![Cyborg Woman vs. Rich Housewife On "Caprica"](http://cache-08.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/03/126x100_7c99dcb51c1be7c7f4.jpg "Cyborg Woman vs. Rich Housewife On "Caprica"")
Enter your username and password.
Bah! That's a very simplistic explanation, and wishful thinking. IMHO fantasy is becoming more popular only because people are to demanding less and less structure and scientific veracity from their fiction of choice.
Science fiction is in basically the same thing as fantasy with just one component missing - the ability for the characters and the reader to get a real understanding of the universe around them. Of the real concrete rules that govern the system, and of the ability to if not affect change of their environment, then at least have the theoretical ability to affect it. To understand it. Science fiction implies that all of the "magic" around the characters (as in science sufficiently advanced that it is indistinguishable from) is at the core something knowable. Something that can be learned, studied, and eventually controlled. Something that follows core rules, that was created by somebody, and has a purpose of existing.
Fantasy, on the other hand, is in many ways the antithesis of that. It usually exists in a world the rules of which are hidden beneath the surface, and controlled by other powers, powers that are not human and that may never be understood. In many situations these are powers that humans don't know and can't know. Something beyond our ability to describe.
Therefore, fantasy is at its core simply science fiction without the science. With people who have given up the notion that the world fundamentally makes sense. And that it is or can be broken down, studied, disassembled into smaller ideas, described through rational means (such as mathematics), and ultimately controlled.
IMHO therefore science fiction is becoming less prevalent for several reasons. Chief among them being the inability of the general population in US to understand what is going on around them. The people are stuck in a world that they understand less and less, and most importantly one that they cannot control or comprehend.
Why can't they comprehend the world around them, especially lately? I am going to say something that may be controversial now. IMHO fantasy is becoming prevalent chiefly because the general level of education of the society is becoming lower, at the same time as the world is becoming more complex.
How does a light bulb work? To many people it is simply "magic". How does a computer work? Double magic. E-mail? Word processors? Airplanes? Magic, all of them. Sure, they can say "electricity" or "jet fuel" - but a real understanding? Or at least a belief that they can understand it? Nope, that's gone. It would be very interesting to see a graph of science test scores vs. science fiction and fantasy popularity. My suspicion is that they would closely correlate.
BTW, a small disclaimer - I actually like some fantasy - but only fantasy that describes magic as just another force in the universe. Fantasy that is basically science fiction, where magic is governed and controlled by mathematics, energy sinks, and lasers. As in "Atrocity Archives" and "Tinker". Why? It is simple. Sufficiently advanced and well done fantasy is indistinguishable from science fiction. Reply
Science fiction is in basically the same thing as fantasy with just one component missing - the ability for the characters and the reader to get a real understanding of the universe around them. Of the real concrete rules that govern the system, and of the ability to if not affect change of their environment, then at least have the theoretical ability to affect it. To understand it. Science fiction implies that all of the "magic" around the characters (as in science sufficiently advanced that it is indistinguishable from) is at the core something knowable. Something that can be learned, studied, and eventually controlled. Something that follows core rules, that was created by somebody, and has a purpose of existing.
Fantasy, on the other hand, is in many ways the antithesis of that. It usually exists in a world the rules of which are hidden beneath the surface, and controlled by other powers, powers that are not human and that may never be understood. In many situations these are powers that humans don't know and can't know. Something beyond our ability to describe.
Therefore, fantasy is at its core simply science fiction without the science. With people who have given up the notion that the world fundamentally makes sense. And that it is or can be broken down, studied, disassembled into smaller ideas, described through rational means (such as mathematics), and ultimately controlled.
IMHO therefore science fiction is becoming less prevalent for several reasons. Chief among them being the inability of the general population in US to understand what is going on around them. The people are stuck in a world that they understand less and less, and most importantly one that they cannot control or comprehend.
Why can't they comprehend the world around them, especially lately? I am going to say something that may be controversial now. IMHO fantasy is becoming prevalent chiefly because the general level of education of the society is becoming lower, at the same time as the world is becoming more complex.
How does a light bulb work? To many people it is simply "magic". How does a computer work? Double magic. E-mail? Word processors? Airplanes? Magic, all of them. Sure, they can say "electricity" or "jet fuel" - but a real understanding? Or at least a belief that they can understand it? Nope, that's gone. It would be very interesting to see a graph of science test scores vs. science fiction and fantasy popularity. My suspicion is that they would closely correlate.
BTW, a small disclaimer - I actually like some fantasy - but only fantasy that describes magic as just another force in the universe. Fantasy that is basically science fiction, where magic is governed and controlled by mathematics, energy sinks, and lasers. As in "Atrocity Archives" and "Tinker". Why? It is simple. Sufficiently advanced and well done fantasy is indistinguishable from science fiction. Reply
@ElimGarak: I find your comment really condescending to fantasy readers, despite your "small disclaimer" at the end. As a fantasy fan who understands how the world works and is fascinated by certain sciences, I resent the implication that fantasy caters to the idiot mentality that things just happen while science fiction is for the more intellectual among us. That's a ridiculous pretentious statement to be making.
I'd wager one of the reasons fantasy is more popular than sci-fi is that it is more presentable to the non-genre reader. Sci-fi often comes off as grittier, dirtier, more apocalyptic and darker. With elements like advanced technology, outer space, dystopias, sci-fi is seen as grungy and dirty and yes, there is a lot of technerd crap that most people don't want to be bothered with. My intelligent self included.
On the other hand, fantasy can come off much shinier and prettier. Despite many fantasy novels taking place in medieval-esque locations, it is easier for people to see the period costumes and the robes and the beautiful fantastical creatures and, yes the magic, and be compelled to pick something up.
