Is everyone born free, as Lockridge suggests? Storm responds:
"'Free to do what? Ninety percent of this species are domestic animals by nature.'"
-CHAPTER TWO, p. 20.
Nicholas van Rijn says that he and his colleagues are wild animals, doing what they want or what is right, but then asks with scorn whether the millions living in the city that curves around the Earth are free.
Lockridge asks Storm:
"'...did you start the cult of the Goddess to get the idea of peace into men?'"
-CHAPTER FIVE, 45.
We remember a Time Patrol agent who did transform a warlike goddess into a peaceful one. But Storm scorns peace, proclaiming that the Triple Goddess includes Death.
These are comparisons with the Technic History and the Time Patrol, Poul Anderson's two main series.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think you persist in misunderstanding why Old Nick was so angry and scornful. The full context of his remarks makes it plain his anger derived from frustration over how often human beings were willing to submit to tyranny as long as the despotic regime "took care" of the people it ruled. And van Rijn several examples of what he meant.
Ad astra! Sean
I think Poul was frustrated that human nature did not espouse libertarianism.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree with you. Also, Anderson did come to accept that human beings are simply not going to be perfect, stating in one of his letters to me we are either imperfectly evolved chimps or Fallen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not understand how evolution can be "imperfect." It does not aim toward a goal and fall short of it. It proceeds only by natural (unplanned, unintended) selection. Consciousness and intelligence are by-products of such selection but they give us the opportunity consciously and intelligently to develop ourselves further.
Paul.
Paul: yes, but our evolution also controls what we want, and how we get it.
Kaor, Paul!
Our imperfection was clear to Anderson and to me, even if you disagreed with my attempts to explain why that is so.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Our ability to advance and progress and our vast potential are clear to me.
Paul.
Paul: human beings are not infinitely flexible. They are behaviorally flexible to a high degree compared to other mammals, but the "Old Adam" is always there, pushing to come back.
Kaor, Paul!
We are not infinitely flexible and I am skeptical about that "vast potential." To say nothing of how the Old Adam lurks in all of us, waiting to help us bollix up everything.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What's to be skeptical about? We have changed the world more than once and can change it again. WILL change it with advanced technology. CAN apply the lessons of history.
There are many conditions in which people have no reason to be hostile and these conditions can be built everywhere. It is unthinkable that sane, civilized, intelligent, cultured, educated citizens would suddenly lynch their neighbour because he was a foreign immigrant or start a race riot because he said that his family was going to join him. I think that you overlook all the good social interactions that already exist and that CAN be extended.
Paul.
I give specific examples of how society IS and clearly CAN be. This is realistic and not Utopian. To say that human beings are capable of conflict and violence in any and every circumstances - although demonstrably they are not - is unrealistically dystopian.
Post a Comment