Specialness

It’s hard to give up the notion that you’re not special.  Emma Roberts, in her Metaverse post Are We Losing Our Ability to Be Human? believes our “specialness” is the thing that makes us human; that we have souls and spirituality, that we have consciousness and are aware of our place in the universe.  And she is concerned that, as machines and artificial intelligence take over more and more of our world and our lives, we will begin to lose touch with what makes us human… and special.

“…I think that without the feeling of spirituality or individualism or ‘self’ we are just another biological being and that’s pretty damn soul destroying.”

I don’t think Emma should be overly concerned, and here’s why.

Science is the bad guy now?

It’s been suggested in a Tor.com article that moviemakers only see science and technology as the bad guy, and won’t greenlight a movie that presents science and technology in a positive light.  And if you think about the sci-fi movies of recent years, it’s pretty damned hard to think of any where the science or tech didn’t create or exacerbate a problem.

Same thing for television: How long has it been since we’ve had a new TV show about someone using technology to help people?  You could mention Person of Interest; but even that show, wherein a genius siphons the identifying numbers of people who need help from an all-seeing Machine, has become thoroughly overshadowed by the discovery of another Machine that apparently wants to help a secret organization to (ahem) Take Over The World, and an imminent Machine-on-Machine war.  Extant was about taking advantage of humans alone on a space station to expose them to aliens.  Ascension was about fooling a bunch of “colonists” into thinking they’re on a space ship to another star.

I often find myself outright gobsmacked by the idea that people would consider science and technology as the bad guy in any form, considering all we have to thank science and technology for.  I mean, if we didn’t have agriculture… animal husbandry… medicine… metallurgy… standardized weights, measures and time… engineering… electronics… communications… all of which are branches of science… we’d still be living like nomads on the plains, throwing rocks at rabbits and trying to guess which leaves were safe to eat.  Or we wouldn’t exist at all, finally wiped out by the apex predators on every continent.

So, if science and technology have made our very lives and societies possible today… how are they the bad guy now?

Michael Crichton: More than Jurassic Park

Michael Crichton (1942-2008) was a prolific author, screenwriter and director for TV and movies, but it sometimes surprises me that he has become remembered almost entirely for a very short list of accomplishments… specifically, Jurassic Park, Westworld, The Andromeda Strain, and sometimes ER (of which he was creator, writer and executive producer).

But this rare creator not only penned many incredible novels besides the few most people think of, but he was the writer/director of some low-budget movies that so beautifully define him to me, including The Terminal Man, Runaway, and Looker.   His bigger-budget movies, such as Sphere, Rising Sun and Disclosure (also based on books), are also high on my list of movies to watch… when you can catch them.

Definitions of science fiction

I’m just going to leave these here.

Isaac Asimov. 1975: “Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology.”

John W. Campbell, Jr. 1947: “To be science fiction, not fantasy, an honest effort at prophetic extrapolation from the known must be made.”

Steven Lyle Jordan

By Grabthar’s Hammer!!  Are you still visiting this site?  I thought I’d let everyone know I’ve moved on to a new site!  How did this oversight happen?  How could you have missed it?  How did things go so horribly wrong?!?

Probably my fault.

This site has been moved to StevenLyleJordan.blog. Please visit me there and catch up on what you’ve missed!

Science (fiction) doesn’t have to be believable?

I recently encountered a Facebook post by an author of a science fiction novel based around the idea of global cooling.  He had discovered a website of climate theorists, the Space and Science Research Center, whose opinions roughly matched those of his book, and was proud to point out the connection.

Unfortunately, the SSRC is an avowed anti-warming group, whose theories are not backed by actual scientific data:

“The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) is (apparently) a for-profit company located in Orlando, FL. They appear to have an anti-global warming agenda, though their arguments have yet to be examined in detail. They present an appearance of scientific grounding, but they do not seem to have any peer-reviewed papers on their theories.” (From Issuepedia)

I politely pointed this out, and added that “although it’s nice to take your SF from the headlines, one should caution whose headlines are being read…”

However, my point was essentially ignored by other posters, including the author, all of whom expressed little or no concern about whether the science in the story was actually correct.  One such poster lauded the author, and added:

“I suspect your book will be much better fiction than anything peddled by the SSRC. Science does not have to be believable, as long as your characters are.”

When I read that, a small part of me died inside.

Space Opera: It’s the (stupid) science

The trappings of space opera are beautifully illustrated here.

The recent arguments over the merits of Interstellar (is it good SF, is it crappy, is it too serious, is the science BS, etc, etc) has been ringing in my ears this week.  One poster even tried to label Interstellar as space opera.  Which reminded me of a post in IO9 a few months back about space opera and its merits.  Part of the discussion revolved around what, exactly, is considered space opera.

Are We Overthinking the Dangers of Artificial Intelligence?

In this IO9 article, George Dvorsky talks to SF author David Brin about our society’s inherent over-reaction to and fear of technology.  His comments parallel recent articles and press releases of Project Hieroglyph, in promoting a positive outlook in science fiction, and he sums up the biggest problem here:

The problem with Hollywood, and cable news and yes, much written sci fi, as well, is that the very notion of adult process is anathema! it is seen as a killer of what Hollywood needs most… drama! Fast-paced peril and pure heroes opposing pure evil!

He also calls out one of my old favorite authors, Michael Crichton, for building his reputation on stories where basically the purity of science and technology was corrupted by a few people ignoring accepted safeguards, or working in secret with some hidden agenda, and thereby creating deadly nanotechnology or dinosaurs running amok.

My take: David Brin Johnson is right! (Hurerrer!) It’s good to hear a bit of common sense applied to technological development, and the fears largely caused not by the technology, but by our own lack of care.

The ulterior motive

I enjoy writing about and discussing existing and potential science and technology, and the amazing possibilities for our future.  It’s fun discussing science fiction movies and TV shows, and debating what we’d like to see in SF entertainment.

But I must confess that I do have an ulterior motive for discussing these things on my blog, posting links to it on Facebook and Twitter and mentioning it on sites like Tor and IO9: It’s because I want people who believe I know something about science, futurism and science fiction to come here and discover that I’ve written my own science fiction and futurist novels.  And I want those people, having discovered my books, to buy them.

Extant’s dubious technological mix

Halle Berry in Extant (CBS)

American audiences are presently being treated to a miniseries on CBS: Extant, the story of an astronaut (Halle Berry as Molly) who discovers that she somehow became pregnant while on a 13-month solo mission in space.

Naturally, I’m all for science fiction series, including mini-series (and I have no problem whatsoever with watching Halle Berry for an hour each week), so I was ready for a ride when the series started.

I was also hoping to see some interesting science and technology depicted in a story about an astronaut.  But there are some things about Extant that I didn’t expect, because… well, let me say that I’m not sure they’re well thought out.