Slashdot Mirror
A Case For the Necessity of Science Fiction
unc0nn3ct3d writes "This article makes an interesting point about the necessity of science fiction — or, more specifically, speculative fiction as a tool to aid in the long-term survival of the human species. 'We live in a world that is incredibly frightening for a growing portion of the population because of the exponential rate of change we are experiencing. Our world is changing so fast now that we often don't have time to contemplate the full ramifications that come with the increasingly rapid adoption of new technologies and social changes. Most often this is simply because these changes are being introduced almost one after another after another, without any time to breathe. Speculative fiction, however, if widely adopted, makes it almost instinctive that we think about these situations and possible outcomes before they even arise.'"
And then, we get all frightened and refuse to build large-scale particle colliders because we're afraid that black hole monsters will crawl out from under our beds and suck us into the fifth dimension.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I find in talking with my wife and other friends/family who are not SciFi readers that they are often surprised by certain events in the news. Whereas I will say something like, "Oh, this reminds me of Snow Crash, or Left Hand of Darkness ... kewl!"
Good quality, 'what if'-style SciFi keeps your world view more flexible than reading most any other kind of genre.
Only on Slashdot will you find an article saying we need more science fiction as news.
Engineers and scientists will invent things anyway regardless of whether there has been bad fiction written about the concept beforehand.
We do need to speed up social conventions to match the speed of technology. For example part of the unemployment crises that we are now seeing is due to technology displacing workers. Whet people don't seem to grasp is that there is a very serious intention to replace all labor with machines. Education and shifting from job skill to job skills will not be enough to keep afloat soon. Yet when social scientists try to offer solutions they are seen as crackpots and lunatics. Frankly some of their solutions make a lot of sense.
However there are some basic issues that never resolved before robotics and the like advanced and one wonders what will happen if robotics is able to solve them. For example robots designed to remove dents and to paint cars might be able to keep every car looking new. But sense we were never able to do that before robotics what will be the economic effect of doing it. The same is true of house and lawn work. Good roofs and fresh paint on a sharp looking lawn without human effort would be a shocker. But what does that do to an economy. We don't even know if humans should be involved in an economy or whether we best let robots and computers serve us all things that we need.
Most people are STUPID!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
That's a ridiculously superficial assessment; there's also a lot more porn around.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I don't think there is much in the current world to surprise you, if you've read John Brunners The Shockwave Rider. The biggest surprise is when you look at the time it was published: 1975. It has always astounded me, how clearly Johns eyes have seen....
There are so many good quotes in that book, that you could make nearly a second book out of them. My favorite: There are two kinds of fools: One says, "This is old therefore it is good." The other one says, "This is new therefore it is better."
I think the thesis "Speculative fiction, however, if widely adopted, makes it almost instinctive that we think about these situations and possible outcomes before they even arise" is correct. At least i can say it worked for me.
CU, Martin
Really, there have always been people who are unable or unwilling to deal with change. It's nothing new and it certainly isn't getting worse with time. 100 years ago some individuals were having a tough time dealing with the idea of mass population moving to the new fangled "factories" (or as they were originally called: manufactories) and leaving the farming life behind. 50 years ago some people were having a hard time coming to terms with the social changes hitting society - lack of respect, sexual freedom and all this rock-n-roll.
So no, I don't buy the basic premise and I certainly disagree with the idea that the people who are insecure about change will want to read books about even more change.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I basically agree that science fiction can help forearm us for making reasonable decisions, but think there's a danger of people swallowing authors' interpretations of what the effects of different developments might entail whole. Roy Blount reports that a man was once asked if he '...believed in infant babtism', and he responded 'Believe it? I've seen it done!' Though we can tell reality from fantasy (and science fiction...incorporating the worlds of if), some works can make impressions to the point that people treat them as if they were evidence.
