-Sandra Miesel, "Chronology Of Technic Civilization" IN Poul Anderson, The Van Rijn Method (New York, 2009), pp. 611-619 AT p. 611.
Did the period later called the Chaos begin as early as 1914, as recently suggested by American correspondent Sean M Brooks?
In "The Saturn Game," Francis Minamoto, writing in 2057, reminds us of mid-twentieth century adult psychodrama both as "...a powerful diagnostic and therapeutic technique..." (p. 25) and as a revolt against inactive entertainment, like television. He then adds:
"The Chaos ended those activities." (p. 26)
This suggests, as I had thought, that the Chaos is a late twentieth century and/or early twenty-first century phenomenon. The latter schedule remains all too plausible. What is really going to happen? And, whatever happens, will global civilization be able to recover from it as it does in the Technic History?
5 comments:
Hi, Paul!
I would STILL date the beginning of the Chaos from 1914 because it is impossible to plausibly imagine how the twentieth century would have turned out if the assassinations at Sarajevo had not occurred. Including when things like TV and psychodrama would have been invented or developed.
It is also my belief that whatever stability the world has had since WW II was because the rise of the US to superpower status (in succession to the British Empire) allowed a reasonably decent alternative to the USSR to impose some sorth of order. An order which I believe President Obama's failed policies are threatening.
Sean
Sean,
I in fact agree that the world has been Chaotic since (at least) 1914!
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
I only wish we were both wrong about this time of Chaos we're in. And I see no foreseeable end to it any time soon!
IF someone like Manuel Argos was to arise, it would be tempting to support him!
Sean
With 8 years of further hindsight I would say that imperfect as Obama's policies were, I would call Trump's far worse. Would Ukraine have received any support from the US against Putin's invasion with Trump in the White House?
Kaor, Jim!
I'm sorry, but I absolutely disagree. The events of the past 1.5 years has shown us what a CATASTROPHE "Josip" has been. I don't really need to list the wearisomely list of "Josip's" follies and bunglings. My view remains that, for all his faults, Trump was a far abler President than his successor. For one thing, Putin's Russia was warily quiet as long as "Josip" was not in office.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment