Zeyd attends a ritual where he hears:
"'In the name of Selador...oneness.'" (p. 461)
- but then, shrilly:
"'...bring down the falsehoods of the Biosophists...'" (ibid.)
(We hard of Cosmosophists millennia earlier.)
On cue, as soon the Biosophists are condemned, a carnivore screams in the dark and Zeyd wonders how serene Earth really is, how long its peace can endure.
I think that the social conditions on Earth at that time would not support that kind of sectarianism. There is no reason why a majority of Seladorians should still be anathemizing some dissenting group. That happens when social advantages, privileges, exclusions, deprivations etc are involved and there is a clear identification of conflicting social groups with differing religious traditions. None of that is happening on Earth at this time when there is general contentment with flourishing diversity within generally accepted oneness.
21 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
No, all humans can, and many will be prone to being contentious, quarrelsome, "sectarian." I am not in the least surprised to find out Seladorians once opposed a faction called the Biosophists with fierce hostility. That's exactly how many people will regard those they disagree with. Anderson was being realistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, they are not.
Paul.
Sean,
You do not seem to be talking about real people. Many groups of friends, neighbours and colleagues interact and cooperate continually without becoming contentious, quarrelsome or sectarian. The conditions that allow and enable them to do this can be identified and reproduced.
If contention and quarrelsomeness were the main aspects of human beings, then society would not survive and would not even have started. Of course all the bad stuff happens as well but we can do something about that. I should not have been brought up to hear, among other things, a clergyman speak disparagingly of "Jews." My daughter had an exactly opposite upbringing and grew up respecting our neighbours' Islam, her grandmothers' Catholicism and my meditation. We do not have to accept that many are prone to sectarianism etc. Social conditions play a very large part in that and we can change those conditions. There can be and are situations in which it does not occur to anyone to object because someone else goes to a different church. We can change things, not just accept them. It is our responsibility.
Paul.
Let's not go back through the whole argument again. I argue that social conditions affect motives and actions and can be changed. You repeat "contentious," "quarrelsome" and "violent" and then fall back on the Fall doctrine which I do not accept because I think that we have risen and can rise further. Is there anything new to be said?
Paul: and many do not interact without becoming contentious. Human beings are instinctually tribal; that's genetic. Whether it's blood kin or fans of a football club. Religions/philosophies are just as prone to it as anyone else... and again, it only takes one to make a fight.
Kaor, Paul!
And you persist in ignoring how the peacefulness you talk about was possible only because the State, with its monopoly of violence, exists in the background to crack down on those who are not peaceful. Peace is possible only because the State exists. And as Stirling pointed out, many will be contentious in interacting with others, for any reason at all. And it only takes one to start a fight, or a war.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I persist in disagreeing, not in ignoring anything. I have answered about the state before. There can be and often already are conditions in which no one has any reason to be violent. Peace is possible in present conditions because the state exists. That is perfectly true. In present conditions.
Many will not be contentious in interacting with others for any reason at all. There can be conditions in which no one starts a fight or a war. We can stop dividing the human race into armed nation states. We can stop producing weapons.
Everything exists in a context, not in a vacuum. People are violent in some contexts but not in others. You take the worst aspects of humanity and expect them to exist in any context. Nothing exists in any context.
I have problems in understanding why we keep saying all this. It is word for word as before.
Paul.
People in pre-state societies killed each other a lot; therefore people in post-state societies must inevitably kill each other a lot? Non sequitur. (It doesn't follow.) Conditions will be completely different. Opposite, in fact. People will be civilized. They will have everything that they need so they will not have to compete or fight for it. By then they will be used to settling their differences by democratic discussion and decision-making. Otherwise, they would not have been able to abolish weapons and means of coercion in the first place. Information and communication technology can be used not for propaganda and advertising but for enhanced discussion and decision-making. Imagine generations for whom this is not a novelty but what they have grown up with and always been used to. Will someone living in a comfortable and peaceful neighbourhood suddenly try to lynch his inoffensive neighbour for no reason? In the extremely unlikely event of anyone doing that, the rest of society will restrain him and offer him psychiatric help. "Like it or not," this is (not inevitable but) possible. I can say more about specific conditions that cause violence now but that need not exist in the future but I have already done so when we have been round this track before.
Maybe we can have more detailed discussion of some specific arguments and examples rather than continue to exchange generalizations amounting to no more than: "People will always be violent under any circumstances"; "No, they wont."
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe in fantasies about post-State societies. Nor do I believe in the realism of your "conditions." And I believe everyone is potentially prone to being violent and that many people will be, for any or no reason at all.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not a fantasy but a human, social, technological possibility. I believe in the realism of my conditions. Everyone is not potentially prone to being violent. Look at real people. Many people will not be and indeed already are not violent for no reason. Where is your evidence for this? People in one city district are more violent than in another. The socioeconomic conditions are different in those two districts.
Your majority of people prone to violence at any time for no reason is a fantasy and a slander on humanity. Can we move beyond you saying, "People are prone to violence," and me replying, "No, they are not"? I always give reasons but these become repetitive.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We are not going to agree. All you are offering are merely hopes and speculations.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course we are not going to agree! We have said that before. If anyone thinks that the purpose here is to reach agreement, then they are completely misunderstanding the nature of the exchange. I now fully understand that, whatever arguments are marshalled and whatever is said to the contrary, you will continue to repeat what you said in the first place often without acknowledging or replying to counterarguments that have been put forward since then.
I am offering hopes in the sense that I cannot predict what WILL happen. (Indeed, what is going to happen might very well continue to get worse and worse as it is doing at present.) If I am expected to predict what is in fact going to happen, then that is another misunderstanding. But we can say what we think would be for the best and we can do more than hope for it. We can work with others towards it.
Or course discussion of the future is speculative. The lived future will be much richer than anyone's imaginings. Theory is grey. Life is green. But we can see now that technology has revolutionized production and can continue to revolutionize it beyond anything that we have experienced so far. That is a real possibility, not just a hope or a speculation. I think that your mental horizon is self-limiting.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I expect the future to continue being chaotic, unpredictable, contingent, with the same mix of bad and good we have always seen in real history.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Are we talking only about what we expect or what we think mankind can and should aim for? Merely on the level of expectation, I expect continued chaos and unpredictability for the foreseeable future - although unpredictability means precisely what it says. We can both be surprised.
What"...we have always seen in REAL history." (My emphasis.) I am talking about reality as well. Reality is change. Human beings have not always been here. Social history was preceded by natural history. Longer term, things will definitely not be the same. But we have said al this before.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't believe perfection is possible. And if that is not possible then excessively unrealistic goals, esp. when it comes to human beings, flawed and imperfect as we all are, should be avoided. Not too terribly bad is the best we can hoe for.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't expect whatever might be achieved in the future to be absolutely perfect. Because of how limited and imperfect we are. That is so obvious!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not obvious. How people are now is not how they have to be in the future.
Paul.
If you are in disagreement with someone, then what seems obvious to you is not obvious to him. That is obvious. You have to make better attempts to communicate your point of view.
Kaor, Paul!
A fair point, even tho I believe that is also true of you, when you insist, without evidence, that post-State societies are possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I do not insist anything without evidence. Not just me, others. We look at causes of violence and see how there are and can be conditions in which those causes do not exist. We do not fight for air but might fight for the last oxygen cylinder in a space station. There are many situations in which people do not fight each other. Conditions will differ in the future and we can try to bring about one set of conditions rather than another. All of this cannot be dismissed as just "...without evidence..."
Paul.
Post a Comment