A Few Questions About the Culture: An Interview with Iain Banks(strangehorizons.com)
strangehorizons.com
A Few Questions About the Culture: An Interview with Iain Banks
http://strangehorizons.com/2014/20141103/1banks-a.shtml
87 comments
I can understand your feelings, but i suspect you'll find The Hydrogen Sonata a fitting book to cap the series. There's a neat demonstration of what fairness really is worth at the end that's just ... I don't know, poetical. There's a sense of finality and closing that fits nicely.
But perhaps I just need to revisit the books again, if only to revisit Sleeper Service.
But perhaps I just need to revisit the books again, if only to revisit Sleeper Service.
That's cool, I've never seen anyone recommend The Hydrogen Sonata so left it to last, along with Inversions.
For all the fixation on his comment about American Libertarianism, Banks's politics seem fairly standard post-Thatcher Scottish to me. After what that PM did to Scottish communities many Scots apparently feel they have little in common with the direction English conservatives are taking the UK.
Banks was a supporter of Independence and famously cut up his British Passport and sent it to Downing Street in protest of the Iraq invasion.
IMO you can see his politics all over the Culture; from the entire tragedy of Look To Windward to the wee things.
For all the fixation on his comment about American Libertarianism, Banks's politics seem fairly standard post-Thatcher Scottish to me. After what that PM did to Scottish communities many Scots apparently feel they have little in common with the direction English conservatives are taking the UK.
Banks was a supporter of Independence and famously cut up his British Passport and sent it to Downing Street in protest of the Iraq invasion.
IMO you can see his politics all over the Culture; from the entire tragedy of Look To Windward to the wee things.
Here is an interesting article by Ken MacLeod (another excellent Scottish SF author) and long time friend of Banks:
http://kenmacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/use-of-calculators....
"what mattered was to keep the utopian possibility open by continuing technological progress, especially space development, and in the meantime to support whatever policies and politics in the real world were rational and humane"
http://kenmacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/use-of-calculators....
"what mattered was to keep the utopian possibility open by continuing technological progress, especially space development, and in the meantime to support whatever policies and politics in the real world were rational and humane"
Politically he was pretty close to Charlie Stross, I think (himself hardly a Thatcher fan). It's also apparent in his non-sci work.
The chase scene is in "Consider Phlebas", in case anyone is wondering.
I've always found the Culture a fascinating and refreshing alternative to the extremely played-out and commonplace dystopic visions of AI as exist in virtually all other science fiction. It's also interesting to think about how a post-scarcity society would function, particular as our society moves (ever so slowly) toward at least the full automation of labor, if not post-scarcity itself.
The funniest thing about the books: They are mostly not about the Culture itself. Because it's boooooring.
The fringes are much more interesting.
The fringes are much more interesting.
Very true. Indeed several of the books are about the culture dealing with some kind of (generally not serious) crisis. Most enlightening: the Culture was created initially as a setting for Use of Weapons
"They are mostly not about the Culture itself. Because it's boooooring."
This is why if we had the technology for a post-scarcity society on Earth there would be sets of people who would use this level of technology to do things like try to colonize Mars -- to the abject horror of the latte-sippers who would pen endless screeds about how foolish it is as they sit and sip latte.
Wait... did I even make up that last part?
This is why if we had the technology for a post-scarcity society on Earth there would be sets of people who would use this level of technology to do things like try to colonize Mars -- to the abject horror of the latte-sippers who would pen endless screeds about how foolish it is as they sit and sip latte.
Wait... did I even make up that last part?
I think the funniest thing about the books are the names of the ships. Things like: The 'Probably Not a Good Idea' dropped into orbit around the fourth planet.
The Mistake Not...'s unveiling of its name in The Hydrogen Sonata is one of the funnier ship name moments I can think of.
It's also worth trying his contemporary fiction which is just as good. Most people are aware of "The Wasp Factory" which can probably also be classed as science fiction (although not SciFi). He also wrote the excellent "Crow Road" which has probably one of the greatest opening lines in any book I've ever read.
IMHO Banks manages to do his best opening in Espedair Street:
Two days ago I decided to kill myself. I would walk and hitch and sail away from this dark city to the bright spaces of the wet west coast, and there throw myself into the tall, glittering seas beyond Iona (with its cargo of mouldering kings) to let the gulls and seals and tides have their way with my remains, and in my dying moments look forward to an encounter with Staffa’s six-sided columns and Fingal’s cave; or I might head south to Corryvrecken, to be spun inside the whirlpool and listen with my waterlogged deaf ears to its mile-wide voice ringing over the wave-race; or be borne north, to where the white sands sing and coral hides, pink-fingered and hard-soft, beneath the ocean swell, and the rampart cliffs climb thousand-foot above the seething acres of milky foam, rainbow-buttressed.
Last night I changed my mind and decided to stay alive. Everything that follows is . . . just to try and explain.
Two days ago I decided to kill myself. I would walk and hitch and sail away from this dark city to the bright spaces of the wet west coast, and there throw myself into the tall, glittering seas beyond Iona (with its cargo of mouldering kings) to let the gulls and seals and tides have their way with my remains, and in my dying moments look forward to an encounter with Staffa’s six-sided columns and Fingal’s cave; or I might head south to Corryvrecken, to be spun inside the whirlpool and listen with my waterlogged deaf ears to its mile-wide voice ringing over the wave-race; or be borne north, to where the white sands sing and coral hides, pink-fingered and hard-soft, beneath the ocean swell, and the rampart cliffs climb thousand-foot above the seething acres of milky foam, rainbow-buttressed.
Last night I changed my mind and decided to stay alive. Everything that follows is . . . just to try and explain.
"Song of Stone" was written in an interesting style to me. It is some sort of post-apocalyptic The Stand kind of situation.
He alternates between normal modern prose and some very dense poetry-prose. I would have to read and re-read those passages to get the meaning, but it was enjoyable.
He alternates between normal modern prose and some very dense poetry-prose. I would have to read and re-read those passages to get the meaning, but it was enjoyable.
"The Bridge" is a masterpiece. They're not all equally good, but his style is such that even the less good ones are still worth reading.
"The Player of Games" is one of my favorite books.
It's such a shame that we lost him last year while still quite young - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks
It's such a shame that we lost him last year while still quite young - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks
Player of Games is really good, but his best Culture book is probably "The Use of Weapons".
My favorite is Excession. The minds are often more interesting than the humans.
Excession is basically Mind-porn. It's the one you read once you have some understanding of how the Culture operates and then by god it's good. I imagine people who read it early on are disappointed or annoyed by all the jargon - the very beginning in particular, even though it does get explained simply to you later on in the book.
Curiously, this is the first one I read - the premise sounded interesting when reading the back in an airport bookshop. It was a little hurdle to get past the beginning, but once adjusted very rewarding. Easier to read than Feersum Endjinn, at least!
Personally I think "Look to Windward" is probably the best general introduction to the culture.
Personally I think "Look to Windward" is probably the best general introduction to the culture.
Easier to read than Feersum Endjinn, at least!
A Feersum Endjinn reading tip/hack: from what I recall (having done it, years ago), you can save time (and annoyance) by simply skipping the chapters with the phonetically-spelled journal of the mentally-challenged character, Bascule the Teller, and the story still seems to work just fine.
You'll just want to remember that Bascule exists, though, so when he shows up -- way later, in the third-person -- you'll know who it is.
A Feersum Endjinn reading tip/hack: from what I recall (having done it, years ago), you can save time (and annoyance) by simply skipping the chapters with the phonetically-spelled journal of the mentally-challenged character, Bascule the Teller, and the story still seems to work just fine.
You'll just want to remember that Bascule exists, though, so when he shows up -- way later, in the third-person -- you'll know who it is.
Agreed on Look to Windward, that or Player of Games for a good overview of how the Culture works.
I think State of the Art is often overlooked, it's a wonderful novella. There's a fantastic Radio 4 adaptation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRl9D_agLbU
I think State of the Art is often overlooked, it's a wonderful novella. There's a fantastic Radio 4 adaptation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRl9D_agLbU
Excess is definitely a great book. The problem of choosing the best Iain Banks book is like a parent choosing their favourite child :)
"Use of Weapons" also got the dubious honour of being the best SF book never filmed in a poll in the Register a few years back.
Come on Hollywood, you need to make a Culture movie - I believe Banks said he'd be OK with Consider Phlebas getting a happy ending for a movie (OK apart from the 851 billion deaths, and the destruction of all of those ships, planets, orbitals, rings and stars).
I've wanted to see the escape of the Clear Air Turbulence from the Ends of Invention ever since I first read the novel 26 years ago.
Making a sensible movie of Use of Weapons would be a challenge I suspect, but could be rather good as it does have some rather cinematic scenes (e.g. Zakalwe's visit to the Ethnarch Kerian).
Come on Hollywood, you need to make a Culture movie - I believe Banks said he'd be OK with Consider Phlebas getting a happy ending for a movie (OK apart from the 851 billion deaths, and the destruction of all of those ships, planets, orbitals, rings and stars).
I've wanted to see the escape of the Clear Air Turbulence from the Ends of Invention ever since I first read the novel 26 years ago.
Making a sensible movie of Use of Weapons would be a challenge I suspect, but could be rather good as it does have some rather cinematic scenes (e.g. Zakalwe's visit to the Ethnarch Kerian).
I hope Hollywood doesn't touch these, and some independent or little-known director actually makes them into good sci-fi. Hollywood has a way of making sci-fi laughably stupid.
Actually, I'd like to do this. Maybe I'll start by making trailers.
Actually, I'd like to do this. Maybe I'll start by making trailers.
Apologies - by "Hollywood" I really meant "the movie industry".
Speaking of trailers - every time I hear Coldplay's "Paradise" a trailer to Consider Phlebas plays in my head!
Speaking of trailers - every time I hear Coldplay's "Paradise" a trailer to Consider Phlebas plays in my head!
Holy crap, me too! Actually for me it's Surface Detail but only because I was reading it around the time that song came out.
I tend to think about the "nice" parts of Consider Phlebas (i.e. the Culture refererer Fal 'Ngeestra) during the verses (When she was just a girl/She expected the world/But it flew away from her reach so/She ran away in her sleep) and then the extremely violent parts (Orbital's been blasted, escapes from the GSV) during the chorus (Para-para-paradise....). :-)
Only in the past year did I pick up the Culture series, and I agree entirely; "The Player of Games" is one of my all-time favourite books. Absolutely brilliant.
He was my favorite author (and not just for the science fiction). He is sorely missed.
"Selfishness is the the new black and I despise it."
That. Right there. He sees it; we (collectively) don't.
That. Right there. He sees it; we (collectively) don't.
My favorite part:
I pretty much despise American Libertarianism. Have these people seriously looked at the problems of the world and thought, 'Hmm, what we need here is a bit more selfishness'? . . . I beg to differ. This is not say that Libertarianism can't represent a progressive force, in the right circumstances, and I don't doubt there will be significant areas where I would agree with Libertarianism. But, really; which bit of not having private property, and the absence of money in the Culture novels, have these people missed? The Culture is hippy commies with hyper-weapons and a deep distrust of both Marketolatry and Greedism. One rests one's case.
I pretty much despise American Libertarianism. Have these people seriously looked at the problems of the world and thought, 'Hmm, what we need here is a bit more selfishness'? . . . I beg to differ. This is not say that Libertarianism can't represent a progressive force, in the right circumstances, and I don't doubt there will be significant areas where I would agree with Libertarianism. But, really; which bit of not having private property, and the absence of money in the Culture novels, have these people missed? The Culture is hippy commies with hyper-weapons and a deep distrust of both Marketolatry and Greedism. One rests one's case.
This is because American Libertarianism conflates the two ideas "I should be free to do almost anything I want" with "I owe nothing to other humans (and vice-versa)." The Culture is absolutely about the former and absolutely not about the latter.
Ooh, that's well put.
My explanation of it, which I think is closely related, is that they're very focused on a peculiar kind of freedom, freedom from the power of the state. Freedom from want, freedom from ignorance, disease, malnutrition, freedom from oligarchy: all ignored.
It all comes across to me as a dressed-up version of "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD!!!" Plus a fair bit of "I've got mine, so fuck you".
It make me a bit sad, because the first Libertarians I met, now decades ago, seemed to be very different. They showed me the Nolan Chart [1] and I thought: yes! This is brilliant! Finally I understand why I don't feel comfortable with the left-right spectrum! I don't know if they changed or I did, but what I see of modern Libertarianism seems to me to be a fundamentalist, reptilian form of what I learned about back then.
If I have to choose between freedom from food-borne illness and the freedom of kitchen workers not to wash after they wipe, it seems like an easy choice to me.
[1] http://nolan.jimeyer.org/nolan_example.php
My explanation of it, which I think is closely related, is that they're very focused on a peculiar kind of freedom, freedom from the power of the state. Freedom from want, freedom from ignorance, disease, malnutrition, freedom from oligarchy: all ignored.
It all comes across to me as a dressed-up version of "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD!!!" Plus a fair bit of "I've got mine, so fuck you".
It make me a bit sad, because the first Libertarians I met, now decades ago, seemed to be very different. They showed me the Nolan Chart [1] and I thought: yes! This is brilliant! Finally I understand why I don't feel comfortable with the left-right spectrum! I don't know if they changed or I did, but what I see of modern Libertarianism seems to me to be a fundamentalist, reptilian form of what I learned about back then.
If I have to choose between freedom from food-borne illness and the freedom of kitchen workers not to wash after they wipe, it seems like an easy choice to me.
[1] http://nolan.jimeyer.org/nolan_example.php
That's because at its heart, libertarianism started with a number of good ideas. It was more or less born as American political scientists et all learned about the limits of governmental regulation, regulatory capture, and the limits and downsides of the American system of labor union negotiation and membership, and attempted to find a better alternative.
I think the problem, and this is just a personal theory, is that many libertarian ideas need to come in duplets or triplets to be effective. Take carbon emissions for a quick (and not completely accurate) example. I've had conversations with libertarians that have argued that carbon emissions should not be fined, capped, traded, or in any way regulated. Basically, when the people care enough about the environment, they will vote effectively with their dollars.
Crazily enough, this could actually work, but it needs help. Either carbon emissions would have to be valued (so that companies had to pay to emit carbon, most likely via a tax), or all products would be required to state how much carbon was emitted in that item's production, as well as educated as to what that meant, so they could make an informed decision.
In reality, the first idea will be picked up and heavily trumpeted by the energy industry (no government taxation!), but the follow up ideas will be completely ignored or torpedoed. As a result, you end up with the type of modern American Libertarianism you describe. The more this sort of selective trumpeting occurs, the more self-describing libertarians will self-select membership, and the more radical the group may become.
That nolan chart is a great example. When I first saw it, it was and still is a great way of introducing people to various types of political theories. But the example you linked is horrendous. The questions underneath the economic freedom section are incredibly misleading, and the result of decades of selective trumpeting. They are NOT the same questions I was shown when I was originally shown the nolan chart all those years ago.
I think the problem, and this is just a personal theory, is that many libertarian ideas need to come in duplets or triplets to be effective. Take carbon emissions for a quick (and not completely accurate) example. I've had conversations with libertarians that have argued that carbon emissions should not be fined, capped, traded, or in any way regulated. Basically, when the people care enough about the environment, they will vote effectively with their dollars.
Crazily enough, this could actually work, but it needs help. Either carbon emissions would have to be valued (so that companies had to pay to emit carbon, most likely via a tax), or all products would be required to state how much carbon was emitted in that item's production, as well as educated as to what that meant, so they could make an informed decision.
In reality, the first idea will be picked up and heavily trumpeted by the energy industry (no government taxation!), but the follow up ideas will be completely ignored or torpedoed. As a result, you end up with the type of modern American Libertarianism you describe. The more this sort of selective trumpeting occurs, the more self-describing libertarians will self-select membership, and the more radical the group may become.
That nolan chart is a great example. When I first saw it, it was and still is a great way of introducing people to various types of political theories. But the example you linked is horrendous. The questions underneath the economic freedom section are incredibly misleading, and the result of decades of selective trumpeting. They are NOT the same questions I was shown when I was originally shown the nolan chart all those years ago.
Wow, I didn't even read the questions on the chart; I just assumed it was the same. Yeah, that is very different than what I saw.
> many libertarian ideas need to come in duplets or triplets
Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. I think markets are really neat mechanisms for balancing outcomes, but they require certain conditions to work.
I also think there's a certain kind of ignoring-air-resistance theme common to a lot of the sort of Libertarianism I find dangerous. E.g., the "let people vote with their dollars" thing. It can work reasonably well for issues where people have enough time and attention to devote, where the results of their choices are relatively clear, and where people get to make choices frequently enough to build up a body of knowledge. But all that subtlety gets discarded, with arguments seeming to come from an assumption of perfect information, perfect rationality, and infinite processing power.
It all feels very fundamentalist to me. Of course, a positive feedback loop like you describe, one that radicalizes, would head toward fundamentalism.
> many libertarian ideas need to come in duplets or triplets
Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. I think markets are really neat mechanisms for balancing outcomes, but they require certain conditions to work.
I also think there's a certain kind of ignoring-air-resistance theme common to a lot of the sort of Libertarianism I find dangerous. E.g., the "let people vote with their dollars" thing. It can work reasonably well for issues where people have enough time and attention to devote, where the results of their choices are relatively clear, and where people get to make choices frequently enough to build up a body of knowledge. But all that subtlety gets discarded, with arguments seeming to come from an assumption of perfect information, perfect rationality, and infinite processing power.
It all feels very fundamentalist to me. Of course, a positive feedback loop like you describe, one that radicalizes, would head toward fundamentalism.
yeah, exactly. Just like in the carbon emissions example, let the people vote with their dollars only makes sense if there is governmental regulation ensuring the people both get accurate information to make decisions, are educated to understand the decision, and that the people's market decisions will be large enough to steer the market. All three of these points are regularly ignored, however, while the first "let the people vote with their dollars", will be loudly trumpeted by whatever industry is being discussed. Over time, you get a "libertarian" population that isn't even aware that their position requires the regulations I just mentioned, but have been taught that regulations are "bad" by industry.
Its a bit like watching a group petition Ford motors to make an electric car, but one without any batteries because batteries are dangerous and expensive, and then get confused and upset with Ford's "corruption" and the "inability of corporations to do anything right" when Ford makes them an "electric" car with a gasoline engine.
Its a bit like watching a group petition Ford motors to make an electric car, but one without any batteries because batteries are dangerous and expensive, and then get confused and upset with Ford's "corruption" and the "inability of corporations to do anything right" when Ford makes them an "electric" car with a gasoline engine.
>This is because American Libertarianism conflates the two ideas "I should be free to do almost anything I want" with "I owe nothing to other humans (and vice-versa)."
Not quite. It confuses freedom with ownership, and thus reasons, "I can only become free by acquiring ownership of more and more of the world around me", with the ultimate conclusion "I can only be free by owning others before they own me."
(That's baked in from the start, since the proprietarian ethic was originally designed for a slave society!)
Not quite. It confuses freedom with ownership, and thus reasons, "I can only become free by acquiring ownership of more and more of the world around me", with the ultimate conclusion "I can only be free by owning others before they own me."
(That's baked in from the start, since the proprietarian ethic was originally designed for a slave society!)
Well, the trick is that he side-steps the latter by having friendly demi-gods provide everything. Humans in the Culture universe don't owe each other shit, because the Minds already provide it all.
Which one of these values, when in-grained into society, offers the most utility:
"I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law."
"I give a lot to my fellow human beings, out of the goodness of my heart."
And that's what "Anti-Libertarianists" don't get.
"I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law."
"I give a lot to my fellow human beings, out of the goodness of my heart."
And that's what "Anti-Libertarianists" don't get.
You're missing a third option: "I give a lot to society at large (of which I am part), out of enlightened self-interest (reinforced by legal penalties if I act short-sightedly)."
Some people will thrive no matter what: centuries of warlordism, robber barons, gangsterism and piracy prove that.
But most people who make a lot of money -- whether from a well-paid job, running a successful business, or a fruitful investment portfolio -- can only do so, and can only enjoy the benefits of doing so, with the support of the trappings of a modern civilised society. E.g.:
- a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it
- a more or less ordered and peaceful society
- a more or less stable currency
- civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications
- public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business)
- public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more)
- some kind of safety net for the poor (impoverished people make poor customers, and angry young impoverished people can get a bit handy at the barricades)
These cost money.
The rich get to be rich, and to enjoy their riches, because of the taxes they (and everyone else) pay, not in spite of them.
Some people will thrive no matter what: centuries of warlordism, robber barons, gangsterism and piracy prove that.
But most people who make a lot of money -- whether from a well-paid job, running a successful business, or a fruitful investment portfolio -- can only do so, and can only enjoy the benefits of doing so, with the support of the trappings of a modern civilised society. E.g.:
- a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it
- a more or less ordered and peaceful society
- a more or less stable currency
- civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications
- public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business)
- public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more)
- some kind of safety net for the poor (impoverished people make poor customers, and angry young impoverished people can get a bit handy at the barricades)
These cost money.
The rich get to be rich, and to enjoy their riches, because of the taxes they (and everyone else) pay, not in spite of them.
I'm not an American libertarian, but the (non-american) libertarians I know agree with most of the points you mention.
- a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it
yes, and they want more of it. What they don't want is codifying morals and customs into law (eg: gay marriage or not, anti-abortion, anti-most stuff), except for the very basics (thou shalt not kill and stuff).
- a more or less ordered and peaceful society - a more or less stable currency
well, actually that's one of the central points for most libertarians. Giving the government the power to print money (and to punish private transactions) is very problematic. See: Argentina right now. Or Venezuela.
- civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications
well, yes, but they can be privatized and work as well.
- public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business)
this one's very debatable, yeah, most libertarians are against public health. I still don't know which is the best option (insurance companies certainly aren't)
- public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more)
most libertarians are against public education, but that does not translate to not helping everyone get basic literacy, it can be archieved through grants or coupons or stuff. Plus at least in my country there are several free private schools available (paid for by religious or other NGOs), of much better quality than public ones.
- some kind of safety net for the poor
some are in favor of that one, they disagree on the how (and very especially on the how it's done now).
- a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it
yes, and they want more of it. What they don't want is codifying morals and customs into law (eg: gay marriage or not, anti-abortion, anti-most stuff), except for the very basics (thou shalt not kill and stuff).
- a more or less ordered and peaceful society - a more or less stable currency
well, actually that's one of the central points for most libertarians. Giving the government the power to print money (and to punish private transactions) is very problematic. See: Argentina right now. Or Venezuela.
- civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications
well, yes, but they can be privatized and work as well.
- public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business)
this one's very debatable, yeah, most libertarians are against public health. I still don't know which is the best option (insurance companies certainly aren't)
- public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more)
most libertarians are against public education, but that does not translate to not helping everyone get basic literacy, it can be archieved through grants or coupons or stuff. Plus at least in my country there are several free private schools available (paid for by religious or other NGOs), of much better quality than public ones.
- some kind of safety net for the poor
some are in favor of that one, they disagree on the how (and very especially on the how it's done now).
Well put. What strikes me as strange is that somehow a lot of people associate your train of thought there with some kind of "socialism" whereas it's just plain common sense (free market supporting) pragmatism.
if you can implement those policies without NSA surveillence overreach or police abusing their powers with civil asset forfeiture or Obamacare raising the cost of insurance or setting up a financial system with banks too big to prosecute, then I'd be all for it. Over the past year or so I'm convinced this is impossible, and that the existing value system the U.S. Is built on is flawed. I hope this has not struck you as strange.
I wasn't talking about the US in particular, I'm from Europe in fact.
I pretty much agree with all your points: surveillance overreach is unacceptable, police power abuse is disgusting, mandatory private health insurance is unethical (though the previous situation didn't exactly work either so I'm unsure that would be better), and I think almost all monopolies are the enemy of both free markets and social protection.
Fixing these things does not require libertarianism or socialism or whatelsehaveyouism. They need political pragmatism, courage and common sense.
I pretty much agree with all your points: surveillance overreach is unacceptable, police power abuse is disgusting, mandatory private health insurance is unethical (though the previous situation didn't exactly work either so I'm unsure that would be better), and I think almost all monopolies are the enemy of both free markets and social protection.
Fixing these things does not require libertarianism or socialism or whatelsehaveyouism. They need political pragmatism, courage and common sense.
> "I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law."
In a democratic society, the laws are, broadly speaking, an expression of the voice of the people. The laws of my country of residence require that I give a significant amount of my income, plus 25% VAT on anything I buy. That's a societal choice, and the popular consensus is that it is a fine system, and the lesser inequality and better social services resulting from it make it entirely worth it.
In a democratic society, the laws are, broadly speaking, an expression of the voice of the people. The laws of my country of residence require that I give a significant amount of my income, plus 25% VAT on anything I buy. That's a societal choice, and the popular consensus is that it is a fine system, and the lesser inequality and better social services resulting from it make it entirely worth it.
The out of the goodness of my heart ignores the inefficiency of such a system. Government funded programs are much more efficient at ensuring a clean environment, good roads, universal education, universal healthcare, etc. Also it ignores human nature and the free rider problem.
Maximising efficiency isn't sufficient to build a harmonious society. Taking efficiency to the level of absurdity - it would be most efficient to put all non-productive individuals into a coma and pump them full of feel-good hormones, so that there's more roads, more education and more healthcare for those who are productive so they can pay more taxes to give more universal healthcare, education and roads.
I'm not saying that I'm against government funded programs, only saying your argument of the inefficiency of human goodness is not a valid one, when talking about building a society that maximises a utility measure that includes material as well as emotional wellbeing.
I'm not saying that I'm against government funded programs, only saying your argument of the inefficiency of human goodness is not a valid one, when talking about building a society that maximises a utility measure that includes material as well as emotional wellbeing.
2) turns very readily into "I pretend to be all about giving to fellow human beings while not actually doing it" or "I give my employees 80 hour weeks so they can earn more, am I not generous?"
Also "I'm all about giving to the right kind of fellow human being", which excludes $currently_demonized_minorities.
You're putting the motivation before the result.
Results come from motivations, as the fruit springs from the tree.
That seems overly simplistic. Sometimes it's easier to get motivated if you have already seen the results or what the taxes/regulations can do.
It's much easier to be motivated to pay taxes for public health care when you have seen it first hand, and not just listened to a politicans pipe dream.
It's even easier if the person needing help for health care is someone who you relate to intimately, like your best friend/parent/brother/child.
Where in a country of low taxes you'd be able to afford to provide care for your close ones out of the goodness of your heart, in a country of heavy taxation, it's much harder for you to do this. The inefficiency of government benefits and subsidies inflates the cost of health care on one hand, while inability for policies to customise benefits per patient means often benefits are distributed unfairly.
Where in a communist nation the government reduces inequality by making everyone poor, a nation that taxes heavily to provide universal benefits reduces inequality (of family connections) by making everyone face their problems alone, with only the help of a regular bank deposit from the government as well as the occasional union with a family member. It divides us from a strong network with many connections between each node to one of spoke and hub, where the spoke is an individual and the hub the state.
Sometimes you might feel lonely and have no one to turn to, even as you have dozens and dozens of friends. This is why.
Where in a country of low taxes you'd be able to afford to provide care for your close ones out of the goodness of your heart, in a country of heavy taxation, it's much harder for you to do this. The inefficiency of government benefits and subsidies inflates the cost of health care on one hand, while inability for policies to customise benefits per patient means often benefits are distributed unfairly.
Where in a communist nation the government reduces inequality by making everyone poor, a nation that taxes heavily to provide universal benefits reduces inequality (of family connections) by making everyone face their problems alone, with only the help of a regular bank deposit from the government as well as the occasional union with a family member. It divides us from a strong network with many connections between each node to one of spoke and hub, where the spoke is an individual and the hub the state.
Sometimes you might feel lonely and have no one to turn to, even as you have dozens and dozens of friends. This is why.
If that's true then the free market - motivated by greed - must be the most evil institution imaginable. As Adam Smith put it, it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Your "argument" doesn't answer isomorphic's point, nor makes any sense even on its own. The second option of your false choice is, if anything, an ideal of anarchism (which is what some people in the past or outside of America mean by "libertarianism"), not American Libertarianism. Private property, perhaps the most sacred of American Libertarian tenets, is entirely dependent on being enshrined by law and enforced by violence.
Another most sacred American Libertarian tenet is the notion of personal responsibility and credit, that each of us in a free market is solely and entirely to blame for our poverty and deserve all the profit and wealth we obtain, that in a free society society is not responsible for our personal condition nor us for society's. How does the importance you give to "when in-grained into society" in your straw-man setup jive with that?
Perhaps the important distinction you missed is "American Libertarianism", as opposed to libertarianism in general, which runs the gamut from Ayn Randian worship of selfishness, laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights to libertarian socialism and Libertarian Marxism.
Another most sacred American Libertarian tenet is the notion of personal responsibility and credit, that each of us in a free market is solely and entirely to blame for our poverty and deserve all the profit and wealth we obtain, that in a free society society is not responsible for our personal condition nor us for society's. How does the importance you give to "when in-grained into society" in your straw-man setup jive with that?
Perhaps the important distinction you missed is "American Libertarianism", as opposed to libertarianism in general, which runs the gamut from Ayn Randian worship of selfishness, laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights to libertarian socialism and Libertarian Marxism.
I did not note the "American" part of "American Libertarianism".
I'll walk back to the anarchy camp.
Public benefits can be shared more efficiently and more benevolently by a government around the corner than by one thousands of kilometres away hiding behind lines of police, security guards and lobbyists.
I'm just going to leave this here.
"Footage shows homeless black man Milton Hall being shot at 46 times by police in the US" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/footage-sho...
I'll walk back to the anarchy camp.
Public benefits can be shared more efficiently and more benevolently by a government around the corner than by one thousands of kilometres away hiding behind lines of police, security guards and lobbyists.
I'm just going to leave this here.
"Footage shows homeless black man Milton Hall being shot at 46 times by police in the US" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/footage-sho...
Purchase utility, not warm fuzzies: enshrine moral obligations in law.
I don't really get where he's coming from here, and now of course I never will since he's not around to expand on it. The Culture is a post-scarcity society; while you can't have a planet full of minions and go about conquering other people, nobody in the Culture really lacks for material needs of any kind and risk is virtually non-existent, unless you are determined to off the grid and get yourself killed somewhere that won't be noticed and without having your mind-state backed up. In the absence of economic scarcity and risk, of course money becomes meaningless. I'm not sure about the absence of private property; people certainly have their own houses, ships and other things. Both libertarianism and communism become sort of meaningless in the absence of economic scarcity, and hardly anyone in the Culture seems to be a hippy either - on the contrary, they're all enjoying the hell out of everything technology has to offer, unless he means their energetic epicureanism. Nobody in the Culture (outside of Contact/Special Circumstances, the secret agent set of People Who Have Adventures) is asked to make personal or economic sacrifices of any meaningful kind. It's easy to be generous from a starting point of endless abundance.
Some of Banks' most memorable Culture novel characters go against this trend; Jennat Gurgeh in The Player of Games is singular precisely because of his egoism and selfishness, and this is assigned huge economic value in the story, notwithstanding the nose-holding that accompanies it; Bora Horza Gorbuchul in Consider Phlebas is fundamentally opposed to the Culture but is invested with immense moral standing despite his persistent anti-heroism. I think that a lot of the time Banks likes to start with the Culture as the default narrative perspective and then inflict a hypersadistic external antagonist, beside whom the hedonism and self-absorption of the Culture folk seems positively benign, even though it might appear neurotic or narcissistic by contemporary standards. The Culture-Idiran war (which is in many ways the defining event of the civilization) is laid out in some depth in the latter book, and examines the Culture's transformation from a reactive to a proactive culture, or a transition from pacifism to realpolitik, if you like. It's interesting to me that while life within the Culture is largely based on non-economic mutualism, the vast majority of Banks' Culture protagonists are plucked form the moral gray area in which Special Cricumstances proactively attempts to shape events to suit the Culture - a gray area Banks liked so much that he named one of the Minds after it in Excession.
Some of Banks' most memorable Culture novel characters go against this trend; Jennat Gurgeh in The Player of Games is singular precisely because of his egoism and selfishness, and this is assigned huge economic value in the story, notwithstanding the nose-holding that accompanies it; Bora Horza Gorbuchul in Consider Phlebas is fundamentally opposed to the Culture but is invested with immense moral standing despite his persistent anti-heroism. I think that a lot of the time Banks likes to start with the Culture as the default narrative perspective and then inflict a hypersadistic external antagonist, beside whom the hedonism and self-absorption of the Culture folk seems positively benign, even though it might appear neurotic or narcissistic by contemporary standards. The Culture-Idiran war (which is in many ways the defining event of the civilization) is laid out in some depth in the latter book, and examines the Culture's transformation from a reactive to a proactive culture, or a transition from pacifism to realpolitik, if you like. It's interesting to me that while life within the Culture is largely based on non-economic mutualism, the vast majority of Banks' Culture protagonists are plucked form the moral gray area in which Special Cricumstances proactively attempts to shape events to suit the Culture - a gray area Banks liked so much that he named one of the Minds after it in Excession.
I both admire and dislike Banks. Stylistically, his writing is brilliant. But I always feel like I need to take a shower afterwards.
He repurposes the most tired SF tropes (example: the cannibals that eat their victims while they are still alive, yawn, in "Consider Phlebas") to create sadistic (or, as you correctly say, "hypersadistic") wildly unrealistic, overblown horror novels, and because his style is so brilliant people lap it up, regardless of the egregious idiocy of most of his plots and the overall impossibility, ugliness and stupidity of his completely imaginary society.
He never delves into the ordinary lives of citizens of the Culture because doing so would reveal the impossiblity of a "post-scarcity" society populated by human beings who are only capable of being happy if they have "more" than their neighbours. This is a well-documented, empirically proven fact of human life, and it means that the transition to universal abundance is going to be way more problematic and violent than Banks' imaginary world suggests. So his whole imagining of the Culture as a kind of British-Imperial playground for Special Circumstances agents is kind of lame. It assumes a convenient backdrop of humanity as it is not and never has been, which does not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. Banks avoided all that, and it's too bad because that is where all the really interesting stuff happens, amongst the people who are not special, but merely trying to live decent and ordinary lives.
He repurposes the most tired SF tropes (example: the cannibals that eat their victims while they are still alive, yawn, in "Consider Phlebas") to create sadistic (or, as you correctly say, "hypersadistic") wildly unrealistic, overblown horror novels, and because his style is so brilliant people lap it up, regardless of the egregious idiocy of most of his plots and the overall impossibility, ugliness and stupidity of his completely imaginary society.
He never delves into the ordinary lives of citizens of the Culture because doing so would reveal the impossiblity of a "post-scarcity" society populated by human beings who are only capable of being happy if they have "more" than their neighbours. This is a well-documented, empirically proven fact of human life, and it means that the transition to universal abundance is going to be way more problematic and violent than Banks' imaginary world suggests. So his whole imagining of the Culture as a kind of British-Imperial playground for Special Circumstances agents is kind of lame. It assumes a convenient backdrop of humanity as it is not and never has been, which does not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. Banks avoided all that, and it's too bad because that is where all the really interesting stuff happens, amongst the people who are not special, but merely trying to live decent and ordinary lives.
> He never delves into the ordinary lives of citizens of the Culture because doing so would reveal the impossiblity of a "post-scarcity" society populated by human beings who are only capable of being happy if they have "more" than their neighbours
I disagree. There are quite a few looks at the lives of ordinary Culture citizens, and they indicate pretty strongly that this dilemma (if it indeed still exists) is resolved by individualizing lifestyles to the point where "do I have more than my neighbours?" becomes a meaningless question. And to me this does not seem far-fetched or something "humanity is not and never has been" at all; right now, "keeping up with the Joneses" is already a concept of diminishing importance as people find other ways to feel accomplished.
I disagree. There are quite a few looks at the lives of ordinary Culture citizens, and they indicate pretty strongly that this dilemma (if it indeed still exists) is resolved by individualizing lifestyles to the point where "do I have more than my neighbours?" becomes a meaningless question. And to me this does not seem far-fetched or something "humanity is not and never has been" at all; right now, "keeping up with the Joneses" is already a concept of diminishing importance as people find other ways to feel accomplished.
who are only capable of being happy if they have "more" than their neighbours. This is a well-documented, empirically proven fact of human life
Citation needed
Citation needed
i'm guessing the footnote to that comment is something like "this is how i feel, therefore this is how everyone feels".
It's a claim you see bandied around pretty often. Like most overarching generalizations about all of humanity most evidence for or against it is more accurate for a given culture than humanity.
If you tone down the hyperbole and try to express your criticisms without insults you might have more chance of a conversation rather than just provoking ire.
I don't really feel his books feature much sadism or horror, it's more a playful disregard for current mores, or a recasting of current taboos in a future where those wouldn't exist - taboos are remarkably fluid. The novels certainly are not intended as hyper-realism, realistic social models or character studies, nor do I think Banks would see them as such. I disagree that his writing is brilliant stylistically, it's interesting and playful, but often pretty lacklustre in terms of craft (plot, character development, language). The ideas he likes to explore I find intriguing however.
It is true that Banks never really explored how Culture society would function, or really how a post-scarcity model would work - all that is just assumed to exist and function well in the books, however I think he was more interested in exploring the accommodation of humans to intelligent machines, the questions raised by extremely powerful and developed civilisations clashing with civilisations which are not as developed, the contradiction of an ostensibly peace-loving yet heavily militarised culture, and the implications of transcending normal human life. These are questions we will have to address at some point even in our narrow world (we haven't yet), and I find it interesting to read his take on them.
So I think while you're right in some sense that the Culture is implausible (or at least not made plausible), the focus is not on the Culture simply because it's a backdrop, and gets him to the place where he can talk about these interesting questions.
I don't really feel his books feature much sadism or horror, it's more a playful disregard for current mores, or a recasting of current taboos in a future where those wouldn't exist - taboos are remarkably fluid. The novels certainly are not intended as hyper-realism, realistic social models or character studies, nor do I think Banks would see them as such. I disagree that his writing is brilliant stylistically, it's interesting and playful, but often pretty lacklustre in terms of craft (plot, character development, language). The ideas he likes to explore I find intriguing however.
It is true that Banks never really explored how Culture society would function, or really how a post-scarcity model would work - all that is just assumed to exist and function well in the books, however I think he was more interested in exploring the accommodation of humans to intelligent machines, the questions raised by extremely powerful and developed civilisations clashing with civilisations which are not as developed, the contradiction of an ostensibly peace-loving yet heavily militarised culture, and the implications of transcending normal human life. These are questions we will have to address at some point even in our narrow world (we haven't yet), and I find it interesting to read his take on them.
So I think while you're right in some sense that the Culture is implausible (or at least not made plausible), the focus is not on the Culture simply because it's a backdrop, and gets him to the place where he can talk about these interesting questions.
> I don't really feel his books feature much sadism or horror
Maybe the poster you're responding to was confusing the Culture stories with Banks' other non-fiction. There's a lot of sadism and basically look-how-bad-humans-are-torture-porn in his other books:
The Wasp Factory Canal Dreams A Song of Stone Complicity Transition
Maybe the poster you're responding to was confusing the Culture stories with Banks' other non-fiction. There's a lot of sadism and basically look-how-bad-humans-are-torture-porn in his other books:
The Wasp Factory Canal Dreams A Song of Stone Complicity Transition
I (who submitted of this article to HN) have this problem as well: on one hand, it's great that he's gotten rid of the tired trope of AI as and technology as a pathway to dystopia or of too-overt celebration of warfare that exists in a lot of military sci-fi.
I'll also post a limited defense of why most of Culture novels take place outside the Culture (note that first third of "Player of Games" is a pretty big exception to this): to paraphrase Banks quoting Niven, "stories about happy people are boring".
On the other hand, is the hypersadism needed? The levels are simply numbing, beyond gratuitous, so a few books on it simply fails to shock. On the other hand, Vernor Vinge's "A Deepness in the Sky" featured a much smaller amount of violence (as done by Emergents) it did happen to be realistic and managed to create great amount of empathy (at several points, I was close to simply putting the book down due to the bleak and hopeless situation of some of the characters) with the characters (who -- both humans and aliens -- seemed a lot more alien than culture's non-Homo Sapiens Pan-Humans). Of course comparing "hard SF" to Banks is quite a stretch, but the "non-alien aliens" and "hypersadism" aspects subtracted rather than added to Banks.
On the other hand, Banks' manages to do what very few can: the characters are great, multidimensional, and show development; the big ideas are big, and yet story-telling and plot aren't sacrificed. There are very few other SF writers who are able to do this (Gene Wolfe, Stan Robinson come to mind).
I'm going to stay out of the discussion of libertarianism (there's a corollary to Godwin's law: unless a certain German leader -- not Frederich the Great or Angela Merkel -- is mentioned first, any online conversation will ultimately end up becoming a debate about libertarianism), but I'll leave these few links out there:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/15/the-endless-lives-of-i... (a positive libertarian review of Banks' work, which acknowledges Banks' explicit rejection of libertarianism)
http://a.b.i-b.tripod.com/html/faq_text.htm -- see the question about "Top Ten" SF novels according to Banks, the first is quite explicitly libertarian "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (there's debate as to whether Heinlein himself was a libertarian, but it's undeniable that at least some of his works are libertarian fiction; OTOH "Beyond the Horizon" is quite Culture-ish in terms of describing a post-scarcity society).
There's also "The Dispossesed" amongst those books which describes an non-property owning anarchist society ( I haven't read it, although it's on my list). For an example of very well written anarcho-capitalist SF, I strongly recommend Vinge's The Peace War, The Ungoverned, and Marooned in Realtime. The Ungoverned goes as far as describe private ownership of nuclear weapons, and yet the novels/novellas avoid the "shill political screed" feel some of the other explicitly "libertarian SF" works have.
I'll also post a limited defense of why most of Culture novels take place outside the Culture (note that first third of "Player of Games" is a pretty big exception to this): to paraphrase Banks quoting Niven, "stories about happy people are boring".
On the other hand, is the hypersadism needed? The levels are simply numbing, beyond gratuitous, so a few books on it simply fails to shock. On the other hand, Vernor Vinge's "A Deepness in the Sky" featured a much smaller amount of violence (as done by Emergents) it did happen to be realistic and managed to create great amount of empathy (at several points, I was close to simply putting the book down due to the bleak and hopeless situation of some of the characters) with the characters (who -- both humans and aliens -- seemed a lot more alien than culture's non-Homo Sapiens Pan-Humans). Of course comparing "hard SF" to Banks is quite a stretch, but the "non-alien aliens" and "hypersadism" aspects subtracted rather than added to Banks.
On the other hand, Banks' manages to do what very few can: the characters are great, multidimensional, and show development; the big ideas are big, and yet story-telling and plot aren't sacrificed. There are very few other SF writers who are able to do this (Gene Wolfe, Stan Robinson come to mind).
I'm going to stay out of the discussion of libertarianism (there's a corollary to Godwin's law: unless a certain German leader -- not Frederich the Great or Angela Merkel -- is mentioned first, any online conversation will ultimately end up becoming a debate about libertarianism), but I'll leave these few links out there:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/15/the-endless-lives-of-i... (a positive libertarian review of Banks' work, which acknowledges Banks' explicit rejection of libertarianism)
http://a.b.i-b.tripod.com/html/faq_text.htm -- see the question about "Top Ten" SF novels according to Banks, the first is quite explicitly libertarian "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (there's debate as to whether Heinlein himself was a libertarian, but it's undeniable that at least some of his works are libertarian fiction; OTOH "Beyond the Horizon" is quite Culture-ish in terms of describing a post-scarcity society).
There's also "The Dispossesed" amongst those books which describes an non-property owning anarchist society ( I haven't read it, although it's on my list). For an example of very well written anarcho-capitalist SF, I strongly recommend Vinge's The Peace War, The Ungoverned, and Marooned in Realtime. The Ungoverned goes as far as describe private ownership of nuclear weapons, and yet the novels/novellas avoid the "shill political screed" feel some of the other explicitly "libertarian SF" works have.
> ... only capable of being happy if they have "more" than their neighbours. This is a well-documented, empirically proven fact of human life ...
It's so nice when somebody takes a tiny, contingent finding from some small-n social science studies and blows it up into an incontrovertible framing for the entire world. Nice in that I can quickly ignore pretty much anything they say from that point forward.
It's so nice when somebody takes a tiny, contingent finding from some small-n social science studies and blows it up into an incontrovertible framing for the entire world. Nice in that I can quickly ignore pretty much anything they say from that point forward.
You are aware that The Culture is explicitly not a descendant of humanity. Culture agents visit Earth in a short story set after Consider Phlebas and it's during the Middle Ages.
As for your alleged empirical fact -- the implication is that almost no-one is wealthy, which is either manifestly untrue or your definition of happiness isn't useful.
As for your alleged empirical fact -- the implication is that almost no-one is wealthy, which is either manifestly untrue or your definition of happiness isn't useful.
Culture agents visit Earth in a short story set after Consider Phlebas and it's during the Middle Ages.
