"'...when there is no evidence of internicine strife, even of crime - and yet they are obviously not simple children of nature - I can't guess what their common sense is like.'"
-Poul Anderson, "The Night Face" IN Anderson, Flandry's Legacy (Riverdale, NY, June 2012), pp. 541-660 AT I, p. 550.
There are two factors here. On the one hand, if an entire human planetary population seems to be living without any strife or crime, then the rest of mankind needs to learn from them. It is not necessarily the case, in my opinion, that the inherent violence of the Gwydiona has simply been suppressed or channelled elsewhere and that it will manifest itself unexpectedly. Even if we think that we have to resort to mutation to explain it, we can conceive of strife-free human beings. We can function without strife some of the time so why not all of the time?
However, Raven is right to be cautious. If the Gwydiona are that different from everyone else, then how have they come to be so different and what other unexpected behaviour might they display? They need to be approached and studied with care. In fact, of course, like a Star Trek episode, although not as tritely, "The Night Face" does reveal that there are indeed hidden problems. There is a Day Face and also a Night Face.
20 comments:
Paul: I can imagine floating upward by clicking my heels and wishing hard.
That doesn't mean it's going to happen.
The protagonist is right to smell a rat.
He's also right in his 'tragic pessimism', as against the facile optimism and blind 'rationality' of the other lead.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, I agree more with Raven and Stirling, and not you. The Gwydiona were too good to be true. Something deeper, darker, and grimmer was hidden.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, if something looks too good to be true, assume that it is and you probably won't be disappointed.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! It's always wiser and more prudent to be wary and skeptical.
Ad astra! Sean
I think a high tech society can end material causes of conflict and can address any other causes of conflict non-physically. Then many generations will grow up without experience of violence. Cultures and psychologies will change accordingly.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe that one little bit! Humans will simply find other "markers" be competitive and aggressive about. Which was Anderson's view, as seen in his HARVEST OF STARS books and GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the aggression need not take the form of physical violence.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know that is what you hope for. But, when I recall how toddlers in sandboxes already know how to fight over lollipops, I remain skeptical!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But that is nonsense. That is toddlers. We are talking about mature, civilized adults in a world where there will no longer be any conflict for material resources. There will continue to be competitive sports, philosophical disagreements and, in your opinion, not mine, never-ending competition for status and prestige but will there still be an arms trade selling cluster bombs and fighter jets to individuals and groups so that they can continue to settle their differences by destroying cities and populations?
Paul.
Paul: but the fundamental causes of conflict are not conflict for material resources.
That (and competition for mating opportunities) were why we -developed- the instinctual proclivities that produce politics and group conflicts.
But the instincts are -there-, coded into our DNA.
Therefore they persist -regardless of circumstances-. Instinct is blind; it doesn't "consider" changed circumstances.
To your -instincts-, you're still a hunter-gatherer.
But I still ask whether conflicts, if they still exist, will continue to be so destructive in an economy of abundance.
Paul: potentially even more destructive, because the abundance removes the material constraints on scale of conflict.
Imagine what would happen if everyone could command fusion bombs and delivery systems...
Kaor, Paul!
No, it was not nonsense, I was using a very simple, basic example of the instincts all humans have to be aggressive and competitive. And Stirling beat me to saying something similar: humans fight and go to wars because that is what humans are like, what they do.
Again, I agree with Stirling and Anderson. The propensity for violence and conflicts and wars we all have can only be managed, not "solved" or removed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Citing toddlers is, I think, nonsense when we are talking about adults in very different future scenarios. Earth is currently divided into armed nation states with a thriving arms industry profiting by selling to every government that can afford high tech planes, bombs etc. This need not always be the case. If you assume that our current situation will continue to exist into an indefinite future, then, yes, it follows that this situation will indeed continue to exist into an indefinite future. But the present set-up is destroying itself through environmental destruction. Is it possible to build something better? It is necessary to try. Why solve or remove? Why not just manage far better than we are doing now? The present powers that be are not trying to "manage." They are perpetrating violence.
Paul.
Definitely a shortage of plowshares and pruning hooks. ;)
Keep fighting the good fight, Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, squabbling toddlers is a very simple, basic example of how innately prone humans are to being aggressive, quarrelsome, and competitive. I am standing by that point.
We have armed nations precisely because humans are as I described them above. Again, arms industries exist because of the demand for their products, and not because of any silly plots.
Yes, it is my belief this situation will continue to exist indefinitely into the future because humans are warlike and aggressive, like it or not. It's my belief the only way we might see some kind of global peace will be if a single power or alliance of powers forcibly unifies the world and imposes a monopoly of violence in a single state.
You keep longing for something better, but I never see any concrete examples of anything "better" that makes sense or at least seems realistic to me.
Ad astra! Sean
Certain kinds of arguments should not just keep being repeated. The fact that something has not happened yet is no proof that it cannot happen in changed conditions in the future. There are more serious objections to what I am trying to say and, if we want this exchange to continue indefinitely (!) - why not at least take a break? - then we should concentrate on those more serious points like that violence was so prevalent in prehistory and that maybe we are wired for conflict to continue. I can certainly see tendencies in human behaviour that point in that direction, unfortunately.
Whatever else we do, we have to move a discussion on from two guys saying the same things over and over again. That has to stop.
What I can learn is this: I already knew that there were major obstacles to building a better society in future. There might be more such obstacles than I thought. But we must still try to move forward. And there can be times, like now or soon, when this becomes a matter of life and death not only for all those who are already being killed but for everyone else as well.
We must also learn from past mistakes. A major social change can come about when enough people want and enact it but not when a minority tries to enforce it.
BTW, I hope to have established at the very least that I do not support any minority group that would attempt to seize power in any country and impose radical change on everyone else. That question should not come up again. Other issues are, of course, unresolved and can be subjects of further discussion if we want them to be.
Sean,
BTW, the tone of your comments is still that you seem to think that I am trying to say something that will get you to change your mind? Surely we should agree now that that is not going to happen? Also that, if that were the only object of the exercise, then there would be no point in continuing?
Paul.
Post a Comment