Andrea usually says something blog-relevant. He knows of an sf TV series with the premise that there is about one technological civilization in every twenty or so galaxies but some of them have FTL (faster-than-light space travel).
Observations:
the FTL must be very F if there is regular intergalactic travel;
are they taking any steps to populate the galaxies?;
Poul Anderson would be able to take that premise and write prose fiction set in that universe;
I am inclined to accept the scarcity of technological civilizations but not FTL.
Andrea's other contribution today: although nothing much is changing internationally right now, we are heading for a major conflict and indeed are already in the first stage of World War III although it is not yet recognized as such - it took a while for 1939-'45 to become a global conflict.
Are we the only intelligences in a vast volume of space and also about to destroy ourselves?
Poul Anderson wrote a few short dystopias.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
By and large, when Anderson used the idea of FTL, he preferred to limit its use for star traveling within our galaxy. Because, with the Technic hyperdrive it would take far too long using it going to other galaxies. Years ago I recall David Birr calculating that it would take at least 30 years, using Technic FTL, for Nicholas van Rijn to go from Earth even to the "nearby" Magellanic Clouds. We do see mention of some limited intergalactic travel in WORLD WITHOUT STARS (a non-Technic story).
Yes, by inclination and preference Anderson' forte the writing of dystopian stories. But he could write such stories when he wanted to, such as "Welcome." I think his most sustained use of dystopianism is to be found in "Murphy's Hall" and "In Memoriam." The former examines the bad results flowing from ideas/policies Anderson believed catastrophic. "Memoriam" could easily be thought "Murphy's" sequel, showing us its ultimate consequences. Others of Anderson's stories were also dystopian: "The Martyr" and the sardonically titled "Eutopia."
One factor, as Stirling explained, which hitherto prevented a WW III has been the Peace of the Mushroom Cloud. That is, the knowledge that its enemies have nuclear weapons has acted to prevent reasonably cautious powers from forcing their rivals to feel so desperate they are compelled to strike back with nukes. That's why the USSR never quite dared to directly attack the US. And that's also a restraint on the regime in Peking.
A big problem has been rogue regimes trying to get their hands on nukes, both as a means of furthering their own ambitions and to make it too costly for the great powers to smack them down. I mean the regimes in N Korea and Iran. The smashing Iran has been getting this year was because of both its jihadist ambitions and Tehran's efforts to get nukes.
Ad astra! Sean
Correction: I wanted to write this in the first sentence of my second paragraph: "...and preference Anderson's forte was not the writing..."
Aggravating!
Sean
Sean,
Has Tehran been trying to get nukes? Have the recent attacks on Iran achieved their aims?
Paul.
"Rogue states"? Do the Great Powers set a good example?
Kaor, Paul!
Your first comment. How can you even doubt that murderous theocracy in Iram has not been trying to get nukes for decades? It's a well-known fact that is exactly what it has been trying to do, both in developing the necessary rocket tech and in amassing the enriched uranium needed for nukes. It has been conservatively estimated Iranian missiles can now go as far west as Germany and France. Plus, the regime hired many ex-Soviet nuclear weapons scientists and technicians for this effort, starting many years ago.
Some undoubted success has been achieved in thwarting Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The figure I've seen is that the theocracy's efforts has been set back at least five years.
Your second comment. Yes, rogue states! Nations with ambitious regimes craving to become great powers and ruthless enough to do whatever it takes to achieve those ambitions. Here I have in mind how the Shia theocracy mercilessly massacred 30 to 40,000 Iranians during the January uprising. Some people are that fanatical and brutal!
Whether you like it or not you should be glad the Terran Empire (oops, I meant the US!) exist. Since the end of WW II, the US has been almost singlehandedly preventing a wave of tyrants, jihadist fanatics, and barbarians from overrunning the world. The US has outlasted the USSR and is now blocking Maoist China and jihadist fanatics. The world would be in a very bad way right now if the US was not a great power.
I only wish the UK was still a great power, as it was up till WW II.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Thinking about this matter, the problem posed by rogue regimes, reminded me of what I read long ago in a book by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, from Chapter 1 of A WORLD RESTORED: "Whenever there exists a power which considers the international order or the manner of legitimizing it oppressive, relations between it and other powers will be revolutionary. In such cases, it is not the adjustment of differences within a given system which will be at issue, but the system itself. Adjustments are possible, but they will be conceived as tactical maneuvers to consolidate positions for the inevitable showdown, or as tools to undermine the morale of the opponent. To be sure, the motivation of the revolutionary power may well be defensive; it may well be sincere in its protestations of feeling threatened. But the distinguishing feature of a revolutionary power is not that it feels threatened--such feeling is inherent in the nature of international relations based on sovereign states--but that NOTHING can reassure it. Only absolute certainty--the neutralization of the opponent--is considered a sufficient guarantee, and thus the desire of one power for absolute security means absolute insecurity for all the others."
That explains why the Iranian theocracy has been behaving as it has been doing, despite getting a smashing that would make naive Westerners think the regime would be eager to come to terms with the US. Motivated by fanatical Shia millennialism and jjhadism, the theocracy has been stringing along the US, the goal being not to make terms satisfactory to America, but to survive and go back to waging war on the "infidels" and less fanatical Muslims. All that can be done with such a regime is to keep smashing and smashing it until it is utterly destroyed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is a well known fact? I don't support any nukes but I understand a regime wanting them if others have them.
The US has supported tyrants.
Smashing Iran has strengthened its regime.
Paul.
To many people around the world, the US is just one of the imperialist powers. It is being pushed back by China and has failed to impose its will on Iran.
Kaor, Paul!
I am impatient with futile dreams of stuffing the nuclear bomb genie back into the bottle.
The US supporting some tyrants? So? So what? In this grubby real world, some tyrants are better than others. Or FDR's aphorism comes to mind: "Yes, but he's our SOB."
Wrong, the smashing Iran has gotten has gravely weakened the regime. It's continued feckless attempts to make a deal with an implacably hostile regime that runs the risk of it wiggling off the hook to recover. The US should do what Ukraine has been doing to Russia, attacking oil refineries and storage tanks. And destroying Iranian power plants and bridges.
I don't care what those "people" think. The security and interests of the US come first. And many others know any halfway tolerable life is possible because of the power of the US. Also, you are overlooking how Maoist China is an imperialist power with ambitions of global domination--and rule by the current regime in Peking would NOT be mild.
Kissinger's analysis is realistic, not yours.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The US both prevents and supports tyrants?
The security and interests of "people" come first.
I am not overlooking how China is an imperialist power. All such powers want to dominate the world. China has (somehow) made state capitalism successful and Western countries are now resorting to state intervention to prop up their economies.
There is no democracy in China or in many other countries and very little in the US. Successful election campaigns need large inputs of money and Trump not only claims that any election he lost was rigged but makes it possible for many of his supporters to think that and act on it. They would not have done so otherwise.
The US should not destroy oil refineries, storage tanks, power plants or bridges. How much more destruction can this Earth take? The time is long past for restoring the environment and rebuilding bomb sites and that requires the overthrow of ALL these destructive regimes.
Paul.
Post a Comment