After Doomsday, 5.
The planet, Vorlak, was unified into an imperium under the Overmaster eight thousand years ago and discovered by spacefarers two hundred years ago. Since that discovery, the Dragar, masters of sea warships, have become masters of space warships while the imperium has lost power but still embodies wisdom. Vorlakka history has been maritime because most of their land is islands made swamps by tides.
Through the open doors of the Dragar hall, Donnan hears surf, night-birds and a spouting, roaring saurian and smells cold unfamiliar odours. Battle banners hang from remote rafters.
One Draga advises Donnan to kill any of his men who question his authority but he cannot kill any human beings when so few remain!
When there is a pause in the dialogue:
"Even the fire and surf seemed to hush themselves." (p. 44)
Of course the fire and surf did not quieten down but the elements always seem to correspond to the conversation in Poul Anderson's works.
Draga honour grants four inalienable rights:
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteIn both several of his stories and in private communication Anderson made it plain he had no use for the USSR/Marxism.
"Vanities of vanities"? But it's also not in the least surprising, "it's What Human Beings Do," IWHBD, to be Stirlingian. And it's not going to change.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteWrong combox for the above comment.
The current political situation as described on Vorlak remined me of the first phase of the decline of China's Chou Dynasty, after 771 BC, during the Spring and Autumn period, down to the beginning of the Warring States era. That is, for a while the Chou king retained a good deal of deference from the feudal lords of the states China was divided up into.
Ad astra! Sean
Of course. My suggestion about Anderson writing propaganda was highly ironic!
ReplyDeleteEverything changes. That is what sf is about.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteThe more the world changes the more human beings stay the same.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBut nothing CAN stay the same! Everything moves and changes. Human beings came into existence. The greatest possible change is from nonexistence to existence. How can they go through that and then become unchanging?
Is there no difference in consciousness, knowledge, understanding and motivation between the very earliest human beings and the very best of civilized humanity? And we can change both our circumstances and ourselves much further, given enough time out of all recognition.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteThe point I am trying to make is that no matter what technological changes we see those changes have not changed what all human beings are innately like: imperfect, prone to folly and blundering, prone to strife and violence. Mere technological changes are external to us and will not innately change us.
I believe my views are vindicated/proven by archeology, genetics, history, and by the facts/experiences of everyday real life. It's also the teaching of the Catholic Church, declaring that our vices/flaws are consequences of mankind being Fallen.
It's also my belief conservatives who think like this have far sounder views of what is going to be possible/workable in socio-political matters. Due to having no illusions about human beings and being distrustfully skeptical of all forms of radicalism. E.g., as expounded in the works of Edmund Burke and similarly minded successors.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not just technology but how it is used. I have shown many times that we are not prone to strife and violence. There are many circumstances in which we are not violent and those circumstances can be reproduced everywhere. They will be reproduced if we survive and if technology is used properly, to unite and enrich instead of to divide and impoverish.
I believe my views are vindicated by experience.
We have not Fallen but risen and therefore CAN rise further. I do not have illusions about human beings. I know very well that current power-holders are leading us straight to disaster.
It's also my belief that conservatives hold us back. Some forms of radicalism deserve support. We hope and aim to have a very big "Together Alliance" March on 28 March to demonstrate that, in Britain, anti-racists outnumber the followers of Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. We do not want ICE on our streets.
Paul.
Archaeology and history show what WAS, not what CAN be. They also show change which will continue, and more so, in the future. Genetics shows that we are dynamic and plastic, more so than any other animals, not stuck in one single behavioural pattern. Look how much we have changed our environment and our social relationships already. Then look forward into (hopefully) an indefinite future.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteTechnology can and will be used wisely or foolishly, well or badly. And that it's impossible to ensure that advanced technology is always used well.
I simply don't believe your arguments that we are not prone to strife and violence. The "circumstances" you insist on as proving your view were possible because of the existence of the State, with its monopoly of violence, to enforce peace and penalize the violent and criminals.
We have opposing views of "experience."
We have to agree to disagree about the Fall. It's not "rulers" which is the problem. They simply reflect what human beings are like: bad or good, foolish or wise.
Disagree, re "radicalism." The only radicalism which has worked when given a chance has been the limited state and free enterprise economics. Nothing else has worked.
There have been four recent incidents of terrorism, by black and white Muslims in the US. Including one by a Muslim driving a truck into a Jewish synagogue in Michigan. Fortunately, that thug was killed by security guards. I am all for expelling illegal "immigrants" from the US/UK. Outrageous that Jews have been forced to have armed guards at their synagogues since 10/7!
