Arguments

Near the end of Poul Anderson's Planet Of No Return, there is an indecisive gun battle between men and Rorvan but, at the end, there is a decisive argument between two men. Avery defends whereas Lorenzen opposes psychocracy. In "The Sensitive Man," Dalgetty defends whereas Elena opposes the Psychotechnic Institute.

See:

A Debate About The Future
Comments On A Debate About The Future

I agree with Lorenzen and Dalgetty. Thus, I change sides - because Avery attempts not only to halt interstellar expansion (a wrong end) but also to do this by perpetrating a massive deception (a bad means). He also says that, in his "Utopia":

"'...the contemplative Hindu philosophy will tend to leaven the aggressiveness of Western man...'"
-Chapter 17, p. 122.

Contemplative Hindu and aggressive West is one big stereotype. Hindu castes include warriors and, in the Gita, Krishna urges Arjuna to fight - albeit contemplatively. But what we need is a future in which each of us has access to all the philosophies, not one in which psychocrats pacify us with one selected strand of philosophy.

Lorenzen challenges Avery:

"'...you say with one mouth that if man goes to the stars, his future is unpredictable and his future will be black.'"
-Chapter 18, p. 125.

Right. Why is unpredictability bad? And, if the future is unpredictable, then it is not predictable.

(People make this kind of non sequitur all the time. I have heard: "We do not know what was before the Big Bang. Therefore, there must have been consciousness before the Big Bang!")

The Psychotechnic Institute initially applies its new knowledge without full disclosure because the alternatives are demonstrably worse (see Dalgetty's argument) whereas Avery proposes a thousand years of "'...secret direction...'" (p. 122), i.e., manipulation. That is unacceptable - and almost certainly unachievable. The attempted deception at the end of Anderson's The Fleet Of Stars is also relevant. (See "Fenn Woke.")

Avery argues that interstellar exploration will introduce so many unpredictabilities -

alient planets;
alien civilizations;
new scientific knowledge;
mutations -

- that mankind will remain the victim of chance, chaos, suffering, rising and falling cultures, war and oppression forever!

Here is a value judgment: all new knowledge is inherently good. And Lorenzen rightly argues that, if things go wrong in one place, then they can just as well go right in another. Diversity is the answer.

I disagree with Lorenzen when he says:

"'I like man as he is, not man as a bunch of theorists thinks he ought to be.'" (p. 126)

Another false dichotomy! I do not like every aspect of man as he is, do you? But we do not need a bunch of theorists to tell us what to do next - or to influence our behavior without our knowledge.

The Noachite Dissenter, Thornton, says:

"'I...I am with you, John...Men ought to be free.'" (p. 127)

Gummus-lugil wants to find his farm and wants his great-great-great-grandson to be able to do the same.