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.
27 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.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, in this mucky real world the US has no choice but to sometimes do business with unsavory regimes. I dismiss Utopian unrealism.
No, my country, my civilization comes first.
Disagree, what you said about China. Recall how Stirling explained how what can be gained by so called "State capitalism" is hitting a wall in China. Because you can't have true free enterprise without the right kind of gov't and society. State managed "capitalism" is failing in China.
Despite the best efforts of the horrible Democrats the US is still a functioning democracy. I will not agree to this obsession with blaming everything on Trump.
Denied, what you said about the Iran war. Because you cannot win wars with ineffectual half measures. That was the mistake Trump made. Empty talk about overthrowing all destructive regimes means nothing and does nothing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, if you do business with unsavoury regimes, then you are not stopping tyrannies which was one of your claims.
No, humanity comes first.
State capitalism is not "so called." It simply means states intervening in the economy which they do all the time in different ways in every country.
Socialism, democratic production for need, is not state capitalism - and has scarcely existed as yet.
Free enterprise competition turned small companies into big companies and monopolies which merged with the state and finance capital and globalized. Your "small state and free enterprise" is long gone. Of course state capitalism is hitting a wall. All capitalism does because competitive reinvestment makes the rate of profit fall, because profit is put before need and because people continually rebel in unpredictable ways against this minority control of their lives.
"...horrible Democrats..." Absurd language. We do not need to blame everything on Trump. But he is responsible for a lot, including denying democracy every time he loses! Your opponents are not obsessed, merely in disagreement with you.
Denied what you said about the Iran war. You cannot win wars with ineffectual half measures? There was no need to wage this war in the first place! He should effectively attack and starve the entire population? This is how to save them from tyranny? Please don't bomb London if we suffer under a tyranny here.
I have just returned from a four-day Festival with thousands of people who think as I do and most of them do it better. Thirteen new books were launched during four days, including one that updates analysis of economic and geopolitical conflict between imperial powers.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree. Because it's an observable fact some tyrannies are better than others. Usually because the despots are not ideological fanatics. And whose rule became milder as the years passed. It is possible to do business with them.
Denied, my country and civilization come first.
I disagreed because your definition of "state capitalism" was too broad when I was thinking of China; where Teng's "reforms" was an attempt at "controlled capitalism."
I reject the failed futility of socialism. All we have ever seen from socialism were centralized one party bureaucratic despotisms where politicians and bureaucrats, assisted by a secret police, clumsily and incompetently tried to run economies from the top down.
Denied, what you said about free enterprise. The problem is, due to our flawed human nature, is the perennial desired to centralize and monopolize power. The problem with that is how that more and more causes mistakes and misallocations of all kinds of resources to accumulate--ending in slumps, recessions, depressions, etc., when those mistakes can no longer be suppressed. The solution is allowing recessions to reallocate those resources as quickly as possible.
Wrong, not absurd. The contempt I have for the horrible Democrats goes back long before I ever heard of Trump. I despise the Democrats even more because of how radical leftists and neo-Nazi antisemites are taking over that evil party.
Denied, what you said about Iran. You are stubbornly ignoring how the theocracy has been waging war on the US since 1979. The US ceased its attacks on the regime too soon. Nor do I ever expect the UK to become a danger to America, unlike Iran.
I see you totally ignored the quote from Kissinger's book, about how the quest for "security" by revolutionary powers means insecurity for everybody else. That's a spot on description of how real human beings behave.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am trying to do something else here right now but I might come back on some of this later.
You are not interested in discussing, just in disagreeing and denying! I came back on here right now because I wanted to add that I still think that "Denied..." etc is a dreadful way to conduct any argument. I reply in kind but only to try to make this point!
I ignored a quote from Kissinger? Sorry, I missed that. When did the quote come up?
I have replied innumerable times on how often socialism has existed, i.e., hardly ever, but you continue to assume that it has existed many times and always in the same negative way. We continue to talk right past each other. (States calling themselves "Socialist" are not automatically socialist any more than communities calling themselves "Christian" are necessarily Christian.)
Do you really think that there is any point to all this?
I might return to some of this later although I really do fail to see the point.
Sorry. Humanity comes first. Is Christianity about human beings or about Americans?
Paul.
More absurd language about Democrats.
Economic competition transforms small companies into large companies and monopolies. That is economics, not human nature.
Sean,
I am not stubbornly ignoring anything. I am disagreeing with you. This whole way of characterizing a disagreement is simply wrong.
Paul.
There is probably more but surely that is more than enough?
OK. I have located Kissinger. Sorry, it was a while back. I did not "totally ignore" this. Your extreme, exaggerated language is unhelpful. I simply did not think of replying specifically to it at the time, then forgot about. My analysis is realistic, not his. We can swap such assertions forever!
it
Sean,
You are embattled and embittered. This is unnecessary. We should be able to learn from each other's different perspectives but that does not happen.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am "discussing," which has to include stating where I firmly believe you to be wrong. What else can any "discussion" be?
Very well, I'll try not to use "denied", using only "disagree."
I cannot agree with your preferred definition of "socialism," because that has never been seen in the real world (outside of, possibly, Benedictine, Trappist, or Cistercian monasteries). Every single self-avowed socialist regime has been exactly as I described, a bureaucratic despotism. You cannot have management of any economy for alleged "need" without political control of it--which inevitably means by politicians/bureaucrats. And that necessarily means using coercion.
To paraphrase Stirling: capitalism has many problems. Socialism has one, it has never worked, never will work.
Economic competition springs from human nature, including desire to better one's lot and compete for wealth, status, power. Or to achieve even greater goals, as men like Elon Musk are doing.
Disagree, what you said vis a vis "humanity" and loyalty to one's country. Btw, the Catholic Church has never condemned that kind of loyalty. I recall how Pius XI, in his condemnation of National Socialism in MIT BRENENDER SORGE., was careful to say it was not wrong for Germans to have patriotic love for Germany. Americans should feel the same for the US and Britons for the UK.
Disagree, re the Democrats. The anger I have for them goes back more than half a century and is not going to change. The crypto-communists and antisemites taking over that party deepens my anger. And I would feel the same way for similar parties in the UK if I was British, because I have a right to feel anger at disastrous ideas/policies and the, to be mild, mistaken persons advocating them.
I mentioned Kissinger because his book, A WORLD RESTORED, is a very interesting analysis of how the victorious Powers which cast down Revolutionary/Napoleonic France struggled to work out some means for the Great Powers to mediate their differences. And that included Kissinger analyzing the problem posed by revolutionary regimes unwilling to accept those means, obviously including later "dissatisfied:" regimes like that in Iran.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What else can "discussion" be? Something other that "Disagree," "Denied" etc.
That is not my preferred definition. That is what many people mean by it. We should not keep going on about the meaning of a single world and I neither expect nor by now even want you to agree about "socialism"! We have said all this before yet we say it all again.
Fully democratic control is not bureaucratic. Cooperation is more basic than competition and can replace competition when wealth becomes abundant. Why do we keep repeating this?
What has been seen in the past is not what can be seen in the future with production and equal distribution of abundance. It will not be necessary to compete to improve our individual conditions.
Every self-avowed socialist regime has not been a socialist regime and Russia post-1917 was establishing equality before it was devastated by civil war and wars of intervention. But we have said all this before.
Cooperation does work. If and when it is practiced in an economy of abundance, it WILL work. Why do we keep repeating this?
Disagree about Democrats. Can't we just accept by now that we disagree? By Nazi antisemites, I think that you mean anti-Zionists. I think that all this "anger" is purely destructive.
To be frank, you are mistaken. Present governments pursue disastrous policies.
Humanity can move far beyond Great Powers.
Disagree about putting country before humanity. We live on a single planet and are destroying it. Wars destroy it further.
Frankly, I find all this repetition pointless.
Alleged "need"? We have needs and many of them remain unaddressed despite all our technology.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I continue to disagree, because a correct understanding of words is important. My definition of socialism is accurate.
What you insist on by "Fully democratic control" of an economy is an impossibility if you claim that has to be by political means, which inevitably means politicians and bureaucrats. Nor do I believe one bit that an economy can be somehow mystically "cooperative." Because you need elementary basics like demand and supply.
Yes, alleged "need," because it's not going to happen that everyone will agree on what is "needed." It's part of the genius of free enterprise economics that it makes room for accommodating a vast number of "needs." Which socialism has always failed to do.
Disagree, what you said about Russia. What I read about its history in 1917 does not fit your preferred interpretation. The mere fact there was a civil war shows how vast numbers of Russians rejected the Bolshevik criminals.
Wrong, I mean real and actual antisemites, such as Graham Platner, whom the leftist Democrats of Maine nominated as their Senatorial candidate. And many of that contemptible ilk, such as the Mayor of NYC.
It's possible the few remaining level-headed Democrats might force Platner to quit the race. Maybe!
US leftists have catastrophic/evil ideas and policies. I will not retreat from that.
Nor do I believe in absurdities like mankind somehow moving beyond great powers. You are only offering wishful thinking and hopes.
Disagree, loyalty to one's country is natural and right. To stubbornly deny our tribalist nature is another error.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is something very wrong here. In this present comment, I am responding only to your four opening words:
"I continue to disagree..."
I see that, after that, you continue at some length. I will have to read the rest and maybe respond to it later but frankly I do not have time to do that now. And how much of it is repetition from earlier exchanges in any case? (I will find out.)
Now, about those four opening words. Do you still really think that I am trying to get you to agree to something? I have said repeatedly that I am not. I can see perfectly clearly that I will never get you to agree with me on some points on which we clearly disagree! So what is the point of continuing to say this? There is one massive miscommunication and misunderstanding here - if you continue to assume that I am trying to get you to agree to anything.
I have not read the rest yet. I wanted to focus on just this single point here and now. I WILL read the rest. If I do not respond to it, it will NOT be because I cannot respond or because I "stubbornly" ignore some "hard facts" etc but because I no longer see the point.
We have been over this ground so often by now that you ought to be able to anticipate at least the general tone of whatever responses I would give to whatever additional points you have made. At least, if you cannot do this, then I have completely failed to communicate anything.
When I get back home this evening, I want to add some posts to the blog, not to continue to wrangle in the combox.
Paul.
I have read the rest. Disagree. Disagree with everything. You are merely repeating that you do not believe what I believe! We know this! The only new point is that you tell me that a particular named Democrat is an actual anti-semite. I do not know, either way. You are repeating statements that you have made before and that I have replied to before. Can there possibly be any point to this? Do you really think that either of us will at last say, "Oh yes, I agree now"?
A politician that you disagree with is contemptible? I am really glad that I do not see the world that way!
Free enterprise will be redundant when wealth is abundant.
Cooperation, that most basic of human interactions, is contemptuously dismissed as "mystical." Economic competition will be unnecessary when technologically produced abundant wealth is distributed equally. Bureaucrats are people who "rule" from "offices" and therefore are not democratic.
Bolsheviks were a political group, not criminals.
Leftists are not evil. I will not retreat from that.
Loyalty to a nation-state instead of to a religion or to a way of life is a historically recent innovation. I do not make "errors" and I do not stubbornly deny tribalism. I disagree with you about it. Please drop the "stubborn." (Of course I make errors (!) but just telling someone that his views are errors is not the way to conduct a conversation.)
Do you not see my point? Do you not see that we have completely repeated ourselves? Were you completely unable even now to anticipate what my replies would be? Can the argument/wrangle/squabble not at least move to a new level of anticipating the replies and responding to them in advance? Do you really want to go on like this forever? Look, I care enough to keep responding but I despair of such an exchange having any point unless there is some fundamental reassessment of ways of coping with and responding to disagreement. We disagree. We should celebrate that, not continue to carry on as we have been doing.
I am happy to discuss issues but I really do not want to go through the same uncompromising, emphatically stated argument over and over again.
Kaor, Paul!
Then best to end this debate. When it comes to non-negotiable first principles, no meeting of minds is possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
In philosophy and science, no first principles are non-negotiable! Another term for them is stubborn prejudices.
Paul.
Post a Comment