I don't care about "racism," because it's Islam, with its barbaric and savage laws and beliefs, which is undermining and subverting the West. My sympathies are far more with Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
Archeology and history show us not only what was but also what still is, and what is more likely than not to exist in the future. Nor do I believe human beings are as "plastic" as you insist we are. And I am not at all convinced that many of "our social relationships" have changed for the better.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWe cannot ENSURE that technology will be used well. We might very well use it to destroy ourselves and are well on the way to that already.
Most people most of the time are not violent.
I have replied about the State before.
It is not just rulers that are the problem. The rest of us let them happen.
Disagree about radicalism. Free enterprise will be redundant when wealth is abundant.
There are many outrages, including by Zionists.
All immigration should be legal. We should welcome newcomers and guarantee freedom of movement.
"Racism" in quote marks? And you don't care about all that hate?
Islam is not subverting the West and most Muslims do not live by barbaric or savage laws. The West is in serious decline. It has its own internal problems. Farage encourages hate.
What is likely to exist in the future is continued rapid and massive change. Human beings are capable of living in completely different social milieus.
Who said all our social relationships have changed for the better? But they have changed and will continue to do so. It is your idea that things will remain the same that is impossible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI give qualified/limited agreement to your first sentence One means of avoiding complete destruction is by getting off this rock in a major way.
Most people are not violent most of the time because they live under the rule of functioning States. No State and we get the bloody anarchy of a Haiti.
We have rulers because states are necessary. Meaning somebody has to make the decisions. And those decisions are going to be bad/good, wise/foolish, or muddleheaded. Because that is what human beings are like.
We are going to have to agree to disagree about free enterprise economics.
I see far more outrages by Muslim fanatics and leftist/rightist antisemites.
Sovereign nations have every right to set the terms and conditions for allowing immigrants to come in, including their right to reject undesirables.
Yes, "racism," a worn-out empty cuss word, like "fascist."
Disagree, what you said about Islam. I've not only read Dawood's translation of the Koran (a boring, often repellent slog) but also nine or ten other books about Islam. One of the most striking being Harry Austryn Wolfson's PHILOSOPHY OF THE KALAM (basically about how early Muslims reacted to contact with Classical/Christian philosophy/theology. Another being Andrew McCarthy's THE GRAND JIHAD, a study of the history, theology, and the theory and practice of jihad in modern times, as expounded by the Muslim Brotherhood and its malignant offshoots. The goal of modern jihad is exactly that, to undermine and subvert all who reject Islam. Nor does it matter if "most" Muslims are not actively barbaric. They still can't or won't do anything about the barbaric beliefs/laws of Islam. One generation will be "moderate" and then replaced by fanatics.
My sympathies are for those who defend the West, the best civilization mankind has managed to achieve so far. Any decline and fall of the West is going to be accompanied by agonizing chaos and wars, including jihads by fanatical Muslims. You would not enjoy the rule of either a caliphate or, perhaps more likely, Maoist China.
As for Farage, I warned you before of what is likely to happen if moderate parties of left/right refused to take serious heed of the fears and worries ordinary people have about mass immigration and Muslim arrogance, they'll turn to new parties who listen to them. Labour and the Tories are reaping what they've sown.
Disagree, what you said about "completely different social milieus." I've seen zero reason to expect any such things or that they will be better. You are offering only hope and speculation.
Of course, social relationships change, which I've never denied. I don't believe all those changes are going to always be better, either now or in the future.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteI have replied about States and Haiti before. People in future who share the benefits of high technology will not have the motives for violence of the Haitians. They will not be living in poverty for a start. The opposite.
Human beings are not like any one thing. They have had many different societies and can change further.
How can you disagree with the proposition that economic competition and free enterprise will be redundant when technologically produced wealth is abundant so that there is no longer any need to compete, let alone to fight, let alone to become violent or to bomb populations on the other side of the Earth?
I see outrages by Zionists backed and armed by the US.
"Racism" an outward curse word? Racism is rampant. Immigration laws are a racist "divide and rule" measure. A former British Home Secretary acknowledged that their purpose is to keep out black people. Even immigrants and their descendants are stirred up to resent and oppose not only "illegals" but also ANY new immigrants. We have to tell our mis-rulers that we need a better deal for all, including for those who have come from Asia and Africa to work as nurses and doctors in our National Health Service and to own and manage shops and restaurants from which we all benefit.
Disagree what you said about Islam. Of course it matters if "most" Muslims are not actively (?) barbaric! There will continue to be jihadists as long as Western powers are meddling in the Middle East (purely for oil).
Some of us aim not for US, caliphate or Maoist domination but for international freedom from all such domination.
There is no mass immigration or Muslim arrogance. Immigration is tightly controlled already. Ordinary people do not have fears and worries. Stirring up such "fears and worries" is a divide and rule tactic. Many thousands regularly march in support of Palestine, including large orthodox Jewish contingents. Many more are expected to turn out for the Together Alliance. People who warn us about Farage are informed that the problem is populist billionaires like him, not culturally diverse people who want to come to live and work here. The West wages wars which generate refugees to whom the West then refuses refuge!
This is not hope or speculation. People have lived in completely different social milieus, cooperative or competitive, peaceful or aggressive. Zero reason to expect continued social change in the future? That is about the only thing that is certain.
I do not believe that all these changes are going to always be better, now or in the future. I am saying that we CAN make them a lot better. I cannot understand why that proposition should be so strenuously opposed.
Paul.
"worn-out," not "outward."
ReplyDeleteThere is no longer any racism in the world? Entire organizations express their hatred of black people.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI don't believe your arguments about States and Haiti. Nor do I believe prosperity will eliminate the likelihood of quarreling and fighting. It remains my belief that technologically produced prosperity will be possible only as long as competitive pressure from rivals with innovative ideas displaces obsolete tech and those clinging to it.
I see far outrages against Jews, both by secular antisemites and Muslim fanatics.
I have made some effort to study Islam, as discussed in my previous comment, and I stand by everything I wrote. Its barbaric beliefs, laws, customs, etc., makes it a threat to liberty. Denied, what you said about jihads and "Western meddling." The danger posed by Islamic beliefs and laws about jihad goes straight back to Mohammed, long before oil was used for energy.
If ignorant Luddites, often leftists, had not so fanatically opposed nuclear power for over 50 years, we today might have far less need for oil.
Disagree, what you said about mass immigration, esp. from Muslim countries. I see no value in Islam and my sympathies remains with those who rightly find theocratic/jihadist Islam threatening and dangerous.
Your views about international relations are hopeless. It's either a Western coalition which dominates the world, jihadist Islam, or an ambitious Maoist China. I'll take the West.
I do not share your faith in changing societies somehow changing human beings. You missed my point.
Yes, "racism" is an outworn cuss word to me because I've seen it flung around too wildly and carelessly to often find it credible. There are genuine racists, but the word no longer has shock value.
Social changes can be better in the future, but only because of the limited state, free enterprise economics, and rejection of failed/bad ideas and beliefs.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteI have not yet read your latest comment through in full although I will but first a more general question. Is there any point to all this persistent repetition? You surely cannot still think that, after all this time, either of us will suddenly be persuaded that after all the other is right? So surely all the repetition becomes pointless?
I am confident in advance of my ability to respond to all or most of what you have said but I have to ask why we keep repeating it. You keep saying, "Disagree..." Well, of course we disagree! And I know by now that, whatever I say and however I express it, you will continue to disagree. So, if I reply yet again, it will not be in any expectation of arriving at agreement. So what happens? We just keep repeating it forever?
Can we not both stand back from the disagreement, assess it for what it is and then leave it at that?
Paul.
More replies:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe your arguments about Haiti.
Competition will be redundant when wealth is abundant.
Israelis commit outrages in Gaza and the West Bank.
Reasserted what I said about Western meddling.
"Ignorant Luddites" is abuse.
Disagree what you said about immigration and Islam.
Human beings are social. Changing society changes its members. There is no "somehow" about it. You miss my point.
Your remarks about international relations are hopeless. The US backed the military coup followed by mass murder in Chile, backed the Shah of Iran's torture prisons (I forwarded you an email), is allied to Saudi Arabia and fully backs the genocidal apartheid Zionist regime.
Racism is all around us.
Paul.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteYou will certainly "Disagree," "Reject" etc the second of my two comments above. However, after all this time, I think that it is far more important to respond to the first comment.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI agree we are at an impasse.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: a nation belongs to its citizens. It is their tribal turf, and they have an absolute right to determine who's allowed in and on what terms. Violating that right produces very, very strong reactions -- which is why Farage is probably going to be the next PM in Britain.
