The Philosophy of Science Fiction

Tools    





A system of cells interlinked
Really enjoying this thread, folks!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



I believe the days of wishful technofascism in which Man masters himself and Nature are long gone. If anything, some of the greatest works of science fiction philosophy are all about the de-centering of Man. About revealing to us our frailties, and that we are so much more dependent on cosmic forces beyond our grasp than what we used to think. The more we "conquer" space, the more we find out the less we know. And the more we dig into fundamental physics, the equations multiply, expand, explode, instead of simplify. If anything, science fiction is about the need to always be open/receptive to possibilities, and to be flexible or adaptable to new ideas, because Nature can never be exhausted by our mastering of it.



Unfortunately, no realistic proposals or idea get us anywhere outside the solar system and we know enough to realize that there's not much for us in the rest of the solar system. Gas planets make no sense at all because they're just stars that didn't ignite their fusion. They may not even have a solid surface, much less an inhabitable one. Venus and Mercury are way too hot, Mars is a dead, irradiated rock and poor, remote Pluto hardly counts as a planet.

There are some sketchy thoughts that some "nearby" stars MAY have planets, but that's a long way from certain, not to mention their inhabitability.

We are basically nowhere on speed-of-light travel. A super-rocket that goes 200,000 mph isn't really much of a help.

Sad to say, but this is IT. That's why "fiction" is the important word in Science Fiction because that's where we get to push the warp drive button and meet some Vulcans.



I believe the days of wishful technofascism in which Man masters himself and Nature are long gone.
I don't know that fascism is the right word, but the Enlightenment really put this thinking at the forefront. The Death of God was really a swapping of places where man took the place of God--Man was now the fundamental atomic unit of governance (democracy), knowledge (Cartesian rationalism), and morality (subjectivism/relativism). The death of man, which followed (e.g., free will problem, Darwinism showing that humans are just another species, the death of the self-transparent conscious "self," the advent of nuclear weapons) has left us adrift, but in the heady days when you could unlock mysteries of the universe for a few pennies worth of copper wire, this attitude was very strong indeed. It was rather disgusting/silly, but just about every "gold rush" is.

Even so, there is a lingering techno-optimism, the idea that we will save ourselves from our last technological mistake with the next great leap forward--kind of like if your life depended on Moore's Law never coming to an end. People need escape and they need hope and techno-optimisitc sci-fi is a little ray of sunlight.
If anything, some of the greatest works of science fiction philosophy are all about the de-centering of Man.
But even then, we make a meal out of our own decentering. These stories are fugal and tragic. There is that old joke that Zizek loves to tell,
There is an old Jewish joke, loved by Derrida, about a group of Jews in a synagogue publicly admitting their nullity in the eyes of God. First, a rabbi stands up and says: “O God, I know I am worthless. I am nothing!” After he has finished, a rich businessman stands up and says, beating himself on the chest: “O God, I am also worthless, obsessed with material wealth. I am nothing!” After this spectacle, a poor ordinary Jew also stands up and also proclaims: “O God, I am nothing.” The rich businessman kicks the rabbi and whispers in his ear with scorn: “What insolence! Who is that guy who dares to claim that he is nothing too!”
Moreover, these decentering stories will, nevertheless, tend to leave us with flickers of self-importance and hope. P.K. Dick mocks our hollowness with Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends, but still incorporates Mercerism as legitimate (if paradoxical) metaphysical force for redemption (the universe that cares and is reaching out to us) in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
About revealing to us our frailties, and that we are so much more dependent on cosmic forces beyond our grasp than what we used to think. The more we "conquer" space, the more we find out the less we know. And the more we dig into fundamental physics, the equations multiply, expand, explode, instead of simplify. If anything, science fiction is about the need to always be open/receptive to possibilities, and to be flexible or adaptable to new ideas, because Nature can never be exhausted by our mastering of it.
A fundamental urge driving the human race is a desire to be God (to have control, mastery, perfect prediction, safety from any possible threats, superiority over rivals). As David Lo Pan replies to Jack Burton, we keep at it, even if we know it is a fool's errand:
Jack Burton: "Jack" what? I'm supposed to buy this shit? 2000 years, he can't find one broad to fit the bill? Come on, Dave, you must be doing something seriously wrong!
Lo Pan: There have been others, to be sure. There are always others. But you know, Mr. Burton, the difficulties between men and women. How seldom it works out? Yet we all keep trying, like fools.
And what sin is more enticing than piety? The greatest pride is oft found in the greatest avowed humility. Yes, Socrates tells us that he knows nothing, but he does this on the heels of telling us that he is the wisest man he knows (Well, I'm wiser than the rest of you lot! I am so much more humble). At the very least, we can claim mastery over the poor fools who think they can claim mastery over nature. And in that humility of the scientist (who is never political or shortsighted and who loves finding out she wasted 40 years on a hypothesis--Brutus is an honorable man), we can still learn some of the mysteries of the universe, acquire a few tricks, and embark on the treadmill of never-ending enlightenment through the study of nature (i.e., the promise of adventure and mastery are still there).



Unfortunately, no realistic proposals or idea get us anywhere outside the solar system
We could start building an Orion Spaceship right now. There is nothing theoretical about the design. There is no advance in materials technology, energy production, or crossed-fingers with regard to the laws of physics needed. You accelerate for half the tip and decelerate for half the trip. In 44 years humans can travel to the nearest solar system.

Are they going to find anything there? A habitable planet? Probably not. Alien life. Seems unlikely. Could the crew return to Earth alive? 44 years to just get there would make it a one-way trip and you probably wouldn't find anything. But you would be among the first humans to visit a new solar system. Plenty of people would still volunteer for that.

And, of course, the price tag would be considerable. But we can do it. If we really wanted to send humans to the nearest solar system, you don't need any sci-fi B.S., just the will. Pretty cool.



We could start building an Orion Spaceship right now. There is nothing theoretical about the design. There is no advance in materials technology, energy production, or crossed-fingers with regard to the laws of physics needed. You accelerate for half the tip and decelerate for half the trip. In 44 years humans can travel to the nearest solar system.

Are they going to find anything there? A habitable planet? Probably not. Alien life. Seems unlikely. Could the crew return to Earth alive? 44 years to just get there would make it a one-way trip and you probably wouldn't find anything. But you would be among the first humans to visit a new solar system. Plenty of people would still volunteer for that.

And, of course, the price tag would be considerable. But we can do it. If we really wanted to send humans to the nearest solar system, you don't need any sci-fi B.S., just the will. Pretty cool.
I'm good with those sort of Hail Mary attempts to find Klaatu's home planet, as long as I don't have to pay for it. So far, as tax supported space projects go, paying for NASA has yielded a lot of real-world benefits, and they've all had a realistic and achievable goal. Sending some group of unfortunate travelers on a 44 year mission to what may be nothing sounds like folly to me. I just don't want to pay for it until the project has some reasonable probability of success.

A "considerable" price tag is a serious underestimation until earthlings can find some sort of technology to make this realistic. We are nowhere on that now and, in all likelihood, everybody on earth who could remember why we sent them out there would be dead before we knew that they even found something, or that they didn't go crazy and kill each other 2 years out or that the spacecraft didn't spring a leak and leave the inhabitants like freeze-dried organic wafers.



I'm good with those sort of Hail Mary attempts to find Klaatu's home planet, as long as I don't have to pay for it. So far, as tax supported space projects go, paying for NASA has yielded a lot of real-world benefits, and they've all had a realistic and achievable goal. Sending some group of unfortunate travelers on a 44 year mission to what may be nothing sounds like folly to me. I just don't want to pay for it until the project has some reasonable probability of success.

A "considerable" price tag is a serious underestimation until earthlings can find some sort of technology to make this realistic. We are nowhere on that now and, in all likelihood, everybody on earth who could remember why we sent them out there would be dead before we knew that they even found something, or that they didn't go crazy and kill each other 2 years out or that the spacecraft didn't spring a leak and leave the inhabitants like freeze-dried organic wafers.
I can see how you could feel that way. A lot of people wouldn't want to see billions & billions of dollars go into a risky interstellar space flight, taking 44 +years. Personally I wish we could go to Alpha Centauri, IMO it would do humanity good to aim for something higher than 100g phones. But even though I could wish for that, it ain't happening, the U.S. government has no will power for it. Western society is too self absorbed to unite and take on something so grand. Now China might pull it off and the world could pull it off if we could unite on this idea....that ain't happening either.

I do think manned missions should start by going to Mars and the outer planets. Jupiter has a lot of interesting moons some with atmospheres that could be described as planet like. Maybe we could afford that?



I'm good with those sort of Hail Mary attempts to find Klaatu's home planet, as long as I don't have to pay for it. So far, as tax supported space projects go, paying for NASA has yielded a lot of real-world benefits, and they've all had a realistic and achievable goal. Sending some group of unfortunate travelers on a 44 year mission to what may be nothing sounds like folly to me. I just don't want to pay for it until the project has some reasonable probability of success.
I am not saying that we should do it, only that we could do it.

But note that this is a significant shift in our discussion. We have moved from "is it possible?" to "would we really want to do it?" We've moved from nature telling us no, to constituents saying no (via tax dollars).

Personally, I think the more prudent idea is to send swarms of nanoprobes equipped to light sails accelerated by Earth-bound lasers to a significant fraction of the speed of light. They can take a peek and let us know if there is anything enticing for manned mission as a follow-up.
A "considerable" price tag is a serious underestimation until earthlings can find some sort of technology to make this realistic. We are nowhere on that now
Known laws of physics are non-negotiable. Price tags, on the other hand, just need a good sales pitch. Going to the moon in the 1960s was an entirely bonkers proposition when you think about it, but Kennedy sold us on it.

Or you can just take the money in secret dark funding where your tax dollars are used anyway. The Pentagon has failed its last five audits and cannot account for 61% of its assets out of $3.5 trillion in assets and $3.7 trillion in liabilities.
And what do we mean by "realistic"? Do we mean safe? Let us return to the analogy upthread to those silly people on wooden sailing ships with limited navigation skill and ridiculously primitive wooden boats. Many of them were lost at sea. Nevertheless, the prospects of exploration and conquest were enticing enough for the trip to be "realistic" for them.
and, in all likelihood, everybody on earth who could remember why we sent them out there would be dead
And so it was for the builders of the pyramids and the Great Wall of China. Great projects span generations.
before we knew that they even found something, or that they didn't go crazy and kill each other 2 years out or that the spacecraft didn't spring a leak and leave the inhabitants like freeze-dried organic wafers.
Sauce for the goose. Our story has stakes. Stay alive! Stay sane! Complete the mission! Is the mission worth it? Should we turn back? Should we detour (e.g., Sunshine)?

We can do "small" realistic science fiction about interstellar travel and interplanetary travel.



For better or worse, humans need short term outcomes, thrills and discoveries. Budget people work on one year cycles. I think we need to wait a while to try this....probably way after I'm gone.



Maxim 8. The Trust Gambit Wins

Humans encounter seemingly hostile aliens. Should they fight them to the death or take a risk and extend an olive branch for dialogue. Lowering the shields, exposing one's belly, lowering one's guns, exposing one's position, etc. Will our protagonists be rewarded for their gamble on trust, deescalation, forgiveness? Yes. Yes, they will.

Why?

1. Science fiction offers morality plays. Again, it is allegorical. Thus, our moral lesson is to aver violence and distrust.

2. We have to establish the moral superiority of our protagonists. The moment of trust establishes a defender's moral advantage. If the other party violates trust in this moment, then our humans will be totally justified in retribution later.

Why is this concerning?

Space Balls said it best




People are impressionable. Fiction is powerful medicine. It creates behavioral scripts and shapes attitudes. If we treat fiction as a serious game-theoretic exercise in strategic options the "trust first" heuristic can lead people to ignore important contextual cues signaling that, in a particular case, trust is not worth the risk. Fiction, however, likes to raise the stakes so that the reward of trust is all that more compelling.



Or, as the show The Peripheral put it, the real world does not program in an empathy bonus to reward good character.



Maxim 9. Deep Space is COSMIC


The deeper we imagine ourselves voyaging out into space, the less scientific it tends to be and the more cosmic it becomes (e.g., religious or quasi-religious, involving a purpose-driving view of the world, invoking realities that defy all explanation). If our sci-fi is relegated to our solar system it is more likely to be "hard" (e.g., rescuing Matt Damon). The farther we travel, however, the more wild, mystical, and mysterious it becomes (e.g., Solaris).

The same split is loosely present in Marvel comics -- the farther our heroes are from Earth the more all-compassing, psychedelic, and emotional the mythology becomes (e.g., we move from Iron Man to THOR). Of course, everything is silly in comics, so it is hard to precisely draw this line--but Earth-based stories will tend to be more mundane at least inasmuch that they (by necessity) try show us a version of our world (so science must be a thing, and we don't have winged flappy chariots moving us about cities).

Thus, we have another great paradox of science-fiction. The greater the distance we travel in "our ship of the imagination," the less scientific our fiction will be.



My preference for sci-fi is that it go completely off the rails with the science part. Just make up something like they did with Star Trek and warp drive. Recalling that a lot of sci-fi I've seen in movies and TV is really just off-earth allegory or metaphor, I'm good with that, just fantasy. Yeah, the Star Trek Romulans were modeled after the movie-fied Romans and the Klingons reminded me of the European boogymen, the medieval Mongols, but what the heck. The real Mongols were every bit as scary as the Klingons, but just with curved swords and on horseback, no super-luminal star ships. Sci-fi is better when it has one foot firmly planted in real world metaphor and doesn't claim anything in regard to science. Just make up a better version of a gun and call it a phaser.



My preference for sci-fi is that it go completely off the rails with the science part. Just make up something like they did with Star Trek and warp drive. Recalling that a lot of sci-fi I've seen in movies and TV is really just off-earth allegory or metaphor, I'm good with that, just fantasy. Yeah, the Star Trek Romulans were modeled after the movie-fied Romans and the Klingons reminded me of the European boogymen, the medieval Mongols, but what the heck. The real Mongols were every bit as scary as the Klingons, but just with curved swords and on horseback, no super-luminal star ships. Sci-fi is better when it has one foot firmly planted in real world metaphor and doesn't claim anything in regard to science. Just make up a better version of a gun and call it a phaser.
The question is HOW it goes off the rails. And this requires care. Fiction is seduction.* Seduction requires finesse. The rational mind must be set at ease. It must be lulled. The "science" part of fiction is a seduction. Does it sound plausible enough that we yield into the dream-space? Does it sound good enough that we stop thinking about the details which cannot be true? The trick is getting the audience through the looking glass (found footage "looks" real, Morgan Freeman "sounds" wise, technobabble "seems" plausible, etc.). The science is sleight of hand. Thus, our science fiction is a precondition of seduction into fantasy (take us to dinner, laugh at our jokes, invite us up for a nightcap).

*There are arguable exceptions. Slasher horror, for example, basically kicks us in the backside through the looking glass, or rather chases us through it with a chainsaw or machete. The overwhelming shock of blood and bone doesn't give us time to consider our reality. We are torn from our comfortable reality to be tormented by a sudden intrusion. But even here, horror fans will laugh if the blood doesn't look right or if they see wires and stop-motion. Thus even these violent acts are still a sort of seduction. Fool the eye and push all your chips into the center of the table, and watch the rational mind fold under the pressure. The "bluff" (and it is a bluff, because no one is really harmed and no one is really in danger) still has to pass initial inspection. It's still a magic trick, just a severe one.

We might also consider absurdist fiction which hangs a lantern on the ridiculousness of the situation.