Тег: Hainline

Robots and Coventry

Recently, Bitarch and Voluntarist suggested Heinlein’s novella “Coventry” as a thesis for their idea of the bio-enhancement of morality. Briefly, the plot: the protagonist defended the right to physical aggression and, instead of psychological correction, preferred exile to a colony of similar aggressors. There, he became well-acquainted with the local customs, and when he discovered that these barbarians were planning to break out of their pen and enslave the peaceful inhabitants outside, he sided with those who had exiled him, being ready even for that very psychological correction.

Bitarch and Voluntarist’s conclusion: there is no need to fear correction; accept it voluntarily—it is not necessary to take a tour among aggressive savages first.

Robert Heinlein is a grandmaster of American science fiction, but he is only one of three. Arthur Clarke’s books are not very well known in Russian territories, so let’s not dwell on him; instead, let’s see what the third grandmaster—Isaac Asimov—writes about the correction of aggressive behavior.

In his version of future history, humans actively used anthropomorphic robots, whose intelligence, for fear of a machine rebellion, was limited by three now-well-known laws. Having colonized several dozen planets with the help of robots, humans built a cozy cosmonite society where the human population was comfortably small and the number of robots serving them was comfortably large. Robots not only refrained from using violence against humans themselves but also suppressed such attempts by anyone. This made life safe and completely eradicated the habit of physical violence. Having domesticated their planets and becoming domesticated themselves, the cosmonites ceased all expansion and focused primarily on prolonging their lives.

Those who remained on Earth were too numerous and only huddled closer and closer to save on utility costs through positive economies of scale. As a result, they developed a fear of the wilderness and also lost the capacity for cosmic expansion.

Asimov pulled humanity out of this trap literally using a deus ex machina. A certain robot accidentally acquired the ability to read and correct human emotions, became filled with thoughts about the benefit of cosmic expansion for humanity, and kicked humanity off Earth without robots—a real kick in the pants—and then turned out the lights on those departing so they wouldn’t think of returning, by triggering a mechanism that gradually made Earth completely uninhabitable. The result was twenty thousand years of expansion and star wars, the colonization of the entire galaxy, and then a transition to a hive mind, a pan-galactic intelligence—not so much to live comfortably without violence within a single humanity, but to be able to effectively resist an invasion from other galaxies if necessary.

Thus, using his artistic tools, Asimov demonstrates that aggression is vital for humanity’s expansion and defense against Aliens; when there is no space for expansion, the time comes for the correction of aggressive behavior, but this is a forced measure, similar to drugs for suppressing an immune response, and if overused, humanity weakens and degenerates. For any human society, according to Asimov, the best state is its period of expansion, when people are energetic, enterprising, and full of healthy aggression directed primarily at the external world. In Asimov’s work, this ideal is embodied by traders—people who conquer the frontier and explore what useful goodies are there that can be cheaply obtained and then sold dearly in civilized lands.

What is the difference between this world and the society shown in “Coventry”? There, aggressors end up not on the frontier, but in a reservation. Their aggression is directed at each other, positive selection occurs based on the level of ingenuity and ruthlessness of the aggressors, and sooner or later they turn to expansion, finding a way to break through the barrier with which the civilized and peaceful people have walled themselves off. It is the world of “Coventry” that is the ideal of modern Western civilization in our own version of Earth. This civilization is tired of wars and would like to live in peace with barbarians, or at least wall themselves off from them, although the most civilized representatives of Western civilization reproach the supporters of such walling off for excessive cruelty, as barbarian culture is also valuable and original, and one simply needs to help barbarians taste the pleasures of civilization, and everything will be fine.

In this form, Western civilization is doomed. Bitarch and Voluntarist, feeling this, advocate for the idea of psychocorrection, but they speak primarily about eliminating aggression within civilized society. And this is their rhetorical error. Their ideas would be perceived completely differently if they spoke of psychocorrection specifically as an offensive weapon against barbarism.

Bomb African savages, Russian orcs, Mexican cartels, and other scum with empathy and politeness using serotonin bombs! Cut their psychopathy out by the roots! Civilization will advance until the last Islamist kisses a lady’s hand!

That—now that would work.

“Coventry” Heinlein: Why Absolute Freedom Doesn’t Work?

I recently reread Robert Heinlein’s short story “ Coventry,” and it turned out to be a truly gripping piece. This story is one of those after which you long stare at the ceiling and ask yourself questions like “What exactly *is* freedom?” and “Can you forcibly make someone happy?”

The plot is roughly as follows: the events take place in the future, where any violence results in expulsion behind an energy barrier to live “by your own rules” in a special zone called Coventry, or you agree to psychocorrection, resulting essentially in biologically enhanced morality and making you incapable of initiating violence. Faced with these options, the main character named David MacKinnon chooses exile, saying, “Better a harsh but honest freedom than a cute and toothless dictatorship of good.” However, it turns out that there is no real freedom behind the barrier. Instead of paradise libertarianism, he finds gangs who mercilessly rob and suppress anyone weaker, fanatical theorists believing in their own exclusivity and absolute truth, and wild lands where complete anarchy reigns in its worst form and “might makes right”.

David immediately gets a harsh lesson when he is robbed almost at the entrance to Coventry, losing all things he had hoped to use for survival. Being completely helpless, he quickly falls into the trap of local political intrigues. Soon the hero learns about a conspiracy aimed at breaking through the protective barrier and attacking the peaceful, civilized society from which he recently refused.

This becomes a turning point for him. The hero not only begins to think about the path he has taken but also realizes that true freedom is impossible without any principles and mutual respect. As a result, it is David who becomes the key figure in preventing the attack and saving that same world from which he so brazenly withdrew.

In the end, the hero, having tasted all of local “magic,” understands that the absolute freedom he dreamed of actually turned out to be jungles where there is no place for either freedom or human dignity. He also suddenly realizes that morality is not a stupid relic but a necessary condition for any society where, at least in theory, one wants to live. Heinlein is kind of winking at us here: If you want freedom – agree to at least the minimum rules, like not initiating violence. And if you don’t want to – well, go behind the barrier and try to build anarchy there. It won’t work, it’s been proven!

And here’s an interesting conclusion for our project: essentially, the author proposes the idea of bio-amplification of morality. Not external coercion of it, note that, but voluntary acceptance of therapy to strengthen the inhibitor of violence. This is not prison and not dictatorship! It’s a perfectly natural thing that any aggressor eventually comes to, if they’re even capable of thinking and learning. Just instead of painful trials and errors through fights and traumas, a person immediately gets a chance to embed this morality into their own “operating system.” Agree, it’s better to install an “antivirus” right away than to dredge up the consequences later.

Heinlein understood the risks of violence and anticipated the idea of bio-amplification of morality more than half a century ago. Probably, it’s time for us to understand this and stop fearing bioethics. Because ultimately, conscious limitation of oneself from violence – that’s true freedom. The freedom of a mature, aware person, not a teenager with a knife who demands “to do whatever I want or I’ll cut everyone up.”

P.S. Voluntary acceptance of bio-amplification of morality in a certain degree resembles consent to attachment to a partner for the sake of preserving relationships and the possibility of comfortably living together, although everyone understands that activation of the neurobiological mechanism of attachment (through oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine) leads to a much stronger personality change than strengthening the inhibitor of violence. Nevertheless, in the mainstream, this is considered normal. So why are there still skeptics of bio-amplification of morality?!

Voluntary, Bitarch