Live data from Hacker News

Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

nautil.us

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They discriminate in the same sense that that real companies today discriminate based on candidates' skills and experience. Selecting the most qualified candidates and filtering out candidates because they trip certain flags are procedurally very different.

Sure, when the qualifications have anything to do with the job. When you apply a test to applicants, if it happens to have a bias that touches protected groups you had better have a very good argument that it relates directly to core job requirements or you are leaving yourself open to a massive lawsuit. Which might happen anyway. Plus all the circumstances where you must make reasonable accommodations even if it has…

Applying real-life ideas about what is protected to a eugenicist utopia really makes sense to you?

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#92
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard call: I'd have to say it all depends on the author's intent. Let's see ... at the time he wrote "Neuromancer" William Gibson had never used a computer -- he wrote it on a manual typewriter (and used the royalties to buy an Apple IIc). His creative vision was more one of social atomization and a particular aesthetic in a multi-national dominated future than it was informed by actual technology. Despite which, his…

All other metrics aside, Heinlein always impressed me not only for being something of a polymath, but for his prescience in some areas. In particular, I often find myself citing his depiction in _Friday_ of its titular character using a multimedia hyperlink system which seems analogous to the web and media-rich hypertext generally. (He gets wrong that it's an exclusive closed private system... that is wrong... isn't…

Heinlein stated writing "Friday" in 1981. This is well after Vannevar Bush's highly influential "As We May Think" from 1945. It's hard to find someone in information retrieval in the 1950 and 1960s who wasn't directly influenced by Bush's Memex. One of those is Ted Nelson, who coined 'hypertext' and wrote "Computer Lib / Dream Machines" in 1974. This book in turn influenced the early microcomputer hackers, which is the era when Heinlein wrote Friday. (Eg, Jerry Pournelle started writing for BYTE in 1980; there isn't a huge gulf between SF and microcomputers.)

You regard Heinlein's 'dead-on intuition that such systems will naturally lend themselves to browsing by associate leap' as being prescient. I can't say what you mean by prescience, but I can point to "As We May Think" to show the importance Bush placed in associative thinking some 35 years earlier:

> The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain. .... Yet the speed of action, the intricacy of trails, the detail of mental pictures, is awe-inspiring beyond all else in nature.

> Man cannot hope fully to duplicate this mental process artificially, but he certainly ought to be able to learn from it. In minor ways he may even improve, for his records have relative permanency. The first idea, however, to be drawn from the analogy concerns selection. Selection by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized. One cannot hope thus to equal the speed and flexibility with which the mind follows an associative trail, but it should be possible to beat the mind decisively in regard to the permanence and clarity of the items resurrected from storage. ...

> Wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified.

I can also say that in 1951 Heinlein was well aware that research was much more than 'narrow document retrieval'. Consider "The Puppet Masters" from that year, chapter IV:

> "At the library I went to the catalogue, put on blinkers and started scanning for references. "Flying Saucers" led to "Flying Disks," then to "Project Saucer," then "Lights in the Sky,", "Fireballs," "Cosmic Diffusion Theory of Life Origin," and two dozen blind alleys and screwball branches of literature. I needed a Geiger counter to tell me what was pay dirt, ... Nevertheless, in an hour I had a handful of selector cards. I handed them to the vestal virgin at the desk and waited while she fed them into the hopper."

That's catalogue-assisted associative thinking, followed by document retrieval. I don't think requires prescience in the early 1980s to get a sense for how a Memex-like machine embodied in a modern computer might improve upon a paper catalogue for associative thinking.

To be more concrete, remember too that France was rolling out Minitel across the country the same year Friday was published. While Minitel specifically did not likely influence Heinlein, I bring it up to show that the ideas of online research terminals was no longer pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but something that many people thought about and were implementing. (Another example from two years later is the 'the Bloomberg terminal', which is now a mainstay of business research.)

