Robert Heinlein's Second American Revolution is led by the Cabal. Poul Anderson's anti-Humanist counterrevolution is led by a "cabal." (p. 55)
The exposition is obviously for the benefit of the readers, not of the characters. Captain Crane starts to tell his story but is immediately interrupted by Professor Freylinghausen who tells the others what they already know. The revolutionary Humanist government of Earth became dictatorial, therefore came under pressure from Mars and Venus, therefore pulled Earth-Luna out of the Solar Union, thus precipitating interplanetary war and extra-planetary support for the cabal.
Heinlein's Prophets pulled the US out of the Federation and caused a hiatus in space travel but the Federation did not intervene to support the Cabal. We still view some of the events of the Psychotechnic History through the lens of the Future History.
30 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And the crucial factor was Admiral K'ung, whose loyalty to the Humanist gov't, along with his shrewd grasp of strategy meant the Humanists would not be overthrown while he lived.
Ad astra! Sean
Power rapidly becomes an end in itself. Contrast Robespierre and Napoleon.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
A big reason why I don't believe in hopeless Utopian fantasies.
Ad astra! Sean
No one believes in what they themselves regard as hopeless Utopian fantasies.
Kaor, Paul!
Until often bloodily catastrophic failure disillusions at least some Utopians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And our current world order is catastrophically failing. Change is necessary.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The best "solution," IMO, remains the limited State and free enterprise economics. With something like an alliance of civilized nations starting out as an Anglosphere which gradually extended worldwide.
Fat chance of that happening! (Snorts)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have replied about the limited State and free enterprise ad nauseam. I could again write: "Free enterprise will be redundant when..."
However, I think that the only point to be made at the moment is that some change is necessary. Therefore, alternatives should be considered, not dismissed as Utopian. I need hardly point out that our present level of technology would have seemed impossible and Utopian relatively recently.
I think that an extreme, polarized, all-or-nothing way of discussing such issues does not help, in fact only reinforces existing preconceptions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
With respect, no. All I have seen from your arguments were merely hopes, expectations, unproven and unverifiable assumptions, etc., about what you think will happen in the future. And, I suspect, at best a remote future. That is simply not good enough for actual people living in the here and now.
You argue a post scarcity economy will somehow make free enterprise economics redundant. I don't understand why that should be so--if free enterprise works now why shouldn't it work 500 years from now? Even a post scarcity economy will still need demand and supply, economies of scale, financial analysis, etc., for determining how best to allocate resources of all kinds, material and human. I recall how Hanno and the ruling Intellects of a far future Earth discussed precisely that in one of the last parts of THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS.
Last, I simply don't buy your insistence that in a post scarcity economy human beings will no longer be so prone to being violent, quarrelsome, aggressive, ambitious, etc. I don't believe mere prosperity will somehow remove flaws, drives, urges which has been parts of human beings for millions of years.
So I stand by my belief that the limited State and free enterprise economics, when both are given a chance to work, is the optimum possible for mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have answered all these points. People will no longer need to buy or sell when they have equal access to a common store. No finance so no need for financial analysis. Everything that is needed will be supplied so no need for "demand and supply." AI technology will be used to find the most efficient means of production. That was not free enterprise in THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS. It was socially agreed allocation of vast (not scarce) resources. An economic system that has worked in circumstances of scarcity is no longer relevant with production of abundance.
People are violent in some circumstances but not in others. There are many circumstances in which they are not violent and do not arbitrarily attack each other for no reason whatsoever. They have to be deprived, provoked, attacked etc and their attackers have to have some reason for making the attack in the first place. No one has any reason to steal from anyone else when everyone has more than they need. People brought up in such conditions will have no inner urges making them suddenly lynch their neighbours or attack strangers on the street. Or, if a few aberrant individuals do still do this, they will be easily restrained.
But I see no point in repeating all this.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe in the plausibility of what you wrote above. For reasons discussed both here and elsewhere.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I have replied to every point.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still disagree and remain unconvinced.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course you disagree. The purpose here is never agreement.
