The Brothers are precocious. One of them is keen to become involved in an operation:
"He was still young enough to find this a glorious cloak-and-dagger adventure. Well, he'd learn, and the learning would be a little death within him." (X, p. 96)
"The logical end-product of scientific warfare was that all data became military secrets - a society without feedback or stability. That was what he fought against." (p. 97)
Don't just win wars but end them.
This is the theme of James Blish's Cities In Flight, Volume I, They Shall Have Stars: all scientific discoveries are kept secret so that science itself is stifled. Those who make discoveries that can benefit all of mankind must work against both current power blocs.
38 comments:
The problem with that is that human beings are -inherently- political; that is, it's genetic, not learned behavior. The way it's -conceptualized- is partly learned.
And as the great pioneering sociologist Max Weber pointed out, "the ultimately decisive means of political action is always violence".
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And that, along with theological reasons, is why I cannot believe in such Utopian hopes.
Ad astra! Sean
People are capable of gathering and interacting in many ways that do not involve coercion. This can be generalized.
Kaor, Paul!
And that won't and cannot be permanently and reliably generalized. Always, in the background, you are going to need the State, with its monopoly of the means of violence, ready to enforce that peace, when needed.
So I dismiss hopeless Utopian fantasies!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We often nowadays do not need the State to intervene and can work toward needing it less and less. This is not a Utopian fantasy.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I see no evidence of that at all. Still a Utopian fantasy.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: there have always been coercive and non-coercive interactions between human beings. Why should this change? If something has always involved X and Y, the way to bet is that it always will.
No evidence that we often do not need the State to intervene in social interactions?
(I would find it easier to discuss if there were not simply an absolute denial of everything I say. I wind up responding in kind.)
From Sean M. Brooks:
Kaor, Paul!
Because all you have been doing is offering unsubstantiated hopes and speculations--and that's not good enough.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have offered a lot more than that. There are many social conditions in which people do not become violent. It is realistic to discuss how those conditions can be extended. But this exchange becomes far too repetitive.
Paul.
Paul: the State intervenes in 100% of social interactions -- by deterrence. People know that some actions will be punished; therefore they usually avoid them.
You don't have to have a policeman in the room for people to remember that there are policemen and laws.
I grant that. However, much of the time, we interact peacefully without consciously reflecting that there are police and laws.
Paul: yes, because we've -internalized- their presence.
You don't think about gravity consciously much, do you?
But if you go somewhere where there -aren't- such things, life immediately becomes something quite different.
Kaor, Paul!
And what you wrote above is only possible because of what I said about the existence of the State in the "background," which Stirling clarified by pointing out the State interacts in 100% of all social interactions. The fact that many times we don't have to remember there are laws and police is because of that deterrence factor.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is also because many of us are civilized social beings who simply do not think of becoming violent.
Paul.
Paul: it's only possible to be civilized as a social being if there's a State that enforces its monopoly of force. Otherwise, you're back with Otzi the Iceman; shot in the back with an arrow, and defense cuts on his forearms. Research on human remains indicates that prior to the State, violence was the commonest way for an adult male to die. And quite common for adult females.
In the absence of coercion, it only takes a minority who are willing/want to be violent to force -everyone- to be continuously ready to fight.
Kaor, Paul!
And what you said about "civilized social beings" is only possible because of the existence of the State. The chaos in Venezuela and Haiti going on right now should tell you how easily we can suffer the fate of Otzi the Iceman when the State collapses or loses all legitimacy. It only needs a minority of violent thugs to force everyone to be continuously ready to fight.
Ad astra! Sean
I am talking not about a return to barbarism or a collapse of any current state but an advance to a high tech society where the old reasons for fighting no longer exist. There will not be arrows. Any isolated individuals who became violent with their fists in argument would be physically restrained by the majority.
"Any isolated individuals who became violent with their fists in argument would be physically restrained by the majority."
How would that majority be different from a state?
Jim,
Well, it wouldn't. As long as it was necessary for a majority to restrain an anti-social minority, then the majority would still be exercising a state function: force; coercion. However, some people, including me, envisage a scenario where this state function would become less and less necessary and certainly would no longer take the form of a permanent body of armed and uniformed men set apart from the rest of society. I have tried to spell out very different social conditions like vast wealth held in common so that no one any longer has any motivation to "steal" from anyone else. Imagine the word, "steal," becoming redundant. We do not steal air now - but might do so if we were trapped in a space station with a limited number of oxygen cylinders. Everything that we do assumes a context and we can change the context. We cannot scapegoat immigrants for homelessness or unemployment if there is no homelessness or unemployment. We cannot wage war if humanity is no longer divided into armed nation states. It does not occur to me to lynch my neighbour although that might have occurred to me if I had been indoctrinated to see people who were different as a threat and if I also saw people who looked like me getting away with murder. Think about all the conditions that bring about violence and then think about changing those conditions. There are no food riots if there are no food shortages. There no members of oppressed or deprived minorities resorting to violence if no minorities are oppressed or deprived. Any individuals who imagined completely non-existent grievances would be so few and far between that they would easily be dealt with - and helped.
Paul.
are
Kaor, Paul!
Then only a clarifying of views is possible, because I don't believe at all in the plausibility of what you hope for. And certainly not in things like the "common ownership of everything."
Also, you are overlooking an obvious flaw in your hopes for how a "majority" could over a violent and criminal "minority": a gang of four could assault and overpower one or two law abiding persons and make their getaway. Innocent citizens could never be sure when or where they might be attacked.
Result: the State would still need a police force and courts for handling criminals. It's either that or a war of all against all as everybody is forced to be continuously on the alert for violence and attacks.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't know where this gang of four get their motivation from in the completely different social conditions that I envisage.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe one bit that the kinds of "completely different social conditions" you hope for is likely or possible. Also, people don't need to be poor or starving to be violent or criminals. Sheer boredom will do that for many!
You will still the need the State, with its monopoly of violence, interacting 100 percent in the background to deter criminals and the violent.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We will not still need the State when we no longer have people acting in ways that are criminal or violent.
I have clearly not said that poverty or starvation are the only causes of violence. We can identify all the causes and eliminate them. "Boredom" in a society where education is designed to identify and develop the potential of each individual? You continue to imagine a completely unchanged society. Society has changed through history and has much more potential for change now.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe a word of this. We are never going to be able to prevent all human beings from being violent or criminals. And all of us are going to be potentially be criminals, violent or not.
Again, you are overlooking how different intelligence, talents, virtues, vices, inclinations, etc., all humans are. Yes, I believe humans are going to remain unchanged. And I've seen zero evidence of your hopes coming true.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have spelt out conditions in which there will no longer be any reason or motivation to act violently or to harm or deprive anyone else.
I do not overlook but welcome and celebrate human diversity.
You have not seen any evidence in the past or the present for conditions that demonstrably can be different in the future. There are many reasons why many people act violently now but those reasons need not exist in future.
Many people do see that there is enough land on Earth for everyone to live on it without having to deprive anyone else of it or to drive anyone else off it and that understanding can spread, is spreading. Opposition to current dominant attitudes is growing. We cannot say what the future will be like but there are alternative possibilities.
Paul.
Do we need to keep repeating ourselves?
Paul: basically, people fight over power. How power is conceptualized differs between cultures, but that's a secondary characteristic.
If "power" can mean just influence or prestige, then it need not involve coercion.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm not talking about "external conditions," because that is not enough. We are all of us innately flawed and imperfect, potentially prone to become violent or criminals.
We have to keep "repeating" ourselves because, when you advocate something I believe to be hopelessly Utopian, I feel bound to protest.''
No, "prestige and influence" will not do when it comes to "power." If the State is going to be able to act at all, wisely or badly, then it will have to be able to use force and coercion. What you hope for is not possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Cross-purposes here. When I referred to prestige and influence, I was responding to the suggestion from Mr. Stirling that cultures conceptualize power differently.
What I hope for is possible.
It is absolute nonsense to suggest that anyone can become violent at any time under any circumstances. Think about it. Do family members, friends, neighbours, members of the clergy etc, having interacted peacefully for years and decades suddenly attack each other for no reason and under no provocation merely because the possibility for such action exists within them? Of course not. This is an abstract argument that goes nowhere. When my daughter was one year old and I carried her into town, it was always within my physical capabilities to throw her under a bus. Of course no such thought ever came into my head. Of course I will act irrationally and violently if I am put into intolerable circumstances but otherwise I will not and the same applies to everyone else. We can have a society where anyone who wants to conquer the world and enslave everyone else finds that no one is interested in joining his army - they are all too busy doing something far more interesting - and he is unable to buy any weapons to supply them with in any case. All that stuff can become ancient history.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, it is not nonsense. Since we are all flawed and imperfect, it is potentially possible for even the most timid of us to become violent or criminals. And that includes would be war lords finding people willing to sign up in their armies. Your hopes are unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course it is potentially possible but the most timid become violent only when extremely provoked. We can imagine, envisage and build a situation in which there are no longer any such provocations. The most timid will not become violent in just any conditions.
The word "criminal" presupposes the situation that we have now: inequalities in possession of property; laws to preserve and enforce such inequalities etc. I have been through how this need not exist in future with technologically produced, socially owned and shared, abundant wealth.
"War lords" presupposes a whole system of territories with rulers commanding bodies of armed men. I have spelled out situations where the world is just not organized on that basis any more so that a deranged individual who dreams of becoming a war lord can only dream. There are no longer territorial divisions, an arms industry, large numbers of men with nothing better to do than to earn a living by being trained to kill etc.
My hopes are completely realistic.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, your hopes are unrealistic, and they strike me as being secularized forms of what Christians believe life or existence with God is like. It reminds me of what the philosopher Eric Voegelin said about people with similar dreams, they are hoping to "immanentize the eschaton." Which he too dismissed as hopeless, dangerous, futile Utopianism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, my hopes are realistic. Conditions change and we can change them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course we disagree.
Paul.
Post a Comment