Fantasy Economies That Work [was: Pernese drudges]
Timothy Burke
Here's what I've been thinking about as I read the thread on Pern's
drudges. Most of the replies go something like this,
"Well, sure, some drudges have options..." [Me: Such as?]
"No, Pern isn't as elitist as it looks..." [Like most fantasy novels, it's
told from the perspective of the elite, which makes it easy to overlook
just how exalted their status actually is...]
"The genetic lines of the Lord Holders need to be preserved for potential
psionic skills..." [I'd like to see the specific genetic line that could
be held true for 2500 years without insanely rigorous rules governing
reproduction--and those aren't in play here, since the Lord Holders are
frequently said to have bastard children and seem to rut with commoners
without any fear of the consequences...]
"The possibility of being a dragonrider is what makes the system
egalitarian..." [Until F'lar's time, we're told, Searches weren't
conducted among the rank-and-file of the Holds except for queen
candidates, and we're told that by and large recruitment still takes place
from within the Weyr.]
"It's good that Pern isn't a perfect world, it makes it more realistic..."
[if in fact it were realistic, I would agree...]
"The headwomen like Manora seem very happy, have privileges and are
well-liked..." [the existence of house slaves doesn't mean that there
isn't slavery]
"It's a war economy, so people are used to privations..." [more on this below]
Etcetera. Now, much of this just won't wash. As with a lot of
sword-and-sorcery stuff, Pern is basically a world where the real work of
the society in question is done largely off-stage by compliant
serfs/drudges/slaves who rarely challenge their status in society (unless
they are nobles in disguise, aka Lessa). In order for the society we see
in McCaffrey's books to work, the vast majority of Pernese must either be
farmers (somebody's raising all those animals that the dragons eat) or
drudge-like subordinates in the crafthalls, weyrs and holds. The Pernese
ruling classes don't seem to have to do *anything* in order to keep these
folks in line: some of the marginalized may pursue the "outcast" option,
and in F'lar's time, some social tension is obviously being bled off by
the recolonization of the Southern Continent. But up to that point, for
1500 years or more, we get no sense that there has ever been substantial
social unrest, rebellion, protest or whatever. And it won't do to explain
this in terms of Pern being on a permanent war footing--many of Europe's
most devastating peasant uprisings in the medieval era took place during
or in proximity to warfare. People will not indefinitely tolerate massive
social injustice even if protest means that their society becomes
vulnerable to an external threat.
Some fantasy novels solve the problem of a large servile class by making
them into some non-human "race" that "naturally" obeys the elites or the
Evil Overlord, aka "orcs". That's a little better than just saying "well,
these drudges like being drudges and the nice dragonriders keep saving
them from the nasty Thread, so there." But it's still not hugely
satisfactory.
So what I'm wondering is, can anyone think of a fantasy series, whether
sci-fantasy or sword&sorcery fantasy, in which the society seems to have a
realistic economy? Realistic in that it has a huge servile class who
behave like a servile class--e.g., they have to be kept ground under heel
by the elites (including, possibly, the heroes) in order to remain servile
or better yet, they are in a state of potential rebellion? Or realistic in
that it comes up with an alternative model of economic production that
allows large numbers of healthy people in chainmail to go galloping around
the countryside whacking evil spawn upside the head with a bastard sword?
(say, laboring golems, or food and goods that are produced by magic,
etcetera.)
Brenda and Larry Clough
Timothy Burke wrote:
> So what I'm wondering is, can anyone think of a fantasy series, whether
> sci-fantasy or sword&sorcery fantasy, in which the society seems to have a
> realistic economy? Realistic in that it has a huge servile class who
> behave like a servile class--e.g., they have to be kept ground under heel
> by the elites (including, possibly, the heroes) in order to remain servile
> or better yet, they are in a state of potential rebellion? Or realistic in
> that it comes up with an alternative model of economic production that
> allows large numbers of healthy people in chainmail to go galloping around
> the countryside whacking evil spawn upside the head with a bastard sword?
> (say, laboring golems, or food and goods that are produced by magic,
> etcetera.)
The problem with economic underpinnings is that they're boring. Nowhere
near as exciting as beheading foes with broadswords, or flying dragons
to fight Thread. Therefore, in just about every fantasy you can think
of, all the boring work of maintaining the economy takes place off
stage. For instance, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that
somewhere on Pern, somewhere where the books aren't taking place, the
peasants are in revolt or a native-born Faraday has harnessed dragon
power to run spinning mills. We just never see them. Likewise, I'm
sure that Sauron can't be as inefficient an empire-runner as he looks.
Somewhere offstage his peasants are working hard at an efficient and
sensible farming operation which supplies the food and fuel for the rest
of the empire. Someplace in the Empire the Imperial Storm Troopers are
guarding shipments of grain rather than ineffectually firing blasters at
Luke and Leia. The fact that we never see them doesn't mean they don't
exist.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Jo Walton
In article <tburke1-0203...@d119.trotter.swarthmore.edu>
tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu "Timothy Burke" writes:
> So what I'm wondering is, can anyone think of a fantasy series, whether
> sci-fantasy or sword&sorcery fantasy, in which the society seems to have a
> realistic economy? Realistic in that it has a huge servile class who
> behave like a servile class--e.g., they have to be kept ground under heel
> by the elites (including, possibly, the heroes) in order to remain servile
> or better yet, they are in a state of potential rebellion? Or realistic in
> that it comes up with an alternative model of economic production that
> allows large numbers of healthy people in chainmail to go galloping around
> the countryside whacking evil spawn upside the head with a bastard sword?
> (say, laboring golems, or food and goods that are produced by magic,
> etcetera.)
Barbara Hambly. Different economic structures in different books, but
the way she puts societies together so they resemble things from
plausibly real history and then manages to run adventures against them
is one of the reasons I keep reading her stuff.
C.J. Cherryh's :The Chronicles of Morgaine:.
Samuel R. Delany's :Neveryon: series.
George R.R. Martin's :A Game of Thrones:.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
Aviva Rothschild
tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu,News writes:
>So what I'm wondering is, can anyone think of a fantasy series, whether
>sci-fantasy or sword&sorcery fantasy, in which the society seems to
>have a
>realistic economy? Realistic in that it has a huge servile class who
>behave like a servile class--e.g., they have to be kept ground under
>heel
>by the elites (including, possibly, the heroes) in order to remain
>servile
>or better yet, they are in a state of potential rebellion? Or realistic
>in
>that it comes up with an alternative model of economic production that
>allows large numbers of healthy people in chainmail to go galloping
>around
>the countryside whacking evil spawn upside the head with a bastard
>sword?
>(say, laboring golems, or food and goods that are produced by magic,
>etcetera.)
I don't know if this counts, but Paula Volsky's _Illusion_ focuses
largely on the inequality between the Exalted class and the
commoners/serfs, who get thoroughly fed up with being leeched off of,
and rise up and crush the Exalted. Unfortunately for the serfs, many of
them refuse to work in the fields once they're free, and their lives
become even more miserable. This is not to say that the rebellion is
portrayed as a Bad Thing, just that some of the serfs seemed not to
connect their actions in the fields with survival.
Aviva
RobXXVIII
In article <tburke1-0203...@d119.trotter.swarthmore.edu>,
tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Timothy Burke) writes:
>
>So what I'm wondering is, can anyone think of a fantasy series, whether
>sci-fantasy or sword&sorcery fantasy, in which the society seems to have a
>realistic economy? Realistic in that it has a huge servile class who
>behave like a servile class--e.g., they have to be kept ground under heel
>by the elites (including, possibly, the heroes) in order to remain servile
>or better yet, they are in a state of potential rebellion? Or realistic in
>that it comes up with an alternative model of economic production that
>allows large numbers of healthy people in chainmail to go galloping around
>the countryside whacking evil spawn upside the head with a bastard sword?
>(say, laboring golems, or food and goods that are produced by magic,
>etcetera.)
>
>
Wurtz's mistwraith series has had a successful merchants revolt
in its recent past. All the nobles were exiled and the town mayors
took over. Green's Haven series takes place in a constitutional
monarchy with a opposition reform party. Hambly too has
some sensible economics in her series.
However your definition of realism is questionable.
Peasants revolts do occur, but they are rare and
cover a limited area. With many authors we wouldn't
even know if there had been one 10 years before
the story's present nor would it affect the plot.
Evil overlords have no problems because their hordes
have normally been bred for the purpose or created
from scratch to be ideal slaves.
Revolts are only a problem when the elite makes
unreasonable demands, such as tax rises to
pay for a war, or levying the same tax during
a famine. People need a reason to rebel, if
things are as they have always been most
people will stay quiet. Rebellion could improve
their position but it could also kill them, most of
the time it isn't worth it. If the centre is divided
by civil war or destroyed by invasion then people
may also take those opportunities, and religous
movements can make people much more daring.
Most fantasy has no religious movements without
the god's approval eliminating that cause.
In most of them the heroes come from a stable
country with no famine or plague where taxes have
not changed in living memory. This leaves no cause
for a rebellion. This doesn't cover all fantasy
but in many cases there has been no plausible
spark for rebellion and therefore no need for the
nobles to worry about it.
Robert
Julie Stampnitzky
Elizabeth Moon's _Surrender None: the Legacy of Gird_ is a marvelous book
in which the peasants decide they've had enough and revolt agaist the
noble overlords.
--
Julie Stampnitzky Keeper, http://neskaya.darkover.org
Erich Schneider
Brenda and Larry Clough <clo...@erols.com> writes:
> Likewise, I'm
> sure that Sauron can't be as inefficient an empire-runner as he looks.
> Somewhere offstage his peasants are working hard at an efficient and
> sensible farming operation which supplies the food and fuel for the rest
> of the empire.
Yep, in fact, this is mentioned somewhere in _LotR_; Sauron has vast
legions of human slave-farmers in Nurn, the south of Mordor, growing
food for his orcish armies. After the war Aragorn grants them
self-government over that land.
(Tolkien left out few details, no matter how boring...)
--
Erich Schneider er...@csdl.tamu.edu http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~erich
Fevra
tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Timothy Burke) wrote:
>>So what I'm wondering is, can anyone think of a fantasy series, whether
sci-fantasy or sword&sorcery fantasy, in which the society seems to have
a
realistic economy?<<
Um...William Horwood's _Duncton Wood_? Everyone mole find your own
worms? :)
<looks around hopefully for support>
--Fevra
"When Vulcans wish one another 'Live long and prosper'--the *humans* say
'Have a nice *day*! '"
--Saavik (The Pandora Principle)
Pat O'Connell
Bernard Yeh wrote:
>
> Timothy Burke <tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>
> : So what I'm wondering is, can anyone think of a fantasy series, whether
> : sci-fantasy or sword&sorcery fantasy, in which the society seems to have a
> : realistic economy?
Well, at least in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, there seems to
be a fairly realistic pre-industrial trade driven economy,complete
with wars fought over resources and money (as well as Good and Evil).
See below.
>
> A similar gripe that I have is fantasy worlds that have stayed at roughly
> the same level of technological and social development (eg feudal society/
> medieval tech) for *millenia*. Seriously, how does innovation stop
> when steel weapons and plate armor becomes commonplace among the ruling
> clases? Although, conceivably, it is probably much easier to
> stop social progress, given strict control of communication among
> the lower classes, but what ruler wouldn't want to fund some level
> of R&D, in order to gain a technological edge over his rivals?
> Magic may stunt technological progress in some worlds, but given
> that most worlds that I've read have controlled magic being rare or
> expensive, magic should hardly have an effect on technological progress.
In the Wheel of Time there is a technological "Age of Legends," where
the technology was created by a combination of science, and magic
("channeling" the True Source). There was a loss of the sciences and
much of the magic when The Bore into the Dark One's prison was opened,
a great war ensued, and the male half of channelers were driven mad by
a taint on male channeling while closing The Bore. The maddened male
channelers literally rearranged the continents of the world, called
The Breaking.
Jordan alludes to years of war of those "in the Light" against the
Dark One's servants and fell creatures, with the destruction of much
of civilization in the process. Civilization rose and fell several
times during the intervening time, somtimes because of The Dark,
sometimes because of wars among "the good guys" for territory or
money.
The characters in the books are now in a pre-industrial age nearly
3000 years later, where only women can safely channel and not be
severed from The True Source like any male channeler would be. There
are scientists about, trying to develop technology that doesn't rely
on magic--a spyglass, for instance, catapults, and fireworks. Guns and
such haven't been figured out--yet.
> Also, most fantasy worlds never seem to lack a class of scholars of
> some sort (whether religiously or temporally supported). What the
> heck are they doing when the aren't giving advice to the heroes
> of the saga, hmm?
In the Wheel of Time, the Aes Sedai meddle in other governments, and
pull in the gold because their home city is also a major river port.
The hero of the story, a young man who can channel, is trying to
establish a technological school and research institute, but loses his
best researcher to one of the Dark One's creatures.
> So, is there any fantasy works out there that deal with technological
> or social progress in a reasonable time scale, either as background,
> or as a theme of the work? Or at least something that explains why
> technological and scientific progress has stopped.
Actually, in the Wheel of Time, there has been a slow loss of magical
knowledge and magical power (genetics is hinted to be the reason), and
technology has slowly become more important, until the era told about
in the books when a group of strong magic wielders for The Light,
female and male, are drawn toward a Final Battle with the Dark One and
his Forsaken.
Jordan really seems to have thought much of his world out well.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Robert A. Woodward
In article <tburke1-0203...@d119.trotter.swarthmore.edu>,
tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Timothy Burke) wrote:
> Here's what I've been thinking about as I read the thread on Pern's
> drudges. Most of the replies go something like this,
>
> "Well, sure, some drudges have options..." [Me: Such as?]
>
> "No, Pern isn't as elitist as it looks..." [Like most fantasy novels, it's
> told from the perspective of the elite, which makes it easy to overlook
> just how exalted their status actually is...]
>
> "The genetic lines of the Lord Holders need to be preserved for potential
> psionic skills..." [I'd like to see the specific genetic line that could
> be held true for 2500 years without insanely rigorous rules governing
> reproduction--and those aren't in play here, since the Lord Holders are
> frequently said to have bastard children and seem to rut with commoners
> without any fear of the consequences...]
>
That original quote was silly; it was only the Ruatha blood line that
regularly produced great queenriders (and because of a lot of crosses back
to the weyrs). If I remember the opening chapters of _Dragonflight_
correctly, F'lar was looking at crafters as well as holders for candidates
(but took none, because he wanted to find a VERY promising candidate).
<snip>
Bernard Yeh
Timothy Burke <tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
: So what I'm wondering is, can anyone think of a fantasy series, whether
: sci-fantasy or sword&sorcery fantasy, in which the society seems to have a
: realistic economy?
A similar gripe that I have is fantasy worlds that have stayed at roughly
the same level of technological and social development (eg feudal society/
medieval tech) for *millenia*. Seriously, how does innovation stop
when steel weapons and plate armor becomes commonplace among the ruling
clases? Although, conceivably, it is probably much easier to
stop social progress, given strict control of communication among
the lower classes, but what ruler wouldn't want to fund some level
of R&D, in order to gain a technological edge over his rivals?
Magic may stunt technological progress in some worlds, but given
that most worlds that I've read have controlled magic being rare or
expensive, magic should hardly have an effect on technological progress.
Also, most fantasy worlds never seem to lack a class of scholars of
some sort (whether religiously or temporally supported). What the
heck are they doing when the aren't giving advice to the heroes
of the saga, hmm?
So, is there any fantasy works out there that deal with technological
or social progress in a reasonable time scale, either as background,
or as a theme of the work? Or at least something that explains why
technological and scientific progress has stopped.
Yeah, a know Pern had something of a tech renaissance, but even
after the chaos of the first threadfall and subsequent regression
(I haven't read Dragonsdawn), there would have been some impetus
to rediscover technology faster, I would think. What the heck
were they doing in the 200-year periods between threadfalls?
Most other fantasy (that I've read) seem to be in millenia-long tech
stasis: Tolkien, Feist, Eddings, Hobb, Martin. Brooks has token mention
of progess in his Shannara stuff, but note nothing has effectively changed
in the 600? years between the two series...
--
Bernard Yeh
by...@tsoft.net
Joshua Jasper
In article <34fb6...@news.tsoft.net>, Bernard Yeh <by...@tsoft.com> wrote:
>Timothy Burke <tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>
>Most other fantasy (that I've read) seem to be in millenia-long tech
>stasis: Tolkien, Feist, Eddings, Hobb, Martin. Brooks has token mention
>of progess in his Shannara stuff, but note nothing has effectively changed
>in the 600? years between the two series...
>
never heard her go into weapons tech, which is something superceded by
mages. The "Big Empire" lasting for millenia seemed to have magic up to
the tech level of just post industrial (before magic collapsed). L.W.
Evans mentions technologists in his later Ethshar books. It'd be scary
to imagine a world where magic and tech progressed in synch and were used
in tandem (not like Anthony's _Incarnations Of Immortalty_, where it's an
either/or proposition, you use magic OR tech).
Sinboy
Charles Meigh
Maybe we are not considering the wholly different nature of the fantasy
world. They are usually created by a god or gods and the whole
underlying presupposition that there is evolution and progression in a
biological or social sense may be an anathema. Are fantasy writers
largely creationists, but worry people will laugh at them if they say
they like Genesis?
Consider the effect also of pestilence and warfare; if we do have
progressive technology, then a few bitter wars and a plague or two will
'reset the clock'. Had Rome not fallen, and no Dark Ages ensued where
would we be now?
Bernard Yeh wrote:
>
> A similar gripe that I have is fantasy worlds that have stayed at roughly
> the same level of technological and social development (eg feudal society/
> medieval tech) for *millenia*. Seriously, how does innovation stop
> when steel weapons and plate armor becomes commonplace among the ruling
I wonder if it depends on the fantasy world discovering gunpowder or
not?
--
Charlie Meigh - charle...@diamond.co.uk
"It was 97 degrees in the city and no hope of improvement. Not bad if
you're a lizard. But two hours earlier I was drinking Acquavit with an
Eskimo lady in North East Alaska. That's a tough change to make. It
was so good, I didn't want to leave, so I left a day early."
Dan Goodman
In article <34FB7B4E...@diamond.co.uk>,
Charles Meigh <charle...@diamond.co.uk> wrote:
>Maybe we are not considering the wholly different nature of the fantasy
>world. They are usually created by a god or gods and the whole
>underlying presupposition that there is evolution and progression in a
>biological or social sense may be an anathema. Are fantasy writers
>largely creationists, but worry people will laugh at them if they say
>they like Genesis?
>
>Consider the effect also of pestilence and warfare; if we do have
>progressive technology, then a few bitter wars and a plague or two will
>'reset the clock'. Had Rome not fallen, and no Dark Ages ensued where
>would we be now?
Riding in oxcarts, if we were lucky. On horseback, if we were really
lucky.
The Dark Ages were a time of technological innovation -- compared to the
previous era. Mostly in the northern portions of Western Europe.
Note that the _eastern_ part of the Roman Empire didn't fall till much
later. So, why wasn't Byzantium (and its empire) more technologically
advanced than the north-west of Europe?
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
JoatSimeon
Note also that the timocratic elites which dominate most preindustrial culture
have a solid grounding in economics -- armor and training are -expensive-,
particularly relative to the low overall productivity.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Bernard Yeh
>the same level of technological and social development for *millenia*
-- perfectly credible, given real history. With the exception of the medieval
and post-medieval West, most of the planet has shown very, very slow
technological innovation since the neolithic.
Cycles of rise and fall within a fairly static economic-technological-social
setting are more typical; a flicker of political and cultural change over an
endless repetitious cycle of peasants and crops.
"Eating from the field I plowed;
Drinking from the well I dug;
Living in the house I built --
Emperors and wars, what are they to me?" -- as the poet put it.
And only two cultures in the whole of human history have come anywhere close to
a rationalist-scientific view of natural phenomena; Classical and Hellenistic
Greece (near miss) and us (hit, but it could have been otherwise).
Scientific and industrial revolutions are, IMHO, extremely low-probability
accidents.
-- S.M. Stirling
John Moreno
JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Bernard Yeh
>
> >the same level of technological and social development for *millenia*
>
> -- perfectly credible, given real history. With the exception of the medieval
> and post-medieval West, most of the planet has shown very, very slow
> technological innovation since the neolithic.
>
-snip-
>
> Scientific and industrial revolutions are, IMHO, extremely low-probability
> accidents.
Besides the Pernese model isn't static - it's a fairly slow
de-evolution. They slowly LOST technology over the millenia, probably do
to the fifty year wars they fought every two hundred years.
--
John Moreno
I am trying to convince the author of YA-NewsWatcher that the latest
version should be released to the public. He doesn't think there's much
interest in a new version. Help me prove him wrong. To do so, send me
mail <mailto:phe...@interpath.com> with a Subject of New YA. Comments
on what you like/dislike in the current version will be appreciated.
David Given
>Most other fantasy (that I've read) seem to be in millenia-long tech
>stasis: Tolkien, Feist, Eddings, Hobb, Martin. Brooks has token mention
>of progess in his Shannara stuff, but note nothing has effectively changed
>in the 600? years between the two series...
The only fantasy series that I can think of off-hand that actually has
some technological development in is, believe it or not, Terry Pratchett's
Discworld books, particularly the later ones. There are always off-hand
mentions of newfangled things like lucifer matches, clockwork watches
(rather than ones with little daemons inside peddling furiously) and so
on. They even invented gunpowder once.
David Given
d...@freeyellow.com
Joshua Jasper
In article <19980303060...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Bernard Yeh
>
>>the same level of technological and social development for *millenia*
>
>-- perfectly credible, given real history. With the exception of the medieval
>and post-medieval West, most of the planet has shown very, very slow
>technological innovation since the neolithic.
>
>setting are more typical; a flicker of political and cultural change over an
>endless repetitious cycle of peasants and crops.
>
>"Eating from the field I plowed;
> Drinking from the well I dug;
> Living in the house I built --
> Emperors and wars, what are they to me?" -- as the poet put it.
>
>And only two cultures in the whole of human history have come anywhere close to
>a rationalist-scientific view of natural phenomena; Classical and Hellenistic
>Greece (near miss) and us (hit, but it could have been otherwise).
I think you downplay the scientific advances of the Middle
eastern Moslems a bit. A lot of data and methods were transported from
them to Europe. They may have not been entirely scientific-rational, but
the come close, as did the Helenistic Greeks. When contrasting
methodology with todays, they come closer to ours than the Greeks did.
They also filtered alot of the better data from the Chinese.
Sinboy
Charles Meigh
> >Consider the effect also of pestilence and warfare; if we do have
> >progressive technology, then a few bitter wars and a plague or two will
> >'reset the clock'. Had Rome not fallen, and no Dark Ages ensued where
> >would we be now?
>
> Riding in oxcarts, if we were lucky. On horseback, if we were really
> lucky.
>
> The Dark Ages were a time of technological innovation -- compared to the
> previous era. Mostly in the northern portions of Western Europe.
>
> Note that the _eastern_ part of the Roman Empire didn't fall till much
> later. So, why wasn't Byzantium (and its empire) more technologically
> advanced than the north-west of Europe?
Yes, I agree that the Dark Ages would be an era of innovation, it would
have to be considering the idea I postulate, of the fall of the Empire
resetting the clock. Suppose we had a Catasrophe (Day of the Triffids,
Postman etc.) now. Society, the infrastructure, breaks down and we
'reset' to a primitive agrarian economy with nothing even approaching
the size of a nation state in authority - maybe even reset to
hunter-gatherers. Now the rate of innovation would incredibly fast,
some of us would remember that Connections program about what inventions
where necessary for civilization and would probably set about making
ploughs and unsupported arches. In short there would be a memory of
what was lost and in some areas a desire to regain 'former glory' -
result massive innovation, but from year zero perspective.
What was lost was the infrastructure that allowed a greater
cross-fertilization of ideas, a slightly more successful education
system, probably more stable trade routes. All the dull intricacies of
the imperial economics would, I believe, have led to an environment that
would foster greater technolgical innovation earlier.
All the above is only MHO and idle speculation to boot :-)
Jerome Bigge
On 3 Mar 1998 06:05:11 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>>Bernard Yeh
>
>>the same level of technological and social development for *millenia*
>
>-- perfectly credible, given real history. With the exception of the medieval
>and post-medieval West, most of the planet has shown very, very slow
>technological innovation since the neolithic.
>
>Cycles of rise and fall within a fairly static economic-technological-social
>setting are more typical; a flicker of political and cultural change over an
>endless repetitious cycle of peasants and crops.
>
>"Eating from the field I plowed;
> Drinking from the well I dug;
> Living in the house I built --
> Emperors and wars, what are they to me?" -- as the poet put it.
>
>And only two cultures in the whole of human history have come anywhere close to
>a rationalist-scientific view of natural phenomena; Classical and Hellenistic
>Greece (near miss) and us (hit, but it could have been otherwise).
>
>Scientific and industrial revolutions are, IMHO, extremely low-probability
>accidents.
>-- S.M. Stirling
You can also run into the problems that organized religions offer:
Certain types of scientific study tend to "threaten" the powers that be.
We have the same problem here in the "West" over cloning, over all
sorts of work with human genetics. Any major technological change
will produce both "losers" as well as "winners", and if those who feel
they will "lose" control enough power; your technological change does
NOT take place! A good example of this was Japan after the introduction
of firearms. The Japanese "establishment" (warlords and professional
warrior caste) simply "outlawed" the use of guns for everyone, returned
to the use of swords and bows, because they wanted it to be that way!
True, they eventually had to "modernize", but it wasn't until Perry in the
19th Century paid them a visit that they realized just what had happened.
We landed men on the Moon on July 20th, in the year 1969. After a few
more flights, we gave up. Cost too much for what we could learn from it.
So you might have technologies that can be "done", but the cost is just
too high for a democratic society to be willing to support them unless it
is in "competition" with a non-democratic society doing the same thing.
As the Russians seem to be pretty much "kaput", the US no longer has
the incentive to put a lot of money into space any more. And given the
anti-nuclear prejudices a lot of people have, you aren't likely to build
the sort of spacecraft that are necessary to do any serious work out
there in space. No nuclear-ion shuttle that you need to get from Earth
orbit out to Mars' orbit and so forth. There was even something of a
fuss over our launching of a probe that had a small nuclear power
source. So if you want a real space program, you really need to
have some sort of non-democratic government to allocate the $$,
and put the protesters in the concentration camps when they make
trouble for your space program. You really do need someone like
the Communists or say Stirling's "Draka" to get the ball rolling here...
(and back to the topic)
There are about three separate "technologies" that we could be doing
a lot more with, although one presents a lot of danger to a free society.
The first is bio-tech, cloning, genetic modifications, etc. The second is
developing the ability to rewrite our mental "software" by some means
of "electronic hypnosis". This is probably something too "dangerous"
to have at our present stage of social development however. Too easy
to establish a tyranny that would "program" people into total submission.
The third would be a combination of virtual reality and cybernetic feed-
back. You would be the "robot", the machine, or whatever is being used.
Might have some use in the nuclear power industry, although I think as
a military weapon it would be too easy to "jam" the device.
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@novagate.com) NRA Life Member
Author of the "WARLADY" series of SF fantasy novels.
And of the "alternative history" WARTIME series where
history was just a little bit "different" from our own!
Download them all at http://www.novagate.com/~jbigge
A bee gets "respect" because she has a "sting"...
Dan Goodman
In article <34FC658E...@diamond.co.uk>,
Charles Meigh <charle...@diamond.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Consider the effect also of pestilence and warfare; if we do have
>> >progressive technology, then a few bitter wars and a plague or two will
>> >'reset the clock'. Had Rome not fallen, and no Dark Ages ensued where
>> >would we be now?
>>
>> Riding in oxcarts, if we were lucky. On horseback, if we were really
>> lucky.
>>
>> The Dark Ages were a time of technological innovation -- compared to the
>> previous era. Mostly in the northern portions of Western Europe.
>>
>> Note that the _eastern_ part of the Roman Empire didn't fall till much
>> later. So, why wasn't Byzantium (and its empire) more technologically
>> advanced than the north-west of Europe?
>
>Yes, I agree that the Dark Ages would be an era of innovation, it would
>have to be considering the idea I postulate, of the fall of the Empire
>resetting the clock.
We seem not to be talking about quite the same thing.
What is called the "Dark Ages" in European history is a time of
technological advancement _beyond what the Roman Empire had_.
Not just catching up again with Rome's technological achievements. Not
just catching up with what the surviving part of the Roman Empire
(Byzantium and its possessions) had retained.
I maintain that if the Roman Empire had lasted, technological progress
would have been _retarded_. Slowed down considerably.
Suppose we had a Catasrophe (Day of the Triffids,
>Postman etc.) now. Society, the infrastructure, breaks down and we
>'reset' to a primitive agrarian economy with nothing even approaching
>the size of a nation state in authority - maybe even reset to
>hunter-gatherers. Now the rate of innovation would incredibly fast,
>some of us would remember that Connections program about what inventions
>where necessary for civilization and would probably set about making
>ploughs and unsupported arches. In short there would be a memory of
>what was lost and in some areas a desire to regain 'former glory' -
>result massive innovation, but from year zero perspective.
>
>What was lost was the infrastructure that allowed a greater
>cross-fertilization of ideas, a slightly more successful education
>system, probably more stable trade routes. All the dull intricacies of
>the imperial economics would, I believe, have led to an environment that
>would foster greater technolgical innovation earlier.
Then _why_ didn't it? Why didn't the Eastern Roman Empire advance beyond
the barbarians of Western Europe?
It seems to me that the evidence shows that a surviving Western Roman
Empire would have retarded progress.
Dan Goodman
In article <6dhru4$nb$0...@205.138.137.44>,
Not quite what happened, from my reading of Noel Perrin's _Giving Up the
Gun_. Nobody outlawed guns, exactly. The central government _regulated_
the manufacture and use of guns, and gradually regulated them almost out
of existence. (Probably couldn't have been done in any country where a
large percentage of the population had taken up hunting with guns.) It
helped considerably that the warrior classes considered guns unesthetic,
etc. However -- so, though not to the same extent, did the knights of
western Europe. And Europe did not give up the gun.
David Joseph Greenbaum
In a fit of divine composition, Joshua Jasper (sin...@netcom.com) inscribed in fleeting electrons:
: I think you downplay the scientific advances of the Middle
: eastern Moslems a bit. A lot of data and methods were transported from
: them to Europe.
To be even more full and fair, there is a very big difference between the
depth of scientific understanding and the variety of technical adoptions
in economies. Up through a century ago, and even later, the mass economy
of the middle east was at no higher level than it was twenty centuries ago.
And eroding the fertility of land, trapped in cultural stagnation, and
miserable.
: They may have not been entirely scientific-rational, but
: the come close, as did the Helenistic Greeks.
No, they didn't. Just like the Greeks, Islamic culture's intellectual
pursuits were fundamentally uneconomic.
: When contrasting
: methodology with todays, they come closer to ours than the Greeks did.
: They also filtered alot of the better data from the Chinese.
Then why not include the Chinese in the category of "cultures that
almost cracked the productivity problem" ? There's a iron mining and
smelting complex in Northern China that put out a million tons of
processed iron a year in the late eleventh century - why didn't the
primitive blast furnaces at Tientsin move China into th machine age?
Hint - production for consumption, rather than production for investment.
Lack of primogeniture probably didn't help.
Dave G.
--
Such fragrance -
from where,
which tree?
David Bofinger
Erich Schneider wrote:
> [...] this is mentioned somewhere in _LotR_; Sauron has vast
> legions of human slave-farmers in Nurn, the south of Mordor, growing
> food for his orcish armies.
This could be argued to fit nicely with the Gondor = Byzantine Empire,
Orcs = Turks model of Lord of the Rings. If so, the orcs might not
do much farming of their own, an orcish economy in isolation might run
on herding. Depending on exactly which period Tolkien had in mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger
David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Yeh
: >the same level of technological and social development for *millenia*
: -- perfectly credible, given real history. With the exception of the medieval
: and post-medieval West, most of the planet has shown very, very slow
: technological innovation since the neolithic.
: Cycles of rise and fall within a fairly static economic-technological-social
: setting are more typical; a flicker of political and cultural change over an
: endless repetitious cycle of peasants and crops.
: "Eating from the field I plowed;
: Drinking from the well I dug;
: Living in the house I built --
: Emperors and wars, what are they to me?" -- as the poet put it.
I don't quite buy this. Most fantasy societies are well past the
hunter-gatherer/nomadic stage. Once a society as at a level
of agriculture and mutual defense to support a class of people
that no longer have to concern themselves with immediate day-to-day
survival, they can afford to spend time or resources on how to make
their lives better. At this point, the rate of technological
change should trend faster. By the time this society reaches the
point of towns that are more than overcrowded farming villages,
having a substantial merchant class driving trade to other towns
and cultures, the rate of change should start to change exponentially.
Of course, this assumes that this society *sometimes* lets
its free thinkers and their ideas alone. A conservative society that
values conformity might remain relatively static for centuries
(eg China or Japan before permanent contact with the West), but
even then, there is some progress in technology and knowledge,
albeit slowly.
It seems to me that most fantasy settings are at the towns and
trade level of development, but fail to explain convincingly
the social/cultural/external/fantastic forces keeping the society
in technological and scientific stasis. Especially those
superficially based on Medieval Western Europe.
: And only two cultures in the whole of human history have come anywhere close to
: a rationalist-scientific view of natural phenomena; Classical and Hellenistic
: Greece (near miss) and us (hit, but it could have been otherwise).
I don't think you need to have much of a Western rationalist-scientific
worldview in order to get technological progress. All that's
needed, IMHO, is an understanding of the cause-and-effect principal,
in order to achieve basic technologies. A caveman doesn't know why
striking two rocks together over some dry tinder will start a fire,
but he somehow figured out how to do it, and he knows the benefits
fire can bring. For all the caveman cares, it could be the tinder
is an offering to spirits embodied in the rock.
: Scientific and industrial revolutions are, IMHO, extremely low-probability
: accidents.
But notice that once the first revolution happens, subsequent revolutions
happen in shorter intervals. The main problem is getting that
first revolution: *agriculture*.
Also, after each revolution, the overall quality of life for a society
usually goes up, thus more people can spend more time achieving the
next low-probability "accident".
: -- S.M. Stirling
--
Bernard Yeh
by...@tsoft.com
JoatSimeon
Europe didn't give up the gun because, among other reasons, the structure of
competing states made it impossible. Japan wasn't seriously threatened from
outside at the time and the Tokugawa Shoguns had established internal peace; it
could afford a sub-optimal technology.
Anyone in Europe who tried that would have been eaten alive by the neighbors.
NB: in social terms, guns didn't threaten the monarchies of Europe; they made
the absolute monarchs of the 18th century possible. It was the _aristocracies_
that were displaced by the rise of armies of disciplined musketeers, uniformed
and paid by the kings.
Early firearms weren't terribly effective as _individual_ weapons; a mob of
individuals with muskets were easy meat for cavalry. Muskets were real killers
when employed by large numbers of trained, drilled troops, though.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
The technologies lost with the Fall of Rome were those requiring large-scale
organization -- big cities, waterworks, roads.
The ones that advanced were the ones which could be applied on a decentralized
scale -- stirrups, horse collars, the 3-field system, better plows, extensive
use of water power, and later positional arithmetic and double-entry
bookkeeping, and so forth.
If civilization were to break down now, we'd lose the technologies which
require large-scale organization and infrastructure. Unfortunately, that
includes almost everything developed since about 1830.
-- S.M. Stirling
Andrew C. Lannen
On 4 Mar 1998 01:19:02 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>The technologies lost with the Fall of Rome were those requiring large-scale
>organization -- big cities, waterworks, roads.
We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
decades, or even two years, ago.
--Andrew
--
Andrew C. Lannen and...@ix.netcom.com
"God cannot alter the past, that is why he is obliged to
connive at the existence of historians"--Samuel Butler
Andrew Plotkin
Andrew C. Lannen (and...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> On 4 Mar 1998 01:19:02 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
> >The technologies lost with the Fall of Rome were those requiring large-scale
> >organization -- big cities, waterworks, roads.
> We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
> well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
> roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
> decades, or even two years, ago.
I don't think it's a question of *recovering* technology. We could make
roads out of stone. (They used stone, right? I'm not embarrassing
myself?)
We choose not to, for various reasons, all of which are money.
This will now devolve into an argument over how much road repair costs per
year, versus the cost of paving the US highway system in granite. Oy.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Jonathan Evans
Jerome Bigge <jbi...@novagate.com> wrote:
>
>We have the same problem here in the "West" over cloning, over all
>sorts of work with human genetics.
You really don't think there are ethical issues regarding cloning and
genetic engineering that need to be resolved?
Read _Cyteen_ lately?
> Any major technological change
>will produce both "losers" as well as "winners"
Does this include medical care and advances in food supply?
>So you might have technologies that can be "done", but the cost is just
>too high for a democratic society to be willing to support them unless it
>is in "competition" with a non-democratic society doing the same thing.
>As the Russians seem to be pretty much "kaput", the US no longer has
>the incentive to put a lot of money into space any more.
Maybe you missed it, but communications satellites have become a major
industry, and any number of people are working on cutting
cost-to-orbit by a factor of 10.
Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
amount of attention.
Jon
Bob Goudreau
Andrew C. Lannen (and...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On 4 Mar 1998 01:19:02 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
: >The technologies lost with the Fall of Rome were those requiring large-scale
: >organization -- big cities, waterworks, roads.
: We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
: well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
: roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
: decades, or even two years, ago.
I'm not so sure that's a matter of "lost technology", but rather a
conscious cost/benefit tradeoff. You may argue about whether it's
the right tradeoff, but it's clear that modern paving technology
can produce pretty strong and smoothed paved surfaces (e.g., airport
runways) if you're willing to spend the money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <6djctp$1b1$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Jonathan Evans <jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
>> Any major technological change
>>will produce both "losers" as well as "winners"
>
>Does this include medical care and advances in food supply?
>
old way. Not all of them are going to do a good job of adapting
to a change.
What's more, if there's a big change in a society, the elites
are going to have a different status somehow. This will probably
annoy them.
You might not feel much sympathy for these groups (especially
the old elites), but they've definitely lost something.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
November '97 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Kate Nepveu
David Given (dg@) wrote:
: In article <34fb6...@news.tsoft.net>, Bernard Yeh <by...@tsoft.com> wrote:
: [...]
: >Most other fantasy (that I've read) seem to be in millenia-long tech
: >stasis: Tolkien, Feist, Eddings, Hobb, Martin. Brooks has token mention
: >of progess in his Shannara stuff, but note nothing has effectively changed
: >in the 600? years between the two series...
: The only fantasy series that I can think of off-hand that actually has
: some technological development in is, believe it or not, Terry Pratchett's
: Discworld books, particularly the later ones. There are always off-hand
: mentions of newfangled things like lucifer matches, clockwork watches
: (rather than ones with little daemons inside peddling furiously) and so
: on. They even invented gunpowder once.
Pratchett has said that he wanted to explore a society held artifically on
the brink of industrial revolution, where all the trolls and dwarves and
things didn't fade away but stuck around and demanded their share of the
economic pie.
He also thinks about city-building starting with the question (IIRC),
"Where does the water come from?"
I have no idea how realistic his city is, but I think it's a lot of fun.
--
Kate http://www.concentric.net/~knepveu/index.html
It doesn't matter whether you believe in a guy with a white beard or not.
What matters is what you do when the fucking Nazgul come.
--Sean Stewart, on religion
Kate Nepveu
Andrew Plotkin (erky...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Andrew C. Lannen (and...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
: > well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
: > roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
: > decades, or even two years, ago.
: I don't think it's a question of *recovering* technology. We could make
: roads out of stone. (They used stone, right? I'm not embarrassing
: myself?)
: We choose not to, for various reasons, all of which are money.
: This will now devolve into an argument over how much road repair costs per
: year, versus the cost of paving the US highway system in granite. Oy.
Ack. We don't want to do this, trust me--highway policy is one of the
most deadly issues known to humankind. Work in Congress during ISTEA
reauthorization and you'll find this out very quickly...
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, Julie Stampnitzky <jsta...@ymail.yu.edu>
wrote:
>Elizabeth Moon's _Surrender None: the Legacy of Gird_ is a marvelous book
>in which the peasants decide they've had enough and revolt agaist the
>noble overlords.
Who turn out not to be so noble ... though explaining what they did to
stay on top would be something of a spoiler.
Connecting to another recent thread, ISTR that Gird dies at the end of
the book.
-- Richard
------
A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
What is (and isn't) ScF? ==> http://www.wco.com/~treitel/sf.html
Mail from hotmail.com is ignored due to spamming.
I use PGP 2.6.2.
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, Bernard Yeh <by...@tsoft.com> wrote:
>A similar gripe that I have is fantasy worlds that have stayed at roughly
>the same level of technological and social development (eg feudal society/
>medieval tech) for *millenia*.
Like ancient Egypt.
> Seriously, how does innovation stop
>when steel weapons and plate armor becomes commonplace among the ruling
>clases? Although, conceivably, it is probably much easier to
>stop social progress, given strict control of communication among
>the lower classes, but what ruler wouldn't want to fund some level
>of R&D, in order to gain a technological edge over his rivals?
What rivals? (Geography made Egypt pretty safe against invasion.)
I grant that fantasy worlds usually contain wars, just to pep up the
plot, but if the war is against some non-human entity whose advantage
does not stem from (and cannot be countered by) any technology that the
humans can understand or even imagine, there may seem to be no advantage
in improved tech.
The pace of technological progress has varied widely over the history of
the Earth, but it never stopped *everywhere* because the whole Earth was
never united into one culture. I've seen plenty of fantasy worlds that
have effectively only one culture, and so could be ruled by one ruling
class with (internal fights but) the same basic assumptions about what
was useful and what wasn't; they might well all agree that technology
wasn't useful.
David Given
>Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
>can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
>amount of attention.
Maybe so, but there's a simple answer --- that $75 billion wouldn't go far
towards eliminating poverty, but invested in space would produce
considerably higher returns. What do you want --- to help some people now,
or to help more people later?
David Given
d...@freeyellow.com
Elizabeth Moon
Andrew C. Lannen wrote:
>
> On 4 Mar 1998 01:19:02 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
> >The technologies lost with the Fall of Rome were those requiring large-scale
> >organization -- big cities, waterworks, roads.
>
> well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
> roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
> decades, or even two years, ago.
>
> --
> Andrew C. Lannen and...@ix.netcom.com
> "God cannot alter the past, that is why he is obliged to
> connive at the existence of historians"--Samuel Butler
But are any of those Roman roads carrying the same kinds of traffic in
the same kind of climate? It is one thing to carry foot traffic and slow
wheeled vehicles (though the grooves worn in some Roman roads by their
wheeled traffic suggest that if it had continued, they'd be in pieces
now) and quite another to carry modern automobile/truck traffic.
Elizabeth
--
http://www.sff.net/people/Elizabeth.Moon
Jonathan Evans
David Given <dg@> wrote:
>>Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
>>can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
>>amount of attention.
>
>Maybe so, but there's a simple answer --- that $75 billion wouldn't go far
>towards eliminating poverty, but invested in space would produce
>considerably higher returns. What do you want --- to help some people now,
>or to help more people later?
I used that figure because the United Nations, according to the
Manchester Guardian a few weeks back, has estimated that it's the amount
needed to wipe abject poverty out planetwide.
Now, it's a dubious number, and I don't know what they mean by
"abject," but on the other hand, what exactly will investment in space
get you? I'm talking real, tangible benefits here, which have to be
weighed against children dying of eradicable diseases e.g. polio.
Jon
Jo Walton
In article <2E_K.40$U75.1...@ptah.visi.com>
dsg...@visi.com "Dan Goodman" writes:
> Then _why_ didn't it? Why didn't the Eastern Roman Empire advance beyond
> the barbarians of Western Europe?
>
> It seems to me that the evidence shows that a surviving Western Roman
> Empire would have retarded progress.
I agree in general, but there were areas in which Byzantium was ahead.
In 1204 the Franks were amazed by the mechanical lions that beat their
tails and roared, birds that sang and throne that moved up and down.
This was way ahead of Western Europe.
Also note that the Eastern Empire got those horse collars and windmills
and better plows too - didn't develop them but started using them right
away, as surviving fragments of the Western Empire could have.
See Villehardouin's account of the Fourth Crusade for the description
of those mechanical things. Also note that some theories of the
Renaissance have it started by the books brought out into Italy at
the Fall of Constantinople.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
Bill McHale
Jonathan Evans (jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com) wrote:
Well I suspect that the UN is refering to for want of a better term could
be termed absolute poverty, i.e. people who are so poor that they have no
real prospect of meeting their minimum requirements for food and shelter.
This is someting that most people in the first world rarely experience,
for with the exception of the homeless (many of whom are on the streets
for reasons other than just poverty), even the poor are rather wealthy by
third world standards (they have a place to stay, eat at least one meal a
day, might even have tv, car, and other luxuries).
As for what the returns are from investment in space? Well just consider
that an extremely large percentage of of the wealth generated on this
planet in the last 30 years can be directly attributed to the results of
Space Exploration. The Telecommunications satellite, the modern
micro-processor based computer, industrial robots, light weight, low cost
construction material all were developed as a result of space research.
Further the possibilities of orbital factories being able to manufacture
materials and drugs which cannot be synthesized on Earth are very real.
Sure none of these things will directly stack up to the fact that their
are still children dying of hunger and diseases which we can treat. On
the other hand, it might create the surplus wealth necessary to end those
very things.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
The main problem with my job is that they expect me to actually work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Jo Walton
In article <34FDB3...@sff.net>
elizabe...@sff.net "Elizabeth Moon" writes:
> But are any of those Roman roads carrying the same kinds of traffic in
> the same kind of climate? It is one thing to carry foot traffic and slow
> wheeled vehicles (though the grooves worn in some Roman roads by their
> wheeled traffic suggest that if it had continued, they'd be in pieces
> now) and quite another to carry modern automobile/truck traffic.
Bits of them have been re-surfaced slightly and are part of the European
motorway network, including at least one bridge built in the time of
Claudius.
That was a _good_ road network.
If you're ever in Britain and you notice you're on a straight road it's
a pretty good assumption that it's a Roman road. Everyone else who's
ever invaded this island has gone in for curved roads, even now. (This
had the oddest effect on me in Canada, where all the roads are straight,
and, get this, meet at right angles. Wow.) Part of the A1 is a Roman
Road, and almost all of the A5 (which runs from Marble Arch in London
all the way to Holyhead on Mona/Ynys Mon/Anglesey) is Roman.
I don't know what you mean by "the same kind of climate" but there are
Roman roads in use today in Spain, France and Italy (which are warm in
summer) and Britain (which is damp all year with frosts in winter). There
aren't any in use in continental NorAm, regrettably, or we could make a
fair comparison.
K. Laisathit
In article <6dhpe3$d...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
David Joseph Greenbaum <dj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>Then why not include the Chinese in the category of "cultures that
>almost cracked the productivity problem" ? There's a iron mining and
>smelting complex in Northern China that put out a million tons of
>processed iron a year in the late eleventh century - why didn't the
>primitive blast furnaces at Tientsin move China into th machine age?
>
>Hint - production for consumption, rather than production for investment.
>Lack of primogeniture probably didn't help.
Why? I have often wondered that myself. Apparently, bits and pieces
of advance technologies (for their time, that is) were scattered
in China throughout the centuries. Yet, the Chinese never managed
to put these innovations together and built a technological
empire before they were beaten by the late-comer Europeans.
Quite frankly, if you want to make a case for production for
consumption being bad, and production for investment being
good. Then, you have to also argue, why this is so?
Even if production for consumption is strictly 'inferior' to
production for investment, shouldn't the desire for ever
expanding consumption compels people who would otherwise
prefer to consume to invest instead? Look at the US as a
case in point. An epitome of consumerism, yet you can't
fault the US for not making sufficient investments.
Later...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
K I R A T I L A I S A T H I T kir...@u.washington.edu
K. Laisathit
In article <6djoe7$c...@dg-rtp.dg.com>,
Bob Goudreau <goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com> wrote:
>
>: We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
>: well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
>: roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
>: decades, or even two years, ago.
>
>conscious cost/benefit tradeoff. You may argue about whether it's
>the right tradeoff, but it's clear that modern paving technology
>can produce pretty strong and smoothed paved surfaces (e.g., airport
>runways) if you're willing to spend the money.
Not even that. I doubt that Roman roads had to contend with
25-ton trucks running over them every 15 seconds or so. Then,
there is the weather. Freezing water under the road surface
does wonder if you're into a road repair business. ;-)
Then, there is the issue of riding comfort VS resistance to
wear. Asphalt provides for a relatively smooth ride, I bet
you that a stone road doesn't come close in this category.
The draw back? Asphalt surface is only good for a couple
of years.
Arthur Green
Andrew C. Lannen wrote:
>
> On 4 Mar 1998 01:19:02 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
> >The technologies lost with the Fall of Rome were those requiring large-scale
> >organization -- big cities, waterworks, roads.
>
> well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
> roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
> decades, or even two years, ago.
>
Roman roads (a) in many cases have been somewhat buried for several
hundred years and (b) never had to sustain the axle loads which modern
roads have to carry (axle load is a good measure of how much damage a
vehicle will do to a road). In this country at least, semi-trailer
vehicles (known locally as artics or lurries) are carrying 40+ tons on 5
or 6 axles. I don't think Roman carts and chariots managed to do that.
Better examples of durable Roman remains are large structures like
aqueducts and amphitheatres. There's a lot to be said for using masonry
in a building which you want to keep standing ...
> --Andrew
> --
> Andrew C. Lannen and...@ix.netcom.com
> "God cannot alter the past, that is why he is obliged to
> connive at the existence of historians"--Samuel Butler
--
- Arthur Green
IONA Technologies Tel: +353 1 662 5255 Fax: +353 1 662 5244
E-mail: agr...@iona.com
Graydon
>>We have the same problem here in the "West" over cloning, over all
>>sorts of work with human genetics.
>
>You really don't think there are ethical issues regarding cloning and
>genetic engineering that need to be resolved?
>
>Read _Cyteen_ lately?
Well, in the last year.
_Cyteen_ is interesting becuase a technology - tape - quite distinct from
cloning.
>> Any major technological change
>>will produce both "losers" as well as "winners"
>
>Does this include medical care and advances in food supply?
Yes.
Take a look at the 'plight of the small farmer' and what happened to
Samelweiss. (sp?)
>Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
>can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
>amount of attention.
Poverty isn't a thing.
Next question?
--
goo...@interlog.com | "However many ways there may be of being alive, it
--> mail to Graydon | is certain that there are vastly more ways of being
dead." - Richard Dawkins, :The Blind Watchmaker:
RobXXVIII
In article <6djsg6$i...@examiner.concentric.net>, Kne...@cris.com (Kate Nepveu)
writes:
>
>Pratchett has said that he wanted to explore a society held artifically on
>the brink of industrial revolution, where all the trolls and dwarves and
>things didn't fade away but stuck around and demanded their share of the
>economic pie.
>
>
He has said they know how to build printing presses, but
the wizards stop it, for sound magical reasons. The
wizards also suppressed film, and in combination with the
patrician probably anything else too dangerous.
Robert
Graydon
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Andrew C. Lannen (and...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> On 4 Mar 1998 01:19:02 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
>> >The technologies lost with the Fall of Rome were those requiring large-scale
>> >organization -- big cities, waterworks, roads.
>
>> We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
>> well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
>> roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
>> decades, or even two years, ago.
>
>roads out of stone. (They used stone, right? I'm not embarrassing
>myself?)
They used a stone wearing surface; the whole thing is what you might call
thick, and is dug down far enough not to heave.
We make better roads by any measure I can think of; roman roads with
anything like a modern divided highway's load crumble.
>We choose not to, for various reasons, all of which are money.
Well, not all money; think of traction on sawn granite cobbles, and the
vibration.
Charles Meigh
Sorry Dan, my server has missed your post, so please forgive me replying
'through' Jo's reply.
It may be that a surviving Western Empire would have carried on the
decline found in the history of the Eastern Empire. My point is that
as the Empire destabilises and fragments in to parts, (the mere fact
that the Empire split into two power blocs show that they were both in
decline) it loses the 'critical mass' of economic stability that would
have allowed sufficient technological innovation. That could have in
turn allowed the Empire to consolidate, expand and continue it's growth
technologically and imperially.
To give an example, suppose that all international trade suddenly stops
across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans tomorrow. The entire world
economy would nosedive into an almost irreversible decline. In some
areas of the world the level of technology would stop growing and may
even decline.
>
> In article <2E_K.40$U75.1...@ptah.visi.com>
> dsg...@visi.com "Dan Goodman" writes:
>
> > Then _why_ didn't it? Why didn't the Eastern Roman Empire advance beyond
> > the barbarians of Western Europe?
> >
> > It seems to me that the evidence shows that a surviving Western Roman
> > Empire would have retarded progress.
--
Charlie Meigh - charle...@diamond.co.uk
"It was 97 degrees in the city and no hope of improvement. Not bad if
you're a lizard. But two hours earlier I was drinking Acquavit with an
Eskimo lady in North East Alaska. That's a tough change to make. It
was so good, I didn't want to leave, so I left a day early."
Julie Stampnitzky
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Andrew C. Lannen wrote:
>
> We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
> well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
> roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
> decades, or even two years, ago.
How much traffic is there on the Roman roads, compared to a highway?
--
Julie Stampnitzky Keeper, http://neskaya.darkover.org
Dan Goodman
In article <34FDD42B...@diamond.co.uk>,
Charles Meigh <charle...@diamond.co.uk> wrote:
>Sorry Dan, my server has missed your post, so please forgive me replying
>'through' Jo's reply.
>
>It may be that a surviving Western Empire would have carried on the
>decline found in the history of the Eastern Empire.
_What_ decline in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire? It was pushed
into a corner eventually, and then conquered. But to the best of my
knowledge, while it was in relatively good health, it did _not_ decline
technologically. It even advanced a bit. But it did not advance nearly
as much as the northwest of Europe.
My point is that
>as the Empire destabilises and fragments in to parts, (the mere fact
>that the Empire split into two power blocs show that they were both in
>decline) it loses the 'critical mass' of economic stability that would
>have allowed sufficient technological innovation. That could have in
>turn allowed the Empire to consolidate, expand and continue it's growth
>technologically and imperially.
And my point was: In real history, technology advanced much more after
the Western Roman Empire fell.
S.M. Stirling has pointed out that it was only technologies which could be
applied on a decentralized basis which advanced after the fall of Rome.
That the technologies such as roadbuilding which required central planning
and direction were lost.
>To give an example, suppose that all international trade suddenly stops
>across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans tomorrow. The entire world
>economy would nosedive into an almost irreversible decline. In some
>areas of the world the level of technology would stop growing and may
>even decline.
Southern Italy went into a decline after the fall of Rome. But it's
technologically far ahead of where it was under the Roman Empire. Why?
Mostly because of technology introduced from north of Italy: technology
refined in the northwest of Europe, introduced from elsewhere into that
part of Europe (a lot of it from China, I believe) and re-transmitted, or
invented there.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:31:28 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
wrote:
> L.W.
>Evans mentions technologists in his later Ethshar books. It'd be scary
>to imagine a world where magic and tech progressed in synch and were used
>in tandem (not like Anthony's _Incarnations Of Immortalty_, where it's an
>either/or proposition, you use magic OR tech).
Oh, Ethshar's even more complicated than it looks, but in fact it's
entirely possible to use magic and technology together there.
You'll note that the mention of technologists is (I think; correct me
if I've misremembered) referring to them as a type of magician -- it's
normal Ethsharitic thinking to use the term "magic" to mean "anything
that does something where an uninformed observer doesn't immediately
understand how it works." Herbalists are considered magicians, too.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 2/12/98
David Joseph Greenbaum
In a fit of divine composition, K. Laisathit (kir...@u.washington.edu)
inscribed in fleeting electrons:
: Why? I have often wondered that myself. Apparently, bits and pieces
: of advance technologies (for their time, that is) were scattered
: in China throughout the centuries. Yet, the Chinese never managed
: to put these innovations together and built a technological
: empire before they were beaten by the late-comer Europeans.
The Chinese *did* have a technological empire. The superior equippage
and training of the Imperial Army allowed the Q'ing to keep competitors down.
What the Chinese didn't have was a reasonable way of accumulating and
investing trade surpluses over generations. Primogeniture would have
been one good way - but any inheritance accumulated by one generation was
divided amongst all the sons, reducing wealthy families to penury in a
few generations. This vitiated the capital base. In addition, merchants
were reviled, they were lower on the totem pole than anybody except the
landless sharecropper. And, finally, the way to economic security was in
the bureaucracy, which, since it was ostensibly meritocratic, but in
essence profoundly conservative, suppressed the attempts to liberalize
education and trade law.
China was and is enormously wealthy in absolute size. Think about it - a
nation that was barely entering the Second Industrial Revolution in 1949
built an atomic bomb in 1964. What it didn't have, however, was a means
prior to the Nationalist reforms of insuring investment got made - and
stayed made. Up to and including internal guarantees for security.
: Quite frankly, if you want to make a case for production for
: consumption being bad, and production for investment being
: good. Then, you have to also argue, why this is so?
Whatever surpluses were produced got swiftly eroded by distribution and
population growth. Production for consumption isn't bad (hell, it's the
way we live!), but what is bad is insufficient investment for growth.
Look at China now compared to thirty years ago. Less land is under the
plow, but they are *exporting* grain. Fewer people are working the land,
but more is produced. The surpluses needed to put in the flood controls
and drainage and use fertilizer and sell produce at city prices rather
than to oppressive landlords and send all children to *school* - these
are the things investment made possible. Without it, the lending
societies extract their pound of flesh at New Year for the holiday
dumplings, and the rest of year people starve or eat sandy millet,
*because there isn't anything else to do*.
: Even if production for consumption is strictly 'inferior' to
: production for investment, shouldn't the desire for ever
: expanding consumption compels people who would otherwise
: prefer to consume to invest instead? Look at the US as a
: case in point.
Sure, but it is a new thing in the world that law protects producers from
expropriation, and prevents widespread despoilation and takings. It is
also a new thing to realize that savings means greater possible future
gains. (New, as in the last five hundred years). The USA is an
experiment about proving the decreasing marginal gains theory false. Of
course, it isn't over yet.
: An epitome of consumerism, yet you can't
: fault the US for not making sufficient investments.
OH YES YOU CAN. Point: Public education. Point: Public investment in
utility infrastructure.
Dave G.
--
Such fragrance -
from where,
which tree?
Ian
and...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>On 4 Mar 1998 01:19:02 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
>>The technologies lost with the Fall of Rome were those requiring large-scale
>>organization -- big cities, waterworks, roads.
>
> We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
>well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
>roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
>decades, or even two years, ago.
That has nothing to do with recovering the road technology - building
Roman-style roads would not be hard, just more expensive, and they're
much rougher than a well-maintained highway.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <889038...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>If you're ever in Britain and you notice you're on a straight road it's
>a pretty good assumption that it's a Roman road. Everyone else who's
>ever invaded this island has gone in for curved roads, even now. (This
>had the oddest effect on me in Canada, where all the roads are straight,
>and, get this, meet at right angles. Wow.) Part of the A1 is a Roman
>Road, and almost all of the A5 (which runs from Marble Arch in London
>all the way to Holyhead on Mona/Ynys Mon/Anglesey) is Roman.
>
>I don't know what you mean by "the same kind of climate" but there are
>Roman roads in use today in Spain, France and Italy (which are warm in
>summer) and Britain (which is damp all year with frosts in winter). There
>aren't any in use in continental NorAm, regrettably, or we could make a
>fair comparison.
>
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <6djsr9$i...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Kate Nepveu <Kne...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>: This will now devolve into an argument over how much road repair costs per
>: year, versus the cost of paving the US highway system in granite. Oy.
>
>Ack. We don't want to do this, trust me--highway policy is one of the
>most deadly issues known to humankind. Work in Congress during ISTEA
>reauthorization and you'll find this out very quickly...
>
JoatSimeon
The Romans overbuilt everything (one reason being contractors got paid in
installments, one of which was triggered if the work was still there in 40
years).
The other reason -- the one we've still got so many Roman ruins -- was that
their engineering was all rule-of-thumb. When in doubt, add more bulk --
particularly of mass concrete, which they invented.
-- S.M. Stirling
Jonathan Evans
Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>You really don't think there are ethical issues regarding cloning and
>>genetic engineering that need to be resolved?
>
>_Cyteen_ is interesting becuase a technology - tape - quite distinct from
>cloning.
ISTR that there was both genegineering and tape involved.
>>> Any major technological change
>>>will produce both "losers" as well as "winners"
>>
>>Does this include medical care and advances in food supply?
>
>Yes.
>
>Take a look at the 'plight of the small farmer' and what happened to
>Samelweiss. (sp?)
Fair enough.
>>Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
>>can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
>>amount of attention.
>
>Poverty isn't a thing.
You know, Graydon, your quest for precision is admirable, but it _is_
irritating, this way that discussions with you tend to hit the swamp
of semantics and stick there.
>Next question?
Why should space exploration be prioritized?
Jon
Kate Nepveu
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net) wrote:
: In article <6djsr9$i...@examiner.concentric.net>,
: Kate Nepveu <Kne...@cris.com> wrote:
: >Ack. We don't want to do this, trust me--highway policy is one of the
: >most deadly issues known to humankind. Work in Congress during ISTEA
: >reauthorization and you'll find this out very quickly...
: Deadly boring or extremely controversial?
Both.
David Given
In article <6dk3b6$cn$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Jonathan Evans <jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
[...]
>I used that figure because the United Nations, according to the
>Manchester Guardian a few weeks back, has estimated that it's the amount
>needed to wipe abject poverty out planetwide.
Did they say whether it would stay wiped out?
>Now, it's a dubious number, and I don't know what they mean by
>"abject," but on the other hand, what exactly will investment in space
>get you? I'm talking real, tangible benefits here, which have to be
>weighed against children dying of eradicable diseases e.g. polio.
To pick an example of the shelf (the real fanatics could go on for days
about this): move a near-Earth nickel-iron asteroid into Earth orbit.
Refine it in orbit and then drop it down by disposable spaceplane where
it's needed. Once the initial investment (large, I admit) is paid off, you
can supply large quantities of a whole range of metals, including some
rare ones, for peanuts. There are also ancillary benefits in not having to
mine and refine it on the ground; you're not paying surface transport
costs or ecological penalties, for example. You have more money and energy
available to put towards, for example, putting polio inside glass jars
which is (IMO) where it belongs.
David Given
d...@freeyellow.com
David Joseph Greenbaum
In a fit of divine composition, JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) inscribed in fleeting electrons:
: The Romans overbuilt everything (one reason being contractors got paid in
: installments, one of which was triggered if the work was still there in 40
: years).
Richtig.
Of course, the amount of energy expended on those roads was amazing - for
the 85,000 miles of Roman trunk roads, using conservative estimates of
individual work, over 1.2 billion works days were needed, moving 800
million cubic meters of earth and replacing it with 425 million cubic
meters of sand and stone.
If one guesses that repair and maintenance tripled this requirement,
then, well, the Romans required six million labor days per year to upkeep
the network, at a cost of five terajoules per annum. (Smil, Vaclav.
Energy in World History)
Eugenia
tre...@wco.com (Beth and Richard Treitel) wrote:
>To my surprise and delight, Bernard Yeh <by...@tsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>A similar gripe that I have is fantasy worlds that have stayed at roughly
>>the same level of technological and social development (eg feudal society/
>>medieval tech) for *millenia*.
>
>Like ancient Egypt.
Er...that's kind of like saying Britain hasn't changed in
in the last millennium because they have a list of monarchs
(and Cromwell) going back that far.
Ancient Egypt had it share of civil wars, social upheavals,
invaders, technological innovations, economic cycles, etc.
Jonathan Evans
David Given <dg@> wrote:
>In article <6dk3b6$cn$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
>Jonathan Evans <jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>I used that figure because the United Nations, according to the
>>Manchester Guardian a few weeks back, has estimated that it's the amount
>>needed to wipe abject poverty out planetwide.
>
>Did they say whether it would stay wiped out?
That was the impression I got, which means little.
>
>To pick an example of the shelf (the real fanatics could go on for days
>about this): move a near-Earth nickel-iron asteroid into Earth orbit.
>Refine it in orbit and then drop it down by disposable spaceplane where
>it's needed. Once the initial investment (large, I admit) is paid off, you
>can supply large quantities of a whole range of metals, including some
>rare ones, for peanuts. There are also ancillary benefits in not having to
>mine and refine it on the ground; you're not paying surface transport
>costs or ecological penalties, for example. You have more money and energy
>available to put towards, for example, putting polio inside glass jars
>which is (IMO) where it belongs.
Sure. Fine.
But is this really the best way to spend the money? You're paying a
hefty marginal cost by _not_ spending the tens of billions of dollars
on other stuff, after all.
Heck, even if space exploration is your long-term goal, might it not
be wiser to spend money on education and communications and
infrastructure so you get a larger and wealthier pool of people to
work on space exploration in the _next_ generation, getting you there
faster and to a greater extent than you would if you channeled all
your scarce resources into it right away?
(I disclaim all grammatical responsibility for the above sentence.)
Jon
David Given
In article <19980304213...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
RobXXVIII <robx...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>He has said they know how to build printing presses, but
>the wizards stop it, for sound magical reasons. The
>wizards also suppressed film, and in combination with the
>patrician probably anything else too dangerous.
It's movable type the wizards don't like --- knowing the Discworld, for
good reason; print a few thousand books about Godzilla and they'd probably
rise up and start rampaging across the city (Law of Similarity).
As for film, I don't think it's going to need much suppressing considering
how occultly powerful and explosive it is. Note that unmagical lanterns
are still used.
David Given
d...@freeyellow.com
PMccutc103
and...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
> We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
>well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
>roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
>decades, or even two years, ago.
>
>
Do those old roads have traffic from sixteen-wheelers on them?
_Our_ interstate highways would pretty much brand new, if it weren't for the
trucks.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
Cambias
In article <6dk3b6$cn$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com
(Jonathan Evans) wrote:
> David Given <dg@> wrote:
> >>Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
> >>can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
> >>amount of attention.
> >
> >Maybe so, but there's a simple answer --- that $75 billion wouldn't go far
> >towards eliminating poverty, but invested in space would produce
> >considerably higher returns. What do you want --- to help some people now,
> >or to help more people later?
>
> I used that figure because the United Nations, according to the
> Manchester Guardian a few weeks back, has estimated that it's the amount
> needed to wipe abject poverty out planetwide.
>
> Now, it's a dubious number, and I don't know what they mean by
> "abject," but on the other hand, what exactly will investment in space
> get you? I'm talking real, tangible benefits here, which have to be
> weighed against children dying of eradicable diseases e.g. polio.
>
I'm always amazed that people oppose "spending money on outer space
instead of on Earth" -- as if we're loading big bales of money onto the
Shuttle and dumping it into the Sun or something. Money spent on space
exploration is spent here on Earth, and it goes to contractors who plow it
back into the economy. It prevents poverty by putting people to work.
Also, it's not as if we haven't tried throwing money at poverty to make it
go away. The Great Society programs started by Johnson have continued in
various forms -- almost untouched by the "massive cuts" of the Reagan
administration, I might add -- and as one can see they've completely
elimitated poverty, homelessness and crime. Since we licked those
problems so effectively in the US, obviously the same approach will work
in the Third World.
Space exploration is part of the ongoing enterprise of basic science
research. The benefits of basic research are by definition unknown until
you find them. But past experience has shown they can be considerable.
How many poor people were benefitted by "wasting" money on looking through
microscopes at animals too small to see, or by fooling around with
studying DNA, or with crackbrained attempts to understand the weather, or
all the other lunatic projects that make up science?
You want some simple answers? Two words: weather sattelites. Compare
the death tolls in Bangladesh from typhoons before the development of
weather sats with the death tolls after. Literally millions of people are
alive today because of them.
Cambias
David Given
In article <6dmlvg$i33$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
>be wiser to spend money on education and communications and
>infrastructure so you get a larger and wealthier pool of people to
>work on space exploration in the _next_ generation, getting you there
>faster and to a greater extent than you would if you channeled all
>your scarce resources into it right away?
Yes, but this does run the risk of spending all your time preparing and
never actually doing anything, which is, frankly, boring. (Okay, I admit
it; I do have other reasons for getting off the planet.)
You could write a story about first contact with a race who's spent the
past five millenia getting ready for an expansion into space. After their
surprise that someone's beaten them to it, they actually start; the humans
are rather bemused to discover that within a year this apparently
planet-bound race has taken over the galaxy.
David Given
d...@freeyellow.com
John Moreno
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper) wrote:
>
> >L.W. Evans mentions technologists in his later Ethshar books. It'd be
> >scary to imagine a world where magic and tech progressed in synch and
> >were used in tandem (not like Anthony's _Incarnations Of Immortalty_,
> >where it's an either/or proposition, you use magic OR tech).
>
> Oh, Ethshar's even more complicated than it looks, but in fact it's
> entirely possible to use magic and technology together there.
>
> You'll note that the mention of technologists is (I think; correct me
> if I've misremembered) referring to them as a type of magician -- it's
> normal Ethsharitic thinking to use the term "magic" to mean "anything
> that does something where an uninformed observer doesn't immediately
> understand how it works." Herbalists are considered magicians, too.
Well, since you are answering questions (somewhat) about Ethshar - in
the _Black Dagger_ you had a line that could have been a throwaway or a
simple mistake, Tobias says that K. spun a coin when they entered the
city and it hadn't slowed down or stopped. This means that it (the
coin) was detecting her WHILE she was in the dead zone. Is this a clue
that he's going to figure out a way to get rid of them?
--
John Moreno
I am trying to convince the author of YA-NewsWatcher that the latest
version should be released to the public. He doesn't think there's much
interest in a new version. Help me prove him wrong. To do so, send me
mail <mailto:phe...@interpath.com> with a Subject of New YA. Comments
on what you like/dislike in the current version will be appreciated.
James C. Ellis
Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Heck, even if space exploration is your long-term goal, might it not
> be wiser to spend money on education and communications and
> infrastructure so you get a larger and wealthier pool of people to
> work on space exploration in the _next_ generation, getting you there
> faster and to a greater extent than you would if you channeled all
> your scarce resources into it right away?
What resources are you talking about?
If you are concerned with the human element, resources are plentiful
right now (and if space exploration ceased for a generation, we would
lose all the experience that the space program currently has).
If you are concerned with the technology and infrastructure, then the
development of these resources are going to be driven by the _need_ for
it to develop - which only occurs in a field where the
technology/infrastructure is actually tested and used.
If you are concerned with _physical_ resources, then they aren't going
to become any less scarce in the near future, what with a booming growth
in population combined with ever-more-difficult-to-obtain raw
materials. That is, they aren't going to become any less scarce until a
"new frontier" of raw materials is opened up.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Deitch
On 4 Mar 1998 09:34:30 -0800, jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com (Jonathan
Evans) wrote:
>David Given <dg@> wrote:
>>>Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
>>>can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
>>>amount of attention.
>>
>>Maybe so, but there's a simple answer --- that $75 billion wouldn't go far
>>towards eliminating poverty, but invested in space would produce
>>considerably higher returns. What do you want --- to help some people now,
>>or to help more people later?
>
>I used that figure because the United Nations, according to the
>Manchester Guardian a few weeks back, has estimated that it's the amount
>needed to wipe abject poverty out planetwide.
>
>Now, it's a dubious number, and I don't know what they mean by
>"abject," but on the other hand, what exactly will investment in space
>get you? I'm talking real, tangible benefits here, which have to be
>weighed against children dying of eradicable diseases e.g. polio.
>
>Jon
>
$75 Billion? To WIPE OUT poverty WORLD WIDE?
If that's true, I say spend it! Its a prety small fraction of the
Gross Global Product. I would like very much to know hiow that dough
would be invested to wipe out poverty.
I'm not sure the world economy is designed to function without any
underclass. It begs the question, do we WANT to wipe out poverty?
P.D. TILLMAN
>>Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
>>can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
>>amount of attention.
>
>Maybe so, but there's a simple answer --- that $75 billion wouldn't go far
>towards eliminating poverty, but invested in space would produce
>considerably higher returns. What do you want --- to help some people now,
>or to help more people later?
I used that figure because the United Nations, according to the
Manchester Guardian a few weeks back, has estimated that it's the amount
needed to wipe abject poverty out planetwide.
============ end quote ============
Unfortunately, one could drop $75 billion into a single kleptocracy
and make little difference in the poor folks' lives there.
SFAI can tell, present-day poverty is due solely to political
and social problems - which aren't generally soluble by pouring $$$
at random.
It would be helpful to invest a few millions in a review of
past foreign-aid programs, to see which ones have had a long-term
positive effect.
Cheers -- Pete
--
Dave Griffith
SpahmtrapCambias (cambias@heliograph..com) wrote:
:
: I'm always amazed that people oppose "spending money on outer space
: instead of on Earth" -- as if we're loading big bales of money onto the
: Shuttle and dumping it into the Sun or something. Money spent on space
: exploration is spent here on Earth, and it goes to contractors who plow it
: back into the economy. It prevents poverty by putting people to work.
What is lost is not the money, it's the productive efforts of the contractors
and engineers which could have been used for other, better, purposes. These
are lost irrevocably. We'd actually be much better off if we were simply
sending bales of cash into the Sun, rather then wasting valuable trained
labor-years. Given the seemingly eternal drought of trained engineers
and technical support staff, it seems safe to say that anyone currently
so employed in space projects isn't doing so simply as make-work to stay
off the dole.
: Also, it's not as if we haven't tried throwing money at poverty to make it
: go away. The Great Society programs started by Johnson have continued in
: various forms -- almost untouched by the "massive cuts" of the Reagan
: administration, I might add -- and as one can see they've completely
: elimitated poverty, homelessness and crime. Since we licked those
: problems so effectively in the US, obviously the same approach will work
: in the Third World.
Agreed. Of course, it isn't adequate to identify other programs as
ratholes to justify support for your own. Unless you are saying that
all government programs are wasteful (arguable if a tad extreme), so
why not just pick the flashiest one.
: Space exploration is part of the ongoing enterprise of basic science
: research.
This implies a coherence to the practice of science that is not to
be found in reality. By and large most science is completely unaffected
by the level of funding of space exploration, except negatively as dollars
directed toward space are directed away from other scientific exploits.
This unfortunately reality is part of what killed the SSC, and could
easily lead to the axing of Space Station Freedom if foreign policy winds
ever blow correctly.
:The benefits of basic research are by definition unknown until
: you find them. But past experience has shown they can be considerable.
: How many poor people were benefitted by "wasting" money on looking through
: microscopes at animals too small to see, or by fooling around with
: studying DNA, or with crackbrained attempts to understand the weather, or
: all the other lunatic projects that make up science?
Granted. So what, then, is the appropriate amount of public funding for it?
What is the appropriate amount of funding for space exploration as opposed
to some other forms of basic research? Applied research? With the possible
exception of 'more, always more', your statement provides no guidance in these
questions. These are precisely the questions that need to be answered.
Failure to come up with adequate answers to them is precisely the cause
of the weak popular support for pretty much any activities beyond
geosynchronous orbit.
Ever since governments have had science policies, funding amounts have
been chosen not with an eye to potential payoff, but rather to simply
maintain an adequate base of scientifically and technically trained minds
in the population. The actual fields of scientific endeavor supported
have been chosen on purely political grounds. Paradoxically enough, this
makes a bit of sense. Since, as you've conceded, it's impossible to
determine just which fields of going to end up aiding human development,
why not pick amongst them based on other grounds? Once the military
and diplomatic aspects of space exploration became (for the nonce) moot,
political support for it went away. The public just doesn't care,
and it's tough to see why they are wrong not to.
: You want some simple answers? Two words: weather sattelites. Compare
: the death tolls in Bangladesh from typhoons before the development of
: weather sats with the death tolls after. Literally millions of people are
: alive today because of them.
A bit inflated, but substantially true. Body-count morality, however, is a
piss-poor way to justify nearly _any_ spending procedure. The best public
investment today as measured in lives-saved-per-dollars-spent comes in at
$.60 per life (rehydration therapy salts for diarrhea in Third World
children), and it's not adequately funded today. Unless you can come up
with a whole lotta potential stiffs who were saved from annihilation by
the Mercury program, you're gonna come up short by this measure.
--
--Dave Griffith, grif...@crl.com
Official Sycophancy Page: http://www.seattleu.edu/~escharf/griffith/
Jerry Bryson
Andrew C. Lannen <and...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
> well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
> roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
> decades, or even two years, ago.
It wasn't technology, it was slavery. Trench to bedrock. Build up from
bolders at the bottom, using progresively smaller stones, down to paving
stones. Labor intensive and not so good for high-speed, rubber-wheeled
vehicles.
--
Failure doesn't mean you can't;
It just means you haven't
Charles Meigh
Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>
> _What_ decline in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire? It was pushed
> into a corner eventually, and then conquered.
That fulfils my definition of a decline.
But to the best of my
> knowledge, while it was in relatively good health, it did _not_ decline
> technologically. It even advanced a bit. But it did not advance nearly
> as much as the northwest of Europe.
My whole conjecture is just that, an opinion based on insufficient
evidence, a guess based on what is thought probable. Had northwest
Europe and the Eastern Roman Empire been bound into a cohesive, stable
imperial economy, might it have progressed technologically, even beyond
what northwest Europe, southern Italy, the Eastern Roman Empire, or any
other more localised area would have achieved on it's own? Thereby
radically altering modern history (and pre-modern history for that
matter, in fact the historical definition of modern as well).
>
> And my point was: In real history, technology advanced much more after
> the Western Roman Empire fell.
>
It seems to me we are comparing history (your posts) with opinion (my
what-ifs).
> S.M. Stirling has pointed out that it was only technologies which could be
> applied on a decentralized basis which advanced after the fall of Rome.
> That the technologies such as roadbuilding which required central planning
> and direction were lost.
Interesting point
> Southern Italy went into a decline after the fall of Rome. But it's
> technologically far ahead of where it was under the Roman Empire. Why?
> Mostly because of technology introduced from north of Italy: technology
> refined in the northwest of Europe, introduced from elsewhere into that
> part of Europe (a lot of it from China, I believe) and re-transmitted, or
> invented there.
So the communication of ideas across cultures, great distances and
language barriers tends to accelerate the rate of technological
innovation; is that what you are saying here? If so it would lend
credence to my opinion.
> --
> Dan Goodman
> dsg...@visi.com
> http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
> Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
--
Dan Goodman
In article <34FF0D75...@diamond.co.uk>,
Charles Meigh <charle...@diamond.co.uk> wrote:
>Dan Goodman wrote:
>>
>> _What_ decline in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire? It was pushed
>> into a corner eventually, and then conquered.
>
>That fulfils my definition of a decline.
>
> But to the best of my
>> knowledge, while it was in relatively good health, it did _not_ decline
>> technologically. It even advanced a bit. But it did not advance nearly
>> as much as the northwest of Europe.
>
>My whole conjecture is just that, an opinion based on insufficient
>evidence, a guess based on what is thought probable. Had northwest
>Europe and the Eastern Roman Empire been bound into a cohesive, stable
>imperial economy, might it have progressed technologically, even beyond
>what northwest Europe, southern Italy, the Eastern Roman Empire, or any
>other more localised area would have achieved on it's own? Thereby
>radically altering modern history (and pre-modern history for that
>matter, in fact the historical definition of modern as well).
Since it doesn't violate the known laws of physics, it's _possible_. Just
as it's _possible_ that if the Axis had won WW II, Hitler would have
become a philo-semite. But I don't consider it likely.
If the Western Roman Empire's rate of technological change was slower than
the same area's rate of technological change after Rome fell, then _how_
and _why_ would it have become a spur rather than a hindrance to
innovation if it had lasted longer?
>> And my point was: In real history, technology advanced much more after
>> the Western Roman Empire fell.
>
>It seems to me we are comparing history (your posts) with opinion (my
>what-ifs).
The point I'm trying to make is that history suggests your what-ifs are
highly improbable.
>> S.M. Stirling has pointed out that it was only technologies which could be
>> applied on a decentralized basis which advanced after the fall of Rome.
>> That the technologies such as roadbuilding which required central planning
>> and direction were lost.
>
>Interesting point
>
>> Southern Italy went into a decline after the fall of Rome. But it's
>> technologically far ahead of where it was under the Roman Empire. Why?
>> Mostly because of technology introduced from north of Italy: technology
>> refined in the northwest of Europe, introduced from elsewhere into that
>> part of Europe (a lot of it from China, I believe) and re-transmitted, or
>> invented there.
>
>So the communication of ideas across cultures, great distances and
>language barriers tends to accelerate the rate of technological
>innovation; is that what you are saying here?
No, I'm not saying that. It can reasonably be inferred, however. But add
in communication _across political borders_.
More recently -- note that a disunited Germany did noticeably better at
industrializing than a centralized France. And also better than the
Austro-Hungarian Empire.
lam...@s10.math.uah.edu
In article <34ff0bf4...@news.clark.net>,
lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:31:28 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
> wrote:
>
> > L.W.
> >Evans mentions technologists in his later Ethshar books. It'd be scary
> >to imagine a world where magic and tech progressed in synch and were used
> >in tandem (not like Anthony's _Incarnations Of Immortalty_, where it's an
> >either/or proposition, you use magic OR tech).
>
> Oh, Ethshar's even more complicated than it looks, but in fact it's
> entirely possible to use magic and technology together there.
>
> You'll note that the mention of technologists is (I think; correct me
> if I've misremembered) referring to them as a type of magician -- it's
> normal Ethsharitic thinking to use the term "magic" to mean "anything
> that does something where an uninformed observer doesn't immediately
> understand how it works." Herbalists are considered magicians, too.
IIRC you call them scientists. I think this is in the Unwilling
Warlord. Anyone want to check?
DougL
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Joshua Jasper
In article <6dn0qv$qaq$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>,
Dave Griffith <grif...@crl.com> wrote:
>SpahmtrapCambias (cambias@heliograph..com) wrote:
>:
>: I'm always amazed that people oppose "spending money on outer space
>: instead of on Earth" -- as if we're loading big bales of money onto the
>: Shuttle and dumping it into the Sun or something. Money spent on space
>: exploration is spent here on Earth, and it goes to contractors who plow it
>: back into the economy. It prevents poverty by putting people to work.
>
>What is lost is not the money, it's the productive efforts of the contractors
>and engineers which could have been used for other, better, purposes. These
>are lost irrevocably.
Yep, same with the film industry. BILLIONS of dollars spent on
that. People actualy waste thier time watching thse things. Hours that
could be spent in productive labor. Curse those producers!
We'd actually be much better off if we were simply
>sending bales of cash into the Sun, rather then wasting valuable trained
>labor-years.
Tell you what, we'll set you up as the pilot. One way trip.
Given the seemingly eternal drought of trained engineers
>and technical support staff, it seems safe to say that anyone currently
>so employed in space projects isn't doing so simply as make-work to stay
>off the dole.
>
>: Also, it's not as if we haven't tried throwing money at poverty to make it
>: go away. The Great Society programs started by Johnson have continued in
>: various forms -- almost untouched by the "massive cuts" of the Reagan
>: administration, I might add -- and as one can see they've completely
>: elimitated poverty, homelessness and crime. Since we licked those
>: problems so effectively in the US, obviously the same approach will work
>: in the Third World.
>
>Agreed. Of course, it isn't adequate to identify other programs as
>ratholes to justify support for your own. Unless you are saying that
>all government programs are wasteful (arguable if a tad extreme), so
>why not just pick the flashiest one.
>
Indeed, the one that's produces a vast amount of global benifits,
and spawned other industrys. Pick on the one that does some good. Can't
ahve something usefull being spent on, can we?
>: Space exploration is part of the ongoing enterprise of basic science
>: research.
>
>This implies a coherence to the practice of science that is not to
>be found in reality. By and large most science is completely unaffected
>by the level of funding of space exploration,
Cite please? Space launches actualy bring money BACK IN on
occasion.
Sinboy
Charles Meigh
Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> Since it doesn't violate the known laws of physics, it's _possible_. > But I don't consider it likely.
Fair enough
>
> If the Western Roman Empire's rate of technological change was slower than
> the same area's rate of technological change after Rome fell, then _how_
> and _why_ would it have become a spur rather than a hindrance to
> innovation if it had lasted longer?
I'm not sure about the Western Roman Empire, but had the Roman Empire
carried onwards and upwards it would be further 'up the road' of
innovation, possibly at the cusp of one of the revolutions that
characterise Western technological progress throughout history.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that history suggests your what-ifs are
> highly improbable.
>
I'm not sure if we are differing here in interpretation or merely
opinion.
> >
> >So the communication of ideas across cultures, great distances and
> >language barriers tends to accelerate the rate of technological
> >innovation; is that what you are saying here?
>
> No, I'm not saying that. It can reasonably be inferred, however. But add
> in communication _across political borders_.
>
> More recently -- note that a disunited Germany did noticeably better at
> industrializing than a centralized France. And also better than the
> Austro-Hungarian Empire.
> --
Presumably you mean the former West Germany, rather than East Germany
here; united as it was with European and other world markets for it's
goods and other economic links, and huge reconstruction from the Allies.
Richard Mason
Cambias wrote:
>
> I'm always amazed that people oppose "spending money on outer
> space instead of on Earth" -- as if we're loading big bales of
> money onto the Shuttle and dumping it into the Sun or something.
> Money spent on space exploration is spent here on Earth, and it
> goes to contractors who plow it back into the economy.
As an additional wrinkle on this train of thought --- can you
imagine the public outcry if the government actually was
dumping bales of money into the Sun?
"Stop! Stop! You're dumping bales of valuable green paper into
the Sun!"
--
Richard Mason
mason at robby dot caltech dot edu
Paul Dietz
David Given wrote:
> To pick an example of the shelf (the real fanatics could go on for days
> about this): move a near-Earth nickel-iron asteroid into Earth orbit.
> Refine it in orbit and then drop it down by disposable spaceplane where
> it's needed. Once the initial investment (large, I admit) is paid off, you
> can supply large quantities of a whole range of metals, including some
> rare ones, for peanuts.
The problem here is that moving asteroids is very difficult and
fabricating the asteroidal metal into disposable spaceplanes
is very expensive. You don't pay off the initial investment
with current or near future technologies.
It *might* make sense at some point to extract some of the more
valuable metals at the asteroid, and ship only those back
(platinum group elements, mostly). But iron, nickel, and other
base metals are simply too cheap on earth for the asteroids
to have a hope of competing.
Paul
Paul Dietz
James C. Ellis wrote:
> If you are concerned with _physical_ resources, then they aren't going
> to become any less scarce in the near future, what with a booming growth
> in population combined with ever-more-difficult-to-obtain raw
> materials. That is, they aren't going to become any less scarce until a
> "new frontier" of raw materials is opened up.
Funny, they've been becoming less scarce (in the economic sense
of becoming less expensive) for centuries, even as population
has grown. This is because the technology for exploiting terrestrial
sources is not static. Raw materials are not becoming
"ever-more-difficult-to-obtain".
Paul
Paul Dietz
Joshua Jasper wrote:
> Yep, same with the film industry. BILLIONS of dollars spent on
> that. People actualy waste thier time watching thse things. Hours that
> could be spent in productive labor. Curse those producers!
At least in this country, I am not forced to pay for films
with tax dollars. I am forced to pay for the Space Station
whether I want to or not.
Paul
David Art
There is an interesting article relating to this in this months Sci Am. It
concerns the expected peak of world oil production expected about 2010.
Dave
Paul Dietz wrote in message <34FF4C1C...@interaccess.com>...
Paul Dietz
Cambias wrote:
> I'm always amazed that people oppose "spending money on outer
> space instead of on Earth" -- as if we're loading big bales of
> money onto the Shuttle and dumping it into the Sun or something.
> Money spent on space exploration is spent here on Earth, and it
> goes to contractors who plow it back into the economy.
Tell you what. Let's get the US government to give
me a billion dollars. I promise I will spend every
dime right here on this planet, buying goods and
services from people who will plow it right back into the
economy.
Paul
Paul Dietz
Joshua Jasper wrote:
> Au contraire, the NEA still exists in the US, as does public
> funding for the arts in most countries. The space program also suports
> spy satilites, which save the lives of combat troops, among other
> things. If you don't like living in a country with a space program,
> don't. Try to convince people to vote against it. I doubt, however, if
> you'll find many converts here. People here actualy have brains enough
> to realize that it's a good thing. OBSF, read Heinlen's pro-space
> exploration essay in Expanded Universe.
Space exploration is actually one of the least popular things
the government does. A Gallup poll a few years back rated it near
the bottom in support, even below farm subsidies. Only defense
spending was lower.
I don't understand why Heinlein is venerated. He never struck
me as particularly insightful, and time has not been kind to
his predictions.
Although the NEA budget is a small fraction of NASAs, I agree that
it's also a waste.
Paul
Paul Dietz
Geoffrey Charles Marshall wrote:
> You don't receive a benefit from films, you do from the space
> program and would from a space station....
Funny, millions of people are willing to exchange their hard-earned
dollars for movie tickets. I'd hate to break it to them that
they are not benefiting from watching films. Might ruin
a good evening.
Paul
John Moreno
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) wrote:
>
> >Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, Ethshar's even more complicated than it looks, but in fact it's
> >> entirely possible to use magic and technology together there.
> >
> >Well, since you are answering questions (somewhat) about Ethshar - in
> >the _Black Dagger_ you had a line that could have been a throwaway or a
> >simple mistake, Tobias says that K. spun a coin when they entered the
> >city and it hadn't slowed down or stopped. This means that it (the
> >coin) was detecting her WHILE she was in the dead zone. Is this a clue
> >that he's going to figure out a way to get rid of them?
>
> Get rid of dead zones? No.
>
> It's not a mistake, either -- the magic that powers the coin isn't in
> the dead zone, and it's not a matter of a magical link to Karanissa,
> but magical awareness of her status. The spell is on the coin, not on
> Karanissa.
Well, so far that's how I understood it.
> The dead zone isn't cut off from wizardry; it just doesn't have any.
>
> Here's an analogy (it took me a minute to think of one): Suppose you
> have a bubble of vacuum, where fire can't burn. If you take a lit
> candle into the bubble, it goes out, and no matter how hard you try
> you can't re-light it there.
>
> But if you hold the candle just outside the bubble, in the air, the
> light from the candle still shines in just fine. Similarly, wizardry
> performed elsewhere can still see into the dead zone.
This is (partly) what I was getting at - a big portion of the end of the
_Black Dagger_ concerned the wizards not being able to spy on the people
inside it. The coin, and your (non-canon) comment above raises question
about a couple of things in the last 2-3 chapters (Tobias's comments and
everybody wanting to rent space there - although that could be because
of disinformation from the wizards).
Graydon
In article <6dkbqr$4c2$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
K. Laisathit <kir...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Why? I have often wondered that myself. Apparently, bits and pieces
>of advance technologies (for their time, that is) were scattered
>in China throughout the centuries. Yet, the Chinese never managed
>to put these innovations together and built a technological
>empire before they were beaten by the late-comer Europeans.
Because it was too hard to change your birth class in China.
England industrialized under massive outside pressure and in a context
where they already had less in the way of class barriers than most
European cultures; everyone _else_ industrialized lest the English cream
them. (this is an oversimplification, ok, but pretty much true in
essence.)
Industry requires a way for a)a lot of people to work together and b)a way
to rapidly change what they are doing and c)reasons to do b.
--
goo...@interlog.com | "However many ways there may be of being alive, it
--> mail to Graydon | is certain that there are vastly more ways of being
dead." - Richard Dawkins, :The Blind Watchmaker:
Graydon
In article <6dm0uj$fgo$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Jonathan Evans <jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>>You really don't think there are ethical issues regarding cloning and
>>>genetic engineering that need to be resolved?
>>
>>_Cyteen_ is interesting becuase a technology - tape - quite distinct from
>>cloning.
>
>ISTR that there was both genegineering and tape involved.
Cloning is just an interestingly expensive way to get a kid, though, until
you add in tank tech - in which case it's an interesting way to run up the
cost of baby sitters - and then tape, which lets you _cheaply_ educate
economically useful adult humans. It's the tape that makes Reseune, not
hte cloning.
Cloning qua cloning is just an expensive form of reproduction, and we've
already got those.
>>>Furthermore, the "why spend $75 billion on space exploration when we
>>>can spend it on eliminating poverty?" question does demand a certain
>>>amount of attention.
>>
>>Poverty isn't a thing.
>
>You know, Graydon, your quest for precision is admirable, but it _is_
>irritating, this way that discussions with you tend to hit the swamp
>of semantics and stick there.
You can only eliminate things; poverty, relatively defined, is
inescapable. The problem of poverty _is_ a problem of semantics.
>>Next question?
>
>Why should space exploration be prioritized?
It shouldn't.
There are things that should be that might lead to space exploration.
Geoffrey Charles Marshall
In article <34ff0111...@news.tiac.net>,
dok...@stpiaacm.net (Seth Deitch) writes:
> $75 Billion? To WIPE OUT poverty WORLD WIDE?
> If that's true, I say spend it! Its a prety small fraction of the
> Gross Global Product. I would like very much to know hiow that dough
> would be invested to wipe out poverty.
> I'm not sure the world economy is designed to function without any
> underclass. It begs the question, do we WANT to wipe out poverty?
It also puts it withing the personal reach of at least one
individual (Bill Gates).
Maybe when corporations and people get wealthy enough, instead
of taxing them, you assign them a 'job' as their tax.....
Okay, Bill, poverty is your problem. Please ensure their is
no poverty on the road ahead....
(A thought anyway)...
Geoff...
--
____________________________________________________________
E-Mail: Geoff C. Marshall <co...@ozemail.com.au>
No Spam please. Private correspondence only.
Please remove from all lists.
____________________________________________________________
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:48:52 -0500, phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno)
wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, Ethshar's even more complicated than it looks, but in fact it's
>> entirely possible to use magic and technology together there.
>
>Well, since you are answering questions (somewhat) about Ethshar - in
>the _Black Dagger_ you had a line that could have been a throwaway or a
>simple mistake, Tobias says that K. spun a coin when they entered the
>city and it hadn't slowed down or stopped. This means that it (the
>coin) was detecting her WHILE she was in the dead zone. Is this a clue
>that he's going to figure out a way to get rid of them?
Get rid of dead zones? No.
It's not a mistake, either -- the magic that powers the coin isn't in
the dead zone, and it's not a matter of a magical link to Karanissa,
but magical awareness of her status. The spell is on the coin, not on
Karanissa.
The dead zone isn't cut off from wizardry; it just doesn't have any.
Here's an analogy (it took me a minute to think of one): Suppose you
have a bubble of vacuum, where fire can't burn. If you take a lit
candle into the bubble, it goes out, and no matter how hard you try
you can't re-light it there.
But if you hold the candle just outside the bubble, in the air, the
light from the candle still shines in just fine. Similarly, wizardry
performed elsewhere can still see into the dead zone.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 2/12/98
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 23:18:55 +0000, Charles Meigh
<charle...@diamond.co.uk> wrote:
>Dan Goodman wrote:
>>
>> More recently -- note that a disunited Germany did noticeably better at
>> industrializing than a centralized France. And also better than the
>> Austro-Hungarian Empire.
>> --
>Presumably you mean the former West Germany, rather than East Germany
>here; united as it was with European and other world markets for it's
>goods and other economic links, and huge reconstruction from the Allies.
Not THAT recent -- the comparison with the Austro-Hungarian Empire
should have clued you in. He means prior to 1870.
Seth Deitch
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:15:37 +1100, co...@marshall.dhis.osdr.eu.org
(Geoffrey Charles Marshall) wrote:
>In article <34ff0111...@news.tiac.net>,
> dok...@stpiaacm.net (Seth Deitch) writes:
>
>> $75 Billion? To WIPE OUT poverty WORLD WIDE?
>> If that's true, I say spend it! Its a prety small fraction of the
>> Gross Global Product. I would like very much to know hiow that dough
>> would be invested to wipe out poverty.
>> I'm not sure the world economy is designed to function without any
>> underclass. It begs the question, do we WANT to wipe out poverty?
>
>It also puts it withing the personal reach of at least one
>individual (Bill Gates).
>
>Maybe when corporations and people get wealthy enough, instead
>of taxing them, you assign them a 'job' as their tax.....
>
>Okay, Bill, poverty is your problem. Please ensure their is
>no poverty on the road ahead....
>
>(A thought anyway)...
>
>Geoff...
I think the King of Saudi Arabia or the Aga Khan or the sheikh of
Brunei could pull it off too. Actually with more left over when they
were done than Bill.
Joshua Jasper
In article <34FF4D2B...@interaccess.com>,
Au contraire, the NEA still exists in the US, as does public
funding for the arts in most countries. The space program also suports
spy satilites, which save the lives of combat troops, among other
things. If you don't like living in a country with a space program,
don't. Try to convince people to vote against it. I doubt, however, if
you'll find many converts here. People here actualy have brains enough
to realize that it's a good thing. OBSF, read Heinlen's pro-space
exploration essay in Expanded Universe.
Sinboy
Dan Goodman
In article <34FF32DF...@diamond.co.uk>,
>
>Fair enough
>>
>> If the Western Roman Empire's rate of technological change was slower than
>> the same area's rate of technological change after Rome fell, then _how_
>> and _why_ would it have become a spur rather than a hindrance to
>> innovation if it had lasted longer?
>
>I'm not sure about the Western Roman Empire, but had the Roman Empire
>carried onwards and upwards it would be further 'up the road' of
>innovation, possibly at the cusp of one of the revolutions that
>characterise Western technological progress throughout history.
_How_ and _why_? The Roman Empire viewed what we would consider progress
with about the same enthusiasm as the Confederacy viewed racial equality.
What makes you think that the Roman Empire would have become a force for
technological innovation?
>> The point I'm trying to make is that history suggests your what-ifs are
>> highly improbable.
>>
>
>I'm not sure if we are differing here in interpretation or merely
>opinion.
>
>> >
>> >So the communication of ideas across cultures, great distances and
>> >language barriers tends to accelerate the rate of technological
>> >innovation; is that what you are saying here?
>>
>> No, I'm not saying that. It can reasonably be inferred, however. But add
>> in communication _across political borders_.
>>
>> More recently -- note that a disunited Germany did noticeably better at
>> industrializing than a centralized France. And also better than the
>> Austro-Hungarian Empire.
>> --
>Presumably you mean the former West Germany, rather than East Germany
>here; united as it was with European and other world markets for it's
>goods and other economic links, and huge reconstruction from the Allies.
NO! I mean _much_ earlier; before Bismarck put what is now Germany (plus
some territory to the east which is no longer part of Germany together.
Geoffrey Charles Marshall
In article <34FF4D2B...@interaccess.com>,
Paul Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> writes:
> Joshua Jasper wrote:
>
>> Yep, same with the film industry. BILLIONS of dollars spent on
>> that. People actualy waste thier time watching thse things. Hours that
>> could be spent in productive labor. Curse those producers!
>
> At least in this country, I am not forced to pay for films
> with tax dollars. I am forced to pay for the Space Station
> whether I want to or not.
>
You don't receive a benefit from films, you do from the space
program and would from a space station....
Geoff...
--
____________________________________________________________
E-Mail: Geoff C. Marshall <ge...@marshall.dhis.osdr.eu.org>
WWWeb: http://marshall.dhis.osdr.eu.org/
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, and...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew C. Lannen)
wrote:
> We're *still* working on recovering the road technology. After
>well over 1,000 years without maintainance, some of the old Roman
>roads are in better shape than the roads built in the U.S. two
>decades, or even two years, ago.
Urm, how many old Roman roads have had to bear 40-tonne vehicles at the
rate of thousands per day?
-- Richard
------
A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
What is (and isn't) ScF? ==> http://www.wco.com/~treitel/sf.html
Mail from hotmail.com is ignored due to spamming.
I use PGP 2.6.2.
Bob Goudreau
Charles Meigh (charle...@diamond.co.uk) wrote:
: Dan Goodman wrote:
: >
: > More recently -- note that a disunited Germany did noticeably better at
: > industrializing than a centralized France. And also better than the
: > Austro-Hungarian Empire.
: > --
: Presumably you mean the former West Germany, rather than East Germany
: here; united as it was with European and other world markets for it's
: goods and other economic links, and huge reconstruction from the Allies.
As his reference to the Austro-Hungarian Empire implies, you're a
century off here. He's talking about the various German ministates
that existed prior to national unification under Bismarck in the
19th century, not about the post-WWII division of Germany.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Jeffrey C Richman
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Paul Dietz wrote:
-Geoffrey Charles Marshall wrote:
-> You don't receive a benefit from films, you do from the space
-> program and would from a space station....
-Funny, millions of people are willing to exchange their hard-earned
-dollars for movie tickets. I'd hate to break it to them that
-they are not benefiting from watching films. Might ruin
-a good evening.
I find it particularly amusing that these same people purchase life
insurance policies for themselves, but refuse to do so for their race.
Interesting, that...
-Jeffrey C Richman
-------------------------------------
"The greatest compliment that was ever
paid me was when one asked me what I
thought, and attended to my answer."
-Henry David Thoreau
"Life Without Principle"