Those ruling intellects in BOAT do not coerce, let alone exploit, oppress or wage war. They confer, consult and decision-make. Every word, like "ruling," that we use, will have different connotations in a different context.
Note that, in the male line, we are all disproportionately descended from power-mad assholes; DNA research has found many "bottlenecks" in the Y-chromosome lines of descent, where a limited number of males sire vastly disproportionate numbers of offspring.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: no, if those Ruling Intellects of the far future Earth of BOAT can make "decisions," that implies the power to coerce, when necessary. There is no getting away from the fact that the base on which all States stands remains force, or the threat thereof.
Mr. Stirling: Ha! That's no surprise, power mad maniacs can impregnate as many women as they want if their tastes includes having harems.
I'm reminded of how it was customary, down to about 1600, for newly succeeding Ottoman sultans to murder their brothers and half brothers, because their generally left many sons who could all claim a right to succeed. Hence new sultans would have their brothers strangled.
That prevented many disputed successions, but it ran the risk of the Osmanli line dying out. Therefore sultans after 1600 were mostly content to imprison their brothers, so one of them could become sultan if the ruling sultan died leaving no sons. The Ottomans still had intrigues and skulduggery, a powerful grand vizier, chief eunuch, or empress mother might depose a sultan and replace him with one of his brothers.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. The decisions can be democratic and consensual. There is no getting away from the fact that States are based on coercion but States need not always exist.
Paul.
Paul; no, States need not exist. However, the evidence indicates that without them, people would simply kill each other a lot. Cf. Otzi the Iceman.
But, in a post-scarcity economy, there will no longer be the old reasons for killing anyone.
Kaor, Paul!
I am confident I can say that is not going to be the case. Because I don't believe everyone will always agree with all the decisions of those Ruling Intellects. That means will have the power to overrule objectors--which still means, in the end, the use or threat of force.
Again, I agree with Stirling and not you. People will very likely still quarrel and fight in the far future, no matter how prosperous they are. As we see in Chapter Six of GENESIS. You are only assuming what you hope for will happen. That is not proof, not good enough.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the kind of decisions made in such a civilization are not ones that will instigate violent resistance in the first place. Even now, in different kinds of organizations, we are forever losing some votes and winning others and not becoming violent about it.
People will not quarrel and fight for no reason. I am not assuming anything but basing my remarks on observations of human interactions and behaviour. There are many examples of peaceful interaction and these can be encouraged and extended.
You are setting too high a standard. I am not obliged to prove anything about what will happen in the future! The future might well be ghastly. That is all too possible and plausible. But I can very legitimately argue that a peaceful society is possible and is what we should aim for. That is good enough.
I must again ask: why is this so important that we have to keep repeating it? The charge that I am saying something dangerous instead of just at worst ineffectual is absurd. And merely repeating our argumentative points is not going to change anything either way.
Paul.
Sean,
Every time that I reply, I have to correct your misconstructions of what I have in fact said. When (if) that is all cleared up, there will still be disagreement but maybe (some) misunderstandings will have been removed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I do not believe I have been misunderstanding you. I will list the points where I believe you to be wrong.
1. Not all disputes are settled violently? But that's because not all disputes are believed important enough for dissenters to feel justified taking recourse to arms. Or because the dissenters don't believe they can win. Also, in situations not directly involving the State, the existence of that State with its monopoly of force deters violence.
2. Over and over I have seen you making what I can only consider Utopian assertions, despite all the evidence to the contrary that human beings are simply not what you want them to be like in the here and now. And I've seen no evidence that a post scarcity economy will somehow make them less violence or quarrelsome.
3. People can and do quarrel over anything, no matter how trivial. I see no reason to expect that to change in the far future, no matter how prosperous a particular time might be. Again, I think you are only projecting your wishes and hopes into the future.
4. I say "dangerous" because real history has shown us what happens when fanatical leaders ruthlessly try to enforce bad and unworkable ideas. So I don't mean you personally. I had in mind the ideologically motivated monster tyrants we have seen since Robespierre.
