In Heinlein's Future History, the Prophets pull the US out of the Federation which thereafter refuses to intervene in American affairs. In Anderson's Psychotechnic History, the Humanists pull Earth out of the Solar Union which then does intervene to restore liberty and Union membership to Earth. Mars and Venus have by this time been made habitable. The Terrestrial navy is organized from seized Solar Guard units. The Unionist space fleet has personnel from all three planets.
The rationale for maintaining the Solar Union is as follows:
"'The lesson of history is too plain. Without a Union council to arbitrate between planets and a Solar Guard to enforce its decisions - there will be war until man is extinct. Earth could not be allowed to secede. Therefore, Mars and Venus aided the counterrevolutionary, anti-Humanist cabal...'" (p. 55)
So they are waging an interplanetary war to prevent interplanetary wars!
I fail to see why, especially with the lessons of history behind them, self-sufficient planets should get into disputes that could possibly escalate into genocidal wars. Any kind of war happens for specific, comprehensible reasons, not because human beings will inevitably kill each other unless forced not to.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I fail to see why you can't see what seems so obvious to me: humans don't need what you would consider rational reasons to quarrel and fight. They can and will--a problem that can only be managed, not solved.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I said specific, comprehensible reasons, not rational reasons. I mean that we can analyse and understand the reasons why wars happen, not that everyone's motivations are rational. People can fight because they are motivated by pure hate but that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Something happens to cause the hate. There are also conditions in which people with different beliefs coexist peacefully and even share each other's festivals and celebrations. It still seems very unlikely that people with high technology living on neighbouring self-sufficient planets will find reasons to wage war all the way to mutual annihilation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I sit corrected, then, as regards what you said "...specific, comprehensible reasons." Yes, there can be all kinds of reasons for why wars are fought.
You wrote "There are also conditions in which people with different beliefs coexist peacefully and even share each other's festivals and celebrations." MY view that is only possible if there is a dominant culture using the implied threat of force by the state to prevent rival faiths from using force themselves.
But you were discussing "Cold Victory," and this is what I found on page 55 of THE COMPLETE PSYCHOTECHNIC LEAGUE (Volume 2), Captain Crane speaking: "But the success of the [anti Humanist] counterrevolution and the Mars-Venus intervention was by no means guaranteed. Mars and Venus were still frontiers, thinly populated, only recently made habitable. They didn't have the military potential of Earth. Additionally, on page 56 Crane added: "So there it was, the entire outcome of the war--the whole history of man, for if you will pardon my saying so, gentles, Earth is still the key planet--everything hanging on this one officer, Grand Admiral K'ung Li-Po, a grim man who had given his oath and had a damnably good grasp of the military facts of life."
The other planets of the Solar Union, Mars and Venus, were not yet truly self sufficient AND were probably unable to oppose, long term, an Earth which successfully seceded from the Union. Because Earth was still the key planet, despite its problems. In population, wealth, greater depth of resources, actual and latent, it outstripped the rest of the Solar System. Thus it was no surprise Mars/venus resolved to bring Earth back into the Union, before its secession became permanent.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Neighbours often live harmoniously without needing police intervention. Society would be impossible otherwise.
Mars and Venus had been made habitable and were becoming self-sufficient. I still think that it is an exaggeration for a character to say that, without the coercion of the Solar Guard, Solar humanity would exterminate itself.
Paul.
I will be too busy to do much blogging in the next couple of days.
Kaor, Paul!
Neighbors of opposing faiths and cultures can live "harmoniously" together if they KNOW the State will crack down if they started fighting each other. NEED I remind you of what happens when that fails? I only need to cite the bloody "ethnic cleansings" of Yugoslavia when it was breaking up or the Hindu/Muslim massacres seen in India. I could go on and on!
Back to "Cold Victory," Mars/Venus had only RECENTLY been made habitable and did not have the greater DEPTH Earth had in population, resources, military potential, etc. And wars WITHIN a solar system with advanced space traveling capacity would be possible.
No, some kind of Solar Union with a monopoly of force would be needed to keep the peace.
Understood, what you said about being busy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not think that mere differences of belief cause violence. Such differences are used and exploited to divide and rule.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I only partly agree. Large "masses" of people with opposing beliefs CAN so dislike each other that they can attack each other. Because that is exactly what has happened too many times. And they could only have been manipulated, for dividing and conquering, if the hatreds had not already been there.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: no, neighbors live harmoniously with the background -threat- of police intervention at the penumbra of their consciousness.
Remove that threat, and... well, look at what happens with police strikes, or when a government's monopoly of force breaks down.
It only takes a few to start the violence; then everyone else has to become violent whether they want to or not.
Paul: there have been thousands of different cultures with radically different social arrangements, ideologies, religions and so forth.
But they have something in common: they all fight.
The huge variety of -reasons- given for the conflicts indicate that the reasons are an epiphenomenon.
That is, a reason will always be found.
In 1099, some of the Crusaders were aiming at hacking out domains for themselves at the sword's edge.
But most of them had entirely different motivations -- ones that were strong enough to face a near-certainty of hardship and a high probability of death.
Many of them left safety and comfort for that.
It is humanity's capacity for altruism and self-sacrifice that makes collective conflict possible. You can't have one without the other.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! Your comments above made clearer and more explicit what I was trying to tell Paul.
If the State breaks down I don't NEED to want to fight my neighbors to be forced to fight them--if they try to violently break into my house.
I agree, it's the capability for altruism and self sacrifice that makes organized collective conflicts, wars, possible. Otherwise soldiers would do the sensible thing and run away!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment