(Poul Anderson, Alight In The Void, New York, 1993, p. 82)
"'...can become...'" I agree with that.
Looking forward into an era of horror, chaos, savagery and death (death which had been prevented or at least indefinitely postponed), another character thinks:
"Maybe it was for the best...Maybe Earth had really gone into a twilight of purposeless ease. True it was that there had been none of the old striving and hoping and gallantry that had made man what he was. No art, no science, no adventure...Maybe this shock and challenge was what Earth needed..." (p. 98)
This paragraph is worth reading in full although it is longer than I want to quote here. However, it presents a false dichotomy. Why should having everything without working for it prevent art and science? Science began when a leisured, aristocratic class was freed from the necessity of physical toil. At least some of the global population would not be "bored," God forbid, but would welcome the opportunities to learn and create full time when freed from the obligation to work for a living. Types who could not adjust would die out but a new humanity would emerge, one that was sufficiently challenged by the universe, not by the shock of horror, chaos and savagery.
In other words, this is a good story but I do not agree with it.
9 comments:
Hi, Paul!
Here I disagree with you and agree with Anderson. Universal ease and prosperity of the kind speculated about in stories such as "The Star Beast" are not likely, IMO, are not likely to end in the entire human race becoming scientists and philosophers and artists. The situation seen in "Quixote and the Windmill" is much more plausible: a small minority of geinuses and a far larger majority of merely ordinarily intelligent persons whose life of ease is accompanied by boredom and frustration over there being nothing worthwhile for them to do.
Sean
Maybe in the first generation but longer term? People are very much made by their society. Imagine an educational system that encourages each individual to explore and develop and provides the means for this throughout life.
Hi, Paul!
I am still skeptical. You still seem to be assuming too easily that most, even all of the human race, given universal prosperity, would soon be at the level you hope for. I simply don't believe all mankind can, will, or even wants to live like a scientist, philosopher, or artist. In other words, the human race is flawed and prone to folly and corruption (including genius level humans).
Sean
Universal prosperity alone would not do it, but a different culture encouraging individual learning. Think how different people are when brought up differently, in a different society. We would not have civilized values if we were half starved, always struggling to survive. Animals evolved through adaptation. Our immediate ancestors changed their environment, changing themselves in the process, and thus became human beings, so I do not think that there is anything unchanging or unchangeable in us. But, yes, most mankind at present does not want to be scientists, philosophers or artists!
Hi, Paul!
First, the ideas we are discussing as we see them in stories like "The Star Beast" and "Quixote and the Windmill" were developed at much greater length in Anderson's four HARVEST OF STARS books. So, perhaps a discussion of the HARVEST OF STARS series seems logical after commenting on shorter works like "Beast" and "Quixote."
And what exactly do you mean by raising children "differently"? If the parents are devoute Jews, Christians, or Buddhists, they will still prefer to teach them the ideas and beliefs of these faiths and philosophies. And RIGHTLY resent any attempts by the state or "society" to undermine them.
Civlization BEGAN with that very effort to minimize the need to struggle for bare survival. That is, the accumulation of knowledge and the tools (including weapons)needed for making practical use of that knowledge.
It's my belief that the optimally best solution is a society open to new knowledge and technology while preserving what is best from the past. And that means us moving out to space to settle and develope the Moon, Mars, the asteroid belt, reaching for the stars, etc. A civilization which is content with just one Earth will inevitably become stagnant and eventually fall. Anderson's stories "Welcome" and "Murphy's Hall" comes to mind as examples where he touches on similar ideas.
Sean
Raising "differently": no, I do not advocate a state program to educate children in a different way than their parents would want. I mean different societies produce different kinds of people. I have heard that aboriginal children cooperate rather than compete. Many people in our current society, if suddenly given abundant wealth (by winning a lottery), do not know what to do with it. But an entire population born with the kind of wealth depicted in "The Star Beast" do not have the wealth thrust upon them after (comparative) poverty so their attitude to it would be different. If you remember, I did, a while back, reread the HARVEST OF STARS tetralogy and post about it then - although it would always be possible to return to it.
Hi, Paul!
Good, you reject any idea of using coercion to force parents to raise their children in ways they disapprove of. That point is settled. ESPECIALLY, since I'm not much of a fan of gov't run schools. I don't know how familiar you are with American tax paid schools, but there is widespread disgust, anger, and dissatisfaction with how they have worked and the "results" produced by them over the past half century.
Well, we don't KNOW yet what would happen if technology advanced so far that all or most of humanity lives in prosperity. Anderson gives us some interesting speculations about that in the stories and novels we have been discussing. You tend to be more optimistic while Anderson (and I) lean to the pessimistic side.
Yes, I have read accounts of how badly some people have handled great wealth which unexpectedly came into their hands thru either lotteries or inheritance. I would prefer a more gradual process for that when it comes to an entire society. Helps give time for at least some people to adapt to the great wealth advanced technology might provide us.
Take your time about rereading the HARVEST OF STARS books! (Smiles)
Sean
Sure, well, I won't be rereading them for a while because I did go through them quite thoroughly last year. One guy commented and said he had learned from reading my posts on the series.
Hi, Paul!
Good, that someone had learned from what you wrote about the HARVEST OF STARS books. I remember how one thing I learned from reading HARVEST OF STARS is that the Lunar gravity might well be too low for human women to give birth to live infants on the Moon. Hence, that led to things like artificial habitats spinning to "create" a gravity enabling women to carry babies to full term. And, of course, the race of the Lunarians was bred so that women could give live birth at low gravities.
Sean
Post a Comment