I cannot remember from previous readings whether what follows will happen in this future history series or whether it is only a possible future contemplated by Fenn.
He imagines that:
the Lahui Kuikawa, human beings and intelligent seals, flatten the Martian moon, Deimos, into concentric cylindroids, thus transforming it into a habitat much vaster than the one currently orbiting Luna;
from this base, they send generations of explorers and merchant adventurers out across the Solar System, thus gathering enough wealth first to terraform Mars, then to launch interstellar argosies.
This might be only a possible future within a fictional future. Nevertheless, Fenn draws a valid inference from it. By transforming Deimos and Mars and looking to the stars, the Lahui Kuikawa would transform themselves and therefore would no longer be Lahui Kuikawa. He reflects that the current extra-solar colonists have been transformed from Terrans into children of Earth Mothers. He could have added that, by cooperatively changing their natural environments with their hands and brains, our pre-human ancestors had changed themselves into rational, linguistic organisms and thus into human beings. That reflection takes us out of speculative fiction and back into our shared past.
18 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I cannot agree with what you said about human beings cooperatively changing their environment in the past. First, that was not their intention. Second, "cooperation" was used at least as often to more effectively compete against other humans, in both violent and non-violent ways. With plenty of archeological evidence being found showing how combative humans were and are. I've seen no reason to expect that to be any different in the future.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People did cooperate to change their environment in the past. Their intention was survival. They made tools, controlled fire, built dwellings, cultivated plants, irrigated fields and domesticated animals. Of course "cooperation" (why the quote marks?) was also used for competition. It was still cooperation. Archeology shows that people were combative in stone age and other primitive conditions. You see no reason to expect them to behave any differently in completely different conditions, including conditions of advanced civilization and technological abundance, in future? Things will certainly be different in future!
Surely we have said all this before?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I used double quotes to show "cooperation" has more than one meaning. Correct, cooperation often took competitive forms, both peaceful and violent. Such as raiding parties cooperatively obeying the orders of their war chief as they kidnapped women to be slaves in neolithic times.
Yes, no matter how advanced technology becomes, I see no reason to expect humans to be less competitive, in violent/non-violent ways in the future. In fact, Anderson had the Terrans of Demeter sometimes fighting wars with the Lunarians at Alpha Centauri. Cabinet wars, not desperate life and death struggles fought to the bitter end, with one side or the other being destroyed.
That's more likely than this insistence you put on some vague, undefined "completely different conditions."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You see no reason! Sporting competition is unobjectionable. There are now many circumstances in which people have no reason or motivation to be violent and those circumstances can be extended. No food riots when there is plenty of food. No race riots when we no longer have a competitive economy that causes unemployment and homelessness and then scapegoats immigrants for them. No conflict for limited resources when there is unlimited access to solar energy. And so on. Conditions that are neither vague nor undefined but concrete and specific can be spelt out as I have been doing all along.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, mere games will eventually pall, no longer satisfy human beings. Esp. if winners at these games get nothing REAL, in either status or power. Which is what we see happening in Chapter Six of GENESIS.
Disagree, people don't need to be poor or have rational reasons to fight and quarrel. Anything will do, like boredom!
I don't believe in what you "spell out." Your hopes are unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I believe in what I spell out. My hopes are realistic.
Anything will not do. Many people for much of the time do not fight and quarrel and that can be extended. Mere games do not pall. Many lives are bound up with football, cricket etc. No one will be bored in a high tech society that is organized not to accumulate wealth and power for a minority but to realize the fullest potential of each of its members.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
One thing I am absolutely sure of is that humans have a genius for bollixing up anything and everything. I am not convinced.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You don't have to be convinced that there WILL be a better future! I attempt only to explain why I think that it is possible. And I do this knowing that this is the kind of subject on which there is no general agreement. People will still be disagreeing about whether a particular future society is better even when they are in it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
A "better future" I find vastly more plausible and doable would be something like the United Commonwealths or Solar Commonwealth arising on Earth. With the human race getting permanently off this rock and people going in a thousand different directions, founding new nations and societies. And free of the grasp of any strangling one size fits all nonsensical ideology.
Ad astra! Sean
Well, sure. We know that's one view.
Kaor, Paul!
And one I believe Anderson would agree with.
Ad astra! Sean
Again, yes.
Paul: note that when behaviorally modern humans emerged about 60K years ago, they spread out of Africa and replaced all other varieties of hominid -- Neanderthals, H. Erectus, the pygmies on Flores -- in a geological eyeblink. I doubt that was a really peaceful process.
The basic reason for replacement was that humans were more cooperative within groups than other varieties of hominid. The emergence of -behaviorally- modern humans was accompanied by a steep drop in male testosterone levels; we became less internally competitive, which made us better at -external- competition.
And now we can move forward from where we are now.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Of COURSE, these behaviorally modern humans were not gentle and peaceful to our fellow hominins.
I absolutely expect our brand of humans to continue being externally bellicose and aggressive.
Ad astra! Sean
Not if we change the conditions so that there is no longer anything to be bellicose or aggressive about. In peaceful conditions, people display friendliness, hospitality, empathy etc.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't believe in those "conditions." Human beings don't need rational reasons to fight and quarrel, any excuse will do. Again Chapter Six of GENESIS comes to mind.
Those "peaceful conditions" requires a State, with its monopoly of the means of violence, able/willing to punish the violent/criminals. You don't even need a huge number of such criminals to show how fragile "peaceful conditions" are. No State, not even a bad one, and we get Haiti.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know you don't believe this!
There are plenty of irrational reasons but they are still reasons. Any excuse will not do. We do not suddenly spontaneously attack close relatives and friends for no reason.
I have replied about the State and Haiti often before. A state collapsing, as in Haiti, is not the same process as society changing in such a way that it no longer needs a State. You can disbelieve in the latter process but you should not conflate it with the former. But we have said all this word for word before. Why the repetition? I have asked that before.
Paul.
Post a Comment