Habitable planets are few and most of them are already inhabited or colonized. Why is this a problem?
"Heim did not want his race forced to the almost ultimate immorality of taking someone else's real estate away." (p. 32)
Forced? How would we be forced? If we do such a thing, then it will indeed be an immorality committed by us alone, not by anyone or anything else forcing us to do it. But we have had plenty of practice on Earth.
Did the designers of this universe establish interstellar distances and a light speed barrier in order to prevent predation between intelligent species? Well, I would need a lot of evidence before I could be persuaded that this universe was in any way designed. Designers would have to have originated in a universe.
On "Immorality"
John Gardner wrote a James Bond pastiche series about a character called Boysie Oakes. I disapprove of Oakes on moral grounds not because he is promiscuous but because he murders a lot of innocent people. This is treated almost as a joke so the entire series is in questionable taste, to say the least.
28 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But humans can easily think up excuses or rationalizations "justifying" what they want to do, no matter how brutal.
Ad astra! Sean
If taking someone's territory is ultimately immoral, all human groups are ultimately immoral, because (apart from a few recently populated islands) there isn't an inch of inhabited territory that isn't a palimpsest of endless conquests and migrations.
That is correct. However, we can stop following the example of our ancestors at least in this respect.
Paul: except that wouldn't stop someone -else- doing it to -you-.
I fall back on a somewhat modified Biblical injunction in these matters:
"Do unto others... before they get a chance to do unto you."
8-).
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with Stirling. The likelihood of the kind of change you hope for in humans is nearly zero.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have not referred to that kind of change here, have I?
When I have discussed it, I have given reasons and have been prepared to discuss those reasons further but merely repeating that I think something and that you disagree with it does not advance any discussion.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But you did, when you wrote: "...we can stop following the example of our ancestors at least in this respect."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, that is hardly a massive transformation of human consciousness, surely? Can we not even learn that it is wrong to invade and steal someone else's land? That principle is at least recognized and most countries most of the time surely do adhere to it? And we can develop further than we have done already. A humanity that is stuck forevermore in Putin-style wars of attempted invasion and conquest strikes me as about the most unlikely prospect of all. We can do better than that - unless we wilfully hold ourselves back.
Paul.
From Sean M. Brooks:
Kaor, Paul!
Then we can't agree because I don't believe in the likelihood of the kind of changes you hope for in a species as flawed, contentious, and prone to strife as mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have spelt out how changed conditions can remove causes of contention and strife. Two men who will probably fight for a last crust of bread will, if well fed, discuss their philosophical disagreements without having to come to blows about them. That is just one example but it can be extended. If technologically produced abundant wealth is freely and equally available to all, then the population will not have to seek employment, compete for jobs, live on a wage or salary always under threat from inflation, redundancy, unemployment etc. The conditions will be so different that people's assumptions and expectations will be completely different. Former entrepreneurs will still have ideas and energy about what they can do on their own or in cooperation with others but they will no longer have to employ others or compete for resources or profits.
But I was not talking about any of this when I just said that surely we can learn at last not to steal land.
But, if whatever I say, you again say that you do not think that it is possible, then there is no need to keep repeating this.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Sometimes you write something I believe strongly to be mistaken. But if I'm too repetitive I can hush up.
The core of our differences revolves around "conditions." I don't believe mere changes in the material factors of life will somehow remove the innate inclination of so many humans to be quarrelsome, competitive, aggressive, etc. If people are not going to fight about "bread," my belief is they will fight about other things.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But they need not fight with fists or guns.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Meaning by non violent competitive politics. But I also believe there will be times humans feel so strongly about what they want that violence breaks out. Meaning wars and civil wars.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there won't! When everyone has what they need and when there is no longer any employer-employee relationship, then there will not be conflicts of material interests that become violent any more than there is very often already been members of civilized societies.
Paul.
Paul: need and want are not the same.
You could argue (not very plausibly, IMHO, but you can) that people's -needs- can be satisfied.
But their -wants-?
Not in ten million years.
Wants are -infinite-.
And human psychology does not internally distinguish much between needs and wants. When basic physiological needs are satisfied (food, for example) then wants take over.
And expand, and expand, and expand...
There's an evolutionary reason for the above, of course.
If you keep pushing for more, you're more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce your genes.
Certainly wants and needs are not identical. I don't think everyone's wants expand indefinitely forever. People differ on that. And some of us learn to be satisfied with a reasonable range of finite wants or indeed to practice "nonattachment" toward wants. Self-conscious intelligent beings can learn to assess and evaluate their own motivations rather than just unreflectingly do whatever they are motivated to do at any time. This should be easier when we are freed from a continual struggle for existence, survival, self-assertion etc.