Ultimately I think the main problem is accessibility. Most people don't want to read genre. That's a fact. And fantasy writers have found ways to make fantasy accessible to non-fantasy readers. Sci-fi is still working on it and are starting to achieve that (esp. in Teen novels like The Hunger Games), but there's still a long way to go. BSG and Stargate are one way to pull new sci-fi fans in, but that's on TV. Books are a much more challenging venue nowadays and sci-fi writers need to find a way out of the niche or be OK with the niche. But don't get pretentious about sci-fi vs. fantasy just because fantasy has found a way to be accessible and sci-fi has not. Reply
I'd wager one of the reasons fantasy is more popular than sci-fi is that it is more presentable to the non-genre reader. Sci-fi often comes off as grittier, dirtier, more apocalyptic and darker. With elements like advanced technology, outer space, dystopias, sci-fi is seen as grungy and dirty and yes, there is a lot of technerd crap that most people don't want to be bothered with. My intelligent self included.
On the other hand, fantasy can come off much shinier and prettier. Despite many fantasy novels taking place in medieval-esque locations, it is easier for people to see the period costumes and the robes and the beautiful fantastical creatures and, yes the magic, and be compelled to pick something up.
Ultimately I think the main problem is accessibility. Most people don't want to read genre. That's a fact. And fantasy writers have found ways to make fantasy accessible to non-fantasy readers. Sci-fi is still working on it and are starting to achieve that (esp. in Teen novels like The Hunger Games), but there's still a long way to go. BSG and Stargate are one way to pull new sci-fi fans in, but that's on TV. Books are a much more challenging venue nowadays and sci-fi writers need to find a way out of the niche or be OK with the niche. But don't get pretentious about sci-fi vs. fantasy just because fantasy has found a way to be accessible and sci-fi has not. Reply
@mustlovebooknerd: I think you are both touching on it.
I have been reading more fantasy lately because it is easier to be absorbed into it than sf. ElimGarak has it right in that fantasy is a story of the impossible with magic, elves, creatures, etc. which to me is more fun to get lost in, sometimes, than stories about spaceships after reading about NASA missions and and new telescope pics and answering my cell 20 times a day and spending so much time on the comp.
I like to think of sf as things we can do if we continue to progress in tech. Sf was born predicting things that we would have in the future and with tech progressing at the rate it is it is hard for sf to keep up. However, fantasy is as it pretty much always has been and even though there are a lot of modern fantasy books out now it is still easier to lose yourself, to me anyways, in something of pure fantasy than something that is half made up and half real world tech. Reply
I have been reading more fantasy lately because it is easier to be absorbed into it than sf. ElimGarak has it right in that fantasy is a story of the impossible with magic, elves, creatures, etc. which to me is more fun to get lost in, sometimes, than stories about spaceships after reading about NASA missions and and new telescope pics and answering my cell 20 times a day and spending so much time on the comp.
I like to think of sf as things we can do if we continue to progress in tech. Sf was born predicting things that we would have in the future and with tech progressing at the rate it is it is hard for sf to keep up. However, fantasy is as it pretty much always has been and even though there are a lot of modern fantasy books out now it is still easier to lose yourself, to me anyways, in something of pure fantasy than something that is half made up and half real world tech. Reply
@mustlovebooknerd: You are right, sorry about that. I was afraid it would come off that way. And of course I am over-generalizing this like crazy - large trends have many different causes and factors affecting them.
I am sure you are right about the genre stuff. However, I still don't think it is the core problem. There is genre fantasy that is just as gritty as sci-fi, after all.
What I presented above is my impression of fantasy and sci-fi that I have. And my interpretation of the situation. In some cases it also appears to be a question of populism vs. despotism. See [www.salon.com] for an excellent essay by David Brin of Star Wars vs. Star Trek that expands on that a bit.
Basically IMHO technology is ultra-accessible to basically anybody. That's the power of it - something invented by one person can be mass-produced and be of a benefit to everybody else. And with enough will and persistence you too could learn how it works, learn to use it, understand it, and ultimately create it.
Magic however in most cases is just the opposite. It is the purview of the privileged few, those with the "good" blood, those who are magically attuned to the whatever. And if you are one of the plebes that is not one of these people, then you are basically a peasant. In the some fantasy you are in fact a peasant - a meek commoner who is not able to raise above the mediocrity of your birth.
For example, do you know what my favorite moment in the entire Star Wars series is? It is the arena battle between droid army and the Jedi in "Attack of the Clones". Triumph of the common man over the privileged elite. Victory of intellect over hockey mysticism. It was beautiful.
Therefore, IMHO the prevalence of sci-fi is not directly caused by a lack of education, but of the feeling of power and self-assertion that comes with it. A feeling that you too can do and be anything with enough willpower. The can-do attitude that basically is part of the entire concept of a logical and understandable universe.
Hmm... I wonder whether we can find out what sort of fiction the majority of army people enjoy. Reply
I am sure you are right about the genre stuff. However, I still don't think it is the core problem. There is genre fantasy that is just as gritty as sci-fi, after all.
What I presented above is my impression of fantasy and sci-fi that I have. And my interpretation of the situation. In some cases it also appears to be a question of populism vs. despotism. See [www.salon.com] for an excellent essay by David Brin of Star Wars vs. Star Trek that expands on that a bit.
Basically IMHO technology is ultra-accessible to basically anybody. That's the power of it - something invented by one person can be mass-produced and be of a benefit to everybody else. And with enough will and persistence you too could learn how it works, learn to use it, understand it, and ultimately create it.
Magic however in most cases is just the opposite. It is the purview of the privileged few, those with the "good" blood, those who are magically attuned to the whatever. And if you are one of the plebes that is not one of these people, then you are basically a peasant. In the some fantasy you are in fact a peasant - a meek commoner who is not able to raise above the mediocrity of your birth.
For example, do you know what my favorite moment in the entire Star Wars series is? It is the arena battle between droid army and the Jedi in "Attack of the Clones". Triumph of the common man over the privileged elite. Victory of intellect over hockey mysticism. It was beautiful.
Therefore, IMHO the prevalence of sci-fi is not directly caused by a lack of education, but of the feeling of power and self-assertion that comes with it. A feeling that you too can do and be anything with enough willpower. The can-do attitude that basically is part of the entire concept of a logical and understandable universe.
Hmm... I wonder whether we can find out what sort of fiction the majority of army people enjoy. Reply
@ElimGarak: Maybe I just haven't been reading the right ones, but I forget the last time I read a Sci-Fi book that was about how we can control the world around us or a Fantasy book that was about how we can't. Usually it seems to be the opposite: it's magic that gives the potent sense of being able to control elemental forces with our will, and science that shows us a universe so complicated that we can't.
If there was any sense in which your thesis was correct, I would say that Fantasy is more popular because it holds out the promise of a cosmos that is knowable and comprehensible to those finding themselves swept up in the confusion (the mythic power of, say, a Star Wars) vs. Sci-Fi which holds out the need for humility and acceptance of the ambiguity of human knowledge and power (the realistic push of, say, a Star Trek). Reply
If there was any sense in which your thesis was correct, I would say that Fantasy is more popular because it holds out the promise of a cosmos that is knowable and comprehensible to those finding themselves swept up in the confusion (the mythic power of, say, a Star Wars) vs. Sci-Fi which holds out the need for humility and acceptance of the ambiguity of human knowledge and power (the realistic push of, say, a Star Trek). Reply
@Cory Gross: Heh - it may be just my interpretation of science and technology, and what it means to me. What can be described, can be understood, and possibly controlled. Technology can be controlled. The world is full of technology. Thus the world can be controlled. :-P
Reply
@ElimGarak: Yep, and that's why we have a global climate change crisis, because the universe can be controlled.
Those themes of control were very popular in the mid-century... it's fascinating to watch the Walt Disney Treasures: Tomorrowland DVD because it is just chalk full of all this stuff about how we can bend nature to our will through our technological progress. Once we conquer space, harness the atom and control weather, we will become like gods... All very quaint ideas! Fast-forward to the 90's and we get something like Jurassic Park, where we can't even maintain control of a few animals on an island.
One could almost itemize the problems you bring up. For example the labelling fallacy, the idea that just because you can slap a name on something means you understand it, how it's connected to everything else, and therefore can control it. Or the technological fallacy that because we cocoon ourselves in technology to protect ourselves from the world that somehow the world is made up of technology.
Going back to Uncle Walt, it is beyond ridiculous to think that we could ever conquer space... a universe so vast that we cannot even comprehend how vast it is. Just because we look at it and label things doesn't mean we aren't running to stand still. Or harnessing the atom. That one only brings out lulz. Or our discovery that the more we try to adapt the weather rather than adapt to the weather, the more we push ourselves into catastrophe.
One of the reasons I don't care that much for Fantasy is because I find the worlds in them to be too small. They're invented by human beings, who are small, and they are no bigger than the people who invented them. When I wrote my own Scientific Romance (a different genre yet), I found that I not only had a problem of there being more in there than I could address or even understood, but I had to put that right in my characters' mouths. When describing the ecology or the Native tribes of their lost world, they had to say that there was too much about it they couldn't even begin to learn.
What you're talking about, in my experience, is a lot closer to the ethos behind magick, only the means are different. Reply
Those themes of control were very popular in the mid-century... it's fascinating to watch the Walt Disney Treasures: Tomorrowland DVD because it is just chalk full of all this stuff about how we can bend nature to our will through our technological progress. Once we conquer space, harness the atom and control weather, we will become like gods... All very quaint ideas! Fast-forward to the 90's and we get something like Jurassic Park, where we can't even maintain control of a few animals on an island.
One could almost itemize the problems you bring up. For example the labelling fallacy, the idea that just because you can slap a name on something means you understand it, how it's connected to everything else, and therefore can control it. Or the technological fallacy that because we cocoon ourselves in technology to protect ourselves from the world that somehow the world is made up of technology.
Going back to Uncle Walt, it is beyond ridiculous to think that we could ever conquer space... a universe so vast that we cannot even comprehend how vast it is. Just because we look at it and label things doesn't mean we aren't running to stand still. Or harnessing the atom. That one only brings out lulz. Or our discovery that the more we try to adapt the weather rather than adapt to the weather, the more we push ourselves into catastrophe.
One of the reasons I don't care that much for Fantasy is because I find the worlds in them to be too small. They're invented by human beings, who are small, and they are no bigger than the people who invented them. When I wrote my own Scientific Romance (a different genre yet), I found that I not only had a problem of there being more in there than I could address or even understood, but I had to put that right in my characters' mouths. When describing the ecology or the Native tribes of their lost world, they had to say that there was too much about it they couldn't even begin to learn.
What you're talking about, in my experience, is a lot closer to the ethos behind magick, only the means are different. Reply
@Cory Gross: LOL. I totally disagree. Let me count the ways.
Science fiction contains technology. Technology is something that was created for a purpose and therefore can be controlled. By somebody. By definition. It can certainly be understood. It can be used to benefit mankind. Just because mankind misuses it does not make technology bad - or magic good.
This seems to be a strange American perspective. I am from Russia, and our perspective is very different (same as in Japan). Our Wizard of Oz had a giant battle robot and aliens (I am not kidding - look it up). Just because lately the American culture is terrified of technology, doesn't mean that it is a rational fear. :)
Labeling fallacy - you think that's what science does? It labels things and that's it?
Technological fallacy - never heard of it. Science fiction is not about cocooning ourselves in technology, it is about the world being based on natural laws that can be understood through science. Hens the word "science" in science fiction. :)
Conquering space - LOL again. Define space. Near Earth space? Relatively easy, and totally doable within the next 100 years. How many satellites have been up during Walt's time? How many are up there now? Do you watch TV? That means you are already benefiting from the first step in conquering space. If US invests 10-20 billion in space elevator technology we can have one in 30-50 years. Etc.
Deep space is indeed highly unlikely. But paradigm shifts happen. We are just now reaping the benefits of the discoveries made by Newton (satellites again) - 300 years later. How much longer will it take to fully understand everything that is implied by Maxwell? By Einstein? Bohr?
What do you mean that my impression of science fiction (ethos) is closer to magic than science? I am not sure I understand. In what way? Reply
Science fiction contains technology. Technology is something that was created for a purpose and therefore can be controlled. By somebody. By definition. It can certainly be understood. It can be used to benefit mankind. Just because mankind misuses it does not make technology bad - or magic good.
This seems to be a strange American perspective. I am from Russia, and our perspective is very different (same as in Japan). Our Wizard of Oz had a giant battle robot and aliens (I am not kidding - look it up). Just because lately the American culture is terrified of technology, doesn't mean that it is a rational fear. :)
Labeling fallacy - you think that's what science does? It labels things and that's it?
