The first time I read "Brake," I was conscious only of continuous action with very little explanation. When you reread it, keep track of who the characters are, what their roles are and what happens to them. The Western Reformist hijackers are dispatched quickly and efficiently with the consequence that the violence does not seem quite so interminable. After the last hijacker, their leader Gomez, has been killed, the technical problem of mere survival in a sabotaged spaceship becomes interesting. The story becomes one of human cooperation. The Ganymedeans, in their antiquated ships, attempt rescue and will be able to succeed when the Thunderbolt stops speeding past them and instead floats in the Jovian atmosphere:
"Like an old drop in a densitometer, like a free balloon over eighteenth-century France, like a small defiant bubble in the sky, the Thunderbolt floated." (p. 252)
The French balloon reference reminds that this and other future histories grow out of past history.
37 comments:
Conflict and cooperation are not separate, not opposites: they're interlinked, in a conflict between groups. Both the attack/sabotage and the reaction to it involve intense cooperation.
Nazis had to cooperate with each other in order to exterminate those regarded as their enemies. A dictator is powerless if his men agree with each other to disobey orders and even to turn their guns on him.
Much of the time, we cooperate, e.g., by speaking a common language, driving on the same side of the road, stopping at red lights etc. From Lancaster, we are free to drive south to London or north to Glasgow only because we are not free (and don't want to be) to choose individually which side of the road to drive on.
A society in which everyone broke all the laws all the time and lied every time they spoke would not be a society! A lie is a counterfeit truth, i.e., it assumes that most people most of the time are telling the truth. Only thus might the falsehood be accepted as a truth.
I think that there can be cooperation without conflict but not conflict without cooperation, therefore cooperation is more basic.
Kaor, Paul!
And as long as human beings are human the potentiality for conflict will remain. And all societies will have conflicts. A problem which can only be managed, not solved.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A potentiality need not be realized. We do not fight for the air that we breathe but would if it ran short.
Paul.
Paul: but why did we -develop- the capacity for cooperation in the first place?
Most mammals don't cooperate much except to mate and raise young, and in most species the male buggers off and leaves raising the next generation to the female.
Chimps are more cooperative than that, but not nearly as cooperative as even the most thinly-spread humans(*).
Our pre-human hominid ancestors were more cooperative than chimps, but less so than we are.
We developed the capacity for larger-scale cooperation (reaching "modern" levels about 80,000 years ago, which began the wholesale displacement of other hominin subspecies) as we developed into social apex predators.
All the evidence -- and the evidence of other social apex predators -- indicates that cooperation develops for two reasons:
a) to hunt more effectively, and
b) to fight other bands of the same species over territory, mates and so forth.
Wolves, who are the species most behaviorally similar to us (hence our early cohabitation/sharing with the ancestors of dogs), show a similar pattern to pre-State humans, in that wolves are the primary cause of death in a "state of nature" for other wolves.
So both conflict/competition and cooperation are inherent in human nature -- that is, they're instinctual.
Since we're behaviorally flexible that leaves considerable latitude for variation; for example, human beings can be territorial about things other than physical territory.
But both will always happen.
And we evidently developed fully human intelligence to compete -and- to cooperate with other humans; between bands/tribes, and within them for social prominence, which genetic research shows is closely correlated with successful reproduction among humans, particularly males.
(*) the common ancestor of humans and chimps wasn't a chimp, but it was a lot more -like- a chimp than we are.
I learn.
Our saving grace, I think, is that we are naturally selected to help other human beings either because they bear the same genes or because they might help us in return and we experience this motivation not as calculating self-interest but as moral obligation. Hence, donations to charities and people stopping to help someone who falls over in the street which happened to me once. Morality can be explained biologically despite Christian apologists arguing that, where there is a moral law, there must be a Moral Lawgiver. (Christians are divided as to whether an action is good because God commands it or whether God commands it because it is good. Only the latter position makes any sense.)
Note that humans who PO'ed members of their own clan wouldn't get help -back-.
Which was more or less a sentence of death.
Humans also tend to extend empathy to others in proportion to the others' (felt, perceived) similarity to themselves and their close kin.
Eg., there's nothing happening in Ukraine that hasn't happened to Uyghurs, or in the Sudan and the Congo... and happened for many, many years... but note that there's a lot less concern about that in, say, Poland or for that matter England.
