1 post-Chaos
1 post-League
4 post-Empire
Ythrians appear in five short stories, all collected in The Earth Book Of Stormgate, and in two novels.
The People Of The Wind is set on the human-Ythrian colony planet, Avalon.
The Earth Book, notionally compiled shortly after the events of The People..., is fictitiously compiled by an Avalonian Ythrian.
In The Day Of Their Return, another Avalonian Ythrian visits the human colony planet, Aeneas.
Thus, these three volumes form an Ythrian trilogy although other Technic History volumes intervene between the Earth Book and The Day...
The seven Ythrian instalments were published in 1973 except the first which was in 1972. Despite this, they are distributed very widely throughout the History:
Grand Survey: 1
early League period: 1
late League period: 1
very near the dissolution of the League: 2
early Empire: 1 novel
later Empire: 1 novel
post-Empire: 0 (although we are bound to wonder what has become of the Domain and of Avalon)
28 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
To say nothing of how I still wonder what happened to Terra's great enemy, Merseia, after the Empire fell. If we can go by the omission of any mention of "Merseian autonomous realms" in the four post-Imperial stories, nothing good!
Ad astra! Sean
I think Poul had a soft spot for carnivorous species with low sociability... 8-).
But humans are apex predators and have been since before we were human -- h. erectus, the source of the modern human body plan, hunted hippos with wooden spears. (If you know hippos, this sounds crazed, but they did it.). We're basically smart chimps who decided to become more like wolves.
And the reason h. sapiens eventually replaced all other hominids was a transition between 80,000 and 60,000 years ago to lower male testosterone levels, which ushered in "behaviorally modern" humans. Who were capable of greater cooperation... and hence, were more effective competitors.
Pre-human hominids had tiny, tiny social groupings compared to behaviorally modern humans.
To be fair, Poul showed in PEOPLE OF THE WIND how Ythrian nature would be a severe disadvantage in a war with a human state, and made a joint Ythrian/human settlement the key point of Ythrian resistance.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Your first comment, about "carnivorous species with low sociability," was amusing! Since I still have Merseians on my mind, I would point out they could be very "sociable," as we see in works like ENSIGN FLANDRY and A CIRCUS OF HELLS. Meaning, to me, their species very likely went thru an evolutionary process analogous to that of mankind that you described.
Yes, I have some skepticism about how well a carnivorous flying species like the Ythrians would do competing with humans (or Merseians!). I agree that large scale cooperation of the kind seen with humans would very likely be hard for Ythrians to learn--and be prone to failing when attempted.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Another thought I've had was wondering if the Once and Future President, Donald Trump, has been reading your BLACK CHAMBER books. His talk about annexing Greenland, taking back the Panama Canal, and Canada becoming the 51st US state all reminds me of what Theodore Roosevelt was doing in those books!
Hate him or love him, I have to respect Trump's willingness to think of big, bold, daring ideas.
And I like how Elon Musk's criticisms in X has been shaming the British gov't into finally taking seriously the rape jihad being waged in the IUK!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is a rape jihad in the UK? Most sexual abusers here are white. Musk for some reason has been stoking racism in Britain.
How many crimes has Trump been convicted of or charged with and not yet brought to trial? Annex Greenland and Canada? These are very dangerous times.
Paul.
It was Teddy Roosevelt who advised "speak softly and carry a big stick".
Trump's apparent inability to do the former is part of what gives me a *low* opinion of him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_stick_ideology
Jim,
His convictions for sexual abuse and fraud also count for something as do his very public attempts to overthrow an election result by asking for extra votes to be "found" and by instigating a riot. Also his unsubstantiated but endlessly repeated accusations of electoral fraud which many of his supporters have accepted as self-evident fact. An American man overheard me talking about Trump in a restaurant and leaned over to say that it was "embarrassing."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, everything I read about the rape crisis in the UK tells me it's not gangs of Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc., who are doing the raping. The so called "Asians" perpetrating these crimes are Muslims, many but not all of them from Pakistan. I suggest you read Andrew McCarthy's article about this horror at NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE. A big problem has been cowardly politicians and bureaucrats refusing to face up to harsh facts about what motivates too many Muslims!*
And the lawfare waged by the despicable Democrats against Trump has petered out in futility! Those "crimes" he has been convicted of were, at most, petty misdemeanors past the statute of limitations "Trumped" up into felonies by hate crazed leftists.
Truthfully, I don't expect the US to annex Canada. I think that kind of talk was to put pressure on Ontario, to make the gov't more amenable to making concessions to the US.
Greenland is more problematic because the US has legitimate security concerns there, esp. the need to counteract Russian and Chinese troublemaking. Which the weak and feeble "Josip" has done nothing to nullify. Last, I've already seen speculations the Danish has been making quiet contacts with the incoming President, to discuss how best to accommodate the needs of the US.
Jim: Yes, but TR also believed in taking forceful and decisive action when he believed that was necessary. Given the chaos in Mexico after the collapse of Porfirio Diaz's gov't in 1911, including bloody raids by terrorists across the border into the US, I believe a TR who won reelection to the Presidency in 1912 would have massively invaded Mexico.
Ad astra! Sean
*I'm not forgetting how a fanatical Muslim massacred 15 persons and wounded dozens more on New Year's day in New Orleans. Every atrocity by such Muslims makes me regard Islam with increasing contempt.
Under our First Amendment Muslims in the US have the right to practice their religion. But I don't have to like Islam, and I do not.
Sean,
I disagree. I am living here. Everything you read is clearly prejudiced.
Paul.
I suggest that you read something other than NATIONAL REVIEW.
Sean,
Your language is far too extreme. I feel that everything you quote is "hate crazed."
Trump's sexual offences are minor?
The US has re-elected a climate change denier.
Paul.
The Muslim offenders were prosecuted, not covered up. We do not speak of a "rape Crusade" when Catholic clergy are guilty of sexual abuse. Indeed, such language would be as offensive as "rape jihad."
Russian interventions are trouble making but US interventions are not?
Every country has security concerns as long as humanity remains divided into armed nation states. Why borders? Why armaments? We can conceive of better and what we can conceive of we can do.
Will Trump pardon rioters and weaponize Justice against officials who did NOT fix an election? The legal challenges showed no evidence of election fixing.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I'm "prejudiced," because I believe myself to be right! I also believe outsiders like me can sometimes see some things more clearly than people living on the spot can or will.
Bluntly, I don't trust leftist sources. I've seen too many lies, dishonesty, or delusional nonsense from leftists, going back a century or more,. One glaring recent example being the "transexual" madness and nonsense like "men can become pregnant."
No, Trump's sexual offenses, real or not, are not trivial. But, I'm not forgetting how the Democrats ignored or covered up "Josip's" sexual offenses, including at least one rape accusation. It all stinks of hypocrisy, one sided twisting of the law for partisan purposes, waging of lawfare against Trump.
I don't care about "climate denial" by Trump. Not if the only "solutions" being offered by leftists are hopeless, futile, counterproductive. Trump's avowed goal of making it easier to build nuclear power plants will do more for the environment than anything pushed by leftists.
I hope some Muslim rapists are prosecuted. But I don't believe all are or will be. And you are missing the point made by Andrew McCarthy, fanatical Muslims can find many things in the doctrinal sources of Islam justifying the horrors they commit. Most Muslims are not like that, but neither can they deny what their religion teaches or allows. That is what paralyzes "nice" Muslims.
Unlike too many, I take Muslim theology seriously!
Yes, I far prefer US "interventions," because I believe the US to be a far better hegemon than a world dominated by Maoist China or a jihadist Islam would be. Russia I consider merely a shell of what it was in 1914.
We are not going to transcend nation states. And we have weapons because human beings are quarrelsome and ambitious. The best I can think of which might be realistic would be an "Anglosphere" evolving from an alliance of English speaking nations into some kind of global confederation.
Don't forget "Josip's" pardons! He pardoned his corrupt son and pardoned/commuted more than a thousand swindlers, embezzlers, and murderers in Federal prisons. Mere rioters seem so trivial by comparison!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Everyone thinks that what they say is right. Otherwise, they would not say it. That really is not the point. You premise seems to be not "I think that what I say is right" but "I AM right whatever is said to the contrary!"
We cannot even start this disagreement in a valid place. I do not advocate just "leftist" sources. That would be as one-sided as only quoting the NATIONAL REVIEW. I suggest a wider range of sources. I watch the BBC News while recognizing its underlying assumptions and presuppositions. Al Jazeera is a good alternative.
"Cowardly politicians" is a mere cliche. I assure you that British Labour politicians are not "cowardly" in this respect but are as down on immigrants as are their right wing critics. Yes, there was an Asian grooming gang. Its members were prosecuted. Most sexual abuse is within the family. The Archbishop of Canterbury had to resign because of the extent of abuse in the Church of England. There have been massive scandals about Catholic priests in Ireland. Just reading your narrow range of media does not give you an insight that I have not. I can see from here that everything you quote is biased and one-sided. "Rape Jihad" is an appalling hate phrase.
Paul.
Sean,
This is no good. I criticize Trump. You respond by criticizing "Josip," both about pardons and about sexual abuse. I criticize both. It is no good responding to one set of criticisms by making counter-criticisms. Criticize both. The whole present power structure is the problem. Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Labour, are Tweedldum and Tweedldee.
We will transcend nations. We are not inherently quarrelsome and ambitious although it suits our present rulers to claim that we are. They want to keep the arms trade and local conflicts going.
You do not care that the most powerful man on Earth denies climate change and therefore will not cooperate with other countries on this issue? I do not advocate "leftist" solutions. I think that all governments should take the best scientific advice, then cooperate to counteract the damage that is still being done. I am not one of those scientists who know what advice to give but ceasing to wage wars, which destroy the environment, and also ceasing to prepare for more wars would be a start.
Who are these "leftists" whose policies you reject? They seem to constitute a lot of people around the world, including a lot of Americans.
Paul.
We do not need a "world hegemon." That thinking is part of the problem.
I am not missing any points but am disagreeing with you about these points. Your continual assumption is clearly that you have stated mere facts, not one interpretation of the facts.
The history of Christian torture and burning of "heretics" is appalling yet I was brought up in a milieu which argued that all that stuff was not too bad!
You hope that some Muslim rapists are prosecuted? You do not seem to realize that they have been. Why will some not be? Do you have evidence that the British state is covering up for Muslims' crimes? Can Muslim fanatics justify rape? Some appalling acts of violence are advocated in the Bible.
I think that that is everything but I think that the main problem here is just a one-sided attitude.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Welcome back! Trying to respond to your comments. I do not claim to be always right--but I do believe myself to be reasonably often correct.
Like it not I am going to continue to trust NATIONAL REVIEW, COMMENTARY, THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, etc., more than other sources I've come to have only distrust for. Esp. if these more trusted than not sources bucks against the headwinds of the dominant zeitgeist.
"Cowardly politicians" is a cliche, but all cliches have some truth. So I will continue to believe some pols are indeed cowardly. Andrew McCarthy's point has been that the rape gangs scandal has been going on for nearly 30 years, under gov'ts of both major UK parties. And that too often prosecutors, police, and pols have preferred to look the other way. And McCarthy believes that Includes, right now, the current Labor PM, when he was head of the Crown prosecution service.
Disagree with your dismissal of "rape jihad." The point is not that there are bad Anglicans or Catholics who fail to live up to the principles of Christianity; it's that Islam has teachings, beliefs, theologians, etc., encouraging or tolerating contempt for women, both Muslim and non-Muslim. McCarthy discussed how specific texts from the Koran, hadiths, and the views of prominent Muslim theologians leads precisely to that.
We are never going to agree about human beings and human nature. The problem is not so called "power structures," but the absolutely patent fact that all human beings are weak, fallible, prone to folly, to being violent and quarrelsome, etc. And all these flaws are permanently parts of all humans.
"Power structures," the State, whatever you want to call them, are attempts to put some controls and restraints on our worst sides or aspects. Often badly, and sometimes not too terribly badly. I've seen zero evidence to ever expect that to change or go away.
You have often criticized Trump, but I have seldom seen you being just as hard on "Josip" and other Democrats the past four or more years. So I will point out the opposition's flaws as well.
Yes, I don't care what Trump says about environmental problems, mostly because I've seen nothing from other nations that seriously addresses these issues. Some years ago I engaged in a long discussion of this, using Robert Zubrin's book THE CASE FOR SPACE, where he proposed ideas that addresses these issues, such as nuclear power and plain old RUST. If nonsense like the Paris Accords won't get serious about what really works, then Trump is right to dismiss them.
Again, I point out how India and China, pollute more than all the rest of the world put together. And they are not in the least willing to "cooperate." Nothing the US or UK can do even dents that!
By "leftists" I mean mostly the woke radicals who dominate the Democrat party. People I'm all too aware of! Their bad ideas, as the Los Angeles wildfires are showing right now, have led only to catastrophe and folly.
Ad astra! Sean
Their bad ideas have led to the wildfires?
Trump's attempts to overthrow an election result put him in a very different category. Plus his Nazi language about immigrants.
