Miller and Bennett (2008) touch on many of the philosophies I wanted to express in this blog. They make some very interesting points that resonate with me. They also try to make some connections that are a little unusual.
Miller and Bennett were spurred to write their article after Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute basically communicated that when using resources (like science fiction novels) to predict technological trends that it was important to separate the human component of the novel and focus solely on the technology presented.
Miller and Bennett disagree. Technology does not exist independently of humans. Technology is what humans make of it. The article then goes on to support including the human element. …There was a commercial about that, wasn’t there?
Science fiction writers provide the lateral thinking that can be used to create these new technologies – not limited by those pesky rules of science.
They even suggest the use of embedded fiction writers in laboratories can be beneficial to spark innovations among scientists (Miller & Bennett, 2008, p. 604).
There are a lot of interesting insights. However. There are some arguments, I don’t get and/or agree with. Apparently fanfiction provides a vehicle for people (who are not science fiction writers) to interact with the ideas of future technology. I can sort of see their point… maybe. They do try to limit this fanfiction to those inspired by “hard science fiction” (Miller & Bennett, 2008, p.599). I would personally like a list of these “hard science fiction” works that inspired the resulting fanfiction. I would also love to see samples of this writing. Why? This entire argument is basically based on the entries that exist on fanfiction.net. If you’re even remotely involved in a fandom – you might see why this is entertaining.
Another questionable assertion is that Mr. Michael Crichton has almost singlehandedly “damaged the positive relationships that have long bonded science fiction writers with the scientists and scientific fields they write about” (Miller & Bennett, 2008, p. 605). I’m not a scientist so I guess it would be hard for me to have an opinion about this, but it just seems really odd. Did they distribute a poll on a listserv?
Are you a scientist? Yes or No.
Do you hate Michael Crichton? Yes or No
Did they do a raise of hands at a conference of some sort?
I digress. It’s an interesting article. It makes some good points, and it also has some random, but entertaining moments.
Is there any technology that you've read about in a science fiction novel or seen in a science fiction movie that you're really excited to see in reality? Feel free to share your wish list below. :)
References
-
Miller, C. A., & Bennett, I. (2008). Thinking longer term about technology: Is
- there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures? Science and Public Policy, 35(8), 597-606.
I think any damage Michael Chrichton did to the relationship of scientists and science fiction was mostly because he was sort of a jerk about his personal views. Some were vehemently contrary to popular science which would seem like the purpose of science fiction. Still a writer, like any artist, should be respectful of his readers and of his source materials. Sort of like the way I can never read anything by Orson Scott Card because of his views on basic human rights.
ReplyDeleteStill, I don't see this as definitive either. I can see scientists more boycotting his work than science fiction in general.
I think you raise an interesting point.
DeleteI actually try to make it a point not to know about an author's personal life. This may sound ignorant - but I try to judge the work in question solely on its merit. I can't fault people for having different opinions (that I may or may not consider "wrong"). As long as the work in question doesn't feel propagandistic, I generally have no problem with it. But this is my own opinion and I totally understand if people disagree with me. I'm personally of the mindset that having some difference of opinion can help spur productive dialogue that in turn can result in progress.
I am unfamiliar with the thinking that "a writer, like any artist, should be respectful of his readers and of his source materials". Art is subjective. Artists and writers sometimes intentionally challenge readers either with difficult subjects or with things they don't really want to think about. We're fortunate that in most places in the world - artists and writers are protected by freedom of speech. But I think of Ai Weiwei, and I feel saddened that this is not true everywhere.