If there are to be any better civilizations after ours, then we can expect them first to combine good aspects of previous civilizations and secondly to improve on anything previously thought to be good.
"Nor could [Wanda Tamberly] identify [Guion's] race. The finely formed countenance hinted at - aristocracy? - but from what century beyond hers?" (p. 130)
A society in which not an elite but an entire population inherits culture and courtesy expressed in finely formed countenances?
Tamberly realizes that she has been taught very little:
"...about the upper hierarchy of the Patrol.
"Maybe none existed. Maybe by Guion's era humankind had outgrown the necessity." (p. 132)
She hopes to learn more but does not because that does not suit Guion's current purposes. But I think that such speculations are reasonable when contemplating a long future with high technology. (That might not lie in our future but it does in the Time Patrol timeline.)
23 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe in the plausibility of such speculations. MY belief is that all human societies, IF they are human, are going to have elites, hierarchies, organizations, etc. Iow, aristocracies, either formally defined as such or de facto. Because that is simply what human beings are LIKE.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sure but the benefits of culture, civilization etc can be extended to an entire population when high tech replaces peasants, serfs and unskilled manual labourers.
How can there be an unchanging core of humanity when we have transformed our environment and ourselves in the process?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And HOW MANY will take advantage of such benefits? We are more likely to face problems of the kind adumbrated by Anderson in stories like "Quixote and the Windmill" or "The Critique of Impure Reason." I personally know people who have zero interest in the arts, sciences, philosophies, etc.
That "unchanging core of humanity" lies in all of us being flawed, imperfect, all too corruptible, etc. And that remains true no matter how much we transform our environment.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we transformed ourselves into modern homo sapiens by cooperatively acting on and changing our environment. Language and abstract thought came out of that cooperation.
People known to you or me now are not people born, raised and educated in a completely different society in future. Everyone will take advantage of benefits that have not until that time been denied to them. They will take a high culture for granted just as we take for granted electric light, internal combustion engines, television etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe in such a wild scenario. EVERYTHING I have seen or observed in real history and real human beings makes me think what you hope for is an impossibility. No matter how comfortable or "educated" they may be, such people will remain IMPERFECT. Anderson examined scenarios of the kind you hope for in books like GENESIS and concluded such societies will have flaws, because HUMANS are flawed.
You are basing your hopes on mere speculation. I believe in STARTING from the obvious fact all humans are IMPERFECT. Real changes for the better will always have to be slow, cautious, incremental, and permanently incomplete.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I start from the obvious fact that our species differentiates itself not only by continually changing its environment but also by changing the ways in which it changes it. Thus, we have become beings capable of invention, creativity and reflection. We are capable of either destroying or remaking ourselves. Obviously future history, especially long term (if we survive), can be very different from past history just as the present world is very different from the world as it was just a few centuries ago.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
All that you wrote immediately above are true. Where we differ is what we think of the moral quality of the human race. I do not believe advances in mere technology will somehow make us BETTER as persons.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. It will need social changes as well. But technology changes society and we can control whether it changes it for good or bad.
Paul.
"The finely formed countenance hinted at - aristocracy? - but from what century beyond hers?" (p. 130)
A society in which not an elite but an entire population inherits culture and courtesy expressed in finely formed countenances?"
In "1632" by Eric Flint, when lower class people from 17th century Germany encounter the time displaced Americans from West Virginia, they think the school teacher is a Duchess, simply because she is not broken down by hard labor.
I am more inclined to agree with Paul than Sean in the discussion here.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Social changes, whatever they are, will not make people any less flawed and imperfect than what we actually see in others. Some will be wise, some will be fools. Others will be scoundrels and villains. Others will be close to being saints. Most of us will be more in the middle range, and so on. And my belief is that will remain true, no matter how advanced technology becomes.
Jim: Meaning you have some sympathy for "transhumanist" views? I remain totally skeptical of such hopes!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But nothing remains unchanged while everything else changes around it. That is impossible.
Human beings have come into existence and will eventually go back out of existence. Those are the biggest changes of all.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the duration of the human race or of human beings is not the point under discussion. MY point is that all human beings are flawed, and I don't in the least think that will change.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I referred not to the duration but to the greatest changes of all: from nonexistence to existence and back again. Any intermediate change of behaviour is surely minor by comparison.