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#93
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All other metrics aside, Heinlein always impressed me not only for being something of a polymath, but for his prescience in some areas. In particular, I often find myself citing his depiction in _Friday_ of its titular character using a multimedia hyperlink system which seems analogous to the web and media-rich hypertext generally. (He gets wrong that it's an exclusive closed private system... that is wrong... isn't…

Heinlein stated writing "Friday" in 1981. This is well after Vannevar Bush's highly influential "As We May Think" from 1945. It's hard to find someone in information retrieval in the 1950 and 1960s who wasn't directly influenced by Bush's Memex. One of those is Ted Nelson, who coined 'hypertext' and wrote "Computer Lib / Dream Machines" in 1974. This book in turn influenced the early microcomputer hackers, which is t…

(Minor disambiguation fix; too late to edit: I wrote "One of those is Ted Nelson", in a context which makes it sound like Nelson was one of the small number of people not influenced by Bush. The opposite is true. Nelson was one of the many influenced by Bush.)

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#94
post #84
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gattaca doesn't really show off any technological problems so much as it does a new kind of racism. Which, frankly, is not a problem so unmanageable that we should avoid genetic engineering to prevent. Basically, Gattaca's problems could be managed by passing a couple of well-designed laws.

"...This could explain why well-educated, intelligent people, all across the political spectrum, so often make the unspoken assumption that good intentions and well-crafted words are sufficient for making good public policy" http://jaltcoh.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-are-we-doing-when-w...

Why make a quip that can be pulled out for just about any topic, when we have an actual law in place - the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008? Is that a 'well-designed law'?

It's certainly more than "good intentions and well-crafted words", as the $2.25 million award for the GINA lawsuit earlier this year shows. See http://www.nature.com/news/why-the-devious-defecator-case-is... . While that's the first one to get to trial, the article says that the EEOC filed 333 cases last year which cited GINA.

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, when the qualifications have anything to do with the job. When you apply a test to applicants, if it happens to have a bias that touches protected groups you had better have a very good argument that it relates directly to core job requirements or you are leaving yourself open to a massive lawsuit. Which might happen anyway. Plus all the circumstances where you must make reasonable accommodations even if it has…

Applying real-life ideas about what is protected to a eugenicist utopia really makes sense to you?

When we're looking at how its use of genetic testing acts as a prediction of the future? Makes total sense to me.

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#96
post #7

Beware: The more you understand about how inaccurate futuristic predictions are, the harder modern sci-fis get to watch. Especially so if you've seen a lot of older sci-fis about our present time.

Or not necessarily about the present time. For example a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away they had very advanced AIs but no computers or mobile communication (in any practical form) :)

There was mobile communication. Skywalker and C-3PO used a 'comlink' to communicate when Skywalker, etc. were in the garbage mashers. And the Storm Troopers use a comlink, which has a transmitter that breaks down often enough that the Command Office wasn't suspicious when TX-four-one-two couldn't respond.

On Hoth, Skywalker on his Tauntaun uses a comlink to talk with Solo. And Solo uses a pocket comlink to talk with Transport to say that he and Leia have been blocked by a collapse of the ice corridor and will be using the Falcon to leave Hoth.

There are other examples of comlinks used as practical mobile communication about equivalent to a compact walkie-talkie.

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Applying real-life ideas about what is protected to a eugenicist utopia really makes sense to you?

When we're looking at how its use of genetic testing acts as a prediction of the future? Makes total sense to me.

But changing laws when there are radical shifts to society doesn't?

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we're looking at how its use of genetic testing acts as a prediction of the future? Makes total sense to me.

But changing laws when there are radical shifts to society doesn't?

Laws do not change the concept of discrimination.

There is a big difference between picking qualified individuals vs. systematically picking certain groups over others.

He's not imagining the tests. The evidence of tests is not one guy lying in a tiny study.

Re: Why Futurism Has a Cultural Blindspot

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But changing laws when there are radical shifts to society doesn't?

Laws do not change the concept of discrimination. There is a big difference between picking qualified individuals vs. systematically picking certain groups over others. He's not imagining the tests. The evidence of tests is not one guy lying in a tiny study.

Laws are the entirety of the concept of discrimination.
Post reply on HN