The immediately preceding
post proceeded from Trojans via Greeks and Romans to Terrans and we skipped past some intermediate stages like British and Americans! There really were people who believed that the British Empire would last forever because the British were the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel and their Empire was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and this world-view is echoed in one timeline of Poul Anderson's Old Phoenix multiverse where Shakespeare is the Great Historian so (it is argued that) the English were everywhere in antiquity - except that I am getting mixed up between British and English.
Sometimes imagination and ingenuity are invested in interpreting scriptural and historical texts to sanctify preconceived conclusions like the Anglo-Israel theory outlined above. A far more productive use of any author's imaginative and intellectual abilities is to create works of acknowledged fiction which can, e.g., envisage future empires without insisting that any such empires will come about! All that we do know for certain about the future is that it will be unlike what anyone has imagined. I think that it is the task of sf writers to convey that: novelty and unpredictability.
19 comments:
Empires have had a long run, and aren't finished yet. They have advantages -- particularly, they enforce peace over wide areas... Europe post-1945, for example.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, I believe some kind of "empire" will eventually unify Earth. I think the best we can realistically hope for is some kind of Western oriented Solar Commonwealth, as seen in Anderson's stories. Or even Anderson/Dickson's United Commonwealths.
I absolutely do not want a Maoist/post-Maoist conquering the world, as seen in David Wingrove's CHUNG KUO series. Or the kind of global caliphate dreamed of by fanatical jihadists.
Ad astra! Sean
Correction: "...a Maoist/post-Maoist China..."
Sean
I don't think that anyone is going to conquer the whole world. The present economic system is one of continual conflict.
Kaor, Paul!
But there are people who do have such ambitions, such as the ones I mentioned above. These conflicts will last till somebody defeats all other rivals and conquers the world. That's the way I would bet.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't think so. Empires will continue to rise and fall without any of them conquering the whole world. China is trying economic, not military, expansion. The US is finding the limits of its military reach.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe that--my belief remaining somebody will end up as top dog. China's economic/demographic problems limits what the Maoists are likely to achieve.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Why should any one state conquer the whole world? Why has one not done so already? No single state is anywhere close to doing that. China has its problems. American influence is declining. There are many regional powers rising and falling.
I hope for a world federation of sovereign republics each serving the needs of its citizens and not continuing to facilitate the interests of economic minorities whose only aim is to enrich themselves. We have the technology to address all material and social needs now and many people throughout the world also have that aspiration. However, the present wielders of economic and military power oppose that aim and are locked into a system that keeps them competing against each other not to address needs but to maximize profits. Hence, wealth, poverty, environmental destruction and wars for oil.
Paul.
Empires in the past didn't conquer the whole world because of limited and expensive transport and communications. Now it's quite possible. That doesn't mean it will actually -happen-, but it's possible.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: No previous empire was able to conquer the entire world for technological reasons. That is not the case now.
It's too soon to write off the US--much as its enemies would like that.
Nor do I believe one bit in the kind of impossible world federation you hope for--because human beings are not like that, not universally altruistic. A unification of Earth will only happen when a single power or an alliance of powers imposes it by force or the threat of force.
Nor do I share this obsession about "republics." It's nothing particularly special or desirable. Just a form of gov't that sometimes work and often does not.
Any tolerable and reasonably mild global federation/empire will make room for local political diversity--a rigid, ideologically based one size fits all scheme will not work. The World Federation we see in THE STAR FOX has a sounder set up--its member states included monarchies, republics, and probably city states like Singapore.
Your economic views are unrealistic and impractical--only free enterprise has ever worked. I have more hope in entrepreneurs finding solutions to the problems you cited than in politicians and bureaucrats.
Mr. Stirling: Exactly! Technological/technical reasons were why no previous empire conquered the entire world. Now it is possible. I think something like that is more likely than not these days. I hope it's a Western oriented alliance led by the US which unifies the world.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you don't believe something that you have repeatedly said that you don't believe!
I felt obliged to oppose your "top dog" idea with my "world federation" idea but I certainly did not want to repeat old arguments but that inevitably happens anyway.
Collective self-interest, not altruism, is the basis of a better world.
Free enterprise will be redundant when wealth is abundant. Sorry to repeat but what else can I do?
Please don't use derogatory words like "obsession." They seem to be your regular vocabulary. "Republic" has meant dictatorships. I mean a society that is free, democratic and based on full equality. That rules out monarchies and aristocracies.
The full democracy that is now possible with full literacy and communication technology can rule out full-time professional politicians and bureaucrats.
But please let us not go back through all of this again - and again.
Paul.
Sean,
You mean the US retains its ability to impose its will internationally using overwhelming military force when deemed necessary? But it is running up against the limits of its ability to do this. And, in any case, people throughout the world should oppose any government that behaves like that.
Paul.
Stirling: "limited and expensive transport and communications."
Scarce fossil fuels might bring back expensive transport, though communications should remain easy. I think the most likely alternative for reasonably cheap transport is nuclear powered ships and electric rail with the electricity generated by nuclear fission.
Kaor, Paul!
I see no reason not to use metaphors and figures of speech that clearly expresses what I have in mind. And there have always been "top dogs" of one kind or another in real life and real history anyway.
That "Collective self-interest" is a meaningless, empty phrase. It's individuals, small and large groups, etc., seeking to advance their interests as best they legally can, which will do vastly more good than some vague, undefined "collective self-interest.".
Free enterprise has worked, whenever it's been given a chance. Nor do I believe wealth will or can remain abundant without it.
It's accurate to say people who insist ONLY one particular form of gov't is good or should exist are being "obsessive." Nor do I believe in a perfect "...society that is free, democratic and based on full equality." Real human beings, imperfect, flawed, corruptible, and prone to strife and violence, etc., makes such an "ideal republic" an impossibility. It's wiser to be tolerant of different kinds of gov't existing which are NTTB.
You cannot have any kind of reasonably advanced state/society without politicians and bureaucrats. Politicians are simply the leaders, holding power in ways believed to be legitimate manage the public affairs of their state/society. Bureaucrats take care of the day to day running of the state, any state, in whatever form. I don't see either of them disappearing because we need them.
Better the US and its allies dominating the world than Maoist China or a jihadist caliphate. Bankruptcy is a cheap price to pay if that defeats the latter two threats.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Why are we always in combative and argumentative mode? Why don't you ask me to give examples of collective self-interest instead of just saying that it is meaningless, empty, vague and undefined? It is none of that but you are determined to disagree instead of to enquire, discuss or learn.
Collective self-interests:
speaking a common language;
driving on the same side of the road;
caring for children;
maintaining transport systems;
gaining control of our own work- and life-processes instead of continuing to be controlled by a minority with different aims (that is an issue worldwide now).
Free enterprise has worked. I have acknowledged that several times but we seem to be stuck at the same point indefinitely.
Wealth will be abundant when technology produces abundance. Then there will be no need for entrepreneurs to control parts of production and to sell commodities. Everyone will be a shareholder, entitled to what they need and more. There will be no need for money or private profits. Society has already changed enormously and can change even more. (Will definitely change even more even if not in ways that I like.)
I do not insist only on one way of running a society as long as it is equal etc and am not obsessive. People are not imperfect, flawed, corruptible, prone to strife and violence. I have replied to this innumerable times with innumerable arguments and examples and could go through it all in detail again but really do not want to. I think that just repeating phrases like "free enterprise" and "prone to strife and violence" is obsessive!
I have replied about politicians and bureaucrats before. Of course we need administrators. "Bureaucrat" means someone who rules unaccountably from behind a desk. Those we can do without. Politicians are not just those who give a lead. We always have leaders. Politicians wield immense power, i.e., means of coercion. We will not need police, armies, soldiers, weapons, courts, prisons, means of coercion - not when everything is held in common and when all public servants are accountable with no ability to coerce.
Do you really think that I advocate a world dominated by Maoists or jihadists? Will the world really be better if the US has an unlimited ability to bomb every power station and bridge in Iran?
Better a world dominated by no one but owned and controlled by its people. One part of US ideology says that. Another part talks about economic, military and political domination as you have just done. Big contradiction.
Do you really think that exchanges like this are going anywhere and are going to end in one of us being persuaded by the other?
After all, I could have just said to myself this time: We have been through all this before. Why continue?
Paul.
What has always happened in real life and in real history is not what will happen in the future which will be very different.
Actually, what has always happened will probably continue. If it has always happened, it;s probably inherent, genetic human nature.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! And people who cling to hopeless, futile Utopian dreams and magical; thinking will only make matters worse. Due to stubbornly denying tried and tested ideas that actually works.
Ad astra! Sean
Again -
Nothing has ALWAYS happened. Human nature changes. If every species had an unchanging nature, then evolution would not happen.
Homo sapiens is differentiated as a species by the fact that it has cooperatively changed its environment with hands and brains and has changed itself into a rational linguistic species in the process. Thus, active change, not anything unchanging, is essential to humanity.
And we keep changing our natural and social environments in ways that affect our behaviour and interactions, thus our nature. Many of us will riot if there is a food shortage but otherwise will stand peacefully in line to pay for a loaf of bread in a supermarket. Thus, there is violence and strife in some circumstances but not in others. We are not PRONE to violence and strife in any and every circumstances. The conditions in which people naturally interact peacefully, considerately, respectfully etc, without having to be coerced, can be identified and reproduced in every part of the world instead of in some parts as against others. This is neither a hopeless, futile Utopian dream nor magical thinking. It will make things better, not worse. Establishing peaceful conditions at least in some parts of the Earth to begin with is a tried and tested idea that actually works.
The world as it is now is not working for the majority of its inhabitants and is getting worse.
Post a Comment