People who are well paid and well fed have no reason to steal food from market stalls. Most people most of the time have no reason to attack or kill anyone. We do not fight for the air we breathe although we might fight if we were down to the last oxygen cylinder in a space station. Immigrants will not be blamed from homelessness or unemployment if there is no homelessness or unemployment. It is possible to identify and eliminate every cause of violence. Current government attitudes cause hostility to immigrants. Such attitudes should be opposed.
Paul.
I doubt you'll every get a spontaneous consensus in a group of more than about 6...
And I've been subject to unprovoked attacks with intent to kill more than once in my life.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Them I'm sorry to have misunderstood you. Altho I believe God creates human souls out of nothing at conception. And I believe those souls survive bodily death.
As for the rest, I still disagree. People don't need to be poor or starving to quarrel and fight. People can, have, and will fight for any reason at all. ANYTHING can be a "cause" of violence, including random malice of the kind which nearly killed Stirling. And the POTENTIALITY for violence can be found in all human beings.
And I have NO use for illegal immigrants. Foreigners have no right to just shove their way uninvited into other people's countries. That bungler "Josip's" stubborn refusal to do his job and defend the borders of the US is causing fury and outrage among Americans. For that, and many other reasons, I hope the Democrats are shattered in the midterm elections!
Mr. Stirling: Even six is probably too large a number to hope for spontaneous consensus! Anything can come up which causes one, two, or three to disagree with the others.
Ad astra! Sean
Because each of us is conscious of himself as a temporally enduring subject of consciousness with memories, motivations and a sense of identity, we imagine that we are substantial entities that would remain essentially unchanged in very different circumstances and that can even survive the death of the body. I think that this is an illusion. Each psychophysical organism begins, grows, changes and ends. Most of its bodily and cerebral processes are unconscious. Those processes that are conscious are "legion" but, for practical purposes are pulled together as a single "I" which, under extreme pressure, can fall apart in multiple personality disorder. Even a well-integrated self is as vulnerable as a candle flame. It ceases temporarily when the body is put under a general anaesthetic and must end permanently at death. At least, I will be very surprised if anything else happens.
Kaor, Paul!
I know that is what you believe is true. But that is not what believe. This is one of those points where we will have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean:
about the illegal immigrant problem in the US
How about major fines for people who employ illegal immigrants?
Wouldn't that remove the major incentive for illegal immigration.
Anything that improves life in the source countries for the illegal immigration would be a help too.
Sean,
So you understand why I find nothing unchanging or unchangeable in humanity: no immortal soul or original sin.
Paul.
Jim,
Why have any immigration controls? Should everyone not be free to travel and to look for work? Should people fleeing from war or persecution not be welcomed and supported?
Paul.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: It is already illegal in Us law to employ illegal immigrants. But it's plain "Josip," as part of his contempt for defending the US, is refusing to enforce that.
And unless the US is willing to set up a global imperium, we cannot solve other countries problems.
Paul: Regrettably, on some matters we cannot agree. I do affirm belief in both immortal souls and the patently OBVIOUS reality of Original Sin, if we define that latter fairly minimally to mean it is IMPOSSIBLE to deny all human beings are prone to folly, sin, error, wickedness, etc.
And I absolutely reject any idea of supporting unlimited, out of control immigration. All SOVEREIGN nations have the absolute right to set terms, controls, limitations, etc., on who and how many can enter its territory. And how and at how long a time period before LEGAL immigrants can become citizens. If not, then that nation is not truly sovereign and independent.
Holy saints! It's amazing, but more and more I'm starting to think even Emperor Josip was better than the bungling "Josip" we have in the White House!
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: no, they shouldn't.
A country belongs to its citizens, as a house belongs to an individual or family; they have an absolute right to determine who shall be admitted, and on what terms and for what reasons. Outsiders don't even really have a right to an opinion on the matter.
That's what democracy is: rule by -a- people in -a- territory; rule by the historically grounded, legally bounded 'people of state'.
So democracy is inseparable from national sovereignty, which is a necessary (tho' not sufficient) condition for it.
As the ancient saying goes, "It is the people who make the ground English, not the ground the people."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolute agreement! And the way the left wing of the Democrats have forgotten or rejected such a basic, elementary principle of national sovereignty is one of the factors arousing fury in the US.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment