This is good writing, it must be acknowledged:
"[Fenn's] education to date included the chronicle of wretchedness which was history until five or six centuries ago - a bare half-dozen lifetimes. He hadn't learned only about famine, disease, poverty, toil, environmental destruction, the ills that piece by piece technology had lifted off mankind. He'd learned about the unnecessary horrors, slavery, private abuse, rampant crime, inherited hatreds, sexual distortion and oppression, superstitious dreads, and institutionalized atrocities of government, war, regimentation, extortion, torture.... Humankind today was liberated. Wasn't it?" (pp. 49-50)
No. Not if Fenn has to ask that question! The text continues:
"If it had pulled back into a warm, little Earth-womb, that was only because it was cowardly and stupid. No?" (p. 50)
No. A cowardly and stupid species would not have been able to create the technology that has ended famine, disease, poverty, toil etc. Not everyone but enough people would have been courageous and intelligent enough to resist any pressure to retreat into a metaphorical womb.
The news tells of unrest. Yes. And unrest can, not necessarily will, find an outlet: either remake society in the Solar System or go elsewhere and live otherwise as some have already done.
There is more good stuff to quote but we are going to have to take this in stages. Life beyond the computer calls.
Glory to the Emperor? Not in this timeline.
23 comments:
Until historically quite recently, slavery was a -universal- human institution.
Hunter-gatherer bands had slaves (mostly abducted women), neolithic tribes and villages had slaves, ditto Bronze and Iron Age kingdoms, city-states and tribes.
In the 11th century, at the time of Domesday Book, for example, around 14% of the population of England were chattel slaves.
The first large area where slavery was extinct was western Europe in the high middle ages; then Japan abolished it in 1590.
After that there was a hiatus until the abolitionist movement developed in Britain (and its overseas offshoots) in the late 18th century.
(For example, the Crimean Tartars exported 10-15,000 people as slaves throughout the 17th century, until the Russians took over there. Mostly to the Ottoman Empire, and mostly as a product of slave-raiding in eastern Europe.)
The Brits abolished their slave trade (1807), and then slavery itself (1830's), and then went around the world grabbing people by the throat, sticking a gunboat up their noses, and forcing them to do likewise. There was no other way to do it.
Note that most of humanity thought slavery was 'natural' and resisted this as best they could. When the British tried to persuade the Sultan of Morocco to abolish the internal slave trade in the 19th century, he had a decree read out in every mosque exhorting people to pray that Allah would cure them of their madness.
China only abolished the 'right' of people to sell their children in the 1920's, for instance.
So the abolition of slavery was the product of an internal ideological change in western Europe, and one that was the product of a long line of unlikely coincidences.
And the Draka restore slavery in all but name. That is a very dystopian future.
Yes, it is. From our perspective.
OK. From our perspective!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, all the "unnecessary horrors" Fenn brooded over existed because of how flawed and imperfect human beings are. There can be no permanent guarantee even slavery won't come back (as it has in some Muslim countries). IWHBD.
I recall with satisfaction how DRAKON ends with a Draka getting a richly deserved comeuppance!
Ad astra! Sean
The horrors occurred because of past conditions which we can prevent in future. It Is Not What Human Beings Do.
Paul: not, however, past -economic- conditions.
Well, I think that economics plays a large part but I agree that life and society are complex. Theory is gray; life is green.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I reread your long comment about slavery and China outlawing the "right" of parents to sell their children. I strongly suspect that, as the farcical joke called the Republic endured the chaos of post-Ch'ing warlordism, many Chinese continued to do exactly that, sell their children (esp. daughters). IWHBD.
Paul: I absolutely many "unnecessary horrors" to continue to exist or come back because all of us, all human beings, are flawed and imperfect. There can be no guaranteeing chattel slavery won't come back if the ideas/beliefs which led to its abolition, as epitomized in Western civilization, fades away. I was reminded of how my late online friend, Bruce Binnie, told me of Muslims telling him in Libya of how one day black slavery would come back.
I don't share your faith in secularized Pelagianism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There can be no guaranteeing of anything. If you still think that I am guaranteeing a better future, then you are again totally misunderstanding and I have made this point explicitly before.
