How accurately would either Isaac Asimov's psychohistorians or Poul Anderson's psychotechnicians have predicted the outcome of the recent US Presidential election? They would definitely have known that the vote would be close with no landslide for either candidate but how many details would they have anticipated? The precise number of votes on each side? How long the count would take? The extent and intensity of the ensuing doubt, denial and division? The responses of particular key individuals? As a matter of fact, many individuals are highly predictable despite Asimov's comparison of individual human beings to randomly moving particles and of a galactic population to a mathematically predictable gas.
In Asimov's future history, one individual mutant with unpredictable mental powers upsets Seldon's Plan whereas, in Anderson's Psychotechnic History, the psychotechnic equations are overwhelmed by the incalculable consequences of mass technological unemployment. As always, Anderson's account is more credible.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, it can be reasonably predictable, up to a point, how well known persons might react to a crisis. But the kind of details you listed could not be predicted.
I agree, Anderson's account or POV is more realistic.
Ad astra! Sean
The fallacy of treating history as a "science" is that people, even in the mass, are not particles moving in accord with natural law -- even quantum-mechanical, probabilistic law. Agency makes human beings unpredictable. If you examine any historical even in detail, the results of choices become apparent.
At the same time, agency is always limited, by history and physical boundaries.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment