The eight Survivors, mutant immortals who have survived through history into an indefinite future, are Hanno, Wanderer, Tu Shan, Patulcius, Corrine, Asagoa, Svoboda and Aliyat. Sub-chapters 1-8 of Chapter XIX show how each of the Survivors copes with the future. After Hanno and Shan comes Aliyat.
The man, Raphael, with whom Aliyat has had a relationship has become a woman, Fiera. The change is total in organs, glands, bones etc, not just in surgery and hormones. (Anderson's Time Patrol universe also has indefinitely prolonged lifespans and genetic sex change.)
Brains as well as bodies are pliable so that psyches can be altered and non-humanoid bodies, e.g., half animal, will be the next development.
All goods and most services are as abundant as air. Basic share merely coordinates activities and allocates inherently limited resources like land. The walls of Aliyat's single room form any facility and show any scene on demand. She can have the sights, sounds and odours of the medieval Constantinople that she remembers. She was consulted in the development of the simulacrum.
Liberating for many but overwhelming for Aliyat.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I can see some of these technological advances being possible, but not all of them. But Anderson wanted to go all out, as extreme as possible, about these technological speculations. Nor does having a post scarcity economy solves the problem of what to do about people like Aliyat who, like her, are not scholars, philosophers, or aesthetes. Mass despair and ennui of the kind seen in "Quixote and the Windmill" remains a danger.
Man does not live by bread, citizen's credit or basic share alone!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But technology and physical security make it easier to produce what we do live by: art, culture, knowledge, social harmony, opportunities for contemplation and/or worship.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't see the first part of what you suggest satisfying many people for long. Because most people are simply not going to be artists, aesthetes, or care all that much about knowledge or "social harmony."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course most people are not artists or aesthetes but they do enjoy some visual and dramatic art, some kind of physical activity.
But there are people who don't want to know anything and who do not care whether their social relationships are harmonious or violent? So we should just put them to work in unnecessary routine jobs because there is nothing better for them to do? I don't think so.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I would say "yes," if that is all they can do.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there are no people who are only capable of that! OK. If there are some, then a future society will have to build a Coventry for people who still think that they have to get up with an alarm clock and drudge for eight hours five days a week in a factory or office. Their numbers will dwindle. And in the evenings and at weekends, they should be able to come out of their Coventry to find some real and engaging entertainment elsewhere - unless, of course, they prefer an unrelieved diet of soap operas on TV.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe their numbers will dwindle. Every generation will have some who will be unhappy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But very few when all the conditions are right for a well-fed and interactive society.
Paul.
It basically doesn't matter how abundant -material goods- become; because humans are genetically coded to contend for power. And power is a positional good; it can't be equally abundant for everyone, because that would mean nobody had it.
They'll always find some ideological excuse for conflict.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: But you are not addressing the points Stirling and I try to make. If there is no need to compete for wealth, then people will compete for prestige, status, power. I agree with him that we are coded to crave power, even if not all of us are actively ambitious. I also agree power is a positional good, meaning there is never going to be enough for everyone.
Mr. Stirling: You don't even need ideological excuses for lusting after power, spite and malice will do, as we see in Chapter 6 of GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am addressing the points. Power requires a means of coercion, bodies of armed men, and that need not continue to exist into an indefinite future. Power is used to monopolize property and property can become abundant and thus cease to be private property. Beyond that, "power" means what? Influence, prestige? Those are not coercive political or military power.
Paul.
When I started to reread and post about BOAT, I did not expect old arguments to be repeated word for word! But it cannot be helped. Poul Anderson's text raises these issues, whether that is regarded as fortunate or unfortunate. And they are real urgent current issues. Right now, both technological production and material destruction (environmental and military) are increasing "exponentially" (?) and all that we can do is to argue, intolerantly and uncompromisingly, about what should be done. Something has to give. There are great threats and potentialities.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't agree the state will somehow wither away because of advanced tech and prosperity. The state will continue to exist because of how flawed and imperfect we all are. And that will include the need to channel the drive and craving for power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't agree. There is no "somehow" about it. There are specific arguments about how changing one aspect of society changes other aspects because they are all connected. A great deal of what the state does is to protect property. The homeless must not break into and occupy the second or third homes of the rich. In a society where everyone is adequately housed, that problem will not exist. And so on. We can make a long list. But I have done so before.
We are not flawed and imperfect. We are perfectible - although our present way of living certainly brings out the worst in us.
Craving for power? Power requires instruments of coercion which need not exist. Do I crave to make everyone on our street obey my orders? No. I want to live in peace with them. And we do. And when I do not attack my neighbour, it is not because I am afraid of the police. It is because I do not want to attack him.
Paul.
Post a Comment