![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Is The *Illusion of Freedom* Freedom?
Really interesting quote from an article about Vernor Vinge’s new sci-fi novel, Rainbows End:
“The leaders of most powerful countries are coming to realise that the most important natural resources are not factories or the size of armies. Economic power is in the size of the population that is well-educated, creative and generally happy enough to be optimistic enough to want to do something creative.”
“The illusion of freedom becomes a strange thing when a government is dealing with … thousands of people who are as bright as the smartest people running the government. Together, they outclass the people running the show. The turning point is the notion that to provide this illusion of freedom for such a group would wind up being more like real freedom than anything in human history.”
The book itself sounds pretty cool too. Has anybody read it or any of Vinge’s other work? [Link sent to me by JK]
July 6th, 2006 at 3:11 am
Here are Vinge’s thoughts on “the singularity” as of 1993.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Vinge is an excellent sci-fi author. I highly recommend both A Fire Upon The Deep and A Deepness in the Sky.
If it matters, the other sci-fi I really like is pretty much contained by the set of Lem, Dick, Neal Stephenson (sue me, purists), and the New Wave SF writers. I’m really looking forward to Rainbow’s End.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:29 am
seconding prnsqlr.
Both A Fire Upon the Depp and A Deepness in the Sky are absolutely fantastic. I think I prefer Deepness more, though the consensus seems to be Fire is his best. I can’t think of any other science fiction write who’s been able to carry me to such emotional extremes. Well, PKD of course, but other then him, Vinge is one of the best.
July 9th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
This kind of goes back to the ideas we were discussing over at the “Without being killed or imprisoned” essay comments page. I have a theoretical question to pose — I don’t know what my answer would be, and I’m curious to see all of yours, if any of you find this and/or choose to respond:
Let’s say there were a society where the citizens were comfortable, safe, free to pursue happiness, blah blah blah. The only catch would be that they could not attempt to remove or change the government or the society’s rules, and they could not criticize the government or society’s rules at any great extent in public. If anyone were to try to do so, he or she would be at great risk of being imprisoned, tortured, or killed, depending on the “severity” of the offense. Because all the citizens are comfortable, safe and whatnot, no one in the society actually feels they have any incentive to try to replace the government or the rules, or to mount any substantial criticism of these institutions.
Should the citizens of this society replace this government?