I think this is actually one of the more clever points Banks makes, although not explicitly.
Fundamentally, the Culture believes that living things (and their definition in this regard is remarkably broad) have a moral right to exist. Therefore, as a society they are not expansionist. In order to remain non-expansionist, the population must be kept stable and this has implications either in childbearing or lifespans. The average Culture human mothers about one child but that means they can’t, on average live forever. Why they choose to have children at all perhaps also boils down to the future generation’s moral right to exist, but also because they recognize that a renewing population means a renewing culture and Culture.
In this light, I believe it’s easy to see immortality as a sort of childish self-aggrandizement comparable to wanting to become the ruler of some backwards planet. Skaffen-Amtiscaw (an artificial entity and citizen of the Culture) even remarks on Zakalwe’s immortality as childish in Use of Weapons.
The Culture never appeals to nature – how could they, they are ruled by their Minds!
(Mind is a sort of very powerful artificial intelligence).
There is a lot of similarities between the Culture and Trek, they are both visions of post-scarcity humanity made impossible by the simple fact that humans could never be that nice.
I don’t think you’re expected to see the moral choices made by characters in the culture as ones you yourself should pick given current reality. It’s set against a rather different set of background conditions.
One thing that happens in aging is you lose patience. I also read far less than before. These Culture novels are WAY too long. I’m in the “get on with it” phase of reading now. And I used to read things like Aldiss’s Helliconia.
I wish AI was reliable, so I’d just ask for a précis of a given novel and work from that.
Unabridged audio books at 3x speed – ramp the speed up slowly, if you need to – and you can rip through books quite quickly. But, more reading could be good. (I know I should probably no more actual reading, too.)
I don’t really buy that non-epansionist requires stable-population; there’s a lot of optimization potential and each one we achieve means that we can support a larger population on the same energy input. There are physical limits, sure, but it doesn’t strike me that The Culture is up against them (and we are many, many orders of magnitude away; we hardly use most of the solar energy that enters the atmosphere, which is a tiny fraction of the solar output, which is a tiny fraction of what a controlled (rather than “gravitationally-organized”) fusion reactor can produce on the same fuel).
I also don’t buy that stable-population means involuntary death. Even once it stops being a majority position, I think you are going to have some people that opt-in to death for a variety of reasons which allows for a non-zero birth rate.
In all cases, involuntary death seems only motivated by resource limitations, so involuntary restrictions on resource usage would be preferable to involuntary death. (Those involuntary restrictions might turn into voluntary deaths, but certainly not always and likely exceedingly rarely at first.)
I don’t think it would happen is “just” 400 years, but I can imagine deciding to opt-in to death “just” to allow a different, new consciousness to experience things, and that may very well be what’s happening in The Culture.
I think this is actually one of the more clever points Banks makes, although not explicitly.
Fundamentally, the Culture believes that living things (and their definition in this regard is remarkably broad) have a moral right to exist. Therefore, as a society they are not expansionist. In order to remain non-expansionist, the population must be kept stable and this has implications either in childbearing or lifespans. The average Culture human mothers about one child but that means they can’t, on average live forever. Why they choose to have children at all perhaps also boils down to the future generation’s moral right to exist, but also because they recognize that a renewing population means a renewing culture and Culture.
In this light, I believe it’s easy to see immortality as a sort of childish self-aggrandizement comparable to wanting to become the ruler of some backwards planet. Skaffen-Amtiscaw (an artificial entity and citizen of the Culture) even remarks on Zakalwe’s immortality as childish in Use of Weapons.
The Culture never appeals to nature – how could they, they are ruled by their Minds!
(Mind is a sort of very powerful artificial intelligence).
There is a lot of similarities between the Culture and Trek, they are both visions of post-scarcity humanity made impossible by the simple fact that humans could never be that nice.
Just a bunch of guilt-tripping. Expanding from the Earth, OK, expanding past x light years, childish. It’s just moralistic nonsense.
I don’t think you’re expected to see the moral choices made by characters in the culture as ones you yourself should pick given current reality. It’s set against a rather different set of background conditions.
One thing that happens in aging is you lose patience. I also read far less than before. These Culture novels are WAY too long. I’m in the “get on with it” phase of reading now. And I used to read things like Aldiss’s Helliconia.
I wish AI was reliable, so I’d just ask for a précis of a given novel and work from that.
Unabridged audio books at 3x speed – ramp the speed up slowly, if you need to – and you can rip through books quite quickly. But, more reading could be good. (I know I should probably no more actual reading, too.)
I don’t really buy that non-epansionist requires stable-population; there’s a lot of optimization potential and each one we achieve means that we can support a larger population on the same energy input. There are physical limits, sure, but it doesn’t strike me that The Culture is up against them (and we are many, many orders of magnitude away; we hardly use most of the solar energy that enters the atmosphere, which is a tiny fraction of the solar output, which is a tiny fraction of what a controlled (rather than “gravitationally-organized”) fusion reactor can produce on the same fuel).
I also don’t buy that stable-population means involuntary death. Even once it stops being a majority position, I think you are going to have some people that opt-in to death for a variety of reasons which allows for a non-zero birth rate.
In all cases, involuntary death seems only motivated by resource limitations, so involuntary restrictions on resource usage would be preferable to involuntary death. (Those involuntary restrictions might turn into voluntary deaths, but certainly not always and likely exceedingly rarely at first.)
I don’t think it would happen is “just” 400 years, but I can imagine deciding to opt-in to death “just” to allow a different, new consciousness to experience things, and that may very well be what’s happening in The Culture.