"Emil faced the humans. '(We wish to convey certain information,)' en spelled out. '(At the present stage of communication, it is best done through graphics, using a larger screen than a parleur's.)'" (p. 254)
After many pages of human-Tahirian interaction, this is the first description of the beginning of a conversation. We have been told that the mutual artificial language, Cambiante, deals best with science and technology but not with faith or philosophy.
Sundaram thinks that the Tahirians have renounced change in favor of stability which gives them:
"'...universal peace, plenty, and justice.'" (p. 258)
- although some Envoy crew members would regard this as a ghastly fate for humanity. Yu tries to put the best face on it:
not eternal boredom;
beauty and culture are new to every generation;
one lifetime is not enough to learn everything;
there can be new artistic creations even if in fixed forms.
Why fixed? I think that Anderson presents a false dichotomy. Humanity can aim for a dynamic synthesis of peace and change.
The Tahirians may have ended starfaring because:
"'It carried the danger of bringing in something new and troublesome.'" (p. 259)
- although some discontented individuals may:
"'...look at the stars with longing.'" (ibid.)
Indeed. To end exploration is to embrace stagnation.
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think Anderson was presenting a false dichotomy. Rather, he was stating what the Chinese first engineer thought or believed.
I am extremely skeptical of humans somehow managing to achieve, for their societies, "...a dynamic synthesis of peace and change." Because to accept change has to mean accepting the risk of bad changes, the possibility of failure and disaster.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I was also thinking of how there were times in the history of China, Korea, and Japan when they tried to seal themselves off from outside influences, from troubling and disturbing things and ideas. Needless to say, it could not work, it was impossible for these countries to forever refuse contact with the outside world. The very attempt to do so merely led to stagnation, backwardness, and falling prey to aggressive and up to date enemies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Good examples. It has been tried.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And China's military backwardness became glaringly obvious during the first Opium War with the UK in 1839-42. Not only were the weapons and tactics of the Ch'ing armies out of date, a long peace and the resulting laxity had rotted the discipline and good order of many Imperial troops.
Next, one example of how disturbing ideas were undermining the old China was the distorted form of Protestant Christianity which became part of the ideology of the Taiping Rebellion of 1850-64. That upheaval became a brutal civil war which devastated China and nearly toppled the old ruling dynasty of the Ch'ing.
And we see Aycharaych mentioning the Taipings in his discussion with Chunderban Desai in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN.
Ad astra! Sean
The Taiping wars probably killed about as many people as WW1.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Correct. Millions of people died directly or indirectly because of the Taiping Rebellion.
Besides the direct casualties of war and massacre, many died because of the breakdown of law and order, banditry, disruption of trade (including the transporting of foods), floods caused by the rivers breaking out of their levees, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment