A theory of human nature is useful when speculating about human capabilities and prospects on a cosmic time-scale. Anderson's Harvest Of Stars future history presupposes that the memories and sense of identity of a human personality can be reproduced either in an artificial neural network or in a newly grown organic body, thus that consciousness is materially based, thus further that personal identity is not dependent on any unique immaterial soul.
Science fiction is about change. An sf writer should not merely project past or future societies into future periods - unless he can present a good reason to do this. And, even then, many details at least should differ.
I think that we can say more about human consciousness than just that it is materially based. Human beings are differentiated as a species by the fact they have changed their environment with hands and brain and have changed themselves in the process and continue to do so. They have changed themselves into homo sapiens through labor, language and abstract thought. This species can either destroy or transform an entire planet. Human beings are dynamic and plastic, not static. "Human nature" means the nature of humanity but should not imply any unchanging essence although it is commonly used to mean the latter.
With technologically produced abundant wealth, there will no longer be any need to accumulate, hoard, compete, fight or steal any more than we currently fight for the air that we breathe whereas, if even air comes to be in short supply, that will be a different matter. At present, poverty and deprivation cause violence which is ideologically rationalized in terms of received beliefs that otherwise would be of merely historical interest.
So what do I expect for the further future? Either extinction or a very different and much better world. However, I am not an sf writer so meanwhile I commend Poul Anderson's Harvest Of Stars and Genesis.
Addendum: People born into a completely different culture and brought up to live in a completely different way will not be people as we know them now. Those who are used to peace and prosperity have no reason to resort to crime or terrorism.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And Hord's theory of how and why civilizations rise and fall does seem to be reasonably accurate. Enough so to disturb me@
I remain skeptical of the of it being someday possible to download/upload human personalities in and out of artificial neural networks. But I certainly don't object to speculations about them.
If there is one thing about human beings which I believe to be an absolute constant, it is of how IMPERFECT we all are. That alone will make violence, rivalries, ambitions, conflicts, etc., more than likely, IMO.
I simply do not believe "poverty and deprivation" alone causes all violence and conflict, because that is simply not true. I have read many times about criminals who perpetrated the most appalling crimes despite having been raised with as much comfort and prosperity as you could wish for. MY view remains that, even in a post scarcity economy, there will be ambitions and conflicts, as we see in GENESIS. Or frustration, boredom, ennui will lead to conflicts.
I simply do not believe in the likelihood, never mind possibility, of any kind of HUMAN culture which is completely the opposite of anything seen in the past or existing now. Not if the people in such a culture are still going to be HUMAN.
And we will continue to need some kind of state, in whatever forms it may take, simply to maintain internal peace and defend against possible outside aggression. Again, I have seen nothing in human history and life to make think that will cease to be so.
All you are doing is offering us a speculative hope. And that is simply not enough. Real humans, including their leaders, good or bad, have to contend with human beings as they are, not as we would like them to be. My view remains that the wisest and most successful leaders were those who accepted how flawed we are.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Society must continue to have ways to deal with aberrant individuals (if any), of course, but such individuals are a long way from mass movements of violence and terror. Such movements emerge in response to perceived grievances and injustices which CAN, not necessarily WILL, be avoided in future.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
First, many, if not most criminals are not "aberrant" if you mean by that persons who are actually, literally, and clinically mentally ill. Most criminals are bad, callous, irresponsible, or dangerously foolish persons. They need to be penalized and prevented from again harming others.
I am not sure what you mean bye "mass movements of violence and terror." Even within Islam, ACTIVE jihadists a la the Taliban and al Qaeda make up only a minority of Muslimbs. Albeit, too many "non-violent" Muslims support the jihadists and gives them money and other forms of material support. And they need to be RESISTED and defeated!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Many criminals are indeed as you say but, in very different social conditions, there will be far fewer criminals. Nothing remains unchanged while everything else changes around it.
Paul.
Sean,
We converse at cross-purposes because I try to imagine people in very different social conditions and you continue to discuss people as we know them in familiar conditions. Maybe the most that we can do is to identify such communication problems.
In hope,
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I can agree that crime rates can be lower in better social and political conditions. E.g., during the Mayoralties of Giulani and Bloomberg in NY City, crime dropped sharply because tehy insisted on ENFORCING THE LAWS. Under their successor, De Blasio, who was soft on crime, it again skyrocketed.
I'm sorry about the talking at cross purposes. Perhaps I'm being too much like a Sancho Panza to his Don Quixote!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Should jihadists be fought in the sense of attacking countries, thus causing innocent deaths and much destruction? Instead, should individual terrorists and conspirators not be apprehended, arrested, charged, prosecuted and sentenced? Attacking Muslim countries increases jihadism.
Paul.
Sean,
Of course I meant improving conditions to reduce and eventually eliminate all motivations for crime, not enforcing laws to make people afraid to commit crimes.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But Muslim jihadists BELIEVE in attacking other, non Muslim countries to impose the rule of Islam on them. And if such fanatics manage to take over countries like Iran or Afghanistan, and begin plotting and carrying out such attacks, my view remains that civilized countries may very well HAVE to attack them, if that is the only way to stop the jihadists. I simply desire that such wars be fought intelligently and for limited, attainable goals.
The methods you would prefer are best applied to jihadists who attack within countries like the UK or US.
As for ordinary crime, ameliorating social conditions along with firm enforcing of the laws penalizing such offenses can well greatly reduce crime rates. But, as imperfect as all human beings are, I do not believe crime will ever completely disappear.
Ad astra! Sean
Note that virtually nobody in the West steals to get food and other basics.
Gangsters want wealth and power and to evoke fear and submission. So do a lot of other groups,
These too are basic human drives, and they will never, ever go away.
From the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing will ever be made, as the saying goes.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! During the disgusting BLM riots last year I saw looters stealing not food but TVs and other appliances!
Amen, re how crooked the timber of humanity is!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment