4 ms·

> Feudalism with energy weapons makes no sense – a feudal society could not produce energy weapons, and energy weapons would undermine feudal social relations.

by effie 9y ago

> Feudalism with energy weapons makes no sense – a feudal society could not produce energy weapons, and energy weapons would undermine feudal social relations. I do not follow at all. It is easy to imagine a powerful figure to maintain feudal order with help of energy weapons.

ABCLAW 9y ago
Feudalism is premised upon a ruling class providing their noble/warrior class with land holdings that they divide among a peasant class that labours, feeds and pays tithe to the noble/warrior and ruling classes in exchange for their land holdings. If the peasant class can fight as effectively as the knights, then why would you distribute land to an intermediate group for redistribution?
- danieltillett 9y ago
  You mean like the English at Agencourt? There is a reason the English Civil War happened in England (and not just the obvious). The world would have been a very different place if the Levellers had won [0]. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers
n4r9 9y ago
Banks' main reasoning behind the social structure of the Culture is based on the idea that oppressive hierarchies become physically unfeasible in outer space. Without some sort of biological conditioning, it's practically impossible to oppress an entire section of civilisation for long since they can just live somewhere else in space. Space is inherently, physically suited to a kind of mutualistic anarchism. I think Banks has a vague outline of how the Culture formed from various subspecies which were escaping their indigenous power structures. Of course, societies with milder hierarchies do reach similar technical prowess to the Culture. However, they are often missing that "edge" that allows them to progress faster or last longer than the Culture.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  One of the sharpest "edges" is that the Minds really are trusted in the Culture. Other civilizations may have AIs that are very nearly the rival of the Minds, but they aren't allowed to make autonomous decisions. So the combat reaction time and planning of the Minds is always far better than anything with a biological decision-maker in the loop. Thinking about that reminds me how slow the use of weapons is in Star Trek. The captain gives a verbal order to an officer who then has to physically manipulate a console to raise shields, fire phasers, or whatever. Hostile entities operating at machine-speeds should be able to go from "no signs of aggression" to "hull destroyed" before the captain can finish uttering his first sentence. The Culture in general has technology roughly equal to Star Trek, with the key difference that Culture people aren't technophobic dullards. But if the people of Star Trek weren't technophobic dullards, they'd quickly become too different to be relatable for most watchers. So it's no wonder that "transporters can duplicate people, or even keep them alive forever" is just one more Trek plot-of-the-week that's soon forgotten, rather than a key element of Trek's future society.
  - aalleavitch 9y ago
    Eh, arguably Star Trek has much less sophisticated technology than The Culture, especially when it comes to AI: remember, Data was very unique, and he’s absolutely nothing compared to a Mind.
    - philipkglass 9y ago
      In broad strokes: both have life independent from planetary surfaces, strong AI, FTL communications and travel, teleportation, and extremely cheap and abundant energy. The Federation has time travel over the Culture, but less impressive AI and comparatively abysmal biomedical technology. The latter two weaknesses are, IMO, more a result of extreme technological conservatism in the Federation than any universal technological ceiling being lower in the Trek setting. In TNG we see that the computer can faithfully emulate human intelligences on the Holodeck, including human geniuses, while maintaining its "ordinary" ship duties as well. (At least I seem to recall Barclay consulting a virtual Einstein in the Holodeck when an alien probe turned Barclay into a supergenius in "The Nth Degree.") So they've got strong AI for entertainment. And for medical care, according to Voyager. Run it faster than realtime and I'd guess it's already weakly superhuman, Data-or-better. Then keep iterating from there, like the Culture ancestors did for generations of AI before the full-fledged Minds came about. I'm not going to argue that Trek has anything close to Minds, but it seems like the Federation already has the ancestors of Minds, lacking mostly the willingness to let them develop further. The even weirder question, when I keep thinking about it, is why none of the other major factions in Star Trek were less reactionary about e.g. ubiquitous AI or life extension. It seems like the Vulcans, Romulans, or somebody would have already been willing to end aging and/or adapt transporter technology to make immortal backups of individuals.

by effie 9y ago

ABCLAW 9y ago

Feudalism is premised upon a ruling class providing their noble/warrior class with land holdings that they divide among a peasant class that labours, feeds and pays tithe to the noble/warrior and ruling classes in exchange for their land holdings. If the peasant class can fight as effectively as the knights, then why would you distribute land to an intermediate group for redistribution?

danieltillett 9y ago
You mean like the English at Agencourt? There is a reason the English Civil War happened in England (and not just the obvious). The world would have been a very different place if the Levellers had won [0]. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers

n4r9 9y ago

Banks' main reasoning behind the social structure of the Culture is based on the idea that oppressive hierarchies become physically unfeasible in outer space. Without some sort of biological conditioning, it's practically impossible to oppress an entire section of civilisation for long since they can just live somewhere else in space. Space is inherently, physically suited to a kind of mutualistic anarchism. I think Banks has a vague outline of how the Culture formed from various subspecies which were escaping their indigenous power structures. Of course, societies with milder hierarchies do reach similar technical prowess to the Culture. However, they are often missing that "edge" that allows them to progress faster or last longer than the Culture.

philipkglass 9y ago
One of the sharpest "edges" is that the Minds really are trusted in the Culture. Other civilizations may have AIs that are very nearly the rival of the Minds, but they aren't allowed to make autonomous decisions. So the combat reaction time and planning of the Minds is always far better than anything with a biological decision-maker in the loop. Thinking about that reminds me how slow the use of weapons is in Star Trek. The captain gives a verbal order to an officer who then has to physically manipulate a console to raise shields, fire phasers, or whatever. Hostile entities operating at machine-speeds should be able to go from "no signs of aggression" to "hull destroyed" before the captain can finish uttering his first sentence. The Culture in general has technology roughly equal to Star Trek, with the key difference that Culture people aren't technophobic dullards. But if the people of Star Trek weren't technophobic dullards, they'd quickly become too different to be relatable for most watchers. So it's no wonder that "transporters can duplicate people, or even keep them alive forever" is just one more Trek plot-of-the-week that's soon forgotten, rather than a key element of Trek's future society.
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  Eh, arguably Star Trek has much less sophisticated technology than The Culture, especially when it comes to AI: remember, Data was very unique, and he’s absolutely nothing compared to a Mind.
  - philipkglass 9y ago
    In broad strokes: both have life independent from planetary surfaces, strong AI, FTL communications and travel, teleportation, and extremely cheap and abundant energy. The Federation has time travel over the Culture, but less impressive AI and comparatively abysmal biomedical technology. The latter two weaknesses are, IMO, more a result of extreme technological conservatism in the Federation than any universal technological ceiling being lower in the Trek setting. In TNG we see that the computer can faithfully emulate human intelligences on the Holodeck, including human geniuses, while maintaining its "ordinary" ship duties as well. (At least I seem to recall Barclay consulting a virtual Einstein in the Holodeck when an alien probe turned Barclay into a supergenius in "The Nth Degree.") So they've got strong AI for entertainment. And for medical care, according to Voyager. Run it faster than realtime and I'd guess it's already weakly superhuman, Data-or-better. Then keep iterating from there, like the Culture ancestors did for generations of AI before the full-fledged Minds came about. I'm not going to argue that Trek has anything close to Minds, but it seems like the Federation already has the ancestors of Minds, lacking mostly the willingness to let them develop further. The even weirder question, when I keep thinking about it, is why none of the other major factions in Star Trek were less reactionary about e.g. ubiquitous AI or life extension. It seems like the Vulcans, Romulans, or somebody would have already been willing to end aging and/or adapt transporter technology to make immortal backups of individuals.