This can range from a shrill 'Any altruist or collectivist government action will lead to disaster---I saw that happen in Atlas Shrugged!' to a smug 'All giant corporations are evil---I saw that in every sci-fi movie from 1970 onward,' to an arse-hurt 'Charles Stross is wrong when he says that space colonisation is probably impractical---I've seen it happen in 99% of the books I've read since the age of 8.' Again, the problem is that within a book the author has control not only of what arguments are presented, but of who presents them (either the estimable Wesley Mouch or that obnoxious and long-winded Galt/Ananconda/Swaggart crowd) and what happens when one idea or another is put into practice (think of a notional authors' fictional contention that a Marxist revolution---a Marxist one, mind you---would be followed massive State Capitalism, suppression of workers' rights, and the like).
I think this is a particular danger in a society where 1.) so many religious fanatics insist that their children be taught that one particular book's premises, observations, and conclusions must be treated as infallible, and also 2.) many science fiction fans think, 'I'm so much more clever than those religious fanatics, I'd never be that gullible,' which is one of the stigmata of a mark. Newt Gingrich, Cory Doctorow, and that woman in the Dorsai merc outfit at that Westercon who apparently jills-off to the thought of our getting Starship Trooper's political system all come to mind.
Summarized the article just says, "SF is good because it helps us think about stuff -- but not that icky lowbrow SF like Star Trek; that's practically porn."
That's not a fair distinction. The author dismisses Trek, which in the 60s had some ham-fisted attempts at an Important Message (mainly re: race), and puts "Avatar" in that category even though it has a (stupid, hypocritical) moral message too. So it's not having A Message that makes for the kind of SF the author likes. The article's more like a guide to making movies that will get whipped in profits by the latest Star Trek. For good or ill, I hear some people were deeply affected by "Avatar", so that sort of movie is capable of being deep and meaningful in some people's eyes.
I wrote an SF novel recently. There was supposed to be a Message in it. I'd read enough SF to know that making the Important Message blatant and heavy-handed is a way to ruin an otherwise decent story; famous example "Atlas Shrugged". What I found to be a good solution is to focus on being entertaining first, with plot and character being much more important than the Deep Philosophical Implications. The same group of characters could've been used to tell a story with a different message, if the character development had gone a different way ("This cause isn't worth killing over!"), and that's a good thing.
So, if anyone wants to apply the article's advice, they should interpret it as, "Write stories with meaningful takes on the possible future -- but they should be stories first."
(One bit of snootiness: I've got a theory that a way to describe character growth is a two-axis method. One axis is, "Can the hero find the strength to do what he's trying to do?" and the other, harder-to-write one is, "Is the hero questioning what he should do?" Simpler stories tend not to bother much with the second one, but overusing it gets angsty and annoying quickly.)
Revive the Constitution.
You can keep up on the latest trends in who Marsha might be attracted to besides Curtis! And is the Jennifer's baby actually Devon's? And will Steve ever come out of that coma, and if he does, what will happen to June and Chris?
I had a teacher as a child who told me "art teaches us how to be human." It's a compelling idea that neatly sums up my experience with novels, music, theatre, and some movies. I think, though, if it can also be a deceptive illusion that distracts us and convinces us the world is better than it is and we ourselves are kinder, more knowledgeable, better meaning, more competent than we really are.
If I understand the article right, the idea is that speculative sci-fi helps people beat future shock. By reading/viewing speculative stories, models of good technology use lodge in our minds and we get prepared to make decisions about using tools that come to us. I can see that. But counter that rosy image with the idea that stories featuring high technology instead train us to acquiesce to technology in our lives, not making conscious choices but instead sleepwalking into an isolated, un-fun, inhuman world all the while under the illusion that we're in control of the process.
I'm inclined to think that the best way to make good choices is by paying attention to the here and now, not by putting "the logical part of our brains... 100% in the future at all times." We can recognize good technology by seeing the good it does in our lives, not by comparing it Blade Runner, Star Trek, or District 9. (or Snowcrash, Red Mars, or Neuromancer). Marry that with social interaction, so that adopting/creating new technology is a communal, connected process and we have a good chance of making good decisions.
The article has much blithering about "exponential change", probably written by someone who has no idea what that means, or that the exponent might be < 1. Actually, the rate of change in lifestyle for the average person in the developed world is slowing down. And much of the change is negative.
It's useful to think of the Industrial Revolution as starting in 1808. That's the first year someone bought a train ticket and went someplace. Technology prior to that was spotty and didn't have much broad impact. Most people never got more than 50 miles from where they were born, just as in the previous 5000 years or so.
Jump ahead 50 years, to 1858. Railroads were all over France, Germany, Britain, and the eastern US. Telegraph lines were widespread. The first Atlantic cable was just starting to work. Heavy machinery and big factories were producing goods in volume. The world had become much smaller, and there was far more man-made stuff in it. The life of someone who lived from 1808 to 1858 changed enormously during one lifespan.
Jump ahead to 1908. Railroads to everywhere worth going. Electric power. Telephones. Wireless. Cars. The first airplanes. Much more manufacturing. The world of 1908 had early versions of most of the important stuff we have now, yet it was a century ago.
Jump ahead to 1958. Almost everything we have now already existed. Jet aircraft, nuclear power plants, space satellites, transistors, computers, television, Interstate highways, data communications - they were all up and running. The first IC was proposed in 1958. Antibiotics were available, and DNA had been identified. Manufacturing was so good that production gluts were common. Agriculture in the developed world was producing so much food that surpluses were a major issue.
Now look at the last 50 years. All the stuff from 1958 works, usually better, but most of what's happened since then is tweaks on 1958 technology. No new big sources of energy. No big progress in space travel in 40 years. Progress has slowed down. Per capita income real for the median American hasn't increased much in 40 years. Corporate leaders don't even talk about "progress" any more; just "change".
The next 50 years are going to be about running out of stuff. Oil, copper, neodymium, and tantalum are already getting scarce. Substitutes all use more energy and money. A century ago, raw materials were available near where they were used. The easy to get at resources have already been extracted. It looks like it's all downhill from here.
Which is why SF has lost its optimism. Popular SF today is either space opera or about vampires. Or it's about a realistic, but grim, near future. SF is now just entertainment; it has no major cultural function, other than perhaps preparing us for the future society of scarcity.
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel." - Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum, Emir of Dubai.
I didn't RTFA but I've wondered if dreams are similar. When faced with a similar situation, do people use their dream experiences to help make a quicker decision. I wonder if deja vu is just the feeling of experiencing something from a forgotten dream.
Healthy humans only need so much stuff. Automation may be good for firms that do it, but if demand is limited, jobs disappear in the system. That's why capitalist systems must grow continually, to create new jobs to make up for productivity increases. The problem is, too much stuff actually can get in the way of a good life, since good human relations are generally the most important part of a happy life and too much stuff distracts from that. Also, right now, much stuff has negative external costs involved in its creation (though we may someday move beyond that).
Here is some sci-fi on ironies in a world of abundance: ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World
""The Midas Plague" (originally published in Galaxy in 1954). In this new world of cheap energy, robots are overproducing the commodities enjoyed by mankind. So now the "poor" are forced to spend their lives in frantic consumption, trying to keep up with the robots' extravagant production, so that the "rich" can live lives of simplicity. This story deals with the life of a man named Morey Fry, who marries a girl from a higher class. She is unused to a life of consumption and it wears at their marriage.
But, that would still be a big shift from what we have now, which is based on the idea that people only have a right to consume based on the value of their labor. This was talked about back in the 1960s in a letter sent to President Johnson in 1964:
http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
To deal with increasing automation destroying the value of most labor given limited demand, what we need more is a global sharing of the wealth produced by an automated industrial commons, which means taxes for a basic income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
or transitioning to another economic model like a gift economy or a subsistence economy or something else. The big issue is not so much automation (although there are aspects that are negative of loss of control or loss of joy in hands on work that you may love) but the issue of how the fruits of automation get distributed. Related on three different visions of work we need to bring together for the 21st century:
http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/buddhist_economics/english.html
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html
Think of this example: someone sets up vending machines powered by solar panels in every community, and these machines print wood shaped to order for very low prices, and the machines take next-to-no labor to keep going. Basically, what you outlined, only even better (maybe the devices just suck carbon and water from the air to make the wood). Your company can't compete with the prices and quality and speedy delivery, so everyone you employ is laid off. The owner of this enterprise, who owns all the patents and who gets all the money, decides to pile it under his or her mattress, or alternatively, gamble it in high stakes poker games (called derivatives :-) that just move to higher and higher stakes. Where are the new jobs there? Sure, that company may make a few new jobs, but overall, lots of labor is saved, so there is a net negative as far as jobs, because healthy people only need so much wood. The only reason to even worry about jobs is this issue of the right to consume, as well as government enforcing monopolies on land or patents or copyrights, since otherwise there is so much abundance we could organize the economy differently, like GNU/Lin
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You missed the revolutions in network connectedness (and global consciousness),
http://www.global-mindshift.org/memes/wombat.swf
robotics, materials, genetics, and design tools. Examples of the state of the art in robots:
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/005926.html
Here is an index into stuff I wrote on why doomsters are wrong about material issues (but may be right about social issues):
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-August/thread.html#4123
We are not running out of stuff or energy by any means. The human imagination is the ultimate resource (as Julian Simon suggests). Are you suggesting optical fiber uses more energy that copper?
On earth, we can recycle and use renewables (or other energy sources even -- whether nuclear or coal), and there are enough resources in the solar system to support quadrillions of humans at a higher than current US standard of living, building thousands of Earth's worth of area in space habitats. How can we be running out of, say, metals when we just need to mine the landfills to get them back? The US auto industry has also become a *net* producer of metal as people downsize cars. And if we switched to electric cars, we would use less electricity (since it takes more electricity to make a gallon of gas than it takes to make an electric car go the same distance as a gasoline car).
"Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en
Try James P. Hogan or Iain Banks or Ursula K. Le Guin for something different in sci-fi.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Dude: I am no forensics master, but aren't you violating a basic premise of debate by countering the GP's actual example with a speculative future scenario in which you cherry-picked the parameters to bolster your agenda?
...not as nice of a tactic when used both sides, it seems.
If that is a legitimate debate tactic, then one presumes he could counter with a similarly cherry-picked scenario where he and his firm counter the structural shift in their industry by developing "programs" for these devices to create "fad wood cut designs of the week" (ala iPhone). He would then consolidate his firm's massive profits and, of course, go on to personally develop economical nanotechnology and nuclear fusion--thereby ending scarcity for the entire world!
Aside from that, it seems that most of your concerns miss the point that most of your future scenarios result in one of two general outcomes. One possibility is that the trend away from agriculture to manufacturing, and then away from manufacturing to services, and then away from services to "aaaa! no more work for Americans!" is economically sustainable at a national level, then there is no problem. In such a case, the general wealth level of the nation (and the society at large) is high enough that we are borderline post-scarcity (otherwise, markets for 'new things/services' would emerge). That is, one way or another, we continue to be to afford to pay other countries to "make stuff" for us. Don't know how we would manage to do that, but good for us if so.
However, what if such a trend is unsustainable? I believe this to be the more likely case. In that case, China (et al) stops feeling the urge to continue to inflate our standard of living by floating our colossal trade deficits. I mean, what are we giving today them besides US Treasury IOU's? (the fact that they can trade US dollars for oil is notwithstanding, because eventually the world will decide that the farce has gone on long enough if they value nothing we produce) Okay, so, now the value of our dollar plummets, we aren't getting our market flooded by goods that are manufactured at prices with which we can't compete domestically, and then suddenly we start finding it is cost-effective to manufacture in the US again.
Of course, everyone in the US is poorer on average in the latter scenario, because free trade tends to be ruthlessly efficient--and inefficiency is expensive. For example, it isn't efficient to pay a union worker $40/hour + benefits to screw on jar lids, when a robot could do it much faster, more accurately, and more cheaply. Are you aware that you share the same concerns as the original Luddites? The structural economic shifts in efficiency brought by technological progress have been beneficial to the economy & society as a whole, and there are two centuries of evidence to support this.
Of course, individual actors must "evolve or die", just as the buggywhip manufacturers needed to migrate into manufacturing automobile tires (or bondage gear, depending on their marketing department's forecasts). Anyone can predict dire economic scenarios due to technological advances, but you will forgive me if I believe that they are unlikely given the overwhelming preponderance of the historical evidence.