Wells wrote a time travel classic and a future history;
Olaf Stapledon wrote a future history brought to the present by a time traveler;
Anderson wrote many works of Wellsian-Stapledonian sf.
Let us compare five final states of humanity:
Morlocks and Eloi;
Last Men;
Danellians;
Wardens and Rangers;
Star Masters.
Morlocks and Eloi are devolved bourgeoisie and proletarians;
the Last Men are Neptunians;
Danellians are post-human, the temporal equivalent of extraterrestrials;
Wardens and Rangers are a pastoral-urban antithesis, synthesized in their further future;
the Star Masters are multi-species interstellar travelers initiated by and interacting with time travelers.
I can only contemplate these imaginative creations with awe!
10 comments:
Hi, Paul!
And in GENESIS, we see an AI in the remote future bringing mankind back from extinction. And THE HARVEST OF STARS books ends with mankind both escaping the well meant, but smothering cocoon of the Teramind on Earth and some men downloading their recorded personalities into new bodies cloned for them. Those too would be speculative possibilities worthy of awe!
My view is that Anderson built on, and then SURPASSED the works of H.G. Wells and Olaf Stapledon.
Sean
Sean,
Yes, I was comparing evolutions of humanity rather than AI but these are all awesome futures.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Thanks! But, if you recall John Wright's "Transhumanism and Subhumanism" essay, to which he added some comments because of me, he expressed doubts of whether it would be desirable or even possible to attain some of the more extravagantly speculative possibilities envisioned by "transhumanism." Also, by definition, wouldn't "posthumans" no longer even BE human? Is that even possible? Last, if you recall Poul Anderson's essay "Notes on Gotterdamerung," he too seems to share some of the skepticism Wright expressed.
Just thought a few "bringing back down to earth" comments a good idea!
Sean
Sean,
What I called "five final states of humanity," are, more properly, five evolutions of or from humanity. There are two kinds of post-humanity. Morlocks and Eloi are sub-. Danellians are super-.
I think that super-humanity can and will emerge given time but, right now, the "given time" is highly questionable.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
While I completely agree with you in finding Anderson's Time Patrol stories (plus his other time traveling works) thoroughly readable, entertaining, and thought provoking, I still remain skeptical of the possibility of mankind changing or evolving into something like the Danellians. I seriously doubt mankind will ever evolve more than minor physical changes in our bodies. And even less likely that humanity will "evolve" into a morally better species.
But, then, I speak from the POV of a Catholic who believes mankind is a FALLEN and certainly imperfect race.
Sean
Sean,
This is our philosophical disagreement. I think that complex molecules became self-replicating, then life became multi-cellular, conscious, intelligent, human and, by a continuation of the same process, can become superhuman but evolution will not automatically go that way. We are responsible for our actions and their consequences.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
To quote, not too far out of contect, I trust, what Philippe Rochefort said in Chapter IV of THE PEOPLE OF THE WIND: "Biological evolution inclines, it does not compel." That is, not all complex which became self replicating, multi-cellular, etc., will evolve to become conscious and self aware. And Poul Anderson, in the essay of his I mentioned above, gave as one reason why he does not believe mankind will become superhuman" the fact that we don't need to have superbrains to survive.
Iow, what evolutionary or biological needs would having super brains enable us to satisfy?
Sean
Sean,
I liked PA's account of evolution in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? Adaptation goes in every possible direction: super-specialized organisms which become extinct when the environment changes; alert, active organisms which can change their behavior. The latter can become intelligent. Now that we are on the scene, I agree that we won't automatically adapt further, eg, towards increased intelligence, but, if we manage to stay on the scene, we can take a hand in changing not only our environment, which we have already done, but ourselves as well. Thus, our future development can be a matter for us to decide, collectively and individually.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
I am willing to PARTIALLY agree with you. That is, we can, I hope, some what improve the human race by using, say, genetic manipulation to eliminate or drastically minimize some diseases. But I still remain skeptical about the more "far out" speculations Poul Anderson himself experimented with in his later works ever actually coming to pass.
Sean
Sean,
IF our descendants have an unlimited future in which to continue learning about themselves and the universe, then I think that they are limited only by the laws of physics.
Paul.
Post a Comment