Science Friday: More Asimov! And friends…
A wonderful book you can get cheap and enjoy
Asimov on the relationship between science writing and science fiction writing (he did both). I wish the whole essay were online but here’s a little bit of it. First, on science writing:
Why write about science? What does it accomplish?…
First, through the wise use of scientific knowledge humanity has a chance to solve the otherwise overwhelming problems that face it. How do we increase our supply of materials and energy and prevent waste and pollution? How do we make life more comfortable and secure? How do we ameliorate the ravages of disease and old age? If these problems can’t be solved by science, they can’t be solved at all. On the other hand, the unwise use of scientific knowledge may destroy us all through nuclear warfare, pollution, desertification, uncontrolled population increase, and so on.
If the world is to learn how to use science wisely and to shun the unwise, as many people as possible must learn about science - not, perhaps, enough to become scientists themselves, but at least enough to have a chance to come to sensible decisions and to exert a force of public opinion on their leaders in the direction of sense.
A fine example of this is the agreement to ban the atmospheric testing of nuclear explosions in 1963. The governments involved were not keen on this, being driven by mutual fear and hatred in the direction of suicide. It was an aroused world opinion that forced sanity upon them very much against their wills.
Second, science has reached the stage where it needs far more investment than the scientists themselves can supply. Even private industry may fall short where the greatest projects are concerned. No source remains but governments - that is, the public purse. If the public is expected to pay, it would be best if they understood what they were paying for.
Third, for science to advance, there must be a continuing supply of bright young men and women who are willing to devote their lives to scientific advance. The supply can best be increased in both quantity and quality if the general public continues to be well informed as to the nature and content of science.
And a bit on science fiction writing:
Change has always been with us, but the rate of change is what really counts. That rate has increased steadily in the course of human history, and beginning about 1800, it became rapid enough to make change visible in the course of a single lifetime. (It was soon after 1800 that science fiction began to be written). The rate of change has further increased until it is now a whirlwind that is whipping us all into the unforeseen.
If we are to control our own destinies, we dare not ignore the inevitability of change, or fight it blindly as something that is annoying and undesirable. We must accept it and attempt to channel it in what seems to us to be a desirable direction. It helps if we are acquainted with science fiction and have therefore learned to treat change as something familiar. Science fiction readers, in other words, are relatively immune to future shock…
As I said, I wish the whole essay, indeed the whole collection of essays and stories by many writers including Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury and a host of others, scientists and science-fiction writers, were available online. But I can offer the next best thing: the book is available used at Amazon, cheap. It contains factual essays as well as fictional, one of each kind about each of the planets of our solar system. It may not be the latest dope (1985) but it’s GOOD stuff and it’ll cost you less than five bucks including the shipping. And wouldn’t you rather read a good book anyway?
The Planets, edited by Byron priess, copyright 1985.
Second, science has reached the stage where it needs far more investment than the scientists themselves can supply. Even private industry may fall short where the greatest projects are concerned. No source remains but governments - that is, the public purse. If the public is expected to pay, it would be best if they understood what they were paying for.
This sounds fine, but I don’t think that Asimov took into account a culture’s impact on neural wiring. (He was always better at physics in my opinion). If some cultures are focused on individuals and others on community, the decisions made concerning science funding goals correspond.
And since we’ve framed the ideological struggle between individualism and collectivism I think I know which way the “informed” citizenry are bound to go. When you start rolling downhill without brakes, you won’t really stop till you get to the bottom.
If we are to control our own destinies, we dare not ignore the inevitability of change, or fight it blindly as something that is annoying and undesirable. We must accept it and attempt to channel it in what seems to us to be a desirable direction. It helps if we are acquainted with science fiction and have therefore learned to treat change as something familiar. Science fiction readers, in other words, are relatively immune to future shock…
How naive, even a smart guy like Asimov can sound with our benefit of hindsight. It’s kind of a shame that Asimov kicked the bucket before GATT, WTO and NAFTA took off. His view of change was mostly the future of Star Trek, where money had less value, and individuals were allowed to seek their actualization. These days, the sheer magnitude of ready labor throws people into retraining 4-5 during their lives (and maybe more)—perpetually a novice, perpetually entry level wages, for most of the population. The masses have become mainly a source of corporate revenue, available for the milking.
I wonder what he’d say of the world today, just 15 short years after his death.
Posted by Ted on 02/08/08 at 02:34 PM
Next entry: Who'd a thunk it? New hippie-peacenik army manual
Previous entry: Immunology as an '80's action movie