I haven't written much about it recently, but I'm in the NaNoWriMo again this year. I'm currently planning out a new novel to start in Nov. 1. The working title is Poisonous Garden and it will involve conspiracy theories galore, aliens, a romp around the globe and plots to conquer / destroy the world. It may be the definitive answer to the Fermi Paradox (but I doubt it). It will be quite a shock to the system ramping up from almost no writing in the last year to nanowrimo levels, but hopefully it will get me back in the game.
In addition to the writing, I hope to do a weekly podcast or, preferably, vlog, depending on how things go. Watch for it here.
Edwin
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Fermi, the Future, and Donut shops
I was in Brum (that's Birmingham, for you non-Brits--no, don't ask me why) just over a week ago, for the Birmingham Science Fiction Group meeting. Alastair Reynolds (of Revelation Space fame) was speaking and I thought it was a good opportunity to hear another sci-fi author.
His talk was interesting, more on sci-fi than on publishing or writing (but what do you expect at a sci-fi club meeting?), however, he did have a few opinions that I disagreed with. That, of course, is not a problem. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but, for the record, I'd like to provide my own opinions here.
1) The Fermi Paradox, or, Where are all the Aliens?
As Alastair was an astrophysicist with ESA (European Space Agency) for many years, I was surprised to learn that he currently believes there is no other intelligent life in the universe. To some extent, I could agree with 'galaxy'. But the universe is a very large place and that seems, to me, to be an incredibly pessimistic view.
True, we haven't detected any other radio wave transmissions or (officially) seen any hint of extraterrestrial beings or crafts, but there are numerous possible explanations for this. For the record, a few I favour are:
a) Separation in Time/Space within our Galaxy
i) Too recent
For us to detect alien transmissions assumes they have been developed for long enough that their radio waves would have reached us. This is a combination of the length of time of the advanced civilization combined with the distance they are from us.
For example, an alien race living 1000 light years away, that developed radio transmissions in the last 300 years would not be detectable by us (since their radio waves, traveling at the speed of light, would still be 700 light years away).
Given that our galaxy is 100,000 light years across and we are near one rim, a technological alien civilization could have existed on the rim across from us (say, 70,000 light years away) but we wouldn't know it unless they had had technology for at least 70,000 years. And then we would just be detecting it now.
ii) Too old
Judging by human development, an intelligent civilization could exist thousands of years before sufficiently advanced technology is developed (if at all). However, once technology is achieved, the danger of autogenocide increases exponentially with each new development and each passing year. Eventually, within 200 years, if humans are a good model, the power to destroy the race literally rests in the hands of each and every individual (by the end of this century, and undoubtedly much sooner, any individual will have the ability [access to knowledge and resources] to create a genocidal pathogen, for example).
Thus, destruction of advanced societies could be the norm. If such rise and fall happened outside of the window in which we are observing the galaxy, then all we will know of them would be from any ruins we might eventually find in the distant future.
b) Separation through vast distances
A favourite of mine is to think that each galaxy may have only one intelligent lifeform. If that were true, the universe could house hundreds of thousands of intelligent, advanced civilizations, but none of them would likely ever know of each others' existence.
c) They don't want us to see them.
This would only apply to our galaxy for reasons of scale. If aliens exist and exist 'everywhere' then they may have craft (or other means) established to block their signals until they wish us to 'see' them. Or, if so advanced, they simply may use means of communication that we can't yet detect or aren't aware of. You'll find these ideas addressed, for example, in the Conqueror's Trilogy by Timothy Zahn or my new work in progress The Sky is a Poisonous Garden.
2) Donut Shops of the Future
The other issue, more a pet peeve of Alastair Reynold's, is far future human societies with similar social structures and institutions to our own. His personal preference with regards to sci-fi is to read of something 'weird' in far future civilizations (although the story should still be anchored by something recognizable).
From some point of I can understand this. Personally, I'm not so bothered by similar institutions in the future (more in a moment). My own pet peeve is what I would call 'inconsistent extrapolation'. By which I mean, a setting where everything is similar, recognizable, except one thing. And that thing is noticeable due to its strangeness. A recent example was an unpublished story where the money had a strange name but everything else, down to the feminist sensitivities, was essentially the same. Yet it was set hundreds of years in the future. In these cases I say just use the standard 'credit' system, or pick your favourite country to win the global economic wars and use their currency. And, in general, if everything else in your setting is recognizable, you might as well find a way to make that one issue recognizable also.
In general, however, I see little problem with bringing current social structures, institutions, to the future for the simple reason that, in the past 6000 years I don't believe our society has fundamentally changed all that dramatically. Despite technology, despite democracy, despite women's and workers and animal rights, we still have wars, we still have hate issues, and we still have restaurants, spas, shops, etc. So, in another 6000 years...?! Who knows? Since we don't know what shape the singularity will take: whether it will be a gradual adaptation to a new human structure, or a pointed upheaval, or serving under an artificial emperor, or even whether there will several more singularities or even retro-singularities, I see no problem in extrapolating the current structure into the future.
In conclusion
So, as I mentioned, I was a little surprised by these particular thoughts of Alastair Reynold's, however, to each his own. That's what allows us to produce and have access to such varied science fiction. The future is infinite (if not in time, then at least in possibilities) so there's no need to get hung up on one direction. Let your mind free to wander the infinite paths.
Edwin
His talk was interesting, more on sci-fi than on publishing or writing (but what do you expect at a sci-fi club meeting?), however, he did have a few opinions that I disagreed with. That, of course, is not a problem. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but, for the record, I'd like to provide my own opinions here.
1) The Fermi Paradox, or, Where are all the Aliens?
As Alastair was an astrophysicist with ESA (European Space Agency) for many years, I was surprised to learn that he currently believes there is no other intelligent life in the universe. To some extent, I could agree with 'galaxy'. But the universe is a very large place and that seems, to me, to be an incredibly pessimistic view.
True, we haven't detected any other radio wave transmissions or (officially) seen any hint of extraterrestrial beings or crafts, but there are numerous possible explanations for this. For the record, a few I favour are:
a) Separation in Time/Space within our Galaxy
i) Too recent
For us to detect alien transmissions assumes they have been developed for long enough that their radio waves would have reached us. This is a combination of the length of time of the advanced civilization combined with the distance they are from us.
For example, an alien race living 1000 light years away, that developed radio transmissions in the last 300 years would not be detectable by us (since their radio waves, traveling at the speed of light, would still be 700 light years away).
Given that our galaxy is 100,000 light years across and we are near one rim, a technological alien civilization could have existed on the rim across from us (say, 70,000 light years away) but we wouldn't know it unless they had had technology for at least 70,000 years. And then we would just be detecting it now.
ii) Too old
Judging by human development, an intelligent civilization could exist thousands of years before sufficiently advanced technology is developed (if at all). However, once technology is achieved, the danger of autogenocide increases exponentially with each new development and each passing year. Eventually, within 200 years, if humans are a good model, the power to destroy the race literally rests in the hands of each and every individual (by the end of this century, and undoubtedly much sooner, any individual will have the ability [access to knowledge and resources] to create a genocidal pathogen, for example).
Thus, destruction of advanced societies could be the norm. If such rise and fall happened outside of the window in which we are observing the galaxy, then all we will know of them would be from any ruins we might eventually find in the distant future.
b) Separation through vast distances
A favourite of mine is to think that each galaxy may have only one intelligent lifeform. If that were true, the universe could house hundreds of thousands of intelligent, advanced civilizations, but none of them would likely ever know of each others' existence.
c) They don't want us to see them.
This would only apply to our galaxy for reasons of scale. If aliens exist and exist 'everywhere' then they may have craft (or other means) established to block their signals until they wish us to 'see' them. Or, if so advanced, they simply may use means of communication that we can't yet detect or aren't aware of. You'll find these ideas addressed, for example, in the Conqueror's Trilogy by Timothy Zahn or my new work in progress The Sky is a Poisonous Garden.
2) Donut Shops of the Future
The other issue, more a pet peeve of Alastair Reynold's, is far future human societies with similar social structures and institutions to our own. His personal preference with regards to sci-fi is to read of something 'weird' in far future civilizations (although the story should still be anchored by something recognizable).
From some point of I can understand this. Personally, I'm not so bothered by similar institutions in the future (more in a moment). My own pet peeve is what I would call 'inconsistent extrapolation'. By which I mean, a setting where everything is similar, recognizable, except one thing. And that thing is noticeable due to its strangeness. A recent example was an unpublished story where the money had a strange name but everything else, down to the feminist sensitivities, was essentially the same. Yet it was set hundreds of years in the future. In these cases I say just use the standard 'credit' system, or pick your favourite country to win the global economic wars and use their currency. And, in general, if everything else in your setting is recognizable, you might as well find a way to make that one issue recognizable also.
In general, however, I see little problem with bringing current social structures, institutions, to the future for the simple reason that, in the past 6000 years I don't believe our society has fundamentally changed all that dramatically. Despite technology, despite democracy, despite women's and workers and animal rights, we still have wars, we still have hate issues, and we still have restaurants, spas, shops, etc. So, in another 6000 years...?! Who knows? Since we don't know what shape the singularity will take: whether it will be a gradual adaptation to a new human structure, or a pointed upheaval, or serving under an artificial emperor, or even whether there will several more singularities or even retro-singularities, I see no problem in extrapolating the current structure into the future.
In conclusion
So, as I mentioned, I was a little surprised by these particular thoughts of Alastair Reynold's, however, to each his own. That's what allows us to produce and have access to such varied science fiction. The future is infinite (if not in time, then at least in possibilities) so there's no need to get hung up on one direction. Let your mind free to wander the infinite paths.
Edwin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)