It has become automatic for me simply to deny your refrain that we are all flawed and imperfect but I really think that the situation is considerably more complicated than just a simple affirmation or denial of universal flaws and imperfections. Of course we have individual and social problems right now! But it is necessary to examine WHY this is the case. It is certainly not because we have "Fallen." Instead we have risen and therefore can rise further. Even if we are indeed "flawed and imperfect" (I still disagree with that formulation because it implies that nothing can be done about it), it does not follow from that alone that all our descendants must be "flawed and imperfect" in exactly the same way forevermore. Nothing will stay the same. Life might get better or worse but it will definitely not stay the same. It never has before. Human beings did not always exist. Most people are capable of interacting nonviolently and non-conflictively in favourable conditions at present and such conditions CAN, not inevitably WILL, be extended in future. At this stage, you have sometimes appeared not to understand what "conditions" are although examples of very different life conditions with very different interpersonal and social consequences can be cited from present experience.
I also have a friend who has worked in Muslim countries and has told me about conditions there. Those also are conditions that need to be changed.
You do not have to share my faith in secularized Pelagianism. If you think that the purpose of these exchanges is for either of us to get the other to say, "Oh, now I see - now I agree with you," then you are again totally misunderstanding. It must be clear by now that no agreement will ever be reached. Therefore, the fact that no agreement has been reached is simply not the issue.
I feel that I have to keep making the same points clearer and clearer.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
One problem is that the way you write makes it easy for me to think you do expect bad things to disappear or that what you believe will be beneficial will come to pass.
To me the obvious reason why we have individual/social problems is because human beings are flawed, meaning such problems can only be managed/mitigated, not abolished. I believe the hard facts of real history, real life, real human beings support my view, not yours.
It remains my firm belief that if "Most people are capable of interactively non-violently and non-conflictively in favourable conditions..." only because of the State, with its monopoly of violence, existing in the background to cow
those who don't keep the peace. And can be extended only as the State exists. That is why I don't believe in your "conditions."
The barbaric laws, customs, beliefs undergirding those "conditions" in Islamic dominated nations are not going to change as long as Islam is dominant. With no guarantee that periods of laxity won't be succeeded by renewed fanaticism. Only an abandonment of Islam, for whatever reason, will do that.
If the Ayatollahs are soon overthrown in Iran, I can see many Iranians being so disgusted with Shia millennialism that they abandon Islam. But I have my doubts they will matter much if nothing is offered to replace Islam.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not expect bad things to disappear! In fact, I say repeatedly that things can very easily get worse and are doing so right now. Look at the wars and the environmental destruction. (The two are related.) I feel that I have to keep floundering around repeating what I have said.
I believe that the hard facts of real history, real life and real human beings support my view, not yours, but do we have to keep saying this?
I have replied repeatedly about the State. I also certainly know by now that your firm belief remains unchanged.
My "conditions" exist now! There are "conditions" in which many people behave peacefully because they want to do that, not because they are cowed by the State. People break the peace because of conditions that can be eliminated: poverty; xenophobia; lack of political and financial accountability etc. All of this can be discussed in detail instead of being summarily dismissed.
You can't tell people to abandon a religion! But every religion can and does change. The barbaric laws of the Old Testament are no longer implemented.
What the Iranians do is up to them. All those Middle Eastern regimes need to be overthrown. All.
I really am at a loss as to why all of this keeps being repeated word for word. Your occasional attempt to end the repetition is to say that we must agree to disagree but that implies that we are trying to agree which is another misunderstanding.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We have wars because IWHBD. And that is not going to change till somebody forcibly unifies the world. The best that might be plausible would be by something like the United Commonwealths or the Solar Commonwealth.
We have irreconcilable views about those "hard facts."
I don't believe your views about the State.
No, the peaceful people you talk about are only able to be like that because of the State's existence.
I never said I can tell anyone to abandon any religion. And I don't think you understand Islam and why it is not going to change the ways you want it to.
I also don't think you understand why practically all Muslim regimes are so bad. They are bad because Islam has shaped how politics is understood and practiced within the dar al-Islaam. I don't believe that is going to change as long as Islam is dominant there.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have wars for reasons that can be identified and prevented in future. It is not just what human beings do.
Of course we have irreconcilable views about the facts and you don't believe my views about the State! Surely we have established that by now? You seem to think that you settle the matter somehow just by stating that yet again.
No, the peaceful people that I talk about want to be like that whether or not there is a State and I have spelt out why those who break the peace now would either not want to do it or would not be able to do it in different conditions that can be built in future. Embezzlement of funds will no longer be possible when abundance makes money redundant. Use some imagination. That is what sf is for.
