On the other hand, I agree that self-sufficient colonies off Earth will ensure human survival whereas keeping all our eggs in one basket is risky for several reasons so we need both to depollute Earth and to get off Earth.
I won't say "pacify" Earth because that has come to mean almost its opposite - forcibly deprive a population of the ability to resist external coercion. But work for real peace - which is hardly achieved by waging war all the time! If some people are growing ever more desperate, then the causes of their desperation need to be addressed. Cultural change can happen within a single lifetime so let's hope - and act.
8 comments:
Human beings are inherently political, and as Weber put it, "the ultimately decisive means of political action is always violence". Therefore coercion is the only way to -prevent- violence, though of course it is itself founded on violence. You really can't get away from this; it's like trying to outrun your own sweat on a hot day.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
I agree. Like it or not, under whatever form, the state is legitimized coercion. And I see no reason whatsoever to think that will ever be different.
Sean
Sean,
The state will always be legitimized coercion but will society always need a state?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, because I see no reason to ever expect HUMAN beings, short of the Second Coming, changing in the ways needed for making the state unnecessary. The need for controlling and penalizing crime alone makes the state inevitable.
Sean
Kaor, Sean!
Strictly speaking, the state isn’t inevitable; there have been human beings living in bands, tribes, and essentially anarchic (which does not mean lawless) societies, and it is quite possible for states to collapse, or for their subjects to melt away when the costs of a state’s protection come to exceed its value. Non-state societies, however, are not utopian, and have violence of their own, both in conflicts with outsiders and in internal murders, duels, and blood feuds. You might be interested in Professor James Scott’s The Art of Not Being
Governed.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
Thanks for your interesting comments. Where I quibble with your about your comments on non state societies is me thinking such things as bands, tribes, clans, etc., are either miniature states or embryonic states. Authority or power is still held by someone whom the other members of the band or clan is willing to heed or obey.
Sean
Sean: there's always authoritative figures, but in a non-state society it isn't institutionalized and there's no monopoly of violence, which are the distinguishing characteristics of the State.
The thing is, non-state societies have a common feature, though they vary widely otherwise: enormously high levels of intrapersonal violence, to the point where violence is the typical way for adults to die, or at least for male adults.
They also tend to slag down in ever-escalating blood feuds, the way the Icelandic Republic did.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
I'm sorry I was unclear and imprecise. Let me say at once I agree with your comments about non state societies having authoritative figures whose "power" is not institutionalized. Yes, their near universal tendency to have high levels of intra-personal is one characteristic of such societies. I agree with what you said about blood feuds and how they destroyed the medieval Icelandic Commonwealth.
Sean
Post a Comment