

Has there been a writer who has written such a thing about Galactus?

[Gaumer]

In fact, isn't Galactus a moral being, from a certain point of view ? After all, by killing some planets, he is saving the universe as a whole. Isn't it possible that he thinks of himself as a force for good ?

Possibly. But we shouldn't assume anything.

Has there been a writer who has written such a thing about Galactus?

Not that I know of. Ultimate maybe but...


Hurricanes take warm air from the equator and move it to the poles for cooling. Its like the planets air conditioning. Its a necessary thing to keep the world from burning from the middle, out. It also tends to flood cities and do a lot of damage. The hurricane is just doing what it does.

I like to think of Galactus sort of like that. He just does what he does. The "why" behind that IS indeed something I'd like to see explored, but not if its just as boring as meteorology


As far as him thinking of himself as anything, I'm not sure. Do we think any more or less of ourselves if we destroyed an anthill? I'd think that's what G think of as he's eating a planet

[Navarre]

Do we think any more or less of ourselves if we destroyed an anthill?

Hank Pym might.