Search This Blog

Tuesday, 4 October 2011

Future monarchy, population control and a place in the sun

((Dont worry I'll comment on the presidential elections soon enough))

As I had pointed out in my previous blog post concerning intellectual posturing regarding the unknowable positions of alien lifeforms with regards to how humanity governs itself, I gave a few hints of some deeper thought I have given to the changes that inevitably come should humanity become an extra-planetary civilization and how the arrogant presumptions of many liberal minded academics and even entertainers in the realm of science fiction are woefully underappreciative of how the human mind works. Specifically with regards to government. Allow me to explain.

If you read my last post I point out how aliens will be expected (if the work in question spins an overall 'positive' view of the future, and provided they aren't being used as a heavy handed allegory to human movements or attitudes as they often almost always are) to have formed some kind of grand space federation of planets in one form or another, and it will mostly be some sort of democratic process analogous to the UN here on Earth. Inherent in this, is that whatever form human government will take, it will be more or less 'united' (but not always secularized to the point of human cultures ceasing to exist in terms of variety) and democratic to certain extents. If it is ever posited as anything opposed to democratic 'freedom' it will more often then not be portrayed as dystopic. "Democracy is the future, we know this because we told you so, and if it isn't, everyone is nazis, yay democracy!" The more nuanced works of course will try to avoid stale tropes and give more depths to all races involved but the common perceptions still reign.

The problem with this is no one really wants to admit that the only attempt at unitary governments of the world have become laughable failures at best and encrouching dictatorships at worst, (compare the EU, USA and the UN of today to the implications of their founding ideals to understand what I mean, criticising those alone would take a week), and that at levels higher then national levels, power plays and political football become so far removed from the People that the notion such organizations are inherently democratic is a laughable fallacy. So then, how in the name of all that is holy would an extra stellar Human Empire be democratic? As soon as humanity establishes its first colony on Mars or the moon or whichever rock we fancy sticking a flag onto we will be facing taxation and governing and policing problems that will make the age of exploration seem like a golden age of fast communication, and the likeihood of colony destruction or rebellion becomes astronomically higher the less we get things under control. The solution is of course to establish a local government loyal to the Federal government (can't use the word Imperial, that'd be too honest) and allow them democratic involvement in the big hippie space federation Humanity is forming, which still doesn't negate the fact that colony revolt is still likely once it becomes self sufficient, and that any peaceful acts of secession will be overruled by the majority of the federal government which of course will be doing so in the interests of humanity at large. Basically denying democracy in order to defend democracy. How democratic! Not to mention that any actual unitary world government would have the same democratic deficit problem of current supra-national states only cranked up to eleven. Democratic government will become an impossibility and a farce, we could call ourselves a democracy but we wouldn't be, any Imperial human government at levels above national will be de facto dictatorial in order to get anything done at all.

And it is this inevitability of democratic apathy and deficit that the future of Humanity will either be like its past and form some kind of Imperial monarchy, (dont ask me how, I honestly wouldnt know what form it would take) or a beuracratic dictatorship. Based on the service records of past versions of both forms of government, which do you think will be most likely in the long term to not slow to a cumbersome death? One thing is most certain, should humanity ever extend its reach beyond the shores of earth, the democratic farce will die.

Onto population control, for this is relevant on a likely incentive for expansion onto other worlds, the simple fact is the current liberal and secular ideals of population control and social formation are WOEFULLY under-suited both for the advancement of human exploration into space; as well as borderline stupidity in terms of raising the human population high enough in order to make such ambitions feasible. Again, allow me to explain. I do not believe in population control, by which I mean I do not believe in direct population control, the only real 'control' I recognise over the population's size is the four horsemen of disease, war, famine and death. These are what I call natural control over population size, none of them are desirable and when they occur they are nearly unavoidable by the majority of the populations affected. A such I hold an incredibly dim view of arguements for proponents of 'positive' or 'active' population control methods, primarily contraception, abortion and increasingly, euthanasia. As many of us in the west know, this has led to declining birthrates and 'population replacement' measures to bolster falling workforces or even just because of the now completely indefensible belief in europe that enforced multi-culturalism is healthy, and this is because the second portion of the demented social experiment by leftists has failed spectacularly. Leftists believe humanity's population needs to be controlled and lessened for x, y and z reasons, environment, resources, general asshatery, etc (I am being forgiving in that I am running this portion of the article ont he assumption that the majority of the proponents are genuinely deceived into thinking these are good arguments for the future of mankind), and then controlled to rise and fall depending on what the state needs and what it can handle. China is actually a poster boy for the most unashamed example of this mindset. The problem here in the west is that once the 'convenience' and 'contraceptive mentality' took hold of the majority or people and sex in the popular minset is about pleasure first and reproduction as an optional, expensive second, many people did not feel like having more children when the state finally wanted populations to increase, even with the carrot of incentives to reproduce more most European populations stubbornly refused to procreate to the desired level, this occurred in the nineties and we've all known the story since then. The values and mentalities populations relied on which maintained traditions and all sorts of things revolutionary types didn't like where largely destroyed or discredited and in so doing, could not enforce sufficient influence on popular mindsets to encourage procreation when it was convenient for the states. The liberals shot themselves in the foot. What this means is that the population cannot be subtly controlled by the state to rise and fall according to its whims and what this ultimately means is that the sheer manpower mankind as a species requires to make expansion across the stars neccessary or even feasible will be nothing short of impossible. How many times have you read a sci fi novel, watched a movie or played a game where mankind has formed a 'united government' and the population has increased to such a scale that the planet's landmasses are effectively giant cities? Did it never strike you as odd, when perusing these works that the implication being that the modern secular ideals prevail in those settings yet somehow mankind still became so overpopulated as to turn Africa into one huge New York metro line? How can that be, when the insurmountable contemporary evidence is that secularized populations engaging in population control actually fall dramatically?

Leaving aside that a world government formed prior to expansion beyond earth would ultimately hinder exploration efforts, because in case you haven't noticed, no one's really been keen on going farther then the moon despite the fact we are LITERALLY close to half a century from landing on the blasted rock. Half. A. Century. When the 'need' is outweighed by convenience mankind ultimately will choose what is convenient, or in less forgiving terms, we will won't be bothered to do something if others aren't bothered to do something. Europeans sailed west to search for a quick route to India because the silk road's position was inconvenient, America landed on the moon, because allowing the Russians to get there first would've been inconvenient (or worse), and now no one is really doing anything, because space exploration is inconvenient for the environment, or for world politics. For example, when the USSR fell, what did America do? did it continue moon landings? So long as convenience is favoured in the popular mindset over principles or needs advancement, real advancement of human society is farcical.

Getting to my main point on population control, overpopulation is killing our societies. And by that I mean the myth of overpopulation as it stands, as a planet we are NOT overpopulated, that is the most blatent of lies propagated in the popular consciousness. Countries are overpopulated individually certainly, Japan, for example has a REAL lebensraum problem, and Lord knows the large populations of China and India are going to lead to trouble, but as a world and as a species? No, we aren't overpopulated. However, say we did rid ourselves of the contraceptive mentality and reproduced to make up for lost time, sooner or later overpopulation WILL become a reality and a problem, in terms of living space alone if nothing else, and in actuality, in my opinion this will be a good thing. As mention prior, the convenience mentality is killing our God-given inquisitive drive to explore, so should all the world bicker and fuss over the environment and the ice caps and what have you, until humanity is on the brink of very real overpopulation, overpopulation will finally be used as the one real drive and push that will propel humanity to the stars and not the namby pamby liberal mentalities that encourage the idea that we will explore the stars 'in our own time' once we have terrestial concerns dealt with and not the tragically under utilised drive of wonderment, exploartion for exploration's sake, (AKA, the NASA mentality, no ideological pressure or politicising, going to space simply because in the long term, when you REALLY boil it all down, its just bloody awesome). Overpopulation will FORCE governments to do the only real thing they can to handle the overpopulation: Expand.

In the end ultimately, expansion is in my humble view the only truly moral solution to Humanity's population concerns. God willed us to be fruitful and multiply. Who here reading this article honestly thinks He intended us to disregard his command once our population got so large that there was not enough room for everyone in the world? Far more likely, when He made us stewards of His creation that once our population exploded, it is either in His will or more likely in His pleasure to allow, our species to expand to other worlds. Because why not? Earth of course will always be sacred to mankind, but that doesn't mean we cant live on Mars as well, as I had said previously, space is an ocean and other worlds are really just other lands. Of course our species' empire expanding beyond the solar system becomes laughably impossible until we find some legitimate workaround for Einstein's cage (Realtivity and faster then light travel), but I think the solar system alone is enough to keep us entertained for a few thousand years. Ultimately however, whatever excuse people have for not expanding and exploring, turns to ash in the face of the potential expansion gives us as a species.

But we need to sort out our resource problems!: There's plenty more resources in space

We have yet to fix global warming!: If we dont advance our technology to the point where we can leave the planet, we probably never will have the technology to fix global warming

But what about world hunger!?: Who says we cant turn the moon into one large farm colony?

Overpopulation!: Hurr durr...

This will probably be my last article on space exploration and monarchy when it pertains to the future of the human species (keep in mind what I have pointed out would still remain true even if world war III wipes out half the earth) but it should be noted that I am extremely pro-humanist (not exactly sure if that's the right term), as my opposition to antipathic movements such as nihilism and anti-natalism as well as more pressing troubles such as a secularization and population control informs my view of the future as well as the present. I may not be as eager as some of my more scientifically bent friends about the promises future tech will deliver us (actually on that matter I have gotten into numerous debates about transhumanism but that is a WHOLE other story), but I am very eager at the possibilities for the benefit of society. And as my views are quite honestly also influenced by my Religion, this has more often then not caught out and unnerved a few of my atheist friends when the discussion is brought up (the assumption that technological advancement and interest in space exploration is the purview of the irreligious never ceases to amuse me).

As I said my views can be summed up as 'A Cathedral on Mars', while it may not be time now for Humanity's expansion, one day it might very well be so, and I encourage ourselves as a species to seek out a place in the Sun.


  1. I envision two futures for mankind's dominion in space:
    The Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40,000 (it could be good or bad, I guess). Centralized, bureaucratic, inefficient, wrought by war and misery.
    Locust Civilization. We go from planet to planet, living on them for a number of centuries or millennia, in an ever expanding fleet that fans out to occupy several worlds at a time, draining them of resources and moving on.
    That's how I see it anyway.

  2. The place in the sun as indeed been chosen for the building of New Jerusalem. The plans have been divinely given. The holy city of enlightenment that prophet Isaiah spoke of will come to be. It is to be ecological and self-sustainable, off the grid. A healing city with rescue teams as well. It is to defend the eco system of the planet. Many Europeans have already left and gone in the right direction. Until this is over.

    The biblical prophecies state that the LORD God will save Judea and the tribes of Joseph. The tribes in my heart are the indigenous peoples.

    Love beyond measure to Ireland, please tell your people that none of the Islands are safe and that includes England. I have been given 'Ice Caps 22' so the people do have time to move. However, it takes a least five years for a community to be completely self-sustainable.

    Living ecologically and self-sustainably now is essential. Humanity simply do not have a choice in the matter.


  3. Servant, I just remembered this quote from Pratchett:

    The only things known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Weedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir *instantaneously*. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queons -- that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed.

    Hmmm... may be on to something here, though I don't think the signalling part would work.

  4. Trust Pratchett to touch upon that little piece of lulz. I really must get back to reading discworld. Thanks for that Wells.

    And A.Nicot, I understand your cynical view of humanity in your examples even if I myself dont have the exact same view. The warhammer 40k example is pretty apt at how a monarchical human space empire could play out. (although, God willing, with significantly less grimdarkness)

  5. Servent of the Cheif, you are obviously reading the wrong science fiction. The stuff I read usually conveniently kills off the Liberals, Socialists, Jihadis, and other undesirables, using their own stupidity against them. Try David Weber, John Ringo, and David Drake for starters.

  6. Weber is good. Horatio Hornblower in space, in large part.

  7. That'd be Honor Harrington for you.