Because of conflicts between Coordinators and settlers as shown in "The Pirate"? (See the combox here.)
Or because of a failure to incorporate the matter duplication technology discovered in "Symmetry"? (See the combox here.)
Or because of several factors?
I doubt whether Anderson had envisaged such far-reaching consequences of the discovery made in "Symmetry." However, this combox suggestion is an example of how the series could have been developed. Even if matter duplication remains impossible, any sufficiently advanced technology will require social adjustments and failure to make such adjustments could lead to destructive misuse of the technology.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And all "social adjustments" are going to always and forever be flawed and imperfect, because that is what all human beings are like.
Ad astra! Sean
They are not.
Kaor, Paul!
And I do not believe in Utopianism. Not too terribly bad is the best we can hope for.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I do not believe in Utopianism. That is a loaded word. We can make things better and we do not know what the limit will be in an indefinite future. Your pessimism could hold us back. We can decide to find out how far we can go.
But do we need to keep repeating this?
Paul.
Depends on what you define as "better" -- which is, always, a matter of dispute! 8-).
Kaor, Paul!
We can sometimes makes things precariously and temporarily better, with no guarantee they will last. I see no reason not to expect civilizations to continue to rise and fall.
I am not being pessimistic, I am being realistic. Everything I have learned from real history and real life, past, present, and the likely future tells me mankind is not going to change from what we now see: imperfect, flawed, prone to being violent and quarrelsome, etc. Also, as a Catholic I believe from revelation that this was due to the sin of the first man in the distant past. And is not going to change due to our unaided efforts.
Conclusion: not too terribly bad is the best we can aspire to.
I repeat, but so do you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Saying that we cannot fundamentally change for the better is "pessimism." I think that that is what the word means. It is descriptive, not pejorative.
Everything I have learned from real history and real life, past, present, and the likely future tells me that everything, including mankind, changes. There are many conditions in which human beings are not violent or quarrelsome and those conditions can be encouraged and increased. I have discussed many specific examples, not just vague generalities.
I utterly reject "the sin of the first man in the distant past." Our earliest human ancestors made the transition from ape to man by cooperatively changing their environment with hands and brains and changed themselves into a community of reflective language-users in the process.
If we are going to continue having this disagreement, can we stop repeating it word for word?
Paul.
If we get to a society where there no longer have to be conflicts of material interests over territory, resources or profits, then there will be far less disagreement about what is "good."
Sean,
You repeat "prone to violence and quarrelsomeness" so I make the same reply each time.
Paul.
No, because people will always compete for power -- and that's a positional good. Hunter-gatherers competed for power, often lethally, and you couldn't accumulate much in the way of material possessions then. You had to be able to -carry- all that you owned.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe my "pessimistic" view of the human race is realistic and based on harsh facts.
You argue "There are many conditions in which human beings are not quarrelsome or violent and those conditions can be encouraged and increased." Except that is only possible because of the existence of the State, whose monopoly of the means of violence makes it too costly and dangerous for many to be violent. And even so we still have to contend with ordinary crime from those willing to risk punishment by the State. Take away the State and you will get mass violence, chaos, anarchy, etc. And the peaceful people you talk about will have no choice but to be violent themselves.
I disagree that mere changes enabling everybody to have as much as they need or want, materially speaking, means there will be far fewer disagreements about what is "good." As Stirling said, power/status is a positional good, not dependent on material things. That is why there are always going to be people who compete for power. The wise statesman tries to channel this drive or passion for power into ways and means of gaining power that does as little harm as possible.
The advantage of democracy, when it works, is that counting noses as a means of gaining power is better than shooting one's way to power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have been through the role of the State before. It is not the State that keeps me from attacking my grandmother. There need not always be "ordinary crime" when abundant wealth is shared equally. I do not propose taking away the State. I think that society can mature beyond it.
Power requires means of coercion which need not always exist. Prestige and influence are not in themselves coercive. There are not always going to be people who compete for power because power as the ability to coerce need not always exist.
Of course conflicts of material interests are one major cause of disagreements.
Democracy can be far more than counting. It can be collective discussion, decision-making and implementation of decisions.
If I eventually stop replying on all this, it will not be because I have been persuaded - at least not by the kinds of arguments currently deployed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Everything changes but one thing stops changing - permanently? No way. But there is no point in saying this repeatedly.
Paul.
Post a Comment