Lundgard the Humanist:
"'If a period of interplanetary wars is necessary, let's get it over with... Enough men will survive to build something better. This age has gotten stale. It's petrifying. There have been plenty of shake-ups in history - the fall of Rome, the Reformation, the Napoleonic Wars, the World Wars. It's been man's way of progressing.'" (p. 34)
So World War IV or Solar War I would be a good thing? Enough men will survive a nuclear exchange? To build something better or just to survive - or to build something worse? Wars are inherently destructive and are surely regressive as much as or more than progressive? History is progress or regression, not just progress. Real progress in 1914 would have been international refusal to fight: Social Democratic rhetoric but not reality.
The Psychotechnic History faces a series of enemies of peace and progress. In this story, the protean enemy takes the form of the Humanists.
20 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
While I believe some wars are necessary, they are not the best or most desirable ways for managing our problems and conflicts.
Good! Unlike too many, esp. leftists or those with a Whiggish turn of mind, you concede that regression is as likely to happen in the future as progress.
Social Democratic parties were not the only or majority parties in any Western nation in 1914. And rootless, bloodless rhetoric about the "international brotherhood of workers" meant NOTHING to many socialists themselves when push came to shove.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But that was a pity. If more people had enacted brotherhood, then it would not have been mere rhetoric and would have prevented the war.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That might be true as an IDEAL, but is not true in ACTUALITY.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have a lot of opposition to war. It can grow.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe mere opposition will prevent wars from happening.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No but it helps. The opposition to the war in Iran was so massive that Tony Blair thought he might lose his job over it. That outcome could have been different. And knowledge that opposition will happen and could be even more massive makes governments think twice and more than twice about further military adventures.
Paul.
Iraq.
Kaor, Paul!
Sometimes, and not always. And there can be times when popular pressure pushes a RELUCTANT gov't into a war. A classic example of that being how popular passions forced the PM, Sir Henry Walpole, into the War of Jenkins' Ear, a war with Spain he did not want.
So I remain unconvinced.
Ad astra! Sean
Correction, I erred. The Prime Minister's name was ROBERT, not Henry Walpole.
Sean
Sean,
Of course the popular pressure can be the other way! It's a battle of ideas all the time.
"There's a battle outside ragin'..."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That is certainly the case!
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: and bear in mind that the main reason for opposing any given war is usually (under some disguise) -lack- of disinterested altruism, reluctance to sacrifice, selfishness.
The human capacity for social bonding and altruism is the root cause of war. It's also why there aren't any other varieties of hominids around any more. That's what the modern-human capacity for collective action (mainly) evolved -for-.
As Montesquieu pointed out, an army of rational individualists would run away.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. Albeit some selfishness would be a good idea--at the very least to make sure wars are not started for absurd and trivial reasons.
And I'm still sorry no other hominins are around, like the Neanderthals!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: you wouldn't be if they thought you looked yummy-tasty... 8-).
Opposition to war based in selfishness? Not sure about that.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Ha! True.
Paul: Wars are also costly. It's perfectly rational for me to oppose going to war if that means not having to cough up more money in taxes for it.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: of course selfishness produces opposition to war. It isn't the -only- reason, but it's usually prominent.
Prosecuting a war requires generalized altruism and readiness to sacrifice for others you regard as members of your tribe/community/nation/whatever.
Most other human activities can be done by exchange; but war requires giving up the sense of individual self -- it's an act of love, in a way.
Even mercenaries don't fight for money -- their pay is usually derisory, anyway. They fight for their comrades.
As the Foreign Legion saying goes: "Legio Patria Nostra." Translation: "The Legion is our Fatherland."
The ancient Norse had a saying: "Bare is back without brother to guard it."
Note the implication: without an enemy, there is no friend.
Or "Bare is brotherless back." I met a guy whose brother was in prison for a serious offence. He still wanted to "have his back" as far as possible.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! If the State wants me to support a war, then convince me of its desirability. NOT something as idiotic as the War of Jenkins' Ear.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment