"The Chapter Ends."
See blog search result for "psychohistory."
Psychotechnics as it is presented in the opening instalments of Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic History is both a predictive science of human societies and a practical science of human psychophysiology. However, those are too very different projects and only the latter is mentioned in "The Chapter Ends." Therefore, it is not certain that the earlier and the later psychotechnics are identical. After all this time, that is a new realization at least for me.
We may have exhausted "The Chapter Ends" at least for the time being. Who knows what we will contemplate next?
13 comments:
I think Poul became convinced that predictive social sciences just didn't work.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Human beings are simply too chaotic and unpredictable for any such "science" to work. Nor do I believe in any transhumanist mental super-powers.
Ad astra! Sean
I don't believe in such super-powers either, but it is still fair to write stories in which they exist. Just think through what can and can't be done with the power(s) to make the story self-consistent. Also think through the "required secondary powers"
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RequiredSecondaryPowers
Kaor, Jim!
I agree writers can legitimately craft stories where we see such super-powers. But I never heard of "required secondary powers" before.
What bothers me is that some people seem to hope or believe such powers can or will become actualities, never mind the sheer implausibility of such notions. I've even read there are "fans" who admire Stirling's monstrous Draka and would like to join them. You can bet the Draka would be delighted to gain such powers!
Humans being what we are, I would not trust us with such powers.
Ad astra! Sean
"Humans being what we are, I would not trust us with such powers"
Lots of humans having such powers means the worst humans can be controlled by the majority that is somewhat better. That is why the existence of absolute monarchs, "aristocracies", billionaires, etc is generally undesirable.
The somewhat better fraction of humanity even limits the abuse of other animals.
Kaor, Jim!
With all due respect, I cannot agree because people with similar views always, always overlook or minimize how flawed, imperfect, corruptible, or prone to folly all of us can be. It doesn't matter if most humans are not robbers, rapists, murderers, etc., etc., we still have the problem of trying to keep under some control. And I absolutely expect even a human race with the kind of implausible powers seen in "The Chapter Ends" will have problems with criminals having similar powers.
Nor do I care about absolute monarchs, aristocracies, or billionaires. The problems seen from or because of the acts of such people springs from the innate imperfection, their Fallen nature, they share with all the rest of mankind.
Far too briefly, my view of politics is Aristotelian, Scholastic, Burkean. The optimum form of the State, any State, in whatever form, is the "mixed gov't," in which power is distributed or dispersed among different persons or groups of people all checking, blocking, restraining each other. That forces people to bargain and horse trade with each other, forming a grudgingly agreed on consensus becoming the basis on which policies can be made and enforced.
Absolute monarchy, in whatever form, is a regime in which the Executive, whatever he is called (President, Emperor, King) has too much power. Not necessarily because he is always a bad man, but because it asks too much of merely fallible men.
The flaw with aristocracy similar, weak, corruptible men easily becomes a corrupt stagnant oligarchy, as was the case with the Venetian Republic.
Unchecked, unrestrained, irresponsible democracy easily becomes a battlefield where warring factions, parties, and ambitious politicians struggle and contend for power. The end result, almost inevitably, ends with a dictator emerging as the supreme leader, the classic example being Napoleon's seizure of power from a bloodily failed and discredited republic.
So, yes, I would distrust us, any of us, having the kind of super-powers seen in "The Chapter Ends,"
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Jim!
I should have mentioned above that in A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS it's my belief Anderson described on Dennitza what he believed was the best realistically achievable political system possible for human beings. Dennitza has a very Aristotelian, mixed form of gov't, containing elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy in it. Meaning everyone has some power but no one has unchecked dominance, the system being designed to force the different branches of the gov't to bargain, negotiate, compromise, etc. And that was once the ideal for the US, until the election of that idiot, Woodrow Wilson as President in 1912.
A fuller discussion of these issues can be found in my article "Political Legitimacy in the Thought of Poul Anderson."
Ad astra! Sean
"Napoleon's seizure of power from a bloodily failed and discredited republic."
I think it takes more than a few years for people living in a democracy to get it right. Most importantly to get the idea of freedom of speech even for the people you profoundly disagree with.
My reading of history is that it will often take a few bloody failures before a country gets democracy reasonably right. The French took a few tries. For people of a country trying for the 1st time to get democracy to work in their country, it would be good to look at the record of other countries and think about what they got right and wrong. I see no reason a democracy *has* to fail after decades of existence.
Kaor, Jim!
I am a little puzzled by your comments immediately above, they don't seem to quite fit what I wrote above.
I have only contempt for the French Revolution and the First Republic. The Revolution was cruel, brutal, tyrannical, and produced nothing good. And ended with Napoleon's military dictatorship. Recall what I said about how chaos in a failed/failing "democracy" so often ends with dictators seizing power.
I think a good argument could be made the fatal mistake made by pre-Revolutionary France was letting the old French parliament, the Estates General, fall into disuse after 1614. However tiresome it would have been for the kings of France and their ministers to argue with, cajole, or horse trade with 600 or 700 politicians, it would have been better for them and France if that was what happened.
Ad astra! Sean
My position is that if a country tries to go directly from dictatorship (including absolute monarchy) to democracy, few people will really understand how to make it work. There will be fumbles and probably reversion to some sort of despotism, maybe a few times. France is a good example, but by the late 1800s democracy was fairly stable there. However, once a country has been democratic for decades the chances are lower for mistakes that would undermine democracy and my disagreement with you is the idea that democracy is inherently unstable.
I do agree that a viable Estates General after 1614 would have made a transition to something like British parliamentary democracy relatively painless.
One giant mistake in 1780s France was many of the aristocrats voting to keep the taxes off them and on the common people. If Robespierre et al. had confined the use of the guillotine to those people I would have some sympathy for Robespierre.
Kaor, Jim!
The peculiarity with France's Old Regime before 1789 was how un-dictatorial it was. For all the loose talk about "absolute monarchy," the reality was far more complex, because of how hemmed in it was by customary law, precedent, and the gov't's calculations of what it could prudently do without stirring up too much opposition. It led more and more to an inability to make real changes and reforms.
Exactly, keeping the Estates General as an active institution after 1614 would have made it much easier for the gov't to correct abuses and blunders. As well as giving the politicians practical experience in helping to run the gov't.
No, France's Third Republic had many defects and became notorious for corruption and bitter factional wrangling. And was guilty of many injustices and absurdities, like the "affair of the cards," to name one. But a reasonably functional parliamentary system makes corrective action possible.
Actually, no, IIRC in the years 1789-90 the French aristocracy agreed to their exemption from taxes being abolished. Nor would I agree that it's right to guillotine anyone for nothing worse than a disagreement about taxes.
Ad astra! Sean
Generally speaking, revolutions produce regimes that are worse than what went before -- the late Bourbons in France, for example, were pussycats compared to the Terror or Napoleon.
Napoleon tried to conquer the world and got 1.5 million Frenchmen killed in the process, for example.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! By 1795 even many Parisians were so fed up with the bloody chaos of the Revolution there were pro-monarchist revolts by people who remembered with longing the kindly, gentle, and well-meaning Louis XVI.
I don't know about Napoleon wanting to conquer the world, but Anderson touched on even that seemingly fantastic idea in "When Free Men Shall Stand." Set in a timeline where Bonaparte avoided making crucial mistakes and founded a lasting French Empire. The US was a far smaller nation restricted to the east bank of the Mississippi River and fighting wars with France.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment