Controlling the Weather: Stupidity in a Pretty Box
(Edit: Helps if I spell “controlling” correctly)A relatively recent article over at io9 presented the reality that we are already fiddling with the weather, which seems to me to be somewhat of a stupid thing to do. That’s right, we’re actually messing around with the natural order of the Earth. Now, setting aside that we’ve already pretty much messed with how things work on this planet as it is, there is a serious issue with screwing around with something as strong and destructive as the weather.The story has it that Chinese meteorologists can actually ‘seed’ the clouds, or make them drop their payload of lovely, beautiful, useful rain at another location, rather on where they might drop them, wherever that may be. The reason for the article is that China wants the meteorologists to step it up a notch and fiddle with heavier rains to make sure the Olympics are rain free.I see lots of issues with this not because I think it’s somewhat environmentally immoral to play around with things that occur naturally, but because this has to be a big step towards that little realm we call stupid.I don’t know if fiddling with the weather the way these meteorologists are will have any adverse effects on the environment, but is that a risk worth taking? What I don’t understand is why they don’t just fling a giant tarp over the top of the dome, or build something over the top to keep the rain out. This seems like a risk not worth taking. Let’s propose some what-ifs in this case. What if we fiddle and nothing happens?Then we fiddle some more until something does happen and someone paying attention throws a fit. Humans are impulsive and we’re always pushing the boundaries without paying attention to the long-term effects. This is especially so in political policy, but science too. I don’t think anyone paid enough attention to the atomic bomb before two were dropped on Japan (perhaps if more people realized how bad radiation is they’d think twice). Often times, when we look at such events in science, this means that new policies are put into place that hinder the ability to do things in a non-damaging way. Take cloning technology. Well, they jumped ahead and made themselves a sheep, and some other things, and people had a fit and said “oh it’s immoral” and “it’s playing God”, and completely ignored all the medical benefits that can be learned from cloning. We might develop ways to create new, perfect organs personalized to your DNA, which could rid all those pesky problems of bodies rejecting new organs. But we don’t have that. Instead we have a society afraid of cloning technology.In this case, we fiddle, something goes really wrong, and nobody is allowed to fiddle with much of anything anymore. Yes, I can see that happening. If you screw up the weather permanently, by some stroke of misfortune, who the heck is going to let you fiddle with anything life-changing again? What if we fiddle and something goes wrong, but it’s not so bad?So if we fiddle and something minor goes wrong, say we change a simple weather pattern and it messes up some crops or something, then we will see a reversal of science that will put ridiculous and detrimental restrictions in place. Such restrictions will be narrow-minded, as they always are, that manage to stifle scientific advancement. Scientists are forced to waste time working around these restrictions to find different ways that are much more difficult and expensive to do the same things they were doing before. In this case, however, we’d see a complete shutting down of the science, rather than allowing scientists to learn from it so they can reverse any negative effects or even find ways to do good things with said technology. What if we fiddle and something goes very very wrong?This is the worst case scenario, actually. Everything goes wrong, the weather gets messed up, and we’re screwed, or at least things have to change so drastically for us that a lot of people end up screwed. The likelihood of this happening, of course, is very slim, but that’s not the point. If it does happen, we’re screwed. There’ll be three outcomes of this: Religious zealots take over and drive us straight into a time of oppression–of science, removal of freedoms like speech, thought, etc. among other problems. This is probably your worst case scenario, though, because here everything really goes wrong. We see civil liberties go out the window, human rights trampled on, war, death, disease, and hatred clouding everything.Yes, this is a legit claim against religious authority in a post-disaster world. As much as religious folks would like to think that things wouldn’t go so far downhill, they will, as has happened in the past repeatedly. Religions want to keep a hold on things and when it comes to survival they will take drastic steps to ensure control. Science takes over and does two things: We end up in a huge recession where death, disease, war, etc. all take over nad people start dying and fighting desperately for survival. We end up figuring out either the miracle cure OR we somehow figure out how to survive in the changed world. Religious zealots and science fight for survival, bringing us into a battle that may or may not be violent, but will have adverse effects on society economically and environmentally. If the world is already suffering from extreme environmental downfall, then so too will it suffer from the doings of a political or militaristic war between the two factions. To put it simply, this is utterly stupid. Why would we even consider messing with the weather in this fashion? Granted, nothing may go wrong, but what if it does? Think a little more outside the box and be certain that nothing is going to happen before going off and messing with things as powerful as the weather.
Your Limbs Are Belong to Us: SF’s Future
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
Hubble and the Space Program
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.
Patriots vs. Giants
The big game is tomorrow. I know some of you don’t care, but I found this article about rumors that the Patriots spied on the Rams in 2002. I find it rather humorous that the spokesman has the audacity to tell us as a fact that the Patriots didn’t cheat then when they were clearly caught cheating during this season and were fined tremendously for it. Honestly, whether or not they are telling the truth, I don’t believe them. Why? Because they tried to cheat this year doing almost the exact same thing as they are being accused of doing in 2002. Go figure. (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this!)
I Miss the Future
There’s something about the Golden Age of science fiction and the period I call “Post Golden Age” that still captures my imagination and keeps me interested in science fiction. Some might call it the ‘adventure’ and others might think of it as a sense of wonder. Perhaps it’s both. The thing is, science fiction is fighting a little battle right now. Technology has caught up with it, to some extent, and the more we learn about space travel the more we come to realize that we’re most likely never going to shoot off to the stars to land on Earth-like planets inhabited by intelligent aliens. Not long ago we lived in a society where cell phones were, for the most part, nonexistent. If you had a cell you looked like an idiot because it looked something like the picture to the right. Such bulky devices had practically no features–they couldn’t take pictures, record your voice, text message, play games, display information, surf the net, or do anything except call people. Not long ago there weren’t any computers like we have today. Any computers that existed were owned by the government and personal computers had barely even come into the market–those in the market could do little more than a standard scientific calculator can do today. We didn’t have electric cars or hybrids, at least not as an economic option. Space travel wasn’t being turned into a private enterprise by companies like Virgin Galactic, etc. and medical research was a long way off from growing a functioning ear on the back of a mouse. But today we have all these things. So much of what science fiction writers predicted would happen at some point in the future, even if their dates were wrong, has happened. To some it is as if we live in a science fictional world–I’m sure if we went back in time and showed Asimov what the world of today is like he would agree. This is a hurdle, a miniature battle for science fiction. What value does SF have in a world that is rapidly advancing to the point where many of the things that once were SF are now reality? Does science fiction still have something to say? You damn well better believe it! Science fiction has plenty to say about the future, the world, heck even the universe! So long as some people with crazy brains can think about things that haven’t happened yet, SF will exist. Certainly there might come a time when a lot of SF isn’t as impacting as it is today, but it will still have value. Science fiction doesn’t have to be loaded with technology or vast interstellar empires. It doesn’t require space ships or space travel. There don’t have to be vast networks of matrix-like worlds or super-humans with extraordinary powers due to evolution. Science fiction needs future. A powerful definition of SF might be that it is the future. Provided that a future of some sort exists there will be something for SF people to write about. Even in the event of the knowledge of our extinction there will be things to write about, and there is a TV program that takes on this very issue. What will science fiction have to say? Science fiction can talk about the environment, it can talk about what might be the future of a political decision, or the future of a new, advanced cell phone that has a built in AI, or a myriad of other things. Even if technology becomes dull because it’s ‘everywhere’, SF can still discuss societal changes and future issues of human rights, the evolution of ‘race’, the power of technology and its influence, etc. SF is a treasure trove, a giant metaphorical idea box where everyone can submit suggestions. Some of them will be heard and some of them will not. We might be living in a time where SF seems to be losing a little ground against the more escapist fantasy–I love fantasy too–but it still has value and importance because only science fiction can discuss the things that are more pressing in our future. Only science fiction can tell us what to expect. Science fiction is the future.
Take Care Of Your Books Book Stores!
I love when people basically say “I have no idea what you want, so let’s go to the book store and you have a budget”. So it was that over the weekend I had a good $60 to spend on books at Borders. (Yes, I realize my financial situation isn’t all the happy at the moment, but quite honestly, it’s not my money I was spending and my Grandma under no circumstance would let me not have something nice for Christmas because, well, she’s my Grandma and trying to tell her “I’d rather use it to pay for something not so fun” is like saying I’d rather have a vaccine shot for rabies). In any case, I was at Borders perusing the books looking for some titles I had really hoped to get to read in 07 when I started to notice something that just really irritates me. I hate going into a bookstore that carries nothing but new books to find that some of the books are actually in really shoddy condition. What makes it worse is when you find a book you really wanted to read (say, Endgame by Kristin Smith) and you grab it with a big smile on your face and your little heart beating only to find that the cover is mangled, the book curved, etc. I have no problem buying books in used condition…when I’m buying from a used book store. But I think there is an expectation when you go to a book store that carries only new books. You expect that the books will be in very good, if not brand spanking new condition. I understand that mint condition is pretty much impossible considering that the book gets put in boxes and touched and moved around, but is it too much to ask that book stores actually take care of the books? How hard is it to put the book on the shelf without bending it or mangling it? Or, maybe discount the books that are mangled, because I won’t buy them. I see no reason to pay full price for a mangled book. That’s like buying a t-shirt with uneven arm holes and an upside-down pocket for the same price as the same t-shirt with perfect arm holes and a rightside-up pocket. Needless to say I left Borders a little disappointed. I got some other books I wanted and some new books I hadn’t heard of, but I really wanted Endgame (there were some others I saw that were mangled that I wanted, but I can’t remember the titles). But enough of that. Annoyances are short lived anyway. On a side note, I officially have three batches of questions out to authors/editors and now I’m just waiting for responses. Expect three interviews to be coming this January (I hope)