"The Rayenn" is the name of a courai! (Scroll down.) A courai is an alliance of Lunarian magnates for security, influence and marginal profit. This particular courai is an interplanetary transport enterprise used by other Lunarians for reasons of pride and clannishness. It employs the Terran Jesse Nicol because he can tolerate higher accelerations than Lunarians when transporting goods rather than passengers. Nicol and Falaire, a Lunarian who handles public relations for the Rayenn, meet in one of the courai's ground control stations. Falaire might involve Nicol in the Scaine Croi. (Scroll down.)
Nicol sometimes drinks in the rowdy Uranium Dragon or visits the Black Sword which offers the more potent drug, exordine. Falaire flies with artificial wings in the Devil Sky, a cave where random violent winds are generated, causing many injuries and some fatalities. We gather that life is tame so recreation is wild.
48 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
People will need something to take them out of the dram tedium of everyday life, esp. if Citizens Credit means there will be almost nothing real for most people to DO.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But many people do all sorts of real things in the evenings, at weekends, on vacation and in their retirement.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I had in mind the situation faced by Jesse Nicol, in which for a long time he drifted aimlessly around Earth, in increasing frustration. Citizens credit deprived most people of being able to feel they were doing anything worthwhile!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But people do worthwhile things in their spare time. They play sport, watch sport, dance, sing, listen to music, read, sometimes try to write, blog, keep fit, travel, socialize, redecorate their houses, cook, brew wine and beer, campaign, research, study, go the cinema and theater, pray, meditate, bring up families etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe that will be enough to satisfy most people. Far more likely, IMO, we would see the despair and ennui of the "redundant" technician and carpenter/handyman of "Quixote and the Windmill." Most people are NOT going to be aesthetes, artists, intellectuals, philosophers, or even SF readers!
Regretfully, I don't share your optimism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the activities I listed did not require everyone to be aesthetes, artists, intellectuals, philosophers or readers. I tried to indicate the whole range of what people do at every level of intellectual, technical, physical etc ability, personal inclination etc. And people as we know them now are not people as they will be in very different future conditions created by our own actions.
People's own interests, pleasures and aptitudes are not enough to satisfy them? They are satisfied ONLY if, in order to survive economically, they HAVE to be employed by someone else to perform tasks dictated by someone else? That makes no sense. It reads to me like a rationalization of the current economic system. IF humanity survives into an indefinite future (I hope), then it will continue to change its social relationships even more than it has already done in the last few thousand years - accelerating in the last two hundred.
Paul.
Recreation is not the whole of life; people need to think that what they do is significant.
I agree that life has to be more than mere recreation. The latter is just a starting point. Everyone surely has something that they like doing at least for a while. But the work-leisure distinction is broken down when people are engaged in activities that engage their total attention. I think that an educational system could help each individual to identify what is their most fulfilling activity. I don't spend hours perfecting football skills, ballroom dancing, bird watching, stamp collecting, amateur astronomy etc but lots of other people do or would if given the opportunity.
Kaor, Paul!
I remain unconvinced. Recreation is generally thought as something to be done after the serious work of the day (or night, in my case), of making a living, is done. And I simply don't believe many, many, many people would live the way you hopefully outlined, if we were to achieve a post scarcity economy. I think many would succumb to drink or drugs, to dull the pain of despair and ennui.
Too often, things are more likely to go WRONG, not right!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know you will be unconvinced. That goes without saying.
So what is the answer? An economy where people HAVE to work should be artificially maintained even when it is no longer necessary? That would generate even greater conflicts than we have at present.
Of course recreation is at present seen as something to do after work hours because that is how life is currently organized. This argument becomes circular.
The "many, many, many people" you are thinking of are people as we know them now, not as they will be in a completely different society with different upbringing, assumptions, expectations, opportunities etc. We have to learn to think like science fiction readers. The future will be different. Times change and we change with them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
One way of easing the strains and pressures caused by advanced technology making many people "redundant" would be to have a frontier, some place the most unhappy and dissatisfied people could go to and live their lives as they want to. An outlet for venting socio/political "steam."
And I still don't think mere recreation will ever be enough for most of us, even in a post scarcity economy.
And I don't believe the propensity all of us have, to a greater or lesser degree, to be violent will ever be eliminated, no matter how advanced our technology becomes. The possibility that any of us can kill, rob, rape, enslave, etc., is INNATE.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But those who are and feel redundant are a transitional generation. New generations accept a different situation.
