The crew has been allowed to degenerate to a degree that is surely absurd in an interstellar spaceship. In an unmarried workers' barracks:
"Most of the light came from a giant-size telescreen, filling one wall with its images - the mindless, tasteless sort of program intended for this class - and the air with its noise." (p. 96)
This "class" should not be in the ship.
Groups of workers riot against each other. Gangs of goons outnumber the police!
"...a slim blonde without extraordinary looks but with a degree of aliveness in her which was unusual." (p. 107)
Aliveness is unusual in the crew?
"Bodies surged against the plate window until its plastic shivered. A man was backed against it and another one swung a knife and opened his throat. Blood blurred the view..." (p. 108)
If casual murder has become commonplace, then something is extraordinarily wrong.
"'...only officers are allowed weapons - but the bullies make their own...'" (ibid.)
Feuds are aggravated by differences in wages and working conditions but there is obviously no need for this.
"...some demon seemed to stir them up..." (p. 101)
Not a demon but something equivalent.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Since, as far as I know, no one has tried to kill me, then I too have led a sheltered life. BUT I am not surprised by the bad things you listed here. Humans are so flawed, imperfect, prone to violence, etc., that I expect things like crass vulgarity, feuds, crime, etc. And social stratification is totally unsurprising, given how different men and women can be talents, abilities, circumstances of life, etc. So I'm puzzled by your puzzlement!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But in an interstellar spaceship?
Paul.
Paul: People are people, no matter where you put them.
They're creatures of emotion and instinct; reason is the tool they use to do what their genes and circumstances tell them is important.
And human beings are very, very dangerous when stressed. The ape-predator is always there, ready to break through any shell constructed.
I learned -that- while I was still a teenager and every year of my life since has confirmed it, both by experience and by observation.
Unlike Sean, I don't think that this is a flaw: we're a very successful species. But you have to take that into account when dealing with human beings, particularly in masses.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Yes, anywhere human beings live, you will find the "ape-predator" lurking inside them. It's something that can only be managed, not eliminated.
Mr. Stirling: I don't think the bad things listed here, springing as they do from that ape-predator we all have, is something to be glad about. I believe we a FALLEN race, and that is why life is so often chaotic and violent. It's something to be managed, not eliminated.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: well, I agree it has to be managed and can't be eliminated.
OTOH, we've done very well, on the whole, with those qualities. They may be unpleasant, but they -work-.
In a kludgy, by-default sort of way, but that's evolution for you; it's a random process.
Of course, if it weren't for that asteroid, mammals would probably average about the size of a rat, nowadays.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I don't think either of us should be quite that blase about the killer ape we have inside us during the ages before the first true States arose. We would have been so much more likely to be the victims of raiders looking for some fun killing, raping, or enslaving the neighbors the next valley over!
Or vice versa!
Hmmm, what kind of world might Earth have become if that dino killer asteroid had missed it?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: probably dominated by things we'd think of as birds. (Birds are dinosaurs; theropods specifically.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And might one of those theropods, despite Earth's heavier gravity, evolved into something like Anderson's Ythrians?
Or might Tyrannosaurs have become intelligent?
Ad astra! Sean
Maybe no intelligence. It's not inevitable. I think there were small raptors running around with forelimbs raised and held in front of them so I suppose they were candidates.
You need to remember that the huge human brain is a -major- handicap in many respects.
It uses about 1/3 of our blood supply, a major part of our food intake, and the large skull makes childbirth extraordinarily difficult and risky for human females -- much more so than with most mammals.
And that accounts for some of the very prolonged dependency period of human infants; they're born less 'developed' than most other mammals, because if they weren't they'd kill the mother.
There's substantial evidence that this is a h. sapiens sapiens feature specifically; pre-human hominids show (mainly determined by examining their teeth) shorter childhoods and more rapid maturation. Still long by
So there has to be a massive compensatory factor to make our enlarged brains and the drain of a long dependency period worthwhile in evolutionary terms.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
and was that "massive compensatory factor" the hominid/human female being permanently "in heat" and sexually available? Because it gave the male a REASON to stick around and help with raising their children?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: no, that's another 'enabling factor'.
The end result of the long dependency period and huge brain had to be so overwhelmingly favorable (in terms of reproduction) that other features would evolve to enable it.
That is, the females in a state of permanent sexual receptivity would have to have their children survive more than those that didn't -- probably through pair-bonding.
Basically, being more intelligent gave adults with that capacity more -social- intelligence, and that let them become dominant in their social groups, and that made their children more likely to survive and reproduce in their turn.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That makes sense to me. I agree.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment