Un-Men
Planetary Engineers
psychotechnicians
agents of the Stellar Union Coordination Service
Anderson's Technic History features characters who are unashamedly out for nothing but their own profits, the Master Merchants of the Polesotechnic League, and we are shown both the good and the bad sides of their economic system. They are succeeded by Dominic Flandry who, as an Intelligence officer, is a government employee, not an independent entrepreneur. Thus, he seeks the "common good" by defending the Terran Empire.
In Robert Heinlein's Future Histories, the Space Patrol prevents nuclear war.
Poul Anderson's Time Patrol protects the existence of our evolutionary successors. Many human beings must suffer so that the Danellians can exist. Whose is the common good?
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I have some trivial quibbles, here and there, but I basically agree. I would argue Dominic Flandry was not simply a gov't employee, he was also a Naval officer.
Ad astra! Sean
OTOH, billions would suffer and die in -any- history involving humans. And without the Time Patrol, history would be changed over and over and over, never being much better and possibly much worse. The long "era of peace" that precedes the Danellians wouldn't happen in the "Delenda Est" history, for example.
When contemplating history, a certain dogged pessimism is appropriate... 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Good points, esp. the "dogged pessimism" bit. I am totally distrustful of soaring idealism and Utopian dreams. Not too terribly bad is the best we can realistically hope for.
Ad astra! Sean
It is not.
Paul: well, experience to date would indicate that it is. And if all experience indicates something... that's the highest probability.
It has become automatic with me to remind Sean of fundamental disagreements on certain issues, like this one, without rehearsing the arguments every time. Basically, I think that there are sounds reasons to believe that the future will be different, therefore might be better. We can try to make it better.
Kaor, Paul!
And I feel the same way vis a vis you--expressing strong skepticism of your more unrealistic and implausible hopes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You state "unrealistic and implausible hopes" as if this were a mere datum. It is not. I have clearly shown that it is up for dispute by explaining in detail how objective conditions and human responses to them can, arguably, be qualitatively different in future.
Paul.
Sean,
It goes without saying that you have not accepted any arguments that I have presented for the possibility of a better future. It seems contradictory for an sf reader of all people to think that some aspect of an active and dynamic species like humanity will remain completely unchanged literally forever. However, I find to my surprise that someone does think that. I go further and suggest that you do not seriously consider any alternative views but, in any case, you have not accepted any such arguments. Nevertheless, such arguments continue to exist in the minds of many people. There are many views of possible futures. These many views include yours, mine and others. To continue to speak as if your view were simply identical with the facts of the case and that no reasoned alternatives to it exist is completely to misrepresent this situation. We have to start by accepting that there are alternative views and that they have to be taken seriously.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am also a Catholic, and I believe, from both faith and experience, that all humans are imperfect, Fallen. That logically leads to strong skepticism that what I consider Utopian hopes will actually come to pass. And nothing I've seen in real history, real life, and what can reasonably be expected in the future makes me think otherwise.
I think "Not too terribly bad," such as the Terran Empire, United Commonwealths, and the Allied Planets, etc., should also be considered.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what can be reasonably expected in the future includes technology making economic competition redundant. That alone has immense implications.
Paul.
Post a Comment