-Poul Anderson, Mirkheim IN Anderson, Rise Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, 2011), pp. 1-291 AT Chapter XIII, p. 181.
That reminds me of a line in Doctor Who years ago. A very well-spoken lady declaimed:
"'You should have seen them - the scum of the galaxy!'"
Is life in the galaxy evolved enough to have developed a layer of scourings or scum?
We learn more about Anderson's "scourings of space." David Falkayn's mother, Athena, says:
"'The humans and nonhumans are both a motley lot, recruited over a period of years - from the broken, the embittered, the greedy, the outlawed, the amoral, the heedless adventurous.'
"Falkayn nodded. Expanding through space with the speed and blindness of a natural force, Technic civilization had bred many such."
-op. cit., Chapter XVI, p. 219.
Some of the "greedy" and "amoral" are running Technic civilization, not deprived or embittered by it! That civilization is not entirely blind. It is a civilization, i.e., large numbers of conscious beings, not a natural force, although in this passage it is compared with the latter. That remark about blindness reminds us of "Le Matelot":
"We do not know where we are going. Nor do most of us care. For us it is enough that we are on our way.
"Le Matelot."
-Poul Anderson, Introduction to "Hiding Place" IN Anderson, The Van Rijn Method (Riverdale, NY, 2009), pp. 555-556 AT p. 556.
If there is much dissatisfaction, then there will be some theoreticians who analyze what is wrong and ask what might be done about it. Their situation differs from ours: we are on one planet; they are on many. Ideas about better ways of to organize economies and societies might be tested on entire planets. Such social experiments might be even more secure in a subsequent period with the protection of the Terran Empire.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
While the idea of "social experiments" makes me uneasy, I have no objections per se as long as certain limitations were accepted. E.g., the Empire would have insisted on such societies living in peace with neighbors, human or non human, with very different ways of life, not trying to force their visions on them.
MY view is that all tolerably successful human societies were those where the state, under whatever form, accepted limitations on its powers (with or without a written constitution) and the economy was based on free enterprise economics.
Sean
Sean,
Imagine if a monastic community had the resources of a planet and allowed laity living on the same communal basis but without celibacy to occupy one part of the planet.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Belatedly, I finally noticed this comment of yours. But,if my recollection is correct, England alone once had similar things. That is, after some monasteries were founded, secular communities did gradually develop around them (Bristol, maybe?). And these new towns most certainly did not adopt the contemplative, communal life of the founding monastery. Nor do I expect that to be different on planets originally settled by monks. Because it can't be, due to laity living very differently from monks and nuns!
Ad astra! Sean
"the state, under whatever form, accepted limitations on its powers"
I think the most important limitations on state power is that it can't prevent residents from moving elsewhere, and that it can't censor information on what conditions are like elsewhere.
That way any arrangement that is demonstrably worse than other existing arrangements for much of the population won't last for long.
Would explicitly requiring eg; free market economics, be helpful then? If some other way of running things always fails, people voting with their feet will quickly end those societies.
People certainly voted with their feet to come out from behind the Iron Curtain.
Kaor, Jim!
A simple statement of fact undermines your suggestion. All states I know of, without exception, including the most libertarian, impose some controls on population movements. Immigration laws, for example. And persons convicted of crimes might be released early, on parole, from prison. But the terms/conditions of their parole often include restrictions on where they can live, the violation of which could get them sent back to prison. And I'm sure other examples can be listed.
My view is that, left to themselves, practically all humans will almost instinctively adopt de facto free enterprise economics. Because it works and nothing else has worked.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
And the technological production of more wealth than anyone can possibly consume will fundamentally change the entire material and economic base of society.
Paul.
Sean:
I said the "state can't prevent residents from moving elsewhere" nothing about preventing people from moving in.
Yes free societies often have restrictions on immigration, but not on emigration.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: I am not at all sure of that. And I don't think Anderson was either, as we see in his HARVEST OF STARS books and GENESIS. Moreover, a post-scarcity economy has yet to be achieved.
Jim: I agree nations like the UK or US will have fewer restrictions on legal emigration, but people doing that still have to meet varied legal forms. It won't be that simple, IOW!
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
A post-scarcity economy has yet to be achieved but it is a future possibility. There was a time when there was no human race. There was a time when there was no life. Fundamental changes happen.
Those books by Anderson do not deny that a post-scarcity economy can be achieved. They argue that there could be problems in such an economy - just as there have been problems in previous economies. That is an entirely different argument.
Paul.
Post a Comment