a few of the original observations of Arne Naess were scientifically valid, or admirable in their values. But adding the adjective âdeepâ was a mistake. The point should have been that plain old ecology was already at the right depth to be very helpful.
GC: Iâm reminded here of Gib Prettymanâs observations in his chapter on Le Guin, which suggests the ways in which Marxism, ecology, and Eastern religion sit in somewhat uneasy relation with one another. You yourself have frequently taken up non-Western ways of thinking in your novels, for instance your use of non-Christianreligion in the Mars books and Tibetan religion specifically in both Years of Rice and Salt and the climate trilogy. Is this an attempt at crafting a synthesis, or more of an attempt to think the problem?
KSR ⺠Itâs just thinking the problem. Iâm not capable of a synthesis of those three. Maybe something more like a bricolage. I am interested in all three, and have tried plotting stories by putting them together in various combinations, and tracing what happens. I tend to use Marxist critical theory when thinking about history, ecology when thinking about the biosphere, and Buddhism when thinking cosmically or personally, although immediately when I say that I realize I often use all three in a slurry. My narrators often take âthe most scientific viewâ of everything, even metaphysics, because that leads to funny sentences. And thinking of science as a critical utopian leftist political action from its very beginningâsomething like the best Marxist praxis so far performed in the real worldâis very provocative and stimulating. Likewise thinking of science as a devotional practice, in which the universe is the sacred object of study. It can be almost a scissors-rock-paper thing among the three. The enjambments have been good for my books.
GC ⺠Do you feel like these kinds of experimental enjambments are more successful than attempts to found ânewâ eco-religions, as Octavia Butler suggests in her Parables series and Margaret Atwood does in her MaddAddam books, especially The Year of the Flood ? Perhaps this is really a question about historical continuity versus radical break, and the retention of old forms in the new.
KSR ⺠I donât know. My inclination is to trying mixing elements we already have rather than invent something new, especially any kind of religion. We have the elements of a good eco-religion already, in science and Buddhism. So, possibly this new mongrel religion should be named, and its pedigree given, in order to impress it more clearly on the mind. As the exercise would hopefully be a thought experiment only (thinking of how several cults have come out of various booksâ fictional religions), it could be a way to reformulate the concepts of ecology into new and revealing stories. On the whole, I donât see any problem in trying both methods and seeing what kind of stories come.
GC ⺠Youâve spoken recently about the ways scientists have become politically engaged, even radicalized, and in some ways this is a major theme of both Science in the Capital and 2312. Do you find SF (of the kind you write, or even SF more generally) has a role to play in that? Do the scientists you meet still read science fiction? Does science fiction provide a framework through which scientists can begin to understand themselves as political agents?
KSR ⺠I think science fiction can help scientists, yes. I hope for that, and try to write some of my novels with that goal in mind.
Now it has to be said, many scientists do not read fiction of any kind; theyâre like everyone else in that regard. Fiction readers are a subculture, maybe a big one, maybe a minority of the population and growing smaller; itâs very hard to say, especially in this stage of technological change, where so many people are very engaged with computers and therefore perhaps reading a
GC: Iâm reminded here of Gib Prettymanâs observations in his chapter on Le Guin, which suggests the ways in which Marxism, ecology, and Eastern religion sit in somewhat uneasy relation with one another. You yourself have frequently taken up non-Western ways of thinking in your novels, for instance your use of non-Christianreligion in the Mars books and Tibetan religion specifically in both Years of Rice and Salt and the climate trilogy. Is this an attempt at crafting a synthesis, or more of an attempt to think the problem?
KSR ⺠Itâs just thinking the problem. Iâm not capable of a synthesis of those three. Maybe something more like a bricolage. I am interested in all three, and have tried plotting stories by putting them together in various combinations, and tracing what happens. I tend to use Marxist critical theory when thinking about history, ecology when thinking about the biosphere, and Buddhism when thinking cosmically or personally, although immediately when I say that I realize I often use all three in a slurry. My narrators often take âthe most scientific viewâ of everything, even metaphysics, because that leads to funny sentences. And thinking of science as a critical utopian leftist political action from its very beginningâsomething like the best Marxist praxis so far performed in the real worldâis very provocative and stimulating. Likewise thinking of science as a devotional practice, in which the universe is the sacred object of study. It can be almost a scissors-rock-paper thing among the three. The enjambments have been good for my books.
GC ⺠Do you feel like these kinds of experimental enjambments are more successful than attempts to found ânewâ eco-religions, as Octavia Butler suggests in her Parables series and Margaret Atwood does in her MaddAddam books, especially The Year of the Flood ? Perhaps this is really a question about historical continuity versus radical break, and the retention of old forms in the new.
KSR ⺠I donât know. My inclination is to trying mixing elements we already have rather than invent something new, especially any kind of religion. We have the elements of a good eco-religion already, in science and Buddhism. So, possibly this new mongrel religion should be named, and its pedigree given, in order to impress it more clearly on the mind. As the exercise would hopefully be a thought experiment only (thinking of how several cults have come out of various booksâ fictional religions), it could be a way to reformulate the concepts of ecology into new and revealing stories. On the whole, I donât see any problem in trying both methods and seeing what kind of stories come.
GC ⺠Youâve spoken recently about the ways scientists have become politically engaged, even radicalized, and in some ways this is a major theme of both Science in the Capital and 2312. Do you find SF (of the kind you write, or even SF more generally) has a role to play in that? Do the scientists you meet still read science fiction? Does science fiction provide a framework through which scientists can begin to understand themselves as political agents?
KSR ⺠I think science fiction can help scientists, yes. I hope for that, and try to write some of my novels with that goal in mind.
Now it has to be said, many scientists do not read fiction of any kind; theyâre like everyone else in that regard. Fiction readers are a subculture, maybe a big one, maybe a minority of the population and growing smaller; itâs very hard to say, especially in this stage of technological change, where so many people are very engaged with computers and therefore perhaps reading a
Similar Books
