A Review – “Revolt in 2100” by Robert A Heinlein

Introduction

If you love liberty, science, or good stories, you’ll love “Revolt in 2100”. What a ride! Great characters, compelling situations, great imagination and predictive ability (especially for being written in 1940). And in case you haven’t read my other book reports, SPOILER ALERT!

The setting is an America has become a (roughly) Protestant Theocracy that is oppressing the people. The protagonist is a naïve soldier who loves his country and his church who becomes disillusioned with it rather quickly as the book progresses, eventually joining the rebellion.

Reading the book was downright fun. Secret societies, military tactics and strategy (using military units that don’t yet exist), intrigue, betrayal, passwords, propaganda. It was a blast! It was able to communicate a message that, in the end, was contrary to my own opinion, but that didn’t stop me from having a good time hearing about it. This is the best of rhetoric, the best of persuasive writing. I hope to write someday like Heinlein. So I must say I enjoyed the book, despite the core message of the book being that people like me are what’s wrong with the world.

I must admit I really love the imagery of the “Church Militant” as GK Chesterton describes or in CS Lewis’ words the Church that is, “…spread out through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners.”; the victorious Church which is able to go out like sheep to the slaughter in the first few centuries AD and the Church that is able to keep its doctrines despite the multitude of challenges throughout the centuries. Heinlein, intentionally I think, made me start with some warm feelings about his imaginary state, and then crushed them by showing how terrible a thing it would be when humans rule the earth in God’s name without His guidance.

Philosophy

One thing that surprised me throughout the book was how much I agreed with him. His criticisms of the corruption, the greed, the wickedness of the church in that imaginary world (and in this real one) are valid. Like reading Ayn Rand, I felt like I was in an ignored observer. Where was the rational Christian in the story? But I will admit that we’re not very common, and it might be possible for Heinlein not to have met one of us.

Nevertheless, there is much I agree with. I am ever growing in my support for a libertarian ethic of governmental non-interference. It seems that this is a good and effective way to run a government. And this is one of the dominant themes of the book. People should be allowed to live however they like so long as they don’t prevent others from doing the same. I think the sacrificial nature of the characters, the utmost respect for personal dignity and decision, and the value placed on individual human sovereignty were wonderful.

Relativism
Heinlein argues for an agnostic faith and morality. No one has any access to God, and so anyone claiming to have it is probably lying. Therefore, all one can do is live one’s own life and not pass judgment on others. This is a pretty common conclusion, but Heinlein was actually able to build a world around it and communicate it freshly even to my mind. The only bad thing in the world is the one thing which I, a Christian, do: believe in objective morality.

Heinlein’s viewpoint here helps me understand some of my friends a lot better. It makes clear to me why public religion is so bad in their minds, and why evangelism is such a no-no: because, without revelation, it’s based entirely on the pride of those evangelizing. The trouble is that people with this mindset are especially hard to argue out of it. They believe that discussion itself is irrational, and so will tend to avoid it. And they think that every attempt to talk about it is some sort of power-grab or trick. Heinlein’s is a very well-insulating doctrine. This also may prevent relationships: you are the scum of the earth, the only real sinner. Relativism can incorporate all except the man who asserts Relativism is wrong. He is anathema. He is a heretic. And so, in the minds of many, I am anathema, a heretic. The same disgust that a Bigoted Southern Baptist has for a gay couple, Relativists have for me.

Religion, Sex and Nakedness
The idea that intrigued me the most was his views on public religion. His assertion is that one cannot know the mind of God, and so ought not speak publicly about what one believes. Though he makes a big point of defending the age-old doctrine, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” Zeb, his model Libertarian, gets really pissy when he’s asked about his religious beliefs. They’re private and should be kept covered.

But people shouldn’t be covered. Nakedness is something that should be public (or at least more public). Heinlein is unable to see any reason why we should cover up physical nakedness. Or for that matter, why we should be jealous about sex. And this helps me understand friends who are in Zeb’s position.

It is ironic that he reverses two things which have been pretty close to universal in human civilization: chastity (marriage and public modesty) and religion. For some reason, humans have decided that there are some parts of the body that should not be seen in public. There is a universal shame. There is a universal limitation on who one may sleep with and who one may not sleep with. And humans have decided that there must be some public way to worship God or the gods.

Heinlein doesn’t see any reason for these two things which are so close to the core of human identity. I think both of these stem from his disbelief in an invisible world. There is no invisible, mystical connection between man and woman in marriage. And there is no real being in Heaven that can be known. Essentially (as far as I can tell), because boobs are visible and God is not, the former should be uncovered and the latter should be covered. This explains the embarrassment or flustration (noun version of ‘to fluster’) when I share my religion with the non-religious. I’m dropping my metaphorical pants. I’m exposing to them the one and only thing that really should be kept private. And that’s just not OK in public settings.

These topics interested me, but I can’t say I’m persuaded. I’ve been thinking for some time about what marriage is (ontologically) and trying to (if it’s possible) translate that into something a Humanist could make sense of. And though it makes perfect sense on a Christian worldview, I have not been successful in translation. I think the God issue, on the other hand, is easy to respond to. Heinlein believes there is nothing to base a rational belief in God on. If God never spoke, then He’d be right. The question is: do we have any evidence that God spoke to us? There are a handful of contenders, but only one of them, the Bible, has sufficient evidence to verify the claim. The presence of explicit and confirmable prophecies and the inexplicable cryptographic features of the text show its supernatural origin. And this can form the rational basis of public religion. It has formed the rational basis of a public religion and has done so for nearly two millennia.

CS Lewis and Robert Heinlein

The most interesting thing about reflecting on this book was how many of the themes overlapped with writings of CS Lewis. With a bit of Googling, I realized they were contemporaries. They wrote on a lot of the same topics. They used fantasy to communicate their points. They were critical of totalitarianism. And perhaps the most intriguing difference is that they each thought the other’s philosophy would lead to totalitarianism. In both minds, the Great Sin is pride. Lewis believes it is pride before God; Heinlein believes it is pride in claiming to speak for God. Heinlein thinks there is no such thing as Justice, and so rehabilitative punishment (i.e. curing people of their neurosis that caused the wrongdoing) is all that can be justified; Lewis believes that there is Justice in the world, and retributive punishment (i.e. paying people back for what they did) is good and prevents the State from ‘curing’ dissidents.

They both presented their views of how society could degenerate in dystopian novels, Lewis in “That Hideous Strength” and Heinlein in “Revolt in 2100”. Lewis feared a calculating, bureaucratic, hyper-rational elite who would sterilize the world and conform all thought; Heinlein feared a corrupt, superstitious, power-hungry church who would proselytize everyone and conform all thought.

One of the most striking similarities between Heinlein and Lewis is their shared belief in 1940 and 1945 (in Revolt and Hideous Strength, respectively) that hypnosis and psychology will be able to be used by malicious parties for mind-control. It’s hard for someone today to see that as even plausible, as Psychiatrists have very little impact on anything today. I suppose it was an exciting time in Psychology, with the discoveries of the behaviorists and bold predictions about the expansive abilities of such practitioners. But it is shocking how wrong these predictions were. Usually sci-fi authors make mis-predictions, but it’s strange that these two would make the same wrong prediction for no good reason. It makes me want to read more about the expectations and accomplishments of psychology in the 1940’s.

Conclusion

Overall, I loved Revolt. First and foremost, it was truly a fun sci-fi book with interesting characters and a colorful world. Most importantly, it made me think about philosophy, justice, religion and politics. That’s what good literature should do, and that’s what it did. I think I agree with Heinlein’s politics almost entirely: a Libertarian government is best. But his metaphysics (or lack thereof), ethics and philosophy I think are based on false premises and so come to wrong conclusions. Nevertheless, his premises are common, and he was able to clearly communicate why I (and Christians) are seen in a bad light, all the while not making me want to punch him in the nose. And that, my friends, is what great writing is all about. So bravo, Mr. Heinlein, for this wonderful book. Thank you for sharing your vision for the world in so delightful a fashion.

Freewill and Fate in Photos

How can the sovereignty of God and Man coexist? How can God be omniscient and man retain freewill?

In focus: the Sovereignty of God

In focus: the Sovereignty of Man

Poverty of Liberty

I was considering the best way to define poverty, and I think I may have stumbled across a very old idea that might fit the bill:

“ …all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps “poverty” is when you lack life, liberty or the ability to pursue happiness?
Poverty can certainly limit these human rights. Life can be limited by starvation the same as it can be provided by an invading nation or a murderer. The government has a commission to prevent the violation of the right in the case of the latter, but which it is the job of the government to prevent.

The lack of liberty can come in many forms. It may not just be liberty in the sense of suffrage, but also in terms of education and beliefs about your own capacity. A slave working on a plantation certainly lacks liberty, but so does a factory worker who cannot leave his situation or promise a better one to his children. Likewise, a person with the ability to better his situation may have been convinced that he is unable, and perception becomes reality.

Limitations of liberty
If a person wants to run a marathon, three things can limit her. The first and most obvious is physical ability; can the person’s legs last for 26.2 miles? Secondly, does a physically capable person believe she can run the distance? And finally, is she willing to do it? She needs physical ability, belief in her ability, and wiliness to actually run. If any one of these things is lacking, she will not be able to complete a marathon. Her freedom is to run a marathon is limited by her body, her mind and her spirit.

The same is true of a poor person. A person may not have liberty or the ability to pursue happiness because they are physically unable (they lack the food to survive), mentally unable (they do not know or believe they can advance), or spiritually unable (they are unwilling to better their situation). To truly have liberty, all three kinds of barriers must be removed.
Most poverty work centers around the first one. We boost income, and build clinics. Most people believe that’s all there is to poverty. But, if liberty is the concern, then simply addressing physical barriers is insufficient.

There are many places with an overbuilt medical infrastructure; physical barriers are reduced. But the buildings remain empty. Mothers still birth their children at home and rarely use the clinic. In many of these places, they know that they’re supposed to give birth in a hospital and that it’s safer. But they prefer their homes. They have every physical and mental barrier removed; some simply lack the willingness.

Mental barriers are also sometimes addressed in development work. And even those who do trainings to address mental shortcomings will not be fully successful if they stop simply at information transfer.

Do we stop because it’s hard? Or because we’d have to address a culture and a preference (both of which are off-limits to relativists)? Changing minds like this is really really hard. But it’s what pastors, motivational speakers and advertising executives make a living doing: affecting people’s willingness to do things. Some of their job is removing physical or mental barriers; but most of it is giving people a spirit or desire to do a certain thing. And we cannot forget this very important piece of liberty.

Pursuit of Happiness
The ability to pursue happiness is a beautiful thing. It is not a guarantee of happiness itself. It is not the ability to hold property (Locke’s version). It is the abstract idea that one can seek happiness in whatever way one wants. Nobody can provide or force someone to be happy; the farthest one can go is to give another the ability to pursue happiness. This is a particularly hard place to stop, but a critical one. We can give liberty and freedom, but we cannot in the next moment take it away to force what we think will bring happiness. Happiness cannot be coerced. People must be truly free to choose misery, and we must not stop them, for to do so would be to undermine liberty and subverting the deeper happiness it brings.

We can build clinics, teach mothers about them, and advertise them. We can work with chiefs and elders to open their minds to the benefits of clinic birth. We can remove economic, social, and cultural barriers. But if a woman still chooses to give birth at home, we must let her.

Freedom and Its Spread

Freedom is not just government type; it’s not just being able to vote. It’s the ability to make choices and to live a full life. It’s climbing upward and giving your children a better situation you had. There are still billions lacking the promise our Founding Fathers sought to give to us.
But how does the flame of freedom spread beyond the shores of the United States? It’s no longer as simple as throwing off a single oppressive king with an eloquent letter. The oppressors are more than political, and so the solutions must be also; the answer is no longer simply in government or a good constitution.

The poor need a Declaration of Independence. They wouldn’t be throwing off an oppressive government, but an oppressive system. Parts of that system are sentient and malicious (dictators, oppressive companies) and parts of it are non-sentient (viruses, climate). And just as the Declaration of Independence wasn’t itself a new system, it made it clear that one would soon be necessary. The War of Independence that must inevitably follow will be fought on the soil of many foreign nations.

I pray that I may fight as their ally.

The Challenge of Liberty Poverty
The challenge with this definition is that it is the most difficult to quantify. It is the most abstract (which, if you believe Plato, means it’s potentially closer to truth than the less abstract ones). Donors don’t want abstract concepts. They, increasingly, want numbers. But this can be our ideal, the thing we really have in mind when we enter a community and want to help. It’s not about money, or property, or even improving conditions. It’s about Liberty.