Morals? Human conflict continues and remains extremely destructive even when humanity is offered extra-solar beauty and knowledge. I would say, "knowledge and beauty," but the Sigman's priorities are the reverse. Skip and Yvonne are Americans. Should their country gain the superior technology from Sigma Draconis? Would Americans be more trustworthy with it than the Chinese? It is easy to say, "Yes." Trustworthy to whom? Would the Americans use superior technology not in their own strategic, economic and military interests but purely in the widest possible interests of everyone on Earth? How many Americans will respond, "Why should they?"
In Poul Anderson's universe of discourse, important decisions are made not by states but by individuals so what will Skip and Yvonne decide to do with the spaceship that they have inherited from the Sigman?
9 comments:
Well, governments are -composed- of individual humans, too.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Of course there were going to be conflicts! The prospect/hope of gaining great power and fear that your rivals would get the jump on you will arouse the fiercest passions humans can or will have. It's simply what mankind is like: quarrelsome, aggressive, competitive, ambitious, etc.
Like it or not somebody is going to be top dog. I would far rather it was the US and not China (Russia is too shambolic to any longer be a serious contender for world domination).
Mr. Stirling: And all gov'ts will have factions and disputes. Either in an open and chaotic way, like the US. Or secretly, behind the scenes, in a closed dictatorship like that of China.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Like it or not, no one has to be top dog. Many people think that we can live differently. You would prefer the US. Many people would not. That does not mean that we prefer or support either Russia or China. Trying to force such a choice on us is a major part of how the present set-up works. Humanity will (hopefully) outlast all present regimes and build something better. Or it might go under. Indeed, will go under if we continue on our present course.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, what you hope for is futile, impossible Utopian un-realism. It's not a matter of "forcing" a choice, it's simply what it is, what human affairs are like, and always will be like. Because I accept what humanity is: flawed, imperfect, all too prone to self inflicted folly. Iow, Fallen
There is another alternative: mankind will survive, including getting off this rock, under different regimes and nations. Some fairly good, others bad and nasty.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not agree that we are Fallen. The present regimes certainly want to leave us no choice but to choose between them. Many people reject that choice.
I have spelt out how I think that society can be reorganized many times and don't want to go through it all again.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I firmly believe you to be wrong and tragically unrealistic. And I believe your hopes and dreams to be futile, because they cut against the grain of what human beings are like.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I think that what human beings are like is that they have changed their environment with hands and brains and have changed themselves into human beings in the process and therefore that active change, not anything unchanging, is the essence of our species.
So I firmly believe you to be wrong and completely unrealistic. I have pointed out repeatedly that technological abundance will make free enterprise redundant, will help the state (the necessity for coercion) to shrink even further and will enable new generations to grow up with a completely different set of assumptions and expectations. People will leave school not to seek employment by someone else but to engage in whatever meaningful activities their aptitudes, training and education have prepared them for, always with the possibility of further learning and growth.
But do we need to keep repeating that, in my opinion, this is possible and, in your opinion, it is not? If you keep trying to end an exchange by stating that my views are unrealistic, then I will keep replying that my views are realistic, but there is no point to this.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are at loggerheads and totally unable to agree. Because I believe the hard facts of real life and real human beings supports my argument, not yours.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we do not have to keep saying that we are at loggerheads. How can those hard facts prevent technology from making the employer-employee relationship redundant and thus opening up the possibility of a society in which it is unnecessary to compete for jobs, profits or resources? And there is no longer any motivation to steal because everyone is an heir of vast social wealth? Thus the possibility at least of a completely different society as beyond ours as ours is beyond hunting-gathering.
Paul.
Post a Comment