Ok so I have read more of the Foundation Trilogy and I have to say that the bit where the galactic empire invaded the Foundation and buggared off again doesn't seem so bad.
The second half of "The Empire and Foundation" and the first half of "The Second Foundation", are quite appealing.
I won't say they are completely free of deus ex machina or that they are literary masterpieces, but I have been enchanted by the concepts in them.
Firstly, the concept of psychologists/sociologists being good administrators. That is just excellent.
I love that idea, and wish it were used in real life. Imagine if our world was run by psychologists and sociologists, there would be no wars; any disagreements could be resolved by an hour on the couch talking about one's childhood.
Indeed, the Second Foundation which is run by psychologists and sociologists is quite a happy empire. The leadership knows exactly how to keep a population happy, even if they are dirt poor and living in hovels.
Furthermore, expansion of the empire is easy since all it takes is a few words to manipulate world leaders into joining the empire.
I think Asimov may have pushed the boundaries of plausibility with the emotional manipulation that does not require words, but I'll let that slide, it is science fiction after all.
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Asimov and Socio-economics of an Empire
So I just finished reading "The Foundation and Empire" after reading the first book of Isaac Asimov's foundation trilogy.
It was interesting but to be honest I was a little bit disappointed. The first book was excellent but the second seemed... mundane.
The whole series has a predeterministic theme to it. And while it is a little bit bothersome how the Foundation is saved again and again by the deus ex machina of Seldon's Psychohistory, it is not a show stopper. Not until the Foundation is saved from the Empire by the Emperor's own paranoia.
It is all a bit contrived.
It is worse though... In previous "Seldon Crises", the Foundation faced a problem then solved it. When the Foundation was surrounded by low tech belligerents, he played them off against each other and then used religion to subvert them. When the Foundation faced an aggressor with atomic weapons, the Foundation bought them to their knees through trade embargoes. But when the Foundation got invaded by the Empire, they just did nothing. And the Imperial forces eventually left of their own accord.
Just who does Isaac Asimov think he is trying to kid?
It is ridiculous, what is even more ridiculous is that Asimov could have ended it in a perfectly good way with historically correct justification for it.
By that stage the Foundation was an economic superpower. Historically,economic superpowers don't just lie down in face of a military aggressor. First they try to bribe them (which the foundation did, kudos to you on that one, Asimov) and then after that they use their whopping treasury to spam a military.
One classic case is the various city states of Milan and Venice in the Middle Ages. Most of them didn't have much of a standing army and so would resort to raising vast mercenary armies whenever they got attacked.
I could raise countless more examples.
As history tells us, the economic power may not win all the battles but eventually they win the war, because they can easily replace their losses.
Considering their technological and economic superiority, The Foundation should have been able to raise a death-fleet faster than the Empire could invade their planets, and once a stalemate occurred then the war would become a war of attrition and the Foundation would undoubtedly crush the imperial aggressors.
It would have been perfect to the theme of the story too; that of a budding empire (the Foundation) learning vital lessons on how to grow and maintain control. First there was the importance of religion, then economy and finally the importance of military.
Instead, the Foundation is as weak ever and all because Isaac Asimov is ignorant of the importance of military protection.
It was interesting but to be honest I was a little bit disappointed. The first book was excellent but the second seemed... mundane.
The whole series has a predeterministic theme to it. And while it is a little bit bothersome how the Foundation is saved again and again by the deus ex machina of Seldon's Psychohistory, it is not a show stopper. Not until the Foundation is saved from the Empire by the Emperor's own paranoia.
It is all a bit contrived.
It is worse though... In previous "Seldon Crises", the Foundation faced a problem then solved it. When the Foundation was surrounded by low tech belligerents, he played them off against each other and then used religion to subvert them. When the Foundation faced an aggressor with atomic weapons, the Foundation bought them to their knees through trade embargoes. But when the Foundation got invaded by the Empire, they just did nothing. And the Imperial forces eventually left of their own accord.
Just who does Isaac Asimov think he is trying to kid?
It is ridiculous, what is even more ridiculous is that Asimov could have ended it in a perfectly good way with historically correct justification for it.
By that stage the Foundation was an economic superpower. Historically,economic superpowers don't just lie down in face of a military aggressor. First they try to bribe them (which the foundation did, kudos to you on that one, Asimov) and then after that they use their whopping treasury to spam a military.
One classic case is the various city states of Milan and Venice in the Middle Ages. Most of them didn't have much of a standing army and so would resort to raising vast mercenary armies whenever they got attacked.
I could raise countless more examples.
As history tells us, the economic power may not win all the battles but eventually they win the war, because they can easily replace their losses.
Considering their technological and economic superiority, The Foundation should have been able to raise a death-fleet faster than the Empire could invade their planets, and once a stalemate occurred then the war would become a war of attrition and the Foundation would undoubtedly crush the imperial aggressors.
It would have been perfect to the theme of the story too; that of a budding empire (the Foundation) learning vital lessons on how to grow and maintain control. First there was the importance of religion, then economy and finally the importance of military.
Instead, the Foundation is as weak ever and all because Isaac Asimov is ignorant of the importance of military protection.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Longevity
I'm going to run with the last post I made, but this time I'm not going to get so personal :P
So last post I emoted about the tribulations of being part of a genetic relay race.
That's just one tiny little branch of the vast tree of humanity though. The branch may die out but the tree itself won't die so easily and in fact still has a fair amount of growing to do.
As a species we are dynamic and we change as fast as our environment does, which is good because we are changing our environment at a rapid pace. If you don't believe me then simply look around you, look at the demographics. The global human population is still increasing (although the rate at which it is increasing is actually decreasing). And the biological prerogative of any species (plant, virus, animal, you name it) is to propagate.
What fascinates me though is the age group which is doing all the adapting. I know my grandpa is not adapting, as smart as he is. That is purely anecdotal evidence, but I think we can all agree that in general the elderly are generally incapable of adapting to our dynamic environment.
The opposite extreme is little kids. In some ways they are the most adaptable, babies absorb spoken language like sponges. They are the quickest to learn and assimilate new knowledge. But unfortunately babies cannot survive on their own, they are adaptable but the adaptation is adapting from helplessness, they still have a fair way to go.
Somewhere beteen the ages of 8 and 60 I think is where most of the adaptative survival skills are in place and working. I start at 8 years old because I know that in many third world countries, the family unit is somewhat of a geratocracy with all the little kiddies looking after their parents. And certainly there are enough 8 year old soldiers In the nastier places of the world, too many in my opinion, but the point is, that they survive.
Physically, a man (or woman) reaches his/her physical peak at about 18. So physically this is where we are most physically adaptable. However in the western world the threats are more pyschological than physical. Instead of having to dodge bullets you have to dodge taxes and lay-offs. And in some western countries the ramifications for not being able to outwit your fellow man can be quite deadly if there is no welfare system in place.
In some ways the 20 year olds are most adapatable here; their brains are fully developed and their social skills honed from years of dealing with bullies and classmates. But the older generations have a key advantage, for starters, they have a lot more experience (although at some age that experience becomes obsolete with the changing world), but most of all they don't have to adapt so much because they have more monetary resources. If taxes rise then the rich can afford to pay, but the poor HAVE to change their ways lest they starve. Same if they lose their job.
So again it seems it is the young (and possibly the poor) are doing most of the adapting.
As such I look forward to growing old and not having to be so adaptable and also so I can do this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2184#comic
So last post I emoted about the tribulations of being part of a genetic relay race.
That's just one tiny little branch of the vast tree of humanity though. The branch may die out but the tree itself won't die so easily and in fact still has a fair amount of growing to do.
As a species we are dynamic and we change as fast as our environment does, which is good because we are changing our environment at a rapid pace. If you don't believe me then simply look around you, look at the demographics. The global human population is still increasing (although the rate at which it is increasing is actually decreasing). And the biological prerogative of any species (plant, virus, animal, you name it) is to propagate.
What fascinates me though is the age group which is doing all the adapting. I know my grandpa is not adapting, as smart as he is. That is purely anecdotal evidence, but I think we can all agree that in general the elderly are generally incapable of adapting to our dynamic environment.
The opposite extreme is little kids. In some ways they are the most adaptable, babies absorb spoken language like sponges. They are the quickest to learn and assimilate new knowledge. But unfortunately babies cannot survive on their own, they are adaptable but the adaptation is adapting from helplessness, they still have a fair way to go.
Somewhere beteen the ages of 8 and 60 I think is where most of the adaptative survival skills are in place and working. I start at 8 years old because I know that in many third world countries, the family unit is somewhat of a geratocracy with all the little kiddies looking after their parents. And certainly there are enough 8 year old soldiers In the nastier places of the world, too many in my opinion, but the point is, that they survive.
Physically, a man (or woman) reaches his/her physical peak at about 18. So physically this is where we are most physically adaptable. However in the western world the threats are more pyschological than physical. Instead of having to dodge bullets you have to dodge taxes and lay-offs. And in some western countries the ramifications for not being able to outwit your fellow man can be quite deadly if there is no welfare system in place.
