Gaia's emulations are experiments to find an optimal society. How do we conceive such a society? Economic arrangements are controversial and have been the subject of previous disagreements. Leaving that aside for now - it will always be returned to later - I identify four requirements:
some measure of social peace;
a reasonably rich culture;
empirical science;
a tradition of contemplation.
I emphasize that these are my requirements, not necessarily anyone else's. Laurinda and Christian visit an emulation where:
the Chinese colonized North America where the Great Tranquility, a peace brought by the Emperor Wei Zhi-fu, lasts for three centuries;
Buddhism, influenced by Taoism and by local natural cults, is harmonious, without sects or heresies, and pervades the North American civilization;
there are "'...superb achievements in the arts and in graciousness.'" (p. 191)
However:
there is no real science;
religious and secular quarrels will eventually break out;
a militant Chinese dynasty will try to reclaim the western hemisphere that had declared its independence;
the era of wars will generate an empirical technology - a bleak consolation.
This timeline had three of my four requirements for a while.
6 comments:
Your four requirements reminded me of a book "The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created" by William Bernstein.
In it he lists four requirement for creating prosperity and elaborates on why they are needed and how they came about.
Property rights, which drive creativity
Scientific rationalism, which permits the freedom to innovate without fear of retribution;
Capital markets, which provide funding for people to pursue their visions;
Transportation/communication, which allows for the effective transfer of ideas and products.
Kaor, Paul!
Besides what Jim listed I would have said a tolerable society should also be ruled by a state, whatever its form, which respects its own laws and governs mildly.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean:
I don't see how to get 1 or 3 without that.
Kaor, Jim!
And I agree!
Sean
There's a reason "mere empiric" was not a complement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Rule-of-thumb has considerable limitations when it comes to technology.
About the most productive civilization at producing tech without science was the Chinese -- the list of things (rudders, compass, gunpowder, horse-collars, deep drilling, coal-fired blast furnaces etc.) is very long, but they never came close to an industrial revolution or a genuine science.
Now if you look at the development of steam engines, -theoretical- investigation on a scientific basis was absolutely crucial.
It took several centuries of investigation into atmospheric pressure and a number of other phenomena before steam engines were built. The first really successful one (Watt's) was made by someone who'd been involved in science teaching at Edinburgh.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, the Chinese came close, but never achieved a true science. Again, I'm reminded of Anderson's discussion in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? of how it was the West achieved that: a subtle combination of pragmatism, Christianity, philosophy, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment