Poul Anderson shows his understanding and appreciation of human dynamism/diversity/plasticity/mutability. Human beings have changed their environment and continue to change themselves in the process. Jack Havig refers to:
a paleolithic hunter
a neolithic farmer
the divine right of kings
the welfare state
a conquering pirate whose grandson is an enlightened king
His point is that people will be even more different in future.
Elsewhere, Anderson presents a longer list which we have discussed twice before.
See:
Havig and Leonce know that, long after the Maurai period, the mysterious "Star Masters" - possibly time travellers - irregularly visit their:
"'...ultra-mechanized, energy-flashing bases...'" (ibid.)
- which are protected by:
"An invisible barrier..." (p. 147)
The irregularity is not a problem. Having walked to the outskirts of a base, just outside its invisible barrier, the two time travellers move uptime until they see that a flying vehicle or spacecraft has arrived at the base. Then they stop, glimpse the human and alien Star Masters and flee downtime. They have solved the mystery of the future society. Its inspiration is not inner but interstellar.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
It was mostly Leonce who was shocked or appalled by what she saw. Havig had to calm her, reassuring her that what they had glimpsed was not necessarily bad or terrifying.
Ad astra! Sean
Human variation and variability is broad, but limited. For example, there has never been a human society where politics didn't involve violence. If something has never happened, the odds are on it never happening.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Which is why I don't believe in Utopian dreams of a permanently peaceful society where the threat of violence is not somewhere present. Iow, the State, with its monopoly of force. If there is no State we get Haiti.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have shown how future conditions can be completely different from Haiti.
I do not believe dystopian dreams of permanent ingrained violence in any and every conditions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, you have not shown that at all. All I have seen from you is wishful thinking, unrealism, and speculations.
Again , I disagree, it is realism to face and accept hard facts about human beings. We are all of us latently or overtly prone to violence. And the existence of the State is what prevents violence from being even more common than it is now.
Ad astra! Seajn
Sean,
I disagree. I have shown it. It is not wishful thinking, unrealism or speculation. Abundance can be produced and will then make material competition redundant just as advanced medicines end former diseases.
Again, I disagree. Your view is not realistic and is not hard facts. (These are just cliches.) We, most of us at least, are capable of violence if provoked, deprived, antagonized etc but are also capable of friendly, helpful, sociable behaviour in conditions that allow for and foster such behaviour and this is not only because of the existence of the State. It is not the State that prevents violence on our street. Many people now DO and more people in future CAN live in conditions where they have no reason to be violent towards each other and do not need a State to prevent violence.
But what is the point of this endless repetition?
Paul.
These are not really discussions. They are just uncompromising repetitions of what was said in the first place so my replies remain the same although I try to reword them and to emphasize different aspects.
Paul: if human beings consistently do something, it's probably genetic.
We don't all eat with forks, for example -- people use chopsticks, or their fingers, or skewers. So the way you move food to your mouth is not genetic.
OTOH, States all employ violence, and when they don't, you have blood feuds and constant low-level violence.
So that's probably genetic. It's not absolutely certain, but it's the way to bet.
But it was past material and social conditions that caused blood feuds and constant violence. Conditions will be qualitatively different if and when there is technologically produced and socially distributed abundance. There will no longer be any of the old reasons for enmity and conflict. There are many peaceful communities now already and these can be multiplied in the future. (CAN be, of course.)
Kaor, Paul!
You have shown nothing convincing. I stand by both what I said above and what Stirling said. Moreover, people don't need bad material and social "conditions" to be so prone to violence. Boredom, spite, and the anger that arouses will do, as we see in Chapter 6 of GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have shown what people are in fact like, able to interact socially without violence in many conditions - conditions that CAN be expanded in future.
If "nothing convincing" means that I have not proved that a peaceful future WILL in fact come about, then of course I have not done that.
Don't put "conditions" in quote marks. "Conditions" are not something that I have invented. We all live in conditions. As you point out, conditions in Haiti are worse than elsewhere.
How on Earth will there be boredom, spite and anger in conditions where all needs are met and educational and social resources can be invested in developing the full potential of every single individual, whatever that potential is: physical, social, intellectual, creative etc. You clearly do not understand the scale of the social transformation that will become possible when advanced technology is harnessed for human development instead of for continued conflict, arms stockpiles and destruction.
Think of the differences between hunting-gathering societies and the present global economy, then multiply those differences many times. I am not talking about GENESIS, Chapter 6.
Paul.
We are still endlessly repeating ourselves.
Perhaps there is another misunderstanding here. I put forward these ideas - they are not just mine - so that they can be considered and discussed by anyone who is disposed to do so but not in the expectation that they will CONVINCE anyone who consistently argues against them. How could that happen? Why should it? I do feel, however, that, whenever these ideas are disagreed with here, they have not been properly considered or understood and therefore need to be endlessly restated and reclarified. But this will still never lead to acceptance or agreement, of course. So can we be clearer about what we ARE trying to do here?
Post a Comment