Some sf, like Aldous Huxley's
Brave New World and Poul Anderson's Harvest of Stars Tetralogy, presents what I think is a false dichotomy: social stasis versus dangerous and potentially destructive dynamism. The word "peace" has become tainted. It connotes passivity, placidity etc whereas, of course, human beings can be dynamic and creative without engaging in armed conflict.
The third option, open to a civilization with scientific knowledge, high technology and self-understanding, is creative dynamism. The future should remain unpredictable but there should no longer be any reason to fear destruction of the material base of society.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
Except there has been societies in the past which tried to remain static, or at least resistant to change, examples being Pharaohnic Egypt and late Imperial China during the Ming and Ch'ing Dynasties. And I can imagine similar things happening in the future. So, I don't think the situation seen in the HARVEST OF STARS books was that implausible. Where we see the AIs/cybercosm of Earth fearing human unpredictability.
Sean
Post a Comment