Poul Anderson makes an intelligent guess:
"...most people in the ancient world were more or less fatalistic. Events to come might work out for the better instead of the worst. Undoubtedly many a mind was occupied with how to make an extra profit from the situation." (p. 49)
(The situation being invasion and imminent siege.)
The gambler's philosophy:
"This year, the Jade Emperor's turn. Next year, mine."
When the future was uncertain at work, we received some professional pep talks/morale boosts etc. Someone said that most of what we worry about does not happen and that what does happen would have happened anyway. That helps, I think.
I have also read that the lowest social strata welcome news of war because war means change and, for them, any change can only be for the better! (Experience might contradict this but, before experience, there is hope.)
Ancient fatalism expresses a lot of experience and wisdom. Nowadays there is more knowledge to hand. We can try to gain a better collective understanding and grasp of events.
24 comments:
Actually, war meant famine, enslavement, rape and burning.
Yes. The source that I was quoting was referring to more modern times when there were some hopes of improvement - as well as a lot of disappointment and disillusionment.
Kaor, Paul!
And if there's ever going to be any hope of seeing less "famine, enslavement, rape, and burning," we first need to have no tom fool illusions about human beings. It's back to the wisdom of Flavius Vegetius: "If you want peace prepare for war."
Ad astra! Sean
Disagree.
Paul: deterrence is the best way to avoid people attacking you. And if they do anyway, preparing for war means you're better off.
In a world that remains divided into armed nation-states, I agree that that makes senses but we also have to plan for a longer term and more sustainable future.
Kaor, Paul!
And that is not going to happen in any form until either a single power, or an alliance of powers, conquers/unifies the world. I would far rather something like Anderson's Solar Commonwealth/United Commonwealths arises. We would not enjoy the kind of unification seen in Stirling's Draka books or Wingrove's CHUNG KUO series.
No, realistically, only Flavius Vegetius' advice makes sense.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: human beings are -inherently- tribal. If you take away everything else, they'll fight each other over football clubs or chariot colors.
Diagree.
I don't think that, in an otherwise peaceful world, people would fight over football or chariot colours. They would certainly enjoy sport.
Disagree.
Paul: why not? They'd identify with their teams, and they'd feel hostility to 'opposing' teams. That's the way human emotions work. Whether they'd feel and act on an impulse to kill is another matter.
Well, I think that football hooliganism is an expression of social alienations that go way beyond football.
Although I am not a sporting type, I have seen sporting competitiveness that did not contain any hostility. I talked to a cricketing batsman about how an umpire might have made a different decision. The batsman just replied, "I would have thought so..." and left it at that.
Paul: yes, sporting rivalries don't necessarily mean lethal hostility. OTOH, they can -- and if the people involved don't have any other strong identity, they do.
Kaor, Paul!
The error you make is in persisting in thinking everybody will someday be like you. Another error is waving away how tribal the vast majority humans are. No matter how trivial a particular "tribe" might be, if people strongly identify with it, then violence is possible.
IIRC, Anderson had Old Nick commenting in "Territory" that even players in a bridge club could get pretty "blood shot" (hostile) with each other in a bridge game! And chess has a long history of players cheating or even killing each other.
I agree with Anderson and Stirling, not with those who think as you do.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not persist in making an error. I show that people behave differently in different situations. That does not equate to saying that everyone will someday behave like me even in unchanged situations. Violence is always a physical possibility but need not be any more than that.
Can we drop the language of "error." I think that your views are erroneous but it is sufficient to state the reasons for my views which I always do.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The problem is your persistence in claiming people will somehow behave as you would like them to in the kinds of situations you hope for. No, the possibility of peace for the great mass of a people will because of the existence of the State, with its monopoly of violence.
Ad astra! Sean
But of course people will behave peacefully in situations where there is no longer any reason for violence. They do so already. This is not a problem or a persistence. I present arguments and examples for everything that I say.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree because there is no "of course" here. People don't need to have rational reasons to quarrel and fight--any excuse will do. The peaceful situations you keep citing are possible only because of the State, in whatever form. I don't believe in your arguments/"evidence."
No State, not even a bad one, and we will get Haiti.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree. There is an "of course" here. People in general do not find any excuse to fight. The peaceful situations that I keep citing are not possible only because of the State. There are many situations when the police are not necessary to break up fights. The police would be overwhelmed if everyone did find any excuse to fight for no reason all the time.
In future (this is possible, not inevitable), when abundant wealth is held in common and when everyone has grown up with access to everything that they need, then no one will conceive of or even understand the idea of "stealing" from anyone else and there will be no need for a State to prevent theft or personal violence. (If a very few aberrant individuals suddenly attack a neighbour or a stranger under no provocation and for no possible gain, then an intelligent, informed population will easily restrain such individuals and lead them to medical/psychological treatment.)
Why do you want to pursue this disagreement indefinitely?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I could turn that around and ask why you persist in stating hopes I believe to be impossible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Because I believe that they are possible and state my reasons. I do not base my statements on anyone else's beliefs!
Paul.
Sean,
You seem to find it difficult to understand that you are disagreed with.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I do understand that you, and those who think as you do disagree with me, Stirling, Anderson, etc. The issues involved are so important that I believe it necessary to attempt winning you over to what I firmly believe are true ideas.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I firmly believe that my ideas reflect a dynamic reality more accurately than your apparent conviction that life and consciousness, having evolved and developed to their present complex but conflicted state, will now freeze and remain exactly as they are into an indefinite future.
Paul.
Post a Comment