Comments on: Reynolds — An Army of Davids

By: Lex

Lex — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:25:23 +0000

You don’t look at science fiction for a perfect map of the future. You read it, or write it, to think about trends and where they might go and what consequences they might have. It is the process of thinking these things through that is useful and interesting, much more than getting this or that precise detail right.

For example, Neal Stephenson’s The Diamond Age is filled with interesting perspectives on future developments, many of which I think are very astute. That does not mean we will in fact literally have Queen Victoria II reigning over a worldwide a Neo-Victorian phyle wearing top hats and corsets and bustles and living in nano-tech defended fortress complexes that look like English country towns. (Of course, if this does happen, I am there, baby.)

On the specific point you make, William Gibson’s stories and novels from the early 80s, classics of the genre, did in fact give us some inkling of the Internet, he invented the word cyberspace which he described as a “shared consensual reality” which is actually more advanced than where we are now but which may look like what is still ahead.

I gave up on science fiction, with very few exceptions, in 1990, due solely to time constraints. Those who have followed SF in the last 16 years will probably have more timely examples.

Overall, I think the science fiction field has done a pretty good job of projecting trends and talking about possible future developments.

By: Helen

Helen — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:02:47 +0000

Yeah right. Like science fiction told us all about the internet and e-mails and blogs and all the other developments.

By: John

John — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:28:39 +0000

“What this will look like in practice is now hazy. We need a good science fiction novel set in 2050 to show us some possible lines of development.”

Working on it, albeit slowly.

By: Helen

Helen — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:52:39 +0000

If armies of Davids do take the law, literally, into their own hands, such things as the Geneva Convention will stop mattering. There will be no protection for anyone.

By: simon kenton

simon kenton — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:44:31 +0000

The recent supreme court decision in Hamdan suggests that a literal army of Davids has important advantages over a national army. It gets the protections of the Geneva Convention, no matter its barbarity, and no matter its separation from traditional nation-states. It seems to me likely that paramilitary, mercenary, or militia-type forces will become a tool of choice for great nations even as they now are for moonbat countries, functioning as cats-paws for major nations whose regular armies will be hamstrung by treaties and international press-fussing.

By: Lex

Lex — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:58:52 +0000

“How long before “people take the law into their own hands” … before they realize that their freedoms come not from their laws but from the values that sustain their laws? How long before the Anglosphere Army of Davids actually mobilizes for war?”

James, this idea, which you have been mulling for some time now, is a major one which few people have addressed. The idea that small groups or super-empowered indidivuals may strike blows against civilization is now a common theme. The idea that people who live in civilized communities will have these same capabilities, perhaps moreso, and will used them actively against their enemies, especially if the state refuses to do so, is a very important variable.

Also, as Walter Russell Mead has written, the American PEOPLE have always had a very robust and multi-faceted foreign policy of their own — missionaries, students, businessmen, etc. — and the possibility of them having their own military assets to respond to threats is certainly possible.

What this will look like in practice is now hazy. We need a good science fiction novel set in 2050 to show us some possible lines of development.