Technological fallacy - never heard of it. Science fiction is not about cocooning ourselves in technology, it is about the world being based on natural laws that can be understood through science. Hens the word "science" in science fiction. :)
Conquering space - LOL again. Define space. Near Earth space? Relatively easy, and totally doable within the next 100 years. How many satellites have been up during Walt's time? How many are up there now? Do you watch TV? That means you are already benefiting from the first step in conquering space. If US invests 10-20 billion in space elevator technology we can have one in 30-50 years. Etc.
Deep space is indeed highly unlikely. But paradigm shifts happen. We are just now reaping the benefits of the discoveries made by Newton (satellites again) - 300 years later. How much longer will it take to fully understand everything that is implied by Maxwell? By Einstein? Bohr?
What do you mean that my impression of science fiction (ethos) is closer to magic than science? I am not sure I understand. In what way? Reply
@ElimGarak: "Technology is something that was created for a purpose and therefore can be controlled. By somebody. By definition. It can certainly be understood."
Technology, yes. The world, the universe, the whole of the cosmos? No. We can usually control what we ourselves make, but that does not mean we have any real kind of control over its consequences or how it interacts with everything else.
"Just because mankind misuses it does not make technology bad - or magic good."
Some technologies are good, some technologies are bad. No technologies are neutral, and the belief that they are only serves the interests of those who want the technologies implimented.
"This seems to be a strange American perspective."
Actually, I'm Canadian. Our zeitgeist is quite different from that of Americans.
"Labeling fallacy - you think that's what science does? It labels things and that's it?"
No, but it does do that, and quite frequently it mistakes simply labelling something for actually understanding it, its interconnections, and for an ability to control it.
BTW, I am a science educator at a local museum. Just thought I'd throw that in there before you outright accuse me of being an ignorant Luddite.
"Science fiction is not about cocooning ourselves in technology, it is about the world being based on natural laws that can be understood through science."
I never said that's what Science Fiction was about. Actually, Sci-Fi often breaks apart that technological cocoon I was talking about. It often shows us what happens when our technological cocoon fails to protect us from the world.
"Conquering space - LOL again. Define space."
Doesn't matter... Near earth, deep space, irrelevant. The ideas you're talking about are very 19th century, very 1950's, very colonial. What we're finding out nowadays is that we haven't even "conquered" the earth. The extent to which we have is the extent to which we are causing an ecological crisis and threatening our own continued existence. The BEST we can hope for is to survive in space, where we don't even belong anyways. Space, near or deep, is too vast and dangerous for anything else. Conquest is a fantasy.
"What do you mean that my impression of science fiction (ethos) is closer to magic than science? I am not sure I understand. In what way?"
Because magick is about exerting control over the cosmos through application of will. You do something to the elemental forces of the world, and by cause-and-effect, the desired outcome happens. Practitioners of magick, so-called, believe they accomplish this through spells and rituals. The theory behind it is actually quite rational.
What you're talking about is accomplishing this through technology. What Clarke said about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic is less applicable to some imagined primitive and superstitious race as it is applicable to devotees of Scientism who wish to make technology like magick.
What neither is considering is that the universe CANNOT BE CONTROLLED. It needs to be survived, and if we're lucky it can be lived in harmony with, but it cannot be controlled. It's too big and we're too small.
That's where a lot of real Sci-Fi is. Not pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the illusion of control that technology gives us, but about how we can't control anything. We can't control nature, or the forces of history, or even the human mind. Magick isn't real, be it spells or sufficiently advanced technology. Reply
Technology, yes. The world, the universe, the whole of the cosmos? No. We can usually control what we ourselves make, but that does not mean we have any real kind of control over its consequences or how it interacts with everything else.
"Just because mankind misuses it does not make technology bad - or magic good."
Some technologies are good, some technologies are bad. No technologies are neutral, and the belief that they are only serves the interests of those who want the technologies implimented.
"This seems to be a strange American perspective."
Actually, I'm Canadian. Our zeitgeist is quite different from that of Americans.
"Labeling fallacy - you think that's what science does? It labels things and that's it?"
No, but it does do that, and quite frequently it mistakes simply labelling something for actually understanding it, its interconnections, and for an ability to control it.
BTW, I am a science educator at a local museum. Just thought I'd throw that in there before you outright accuse me of being an ignorant Luddite.
"Science fiction is not about cocooning ourselves in technology, it is about the world being based on natural laws that can be understood through science."
I never said that's what Science Fiction was about. Actually, Sci-Fi often breaks apart that technological cocoon I was talking about. It often shows us what happens when our technological cocoon fails to protect us from the world.
"Conquering space - LOL again. Define space."
Doesn't matter... Near earth, deep space, irrelevant. The ideas you're talking about are very 19th century, very 1950's, very colonial. What we're finding out nowadays is that we haven't even "conquered" the earth. The extent to which we have is the extent to which we are causing an ecological crisis and threatening our own continued existence. The BEST we can hope for is to survive in space, where we don't even belong anyways. Space, near or deep, is too vast and dangerous for anything else. Conquest is a fantasy.
"What do you mean that my impression of science fiction (ethos) is closer to magic than science? I am not sure I understand. In what way?"
Because magick is about exerting control over the cosmos through application of will. You do something to the elemental forces of the world, and by cause-and-effect, the desired outcome happens. Practitioners of magick, so-called, believe they accomplish this through spells and rituals. The theory behind it is actually quite rational.
What you're talking about is accomplishing this through technology. What Clarke said about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic is less applicable to some imagined primitive and superstitious race as it is applicable to devotees of Scientism who wish to make technology like magick.
What neither is considering is that the universe CANNOT BE CONTROLLED. It needs to be survived, and if we're lucky it can be lived in harmony with, but it cannot be controlled. It's too big and we're too small.
That's where a lot of real Sci-Fi is. Not pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the illusion of control that technology gives us, but about how we can't control anything. We can't control nature, or the forces of history, or even the human mind. Magick isn't real, be it spells or sufficiently advanced technology. Reply
@Cory Gross: "Technology, yes. The world, the universe, the whole of the cosmos? No."
What is technology but a means to control the world around us? Nobody is talking about control of the universe. We are talking however about control of the world around us to some degree. And that is succeeding relatively nicely. We are warm, fed, in a relatively safe environment, etc. A far cry from what we would have without science and technology.
"Some technologies are good, some technologies are bad."
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You just blew my mind. How can an unthinking hunk of metal be evil? Until we invent true independent AI, everything is a tool. A tool cannot be evil. Pretty much by definition of the word "evil". Or the world "tool".
"No, but it does do that, and quite frequently it mistakes simply labelling something for actually understanding it, its interconnections, and for an ability to control it."
Good science does not. Science is about understanding and describing the world, not labeling it. Although a label is often the first step.
"Actually, I'm Canadian. Our zeitgeist is quite different from that of Americans."
If you say so. From my perspective you've been contaminated by the close proximity to the US. :)
"The BEST we can hope for is to survive in space, where we don't even belong anyways. Space, near or deep, is too vast and dangerous for anything else. Conquest is a fantasy."
Umm... Yea. I disagree with that. Vehemently. It of course depends on your definition of "conquest", but we can do far more than survive there. Or do you deny the thousands and thousands of tons of extremely useful equipment that is right this minute wizzing around our planet and helping us with our daily lives?
"BTW, I am a science educator at a local museum. Just thought I'd throw that in there before you outright accuse me of being an ignorant Luddite."
No offense, but some of your statements do actually sound somewhat Luddite. As in "science and technology are useless and brought us only ecological disaster - we should go live with nature, worshiping mother Earth".
"Because magick is about exerting control over the cosmos through application of will. You do something to the elemental forces of the world, and by cause-and-effect, the desired outcome happens. Practitioners of magick, so-called, believe they accomplish this through spells and rituals. The theory behind it is actually quite rational."
LOL - that's the first time I've heard magic described as "rational". Will without understanding and knowledge is useless. Not to mention that expecting some sort of force to be invoked through goats blood or chalk marks is just silly.
"What neither is considering is that the universe CANNOT BE CONTROLLED. It needs to be survived, and if we're lucky it can be lived in harmony with, but it cannot be controlled. It's too big and we're too small. "
Fine, go survive in the woods without technology. I will sit here and attempt to control my world through central heating, water purification, pasteurization, etc. I bet I will succeed better than you will.
"That's where a lot of real Sci-Fi is. Not pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the illusion of control that technology gives us, but about how we can't control anything. We can't control nature, or the forces of history, or even the human mind."
Anything and everything are two different words. A lot of sci-fi is just about controlling some of those things - nature, world, history, etc.
To be more specific sci-fi is about examining possibilities of humanity and the nature of human condition in a world of science and technology. Examining both how humans will live in such a world, and how such a world will change humans.
"What Clarke said about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic is less applicable to some imagined primitive and superstitious race as it is applicable to devotees of Scientism who wish to make technology like magick. "
Huh? What? There are some people that are trying to simplify UI to make it more accessible, but I don't know of anybody requiring eye of newt and rituals to turn on a light bulb. Reply
What is technology but a means to control the world around us? Nobody is talking about control of the universe. We are talking however about control of the world around us to some degree. And that is succeeding relatively nicely. We are warm, fed, in a relatively safe environment, etc. A far cry from what we would have without science and technology.
"Some technologies are good, some technologies are bad."
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You just blew my mind. How can an unthinking hunk of metal be evil? Until we invent true independent AI, everything is a tool. A tool cannot be evil. Pretty much by definition of the word "evil". Or the world "tool".
"No, but it does do that, and quite frequently it mistakes simply labelling something for actually understanding it, its interconnections, and for an ability to control it."
Good science does not. Science is about understanding and describing the world, not labeling it. Although a label is often the first step.
"Actually, I'm Canadian. Our zeitgeist is quite different from that of Americans."
If you say so. From my perspective you've been contaminated by the close proximity to the US. :)
"The BEST we can hope for is to survive in space, where we don't even belong anyways. Space, near or deep, is too vast and dangerous for anything else. Conquest is a fantasy."
Umm... Yea. I disagree with that. Vehemently. It of course depends on your definition of "conquest", but we can do far more than survive there. Or do you deny the thousands and thousands of tons of extremely useful equipment that is right this minute wizzing around our planet and helping us with our daily lives?
"BTW, I am a science educator at a local museum. Just thought I'd throw that in there before you outright accuse me of being an ignorant Luddite."
No offense, but some of your statements do actually sound somewhat Luddite. As in "science and technology are useless and brought us only ecological disaster - we should go live with nature, worshiping mother Earth".
"Because magick is about exerting control over the cosmos through application of will. You do something to the elemental forces of the world, and by cause-and-effect, the desired outcome happens. Practitioners of magick, so-called, believe they accomplish this through spells and rituals. The theory behind it is actually quite rational."
LOL - that's the first time I've heard magic described as "rational". Will without understanding and knowledge is useless. Not to mention that expecting some sort of force to be invoked through goats blood or chalk marks is just silly.
"What neither is considering is that the universe CANNOT BE CONTROLLED. It needs to be survived, and if we're lucky it can be lived in harmony with, but it cannot be controlled. It's too big and we're too small. "
Fine, go survive in the woods without technology. I will sit here and attempt to control my world through central heating, water purification, pasteurization, etc. I bet I will succeed better than you will.
"That's where a lot of real Sci-Fi is. Not pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the illusion of control that technology gives us, but about how we can't control anything. We can't control nature, or the forces of history, or even the human mind."
Anything and everything are two different words. A lot of sci-fi is just about controlling some of those things - nature, world, history, etc.
To be more specific sci-fi is about examining possibilities of humanity and the nature of human condition in a world of science and technology. Examining both how humans will live in such a world, and how such a world will change humans.
"What Clarke said about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic is less applicable to some imagined primitive and superstitious race as it is applicable to devotees of Scientism who wish to make technology like magick. "
Huh? What? There are some people that are trying to simplify UI to make it more accessible, but I don't know of anybody requiring eye of newt and rituals to turn on a light bulb. Reply
@ElimGarak: "What is technology but a means to control the world around us?"
A means to survival and, if possible, a degree of comfort. Control is a great deal more ambitious, and usually seems to lead to bad places.
"You just blew my mind. How can an unthinking hunk of metal be evil? Until we invent true independent AI, everything is a tool. A tool cannot be evil. Pretty much by definition of the word "evil". Or the world "tool"."
And tools have purposes, and some purposes can't be anything but bad. Okay, maybe they can have secondary applications that are positive, but rarely can the positive secondary use exceed the negative primary use. Atom bombs spring to mind.
"If you say so. From my perspective you've been contaminated by the close proximity to the US. :)"
Apparently you know very little about the world outside of Russia...
"Or do you deny the thousands and thousands of tons of extremely useful equipment that is right this minute wizzing around our planet and helping us with our daily lives?"
I guess it really does depend on your definition, since I don't consider an orbit littered with telecommunications debris to be "control".
"No offense, but some of your statements do actually sound somewhat Luddite. As in "science and technology are useless and brought us only ecological disaster - we should go live with nature, worshiping mother Earth"."
I didn't say that, so you're evidently confused. Try again.
"LOL - that's the first time I've heard magic described as "rational"."
I'd wager money that it's the first time you've heard magick described, period.
"Will without understanding and knowledge is useless. Not to mention that expecting some sort of force to be invoked through goats blood or chalk marks is just silly."
Granted, but the principle is the same.
"Fine, go survive in the woods without technology. I will sit here and attempt to control my world through central heating, water purification, pasteurization, etc. I bet I will succeed better than you will."
If you're going to present yourself as so pro-science and pro-reason, you might not want to indulge in logical fallacies like false dilemmas. It undermines your position.
"A lot of sci-fi is just about controlling some of those things - nature, world, history, etc."
And the disaster that ensues.
"Huh? What? There are some people that are trying to simplify UI to make it more accessible, but I don't know of anybody requiring eye of newt and rituals to turn on a light bulb."
No, but they do look for and hope for technology to become so advanced that through it we can use our will to shape and control the universe. Same thing, different pile. Reply
A means to survival and, if possible, a degree of comfort. Control is a great deal more ambitious, and usually seems to lead to bad places.
"You just blew my mind. How can an unthinking hunk of metal be evil? Until we invent true independent AI, everything is a tool. A tool cannot be evil. Pretty much by definition of the word "evil". Or the world "tool"."
And tools have purposes, and some purposes can't be anything but bad. Okay, maybe they can have secondary applications that are positive, but rarely can the positive secondary use exceed the negative primary use. Atom bombs spring to mind.
"If you say so. From my perspective you've been contaminated by the close proximity to the US. :)"
Apparently you know very little about the world outside of Russia...
"Or do you deny the thousands and thousands of tons of extremely useful equipment that is right this minute wizzing around our planet and helping us with our daily lives?"
I guess it really does depend on your definition, since I don't consider an orbit littered with telecommunications debris to be "control".
"No offense, but some of your statements do actually sound somewhat Luddite. As in "science and technology are useless and brought us only ecological disaster - we should go live with nature, worshiping mother Earth"."
I didn't say that, so you're evidently confused. Try again.
"LOL - that's the first time I've heard magic described as "rational"."
I'd wager money that it's the first time you've heard magick described, period.
"Will without understanding and knowledge is useless. Not to mention that expecting some sort of force to be invoked through goats blood or chalk marks is just silly."
Granted, but the principle is the same.
"Fine, go survive in the woods without technology. I will sit here and attempt to control my world through central heating, water purification, pasteurization, etc. I bet I will succeed better than you will."
If you're going to present yourself as so pro-science and pro-reason, you might not want to indulge in logical fallacies like false dilemmas. It undermines your position.
"A lot of sci-fi is just about controlling some of those things - nature, world, history, etc."
And the disaster that ensues.
"Huh? What? There are some people that are trying to simplify UI to make it more accessible, but I don't know of anybody requiring eye of newt and rituals to turn on a light bulb."
No, but they do look for and hope for technology to become so advanced that through it we can use our will to shape and control the universe. Same thing, different pile. Reply
@Cory Gross: "A means to survival and, if possible, a degree of comfort. Control is a great deal more ambitious, and usually seems to lead to bad places."
Bah! Same difference.
"And tools have purposes, and some purposes can't be anything but bad."
Of course. But they are still just tools. Otherwise, you are saying that somebody who sets off a bomb is absolved of any responsibility, since the bomb is evil, and that person isn't. Technology - a generalization of tools - is most definitely not evil.
"Apparently you know very little about the world outside of Russia..."
Umm... Yea, having lived in US for the last 20 years and traveled extensively, I know quite a bit.
"I guess it really does depend on your definition, since I don't consider an orbit littered with telecommunications debris to be "control"."
Once again, semantics. First of all "litered" implies dirt or garbage - frankly I take exception to that. It is one of the greatest achievements of the human civilization. It's like saying that the Mona Lisa is some crap that Lenoardo threw at a board, and that stuck.
Second, what is your definition of control of space? How the hell do you control space in the first place? Or the universe, for that matter, since you seem to be obsessed with that?
We are in the process of gaining a larger and larger foothold in the near-earth space, with multiple private enterprises launching various ventures in and into low orbit. We are exploring the rest of the solar system, slowly, but surely. What else do you want? The ability to lift Manhattan Island and land it on the moon? Some sort of technology that would allow humans to survive without space suites? Some ability to warp space and create wormholes?
"I didn't say that, so you're evidently confused. Try again."
Except you pretty much did: "Yep, and that's why we have a global climate change crisis, because the universe can be controlled." And that whole "technology is evil" shtick. Also: "[The universe] needs to be survived, and if we're lucky it can be lived in harmony with".
"I'd wager money that it's the first time you've heard magick described, period."
Umm... You are getting into ad hominem territory. I've tried to be polite and keep good humor. If you don't want to talk to me, just say so, and I will stop replying to your messages.
"Granted, but the principle is the same."