You didn't see Polish or English (or German) families lining up to volunteer to take in Uyghurs or Congolese -- not in the same spontaneous outburst and mass numbers.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I still disagree. One of the things I'm absolutely dead certain about is that the potentiality for conflicts, violence, wars, etc., that we all have is that it WILL be expressed, at one time or another. It does not matter if some INDIVIDUALS are not violent themselves, it only needs a few violent persons to force everybody else to be at least on their guard. So we do things like locking our cars and houses and scrutinizing warily the kinds or sorts of people hard experience has shown might be violent.
So, by all means trust, but also be cautious!
Mr. Stirling: Your mention of the Uighurs made me think of several points. That unlucky people live deep in central Asia, in territory China has ruled since Ch'ing times. There is no way for them to get out fairly quickly.
Most Uighurs are Muslims belonging to a Turkish tribe of the same ethnic origins as the Ottoman Turks who conquered Asia Minor and the Balkans. Since the Peking regime hates Uighurs that much, China could have suggested to Turkey that it take them in. And even pay the costs of booting them out.
That would at least make China look less nasty than it is now, slowly exterminating the Uighurs in concentration camps.
But it's probably too late now.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there will be nothing to be violent about when everyone has what they need and we have the technological capacity for that now. Of course I lock my car when I know that cars are stolen.
A possible future is that violence is left behind as we leave behind a ladder that we have climbed up.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe that one little bit. And neither did Anderson!
Even assuming a post scarcity economy, people can and will fight and quarrel about SOMETHING, as Anderson shows in the HARVEST OF STARS books and GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You are thinking of people as we know them, not as people as they can be when they have changed all the social conditions. There will be no something left to fight about.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then, regretfully, we are not going to be able to agree. "Social conditions" take their origins from, and spring from human beings. The logic of your argument seems to lead to saying human beings spring from social conditions, which is simply not true.
I simply do not believe humans/hominins will somehow miraculously change from what they have been for hundreds of thousands of years: quarrelsome, bellicose, prone to violence and conflicts, etc. The hard facts of real history and real life supports my argument, not yours
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Without social interactions, we would be psychophysical organisms but not self-conscious individuals. We change our environment and ourselves by acting on our environment, not miraculously.
Paul.
Do you think that each of us already existed as the person he is now in advance of any social interactions? A unique personality arises out of each unique set of interactions. If two babies had been switched at birth, then the one who was in fact brought up as a Christian in Europe would instead have been brought up as a Muslim in Iran and vice versa.
Kaor, Paul!
We can change our environments, yes, but NOT ourselves, not deep down, where it matters. That is where we, unfortunately, disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But an organism with your genes would be a completely different person in a completely different environment: different language, beliefs, values, assumptions, aims, memories, everyday experiences, expectations, personal relationships, history. Nothing would be the same.
Paul.
Paul: but a human being is a DNA molecule's way of making more DNA molecules; or to be more poetic, a human being is a means to produce descendants for ancestors.
Identical twins, even ones separated at birth and raised separately, tend to be very similar -- to have similar tastes, mannerisms, attitudes, etc. Plus a generally similar level of intelligence.
Our environments work on a preexisting substrate that is genetic.
The human genetic substrate is necessary if we are to learn language.
Kaor, Paul!
If I had had a twin, raised separately from me, he would have been different from me in some ways. But see what Stirling said about how those differences should not be exaggerated when it comes to twins.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are plastic and adaptable as well as pro-active and dynamic. I stand by what I argued above. A very different society will produce very different people.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Humans are not infinitely "plastic." And I believe many of the things you dislike in humans are permanently innate in all of us. Unless you want to use Draka style genetic engineering to remove them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. People can agree to change their ways of behaving and interacting. When the environment is threatened, we can cooperate - or, of course, continue to argue and fight on a sinking ship.
Paul.
Paul: people can indeed change their ways of behaving and interacting... within limits.
As a general rule, if it's never been done for long, then it probably never will be.
Eg., there are no human societies in which there isn't competition for power/prestige.
-How- the competition occurs varies; the fact does not.
Kaor, Paul!
And I simply don't believe in the kinds of changes you dream of. I will continue to agree with Anderson, Stirling, and the Catholic Church on how flawed and imperfect we all are.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I simply don't believe that flaws and imperfections must exist forevermore.