I disagree about everything, especially human nature. We are not inherently violent, quarrelsome etc although it suits some kinds of societies to claim that. We are capable of peaceful coexistence and cooperation which is played down and ignored.
I don't think woke radical dominate the Democrats! As is often the case, your language is far too extreme.
Kaor, Paul!
Irrelevant, whether or not we need a "hegemon," the fact remains that has been the constant pattern thru out all human history, because it springs from our innate nature as humans. We are naturally inclined to be tribalistic, to favor our kin, friends, clans, tribes, nations, empires, etc. It is dangerously futile to deny or wish that away. Which means I am going to believe the US, Christianity, Western civilization, etc., are better than all the alternatives.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Perfectly relevant whether we need a hegemon. We do not have to repeat the pattern of history. Our innate nature as human beings is to change our natural and social environments by hand and brain and to change ourselves in the process. That is how we became human beings. How else did we get here? It is dangerously futile to deny all this. There can be better alternatives in the future.
Is it possible to discuss instead of engaging in endless, uncompromising denials?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, our innate nature also includes being flawed, imperfect, prone to being quarrelsome, fiercely competitive, or violent. I don't believe any merely human socio/political system will ever be wholly perfect.
And we need that competitive drive! It's what encourages innovators to be inventive/creative in so many fields, such as the sciences and technology. If that competitive drive was eliminated from mankind, we would either become as weak and feeble as Wells' Eloi or as slavishly submissive to the Draka as Stirling's homo Servus in DRAKON.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, our innate nature does not include quarrelsomeness, violence etc. You merely state and repeat this. Social relationships are not "mere." They are what make us what we are and they can and do change.
I have said before that I am against continued economic competition for profit, not against competition in every aspect of life, and I have also acknowledged that economic competition has been necessary to develop the means of production when the surplus was smaller but things can be different in future.
We really do just go round in circles with this argument. Most of what I in fact say is just bypassed. And one of things that I have said recently was to ask whether we can get to properly discussing issues instead of just saying, "No," "Disagree," all the time?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then all we can do is explicate our views. And that competitive drive to benefit one's self is precisely what we need for economic and technological advances. Without that competitive drive I believe we will get only stagnation and eventual poverty. I don't share this hostility to the profit motive.
Ad astra! Sean
But the profit motive become redundant when wealth becomes abundant!
We do not need to compete against each other to make scientific discoveries. We can cooperate and learn more, more quickly. The motivations to learn and create need not be competitive. Sport is competitive but I have said that.
Kaor, Paul!
Wo do not have anything like this hypothetical post scarcity economy, nor do we know if/when such a thing will ever exist. You are only assuming, with no evidence, such an economy will someday exist. That is simply not realistic or good enough, in the real here and now.
And I still believe competition, the desire to gain wealth, or simply to outdo a detested rival (think of the hostility between Edison and Tesla), etc., are necessary for sparking inventions and innovations in the sciences, technology, arts. "Cooperation" is most practical when used to assist the genius or innovator.
Sports are competitive, but no one expects earth shaking innovations from a soccer/football game.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We cannot communicate. I do not assume anything about the future. I know very well that the near future might quite possibly be disastrous for everyone on Earth. There are very powerful forces working in precisely that direction right now.
However, we know that a range of options is possible. We have indisputable evidence that technology produces far more than unassisted manual labour can! Also, that we are going through a technological revolution with computers, AI, miniaturization, automation, robots, nanotech, the possibilities of solar energy and resources from space. All of that can produce far more wealth than we have ever had before.
There will not be a desire to gain wealth if wealth becomes abundant. Many scientists and scholars are motivated by the desires to learn and to know, not to outdo a detested rival! I don't want to know how the Big Bang started so that I can publish my results before someone else! I want to know.
"'Cooperation' is most practical when used to assist the genius or innovator"? Yes. Why the quote marks around cooperation? Without cooperation, there would be only solitary, non-linguistic animals on Earth.
No one expects innovations from football? No. I only cited sport to show that I do not oppose all competition.
Does this not feel like going round in circles? You really do give the impression of thinking up arguments against whatever is said even though these arguments have by now been replied to multiple times.
Things change. How things have been is not how they will always be. Before 1969, it could have been argued that men will never land on the Moon because they have never (till now) landed on the Moon.
We are discussing possibilities, not certainties. I feel that points like this have to be repeated.
Paul.
Post a Comment