"Marius," 1964;
"Un-Man," 2004;
"The Sensitive Man," 2009.
Much has happened:
World War III in 1958;
UN world government established in 1965;
the Psychotechnic Institute founded in 1975.
Also, colonization of Mars, Venus and Terrestrial seabeds, massive rebuilding and urbanization on Earth and a Second Industrial Revolution.
A completely different world and also a completely impossible one! But we accept each future history series on its own terms while reading it. Following the narrative of this fictional timeline eventually brings us to the interstellar scenario of the Stellar Union, the Coordination Service and the Nomads in later instalments.
22 comments:
A world war would have been very damaging but survivable (for the US) until the early to mid 1960's. After that, much less so as ICBM's were built in increasing numbers. Europe would have been hammered flat much earlier, though.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Fortunately, the grim men in the Soviet Politburo had enough caution to never quite dare actually trigger a nuclear exchange.
Ad astra! Sean
The Soviets had a long history of beating on the vulnerable but avoiding confrontations with equals or near-equals if they could.
Terminological point (mainly): "Soviet" originally meant "democratic workers' council" so I dislike using the phrase "the Soviets" when referring to what became a brutal dictatorship. However, I cannot escape from the fact that that dictatorship was called "the Soviet Union" and "the USSR." Change in the meanings of words is one cause of confusion. ("A Tragedy of Errors.")
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree, but what worries is that a US with weak, feckless, and incompetent Democrats as leaders could so badly bungle matters that it temps an aggressive hostile power to go too far and a nuclear war erupts.
Paul: Irrelevant, unimportant, and too late. That despicable monster Lenin chose to make a big deal of the word "Soviet." The regime that tyrant founded has to be referred to by something, and "Soviet" was the obvious choice.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Relevant, important and timely. There were soviets in Russia,
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And they came to nothing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know! We can build workers' councils in future. This is becoming a tit for tat exchange, not a reasoned discussion of still relevant issues.
Paul.
FKaor, Paul!
Because there is zero evidence that what you hope for can or will ever come to pass. And these "workers councils" will not somehow be exempt from the laws of economics. They will still have to deal with supply, demand, division of labor, economies of scale, etc. So I consider such things pipe dreams.
Ad astra! Seanrom Sean M. Brooks:
Sean,
But, if you look for evidence in the past, you will not find it because technology changes everything and things are changing now. Production of abundance so that everyone automatically has everything that they need will do away with supply, demand, division of labour and economies of scale. People will make both individual and collective/democratic decisions about what is going to happen next. Workers' councils are only a start on fully democratizing society. You keep discussing a transformed society in terms of a completely untransformed society.
Paul.
The "From Sean M. Brooks" got mixed up with the comment.
Sean: for that to matter, the hostile power would have to believe that the US would not respond to an attack. That would require considerable self-delusioin. OTOH, human beings -are- capable of considerable self-delusion!
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Because the only evidence we have, can have, is what we know from history and the facts/events of current affairs. Plus, we have had rapid technological changes in the past three or four centuries. None of the totally unconvincing changes you hope for has occurred, and I see no evidence of those Utopian changes happening.
Also, you cannot have "democracy" without factionalism and competitive struggles for power. Democracy is non-violent competitive conflicts where all parties agree to accept the results of elections. And breaks down when that consensus fails.
Mr. Stirling: Your last sentence is what I fear might happen. Radical woke left wing Democrats blinded by their delusions and bungling their way into a nuclear war.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you can't argue that, if something has not happened in the past and is not happening now, then it will never happen in the future! If that were the case, then no changes would ever have occurred.
It is becoming possible to produce more than everyone needs. That CAN lead to an end of economic competition and military conflicts. We should be able to agree that this is at least possible and leave it there.
Paul.
We can have democracy without struggles for power if there are no longer any means of coercion: weapons or bodies of armed men.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm willing to tentatively accept the possibility of a post scarcity economy in a fairly remote future. And that will require mankind getting off this rock.
I don't agree with your second point, "non-competitive democracy" is self contradictory, because there will always be people who disagree with each other. Hence you will get conflicts and struggles for power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagreements and contests for influence, yes. Not "power" if there are no longer any instruments of coercion and I have argued that this is possible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You yourself tacitly agree with me: "Disagreements and contests for influence, yes." I believe that will inevitably become struggles for naked power when disagreements become passionate. And humans being what they are, they will easily improvise or reinvent "instruments of coercion," as we see happening in Chapter Six of GENESIS.
You are overlooking the problem posed by defiant minorities who might feel so strongly about disputed matters that they will not accept defeat. Then the majority will have no choice but to coerce if the matters under dispute are crucial.
So I still disagree: "Democracy" is non-violent struggles for power and status.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course I agree with some of what you are saying. People will continue to disagree and try to influence each other but they cannot wield "power" if all decisions are fully democratic so that no one is able to impose his decisions on others by controlling a centralized army or police force. The only police function should be society as a whole protecting itself against aberrant individuals who should be increasingly few when conditions are favourable. There need no longer be any deprived or oppressed minorities with some of their members resorting to violence. There need no longer be political decisions like the current British government cutting winter fuel payments to pensioners while refusing to tax the very rich and continuing to sell arms abroad. Decisions like these cause conflict but we can build a world without them.
Paul.
BTW, let's not get into discussing or defending current government decisions within the current socioeconomic system. We are talking about building a different system where there is no need to cut winter fuel provision in order to pay for something else.
Kaor, Paul!
No, the ultimate basis on which any State rests, and has to rest, democratic or not, remains force and coercion. You are still gliding over the problem of stubborn minorities refusing to accept the decrees of a majority. The ideal you describe is hopelessly unrealistic.
And we will continue to need courts, police forces, and prisons for handling criminals.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The State is of course based on force and coercion but we have not always had a State and need not always have one. I am not gliding over anything. I am simply disagreeing with you. We will not need courts, police or prisons to deal with criminals because we will no longer have criminals. No one will mug or steal when everyone has everything that they need and more and has grown up in a society where that has always been the case.
Stubborn minorities refuse to accept the decrees of a majority? Remember I am talking about a society in which there are no longer any minorities that are marked out groups, dispossessed, disadvantaged, discriminated against etc. In a peaceful, civilized society, every individual sometimes wins a vote and sometimes loses one but that does not lead to violence. We just go on to the next debate and continually review existing policies anyway.
I describe not a hopelessly unrealistic ideal but a practical possibility when society is not longer divided into haves and have nots (everyone a have) and when the human race is no longer divided into antagonistic armed nation states. This is no longer necessary. It is highly destructive. Many people now see things that way. We can move forward instead of clinging to outmoded notions that otherwise will soon destroy us.
Paul.
Post a Comment