The Legacy of Heorot was written over 20 years ago. It is a straight forward science fiction/horror novel based on the Beowulf legend, with relatively uncomplicated characters and a plot driven by a terrifying monster. Amazon reviewer Sesho outlined the plot:
The first wave of 200 settlers have established an outpost called Avalon on Tau Ceti Four on an island called Camelot. The atmosphere and gravity is pretty much the same as Earth. Vegetables, plants, and animals from Earth are being introduced to the alien environment with mixed results. One thing all of the settlers agree on is that one day the entire planet will be covered with humanity, since there isn't any indigenous intelligent life. Or is there?
The planet appears to offer no indigenous threats to the settlers and, as a result, security is not considered a particularly important consideration. Development of the colony proceeds well.
Colonel Cadmann Weylan the military representative and war veteran believes they are going too well, that the colony's security and vigilance is becoming soft. The perimeter of the site is left in disrepair and if he didn't fix it himself, they would be defenceless. He can't quite put his finger on his worry. It becomes apparent when a amphibian alien, similar to Earth's komodo dragons, dubbed a Grendel, finds a taste for terran lifeforms which could lead to the destruction of Avalon. The alien has intelligence and is superfast and a killing machine.
The colony is also suffering from internal dissension. Weylan is treated as a goofball because of his constant vigilance. Plus he is in love with Sylvia Faulkland, who just happens to be married to another man, and also pregant with that man's baby. The problem is that the husband knows. Zack Moscowitz, the leader of the colony feels threatened by Weyland's failure to go along with the status quo.
I have not read the book in 20 years but if memory serves me, Colonel Weylan was not only considered a "goofball" but was thought of as overtly paranoid ("crazy") by the colonists. The current analogy to the popular image of Dick Cheney comes to mind. In point of fact, Weylan agrees that he is somewhat paranoid; there is no obvious threat but it is his job to be paranoid. He must prepare for any and all threats, conceivable (known knowns and unknown knowns) and inconceivable (unknown unknowns.)
It is the nature of most of us, whose jobs do not require us to be paranoid, to discount threats that do not impose themselves upon us. In democracies, when threats are not noticed or are minimized, preparations to deal with eventualities are neglected. Galrahn notices this tendency in a venue few of us are thinking about:
The Long View Towards the North Pole
Not everyone looking at the energy situation in the world is sitting on their hands waiting for the world to change. The Northern hemisphere needs to sit up and pay attention, because things like this don't get as much analysis as they should in the dynamic political discussions that look to the future.
Russia must be ready to fight for its national interests in the Arctic region, home to vast untouched natural resources, a military official said Tuesday.
"After several countries contested Russia's rights for the resource-rich continental shelf in the Arctic, we have immediately started the revision of our combat training programs for military units that may be deployed in the Arctic in case of a potential conflict," Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov, head the Defense Ministry's combat training board, told the Krasnaya Zvezda, or Red Star, newspaper.
The most common argument is also the most ridiculous one: that the legal frameworks in the UN will protect interests. The UN has dozens of legal frameworks set up to protect African's from warlords, and yet at the end of the day, the guy with the gun has the final say.
Who thinks Russia isn't taking the energy situation seriously? They are a net energy producer, and while they have serious infrastructure issues they also have enormous reserves, and are looking to choke out competitors. If you watch the energy business wires, Gazprom is essentially investing in partnership worldwide, which means Russia is expanding its stake in global energy reserves and production. This appears to be a strategy of global energy presence for Russia. No wonder they talk about a global Navy.
It should be a no-brainer that countries with an interest in developing potential energy sources need to protect those sources. Galrahn points out that one particular interested party is acting like the colonists on Avalon:
What really troubles us though about Russia's movements towards the Arctic region is that all of our allies with claims in the Arctic regions are downsizing their capabilities to influence that region, much less defend it if necessary. We have covered in detail the retreat from the oceans by the Royal Navy, but more troubling from our perspective is the seemingly uncaring view from Canadians.
Canada is surrounded by three oceans, and yet the lack of investment or even interest by the Liberal Party of Canada in naval power demonstrates a remarkable absence of strategic thinking. How does a political party worried about climate change and melting Arctic ice ignore the Navy and claim strategic vision? While modernization is nice, we keep wondering what the naval forces of Canada and Great Britain will look like in 20 years, and what the naval forces of Russia will look like in comparison. It is noteworthy Russia is investing 25% of its military budget to shipbuilding, while both Canada and Great Britain are having problems funding, much less talking about fielding a replacement fleet for aging warships.
Navies, and all armed forces, cost a lot of money. People who believe that their electricity comes from a wall socket and that gasoline comes from the pump at the corner station have difficulty grasping the idea that if they want secure supplies of energy they will either have to pay up front and develop and protect those supplies, or they will pay even more at the back end, supporting the worst tyrants and totalitarians in the world to boot.
Russia is not equivalent to the grendels of The Legacy of Heorot but the best way to ensure they behave like civilized potential partners is to show that there is a sheriff in town. Those who should be our allies in enforcing minimal civility in international affairs are shirking their responsibilities, acting as if international law will somehow enforce itself, and in a pinch, relying on the United States to do the heavy lifting while they carp from the sidelines.
A similar dynamic is at work within the United States and the next election is likely to determine whether we continue down the current path, eroding our will and ability to effect outcomes, or re-assert our traditional confident approach to solving problems. Where Galrahn's warnings are specific, Victor Davis Hanson describes the problem in more general terms:
With gas over $4 a gallon, the public is finally waking up to the fact that for decades the United States has not been developing known petroleum reserves in Alaska, in our coastal waters or off the continental shelf. Jittery Hamlets apparently forgot that gas comes from oil -- and that before you can fill your tank, you must take risks to fill a tanker.
Building things is a good indication of the relative confidence of a society. But the last American gasoline refinery was built almost three decades ago. As "cowards of our conscious," we've come up with countless mitigating reasons not to build a new one. Our inaction has meant that our nation's gasoline facilities have grown old, out of date and dangerous.
Maybe Americans can instead substitute plug-in, next-generation electric cars that can be charged at night on the nation's grid powered by nuclear power plants? Wrong again. We haven't issued a single new license that actually led to the building of a nuclear power plant in over 30 years.
...
But the problem of inaction extends far beyond the present energy crisis.
...
The causes of this paralysis are clear. Action entails risks and consequences. Mere thinking doesn't. In our litigious society, as soon as someone finally does something, someone else can become wealthy by finding some fault in it. Meanwhile a less fussy, more confident world abroad drills, and builds nuclear plants, refineries, dams and canals to feed and fuel millions who want what we take for granted.
In our present comfort, Americans don't seem to understand nature. We believe that our climate-controlled homes, comfortable offices and easy air and car travel are just like grass or trees; apparently they should sprout up on their own for our benefit.
Americans also harp about the faults of prior generations. We would never make their blunders -- even as we don't seem to mind using the power plants, bridges and buildings that they handed down to us.
Finally, high technology and the good life have turned us into utopians, fussy perfectionists who demand heaven on earth. Anytime a sound proposal seems short of perfect, we consider it not good, rather than good enough.
Hamlet asked, "To be, or not to be: that is the question." In our growing shortages of infrastructure, food, fuel and water, we've already answered that: "Not to be!"
Both Barack Obama and John McCain have been ardent environmentalists, caught up in the millennialist fantasy that AGW will end the world as we know it. However, McCain appears to be moderating his stance against drilling and exploration while Obama has maintained and hardened his, believing that there is no real problem with increased energy prices beyond the rapidity of their rise; discouraging use is a good in itself for Obama. Further, while I think that McCain sincerely believes AGW is a genuine though distant threat, in contrast I think Obama, while probably believing in AGW, hasn't given it much thought. He does, however, see AGW as a way to enlarge government control of our lives, and for that reason will push the radical environmentalists' agenda much more strenuously than McCain would.
The Grendels of Heorot come in many forms, from Islamic terrorists to oil shocks; those who imagine that periods of peace and prosperity are permanent states and relax their vigilance and allow their preparedness to erode, are always the most surprised and outraged when unpleasant reality intrudes.
Recent Comments