"'The sociotechnic equations foretell it.'" (p. 103)
This short sentence in Poul Anderson's Harvest Of Stars future history summarizes the premise of Anderson's Psychotechnic History and of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, a predictive science of society, as also does another short passage:
"...we brought in sociodynamicists to extrapolate the trend for them and prove that..." (my emphasis)
-Poul Anderson, World Without Stars (New York, 1966), II, p. 8.
Psychohistory
Psychotechnics
Sociotechnics
Sociodynamics
Just as installments of a future history series form a linear sequence, some future histories form a conceptual sequence. The Harvest Of Stars history deals with human-AI interactions whereas Anderson's last future history, Genesis, deals with a post-human AI re-creating humanity. That summary makes Genesis sound like a sequel to Harvest Of Stars although in fact it is a distinct history and one that will take a very long time to become dated.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The complicating factor, and one that confounds all such "predictive sciences" of history is that human beings are chaotic, unpredictable. Which means all such "predictive sciences" needs to be regarded with skepticism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: precisely. Every electron is like every other. People aren’t.
Years ago, a work colleague was so adept (as he thought) at calculating and predicting election outcomes that someone said, "We don't need to have the election. Joe's got it all worked out for us!"
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Many thanks! But to be scrupulously accurate, I can see some historians seeing or suggesting BROAD, oft repeated patterns in history, such as the speculations of John K. Hord. Trying to make sense of why civilizations rise and fall. A man whose work Poul Anderson took seriously.
Paul: And I would not be surprised if Joe was wrong most of the time!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I did not know Joe through enough elections but you are probably right.
Paul.
“History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme”, as the saying goes. Human beings do follow certain patterns.
But history’s outcomes are also granular - they depend on decisions by individuals and small groups.
Eg., the historical accident that Augustus survived more than 40 years may well have prevented the Roman Republic slagging down in an endless series of warlord struggles like the wars of the Successors after Alexander, ending with a set of post-Roman regional kingdoms.
Likewise, the Empire nearly broke up for good in the 200’s CE, until Diocletian hauled things back together.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: E.g., One year Joe might say, "The Tories will win big," only to see them get a drubbing! Next time around he said, "Labour wins again," only to see the Tories routing them!
Mr. Stirling: I agree, individuals DO matter. What might have happened if Octavian, not yet AUGUSTUS, had died soon after Actium? Most likely, more civil wars between rival generals, none of whom had Octavian's unique abilities.
Yes, a half century of anarchy after the assassination of Alexander Severus in AD 235 nearly destroyed the Empire. I agree Diocletian was a very and even a well meaning Emperor, but he drew on the accomplishments of his immediate predecessors, who hammered the Empire back together. E.g., Gallienus, Claudius II, Aurelian, and Probus, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment