At the end of Part Two, III, a guy pulls a gun. OK. More of that kind of action. Chapter IV is entirely taken up with the immediate consequences. At the end of that chapter, Heim, Vadasz, Uthg-a-Kthaq and their two prisoners must start a trek across Staurn through territory that includes:
"'The Walking Forest; Slaughter Machines; Thundersmoke.'" (p. 107)
So maybe we have something to look forward to in Chapter V?
When a laser beam has slashed open a man's airsuit so that oxygen and hydrogen have mixed and exploded and blood is everywhere:
"A gruesome keening lifted from the Naqsan. 'Gwurru shka ektrush, is this war? We do not thus at home. Rahata, rahata.'" (p. 105)
And is any other comment necessary?
36 comments:
Well, we're all going to come to a gruesome end sometime. Life is pain, then you die, as the saying goes.
It is good to be here while it lasts.
Paul: it's -sometimes- good to be here while it lasts. Not if you have dementia or constant agony.
Kaor, Paul!
Besides what Stirling said I would add that conflicts and wars are inevitable when it comes to species as imperfect and prone to violence as mankind. And I've seen no reason to expect that to ever change.
As Flavius Vegetius said in DE RE MILITARI: "If you want peace prepare for war."
Ad astra! Sean
Dementia and agony are big problems.
Conflicts are not inevitable. We are not prone to violence. Violence happens in certain circumstances, yes. We now have the means to change the circumstances but have inherited social and global divisions that are increasingly redundant. Wars assume the continuance of a particular way of organizing and dividing society and also of the mass manufacture of means of destruction. Lots of people see that this is unnecessary and counterproductive but social inertia and vested interests perpetuate the status quo which need not last forever and indeed is in imminent danger of destroying itself.
Kaor, Paul!
That is simply not true. We are all of us potentially (and in many cases actually so) capable of violence. I do not believe something as superficial as "changing circumstances" will eliminate that.
I don't care about that "lots of people." It only takes one to start a quarrel, fight or war. And if you don't want to be oppressed, bullied, or tyrannized over, somebody should fight back.
Erroneous, what you said about wars and economics. What happens is that nations at war will mobilize the resources needed for fighting them.
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are POTENTIALLY capable of violence. Changing circumstances is not superficial. Changed circumstances will no longer activate the potential.
We should care about lots of people. They can change things. One person cannot start a war in the absence of armed nation states and an arms industry. We should fight back against oppression, then end the means of oppression.
Of course nations at war mobilize resources but we do not need to divide humanity up into nations that go to war.
Paul.
Can't we just leave this? We merely repeat ourselves.
Kaor, Paul!
We can't agree, so I will leave it at that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course we can't agree but surely that is not even what we have been trying to do for the last little while. If that was the object, then it should have been realized that it was pointless.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
True, but I firmly Stirling, myself, and Anderson to be right. See the latter's preface to SEVEN CONQUESTS and his entire book THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I firmly believe myself to be right. We can go on trying to have the last word on that forever.
Paul.
One thing I agree with Sean on is Original Sin... 8-). The phenomenon, that is, if not the causes.
As G.K. Chesterton said, all religious dogmas have to be taken on faith... except for Original Sin. For that, there's abundant empirical evidence.
Of course the doctrine of Original Sin is one explanation for certain undeniable features of human psychology and motivation. However, "Original Sin" means that our first human ancestors were created in a state of perfection from which they fell by their own free will. I disagree with this proposition on several counts. I think that: (i) we can have "free will" in relation to our fellow finite beings but not in relation to an omnipotent creator; (ii) there is no omnipotent creator in any case; (iii) we have risen from animality and can, not inevitably will, rise further - or, of course, could degenerate into a bestial/demonic condition. (The higher you are, the further you can fall.)
Is "war" inevitable? No. It depends on mass manufacture of weapons and on a world divided into armed nation states. None of that needs to be perpetuated into an indefinite future.
