(i) David Falkayn becomes a grandfather during the colonization of the Hesperian Islands on Avalon.
(ii) Ivar Holm works in a mountain Rescue Station during the colonization of the Coronan continent on Avalon.
(iii) Hloch of Stormgate Choth on Avalon closes The Earth Book Of Stormgate.
(iv) Donvar Ayeghen, President of the Galactic Archaeological Society, introduces Rear Admiral John Henry Reeves' account of Manuel Argos, Founder of the Terran Empire.
(v) The Empire grows.
(vi) Daniel Holm, Christopher Holm who is Arinnian of Stormgate Choth, Tabitha Falkayn who is Hrill of Highsky Choth and many others successfully resist Terran Imperial annexation of Avalon.
(vii) Dominic Flandry and later his daughter, Diana Crowfeather, defend the Empire.
(viii) Later generations survive the Fall of the Empire and eventually build bigger and better interstellar civilizations.
This is almost as complicated as real history and can become fannishly fascinating.
20 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm a bit sketical of your point "viii." I would fully expect post-Imperial civilizations to be as mixed a lot as the real ones we see now and in history. Some fairly good and others more bad than good, and all of them having plenty of good and bad. I also expect the Commonalty to remain peaceful only as long as people within don't have really serious quarrels. To say nothing of what will happen if/when they bump up against either warlike barbarians or an aggressive civilized race.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Commonalty civilization seems to be going well at the time of "Starfog" but that is only one story.
Also, there are by that time several human civilizations in two or more spiral arms so humanity as a whole is not going to have a crisis, downfall or anything like that, I don't think.
Paul.
Generally speaking, unless they've got something very wrong with them, I'm in favor of empires and the bigger the better -- because they generally secure a degree of internal peace.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Actually, I agree. We only see the Commonalty early in it's history. We don't know how successfully it will handle grave problems/crises.
Yes, the spreading of mankind into two or three galactic spirals means no single crisis needs to endanger the entire race.
Mr. Stirling: I agree, the monstrous USSR Lenin founded was one empire that had many things more than wrong in it. Yes, a tolerably well meaning empire big enough to defend itself against all foes would provide internal peace for its peoples. A real world example might be an alliance of English speaking nations a la the United Commonwealths of Anderson/Dickson's Hoka stories or a real world Anglosphere.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: well, the Anglosphere is sort of the British Empire writ large. Harry Turtledoe did an alternate history (THE TWO GEORGES) in which the grievances of the American Revolution were settled peacefully, and it was a desirable world, IMHO.
Sean: btw, I'm reading THE HUNGRY STEPPE: FAMINE, VIOLENCE AND THE MAKING OF SOVIET KAZAKHSTAN, and it's quite grim. A million died during the Civil War and early Soviet times, and in the collectivization famines of the early 30's, 1.5 million died (1/4 of the population) and another million were refugees. Livestock numbers didn't get to their 1929 level until the 1960's.
Let's have an Anthroposphere!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I have read THE TWO GEORGES, and I agree, a timeline in which the 13 Colonies and the UK managed to resolve their disputes and prevent a breakup of the English speaking peoples would very likely be better than what we got in reality.
Not in the least surprised re the book you are reading about Soviet misrule: tyranny, brutality, ideological nonsense, massacre, corruption, bungling, etc., is all we ever saw from that vile Lenin and his gang.
Paul: Not going to happen. Any kind of global unification means somebody is going to mold and shape it. And I would far rather that molding was done by Western civilization.
Ad astra! Sean
I would not.
Kaor, Paul!
People who foolishly think like that will have no right to complain if a brutal Maoist China or a fanatical Muslim caliphate dominates the world.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Those are not the only options!
Western countries have been brutal.
A Westerner saying that it is best that Western powers continue to shape the world: how many people throughout the world will see that just as a perpetuation of existing conflicts and problems?
Paul.
Sean,
People who disagree with you "foolishly think..."? Again you define your own position as right from the outset.
Surely the Chinese aim to do what the US has done, influence other countries economically, not impose a single political dictatorship over the whole Earth? What would be the point of that? A lot of unnecessary effort, expenditure and military conflict for ends that can be achieved more easily by making other countries economically and financially subordinate.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I apologize for that "foolishly." I should not have allowed frustration to get in the way of patience.
That said, what alternatives are there, instead of the three or four options existing in the real world? Are any new civilizations arising which has been as transformative as the Western?
Of course Western nations have been brutal! All human nations and civilizations have been cruel--because that is what all humans can and often has been. I also believe it has only been Western civilization which has broken mankind out of the dead end we see in Anderson's "The House of Sorrows," where Judaism disappeared and hence Christianity never arose.
We are always going to have conflicts and problems. And it has only been because of the true science Western civilization developed that we will have hope of solving some of those problems.
The problem with a Maoist China dominating the world is how savage that domination will be, unrestrained by any ethics worthy of that word, certainly not Confucian or Christian!
China is not as strong as it likes to pretend to be and has many self inflicted, even disastrous problems. But that does not mean its rulers don't have global ambitions and are willing to press forward as hard as they dare. Xi and Co. can easily miscalculate and cause a catastrophic blowup.
I'm also not forgetting the threat we face from fanatical Muslim jihadists!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Does China aim to dominate the world militarily and politically or just economically?
No way can Jihadists take over the world. And the problems in the Middle East are surely caused by competition for control of oil which is a global problem.
Of course science came out of Europe - and I think that it takes us away from dogmatic religion. Arabic numerals came out of India as did the meditation that I think is more beneficial than other spiritual traditions. We need a Eurasian synthesis, not Western supremacism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It should be "China is not yet able to project power militarily in any major way." But the Maoists have been building up their army and navy, and they will use them if they see a reasonable chance of success. That is why the US and its allies have to remain strong enough to restrain China.
It doesn't matter if fanatical jihadists can't conquer the world. The belief Allah commands Muslims to rule the world will continue to motivate groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to plan and plot for that. Including using Muslims in nations like the UK to undermine and subvert them. And sometimes might succeed in taking over a country like Iran--exporting war and terrorism.
Incorrect, what you said about "science" taking us away from dogmatic religion. Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, has no problem with science, properly understood. Nor do I share your interest in Hinduism.
"Arabic" numbers came from India, but it was the West, not India, which made such tremendous advances using those numbers.
Meditation? Catholicism also has a contemplative tradition. No need for Hinduism or Buddhism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
British Muslims are not trying to undermine or subvert!
Catholicism has no problem with science but plenty of people with a scientific outlook have problems with dogmatic religion!
You are arguing one-sidedly again. The West made tremendous advances... Yes, they did. Are we playing a game of one-up-manship?
No need for Buddhist-influenced meditation? There certainly is for all the people who do not accept Biblical monotheism, the idea of blood sacrifice etc.
This is a dismissive, one-sided argument when what we need and can now have is a bringing together of what is best in every tradition.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, some (but not all) Muslims in the UK. Andrew McCarthy, in his book THE GRAND JIHAD discussed how jihadists like the Muslim Brotherhood uses Marxist-Leninist tactics for advancing its goals of long term subversion.
Then those people you mentioned with a "scientific outlook" don't understand Catholicism. No matter, Christianity will survive.
Western civilization, shaped as it has been by many factors (including Judaism/Christianity) is the best culture to have arisen, to date, in human history. It alone has developed a true science. It alone has developed beliefs about the rule of law under liberty which has taken root and truly spread world wide.
Only Confucian China might have come close to that, because of many technological innovations Chinese have made. The Mandate of Heaven theory taught that gov'ts had the right to rule only as long as they governed well. But China still failed to "break out" as the West has done.
Not all cultures are equal, some will be bad and others only so so. For decades I've seen endless attacks heaped on the West, many by people who could and should have defended it in reasoned ways, but did not. So, yes, I resent these often malign attacks on my country and civilization.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If we disagree with Catholicism, this is only because we do not understand it? I think that many theologians will disagree with you about that. They know how to enter into dialogue with people of other faiths or none. It is not by saying, "You disagree with me because you not understand me."
This Western supremacism is no good. We now need synthesis, bringing together all of humanity's insights.
I do not resent people criticizing the consequences of British imperialism and colonialism.
Paul.
you do not understand
Sean,
OK. I get it. I think. You think that, if anyone thinks that Catholicism cannot accept empirical science, then they do not understand Catholicism. That is correct.
However, there are many people, including many people with philosophical and/or scientific training, who have many reasons why they do not accept Catholicism and this is usually not because they do not understand it. Ex-Catholics certainly understand what they were taught.
It can be very difficult even to get a discussion to the right starting point. If you stay within Catholicism and merely defend it against any charges of incompatibility with science, then you do not come out to meet as equals people whose premises and world views are very different.
We can each reassure ourselves that we are right but that gets us nowhere in terms of genuine dialogue.
Paul.
Post a Comment