I'm not familiar with any medieval Culture encounters (and I don't see any in Wikipedia's description of the Culture's fictional history[0]), but there is a story, "The State of the Art", where Culture agents show up in the 1970's, which supports your point about the Culture explicitly not descending from humanity.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Fictional_history
I'm not familiar with any medieval Culture encounters (and I don't see any in Wikipedia's description of the Culture's fictional history[0]), but there is a story, "The State of the Art", where Culture agents show up in the 1970's, which supports your point about the Culture explicitly not descending from humanity.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Fictional_history
You're right. Got my wires crossed. State of the Art vs. one of the Culture novels set in a non-Earth middle ages (Transitions?)
>He never delves into the ordinary lives of citizens of the Culture because doing so would reveal the impossiblity of a "post-scarcity" society populated by human beings who are only capable of being happy if they have "more" than their neighbours.
Firstly, as below, [citation needed]. Secondly, for God's sakes, the Culture is not merely post-scarcity, it is actually post-human. If they spot a moral flaw in their own nature that makes a happy, fulfilled society impossible, they can engineer it away with ease. They may have done so, in the youth of their species, when they were as stupid and naive as evolution could make them.
Firstly, as below, [citation needed]. Secondly, for God's sakes, the Culture is not merely post-scarcity, it is actually post-human. If they spot a moral flaw in their own nature that makes a happy, fulfilled society impossible, they can engineer it away with ease. They may have done so, in the youth of their species, when they were as stupid and naive as evolution could make them.
I'm about halfway through the Culture novels. The stories provide so much to consider/discuss and I highly recommend them.
The thought Banks continually returns to in this interview is how as a species to overcome xenophobia. I think this problem should be overcome before people start building true AI, because just imagine xenophobic AI.
A great interview. Now I can't wait to pick up the next Culture book!
The thought Banks continually returns to in this interview is how as a species to overcome xenophobia. I think this problem should be overcome before people start building true AI, because just imagine xenophobic AI.
A great interview. Now I can't wait to pick up the next Culture book!
I'd argue that overcoming xenophobia is more important for us as a species so we can relate to true AI.
I'd argue that overcoming xenophobia is more important for us as a species so we can relate to each other.
I would argue not developing xenophobic AI is more critical. If we hate the AI's their feeling will just be hurt, but if they hate us...
>but if they hate us...
Then we give them a pat on the back for being so perceptive.
Then we give them a pat on the back for being so perceptive.
related: A Few Notes on Marain (as it is written and coded) http://trevor-hopkins.com/banks/a-few-notes-on-marain.html
Love these books. Re-read Surface Detail myself last month, now slogging through Algebraist and seeing if I actually like it or not…
Love these books. Re-read Surface Detail myself last month, now slogging through Algebraist and seeing if I actually like it or not…
I ended up loving The Algebraist. It's a very different book that the various Culture novels, but I love the world-building and so many of the little details.
This interview has been published as a goodie for the donation drive Strange Horizons is currently doing. If you liked it, consider donating a couple of bucks: http://strangehorizons.com/fund_drives/2014/main.shtml
(No affiliation, I just love how much stuff there is to read for free on that page...)
(No affiliation, I just love how much stuff there is to read for free on that page...)
[deleted]
I started reading the Culture series based on a few recommendations here, and I've really been enjoying it so far. The stories make for good reading, though the nature of the society hasn't been explored that well, and I guess never will now, leaving a lot of open questions about the nature of humanity and AI. A few that it's brought me to ponder:
Are humans capable of living in a society where we know that machines rule us unquestionably, we can never do anything as well as a machine can, and anything we could ever want is provided to us free, so much so that there isn't even any point to the existence of money? Would we all just collectively flip out or something?
For that matter, what happens if an ordinary Culture person decides to take a trip to some foreign capitalist society? Presumably the trip would have to be approved by Contact or something, which seems kind of ominous by itself. Where would they get money to go do touristy things in that society? Does the culture make money in that society somehow, and give anybody who wants to visit an unlimited pile of it? Or is it limited somehow?
Exactly what makes the Mind AIs free from all of the mental issues and personality flaws that have caused Human-led societies so many issues? Especially when we see that the human-level drones seem to have a rather ordinary level of positive and negative personality traits.
Exactly how does this society go about deciding which Minds decide what? Do the Minds vote or something? If so, how is it decided which Minds get a vote? Which Minds decide when and how to produce more Minds, and how to train/educate them? Essentially, what is the structure of the Mind-government? Do the humans keep track of the going-ons of the Mind government, however it works, and how do they feel about having zero say about what happens there?
Are humans capable of living in a society where we know that machines rule us unquestionably, we can never do anything as well as a machine can, and anything we could ever want is provided to us free, so much so that there isn't even any point to the existence of money? Would we all just collectively flip out or something?
For that matter, what happens if an ordinary Culture person decides to take a trip to some foreign capitalist society? Presumably the trip would have to be approved by Contact or something, which seems kind of ominous by itself. Where would they get money to go do touristy things in that society? Does the culture make money in that society somehow, and give anybody who wants to visit an unlimited pile of it? Or is it limited somehow?
Exactly what makes the Mind AIs free from all of the mental issues and personality flaws that have caused Human-led societies so many issues? Especially when we see that the human-level drones seem to have a rather ordinary level of positive and negative personality traits.
Exactly how does this society go about deciding which Minds decide what? Do the Minds vote or something? If so, how is it decided which Minds get a vote? Which Minds decide when and how to produce more Minds, and how to train/educate them? Essentially, what is the structure of the Mind-government? Do the humans keep track of the going-ons of the Mind government, however it works, and how do they feel about having zero say about what happens there?
Amusing pronunciation guide in the Marain page:
http://trevor-hopkins.com/banks/a-few-notes-on-marain.html
> 'll' as in Welsh
In fact, ll is pronounced as 'y' in the Welsh language
http://trevor-hopkins.com/banks/a-few-notes-on-marain.html
> 'll' as in Welsh
In fact, ll is pronounced as 'y' in the Welsh language
Perfect timing! I just finished Surface Detail about thirty minutes ago. :)
Some of the ideas expressed are just amazing. I still use and love the phrase "Outside Context Problem". Excession, while not as universally popular as the (excellent) Player of Games, is still one of my favourite books.
I haven't read the last one yet. I almost can't bring myself to, in a way. Because after that, that's it. It's incredibly sad that we lost Banks so soon, obviously for his friends and family, but I would've loved to continue reading what he would have written.
Other commenters mention the dystopian future many authors project. The other end of the spectrum is dominated by nauseating projections of America utopias like in Star Trek.
For a very different yet immersive world I'd highly recommend people pick up either the Merchanter or the Foreigner series by CJ Cherryh.