Members of the Tulat/"We," the tribe known to Wanda Tamberly, stand and wait as a group of the newcomers approaches:
"Behind [the Tulat] surf growled, above them birds shrilled, around them wind whistled emptily." (p. 173)
On this occasion, the wind is joined by surf and birds and all three natural phenomena anticipate a bad outcome: by growling, shrilling, whistling - not cheerfully but emptily.
In autumn, the Tulat like to wallow in hot mud and wash in hot spring water but, as they await the intruders, wind scatters the warmth of a nearby pool:
"...into nothingness." (p. 174)
The same message. Sure enough, the encounter involves proposed exploitation followed by unsuccessful resistance. We have already heard a partly familiar prayer:
"You Who Know Strangeness, why have you forsaken Us?" (p. 173)
Meanwhile, in 1990 AD, Wanda tries to do something about this. (I follow HG Wells in pretending that time travel allows us to speak of different times as if they were the same time: "...even now...")
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Unfortunately, however, Stirling expressed doubts about how Anderson described the Tulat which I find convincing. He doubted that even Old Stone Age humans would be as primitive as the Tulat--when elsewhere they were very sophisticated hunter/gatherers. But we can still enjoy reading "Beringia" as a very well written story.
Ad astra! Sean
Yes. Note that Neanderthals hunted mammoths, wooly rhinos, and occasionally 1000-pound cave lions. Humans have been apex predators since the emergence of H. Erectus.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
The Tulat should have been better armed, tougher, and more aggressive than we see them in "Beringia." A regrettable lapse by Anderson.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yes. Note that examination of human remains from pre-State socities shows that about 25% to 33% of adult male remains show signs of dying by violence. And since it's bones, that doesn't show soft tissue damage; which means the typical way for an adult male to die was by violence.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! The State, in no matter what form, is necessary controlling, checking, restraining, penalizing, etc., the all too human propensity for violence. No State and we get people being casually murdered like Otzi the Ice man or chaos like Haiti.
To say nothing of how I believe the Fall/Original Sin explains why we humans are as we see them: imperfect, flawed, prone to violence, etc. Which is why I dismiss all Utopian dreams and hopes.
Ad astra! Sean
Disagree.
Pre-state society was violent. Post-state society will be post-state precisely because the old reasons for violence will no longer exist. There will be no struggle for survival or competition for territory. People whose needs are met by social use of advanced technology will be able to live peacefully and harmoniously as many already do.
We are not inherently imperfect, flawed or prone to violence. If we were primarily motivated to use violence to solve problems, then we would already have destroyed ourselves and each other.
Haiti is in chaos now but completely different conditions can exist in future. We have not Fallen but risen. I dismiss dystopian nightmares and fears.
(I always question the point of this word-for-word repetition!)
Paul: there's no reason to believe human beings will ever abandon fighting for -power-. That's genetic.
Power, as opposed to prestige and influence, requires means of coercion, weapons and bodies of armed men, which need not always exist. Decision-making processes can be fully democratised, especially with advance technological means of communication.
d
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, all you are doing is proposing dreams, hopes, wishful thinking, and that is not good enough. We are so prone to violence because of our innate characteristics (if you like that better than "flaws"). And that requires the State, in no matter what form, to control. The State is also needed for moderating competing for status and power. Why on Terra should that change after so many tens of thousands of years?
We are what we are because of both the Fall and our genetics. Explanations which fit observed facts are to be preferred. And yours do not.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are not trying to agree.
I have given arguments, not dreams, hopes or wishful thinking. That is good enough. Not good enough to get you to agree but I am not trying to do that.
We do not have a characteristic making us prone to violence in any and every conditions. Just imagine what life would really be like if that were the case. Life would not continue. There can be conditions in which the State is no longer necessary. I have spelt them out in detail. I have replied on competition for status and power innumerable times. I have explained why things can and do change.
We have risen, not Fallen. We are dynamic, plastic, social organisms, not animals genetically programmed to a single kind of behaviour. The Fall and genes are two mutually incompatible explanations.
Of course explanations that fit observed facts are to be preferred! Mine do. Yours do not.
Can we please stop repeating all this?
Paul.
Post a Comment