We continually follow two parallel narratives: news and fiction. I find that I have quoted a particular hospital porter no less that five times. See
here. This morning, while I reread Poul Anderson's account of gunfire between Planetary Engineers and Jovian/Ganymedean Hounds, a friend emails me a link to a videoed interview with a British journalist raided early in the morning by a large squad of Counter-Terrorism Police who confiscated his computer and phone but did not charge him. His far from mainstream reportage of a current conflict might link him to "terrorism." Terran reporters critical of Imperial policies might be suspected of Merseian sympathies. Indeed, Poul Anderson's
The Game Of Empire makes clear that the Roidhunate does feed disinformation to Terran news outlets and some human beings, even including Dominic Flandry's own son, have worked for the Roidhunate. In
Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh, the narrator tells his father that he has been involved in some activities around the then British General Strike. The father asks, "Have you become a revolutionist?" No, the son has been involved in strike-breaking activities, driving a bus or something like that. But, for all that the unfortunate father knew, he might have been on the other side. Some of his contemporaries would have been. There is endemic social conflict in the Solar Union where the Engineers try to remain politically neutral although being detained on Ganymede does not help. Is the government right to continue employing its tamed psychotechnicians? If so, then why can they not solve the problems of social dislocation and cultural conflict? Fiction is like life, isn't it? (I must get back to some on-line coverage of our current conflicts.)
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Human beings cannot be "solved," only coped with. And prevented from doing too much harm, if that becomes necessary.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We cause problems and can, not inevitably will, solve them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And human beings will continue to make or have problems, because we are all flawed, imperfect, and innately prone to being quarrelsome and violent.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are not. I have shown how we are not.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree on both points. You have not shown that at all. The "peaceful" people you keep talking about are able to be like that only because of the existence of the State, with its monopoly of violence. Most of us, to some degree, have internalized the fact that some acts are prohibited and will be punished if committed. That is what allows you, your friends, and other law abiding people to be peaceful. And there are still many who are violent or commit crimes.
Whenever a State collapses you are going to get massive increases in violence, both from those who seize the chance to gratify greed/lust and from those who have to be violent to defend themselves and their families and friends.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree. My daughter does not care for her daughter because she is restrained from attacking her by the existence of the State.
I do not advocate the collapse of a state. We have said all this before.
I think that we should be able to discuss pros and cons of arguments without every point automatically being a categorical disagreement and also that we should stop repeating ourselves.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't understand this comment. I've said not a word about your daughter and granddaughter, nor did I think of them at all.
That said there are all too many parents, fathers/mothers, who neglect or abuse their children, or even kill them. In such cases the State has to step in!
I've never said you desire States to collapse, but it happens, as the chaos in Haiti and Venezuela shows.
It astonishes me that you persist in denying human beings are innately flawed when the proofs for that can be seen all around us! Stirling attributes this to evolution and genetics. I agree, but he doesn't go far enough. I attribute our flawed condition also to mankind being Fallen, due to the sin of the first man, who failed a test put to him by God. The loss of sanctifying grace due to that sin made it vastly harder for us to do more than imperfectly cope with out flaws.
I believe Stirling and I have the better arguments, including why we need the State to restrain and penalize our innate propensity for being quarrelsome and violent.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You don't understand my point that here is an example of people who are spontaneously good without having to be coerced? And therefore that there can be better social conditions which nurture and encourage more such persons?
Of course there are bad parents whom the State must restrain! But we can work toward conditions where no parents are like that.
It astonishes me that you persist in asserting that human beings are innately flawed. The proofs for it are not all around us. We have risen, not Fallen. I believe that I have the better arguments. We do not have an innate propensity to be quarrelsome and violent. Can we stop merely repeating all this?
Now let me try to clarify just one point.
(i) States can collapse. We are agreed that this is bad.
(ii) Some of us think that an ordered society can require the State less and less and can eventually dispense with it altogether. I have given arguments for this, not expressed mere hopes. You disagree. OK.
My present purpose is not to rehearse this argument yet again. That would indeed be completely pointless as is all the repetition that I hope we can stop. My present purpose is only to point out that you continually confuse (ii) with (i) and do not respond when I point this out. With that level of misunderstanding, we are simply not communicating. It is as if the argument has remained at its earliest stage and as if everything said since then has been forgotten. You continually reply merely by repeating what you said in the first place so I respond merely by denying what you say. You have not engaged with my discussion of how very different material and social conditions must bring about very different human lives, perceptions, motivations, responses, expectations etc. And this is something that we collectively can work on together over time. It is not all just laid down in our genes or our Fallen souls. We are not Fallen. We have risen and can continue to rise.
Can we either discuss particular arguments in detail or at least just stop repeating generalizations?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
First paragraph: Yes, all of us, including those we believe to be very, very good persons, such as St. Teresa of Calcutta, are innately flawed (which she herself would agree with). It's simply that some, not all or most of us, can control better how these flaws are "expressed."
Second, we can only control, to some extent, some of the conditions leading to abuse of children.
Third: Impossible, because we have irreconcilable first or basic beliefs/principles. That is why we cannot "move on."
Fourth: Point "i," we agree about this one.
Point "ii": Exactly, we disagree, for reasons already known.
Last, but I don't agree I confuse Point ii with Point i. Because I don't believe in your arguments that somehow human beings can so organize themselves to dispense with the State. I don't believe mere changes in material conditions will somehow lead to changes in "social" conditions leading to the disappearance of the State. The hopes you state along those lines will never be more than futile and Utopian to me. Therefore, since I believe, with plenty of evidence, that we are imperfect and Fallen, all we can do is to somewhat ameliorate our "conditions."
We cannot move on because we have irreconcilable first principles.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not agree that we are innately flawed. I do not believe in the Fall.
We can build a society where there is no abuse of children.
Impossible to stop repeating ourselves? We can decide to do that at any time and I am about to.
You do confuse (ii) with (i). Reread the exchange. In reply to me, you say that things are bad when states collapse as if I had wanted states to collapse. This inability to keep track of what has been said is part of the problem.
I do believe that changes in material conditions (which are not "mere") change social conditions. Compare society now to 500 years ago. I do not believe that changes in social conditions will lead to the disappearance of the State but we can work in that direction. There can, sooner or later, be a high tech society of intelligent, sane, cooperative individuals with common material interests who decide everything democratically and consensually. They will not produce weapons and will not identify with one part of the Earth instead of the Earth as a whole.
My hopes are futile and Utopian to you but I do not need to convince you. We have many problems but are potentially perfectible as a species (not as every currently existing individual!) and are not Fallen. We have risen. We can keep changing our conditions. It is possible now to feed everyone instead of preparing to kill them. The present power structures, all of them, must go and many people around the world now think this and campaign for it.
We cannot move on because we have irreconcilable first principles so we should just keep repeating the disagreement indefinitely? To what purpose? I have just decided to stop repeating myself. There will be no further response from me on Fallen, imperfect, innately violent and quarrelsome etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we have reached an impasse, with only a clarifying of opposing beliefs being possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have done that all along although we seemed to think we were doing something else.
Paul.
Post a Comment