Everyone is a number in this dystopian near-future where cameras track your every move. Score above 90 and your set for life. Score below 75 and you’re on your own, kid.
The Cycler Series
The Cyler Series: What would you do if you woke up one day as a member of the opposite sex? For Jill McTeague, this is no hypothetical question. It’s real life!
|
But I think I know what’s wrong. We have lost our passion for the future. We have allowed ourselves to become frozen in a backward-looking stance. We (and by “we” I mean primarily Americans) have allowed ourselves to be distracted by small-brained nitwits whose power amasses from the controlled release of pre-scientific philosophy. We are wasting precious mind-space arguing with each other about the “ethics” of life-saving stem cell research, the theological ramifications of abortion and birth control, the “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage. Meanwhile, we are inundated by horror stories from people even more backward than us. People who stone people to death. People who sentence women to punishment by gang-rape for crimes committed by her brother. The world is choking on its own backwardness. We need to start moving forward. Moving forward makes people happy. It gives them the sense that things are going to be better for their children than they are for themselves. On the other hand, backwardness only makes people grouchy because they pine for a hazy imagined past that never actually existed. So let’s start moving forward. And, no, I’m not just talking to my fellow transhumanists out there. I’m talking to everyone. So here are some suggestions for how we can get ourselves back on track to create a future worth living in. 1) Embrace the scientific worldview. It’s beautiful, robust, and awe-inspiring. 2) Avoid nostalgic kitsch. This goes out especially to my fellow science fiction writers. I’m well bored of all those images of and references to the so-called “golden age” of SF. All those domed cities and buxom space babes. Enough. Let’s envision the future without all the irony. It’s not going to envision itself after all. 3) Philosophize technology. If ever there were a worldview that could replace the shroud of backwardness that is organized religion, I believe it is to be found in the spirit world of the Interweb. I am not talking about pulling an L Ron Hubbard and inventing some weird SF religion. I’m talking about exploring and communicating the inspirational capacities of the wired world. So there. That ought to get everyone started. Any other suggestions would be most welcome. 13 Responses to “Backwards and Forwards”Leave a Reply |
|
RSS Feed
“Where’s my Jetpack?” is a phrase I used to see emblazoned on tee-shirts at science fiction conventions. Now it’s a 
There’s a great talk on google video in which Dr. Cornelia Brunner talks about “butch” and “femme” approaches to technological development. In it she says something about a study done many years ago about what butch thinkers wanted technology to do (which was about control and speed and making things happen from afar) and what femme thinkers wanted it to do (which was about immersion, communication, and engagement).
She’s too politic to say it outright, but it was clear to me from listening to her examples that in terms of accuracy of prediction, the femme future won. Thus, instead of jetpacks, we got the internet.
We may be better off.
Similarly if you compare Verne’s or Wells’s or Stephenson’s books, as futurology, to the predictions (in 1900, about 2000) by the Ladies’ Home Journal, it’s striking how well the LHJ did. In broad strokes, they basically nailed it. Out of 29 predictions, only a handful are dead wrong — most, if you squint, came true, or will soon come true.
Science fiction is traditionally a very butch genre (to the moon!) and indeed, in culture in general the butch perspective is much more natural, much easier to think about. Meanwhile the femme future keeps on rolling.
We cannot in 2007 get very far away from one another very very fast, each of us personally, so that no one can stop us. Instead we know where our friends are, all the time, even though they may be scattered about the globe, and we can carry on many simultaneous private little conversations with them, as if in whispers.
I think, given the choice of worlds, I prefer IM to a jetpack.
Check out “The Scientific Worldview” just released.
why are people without the use of their legs stuck in go-karts that force them to wheel around at waist height in a world with stairs, curbs, and adults over five feet tall
There is an alternative: the iBot, a wheelchair that can climb stairs and let its occupant look people in the eye. It was developed by Dean Kamen before he completed the Segway (FDA approval for it took a long time).
And while I know this isn’t central to your point, the reason we don’t have jetpacks isn’t a failure of vision, it’s reaction mass. You simply can’t lift something that holds enough propellant to keep you airborne for very long (30 seconds is typical). Jetpacks just aren’t practical outside of zero gee.
Ted, I’ve seen Dean Kamen’s iBot and I think it’s spectacular. In fact, I think Dean Kamen and Ray Kurzweil are both doing really interesting things for disabled people. I just wish we were further along in that regard and that more people were working on it. The iBot remains, as far as I can see, a minority vehicle. Most disabled people I see on the streets of New York are still in conventional wheelchairs.
Good point about the jet pack. I don’t actually want one. I think it would be airborn chaos. But, Benjamin, I’ve never heard of this butch vs. femme approach to technology and it’s utterly fascinating. Basically, when it comes to moving away from each other, progress has stopped but when it comes to connecting to each other progress is accellerating. What an unexpected source of good news. I just read on the BBC yesterday that women outnumber men on the internet, which took many by surprise. But really, it shouldn’t surprise us at all.
Glenn, it looks like an interesting book. Thanks for sharing.
I think some of the reasons you outlined are the cause, but it’s more complicated. The fact is we, as computer users and owners of refrigerators and toasters and all that jazz, are remarkably more advanced than oh, about 85% of the world. The truth is we’ve forgotten about (or forced our world-views upon) the rest of the world.
Why hasn’t the future arrived and why are we “looking back” as Lauren says? Because we can’t go forward without bringing everyone along for the ride. Some don’t want to go, and well, it’s just good humanism to want to bring the standard of living up for everybody before we spend a few trillions on a trip to Mars. But, and note this, that the Earth can’t support 6 billion people living the same way that 15% of us do with our computers and toasters and refrigerators. Something will have to change. (But not if it means I can’t drive my SUV and have that second AC in my home!!)
I should add that by “advanced” I mean technologically.
Very good points, Matt. Advancement and progress almost always entail a large toll on an ecosystem that is already straining to support us. A number of people are concerned, for example, that lifting the third world up will place such a crippling toll on the planet’s finite resources that it may be our undoing. Of course, I would argue that inherent in any meaningful understanding of “progress” is sustainable progress.
You should have a look at the LHJ article that Benjamin referred to. One of the really interesting things about it (aside form its incredible prescience) is the extent to which it seemed to celebrate the conquest of nature. One of the things I think we have learned is that nature will not be conquered. It will modify but ultimately we destroy it at our own peril. The rise of responsible agricultural practices and the enviroinmental movement as a whole is a sign that we are belatedly coming to accept this.
A lot of times technological advances aren’t driven by looking forward, but by having to contend with the darker aspects of life. Dean Kamen and many others are making a lot of progress in the realm of robotic prosthetics, most of which can be attributed to the number of soldiers coming back from Iraq sans limbs. Here’s one example of said progress:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/03/robot_limbs_for.html
It’s unfortunate that such advances can’t have a more peaceful genesis, but historically conflict drives science faster than anything else.
Devin, I totally agree. The computer we are typing on had it’s foundations in the WWII calculating machines (used to calculate projectile trajectories.)
Lauren, I reposted the LHJ article on my blog because I liked it so much. I think one thing we must be aware of as we face environmental problems is thinking of “silver bullet” solutions. A few years ago everyone was touting “carbon sequestration” which is just a fancy way of saying they’re going to pump all the CO2 underground and let the polluters, well, pollute. Now they’re talking about huge mirrors/shields in space to deflect the sun and cool the planet. Um, how about lowering your fucking energy usage???
You’re right, Devin. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. But I can’t figure out what necessity gave birth to the civilian hummer, other than someone’s necessity to get rich off of other people’s stupidity.
Matt, I too am concerned about magic bullet solutions to environmental problems. I especially dislike the idea of fiddling with the oceans by dumping specific microbes into them. Nature is chaotic. To think the law of unintended consequences won’t bite us in the ass if we start fiddling with the ecosystem like that is pure foolishness.
