"...remembered that, in psych training, you were warned against such thoughts.."
-Poul Anderson, "The Green Thumb" IN Anderson, The Complete Psychotechnic League, Volume 3 (Riverdale, NY, July 2018), pp. 21-41 AT p. 35.
Trevelyan Micah:
"...was aware that his own body quivered and went dry in the mouth. A remote part of him decided this was an unintegrate reaction and he needed more training. Speech and reasoning mind, though, were steel cool."
-Poul Anderson, "The Pirate" IN The Complete Psychotechnic League, Volume 3, pp. 137-165 AT p. 164.
Jorun:
"...could have willed the vague regret out of his trained nervous system, but he didn't want to."
-Poul Anderson, "The Chapter Ends" IN The Complete Psychotechnic League, Volume 3, pp. 195-215 AT p. 199.
Mere warning against particular kinds of thoughts would be inadequate but there is clearly more to this training than that.
This survival of psychotechnics into further future periods links these later stories back to the outlawed Psychotechnic Institute.
19 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except Anderson moved away from such notions about "psychotechnics" due to the skepticism and disbelief he had for such things. As he wrote in one of his letters to me, mankind is either an imperfectly/incompletely evolved species of chimps or we are Fallen. Which I agree with.
Ad astra! Sean
I do not.
"Imperfectly/incompletely evolved."
Evolution is about adaptations to environments. It has no goal so it cannot be imperfect or incomplete. But it will continue and surely we can consciously and intelligently help it to move in one direction rather than in another? Whatever else happens, evolution and change, having come to where we are now, have not just stopped dead forevermore. That cannot possibly be the case.
Kaor, Paul!
No, as both Anderson and Stirling have commented, the human race doesn't need to evolve further. Why should it when the special talent of humans is changing the environment around them to suit their needs and whims?
Humans can change their technology, but not themselves.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is not the point. Sure, natural selection stops or at least drastically slows down when we adjust our environment to suit us instead of vice versa but small changes are going on all the time. Over a much longer term, surely natural selection will also operate on human beings. But meanwhile why can we not (i) improve our environment, thus also changing ourselves: longer lifespans, healthier bodies and minds, better understanding of scientific and social processes; (ii) work on changing ourselves. Why can we not change ourselves? Everything changes all the time anyway and we can increase our understanding of the processes involved. There cannot be anything completely unchanging anywhere in the universe. Human nature has already undergone the greatest possible change, from non-existence to existence, and will eventually go through that same change in the opposite direction. Animal nature has not remained unchanged. It has diversified into multiple species, including the qualitative change into human beings. Human beings exist because of a fundamental change in animal nature.
"We cannot change ourselves" is a dogma.
Paul.
Re: humanity changing itself
In the backstory to Heinlein's early novel "Beyond This Horizon" humans have been selecting gametes for any man-woman pair who want to have a child together, to make it better than the random mix of their genes would usually produce. 'Better' is evaluated fairly pragmatically and cautiously to avoid making things worse.
In the course of the story one character is revealed to have a mutation that makes those who have it
'more civilized'. The people evaluating 'better' have been observing this for a few generations and are almost sure it *is* beneficial.
Something either cultural or genetic that makes people say 'why fight?' will be a detriment if it impedes fighting ability when the answer is 'Because this other bunch will kill or enslave us if we don't fight them off.', otherwise it will be beneficial because it reduces damage to themselves & possible trading partners.
Kaor, Jim!
But, since I believe we live in a dangerous world and universe it would be better not to tamper with humans in ways making them less likely to fight effectively.
I also thought of Stirling's fourth Draka book, DRAKON, set about 400 years after the Draka conquered Earth. The Draka used genetic engineering to make a "Why fight" gene dominant in most humans, turning them into submissive and obedient servants of Homo drakensis--which latter remained as aggressive and bellicose as ever.
No, better to leave humans alone, with all our flaws and faults, including being so prone to being quarrelsome, aggressive, and power hungry. Genetic engineering could too easily end up with the law of unintended consequences biting us very painfully!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Let me remind everyone that I have repeatedly disagreed with the assumptions underlying phrases like "...prone to being quarrelsome, aggressive, and power hungry..." and have stated reasons for this disagreement.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe in the truth, realism, or plausibility of those reasons. And I have to explain why.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You have not understood or discussed the reasons in sufficient detail.
Paul.
For the most part, you have simply stated that you do not accept the arguments that:
everything changes;
human beings are defined by cooperatively changing their environment;
they have revolutionized society more than once;
power requires instruments of coercion, bodies of armed men;
advanced technology can produce abundance;
with abundance, there will be no need to use force to prevent anyone from accessing ("stealing") his share of the common wealth;
this automatically makes many kinds of "ordinary crime" redundant;
abundance will make money, finance and "free enterprise" obsolete;
people naturally interact nonviolently with family, friends, neighbours, colleagues, passersby, chance-met strangers, newly introduced acquaintances etc and such nonviolent interactions can be generalized when we learn to stop demonizing immigrants and certain nationalities (which nationality is regarded as the enemy changes over time).
Paul.
Sean:
There is a difference between being aggressive and being violent to defend oneself from aggression. Perhaps some mix of genetics and culture can reduce the former without reducing the effectiveness of the latter.
(Yes. Sometimes there can be ambiguous situations where one thinks the latter is required when it actually isn't. Then part of the culture of 'why fight' would be ways to defuse the mistaken impressions and make for forgiveness between all parties.)
Kaor, Paul!
I will try to respond to the points you listed, despite believing I responded adequately to similar points in the past.
Humans were also defined by how they used cooperation to be more effectively violent--either for hunting or waging wars.
There has been technological revolutions, but that has not made humans less prone to being to being violent, aggressive, or craving power and status.
Exactly, power requires having the means needed for coercion, which is true of all states. And that is necessary, if peace is going to be maintained within a state.
We already have abundance from advanced tech, far more so than has ever existed in past centuries.
Disagree, I don't believe mere abundance alone will eliminate crime. I believe some will still rob, and others commit crimes of violence and passion. Nor do I believe in some vague, undefined abstraction like "common wealth."
Disagree, we are still going to need the most basic principles of economics and financial analysis. Iow, Adam Smith's THE WEALTH OF NATIONS will remain relevant.
Last, the kind of peaceful interactions listed in your last paragraph is only possible, long term, by the existence of the State, commanding a monopoly of the means of violence. That is what enables many or most people to be peaceful.
Disagree, all nations have an absolute right for defining the terms and conditions for allowing immigrants to come in. That disgusting pogrom in Amsterdam in which mobs of Muslims hunted down Jews is what happens from letting in immigrants who don't believe in the values of the host nation.
The Dutch police disgusted me, they did nothing as howling mobs of antisemites hunted down Jews!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is not what happened in Amsterdam.
Some will not rob when everyone is used to having everything they need.
The State is not necessary for peaceful relations within families.
"Common wealth" is very real when abundance is produced.
We have abundance but it is hoarded while many starve.
People are not prone to being violent or aggressive or seeking power. power is only possible when there are means of coercion. Status does not matter.
Paul.
Adam Smith cannot possibly be still relevant when competition is no longer necessary.
Sean,
I feel that your way of replying to my replies is to repeat your original statement which of course leads to a repetition of my reply.
Paul.
What I am trying for here is no longer agreement but just recognition that I present a point of view meriting serious consideration, not automatic dismissal. It is hardly arguable that some changes will happen. Beyond that, I certainly need to argue my case that certain far-ranging changes are both possible and desirable.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, that is exactly what happened in Amsterdam, a pogrom by shrieking mobs hunting down Jews. Antisemitism is real and exists.
Disagree, some will rob even if they don't need to, just for the thrill of it. Others will assault, rape, or murder.
Again, you err, even as regards families. Far too often the State has been forced to step in when violence and abuse and neglect of all kinds occurred within families.
"Common wealth" makes no sense and has never existed. This is only what you want to see happening.
Disagree, about "hoarding." The true causes of most starvation are bungling, corrupt, tyrannical, or incompetent gov'ts.
Disagree, what you said about people not being prone to being violent and craving power. That is simply not true when I can see how so many politicians do exactly that, lusting for power.
It is competition which drives economical and technological advances. So Adam Smith's analyses and those of his free enterprise successors remains relevant.
I take your POV seriously, but I don't believe you to be right. Nor do I believe many of the things you hope for are realistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Disagree with everything but am now going out the door for the evening.
(I am trying to get us into a shared mental state where we discuss and learn instead of just denying and disagreeing but maybe that is impossible.)
Of course you don't believe me to be right but just saying that is not discussing anything!
Post a Comment