Paul.
Paul: they aren't 'flaws' or 'imperfections'; they're evolutionary adaptations.
Competition for power is innate because power led to more successful reproduction.
It doesn't necessarily do so any more, though there's some evidence that in a 'mature' developed economy rich people once more average more children.
But the urge to compete for power and hold on to it -is- truly innate, I think -- it's not affected by the environment except in the -manner- it's engaged in.
It's innate because for hundreds of thousands of years it led to successful reproduction.
So are things like in-group solidarity and dislike of out-groups.
As I mentioned, people with no material shortages will fight and sometimes kill each other over soccer teams.
The urge is there. It's like a constant pressure, always pushing and looking for a crack to vent through.
Kaor, Paul!
While I don't agree with Stirling that the human urge for power, and our propensity for violence are not flaws, we both agree they are INNATE in all humans. Which means I firmly believe well meaning people like you are going to continue to be bitterly disappointed by how obstinately unchangeable humans are.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I am conscious that:
energy has become matter;
matter has changed from inanimate to animate;
animate matter has become conscious, self-conscious and intelligent;
some apes changed themselves into human beings;
human beings are differentiated by the fact that they change their environments with hands and brains and change themselves further in the process;
society has changed from hunting/gathering through historical stages to the present complex global industrial economy;
technological change is accelerating;
technology has the capacity to eliminate the need for competition for resources;
potentially (unfortunately, I have to make that qualification), we have a very long future ahead of us;
the future is unpredictable and will be unlike what any of us can imagine;
we have to learn and reassess at each new stage of development.
Paul.
BTW, I will not be disappointed by a lack of universal sainthood after a few social reforms.
I have taken on board that:
the earliest human cooperation was not only for more efficient hunting but also for conflict with other human groups;
the will to power has had survival value.
But will it continue to have that value if and when society becomes very different? I am not persuaded by mere iterations that some aspect of human psychology is "innate" when the most basic fact about human beings is that they change things and have come into existence through evolution = change.
Kaor, Paul!
I am not sure you quite understand what I, Stirling, and for that matter Anderson (in his works) have been trying to say. Even assuming an advanced high tech post scarcity economy where all the material things we need for life are free, or nearly so, that does not, will not, mean the competitive urge and the possibility of violence will go away. Every thing I have seen and read makes me believe people will compete and fight over other things: esp. power and status. You seem to keep gliding over what seems very obvious points. And it will not matter if YOU don't think these things have any value, MANY others will continue to crave power and status. And gain supporters who agree with them.
And what are some of these "social reforms" you apparently would like?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not here and now advocating any particular social reforms. My point was only that I do not expect a complete moral transformation after a few social changes.
In a society where there are leaders but no rulers, no coercive apparatus, there will be no "power." "Status" will probably last longer until there has been a more general social maturation.
Paul.
Let me anticipate some further questions although, at some stage, we will have to recognize that we are merely repeating ourselves and need not continue to do so indefinitely.
Society without rulers:
socially controlled high tech production of all necessities;
an end to the competitive accumulation and hoarding of wealth by corporations and individuals;
no longer any need for security guards or police to prevent people from taking goods from warehouses or distribution centres without paying for them;
election and recallability of all public officials as long as society needs to be administered by such officials;
freedom of movement - no borders, armed forces or armaments stockpiles;
utilization of information and computer technology to facilitate informed collective discussion and decision-making;
a culture that takes all this for granted just as we take for granted that we live in a modern democracy, not in a medieval feudal set-up.
Different from our experience? Certainly.
Completely impossible? Not in my opinion.
Experience shows that the most that we can do is to clarify basic points of disagreement. To attempt to continue a repetitive exchange until one side concedes the entire argument is futile. Longer term, some people can and do change their beliefs. I have but over a very long time.
Paul: when thinking about change, you have to remember the relevant time-scales.
Evolution changes species; but it does so over very, very long periods of time.
In terms of -historical- time, its results are 'fixed'. Modern humans are not much different from their Paleolithic ancestors.
Eg., if humans have an innate will to power due to that leading to successful reproduction for 300,000 years, then nothing that happens in a few -thousand- years will have any measurable effect at all.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! Which is why I disagree with all of the list of impossibilities given above by Paul. Hopelessly unrealistic!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment