I think psychohistory is a critique of Hegel's views of history. Hegel simply had only too small a data set to produce a system of historic development. Asimov thinks that billions of civilizational examples are required encompassing trillions of individual. This is largely the same as the fundamental problem of our biology: there is only one example of life to study.
This is shortened the right way : "...the human refusal to be reasonable". Thanks for all the work, Asimov is truly one of the greatest SF novel writer.
I've read them all. The earlier novels are very pulp and reflect the period, but the later novels like Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth are marvelous. Asimov marries his Robot series with his Foundation series very well. I loved these books and their message.
I thought so too a few years ago, but, alas, it hasn't aged well in my opinion. Still deserves credit for spawning several copycats (e.g. Dune), it is nonetheless quite weak as a work of fiction, and difficult to read today.
@@nrabinov that's an interesting comment. Original Star Trek series has a lot of technology that was futuristic in the 1960s that we would laugh at today, like the memory chips. It's still good, though. Is the Foundation Series like that?
Nice, enjoyed reading majority of the series during high school. Later came out to San Diego and happened to stop by book store in Bird Rock, La Jolla where Asimov was doing book tour for Prelude to Foundation. Have signed copy, along with others of his.
It might not be Asimovs vision, I still like it. Its interesting to see how the writers made a totally unfilmable sprawling series of high concept books into something that does work on tv: character based emotional stories, while still trying to use some of Asimovs conceptual thinking. It is not core Asimov and it cannot be, bc it wouldnt be watchable (and wont make money ofcourse).
What a treat I just had listening to this!! The combination of your use of generative ai and music in your editing and your ability to abstract out not only the important details but the essence of Asimov's scope, vision, temperament condition for each book , all told in a stoic optimism, sent shivers down my spine, good work !!
I just read the original trilogy again a few months ago...I don't know why I stopped there. Lately, I keep finding myself re-reading stuff I've read multiple times before... Anyway, this was excellent. I've been aware of what science fiction and fantasy authors do, talking about social issues or what have you...but I remember when I was a kid, and I didn't have a clue.
@@AldousHuxleysCat I kind of agree. As a science fiction series, it's not bad. The problem is that it was given touches of Foundation paint here and there, and they have tried to pass it off as Foundation. It's not simply an adaptation of the books, it is a rewriting.
@@TheEricthefruitbat Agreed. It's part of the post-modernist attack on traditional culture, the generalised re-writing and de-powering of all previous myths and touchstones. The same has happened with Dr Who, Sherlock Holmes and even the basic idea of goodness and benevolence towards others. No wonder there's an epidemic of anxiety, hatred and mental illness.
Man, I joined Damien's channel a year or two ago: I can't believe he hasn't amassed a larger following. He deserves it. His videos are always so well-thought out and made with such care. Thumbs up, as always! Can't wait for your next video, bruh!
I wouldn't call the Foundation series "hard sci fi." The original distinction between "hard" and "soft" was the same as the old distinction between the "hard" natural sciences and the "soft" social sciences. Foundation is pure social science, examining the rise, fall, and potential rebuilding of a society based on sociology, psychology, economics, politics, and statistical analysis. I find the Foundation series interesting as it goes along because the stories take the central concept (psychohistory) and keep challenging it and revealing its flaws: Does psychohistory break down if people become aware they are part of this social experiment? Does it continue to work if basic human nature changes in some way and typical reactions are no longer a given? Isn't it possible for people to use the tools of psychohistory for their own private benefit rather than just the public good? Is attempting to direct human development at a civilizational scale inherently limiting human potential rather than supporting it?
People talked about "hard sci fi" before the phrase "soft sci fi" was coined, and applied the label differently at that point (the 1950s?). But, once both existed (the 1970s?), the distinction was draw based on the sciences referenced.
@@davidranderson1 Well, thank you for your opinion. This is a bad habit of scifi readers, the endless subdivision of pointless boundaries. It's a large part of why science fiction is a dead literature.
I don't see how Asimov's Galactic Empire could have inspired Iain M Banks' Culture novels. The Culture is an anarchic utopia that views the empires it encounters with alarm and amusement. These do not long survive contact with the Culture.
You've answered your own question. The Culture is meeting the Galactic Empires of Asimov. There are also direct inspirations of Special Circumstances agents / Second Foundation agents etc.
The final foundation story combined the foundation "trilogy" ( yes there were more than 3 books but I also like Douglas Adams ) with another "trilogy" of his and a stand-alone story, whose name eludes me at the moment, ( Monty Python reference ), that included time travel, but only in passing. Daneel is in it from the robot stories, starting in "The Caves of Steel" series.
Asimov was a great contributor to Science Fiction, I agree. He seemed to be a benevolent influence, as well. Just my experience in the 1960s, it seemed a lot more young adults read "Starship Troopers" than the Foundation series? I read them both. I suppose he may have been the first to espouse an all-encompassing galactic civilization and government (EE Smith SF?). This highly unlikely scenario is an analogy to one world government on Earth, I assumed. A E Van Vogt preceded Asimov by 8 years with a benevolent Earth one world government based on science in his "The World Of Null A." That system lasts for generations before being infiltrated and nearly destroyed by a Galactic government for power and wealth acquisition. Null A also stresses the importance of learning from history and maintaining the original meanings of words to be able to understand the actual history of human experience. Null A was likely influential in the writing of Nineteen Eighty - Four. Unfortunately, Asimov's Foundation series (far too optimistic) and Bretton Woods (insanely optimistic) have not withstood the last 70 years as well as The World Of Null A or Nineteen Eighty-Four!
This is an excellent essay Damien - but how can you have failed to mention that the establishment of a scientific religion in the Foundation books was at the insistence of John W. Campbell, and was soundly disliked by Asimov? Or that the creation of The Mule narrative was because Asimov had grown weary writing story after story in which the Foundation won each successive conflict, apparently without trying? These important aspects of the author's feelings about his magnum opus are available in his autobiographical writings. Also, there's a misinterpretation of the plot of Foundation and Earth/Robots and Empire. The Earth's radioactivity is NOT due to squabbling between ideological factions. I won't spoil the plot, but it's not a metaphor for the Cold War of that time; rather, it poses the question of whether human progress requires a Jeffersonian-style robotic plantation economy, or a non-robotic culture of expansion and colonisation in which the human spirit and capabilities are constantly challenged. Asimov favours the latter, obviously.
CORRECTION: the foundation wasn't a democracy when the Mule conquered it. It had been a dictatorship for some generations of the ruler family Indbur, the last of them being a blind bureaucrat. That was also predicted by psychohistory, also how it was supposed to fall to a revolution that was brewing inside, but the Mule interrupted this natural process. Anyway, if he saw what they have done with his work, specially that awful series, he woul be revolving in his grave. the only worthy adaptation has been robin william's bicentennial man.
Would you consider providing subtitles for your videos? I have trouble with auditory processing (autism things) and find myself, without them, having to rewind and rewatch every few minutes. Your videos are so full of interesting facts and mentions, I'd love to be able to fully digest them with subtitles
@@DamienWalter It works! It's just that auto-generated subtitles are often more distracting than helpful because of their frequent inaccuracies, as well as the lack of punctuation and sentence divide.
@@DamienWalter Ah, I can empathize with that! (: Was just a suggestion that would help your channel be inclusive to wider audiences. Still going to watch no matter what. Thank you for opening my mind to the world of science fiction and its authors!
I only found this channel in my suggestions recently and I am thoroughly impressed! Great vids and this video is very topical with the ongoing adaptation of Foundation as a tv series ongoing currently!
I've seen no reference to this elsewhere - which I assume is an experiment. Because of the news in the Middle East right now, this hits a little differently. The failure of man to be reasonable has definitely been on continuous show. But staying on topic, I liked this essay, although it doesn't go into the relevance of Daneel Olivaw - perhaps this is too spoiliery. I do like the way it follows the West's exploits (certainly what the Foundation was, not Rome) although I think socialism is for Asimov the final point of history. (The realities of Stalin on;y appeared after Foundation is printed). Also Asimov spends so much time as a short story writer, we all have to politely turn him into a novelist - which he really isn't. Of course he could have been one - and then the original trilogy would have been a little more balanced. This is where Dune bursts through. It was a novel written by a novelist. And Herbert his world almost within the ready reality of Foundation.
