In a male barracks, a large telescreen shows:
"...the mindless, tasteless sort of program intended for this class..." (p. 96)
The crew of an interstellar spaceship has been divided into socioeconomic classes with mindless, tasteless entertainment provided for the lowest class. On Earth, such social divisions developed and occurred for historical and economic reasons although it became possible to move beyond them. In the Pioneer, the divisions can only have been planned by people who knew what they were doing and it surprises me that apparently no one in the crew realizes this.
When I first read this story, I accepted that it was about a future society but it is a society in a spaceship which has been in flight for only eighty years, not for centuries, and which was designed and constructed with different kinds of accommodation and cultural provision for the different ranks. During rereading, my willing suspension of disbelief is strained.
There could, of course, have been a future historical sub-series entirely about the six generations within the spaceship followed by a sequel about the colonization of a planet of Alpha Centauri but the Psychotechnic History includes only this single story about the Pioneer in mid-flight. Poul Anderson would have needed an indefinitely prolonged lifetime to follow up every implication of his several future histories.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Anderson wrote very well so I read "The Troublemakers" with a willing suspension of disbelief. But I agree it's not one of his better stories, when examined in detail.
Considering how all humans are different in tastes, vices, virtues, abilities, wealth, circumstances of life, etc., social stratification is inevitable. Something to be managed, not eliminated. And I don't think most people will care all that much about being "high brow" in culture.
Ad astra! Sean
Note that in a society without significant immigration and any social mobility at alln -- which is certainly true of a generation starship -- there is a distinct correlation between social class and intelligence.
About 80% of IQ, absent strong environmental insults during childhood, is genetic.
And high IQ is a good predictor for social mobility.
So, over time, the upper classes will get smarter and the lower classes dumber.
This is particularly true if there is a degree of sexual equality.
Executives in the US used to marry secretaries fairly frequently. Nowadays they tend to marry their female equivalents; so do doctors, scientists and other professionals.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That makes sense to me, meaning social stratification in a generation star ship is virtually inevitable. Something to be made as benign as possible, not eliminated. Another reason for dismissing Utopian impossibilities.
Ad astra! Sean
Not all Utopias are impossible.
Kaor, Paul!
"Utopia" came from St. Thomas More's book UTOPIA, from the Greek word meaning "no place." By which he meant that dreams and schemes for "ideal" societies are not going to work. Every single Utopian dream since the French Revolution has failed: either small scale efforts which failed harmlessly or catastrophically and bloodily. With fanatical monsters killing people by the millions.
So, yes, I dismiss Utopian dreams.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: but the initial selection would eliminate most low-IQ types. The -average- would be, probably, an IQ of about 120, with few below 100.
I suppose present day industrial democracies would look pretty "eutopian" to most past societies. Is there any reason to think further improvements are impossible? As with genetic mutations in organisms, large changes are unlikely to be improvements, so incremental reforms is *probably* the way to go.
Sean,
Dismiss dreams, yes. Discuss serious suggestions.
Paul.
Sean,
Meanwhile, the world that we are living in now is catastrophic and bloody and urgently needs to be changed.
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling, Jim, and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Meaning, as time passed in a generation ship, social competition would intensify, as ambitious lower class crew who were not dumb strove to gain greater prestige, status, power? I can see that happening--making me conclude the Captain and his Council would be wise to make room for new men rising to even the highest ranks. Concessions like that would be better than lethally deadly struggles for power.
Jim: First, a small correction: "utopia" not "eutopia." The former means "no place" while the latter means "good place." Anderson used the second word as the ironic title for his story "Eutopia," one of the stories he wrote with unexpected shocker endings. It certainly surprised me when I first read it in DANGEROUS VISIONS, despite being then still too ignorant to fully understand it.
Second, all nations, with all forms of gov't, are going to have flaws and faults, because the humans who built are like that. Improvements and reforms are certainly desirable, but we should never ever expect perfection.
Paul: Except, to be frank, I've seen no ideas from people you sympathize I would consider serious and realistic. They all seem to be predicated on hopes set in the remote future, with no evidence/proofs that what they hope will come to pass will actually exist.
I can think of many changes I believe to be desirable, but I do not expect many coming to exist except as a result of struggles for power (peacefully or violently. Because human beings are prone to being ambitious, status and power seeking. Those who are not willing to do what it takes to succeed in politics will be pushed aside.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Potentialities exist now that are not realized. We could now feed and provide clean water for everyone on Earth.
The vast majority of the world's population now have to work for a wage or salary to survive economically. Historically, that is very recent. It is in their interests and within their power to control the economy democratically for need instead of competitively for the continued accumulation of profits for a minority. However, the majority is divided by sectional interests, nationalism, racism and the incessant propaganda which tells them that they are incapable of running society. It is this conflict of interests between the vast majority and a small minority that explains all the turmoil, the local wars, the carefully cultivated xenophobia and hatred. Yes, the world is in a bad way and it can be a lot better.
Paul.
Sean:
I would have thought any reader of this blog would catch that my spelling of "eutopia" was deliberate.
Paul: hired labor is historically quite common. For example, most large Roman landowners hired migrant harvest gangs.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Potentialities exist, but they are never going to be wholly actualized, for many reasons. And just in the past half century alone vastly more of the human has gotten food and water than ever before. Because of the free enterprise economics you would prefer being discarded.
You are still clinging to the hopeless impossibility of socialism, which you define as the vast majority controlling an economy "...democratically for need instead of competitively for the continued accumulation of profits for a minority." I reject this because it still boils down, like it or not, to having politicians and bureaucrats incompetently trying to run everything from the top down. Free enterprise, by comparison, is vastly more democratic, because it works by having the producers and providers of goods and services of all kinds responding to the needs and wishes of their customers. With basic principles like demand and supply, economies of scale, financial analysis, etc., providing the needed signals/information. The role of the State is best restricted to penalizing crime, fraud, abuse, and guaranteeing a stable currency and banking system.
I also disagree with your comments about politics, because I don't believe all the issues people quarrel over are invalid. One example being that it is right for nations to set the terms and conditions allowing foreigners to immigrate.
Jim: Oops! Sorry about that. I tend to be somewhat literal minded. Also, I thought some might miss the distinction between "utopia" and "eutopia."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Free enterprise will be redundant when technology produces so much wealth that everyone can have immediate access to it without any need for buying and selling.
Like it or not, full participative democracy does not boil down to incompetent politicians and bureaucrats. Free enterprise is chaotic, not democratic. Financial analysis will be redundant when there is no longer any money.
A basic human right should be to be able to travel and live anywhere.
I do not understand the vigour with which this argument is pursued especially when it becomes so repetitive.
Paul.
Hired labour is historically common. Surely what is very recent is the vast majority of a very large world population working for a wage or salary.
Sean,
"Clinging to the hopeless impossibility..."
I have set out the conditions many times.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, you are insisting that certain "conditions" will some how exist in the future and work out in the ways you prefer. I deny that mere hopes, expectations, assumptions set in the future makes for valid arguments. It would be better if you conceded they were only hopes, even fictions.
I totally disbelieve in the practicality/likelihood of the kind of mass participatory democracy you dream of. That has never existed or worked above the level of an old fashioned New England small town meeting. And such a giant mass participatory democracy could not possibly make the millions, even billions of decisions and choices that makes up an economy. And it will still end up with politicians and bureaucrats bungling matters as they try to run things from the top down. Your hopes are unrealistic.
The "chaos" of free enterprise is vastly better than the choking stagnation and poverty of bureaucratic socialism.
Denied. There is no basic right for anyone to shove himself into other peoples homes and countries.
The argument continues because you seem to continue advocating for ideas I believe to be disastrously wrong and unworkable.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not insisting that certain conditions will exist in the future but only that we can create them. I have presented arguments about what has happened and can happen, not mere hopes, expectations or assumptions. I do not concede that what I have said is mere hopes or fictions.
Lots of decisions will be local, then federated. We have been through all this about democracies before. All public officials should be elected, accountable and recallable. Information and communication technology can be used for mass discussion and decision-making instead of for advertising and propaganda.
I do not advocate bureaucratic socialism. I have said before that the market economy has been a necessary part of our development.
Affirmed. Freedom of movement is a basic human right. That is not shoving yourself into anyone else's home.
If you believe that my ideas are disastrously wrong and unworkable, this can be said once, not repeatedly. New arguments can affect what I think but not endless repetition of familiar arguments. I think that someone who argues so one-sidedly and uncompromisingly is trying to convince himself that he is right. I can see no other purpose. This is unnecessary. Hold to whatever opinions you have arrived at, try not to be dogmatic about them and be prepared to modify them when necessary. Surely none of us has the final word on anything?
I am all too aware that there are powerful forces aligned against what I argue for but I respond in kind when I am confronted with uncompromising counterarguments.
Paul.
Depends on the locality. Economies of scale weren't common before the Industrial Revolution, so there were only so many situations where the supervisory costs of hired labor were worthwhile. Often it was more economical to use subcontracting combined with small economic 'units'.
Eg., the Roman landowners I mentioned hired harvest labor because the area their permanent (usually slave) labor force could -sow- was much larger than they could -harvest- with sickles.
The hired workers were usually from families of smallholders who had surplus labor.
In Roman cities, hired work was even more common than in the countryside, and many people (a substantial share of the total) lived by it.
Overall, the prevalence of hired labor was a product of the degree of marketization and monetization of the overall economy. Subsistence regions used smaller farms, combined with tribute and labor-service. More advanced regions (with more division of labor, specialization, etc.) had more hired labor.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I will simply say I don't believe in the realism of those futuristic "conditions." I think you are setting far too high a bar for a race as flawed, imperfect, corruptible, and Fallen as mankind.
I expect even less that a political system of the kind you hope for will ever exist. In the US the Democrats used to advocate for most of the "reforms" you favor. Guess who opposed them the most? The Democrats when people tried to recall Democrat politicians! And I don't expect most people to make use of advanced communications tech for the kind of debate you expect. Because that is exactly what we see right now. Why should that change in the future? You are being unrealistic about human beings.
If all we have ever seen from socialism in settings larger than a Benedictine monastery has been a bungling, top down, bureaucratic despotism, why should that change in the future? Repeating the same failed old ideas and getting the same results should tell you something!
We are not going to agree about immigration. All nations have an absolute, sovereign right to set the terms and conditions allowing foreigners in.
No, I believe my ideas in politics and economics are borne out by the facts of real life and history. I think you are more likely to be trying to convince yourself of being in the right.
The most powerful force of all keeping human beings from achieving a Utopian ideal is mankind itself. We are all flawed, imperfect, innately prone to being quarrelsome and violent.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have not Fallen but risen from animality and can therefore rise further. Of course real history and life do not show the next step because it is in the future.
All human beings have the right to move freely around the Earth.
We are not innately prone to being quarrelsome and violent. Every time this is said it can be denied.
I am talking about possibilities. I am not trying to convince myself that the world will be better in future. Right now, when governments should be cooperating to address the climate crisis as a global emergency, they are instead continuing to destroy the environment with endless wars. But many people worldwide oppose all this... The only hope is in that opposition.
Let's make a deal now. The next time that you comment that we are innately quarrelsome and violent, I will not reply but you will know what I think.
Paul.
Post a Comment