Future histories have to recover from the twentieth century. In Robert Heinlein's Future History, there is mass psychosis in the 1960s, the "Crazy Years," eventually leading to religious dictatorship in the US in the early twenty first century. The Cold War leads to a world Bureaucratic State in James Blish's
Cities in Flight and to the CoDominium in Jerry Pournelle's future history. In Isaac Asimov's future history, a radioactive Earth implied that there had been a nuclear war although an alternative explanation had to be concocted when the Robots and Foundation series were combined. Earth recovers from nuclear war at the beginning of Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic History and in his Maurai History and from the Chaos at the beginning of his Technic History. On Earth Real, we have avoided nuclear war so far but are now in the Chaos. By contrast, Larry Niven's Known Space future history shows life becoming more prosperous and comfortable for a considerable period. That is a reasonably comprehensive list of future histories. There are further nuances in other works by Blish and Anderson.
Now I understand why Baen Books' The Complete Psychotechnic League, Volumes 1-3, is so entitled. Sandra Miesel had coined the phrase, "The Psychotechnic League," as a title not just for Volume I of the Psychotechnic History but for that entire History. However, "League" is inappropriate and "Complete" is inaccurate. Maybe we can get a genuinely Complete Psychotechnic History in two volumes with Volume I collecting the eleven pre-FTL instalments and II collecting the eleven FTL, assuming that we agree that all of these instalments really do belong in this future history of course.
38 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Like you I am not happy with "The Psychotechnic LEAGUE" as a general title for that series. Far better to call it "The Psychotechnic INSTITUTE" timeline.
On Earth Real, to use your phrase, Western civilization had its own Crazy Years in the 1960's and '70's. To say nothing of the lunatic Politically Correct woke bull twaddle we've been seeing the past 15 years or more.
One of Heinlein's more unconvincing ideas, due to his dislike for evangelical Protestants, was having the US fall under the rule of a vaguely evangelical theocratic dictatorship founded by Nehemiah Scudder. Unconvincing, because not only is Christianity in general stony ground for theocracy, he was traducing evangelical Protestants. People like the Baptists were VERY hostile to how some states of the US used to have established churches, and were among those advocating disestablishing them. I think Anderson did a much more plausible job handling similar ideas in "The Bitter Bread," where a successor to the US called the Protectorate came to rule Earth. The Absolute Church of that story was merely the Established Church of the Protectorate. And non-members, Christians or not, were not persecuted.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
I never heard of established churches in any part of the US.
Can you give me an example of the PC stuff to which you refer?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
IIRC, Anglican dominated colonies like Virginia had established churches. And Connecticut, down to the 1840's, had an established Congregational church.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution merely forbids the NATIONAL gov't to have an established church or to hinder anyone's free exercise of whatever faith he has. The idea being that if states with established churches did not hinder the free exercise clause, it was their business if they wanted a state church.
Some of the woke nonsense we have been seeing is guff about how we have to pretend persons of the same sex can "marry," or that males can somehow magically become women. Nonsense like CRT or the truly appalling excesses of supporters of "legalized" abortion also comes to mind. Or the wackier, anti-technological, anti-science strains of "environmentalism." And so on and on!!!
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean: tho' the Civil War amendments effectively "nationalized" the Bill of Rights -- that is, they made it binding on the States as well as the national government.
The WWIII in the early 60's was a perfectly plausible extrapolation -- it was the last period before MAD was fully established, and in which a prolonged war including nuclear weapons was possible.
It luckily didn't turn out that way, but it could have and in 1962, nearly did. If President Kennedy had listened to Curtis LeMay, it would have -- and if Johnson had already been president (say JFK had a heart attack before the Cuban Missile Crisis) he probably would have.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
A bit puzzled by your first comment. I thought the US Bill of Rights was already binding on the states before the Civil War.
You are right, we very nearly got something as horrible as Anderson's WW III if the Cuban Missile Crisis had blown up.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
Can you tell me more about CRT?
Paul.
Sean "not only is Christianity in general stony ground for theocracy"
I can't agree. You are realy looking at Christianity through rose colored glasses.
My impression is that the Massachusets Bay colony was rather theocratic. People who disagreed with the official version of Chrisitanity there *were* persecuted & some left to found other colonies eg: the founder of Rhode Island.
Then there are such things as the Christian persecution of Muslims & Jews in Spain.
The people who pushed for things like the 1st ammendment in the early US were reacting to that sort of thing.
I would say any monotheism is the most fetile ground for theocracy. (Though some dogmatic political ideology that doesn't involve belief in a God or gods can be just as bad as a theocracy.)
I agree that the trans ideology is nonsense. I agree with TERFs
On WWIII:
I recently read "The Doomsday Machine, Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Ellsberg. Just how easily a false alarm could (& still can) set a nuclear war off is *SCARY*.
Sean: no, the first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were -not- considered binding on the State governments before the Civil War.
Hence 'established churches' being possible.
The Bill of Rights was a negotiated concession to the Anti-Federalists, promised to get the Constitution confirmed, and then carried out as promised.
The Anti-Federalists were primarily concerned with restricting the -Federal- government. Jefferson was an anti-Federalist, btw.
If they'd thought that the Bill would be binding on the -State- governments the Constitution would never have been confirmed.
Kaor, Jim and Mr. Stirling!
Jim: I still disagree, Christianity IS stony, infertile ground for theocracy. You are overlooking how the Calvinist "theocracies" in Geneva and Massachusetts did not LAST, less than a century in both cases. As for Spain, what happened there was not the Church controlling the state but the latter controlling the Church. Using concessions usually forced from a reluctant Papacy which resented the State's interference.
Mr. Stirling: That clarifies what you meant. Yes, the first ten amendments were meant to be chains limiting what the NATIONAL gov't could do. I THOUGHT the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment was soon believed binding on the states as well.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
CRT, or "Critical Race Theory," is a false interpretation of US history peddled by the extreme left in America. Its propagandists stress slavery and ONLY slavery forever damning the US and all white people. CRT advocates totally ignore how there is far more to American history than slavery, both good and bad.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
How many people push CRT? Does it really condemn all white people? I know that a minority condemns all white people because there is always a minority that will do anything! - And I have heard some of that stuff myself.
I think that the role of slavery - but not ONLY slavery - does need to be stressed. In Lancaster and Liverpool, we recognize that our cities were slaver ports and a black slave was buried near our coast.
Paul.
I think that "THE extreme left" (my emphasis) is too broad a category. Sure, SOME on the extreme left preach all sorts of nonsense:
UFOs are spaceships from workers' states on other planets!;
"China's Chairman is our Chairman! China's way is our way!";
the Soviet Union was fully democratic;
etc.
The above comment came from UNKNOWN.
Decades ago, a Maoist group in London claimed to be "...building a stable revolutionary base area in and around Brixton"! In other words, they had some political contacts there and nowhere else.
Kaor, Paul!
I'll get the easy part out of the way first. I don't understand what Unknown was talking about. It sounds like conspiracy theory baffle gargle.
Most of the people peddling the CRT bull twaddle are leftists in academia and the media, with their political hangers on and fellow travelers. And they also dominate the Democrats. A determined group of fanatics don't have to be numerous to command disproportionate influence!
The problem with "stressing" slavery is that you can end up BORING people if all you talk about is slavery, slavery, slavery. Others will be "turned off" because they know slavery was a GLOBAL phenomenon not limited to white people or Western civilization--and hence will resent being condemned as uniquely evil. They will point out how blacks were also willing slave traffickers, among other things.
Never knew there were leftist UFO believers who claimed alleged UFOs came from workers paradises on other worlds!
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
There have been, almost certainly very few.
But stressing slavery does not mean talking only about it. To say that the trans-Atlantic slave trade generated a lot of wealth is not to condemn all white people as uniquely evil.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except too many leftists in the US do peddle the CRT nonsense. And too many others meekly kowtow to them!
Your second comment, many hawkers of the CRT nonsense do condemn white people, the US, and Western civilization. I reject them!
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
I think that the right attitude to the slave trade and American slavery is to recognize their significance, not to play them down. Some argue that the profits financed the Industrial Revolution. Whether this is true has nothing to do with whether all white people are evil.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except that is not what the CRT crazies are doing. Its advocates are consumed with a fanatical hatred of the UK, US, and Western civilization. Any stick will do for beating up on and undermining and destroying Western civilization.
To say nothing of how the OBSESSION over slavery ends up BORING people. I reject CRT with scorn and contempt for it and its advocates.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
OK. I am not talking about these CRT crazies. Are you able to send me a link to some CRT stuff?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Some of the best articles I saw criticizing the CRT madness were pub. by NATIONAL REVIEW, both in the magazine and online. If I can find them I will send some to you.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
But what I asked for was links to articles by CRT advocates. I know in advance that articles critical of CRT will say what you have already said.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the best of those articles criticizing the CRT insanity will include names, references, and links to its advocates.
Moreover, I believe the anti-CRT arguments are RIGHT.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
Of course you believe they are RIGHT but you can't expect me to accept that as a premise.
If I were in the US, I would be involved in anti-racist campaigns but would argue against anyone who argued, e.g., that all white people share a collective guilt.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then by all means read up on this CRT nonsense.
Good, I'm glad you agree there is no such thing as hereditary collective guilt. Deuteronomy 24.16: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but everyone shall die for his own sin."
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
So you haven't read any of it, just criticisms of it?
Why should I have believed such a thing? A lot of our time has to be spent stating that we do not believe what someone else assumes we believe.
There is something else in the Bible about God pursuing vengeance for several generations: Exodus 20:5.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have no interest in reading people who've made it plain they despise and hate people like us, our countries, and all of Western civilization.
And even Exodus 20.5 has God putting limits on that pursuing of vengeance: "...I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of THEM THAT HATE ME." Not only is the divine wrath limited to a few generations, it's additionally limited to those who hate God.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
But you can't be sure what people make plain until you read them. I THINK CRT says that race is the main social division and I disagree with that. A black worker has more in common with a white worker than with a black billionaire. Economics is the real division. The concentration of vast wealth in few hands at all costs is killing the planet. I would read CRT stuff to make sure I understand their position correctly.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Fair enough. But I believe I have read enough about CRT to convince me it's as vicious and racist as I believe it to be.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
You have read what hostile critics say about it.
BTW, I do not defend CRT first because I do not know enough about it and secondly because I strongly suspect, partly just from its name alone, that it emphasizes racial issues in a way that I disagree with.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It's good you are inclined to be cautious about CRT.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
But why shouldn't I be? We have to understand such movements, not just react for or against them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But all this "studying" should have a point. To either accept or reject CRT. And I do reject, condemn, and oppose it.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
But you reject and condemn on the basis of having read only hostile accounts.
As I said, I think that a black worker has more in common with a white worker than with a black billionaire so I think that economic divisions are more basic than racial divisions. That probably puts me in disagreement with CRT.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Political and social divisions, yes. NOT so sure about "economic" divisions. My view remains that in a free enterprise economy under a stable gov't ruling by law and accepting limits on its powers, many people from the "working class" will seek to rise. Some will find new goods, inventions, and services by which to do that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Not everyone who works can invent and not everyone who owns has invented. There is economic division between large-scale owners and the mass of workers.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree! And that's inevitable, because not everyone will have the necessary talents, abilities, or determination. It's foolish to try to ignore or deny those differences.
Happy New Year! Sean
Post a Comment