Imagine boasting of wealth acquired only by plunder! But apparently there were societies based entirely on that.
"...Eochaid must enter not as a gangrel but as a chieftain in his own right. Proudly he walked, and behind him his men bearing gifts of Roman gold, silver, jewellery, cloth, the choicest of their plunder." (X, 7, p. 208)
What could the wealth-producing societies do but defend themselves? I have just read an account of a Scotian-Roman battle in The Dog And The Wolf, read an account of a World War I battle in John Gardner's The Secret Generations and seen the film, Oppenheimer, and meanwhile there is more than one armed conflict on Earth (see here), not just the one that we usually hear about. Is there a better way to conduct human affairs? Especially since human survival has become an issue? Sf writers can extrapolate alternative futures and should avoid cliches, e.g., that there are only two alternatives: business as usual or something worse. Business as usual is now something worse. What would Poul Anderson write if he were alive now? Some of his future histories involve recovery after a catastrophe. What recovery would he describe now? He also wrote some dystopias.
16 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
You have to expect barbarians to put a premium on strength and prowess at arms. It's simply what all barbarians are like.
Of course civilized states should defend themselves. And I put a lot of the blame for the collapse which began on the last day of 406 on Stilicho. Because he did not return the garrisons taken from the Rhine frontier to help crush Radagaisus to their posts.
No, I do not expect there to be ever any wholly perfect state and society. And all states have to ultimately depend on force, or the threat of force, to survive. Again, that is because humans are like that, and it is not realistic to expect otherwise.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we can ask if there is a better way even if not a perfect way.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We can ask, but the answer * I * would propose will not satisfy you: the limited state, in whatever form, combined with free enterprise economics. Because only those things have worked, no matter how imperfectly.
I also advocate increasing the options for the human race by getting mankind off this rock! Which is why I so strongly hope Elon Musk founds his Mars colony.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The limited state is not solving the climate crisis.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But any kind of workable solution is more likely to come from such a society than the totalitarian tyranny of Maoist China, one of the worst drivers of that crisis.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not support the totalitarian tyranny of Maoist China.
The discussion seems academic since the world does not currently comprise countries with small states. But, if it did, how would such states prevent unregulated industries from destroying the environment?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
There are, or used to be, large or powerful states which believed in the limited state, such as the US or UK.
No, it's governments like those of India and China, urging on unlimited use of brown coal, which is driving that crisis.
There are alternatives to coal or oil, such as nuclear power. But for them to be effective, gov'ts and anti-nuclear pressure groups have to get out of the way!
Ad astra! Sean
Politics is about power, and therefore violence is always implicit in it. That is genuinely instinctive, and therefore not amenable to change.
Sean,
I am not denying what India and China are doing.
How would small states prevent unregulated industries from destroying the environment?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I was not talking about states, per se. Where ideas about the limited state are still taken seriously, the way to restrain damage by anyone is thru ordinary tort law, legal action, or political maneuvering.
Far better, of course, to support technological advances making things like oil or coal unnecessary. Again, that means nuclear power or a space based solar power satellite system.
Ad astra! Sean
I am losing the thread. I thought the limited state was offered as a solution to our present problems.
Kaor, Paul!
No, I support the limited state as a means of placing restraints on the use of power, force, by the State, any State.
Ad astra! Sean
But my question was:
Is there a better way to conduct human affairs? Especially since human survival has become an issue?
Paul; in theory, yes. If there was a universal planetary state, for example. But in practice, no.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: No, IMO, there is never going to be a "better way," if you mean a political system where sweet reasonableness, rationality, and perfect democracy holds sway. Human beings are simply not going to be like that--remaining quarrelsome, conflict and strife torn, all too prone to folly, bungling, corruption, etc.
The optimum mankind has managed to work out, because of factors like Western philosophy and Christianity, has been the limited state, in whatever form, in which power is divvied up between the executive (president or king), a two house legislature, an independent judiciary, etc. Yes, it was more complex than that, but I believe this to be broadly true.
Mr. Stirling: As of now I see no and no State with halfway decent leaders like Augustus Caesar or even Napoleon capable of unifying the world into some kind of tolerable universal planetary state.
I strongly suspect China has such ambitions, but a world unified by a regime as cruel, brutal, and corrupt as the Maoists in Peking would not be pleasant, to say the least!
E.g., in SF terms, see David Wingrove's CHUNG KUO series.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we face a crisis so something has to change. If we have ideas for a better energy production system, how can those ideas be implemented? By "better," I just mean something that does not generate escalating catastrophe.
Paul.
Post a Comment