The Guilds had been able to use the Brotherhoods against the Wise and the Lords. Now the Empire holds down the Wise and the Lords, encourages the Guilds, taxes the Seafolk, threatens the Rogaviki and tries to eradicate the Brotherhoods which therefore seek new allies among the Rogaviki and possibly also among the Seafolk. Josserek is a Killimaraichan Intelligence agent sent to investigate this last possibility. He and Donya of the Rogaviki are guests of Casiru of the Rattlebone Brotherhood.
Josserek and Donya find a small farm in a former stadium among the Hollow Houses. Beyond the Royal Canal, they find not raucous city life but monks and nuns among abbeys, temples and tombs. Then:
architecture on Palace Row;
paths, topiaries and flowerbeds in the Gardens of Elzia;
a rented canoe on Lake Narmu at the centre of the city;
street-bought steamed catfish and baked yams eaten under the Patrician Bridge;
cold beer in a "drinkery" (p. 58) in a doorway of the long-disused Grand Arena.
Thus, life and decay in the grand old city of Arvanneth.
27 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Your first paragraph made me think the Captain General should have spent four or five more years firmly cementing Rahidian rule of Arvanneth before attempting further conquests. Including building up a strong base of pro-Rahidian support in the city, from people who came to have a stake in the Empire. Rather like the new mercantile/industrial class on Aeneas in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN, people who felt more attuned to the Terran Empire than to the Landholders and the University (and their supporters).
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
As Anderson wrote in one of his letters to me, "Conquests happen." Human beings are like that, warlike, competitive, and aggressive. And I don't believe that's ever going to change.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I expected that response. Conquests happen because people conquer. Murders happen because people murder.
It will change when the entire species possesses so much wealth that there is no reason to conquer anyone.
Paul.
Paul: the people who make decisions like conquering are -already- mostly fabulously wealthy. They have more than they could possibly consume personally if they lived to be thousands of years old.
There is no such thing as "enough". Particularly not when power is concerned.
Cecil Rhodes once remarked:
"I would annex the planets if I could. I often think about that."
And guess what?
Elon Musk (a modern-day Rhodes) is spending billions upon billions to do exactly that!
Yes, but those who make the decisions do not order conquest in order to increase their personal wealth. There are social and political reasons for wars which need not always obtain in the future. When a population has all that it needs and when all of its members are able to live meaningfully and when no one is obliged to earn a living by manufacturing weapons, then no one will any longer have the power, the means or the motivation to order members of one national population to go out and slaughter members of another national population. All of that will be relegated to the barbaric past like cannibalism, human sacrifice and the burning of heretics.
Kaor, Paul!
And it's plain both Stirling and I disagree with you. I don't believe mere wealth and comfort for everybody will change humans the way you dream of. People will still be competitive and aggressive. I can easily see many people seeking "meaning" in status seeking, intrigues, competing for power, etc. I believe your views to be unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course we disagree! I do not believe that mere wealth and comfort will change human beings. That is not what I have been arguing. I am not dreaming. I have presented concrete arguments.
Every time you write "competing for power," I repeat that I have spelled out social conditions in which there will no longer be "power."
I believe your views to be unrealistic.
Paul.
Paul: in the overall context of history, people in the US or Italy -already- have all that they need. Ordinary laborers have more than dukes and kings used to possess.
I hadn't noticed that it made them more content or less ambitious or less prone to violence if they think it will get them what they want.
As I said, there is no such thing as "enough". Nor is there any state of "satisfaction".
The more you have, the more you want.
I envisage a different kind of society in which the employer-employee relationship no longer exists. Education and upbringing prepare everyone not to to compete in a jobs market but to engage in whatever work or activity fulfils their individual potentials. A fundamentally different society. I think that it is possible and that it is what civilization points towards but a lot of obstacles will have to be cleared out of the way first. There is social inertia and prejudice and there are massive institutions like intelligence services and armed forces whose sole purpose is to maintain the status quo at all costs. They maintain a very unstable and dangerous world but many people look for an alternative.
Paul: Ukraine's armed forces are right now demonstrating the necessity for having armed forces.
If you don't, you might as well paint VICTIM/SLAVE on your forehead and learn how to say "Yes, master!" in various languages.
As for fulfilling individual potentials, a large proportion of humanity feels fulfilled only when they get to tell other people what to do and get deference and obedience.
This is instinctual, because we're all disproportionately descended, particularly in the male line, from people with that personality type.
That's how evolution works.
As long as armed forces exist, they are necessary for defence against armed forces. The present system is self-reinforcing but there can be movements for change.
Fulfilment only by telling others what to do and getting deference and obedience! Yes! But such people need a dose of living in a society where they are treated with respect but only as equals, not as superiors. I remember thinking this about the Draka. I do accept that positive changes are far from easy but there is an argument and a struggle going on right now for the future.
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with Stirling, and not you. He expressed the objections I have for what I can only call hopeless unrealism far more clearly than I would have.
