-Poul Anderson, The Night Face IN Anderson, Flandry's Legacy (Riverdale, NY, 2012), pp. 541-660 AT II, p. 558.
I want to discuss "...the ideal anarchic state..." (p. 560) but find that I have already done so here. I would add that with:
high technology;
automation;
renewable energy;
universal education;
understanding of both society and technology;
information and communication technology -
- a large and diverse population should be able to manage its affairs without needing to be either ruled or coerced. This is what we are capable of.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I'm extremely skeptical of hopes like this, because of how flawed human beings are. We see PA giving us similar scenarios in his later books, and then showing us how why they all had flaws, based on human defects, which undermined such dreams.
Sean
Sean,
We have got a good thing going here because I give my response to the issues raised and you remind us of PA's response.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Thanks! This is a Poul Anderson oriented blog, so I try to base many of my comments not merely on what I believe but on what Anderson was known to believe. Most times that causes no problems because I agreed with him.
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I should have added that we do see Anderson giving us a Utopian scenario in one major story which is not eventually shown be to be gravely flawed: BRAIN WAVE. But that was a very early work, written at a time when he was probably both learning how to write, finding his true voice as a writer; AND when he apparently had ideas or even beliefs he eventually rejected.
And even the example of BRAIN WAVE should not be stressed too much--because another early story, "Quixote and the Windmill," already shows us Anderson becoming skeptical of Utopian schemes.
Sean
Sean: I wouldn't describe it as "flaws", just as "aspects", people being what they are.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
But not all our "aspects" are good, worthy, admirable, desirable, etc. But, I'm willing to use "aspects" as well as "flaws," depending on context.
Sean
That begs the question of "good from what perspective"? Our selves aren't 'designed' to make us happy, they're designed to get us to reproduce successfully.
Agriculture didn't spread because it made people happier -- it made them runty, hungry and diseased -- but because it made it possible for them to outreproduce/supplant hunter-gatherers.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Yes, but I think you are speaking from a perspective I don't agree with, or at least not wholly. As a Catholic I believe we will all have to answer to God for what we do. Which means I believe questions about good and evil also have ontological or supernatural "aspects," to use your word.
Sean
Post a Comment