The Terran fleet that attacks Avalon includes a "'...Captain K'thak...'" (p. 545) Is there an echo of Captain Kirk here? Presumably K'thak is non-human. I don't think that there is any other reference to him (?)
Rural Avalon is able to build massive planetary defenses in secret because of:
abundant nuclear energy
ample natural resources
sophisticated automatic technology
machines making machines
facilities manufactured in regions where no one lives
Think how such technology could be used to enhance life instead of to destroy it. Utopian futuristic sf is realistic.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
What makes Utopian science fiction so unrealistic is a stubborn unwillingness to accept how prone humans are to disputes, quarrels, conflicts.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What makes your comments so unrealistic is a stubborn unwillingness to accept that human beings are not prone to disputes, quarrels or conflicts in any and every circumstances and only in some circumstances and the latter kind of circumstances can be eliminated, indeed often are. When I pass a man on the street, I do not insist on walking just where he wants to walk because there is plenty of room for both of us but it is a different matter if too many of us are pressed together into too small a space. Then some at least will lash out.
Describe any situation in which there is conflict. Then we can imagine that situation changed so that the conflict does not arise. Immigrants are resented because they are (allegedly) put on the top of the waiting list for scarce public housing? That situation does not arise if there is more than enough housing for everyone, which there should be.
A dictator wants to wage war against another country? Not if we do not let anyone become a dictator, if we no longer maintain large bodies of armed men, if we no longer divide humanity into armed nation states, if we no longer manufacture weapons but instead invest all that productive capacity into something life-enhancing. All of this possible in future. Not about to happen tomorrow but not inconceivable or impossible either.
Paul.
Re: Immigration
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4983
Immigration Myths
Kaor, Paul!
My view is that you are projecting what you want to see or expect on others. Humans don't quarrel or fight all the time, but they frequently do. And the State will be needed for preventing either outbreaks of violence or to punish/limit such outbreaks when they happen.
Nor do I share your political idealism. Far more often than not, whole nations have supported or tolerated dictators. We have armies because they are needed either for defense against aggressors or because other nations are aggressors. And I don't expect that to change.
An Anglosphere evolving into a Terran Confederation is the best alternative I can see.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People frequently fight in conditions that can be changed. There will not be outbreaks of violence when there is no reason for them. The State will not be needed when production of abundance makes economic competition redundant - not all competition in society, just economic competition which causes wars, laws to protect private property, shops that have to be guarded to prevent anyone from taking goods without paying for them so that a profit can be made by someone else etc.
Nations have tolerated dictators in intolerable past conditions but it is in our collective power to ensure that all public officials are elected and accountable.
If we did not have armies, then no one could be aggressors. Armies for defense against armies is a circular argument.
An Anglosphere is about the most arrogant arrangement that a white Westerner could suggest! Your opposite numbers are among the Jihadists.
One world for one human race is the best alternative I can see.
Paul.
Ideas alone do not cause conflicts. Jihads and Crusades were about grabbing land and loot, not about how many persons there are in God. Catholics and Protestants fought in Northern Ireland because of deep-rooted social and political discrimination, not because they disagreed about Papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception. There were socioeconomic divisions, not just religious differences, between Hindus and Muslims in India.
Sean, you did not understand "conditions" so I gave one obvious example of a condition, poverty. Then you responded as if that was the only example that I could give which it never has been. We go back and forth over the same ground as if we have never been here before. Let's remember what has been said and at least acknowledge, even if we do not accept, previously presented arguments. Otherwise, we do just repeat ourselves indefinitely.
Kaor, Paul!
Humans don't need rational reasons to fight. Any excuse will do, such as rioting supporters of rival sports teams. Also, economic and technological competition is what drives advances in these fields, and that is a good thing. Eliminating that will lead to the kind of stagnation Seladorian Earth was starting to see in STARFARERS.
Again, I do not believe in your political idealism, because of how flawed and prone to conflicts human beings are. Which means, among other things, armies will continue to be necessary.
And I do understand what you mean by "conditions," I simply don't believe you to be right.
I disagree with your dismissal of an Anglosphere. I favor an alliance of English speaking nations because they share much in common in origins, culture, political ideas, etc. English is also the most widely used language in the world, and is widely favored in countries like India. Other nations like South Sudan, have officially adopted English. Any global state will need a common official language, and English is the best choice for that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We keep responding to each other with things that we have said before. Economic competition has driven technological progress but will have achieved its purpose and will have made itself redundant when wealth becomes abundant. This will be the basis of genuine freedom and will release human creativity not in everyone but in enough people to transform society further. (It is not freedom to have work at someone else's behest for eight or more hours a day.)
Human beings are not flawed and prone to conflicts.
You do understand "conditions" now but you said that you didn't before which was why I explained it. I feel that we keep losing track of what has been said.
I am not right that the conditions in which people live have a big effect on how they respond and what they do?
Sports fans fight as an expression of their alienation from current society, not because there is anything innate in human beings that makes them fight for no reason whatsoever. Much of the time, we do not do this. The conditions in which we have no motivation to fight can be reproduced and extended.
English is not the best international language. Esperanto is. It is phonetically spelt, has the simplest possible grammar, is easy to learn, is a living language with its own literature as well as translations of the Bible, Shakespeare etc. People have met through it and been married in it. It is politically neutral which the language of the British Empire and the US will never be. You have not answered my objection that many people will oppose an Anglosphere because of all the record of colonialism etc.
I feel that, on this issue, you keep returning to the fray and I keep replying with things that I have said before.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, you are only assuming something will come to exist that does not exist: a post scarcity economy. And, even if it does, why should advances continue to happen if that means changes that will upset the regnant order of things? I can well imagine pressures, which does not have to be brutal, being placed on innovators strong enough to stop them.
We are going to continue to disagree about the flawed nature of human beings.
Humans fight, dispute, have conflicts (peaceful or not), etc., because we are competitive. And violent conflicts arises from us no longer having the proper balance needed for controlling our passions.
I care nothing about Esperanto because countless millions around also don't care. It's English they want to study and learn, because they believe that to be the entry ticket needed to achieve better, more prosperous lives.
The global use of English makes it a far more natural choice as an official language for a hypothetical Terran Federation or Solar Commonwealth. Which morphed into Anglic in Anderson's Technic stories.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Again I am not assuming that anything will come to exist but stating what I think is demonstrably possible. Surely I have said before that another all too possible future is utter destruction? But advancing technology certainly has the potentiality to produce abundance so that competition becomes redundant.
Changes that will upset the regnant order of things? Large numbers of us have to oppose the regnant order of things which of course will resist change.
Everything in us is the result of active change of their environment by our ancestors. Nothing in us is unchangeable. Therefore nothing is unchangeably flawed.
We are most basically cooperative, not competitive. Without cooperation, we would not have language. Without language, we would not be human. Without cooperation between adults, human infants would not survive. You know that there are many situations where human beings interact without losing control of their passions and becoming violent. If that were the norm, then there would be no society.
Of course English is the entry ticket now. That does not make it the best choice for a future global language.
Everyone does not speak English. Esperanto could be taught as a second language in every country. That would mean everyone would (i) speak their national language at home; (ii) be able to travel anywhere in the world and communicate with anyone there; (iii) be able to greet foreign visitors in a common language; (iv) still be able to learn English, Russian or any other national language for specific purposes.
We have said all this before.
Paul.
Post a Comment