Politics: power and resistance.
History: progress or regression.
Should wealth that is generated in the Asteroid Belt stay in the Belt or go back to Earth? Poul Anderson evokes political tension and conflict in the Belt after an election back in North America. New colonialism resembles old colonialism. Mike Blades refers to England and America in the eighteenth century but does not tell us which century he is in. There are two ways to write a future history: either vaguely or precisely, date-wise.
The resemblance cannot be complete. Future history is history but also future. Poul Anderson's narratives move through myths, legends, history, alternative histories and futures. (There are even two passages set between cosmic dissolution and re-creation.)
Later in Flying Mountains, as far as I can remember, increased production means less conflict about distribution. This should be the goal of any high tech civilization, especially one that can fully utilize solar energy.
(Different from UN-Belt politics in Larry Niven's Known Space History.)
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
New wealth, of the kind created by technological advances and the more efficient utilization of metals mined in the asteroid belt would be best used for the mutual profit of Terrestrial nations and the asteroid colonies via free trade. That election you mentioned was about how a political party came to power in North America which wanted to tax, regulate, meddle with, and boss around the asterites in increasingly oppressive ways. The inevitable result would be increasing resentment/resistance by N. America's asteroid colonies. A resistance which could and did lead to open rebellion by the colonies.
If I had to guess I would speculate we see Mike Blades in this story around AD 2100.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment