Starfarers, PROLOGUE.
This is quite a rich section so we might pause on it for a while.
First, a settlement is established in the Jovian System, asteroid outposts are coordinated and space is industrialized so that Earth need no longer be polluted:
"The hope of most people concerned in the endeavor was to make a profit. And this was right and proper. No civilization, whatever its social and economic arrangements, can continue forever throwing resources into a void. It must eventually start to reap some kind of material return." (p. 15)
However, "profit" and "material return" are not identical. "Profit" means not merely value created by labor but, more specifically, value created by labor and competitively accumulated by employers of labor. That is one kind of social and economic arrangement.
A spaceship using the quantum field gate drive, nicknamed "the zero-zero drive," (p. 14) springs from the normal, "zero," energy level to a superhigh energy level and back down again repeatedly so it sounds in part like the quantum hyperdrive in Poul Anderson's Technic History.
Olivares' theory leads to the zero-zero drive and, later in Starfarers, a planet is named "Olivares." The future historicity here is overwhelming.
An observer on the Jovian moon, Himalia, comments that machines will never become as intelligent as human beings because:
"'I know some neuropsychology. Consciousness, creative thought, that is not merely a business of electrons in circuits. It is something the entire living human organism does.'" (p. 15)
People use the word, "consciousness," differently and confusingly. In my use of the term, all animals are conscious whereas human beings think and create. However, I agree that both consciousness and thought result from organism-environment interactions, not from electronic circuitry. A different kind of artifact that did duplicate organism-environment interactions and thus generate consciousness might be called not a machine but an artificial organism.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm not quite satisfied with your fourth paragraph here, because I disagree with the labor theory of value. I have argued that the value of a good or service lies not in the effort needed to produce then, but in whether or not others value those goods and services enough to pay for them. Entrepreneurs of the kind mentioned here see a chance of making a profit, so they provide the capital (sometimes raised by funds from investors) and make the necessary arrangements for the needed labor and equipment. If a high risk venture succeeds, then it pays off for everybody concerned.
But this is an old argument we have had: the marginal utility theory of value versus the labor theory of value.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment