It is the Lunarians that threaten the "peace." The successful Proserpinan colony inspires the Lunarians in the inner Solar System with the knowledge:
"...that their old wild ways are still alive, still free." (p. 38)
And this is a problem for the cybercosm!
Lirion of Zamok Dragon returns from Proserpina to Luna and is suspected of - something.
An aspect of the central intelligence opines:
"-The temptation is to seize him and brainphase his knowledge out of him, legality or no." (p. 39)
But this temptation will be resisted on moral grounds? Well, no. The aspect continues:
"But he doubtless has emergency means, such as blowing his skull to bits, and we have no idea what his disappearance might trigger." (ibid.)
Venator helpfully adds:
"-Besides, he in himself may provide a spoor to follow into the heart of whatever this conspiracy is. I will seek him out, and then we shall see." (ibid.)
Lirion is not seized only because it is more expedient to follow him. The cybercosm has unequivocally identified itself as the villain of the piece/peace.
Onward with the story after I have been out for the evening.
47 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, here we see Anderson being hard-headedly about what entities and organic beings are more likely than not to do if they believe themselves to be threatened. Something that can only be managed or limited, not abolished. IWHBD.
Ad astra! Sean
It Does Not Have To Be What Human Beings Do.
Kaor, Paul!
It's vastly more likely than not "It's What Human Beings Will Do." There is zero evidence that all human beings will not be like that. The darkness we all have within ourselves due to being flawed and imperfect is not going to be removed just because you don't like it. The beginning of wisdom for any hope of a not too terribly bad state/society is to accept that. And that was Anderson's view as well.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is plenty of evidence that everything changes. Animals changed into human beings. That should have been possible if organisms, including human beings, just stay as they are.
I do not think that our current problems will be removed just because I don't like them! Please represent other points of view accurately.
I do not accept that we cannot do far better than we are doing at present. Indeed, how much time have we got left if we carry on as we are doing now? Atlantic circulation is being disrupted in ways that will devastate Europe, Africa and North America soon and nothing is being done about it. I disagree with Anderson.
Paul.
Paul: yes, it does, because scruples mean you lose the fight. Winners prevail.
But we don't always have to fight.
Paul: no, but two things have to be kept in mind.
If your -opponent- is prepared to fight, then you have to fight or surrender or run away.
Or if your opponent won't give you what you want without fighting, you have to fight or give up what you want.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I don't believe you about those "changes" if that means stubbornly denying what is so patently true, that all human beings are flawed, imperfect, and prone to strife/conflict. Nor do I believe in the kind of solutions you favor. Scripture is wiser, as in Psalm 145-3 (LXX): "Put not your trust in princes, in man, through whom there is no salvation."
Mr. Stirling: Exactly, the smashing the theocracy/IRGC regime in Iran has gotten is driving it to total defeat, even if they refuse to admit it. Besides the Naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, I like how the Navy has been chasing and intercepting Iranian oil tankers outside the Strait, putting more pressure on the regime and depriving it of more money.
Considering how much oil China imports from Iran, that also puts pressure on Peking. Meaning China will both have an incentive to pressure the IRGC to give up and hinder its anti-American intrigues.
Ad astra! Sean
Anonymous,
Of course there are times when a fight is unavoidable.
Sean,
I know you don't believe me! We don't have to keep telling each other this. I am not stubbornly denying patent truth. I am disagreeing with you. You define your view as true. I have replied to "flawed, imperfect, prone to strife/conflict" repeatedly and see no point in doing so again.
Surely these exchanges have passed from the pointless to the counterproductive and therefore should be discontinued as of now?
Paul.
Sean,
I have heard both sides in this conflict gloating about the damage inflicted on the other side.
Paul.
Paul: both sides always do that in wars.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
The point being I believe the foundation on which you base your hopes/beliefs is erroneous.
Mr. Stirling: You reminded me of how Germany, during the last days of WW II, Hitler and Goebbels were boasting that super weapons would snatch victory from defeat for the Reich.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know you believe my beliefs are erroneous. Why keep saying this? (Needless to say, it works both ways.)
Both sides do that in wars as a demon says at the end of BLACK EASTER.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And it's not going to change, because It's What Human Beings Do.
Ad astra! Sean
Yes, it will change. We will destroy our environment and ourselves or learn better. I have spelt out conditions in which war will no longer even be thought of.
Well, that depends on what you want.
And what humanity will collectively decide is not laid down in advance. There is a battle of ideas going on.
Kaor, Paul!
There is not going to be some kind of human collectivity, it's far more likely a single power or alliance of powers will do that deciding. Preferably a Western oriented United Commonwealths or Solar Commonwealth.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You cannot say what there will not be.
What is more likely is a different question but we do not know that either.
Western domination is preferable to you but not to many people who not only will oppose it but are opposing it now.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I can say what I believe is more likely to happen than not.
Western civilization is the best and most successful mankind has achieved to date. Nor do I have any good will to those who want to destroy us, jihadists and Maoists.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We can all say what we believe is more likely although I have no idea what is more likely.
Jihadists and Maoists are not the only opponents of Western hegemony. And the CIA backing coups and torture chambers is not something to be supported either.
Defining two sides (US and our enemies) and saying the other side is worse is far too simplistic. There are more than two sides. Many people do not support Maoism, jihadism or US imperialism.
Paul.
Note that a corrupt tyranny is preferable to an idealistic one. Corrupt tyrants get tired. Idealistic ones don't -- they go on killing indefinitely.
We need to end tyrannies! (And corruption.)
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: We can at least agree we believe some alternatives are more likely than others (disagreeing about particular possibilities).
Good, I'm glad some in the US accept the need to do what needs to be done for the safety of the US and the West. My country/civilization comes first.
Tyranny/corruption IWHBD, something we can only struggle to manage/limit, not abolish.
Mr. Stirling: Correct, fanatical monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., killed and killed and killed by the millions for decades because their depraved "idealism" made that easy to "justify." A corrupt, weary tyrant is preferable.
Ad astra! Sean
Earth is far too small and interconnected to say that my country/civilization comes first. Human beings everywhere come first.
We can abolish tyranny and corruption. They are not WHBD.
The people you list were certainly not all idealists.
Paul.
Paul: actually, Stalin and Mao -were- idealists -- that is, they sincerely believed in their ideology and wanted to implement it. They went out of their way to do that.
For example, by the time Mao was in power it had been exhaustively proven that collectivizing agriculture was a sure route to disaster, but Mao went ahead and did it anyway.
(Note that when Deng de-collectivized agriculture in the 1980's productivity doubled and then redoubled without any additional investment.)
They also enjoyed the perks of power, Mao more than Stalin. Mao liked having several young girls in bed at the same time, for example.
Stalin just liked hearing people beg for their lives, and liked signing orders to kill, and he never forgot a grudge.
Ironic that the only person Stalin ever really trusted was Adolf Hitler...
In other words, they were vicious killer idealists.
Well, I thought that Stalin at least was just a guy who got hold of and held onto power. In any case, I would neither support nor defend either Stalin or Mao.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: No, my country/civilization comes first. Because I believe they (including the UK) have been among the greatest achievements of mankind. Far more so than anything jihadists, Maoists, and barbarians can offer. I do not see anything bigger than that which might be tolerable unless it's something like the United Commonwealths/Solar Commonwealth.
Nor do I share your optimism about it being likely tyranny/corruption will ever wholly disappear. NTTB is the best we can realistically hope for.
Mr. Stirling: I took a grim amusement in learning long ago how, incredibly, the only man Stalin trusted was Hitler, of all people!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. Every single individual human being comes first. Love thy neighbour. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Many people on the receiving end of your country/civilization have reasons to oppose it. Jihadists, Maoists and barbarians are not the only alternatives on offer. A world federation of free communities each serving the needs of its citizens and interacting peacefully with others is preferable.
Tyranny and corruption will not disappear. We will end them. A tyrant needs men with guns to obey him. We can stop that. NTTB is nowhere near enough. It is killing us now.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except the Golden Rule is only possible on an individual, person to person, face to face basis. Not at the level where contending nations compete with each other.
Many, many of those who oppose the US/West do soi because they hate and fear the very ideas and beliefs that are among its best achievements. Nor do I believe in the realism in the kind of world federation you prefer.
Disagree, I am not convinced tyranny/corruption will ever wholly disappear due to all humans being flawed and imperfect. NTTB is still a huge improvement over either a war of all against all or a brutal tyranny.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: except that a lot of people are worthless -- criminals, thugs, or deeply stupid. Others are enemies of me and mine.
Sean,
We do not have to put up with contending nations competing. They are a large part of the problem.
Many of those who oppose the West oppose its support for tyrants and Israel. The kind of world federation that I prefer is clearly preferable. As often happens, a discussion shifts between "Which outcome is better?" and "Which outcome is more probable?" We do not know what is more probable.
Disagree. Tyranny and corruption will not disappear. We can end them. Tyrants need men with guns. We can stop that.
NTTB is better than worse options? But it is not the best option. And it is not enough because it is killing us now. Why do we keep saying all this?
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Exactly. While I would not quite go so far as to say "worthless" (because Christ died on the Cross even for vile persons), I believe in having no illusions about thugs, criminals, the stupid, or those who are our enemies. You reminded me of what Flandry said in Chapter XVIII of THE GAME OF EMPIRE: "The Roidhun could make a personal appearance singing 'Jesus Loves Me' and I'd still want us to keep our warheads armed." Because we do have deadly enemies.
Paul: No, we have contending nations because HUMAN beings are innately prone to being competitive, quarrelsome, aggressive, etc. Nations are natural extensions of the clan/tribe.
No, our most dangerous, most implacable enemies are those who hate the West precisely because of our best, worthiest ideas/beliefs. And that includes those inside the West who hate our civilization.
No, I do not believe tyranny/corruption will ever wholly be "ended." Because our Fallen race is far too imperfect for that to bet on.
No, given what I wrote above, NTTB is the best we can realistically achieve. What is moderately possible is better than an impossibility.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No.
We have nation-states not because human beings are innately prone to being competitive, quarrelsome, aggressive etc but because society is divided into economic classes and the state is necessary to protect the property of the possessing class.
No. Many people who oppose Western dominance, e.g., in the Middle East, do not oppose worthy ideas like freedom and democracy. Who in the West hates our civilization? Many rightly oppose injustice, discrimination and state violence.
No. We are not Fallen. We have risen from animality and therefore CAN rise much further. Of course we can end tyranny! We overthrow tyrants all the time and can end the social conditions that would allow new tyrants to arise.
Corruption assumes continuation of current financial systems.
No. What you have written does not show that NTTB is the best we can achieve. What we can conceive of and campaign for is not an impossibility.
No.
Paul.
Paul: but before the invention of the State, societies had aristocracies too. They just had more bloodshed as well.
The State prevents the war of all against all.
If our natural state were literally a war of all against all, then there would be no social cooperation and no language. The State prevents class conflict from destroying society. Of course the State has been and still is necessary. Of course, also, society changes... We can discuss what might be possible in the future. What will definitely not happen is society remaining as it is now forevermore.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, humans are innately prone to being competitive/aggressive, actively or potentially. It's a mistake to persist in projecting your wishes onto others.
Incorrect, many people in Muslim countries don't want democracy if that means democracy for non-Muslims. And we now have similar Muslims in the US.
There are people in Western nations who do hate their own civilization. Examples being those who favor autocratic "welfare state" regimes, which always end in eroding real freedom. There are even people in the US who don't want Christians, conservatives, principled libertarians, etc., to have the right to speak freely.
I am not retreating in the Fallen nature of mankind. Nor do I believe "new conditions" will end tyranny/corruption.
You have shown nothing to convince me NTTB is not the best we can achieve. Only hopes/speculations.
"Social cooperation" began with small groups, families. Which existed long before any States arose. But those families were at war with all others not related to them. It was a war of all against all, with evidence being found of precisely that millions of years ago.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree. Human beings are not innately prone to being competitive/aggressive. We are like that in some conditions but not in others. That does not make us prone to aggression in any and every conditions. I am not making the mistake of projecting my wishes onto others, let alone persisting in this.
What is incorrect? I am losing the track here. Many people do not want democracy, not just Muslims.
Favouring "welfare state" means wanting it to be autocratic and hating our civilization? Welfare state erodes freedom?
Who are these people who do not want Christians etc to speak freely? I am not one of them.
I am not retreating in opposing "Fallen." Are we just going to continue exchanging "Fallen" and "not Fallen"? I know you do not believe in what I say.
I know that I have not convinced you. I know by now that I cannot convince you. I have replied repeatedly about "hopes/speculations."
If there was some cooperation, then there was not a war of all against all. What has happened in the past need not be repeated in very different conditions in the future.
Sean, all this repetition is frankly absurd. I must now eat before going out to attend a meeting and have not had time to add any posts to the blog yet today.
Paul.
Paul: No, Stalin was involved in revolutionary Marxist politics from a young age. He was quite sincere. Also a thug.
I know that Stalin was involved in Marxism. I think that, later, when he got hold of the reins of power (it was not the original intention that any one person would be able to do that), he held onto them. And I certainly know from personal experience here and now that people who start out as sincere Marxists can go wrong, becoming intolerant and dictatorial. We need a movement that can control individuals, not individuals that can divert the course of entire political movements. But the entire future of mankind (hopefully) still lies ahead of us.
Paul: Lenin was a dictator from the beginning. Stalin was just more overt about it, because he enjoyed terrifying people. He was an idealist, and also a very bad man... but his role as dictator was not unrelated to his 'badness'. In a situation like Soviet politics, badness is an asset.
"Soviet politics." Yes, in the sense that "Soviet" came to have.
I am having problems with Lenin. I agree with his STATE AND REVOLUTION which is unfinished because it was interrupted by the outbreak of the October Revolution. If he went straight from writing that to acting as a dictator, then, yes, the Revolution went very wrong from the beginning.
Kaor, Mr. Stirlng and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Absolutely! The monstrous regime Lenin founded inevitably meant it would become a snake pit of vicious vipers where everyone would be plotting and intriguing against each other. A somewhat less gaudy version of George R.R. Martin's GAME OF THRONES.
Paul: I never believed Lenin's books, like the one you cited, to be anything but propaganda, to mask his cruelty and lust for power. That "Revolution" was bad from the beginning because it was meant to be evil and vile.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Nonsense. Even if you COULD Lenin's mind and KNOW that he was insincere, the content of what he wrote still stands or falls on its merits.
Paul.
Meant to be evil and vile? The seizure of state power by democratic workers' councils would have been a liberation if Russia had not been isolated and devastated and if international solidarity had been forthcoming from a successful German revolution.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I care nothing for what Lenin wrote before he seized power--what matters is how he used that power.
Yes, "Meant to be evil and vile," because what Lenin and henchmen did with that power was sheerly abominable.
Rejected, those "democratic workers' councils." I deny those much ballyhooed "soviets" set up in a few cities had any right to claim the rule of a nation as overwhelmingly agricultural as Russia then was. Landowners, farmers, peasants, the residents of small towns/cities, etc., are not going to have the same interests as a few thousand factory employees.
"International solidarity" was always a joke. When push came to shove, German workers cared far more about Germany, not Russia. To say nothing of how Lenin wanted to conquer Germany after first overrunning Poland. Fortunately, the Poles sent the Red Army scuttling back home.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I completely reject everything you say.
Paul.
Post a Comment