Comments on: Science, politics, and near-future SF

By: nbrav

nbrav — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:04:47 +0000

regarding the next step- right you are, space is no place for tourists, except near and “safe”. the real adventure begins as you say with the explorers and the way they get beyond our orbit is definitely driven by $$$$. The next big steps will be taken by governments or corporations to start mining either/both colonies on the moon- lots of resources and nearby, and further out- the astroid belt etc, when the moon/resource mining gets stable, Mars next to explore then set up colony/mining- Only then will the next step to the further reaches of our local Helio-Resource-sphere be attempted.
The science/technology developed by then will drive us further out into extra-Sol space.
This assumes we haven’t destroyed ourselves or been driven back into the stone age by the Radicals/fundamentalists etc. of every persuasion.
Anyone for a responsible world government that can keep us together and moving forward.
Personally, I think that’s what the “god/Higher Power” really intended when he/she/it stopped by for a chat with primeval earth.

By: David J. Williams

David J. Williams — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:11:11 +0000

@ Tom. No sympathies needed, sir, it was all good fun.
@ David P.: I agree with you that it’s impossible to steer clear of current politics altogether, and not even desirable. Certainly all the issues you cite are critical to any coherent analysis of the future.
What I take issue with are the ideologues of both sides. And I think you may be overestimating the extent to which Left vs. Right are becoming irrelevant. . . if anything, that division seems more strident now than ever before. And the certainty of ideology leads to sci-fi that preaches rather than elucidates, that rarely converts anyone who doesn’t already buy into it, and that cripples our sense of possibilities. I don’t think either Left or Right have the answers to the really big challenges we’re facing, and I think Leary was right in saying that “linear” politics is passe . . (and I fully recognize that that’s a political statement in its own right. : )

By: dpomerico

dpomerico — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:41:00 +0000

I wonder, though, if it’s necessary (or necessarily a good thing) to disassociate near-future SF with the political impact of today–isn’t much of what such literature is trying to do is establish a world in which they can play out the present political climate–to speculate on the direction the world is going in? In your post about dystopian literature, I think a similar issue was raised, and again, I think I want my near-future SF to have some connection to the present day. If that means politics, or the science of the times, then so be it.
Conversely, do we even see Left vs. Right as distinctive political divisions today? In America, the major differences between Republicans and Democrats are, for the most part, moral–and even then, almost universally in matters of degrees, rather than black-and-white. Which is why I think it’s “easy” for Far Futurists to envision this type of political system to be obsolete, tending, it seems, to focus on the idea of individual power–captain of the ship, governor of the colony, leader of the expedition–rather than law-makers. And isn’t that a natural progression? Aren’t we steadily–in America, at least–moving towards a stronger executive, and weaker legislative?
In the end, I have no problem with the political in my sci-fi–in fact, I think it makes for stronger, more enduring stories (as one commenter mentioned ‘1984′, consider how overtly political that is–and about a system of government we really don’t think about too much anymore–and yet is still perfectly relevant today). And if that means incorporating the science of politics (global warming, euthanasia, cloning, stem cells, population control, eugenics, etc.) into depictions of the near future, all the better. Because, as a cultural and societal artifact, sci-fi plays the role of prognosticator–do this, and this is is the result.
It also makes for some entertaining reads.

By: TomMarcinko

TomMarcinko — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:53:54 +0000

First of all, my sympathies. : )
The near future has always been a tough call, made only tougher by the fact that so many of us are old enough to remember predictions that went wrong (or, in the case of, say, “2001,” too optimistic).
Seems to be an entry barrier for new readers of sf, too. I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say that Orwell’s “1984″ was out of date.
As to global warming: I don’t know if Isaac Asimov ever wrote this down, but I did hear him say it: “Expect the obvious.”
Colbert’s coinage “truthiness” strikes me as more than just a funny word but a real insight into how we conduct our discourse.

By: blipvert

blipvert — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:04:04 +0000

my science fiction was declared by another SF luminary in the room to be more fiction than science.
As if that were a bad thing. Science fiction may have the word “science” in it as an adjective, but it is not science and should never try to be. Slavish adherence to current scientific vogue is the surest way to produce a novel that goes stale within five years.

By: kavka

kavka — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:01:22 +0000

People can’t separate their personal belief systems for the sake of entertainment much these days (if they ever could). Trying to envision outcomes ties you to them in the minds of some; as if you can’t have various possibilities, only assumed truisms. I see statements all the time that boil down to ‘if you don’t agree with me, I don’t want to listen to you’ – and that’s a dangerous position to take, ignoring contrasting views. It’s even worse when our entertainment even has to agree with us or else we dismiss it. Do we all just want to be surrounded by different-skinned versions of ourselves; and if so, does that mean that self-validation is more important than learning and tolerance? Of course it’s almost impossible to segregate politics and science; they are peanut butter & chocolate (like the old TV ads – ‘Hey! You got your politics in my science; you got your science in my politics!’ and such). Ultimately though, science fiction is meant to be entertaining – thought-provoking, questioning, political, scientific – those are all ingredients that can be adjusted to taste, and I think everyone is better when they respect and embrace all of the possibilities that exist as such, not condemn anyone who doesn’t like their recipe. Will politics matter? Will science? Isn’t it fun to explore the possibilities on either side?