The Apolyton Science Fiction Book Club: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[St Leo]

Haven't read it.

Tell you what: toss 250 women in a 500 man prison, wait 10 years, and see if the women take control. Who here thinks that’s going to happen?

When placed in captivity, chimps shift from a male-dominated to a female-dominated society very quickly. I can see it happening.

[JohnT]

We're talking about people here, St. Leo.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Starchild, I believe that if there is a Federated Nations controlling everything that the death penalty is gone as well. And is Great China supposed to still be Communist? I thought it was a democracy in the book.

It may not be communist but it doesn't sound like a nice, fuzzy democracy either. Remember how Mannie remarked that Dr. Chan, the Great China rep they met with, went on to become Great China's vice-Chairman and then Premier? Certainly doesn't sound like elected positions.

Also recall the hundreds (thousands?) of "volunteers" Great China sent up to Luna when it was creating its empire. Lots of Japanese, Malays, and I'd imagine Indonesians, Thai, and others. I got the strong impression Great China ethically cleansed the non-Chinese parts of itself to make room for a growing population.

[St Leo]

We're talking about people here, St. Leo.

Hey, I don't see you quoting any experiments involving humans.

If you were to do this with baboons, you'd quickly end up with most of the population and all of the females dead. However, behaviourally and structurally humans resemble chimps a lot more than they resemble baboons. Ergo, a female-dominated society is quite plausible.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Starchild


It may not be communist but it doesn't sound like a nice, fuzzy democracy either. Remember how Mannie remarked that Dr. Chan, the Great China rep they met with, went on to become Great China's vice-Chairman and then Premier? Certainly doesn't sound like elected positions.

Also recall the hundreds (thousands?) of "volunteers" Great China sent up to Luna when it was creating its empire. Lots of Japanese, Malays, and I'd imagine Indonesians, Thai, and others. I got the strong impression Great China ethically cleansed the non-Chinese parts of itself to make room for a growing population.

Great China came across as the "bad Guy" on Earth, who also turn out to be the most pragmatic (while the "Tough Nut" of North America is prideful and arrogrant)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought North America was the bad guy? Or do you mean if we just look at earth people they'd consider Great China the bad dude?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I thought North America was the bad guy? Or do you mean if we just look at earth people they'd consider Great China the bad dude?

It was still a democracy.

[Starchild]

I'm getting the impression that Heinlein didn't think much of democracy ("In this age the myth is 'the will of the people'") So it makes sense that democratic North America turns out to be the hardest FN member to break while undemocratic Great China (who everyone seems every so slightly scared of) is able to be the long term, pragmatic one.

Heinlein also lays on the contrast between libertarian Luna and socialised Earth a bit too heavily at times. I mean, did he just copy that "compromise" offered to Mannie and the Prof straight from the USSR's agricultural office?

[gunkulator]

I read TMIAHM years ago. I remember it being more of a Libertarian Manifesto than a good sci-fi yarn. The story touched on the usual Heinlein themes:

1) Most people are stupid
2) Libertarianism
3) Sex

The issue of computers is a tough one. You really can't blame him for not seeing the future. I can't think of any books from that era that correctly predicted the way computers would evolve.

I wouldn't exactly say that Heinlein was anti-democratic either. Starship Troopers was filled with the concept of citizenship and the voting rights inherent in it. A non sci-fi Heinlein book, Take Back Your Government details how he thought people should work within the system to create a better government.

[Cruddy]

I liked this book. I enjoyed it for the escapism, rather than nit picking over the errors in foresight.

If you're so hot, JohnT, why don't you write a Scifi novel about life 50 years in the future? Let's see how clear your crystal balls are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The escapism was fun... especially because of the dialog and the family set ups. It was really cool to actually be reading and seeing a totally new world emerge... not just 'Earth Lite'.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by gunkulator
I read TMIAHM years ago. I remember it being more of a Libertarian Manifesto than a good sci-fi yarn. The story touched on the usual Heinlein themes:

1) Most people are stupid

Most people ARE stupid.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Starchild
I'm getting the impression that Heinlein didn't think much of democracy

Heinlein, is/was a fascist (was if he's dead). In almost all of his books I've read, he disdains democracy and favors strong government, even this one about a supposed liberatian revolution. Everything is manipulated for everyone's own good by one person and a computer.

[St Leo]

Most people ARE stupid.

What's the point of being intelligent when you have no say in the government?

[JohnT]

"was if he's dead"

He's been dead for at least a decade.

"If you're so hot, JohnT, why don't you write a Scifi novel about life 50 years in the future? Let's see how clear your crystal balls are."

Chill out, Cruddy, this is a discussion not a debate.

If I were to write a sci-fi novel based 50 years in the future, I'd probably do as craptacular a job as most near-fiction sci-fi. That's irrelevant to the issue here, which is that the Revolution depended upon that a very obvious trend* in human society (one that has been in effect, well, throughout human history) wouldn't, for some reason, apply to computers.

*Technological diffusion from the inventor to the "common man." It started with fire, and never really stopped unless by force.