I agree mere recreation is not enough. It is only a start. Someone who is fully absorbed in an activity has gone beyond mere recreation.
Many possibilities exist but are never realized. We do not try to hoard the air that we breathe but might well fight for the last oxygen cylinder in a space station. A Gandhian saint is physically capable of kicking a child or a dog but he never does.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't BELIEVE those future generations will be so different from us. I strongly suspect the ancient killer ape will lurk in them as well!
A Catholic saint would disagree with the Gandhian. Because the Catholic would say that as long as he lives the chance of him killing, robbing, raping, etc., remains. No matter how low the chances of that happening would be.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The ape can lurk but need not be released. Won't be released if there is no reason for him to be.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But people don't NEED rational or serious reasons for fighting and killing. As we see in GENESIS, where petty intrigues and slurs drove one man to fury and aroused his clan to assist him in trying to kill the offender.
I don't share your confidence that it will be possible to keep that killer ape we all have forever caged.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, by "reason," I just meant explanation or cause. There need not be any cause of violence. If everyone is well fed and has a regular food supply, then no one needs to steal food. If everyone is housed, then there is no reason to scapegoat or attack immigrants for causing a housing shortage. If children have never been brought up to be prejudiced against anyone who is different, then those children will not grow up into adults who teach their children to be prejudiced. And so on.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, because I believe you keep missing the point. People can be as materially well off as you like and even carefully educated and they can and will STILL often fight and quarrel.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I think that you keep missing the point. Cultures and psychologies differ enormously and some can be peaceful.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Respectfully, I disagree. I did and do get that point. I simply don't BELIEVE any human societies can be securely or permanently peaceful. The POTENTIALITY for strife and violence remains innate in all human beings. Which is why I am distrustful of both excessively concentrated power in any state and impossible Utopian schemes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What we are trying to do here is not to persuade anyone else but simply to clarify what we think as far as possible.
For any specific cause of conflict, we can specify conditions where that cause would not exist. This is a realistic, not a Utopian, approach. Thus, people fight over trivia in PA's GENESIS because their lives have become meaningless but this need not happen because human lives can be full of meaning.
It is undeniable that:
if everyone were well fed, then no one would need to steal food and anyone who did hoard some would not be depriving anyone else;
if everyone were adequately housed, then no one would accuse anyone else of causing a housing shortage;
if everyone were brought up without prejudices, then no one would grow up to transmit prejudices to the next generation;
if, in the future, humanity is no longer divided into armed nation-states, then there will no longer be wars between such states any more than there now is between York and Lancaster;
if there is no scandalous contradiction between extravagant wealth on the one hand and abject deprivation on the other, then there are no riotous mobs attacking the property of the rich.
In all of these situations, a POTENTIALITY for strife and violence continues to exist but is never realized just as a potentiality to die of hunger is never realized if everyone continues to be fed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Thanks for these comments, despite continuing to be unconvinced.
I believe people will still steal, even when they don't need to.
Your comments about housing shortages puzzles me. MY view is that MOST OFTEN such shortages occur because incompetent gov'ts gets in the way of letting the markets handle such things.
People will still have irrational prejudices in the future as they do now. And such prejudices can be about ANYTHING. So there will be prejudices in the future. Nor do I believe that all such prejudices will be bad. I'm prejudiced in favor of the limited state and free enterprise economics, for example.
Disagree, as regards the state. Because it is necessary for simply keeping the peace within the territory it rules. And if nation states are competitive, as they are, it's because the PEOPLE in them are competitive.
Wealth and poverty are RELATIVE. Bill Gates is a billionaire, and I am not. But, compared to how people lived even a century ago, I am wealthy. So the existence of billionaires does not bother me. The BLM looters last year plundered STORES, not the houses of millionaires.
And I believe that potentiality we all have for becoming killers, robbers, rapists, etc., WILL be acted on by some, no matter how well off they might be.
I have to conclude that on some matters, we are simply not going to agree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My point about housing shortages is only that some people blame immigrants for housing shortages (also for unemployment). I accept that you can give a different explanation for housing shortages.
My point about states was only that, IF in future they no longer exist, then there can no longer be wars between them. To say that they are necessary to keep the peace is to assume that it will still be necessary to "keep the peace," which is to beg the question.
Wealth and poverty are relative. My point was only that a vast and visible different between great wealth and abject poverty is one cause of conflict and a cause, like all the others, that need not exist.
