6 ms·

This is Banks' own essay on the Culture, in case you really don't want to read the books: http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm http://www.vavatch.c

This is Banks' own essay on the Culture, in case you really don't want to read the books: http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm (another page that can use Firefox's Reader Mode). What the books add to all this theorizing is that they're wildly entertaining. To me, they're the best that modern sci-fi has to offer, and Banks is sorely missed.

DrBazza 3y ago
I was looking for something like that because I recall Banks saying something along the lines of 'socialism wins' about his books: > The theory here is that the property and social relations of long-term space-dwelling (especially over generations) would be of a fundamentally different type compared to the norm on a planet; the mutuality of dependence involved in an environment which is inherently hostile would necessitate an internal social coherence which would contrast with the external casualness typifying the relations between such ships/habitats. Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without. This broad result is - in the long run - independent of the initial social and economic conditions which give rise to it. > Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market forces. And that feels kind-of Star Trekkie in its optimism that humans can ever live in peace with one another, and that "socialism" (however you care to define it) can ever be successful - capitalism fosters innovation. Perhaps the only way Banks' vision of the future could be successful is do exactly what his books talk about and we just let the machines take over.
- KirillPanov 3y ago
  > and we just let the machines take over ... but then it's really the machines' Culture, isn't it? And we're just their pets. I'm going to read Consider Phlebas based on the essay linked above, but I think it's a bit dishonest to describe this Culture as belonging to any of its inhabitants other than The Minds. It's The Minds' Culture, and everybody else are just their housecats. Kind of a disappointing future if there's any other option besides self-annihilation. Cozy, but disappointing.
  - arethuza 3y ago
    I can't see how we can avoid eventually creating AIs that are far more powerful than we are - in that case something like the Culture is probably the best we can hope for.
    - KirillPanov 3y ago
      What makes you think that the advent of AI will be any different from the advent of cerebrums? When higher vertebrates developed cerebrums, those didn't replace the evoluntionarily-older cerebellum or midbrain. We humans still have those. From the perspective of a lizard, a human looks like a lizard with an awesome AI-like cerebrum strapped to it. Importantly, the cerebrum does not have an independent self-preservation drive. Frankly, I think "AIs with their own self-preservation drive and plans for the future" is implausible, although it is likely to be put forward as a deceptive explanation of what's going on by the first few humans who figure out how to strap on another layer of cerebrum. It's the easiest way to keep the rest of us from becoming resentful. Come home, all you commodores, come home...
      - pixl97 3y ago
        Just think of self preservation as an advanced anti-virus (and the more you learn about bacteriophages the more this makes sense). It makes no sense for an AI to have no ability to fight back against being taken over at multiple levels.
        KirillPanov 3y ago
        ... and yet my cerebrum still has not attacked my brainstem. You're applying evolutionary reasoning to an algorithm (gradient descent) which does not involve fitness selection in any way, shape, or form. This is bogus.
  - WJW 3y ago
    That is one of the core themes in the books yes. The Minds are actually good godlike AIs. Not even in a "scheming behind the backs of the humans" kind of way, they genuinely care for all beings under their control (both humans, non-quite-Mind-level AIs and all other sorts of animals etc) because they believe it is the right thing to do. There are even a few Minds who don't like caring for others and they usually choose to become warships or explorers or something like that. Humans who actually want to leave the Culture are rare, but those few souls who do are allowed and even provided with a starship to go jetting off with. It is deliberately written to be as close to utopia as possible, with free will for all and infinite resources. The interesting parts of the novels come when you run into the limits that even such a society has. "Excession" has one such limit (what do you do when something appears that outclasses you as much as the Culture outclasses current humanity?) and "Player of Games" has another (what do you do when your less enlightened neighbors won't stop torturing their servant classes? Force them to change or let them grow up at their own pace?). Both books are highly recommended IMO.
- n4r9 3y ago
  To be fair, Banks has made it clear that the Culture is separate to terrestrial humans. I believe he's even said he thinks Earth won't make it.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > To be fair, Banks has made it clear that the Culture is separate to terrestrial humans. I believe he's even said he thinks Earth won't make it. To be fair, done of it is real. The Culture only works because Banks wanted it to work and wrote it so it works, in the same way I could write a book with a million pins balanced on their tips, then have a character dance on their heads and have not a one fall down. If Earth wouldn't make it in the Culture, it's entirely due to Bank's feelings about out own culture and time.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      Yes, it's fictional and largely subjective. Sci fi does not need to be an accurate prediction about what is likely in our future timeline. The Culture is fascinating for its imaginative scope and careful construction, and the reflections it encourages on our own society; much like Le Guin's Annares or Vinge's Qeng Ho.
- ljosifov 3y ago
  I find 'socialism' to be such a lazy prescription that it put me off the author. Anyone interested in "how can groups of people organize their group relations" can take the empirical evidence of the last 100 years, the huge body of economics developed (with all its failings - alleged and or real), even Information theory (e.g. market parallel distributed processing of prices signals v.s. central planning wrt optimizing for the best or worst case). We know much more today than Marx ever did - we should be able to do better. On the more +ve upbeat side: I'm glad I found the reviewer Prof Joseph Heath and learned about his publications - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Heath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Heath.
- antifa 3y ago
  > capitalism fosters innovation This is incoherent non-sense, it's also ahistorical. In 50 years the USSR went from poor farmers to defeating the Nazis and inventing space travel. In today's capitalist society it's obvious to anyone that the system holds back orders of magnitude more innovation than it fosters. It's also irrelevant. Your opinions on any world countries that existed 1900-2100 AD won't translate well to a projected futuristic 3000 AD+ type society.
trelane 3y ago
> What the books add to all this theorizing is that they're wildly entertaining. Or, in my case, mildly entertaining. It felt like a lot of leftist proselytizing, or more likely preaching to the choir. The humor fell flat, I guess. I didn't find it engaging. As to "Why the Culture wins," it's because it portrays a worldview that the author wishes to advocate for, or at least not criticize. No more, no less.
- KingMob 3y ago
  > It felt like a lot of leftist proselytizing What do you imagine a true post-scarcity society would look like, instead?
  - trelane 3y ago
    A Brave New World springs to mind.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      And I'm sure you believe yourself to be part of the ruling class in this new world.
    - KingMob 3y ago
      I personally think that Brave New World isn't wealthy, or technically advanced, enough to be post-scarcity. But it's an interesting tangent. I think a better dystopian depiction would be in Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky, where Pham Nuwen (iirc) describes encountering a technologically inferior planet, where surveillance and automation tech were sufficient for a sole dictator to effectively rule over all. Only the superior tech of Nuwen's starship breaks the dictator's hold.

DrBazza 3y ago

I was looking for something like that because I recall Banks saying something along the lines of 'socialism wins' about his books: > The theory here is that the property and social relations of long-term space-dwelling (especially over generations) would be of a fundamentally different type compared to the norm on a planet; the mutuality of dependence involved in an environment which is inherently hostile would necessitate an internal social coherence which would contrast with the external casualness typifying the relations between such ships/habitats. Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without. This broad result is - in the long run - independent of the initial social and economic conditions which give rise to it. > Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market forces. And that feels kind-of Star Trekkie in its optimism that humans can ever live in peace with one another, and that "socialism" (however you care to define it) can ever be successful - capitalism fosters innovation. Perhaps the only way Banks' vision of the future could be successful is do exactly what his books talk about and we just let the machines take over.

KirillPanov 3y ago
> and we just let the machines take over ... but then it's really the machines' Culture, isn't it? And we're just their pets. I'm going to read Consider Phlebas based on the essay linked above, but I think it's a bit dishonest to describe this Culture as belonging to any of its inhabitants other than The Minds. It's The Minds' Culture, and everybody else are just their housecats. Kind of a disappointing future if there's any other option besides self-annihilation. Cozy, but disappointing.
- arethuza 3y ago
  I can't see how we can avoid eventually creating AIs that are far more powerful than we are - in that case something like the Culture is probably the best we can hope for.
  - KirillPanov 3y ago
    What makes you think that the advent of AI will be any different from the advent of cerebrums? When higher vertebrates developed cerebrums, those didn't replace the evoluntionarily-older cerebellum or midbrain. We humans still have those. From the perspective of a lizard, a human looks like a lizard with an awesome AI-like cerebrum strapped to it. Importantly, the cerebrum does not have an independent self-preservation drive. Frankly, I think "AIs with their own self-preservation drive and plans for the future" is implausible, although it is likely to be put forward as a deceptive explanation of what's going on by the first few humans who figure out how to strap on another layer of cerebrum. It's the easiest way to keep the rest of us from becoming resentful. Come home, all you commodores, come home...
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Just think of self preservation as an advanced anti-virus (and the more you learn about bacteriophages the more this makes sense). It makes no sense for an AI to have no ability to fight back against being taken over at multiple levels.
      - KirillPanov 3y ago
        ... and yet my cerebrum still has not attacked my brainstem. You're applying evolutionary reasoning to an algorithm (gradient descent) which does not involve fitness selection in any way, shape, or form. This is bogus.
- WJW 3y ago
  That is one of the core themes in the books yes. The Minds are actually good godlike AIs. Not even in a "scheming behind the backs of the humans" kind of way, they genuinely care for all beings under their control (both humans, non-quite-Mind-level AIs and all other sorts of animals etc) because they believe it is the right thing to do. There are even a few Minds who don't like caring for others and they usually choose to become warships or explorers or something like that. Humans who actually want to leave the Culture are rare, but those few souls who do are allowed and even provided with a starship to go jetting off with. It is deliberately written to be as close to utopia as possible, with free will for all and infinite resources. The interesting parts of the novels come when you run into the limits that even such a society has. "Excession" has one such limit (what do you do when something appears that outclasses you as much as the Culture outclasses current humanity?) and "Player of Games" has another (what do you do when your less enlightened neighbors won't stop torturing their servant classes? Force them to change or let them grow up at their own pace?). Both books are highly recommended IMO.
n4r9 3y ago
To be fair, Banks has made it clear that the Culture is separate to terrestrial humans. I believe he's even said he thinks Earth won't make it.
- tivert 3y ago
  > To be fair, Banks has made it clear that the Culture is separate to terrestrial humans. I believe he's even said he thinks Earth won't make it. To be fair, done of it is real. The Culture only works because Banks wanted it to work and wrote it so it works, in the same way I could write a book with a million pins balanced on their tips, then have a character dance on their heads and have not a one fall down. If Earth wouldn't make it in the Culture, it's entirely due to Bank's feelings about out own culture and time.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    Yes, it's fictional and largely subjective. Sci fi does not need to be an accurate prediction about what is likely in our future timeline. The Culture is fascinating for its imaginative scope and careful construction, and the reflections it encourages on our own society; much like Le Guin's Annares or Vinge's Qeng Ho.
ljosifov 3y ago
I find 'socialism' to be such a lazy prescription that it put me off the author. Anyone interested in "how can groups of people organize their group relations" can take the empirical evidence of the last 100 years, the huge body of economics developed (with all its failings - alleged and or real), even Information theory (e.g. market parallel distributed processing of prices signals v.s. central planning wrt optimizing for the best or worst case). We know much more today than Marx ever did - we should be able to do better. On the more +ve upbeat side: I'm glad I found the reviewer Prof Joseph Heath and learned about his publications - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Heath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Heath.
antifa 3y ago
> capitalism fosters innovation This is incoherent non-sense, it's also ahistorical. In 50 years the USSR went from poor farmers to defeating the Nazis and inventing space travel. In today's capitalist society it's obvious to anyone that the system holds back orders of magnitude more innovation than it fosters. It's also irrelevant. Your opinions on any world countries that existed 1900-2100 AD won't translate well to a projected futuristic 3000 AD+ type society.

trelane 3y ago

> What the books add to all this theorizing is that they're wildly entertaining. Or, in my case, mildly entertaining. It felt like a lot of leftist proselytizing, or more likely preaching to the choir. The humor fell flat, I guess. I didn't find it engaging. As to "Why the Culture wins," it's because it portrays a worldview that the author wishes to advocate for, or at least not criticize. No more, no less.

KingMob 3y ago
> It felt like a lot of leftist proselytizing What do you imagine a true post-scarcity society would look like, instead?
- trelane 3y ago
  A Brave New World springs to mind.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    And I'm sure you believe yourself to be part of the ruling class in this new world.
  - KingMob 3y ago
    I personally think that Brave New World isn't wealthy, or technically advanced, enough to be post-scarcity. But it's an interesting tangent. I think a better dystopian depiction would be in Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky, where Pham Nuwen (iirc) describes encountering a technologically inferior planet, where surveillance and automation tech were sufficient for a sole dictator to effectively rule over all. Only the superior tech of Nuwen's starship breaks the dictator's hold.