There is peaceful trade with the inhabitants of the fifth planet in the system. There is no physical conflict either between the human beings on Harbor or between them and anyone else. The only conflict is the disagreement between those who want to remain on Harbor and those who prefer to leave and this is easily resolved because each group gets to do what it wants. An unusual Poul Anderson story.
A similar story is "Rescue on Avalon" in the Technic History. Despite the human viewpoint character's initial antipathy to the Ythrians, two intelligent species can easily share a planet.
16 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The situation you described about the "Traveler" and Harbor is easy enough to understand, at least in part. The quasi military discipline aboard "Traveler" and then the spreading out of a small initial population on Harbor would discourage or lessen the likelihood of serious strife and quarreling. That will change as population increases and life there becomes more complex and stratified.
Ad astra! Sean
"would discourage or lessen the likelihood of serious strife and quarreling"
Isn't that to a large extent what Paul has repeatedly said about circumstances of abundance and peacefulness?
I suppose one can say it doesn't cut quarrels to zero, but still Paul has a point.
Kaor, Jim!
No, where I differ from Paul is that I don't believe mere peace and prosperity, even assuming a post-scarcity economy, can or will guarantee permanent peace. Boredom and satiety will push many to be quarrelsome and violent, if only to have something to do!
Again I think of Chapter Six of GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
And, of course, no one need be bored if economic and educational resources are deployed to identify and develop the fullest potential of each individual whether their interests and aptitudes are physical, practical, athletic, intellectual, creative, social, recreational etc. And people who share abundance can also become mature enough to practice moderation and to channel their activities into something other than mere consumption and satiety.
And, of course, we have to imagine not people as they are now transported into a different social environment but people who have been born and brought up in a completely different society. They will take for granted that they are living in a civilization that addresses their basic needs and deeper aspirations just as we take for granted that we are able to use mobile phones and computers. (Nothing here that hasn't been said before, of course.)
And, of course, we make no mention of everyone becoming a philosopher. Every human aptitude should be developed. Clearly this was not being done in Anderson's GENESIS. I am anticipating objections remembered from previous exchanges.
Kaor, Paul!
We can't agree because I don't believe in the realism of what you are only assuming, hoping, or speculating will come to pass. This bit from a letter JRR Tolkien wrote to Colin Bailey dated 13 May 1964 helps explain why I disbelieve in such Utopianism: "I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall [of Mordor], but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless--while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors--like Denethor or worse" (THE LETTERS OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN [ed. by Humphrey and Christopher Tolkien, Houghton-Mifflin, 2000, page 344]).
Tolkien had started writing a sequel to THE LORD OF THE RINGS that he eventually decided would be set 100 years into the reign of Edarion, the son of Elessar Aragorn, but eventually abandoned it because he did not want THE NEW SHADOW to be merely a "thriller." He too would not believe in your unrealistic hopes, because of how innately flawed and imperfect we all are.
Ad astra! Sean
Oops! THE LETTERS OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN were ed. by Humphrey Carpenter. I forgot to type in his surname.
Sean
Sean,
We are not innately flawed and imperfect. We have risen, not Fallen. Use of advanced technology for human development instead of for destruction is possible. In such a situation, people will no longer have any of the old reasons to quarrel or fight. Instead, it will be in their interests to cooperate with each other as it often is even now. This is possible, not Utopian. You do not reply to the specific arguments that I present but merely repeat your original statement.
Paul.
And people do need some reason, not necessarily a "rational" reason (I am quoting previous exchanges) to fight. Parents, as a rule of course, do not attack their children. There are many occasions when acquaintances or strangers do not fall on each other with tooth and claw with no provocation or motivation. Those conditions can be made universal when sharing of abundance replaces the stockpiling and warehousing that were inevitable when the economic surplus was much smaller.
Kaor, Paul!
You speak from a non-supernaturalist POV I do not agree is correct. We have "risen" only in our knowledge of how to use resources and the material sciences. The essence of our Fallen nature lies in how Original Sin weakens our moral sense, judgement, ability to do what is right, and increases the likelihood of any of us doing bad things. That is why we are so often prone to weakness, folly, strife, violence, etc. No amount of mere "education" will eliminate that.
Because I don't believe in your interpretation of "cooperation." Humans cooperate in waging wars, not always for bad reasons. Criminal gangs cooperate to more effectively commit crimes.
You have not adequately responded to a crucial point Stirling and I have made: the "peaceful" people you keep talking about are able to be like that because the State, with its monopoly of violence, exists to punish those who are not peaceful. If the State suddenly disappears the likelihood some chance stranger will rob and/or kill you goes way up!
And I do not believe those "peaceful conditions" can or will always be guaranteed, unless the State exists and is able to penalize certain acts. I do not share your confidence in human peacefulness.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Being has risen from energy dispersed through space to inanimate matter to life to consciousness to humanity and can continue to rise. We are not Fallen. Education is not "mere" and social development is not only education.
Interpretation of "cooperation"? Without cooperation, we would not have communication which became language and differentiated human from animal consciousness. Adults cooperate to protect children without which the species would become extinct. Of course criminals cooperate with each other! That shows how basic cooperation is.
I have replied about the State. Most of the time we interact peacefully without even reflecting on the fact that otherwise the State would intervene. Chance strangers might rob or kill us in society as it is now, not as it can be with the production of abundance. Robbery will become redundant.
I do not understand why you want to keep pursuing this disagreement. Surely everything has been said repeatedly?
Paul.
Human beings cooperate in waging wars? Yes...
We can and do cooperate in all sorts of ways, many of them peaceful. The causes of wars can be eliminated. Humanity does not need the US, China and Russia contending for strategic and economic power. Many people now see that this is disastrous for the environment and the future of humanity.
Kaor, Paul!
This "started up" again because I responded briefly to another person's comment, and I was willing to leave it at that.
You have not proven we are not Fallen, meaning we cannot agree.
I do not have your trust in "education." What kind of education? Education from a Catholic, non-materialist POV which respects science? An evangelical Protestant POV which insists on a young Earth and denies evolution? Education from a Muslim POV which insists on theocratic Sharia supremacism? Or education by materialist secularists? That last is what you seem to prefer--and I can assure you that will provoke fierce resistance!
Of course cooperation is basic, I never denied that. My point being cooperation takes many forms: positive/negative, beneficial/non-beneficial, and will always be like that.
You still don't seem to understand, or refuse to acknowledge, many of us are able to interact peacefully without thinking of the State precisely because it exists! My point being that chance robbery/murder/rape, etc., becomes vastly more likely if the State did not exist. Nor do I believe one bit that mere abundance/prosperity will eliminate that innate propensity for violence humans have. So we will continue to have wars and rumors of wars.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not have to prove that we are not Fallen! No one has to prove a negative. This is a logical point that we have had before. The evidence is that we have evolved and risen from animality.
I do not place all my hope in education but a better society can produce a better education to identify and develop the potential of every pupil and student. You imagine a future society as still having all the old conflicts of previous societies. Such conflicts will be overcome in the process of building a better society where everyone is an equal shareholder in commonly held wealth.
Cooperation takes many forms so we can encourage the positive forms!
I do understand and acknowledge the necessity of the State in present society and think that the causes of violence which require us to have a State now can be ended in future. "Mere peace and prosperity in a post-scarcity economy"? There is nothing "mere" about that! It will end many causes of division and give us the means to end conflict completely. It will be up to our descendants to organize society properly, of course. Sure, if someone wants to continue to use advanced technology for renewed destruction, then that will be one big problem which hopefully will be overcome by an informed and empowered majority.
Robbery, murder and rape will not become more likely if conflicts for territory and material resources have been ended. Quite the contrary. You do not seem to understand the kind of different human society that surely becomes possible when technology is controlled democratically and used to benefit everyone instead of one group as against another.
We do not have an innate propensity for violence. We do not attack neighbours or strangers for no reason. We will not continue to have wars when resources are no longer wasted on weapons and instruments of mass destruction.
Mere abundance/prosperity? What is mere about it? It will certainly eliminate some present causes of violence but there is still the question of organizing and distributing that abundance in such a way that robbery, one person "stealing" from another, becomes redundant. Everyone has what they need and looks outward instead of continuing to grasp and hoard.
Again, what is the point of endless repetition?
Paul.
Sean,
I responded to your reply to Jim because you used the phrase, "...mere peace and prosperity..." I object to the word, "mere," and do not accept that that is a valid summary of the disagreement.
Paul.
Post a Comment