When I started reading Scifi, the first two writers I gravitated to were Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clark.
Now, many years later I realize that these two authors approached their craft from opposite poles. Heinlein wrote from a nationalist point of view while
Clark approached it from a humanistic perception.
Now I do not want to give the impression that I am criticizing Mr. Heinlein. On the contrary, I am simply stating my opinion that competition assigns winners and losers in all things contested, and that we as humans use that placement in measuring success. Robert Heinlein is a person and writer I believe deserves my respect as a great writer, orator and American. His novels and speeches are entertaining, informative and thought provoking. I am systematically rereading his books on a five year cycle, and on each occasion I stumble upon gems of
dazzling prose depicting a world that is spinning very close to earth’s elliptical orbit.
Getting to Mr. Clarke, his novels are just as entertaining and cognitive as Mr. Heinlein’s with the exception that Mr. Clark expresses a whole world response
to alien or human antagonists, while Heinlein gauges The United States government and its citizen’s reaction to hostile aggression. An example of their different approaches I
can demonstrate by citing two novels ‘Starship Troopers’ and ‘Childhood’s End’.
In Trooper Heinlein expresses his militaristic vision of the future by showing us armed forces from our noble planet sailing through distant galaxy’s while upholding the traditions of our Navy and Marine Corp. Yes these men are from many countries on our fair planet, but the initiative is undeniably American. In return for this service to country or planet those who enlist and serve receive a ‘franchise’ along with the right to vote.
Childhood’s End depicts a near future where all nations react to an alien threat with a holistic response. Our world surrenders to the inevitable in a fatalistic shrug of apathy. The premise is that, ‘older species’ know what is best for our infantile civilization.
Over the years I have come to believe (there is a possibility) we can follow Clarke’s predictable future and reach a higher conciseness with or without the aid of an alien benefactor. I propound the notion that we will see the futility of comparison and embrace the beauty of mutual concern.
Darwinism is not always believable in the context of survival of the fittest. Maybe survival depends on likeminded individuals cooperating with others so inclined. Maybe the brawny might decide not to club the scrawny and take their lives or possessions, but instead learn from them how to yield a greater harvest from the land. Instead of using technology to defend themselves, the knowledgeable can take measures to prevent poverty at large.
Just a thought
