Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

bloodknife.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#41

Post by jaegerpicker »

beaconstudios wrote: post #35
jaegerpicker wrote: post #19

Not to be offensive but this article made me feel dumber just reading it. THE MARTIAN isn't enough to inspire people to pursue science? Why? Because it uses clever ideas to "work the problem"? I'm not sure about his background but that is pretty much the only way to solve problems in the real world. Servers down you "work the problem", a researcher who doesn't understand why data looks like it does - "work the proble…

hey, I loved The Martian too (the book moreso than the film but only because the book was so great) - but it really isn't SciFi, or at least what I'd describe as SciFi. It's set in the modern day using modern day technology. That's not an insult, it's just a categorisation.

Um Science fiction is literally fiction about science. I'm not sure how ANY definition of Sci-Fi doesn't fit The Martian. It's about Scientist's using Science to do something that we literally can't do today. We believe we know how to travel and land on Mars and we are probably absolutely correct. We haven't done it yet. I don't see how The Martian doesn't qualify.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#42

Post by beaconstudios »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #41
beaconstudios wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hey, I loved The Martian too (the book moreso than the film but only because the book was so great) - but it really isn't SciFi, or at least what I'd describe as SciFi. It's set in the modern day using modern day technology. That's not an insult, it's just a categorisation.

Um Science fiction is literally fiction about science. I'm not sure how ANY definition of Sci-Fi doesn't fit The Martian. It's about Scientist's using Science to do something that we literally can't do today. We believe we know how to travel and land on Mars and we are probably absolutely correct. We haven't done it yet. I don't see how The Martian doesn't qualify.

how about the Wikipedia definition?

> Science fiction (sometimes shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction which typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It has been called the "literature of ideas", and it often explores the potential consequences of scientific, social, and technological innovations.[1][2]

That definition doesn't really fit The Martian. If your headcanon definition of SciFi does include The Martian then that's fine, but I don't really understand how you think excluding it from the category is an insult when for most common definitions it doesn't really fit well.

In my mind, SciFi is Asimov's Foundation series, or Star Trek, or Dune. It's set in the future or an alternative universe with considerably different, more advanced technology than modern-day reality. The Martian is set 13 years from now, using today's technology.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#43

Post by dagss »

outside1234 wrote: post #30

Techno-optimism? He clearly hasn't read The Expanse, Dune, or Red Rising series (all recommended by the way :)). Honestly I think Sci-Fi is honestly more pessimistic in general than optimistic.

The article, if you read it, does not disagree with you.

It is discussing an initiative someone took to attempt to create more positive scifi.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#44

Post by jaegerpicker »

beaconstudios wrote: post #42
jaegerpicker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um Science fiction is literally fiction about science. I'm not sure how ANY definition of Sci-Fi doesn't fit The Martian. It's about Scientist's using Science to do something that we literally can't do today. We believe we know how to travel and land on Mars and we are probably absolutely correct. We haven't done it yet. I don't see how The Martian doesn't qualify.

how about the Wikipedia definition? > Science fiction (sometimes shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction which typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It has been called the "literature of ideas", and it often explores the potential consequences of scientific, s…

Sure, I'm more than happy to debate if The Martian is Sci-Fi or not. I actually don't feel offended about that at all. I disagree that it's not but certainly not offended. I was offended, actually annoyed but whatever, to suggest that The Martian couldn't inspire anyone because it's was practical in it's approach. I've watched it inspire my son, I've personally been inspired. It's clearly dismissive of the work and that is frustrating and annoying to me.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#45

Post by beaconstudios »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #44
beaconstudios wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how about the Wikipedia definition? > Science fiction (sometimes shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction which typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It has been called the "literature of ideas", and it often explores the potential consequences of scientific, s…

Sure, I'm more than happy to debate if The Martian is Sci-Fi or not. I actually don't feel offended about that at all. I disagree that it's not but certainly not offended. I was offended, actually annoyed but whatever, to suggest that The Martian couldn't inspire anyone because it's was practical in it's approach. I've watched it inspire my son, I've personally been inspired. It's clearly dismissive of the work and t…

Ah that's fair enough. I think The Martian is pretty inspirational, for quite a few reasons - it portrays a near future where we're preparing for a permanent Mars settlement, the characters display real engineering creativity and ingenuity, and everybody's working together towards a shared, altruistic goal.

I don't think the issue raised in the article is with that aspect - but that it doesn't paint a vision of a Jetsons or Star Trek future, and Neal Stephenson wants to see more of that.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#46

Post by somenameforme »

beaconstudios wrote: post #40
unchocked wrote: post #22

I try to read these polemics to uncover the seams of my own techno-optimistic worldview. This one, I think, centers around the idea that technological solutions don’t solve social problems (which has merit). But at least superficially, I don’t understand why the author polemicizes against technological solutions for technological problems, and seems to argue that (unspecified) social solutions for technological probl…

The argument is that techno-optimism is about pretending that social problems are technological problems so that we can fix them with technology - which is much more easy to deal with than solving the actual social problem. An example would be trying to solve climate collapse with carbon sequestration technology while continuing to run the world on fossil fuel. The continued dependence on fossil fuel is a political p…

How is it pretending?

If we go back some time there might have been a parallel argument being made where one side was convinced that the solution to enable greater food stability and surplus was more farmers, and the other side was convinced that the solution was better technology.

Neither side is really wrong, they just have different perspectives. Most problems can be solved in a practically infinite number of ways.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#47

Post by tomrod »

ilamont wrote: post #2

Examples include Isaac Asimov’s robots, Robert Heinlein’s rocket ships, and William Gibson’s cyberspace.” He called these examples hieroglyphs: clear, inspiring symbols of what a better future might hold. William Gibson writing about a better future? That's not what I saw in his books, but great science fiction doesn't have to portray a better future. In my opinion, great science fiction doesn't have to follow dogma,…

> yet it doesn't even count as science fiction

Very dubious that the article's author doesn't consider Hard Sci-Fi to be scifi. It calls into question their assessment of everything tangentially related.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#48

Post by JabavuAdams »

Though I don't agree with all of it, this is an insightful article. The people are the problem. Technological solutions that ignore our human foibles are extremely likely to fail.

What it ignores is that by acting as a lever, technology can allow small groups to route around the madness of humans. Like any concentration of power, this is for better, and for worse.

It's also important to note that doing the hard endless work of learning from people, in all their variety, forging alliances, conducting diplomacy, convincing people to do stuff they don't currently want to do etc. is work that few people are drawn to.

Yeah, I think it's a stain on our humanity that people still die of hunger, or don't have access to clean drinking water. That said, I know that it's easier to build an orbital rocket company than to actually solve the human problem. It's also more fun day to day.

Humans are a fricken mess, and I got into tech in part to get away from these troublesome upjumped Chimpanzees.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#49

Post by beaconstudios »

somenameforme wrote: post #46
beaconstudios wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that techno-optimism is about pretending that social problems are technological problems so that we can fix them with technology - which is much more easy to deal with than solving the actual social problem. An example would be trying to solve climate collapse with carbon sequestration technology while continuing to run the world on fossil fuel. The continued dependence on fossil fuel is a political p…

How is it pretending? If we go back some time there might have been a parallel argument being made where one side was convinced that the solution to enable greater food stability and surplus was more farmers, and the other side was convinced that the solution was better technology. Neither side is really wrong, they just have different perspectives. Most problems can be solved in a practically infinite number of ways…

Well for example, we are producing far too much CO2 and plastic, and slowly killing our planet. Renewable energy has already been invented, but we continue to do these things because it is profitable. Unless we can invent replacements for existing CO2- and plastic-producing processes that are even more profitable, the status quo will continue.

I don't have an issue with trying to do said inventing, but when we put all our eggs into the deus ex machina invention basket, we are ignoring the sociological roots of the pollution, the fact that we could realistically stop now if only we had the political will, and instead opting for a hail mary.

I also find it frustrating that many of the people holding out for a tech fix are libertarians, and will actively oppose political solutions in favour of their faith in the free market.

Re: The Writing on the Wall: Sci-Fi’s Empty Techno-Optimism

#50

Post by liminvorous »

beaconstudios wrote: post #42
jaegerpicker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um Science fiction is literally fiction about science. I'm not sure how ANY definition of Sci-Fi doesn't fit The Martian. It's about Scientist's using Science to do something that we literally can't do today. We believe we know how to travel and land on Mars and we are probably absolutely correct. We haven't done it yet. I don't see how The Martian doesn't qualify.

how about the Wikipedia definition? > Science fiction (sometimes shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction which typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It has been called the "literature of ideas", and it often explores the potential consequences of scientific, s…

I think you have an overly restrictive understanding of science fiction.

The Martian deals with [...] advanced science and technology and space exploration and getting people alive to mars is definitely future rather than current technology.

There's also a rich tradition of near-future science fiction, e.g. [Halting state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_State) was published in 2007; features such advanced technology as smart phones, augmented reality, and cloud computing; and is categorised as science fiction on wikipedia, and I assume in basically any bookseller's cataloging system.

Post reply on HN