February 2008

Long long ago in a place somewhat similar to today, with technology not quite like it is now, but with minds exploring the unimaginable bounds of space, human intelligence, and technology itself, someone came up with the brilliant idea of ‘robotic’ prosthetic limbs. Probably the iconic example is Luke Skywalker, who loses his hand in a brilliantly dark and emotionally complex scene with his would-be father slash evil right hand of the Emperor. We remember the end of Empire Strikes Back as Lando Calrissian and Chewie prepare to shoot off into a galactic spacescape to save Han Solo that our hero Luke Skywalker has been given a new hand filled with mechanical joints and gizmos and feeling. Literally a replacement for his former hand that is just about as good as the last, or maybe better.Well that ‘future’ is becoming a reality. Futurismic brought an interesting article to me through their RSS feed that talks about a prosthetic limb that can sense touch and heat. Nothing there about pain, obviously, and I can’t imagine you’d want to give such a device painful sensations, but this is a wonderful example of how science fiction has shaped our society. Forty years ago people wouldn’t have thought we’d be building fake hands that can move and feel. They also didn’t think we’d ever really figure out how to make robotic machines function via the thought of a human, something which we’re actually working on and slowly developing. This trend, which I’ve brought up numerous times, is exactly why SF needs to be paid attention to. It isn’t a genre of a bunch of idiots running around coming up with futures that are completely realistic, though I imagine that some are. If we looked to writers like Robert J. Sawyer we can see now, just as it was way back when, that SF writers are handling real world issues and presenting solutions and ideas to the world. Why are we ignoring them? Perhaps it has to do with science.L. E. Modesitt, Jr. recently tackled the concern over scientific study here. The post suggested the recent destruction of the education system, an idea that Modesitt considers to be a systematic removal of the science-born minds of our world. Whether it’s true that our current administration is actually trying to dumb us up and make us susceptible to governmental rule due to our ignorance is for another argument, but the point still stands that the U.S. has a lot to answer for in regards to its obvious reduction in innovation and scientific interest. Modesitt hits the nail on the head by bringing up the recent fund-cut in Physics by the government: Now… some may claim that might be going a bit too far, but, in support of the Bush war budget, the latest Congressional appropriations take huge cuts out of fundamental research in physics, so much so that Fermilab in Illinois and Stanford’s Linear Accelerator Center together will lay off more than 300 scientists and employees, essentially closing for all practical purposes. Why? Supposedly because the something like $95-$100 million required is needed more to fund the war than for physics research.Pardon me, but I don’t see cuts in $200 million bridges to nowhere, and the cuts in federal funds for physics research amount to tenths of a percent of the annual costs of waging the war in Iraq. Such research cuts won’t add anything meaningful to the war funding, but they will cripple American physics research for years, if not longer. Modesitt sees a trend in society that we should be incredibly concerned about. Budget cuts for education and science are huge concerns not only for those intending to move into the science world–a field that is absolutely a necessity if this country intends to do anything of considerable value in the next few decades–but also for SF writers like Modesitt. We have seen a reduction of scientific thought and scientific-minded people in the U.S. and a rise of, shall we say radical religious politics. Religion is on the rise and science is being shut out. Why? One would have to assume there is some logic here, but there isn’t any. Science is, plain and simple, absolute, in the same sense that God is absolute, in its mission to learn and enhance human knowledge. That is what science does, and without science our world would not exist. Science gave us the car, the computer, the airplane, etc. What lies below all that are SF writers, who came up with these amazing creations that were once thought to be a load of bologna.My concerns, however, are not necessarily that SF is going to die of its own accord, but that it will die, at least in the U.S., due to a failing system of thought (I use ‘will’ loosely here, because it’s not necessarily going to die for certain, but if things don’t change it very well could). Religion is not better than science, and neither is science better than religion. Both have tremendous benefits, when used correctly. Science, however, is the practical solution to an advancing society, or world for that matter. Likewise, science fiction greatly depends on an environment where scientific thought is open and able to grow. If airplanes had never been invented, would SF have ever been more than pulp fiction? What if computers, space ships, etc. had never seen the light of day? SF would have simply been another ‘fantasy’ genre, with no basis in reality. We’re fortunate to have seen these creations come into existence, and fortunate to see things like prosthetic arms that can feel be brought to life. Without scientific advancement where will SF writers have to go?Certainly writers like Tobias S. Buckell will still be writing great stories, but he writes a specific ‘type’ of SF story. Tobias is not what I would call your ‘hard SF’ writer, though his stories do hinge on realistic ideas of science, to some extent. His stories are sort of

I was reading this article at Universe Today and felt it necessary to comment on the state of the space program in this country. I have concerns, you see, and they are legit concerns. Or so I think.The article talks about the repairs that will be done on Hubble in a way that sounds as if the astronauts have better things to do. I’ll admit that they probably do, but it’s also not Hubble’s fault that they have other crap to do. Needless to say, Hubble is getting an upgrade and will be 90 times more sensitive and be capable of picking up over 900 galaxies as its field of vision is being increased. Also, its lifespan is being extended to 2013, with a scheduled decommission date in 2020 (which is part of what I want to discuss). Firstly, I’m glad to hear that they’ll be fixing this amazing satellite. It apparently suffered a power failure in January of last year and is in need of some fixing. Thanks to NASA for fitting it into their schedule.Here is my concern, though. What does this say for our space program when amazing devices like Hubble, which has produced some of the most beautiful images of space objects we’ve ever seen and helped advance our knowledge of the universe in ways unimaginable, if we can’t fix them in a good time (twelve months seems like a really long time) and are willing to attach a rockets to them and drive them into the ocean? I can’t say I fully understand the logic. Hubble isn’t a cheap piece of machinery. They didn’t make it out of soda cans and old TV parts and broken microscopes from the 50s. Hubble is an amazing technological achievement for us. It’s also incredibly valuable. We’ve poured so much money into this thing. It’s not like throwing out an old television. This is like throwing out an entire warehouse stuffed to the brim with 200 inch TVs with gold plating.Why is it that we’re having such a hard time with our space program? Where is the innovation or campaigning? I wonder if NASA or anyone else has considered this option:What if they put a public call out to individuals, organizations, and universities who would be willing to fund Hubble–from the parts to operation to repairs by astronauts? There have to be dozens of universities who would love to get their hands on this fine piece of machinery. If a few hundred universities all over the world sat down and funded a project to maintain Hubble we might see it stay in the sky for decades to come. What is the point in just replacing it? Most people won’t get to use a replacement, so if we could offer Hubble to a wider group of scholarly individuals it would give us an extra eye in the sky. Hubble might not be as powerful as the craft we plan to put in space, but it’s still incredibly useful. We can still learn from it.I simply have a problem with destroying something as important as Hubble, for any reason. At the very least this piece of machinery deserves to be in a museum. At least then we’d show a little respect for something that has dazzled us with amazing images of the stars. Right now, it feels like we’re crapping on a good friend.