Nonhuman motives

Michels asks Brown about loosh, presenting the idea that human suffering might be valuable to another intelligence. Brown says he isn't familiar enough with that theory or its proposed beings to endorse it. His interest is the broader question: what could another intelligence want from humans?

He then reaches for an uncomfortable comparison within humanity. Some people take pleasure in others' suffering. Brown wonders whether something nonhuman could have an interest along those lines too. That's a question about possible motives, not evidence that suffering is a fuel somebody harvests.

Monsters, Inc. makes the literal fuel idea memorable: its monsters collect children's screams to power their world. The useful thing about the comparison is that it exposes an assumption. A creature can pay close attention to you because your experience is useful to it, rather than because your welfare matters to it. The film also makes room for a much better relationship. The analogy doesn't require us to settle for the darkest one.

I don't want this topic to become a contest to invent the worst possible universe. Brown himself stops short of endorsing the named theory. The more useful challenge is to stop confusing interest with benevolence. Research, entertainment, resource use and companionship could all involve attention while implying very different treatment.

That also means frightening interpretations should have to explain something specific. If an encounter is confusing, fear alone can't tell us why it happened. Brown's question remains worth asking because motive is a missing part of so many accounts. I'd keep asking it while resisting the temptation to let the most upsetting answer win just because it is hard to shake.