ReplyDeleteA lot of us are doing our best to mobilize against Farage and Robinson!
ReplyDeleteEven if I accepted that citizens had a RIGHT to exclude immigrants, I would argue against in fact excluding anyone. Refugees need and deserve refuge, especially if our government has supported wars that caused them to be refugees. Our National Health Service would collapse without immigrant doctors and nurses. We are all enriched by Chinese, Indian, Thai etc restaurants and food shops. Also black footballers, actors, comedians etc.
I have told this story before. A former National Front member apologized at a large rally. Some of us might have been hit by stones thrown by him. Since then, his life had been saved by a black surgeon supported by black nurses. He said, "If they had the same stupid prejudices I had, I wouldn't be here!"
I think of this whole planet, its lands, seas and air, as our Terran tribal turf and temple.
Paul: wealth -is- abundant now by the standards of, say, 1300 CE. But competition is not less -- more, if anything. That's because compeititon is not for material goods, but power, and power is inherently limited.
ReplyDeleteI agree that wealth is abundant now by past standards but I mean something different, wealth that is:
ReplyDeletetechnologically produced, relieving human beings of physical labour and of much routine mental labour - although people control the tech;
controlled democratically and cooperatively by the whole of society, thus neither by a rich minority nor by a bureaucracy;
distributed equally;
deployed not just to meet material needs but also to help each individual to identify and develop their aptitudes and to realize their potential.
People growing up in such a society would experience neither deprivation nor discrimination and would accept as their social norm harmonious interactions with everyone around them.
This is becoming technologically possible but contravenes current vested interests, power relationships, cultural assumptions etc. I think that we can work towards such a future provided that we survive current conflicts. Otherwise, what are we going to do with new sources of, e.g., solar energy and with all this emerging technology which can be used either creatively or destructively? (And is now being applied very destructively.)
Paul: not with human beings. That's simply not how human beings act, due to their inherent genetic nature, which exists regardless of circumstances.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with Stirling, not you, albeit not only because of genetics but also because mankind is Fallen. Human beings are simply not going to behave as you want them to.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWe know that we disagree!
Our genes make us proactive, cooperative, linguistic, imaginative, creative changers of natural and social environments. We have not Fallen but have risen and therefore can rise further. Do not try to hold us back.
Human beings are simply capable of behaving as I think that they can. But neither of us knows what WILL happen.
Paul.
Human beings as they are now do in fact perform many acts of community, charity, solidarity etc. And better material and social conditions can increase this. Your account of humanity is hopelessly one-sided and negative.
ReplyDeleteI welcome the opportunity to restate my views but not the necessity to keep doing so!
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure of one thing, based on divine revelation as well as genetics, archeology, history, etc., we are all of us flawed, imperfect, prone to strife and violence, etc. The fact many are not violent and quarrelsome, charitable, peaceful, etc., does not disprove that. Nor can there be any guarantee all humans will be like that, now and in the future. And it needs the existence of the State, with its monopoly of violence, to provide the conditions needed for people to be peaceful/charitable, etc.
Ad astra!! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWe are not all prone to strife and violence. Many people are never violent. That fact does disprove that we are all prone to strife and violence.
I have repeatedly said that I can make no guarantees for the future. We can only discuss possibilities. Of course the future might be very bad indeed! It is moving that way right now.
It does not need the existence of the State. When many of us behave peacefully most of the time, it is because that is precisely what we want to do, not because we are thinking about or afraid of the State.
The main role of the State is not to prevent me from lynching my neighbour for no reason but to prevent theft and looting of private property. That role of the State will be redundant when, and of course if, technologically produced wealth is abundant, held in common and shared equally.
Why do we keep repeating all this stuff?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteWe are going to have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBut we do disagree! None of this is an attempt to get agreement. It is a refusal to read contrary arguments without replying to them. So you do think that the neighbourhood where I live is peaceful primarily because we are all afraid of the police? Or that the police would still be necessary to prevent theft of property even in a completely changed social environment where material wealth was abundant and was shared equally and where everyone had grown up used to that situation, taking it completely for granted? Or that, when there is no longer any need to compete for oil or territory, mankind will still divide itself into armed camps with bodies of armed men willing to bomb populations in another continent on the orders of a Commander in Chief? We can have a social milieu in which the natural response to such a CiC would be to shoot him except that there would not be a gun to do it with!
Paul.