Page Content (OCR)
296 Reflecting on the terrors of the twentieth century, writer and researcher Robert Conquest concluded that the myth of rationalist politics is based on the frightful idea that some of us know what is best for the rest. The basic attraction is the idea that utopia can be constructed on Earth—the offer of a millenarian solution to all human problems. The conjunction of dreaming and ruling generates tyranny; the dream of salvation will always end in a nightmare. There is no formula that can give us infallible answers to political, social, economic, ecological, and other human problems. There is no final purpose to history, no perfection, no utopia. Conquest counseled that is is better to stick with the Western liberal culture that implies the absence of absolutes, a disbelief in perfect political wisdom, or in readily predictable futures.’ Perfectability Among the recurrent themes of this long debate are the moral and ethical imperfection of human beings, and the hope that contact will help us to rise to a more perfect level. Kant envisioned a hierarchy of rational beings progressing toward the highest excellence, namely divin- ity. Tsiolkovskii speculated that we have been set aside in a reserve in order to allow our species to evolve to perfection. Stapledon, too, envi- sioned our own evolution toward a perfect state. Is perfection achievable? At what point have we achieved perfection? What are the criteria? Who decides? Space historian Roger Launius pointed out that the idea of perfect societies also is recurrent in the literature of space advocacy. Arthur Clarke, for one, thought that the exploration of space was a conduit for the improvement of the human race. Although spaceflight has had many important consequences, the social outcomes have been less revo- lutionary than the most visionary advocates foresaw—and they have not always been positive. Five decades into this effort, we remain far from perfect by anyone’s standard. MacGowan and Ordway offered a utopia ruled by an intelligent machine. They claimed that wars, revolutions, coups, and other forms of major social disturbance would be quickly eliminated if an executive automaton estab- lished itself in a position of domination over all segments of a biological society. However, the cost would be high: A little reflection will show that any significant degree of social progress is inevi- tably accompanied by the sacrifice of some degree of personal freedom. A signifi- cant trend toward freedom is actually a trend toward anarchy and chaos. The ceding of social control to an artificial intelligent automaton would lead to an immediate and undreamed of rate of social progress. ... It would mean a fuller and happier life for virtually all members of a biological society. The major social Assumptions: After Contact