(i) Economic Gain
The Home Companies
The Seven In Space
Solar Spice & Liquors
other independents
(ii) Mutual Benefits
The Polesotechnic League
The Commonalty
(iii) Preservation Of The Status Quo
The Time Patrol
The UN-Men
The Stellar Union Coordination Service
The Terran Navy Intelligence Corps
(iv) A Longer-Term, Greater Good
The Psychotechnic Institute
The Order of Planetary Engineers
In any three-dimensional cross-section of human history, the Time Patrol works towards a longer-term, greater good, the evolution of the Danellians, whereas, in history regarded as a four-dimensional totality, the Patrol preserves the status quo.
My preference is to work for an organization of type (iv). We need some longer-term, greater goods, not richer merchants or preserved status quos.
87 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
As regards your point "iv," the hard experience of real life and history shows us that people allegedly trying to work for a greater good often end up making things worse, not better. At the very least I would insist of such "reformers" that they don't use force or tyranny to bring about changes. And that they should accept defeat if most people simply don't agree with them. Else, why bother to have congresses, parliaments, political parties running for office?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Psychotechnic League had a lot to offer but resorted to dishonest means.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because they forgot what Lord Acton said about power!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Everyone should act on what he said.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Absolutely! Which is why I favor the LIMITED state, in whatever form it takes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Another option would be a much more democratic and accountable state but those who believe in this idea have to demonstrate that it can work.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And too many times, when that has been tried, several different kinds of opposite results have happened. In the UK and US that has led to a more and more oppressively bureaucratic and heavy handed centralized state, never mind its hypocritically "democratic" trappings.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes but (hopefully) we have the whole future with improved technology, communications and education ahead of us. The limited democracy that we take for granted would have been regarded as impossible - indeed denounced as diabolical - by the lords spiritual and temporal of the Middle Ages. And, of course, some people try to sabotage any innovation, then say, "That proves it doesn't work!"
These questions will be settled by future practice, not by present discussion. But what was impossible in the past is not always impossible in the future.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
First, I disagree with what you said how many people in he Middle Ages would have reacted to current political ideas. Those ideas in fact take many of their origins from ideas, precedents, institutions, etc., from Medieval times.
Next, I do not share your confidence in things like communications and education making all that much of a real difference. I would put far more stock in putting chains on the powers of the state. And on mankind finally getting off this rock to settle other worlds. And I would include O'Neill habitats large enough to be worlds themselves, among them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I referred not to "many people" but to the lords whose power would be ended by greater democracy. Of course there were opposed views, and vested interests, then as there are now. No, communications and education do not in themselves make a real difference but they do help. Now we know of conflicts around the world instantly, not months later. Social conditions will significantly improve only when enough people take action to bring that about. Right now, lobbying governments to take the climate emergency seriously is a good start.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree with what you said about the Middle Ages, because its real history was not as simplistic as you seem to insist it was. Especially after about AD 1000, as the anarchy of the two centuries after Charlemagne died was starting to subside. More and more there was a constant interplay of actions and reactions between Kings, the Church, aristocracies, and the new mercantile oriented middle class to be found in the larger towns after about 1100.
I remain skeptical of "social action," because I do not believe all that many people CARE about taking action. I personally know people who don't even vote.
And the only way to be SERIOUS about climate problems is to replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy and a space based solar power system. As long as too many people continue to blindly oppose the only real alternatives to fossil fuels, nothing is going to change.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
By referring to lords spiritual and temporal, I did not mean to deny the existence of either kings or merchants.
People vote in greater numbers when they come to see that it will make a difference, as in the Scottish independence referendum.
My point was only that large lobbies of governments are the only way to get them to take climate seriously. My point was not blindly to oppose any real alternatives.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I also had in mind Anderson's essay "Of Thud and Blunder," specifically his comments about how the politics of the Middle Ages was far more complex and variegated than many people realize. A lot like ours, in fact!
I agree people are more likely to take some kind of action if they get INTERESTED.
