My Sci-Fi Pet Peeves

While doing some research I was recently reminded of some of my personal pet-peeves that creep into science fiction. Some are rare, and others, unfortunately, more common than I'd like.

Humans as sole rulers of the Far Future

This one is one of the common ones, in my opinion, to the genre's detriment. Usually, since setting a story in such an advanced technology and futuristic society is all but impossible, authors generally leave such things as glimpses into the distant future (I'm speaking of billions or trillions of years). And the type of vision that particular peeves me is where humans are the unchallenged rulers of the universe. The book I've most recently read suffering from this (although not the most recently written) is Stephen Baxter's Manifold:Time. While this book had some great, well-developed ideas in it, it also had some doozies, which is why I also feature it in the next peeve (needless to say, between swearing at the book and trying to force myself to pick it up again each day to finish, it took me some time to read).

So, what's my peeve exactly? Well...it's a big universe. Any story that puts mankind as the sole survivor trillions of years in the future seems, to me, at the best to be hopelessly naive, at worst, to be some kind of religious apologeticism. Knowing humanity as we do, we can guess that, at the very least, mankind will make other forms of intelligent life that may go out on their own. We may make AGI also. But moreso, it seems to me to be very short sighted to believe that in billions of galaxies, trillions of stars and likely even more planets, there is only one lifeform in existence (or that will ever be in existence) simply because we, at the beginning of our technological life, have not yet detected others.

Whenever I read such a scene (and thankfully, they are generally only scenes) I have a very difficult time to continue reading the book.

Crazy philosophies as the basis of series sci-fi

This one, fortunately, is less common (strange as that might sound for science fiction). I guess what I mean here, as with the last peeve, is that in serious (read: hard) science fiction, ideas that I believe to be in error take me completely out of the story.

Once again, Manifold:Time has to win the prize for most obvious example from a quality author that I've read. The issue here is the use of the Carter Catastrophe. In Baxter's defense, he didn't invent it, he just used it in the story. Instead of wasting a lot of space and wearing out my fingers writing it, I'll just include the Wikipedia link here. Essentially, what it amounts to is pseudo-scientific (or even creationist) eschatology masquerading as reason.

Why?

Because it relies on (1) the idea that you, me, or anyone else, has an equal probability of being born at any time during the existence of humanity, and therefore, statistically we will be born near the end of race (because more people are alive at that time than ever before) and (2) the idea that we will never leave the planet (and hence our population will be capped at a relatively low number). Sounds reasonable to you, you think? Well, you might want to consider these ideas:

(1) My biggest argument is that this hypothesis is from a physicist/mathematician and, while math doesn't lie, it can be grossly mislead by incorrect assumptions. In this case, the incorrect assumption that we have an equally probable chance of being born at anytime in the human timeline. Carter may be correct is assuming the Copernican Principle (that the human race is not special in the universe) but individual humans are special, at least in one important way. We are unique in mind and body (or at least, almost unique in body).

Any given individual alive today is the result of a unique and highly improbable sequence of genetic combinations combined with the environmental factors that influenced their development. Thus you, me, your best friend or worst enemy, could only have lived at the time they did. It's worth repeating that because of it's importance. Any human that has ever lived could only ever have lived when they did. There is no probability that I was born now versus two hundred years ago. The only consideration is that I was either born now (1970) or never. I also had to have been born to my parents. Any other combination of parents and the child would not have been me. I call this the Bio-historical Rebuttal.

Many may not like the deterministic, undoubtedly non-religious, view of it but lets face facts, even your identical twin is not you and that's as close as one can come. Your unique biology and environmental factors, combined with the random fluctuations in your brain that made you choose A from B and time J can never be duplicated. Therefore, you are unique in the history of humanity--in the history of the universe--and there is no probability that you were born now versus then.

(2) If humanity doesn't leave the planet, then clearly the Carter Catastrophe may have been right (it may get lucky in 2029 anyway, but that has nothing to do with the principles of the Carter Catastrophe). If we don't leave the planet then we will, eventually, exhaust all it's resources. However, and this is only personal opinion, I happen to believe that eventually (within the next century, surely) the majority of the population will come to understand that the future is extraterrestrial. In fact, the only future is extraterrestrial. That will be the point when humanity's existence really begins. As we move out into the galaxy our population will swell immensely, completely washing out the CC doomsday predictions.


So, those are two of my science fiction pet peeves. As always, I'm happy, and more than a little interested, to read any comments.

Edwin

Novacon39 Art

Just back from Novacon39. It felt a little different than the other cons I've been to, slower, more relaxed (although just as much drinking). It was held at the Park Inn in Nottingham, a first for both hotel and con.

I was pleasantly surprised with the hotel. Friendly staff, comfortable rooms (and a decent sized single) despite being reasonably priced. They also had some nice food--an especially enjoyable macaroni and cheese for dinner Saturday.

However, the highlight for me (apart from seeing the guest of honour, Justina Robson) was the art show. My first exhibit of any kind and it was an experience. Of the good kind. I learned alot about what type of art people find interesting at these conventions, and some practical issues like different ideas for framing that can save money. And...I managed to sell two pieces. Alien Seaside (my twitter background) was sold as a canvas print and Alone (on my digital art page) as a clip-framed photo (10x7). Both went for the minimum asking price at the auction, but I still look at it as a good start. I'll try and take what I've learned from this convention and apply it to Eastercon in April.

Edwin

Novacon39 and NaNoWriMo

Friday I'm off to Novacon 39 in Nottingham, yet another reason why my NaNoWriMo is going virtually nowhere. I'm sitting on 9k right now; my natural slow writing combined with higher than usual writing cobwebs from being almost idle the last two years, combined with preparations for the convention (preparing artwork to bring), finishing up the Assassins' Canon anthology and house hunting (the legal work is underway now!) has meant that my likely hood of making 50k is almost zero. However, if I can push myself to the 30k mark I'll still be happy as that'll be 1/3 of the book done (and, hopefully, much of the hard work will have been sorted in the process).

Anyway, regarding Novacon39: it's my first Novacon and, while each sci-fi con is similar, so far they all seem to have their own quirks as well. In addition, this will be the first one that I will be exhibiting some of my artwork and I'm very interested to see what feedback I might get. There will also be a few authors there including the guest of honour Justina Robson and I'm looking forward to meeting as many as I can.

The Run Up to NaNoWriMo

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

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