Why should people steal when they don't need to?
Your beliefs in the limited state and free enterprise are reasoned, not prejudiced. You do not state these beliefs before (pre-) judging the evidence.
Why will anyone kill, rob or rape if they live in a peaceful society that addresses their needs? There are many places now where we can safely walk down a street without being attacked. Unfortunately, there are also places where this is not the case but it is a realistic aim to extend the peaceful places across the rest of society.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I was thinking of how gov't meddling with the real estate market was primarily to blame for the Crash of 2008-09.
And, absent the second coming of Christ, I don't BELIEVE states will somehow magically disappear. They exist because they fill NEEDS, to keep internal peace and for defense against outside aggression. Every thing I've seen in history and real life does not convince me those needs will somehow disappear.
A man can be comfortably well off, in a modest way, and instead of being satisfied with that he may well be consumed with envy for people only slightly richer than him.
Thanks, for what you said about my advocacy of the limited state and free enterprise economics!
The fact remains that quite a few people WILL rob, rape, murder, etc., even tho they have no need to. Many crimes are not motivated, per se, by economic reasons. Some criminals LIKE to kill, rob, rape. Some people are just plain BAD.
The only reason any peaceful places exist at all is because the state keeps order in those places. What's needed is for the state to do the same thru out its entire domain.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The state will not disappear magically but (maybe) become redundant like earlier forms of social organization.
Government meddling with real estate market? Sure. But my only point about housing shortages was that they become a pretext for the xenophobic argument that there are too few houses because there are too many immigrants. Adequate housing, however organized, prevents such an argument from getting off the ground.
States are necessary for defense against other aggressive states! Circular argument. States are necessary to keep the peace? At present. But why is the peace threatened? There are reasons for this which can be addressed. A lot of the time, when people engage in social interaction and discourse, it is simply because they want to do that and are happy to do it, not because the state holds a gun at their head. There is no policeman anywhere near us most of the time.
The few people who will still want to kill, rob or rape even in the most favorable circumstances are clearly mentally ill and should be dealt with on that basis.
By "prejudice," I meant prejudice against other groups of people. This is a cause of conflict that need not be transmitted to future generations.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I simply can't SEE the state becoming redundant. At most--and I would be glad of that--its powers might be pruned back. To, say, more to what it was like before 1914.
I believe states are quarrelsome and aggressive because the PEOPLE leading them are quarrelsome and aggressive. That such things are INNATE to human beings. And they are not going to be magically excised.
But the argument you were making about "housing" doesn't fit what I had observed in the US. Here people wrangle about whether gov't entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be subsidizing loans to people who can't afford to buy property. Or forcing banks to grant loans to people they don't believe can or will repay them. Both of them bad ideas!
And I don't believe more than a small minority of criminals can plausibly be thought so seriously mentally ill that they can't help committing crimes. No, most are just plain bad or irresponsible.
And I am absolutely convinced that current prejudices will simply be replaced by other or very similar prejudices in the future!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Nothing will be magically excised. As sf readers, we understand social change, the further future and different possibilities.
I was citing the housing issue as it has happened in Britain.
Most criminals are not mentally ill. Anyone who wanted to go on killing, robbing and raping even when social conditions had been vastly improved would be.
A social culture of acceptance of minorities and of differences is perfectly possible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But people who propose what I believe to be Utopian impossibilities so often seem to think the difficulties making their ideas impractical can be waved away!
We can imagine social changes, at least as thought experiments. I simply have the strongest possible doubts about the LIKELIHOOD of many of the more starry eyed proposals. And I think that was Anderson's opinion as well.
We can imagine societies without prejudices, but I remain extremely skeptical that will ever HAPPEN or be the case.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You are right that that was Anderson's opinion.
Societies differ enormously in how prejudiced they are. We can certainly gain support in opposing prejudice and bringing up children differently.
Difficulties cannot be waved away. Currently, they seem overwhelming.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Anderson liked examining implausibilities in thought experiments, but he also believed serious politicians and reformers have to be realistic and cautious, in the Burkean sense. They accept the existence of difficulties and the need to patiently chip away at them.
