To answer some questions: Yes, lack of scientific enquiry and of technological innovation would mean stagnation. Must the satisfaction of material and social needs generate stagnation? I don't think so but we need to find out and to counteract stagnation if it starts to set in. If even a minority continues to enquire and to create, that will suffice. A minority leads in any case although the number of individuals coming forward to give a lead can increase. The Tahirian idea that it is necessary to choose between millennial social stability on the one hand and any new knowledge on the other is clearly absurd. A secure material basis for social existence should be a springboard for further advances, not a hindrance to them. There is a false dichotomy in some sf.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I do not share your optimism. Assuming the near-Edenic circumstances of life on Seladorian Earth, I can easily see how subtle but strong social pressures can and will discourage efforts by a "creative minority to make further advances in the sciences. Because such efforts runs the risk of discoveries being made that would inevitably disrupt the Seladorian setup--and that would not please the Seladorian hierarchy.. And, in fact, the arrival of 'Envoy' and its surviving crew soon resulted in them stirring up discontent among many on Earth.
Ad astra! Sean
Yup, what Sean said. There's a strong human proclivity to value stability over innovation, as witness most of human history -- the overwhelming majority of which was hunter-gatherer. You need -incentives- to innovate: a threat, or a promise. Otherwise you get stagnation, because most people want it and they lean on the ones who don't.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! Moreover, I do not share the optimism of Utopians that, assuming peace and prosperity, all will be well. I strongly suspect we will see despair and frustration from huge numbers of people with nothing to do. I do not believe arts, sports, hobbies, crafts, etc., will long satisfy many. No, many will drink and eat too much, fight and quarrel, dabble in extremist politics, support demagogues, etc., from sheer ennui.
Again, I'm reminded of Anderson's "Quixote and the Windmill" and Chapter 6 of GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Peace and prosperity are not worth achieving? Most people need to be economically coerced to work for someone else to find meaning in life? People will not be satisfied by arts, sports, hobbies, crafts, family life or religious practices? They will be bored and frustrated with nothing to do? The only way they can cease to be bored is by being forced to earn a living? That doesn't bore many of them already?
Those who cannot survive won't. Those who can will. They will have freedom from coercion, exploitation and oppression, freedom to make of life what they will. Your world-view is designed to hold everyone back.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course peace and prosperity are good things! But I don't expect such eras to last forever. They will be interspersed between times of chaos, upheavals, wars and civil wars, etc.
Nor do I believe most people will care beans about what might interest you or I. Meaning many, many will be bored. I also believe, lacking some kind of job or profession, many will succumb to despair and loss of any sense of self worth or self respect.
Again, you are only hoping that what you desire to exist will exist. I am far from being so confident that will happen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not only hoping. I am presenting arguments. There can be wars only if we continue to mass produce weapons and to divide humanity into armed nation states. We can stop doing this. There are many reasons to stop doing this and many people who want to stop but it is necessary to overcome resistance and inertia.
In a transitional period, some, perhaps many, deprived of the familiar routine of "work," will not know what to do. But others will seize their freedom with open arms. And new generations will grow up without being prepared for "work" or expecting to go to "work."
I know you are not confident that that will happen but by now I have stopped trying to convince someone who thinks that as things have been so they will remain forevermore. But as long as the issue comes up, I will present the argument - unless I become tired of doing that. If that happens, then cessation of argument will in no way mean acceptance of the inevitability of chaos, upheavals, wars and civil wars forevermore. No way.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because your arguments are still only dreams, hopes, speculations, based on nothing that exists. That is simply not realistic.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we are not trying to agree!
My arguments are based on evidence of change and of possibilities/potentialities and are more than dreams, hopes or speculations. What is possible in the future does not exist yet just as a Moon landing did not exist until it had been achieved. This is simply realistic.
But please don't (apparently) still think that we are trying to agree and please do not agree to disagree while continuing the argument, thus always trying to have (what you think is) the last word! (We can go on like this forever but it is pointless.)
Paul.
Post a Comment