5. I "repeat" myself because I feel bound to protest against bad or unworkable "solutions" to our problems. Also, in a Poul Anderson blog like this I think he would mostly disagree with you as well, albeit his objections would be expressed more competently than I have managed to do.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You consistently misunderstand. For example, I have not said that the competitive economy was bad in the past or that a better future is certain.
1. There can be a society when there are no longer any arms and where there are are discussions, debates and decisions but no longer disputes because people no longer have conflicting material interests. The state is not necessary to deter violence most of the time. If it were, then society would be unworkable.
2. People are not how I would like them to be here and now. But we have evolved to where we are now and will continue to change for good or ill. The future will be different. Of course you have not seen evidence about a post-scarcity economy before there is one but think about it. It will automatically eliminate many causes of conflict and give us the opportunity to work on eliminating more. People are more fundamentally cooperative than quarrelsome.
3. People quarrel over trivia but such quarrels can be kept trivial. You see no reason for change in future? Everything changes and will continue to change and can change for the better instead of for the worse. Of course I hope things will change for the better but have shown that it can. You are projecting a static vision which, whatever else happens, will not come to pass. Having changed into what we are now, we will not now stop changing forevermore.
4. I am not proposing that fanatical leaders should ruthlessly try to enforce bad and unworkable ideas. This is another misunderstanding. You then say that you do not apply it to me so why say it? I think that some of your ideas are dangerous not in a hypothetical future but here and now, like defending and supporting an anti-democratic climate change denier, but I certainly do not intend to keep repeating this.
5. Of course we should have disagreements but look what has happened here. Everything that we just said we have already said many times before. This surely becomes pointless.
6. "Bad and unworkable ideas" are loaded terms. Whether the ideas are bad or unworkable is precisely the point at issue but you manage to state it as if it were a given fact. This is not "agreeing to disagree" but assuming that one side is right. I want to get out of this particular cycle of repetition if possible.
Paul.
Since I have some time this afternoon, I will try to save time by anticipating an objection even though I am again merely repeating what I have said earlier. How can there be any conflicts of material interest when there is no longer any need to compete either for necessities or for raw materials, energy sources, trade routes, markets or profits, when resources are no longer wasted either on personal weapons or on instruments of mass destruction, when humanity is no longer divided territorially, when society is no longer divided into employers and employees? All this is physically and technologically possible. I cannot persuade humanity of a better way tomorrow but humanity is certainly capable of learning a better way after a lot more conflict, struggle and suffering.
Then decisions about the organization of society or about the deployment of resources will no longer be tainted by entrenched vested interests or by life and death issues. Disagreements will at worst become angry exchanges in debates but will not degenerate into mass slaughter of innocents - our current norm, accepted and even defended by many but also increasingly opposed by many. People will not take up arms when there are no longer any arms. This is possible just as other social advances have been possible.
Paul: people don't need "rational" reasons for killing each other. They'll do it about sports teams or supernatural entities.
I think that football hooliganism and violent religious sectarianism happen in conditions of social alienation which need not exist in future. Think of all the people who even now are genuinely sporting and genuinely tolerant/ecumenical etc.
Kaor, Paul!
Not so, we are all of us of innately prone to that kind of "alienation," which can be triggered by anything, no matter how trivial. And will exist in the future as it does now.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Not so. (Can we stop just disagreeing and get more to just discussing?)
Alienation is a social phenomenon and societies change. Social conditions differ even within a single society. Two men attend a football match. One man is well off, comfortable and content with life. He simply enjoys the match even if his side loses. The second man is full of bitterness at his comparative poverty, low pay etc. He takes out his frustrations and resentments by shouting abuse at the rival team and destroying property on his way home. If we examine particular examples in sufficient detail, then I think we see that violence happens in some circumstances and not in others.
Can we just discuss examples instead of disagreeing all out all the time?
Paul.
I think that the word "innate" should be used either very cautiously or very rarely. Our behaviour depends enormously on the conditions that we find ourselves in. The same people who would lynch concentration camp guards if released from a concentration camp do not lynch anyone if living in a peaceful neighbourhood. This is how people behave. I am describing life, not a utopia.
Post a Comment