![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Science Fiction and Science Phobia
Aug. 1st, 2009 10:06 amI have been reading, very slowly, a book called 'From Faust to Strangelove - Representations of the Scientist in Western Literature' by Roslynn Haynes.
As I read something becomes obvious which I should have noticed long ago: A lot of people write Science Fiction because they really really don't like Science.
There are strands of Science-yaay. But there are a lot of strands where science is the problem. Not just technology, or specific inventions, but science, maths, efficiency, practicality, even rationality. Those things are held up as in opposition to Being Human, to emotion and empathy and lives worth living. The book said at one point that stories are a confused cost-benefit analysis on their central concern, on science. A lot of them think it's all cost and no benefit.
So look at SF TV. Look at what the Bad Things are. There's cybermen as a very clear example. Swapping out humanity for steel. Is the solution new science?
Looking at recent stories I had a problem with: The writer has said they stripped all the gadgets away to get at who the team are as people. They got rid of the technology. But did they get rid of the science? The maths, efficiency, practicality, was it all lined up as aspects of the Bad Things? And what does that leave the good guys with? Improvisation? And speaking. And feeling really bad about stuff.
Invention is part of being human. The ability to plan ahead. The kind of mind that can think around corners and have a contingency for zombie apocalypse or teleporting invaders. Science is central to being human, the ability to test a theory and see how it works out and modify your behaviour because of it. Failure of science leads to trying the same thing again harder in the expectation it'll turn out different this time. One definition of madness right there. Rationality and empathy aren't in opposition, they're different threads of a necessary balance. To say that you have to remove all that someone has built in order to find out who they are as a person is like saying you have to strip them down to a skeleton to really see them. Interesting, but not complete.
I want stories where people invent their way out of corners. Because that's the only difference between the lives we live now and the life I probably wouldn't have survived a couple centuries ago - cumulative invention. And that's the answer too to any charge that we ignore the bad things in life and just accept - we do not, because we set out to change them, and we use science to do that.
There's both dystopias and heroic adventures based on the idea of putting scientists in charge of the world.
If we look at the world we live in right now, the world that increasingly strikes me, at a fairly young age, as humans finally living in the future... did we ever put scientists in charge? Or science? And where on the dystopia to heroics scale are we? And how much of our lives are better?
That's what Science Fiction is about. Not just ripping it all down and bewailing our heartless fate. Seeing the possibilities it opens up for us, as well as the dangers.
As I read something becomes obvious which I should have noticed long ago: A lot of people write Science Fiction because they really really don't like Science.
There are strands of Science-yaay. But there are a lot of strands where science is the problem. Not just technology, or specific inventions, but science, maths, efficiency, practicality, even rationality. Those things are held up as in opposition to Being Human, to emotion and empathy and lives worth living. The book said at one point that stories are a confused cost-benefit analysis on their central concern, on science. A lot of them think it's all cost and no benefit.
So look at SF TV. Look at what the Bad Things are. There's cybermen as a very clear example. Swapping out humanity for steel. Is the solution new science?
Looking at recent stories I had a problem with: The writer has said they stripped all the gadgets away to get at who the team are as people. They got rid of the technology. But did they get rid of the science? The maths, efficiency, practicality, was it all lined up as aspects of the Bad Things? And what does that leave the good guys with? Improvisation? And speaking. And feeling really bad about stuff.
Invention is part of being human. The ability to plan ahead. The kind of mind that can think around corners and have a contingency for zombie apocalypse or teleporting invaders. Science is central to being human, the ability to test a theory and see how it works out and modify your behaviour because of it. Failure of science leads to trying the same thing again harder in the expectation it'll turn out different this time. One definition of madness right there. Rationality and empathy aren't in opposition, they're different threads of a necessary balance. To say that you have to remove all that someone has built in order to find out who they are as a person is like saying you have to strip them down to a skeleton to really see them. Interesting, but not complete.
I want stories where people invent their way out of corners. Because that's the only difference between the lives we live now and the life I probably wouldn't have survived a couple centuries ago - cumulative invention. And that's the answer too to any charge that we ignore the bad things in life and just accept - we do not, because we set out to change them, and we use science to do that.
There's both dystopias and heroic adventures based on the idea of putting scientists in charge of the world.
If we look at the world we live in right now, the world that increasingly strikes me, at a fairly young age, as humans finally living in the future... did we ever put scientists in charge? Or science? And where on the dystopia to heroics scale are we? And how much of our lives are better?
That's what Science Fiction is about. Not just ripping it all down and bewailing our heartless fate. Seeing the possibilities it opens up for us, as well as the dangers.