Kaor, Paul!
Not everyone's wants can expand infinitely, but that won't be for lack of trying by many! And you can't speak for everybody about their wants--some will be satisfied with what they have and others will not. Nor will all that many care beans about philosophic "nonattachment." You are still going to end with people getting more and more competitive and aggressive about gaining what they want as it gets harder to do so. And that can and will include wars and civil wars.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It will not end in wars and civil wars. Imagine a scenario in which solar energy and AI automation supply every basic need and a lot more besides. World populations realize that there is no longer any reason why any of this production should go into rifles and tanks, let alone into instruments of genocide. Armaments production declines and ceases because there is no need for it. People who originally made their living by manufacturing fighter planes or nuclear submarines no longer campaign against their factories being closed because they no longer need to do that. Who is going to want so much material consumption that he becomes competitive and aggressive about it? Aggressive enough to wage war? How will he organize and wage a war without weapons? If someone wants to overeat and overdrink himself to death, then he will not have to fight anyone else to be able to do it. Other people will either leave him to his own devices or offer him some counselling. Imagine a changed world. Think outside the box. If some people die of despair because they cannot cope with plenty and want to be confined on a production line or in an office for the rest of their lives, others will not despair and instead will welcome genuine freedom.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, you are missing the point: the "wants" that can and does make so many people competitive and aggressive does not have to be limited to gross physical over indulgence. Many will have a burning longing for higher status and "glory," in many forms. And that will include those who lust for power. Mere physical satiation will not satisfy them and those who are their followers.
Before you can think outside the box you first need to have a realistic appreciation of what human beings are like. And I believe Stirling and I are being more realistic than those who think as you do.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there will not be power when there are no longer instruments or relations of coercion.
As for "glory," people can seek and may or may not find prestige although I expect that most members of a mature and fulfilled population will outgrow that. And the few that still want glory can be left to seek it.
Paul.
Paul: yes, some can practice non-attachment. But not even most Buddhists actually -do- that.
With human beings, who are variable and behaviorally flexible, you can find -some- people who will do almost -anything-.
But both variation and flexibility have their limits. There is absolutely no way a majority will become (effectively) Zen monks.
And even Zen monks... well, I remember reading about a Westerner who went to Japan in the 1920's to study Zen.
A -lot- of the monks he was living with really, really didn't like gaijin... and made it very plain.
Kaor, Paul!
And most people are simply not going to be the kind of people you want them to be. And because I believe that is the case we will always need the State, with its instruments of coercion, simply to keep the peace.
So I don't believe in dreams of a "mature" society.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
When there is no longer any need to protect private property and no longer any need to protect shops or warehouses from theft and looting and when mankind no longer divides itself into armed nation states and when weapons are no longer produced because it is now recognized that all that production should go into what people need instead of into ways of killing them (all of this is conceivable and possible), then the need to maintain a state will be significantly reduced to say the least. The state will consist of the community restraining any individuals who still want to settle their differences by personal violence and the thought of resorting to such violence will simply not occur to people in later generations who have grown up in a society where any disagreements are intellectual and philosophical and are addressed by discussion as we are often capable of doing even now. This is neither an immediate prospect nor a dream but a concrete possibility. It will seem insane that the bombing of cities and the mass manufacture of instruments of slaughter were regarded as everyday business and an integral part of national economies.
Paul.
I agree most people will not become Zen monks who have their limits in any case!
Kaor, Paul!
A bit pressed for time. Will respond in more detail when I have more time. But I disagree with all of what you hope for.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course you do! I think that, if you analyse what I say above, then you will see that it is divided into successive stages. We will not leap from our present frankly insane world system to a Utopia in a single breath. But some of it is at least logical. For example, prevention of theft from warehouses or distribution centres will become unnecessary when such places store so much wealth that the wealth in question need no longer be rationed or withheld from those who cannot "afford" it. Everyone will be an equal shareholder: a fundamentally different economic and social situation. Again, when you talk about continued wars, you simply assume the continued existence of bodies of armed men supplied by the mass manufacture of all sorts of instruments of death and destruction. Why should this continue indefinitely? Resources need to be channelled from destroying the environment to preserving and enhancing it. Lots of people see this now but present decision-making processes and power structures work against them but things change and can change further.
Paul.
Post a Comment