Balthazar - The One Faith
13.1.105
INTRODUCTION
What we have here is actually an important event in our Tower history. I have been reluctant to post here due to the usual nature of such discussions. However, there is a large audience reading this, and I think there are some topics that still need to be mentioned, so that said audience can make informed judgments. If we are very lucky, perhaps we can utilize the current situation to better life and stability for everyone living in the Tower. I sincerely hope so.
I will try to list only facts, historical and actual, and avoid commenting on the actors in this current drama except peripherally - they are not what is important as such, and we should stop focusing so much in the individuals, analyzing the broader patterns instead.
BACKGROUND
Historically, humans have been very quick to establish rules and a body of governance whenever groups larger than around 30-50 individuals were living and working together. 30-50 seems to be the upper limit that can be maintained without some firmer form of structure and hierachy, as we cannot psychologically identify personally with more than this number at once. This is reflected here in the Tower in that most rings have trouble exceeding this number, and if they do, they need to have a structured system of handlers and a leader in place, to divide the ring into smaller units.
There is also a larger number, somewhere between 100-200, beyond which the brain has even more trouble maintaining an individual perspective to the whole. This number is where humanity historically has moved from the small family units, through the chieftain clans and into the realm of a governed society.
Studying history, one will see that this happens naturally everywhere where this number of humans get together and do not start with killing off each other. As in early society, so also in our Tower. In the following, I believe it will be fruitful to compare our tower existence to mankinds early history. The most important comparisons that can be made are:
1. We have around the numbers of an early society (last count said 1200)
2. Our lives are directly threatened by death and failure in the same way as early mankind
These psychological (the numbers) and practical (our physical frailty) points are what makes it more fruitful and correct to look at mankinds first societies than at our pinnacle, the Technocracy, when understanding how life works in this tower. I am aware this is a debatable point for those who believe we are close to the Technocracy still, but please indulge me for the time being.
Why did mankind so naturally establish their first societies, moving from the smaller (30-50) family hierachies and the bigger (100-200) chieftain clans? They did so because of the inherent safety and stability attainable in such numbers. If a stable society could be established, less time was needed individually on matters such as survival, because of the specialization possible in larger groups. Some could gather food, some could become soldiers, defending from external (and internal) threats, some could build structures, and so on. The social contract made between such people undeniably gave them a longer, easier (such as it was) life. It made sense on every level to cooperate, though chieftains, being human, often decided to try and kill off the other group instead of merging. If you keep seeing similarities to our current state of affairs, then that is good.
As it is, the level of safety and stability a merger into a (working) larger society fostered has been what has moved humanity forward. All the way forward to this tower, though we now find us at the beginning steps of civilization and society all over again. I hope you are with me this far, and agree that we need a form of society in order to increase our chances at both survival, wealth and social happiness.
Now, if you agree this far, let us look at what dangers a fragile, beginning society faces, and how it protects itself.
1. External threats - These threats are what societies are best at protecting its citizens against, their reason for existing in the first place. Their success in doing this naturally depends on their size and efficiency, meaning how well the resources at hand are managed. Notice again how direct a comparison between the ancients and ourselves we can see here.
2. Internal threats - These are many and varied. And here we will find the crucible of this post.
- Incompetent leaders
These are very hurtful to a society. If the society does not face external threats, it can survive bad leaders. If it does, the incompetent leaders can weaken the whole enough for the society to collapse.
Democracy with multiple leaders and the option of removing them peacefully is brilliant at limiting the effects of incompetent leaders. However, it has been said it is only the 'least bad' solution, not neccessarily a good one. A good leader can take the society far ahead of where it would have come with democracy. A bad leader can destroy a society. On average, a stable democracy will take the society forwards in a slow but secure way, making up for the efficiency of a good dictator with assured, slow forward progress, and protection from a bad dictator.
- Bad government system
If the society has the wrong government system for the task, i.e. dictatorship when it is more beneficial to be feudal, then it will wither and not achieve the level of advancement it could have attained.
However, after the development of democracy, it is hard to argue that any other form of government could produce better results, as above. We can have leaders acting swiftly and efficiently in a democracy as well. I also believe, contrary to some, that this Tower IS a democracy. Not a direct one of course, nor are our ringleaders yet as accountable as in traditional representative democracies, but it is unfair to call what we have a council of dictators at least.
- Criminals
Criminals are defined as those who act against the established laws of the society. These laws need to be put down in writing or spread orally to be formal, so that citizens know what is legal and what is not. Criminals, as opposed to dissidents, do not threaten the existence of the society, and thus their punishment is traditionally more lenient (relatively), as society as a whole can survive their actions, even if individuals cannot. In primitive, early societies, criminals were usually physically punished in a way that ensured they could not repeat their crime. Cutting off hands for theft, loss of genitalia for rape, I am sure you get the idea.
As societies developed and became more intricate, so did crime, and it became harder to punish this precisely. Loss of freedom, wealth and status relative to the perceived damage to society were then the punitive norm for offenses, with death as the biggest punishment, that negated both freedom, wealth and status completely. Later again, as societies grew more stable and secure, focus began to center on sociologically educating the criminal so that the offense was never repeated again, while the victims were reimbursed by society as a whole. This level of civilization was not completely realized before the Technocracy, not would it have been efficient to all societies if implemented.
- Dissidents
These are always the biggest perceived threat to a society. Dissidents are those who oppose the structure upon which the society is built and through their actions directly threaten the existence of the society. As such their punishment has always been the harshest in any society. A society can have many laws, but not threatening society itself must neccessarily be the most important law to society, because it is a matter of life and death (real or perceived) to the society and its citizens.
Not only can dissidents not be tolerated, they rarely are tolerated by the majority, there are many emotions involved in this, when their actions are perceived to harm the whole and thus also the individual. For leaders of societies, it has historically been a convenient way to remove many different irritants or problems - if a criminal can be said to be a dissident, it is much more likely citizens will accept whatever punishment is decided upon. In most societies, dissidents were also those who spoke out against the ethics, ideologies or structure of a society, though more advanced societies managed to secure these under the 'freedom of speech', as opposed to the dissidents who endangered the society through violence, wars or physically aiding enemies. Verbal disagreement was seen as acceptable by some societies, whereas physical actions were not.
CONCLUSION
Now, after this lengthy exposition designed to sum up our current status, I will finally be able to move to what I had to say.
Currently, although we have a basic, working Tower democracy, and binding laws/agreements in place, we lack the means of a real society to enforce these laws. We have no prisons as such, nor do we have a trained police force nor weapons. Our mindset here is still that we are a group of scientists more than a society, and this has already been problematic. We are unwise to think we can survive without more structure. It is not possible in the situation we are in, we do not have the luxury to act as we please, we do not have the luxury to think we can reason with everyone, no matter what - it is impossible to reason with everyone, as long as we do not all share the exact same goals and morals.
In any society there will be criminals and dissidents - our society is as endangered as any primitive early human society. We could die off any day due to a variety of causes. Our only hope of survival lies in efficient cooperation. Efficient cooperation requires a governed society, where citizens act according to laws that are in place to protect the whole. Also, as we are free-willing individuals, this society needs an enforcing body, there is no way around it, except if we want to believe in the goodness of all humankind.
We will fail, we will die without a stable society.
I think it is time we stopped being children and accepted these hard truths - before it is too late. The current situation serves well to highlight several points.
1. People go against tower decisions as they please, due to a variety of reasons.
2. We have a democratic society, but it is fragile, partly due to our hesitation to fully embrace it.
3. Both those inside and outside of our system take advantage of it.
Lurkers have benefitted from our pacifism and lack of weapons.
Lurker collaborators have been able to work with the Lurkers because they do not see this as a moral problem or a big enough risk to themselves.
And our appointed investigators have broken our moral rules, perhaps because there was no one to stop them, no one who controlled them or knew what they were doing.
In short, we are an inefficient semi-democratic, almost-society, and this keeps us at deaths door, very close to total failure if just a few factors go the wrong way. I believe it is time to stop thinking we have the luxury of doing as we please with this. We must reign in our manipulators as well as our anarchists, and put consequence behind our democratic decisions. And we must start opening up for more democracy in slow, measured steps.
Thus I suggest:
1. We establish a governing council - this would be made up of ring leaders, much like our ring leader meetings now, but instead of everyone working at cross-purposes as now, they start to work together as a whole. Over time, we go towards representative and direct democracy.
2. We establish an enforcing body with complete transparency built in and answerable to the council, tasked with securing the stability of our society. This is more important than anything: No matter what you may think, we are humans, and there both are, and will be, humans who cannot be reasoned with. These people must not be able to end our existence.
3. We do not shirk away from punishing criminals and dissidents as needed for the stability of the Tower (I would say freedom of speech does not harm us). We stop being lenient just because TAU taught us to work together as if we were only 30-50 people. The reality of the matter is that we are a large society, and what TAU teaches us will work for a small group will not work with thousands of colonists. Personally, I think the accused from SoFC should be punished as dissidents, and the three offenders from The Horizon as criminals. I also offer my insights into Earth's judicial systems to the ringleaders and will strive to be impartial in this.
To conclude, I must stress that NO early society has ever survived according to TAU without these measures - And we are too many to keep the illusion that we are just a large group of acquaintances who respect each other. We must cease believing we can run around helter-skelter, at cross purposes, knowing better than all others. We need a structure that collectively knows better than any individual, and we need the structure to be accepted by all, hence democracy, transparency and freedom of speech.
Let us seize this opportunity, while we are still able, to take the beginning steps towards a stable, just and civilized society - because that is what we must become if we are to survive.
-----------------------------------
Join us to discuss the word of God at Lockerhall Alpha, every Thursday at 9:00.