"'...will be like the aftermath of an all-out nuclear strike against a country with no civil defense. I gather you've avoided that on Merseia. But you certainly have theoretical studies of the subject, and - and I have seen planets where it did happen.'"
-Poul Anderson, "Day of Burning" IN Anderson, David Falkayn: Star Trader (Riverdale, NY, March 2010), pp. 209-272 AT p. 220.
Daven Laure tells Ozer Vandange:
"'The people of the Commonalty don't get into wars.'"
-"Starfog," p. 722.
However, when, on a planet in the Cloud Universe:
"The sun exploded.
"[Laure] was on his belly, faceplate buried in arms against the flash, before his conscious mind knew what had happened. Rangers learned about nuclear weapons. When, after a minute, no shock wave had hit him, no sound other than a rising wind, he dared sit up and look."
-ibid., p. 780.
The Rangers of the Commonalty do not experience wars but do explore the unknown and therefore go prepared, even to the extent of knowing how to respond in the case of a possible nuclear attack. That is good.
In an Anderson text, a rising wind signifies an approaching threat.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Iow, in his heart of hearts, Daven Laure knew better, wars were always going to be possible.
And I think wise Rangers also kept in mind their explorations might eventually lead them into contacting either plundering barbarians or an aggressive, expansionist civilized power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Two issues there. With lots of human and non-human history behind them, the Rangers had to be prepared for anything when encountering new races. Whether in his heart of hearts, Laure knew that wars were always going to be possible in a human societies is a different issue. In a civilization where weapons are not produced, the use of weapons is impossible. If someone disagrees with you, then acknowledge his disagreement as such. Don't tell him that he really agrees with you! That means that you can't really cope with the fact that you are being disagreed with.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except nowhere in "Starfog" is it said that weapons were not made in the Commonalty. And I also consider that a preposterous idea when I recall how all human societies have made weapons.
No, the mere fact Daven and other Rangers knew how to react to possible nuclear weapons contradicts your view.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My argument is that, as an example, in a society where weapons were not produced, use of weapons would be impossible, not that it is stated that weapons are not produced in the civilization of the Commonalty. (I experience a continual failure of communication here.)
I find it a preposterous idea that, in a society where everything that everyone needs is produced so that it is no longer necessary to compete for possession of any of these things, resources will still be wasted on instruments of destruction and genocide that will have no possible use.
The fact that Rangers know how to respond to nuclear attack means, as I said, that they are prepared for anything, good or bad, when encountering new rational species, not that my view has been contradicted.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We would know more if Anderson had written more stories set in the Commonalty. And I strongly suspect they would show us problems like what I described above.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Two questions.
What would Anderson have written in any further stories about the Commonalty? We don't know.
Is it preposterous to propose that, in a future civilization with very advanced technology where individuals and communities have everything that they need both materially and culturally, entire generations will grow up without even thinking about mass producing and stockpiling nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, guns, ammunition, flame throwers, bacteriological weapons, poison gas, troop transports, military uniforms and helmets etc? No.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong, you persist in overlooking how quarrelsome, aggressive, competitive, and prone to folly human beings are. Humans don't need merely reasons to fight and quarrel. I see zero reason to expect that to ever change, as Anderson himself made plain in GENESIS. So Yes is my answer.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Wrong.
So, even, in the conditions I describe, people would manufacture and stockpile heavy weapons?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but not necessarily in vast amounts, given the peaceful times Daven Laure lived in. But I would not expect such times to last forever!
Ad astra! Sean
See "Kzinti Lesson" in Larry Niven's Known Space future history.
Humanity has become peaceful ( Yes Sean, I know you don't believe that is plausible), but when they run into warlike aliens they use technologies intended for peaceful space propulsion to inflict great damage on the attacking aliens.
I disagree with both Sean & Paul.
I disagree with Sean. "Democratic Peace Theory" has actual evidence for it.
I disagree with Paul. Most (all?) tools that are made for constructive purposes can be used as weapons too.
Jim,
Other tools can be used as weapons. That is true.
Sean,
I think that it is wrong to begin a reply by telling another person that he is "wrong" as if that were simply a fact like the time of the day or the state of the weather. Which of us is right or wrong, in whole or in part, is precisely what we are arguing/disagreeing/disputing/negotiating. I can, of course, reply that you are wrong although I prefer not to but I am getting into the habit just to make the point that either party can do it and it establishes nothing.
Paul.99999999999999999999
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: I've read that story by Niven as well. His point being that, if necessary, humans can quickly relearn the old warlike habits. And I strongly suspect that ability will be necessary.
I still disagree, re democracies not being likely to go to war. E.g., even after the War of 1812 there were times when the US nearly went to war with the UK. There were quarrels over the borders between the US and British Canada. The "Trent" affair during the US Civil War might have led the UK to war with the US if a dying Prince Albert had not intervened, rewriting and toning down Lord Palmerston's aggressive letter to the US, giving Pres. Lincoln a face saving way of backing down. It all depends on many factors and circumstances!
I also recall how the democratic US attacked a weak, strife torn Mexico in the 1846-48 Mexican War. Those vast territories only weakly held by Mexico were too tempting to resist!
The democratic British Empire fought many small wars expanding and rounding out its domains. And boastfully democratic republican France did the same, fighting wars to expand its own empire.
I see nothing in a democracy necessarily likely to prevent it going to war with anybody.
Paul: I am sorry, again, if frustration made me too sharp. For which I apologize.
It seems so obvious to me that human beings are not what some people would like them to be.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean:
You seem to not understand what the claim of "Democratic Peace Theory" is.
The claim is *not* that democracies will not fight wars. The claim is that democracies will not fight wars against *other democracies*.
You mention cases where democracies had disputes with each other that got peacefully settled and cases where democracies fought non-democracies. Some of those non-democracies were autocracies & some were societies with no government strong enough to prevent small groups from attacking foreign groups (anocracies, I term I first saw in the "Never at War" book).
In the book "Never at War" Spencer Weart looks at many historical cases where societies that had at least some democratic characteristics fought, or quite democratic societies had disputes that ended up being settled without war.
He particularly looked for marginal cases in which both parties had some democratic characteristics, but found that where warfare occurred at least one side had some important non-democratic traits. Eg: in WWI Germany had an elected legislature, but the Kaiser had substantial power.
This is not claiming that humans might become 'peaceful'. It is claiming that we have a way to manage disputes to make them much less likely to become violent.
Kaor, Jim!
I am still skeptical, but I can agree or think it's possible democracies are at least less likely to go to war with one another. I simply see nothing esp. pacifistic in democracies.
One problem with alluding to Wilhelm II of Germany was that he did not want a war in 1914, but there were powerful elements in the German gov't which did, and maneuvered to nullify his efforts to damp down the Sarajevo Crisis.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What seems obvious to you does not seem obvious to everyone. That is why there are disagreements.
Paul.
Post a Comment