I disagree. Words and diagrams can only be used to describe the universe - in fact not describe, but mainly label. I would not expect a chair to fly just because I wrote the gravitational equation on it. Also, the principle behind goats blood is to invoke some unseen and mysterious power. The principle behind something like an electric generator is to harness very well understood properties of the universe. Goats blood is achieved basically for free. An electric generator is built through hard work and is based on hundreds of years of scientific progress, study, and engineering.
"If you're going to present yourself as so pro-science and pro-reason, you might not want to indulge in logical fallacies like false dilemmas. It undermines your position."
Not a false dilemma - an extrapolation of your arguments. You are saying that the world can't be controlled, and we must live in harmony with it. That technology is evil. How would you interpret these statements?
"And the disaster that ensues."
Well, if you want to read about disaster and post-apocalyptic results of technology, go for it. Most sci-fi is about humans and what they do to each other in technological settings, but if that's what rocks your boat, it's up to you.
"No, but they do look for and hope for technology to become so advanced that through it we can use our will to shape and control the universe. Same thing, different pile."
Our will (and hard work, and technology) does shape the universe - our little corner of it. Not always with the effects that we expected, but it does shape it. Through proper application of technology, knowledge, and science.
Or are you condemning people for things like not changing their driving habits and assuming that a scientific solution will be found for global warming? Hoping that something will happen? That's more of an ethical question of certain humans, instead of a problem with science, technology, or most human endeavors. Reply
Bah! Same difference.
"And tools have purposes, and some purposes can't be anything but bad."
Of course. But they are still just tools. Otherwise, you are saying that somebody who sets off a bomb is absolved of any responsibility, since the bomb is evil, and that person isn't. Technology - a generalization of tools - is most definitely not evil.
"Apparently you know very little about the world outside of Russia..."
Umm... Yea, having lived in US for the last 20 years and traveled extensively, I know quite a bit.
"I guess it really does depend on your definition, since I don't consider an orbit littered with telecommunications debris to be "control"."
Once again, semantics. First of all "litered" implies dirt or garbage - frankly I take exception to that. It is one of the greatest achievements of the human civilization. It's like saying that the Mona Lisa is some crap that Lenoardo threw at a board, and that stuck.
Second, what is your definition of control of space? How the hell do you control space in the first place? Or the universe, for that matter, since you seem to be obsessed with that?
We are in the process of gaining a larger and larger foothold in the near-earth space, with multiple private enterprises launching various ventures in and into low orbit. We are exploring the rest of the solar system, slowly, but surely. What else do you want? The ability to lift Manhattan Island and land it on the moon? Some sort of technology that would allow humans to survive without space suites? Some ability to warp space and create wormholes?
"I didn't say that, so you're evidently confused. Try again."
Except you pretty much did: "Yep, and that's why we have a global climate change crisis, because the universe can be controlled." And that whole "technology is evil" shtick. Also: "[The universe] needs to be survived, and if we're lucky it can be lived in harmony with".
"I'd wager money that it's the first time you've heard magick described, period."
Umm... You are getting into ad hominem territory. I've tried to be polite and keep good humor. If you don't want to talk to me, just say so, and I will stop replying to your messages.
"Granted, but the principle is the same."
I disagree. Words and diagrams can only be used to describe the universe - in fact not describe, but mainly label. I would not expect a chair to fly just because I wrote the gravitational equation on it. Also, the principle behind goats blood is to invoke some unseen and mysterious power. The principle behind something like an electric generator is to harness very well understood properties of the universe. Goats blood is achieved basically for free. An electric generator is built through hard work and is based on hundreds of years of scientific progress, study, and engineering.
"If you're going to present yourself as so pro-science and pro-reason, you might not want to indulge in logical fallacies like false dilemmas. It undermines your position."
Not a false dilemma - an extrapolation of your arguments. You are saying that the world can't be controlled, and we must live in harmony with it. That technology is evil. How would you interpret these statements?
"And the disaster that ensues."
Well, if you want to read about disaster and post-apocalyptic results of technology, go for it. Most sci-fi is about humans and what they do to each other in technological settings, but if that's what rocks your boat, it's up to you.
"No, but they do look for and hope for technology to become so advanced that through it we can use our will to shape and control the universe. Same thing, different pile."
Our will (and hard work, and technology) does shape the universe - our little corner of it. Not always with the effects that we expected, but it does shape it. Through proper application of technology, knowledge, and science.
Or are you condemning people for things like not changing their driving habits and assuming that a scientific solution will be found for global warming? Hoping that something will happen? That's more of an ethical question of certain humans, instead of a problem with science, technology, or most human endeavors. Reply
@ElimGarak: "Bah! Same difference."
Not even close. Control and survival are two very different things.
"Of course. But they are still just tools. Otherwise, you are saying that somebody who sets off a bomb is absolved of any responsibility, since the bomb is evil, and that person isn't."
I said nothing of the sort. Assuming what I'm saying in ways that fit into your false dialectics really doesn't help your argument.
"Umm... Yea, having lived in US for the last 20 years and traveled extensively, I know quite a bit."
Could have fooled me, but then it's the false dialectic again. I guess with Russia and America being all you know, that's how you frame things. Cold War's over buddy, move along.
"Once again, semantics."
Not even. There is a difference between "having stuff in space" and "having control of space".
"How the hell do you control space in the first place?"
That was my question to you.
"Except you pretty much did"
Except I pretty much did no such thing. Once more, you're letting your false dialectics confuse your comprehension. But it's also not unusual for people with a superstitious faith in technology to demonize their opponents with accusations of their being Luddites (who, incidentally, were eactly right... look it up) and of wanting to live in caves. But demonizing people who disagree with you, while typical, does nothing to convince them of your argument.
"Umm... You are getting into ad hominem territory. I've tried to be polite and keep good humor."
You already passed the line into ad hominem territory several messages ago. Putting a smiley face behind rude accusations of being a Luddite caveman does not mean they're in "good humour".
"Words and diagrams can only be used to describe the universe - in fact not describe, but mainly label."
You don't say...
"Also, the principle behind goats blood is to invoke some unseen and mysterious power. The principle behind something like an electric generator is to harness very well understood properties of the universe."
Just because the elemental and spiritual forces of the universe seem mysterious to you does not mean that they seem mysterious to people who claim to be practicing magick. If you were to actually talk to them, they understand what they claim to be understanding with a great rational precision.