And my view is that many of those lobbies pressuring gov'ts are advocating for things I consider futile and counterproductive. Things like tax breaks or exemption from irksome regulations for favored industries. Or for precisely those same taxes and bureaucratic regulating which provokes opposition. So I remain skeptical!
Ad astra! Seam
Sean,
But then we need more people lobbying for what will work.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, altho I would advocate for things like nuclear power, a real space program a la Elon Musk, or the use of plain old rust for sopping up carbon dioxide from the oceans. And I would be opposed by people I consider dangerously wrong and short sighted.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You would indeed. We live in the midst of great controversies. But opponents of nuclear power argue from evidence. It is right to question and challenge their interpretation of the evidence but not to dismiss them as "blind."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But so many opponents of nuclear power are indeed blind and ignorant! And it's a matter of tradeoffs, I believe the benefits of nuclear energy outweighs any disadvantages. And it's the only practical alternative to oil and coal if you want a high energy, high tech society. Other wise it's back to hewing wood and drawing water with muscles alone!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there is no need for you to restate the argument here and now. Sometimes we can refer to a particular disagreement or make some more general point about it without having to rehearse the whole argument. I think that the case against nuclear power is spearheaded by some people who are very well informed about it and, of course, their opposition generates a movement that includes many people who are far less informed. Indeed, SOME of the people who support the status quo in all its forms are also ignorant but we need to focus on what the well informed arguments are.
Of course, the alternative, renewable energy sources are not just muscle power alone. But are those sources enough? And what do we want them for? I want governments to act together on the basis of scientific advice. I am very far from prescribing in advance what that scientific advice should be - although it must always be subject to public scrutiny.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I can see that my restating of the argument here was unnecessary. And there are at least as many well informed and educated people who defend nuclear energy and advocate its use.
I would need to review their arguments, but Jerry Pournelle (in A STEP FURTHER OUT) and Robert Zubrin (in THE CASE FOR SPACE), are extremely skeptical and unconvinced that wind and hydropower can provide more than a few percent of the energy needed by a high tech society. You could cover the entire island of Great Britain with windmills and I don't believe they could generate enough power for Greater London, never mind smaller cities like Lancaster!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course there are well informed people on both sides. That is where the argument has to start. We also have to understand the processes that generate such massive disagreements. At what stage do vested interests come into play?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
In this matter, scientific FACTS and practicalities should guide our choices, even if they lead us to conclusions we personally dislike. I think we can agree on that much.
I don't object, per se, to vested interests and the people holding them coming into play. Trying to balance the contending hopes, wishes, fears, etc., of rival interests is more likely to end with a workable compromise. Trying to totally sweep aside opposing vested interests will simply generate yet fiercer resistance.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But vested interests skew interpretations of facts no end.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That can and has happened, yes. But the people leading or speaking for at least some of those vested interests can still have legitimate POVs which has a right to be heard.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Can and has happened? I think that it is a major feature of society and of its many conflicts.
Paul.
As soon as there is a conflict of interests, there is a denial of the facts as stated by the other side.
Kaor, Paul!
Conflicting vested interests are always going to parts of human societies, IMO.
And I am seeing a lot of denying of hard facts by the left in the US. Everything from nonsense like leftists solemnly agreeing aging sports stars can mysteriously change sex from male to female and the catastrophic Keynesian implications of "Josip's" appalling six trillion dollars budget request for next year.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And Trump and his supporters denying that he lost an election and some of them saying that he will soon be re-inaugurated.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree that "Josip" narrowly won the election, despite my contempt for him and his puppet masters.
Constitutionally, Pres. Trump can run again in 2024, but I would prefer some other Republican getting nominated.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sure you accept the election result but surely also Trump's denials and their violent consequences are far more scandalous than anyone else's, currently?
Paul.
Sean,
Saying that you would prefer another nominee is rather mild. Surely Trump's attempts to subvert democracy make him completely unsuitable?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree that Pres. Trump's denials of having lost the election, however narrowly, and their violent consequences, is a big black mark against him.
And considering the vicious and disgusting way the left vilified and tried to SUBVERT the Presidency of Trump thru out his entire term, makes me conclude their misbehavior was even more subversive of democracy than the January 6 riot.
