Decline and Fall

For his novel Foundation, Isaac Asimov is said to have been inspired by Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Wherever he got his information from, he certainly understood the symptoms of a society in decline, as evinced by this scene in Foundation:

 '"We're receding and forgetting, don't you see? Here in the periphery they've lost atomic power. In Gamma Andromeda, a power plant has blown up because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that atomic technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they're to restrict atomic power."'

That was in 1951. This year, in Britain, after a series of relatively dry winters that have depleted underground aquifers, a couple of months of almost continuous rain has produced frequent flash flooding. First because the ground was too dry to absorb it, then because the ground was too wet to absorb it.

Continuous immigration and urban expansion in the south-east of England has resulted in water shortages and hosepipe bans. Because the infra-structure in place was built by the Victorians and is now out of date, having been unable to keep pace with population needs.

And the solution? To build more reservoirs that can trap and store all that flood water flushing down towards the sea?

No. The chief recommendation is that water meters should be made mandatory in everyone's homes to discourage them from using water.

This is in Britain, an island surrounded by water, and with a temperate, exceedingly damp climate. But current fashions dictate that we treat water as scarce.

This is a minor example of the mindset of decline that Asimov highlighted. Of course he was talking about 'atomic' power, so how does this compare to the ideas surrounding nuclear power today?

Well, nuclear power is being rolled back too. The recent tsunami in Japan and the problems it caused when a nuclear reactor went into meltdown has caused a rethink of nuclear power there, but nuclear power is also being abandoned in Germany, in spite of it having a good safety record there. And France, 100% self sufficient in carbon-free electricity thanks to it's unique and far-sighted nuclear network, is also cutting back, with the incoming President Hollande pledging to cut France's nuclear power generators by half.

Europe has been in decline since 1914. Its greater exposure to the 2008 credit crash - in spite of being more social-democrat and less casino-capitalist than the US - is down to its systemic weakness and its crumbling foundations.

It could also be put down to what could be called a 'decline mindset'.

When a civilization is ripe, it tastes sweet.

When it goes soft, it starts to rot.

"Sometimes the warlords decide that everything worthy of plunder has been extracted, and that the hitherto rich sources of revenue have dried up. Then they begin the so-called peace process. They convene a meeting of the opposing sides (the 'warring factions conference'), they sign an agreement, and set a date for elections. In response, the World Bank extends to them all manner of loans and credits. Now the warlords are even richer than they were before, because you can get significantly more from the World Bank than from your own starving kinsmen."

Ryszard Kapuscinki - The Shadow of the Sun

Good vs Reason

Gerrard Winstanley once wrote; "Let Reason rule in man and he dares not trespass against his fellow creature, but will do as he would be done unto..."

Gerrard Winstanley died in 1676, but the idea that Reason equates to Goodness comes to us in a long trail from the Ancient Greeks, through early Christianity, then radical Protestant Christianity, on through secular humanism and into modern Atheism, Anarchism, Liberalism and Marxism.

And if you think that Reason's journey looks kind of weird and contradictory, it's because it is. History is nothing if not ironical.

Anyway, it's from there that we've inherited the idea that Reason equals Niceness. From the time of the first philosophers, Reason was held to be a lofty principle, recognised by lofty people. And lofty people are nice people, and believe in nice things, like manners. Hence the term Reasonable.

But Reason has nothing to do with niceness, though it's understandable why its come to be understood this way. Reason, for all its qualifications and pontifications, is just intelligence. Really intelligent people, like philosophers, tend to be softies who don't want to be pushed around by the local brute. So it's no surprise that they should advance their own traits as being better for society and encourage everyone to do the same. It's also where we get nonsense ideas like 'the pen is mightier than the sword' - it's the kind of thing that intellectuals need to believe is true. It lets them feel superior rather than afraid.

To understand why Reason has no moral preference, let's look at one example I've taken from Ioan Grillo's book; El Narco. In this book, which is about drug cartels and the narcotics trade in Mexico today, Grillo interviews a young hitman and reveals a story that's become very familiar now. The hitman grew up in a poor district. His father was an honest man who worked hard to feed his family, but the hours he worked were long, the pay poor and whenever he was unemployed the family struggled to survive. Meanwhile, in the district, the drug gangsters recruited young men for the violent drug trade. Other young men who joined them soon appeared on the streets with lots of cash, nice clothes, a car, a string of girls wanting to make their acquaintance and a reputation of being someone to respect. Now the father didn't want his son to join the drug trade, even though the family were often hungry. He believed in being honest. Inevitably however the son succumbed and eventually became a motorcycle hitman. Compared to what his father did, it was easy work and paid far, far more.

Now lets examine this situation from the point of view of Reason. The father believed in being an upright and honest citizen, even though it meant he could not always provide. The hard manual labour probably meant an early death too. From the son's point of view, if the benefits of becoming a narco outweighed the costs, if in fact he looks at the facts and deduces that the chances of being caught for doing something illegal are low, while the chances of living a more comfortable life are high, is he not employing the higher faculties of Reason in doing so?
And if his father insists, against all the odds, on staying Good, then is his choice not, in fact, irrational?

If I am poor, and you have something nice that I want, and if I calculate that I can take it from you without fear of retribution or even discovery, then by taking it I am being rational.

This kind of thinking is characterised as low cunning, rather than high Reason, but in truth there is no difference at all.

Goodness, virtue, honour - these are nebulous things that can neither be touched nor proven. Like the existence of God in fact. This is why nearly all religions posit them.

If you employ Reason, and only Reason, you will eventually discard that which cannot be seen and respect only the material and the concrete. This is why the Marxists made a big deal about materialism and used their Reason to bash the religions who had brought them Reason in the first place. Liberalism also comes to a similar place with its concept of Utilitarianism, which essentially says that there are no real values anywhere, only advantages.

The idea then that the Rational is good while the Irrational is bad is nonsense.

Good is a nebulous principle. It cannot be measured, seen or felt. Pleasure can be felt, good cannot, though you may feel pleasure in doing good. But good exists only in so far as we make it up. It stands to reason then that, in order to live in the kind of communist grouping that Winstanley is in fact alluding to in the above quote, a certain irrational belief must be accepted among its members.

Good is irrational. Irrationalism is good. Or it can be in some circumstances. A inconvenient fact that was well understood by philosophers right up until recent times (and a lot of ink has been spilt trying to circumnavigate that particular conundrum), but which is ignored or simply not understood by mainstream thinkers (and I use the term loosely) today.

Ryszard Kapuscinski once wrote that, if men were not irrational, would history even exist? Well, if man allowed Reason to rule, then history would be a catalogue of intrigue, plotting, betrayal and calculations.

Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly how it looks like. Especially among the 'reasonable', higher, 'intelligent' classes.

Comrades, pass me the champagne.

The Socialist Workers Party makes me laugh. It's made up almost entirely of students and graduates, and it's run by university lecturers and academics. A worker's party with no workers in it?

It's a Walther Mitty organisation really.

Socialism is just a bourgeois hobby horse these days.

Science Fiction's attitude problem

I'm not dead yet.

Every few years someone in the literary industry asks the question - Is science fiction dying? And in the fanzines and the forums the issue is discussed and agonised over, only to always reach the same conclusion - No it's not.

One would have thought that the constant reappearance of the question itself is a sign that something is not right with the genre, regardless of the constant reassurances from fans and writers. And for those who blame its niche status on its seeming inability to break out into wider acceptance or mass market territory, the solution seems to always be that the readers out there need to recognise just how great science fiction is. This of course is a fan view, and the solution involves marketing, often with the view that publishers are simply not pushing science fiction enough or spending enough money on it.

And then of course there's the view that it's the fault of the masses, who are all dumb Dan Brown readers, and that science fiction is overlooked because it's actually a superior genre. The expectation then is that either the masses convert, or that the Booker Prize Literary establishment desist from their snobbish refusal to open the golden gates to their coveted green pastures and recognise science fiction to be their equal. And the irony of accusing one group of snobbery while looking down on others as inferior goes unnoticed in a genre that adopts an identity of such desperate seriousness that it often resembles caricature.

And yet no one has ever worried about the longevity of science fiction in the movie or game world, where it provides healthy returns year on year. For some reason the angst remains confined to the literary world of science fiction.

The rearguard actions fought within literary science fiction to shore up the walls that, apparently, are not coming down, border on the comical. First there was the desire to show off science fiction's uniqueness. Then there was the desire to widen its definition, calling itself Speculative Fiction, presumably to fend off the accusation of being narrow and irrelevant. From there it was a short step to attempt to drag in every other genre within its lofty confines, with a grab bag of great novels past and present being called speculative, and therefore SF. Suddenly science fiction speculative fiction was the grand godfather of all great literature, and shame on you if you didn't know it. George Orwell was an SF author it seems. As was Robert Harris and Tom Clancy. Apparently.

Also dragged into the SF umbrella is the sister genre of Fantasy, in spite of science fiction advocates in the past vociferously denying any connection between the two, though publishers and book sellers begged to differ. The latter won out and we now have the acronym SF & F in marketing. Fantasy of course massively outsells science fiction on all levels, and always has, so if the two are going to be lumped together under one roof, surely SF should become known as Fantasy, rather than Fantasy being known as SF. Because outside the walls of the fan fortress, the average reader sees all science fiction as pure fantasy. And no attempt to macho up SF with the addition of the term Hard Science Fiction appears to be altering that fact.

We are different.

Literary SF has always seen itself as exceptional, with advocates claiming that it is important because it explores the future. Concepts are seen as more important than plot. Fans have written that they want to see 'new ideas', or often just new gadgets. Wafer thin characterisation and dull plots aren't seen as much of a problem by 'proper' SF fans therefore.
Movie and game versions of science fiction however (and their book spin-offs) tend more towards the pure entertainment side of the spectrum. They embrace the simple desires of the masses, who want fun and thrills.

Literary SF's sense of exceptionalism lends itself to elitism. Elites often see themselves as leading the way and setting the trends. There is undeniably an intelligence involved in elitism, but co-existing with that is snobbery and a disconnect from the masses. This disconnect often leaves elites slow or unable to adapt to change, for elites believe that they create their own reality and thus ignore or fail to see larger or deeper trends that can leave them stranded, or simply extinct.
The movie and game versions of science fiction, in embracing the desires of the masses, tend to be more democratic as a result and, rather ironically, tend to birth the trends that literary SF then needs to adapt to. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep did not really change much in the genre, in spite of being much lauded. The movie version Bladerunner on the other hand, with its more traditional, character based plotting, did, and was thus a massive influence on science fiction.

In the ghetto.

The hardcore of science fiction, whilst bemoaning its siege status, has often looked upon its fortress walls with pride. Outsiders to the SF bunker are known as mundanes. Or simply derided as idiots. Science fiction novels that simply want to be entertaining are dismissed as mere tricked out fantasy. Movie and game science fiction is belittled as mere 'sci-fi', with the label being seen as a term of dumbed down ignorance. Authors from outside who dare to write a science fiction novel are criticised for not being well versed enough in the SF canon of venerated tropes. Insiders meanwhile claim that a lifetime's reading of SF gives them a superior perspective that allows them to assess events in the real world with greater percipience.

Hardcore advocates see themselves as enlightened, either defending themselves from the unenlightened or feeling honour bound to preach to them. The echo of their own voices from the fortress walls becomes a form of adulation that confirms their convictions.

And meanwhile science fiction sales fall and science fiction publishing opportunities dwindle.

So what?

Being niche isn't a problem if there are enough fans within it to create demand for what's already being written. Science fiction is just one genre among many and there's no suggestion that there isn't room for them all.

It only becomes a problem if one desires science fiction to grace the fiction best selling lists with the same frequency as the other genres, something that is more of a problem in the UK than in the US, where the market appears to be a little more diverse.

A sense of entitlement will get science fiction nowhere, because nobody is listening. Readers are not stupid. They know what they want. Give a few of them what they want and you have a small clique. Give many of them what they want and you have a mass market. It really is as simple as that. Wanting a prize for being different however is just illogical, especially if the prize givers are those whom you loudly proclaim to be morons.

Literary genres such as Westerns or Second World War adventures have disappeared. No genre is so precious that it can be considered immortal. Science fiction may never again be as great as it was during its golden years. But if it wants to survive at all, the first step should be for it to remember one important and frequently overlooked point: that, for all its pretensions and prognostications, it is just fiction.

And there's nothing wrong with being just fiction.

But if that isn't self-important enough, the earnest types should perhaps consider religion or politics.

The gap between the rich and the poor.

The gap between the rich and the poor is supposed to be getting bigger. Guardian and BBC types frequently point to the sky high earnings of city fat cats compared to the scrapings of the underclass.
There will be trouble and social schism they say, often aligning themselves on the side of the poor against the rich, sometimes even imagining themselves to be part of the masses. Social commentators in the Guardian still cheer or quietly support the agitations of the downtrodden. Some see themselves as 'the workers' on the simplistic basis that 'anyone who works is a worker'. Some look forward to a day of reckoning for the rich.
They ought to be careful what they wish for.

The rich are a tiny minority in this country. To most people they are fairly invisible. How many people have seen a millionaire in their average week? The majority of people around the country are unlikely to come across one in their entire lives. Except on the TV.
The underclass, though much talked about, is also fairly invisible. Very few people are aware of conditions in some estates, or see what police and social workers see everyday. The underclass are fragmented and tend to live in small ghettos. Society is able to ignore their problems, or ignore them as a problem, or romanticise them and their problems, because they remain confined to specific areas, from which they rarely venture far from. And as a percentage of the country's population, they are a tiny proportion of the whole.

There is another category of 'rich' person however who is very visible in everyday life. They live in fairly nice houses. They drive fairly nice cars. They wear fairly nice clothes and have fairly nice gadgets. They go on fairly nice holidays. They are the upper middle class - the occupiers of the overlapping circles of the Guardian and the BBC, as well as Channel 4, the Telegraph and the Times. People who don't actually think of themselves as rich and who are mostly unaware that they are on the other side of a line that divides them from another, poorer group - the lower middle class.

The story of who the middle class is these days in Britain is the story of how the working class fractured and apparently disappeared. It was the decline of manufacturing and the start of the credit boom in the eighties that destroyed the working class. Those who couldn't adapt fell down to become the underclass. Those who could grabbed the credit and stepped up to become the lower middle class - skilled tradesmen who suddenly got to live in semis, drive more than one car that wasn't knackered and go on holiday abroad far more frequently than their parents ever managed.
Those who used to be called the middle class were nudged upwards to become the upper middle class.
This is why New Labour moved to the middle. There was nowhere else to go.

Modeling themselves on the US, the majority of people began to identify themselves as middle class. The 'new' middle class became the majority, taking over from the working class. Middle class sensibilities became the norm, no longer challenged by cruder and less politically correct working class ones. The upper middle class, whether they recognised it or not, were the elite - evangelists for the moral narrative of the country: a distinct brand of soft left liberalism. Which is why the Conservatives increasingly embraced a softer, more liberal conservatism. They had no choice.

And the dividing line between the upper and lower middle classes? A university education. The same line that divided the old working classes from the middle classes. A degree remains the gateway to the higher paying careers. The jobs below that line are nowhere near the same level. And surprisingly, given the meritocratic rise of the past forty years, that line is hardening. A teaching assistant earns a lot less than a teacher. Without a degree, it will soon be impossible for a vocationally qualified teaching assistant to become a teacher. And that's just one example. Throughout the spectrum the lower middle classes will find that the upper middle classes have pulled the ladder up.

Lower middle class lifestyles have only been sustained by credit. There has been no massive revolution in manufacturing innovation or a sustained growth in GDP to fuel the affluence of the masses. Massive inflows of investment cash from a surging East Asia since the eighties has allowed more money to slosh about the investment system. Banks felt able to dish it out even to high risk categories. Credit cards used to be jealously hoarded by banks. By the nineties they were simply giving them away. It was the inflow of money and our enjoyment of it that caused the credit bubble. Its burst was inevitable.

Credit is now being squeezed and this means big problems for the lower middle class. It's their debts that are now a burden. It's their lifestyle that is suffering as they fail to afford the things that they'd only just started to take for granted. The credit boom may not come back and they will discover that their new found wealth was not built on solid ground. They will slide.

The growing gap between the rich and the poor is actually between the upper middle class and the lower middle class.

And if the lower middle class fall out of their middle class lifestyles, will they become the working class again? No, because the industry that gave the working class their identity is gone. In the 'information age', in a service economy, the working class has become the servant class, feeding burgers to, tending the material possessions of and minding the children of the better off. They won't see the upper middle classes as 'one of them'. And they will come to resent them, their culture and their attitude. And their liberal moral stance.

Upper middle class types who have preached egalitarianism have recently stoked up the flames of class war in their desire to 'bash the bankers'. They should be very careful about how they fan those flames. They might find that they are standing on petrol-soaked firewood.