Is violence inevitable? No. When civilized and rational individuals who have no conflicts of material interest meet and converse, they do not suddenly attack and slaughter each other for no reason. There is nothing "innate" to make them do this. The economic and cultural conditions that generate sanity and rationality can, with advanced technology, be spread across the whole Earth instead of remaining confined to certain areas or social strata as against others.
Will "Original Sin" be with us always? Not necessarily. (Nothing will be with us always. There was a time before we were and there will be a time after we are gone.)
One loose end: are there conflicts, as opposed to mere disagreements, over ideas and beliefs instead of over material interests? In my opinion, no. Conflicts between groups are either economic or strategic. The ideologies are just the rationalizations. Crusades were for plunder and land, not for military proselytization.
Kaor, Paul!
We cannot agree because the actual evidence supports what the Catholic Church, Stirling, Anderson, and I say. It's also false to say there cannot be conflicts over ideas and beliefs, rather than only about material things.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The actual evidence meaning that the future will be like the past? The evidence is that things change and can change qualitatively and fundamentally. If we survive, our future will be completely unlike anything that has gone before.
Paul.
Just the fact that it should no longer be necessary to compete economically will make an enormous difference.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, because actual history and real life is the only evidence we have.
Trust me, no matter how comfortable and prosperous humans might become, people will still find ways, means, and excuses for fighting and quarreling!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And that evidence shows us that things change. We have had scientific and industrial revolutions. Someone a thousand years ago would have thought that that was impossible.
I do not trust you. "Fighting" and "quarrelling" are different. What will there be to fight physically about? What will there be to fight with if, as is possible, all AI automated production goes into what people need and not into rifles, tanks, bombs etc? I find it incredible that someone can argue that, even if everything changes, nothing will change.
Paul.
Sean,
You respond to what has just been said but not to a line of argument which means that the argument has to be repeated. You said at one stage that it takes only one person to start a war. In fact, it takes a lot of people. That "one person" who gives the order/presses the button etc has to be in a position of power in a society with armed forces and therefore with mass production of weapons. I argue that none of those social structures need to be perpetuated into an indefinite future. In their absence, no one person can start a war. Someone might ask "What is war?" and be referred to history books. Every time you say that people will find something to fight about, I repeat these arguments. Two people arguing about their religious beliefs cannot of themselves launch a crusade or jihad. At the very worst, one might punch the other and their community will restrain them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, there has been scientific and technological changes. But I don't believe that will necessarily lead to changes in how humans behave and think. I don't believe what you hope for will happen, which means I consider your hopes dangerous and unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I show how it will affect behaviour. People will no longer steal when everyone has access to more material wealth than they need. If weapons are not produced, as they need not be, then no one will be able to wage wars. Civilized, sane, rational people living in peaceful societies do not suddenly feel an irresistible urge to lynch their neighbours, fire rifles in schoolyards or plant homemade bombs in supermarkets. It is neither unrealistic nor dangerous to say such things. In fact, it looks like the way forward for society. You do not respond to these specific examples but just repeat generalizations about innate violence. Most people most of the time are not violent but would become violent in other conditions so the conditions matter and can be changed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies, you have not shown us anything except what you hope will happen. And since I don't believe in the realism of your hopes that is not good enough.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But will anyone steal when everyone has access to more wealth than they need? That is not the only point but it is one clear point. How do you respond to it?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I was not focusing on merely material factors in the kind of society you hypothesized. I believe things like ambition, desire for higher status/power, envy or hostility to some, etc., will scupper the hopes you have
Yes, I believe crime will still exist, if only as a means of seeking relief from boredome. So you are still going to need courts and prisons.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Every time you repeat the word, "power," I repeat my objections to all the assumptions implicit in that word. Discussion should move on instead of becoming stalled at a single point.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We cannot agree because I don't believe what you hope for is realistic. That is why the discussion can't move forward, your insistence on something I do not believe is true.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I give reasons which you do not reply to. There cannot be theft when all wealth is in common and abundant wealth, which will be technologically produced, will have to be in common. Surely that single point at least makes sense? Any other points could be argued separately.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree. Over and over I have tried to respond to your points. I don't believe a mere plenitude of "bread" and an abundance of wealth, whether or not held in "common," means humans can't quarrel and fight. No, even assuming a post scarcity economy, I firmly believe humans will simply find other things to fight about--such as over status, prestige, power, etc. Unlike you I don't believe the innate characteristics that makes humans so prone to being quarrelsome, competitive, ambitious, power hungry, violent, etc., will be eliminated.
That is why we can't "move forward," because you deny what I wrote above. No agreement is possible because we have different conceptions of what human beings are like.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I am now only trying to make the point that theft will be redundant when wealth is abundant and its distribution is not restricted. I asked to focus on that one point and leave any others to be argued separately.
Every time you repeat "power," I reply to that. Instruments of coercion need not be perpetuated into an indefinite future.
Every statement of disagreement displays a failure to understand the propositions being disagreed with. I have tried to achieve not agreement but a minimum of mutual comprehension and have failed completely.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, you persist in claiming people won't need to commit thefts in the kind of post scarcity set up you imagine. I deny that because I believe some will want to be thieves no matter how prosperous they are. And that means other kinds of crime will occur.
Disagree, because I don't believe in what you dream of. "Instruments of coercion" will be needed because humans are so often quarrelsome and prone to violence.
Disagree, I understand your propositions, but disagree with them because I believe them to be false.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, if everyone owns everything, then taking something will not be stealing it!
Human beings are not often quarrelsome and prone to violence without a reason like deprivation or governments declaring war.
If you think that people will always want "power," then you do not understand the argument that all public officials can be elected and recallable public servants with no body of orders-obeying armed men to enable the officials to impose their will on a population. Information and communications technology can be used as means not of top-down propaganda and advertising but as means of discussion and decision-making. Such options for future social organization should at least be considered and discussed, not summarily dismissed simply because they differ from what has been done in the past. Whatever else happens, technology and new challenges will ensure that the future is going to be very different from the past. Indeed, it could easily be far worse...
Paul.
BTW, when I say that you do not understand an argument, I do not mean that you do not agree with it. I do not expect you to agree with it. I mean that, although I have presented this argument before and although you did respond to it then, you seem subsequently to have forgotten that you are addressing someone who still thinks that. The argument has not gone away and is still on the table. It is insufficient merely to repeat the word, "power," as if we were all agreed - I am not - that coercive relationships are an inevitable part of any conceivable human society. We can identify the conditions that cause one part of society to coerce another and can talk about eliminating those conditions. As long as some of us think that this is possible, we have to challenge any discussion that starts from the apparent assumption that any future society will have "power" relationships which will motivate some individuals to seek "power" for themselves. They might become involved in public life and find that they are expected to heed, serve and cooperate with others but not to command armies or bureaucracies. Of course, if we assume that society will remain essentially unchanged, then, yes, our conclusion will be that society will remain essentially unchanged.
Kaor, Paul!
First, I dismiss all forms of fantasies like the nonsense of any kind of impossibility like the "common ownership of everything." Absurdities like socialism has never worked anywhere outside of Trappist or Benedictine monasteries.
I partly agree, but I also insist humans can and have quarreled over non-material things as well.
Disagree, you can't have politics of any kind without people also disagreeing about policies and competing for power, status, office, etc. And that includes democracies, which cannot work except by competition. Things like "recall" are notoriously hard to make effective when opposing factions will not agree to such things. Your argument is impractical.
Of course the options you dream of should be considered, and mercilessly analyzed both in theory and the hard facts of real life and history.
Your last comment. My view remains that of Stirling, you cannot have politics of any kind without the threat of coercion in the background. You are never going to get everyone to agree all the time about everyone. And sometimes the defiant will have to be coerced if they will not agree with what everyone else wants.
Ad astra! Sean
And I disagree with all of that.
Post a Comment