i would argue though, that, though horrible tragedys occurred due to some of those people you mentioned, as a whole, humanity has managed to keep trundling along. it made a hell of difference to the individuals involved, but economies still continued to run, people around the world still gave birth, died etc.
i guess i'm simply arguing that if you look on a grand enough scale (asimovs thousands of planets with multi billions of people), even losing a planet is a relativly small event. (no comfort for those involved though, of course!)
conversely, what if Einstein hadn't discovered relativity? as a physics graduate, i can't help thinking that maybe, as all science is built on what came before ("standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton once said), then someone else would have just discovered it instead. maybe not for 50-100 years later, perhaps, but someone would have, and whats 50 years later in the timescales asimov was dealing with?
lastly, the thing with GM foods (not wanting to get off topic too much) - it's just a perfect example of the frankenstein effect; angry villagers persecuting the scientist for altering the natural course of things.... but thats another story. yeah, people have accepted robots thus far - but wait until a resonable level of artificial sentience is achieved, and watch most people panic and change their minds...
imho, looking back over my many years of reading Asimov's work, he preceded so many scientific trends and concepts; robotics usually being the most widely recounted by fans. he was also especially good at focusing on the ethical implications of science - to see the current public backlash against GM etc is almost like a flashback to one of his early short stories.
i wonder whether time will prove "psychohistory" to be one of his late great ideas, or one of the more un-scientific flops...? (i distinctly recall one bad story about almost infinitely powerful heatsinks, causing a space craft crew to nearly freeze to death while right next to the sun, that struck me as particularly unlikely...)
personally i think people are born with an inherent capacity for unpredictablity which presents chaotic complexities of the worse kind for someone creating a mathetical model. then again, with a sample group in the multi-billions, how much difference can the odd wildcard really make?
that is of course assuming that tv, mcdonalds and starbucks don't continue to breed the individuality out of us all... because then this theory'll work just fine!
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point J,
i would argue though, that, though horrible tragedys occurred due to some of those people you mentioned, as a whole, humanity has managed to keep trundling along. it made a hell of difference to the individuals involved, but economies still continued to run, people around the world still gave birth, died etc.
i guess i'm simply arguing that if you look on a grand enough scale (asimovs thousands of planets with multi billions of people), even losing a planet is a relativly small event. (no comfort for those involved though, of course!)
conversely, what if Einstein hadn't discovered relativity? as a physics graduate, i can't help thinking that maybe, as all science is built on what came before ("standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton once said), then someone else would have just discovered it instead. maybe not for 50-100 years later, perhaps, but someone would have, and whats 50 years later in the timescales asimov was dealing with?
lastly, the thing with GM foods (not wanting to get off topic too much) - it's just a perfect example of the frankenstein effect; angry villagers persecuting the scientist for altering the natural course of things.... but thats another story. yeah, people have accepted robots thus far - but wait until a resonable level of artificial sentience is achieved, and watch most people panic and change their minds...
imho, looking back over my many years of reading Asimov's work, he preceded so many scientific trends and concepts; robotics usually being the most widely recounted by fans. he was also especially good at focusing on the ethical implications of science - to see the current public backlash against GM etc is almost like a flashback to one of his early short stories.
i wonder whether time will prove "psychohistory" to be one of his late great ideas, or one of the more un-scientific flops...? (i distinctly recall one bad story about almost infinitely powerful heatsinks, causing a space craft crew to nearly freeze to death while right next to the sun, that struck me as particularly unlikely...)
personally i think people are born with an inherent capacity for unpredictablity which presents chaotic complexities of the worse kind for someone creating a mathetical model. then again, with a sample group in the multi-billions, how much difference can the odd wildcard really make?
that is of course assuming that tv, mcdonalds and starbucks don't continue to breed the individuality out of us all... because then this theory'll work just fine!