Not for the first time, Daniel Holm looks out the window of his office. Yet again, we enjoy a description of the view:
"...a clear winter's day." (p. 584)
Gray is far enough south not to get snow. Its susin remains green. Wind whoops. Whitecaps dance. Cloaks stream. Ythrians swoop.
Arinnian had lurked during the conference. Now father and son confer. Holm discusses planetary colonization:
a colony planet needs plant cover to maintain its atmosphere;
plants need soil bacteria, animals, a whole ecology;
thus, it is more convenient to grow food than to synthesize it;
so colonists on terrestroid planets are not only miners and manufacturers but also farmers, ranchers, foresters etc;
generations grow into a live nature - trees, fields, hills, poets, artists, ancestors, eventual burial...;
"'It is you and you are it.'" (p. 586)
We cannot give it away. Apparently, Native Ameticans said, "The land is our mother. We cannot sell our mother."
25 comments:
Actually, most of Earth's atmospheric oxygen is produced by photosynthesis... in the oceans. It's the plankton.
As for "not selling our mother", every single Indian tribe, clan and group in the Americas lived on land it took by force, the latest in an infinitely long line of conquests.
In 1486, the Aztecs dedicated their seventh temple to Huitzilopochtli -- Hummingbird of the Left, their war God.
To celebrate that, they sacrificed 5,000 slaves and prisoners and slaves in three days on the four altars at the top of the pyramid, more than one a minute, in nonstop relays.
Cut out their hearts and threw the bodies down the sides. The lake the city sat in turned brown with the blood and stank for months.
Oh, and they ate parts of the bodies -- Aztec recycling, you might say.
Mr Stirling,
I read with increasing disquiet. You have made me aware of how central violence has been not only to our history but also to our prehistory. A nonviolent civilization should still be an aim but we need to understand how many social and psychological barriers have to be overcome.
Paul.
Some would regard the land as their mother even while others had recently seized it by force and were prepared to seize more. One thing that is certain about human societies is widely varying attitudes and value judgements.
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with Stirling's skepticism that a non-violent society is even possible, unless genetic engineering is used to turn humans into meek slaves unwilling/unable to resist tyranny (see Anderson's "The High Ones" or Stirling's DRAKON). Moreover, it would not be desirable to make humans unable to be violent when there will be times they need to fight--such as fighting alien invaders from other worlds.
One minor point bothers me: a trope of many SF writers is having their characters wear cloaks. But why when coats and jackets are warmer?
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: it's true that attitudes and value judgments vary widely.
However, that every single group inhabiting any territory on Earth is descended from those who took it by force does -not- vary.
If it's universal, it's a strong argument that it's inherent -- genetic.
As the saying goes, all title-deeds are written with human blood; the only difference between one place and another is how long the blood has had to dry.
Ancient DNA research has confirmed that this isn't a matter of civilization; it's always been true.
Sean,
There are many people other than meek slaves who do not want to be involved in war!
I think that alien invaders are pretty unlikely but, yes, we would need to be prepared in case there are any real equivalents of Wellsian Martians or of kzinti, Merseians etc out there.
This is part of a bigger paradox. I have said before that my idea of the optimal human being is someone who enjoys all the benefits of the highest technology but who nevertheless would be equipped with survival skills in the event that the tech suddenly failed. This is way beyond any present capacity but we have all the future to develop further - if we don't wipe ourselves out first.
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And I've read books like FOSSIL MEN where that kind of violence has been traced back millions of years.
I get so impatient with hopeless Utopian fantasies!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Please do not get impatient with disagreements. I believe that we are capable of global peace. Unfortunately, I am not at all sure that we are going to be able to do it. The present state of the world is dreadful but the future remains unpredictable and it is possible to work toward ending some causes of conflict. We are not genetically determined to fight for the goods in the supermarket when there are more than enough of them for everyone but it will be a different matter as soon as supply chains are disrupted.
Paul.
Sean: "genetic engineering is used to turn humans into meek slaves"
Do you really think that it would be possible to make genetically engineered 'meek slaves', but not genetically engineered humans who would resist tyrants, but decline to become tyrants themselves?
Sure, if conditions are such that there is not enough of some necessity of life to support everyone, even these non-tyrant humans will fight to obtain enough of that necessity to keep themselves alive while necessarily so condemning others to death, but as Paul often points out, why fight when it is not needed to feed yourself?
Kaor, Jim!
I was going by the examples I've seen in fiction, hence my mention of those stories by Anderson and Stirling. As for the opposites of those examples, genetic engineering of that kind are at least as likely to produce people willing to become tyrants, such as Anderson's Zacharians and Stirling's Draka.
Your second point: over and over Stirling and I have tried to tell Paul you don't need to be poor and desperate to fight. People have fought for many reasons unrelated to getting their next meal, most esp. from a desire to gaining power. By either competitive electoral politics or simply shooting their way to power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there can be a society where there is no longer any power.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but I've seen proposals from people I have to consider hopelessly unrealistic and impractical. Over and over and over I've seen seem such ideas being tried and all of them failing, often catastrophically so. So, yes, I'm impatient with Utopianism.
Supply chains being disrupted? That is exactly what Iran is trying to do in the Red Sea thru its cat's paws and clients! Because the thugocracy in Tehran wants domination of the Near East.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong, all human societies are composed of human beings many of whom are going to compete for power and status.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Wrong. We are talking about potential future societies, not past or present societies. "...and status..." is an add-on, needing separate discussion.
Potential (only potential) future society:
abundant wealth, easily produced, far more than anyone could possibly consume in a long lifetime, held in common;
devotion of education, training and resources to the fullest free development of each individual human being whatever their ability level, unleashing everyone's fullest potential;
regular collective discussion and decision-making facilitated by computers and communication technology;
generations who are born into and grow up in this material and cultural environment so that they take it for granted and are horrified when they learn about past poverty, scarcity, deprivation, economic competition, wars, slavery, racism etc;
no one possessing any means to coerce anyone else - also no need or motivation to do so.
"Status" would go with achievement or popularity but would not be a goal to compete for and would certainly not be associated with any ability to coerce others.
Paul.
Sean,
You have not seen such ideas tried yet. You have seen some people talking about it and trying to make some partial advances against a lot of opposition.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we cannot agree, because I do not believe one little bit what you hope for is possible. First because all human beings are going to remain flawed, imperfect, all too prone to being quarrelsome, strife torn, contentious, etc. I see zero reason to expect that to change in the future.
Nor do I believe that will change, assuming a post-scarcity economy. Least of all do I expect "education" to fundamentally change human beings. I'm reminded of GENESIS, where we see Anderson examining similar ideas, and coming to conclusions I agree with, but you probably would not. A society described in that book had plenty of wealth, education, and a long peace, but the old drives leading to strife, violence, ruthlessness, etc., were not eliminated.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have described conditions in which there will be no need for strife, contention or violence. I describe a completely transformed society and you continue to project a completely unchanged society into an indefinite future. SF is about recognizing that the future will be different and imagining different ways in which it might be different, dystopias, utopias and everything between but not just people continuing to quarrel when there is no longer any need or motivation to quarrel and nothing whatsoever left for anyone to quarrel about. Even now, I walk past someone on the street. I do not insist on charging blindly through where someone else happens to be standing. People who insisted on doing that would be so few and far between that they would be nonexistent.
Paul.
Of course abundance leading to decline and decadence is a conceivable future. But there are different possibilities. Why should wealth inevitably make a population passive? It could be used to facilitate and encourage enquiry, activity and creativity. Some sections of a population would decline but others would flourish. Natural selection on a higher level.
Kaor, Paul!
First, I agree that good science fiction examines all possibilities, good, bad, or indifferent. But you keep talking about societies when I have human beings, men and women, in mind. It's people who are quarrelsome and violent, all that any society can do is put some limits on that. I don't believe humans can be "transformed" in the ways you like--unless you use genetic engineering, which can backfire badly!
Most people don't behave as you describe on streets because doing so incurs very painful penalties! You could get beat up by other bystanders or the police will arrest you and you get sentenced to prison after a trial.
People don't need to have rational reasons to fight and quarrel. Ambition, desire for power and status, vanity, greed, etc., will do that! Or simple boredom, because a long peace ended up with people wanting to shake things up. Which I believe was one reason for what we see happening in GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People are social. They exist in societies. You cannot separate the two. Violence is social except when someone harms himself - and he will almost certainly do that because of the way he has been treated by others.
Desire for power can only exist in societies where there are relationships of power.
I do not attack people on the street because I have no desire to, not because of repercussions from the police.
Paul.
There will no longer be greed when there is abundance. You keep projecting responses from past societies into any possible future society. I replied about "status" earlier.
I am not talking about genetic engineering but about the fact that persons/self-conscious individuals/human beings are fundamentally social and that society can be changed in ways that can be specified. We can change our societies. They are our sets of relationships, not anyone else's.
I visit a friend whose company I enjoy and there is a possibility that we will suddenly, irrationally become violent with each other? Absurd. There can be (not inevitably will be) a society in which the kind of friendly relationship that I have with Andrea will be reproduced in every other relationship between individuals. When engaged in meaningful, fulfilling, self-realizing activities, we will certainly not become "bored" enough to resort to violnce just for want of something better to do.
Kaor, Paul!
I am not doing any "separating." My belief is that societies arise from the need humans have of working out ways of living in groups larger than the family.
We are always going to have "relationships of power" because humans are also political animals, who need formal structures for distributing and legitimizing the use of power. And that boils down to who has the right to use force.
And many, many, many people are not like you. We need police and courts because there are violent, irresponsible persons, or criminals who are not like you. Also, all of us have the potential to be lie such persons.
I do not share your optimism about mankind, and I believe my view is far more realistic, supported by history and the facts of real, everyday life. It is dangerous to base your hopes on unsupported aspirations.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
These aspirations are not unsupported but are based on analysis of society. The point is not that everyone is like me but that a lot of people are and therefore it is possible to conceive of a society in which no one any longer has any reason or motivation to attack or coerce anyone else. I have spelt out the conditions: immense wealth held in common used to develop every individual; no need to hoard wealth or to prevent anyone from accessing it; no need for armies, weapons, police, courts, prisons, security guards; no means by which a minority can impose its will on the majority; instead, the majority used to discussing and deciding with no need to overcome any privileged minority or bureaucracy. This has not happened before and is not happening now but can be brought about in the future when enough people have seen through and no longer accept existing power structures and when technology is deployed for social purposes, not for the continued accumulation of private profit.
Paul.
If you don't recognize that individuals are products of societies and that a very different society would produce very different individuals, then you are separating human beings from society.
Post a Comment