If the Others were monsters, then other species would be exterminated or domesticated etc.
How could a species that powerful become extinct?
Why should they go extra-cosmic when this universe is big enough?
"'Nor do I imagine they're not better than us; with that kind of technology, wouldn't you improve your own race, supposing evolution had not already done it for you?'" (p. 26)
Amen to every point, especially that last one.
Broderson, entrepreneur and practical politician, reckons, on the evidence, that the Others still exist, are still around and are better than us but, unlike many on Earth, is not dogmatic. He will respond appropriately to any new evidence - which he will go out and find.
18 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I do not say "Amen" to that last point, because Anderson was skeptical of the need or likelihood of human evolution continuing. And I agree with him.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Evolution is organisms changing all the time by interacting with each other and with their environment. Why should that stop with us? It will stop when interaction and change stop, not before.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'll make plainer what I meant. The real talent of human beings was not changing themselves, but changing the environments around them to suit their needs and whims. Given that, what need is there for us to physically change?
Of course there are going to be social, political, cultural, technological, etc., changes of all kinds in future, both good and bad. Of course civilizations, nations, empires, etc., will rise and fall.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We tread the same arguments over. I know we change our environment. Doing that cooperatively has made us human. What need to physically change? Physical changes will continue as long as the environment and our interactions with it change. What Broderson said was just that beings with very advanced technology would be able to make changes to themselves if evolution had not already done that for them. Maybe evolution would not already have done it for them!
Paul.
Paul: no, evolution is selection among random mutations in the genes. Currently, we try very hard to keep people with negative mutations alive and let them reproduce.
As a matter of fact, I agree, despite Broderson's almost parenthetical thought that evolution might improve the species. Real improvements have to come from developments in our understanding and motivations.
We are getting close to being able to pick & chose among our genes.
I would like to see something like CRISPR used for extremely selective spermicides or ovacides.
This would be used for something like what Heinlein put into the backstory of "Beyond This Horizon".
Ie: if you are a carrier for something like cystic fibrosis, kill the gametes that carry the CF gene and use the remaining gametes for reproduction.
Jim: we'll be able to do that fairly soon. As well as cosmetic modifications... I expect there will be far more people who look like Cate Blanchett then...
Kaor, Paul!
And you keep overlooking how a big part of that "cooperation" by humans were and are for warlike purposes.
Again, no, what you said about physical evolution by human, for the reasons given by Stirling. Also, that kind of evolution would very likely take many thousands of years for any beneficial changes to show up. For all practical purposes I dismiss evolution.
Nor do I expect humans to change much, if ever, in "understanding" and "motivations."
Kaor, Jim! I have no objection, per se, to genetic treatments tweaking genes to correct or prevent disorders caused by defective genes showing up future children. I recall mention of that as long ago as THE GAME OF EMPIRE in 1985. And of the disgust Diana Crowfeather had for abortion.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
How have I overlooked conflict? I don't think you're responding to what I said this time. We increase out understanding all the time!
Paul.
our
BTW, I do not overlook conflict - I have discussed it and its causes extensively. What happens is that you and I disagree about conflict. Me disagreeing is not me "overlooking" anything but your accounts of disagreements are never on a level playing field of discussion. They are always slanted towards the assumption that you are of course right from the beginning in any case. If that assumption remains in place throughout, then no real dialogue or learning are possible. My views have changed completely through the course of my life. That alone does not ensure that they are right now! But it does show that they can change.
Evolution operates by selective pressure on random mutation of genes. Most mutations (since they're random) quickly get selected out since they're much more likely to be a hindrance than a help.
This is why it's usually rather slow, though there are periods of faster and slower change, especially the former when the environment changes drastically.
For example, human male testosterone levels dropped quite drastically between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago -- you can tell because the male brow-ridges get smaller, the face not as long, and the skull gets rounder and the overall skeleton more gracile.
In effect, physical (and psychological) differences between the sexes get reduced.
This was the period in which humans proper began to outcompete other sub-varieties of hominin, so that by about 40,000 BCE or a little later we were the only lineage left, though we incorporated some Neanderthal and Denisovian genes. Not many, though.
The probable vector was that while lower testosterone levels made a male less likely to successfully compete -within- a small group, they made cooperation easier, which meant the group containing those genes was more likely to out-compete -other- groups.
There was back-pressure, but not enough to overcome the advantage.
"Even Hercules can't fight two", as the Greeks put it. Human groups that cooperated more readily, and in larger groups, could displace others.
So the frequency of those genes would increase, eventually reducing the testosterone levels of -all- males down to a new equilibrium point.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Iow, large scale cooperations of all kinds became easier and more and more the norm for humans. Including for warlike purposes, such as for raids and wars--which requires hierarchical command and control. Or other situations where discipline was necessary,, as in the crews of sailing ships, also requiring a hierarchy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yup. Sort of like the difference between lions and tigers. Individually, tigers are more formidable -- but if you put a bunch of tigers up against a bunch of lions, the lions will win 100% of the time, because they cooperate and the tigers don't.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I'm reminded of THE WINTER OF THE W0RLD, where we see Captain Geeral Sidir, commanding an army from the Rahidian Empire, was methodically grinding down the Rogaviki, because of the disciplined cooperation of his army. However formidable the Rogaviki were as individual fighters, they were lousy when it came to large scale cooperation. They only survived because of the intervention of Killimaraich, alarmed by the rising power of Rahid, ruled by a vigorous dynasty which had pulled the Empire back together.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah. Or in other circumstances, because the stronger party has scruples or limits on what they're prepared to expend -- the Afghans have benefited from that.
Though if they ever fight a war with the Chinese, I would expect the Chinese to simply exterminate them.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But I thought the British Raj was never much interested in conquering Afghanistan, only in trying to make raids into India too costly for the Afghans. But that demonstrates what you said about "limits."
I agree, utterly ruthless and brutal as the Chinese Maoists are, the Afghans would get the same treatment as the Tibetans and Uighurs.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment