The Day Of Their Return by Poul Anderson
The Quincunx Of Time by James Blish
Dune by Frank Herbert
Anderson presents a potential jihad; Herbert an actual jihad.
Blish and Herbert present characters who act on knowledge of the future.
Receiving messages from a utopian future, Blish's characters are enabled to build that future. (Something similar in Anderson's Starfarers but without any details.)
In The Day Of Their Return, a carefully engineered jihad would be merely destructive - what else? - but fortunately is prevented. In Dune, a foreseen jihad would be a racial necessity for the mixing of genes and therefore is allowed to happen or even actively brought about. No! In Dune, the characters and plot are solid but where are they all going?
29 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, the premise in DUNE, some mystic, blind drive for a mixing of human genes, was absurd.
The way Anderson used jihad in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN was far more plausible.
Ad astra! Sean
Well, Herbert and Anderson both agree that existence is tragic. Poul is a bit more "up" about it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Correct, and the tragedies to be found in life are so often worsened by fanatics and Utopians thinking they can abolish tragedy. Tragedy can only be managed or coped with, not eliminated.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yeah, that's my take on it too.
Or as Poul put it once, if someone comes along determined to do you good -- run.
I support, defend and benefit from the British National Health Service which is paid for from taxation and free at the point of delivery. Not something to run from1
!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Absolutely! And some of the most terrifying words in English are these: "I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help you."
Paul: The problem is, however, is how incompetent, corrupt, and burdensome all gov't agencies get to be after a certain point or level is reached. We have been seeing that over and over for decades in the States.
If the NHS is not quite as bad as similar agencies in the US I would put that down partly to how the UK is so much smaller than the US--meaning the NHS has to work within narrower limits on how much harm, as well as good, it can do. Also, the UK still has private hospitals and clinics which can act to supplement, complement, or correct what the NHS does.
Iow, competition helps to keep everybody on their toes!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Does it? I want a society where competition is unnecessary in health, education and welfare.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then you are going to get stagnation, corruption, incompetence, and entrenched resistance to innovation and necessary changes. And that has been exactly what resulted from attempts to eliminate competition in all the spheres you listed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, we are not. With advanced technology deployed socially, it will no longer be necessary for anyone to compete for resources or profits. Full health care will be guaranteed for everyone.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we cannot agree. You are idealistically expecting the best of mere human beings--I do not. My expectation, which I firmly believe to be simple realism, is that many, many people will have to be pushed by competitive pressures not to be as bad or slack as so many of us are.
What do you even mean by phrases like "...advanced technology deployed socially"? It makes no sense to me. That sounds ominously like the State what technology is to be used. And that kind of governance has failed over and over and over, ad nauseam.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What do I even mean? "Advanced technology" is surely clear enough? "Deployed socially" means people agreeing to use technology for the benefit of all instead a few. No need for coercion when everyone is free and equal and there is so much technologically produced wealth that no one needs to compete for it or hoard it any more. Lots of people see that this is feasible but of course present power structures and present States maintain the present imbalances and deprivations at at all costs, hence continued conflicts throughout the world while the threat to the environment continues to be ignored.
Paul.
Too many "at"'s.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we cannot agree, because I don't believe in the desirability and possibility of what you dream of. It still boils down to having politicians and bureaucrats deciding how advanced technology will be used. And I say no, absolutely no to that. You are going to get vastly more people agreeing in how to use advanced tech in a free economics system.
And I also disagree with how you defined the causes of the conflicts seen in the world. People will fight and quarrel over many things unrelated to economics. National pride, grudges against somebody else, or religion, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It does not boil down to having politicians and bureaucrats deciding how advanced technology will be used. Everyone can democratically decide that technology will be used for everyone and, in that situation, there will no longer be any material or social causes for armed conflict. In fact, armaments need not be produced. Those resources can be used to promote life instead.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And the best way to "democratically" decide that is via free enterprise economics, not by some totally unrealistic and impossible "committee of the whole."
And I remain convinced human beings can and will find any reason, no matter how trivial, to fight and quarrel.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Free enterprise is not democratic. Of course people have the ability to make decisions collectively but they are not allowed to do it.
I remain convinced that quarrels need not become armed struggles if material and social conditions are sufficiently different.
Free enterprise will be redundant when technologically produced wealth is abundant.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
If a post scarcity economy is even possible, which remains to be seen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course it is possible. Technology can continue to advance. Even now, a lot could be done to improve material and social environments if governments did not mas produce and stockpile weapons, including (hopefully never to be used) nukes.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Free enterprise is far more "democratic," in many real ways, than socialism ever can be. E.g., there are many different kinds of bakeries and baked products. The bakers have to woo me before I spend my money with any of them. That is more "democratic" than anything socialism can do.
Mass committees of the whole will never make political decisions "collectively." That is simply not how real humans think, feel, act. An impossible fantasy.
No, humans can and will fight and quarrel, no matter how prosperous they might be. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You use the word, "socialism," as if it had one single clear and mutually understood meaning. It must be clear that, if we started to clarify what we mean by the word, then we would turn out to be talking about two completely different things. In fact, I have not been using that word precisely because I do not want to get bogged down in that whole set of misunderstandings. For a start, I completely opposed that dictatorship that ruled in the "Soviet Union" for far too long - yet that is held up as an example of "socialism."
I have seen and participated in collective decision-making. We can encourage people to do this more and more as they become increasingly dissatisfied with professional politicians and with bureaucrats who are decision-makers instead of public servants. Communication technology can facilitate decision-making instead of just filling our heads with propaganda. A lot can be done.
We can quarrel but do not need to kill. A culture change can make that unthinkable. If we identify causes of conflict and end those causes, then it is pointless to continue insisting that conflict will continue in any case. No food shortages, no food riots. No racial inequality, no race riots. No poverty, no theft motivated by poverty. A culture of tolerance and diversity, no religious conflicts. No arms trade, no guns to kill anyone with. Yet people are going to disagree about matters of taste or philosophy and break out into a homicidal frenzy?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
First paragraph. I believe the historically correct and realistic definition of socialism is this: a command economy in which the State and its politicians and bureaucrats attempt to run a "planned" economy. Because that is exactly what we have seen from every single self avowed socialist regime since Lenin's seizure of power in 1917. I've seen no reason to ever expect that to be otherwise.
Second paragraph. Then we cannot agree. Because I do not believe in the practicality of the kind of politics you hope for in anything larger than an old time small town New England town meeting. What you hope for simply won't work for cities and nations with millions/hundreds of millions of people.
Your third paragraph. Again we can't agree. My belief remains people cam and will quarrel so passionately people fight and kill. Nor do I believe in the kind of culture change you hope for--not when there are so many real world cultures with opposing ideas, beliefs, aspirations, etc. Prosperity will not make people less likely to fight and quarrel. Or obsess over trivial disagreements. Anything can be used as lethal weapons, such as bare hands.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. Socialism is democratic workers' control. Cooperative production for need as against competitive production for profit. I know in advance the arguments against this but my present point is that it is a different project from bureaucratic control. Don't just base arguments on who calls themselves "socialist." That has become a much misused label like "democratic" and "Christian."
What I hope for can work with a different culture and modern communications.
Prosperity alone will not make people less likely to fight but it will eliminate some causes. We can eliminate all the causes. People living in a saner society will not obsess over trivia and fight with bare hands - or, rather, the minute minority that might do that will be restrained and offered psychological help.
Paul.
BTW, if you debate with someone who is identified as "socialist," or as anything else, then ask him what he means by it and listen to what he says. Don't just tell him what it means! Of course, if you think that his use of the word is idiosyncratic or inaccurate, then you should point this out at some point but never start by telling a socialist/anarchist/Democrat/Liberal/pacifist etc etc etc what socialism etc is! That is completely the wrong staring point. No wonder people talk right past each other.
Kaor, Paul!
I accept that correction, on the need to first find out what a "socialist" means by that word. And if he defined it as you did I would still argue it was historically inaccurate and unworkable.
As for the rest--we simply can't agree, because I don't share your optimism about human beings. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Socialism as I define it is workable in my opinion and unworkable in yours. That is obvious. But there have been misunderstandings that have delayed our own even getting to that stage in a discussion.
How is my definition of "socialism" inaccurate? It IS what many political theoreticians and campaigners have meant by the word. Thus, it is an accurate account of what they have meant when they spoke about "socialism." It is NOT an accurate account of any bureaucratic dictatorship that has called itself "socialist." No, indeed.
Optimism about human beings: I have spelt out changed conditions that are bound to change behaviour.
Paul..
Kaor, Paul!
Then we cannot agree, because I don't believe your definition of "socialism" to be true or fitting the actual facts of what human beings are like and how they actually live, act, work.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And it will have to be proved in practice - either way.
Paul.
Post a Comment