Potential war between the UN and the colonies on Venus which have declared independence (a Heinleinian theme):
"Spaceships wouldn't have to improve much to carry, cheaply, loads of soldiers in cold sleep, ready to land when thermonuclear bombardment from the skies had smashed a world's civilization." (I, p. 208)
Cold sleep was developed by studying the hibernation of Martian organisms which began in "Un-Man." Thus, Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic History hangs together.
As I type this, TV news shows preparations for continued war on Earth now.
"[Hollister] had never been among the few fanatics left on Earth who still made a god of a particular economic set-up." (ibid.)
After three World Wars, people on Earth have learned to avoid any fanaticisms that could generate a fourth but interplanetary war has become possible and will happen in "Cold Victory." Things will get worse before they get better, as in Heinlein's Future History.
18 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Of course there's going to be wars and rumors of wars as a certain Person said! It's simply what human being do. Something to be managed, coped with, possibly reduced in frequency. But we will always have the innate flaws which can lead to wars.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we need not always have the socioeconomic conditions that lead to wars.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You are still making a basic error, it's our innate human propensity for being quarrelsome and violent that leads to wars. And wishful dreams of impossibilities like socialism will not change that.
Socialist regimes are more violent and brutal than any other socio-political forms. Because their masters have to be like that to even try to make them "work."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not making an error but disagreeing. We have no innate propensity to be quarrelsome or violent. With shared plenty, there will be no need to fight for raw materials, fuel sources, trade routes, markets or profits. This is neither wishful nor impossible but is a possible change of which there are many in any case.
Surely previous discussions have made it clear that you can't just label regimes "socialist" without discussing the difference between bureaucratic dictatorships on the one hand and democratic cooperative systems on the other. The latter have scarcely existed yet but are certainly possible. The world needs such a change urgently.
Paul.
Paul: actually, we -do- have an innate propensity to be quarrelsome and violent, just as chimps or wolves do. Those are the two species we most closely resemble; we're chimps that decided to become wolves.
Human beings are not blank slates; there is an inherent human nature, of genetic origin, which culture can modify but not erase.
You can no more erase hatred and violent rivalry than you can love and cooperation. These phenomena are closely linked.
And we already have 'plenty' by the standards of most of human history.... and it hasn't reduced our violent quarrelsomeness one iota.
Despite, over the past couple of generations, the most massive drop in severe poverty the world has ever seen.
There a lower percentage of people going hungry than ever before.
Within living memory China had famines that killed 60,000,000 people, which is unimaginable now.
It hasn't made China less bellicose, that I've noticed. If anything, the contrary.
When I encounter the categorical statement that some motivation is innate in us, I tend to respond by categorically denying it because I think that we are dynamic, flexible, plastic etc. In a more considered response, I should probably saying something like: Yes, we do have contradictory tendencies but I think that we can do something about them and the material conditions and social relationships that we build make an enormous difference to how individuals respond to the very different situations that are presented to them.
should probably say
Kaor, Paul!
And we humans do have a very strong innate propensity for being violent and quarrelsome. The "cooperation" you often talk about was in large part due to cooperation making organized violence more effective. I do not believe the human race is so "dynamic, flexible, plastic" that this inclination for being violent/quarrelsome will be eliminated.
No, every single socialist regime has been exactly that: a bureaucratic despotism. The entire blood soaked history of socialism since 1917 amply demonstrates that.
You should ask yourself what it is in those "evil tailless apes" that makes socialism unworkable.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You say "every single socialist regime" as if "socialist" had one clear unambiguous meaning. We have been through this before. It does become repetitive.
The "cooperation" I talk about? In quotes? Cooperation is far more basic than that. Proto-human beings together, not individually, manipulated their environment and communicated with each other while doing so, thus developing language, thus becoming rational beings capable of abstract thought and capable of conducting this discussion which other species are clearly incapable of doing. Cooperation is basic to humanity. Cooperation within a group is more basic than its conflicts with other groups.
If you merely keep stating that human beings do have a very strong innate propensity for being violent and quarrelsome, then I will merely keep denying this. This seems pointless.
Dynamic, flexible and plastic is what we are. We have changed the natural environment, created a social environment and changed the social environment. I have outlined conditions in which it would be impossible for anyone to become a military dictator and you (I think) have insisted that it would be possible for someone to become a military dictator in any set of conditions! Where does he get army from if everyone else is engaged in other activities that are meaningful to them? How does he arm them if weapons are no longer being produced?
The entire blood soaked history...? I think you are trying to convince yourself. How about the whole blood soaked history of empires and colonies and how so many people can now see that all of this is horrific and has to be stopped? This is urgent because now the environment is being destroyed while the great powers continue with business as usual.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It has been conservatively estimated that between 1917 and 1991 at least one hundred million people died violently or by other unnatural means by the devotees of socialism. I reject it.
The entire history of mankind is blood soaked because humans have a strong innate propensity for being violent and quarrelsome. It is something that can only be managed, not eliminated.
Ad astra! Sean
They are not devotees of socialism. And how many die in capitalist wars?
We do not have a strong innate propensity for violence and quarrelsomeness.
People are not violent or quarrelsome in just any circumstances but only in particular circumstances.
There can be and indeed often are social conditions in which debate remains rational and in which violence is not even thought of. There are other conditions, like dispossession, deprivation and discrimination, where this is not the case. However, with an indefinite future of technological advances and social changes ahead of us, we can certainly aim to eradicate oppressive conditions. Is it Utopian to stop dispossessing, depriving and discriminating? I think it is common sense toward longer term survival.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe or accept your arguments. I stand by what I have said about humans having a strong innate propensity for being violent and quarrelsome.
Ad astra! Sean
But I have clearly shown that they do not. They behave very differently in different circumstances. Two friends do not have a strong innate propensity to attack each other for no reason and under no provocation.
Kaor, Paul!
You have not shown that at all. Because friends can and do sometimes quarrel and fight.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sometimes but there is no strong, innate propensity. You are denying the whole experience of mankind who often live without violence.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, people "who often live without violence," who are able to leave their homes without needing to be armed to the teeth, can only do so because of the existence of the State, with its monopoly of violence. The awareness everybody with functioning brains have that certain things are prohibited on pain of being punished, acts as a deterrence.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have already replied to this. You very often interact with friends and colleagues without needing the deterrence of the State.
Paul.
Post a Comment