Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:40:56 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Never offer advice when you can give help.
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 02:35 PM 4/15/05 GMT, Ern wrote:
>Disagree. Just good sense, which I lack in abundance.

With the top posting it's hard to tell, but on the assumption that this:

>Good manners are what keep you from correcting the folks with bad manners.

is what you were replying to with the above, I'll suggest that "good sense"
is what is supposed to be behind "good manners".

Any social grouping is going to have frictions and disagreements and
various forces trying to break it up.  If some means is not found to
minimize this stuff, the social grouping won't last long.  There are
various systems in use now and in the past to accomplish this, and the
concept of "good manners", i.e. accepted and agreed upon standards of
behavior, is one of the more common ones.  They serve to minimize friction,
describe how to interact with strangers such that they should not be
offended, and reinforce the membership in the social group of all who
display them...and highlight the non-membership of those who don't.

Exactly what constitutes "good manners" varies from group to group, and
even between sub-groups of larger societies.  In some places it is good
manners to belch after dinner, in others this is the height of rudeness.
In some places it is very bad manners to show someone the bottom of your
feet, in others this is of no consequence.  There are sometimes practical
reasons for the rules, but often these are long forgotten and only the rule
remains...because it still serves the main purposes of "good manners",
which is social lubrication and identification.  The specifics are less
important than the existence of the system.

Why identification is important is related to why social groups form in the
first place: mutual support and protection.  The protection is usually from
other groups as well as natural hazards (wild animals, natural disasters,
etc.), and if you are going to protect against other groups and help those
in yours you need a way to tell who belongs with whom.

I think this "us vs them" thing has been going on so long that humans
actually have developed an "us vs. them" instinct.  We almost automatically
divide things up that way...though the actual boundaries are somewhat fluid
based on context.  For instance, a Democrat might be "us" making
Republicans "them" in some contexts, but in other contexts both are
"Americans"..."us"...while the "them" might be another country, such as
Iraq, Iran, North Korea....or France.  We do this dividing up along sex
lines, geographic areas of various sizes, political beliefs, entertainment
preferences, pet preferences, sports team preference, race, language,
economic level, marital status, religion, transport preference, exercise
preference, food preference, etc., etc., etc..  We consider others either
an "us" or a "them" at the drop of a hat.  I don't think we have the
ability NOT to do this...though we do have some control over the criteria
used and in how we relate to "them" once we've identified who that is.

Why is this relevant to SF?  This stuff all relates back to biology if you
chase it far enough, and that relies on the physical laws of the universe.
In making up alien races, or deciding if the ones made up by others "work",
this stuff should be considered, as all species are living under the same
physical laws.  There are other possible solutions than the ones in use by
humans of course, but all have to make sense within the physical laws and
be sensible for whatever biology you come up with...and whatever you need
the species to be doing.

For instance, if you solve the social friction problems by having
overriding instincts for getting along, ala ants or bees, you aren't likely
to get the sorts of things you get from a species of individualists, such
as crime within the society, or entrepreneurship and inventiveness.
Behavior and thus the thought behind it (in an intelligent species) is
going to be very tightly controlled by the instincts, and this will limit
the good along with the bad aspects of large groups living together.  They
may have no politics, laws, courts or police...and no need for them.  The
very concept might be beyond their ability to comprehend as anything other
than a result of serious insanity.  It would be...for them.

A species that can satisfy all its needs for protection and resource
acquisition as individuals (like dragons? ;-) may not form societies in the
first place, and if population size results in such a need, they may be
very loosely held together (like the UN in many ways I expect).  One that
breeds rapidly and doesn't need education (perhaps acquiring the parents'
knowledge directly in utero) might just ignore the frictions for the most
part and solve all personal problems with duels to the death...or the small
group equivalent (gang wars?).  Any individual can be replaced pretty
easily by any of his recent offspring, so society continues fine without
those lost by this method of settling conflicts...at least until high tech
comes along and allows a few to affect a great many at once...

Simple statements can lead to interesting speculations, and maybe some
stories, if you keep picking at them...IMHO anyway.

-- Mike B.
--
"Happiness is a warm puppy", said the anaconda.