io9
You can't have great science fiction writing without great books about science. Ever since the nineteenth century, when Charles Darwin's classics On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man took the reading public by storm, popular science writing has been inspiring fictional thought experiments, as well as possibly less-inspiring political debates. What are the science books you should be reading now if you want your brain turned inside-out by weird new ideas that might just change the world for real? We've got 20 brilliant, and brilliantly-written, science books that have already influenced science fiction — or are about to.
Some of these books are well-known, and you will no doubt have heard of them. Others made it onto the list for exploring scientific discoveries that are less well-known but are nevertheless inspiring and mind-blowing.
I've listed them in chronological order, not in order of importance.
On the Origin of Species (1859), by Charles Darwin.
This is the book where Darwin first explained to the general public the theory of natural selection, in which species compete with each other for survival in specific environments. It remains an incredibly influential scientific treatise to this day.
Male and Female (1949), by Margaret Mead.
Mead was a celebrated anthropologist whose book Coming of Age in Samoa, based on years of research into tribal society, took the world by storm. While many of the observations she made in that book have been questioned in years since, her book Male and Female has endured the test of time. In it, she turned her anthropologist's eye to mating rituals and family networks in the United States, revealing to readers how strange their practices actually were. In particular, she made a gentle but persistent argument that perhaps we ought to question our gender roles and be less rigid about sexual relationships. Funny and well-written, the book was one of the first to use the tools of anthropology on the anthropologist's own society.
Animal Liberation (1975), by Peter Singer.
Singer is one of the most famous science ethicists in the world, and he made his first mark with this book. In it, he took the first of many radical positions about humans' place on Earth, and whether we are truly worth more than animals. He argued that an ethical society must treat animals compassionately, since they have the ability to suffer.
Godel, Escher, Bach (1979), by Douglas Hofstadter.
A book about math, meaning, complex symbols, and music, this tour-de-force is a beautifully-written classic of the science writing genre. Its intertwined tales of three influential thinkers - logician Godel, artist Escher, and composer Bach - is reminiscient of the scifi novels of Neal Stephenson.
Cosmos (1985), by Carl Sagan. The classic introduction to astrophysics, by one of the most accessible writers on the topic. Sagan was an astrophysicist himself, who worked tirelessly to secure funding for space exploration and inspire humans to search for their counterparts elsewhere in the universe.
The Selfish Gene (1990), by Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins is now primarily known as an atheist advocate, but his first big public splash came with this book, which argued that the basis for reproduction was the selfish urge to pass one's genes on. His analysis also included the urge to spread memes, or units of meaning, making the book a rather all-encompassing indictment of humans as selfish from the tiniest biological level to the broadest social one.
The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance (1995), by Laurie Garrett.
This controversial look at the spread of diseases and pandemics in a world riddled with poverty and health care deficits is both fascinating and required reading for anybody interested in zombies or plague.
Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by its Most Brilliant Teacher (1995), by Richard P. Feynman.
The "easiest" (i.e., most accessible to people without degrees in the physical sciences) lectures from Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman. These are six lectures excerpted from his famous book Lectures on Physics, originally published in 1963. Learn about everything from atoms to quantum force.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1999), by Jared Diamond.
As influential as Dawkins' Selfish Gene, Diamond's book of evolutionary anthropology looks at why some civilizations succeeded in conquering vast parts of the globe while others died out or where conquered. Compassionate and interesting, Diamond's writing is persuasive and will change the way you look at civilization forever.
The Elegant Universe (2000), by Brian Greene.
All the freakiest new physics shit, explained clearly and with good humor, in one simple book.
The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography (2000), by Simon Singh.
A fascinating story of how different civilizations through time used math, science, and later computers to communicate across great distances, even through enemy territory, without letting their secrets out. Packed with cool information about code-cracking, ciphers, and even quantum cryptography, this is a must-read for anybody who wants to write about futuristic spies.
The Well: A Story of Love, Death, and Real Life in the Seminal Online Community (2001), by Katie Hafner.
There are dozens of good histories of the early internet out there, but none captures the human stories behind it as well as New York Times reporter Hafner's account of one of the first online community, The Well. In many ways, The Well was doing what Facebook and MySpace later did, only in the 1980s. Technically interesting and full of gripping human drama, Hafner's book is a forgotten classic.
The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People (2002), by David Barash and Judith Lipton.
Written by a psychologist and a zoologist, this is one of the most revolutionary science books to deal with mating behaviors. The authors lay out a careful, evidence-packed argument that monogamy is incredibly rare in the animal kingdom and that the human desire to cling to it as a norm may not have any basis in biological realities. Plus there are a ton of great stories about birds cheating on each other.
A User's Guide to the Brain (2002), by John Ratey.
Harvard neuroscientist Ratey uses lots of intriguing examples from everyday life to explain the complicated neurological mechanisms that allow you to do things like pay attention and access memories.
How the Universe Got Its Spots (2002), by Janna Levin.
Levin is a physicist who studies the origins of the universe, and is also a writer whose language is both clear and poetic. Something about cosmology invites poetic meditations, and Levin manages to combine somewhat melancholy explorations of her own place in the universe with complicated physics formulas to create one of the most interesting books you'll ever read.
Why Things Break (2003), by Mark Eberhart.
This isn't about how things break, but WHY things break. What is it about certain physical materials that causes them to crack, crumble, or collapse? Written by materials scientist Eberhart in an accessible, geekish-love-of-chemistry tone, this is perhaps the best introduction you'll ever get to the science that can answer the question of why bridges collapse and gaskets blow.
Evolution's Rainbow: Why Darwin Was Wrong About Sexual Selection (2004), by Joan Roughgarden.
Written as a sharp, highly-articulate rejoinder to people like Dawkins who believe that creatures reproduce for selfish reasons, Stanford evolutionary biologist Roughgarden proves that animals and people often collaborate in the process of reproduction for altruistic reasons. In the process, she answers the question of why so many animals regularly evolve homosexuality, a non-reproductive form of mating. She argues persuasively that non-reproducing animals are necessary to evolution.
How to Survive a Robot Uprising (2005), by Daniel H. Wilson.
Funny and bizarre, Wilson's book is a perfect blend of science writing and science fiction speculation — it's as if he's written a robotics guide for science fiction fans who want to know what could really, plausibly happen if robots were to revolt. Plus, there are a lot of tips for avoiding being killed by robots, which is always helpful.
Illegal Beings: Human Clones and the Law (2005), by Kerry MacIntosh.
MacIntosh is a law professor who has become profoundly interested in how current human rights law will affect human clones when they are born. She's done meticulous research on the topic, and demonstrated that in fact human clones will have no legal rights because they are "illegal beings." Given that so many researchers outside the U.S. are openly developing human reproductive cloning, this legal issue is likely to become serious over the next couple of decades. MacIntosh is the only person to have written about this from a purely legal point of view, and her findings are riveting.
The Science of Orgasm (2006), by Barry Komisauruk, Carlos Beyer-Flores, and Beverly Whipple.
One of the most coveted and talked-about forms of human pleasure, the orgasm has nevertheless suffered from a paucity of scientific study. At last, Rutgers researchers have tackled this elusive experience and written a terrific book about what actually happens to you — neurologically and chemically — when you have an orgasm. And there are even suggestions for how "orgasm chemicals" might be used in future painkillers. Nobody interested in the science of human experience should miss this book.
Comments
Man, I didn't know there'd be homework...
I must disagree with your assessment of Dawkins and the Selfish Gene (which I am reading at the moment). The point he is trying to make is that genes behave selfishly, not the creatures they construct around themselves, whether they are people, animals, or plants.
Dawkins's critique was pointed at scientists who promoted group selection, which basically states that natural selection operates on groups of organisms or species. Dawkins disagrees and believes that natural selection operations primarily on the gene level.
Genes are thus only interested in their own survival, not the survival of the species their in, or even the organism they have built around themselves. All living things are just the most efficient carriers for their genes.
However, Dawkins also points out that while selfish genes may influence behavior, in humans they do not control it. As moral creatures we are ultimately responsible for our behavior. Understanding where that behavior comes from is an important part of that. We are unique in that we can rise above such influences to become something better.
@TheRealVeon:
Agreed.
I'd also say that that Evolution's Rainbow, Illegal Beings and most of Levin's book are more touchy-feely than science and they bugged me quite a bit.
Don't remember if I read The Elegant Universe or not...
Well, I don't know that it gives me much geek cred, but I have only read 3 of those 20. And I read the Myth of Monogamy for completely selfish reasons not related to the betterment of mankind, but the the betterment of my bar pickup lines.
@Plague: I like how you picked out all the books written by chicks and called them "touchy feely" even though they are all science books written by scientists.
Frankly I always thought Dawkins was too touchy-feely to even be considered a real scientist. Come on -- the dude is writing about memes. Not exactly scientific. Now he's writing about atheism. Also more of a touchy-feely area.
What, no A Short History of Nearly Everything?
Maybe it's not strictly a Science book, but I'd rather read it than most of these any day!
Great list. I would add Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. And I think The Ancestor's Tale is a more relevant, recent and readable Dawkin's book.
@TheRealVeon: I still think attributing any kind of agency to genes is the sort of thing a humanities student would do, not a scientist.
I don't read real science books because that would make me more likely to piss away my suspension of disbeliefe with science fiction stories and be one of those people who complains about sound in space parts of space movies.
Oh yeah, and I'm stupid.
@TheRealVeon:
Actually, with the understanding of dynamic DNA mechanisms (jumping genes) and the discovery of micro RNA, Dawkins is indeed correct.
I've read six which isn't bad considering.
@Annalee Newitz:
Because I obviously hate women!
Actually, I thought Kerry was a guy, so I guess I was wrong there.
Sure, science used to basically promote a political agenda- but I know how you love to sneak that stuff in.
Also, I think the Elegant Universe and a User's Guide To the Brain are sorta outdated by now.
The Elegant universe was a good read though...
As for how to survive a robot uprising, I choose Branigan's strategy: I'll send wave after wave of my men against the killbots, until they've reached their pre-set killing limit.
It worked for him.
Gravity's Rainbow and Jack Kerouac's On the Road should be on this list.
I would like to add David Grinspoon's Lonely Planets. Not a whole lot of meat in there but I thought it a nice little intro into astrobiology.
Stephen Hawkins is no longer relevant, huh? Short heyday. I can see ignoring the bigger scientific treatises, but Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is eminently readable and still relevant in understanding the scientific method (with a great foreword by Einstein).
How did the Terminator book make it in?
@Annalee Newitz: I'm not saying that there is any agentive force to genes, and from what I've read so far, neither is, uh, was Dawkins. He even brings this up in the new introduction as one of the criticisms leveled at the book when it first came out.
Saying that genes are selfish is just a metaphor. All science writers use them primarily because they liven up what could become a dull and tedious discussion.
I don't even think that Selfish is the most accurate description of the way genes behave. Genes don't do anything other than replicate. Over time, some genes will be better at replicating than others. Those genes will then overwhelm genes less prone to replication. Thus, genes which are better replicators, and for which replication is their primary concern, are the ones which are currently all over the planet.
But that doesn't make them selfish. Selfish is a moral term which is used to describe human behavior. As objects with no self-awareness, genes are incapable of selfish, selfless or any other moral acts. Again, it's just a metaphor.
No "The Singularity is Near" By Kurzweil? Probably the most interesting book on where we are headed, and it does a good job of explaining accelerating change which lots of people don't take into account when they make predictions about the future, and especially science and technology.
I'm kinda the same way as @Garrison Dean, King Awesome: but I don't read many real science books 'coz they make me feel dumb. I have stumbled through some of these and I'm willing to put the others on the Stack. Surprised at the absence of E. O. Wilson, too touchy-feely again?
@Grey_Area: Couldn't include everything, and I think most people have been exposed to Wilson whereas some of these books I wanted to suggest because they aren't on the usual "great science books" reading lists.
@Tim Faulkner: Well there are treatises and then there are popular scientific books. I wanted to include those mostly, which is why you don't see Galileo or Faraday or dozens of other great scientists' writings.
@Annalee Newitz:
To be fair to Plague.. the cover alone of Evolution's Rainbow kinda screams touchy-feely "Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and it's people."
I am curious about it as a rejoinder to Dawkins stuff.. but come on "gender?"
I have read six.. with GEB setting on on a shelf for when I have time...
I would suggest Lewis' "A General Theory of Love" to anyone interested in Neuropsychology... very interesting exploration of the deep brain...
[www.amazon.com]
@TheRealVeon: Yes, it's a metaphor if it's humanities. Since this is science, it's called a "model". Same difference.
@Plague: Users Guide just came out in a new edition. Elegant Universe might be outdated -- not sure. Got any more contemporary suggestions? Please do not say Physics of the Impossible, or I will have to send my Brood minions over there to disembowel you.
@DocGratis: Ah, judging a book by its cover. Hahah. No really, hahaha.
I myself would suggest "Strange Angel: The Otherworldly Life of Rocket Scientist John Whiteside Parsons", because, dude, it's about an Satanist* rocket scientist! That's the best of both worlds! And it also gives the reader a lot of fascinating background information on science fiction fandom and rocket societies in the 1930's.
*Okay, maybe not really Satanist, but into black magick and the occult. I had to get your attention somehow, right?
Interesting list. It might be interesting if some sort of top 100 list could be compiled, dynamically so that it could change as people vote. It could be the io9's list of the best 109 sf books.
@Annalee Newitz: Understood and agreed. Lists suck, long lists suck more. I just wanted to point to Galileo's Dialogue because, more than being scientific, it's hilarious entertainment... and I doubt few people these days look back to read it.
Likewise, I just wanted to suggest that (if you can slug through it) the Principia Mathematica, et al, put most of these options to shame.
Thanks Annalee, io9 needs more bookish posts :)
@Annalee Newitz:
lol!
Me and Garrison already argued about that one.
I came down on the PILE OF CRAP side.
I'll have to check out the updated User's Guide.
Let me think on other suggestions.
@Death_Worm: There are also a lot of great books about Nikola Tesla, who was by all accounts a total maniac.
Guns, Germs, and Steel is overhyped rubbish! It's an apology to the world for the success of Western Civ, a way of explaining the success we have enjoyed without hurting anyone elses feelings. Multiculturalism run amok I say!
@Death_Worm:
I prefer Sex and Rockets about him.
@Plague: Yeah, crap.
@Epaminondas: I agree that it's seriously creepy in its "wow how great is western civ" crap, but at the same time he shows how western civ is destructive and "won" pretty much only by accidents of climate.
You know, I think I like Greene's other book better- Fabric Of The Cosmos.
Though for people unfamiliar with the subject matter, the other one is definitely the starter.
Also, Hofstadter's new book is quite a trip.
@Annalee Newitz: I did say the cover alone...
The actual science may be less so, but when you put "Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and it's people." on the cover it author/publishers way of saying "touch-feely"... It is like the evolution of red means danger...
I also said I am interested in it.
I would suggest that you try ignore your own bias in these conversations in these matters...
The internet allows people think they understand people better than they do...
You accused Plague bashing the female authors books when in fact he didn't even notice one of the authors was female...
@foolish-rain: I disagree. "Model" in science has a specific meaning, sort of like "theory" does. A model is a hypothesis for which there are no known ways of testing/falsifying. "String Theory" is an example. It should really be called (the) String Model since there is currently no way to test the hypothesis and therefore falsify it. It's more of a neat idea. Other examples would be a multiverse explanation for quantum wave function collapse and Turok's "brane" model for an infinite universe.
If Evolution's Rainbow is too touchy-feely for ya, you might consider Biological Exuberance. It covers a lot of the same ground without the overt political message.
Not entirely sure how it would inspire great science fiction... perhaps same-sex pair-bonded Greylag Geese could become a model for an alien culture.
Are you saying that we can prevent another Independence Day, Day After Tomarrow, Waterworld, Any Movie Using Time-Travel As-A-Plot-Device...?
Comment on 20 Science Books Every Scifi Fan (and Writer) Should Read I have a recommendation. Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick The book is a bit old now, but so often I see the themes presented in that book play out time and time again. The current Global Warming crisis is perfectly explained by the book even though it was written years before.
@Annalee Newitz: Eminently logical.
As counterpoint to "The Elegant Universe" try something by Lee Smolin, like "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" or "The Trouble with Physics" to see some of the alternatives to string theory currently being explored.
By the way, I find it intriguing that gravity waves have not yet been detected.
While Six Easy Pieces is a great work and a great read, it's probably more relevant nowadays to read Feynman's speech that introduced the world to nanotechnology: "There's Always Room At The Bottom".
For science books, I always recommend Steven Levy's Artifical Life. Not only does it tell a good history of AI and ALife, it demonstrates very clearly how a few simple rules can lead to insanely complex behavior.
Annalee,
I recommend that you read The Selfish Gene as well, because I am almost certain that you have never done so.
The Selfish Gene was about, among other things, how altruistic behavior at the organismic level is selected for in the context of selfishness at the genetic level. So to say that The Selfish Gene is an "all-encompassing indictment of humans as selfish from the tiniest biological level to the broadest social one" is horribly misleading.
Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking
As if GEB isn't the touchy feeliest book ever!
I'd put John McFee's 3-volume "Annals of the Former World" on this list. It ROCKED.
@Liz Henry: Yup, should have included both Steven Levy and John McFee. But I only had the 20 slots, man! I also wanted to include Lauren Slater's _Greatest Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century_. Great book about some seriously weird crap.
@Liz Henry: I know, srsly, right? That book is like all touching all the time.