If leftists could admire, praise, deny, or egg on the BLM riots last year as part of their war against Trump, I can easily see why some of his more foolish supporters would become violent themselves. I blame January 6 on the bad example and precedent set by the Democrats!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We will have to disagree on where the responsibility lies for that whole sequence of events!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Too true! And this has wandered from the original point: what are the best alternatives to fossil fuels, from a scientific and practical POV?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, the original point of this thread was organizations working for a greater good. But all these disagreements are facets of two different world views.
There are people who need to be convinced that an alternative to fossil fuels is necessary and there are clearly vested interests involved here. I don't know what the best alternative is. There are dangers with nuclear power but maybe it is a lesser evil? It is a matter of urgency that scientifically advised governments agree a plan.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I would have to say I come from a science and technology friendly, free enterprise and limited gov't oriented POV as regards alternatives to fossil fuels.. I am opposed to the arbitrary, one size fits all, top down, heavy handedly bureaucratic approach taken by so many on the left. It does not matter if they deny that--because the actual policies they favor boils down precisely to that coercive approach.
Many people might be easier to convince of the need or desirability of alternatives to fossil fuels if it was not so HARD to replace them with nuclear energy, which I believe is the only practical alternative for the foreseeable future. Ever since the 1970's the nuclear industry has been strangled and choked by politics and bureaucracy. It did not pay to invest in nuclear energy, hence the continuing focus on fossil fuels.
One thing is certain: nothing will be quickly decided.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is certain that a solution is urgent.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
When I think of thew waste of time resources because of the anti nuclear hysteria of the past forty plus years, I get so angry! If, instead of strangling the nuclear industry, it had been cautiously encouraged, with an eye to improving both efficiency and safety, I think we would all have been much better off! Quite possibly fossil fuels would have been well on the way to being phased out.
I don't expect any solution, good or bad, wise or foolish, to quickly come.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But without an early solution there is an imminent catastrophe. Dictatorship is not an acceptable or even workable solution and profit-seeking is causing the problem so we must urgently think of something else.
Paul.
Let me anticipate the next question: the "something else" is people finally working together for the common good, having paid lip service to this idea for millennia. Necessity might force our hand - as an alien invasion would. A global catastrophe is in the same league as a kzinti attack. But does the catastrophe have to become so severe that it then becomes too late to address it?
Kaor, Paul!
The time for an "early solution" would have been to do as I said as regards cautious encouragement of the nuclear industry, which has made advances, despite the hysteria heaped on it.
And profit seeking is PRECISELY one of the best means we have of getting problems solved. E.g., a danger or need is seen, and the one who finds the means of averting that danger or meeting that need will attract people willing to pay for these services. And the best way of replacing an older means of "profit seeking" such as using fossil fuels is to replace them with a better, less costly, more efficient energy source which will generate even greater profits.
And what you advocate, about people working together for what SOME, not all, regard as the greater good, is not going to happen. Because people are going to disagree about ends, goals, means, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But an early solution is needed now. And what seemed impossible becomes possible in changed circumstances. Those worst affected by flooding, drought etc cannot afford to pay anyone who seeks to profit from their need.
Paul.
I think that the market solving the crisis is a bigger pipe dream than cooperation in an emergency. Why is the market not solving the crisis now? We know why cooperation is not yet solving the crisis. It is opposed by vested interests and prejudice.
Kaor, Paul!
But, I can imagine entrepreneurs selling solutions to the problems of drought and flooding at VERY low prices (the profit would come from massive sales). Or another way would be for the people most affected to pool resources to buy what was needed.
How do you even DEFINE "cooperation"? If you mean truly voluntary and free cooperation, then you are going to find many who don't agree with you or anybody else.
And the market was solving the problem, in the 1970's, before anti nuclear hysteria crippled the industry. The real problem was always either political interference or opposition by vested interests (the same thing, really).
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But why aren't entrepreneurs doing that now?
Cooperation is the basis of human social activity. Its most basic form is linguistic communication. Beyond that, we have roads and public places that have been built by collective labor, not by solitary individuals. We drive on the same side of the road because otherwise no one would be able to drive anywhere. Even the Nazis had to cooperate with each other in order to exterminate those whom they regarded as their enemies or as subnormal. Cooperation defines us as a species and is much more basic than conflict or competition.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
First, entrepreneurs can only do what their times and societies enables them to do. In more free enterprise friendly eras, they were able to do vastly much more, as we saw in the 19th century. And, even now, entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk were able to achieve huge things shaking or transforming the world. I put far more stock in entrepreneurs than I ever will in politicians, bureaucrats, or extremist ideologues.
Let's be frank, things like roads, bridges, dams, and other public goods were built by the state, using its coercive powers (if only by taxing people). Not by some mystic "collective labor." And it does make sense for state to enforce some common sense regulations of the kind you mentioned for traffic.
We need both cooperation and competition.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Collective labor is nothing mystical. It is simply a number of people, sometimes very large numbers, working together, building more than any one individual can on his own.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
In that sense, any entrepreneur can do the same, if the businesses of factories he founds employs similarly large numbers of people.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it is the employees that do the productive work. A private business is just one way of organizing their labor - the best way, of course, in your opinion. Society has developed in ways that have generated roles for entrepreneurs, politicians, bureaucrats, ideologues etc. Society will (hopefully) continue to develop in ways that generate new roles, not foreseeable by us. In the most primitive societies, a leader was simply someone with good ideas and the ability to persuade others to implement those ideas. He had no ability either to coerce or to employ anyone else. The social leadership role will endure for a long time (I think) but will take very different forms. There is no need for us to lay down in advance what forms it will take. And, indeed, we cannot know.
Paul.
I know that, in THE MAN WHO COUNTS, van Rijn is necessary to motivate Wace etc to do the work but that means that Wace etc do the work. It also means, of course, that van Rijn does his part of the work - unlike those investors who do no work.
Kaor, Paul!
But inventors and geniuses of all kinds are FEW, not many. An inventor like Edison still needed an entrepreneur of INSIGHT such as J.P. Morgan to grasp the significance of what his electrical inventions meant--and provide the support needed in finding financing, carrying out the practical organizing, hiring, managing, etc., of the large numbers of people needed for that. And so on for the other great classical inventors, scientists, and entrepreneurs of the pre-1914 era: Cornelius Vanderbilt, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Nikolai Tesla, Henry Ford I, etc. It still needed a few men of insight to set in motion what became that "collective labor."
Bureaucrats have a necessary but modest role to play. But the administrative state has become vastly too large and top heavy since 1914. If I was up to me, I would abolish huge parts of the US gov't! Entire departments and agencies!
And I disagree with your disparaging of "investors." We need people with large or small sums of money they feel able to lend out to inventors and entrepreneurs to put to new and unprecedentedly useful purposes. And investors have a right to demand in return for taking the risk of losing their money a share in the profits of successful busineses. I personally invested five thousand dollars of my own money in Elon Musk's company Tesla because I believe in what he is trying to do. And I admit to hoping it pays off big for me!
I think D.D. Harriman, Old Nick, and Anson Guthrie would agree with me!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We need entrepreneurs and investors in this kind of economy but society has changed and will continue to do so. In all societies, labor by hand and brain generates wealth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And it's my firm belief that the kind of economy I had been summarizing will be the only one that WORKS for the human race. Along with another factor necessary for it to work: the limited state, in whatever form it takes. And any wealth generated by those brains and hands will first need to attract people willing and able to buy the goods and services offered by those entrepreneurs and workers. Iow, the marginal utility theory of value comes in.
Ad astra! Seam
Sean,
"Willing and able to buy" assumes a money economy. That is far too limited in imagination for the unforeseeable future hopefully stretching ahead if the human race survives current crises.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Even if humans someday switch to using only credit and debit cards for buying and selling things, I am sure some means of quantifying the sums involved will be used. Iow, monetary units. Even the Citizens Credit we see in "Quixote and the Windmill" was denominated in monetary units. Because some means of accurately determining what belongs to anybody will be needed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, it won't. Not with technological production of abundance. Sf readers should be aware that, whatever else happens, the future will not be like the present or the past. I do not know what WILL happen but I do know that it will not be just a continuation of conditions familiar to us.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And this scenario you are hypothesizing will be possible only if a post scarcity economy arises. And that first requires mankind getting off this planet and making use of the resources of the Solar System.
I agree we cannot ENTIRELY expect future generations and societies to be like what we know now. But I do expect there will be plenty of holdovers from the past. In both major and minor ways. One of them being some kind of monetary system and others might be games like chess.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that to assume the indefinite continuance of a monetary system is to fail in the imagination that is necessary for sf and futurology/future studies.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Possibly, but I don't understand why you are so resistant to the idea of money/cash//monetary units being used in the far future. Currency makes it so much easier to carry out much of the business of every day life in both large and small ways. I argue that even a post scarcity economy would find such things useful, at least for book keeping purposes. And traders and merchants would find it very convenient.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, in speculating about the future, we should not just project the past and present ("book keeping," "traders," "merchants") into the future! Why keep books if there is no scarcity? We do not measure how much air is being breathed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I thought just now of how Hanno, in the latter part of THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS, when meeting the Ruling Intellects of a future Earth which seemed to have achieved a post scarcity economy, was told the project he was urging of building a STL space ship would necessitate diverting significant resources from other uses. That, to me, implies some means of measuring or quantifying those resources. And whether you call them dollars, pounds, or credits, a currency is simply a shorthand summarizing those resources.
And I think there will be a need or demand for merchants in an interplanetary or interstellar civilization.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And the ruling intellects' way of measuring resources is very different from a money economy in which:
some people accumulate enough money to enable them to invest in the labor of others;
many can survive economically only by being employed in exchange for a wage or salary;
the labor of waged or salaried workers generates profits for investors.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But "the labor of waged or salaried workers" will generate profits for investors only if there is a demand for the goods and services produced by those workers. Investments and businesses can fail, which should mean a reallocating of those resources into more profitable lines of work.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But my only point is that a money economy in this sense need not exist indefinitely into the future and does not exist in THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I can only apologize for persistently missing the points you tried to make.
MY personal preference is to use cash for the small to medium expenses of everyday life. With me being sparing in how often I use my credit card. And paying my monthly credit card bill in full every month enables me to avoid paying interest.
And, even in the latter part of THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS, we see some use of cash or its equivalents. In Section 2 of Chapter XIX of BOAT we read of how the Chinese "immortal," Tu Shan, SPENT his basic share, plus savings, to buy land in Yunnan province, to attempt a "simpler" life as a farmer. When that failed he was glad to sell the land for a small profit. Then he tried to make a living for a while selling objects of art made by hand, but that petered out due to nanotechnology. So even then, there were still some uses for some kind of monetary unit.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, there was some cash in BOAT. It is probably hard for a writer to imagine an entirely different economy and to describe it consistently. But no one in BOAT was having to be employed by someone else to make ends meet. Money was no longer a relationship between people.
Two questions: What kind of economy do we prefer here and now and in the immediate future? What different possibilities CAN or MIGHT happen longer term? For the latter, we need imagination and thinking outside the box.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
My view remains that even in a hypothetical post scarcity economy, some uses for cash will remain, esp. for buying things "citizens credit" would not pay for.
And one massive problem will remain: how to handle the mass unemployment necessarily resulting from a post scarcity economy. I think Anderson, focusing as he was on the Eight Survivors, glided a bit too quickly over that issue in Chapter XIX of BOAT. His far earlier story "Quixote and the Windmill" shows us some of the anomie, ennui, and despair caused by that mass unemployment.
Your first question: free enterprise economics within the framework of the limited state. Because it WORKS and nothing else which has been attempted has succeeded. The second question: I can imagine a post scarcity economy arising, but ONLY because it sprang from free enterprise economics, AND because of mankind getting off this rock to exploit the resources to be found beyond Earth.
And I thought Poul Anderson's speculations about a post scarcity economy in some of his earlier and then later stories very imaginative, very much thinking outside the box.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Anderson went as far as he could in thinking outside the box and we all need to do likewise, contributing different perspectives.
When people need employment to survive and cannot find it, then they are "unemployed." Otherwise, not. Were the leisured classes in earlier periods "unemployed"? No. That concept did not apply. Some of them were decent enough people. Some were decadent. Others were writers, artists, scientists etc. Culture and upbringing can raise larger numbers to that level just as deprivation can barbarize any of us.
Don't think of people as they are now, then imagine them as being born in a very different future society. That won't happen. Different people will be born in a different society. Our socialization begins from birth, if not earlier.
Paul.
Equal access to the fruits of technology will go far beyond a limited "citizens' credit." Imagine an entirely transformed environment, addressing human needs and enabling individuals to realize their full potential. If teleportation is impossible, then there will have to be some fast, easy means of transportation that enables anyone to go anywhere without damaging the environment. I don't know how this can be done: I am not a physicist, engineer or inventor! But I do know that vast technology is currently wasted for entirely destructive purposes.
Kaor, Paul!
Ditto, what you said about Anderson and "boxes."
I do not share your optimism that in a post scarcity economy ninety percent plus of the human race can, will, or WANT to become artists, writers, scientists, etc. For the simple reason that the vast majority of the human race is not likely to have the talent, abilities, inclinations, etc., to succeed in such endeavors. Most people will be far more like the unemployed technician and carpenter/general handyman seen in "Quixote." For many like them, having some kind of job was what gave meaning to their lives, over and above whatever they earned.
Far future societies, if still human, will not and cannot be totally different from ours, not if they are still HUMAN. Much that they have will necessarily be inherited from the past, esp. ideas, because they work. Simple literacy and numeracy are two obvious examples.
Ad astra! Sean
Also, when I talk of going beyond the money economy, I mean of course going beyond the economy of investment and either employment or unemployment, not the question of whether some sort of credit or cash will still be used to access goods and services. I am quite sure that any such arrangements will change rapidly in any case.
Sean,
People won't want to become writers etc. They will have some physical and/or mental abilities at different levels and an educational system that will help them to identify and develop those abilities. Beyond that, what they will do in detail we have no idea. I am doing my best to think outside current boxes.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your 15.43 comment: I simply don't believe ALL human beings will want to realize what ever their full potential might be, if that means only being artists, scientists, writers, aesthetes, or even SF fans!
Well, we see teleportation being used in a few stories by Anderson, such as THE ENEMY STARS. But he seemed to have abandoned that idea as too implausible.
If much of technology is being wasted or misused, I put that down to other factors which optimists too easily ignore: human beings tend to be quarrelsome, combative, aggressive or simply short sighted.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But realizing everyone's full potential does not mean only becoming artists etc. Those were only examples. Everyone CAN do something at whatever level and WANTS TO/WOULD LIKE TO do something. If they were helped to do it, then there would not be mass unemployment/boredom/alienation etc.
Paul.
Society is currently conflictive but, if we are talking about the best that we can think potentially can happen in future, then this is what I think.
If we talk about the worst that can happen, then nuclear war remains possible as long as such weapons continue to exist. And that is only one of several possibilities.
Kaor, Paul!
Responding to your 10 June 16.11 and 16.22 comments. This combox discussion has become astonishingly long!
Of course people can or might be helped to achieve what their natural bent inclines them to do. BUT, would it pay off in a high tech society with nanotech to be a carpenter/general handyman if there is no need or demand for such persons? And so on for other jobs or professions. I think we would still face the problems of despair, ennui, anger, etc., caused by technological unemployment seen in "Quixote and the Windmill."
I have speculated that, assuming a FTL drive, the opening of a frontier would act like a kind of socio/political vent for letting off steam and pressure. People whose abilities or knowledge were obsolete on Earth could still do useful work and achieve reasonably happy lives in possible colonies. The new worlds would very likely need generations, even centuries, to build themselves up to the same level of technology as Terra. That gives time for the human race to adapt to the advanced technology.
it is my belief that society is "conflictive" because so many HUMAN beings are quarrelsome, contentious, aggressive, etc. These qualities are not things separate from us, but innately part of our nature. And I don't think some how eliminating the competitive urge would be good for the human race, because it's precisely because of that competitiveness that advances of all kinds are made.
I do appreciate you trying to think outside the box, of what might potentially happen for the best in the future. But I also believe in facing the hard facts of history, real life, and what is more likely than not to happen in the future.
Nuclear war is a possibility, esp. if weak and bungling leaders in the US gets us so badly trapped in a corner that only surrender to our enemies or striking out remains to us. Or those enemies might think they can safely use nukes. All the more reason to STOP keeping all our eggs in the only basket we have now, Earth!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People who wanted to be creative as carpenters would not seek employment as such. They would do it as a hobby, maybe building enclaves where those who wanted to do so could continue to live in the old style and others could visit while on holiday.
Sporting competitiveness is good. Quarrelsomeness is bad but has social causes that can be eliminated. Homelessness and unemployment lead to scapegoating of immigrants but this will not happen when there is no longer any homelessness or unemployment. We might fight for the last oxygen tank in a space station but do not have to fight for the air around us.
I do not think that we have any unchanging human nature. Our prehuman ancestors did not yet have "human nature." Everything in us has come into existence through a process of change and we continue to change, sometimes very rapidly. "The past is another country."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still have to disagree. I can't see those "enclaves" you suggested ever being more than a minor sideline which could employ only a few inclined to be carpenters and plumbers. That would still leave far more such persons at loose ends, idle, and prone to despair and anger.
As regards "Sporting competitiveness," we see Anderson showing us that in GENESIS, with him plainly thinking that would not be enough to always redirect the competitive urge to positive ends.
This is an old argument we have, about "human nature." Evolution and change (and other things you disagree with, such as the Fall), made us what we are, no argument there. But I don't believe the human race will evolve into non competitive, non quarrelsome perfection.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the enclaves would not "employ" people in the sense of paying them a wage. We are imagining a society in which resources are deployed to address everyone's physical needs and also to enable them to express themselves in whatever way fulfills them. We cannot now imagine all the things that will be done then any more than someone living thousands of years ago could have imagined cinemas, computers, the Internet, the International Space Station etc.
Paul.
Carpentry as known to us will become as archaic as paleolithic flint carving but new skills unforeseeable by us will emerge. People born in a future society will not respond to it in the same way as people transported to then from our time would.
Kaor, Paul!
Your 11 June 17:43 comment. I am still unconvinced about those "enclaves." It sounds more like places where people practicing archaic skills play at how people in the past lived and worked. It does not strike me as being truly meaningful, the way carpenters and plumbers must feel in the here and now, because of knowing their work is needed and desired. Those "enclaves" reminds me more of updated versions of events organized by the Society for Creative Anachronism.
Your 11 June 17:43 comment. I agree that changes and advances in knowledge and technology will call forth new skills unknown to us.
And I wonder how WE would do if we were somehow transported thru time to the Terran Empire of Dominic Flandry's era? I think I would be absolutely befuddled!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Then don't go with the enclaves idea. I don't really think that people in a further future will want to be carpenters or plumbers. They will want to be something else that is possible then.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I was thinking of the almost certainly TROUBLED beginnings of such an era of advanced high tech, as it was starting to spread and affect people. The carpenter or handyman we see in "Quixote" used to work like that, apparently for a long time, before the new technology made his kind of work obsolete. I have strong doubts that many people of mature years who were made unemployed by advanced tech will be able to adapt that easily or be willing or able to learn new skills. Results: anger, frustration, despair, ennui, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course such an era will have troubled beginnings.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And if there are no alternatives or escape hatches for those made unemployed by advanced tech, you WILL get chaos and upheavals. Including the violent rise and fall of many gov'ts. Opening up a new frontier will, IMO, provide a vent for easing socio/political strains and pressures.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Progress has encountered resistance, chaos and upheavals.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And what some people call "progress" will not actually be progressive at all. And deserve to be resisted and sometimes defeated!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sometimes.
Paul.
Post a Comment