Kandemir has subjugated its former conqueror, T'sjuda. See here. We also mentioned Xo but now learn more about it as well as something (less) about two other planets:
"'Independent planets such as Unya and Yann tremble on the brink of declaring war...'" (10, p. 87)
(They would join Vorlak in its war against Kandemir.)
A quadrupedal Xoan expresses his assessment of humanity:
"'I tell you they were mad. The whole race was mad. Best they die, before their lunacy threatened everyone else.'" (11, p. 92)
Would an extra-terrestrial say that about us? Of course, it is us that are, if not saying, then at least contemplating, this judgement against ourselves, Poul Anderson by writing After Doomsday and the rest of us by reading it. We project external, even cosmic, judges of mankind but, by making such projections, we in fact judge ourselves. And this is the judgement that counts.
See also:
19 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I recall how another race of xenosophonts thought similarly of mankind in STARFARERS. My response is this: whatever it is that makes Homo sapiens "mad," It's What Human Beings Do (IWHBD) and it's not going to change. And that was Anderson's belief as well.
Ad astra! Sean
Nothing in this universe remains unchanging. The way things are now is not the way they will always be.
Kaor, Paul!
But if something is too good to be true or believable, I feel no need to believe such a thing will ever exist. And I don't.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
By that argument, we should still be primitive hunter-gatherers.
Paul.
Paul: genetically, we still -are- primitive hunter-gatherers. That is, the overwhelming bulk of our evolutionary history was spent at that stage.
There's been some genetic selection since, but not much.
This explains a great deal of human history, if you think about it.
Kaor,. Paul!
As Stirling said, we are still "primitive" hunter/gatherers. And I see no reason to expect that to change.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But everything changes!
Paul.
Paul: but it doesn't change very -fast-, as far as genes are concerned.
10% of East Asia is descended from Genghis Khan and his sons, for example...
I am accepting this point about the genes but I still think that society is far more dynamic than is usually realized.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe humans are going to change in the ways you would like. And that means societies will simply reflect what humans are like.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We know that you don't believe it!
What human beings are like is that our pre-human ancestors cooperatively changed their natural environment with hands and brains, changing themselves into rational, linguistic (i.e., human) beings in the process, thus also changing social relationships from tribal to agricultural, slave-owning, tribute-paying, feudal, mercantile, industrial and sometimes partially democratic. After all that, you think that we are unchanging and will not change further!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, all I see are humans who cooperate to be more efficient at competing for survival, gaining mates, competing for wealth, status, power, etc. And that does not have to always be by violent means, but that hunter/gatherer competitive drive remains in us.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Then you don't see dedicated doctors, nurses, teachers, charity workers, priests, nuns, monks, all those who donate to charities, who drive a neighbour or a stranger to a hospital or who phone for an ambulance and wait for it arrive?
Do my neighbour and I compete for status and power? We rarely interact and when we do it is amicable. If this is possible for some, then it is possible for all but in better conditions.
Paul.
Paul: society can change radically and fast, but it changes within limits set by the genetic basis of human nature. We're not blank slates.
I agree not blank slates.
"Man makes his own history but not in circumstances of his own choosing."
One of the things that happens when people take collective action is that individuals change. Those that would never have spoken in public begin to do so with confidence.
I think that we need to push up against our limits instead of just accepting that they are there.
There is a prayer about changing what can be changed, accepting what cannot be changed and knowing the difference.
Flying to the Moon used to be "impossible." And indeed was.
Blank slates would simply be brainwashed by dictators. Real people give dictators surprises. Governments can never know how much resistance they will encounter. Tony Blair thought that he might lose his job and nearly did. Thatcher resigned.
We can change the world.
Kaor, Paul!
No, the kind of technological changes you mentioned were/are not because of innate changes in humans. Nor do I share this trust in "collective action."
Blank slates were exactly how monsters like Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., wanted to regard human beings. They were "evil tailless apes" to be used as raw material for creating a new mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes.
I do not accept this absolute split between outer/technological and inner/psychological. Everything interacts and changes. By changing the world, we change ourselves. That is how our evolutionary ancestors became human. And they did it cooperatively, "collectively."
Lenin and Trotsky were not monsters and did not regard human beings as blank slates. Following Marx and Engels, they saw working people as capable of taking control of production and changing the world.
"Mao, Pol Pot etc" should not be added to "Lenin, Trotsky..."
Can't we just discuss this instead of saying "No," "Disagree" all the time?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Lenin and Trotsky were as monstrous as the others.
Ad astra! Sean
They were not and, even if they were, that does not invalidate the need for social transformation.
Post a Comment