In the first part of Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic History, there is an existential conflict between the Un-Men and the
"protean enemy" whereas, in the second half of this future history series, the conflict between the order-preserving Coordination Service and the unintegrated Nomads is more like a creative tension. Civilization has advanced to a stabler level. Coordinators and Nomads are a perfect thesis and antithesis and the perfect synthesis is provided when some Cordies join the Nomads, bringing with them knowledge and expertise that will survive through the Third Dark Ages and inform later civilizations.
If "The Chapter Ends" is to be believed, then the next level of thesis and antithesis is between human and Hulduvian ways of controlling cosmic energy and this conflict is resolved by agreeing to divide the galaxy between oxygen- and hydrogen-breathers.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
That ineradicable, protean enemy is our flawed, imperfect, corruptible, strife prone, Fallen human nature. Being ineradicable it can only be managed, not cured. Also, readers need to pay attention to that Afterword wrote about the Psychotechnic stories, explaining why he eventually abandoned them.
I hope you and Mrs. Shackley have a great time in Wales!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Thank you.
Paul.
Sean: I basically agree, except that I would cite our human nature as it evolved for a tribalistic, violent hunter-gatherer society. We're capable of civilization, but the Old Adam is always ready to break out.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. The additional factor being I also believe in divine revelation, which I know you are not so sure of. The protean enemy in all of us can only be managed, not eliminated.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: managed, but not eliminated is precisely correct.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That's why I don't believe in dreamy, hopeless, impossible Utopian futilities. The old Adam, our protean enemy, lurks in every single one of us.
Ad astra! Sean
We can produce abundance. There need no longer be poverty, theft or causes of violence. Resources can be deployed to enable the development of each individual without impeding the development of any other individual. Thus, no need for conflict. This is materially possible, therefore realistic. But first we need large numbers of people to come together to replace the present competitive economic system. It takes time for this idea to spread but not a long time in historical terms. The Industrial Revolution is only as recent as the nineteenth century.
Paul: but material things aren't the basic cause of violence. They may have produced the genetic -instincts- which produce conflict, but the source of that is basically contention for -power-.
So as long as people compete for power... which they will always do...
Again, one meaning of "power" is ability to coerce. Means of coercion need not always exist. Or does "power" extend to just mean "influence"?
Kaor, Paul!
Paul: It's no use, I don't believe arguments like these. It's not material things or their lack which makes us so prone to violence. And, in fact, the more people live closely together, the more likely we will see violence/strife/disagreement. Because, as Stirling said, there are always going to be some who crave power and influence, and compete for it. It can only be managed, not eliminated. And that inevitably means the threat of force, both to keep the peace and keep that competing for power under some control.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It's no use. You clearly do not understand that I am not trying to get you to accept my arguments.
However, you have not adequately replied to my arguments. We are not "...so prone to violence..." and, when we are violent, it is NOT only because of material things (as you say and as I do not deny). In many circumstances, people have no inclination to be violent and it is POSSIBLE to extend those circumstances across the planet instead of fostering strife and contention as several governments do now.
There are not always going to be some who crave power and influence and compete for it. Power is ability to coerce and there will no longer be any means of coercion in a society that no longer has any need to manufacture weapons or to maintain bodies of armed men, soldiers, police, courts and prisons and all of that will become redundant when technologically produced abundance is controlled democratically and distributed equally. Craving for "power" will not exist. Desire to enjoy and share life will.
If people are crammed together, then there can be conflict but they need not be crammed together.
But I ask yet again what is the point of repeating all this? Every time you talk about craving for power and proneness to violent, I give the same reply. My purpose is not to convince you but to remind you yet again of what has already been said. By "move on," I mean not "agree" but "cease repetition."
Paul.
proneness to be violent
Post a Comment