Link and Comments: Slate on Rejection of Modernity

Catching up on several items today. First, interesting article at Slate by Brad Allenby: The Return to Medievalism: Why is the world so troubled right now? Rejection of modernity and technology may be to blame.

This consolidates many of my own thoughts, and goes further, suggesting that the horrors of ISIS (or whatever it’s called) is part of the a broad issue (captured in my Provisional Conclusion #7): a rejection of modernity. What Alvin Toffler, decades ago, described as Future Shock: “too much change in too short a period of time”.

The Slate article notes several themes I’ve discussed here:

Accelerating technological, social, and cultural change undermines many strong beliefs and practices, which can be particularly damaging to individuals and weak institutions. Those who are unable to keep pace with, or accept the changes inherent in, such a world sometimes retreat to faith, which is an understandable response. Similarly, the ever-greater social and cultural complexity of an increasingly multicultural world may have the same effect, reinforcing the value of mythic cultural stereotypes and “golden ages” of the past as refuges.

And the irony that those who would reject modernity, or science, are happy to use the fruits of science to spread their anti-science word. That is, social media — using the internet, which depends on the network of orbital satellites that in turn depend on the conclusions of special relativity. The science they would deny.

Key quote:

We know from history that any technology significant enough to be interesting will also inevitably destabilize existing communities, institutions, power relationships, social structures, worldviews, and cultural assumptions. Because these psychological, social, and cultural verities are sources of comfort and identity for many people in virtually all cultures, technological change will only encourage a continuing retreat to fundamentalism.

Posted in Culture, Religion | Comments Off on Link and Comments: Slate on Rejection of Modernity

Links and Comments: Pale Blue Dot; 10 Commandments; Evolution; Tribalistic thinking; Answers for Creationists

I have a batch of links with notes from almost a month ago that I never got around to posting. Let me catch up.

On the theme in recent posts of awe-inspiring graphics or videos, here’s a piece by Phil Plait in Slate about Pale Blue Dot + 25 Years.

\\

Resource: Richard Dawkins’ site: Five Stupid Things About the Ten Commandments (a video from May 2014). This is not by Dawkins; it’s by some guy names Steve Shives.

  1. They’re unnecessary; why did God wait so long? Territory marking?
  2. They’re repetitive.
  3. They’re poorly prioritized. Why not condemn many other things, like slavery?
  4. They’re an inferior moral guide. [As I’ve discussed here, morality doesn’t derive from religion; morality derives from the evolution and social growth of humanity, and the morals in religious texts reflect only the thinking of ancient tribes, primitive and even barbaric by modern standards, who wrote them.]
  5. They’re anti-democratic. The Constitution and the Commandments are very different [a point that never ceases to amaze me: people who claim the Commandments are the basis for our culture, without noticing that only a few of these are actually enshrined in our law; on the contrary…]

\\\

NY Times article: Conservative Politicians Abroad Seem More Accepting of Evolution.

The US is the outlier concerning politicial acceptance of scientific facts; it’s not such an issue in most of the rest of the world.

Two interesting points raised by this article. First: it’s common for cultural critics of the US to cite Scandinavian countries as models of progressive societies with higher standards of living, by virtually every criterion, compare to the US. But one key difference that plays into the comparison: the Scandinavian countries are far more *monocultural* than the US…

Second, rejection of evolution by evangelicals is rote. They don’t understand it. (Of course.)

“When the people on the school board were asked to explain in Dover what they took the theory of evolution to be, they couldn’t,” Mr. Humes said. “Nor could they explain the intelligent design theory they were embracing.”

\\

One more political post, which echoes previous items I’ve mentioned about how tribal allegiance trumps acknowledgement of scientific understanding. Joel Achenbach in National Geographic, as modified for Washington Post: Why science is so hard to believe.

In the United States, climate change has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this.

Part of my refinement of my Provisional Conclusions is to take these kinds of thinking into account. In the long run of the human race, it’s not necessarily about the advance of science and the increased understanding of humanity’s place in the universe. We will always be hobbled by tribal thinking inherent in base human nature — the default thinking in every newborn child — that, in the absence of a strong culture that acknowledges reality, and an educational system that strives to understand reality and overcome that base human nature, humanity will not necessarily ‘advance’. We may be stuck in a perpetual cycle of culture wars.

Though in a strict sense, perhaps it doesn’t matter. If survival of the species means denying or dismissing reality… then maybe all of science doesn’t matter.

\\

Another resource:

Phil Plait’s Answers for Creationists.

\\
And a prime example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, from Bryan Fischer:

OBAMA ‘NOT A CHRISTIAN’ IF HE SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE, SAYS BRYAN FISCHER: VIDEO

Posted in Astronomy, Evolution, Psychology, Religion, Science, Ten Commandments | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Pale Blue Dot; 10 Commandments; Evolution; Tribalistic thinking; Answers for Creationists

Links and Comments: Fox News; Jonathan Haidt; Scientology; Paul Krugman; US and Israel

First, an essay at Salon not just about Fox News and Bill O’Reilly but about Why the pundit’s fabrications are almost beside the point.

Key point: there isn’t enough ‘real’ news to sustain a 24-hour new network.

That is, the rise of cable news 20 years ago (along with, I would think, the ascendance of the Internet, which lets people read only the news that confirms their biases), have indirectly created this fractured American cultural divide, which has led to our virtually-dysfunctional political system.

Put simply, there wasn’t enough “real” news to sustain a 24-hour cycle. So cable news relied on two things to fill the hours: time spent hyping future stories and pundit reviews of news items. Both of these changes depended more on fear than facts to keep viewers tuned in. Anchors babbled on about worrying news stories, then pundits hyped them up with hysteria.

But that was just the beginning. The fear era of news was about to get much worse. In 1996, Roger Ailes founded the Fox News Channel. The station was the first explicitly conservative TV news network and its mission was to offer a partisan spin on the news. The Fox News angle was more than just a conservative take on the news. It was fear-based programming that far outpaced anything, in terms of scaremongering, that had been on television prior. Fox didn’t just shun the facts as liberal bias, it also taught viewers to be afraid. Particularly of anyone who disagreed with their extreme right views.

This is why Eric Burns, who hosted Fox’s media critic show Fox News Watch for a decade, recently explained in an interview with CNN’s Brian Stelter that Fox News is more like a cult than an actual news channel. He pointed out that O’Reilly’s lies had been well documented since Keith Olbermann went after him when he hosted a show for MSNBC. But no one cared, Burns said, because for Fox News viewers consider anything that contradicts the fear and hype they consume as liberals propaganda. There simply are not enough facts to change their minds since the only thing they trust is Fox News. “To the Fox News cult, this kind of thing doesn’t matter,” said Burns. “It’s a lie from the liberal media.”

Which is to say, cable news (and to some extent all journalism) creates its own culture in order to justify its own existence. Its hidden motivation is: Pay attention to these stories because if you don’t we’ll be out of a job! Conservative sources like Fox News play off the paranoia among many that government is incompetent, scientists are elitist eggheads, and everyone unlike you is a danger to your way of existence. And Liberal sources play off that characterization of conservatives — with some justification, it seems to me.

\\

Noted: A link to a YouTube TED talk by Jonathan Haidt, about The moral roots of liberals and conservatives. Haidt wrote a book, The Righteous Mind, on this subject, that is on my to-read shelf.

\\

Salon: a long interview with Lawrence Wright about Scientology’s “broken community,” and the complicity of Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

Wright wrote a book about the Church of Scientology that is now basis for a documentary film, Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief.

Wright notes various parallels between Scientology and Mormonism, comments about the Amish, comments about how L. Ron Hubbard’s original condemnation of homosexuality have disappeared from current editions of his books, and makes some comments about religion in general:

Craziness doesn’t have anything to do with how successful a religion might be. Religions prosper in large part because of the communities that they create. If you look at Mormonism, it’s a very appealing community. It takes care of itself, there are active charities, it’s got a successful work ethic. Whatever you might think about the authenticity of their theology or their history, it’s immaterial in terms of how the religion itself actually functions. With Scientology, it has a very strange set of beliefs, but right now it has an incredibly dysfunctional and broken community. That’s the difference. Scientologists are told not to look at anything critical of the church, most of them don’t. They put blinders on. It’s our hope that some of those blinders will come down and Scientologists will take a look, and then try to change the religion themselves. There’s very little that we can do other than bring awareness to people about what’s happening.

\\

Politics: Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist who takes, what seems to me, a reality-based approach to economics (i.e., look at history, look at what’s working or not in other countries), as opposed to the ideology-based approach of… Republicans.

For example: NYT: Partying Like It’s 1995.

About Republican warnings of inflation should Obama administration policies go into effect.

Needless to say, those warnings proved totally wrong. Soaring inflation never materialized. Job creation was sluggish at first, but more recently has accelerated dramatically. Far from seeing a rerun of that ’70s show, what we’re now looking at is an economy that in important respects resembles that of the 1990s.

and

Still, we’re now adding jobs at a rate not seen since the Clinton years. And it goes without saying that low inflation combined with rapid job growth makes nonsense of all those predictions that Obamacare, or maybe just the president’s bad attitude, would destroy the private sector.

Now, obviously both ends of the political spectrum have their ideologies. But for anyone paying attention to the evidence about the real world, the ideology of the conservatives seems far more out of touch with reality than that of the liberals.

\\

Politics and culture: It seems to be an unquestioned given that the US supports anything Israel might do, never mind the very difficult historical and political issues in that part of the world, and never mind how needlessly aggressive Israel has been in picking fights (building new settlements in disputed territory). [As far as I can tell, ‘settlements’ mean subdivisions.]

The largely unspoken justification for this policy is religious. Frank Bruni, in last Sunday’s New York Times, spells this out. Christians Loving Jews: Benjamin Netanyahu, John Boehner and America’s Evangelicals.

Some evangelical Christians’ interest in Israel reflects an interpretation of the Bible’s prophetic passages that’s known as premillennial dispensationalism. It maintains that the End of Days can play out as God intends only if Jews govern Israel and have reconstructed a temple on the Temple Mount, where there’s now a mosque.

But just a subset of evangelicals subscribe to that. Others are motivated by their belief, rooted in scripture, that God always intended Israel for Jews and that honoring that and keeping Israel safe is a way of honoring God. God’s blessing of America, they feel, cannot be divorced from America’s backing of Israel.

This might be the scariest, and most unrecognized, influence of religion on American politics.

Posted in Culture, Religion | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Fox News; Jonathan Haidt; Scientology; Paul Krugman; US and Israel

Links and Comments: Powers of Ten; Nineteen Eighty-Four doublespeak; Climate change; Failed conservative predictions of doom

Today’s persusing of websites. (I have more links and comments from newspapers and magazines, but not the time at this moment to post…)

First, to complement yesterday’s link to Vox’s 40 maps that explain outer space, here is the earliest, and most famous, video I know about the vast size of the universe, a film from way back in 1977 (there was also a book) called Powers of Ten.

\\

More about controlling the narrative: simply ban certain parts of speech, a la Nineteen Eighty-Four [aside: this is the correct title of the book; not “1984” with digits. See first edition image. These distinctions matter, to bibliographers and awards compilers.]

Widely reported in the past couple days, but here’s a Washington Post link: Fla. scientist told to remove words ‘climate change’ from study on climate change

Remember Orwell? “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

\\

Politicians deny reality in order to appeal to their ignorant base. But a general principle for identifying the motivations for any political trend is: follow the money. In contrast to politicians appealing to their bases, *insurance companies* take climate change very seriously:

New Republic: Florida Officials Banned the Term “Climate Change,” But the Insurance Industry Knows Better

\\

Let’s venture into politics; the relatively right-wing party in the US is much more aligned with *ideology* and the denial of evidence that conflicts with that ideology, than the other. Again and again, on points of fact, they are proven wrong, and they never learn.

Here are examples at ThinkProgress: 5 Embarrassing Predictions About What Obamacare Would Do To The Economy.

It would be too easy to apply my Jack Smith Rule — take any prediction of doom, predict the opposite, and you will virtually always be a more successful prophet than those purveyors of doom. (It would be easy to do this about numerous posts at Right Wing Watch, about the imminent doom of American civilization if gays are allowed to marry. And so on. Predict the opposite; you will win.)

In current American politics, anything Obama does is reflexively opposed by conservatives and religious reactionaries, even policies originally proposed by Republicans! (Healthcare; standards for public schools.)

Posted in Astronomy, Culture, Thinking | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Powers of Ten; Nineteen Eighty-Four doublespeak; Climate change; Failed conservative predictions of doom

Links and Comments: The Universe; Narratives and Conservatives; PW reviews; the Right-Wing Myth

Catching up from the past week.

First, refining the Provisional Conclusions, I’ve switched the order of the first two, and of the last two. This shifts the entire list to a more positive, rather than negative, spin, I think.

\\

Re: The Universe is Vast

Vox: 40 maps that explain outer space

The most interesting ones to me are those that reveal scale, e.g. 31 and 36.

\\

Quote, from Louis Brandies: “Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant”. The sunlight is what those exampled in Provisional Conclusion #7 try to block.

\\

I see more and more essays on various relatively mainstream sites (well Salon is left of mainstream, but nothing like AddictingInfo or ThinkProgress or Alternet; actually Salon seems devoting more to rabble-rousing as much as any particular ideology) about political differences in terms of ‘narratives’, just as I’ve been doing here. No doubt this is confirmation bias.

Salon: The twisted morality of climate denial: How religion and American exceptionalism are undermining our future

The general principle here is one I’ve already captured: narratives, especially the cultural narratives enshrined in religions, are so powerful that most of their adherents will go to any lengths to deflect evidence about the real world that conflicts with those narratives. (To put it another way: religions are the *best* stories humanity has ever told about itself!) That is, PC’s 7 and 8.

Key points of this essay:

Climate change challenges people’s traditional beliefs about God
…Sen. Inhofe is probably speaking for a significant number of Americans when he declares himself unwilling to accept this: “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Climate change contradicts America’s heroic image of itself
The most enduring account of ourselves as an American people, which extends nearly twice as far back in time as the founding of our nation, is that we are continually, inexorably becoming more prosperous. This mind-set seems to be how most Americans measure personal success, and what they wish for themselves and for their children. Climate change brings our ethos of continual growth up against a definitive and rather claustrophobic limit. …

Challenging the narratives. Here’s another one, a radio interview heard Sunday afternoon (while driving on the 580), about how the ‘narrative’ of Alcoholics Anonymous is mostly fiction; which is to say, the program doesn’t actually work very often. But film and TV depictions reinforce the narrative. America, the commentator says, loves the redemption narrative…

On the Media: My Name Is Hollywood And I Have A Problem

\\

This brings us to: How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps. His four points:

  1. Ignore facts
  2. Make up your own facts
  3. Display no empathy for others
  4. Shout down your opponents

With many linked examples.

\\

On a more conciliatory note, here’s another Salon essay, which like many, is an excerpt from a book.

My atheist search for God: We’re debating science and religion all wrong

Subtitle: I’m not interested in believing in God. My God has to exist, like matter and gravity. Here’s what I found

The book is A God That Could Be Real: Spirituality, Science, and the Future of Our Planet, to be published tomorrow.

I have not read this entire piece, but I like the last paragraph:

What I have learned is this: Having no spiritual life at all is like never really falling in love. Developing a spiritual bond with a fantasy is like falling in love with someone who will never love you back. But developing a spiritual bond with the real universe is like falling in love with someone who is already in love with you. That’s where God is.

Reality, yes, that’s what I’m interested in. But which religions are not.

\\

I’ve mentioned before how browsing the weekly reviews at Publishers Weekly provides a great insight into what people, er, culture, er, people who write books, are writing about. Most likely I will never read these books, but the reviews themselves are informative.

Here’s a review of a book called What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action, by Per Espen Stoknes, to be published April 3rd. A Norwegian analyzing the American cultural debate about climate change.

Stoknes puts a cognitive-psychological spin on the matter at hand and differentiates among climate “skeptics,” “contrarians,” and “deniers,” distinguishing active and passive forms of denial. He also looks at evolutionary self-interest and the ways in which people can use social networks to further their goals. People like to believe their actions matter, he notes, and a solution is more likely to be implemented “when people want it, like it, love it,” not when they are guilted or shamed into it.

And then there’s a new book by Leonard Mlodinow: The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos, which will be published May 5th, and which PW gives a starred review [i.e. especially recommended].

Mlodinow’s point has been made before, but rarely so well: the quality that best distinguishes—and honors—humankind is not an ability to answer questions, but that “after millennia of effort,” nothing stops us from asking them.

\\

And back to examination of right-wing thinking. Here’s Dan Savage responding to President Obama’s speech in Selma, this past weekend, which some are saying is “the best speech he’s ever given”. Savage:

The right-wing myth is this: Progress is impossible. It’s too risky—it’s always too risky. According to conservatives, the country and the American family are too fragile to allow women to vote, to end segregation, to treat LGBT people as equals. We are the greatest country on earth, the most powerful country on earth, a country uniquely blessed by God… but somehow we are “always one public library book away from total collapse.” The civil rights movement, the labor movement, the women’s movement, the LGBT movement—whatever the movement, social conservatives are always running in circles with their hair on fire predicting total collapse. And they’re always wrong. Social conservatives have predicted collapse every time there was a demand for social justice, and they were always wrong. We ended segregation (which did not end racism) and the country did not collapse. The vote was granted to women (which did not end sexism) and the family did not collapse. Same-sex marriage came to 37 states (which did not end homophobia) and people didn’t start marrying their dogs.

He also describes a left-wing myth, that “There has been no progress, nothing has changed, the country is as racist, sexist, and homophobic as it ever was.” And debunks that too. (I disavow this on the basis of my PC #5.)

And finally one more, just browsed this past hour, another example of what numerous bloggers ironically tag as ‘Christian love’.

“Christian” Pastor At Mega-Chruch Calls On Gays To Be “Put To Death”

In Tennessee.

Posted in Astronomy, Culture, Narrative | Comments Off on Links and Comments: The Universe; Narratives and Conservatives; PW reviews; the Right-Wing Myth

Links and Comments: Perceiving Reality; Controlling the Narrative

Several key posts from last week, that I want to capture before I’m on the road for another couple days.

First, the viral dress thing is possibly the most widely circulated example ever of how you can’t always believe what you see. (Cf. provisional conclusion #3.) Among many other links, here’s one at Vox.

(I thought it was obviously blue and black, and have no idea what’s going on the minds of those who see white and gold.)

\\

Next, a couple links that seem to be about different things, but are related, in my mind.

First, an essay in The Week about how the religious right will *never* accept same-sex marriage, because … well:

The story Christians have been telling for 2,000 years goes something like this: The God who made the Universe is also, by his very nature, Love, and he made human beings with a very lofty vocation. Humans are meant to reflect His glory in the world; to be like God, that is to say, to be lovers and creators. Everything in the Universe has been put here to be used by God’s children to reflect his loving glory — and to teach them about God’s love. This is particularly true, or so the story goes, of the unique sexual complementarity between men and women. The sexual act is meant to reflect God’s love by fostering a union at once bodily and spiritual — and creates new life. The complementarity of the persons in a marriage reflects the complementarity of the Persons of the Trinity, and the bliss of marital union is an inkling of the bliss of the union of the Persons of the Trinity. The fruitfulness of the marriage act reflects that God is a creator and has charged man to be an agent of his ongoing work of creation. And, finally, if God’s love means total self-giving unto death on a Cross, then man and wife must give themselves to each other totally — no pettiness, no adultery, no polygamy, no divorce, and no nonmarital sexual acts. According to the story that Christianity has been telling for 2,000 years, Christianity’s view of sexuality isn’t some encrusted holdover from a socially conditioned patriarchal era on its way out, but is instead deeply connected to its understanding of who God is and what human beings exist for.

But the point is clear: From the start, Christians embodied a different way of life. From the start, they understood a particular sexual ethic to be a keystone of this way of life. And they understood the logic of this ethic as prohibiting (among other things) homosexual acts.

This strikes me as deeply mystical [in the sense of impugning a significant meaning onto something that is actually quite simple] and more than a little creepy.

Still, I have no problem with anyone believing anything that someone else might consider pure malarkey; my issue is why anyone, but especially, it seems Christians of this kind of mindset, are so intent on denying *other* options for living to everyone else.

Actually, I think I do understand.

Next item, an essay at Salon about The right’s fear of education.

If you want to keep people from questioning dogma, do everything possible to avoid exposing them to rival ideas. [My bold]

Before college, I voted conservative, hated gay people, loved America and served my country in the armed services.  I’ve changed because of many factors, but I know that college and graduate school made a difference. I met people unlike myself and was forced to defend sometimes ugly political positions.  The Tea Party thrives on blue-collar “common sense” that is composed of a combination of ignorance, superstition and fear. A literate and educated populace is an existential threat to the kind of thoughtless rage that has consumed the right over the past few years.

Some people on the right are very educated. Rick Santorum holds an MBA and a JD (with honors, no less), and his vehement hatred of college seems to stem from his kooky take on religion.  Modern politics is drawing bizarre new battle lines between “family values” and a halfway decent education.  American Christians may dislike “Islam,” but they share a lot of opinions with the radical Islamic group “Boko Haram,” a name that itself translates into “education is forbidden.” In our own country, we have a massive and growing group of people who would rather have illiterate children than let their kids learn anything that contradicts their most extreme religious views.

Both of these are about *controlling the narrative*. (Cf. provisional conclusion #7.) Deny education to keep people from questioning dogma. And deny legal recognition of other kinds of people, because their existence in society is another threat to the religious dogma that fundamentalists would instill upon their children. Any recognition of a reality aside from dogma is perceived as a threat to tribal mores and a way of life. The antithesis of progress, and understanding of reality.

Posted in Culture, Psychology, Religion | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Perceiving Reality; Controlling the Narrative

More about SF/F/H

The distinctions I suggested yesterday aren’t prescriptions; they’re characterizations or descriptions. In the broad field of SF and fantasy literature, there are deep-seated conventions about whether a given story is SF or fantasy (or horror), depending on its topic. Many topics are obvious: Witches? Fantasy. Space travel? SF. Of course there are gray areas (and sometimes they are most interesting stories), but the vast majority of published novels and stories are easily categorizable.

Most of the items I list as ‘supernatural phenomena’, were they to be subjects of a story in the sf/f genres, would automatically classify their stories as fantasy. Ghosts, angels, witches, demons, gods. There are crossovers; SF that imagines ‘gods’ as non-supernatural beings; even SF that tries to justify ideas like souls or telepathy. And there’s fantasy that is rigorous, in a scientific manner, about how ‘rules of fantasy’ e.g. are manifest.

(I gather however that there various flavors of Christian fiction, and no doubt analogous traditions of literature in other cultures, that assume that guardian angels and demons, not to mention Jesus and God, are in fact real, but let’s not go there just now. Such genres have no overlap with the speculative genres of SF, fantasy, and horror.)

Again, not every ‘supernatural’ phenomenon in my list is automatically fantasy. SF has a long history of taking various ‘pseudo-scientific’ phenomena, such as telepathy and telekinesis, more or less seriously. The hardest of hard SF magazines in the 1950s, Astounding (renamed Analog in the 1960s), gained a rather perverse reputation for taking such notions very seriously, both in fiction and in ‘fact articles’. (Dianetics was one such hobbyhorse of editor John W. Campbell for some years, before L. Ron Hubbard re-named it scientology.)

And to this day, a certain strain of SF, especially movie and TV SF, routinely depicts various extrasensory powers, from Spock’s “mind meld” to Star Wars’ “force” [which it must be said is so flagrantly supernatural it qualifies the movies as fantasy], as givens in their futuristic settings.

Whether particular SF stories take such notions seriously might be a marker between ‘hard SF’ and more credulous ‘space opera’ strains (like Star Trek). There are many flavors of space opera, from those that are routine adventures translated into space, from those that are more rigorous yet presume the existence of, say, faster-than-light space travel, despite there currently being no plausible justification given our understanding of physics.

It would be interesting to collect some hard data, e.g. subjects of stories in anthologies explicitly labeled science fiction or fantasy, as evidence about what the community thinks is possible, or not.

Posted in science fiction, Thinking | Comments Off on More about SF/F/H

Musings about Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror

I keep thinking about my Provisional Conclusions, how they might be streamlined or crystallized, and how they relate (as I’ve alluded more than once in this blog) to the insights provided by the fields of fantastic fiction — science fiction, fantasy, and horror. At first glance it might seem a stretch to apply any kind of general worldview onto a set of literary genres. But it’s been an underlying thesis of this blog — and perhaps a central, distinctive, theme of whatever book I might write — that these genres do in fact reflect the range of human reactions to living in a big scary universe that does not necessarily reflect human values.

The two core provisional conclusions are the first two: all supernatural phenomena (gods, ghosts, messiahs, sin, etc etc) are projections of human nature on an indifferent, inanimate universe; and that the *real* universe is vast in ways almost incomprehensible to human beings, for reasons quite understandable given that human beings have emerged via biological natural selection, given to subjective interpretations of reality that are advantageous to survival, and not necessarily for perception of reality.

So: what is science fiction? Science Fiction is about the exploration of reality, of changes in science and technology that affect human existence, of alternatives to reality that challenge humanity’s assumptions of what is real. What is fantasy? Fantasy, in converse to SF, is about imagining worlds in which the priorities of human nature are *magnified*. And horror is a weird hybrid, a sort of flip of SF, in which the perception of the real world in some way threatens human existence, either personally (the serial killer) or existentially (Lovecraftian dread).

These are very first-drafty thoughts. I need to revisit the many definitions and discussion of these genres, in my many resources, and continue to refine.

Posted in science fiction, Thinking | Comments Off on Musings about Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror

Link and Comment: Language Creationists?

Vox is an interesting relatively new site that I discovered a couple months ago; one of the editors/principal writers is Matthew Yglesias, who left Slate to help create this site, with Ezra Klein. One thing I admire about the site is the way it uses the format of the web to create pieces that would be impractical to print — a general principle I kept in mind when I first developed Locus Online, and explained at length in a couple of early blog posts – IIRC I described three principles: immediacy, that you can post things right away, and more frequently than you can do in a print publication, even a daily one; accumulativeness, that compilations of data can be continuously updated, as with indexes and encyclopedia, rendering print editions of those things obsolete (Wikipedia! Sfadb.com!); and something else, which is probably now so obvious to everyone I don’t recall it offhand. I’ll look it up.

So here’s a cool Vox post, a set of maps that describe the history of the English language, how changes in the language spread, where changes happened, and so on.

25 Maps that Explain English

This triggers a thought I’ve had that I don’t think I’ve mentioned here: I wonder if there are language creationists?

Who believe that existing languages were ‘created’ (maybe last Tuesday?) as they exist today, who dismiss evidence of historical relationships (e.g. the many European languages derived from Latin) as atheistic malarkey, and so on? After all, *were you there?* Ken Ham would make his phony distinction between real science and historical science, since conclusions about the historical development of languages would rely on indirect evidence about things that happened when no one living today was alive.

I’m guessing not, because the guttural resistance to the evidence of biological evolution has to do some peoples’ need to feel special, chosen by God, apart from mere animals, despite all the massive evidence otherwise. The same factors don’t come into play with languages.

But I am seriously curious to what extent evolution of languages is analogous to biological natural selection; I haven’t seen this spelled out anywhere, so am speculating here myself. Languages become distinct through geographic isolation; they become distinct [as do species] when they are mutually unintelligible [cannot interbreed]; and so on. And languages keep changing, especially by the creation of new slang by groups precisely in order to demarcate themselves from other groups and from the broader population, with such new words sometimes filtering outward anyway [I saw some article recently on this very subject, that ‘gangs’ and various subcultures invent slang precisely to help distinguish those who are in-group from everyone else… but of course can’t find the article just now.] …. Just as random genetic changes in populations provide the grist for natural selection…

Follow-on: 16mar15: Yes I know about the Biblical parable about the Tower of Babel. But do Biblical literalists therefore think that languages have not changed since then? Surely the Tower of Babel was thousands of years ago…

And another aside I’ll explore sometime: languages change constantly, especially at the in-group level, where gangs or esoteric societies adopt new usages for common words *precisely* because new meanings are needed, or simply to enforce the designation of who is in-group and who is out-group. Some of these changes filter out in common society, some don’t. But no language remains static.

Posted in Culture, Evolution | Comments Off on Link and Comment: Language Creationists?

Link and Comment: the Fed

I read three daily newspapers now — the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, which I have delivered by paper to my home in Oakland — and still the Los Angeles Times, via a web browser subscription that my partner maintains for his family in SoCal. (Coverage of the arts and the movie industry is primary there.)

Obviously, I don’t read every word in every paper. (Does anyone?) I skim. I read the first few words of each article, to get an idea of what’s going on in the world, or scan it to get the idea of the piece and see if it fits into my interests.

Here’s one from Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, on a subject that wasn’t obviously relevant to me, but which was fascinating, and eventually, quite relevant to my current worldview…

Adam Davidson: In Greenbacks We Trust

It’s about the Federal Reserve, what is it, how it came to be (the San Francisco earthquake!), how much influence it has over the world. The writer discusses how the 2008 financial collapse challenged his faith in the bedrock of this system.

For me and many others who watch the markets, the collapse was not just a horrible financial and economic disaster. It was also a psychological and existential blow. It brought on a painful recognition that there is nothing truly solid at the center of our economic lives. There are only the stories we tell one another, the promises we make, the shared views we have about the future. It’s something like the challenge so many writers faced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when they confronted a world without a knowable God providing absolute structure. Or the work by Einstein and Heisenberg that shattered the predictable world of Newton and showed that there will always be uncertainty, that there are fundamental limits to our understanding.

Posted in Economics, Links | Comments Off on Link and Comment: the Fed