I don't think you understand that everything changes. Nothing will stay the same forever, not Islam, not anything else. And, when small incremental social changes have built up, suddenly walls fall down, Emperors are toppled, entire peoples wake from nightmares. Such processes are impeded by people like yourself clinging to the status quo at all costs even though it is destroying our environment.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't believe your views about wars and conflicts because they are too simplistic and unrealistic.
I "state" because you also state things and seem to expect them to be accepted as true.
No, the only reason peaceful people can hope to live in peace is because of the existence of the State. A big problem is that no one, no generation, can be sure who will become a murderer, rapist, robber, embezzler, a violent brawler, etc. I don't believe in your "conditions."
I like imagination. I also believe in realism, facing up to and accepting hard facts, such as how flawed humans are. As did Anderson, who had no use for the kind of hopes you have, and said so to me in one of his letters.
I don't share your hopes about those "incremental changes," both about politics and Islam.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Your views are simplistic and unrealistic.
I do not state things and expect them to be accepted. I give reasons.
No. I have replied repeatedly about the state. You are describing how things are now, not how they can be in different conditions in the future. My "conditions" are the circumstances in which we live. Those circumstances have changed, are different across the world and can be very different in the future.
We DO know that people do not become murderers, rapists, robbers, embezzlers, violent brawlers etc when nothing is causing or tempting them to do any of those things. Is the Pope about to kill anyone? No. Are Putin, Trump and Netanyahu likely to continue killing a lot of people? Yes, but we can certainly work towards a world where no individual or group any longer wields that kind of power. Embezzlement of funds will not happen when abundant, equally distributed wealth makes money redundant.
I am facing up to the hard fact that people behave very differently in different conditions, that conditions have changed (we no longer kill someone with a stone axe so that we can eat the meat animal that he has just killed) and that conditions can be changed immeasurably in the future. I do not see how anyone cannot believe that.
The fact that I disagree with Anderson proves nothing!
"Incremental changes" have brought down regimes. The Berlin Wall was pulled down. Apartheid was ended. How many dictators have been overthrown? Britain advanced over a long time from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. Change happens by small amounts, then suddenly by great amounts. Nothing, not Islam, not Christianity, will remain unchanged for all time.
I do not want to keep repeating this indefinitely but you seem to be on a mission to keep chewing the same bone.
Please respond to recent emails.
Paul.
I do always wind up pleased with how clearly I have managed to articulate my views yet again.
Imagination is necessary for conceptualizing possible futures because one premise has to be that the future WILL be different, CAN be very different and, given a long enough period of continual technological advances, WILL DEFINITELY be very different. If "hard realism" denies this, then it is unrealistic. Read Arthur C. Clarke's PROFILES OF THE FUTURE: an inquiry into the limits of the possible.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe what you believe about human beings and the State.
ANYONE can and might become even monstrous criminals, because the darkness all humans have within them might overcome all restraints. And Leo XIV would agree, this being standard Catholic teaching.
We have wars and contending nations because It's What Human Beings Do if they believe force is the best way to attain desired ends, good or bad. I will not retreat from that. My view remains that of Flavius Vegetius: "If you want peace prepare for war."
Nor do I believe one bit that universal prosperity and advanced prosperity will abolish violence or the human drive to compete, in both violent/non-violent ways. I believe that is going to remain true no matter how advanced technology becomes. The beginning of wisdom is to always be suspicious of human beings.
I dismissed "incremental changes" too hastily. I agree a unique combination of many different factors: religious (Christianity), philosophical, political, etc., and the mindset that inspired led to both the Western concept of the limited state (in whatever form) and a true science.
Ad astra! Seam
Sean,
Do you understand what is happening here? You are not discussing an issue but prosecuting an argument. These two dynamics are entirely distinct and indeed are opposites. Prosecuting an argument means that you will never acknowledge that we have both had our say on this issue and should now move on to discussing something else. Instead, you endlessly return to repeating what you said in the first place only to receive the same replies from me - if I allow that to continue indefinitely. Intellectually and psychologically, there has got to be some way to break out of this cycle.
You should by now know what my replies will be.
Paul.
Not accept my replies, of course, just know what they will be.
Kaor, Paul!
But you are doing the same thing, proposing ideas you believe to be true and hence desirable. All I've done is make counterproposals, on why I don't believe you to be correct. Nor have I ever tried to force you not to advocate for ideas you believe in.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not doing the same thing. I do not endlessly repeat the same counterproposals on why I think you are not correct and of course neither of us does or even can prevent the other from advocating ideas.
Paul.
Post a Comment