Chuan thinks that renewed industrial activity in space could generate new ideas and faiths as troublesome as Catharism. Why should it do that? If, as he says:
"'In everything everywhere, the equilibrium is fearsomely precarious.'" (p. 172)
- then society is not being allowed to develop. It is being held back in what sounds like a very dangerous state instead of being helped out of it.
Why should renewed activity in space generate:
"'Economic rivalry...'" (p. 171)
- leading to:
"'The bitterness in those who try and fail.'" (ibid.)?
But, if it does have such consequences, then surely an advanced technological civilization would be able to cope with them much better than earlier generations had done?
Chuan says that:
"'...the field drive makes interplanetary war possible.'" (ibid.)
Sure, any advanced technology could be used for warfare but will not be so used if there are no other causes of conflict. But, if there are such causes, then they need to be addressed, not left to fester.
Chuan sounds like not the man in the middle but a man in a muddle.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Societies can only develop by accepting the strong likelihood of danger, risk, failure, etc. If you want change, beneficial or not, competition has to be accepted. Anything, any reason, where competition exist can and will lead to conflicts, both violent and nonviolent.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, pretty much. You have to accept risks to advance.
Sean,
Economic competition need not always be with us. Technological abundance can make it redundant.
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Exactly! You reminded me of the epigraph Anderson chose for Chapter 2 of AFTER DOOMSDAY (which I've started rereading), quoting from Whitehead: "It is the business of the future to be dangerous."
And I don't believe this. At best all you are going to get is stasis, which will last only as long as people are willing to tolerate stagnation. And I don't believe stagnation can last forever unless the State manages to suppress anything/everything threatening that stasis. And that includes technological changes threatening to upset the regnant applecarts.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The best we can get is a release of all human potential which is at present suppressed because society prepares individuals only to fit into its present economic system. Look up and forward, not down and back.
Paul.
Paul: the problem is that most humans don't have much potential. As the saying goes, half the population is of below-average intelligence.
Sure. But people of below-average intelligence have potential for raising families, caring for children and the elderly, appreciating popular fiction and music, enjoying social interactions etc. I see releasing all human potential as including all that, everything that people are capable of, whatever it is. High-brow, low-brow, not even invented yet, etc.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't believe you. It's been my personal observation that most people are not interested in that "human potential." They often prefer to eat too much, drink to excess, or just watch trashy TV shows. And that's fine with me if that's their choice (except it would not be good to drive cars intoxicated).
Since I don't see that changing your hopes are unrealistic. Nor are they always very good about raising families/caring for the elderly.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't believe you. We can have a society that encourages everyone to do what they are best at, whatever it is. People as they are now are not people as they can be in more favourable conditions.
Since you don't see that changing my hopes are unrealistic? People can be helped and encouraged to perform domestic tasks better.
Paul.
Post a Comment