Evan Friday thinks:
"Couldn't they see - damn them couldn't they see that the ship was bigger than all their stupid ambitions, couldn't they see that space was the great Enemy, against which all souls aboard, all mankind had to unite?" (p. 111)
Change one word, "ship," to "planet" and you describe our condition.
In Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic History, mankind has two enemies, external and internal: nature (or space) and itself. See Space And Nature. Pulp sf addresses basic issues.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I agree with Anderson, humans are all too flawed, quarrelsome, prone to being violent, etc. Something which can only be managed, not "solved."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are not innately quarrelsome and prone to violence but social and cooperative. We can aim to solve historical problems. Wars happen for reasons. The reasons can be eliminated. London does not wage war against Manchester. The whole Earth can be organized on that basis. We can work towards global peace instead of thinking and arguing that it is impossible - which will indeed make it impossible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, that is not so. For one thing we don't need "rational" reasons for quarreling and fighting. Anything can and will do for "reasons." Any hope for anything "better" will have to begin by accepting how innately flawed we all are.
It's far more likely than not that Earth will be "organized" (meaning conquered) by either a single great power or an alliance of powerful nations. I would vastly rather it was Western civilization which came out on top!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, it is so. I did not say "rational" reasons. Anything can and will not do for a reason. There are many social situations in which people find no reason of any kind for quarreling or fighting. Those situations can be encouraged and extended. We are not innately flawed.
We are not talking about which option is more likely. I certainly do not want to see Western military power conquering Earth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, it is not so. You wrote "...there are many social situations in which people find no reason for quarreling and fighting." That is possible only because of the existence of the State, with its monopoly of violence, in the background. Many people have internalized the fact certain acts are prohibited and will be punished. And there can be no predicting when anyone, no matter how nice, might go bad. Meaning we are all flawed, Fallen.
Like it or not, if Earth is going to be "organized," it's more likely by some form of conquest. And I would far rather it was Western civilization which became top dog.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there are many situations in which we have no motivation to attack others and do not need to be restrained by the state and we have said all this before. It is easy to predict that many civilized people will never suddenly attack their neighbours for no empirically discernible reason. We are not flawed or Fallen.
This is not a matter of what I like. It is a matter of what I think is possible. We are not talking about what is more likely. I would not prefer any top dog and certainly not the Western style of military superiority.
Paul.
So do I prefer Putin, China or Islamists? Of course not. The people of the whole world must move beyond all these monstrosities.
There is surely something wrong with the way these exchanges are conducted.
(i) Statements are made as if they had not been made before.
(ii) There is no acknowledgement of any of the previous argumentation. (Acknowledgement is not agreement.)
(iii) What should surely be discussion becomes instead uncompromising disagreement to which I respond in kind although what I really want is discussion.
(iii) Several fundamental changes - from inanimate matter to life to consciousness to intelligence - generated humanity. It can hardly be maintained that fundamental change now ceases.
(iv) Technology affects society which affects individual psychology. The question becomes not: "Can human psychology change?" (everything does) but: "How can human psychology change?" and: "What will post-human psychology be like?" (Because, of course, changes will eventually become so great that they will be classified as a change of species.)
Kaor, Paul!
But I do acknowledge your arguments or points. I simply don't believe in the realism of what you hope for.
You state people are peaceful many times with no need of either being armed to the teeth or restrained by the State. I continue to believe that is possible because the State exists.
If the only alternatives to Western civilization are brutes like Putin, a ruthless and cruel Maoist China with global ambitions, or fanatical jihadists dreaming of a world wide caliphate, I'll take the West, for all its flaws.
As for point " i " I sometimes repeat myself in attempts not to lose track of what we are trying to talk about.
I don't believe, as regards point "iii," that mankind will ever fundamentally change the ways you hope. Hope is not enough when you don't have proof for what you want.
As for point "iv" I have said in the past that I don't believe mere material and technological changes will somehow modify humans from what we actually see them to be like now. Again, insisting that what you hope will someday exist is going to exist, with no proof, is not enough.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But those are not the only alternatives. That is a false choice. Humanity can do much better than any of those options. And I certainly do not like Western military interventions.
Yes, you disagree of course but each time the topic comes up it is as if nothing has ever been said about it before.
It is not the existence of the State that obliges friends and neighbours to be hospitable and helpful to each other. Usually, we are not even thinking about the State.
I do have proof that fundamental change has happened and continues to happen. Now we can choose between future options.
I do not believe that technology alone totally transforms human beings but it does not leave them merely as they were before either. When I said that technology affects society which affects psychology, I meant that we should discuss how much change can happen and what we individually and collectively can decide to do about it. To insist that, whatever else happens, human motivations will remain forever unchanged - that is nonsense.
I do not insist that what I hope will exist will someday exist. I think that it is possible and that we can do something about it. We are continually at cross-purposes in these exchanges.
Paul.
Sean,
There may be another misunderstanding here. If all that you are saying is that you personally are not convinced, then of course that is unobjectionable. It is extremely unlikely that either of us will convince the other. However, I get the distinct impression, rightly or wrongly, that you really think that this whole issue can be summarily dismissed with a few short statements like "It has not happened yet" or "We are flawed/Fallen." Far from dismissing the whole issue, such statements merely reopen the whole disagreement and argument from the beginning. And that is what has been happening. However, if all that the statements mean is that you are not convinced, then they can be accepted as meaning that.
Paul.
Post a Comment