I read all the first trilogy in a teenage thrill, along with all of John Wyndham's novels and then devoured my favorite books, THE SCIENCE FICTION HALL OF FAME, ALL four volumes. I found them even more to expand my young imagination. Then onto 1984, which much to my chagrin,, as well as most of the other so-called outlandish, and fantasy engaging ideas, have NOW BECOME REALITY!!!! I must say I have listened to many reviews and critiques, yours is by far the most incisive and interesting. KUDOS!
I was wondering how the thesis of a government run by rational-thinking people using science and mathematics would apply to the later _Foundation_ books. One point was to link previously unlinked books and series (you'd think that R. Daneel Olivaw would shut down after the galactic empire was first formed since humanity survived). The other point was to come up with an alternative to the Second Foundation "winning" and using _psychohistory_ and mind-control to run the galaxy. I didn't like a superorganism and group consciousness deciding to change mankind and create "Galaxia". That is an idea that's hard to conceptualize. But there's no certainty that it will make the "correct" decision instead of decisions that feel good, unless you remove feelings. They created a group-mind, in _Star Trek_ called the Borg, though they changed it later to make it a hive-mind with a queen that makes decisions for the group. I don't know it's origins but I could imagine cooperative worlds deciding to link up its brightest minds in order to face a threat, and when victorious, it gets out of control and incorporates all the individuals of the world. Perhaps the original two or three worlds hardly have any individuals with their genetics still extant after assimilating thousands of worlds? In _Babylon 5_ they tried to imagine a society of telepaths but kind of botched it. The Psi Corps supposedly took direction from the civilian authorities, but seemed to be led by the highest-level telepaths, meaning when Lester was around he was the boss and what he said, goes. Lyta was the strongest telepath of the group on Babylon 5, but somehow her group split and didn't all do what she wanted. At least with the Second Foundationers, their powers were backed up by the mathematics of psychohistory.
leGuin was an early hero of my reading, so I've always assumed the social commentary of good sci fi... no commentary, then often feels second tier... (loved seeing the wee clip of Scanners when discussing psychic control... heheh) - I tend not to regard the Soviet experiment to be true socialism, just as the American Liberal Democracy has devolved into pure capitalism... (lovely to see the acknowledgement of L Ron H... I often joke that he started Dianetics on a drunken bet that he could start a religion based on Campbell's pseudo science notions... other writers influenced by Campbell's ideas include Gordon R Dickson, Harlan Ellison, Clifford Simak...and as you mention, Herbert)
It is almost scary to think that this man wrote this 30 to 80 years ago and Still much of it is relevant for todays politics and social problems Is if he had a chance to look in to the future for an ever so briefly moment and give us the readers digest of it And her we are still whit our heads in the sand and wondering what is going to happen to our ( perfect civilization ) Well if things turns out the way it's going now we're royally screwed And i think that harri's estimate of 10000 years will be but a blink of an eye To the real time it will take to get any thing back to some sense of normality And by then the human beings on this planet will be unrecognizable to what we're to day ( maybe that's for the better ) Well that my two cents on this matter Not that it matters any way but still Just saying 🇧🇻
Wow! Thank you for this breakdown. There’s a lot of knowledge to be gained from your report and Asimov’s brilliance! As a progressive thinker and someone who believes there’s more out there….are there groups today that share his ideology? Your video made my day! I’ve not read the books, but I love the character of Harry Seldon. What a revolutionary! Just want to say thank you.🙏
A Really great essay on Asimov and his Foundation series. It’s Great that you draw out the parallel historical developments in the real world informing Asimov’s writing. As someone who studied sociology I soon realised that humans are too complex and unpredictable for us to foresee the future the way Pschohistory does. But Interesting that Asimov’s science fiction imagines future possibilities and takes present developments and projects them into the future just like the metaphorical psychohistory, as you say. I’m still processing all you have said.
The issue with the manipulation exhibited in today's world is it's used by those with the desire, not the ability, the scale is too large to account for and the lies become too farfetched and numerous, not to mention a lie can only last so long as the optics remain invisible. Take religion as the oldest form of mass control, it's successfully encouraged many behaviours ones betters would see as advantages to themselves.
@@charlesross9260 Sociology attempts to study society but it can’t come up with laws of society like physics can. But it’s still valid to study it and notice certain trends and patterns.
Great essay. I did find the AI-generated graphics (presumably) rather unsettling. They seem to dissolve from recognisable images into chaotic un-meaning, if that makes any sense.
I though you were going to talk about THE INCAS. They became the greatest empire on Earth, *THE INCA EMPIRE,* the greatest civilization on the planet. The only empire in America which extended from Colombia to Argentina. The first to create condominiums on top of mountains in Machu Picchu. Unfortunately or fortunately, they came too late in the year 1000 AD. Had they appeared at the same time as the Roman's, they would have conquered all South America, North America, Spain, Africa, all Europe, India, China and Russia. The next time you eat potatoes and corn, think of The Incas. They were the ones who bioengineered it and now the whole world enjoys it.
The Incas were defeated when the Spanish stole the Inca. He was the only man who could give orders. That's a civilisational design flaw. Always have a backup Inca.
It was a little distracting that you said the Foundation was a liberal democracy right before the Mule. In the stories it had degenerated into a hereditary dictatorship, and the Seldon Crisis was supposed to have been a civil war between a too authoritarian central state and too anarchic outer worlds.
Just one more thing, since I'm a huge Asimov fan: I wish they would use the framework of the novels to make a show, instead of whatever the Apple show was. There could be a season for each of the short stories that make up the series, and a season for each of the prequels and sequels. (I actually wrote a pilot of a first episode, and a treatment for a series. It's probably not good, but I wish someone would treat Foundation like Jackson treated LOTR or Villaneueve treated Dune ))
The first 6 stories is Hari Seldon gaslighting everyone. Seldon gets the Foundation exiled and has his followers train the relevant generation. Salvor Hardin is put into place by Seldon (this is the only time a message is given before the crisis is resolved) and he is given enough to understand where Seldon is trying to lead him- he goes from 'lets mass produce nukes' (The Encyclopedists) to 'lets share nuclear technology to uplift everyone (The Mayors). Both crisis's are self-solving and Hardin's is highly passive. The Merchant Princes covers the 3rd crisis, but Mallow's victory is based upon technological advances since the Foundation was cut off from the Empire; this is not possible to predict. Which brings us to The General. Seldon could easily predict this- it is the Roman General problem and what he was referring to when he said the Galactic Empire lacked vitality. The reason for the gaslighting, for the Great Plan, for everything is to get over this hump- that of the dying Empire murdering the upstart Foundation. Because the issue is even though Bose is guaranteed to lose, the Foundation isn't guaranteed to win. The Empire could just annex the territory, Bose's second in command could become a warlord, the Foundation could splinter- victory is not guaranteed by grand historical forces. It is the plan itself that makes them win. They have to believe, their subjects have to believe, the worlds they intend to liberate have to believe, the people they are fighting have to believe, that the Foundation is going to win in the end. So when confronted by impossible odds, the Foundation fights and in the end with their commander executed for treason the expeditionary forces decide the Foundation was right and switch sides AND the Foundation believes them. Then Asimov wrote additional stories, psychic powers are introduced and we end up with The Evitable Conflict- Galactic Edition.
Who is the artist and what is the painting in the middle of this video with the guy in a green suit with a yellow shirt under it, surrounded by books, with shadow people behind him?
Error re: earth being radioactive due to nuclear war. As explained in his Robot books, Earth’s radioactivity is triggered by a Soacer plot to render Earth uninhabitable by triggering a slow reaction of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in Earth’s crust
I always thought the Second Foundation must have inspired in part the Bene Gesserit as well -- the mental skills seemed very similar, as is the behind the scenes manipulation of politics.
What about the robots? From the 3 laws to the humorous and unsettling solution to hyperspace travel: humans will die, but it’s ok to think about…they come back
*Listen to Frank Zappa's Joe's Garage for some nice burns on L Ron :). Thanks, I always get pissed when some illiterate yahoo says "He was talking that magics was for realz" with the magic and technology line when he was actually talking about ignorance and being removed from any science and sense of wonder. Asimov, Clarke and some others belong, to me, in a bit of retro sci fi category that you can't really take things out of. Sort of have to think of it as a genre setting like Fallout. smoking pipes and cigarettes in space ships while calculating hyperspace equations with pen and paper because computers were bigger than your ship.
@@DamienWalter it's almost like a 1920s Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon, Steampunk, and that kind of retro futurism. You can fit a lot of other 70s writes like Larry Niven in that group too.
Ain't it just!? If you are a member of the Butler society, then we are definitely distantly related. My side came over in the 17th century, but prior had that whole Butler and Archbishop line that came from the Norman invasion. Probably better conversation for chat, but what the hell, let's feed the algorithm and get you more interaction states on your vids. @@DamienWalter
Questions: did Asimov see capitalism as the opposite of socialism? Socialism is such a trigger word in the US and you give the far right quite a kugel here. I guess after over 40 some years of reading science fiction and managing to avoid Foundation, I guess this will be next on my reading list. Is it best to read them as they were written or chronologically.
Yes "socialism" is a boogeyman word used to scare Americans. "Democratic socialism" is associated with Western Europe for those in the know, but still made to sound scary, without defining it. I heard the word "Neoliberalism" once, perhaps to explain the economic-political philosophy of the time of the Merchant Princes. One story ends after the Seldon Crisis with a smaller trader saying their people will want justice sooner or later. But it didn't happen in his time. Seldon in his speech before the Mule invades said that crisis was supposed to be a conflict between the Merchant class and those wanting their fair share resulting in a power-sharing agreement. In any case "Neoliberalism" though it sounds like "liberalism" is a conservative economic philosophy similar to laissez-faire or a hands-off approach by government. I think they said Chile embraced what the Chicago School was selling to their own detriment under Pinochet.
@@stevehead365national socialism is not the same thing as socialism. I’m not defending the USSR many leftists and socialists disagree with everything they did, but it is not the same as Nazism. Hitler was vehemently opposed to leftism and socialism of all kinds he saw Marxism as a Jewish cabal invading global politics and directing the Soviets toward world domination. Hitler used the symbols and language of leftists and socialists because they resonate with people. Fascists say things that have a grain of truth it’s why it’s convincing for so many people it’s just that that truth is never true class consciousness or solidarity it’s obscured by hatred bigotry and conspiracy and used to promote violent populism that is to no one’s surprise against every form of social progress and workers rights. Fascism has been called the violent rebirth of the nation and in a way it’s the violent rebirth of the status quo a pseudo revolutionary ideology that only strengthens the darker aspects of existing institutions. Nazis called themselves the German national socialist workers party in the same way pro big business republicans say they love jobs. Hitler wasn’t pro worker he was pro work. Printed above auswhitts was “work shall set you free” and the Nazis discarded everyone they considered useless for productive capacity. “Life unworthy of life” as they called it. Faddists stripped away basically all workers rights and protections, whereas socialists in liberal democracies were responsible for basically all of our worker rights. The USSR was not good with workers rights but definitely just a little better but again seen as a bastardized version of actual socialist values and is a distinct ideology within socialism. Something everyone seems to forget….
@@stevehead365 I think any ideological political theory taken to it's extreme is scary, right or left, and national socialism, like communism were totalitarian in their essence. Neither could work because of human nature and enforcing anything on a population even if they want change because the current state of things isn't working for a lot of people listen leads to a lot of those people not getting what they thought they were being sold as an alternative. The problem is those with power often want more power, then even more power, and without checks and balances to stop this from happening things always turn out badly and in the end war is inevitable because even when WWI and WWII happened the world is an interconnected place and these overly aggressive leaders with ego trips always push the boundaries too far in the end.
@@DamienWalter Corollary: Galbraith's Law - John Maynard Keynes is always correct. Nixon finally agreed by letting US dollar float. (Nixon worked in WPA under JKG. Irony has to be a calculable factor in any functioning pyschohistory.) Keep up the keeping.
The US gave $50 billion in lend lease throughout the war and got paid back less than $7.5 billion. You have a strange definition of "substantial profit".
I found the American metaphor unconvincing. The American colonies were an ocean away from powerful adversaries; hardly 'surrounded by them' as in Foundation. Salvor Hardin was hardly a Washington -- more an of an anti-Washington, as he kept the Foundation out of war with during its first crisis. Moreoever, the key to the success of the Encyclopedia Foundations' was 1. its tehnological superiority, 2. the backwardness of their powerful enemies, and 3. the scarce resources of Terminus. Early America, on the other hand, was a backward agricultural society whose far away enemies were industrializing and advancing science. America also had abundant resources. This guy just really really really really wants to see Asimov as an American navel-gazer.
As a young child, my English teacher sparked an interest in reading, by introducing me to John Wyndham, and from there I progressed to Asimov. Reading the Foundation trilogy in (effectively) a single sitting over the school holidays. It left a great impact. But the lack of emotional options and social options, meant that I never returned to it or to Asimov. I read the entirety of Wyndhams output and moved on to Vonda McIntyre and others. But I always have a soft spot for Foundation, a real masterpiece.
@@DamienWalter Wow, what a question? Do children now actually read books. What I used to do was to read collections of short stories. I could sample 10 authors and if I found one that was interesting or different I would go and seek them out. But I get the impression that children now play more games than read books. Heck so do I. Still working my way through Baldur's Gate 3. And children have such different taste each to another so I would suggest that they find ways to sample as many as possible.
@@DamienWaltermy go-to recommendation is "Dragon and Thief" and its sequels by Timothy Zahn. Rollicking space adventure with mystery and some social commentary, even if it's pretty basic (child soldiers bad, slavery bad, helping others with no expectation of reward good). Also (SMALL SPOILER) . . the titular dragon is a badass poet-warrior who can turn two-dimensional on the skin of his human symbiote (the main character and titular thief).
I think Foundation or Dune was one of the first full science fiction books I read as a kid (pre-teen) Followed by Ender’s Game. I really enjoyed Foundation because it wasn’t complex in the ‘literary’ way - where the density would be in symbols and emotion and subtext. I still recall my utter perplexity at trying to understand The Great Gatsby in high school, why we were reading such a ‘boring book’ and being ‘forced’ to read into things like the pink interior of a car, and why a portrait had piercing blue eyes and so on. Foundation is still readable for a young audience because it’s quite easy to appreciate the story and dialogue and even the flat characters. I had read some Piers Anthony sci-fi/fantasy cross-over earlier, but I definitely wouldn’t broadly recommend it, as it has some very mature themes. Am frankly shocked today, that it was in my grade school library 😂
Interpreting telepathy as propaganda actually makes sense. Telepathy was, by far, my least favourite part of Foundation. Well, I liked telepathic robots, because it created an internal conflict that had to be overcome. But in humans, it seemed like a lazy trope. Even with propaganda in mind (😁), I don't think a foe like the Mule was a good addition, at a time when "everyone" had telepathy in their "science"-fiction.
He doesn't use the word "telepathy" in his analysis of the 2nd Foundation, but that was the power I believed they had and used. I think that some of it could be taught to the psychologists who were loyal to the plan. Frank Herbert's titular character in _God Emperor of Dune,_ has a similar power to analyze facial expressions, body posture, and pheromones to get a good idea what his subjects, whom he knows well, are thinking and feeling, and can sometimes manipulate them with Voice.
The characterization of Asimov's galactic empire as being topical, and the science of psychohistory being heroicized is not accurate really as far as I know. Also, the depiction of the book of these things very much more subtle. It does not endorse wholeheartedly any path including psychohistory, and psychohistory's relevancy is always in question after the first three chapters of the book. Also, saying terminus is an analog for the american colonies, is quite a stretch, and to my mind, never really a thought in azimov's mind. the story is a generalized archetypal history or intention of provoking thought, generally, and not a specific allegory of any one historical event, save the fall of the roman empire. Many people make this mistake of tolkien, thinking the lord of the rings is an analog for world world 2, which while tolkien did not deny the present had some effects on his ideas, he intended it to be a general myth, and not topical. Asimov's focus, as is almost always usual to him, is on the rationalities and competing historical forces, showing that reason and logic can prevail as a way of navigating and organizing thought and thought about things, and reasonable debate or consideration as a desired modus operandi for considering historical events and forces. He thus is eschewing ever following myth and unreasoned or hotheaded sentiment. He probably is so successful because his tone reveals a jokey playfulness and feeling for those who have emotions, feelings and need passion release valves and a jokey self effacing and endearing quality, but reason, almost a "meditative or mindful" quality of it, and consideration being guides to future actions still are his main focus. I in particular think Gibbon or know Gibbon was a clear inspiration for the setup, but I think or believe the foundation was not an analog to modern history or american power since ww2. I havent seen any but general parallels in it, not to my knowledge.
I got to say.. His observation on the very start, that humanity is not rational is spot on.. Dunno why we still like to lie to ourselfs and think of us as beings of reason, when in reality, and I do believe neuro science proves me right here, we are emotional first and just very good at rationalizing our emotion driven decisions.. Knowing this, the dark ages.. The for profit wars and so much else makes sense.. If we were really beings of reason, we would have settled every where possible around the solar system. If for no other reason, then at least as a way to acquire so much more resources then ruining earth.. Too bad I just can't seem to get into reading him, even though I am really into science fiction.
On the other hand humans are the most rational living beings in a known universe. People in the past definitely overstated how much rational we are, but there is no reason to torture ourselves over being run by emotions and instincts most of the time.
Only indirectly. SD is a derivative the liberal model of development. I doubt Asimov knew SD, but he might have read Megel. Or more likely picked up the ideas second hand.
It's strange that many Science fiction writers put forth these final ideas that we will evolve into some kind of hive mind all thinking the same thoughts. Humanity has never done that. We are seemingly afraid of having the same thoughts. Then we are Borg. But we gather into political parties and tribal teams like nothing's going because we love having an enemy to beat. We are also afraid of different thoughts and the "other." Spider Robinson's idea that if we just had an empathy ring we could put on our heads we would heal all humanities ills, because we felt it's pain, is counterposed by the reality of the internet; where people seek out the worst calamities, because it's interesting ,and seek to Troll each other in order to cause pain, to people whose ideas and thoughts we disagree with. I think I do believe in Douglas Adams' Babel fish hypothesis: If we knew each other's thoughts there would be more and greater wars than we've ever known.
Perhaps "Troll" is just a negative term that people apply to those that disagree with them, because they can't accept the possibility that their thinking is wrong and that of the "Troll" Is correct.
@@Unit8200-rl8ev A naive view of trolling. It is certainly possible for the troll to be right, but that is not the point of trolling. The point of it is to provoke an extreme reaction from the other person ... like poking them with a stick. It generally doesn't matter to the troll whether the thing that winds the other person up is right or not. Its the response that matters, and their power over the other person, because they are pulling their strings. I've experienced several types of trolling, but the common thread is they are extremely annoying, because they are meant to be. One where the troll just keeps relentlessly following a line of argument, which apparently makes sense, but is designed to humiliate the person argued against, to make them feel inferior and small. A difference from just trying to bring someone to their point of view. Then, quite commonly there's another kind where the troll will advance an ingenuous statement, luring their mark into expressing agreement, and then ridiculing them. Or even the troll will say something obviously ridiculous, or weird, again baiting an unsuspecting person into a conversation, quite possibly just to freak them out. To reiterate, trolling is not a search for the truth, or anything positive. It is simply to exert power over a person by provoking them. However mods do sometimes get confused by someone dismissing someone else's argument, either by outright calling them a troll, or by losing their patience because of the trolling. Its not always obvious. Of course this is even more delight for the troll, if they can get somebody modded. By the same token, someone might occasionally use the trolling accusation to dismiss a genuine argument. You might have experienced this, but there's no way that invalidates the fact there are a lot of real trolls out there.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read The Foundation series. There are a few places where I thought this contained opinion stated fact but in general it seems fairly correct to me. That said, I believe it misses one of the key economic (aka power) lessons illustrated by the series. As the First Foundation faced each “Seldon Crisis”, weakness, and therefor the solution, is found inherent in very thing that made the new adversary successful and/or created the crises situation. Not to go too far afield but it occurs to me that’s perhaps a light that could be shone upon a broken political system in today’s America, (and many democracies) where it seems the vote barely matters, citizens are generally disenfranchised. In an economy where consumption is the basis for economic success (and elite power) the power waiting to be taken by a motivated population is completely obvious. Unfortunately said motivation does not seem to exist. People are too busy consuming to realize the power they hold in their cheeseburger. If you don’t understand that, I’d suggest reading the series again.
The Asimov, Empire and Hegelian history audio commentary is now on in the members area of this channel th-cam.com/video/orb5CZSKtXI/w-d-xo.html
I think psychohistory is a critique of Hegel's views of history. Hegel simply had only too small a data set to produce a system of historic development. Asimov thinks that billions of civilizational examples are required encompassing trillions of individual. This is largely the same as the fundamental problem of our biology: there is only one example of life to study.
@Damien Do u know James P Hogan's 'Voyage from Yesteryear'?
This is shortened the right way : "...the human refusal to be reasonable".
Thanks for all the work, Asimov is truly one of the greatest SF novel writer.
As a lifelong science fiction reader, hard sci-fi enthusiast and fan of Isaac Asimov, it is high time I sit down and read the Foundation series.
It is very dated now but an okay read. I’ve read the subsequent books. Also worth a read
I've read them all. The earlier novels are very pulp and reflect the period, but the later novels like Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth are marvelous. Asimov marries his Robot series with his Foundation series very well. I loved these books and their message.
@@letosgoldenpath1993 given they were initially published as short stories, that pulp vibe makes total sense.
I thought so too a few years ago, but, alas, it hasn't aged well in my opinion. Still deserves credit for spawning several copycats (e.g. Dune), it is nonetheless quite weak as a work of fiction, and difficult to read today.
@@nrabinov that's an interesting comment. Original Star Trek series has a lot of technology that was futuristic in the 1960s that we would laugh at today, like the memory chips. It's still good, though. Is the Foundation Series like that?
Nice, enjoyed reading majority of the series during high school. Later came out to San Diego and happened to stop by book store in Bird Rock, La Jolla where Asimov was doing book tour for Prelude to Foundation. Have signed copy, along with others of his.
The foundation TV series is the opposite of what Asimov intended.
Yes. It's a disgrace.
It might not be Asimovs vision, I still like it. Its interesting to see how the writers made a totally unfilmable sprawling series of high concept books into something that does work on tv: character based emotional stories, while still trying to use some of Asimovs conceptual thinking. It is not core Asimov and it cannot be, bc it wouldnt be watchable (and wont make money ofcourse).
Why do you think it's ok that it's "not Asimov's vision"?
At one point I wanted to critique it and had no idea where to start, its so bad.
@@MikeWhiskyTango It's like conspiracy theories and crackpotism. You just have to say "it's not even a theory" and move on.
What a treat I just had listening to this!! The combination of your use of generative ai and music in your editing and your ability to abstract out not only the important details but the essence of Asimov's scope, vision, temperament condition for each book , all told in a stoic optimism, sent shivers down my spine, good work !!
Same here ❤
I just read the original trilogy again a few months ago...I don't know why I stopped there. Lately, I keep finding myself re-reading stuff I've read multiple times before...
Anyway, this was excellent. I've been aware of what science fiction and fantasy authors do, talking about social issues or what have you...but I remember when I was a kid, and I didn't have a clue.
We need this essay more than ever after the disaster that is the apple+ series.
We don't talk about that here.
@@AldousHuxleysCat I kind of agree. As a science fiction series, it's not bad. The problem is that it was given touches of Foundation paint here and there, and they have tried to pass it off as Foundation. It's not simply an adaptation of the books, it is a rewriting.
@@TheEricthefruitbat Agreed. It's part of the post-modernist attack on traditional culture, the generalised re-writing and de-powering of all previous myths and touchstones. The same has happened with Dr Who, Sherlock Holmes and even the basic idea of goodness and benevolence towards others. No wonder there's an epidemic of anxiety, hatred and mental illness.
Great analysis! Thank you! Now I am going to read all Foundation books from the beginning!
Wonderful
The thing that is remarkable bout Asimov's writings is that they are as readable today as they were 70 plus years ago.
Man, I joined Damien's channel a year or two ago: I can't believe he hasn't amassed a larger following. He deserves it. His videos are always so well-thought out and made with such care. Thumbs up, as always! Can't wait for your next video, bruh!
I wouldn't call the Foundation series "hard sci fi." The original distinction between "hard" and "soft" was the same as the old distinction between the "hard" natural sciences and the "soft" social sciences. Foundation is pure social science, examining the rise, fall, and potential rebuilding of a society based on sociology, psychology, economics, politics, and statistical analysis.
I find the Foundation series interesting as it goes along because the stories take the central concept (psychohistory) and keep challenging it and revealing its flaws: Does psychohistory break down if people become aware they are part of this social experiment? Does it continue to work if basic human nature changes in some way and typical reactions are no longer a given? Isn't it possible for people to use the tools of psychohistory for their own private benefit rather than just the public good? Is attempting to direct human development at a civilizational scale inherently limiting human potential rather than supporting it?
That's not the original distinction, that's a much later idea from the Ben Bova era.
People talked about "hard sci fi" before the phrase "soft sci fi" was coined, and applied the label differently at that point (the 1950s?). But, once both existed (the 1970s?), the distinction was draw based on the sciences referenced.
@@davidranderson1 Well, thank you for your opinion. This is a bad habit of scifi readers, the endless subdivision of pointless boundaries. It's a large part of why science fiction is a dead literature.
I am not a particularly fan of AI art, but l think you blended it perfectly...enjoy this greatly....keep up the great work
I don't see how Asimov's Galactic Empire could have inspired Iain M Banks' Culture novels. The Culture is an anarchic utopia that views the empires it encounters with alarm and amusement. These do not long survive contact with the Culture.
You've answered your own question. The Culture is meeting the Galactic Empires of Asimov. There are also direct inspirations of Special Circumstances agents / Second Foundation agents etc.
The final foundation story combined the foundation "trilogy" ( yes there were more than 3 books but I also like Douglas Adams ) with another "trilogy" of his and a stand-alone story, whose name eludes me at the moment, ( Monty Python reference ), that included time travel, but only in passing. Daneel is in it from the robot stories, starting in "The Caves of Steel" series.
Was R. Daneel the 3rd Foundation?
Asimov was a great contributor to Science Fiction, I agree. He seemed to be a benevolent influence, as well. Just my experience in the 1960s, it seemed a lot more young adults read "Starship Troopers" than the Foundation series? I read them both.
I suppose he may have been the first to espouse an all-encompassing galactic civilization and government (EE Smith SF?). This highly unlikely scenario is an analogy to one world government on Earth, I assumed.
A E Van Vogt preceded Asimov by 8 years with a benevolent Earth one world government based on science in his "The World Of Null A." That system lasts for generations before being infiltrated and nearly destroyed by a Galactic government for power and wealth acquisition.
Null A also stresses the importance of learning from history and maintaining the original meanings of words to be able to understand the actual history of human experience. Null A was likely influential in the writing of Nineteen Eighty - Four.
Unfortunately, Asimov's Foundation series (far too optimistic) and Bretton Woods (insanely optimistic) have not withstood the last 70 years as well as The World Of Null A or Nineteen Eighty-Four!
You, sir, just gained another follower. Excellent essays, this one and the one about Ursula LeGuin.
This is an excellent essay Damien - but how can you have failed to mention that the establishment of a scientific religion in the Foundation books was at the insistence of John W. Campbell, and was soundly disliked by Asimov? Or that the creation of The Mule narrative was because Asimov had grown weary writing story after story in which the Foundation won each successive conflict, apparently without trying? These important aspects of the author's feelings about his magnum opus are available in his autobiographical writings. Also, there's a misinterpretation of the plot of Foundation and Earth/Robots and Empire. The Earth's radioactivity is NOT due to squabbling between ideological factions. I won't spoil the plot, but it's not a metaphor for the Cold War of that time; rather, it poses the question of whether human progress requires a Jeffersonian-style robotic plantation economy, or a non-robotic culture of expansion and colonisation in which the human spirit and capabilities are constantly challenged. Asimov favours the latter, obviously.
Thank you, in all of this essay not one mention of the Robots, they are so important to the Foundation Universe.
The amount of nonfiction that man wrote is astounding.
CORRECTION: the foundation wasn't a democracy when the Mule conquered it. It had been a dictatorship for some generations of the ruler family Indbur, the last of them being a blind bureaucrat. That was also predicted by psychohistory, also how it was supposed to fall to a revolution that was brewing inside, but the Mule interrupted this natural process. Anyway, if he saw what they have done with his work, specially that awful series, he woul be revolving in his grave. the only worthy adaptation has been robin william's bicentennial man.
Would you consider providing subtitles for your videos? I have trouble with auditory processing (autism things) and find myself, without them, having to rewind and rewatch every few minutes. Your videos are so full of interesting facts and mentions, I'd love to be able to fully digest them with subtitles
Hit the CC button, youtube autos them. Tell me if that works.
@@DamienWalter It works! It's just that auto-generated subtitles are often more distracting than helpful because of their frequent inaccuracies, as well as the lack of punctuation and sentence divide.
Sadly, if I typed them myself, they would be far more inaccurate!
@@DamienWalter Ah, I can empathize with that! (: Was just a suggestion that would help your channel be inclusive to wider audiences. Still going to watch no matter what. Thank you for opening my mind to the world of science fiction and its authors!
Well, Mr. Walter, you have certainly given me plenty to chew on. Thank you for creating an essay to shake my thinking and worldview.
Excellent as ever! Thanks a lot
That scene in the Omega Glory where Kirk shows Cloud William is ironic as both actors were Canadian. 22:05
I only found this channel in my suggestions recently and I am thoroughly impressed! Great vids and this video is very topical with the ongoing adaptation of Foundation as a tv series ongoing currently!
I've seen no reference to this elsewhere - which I assume is an experiment. Because of the news in the Middle East right now, this hits a little differently. The failure of man to be reasonable has definitely been on continuous show.
But staying on topic, I liked this essay, although it doesn't go into the relevance of Daneel Olivaw - perhaps this is too spoiliery. I do like the way it follows the West's exploits (certainly what the Foundation was, not Rome) although I think socialism is for Asimov the final point of history. (The realities of Stalin on;y appeared after Foundation is printed).
Also Asimov spends so much time as a short story writer, we all have to politely turn him into a novelist - which he really isn't. Of course he could have been one - and then the original trilogy would have been a little more balanced. This is where Dune bursts through. It was a novel written by a novelist. And Herbert his world almost within the ready reality of Foundation.
Interesting point about the short stories. They really were better weren't they. Some of them really drove home those ideas.
In fact I think the later novels are much better than the early shirt stories. He's learned to write fiction in the 30 years between them.
I read all the first trilogy in a teenage thrill, along with all of John Wyndham's novels and then devoured my favorite books, THE SCIENCE FICTION HALL OF FAME, ALL four volumes. I found them even more to expand my young imagination. Then onto 1984, which much to my chagrin,, as well as most of the other so-called outlandish, and fantasy engaging ideas, have NOW BECOME REALITY!!!!
I must say I have listened to many reviews and critiques, yours is by far the most incisive and interesting. KUDOS!
This was incredible! Thank you.
Man, those sideburns. Those are giving me some really dangerous styling ideas.
This is a brilliant summary - with many key points I had never noticed before !
