Poul Anderson imagines both neo-aristocratic and post-organic futures. His future histories either regress to the individual accumulation of immense wealth or progress to the technological transcendence of organic intelligence with several intermediate utopian/dystopian options.
The metamorphosis of an apparent utopia into an actual dystopia is as old as The Time Machine, where devolved proletarians eat devolved aristocrats. "Not a utopia but instead a dystopia" is also an Andersonian theme. Will abundant wealth erode all dynamism, initiative, inquiry and creativity? I think not but let's find out.
I get a big charge out of reading authors as antithetical as Anderson and Yates because they resemble opposite sides of a single coin. Between them, Wells, Yates, Asimov and Anderson (and many others) present human life in the past and future, including some speculative retro-futures. (And the title of this post quotes an Aldous Huxley title that is a Shakespeare quote.)
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree that it is a "regression" for anyone to have great wealth, as long as the means used were peaceful, lawful, non-coercive, etc. Free enterprise economics has been shown over and over and over to WORK. While socialism has never worked (Venezuela, again, comes to mind).
Shouldn't that be "de-evolved," and not "devolved"?
Sean
Sean,
Of course. We have different perspectives. I think that accumulation of individual wealth was appropriate and inevitable when the economic surplus was much smaller but will become unnecessary and redundant.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Individual accumulation of wealth someday being unnecessary and redundant? Maybe, assuming such a thing as a "post-scarcity" economy is ever achieved (which I am still doubtful of!). And I think ambitious persons in a "post-scarcity" economy will still look for ways of earning an extra pound, buck, or credit!
And that's good! Such Nicholas van Rijn types help to keep any society vigorous.
Sean
Post a Comment