Wednesday, 26 January 2022

The Chaos

In Minamoto's account, the Chaos separates the mid-twentieth century from his own period in the mid-twenty-first century. So what is the Chaos? In "Concerning Future Histories," (SFWA Bulletin, Fall 1979), Poul Anderson does not use this term. Instead, he writes that:

there is more in his head than he will put in print;

humanity muddles through its present crises;

a more humane order emerges;

English becomes Anglic and the main international language;

there is no dark age;

the transition might involve either conversion tyrannies or scientific technology (the latter is what we see in "The Saturn Game");

the more humane order becomes Technic civilization.

Anderson then discusses Satan's World, "Lodestar" and Mirkheim as showing how people later "blew it." Thus, he moves away from discussing the immediate pre-Technic period. Sandra Miesel's Chronology tells us that:

"The Technic Civilization series...begins in the twenty-first century, with recovery from a violent period of global unrest known as the Chaos. New space technologies ease Earth's demand for resources and energy permitting exploration of the Solar system."
-Sandra Miesel, CHRONOLOGY OF TECHNIC CIVILIZATION IN Poul Anderson, The Van Rijn Method (Riverdale, NY, 2009), pp. 611-619 AT p. 611.

Is the "violent period of global unrest" referenced in any of Anderson's texts?

8 comments:

S.M. Stirling said...

The problem with future histories is always the immediate future; because prediction is a fool's game. Human beings just aren't capable of the necessary degree of detachment, and that's just for starters.

S.M. Stirling said...

Mind you, occasionally people do get the immediate future right. It's rare, though.

The following is an article written for the July 31st, 1914 issue of the Berliner Morgenpost, by Arthur Bernstein:

"Therefore, at the last minute: the warmongers are making a mistake.

First, there is no Triple Alliance. Italy will not join in, or anyway not with us; if anything, it will be on the side of the Entente.

Second, Britain will not remain neutral but will stand by France; either straight away or at the point when France seems to be in serious danger. Nor will Britain tolerate that German army units march through Belgium, according to a strategic plan that has been public knowledge since 1907.

But if Britain fights against us, the whole english world -- and eventually America -- will stand against us.

Third, Japan will not attack Russia, but it probably will attack us, in fond memory of our hostile intervention at the Peace of Shimonoseki.

Fourth, the Scandinavian countries (our "Germanic" brothers) will sell us what they can spare, but otherwise they are not favorably disposed to us.

Fifth, Austria-Hungary is scarcely a match for the Serbs and Romanians militarily. Economically, it can just starve its way through for three to five years. And it won't be able to give us anything.

Sixth, a revolution in Russia will come at mostly only if the Russians are defeated. So long as they fight Germany with success, a revolution there is unthinkable."

Right on every point.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Almost uncannily, eerily spot on! Albeit, I would quibble about some points and argue for the need to add some "nuances." E.g., there was considerable pro-German sympathy in Sweden. And I don't think Austria-Hungary was that feeble.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: Sweden did have a pro-German element, but as the saying goes, with sympathy and a couple of bucks you can get a coffee and danish at Starbucks.

I'm reminded of what a Swedish diplomat said in 1940, when asked why Sweden was so determined to remain neutral:

"If the Allies win, we're a democracy. If the Germans win, we're Nordic Aryans."

S.M. Stirling said...

So Berstein was pointing out that the Scandinavians wouldn't actually -do- anything that would help Germany unless Germany won on its own.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

And I agree, it made simple sense for the Scandinavian nations to wait and see who would win, albeit many would prefer not to put it as crassly as did that Swedish diplomat.

Well, Finland was an exception, being a willing ally of Germany in WW II. But that was because the Finns wanted to get revenge on the hated USSR for Stalin attacking them during the Winter War.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: and Finnish nationalists had gotten crucial help from Germany in WW1, to win independence and beat the Bolshevik faction in their own civil war.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

That I had not known. I kinda vaguely thought the Finns declared their independence of Russia because either the Provisional Gov't was too weak to stop them or Lenin was too busy struggling to stay in power after he overthrew kerensky. Good, that the Finns smashed their own Bolsheviks!

Ad astra! Sean