Shall Not Perish 17 - SW TL

Gentlesophonts:

I'd thought I'd posted this late Sunday night but it hasn't appeared on
the TML yet so I'll try again.  (Sorry, Hans.  I've been wondering why
you hadn't bothered to reply to this yet! :-)

"In argument, truth is discovered."
                 -Russian proverb

I think we're beginning to discover some truth about the Sword Worlds.

From Sunday night, Hans Rancke [email removed] writes:

> It seems I haven't explained my idea about the economic cycles well enough.

No, I get your point, I just don't see any `facts' that support these cycles.
What is it about the technological disparities between worlds that suggests
these cycles?  I understand that you're saying that without things cycling
up and down there ought to be no disparities - every world would be TL 15.
Why does this have to be the case?  While it's clear that technological
knowledge ought to be equivalent throughout `known space' there is nothing
to suggest that economic development is constant as well.  It might
be that lower tech worlds just haven't `grown' to higher technological
accomplishment yet - like on contemporary Earth.  Why the need to propose
these mysterious `techno-economic cycles'?

> (Remember, I also assume that a world can
> maintain ships and equipment at least two levels above their own TL)

I'm not sure this is really relevant to our discussion but I'm not sure
I agree with this idea.  A TL 6 mechanic is going to have problems fixing
the electronic-fuel-injection in my TL 8 car just as a TL 6 computeroid
is going to have difficulties trying to replace the vacuum tubes in my PC.
A TL 4 electrician won't have a clue how to fix the CRT on my TL 5 TV.
Of course, you're going to say she can because her world was at TL 8 when
she went to trade school two decades ago.  :-)

> Ah, how difficult it is to abandon
> a well-loved theory...

See.  We've already found something in common.  :-)

> Well, I'll continue my argument as if FFW didn't exist. For the moment,
> anyway. Until I get a chance to think about it a bit.

If the 5FW counters `prove' that there are truly disparate TLs in the
Sword Worlds doesn't that lend credence to the idea that disparate TLs
are due to disparate techno-economic *development* rather than `cycles'?
And won't that, in turn, generally call for Sacnoth to be the dominant
world unless Gram is receiving outside help?

> IMO one should prefer
> the one that corresponds most closely to GDWs version.

I agree.  Someone *please* dig out those *5FW* counters!

> Now, if you could demonstrate that Sacnoth couldn't possibly loose a
> confrontation with all the other Sword Worlds then you'd have something
> much more solid.

If there is true techno-economic disparity in the Sword Worlds then Sacnoth
can dominate *economically* - like Japan does today - and it doesn't *need*
a confrontation.  (But a little `demonstration' might not hurt!)

> Actually, while I've no doubt that GDW's Sword Worlds owe their origin to
> Piper, they actualy have a lot less in common with Piper's than one might
> think.

Really?  How so?

> I believe, however, that the GDW SW ancestors did, like Piper's SW ancestors,
> flee a lost civil war.

I just checked the *JTAS* Contact article again.  It merely describes the
original Sword Worlds settlers as `Solomani exiles'.  There is no mention
of *any* warfare.  The time is the c-400.  I'm not sure when the Interstellar
Wars occurred.

> Remember that my theory ties TLs tightly to the economy. I know it hasn't
> worked that way on Earth today, but it's the only explanation that I can
> see why nearly all worlds aren't TL 15.

Doesn't different levels of `techno-economic development' explain the
disparate TLs as well?  This *is* how it works today!  Why the need for
something different?  Maybe `techno-economic development' is really what
TL is measuring.

> As to why
> it dosen't happen in the Imperium and the Darrian Confederation:
> 	1) Maybe it does. Why is only 4 Imperial worlds in the Spinward
> 	   Marches TL 15?

Because these are the only four that have achieved that level of `techno-
ecomomic development'?

> So this seems to be the assumption that dosen't fit. Examine it. Change it
> to fit. Specifically the part of the assumption that has the individual
> Sword Worlds tied together in an 'emperor-level' feudal technocracy. Try
> to imagine the tecnocracies stopping at the planetary level.

But this isn't what *you've* proposed!  If Sacnoth is selling its high-tech
goods to all the other Sword Worlds then the technocracy can't stop at the
individual worlds because the economy doesn't!  This is the nature of a
feudal technocracy - the poltical situation is tied directly to the economic
situation.  If the economy is interstellar then political power in inter-
stellar and the center of power out to be the strongest technocracy - Sacnoth.
Unless there is outside influence like the Zhodani.  Again, quoting the *JTAS*
Contact article:

"A Confederation Council, made up of representatives from all worlds,
regulates interworld trade, handles diplomatic relations with outside powers,
and adjudicates interworld disputes."

Sounds like the Japanese *keiritsu* to me.

> How deep is that anti-Zhodani sentiment? You assume they think of Zhodani
> as a 50ties redneck thought of russians.

No, I don't.  I have no idea how deep this sentiment is.  Remember, I suggested
that this `sentiment' might not exist anywhere except in the mind of Imperial
propagandists.  Here's the quote from the *JTAS* Contact article:

"This public prejudice against psionics has been the major element in limiting
Zhodani influence in the region."

> If, that is, wars were decided by mathematical formulae. Let's not get that
> simplistic.

Well, fine, but I'm merely trying to provide some data for your 10-to-1
question.

> Lots of instances in history where the apparently certain loser
> didn't. I would have been satisfied if Gram wasn't too far behind.

Actually, with the benefit of historical observation there are very few
incidents where any `unlikely' victory can not be explained.  We share this
`historical viewpoint' as `developers' of the Sword Worlds.

> Perhaps the anti-Zhodani sentiment was strong on Sacnoth but weak on Gram
> 300 years ago.

Well, again, maybe.  Another interesting fact from the *JTAS* Contact article:
the only Psionics Institute in the Sword Worlds is on Sacnoth!  Which is
listed as a "third factor (and in may ways the most significant)" why psionics
have not been made an integral part of Sword Worlds culture because "the
omnipresent interworld rivalry reinforces the latent anti-psi prejucice
among the inhabitants (and governments) of those worlds not politically
dominated by Sacnoth."

> Nowadays they _do_ have a politically stable Confederation.

Doesn't sound like it from the above quote.

> What time in history are you talking about? Just after the 3rd FW where
> the Imperium occupied 12 of the Sword Worlds? Or after the 5th where they
> set up a puppet government of half the Confederation?

I was thinking more along the line of a `mini-pacification campaign'.

> >I doubt the Zhodani would
> >have gone to war over an Imperial invasion of the Sword Worlds
> 1) Why?
> 2) What if the Imperium wasn't as sure as you are?

The geo-political reason is called `spheres of influence'.  Examples are
the US in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan.  The Sword Worlds are
removed from the Consulate yet are situated on the Imperial border.

> The Sword World incursions were a result of the Zhodani alliance, and had
> nothing to do with their strength relative to the Imperium.

I wasn't trying to explain the SW incursions.  I was trying to explain the
lack of an Imperial pacification campaign.

> >why hasn't the Imperium sent ". . . the [Imperial] Marines to that little
> >[subsector spinward of Glisten] and *stopped* that problem!"?
>
> They have. They just took them home again after a while.

They haven't `stopped' it - it keeps occurring!

> Make that overran every two centuries and you're nearer the mark. This is
> actually quite important. If the Sword Worlds really bothered the Imperium

> Imperium has taken quite decisive action whenever the Sword Worlds have
> ovestepped the line.

I merely saw `decades' as analogous to centuries when comparing a millenia-
old empire to a two-century-old nation.  I feel the Sword Worlds *have*
been a bother and that the Imperium *hasn't* taken *decisive* action. A
pacification campaign is decisive and consistent with past Imperial actions.

> Very propably. Or perhaps it's a "Real Men don't need psionics!" thing.

This is what the *JTAS* Contact article suggests.  My suggestion is that
that entire `real man' schtick for the Sword Worlds is all just a bunch
of Imperial propaganda.  I suspect the Sword Worlders are no more
`paternalistic, macho, vain, braggarts' than Zhodani are `mind-sucking,
inhuman totalitarians' once the veneer of Imperial propaganda is removed.

> Depends on the economic developements.

Not if the reason for Gram's leadership has been access to Zhodani aid.
In TNE one might suspect King Angus of Gram to be cherising his last cigar
and cursing his former patrons like Fidel.

> OK. So you think the Confederation is one huge Feudal Technocracy, right?

No, I think it is a bunch of planetary technocracies too.  *You* have suggested
there is a great deal of economic integration between these economies which,
in my understanding, calls for a broader interstellar technocracy as well.
In this view there are no `planetary kings'.  There are just `CEOs' that
see their influence and power spread across several worlds.  They don't have
a direct economic interest in things like diplomacy so they relegate it
to the Confederation Council.  But since economic power is political power
in a feudal technocracy then the strongest poltical power ought to be the
strongest economic power.  We both see this as Sacnoth.  You choose to see
mysterious cycles to explain Gram's leadership while I blame the Zhodani.

Who's assumptions better fit these facts?

Some more good work.

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA