Davis Bertram:
"'My people have learned better than to allow absolute rulers. You've got a whole world here. Why fight?'
"'A gutless Monster would say that.' Valeria spat and left." (p. 65)
Poul Anderson shows some societies progressing and others regressing. A "Why fight?" culture is perfectly possible as its opposite and there will then be a clash between them. In this case, the warring tribes of Atlantis will soon be incorporated into the Stellar Union - provided that Davis is able to leave Atlantis alive, of course. Anderson's heroes usually survive although the galaxy must be littered with the mortal remains of those who did not. There are many untold stories.
9 comments:
The problem there is that the "Fight!" culture will massacre the "Why Fight?" one.
As Max Weber succinctly and accurately put it, "violence is always the -ultimately- decisive means of political action".
Yes. Not in this case exactly because any Atlanteans who prefer war-making tribalism to the benefits of civilization can simply be isolated and quarantined on their planet but this is possible because of the technological, including military, superiority of the Union.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, whether Utopians like it or not, force, or the threat thereof, will always be the ultimate decisive means of political action. Non-violent ways and means of settling disputes, democratic or not, works only as long as all parties concerned are willing to abide by the rules of the game. And I think there will always be some issues rival parties feel so strongly about that they will not accept defeat peacefully. Which is how we get wars and civil wars, as happened to the US in 1860-61 and any other number of nations.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there can be a time when there are no longer conflicts of material interests over resources or territory and when weapons are no longer produced.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I din't believe in the realism and plausibility of your hopes. And it won't be that hard for humans, even in a long peaceful culture, to make or improvise weapons, as we see in Chapter Six of GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
But they won't need to improvise weapons! And we can certainly produce enough that there is no longer any need for competition or conflict.
Kaor, Paul!
No, a thousand times no, Stirling and I have tried to tell you humans don't need rational or merely material reasons for quarreling and fighting. You can't eat pride, status, power, or opposing ideas and beliefs, etc., but humans can, do, or will fight over such non-material things.
Ad asta! Sean
Sean,
Yes, a thousand times yes. This is tedious. I have said nothing about needing rational reasons. Power exists only when there are instruments of coercion with exist only when one group wants to control an economic surplus and to deny it to another larger group.
Muslims/Hindus, Catholics/Protestants etc fight only when there is socioeconomic deprivation, discrimination etc, material reasons, (Northern Ireland was British divide and rule, nothing else), not when everything else is ok and they just happen to have different beliefs. In the latter conditions, they can share, appreciate and learn from each other's cultures and traditions. This has happened historically and often happens now.
I think that there is something wrong with the way that you will not let go of this argument and keep repeating it word for word. What is the point? I am replying to what you say although knowing by now from a lot of experience that you will never be convinced. Surely you do not think that I will be persuaded by mere repetition? Then what is the point of the repetition? We can certainly continue forever with no point whatsoever.
Paul.
By now I have said enough not to convince someone who adamantly disagrees but certainly to show that the argument is not the push-over that you surprisingly seem to think that it is. If you still think that, then we are somehow failing to communicate. Look at the word, "power." You seem to think that it will always exist. I argue (I do not convince you but I nevertheless argue) that "power" assumes certain kinds of conditions and relationships that need not always exist. These arguments seem to be just brushed aside and forgotten, not addressed adequately.
Post a Comment