"Goats blood is achieved basically for free."
LoL.
"An electric generator is built through hard work and is based on hundreds of years of scientific progress, study, and engineering."
Besides the silliness about how raising and killing a goat to obtain its blood is somehow easy - and besides how you're just making ad hominems against magick practitioners with the whole stereotype - they would say the same thing about the rites and rituals and learning that went into their own practice. Except that they'd claim thousands of years of practice behind it.
"You are saying that the world can't be controlled, and we must live in harmony with it. That technology is evil. How would you interpret these statements?"
I never said technology is evil. In fact, I explicitly said that some technology can be good, that all technology are tools, and that the aims of it are to eek out survival and a measure of comfort. Some technologies can actually help us to live in harmony with nature and thereby secure even greater and longer-lasting survival and comfort than other technologies based on conquest. The issue I'm taking is with your obsession with controlling the world around you and the Scientism it's based on. Try reading ALL of what I say and not the parts that fit conveniently into your false dilemmas.
"That's more of an ethical question of certain humans, instead of a problem with science, technology, or most human endeavors."
That's exactly what we are debating. Don't fall into thinking that somehow science, technology and "most human endeavors" are separate and distinct from our ethical choices and philosophical principles. They aren't. If you think they are, then that is only a blindspot of your own philosophy which mistakes your own view for the default, natural position. Reply
Not even close. Control and survival are two very different things.
"Of course. But they are still just tools. Otherwise, you are saying that somebody who sets off a bomb is absolved of any responsibility, since the bomb is evil, and that person isn't."
I said nothing of the sort. Assuming what I'm saying in ways that fit into your false dialectics really doesn't help your argument.
"Umm... Yea, having lived in US for the last 20 years and traveled extensively, I know quite a bit."
Could have fooled me, but then it's the false dialectic again. I guess with Russia and America being all you know, that's how you frame things. Cold War's over buddy, move along.
"Once again, semantics."
Not even. There is a difference between "having stuff in space" and "having control of space".
"How the hell do you control space in the first place?"
That was my question to you.
"Except you pretty much did"
Except I pretty much did no such thing. Once more, you're letting your false dialectics confuse your comprehension. But it's also not unusual for people with a superstitious faith in technology to demonize their opponents with accusations of their being Luddites (who, incidentally, were eactly right... look it up) and of wanting to live in caves. But demonizing people who disagree with you, while typical, does nothing to convince them of your argument.
"Umm... You are getting into ad hominem territory. I've tried to be polite and keep good humor."
You already passed the line into ad hominem territory several messages ago. Putting a smiley face behind rude accusations of being a Luddite caveman does not mean they're in "good humour".
"Words and diagrams can only be used to describe the universe - in fact not describe, but mainly label."
You don't say...
"Also, the principle behind goats blood is to invoke some unseen and mysterious power. The principle behind something like an electric generator is to harness very well understood properties of the universe."
Just because the elemental and spiritual forces of the universe seem mysterious to you does not mean that they seem mysterious to people who claim to be practicing magick. If you were to actually talk to them, they understand what they claim to be understanding with a great rational precision.
"Goats blood is achieved basically for free."
LoL.
"An electric generator is built through hard work and is based on hundreds of years of scientific progress, study, and engineering."
Besides the silliness about how raising and killing a goat to obtain its blood is somehow easy - and besides how you're just making ad hominems against magick practitioners with the whole stereotype - they would say the same thing about the rites and rituals and learning that went into their own practice. Except that they'd claim thousands of years of practice behind it.
"You are saying that the world can't be controlled, and we must live in harmony with it. That technology is evil. How would you interpret these statements?"
I never said technology is evil. In fact, I explicitly said that some technology can be good, that all technology are tools, and that the aims of it are to eek out survival and a measure of comfort. Some technologies can actually help us to live in harmony with nature and thereby secure even greater and longer-lasting survival and comfort than other technologies based on conquest. The issue I'm taking is with your obsession with controlling the world around you and the Scientism it's based on. Try reading ALL of what I say and not the parts that fit conveniently into your false dilemmas.
"That's more of an ethical question of certain humans, instead of a problem with science, technology, or most human endeavors."
That's exactly what we are debating. Don't fall into thinking that somehow science, technology and "most human endeavors" are separate and distinct from our ethical choices and philosophical principles. They aren't. If you think they are, then that is only a blindspot of your own philosophy which mistakes your own view for the default, natural position. Reply
@Cory Gross: A'ight, you know what? I'm done. I've spent several years at alt.startrek.vs.starwars - I know a dead end argument when I see one. It seems like you are taking me out of context, misquoting me, and in general taking a friendly debate way too seriously. And I have better things to do on a Friday night.
IMHO you have some sort of cognitive dissonance issue on this topic. Either that or too much of your ego is bound up in this point of view or opinion to ever give an inch, no matter what your debate methods are.
Not to mention that this venue for a conversation of this complexity is sub-optimal, since it lacks threading and quoting features.
Anyway, peace, out. Reply
IMHO you have some sort of cognitive dissonance issue on this topic. Either that or too much of your ego is bound up in this point of view or opinion to ever give an inch, no matter what your debate methods are.
Not to mention that this venue for a conversation of this complexity is sub-optimal, since it lacks threading and quoting features.
Anyway, peace, out. Reply
@ElimGarak: "It seems like you are taking me out of context, misquoting me, and in general taking a friendly debate way too seriously."
Considering that you're the one who launched in with calling me an American Luddite who should go live in a cave, perhaps you should go and calm your nerves somewhere. If you can't address the points I actually raise and have to resort to personal attacks, then it undoubtedly will be a dead end. Reply
Considering that you're the one who launched in with calling me an American Luddite who should go live in a cave, perhaps you should go and calm your nerves somewhere. If you can't address the points I actually raise and have to resort to personal attacks, then it undoubtedly will be a dead end. Reply
@ElimGarak: No worries. :-) I think you have a good point about the common man feeling the power. However, I wonder if it's in fact the opposite. Since technology is so accessible to the common man, and magic is so aspirational, I wonder if there's something appealing to that. Does that make any sense?
Reply