People can try to raise their children not to have prejudices A or B, but I would not be surprised one bit if prejudice C popped up! It's simply how real people behave.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But crises require urgent, innovative action. Puppeteers elect Conservaitives but Experimentalists in crises.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But those crises requires actions being taken that are realistic and likely to work. Such as, for environmental problems, replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power and a space based solar power system. And NOT the heavy handed, high taxing, chokingly bureaucratic approach favored by so many on the left.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Either way, urgent innovative action needed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
NOT if the actions chosen are futile, counterproductive, and ineffectual. Better to do nothing than take actions that worsens the problems.
And we are seeing a lot of counterproductive folly in the US from "Josip" and his minions!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course not but that is precisely the point at issue. What is effective? Current use of fossil fuels is causing a crisis. What is to be done and by whom?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I keep TELLING you: nuclear power, a space based solar power system, and plain old rust for sopping up carbon dioxide. Which Robert Zubrin discussed in detail in his book THE CASE FOR SPACE, some of which I quoted in this blog. And with no need for crushing taxes, giant bureaucracies, and yet more erosion of REAL liberty.
But the left hates such ideas and fanatically opposes them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the longer term goals of nuclear power and space based solar power do not address the immediate problem. Fossil fuel use must be drastically reduced without delay now. The IPCC report says that this is urgent.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
IMMEDIATE cessation of using at least brown coal, the most polluting of fossil fuels, in places like Africa/India/China, is simply not going to happen. All the more reason to advocate for nuclear power, a proven technology which can be used quickly if the political and bureaucratic red tape strangling the nuclear industry can be chopped back.
And plain old rust for sopping up carbon dioxide from the oceans CAN be used even more quickly as the college professor and the Indian fishermen of Oregon PROVED.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So these measures can be implemented quickly? But I am not the person who needs to be convinced! Scientists are advising the UN and governments now so it should be realized that these are the steps to take.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Oh, I'm sure many people are aware of these solutions. The problem is the POLITICS involved, of how many have taken strong stands against ideas like the ones I advocate. No one likes to admit he might be wrong and go thru the mental pain of completely changing one's mind. And of course there are the demagogues who whip up hysteria about Demon Nuclear and those evil Capitalists or sinister City of London or Wall Street bankers as a means for grabbing at power.
Forget the UN! I have only contempt for it, a contempt also came to feel for it.
Ad astra! Sean
I meant to say in my last sentence above that Poul Anderson also came to have only contempt for the UN!
Sean
Sean,
No one likes to admit he might be wrong! I can at least consider the possibility. I have changed my views completely since I was at school and expect to continue to learn.
I am not sure that many people are aware that your solutions are right but oppose them anyway! There is a great deal of genuine concern about the extent and urgency of the current problem. Of course, when there is a disagreement, each side can accuse the other of dishonesty but that still leaves us with the content of the disagreement. I am certain from my knowledge of some of the people involved that many opponents of nuclear power and of the City are honest and are not grabbing for power.
I am not a fan of the UN but I do respect the IPCC scientists who say that human activity is starting an irreversible catastrophe and that this is happening now, not sometime in the future. If it was obvious to these scientists that green energy was insufficient and that a massive investment in nuclear power was the only way forward, then they would be saying that. If your solutions are the only right ones, then it is they that need to be convinced.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Willingness to learn? That makes you a rare exception!
After the scandalous mess made of Covid by Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and the WHO, I am no longer so convinced we can be so confident of the honesty of all scientists. If the IPCC refuses to even discuss nuclear power, as an alternative to fossils, that makes me suspicious!
I agree not all who oppose nuclear power will be cynical demagogues who know better. But demagogues do exist. No, many will simply be too CONVINCED to be willing to change their minds.
I can only suggest that you read Robert Zubrin's THE CASE FOR SPACE, for an opposition POV.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I don't think that the IPCC refuses to discuss anything. I think that their main job is to say that human activity is damaging the environment and that current energy sources need to be replaced immediately by something that does not have these effects.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Immediately replace fossils with WHAT? I want realistic alternatives to them and I'm not seeing any! You can cover the entire island of Great Britain with windmills and they could not supply the energy needs of the UK.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you need to tell government advisers that! If no change is made, then there is definitely an irreversible catastrophe.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
A good point! I sometimes write to my House representative. Most recently, YESTERDAY, to vent my anger and frustration at how "Josip" and his Democrats are bringing disaster on the US. The next time I do so so I will say a word in favor of nuclear power. Not that I expect a left wing Democrat to listen to me!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, if there is a case to be made, then more people need to make it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree! And people as varied as Jerry Pournelle and Robert Zubrin have been trying to do that in their books and articles.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment