Read Online Green Planets by Gerry Canavan - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Gerry Canavan
Ads: Link
lot. And it seems to me that as we are all addicted to stories, there is bound to be a certain draw to the best stories, and written fiction has almost all the best stories. So as we are a species of story addicts, there is always going to be a place for fiction, as being the best stories.
But scientists are busy, and the scientists who read fiction may be a minority among scientists. Still, these are the ones who tend to have philosophical interests in what they do, and to realize that doing science is by no means a natural or self-evident activity. In their curiosity they read, and of course science fiction comes up as a possible source of good stories about science, even illuminating stories. So, many scientists will give science fiction a try. Many used to read it when they were young, then gave it up when they got too busy, or when they came to realize that it did not seem to know much about real science, that it was naïve, a collection of power fantasies for younger readers. Itâs hard to overcome that judgment and get those people reading SF again. It depends on their level of curiosity, but one very common personality trait of scientists is a lot of curiosity. So there is always the possibility that word of mouth will bring them to some interesting book that they will then check out; and if it pleases them, or even if it irritates them in a stimulating way, they may go on and read more.
Iâve seen scientists react very strongly against my assertion that science is a form of politics and that scientists should get more involved as scientists in policy making. That breaks what for them was a dichotomy, in which science was clear and good and pure, while politics was dirty and bad and corrupt. They say to me, âBut if we spoke politically as scientists it wouldnât be science anymore, and what is good in science would get wrecked.â There is some truth to that objection, and yet I still think itâs good to irritate them in that way. Subsequently they may see things from a different angle. There is a lot of âdirty politicsâ inside science, as they know better than anyone; they have to struggle to keep science âscientific.â Part of that struggle involves precisely diving into funding, policy, and politics. So it is a good problem to bring up in their minds. Really, scientistsneed science fiction, or could use it; but it needs to be good on science, or they will see that it isnât, and it wonât work for them.
GC ⺠A recent slogan of yoursâagain echoed by one of your characters in 2312 âhas been that social justice is a survival technology. Youâve also recently discussed the ways in which scientific praxis (at least in some idealized form) reflects a kind of actually existing communismâcooperative, collaborative, rewarding work done outside a market logic. And yet in the bleakest of our dystopian fictionsâJohn Brunnerâs The Sheep Look Up, for instance, to choose one book you have been influenced byâwe find reflected the ways in which science and scientific progress seem to be hurling us faster and faster toward final cataclysmic disaster. Where is the intervention point, or the Archimedean lever, for science to reorient itself toward survival and justice as ultimate goals? If story and narrative have power here, why donât they seem to be working?
KSR ⺠But letâs imagine that they are working, just slowly, and against resistance from countervailing forces. This is how I imagine it to be happening. Also, you said âscientific praxis (at least in some idealized form)â: no, I mean to say that actually existing science is already working, not just outside market logic, but against market logic. This is my point, and it can be stated in different ways, one of them being that economics should become a subset of ecology, which already measures and values things that economics mismeasures and does not
But scientists are busy, and the scientists who read fiction may be a minority among scientists. Still, these are the ones who tend to have philosophical interests in what they do, and to realize that doing science is by no means a natural or self-evident activity. In their curiosity they read, and of course science fiction comes up as a possible source of good stories about science, even illuminating stories. So, many scientists will give science fiction a try. Many used to read it when they were young, then gave it up when they got too busy, or when they came to realize that it did not seem to know much about real science, that it was naïve, a collection of power fantasies for younger readers. Itâs hard to overcome that judgment and get those people reading SF again. It depends on their level of curiosity, but one very common personality trait of scientists is a lot of curiosity. So there is always the possibility that word of mouth will bring them to some interesting book that they will then check out; and if it pleases them, or even if it irritates them in a stimulating way, they may go on and read more.
Iâve seen scientists react very strongly against my assertion that science is a form of politics and that scientists should get more involved as scientists in policy making. That breaks what for them was a dichotomy, in which science was clear and good and pure, while politics was dirty and bad and corrupt. They say to me, âBut if we spoke politically as scientists it wouldnât be science anymore, and what is good in science would get wrecked.â There is some truth to that objection, and yet I still think itâs good to irritate them in that way. Subsequently they may see things from a different angle. There is a lot of âdirty politicsâ inside science, as they know better than anyone; they have to struggle to keep science âscientific.â Part of that struggle involves precisely diving into funding, policy, and politics. So it is a good problem to bring up in their minds. Really, scientistsneed science fiction, or could use it; but it needs to be good on science, or they will see that it isnât, and it wonât work for them.
GC ⺠A recent slogan of yoursâagain echoed by one of your characters in 2312 âhas been that social justice is a survival technology. Youâve also recently discussed the ways in which scientific praxis (at least in some idealized form) reflects a kind of actually existing communismâcooperative, collaborative, rewarding work done outside a market logic. And yet in the bleakest of our dystopian fictionsâJohn Brunnerâs The Sheep Look Up, for instance, to choose one book you have been influenced byâwe find reflected the ways in which science and scientific progress seem to be hurling us faster and faster toward final cataclysmic disaster. Where is the intervention point, or the Archimedean lever, for science to reorient itself toward survival and justice as ultimate goals? If story and narrative have power here, why donât they seem to be working?
KSR ⺠But letâs imagine that they are working, just slowly, and against resistance from countervailing forces. This is how I imagine it to be happening. Also, you said âscientific praxis (at least in some idealized form)â: no, I mean to say that actually existing science is already working, not just outside market logic, but against market logic. This is my point, and it can be stated in different ways, one of them being that economics should become a subset of ecology, which already measures and values things that economics mismeasures and does not
Similar Books