I was wondering how the thesis of a government run by rational-thinking people using science and mathematics would apply to the later _Foundation_ books. One point was to link previously unlinked books and series (you'd think that R. Daneel Olivaw would shut down after the galactic empire was first formed since humanity survived). The other point was to come up with an alternative to the Second Foundation "winning" and using _psychohistory_ and mind-control to run the galaxy.
I didn't like a superorganism and group consciousness deciding to change mankind and create "Galaxia". That is an idea that's hard to conceptualize. But there's no certainty that it will make the "correct" decision instead of decisions that feel good, unless you remove feelings.
They created a group-mind, in _Star Trek_ called the Borg, though they changed it later to make it a hive-mind with a queen that makes decisions for the group. I don't know it's origins but I could imagine cooperative worlds deciding to link up its brightest minds in order to face a threat, and when victorious, it gets out of control and incorporates all the individuals of the world. Perhaps the original two or three worlds hardly have any individuals with their genetics still extant after assimilating thousands of worlds?
In _Babylon 5_ they tried to imagine a society of telepaths but kind of botched it. The Psi Corps supposedly took direction from the civilian authorities, but seemed to be led by the highest-level telepaths, meaning when Lester was around he was the boss and what he said, goes. Lyta was the strongest telepath of the group on Babylon 5, but somehow her group split and didn't all do what she wanted. At least with the Second Foundationers, their powers were backed up by the mathematics of psychohistory.
leGuin was an early hero of my reading, so I've always assumed the social commentary of good sci fi... no commentary, then often feels second tier... (loved seeing the wee clip of Scanners when discussing psychic control... heheh) - I tend not to regard the Soviet experiment to be true socialism, just as the American Liberal Democracy has devolved into pure capitalism... (lovely to see the acknowledgement of L Ron H... I often joke that he started Dianetics on a drunken bet that he could start a religion based on Campbell's pseudo science notions... other writers influenced by Campbell's ideas include Gordon R Dickson, Harlan Ellison, Clifford Simak...and as you mention, Herbert)
Loved his books, him and Heinlein were my favs.
It is almost scary to think that this man wrote this 30 to 80 years ago and
Still much of it is relevant for todays politics and social problems
Is if he had a chance to look in to the future for an ever so briefly moment and give us the readers digest of it
And her we are still whit our heads in the sand and wondering what is going to happen to our ( perfect civilization )
Well if things turns out the way it's going now we're royally screwed
And i think that harri's estimate of 10000 years will be but a blink of an eye
To the real time it will take to get any thing back to some sense of normality
And by then the human beings on this planet will be unrecognizable to what we're to day ( maybe that's for the better )
Well that my two cents on this matter
Not that it matters any way but still
Just saying 🇧🇻
You neglected to mention how he folds in his robot stories! I'd love to hear another one of these from that perspective.
Wow! Thank you for this breakdown. There’s a lot of knowledge to be gained from your report and Asimov’s brilliance! As a progressive thinker and someone who believes there’s more out there….are there groups today that share his ideology?
Your video made my day! I’ve not read the books, but I love the character of Harry Seldon. What a revolutionary! Just want to say thank you.🙏
Thanks for making this, was really interesting.
So skipping over the end of the series AKA Gaia? Gaia is batshit crazy.
A Really great essay on Asimov and his Foundation series. It’s Great that you draw out the parallel historical developments in the real world informing Asimov’s writing.
As someone who studied sociology I soon realised that humans are too complex and unpredictable for us to foresee the future the way Pschohistory does. But Interesting that Asimov’s science fiction imagines future possibilities and takes present developments and projects them into the future just like the metaphorical psychohistory, as you say.
I’m still processing all you have said.
Ah, yes. The fiction of "social sciences".
Thanks Paul. I wonder how much we can predict society.
Science fiction is better at social science than social science is.
The issue with the manipulation exhibited in today's world is it's used by those with the desire, not the ability, the scale is too large to account for and the lies become too farfetched and numerous, not to mention a lie can only last so long as the optics remain invisible. Take religion as the oldest form of mass control, it's successfully encouraged many behaviours ones betters would see as advantages to themselves.
@@charlesross9260 Sociology attempts to study society but it can’t come up with laws of society like physics can. But it’s still valid to study it and notice certain trends and patterns.
I think it's been about 50 years since I read this series.
Think I'll get the kindle edition and read it again 🤔
Thanks for the meaty analysis.
This was a really excellent video. Thanks. I've read Foundation but you've inspired me to read all of them.
Hold on. Gaïa/Galaxia was a backup plan, by "the guy on the moon" (no spoilers), in case Foundations failed. The ultimate gift from Gyskar.
Great video!
Great essay. I did find the AI-generated graphics (presumably) rather unsettling. They seem to dissolve from recognisable images into chaotic un-meaning, if that makes any sense.
I though you were going to talk about THE INCAS. They became the greatest empire on Earth, *THE INCA EMPIRE,* the greatest civilization on the planet. The only empire in America which extended from Colombia to Argentina. The first to create condominiums on top of mountains in Machu Picchu. Unfortunately or fortunately, they came too late in the year 1000 AD. Had they appeared at the same time as the Roman's, they would have conquered all South America, North America, Spain, Africa, all Europe, India, China and Russia.
The next time you eat potatoes and corn, think of The Incas. They were the ones who bioengineered it and now the whole world enjoys it.
The Incas were defeated when the Spanish stole the Inca. He was the only man who could give orders. That's a civilisational design flaw. Always have a backup Inca.
You've got a typo at 14:04. "Science fiction is meatphor..." Should be metaphor of course.
I never knew that Asimov and Heinlein knew each other.
Science fiction was a very small world for those first few decades.
This was a Brilliant Culmination of facts I had to Subscribe
Love your graphics!
It was a little distracting that you said the Foundation was a liberal democracy right before the Mule.
In the stories it had degenerated into a hereditary dictatorship, and the Seldon Crisis was supposed to have been a civil war between a too authoritarian central state and too anarchic outer worlds.
Will you ever create a video of the greatest (IMO) syfy epic *A Canticle for Leibowitz!*
A brilliant saga, but it did not stretch my imagination the way that the Foundation trilogy does.
Just one more thing, since I'm a huge Asimov fan: I wish they would use the framework of the novels to make a show, instead of whatever the Apple show was. There could be a season for each of the short stories that make up the series, and a season for each of the prequels and sequels. (I actually wrote a pilot of a first episode, and a treatment for a series. It's probably not good, but I wish someone would treat Foundation like Jackson treated LOTR or Villaneueve treated Dune ))
The first 6 stories is Hari Seldon gaslighting everyone.
Seldon gets the Foundation exiled and has his followers train the relevant generation. Salvor Hardin is put into place by Seldon (this is the only time a message is given before the crisis is resolved) and he is given enough to understand where Seldon is trying to lead him- he goes from 'lets mass produce nukes' (The Encyclopedists) to 'lets share nuclear technology to uplift everyone (The Mayors). Both crisis's are self-solving and Hardin's is highly passive.
The Merchant Princes covers the 3rd crisis, but Mallow's victory is based upon technological advances since the Foundation was cut off from the Empire; this is not possible to predict.
Which brings us to The General. Seldon could easily predict this- it is the Roman General problem and what he was referring to when he said the Galactic Empire lacked vitality. The reason for the gaslighting, for the Great Plan, for everything is to get over this hump- that of the dying Empire murdering the upstart Foundation. Because the issue is even though Bose is guaranteed to lose, the Foundation isn't guaranteed to win. The Empire could just annex the territory, Bose's second in command could become a warlord, the Foundation could splinter- victory is not guaranteed by grand historical forces.
It is the plan itself that makes them win. They have to believe, their subjects have to believe, the worlds they intend to liberate have to believe, the people they are fighting have to believe, that the Foundation is going to win in the end. So when confronted by impossible odds, the Foundation fights and in the end with their commander executed for treason the expeditionary forces decide the Foundation was right and switch sides AND the Foundation believes them.
Then Asimov wrote additional stories, psychic powers are introduced and we end up with The Evitable Conflict- Galactic Edition.
The science of today will inevitably be eclipsed by stones and sticks. Given enough time.
It sounds so high minded but is it fun to read? I’ve not gotten around to this yet.
Who is the artist and what is the painting in the middle of this video with the guy in a green suit with a yellow shirt under it, surrounded by books, with shadow people behind him?
I would go so far as to say that the TV series is "Antimov".
Error re: earth being radioactive due to nuclear war. As explained in his Robot books, Earth’s radioactivity is triggered by a Soacer plot to render Earth uninhabitable by triggering a slow reaction of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in Earth’s crust
Fantastic video--the audience will grow. Keep going, my friend, this was a delightful retrospective...
I always thought the Second Foundation must have inspired in part the Bene Gesserit as well -- the mental skills seemed very similar, as is the behind the scenes manipulation of politics.
Great video!
After getting sucked into Asimov's I Robot I believe I read pretty much everything he wrote throughout my life.
Timothy Snyder's description of the differing political systems deserves more attention IMO.
Economics is a Science? Who knew?
Excellent! Thank You!
"Myron Fagan 1967"
Alfred Hitchcock was a big fan of Psychohistory.
I loved this video essay. By the way, Franics Fukuyama is actually a political scientist, not an economist. Keep up the great work.
He is a political scientist *and* an economist.
Very impressive work, thank you. I recommend also your use of AI images in a very creative way, great job!
What about the robots? From the 3 laws to the humorous and unsettling solution to hyperspace travel: humans will die, but it’s ok to think about…they come back
Well done I enjoyed that. liked
*Listen to Frank Zappa's Joe's Garage for some nice burns on L Ron :).
Thanks, I always get pissed when some illiterate yahoo says "He was talking that magics was for realz" with the magic and technology line when he was actually talking about ignorance and being removed from any science and sense of wonder.
Asimov, Clarke and some others belong, to me, in a bit of retro sci fi category that you can't really take things out of. Sort of have to think of it as a genre setting like Fallout. smoking pipes and cigarettes in space ships while calculating hyperspace equations with pen and paper because computers were bigger than your ship.
Yes. I like that observation.
@@DamienWalter it's almost like a 1920s Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon, Steampunk, and that kind of retro futurism.
You can fit a lot of other 70s writes like Larry Niven in that group too.
quite a great review of science and reality
Thanks
General query: is R. Daneel a cheat?
i.e. is Olivaw the 4th Foundation?
Love to see other Walter brood proving brilliant. Sincerely from the states, William Walter ❤
Nice! It's a rare last name without the S.
Ain't it just!? If you are a member of the Butler society, then we are definitely distantly related. My side came over in the 17th century, but prior had that whole Butler and Archbishop line that came from the Norman invasion. Probably better conversation for chat, but what the hell, let's feed the algorithm and get you more interaction states on your vids. @@DamienWalter
Questions: did Asimov see capitalism as the opposite of socialism? Socialism is such a trigger word in the US and you give the far right quite a kugel here. I guess after over 40 some years of reading science fiction and managing to avoid Foundation, I guess this will be next on my reading list. Is it best to read them as they were written or chronologically.
Yes "socialism" is a boogeyman word used to scare Americans. "Democratic socialism" is associated with Western Europe for those in the know, but still made to sound scary, without defining it.
I heard the word "Neoliberalism" once, perhaps to explain the economic-political philosophy of the time of the Merchant Princes. One story ends after the Seldon Crisis with a smaller trader saying their people will want justice sooner or later. But it didn't happen in his time. Seldon in his speech before the Mule invades said that crisis was supposed to be a conflict between the Merchant class and those wanting their fair share resulting in a power-sharing agreement.
In any case "Neoliberalism" though it sounds like "liberalism" is a conservative economic philosophy similar to laissez-faire or a hands-off approach by government. I think they said Chile embraced what the Chicago School was selling to their own detriment under Pinochet.
National Socialism was scary.
@@stevehead365national socialism is not the same thing as socialism. I’m not defending the USSR many leftists and socialists disagree with everything they did, but it is not the same as Nazism. Hitler was vehemently opposed to leftism and socialism of all kinds he saw Marxism as a Jewish cabal invading global politics and directing the Soviets toward world domination. Hitler used the symbols and language of leftists and socialists because they resonate with people. Fascists say things that have a grain of truth it’s why it’s convincing for so many people it’s just that that truth is never true class consciousness or solidarity it’s obscured by hatred bigotry and conspiracy and used to promote violent populism that is to no one’s surprise against every form of social progress and workers rights. Fascism has been called the violent rebirth of the nation and in a way it’s the violent rebirth of the status quo a pseudo revolutionary ideology that only strengthens the darker aspects of existing institutions. Nazis called themselves the German national socialist workers party in the same way pro big business republicans say they love jobs. Hitler wasn’t pro worker he was pro work. Printed above auswhitts was “work shall set you free” and the Nazis discarded everyone they considered useless for productive capacity. “Life unworthy of life” as they called it. Faddists stripped away basically all workers rights and protections, whereas socialists in liberal democracies were responsible for basically all of our worker rights. The USSR was not good with workers rights but definitely just a little better but again seen as a bastardized version of actual socialist values and is a distinct ideology within socialism. Something everyone seems to forget….
You have to read them in order to
@@stevehead365 I think any ideological political theory taken to it's extreme is scary, right or left, and national socialism, like communism were totalitarian in their essence. Neither could work because of human nature and enforcing anything on a population even if they want change because the current state of things isn't working for a lot of people listen leads to a lot of those people not getting what they thought they were being sold as an alternative. The problem is those with power often want more power, then even more power, and without checks and balances to stop this from happening things always turn out badly and in the end war is inevitable because even when WWI and WWII happened the world is an interconnected place and these overly aggressive leaders with ego trips always push the boundaries too far in the end.
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize economist, has said he read Foundation and knew he wanted be Hari Seldon.
That would explain his belief in MMT
@@DamienWalter Corollary: Galbraith's Law - John Maynard Keynes is always correct. Nixon finally agreed by letting US dollar float. (Nixon worked in WPA under JKG. Irony has to be a calculable factor in any functioning pyschohistory.) Keep up the keeping.
It all sounds like the precursor to 40K... when did the emperor start watching?
40k, Dune, The Culture, Star Trek all start with Foundation
* America, arriving late to WW2 after making substantial profit, helps win the war.
It's fine to have your conspiracy theory, it's insanity to expect other people to share it.
The US gave $50 billion in lend lease throughout the war and got paid back less than $7.5 billion. You have a strange definition of "substantial profit".
I found the American metaphor unconvincing. The American colonies were an ocean away from powerful adversaries; hardly 'surrounded by them' as in Foundation. Salvor Hardin was hardly a Washington -- more an of an anti-Washington, as he kept the Foundation out of war with during its first crisis.
Moreoever, the key to the success of the Encyclopedia Foundations' was 1. its tehnological superiority, 2. the backwardness of their powerful enemies, and 3. the scarce resources of Terminus. Early America, on the other hand, was a backward agricultural society whose far away enemies were industrializing and advancing science. America also had abundant resources.
This guy just really really really really wants to see Asimov as an American navel-gazer.
Review your history. Spain and France had opposing colonies, and an entire First Nation.
Thanks!
Thank you friend!
As a young child, my English teacher sparked an interest in reading, by introducing me to John Wyndham, and from there I progressed to Asimov. Reading the Foundation trilogy in (effectively) a single sitting over the school holidays. It left a great impact. But the lack of emotional options and social options, meant that I never returned to it or to Asimov. I read the entirety of Wyndhams output and moved on to Vonda McIntyre and others. But I always have a soft spot for Foundation, a real masterpiece.
What science fiction would you recommened now to spark an interest in kids?
@@DamienWalter Wow, what a question? Do children now actually read books. What I used to do was to read collections of short stories. I could sample 10 authors and if I found one that was interesting or different I would go and seek them out.
But I get the impression that children now play more games than read books. Heck so do I. Still working my way through Baldur's Gate 3.
And children have such different taste each to another so I would suggest that they find ways to sample as many as possible.
@@DamienWaltermy go-to recommendation is "Dragon and Thief" and its sequels by Timothy Zahn. Rollicking space adventure with mystery and some social commentary, even if it's pretty basic (child soldiers bad, slavery bad, helping others with no expectation of reward good). Also (SMALL SPOILER)
.
.
the titular dragon is a badass poet-warrior who can turn two-dimensional on the skin of his human symbiote (the main character and titular thief).
I think Foundation or Dune was one of the first full science fiction books I read as a kid (pre-teen) Followed by Ender’s Game. I really enjoyed Foundation because it wasn’t complex in the ‘literary’ way - where the density would be in symbols and emotion and subtext. I still recall my utter perplexity at trying to understand The Great Gatsby in high school, why we were reading such a ‘boring book’ and being ‘forced’ to read into things like the pink interior of a car, and why a portrait had piercing blue eyes and so on. Foundation is still readable for a young audience because it’s quite easy to appreciate the story and dialogue and even the flat characters.
I had read some Piers Anthony sci-fi/fantasy cross-over earlier, but I definitely wouldn’t broadly recommend it, as it has some very mature themes. Am frankly shocked today, that it was in my grade school library 😂
John Wyndham was my introduction to SF too. The Day of the Triffids was an early favourite.
Loved it, the only correction is that USA did not won the Second Great War. It was the USSR.
Interpreting telepathy as propaganda actually makes sense. Telepathy was, by far, my least favourite part of Foundation. Well, I liked telepathic robots, because it created an internal conflict that had to be overcome. But in humans, it seemed like a lazy trope. Even with propaganda in mind (😁), I don't think a foe like the Mule was a good addition, at a time when "everyone" had telepathy in their "science"-fiction.
He doesn't use the word "telepathy" in his analysis of the 2nd Foundation, but that was the power I believed they had and used. I think that some of it could be taught to the psychologists who were loyal to the plan.
Frank Herbert's titular character in _God Emperor of Dune,_ has a similar power to analyze facial expressions, body posture, and pheromones to get a good idea what his subjects, whom he knows well, are thinking and feeling, and can sometimes manipulate them with Voice.
The characterization of Asimov's galactic empire as being topical, and the science of psychohistory being heroicized is not accurate really as far as I know. Also, the depiction of the book of these things very much more subtle. It does not endorse wholeheartedly any path including psychohistory, and psychohistory's relevancy is always in question after the first three chapters of the book. Also, saying terminus is an analog for the american colonies, is quite a stretch, and to my mind, never really a thought in azimov's mind. the story is a generalized archetypal history or intention of provoking thought, generally, and not a specific allegory of any one historical event, save the fall of the roman empire. Many people make this mistake of tolkien, thinking the lord of the rings is an analog for world world 2, which while tolkien did not deny the present had some effects on his ideas, he intended it to be a general myth, and not topical. Asimov's focus, as is almost always usual to him, is on the rationalities and competing historical forces, showing that reason and logic can prevail as a way of navigating and organizing thought and thought about things, and reasonable debate or consideration as a desired modus operandi for considering historical events and forces. He thus is eschewing ever following myth and unreasoned or hotheaded sentiment. He probably is so successful because his tone reveals a jokey playfulness and feeling for those who have emotions, feelings and need passion release valves and a jokey self effacing and endearing quality, but reason, almost a "meditative or mindful" quality of it, and consideration being guides to future actions still are his main focus. I in particular think Gibbon or know Gibbon was a clear inspiration for the setup, but I think or believe the foundation was not an analog to modern history or american power since ww2. I havent seen any but general parallels in it, not to my knowledge.
I got to say.. His observation on the very start, that humanity is not rational is spot on.. Dunno why we still like to lie to ourselfs and think of us as beings of reason, when in reality, and I do believe neuro science proves me right here, we are emotional first and just very good at rationalizing our emotion driven decisions.. Knowing this, the dark ages.. The for profit wars and so much else makes sense.. If we were really beings of reason, we would have settled every where possible around the solar system. If for no other reason, then at least as a way to acquire so much more resources then ruining earth..
Too bad I just can't seem to get into reading him, even though I am really into science fiction.
On the other hand humans are the most rational living beings in a known universe. People in the past definitely overstated how much rational we are, but there is no reason to torture ourselves over being run by emotions and instincts most of the time.
@@jirivegner3711 universe? Solar system probably, next star no clue. Milky way the same.. Universe😁
All I want to see is the rise of GENETIC SUPERMEN
Cliodynamics is the real-life counterpart to psychohistory.
I'm getting strong spiral Dynamics vibes from this.
Only indirectly. SD is a derivative the liberal model of development. I doubt Asimov knew SD, but he might have read Megel. Or more likely picked up the ideas second hand.
It's strange that many Science fiction writers put forth these final ideas that we will evolve into some kind of hive mind all thinking the same thoughts. Humanity has never done that. We are seemingly afraid of having the same thoughts. Then we are Borg. But we gather into political parties and tribal teams like nothing's going because we love having an enemy to beat. We are also afraid of different thoughts and the "other." Spider Robinson's idea that if we just had an empathy ring we could put on our heads we would heal all humanities ills, because we felt it's pain, is counterposed by the reality of the internet; where people seek out the worst calamities, because it's interesting ,and seek to Troll each other in order to cause pain, to people whose ideas and thoughts we disagree with. I think I do believe in Douglas Adams' Babel fish hypothesis: If we knew each other's thoughts there would be more and greater wars than we've ever known.
Perhaps "Troll" is just a negative term that people apply to those that disagree with them, because they can't accept the possibility that their thinking is wrong and that of the "Troll" Is correct.
@@Unit8200-rl8ev A naive view of trolling. It is certainly possible for the troll to be right, but that is not the point of trolling. The point of it is to provoke an extreme reaction from the other person ... like poking them with a stick. It generally doesn't matter to the troll whether the thing that winds the other person up is right or not. Its the response that matters, and their power over the other person, because they are pulling their strings.
I've experienced several types of trolling, but the common thread is they are extremely annoying, because they are meant to be. One where the troll just keeps relentlessly following a line of argument, which apparently makes sense, but is designed to humiliate the person argued against, to make them feel inferior and small. A difference from just trying to bring someone to their point of view. Then, quite commonly there's another kind where the troll will advance an ingenuous statement, luring their mark into expressing agreement, and then ridiculing them. Or even the troll will say something obviously ridiculous, or weird, again baiting an unsuspecting person into a conversation, quite possibly just to freak them out.
To reiterate, trolling is not a search for the truth, or anything positive. It is simply to exert power over a person by provoking them. However mods do sometimes get confused by someone dismissing someone else's argument, either by outright calling them a troll, or by losing their patience because of the trolling. Its not always obvious. Of course this is even more delight for the troll, if they can get somebody modded.
By the same token, someone might occasionally use the trolling accusation to dismiss a genuine argument. You might have experienced this, but there's no way that invalidates the fact there are a lot of real trolls out there.
History repeats itself.
Empirical support
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read The Foundation series. There are a few places where I thought this contained opinion stated fact but in general it seems fairly correct to me.
That said, I believe it misses one of the key economic (aka power) lessons illustrated by the series.
As the First Foundation faced each “Seldon Crisis”, weakness, and therefor the solution, is found inherent in very thing that made the new adversary successful and/or created the crises situation.
Not to go too far afield but it occurs to me that’s perhaps a light that could be shone upon a broken political system in today’s America, (and many democracies) where it seems the vote barely matters, citizens are generally disenfranchised.
In an economy where consumption is the basis for economic success (and elite power) the power waiting to be taken by a motivated population is completely obvious.
Unfortunately said motivation does not seem to exist. People are too busy consuming to realize the power they hold in their cheeseburger.
If you don’t understand that, I’d suggest reading the series again.
This Guy Asimov was Cool asf.
Excellent analysis. thank you very much
If anyone could be cast as charismatic totalitarian Mule, it would be Obama not Trump.
Trump is more like Hober Mallow.
so the "mule" is a "Trump"?
How did you create the visualizations in the intro? Show us the means of production!