Power to the People
economics, pournelle, sci fi, ayn rand, d'oh!, famine, feeding people, ecology, faith, contracts, priest, religion
In "Power to the People", the second story in "High Justice", Jerry Pournelle writes on page 50:
"[...] Father Percy's no help. He says feed them, no matter what the cost."
"You can't solve a famine by feeding people," Adams intoned. "First principle of ecology. If you can't make people self-sufficient, your relief does more harm than good."
---
In the first story in "High Justice", "A Matter of Sovereignty", there was an Ayn Randian nugget too, about America not being able to do research because of welfare expenditures. (I debunked that theory in another diary.)
Is Pournelle going to include a little libertarian moral in each story, like Hitchcock appearing in his films or Homer Simpson saying "d'oh" in every episode?
Here's the way I argue with the Adams character's intonation:
c:\controlbot\controller\logicagent>ruby logicbot.rb
Hello
I have loaded c:/controlbot/controller/logicagent/logicagent-api.yaml.
c:/controlbot/controller/logicagent/graph.yaml loaded.
> logicbot: reset graph
Okay, I have reset the graph.
> Feeding people means people are eating.
Okay, Feeding people is people are eating.
> People are eating means no famine.
Okay, People are eating is no famine.
> No famine means solving a famine.
Okay, No famine is solving a famine.
> Does feeding people mean solving a famine?
Yes, feeding people is solving a famine.
> Why does feeding people mean solving a famine?
feeding people is solving a famine because: feeding people is people are eating,
and people are eating is no famine, and no famine is solving a famine
>
---
The cognitive dissonance Pournelle wants to avoid is expressed in the following two "reductio ad absurdum" arguments:
c:\controlbot\controller\ifagent>ruby ifbot.rb
Hello
I have loaded c:/controlbot/controller/ifagent/ifagent-api.yaml.
c:/controlbot/controller/ifagent/graph.yaml loaded.
> reset graph
Okay, I have reset the graph.
> Assume you can solve a famine by feeding people.
Okay, I will assume you can solve a famine by feeding people.
> If you can solve a famine by feeding people, then economic libertarianism is false.
Okay, you can solve a famine by feeding people -> economic libertarianism is false.
> But "economic libertarianism is false" is absurd!
Therefore, you can not solve a famine by feeding people.
> reset graph
Okay, I have reset the graph.
> Assume economic libertarianism is false.
Okay, I will assume economic libertarianism is false.
> If economic libertarianism is false, then you can solve a famine by feeding people.
Okay, economic libertarianism is false -> you can solve a famine by feeding people.
> But "you can solve a famine by feeding people" is absurd!
Therefore, economic libertarianism is true.
>
So: you can't solve a famine by feeding people, because that would mean Pournelle's ideology is wrong. Since his ideology is more important than logic, you can't solve a famine by feeding people. QED!
Notice Pournelle's use of the word "intone". Father Percy wants to feed everyone. Pournelle's libertarian hero Adams responds by "intoning" a faith-based catechism of his own.
In the story, the priest gives in to Adams; Adams pressures the political head of the country to close the borders to stop the influx of refugees begging for food. The priest accepts Adams's lies, even seems to enjoy them. From page 61 (Adams speaking):
"[...] I'm sorry but the airfield's got some problems. Undermined by an aquifer, I understand. Unusable..."
"An aquifer?" Father Percy said carefully. He looked out at the barren desert. "I see." He suppressed a chuckle, but it was very loud in the still room.
The real reason Adams can't solve the famine by feeding people is because of contracts. There are contracts to deliver steel, chemicals. Those contracts take precedence over human lives. Figures in a ledger book are pretty, and by closing the borders you don't ever have to see the ugliness of people suffering.