I firmly believe the desire for power and status is latent in everybody, even if not everybody strives to gain it. And that is not going to be eradicated. It is something that can only be managed, not eliminated. At most such ambitions can be channeled in ways that minimizes harm.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I firmly believe that everything changes, that we have even changed from not existing to existing, that we are defined as a species by the fact that we have changed our environments with hands and brains and have changed ourselves into homo sapiens in the process, that an object or organism has one set of properties in one environment and another set in a different environment, that a substance that is liquid on one planet is solid on another, that we have risen, not "Fallen," that we can have a society in which there are no weapons or bodies of armed men to coerce a population and where the only elected officials are recallable public servants, that technology and social understanding and cooperation make this possible, that in the long future hopefully still ahead of us these things are possible (not guaranteed). It would be good if we could discuss these specific points rather than just remaining in repetitive out-and-out denial.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We cannot agree. I don't believe what you dream of is possible. And if it's not possible then it is not desirable.
You keep talking about "change," but my observation has been that the more things change the more stubbornly unchangeable humans are.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not a dream. It is a reasoned argument.
Of course I talk about "change." Things change. Once we did not exist. Inanimate matter became animate, then conscious, then self-conscious. People are capable of enormous changes. When social relationships are completely different, then people will be brought up completely differently. Fully civilized and mature people do not suddenly riot and attack each other. People with big problems do run amok. The same people in different conditions.
Our experience is not the totality of human experience or potential. We can move forward instead of denying that there is any forward. We would not have advanced as far as we already have if that were the case.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still have to disagree. What you hope for is only a "reasoned dream," not backed by evidence.
We can move forward, but only scientifically and technologically. As far as society/politics are concerned, my view remains that the optimum we can aspire to remains something like Western civilization, which at least achieved, to some degree, ideas about the limited state under the rule of law. And that will always be precarious.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I cannot provide evidence of something that has not happened yet. When technologically produced wealth is abundant, then obviously lifestyles, attitudes and expectations will have to change accordingly. What has happened until now is not a guide for what will happen in the future in changed circumstances. If one factor changes, then other factors have to change in relation to it. Things do not just remain as they always were forevermore. They have not always been just one way, either.
Paul.
Paul: if such people lived in the society you postulate, in a couple of years they'd be running it -- and telling people what to do.
Non-ambitious and non-power-hungry people cannot compete successfully for power with those who -do- have a burning desire for power.
BTW, if something is universal cross-culturally, then there's a high probability it's not culturally dependent. Instead it's behavior that is instinctually motivated -- coded into our DNA.
And you cannot change that without genetic engineering.
Let's put it to the test. I think we can - have to - do something about changing society. How many of the obstacles in our path are structural and how many are genetic? BTW, my ideal people would certainly be active and goal-focused and would be very alert to any danger of old power relationships being revived. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." But we really do not know what is going to happen except that big changes for good or ill will happen and will be unpredictable. Out of all that it might be possible to build something better. It is certainly possible to destroy ourselves. "Business as usual" seems less of an option right now.
Paul: there are not only internal problems with changes -- not least, it is utterly impossible to know what their consequences will be -- but there are international ones as well.
If you cut your capacity to compete with alternative models, then you get eaten alive.
Thanks. I realize: incalculable and international consequences. No country should reduce its own ability to defend itself - but there might be different ways to do that. I certainly do not agree with any more countries getting nuclear weapons. There are too many already.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Falling behind again. Had to take care of some boring, mundane, real world stuff! (Smiles)
Paul: I agree with Stirling's arguments and not yours, even if I arrive at the same conclusions by somewhat different routes (e.g., the Fall).
The nuclear genie cannot be stuffed back into the bottle. All that can be done, absent a world state with a monopoly of violence, is to limit the number of states with such weapons. Nor do I believe your "ideal people" to be possible. Because they would immediately show themselves to be just as flawed as everybody else.
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My "ideal people" exist in a different set of social conditions where means of coercion no longer exist and are no longer necessary. (I have explained and argued for this.) So the people are not "ideal" because of any unaccountable inner transformation. I no more believe in that than does anyone else.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe in the realism or plausibility of that "different set of social conditions." The inevitability, even necessity for "means of coercion" springs from the innate flaws and weaknesses all mankind is prone to. Stirling attributes this to humanity being a genetic kludge, while I attribute that to both this and to us being a Fallen race. Which was also Anderson's basic view, as he stated in one of his letters to me.
I believe our view is more realistic and fact based than yours.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Human beings are differentiated by the fact that they have changed their environment with hands and brains and have changed themselves into homo sapiens in the process. Of course different conditions will make changes in life and consciousness. I believe that my view is more realistic and fact based than yours.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, we can only change our surroundings, not the innate characteristics which makes all humans what we see them to be. Plainly, we are never going to agree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Changing their surroundings changes people's expectations, attitudes and behaviour.
There is nothing innate in dynamic, changing organisms.
My daughter is a much better person than I am because her upbringing was the opposite of mine. I can see how she would have been harmed by being dictated to and treated as I was.
Paul.
Post a Comment