It follows first that they have no natural enemies, not even on Brobdingnag, and secondly that they "...have no reason not to be full of love for all life forms..." (ibid.) and, of course, they tend to assume the same attitude in others. Although the space-traveling Brob knows from experience that this is not the case, he retains an unAndersonian inclination, for example, to give the benefit of the doubt to aggressors since they are probably only misguided...
In conversation with Brob, Alex must practice patience but he has learned how to do this by dealing with the Hokas. Here, several species interact.
Two comments on the super-strong bur peaceable Brobdingnagians:
(i) they would make excellent Marvel Comics superheroes;
(ii) might they be unFallen?
I no longer subscribe to the belief that humanity was created in, and has fallen from, a Paradisal state. On the contrary, I now think that we have risen through natural selection followed by manual and mental labor. However, the question of whether some rational species are "unFallen" arises at least twice in sf:
CS Lewis' Ransom Trilogy;
Poul Anderson's character, Fr Axor, in the Technic Civilization History.
Alex needs to return to Toka quickly and Brob's battered, corroded trading ship takes him there quickly. Brob's power-plant matches that of a dreadnaught and his drive is as finely tuned as a courier's because the Brobdingnagians "...could work on a nuclear reactor as casually as a human could tinker with an aircar engine..." (p. 183)
The authors are thorough in deducing every implication of their premises.
15 comments:
Hi, Paul!
I see you touched on a point where I have to continue to disagree with you. My belief is that the Fallen nature of mankind is an amply proven, self evident fact. Which means I'll remain extremely skeptical of Utopian hopes and dreams.
Fr. Axor? I recall him wondering in THE GAME OF EMPIRE, if the Ymirites were unFAllen. And that question was easily answered in the negative when recalling how a Ymirite tried to kill Dominic Flandry in WE CLAIM THESE STARS.
Sean
Sean,
Plus, of course, Aycharaych had been able to blackmail that Ymirite in the first place.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Exactly! An unFallen Ymirite would not and could not have been blackmailed at all by Aycharaych.
I see one of our points of disagreement as being my view and belief mankind is imperfect and will always be such till the end of time.
Sean
Sean
Sean,
No one knows what will happen till the end of time! Look how many unpredictable events have happened already. When technology is used to produce abundance, there will no longer be any motivation to accumulate private wealth, any more than there is now a motivation to accumulate the air we breathe, but there will be plenty of physical, sporting, educational, cultural, recreational, learning activities to fulfill human potentials so, if you like, I think utopia is possible although not inevitable.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
While I certainly have no objection to scientific and merely material advances, that is not the same as us MORALLY improving or advancing. I see no reason to think or believe mankind will ever be "perfect" in this world or universe. BETTER, maybe, but not perfect.
Sean
Sean,
When there is no need or motive to steal, then no one will steal. In fact, it will not be stealing if I take more out of the common store than someone else. I think that the same principle can apply to every moral law.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
While I'm skeptical, I am willing to concede advances in technology might might make the production of goods and services so cheap that they become effectively free. But my view is the fallen nature of man means it won't necessarily be "acted out" in economical matters. Men and women will still ample scope for bollixing up themselves. A woman might resent another woman having the man she wanted. Or a man might scheme, plot and conspire to get power. And so on and on.
Poul Anderson would seem to share this kind of skepticism, if we recall the four "Harvest of Stars" books. The latter two in particular shows Earth as having the kind of advanced technology you mentioned and cheap and ample production of goods and services. And people were STILL unhappy and frustrated. I do realize that was becase the Teramind was trying to prevent mankind from leaving Earth, but the frustration many felt ran deeper than that alone.
I'm also reminded of GENESIS. In that book the human race realized they had become the de facto captives of their own creation, the AI actually governing Earth, when they could not even quarrel and fight among themselves without the AI stepping in like a mother separating two small boys having a fight. The end result was a frustrated human race preferring to die out rather than live in pointless, idle luxury.
Sean
Sean,
But there will be no "power" when no one controls anyone else's income. There will be nothing to fight about. If we create AI, we will have to prevent it from controlling us. I would not regard freedom from toil and freedom to explore as pointless idleness.
But I agree that PA shared your views so that, in that respect, your views are more appropriate here than mine!
Paul.
Hi, Psul!
But my view is that people will fight or compete over more things than merely money. They will also compete because of sex, love, hate, ambition, desire for power and prominence, etc. To say nothing of plain old, ordinary crimes like rape, robbery, murder, etc. Because I think even the most advanced producing goods and services cheaply won't wholly eliminate crime.
But, by all means, be optimistic! I'll just play the role of doubting Thomas or the devil's advocate! (Smiles)
Sean
Sean,
Well, producing abundance for all will eliminate any reason or motivation for "robbery." Any society has leaders, those who give a lead by suggesting a way forward, taking the initiative or making the first move, but we do not need rulers, wielders of power. There are some ideas about this: all public officers to be elected and recallable and not to receive an income greater than that of their electorates; also not to have control of any body of armed men with which to impose their wills. Thus, they would merely serve society but not rule it and anyone who was motivated by personal ambition or aggrandisement would not seek such a post.
We now accept the rule of law instead of the rule of absolute monarchs, robber barons, feudal lords etc so I think that we have already made some collective moral progress.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
First, I am not so optimistic that an advanced technology and economy that produces goods and services so cheaply that they are effectively free will never see robbery or theft of SOME kind. For example, I can imagine zealous collectors of rare first edtion books by Poul Anderson succumbing to the temptation to steal a first edition copy of BRAIN WAVE. (Smiles) And I hardly need to mention coin and stamp collectors!
Except I don't think the "progess" that has been made will necessarily last forever. I believe we wil continue to have periods of chaos, anarchy, collapse, etc. And I also believe ANY society will need to have bodies of armed men simply to maintain order. Hence, we will continue to need police forces and armies. And it is better for these armed bodies to take their orders from leaders they consider legitimate, rather than giving the orders themselves. Which means we will continue to have politicians, leaders, rulers, etc.
I guess I'll have to remain a Doubting Thomas! (Smiles)
Sean
Sean,
Future periods of chaos and retrogression are all too possible, I agree. But we have so much potential for something better if only we can realize it.
Paul.
Paul!
I agree, advances ARE possible. I simply argue we should have no illusions about human nature. And that we should not make the mistake of thinking an allegedly perfect socio economic "vision" as likely to be better than a flawed but tolerable form of state and society. Even the libertarian Poul Anderson believed, in THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE, that the most perfect possible libertarian regime will need courts and police forces!
Sean
Sean,
Unfortunately, a lot of people still have intolerable experiences. I think that, although the potential is already present, a better world order will emerge not from the imposition of an ideal vision but from a lot of struggle and many people seeking an alternative. When people are faced with major problems, they sometimes go under but also sometimes find new ways to cope. That is how we have got as far as we have.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Basically, I agree. Reform, improvement, and advances have basically been slow and piecemeal. And that's probably the way it always will be. Nor should we reject what is good from the past.
Sean
Post a Comment