I have mixed feelings about the magic bullet issue. On the one hand, it’s clear that we don’t all need as much comfort as we have, and if you set me up as philosopher-king of the world I would take away your SUV and tell you to wear a fucking sweater in the winter. On the other hand, there is a real human cost to saying “let’s stop here” — refrigeration, getting to the hospital on time, enough food to feed a crazily expanding population — these are things they kind of want in China and India, and they are not all going to come from solar and wind power. Some mixture of the West slowing down with other technological solutions may be required.
There certainly are always unintended consequences, and so you don’t want to just run off and start dumping iron filings in the oceans without any study at all. On the other hand, refraining from acting also has unintended consequences. It seems like the perfect is the enemy of the good, you need a varied set of tools, and too much caution can sometimes be just as dangerous as too little.
I haven’t seen any realistic plan for cutting global CO2 emissions (or even levelling them out!) that doesn’t require a *big* investment in alternative energy, a *big* regulatory or market-driven reduction in usage, *and* some form of sequestration (which, you know, can include relatively noncontroversial stuff like growing more trees).
One thing I’ve heard is that with a few more degrees of global warming, the permafrost in the sub-arctic regions will begin to melt, and there we could plant millions of trees. Of course, this would displace the local fauna, but warming will probably do that anyway.
I would really like to see a study on the number of new trees (by species, region, etc.) needed to offset the rise in CO2. If it were something in the billions let’s say, that wouldn’t be so hard to do. Three trees for every American is about a billion trees. That may seem like it would be expensive, but consider that New York State has a tree planting program. You can buy 250 trees for $40, or 16 cents each. We could therefore plant 1,000,000,000 trees for $160 million. Much less than a day of war in Iraq.
Wow. Great comments. I could take this in a dozen different directions, even revisiting some old conversations Ben and I have had about Singularities and our relative perception of change…
But to be really practical, the core problem with Jet Packs and other bold new inventions is that few companies are willing to fund research to meet a need without a viable market in place. Auto makers are happy to dole out incremental improvements to the combustion engine, even a hybrid engine (as long as it uses gas). But without even considering the kind of corporate scheming that dismantled the LA trolly system, the basic market forces that drive companies result in no jet packs until some _other_ company makes them and pays for the R&D. Dean Kamen is a good example of someone who breaks that rule, and sometimes suffers the consequences (e.g., the ban on Segways). But he’s a rare one.
The fact is, there would be no internet if the government hadn’t seeded the market. There would be no computers. And Google Earth wouldn’t exist if the gov’t hadn’t also seeded the public aerial imagery and computer graphics markets 20-30 years ago.
It’s not even a question of military initiatives. Free markets have simply proven themselves unable to take on big projects like that. It’s much cheaper for big pharma — who may put the most money into R&D of any major sector — to find new uses for Prozac instead of designing new drugs to better meet our needs.
The problem we face today more than ever is that corporations have so much control over how we spend our public funds, they can literally prevent us from taking on new big projects that might jeopardize their rackets. I have some more on the corporate angle and maybe how to fix it here if you’re interested.
Anyway, the other big change we’re dealing with may be more related to the gender dichotomy Ben mentioned. But it’s more subtle than that. It’s the fundamental optimization — Clarke’s aphorism on technology and magic mixed inextricably with Moore’s Law: All technology is destined to become invisible. All the most important technologies will simply work without us seeing them or even reflecting on how amazing they are.
And so we may not ever see the equivalent of Jet Packs, but we may simply want to know things and information will come to us; or want to build things, and assemblers will manufacture for us; or want to go places, and we will see ourselves virtually there — even high up in the air — and all without worrying about fuel feeds and the flammability of one’s ass…
So I think the thing people misunderstood about their Jet Pack fantasies was that it’s all about activation energy and energy wells, in chemical terms. Getting over the initial hump to do something big is very hard. And even then, everything tends to settle into local minima — the simplest and easiest ways we can imagine.