In some ways the 20 year olds are most adapatable here; their brains are fully developed and their social skills honed from years of dealing with bullies and classmates. But the older generations have a key advantage, for starters, they have a lot more experience (although at some age that experience becomes obsolete with the changing world), but most of all they don't have to adapt so much because they have more monetary resources. If taxes rise then the rich can afford to pay, but the poor HAVE to change their ways lest they starve. Same if they lose their job.
So again it seems it is the young (and possibly the poor) are doing most of the adapting.
As such I look forward to growing old and not having to be so adaptable and also so I can do this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2184#comic
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Altruism and Selfishness
Hi guys, I'm back! You might be wondering why I didn't blog this weekend. Well, you can blame "hardupgamer" for my absence. Good ole hardup posted Civ 5 on his blog and after a bit of mulling over I decided to give it a shot Friday night. This is the first time I have left my room and my desktop since (apart from toilet breaks).
I thought civilization 4 was addictive but civ 5 takes it to a new level. And now I have nothing to show for my weekend except a very pissed off girlfriend who feels sorely neglected. meh civ5>>gf :P
She probably thinks I am being selfish, which brings me to my next topic and the meat of this post.
Selfishness.
It's a bad trait right? A vice? Or is it?
It's in us for a reason, whether as a survival trait bred into us by natural selection or a god (or satan) given quality.
If you believe the "good book" then selfishness is a very bad thing which we would be better off without. Selflessness is preached and it is what every human being should strive to ascertain.
I completely disagree. I'm with evolution on this topic. Now it's fairly obvious how selfishness benefits an individual. An individual being selfish actively gets more resources than others who are not selfish and with those resources, has a higher chance of passing his selfish gene (as opposed tothe non selfish gene) onto the next generation.
But then how does altruism exist? Presumably the altruistic individuals woulkd have died off because they gave all their food and women freely to the selfish individuals.
Matt Ridley provides an excellent explanation in his book "The Red Queen". In layman's terms, altruism still exists and is quite rampant because the altruism gene is quite possibly the most selfish gene of all.
For starters, altruism is selective towards family and friends. Family members share genes so an individual being altrusitic towards his/her family is actively promoting his/her genes, in particular the altruism gene.
In terms of friends, an individual being altrusitic towards his/her friends benefits those who are most likely to return the favour.
So the net result is that while the selfish gene helps an individual's selfish gene to survive and replicate, it actively prevents/hinders other persons selfish genes. The selfish gene is stabbing itself in the foot. The altrusim gene, however, promotes the propagation of itself, twicefold. Once in the giver and once in the receiver.
There exists an equilibrium of the two.
What fascinates me the most though is how the two interact with each other and can benefit a species as a whole. I think the best way to explain it is through the game "left4dead".
Left4dead and its sequel are fairly linear zombie first person shooters where teamwork is an absolute necessity. It is also a great way to see how different individuals overcome obstacles and reach their goals with the resources (including human resources) available.
In each level the aim is to get to the safe room (or rescue) and in eahc level the AI director throws zombies and special infected at the team in order to stop them. The special infected have the ability to single handedly pin down (and eventually kill) a survivor, so it is up to a survivor's team mate to:
a) point out the special so that survivor 1 can kill it themselves
b) kill the special
and of course if the special does pin down the survivor
c) free survivor 1 from the special
So it is quite beneficial to have team mates who actively help each other out and look out for each other. Indeed it is near impossible to finish a campaign with a full team of selfish people who don't look out for each other and happily ignore each other as their team mates get pinned down, incapacitated and killed by the zombies and special infected.
What is even more interesting is how altruism can hinder a team and how selfishness can save a team from dying and having to restart a level. While it is always better to have a full team helping each other out, only one person needs to make it to the safe room or rescue.
Often when the rescue comes all hell breaks loose and a survivor may find his 3 other team pinned down by survivors and being zombie horded. In such a scenario (which i have been in) an altruistic and selfless individual in an altrusitic team will stay behind to help his team mate only to be killed by zombies or a special and it is game over.
Whereas a selfish team mate runs past and gets straight into that rescue helicopter, ending the campaign in victory.
In so many games I have been in the position of that selfish survivor or the abandoned team mate.
I can't quite describe the feeling. As the selfish survivor I get a brief pang of survivor's guilt but self assured I did the right thing by the team (and selfishly glad i survived). And as the abandoned survivor who has been left4dead, I happily sacrifice myself for that victory screen and if you ever play with me you may hear my screams of "keep going, don't worry about me, you're almost there!".
Not that I consider myself altruistic at all.
But selfishness is there for a reason, just like altruism is there for a reason. In left4dead, altruism alone gets the team killed and selfishness only gets everyone killed quicker. But together the result is a team that survives.
This is humanity.The mechanisms are much more complex and less transparent in the real world, but humanity survives and thrives because of the equilibrium between selfishness and altruism.
And when the zombie apocalypse strikes you can safely wager that there will be those who sacrifice themselves for the greater good and those who consider themselves to be the greater good but humanity will survive.
I thought civilization 4 was addictive but civ 5 takes it to a new level. And now I have nothing to show for my weekend except a very pissed off girlfriend who feels sorely neglected. meh civ5>>gf :P
She probably thinks I am being selfish, which brings me to my next topic and the meat of this post.
Selfishness.
It's a bad trait right? A vice? Or is it?
It's in us for a reason, whether as a survival trait bred into us by natural selection or a god (or satan) given quality.
If you believe the "good book" then selfishness is a very bad thing which we would be better off without. Selflessness is preached and it is what every human being should strive to ascertain.
I completely disagree. I'm with evolution on this topic. Now it's fairly obvious how selfishness benefits an individual. An individual being selfish actively gets more resources than others who are not selfish and with those resources, has a higher chance of passing his selfish gene (as opposed tothe non selfish gene) onto the next generation.
But then how does altruism exist? Presumably the altruistic individuals woulkd have died off because they gave all their food and women freely to the selfish individuals.
Matt Ridley provides an excellent explanation in his book "The Red Queen". In layman's terms, altruism still exists and is quite rampant because the altruism gene is quite possibly the most selfish gene of all.
For starters, altruism is selective towards family and friends. Family members share genes so an individual being altrusitic towards his/her family is actively promoting his/her genes, in particular the altruism gene.
In terms of friends, an individual being altrusitic towards his/her friends benefits those who are most likely to return the favour.
So the net result is that while the selfish gene helps an individual's selfish gene to survive and replicate, it actively prevents/hinders other persons selfish genes. The selfish gene is stabbing itself in the foot. The altrusim gene, however, promotes the propagation of itself, twicefold. Once in the giver and once in the receiver.
There exists an equilibrium of the two.
What fascinates me the most though is how the two interact with each other and can benefit a species as a whole. I think the best way to explain it is through the game "left4dead".
Left4dead and its sequel are fairly linear zombie first person shooters where teamwork is an absolute necessity. It is also a great way to see how different individuals overcome obstacles and reach their goals with the resources (including human resources) available.
In each level the aim is to get to the safe room (or rescue) and in eahc level the AI director throws zombies and special infected at the team in order to stop them. The special infected have the ability to single handedly pin down (and eventually kill) a survivor, so it is up to a survivor's team mate to:
a) point out the special so that survivor 1 can kill it themselves
b) kill the special
and of course if the special does pin down the survivor
c) free survivor 1 from the special
So it is quite beneficial to have team mates who actively help each other out and look out for each other. Indeed it is near impossible to finish a campaign with a full team of selfish people who don't look out for each other and happily ignore each other as their team mates get pinned down, incapacitated and killed by the zombies and special infected.
What is even more interesting is how altruism can hinder a team and how selfishness can save a team from dying and having to restart a level. While it is always better to have a full team helping each other out, only one person needs to make it to the safe room or rescue.
Often when the rescue comes all hell breaks loose and a survivor may find his 3 other team pinned down by survivors and being zombie horded. In such a scenario (which i have been in) an altruistic and selfless individual in an altrusitic team will stay behind to help his team mate only to be killed by zombies or a special and it is game over.
Whereas a selfish team mate runs past and gets straight into that rescue helicopter, ending the campaign in victory.
In so many games I have been in the position of that selfish survivor or the abandoned team mate.
I can't quite describe the feeling. As the selfish survivor I get a brief pang of survivor's guilt but self assured I did the right thing by the team (and selfishly glad i survived). And as the abandoned survivor who has been left4dead, I happily sacrifice myself for that victory screen and if you ever play with me you may hear my screams of "keep going, don't worry about me, you're almost there!".
Not that I consider myself altruistic at all.
But selfishness is there for a reason, just like altruism is there for a reason. In left4dead, altruism alone gets the team killed and selfishness only gets everyone killed quicker. But together the result is a team that survives.
This is humanity.The mechanisms are much more complex and less transparent in the real world, but humanity survives and thrives because of the equilibrium between selfishness and altruism.
And when the zombie apocalypse strikes you can safely wager that there will be those who sacrifice themselves for the greater good and those who consider themselves to be the greater good but humanity will survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)