-Poul Anderson, The Avatar, VIII, p. 74.
We recognize this theme both from Anderson's Rustum History and from his Psychotechnic History. For the latter, see here. Some dissidents would not want to emigrate and/or would refuse to abandon their struggle on Earth. And the problems would still remain on Earth.
In The Avatar, extra-solar colonists also pursue personal ambitions or utopian visions, as happens during the Breakup in Anderson's Technic History.
Anderson presents Ira Quick as an unpleasant, manipulative, self-serving politician:
"...it must be I, Ira Wallace Quick, who forces destiny into shape. On the crudest level, hearing a crowd cheer me, seeing them adore me, beats taking a woman to bed." (X, p. 97)
- but then shows us that Quick has genuine concerns about suffering that he has seen on Earth.
However, do the impoverished multitude need nothing more than a perpetual welfare state administered by patronizing posers like Ira Quick? They need to play an active role in their own emancipation and destiny as the heirs of the ages and the builders of the future. Professional politicians like Quick see the masses as merely passive and get a shock when they move. Much future-building can and should be done off Earth. However, the large Terrestrial population should not allow itself to be abandoned to continued decline and decay.
20 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think if, no, WHEN space travel becomes reasonably doable, that it would be implausible to think some gov'ts on Earth would subsidize, encourage, pressure, etc., dissidents to leave for other worlds. Moreover, not all dissidents would be worthy of much, if any sympathy.
As for the problems still existing on Earth after dissidents were "encouraged" to leave, the point in that exercise was to ease pressure and buy more time for somehow managing those problems.
Nor am I surprised Ira Quick is a self serving pol, or that he enjoys adulation. It simply goes with the job. I remember Eodan, in THE GOLDEN SLAVE, being acclaimed by the mutineers he led in seizing the ship they were in. And, even forgiving Marius his Triumph, if that was what it felt like!
The problem with a pol like Ira Quick and too many others like him is that a perpetual welfare state is ALL they can think of. And all too many of the "impoverished" will settle for that if they can get by at a reasonable level of comfort using welfare. My view is that only free enterprise economics can create the kind of wealth for both the welfare and/or better solutions for poverty.
I certainly don't object to the "impoverished multitude" playing an active role in their "emancipation," whatever that means. And helping to become builders of the future. I simply have my doubts that many will even want such things. Which is something I think people like you need to keep in mind. Practical space travel and a new frontier on other worlds would provide an outlet for many who feel frustrated, stifled, bored, etc., on Earth
Sean
Sean,
Oh, yes. (Some) people who want radical social change know that it can only be brought about by mass action and that this only happens sometimes and only in times of crisis - but then it can be decisive. Imagine a mass refusal to fight in 1914 instead of desertions and mutinies four years later. The Social Democratic Parties had pledged to oppose war but then enthusiastically supported it as soon as it started. The German SDP in particular had a mass membership that could have been given a lead in a different direction. Mass action might have prevented mass slaughter.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, because this kind of mass action never happens except rarely, briefly, at moments of unusual strain and stress when a long established governing authority has broken down. And then it rapidly dissipates when the old regime is either restored or a new gov't takes power.
And what I concluded from the behavior of the Social-Democrats in 1914 was that they were GERMANS first, not S-Ds. And I say that loyalty to one's country ahead of one's party or faction should come first.
Sean
Sean,
It rapidly dissipates but some of us want to make it stick: a new, more democratic society free from national antagonisms and particularly from the current virulent xenophobia and scapegoating.
Paul.
Yesterday was Sheila's 70th birthday, hence the paucity of posts. It is now 01:34 and I am too tired to read or blog.
Kaor, Paul!
Of COURSE family matters like Mrs. Shackley's birthday party has to come first. I hope you all had a great time and that the lady has many more years to live.'
It doesn't matter how democratic a state or society might be, people will STILL quarrel and compete about ANYTHING. Which is exactly what we see in GENESIS, in the futuristic society looking a lot like Japan before it's warlords and shoguns.
Of course national antagonisms and rivalries can lead to conflicts and wars. And one reason why they seem so bad today in the US, UK, Europe, etc., is from the anger and frustration many ordinary people have for arrogant elites ignoring or scorning their fears, anxieties, concerns, etc. And not all of those fears and anxieties will be groundless. MY view is that the more respectable parties of right and left ignore those fears, the more likely many will turn to truly extremist parties offering solutions which are too radical.
So I remain skeptical that any society can be set up totally free of antagonisms or hostility towards perceived enemies or rivals. NOTHING like this has been seen in thousands of years of known history.
Sean
Sean,
We had a very good time. We have a small back garden with an artificial lawn and lights and a lot of people sat out there. Aileen's boyfriend got music off the Internet. A Scottish friend is staying with us. We now eat breakfast in the ruins: the Morning After the Night Before. We will live on lots of left over food, including half a birthday cake, and, despite the number of empty bottles, the wine cellar has grown, not shrunk.
This discussion is going somewhere. We are addressing each other's points instead of talking past each other. I think that a market economy creates both wealth and poverty. Vast wealth accumulates in few hands and remains there because of inheritance. Although a few gifted or lucky individuals can and do rise economically, the vast majority of necessity work for a wage or salary. Many of those are low-paid and can become unemployed, even homeless while buildings stand empty. Armed nation-states wage war for economic resources, causing waves of refugees and immigrants who are denied entry or treated atrociously. Minorities and immigrants are scapegoated because of this system, not just because of human contrariness. (I think.)
Paul.
Forward move: I will start reading "The Acolyte."
The final point (I think) is that the wealth that accumulates in a few hands is created by the labor of the majority who are paid a wage or salary that represents only a fraction of the wealth that they create. Thus, there is an inherent conflict of interest between a large economic class that creates wealth and a much smaller class that controls it. I think that this fundamental conflict underlies and causes the more overt social divisions. The conflicts will exist as long as this economic system exists - not as long as humanity exists.
Kaor, Paul!
Good, I'm glad you and your family had a good time at Mrs. Shackley's birthday party.
I see nothing wrong in a man bequeathing wealth and property to his children or grandchildren. If that really bothers you so much, keep in mind how HARD it is for a family to preserve great wealth over generations. In the US, the fortunes founded by the great industrial magnates of the later 19th century tended to become dispersed over three or four generations. Many of their descendants today are at about a middle class level of income.
If you don't like or approve of free enterprise economics, then my question is: what would you replace it with that WORKS? Socialism, in which the state owns or manages most property and the means of production and distribution, has been tried and has never worked. Venezuela, the latest socialist experiment, has collapsed into poverty, despotism, and vicious civil strife.
I agree the vast majority, including myself, have not risen to great wealth. But I do argue that simply practicing a few useful HABITS, like holding a steady job (no matter how modest), frugality, living within one's means, making initially small investments which then grows over time, etc., would do a lot to help such people. My view is that a lot of poverty, in the advanced nations, comes from too many not exercising some forethought.
I'm a bit baffled by you saying armed nation states wage wars for control of resources. Which nations are doing THAT? In actual fact, the declared motivations I see for many of the conflicts of our times are non-economic. The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, deliberately encourages emigration by Muslims precisely as a means of subverting non-Muslim nations. The use of violence by the Islamic State to create "refugees" was a logical next step. Yes, I know the IS has been destroyed, but not before it caused colossal harm and upheavals.
I do agree resources can be used for political reasons. Such as that now infamous deal of Germany with Putin's Russia for buying oil and natural gas. We all know Putin is not doing that solely for economic reasons, but also to gain influence and leverage over Germany and Europe. To say nothing of how Putin wants to get control of Ukraine and the Baltic states again. Does Germany truly want to fall under Russian domination? Again, non-economic reasons comes in.
And I do believe human contrariness is a big reason for strife and conflict.
Sean
Sean,
Surely great powers intervene in the Middle East because of oil? - thus causing ideological, e.g., Islamicist, resistance to them?
My answer about an alternative system is simple: cooperation for need instead of competition for profit. However, implementing and overcoming resistance to this alternative is very far from simple!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And the best means Europe (the US does not import that much oil from OPEC nations) could use to lessen dependence on imports from such an unstable region as the Mid East, would be to develop alternatives to oil. Right now, that has to mean largely nuclear power (which I believe has been unfairly demonized). Another possibility would be use to use solar energy satellites for beaming down energy from space.
You propose as an alternative to either free enterprise economics or socialism "cooperation for need instead of competition for profit." But how would you KNOW what is needed and in what quantity unless there was a demand for various goods and services? How could a farmer grow more wheat or other crops than what he would need for his own use unless he knew other people would be willing to buy them? And so on for all other goods and services. In fact, I argue that a free enterprise economy is also very "cooperative" in a very real sense.
I would like to know how a system based on "cooperation for need instead of competition for profit" would look in practical real life. But at least you admit setting up such a system would be very difficult. Which makes you more reasonable than too many others who think as you do.
Sean
Sean,
I also want to know what it would (or will) look like in practical life!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I might have said "...would (or could)." But, then, I'm more skeptical of such notions.
Sean
Sean,
The last time I heard any figures, it was something like: the richest 50 individuals own as much as the poorest 50% of the world population. That sounds like an exaggeration. Maybe it is. But the real figure is pretty startling, nevertheless.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that does not bother me, per se. A man has a right to whatever he has lawfully earned or gained. Bill Gates did not become a multi-billionaire because he robbed people at gun point. He and his partners developed a product, computers, produced at relatively low prices which, as we know, REALLY took off, world wide. And the same thing has happened with many other goods or services. So I approve of billionaires whose inventions and services have enriched us!
Large parts of the world are poor not because of sinister billionaires, but because of sheerly BAD, incompetent, corrupt, tyrannical, or blundering gov'ts.
Sean
Sean,
But Gates (I believe he is a good guy and does a lot of good with that money) did not do the work to create all that wealth. The economic system by which he employs some people and invests in the labor of others enables him to accumulate wealth produced by the labor of others who then have no control over it. I think that this imbalance causes a lot of other social conflicts and problems.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but I still disagree. I deny anyone, much less the state, any state, has any right to tell any man how much wealth he can earn if no force, fraud, violence, coercion, extortion, etc., had been used. I don't TRUST anyone to have that kind of power.
Bill Gates and his partners were the ones who thought of the concept of manufacturing and selling computers at relatively cheap prices. Not the employees of all kinds who did the engineering/physical work. The value of their labor lay not in what they helped to produce but in how much Microsoft was willing or able to pay them. And that in turn goes back to whether their customers were willing to buy Microsoft products. They were not the ones who discovered a niche for personal computers, it was Bill Gates and other entrepreneurs like him.
Bluntly, laborers deserved only what ever pay and/or other benefits were agreed on by them and their employers. But that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't gain a bigger slice of the pie. E.g., such as by buying stock in companies like Microsoft.
Sean
Sean,
Thanks. There is more that can be said, of course, but I think we have thrashed that issue thoroughly enough for the time being.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It seems like it! It comes down to me agreeing with the basic insights of the Austrian school of economics.
Sean
Post a Comment