Science Fiction Doldrums
trike
"It's that time again. The veins of new SF to read have run out, and
I'm left wondering what's happened to this once-great genre."
Lately SF no longer has the zing caused by that "sensawunder" I used to
feel. I read _Hammered_ by Elizabeth Bear, which was fine for reading
on airplanes but nothing exciting. _Spin State_ by Chris Moriarity is
just limping along for me, and I'm not looking at my to-read pile with
any great anticipation.
But... I'm concurrently reading Thomas Friedman's _The World is Flat: A
Brief History of the 21st Century_, which is the best book I've read
since _Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science_ by
Atul Gawande. (They always have those long titles, those
documentary-type books.) The thing about _The World is Flat_ that
strikes me every time I pick it up is that "the future" is here. Not
all the way and certainly not for everyone, but it's knocking on the
door.
For decades now I've read science fiction, anticipating the incipient
future world. A few years ago my dad mentioned something about
flatscreen TVs he'd seen at the store. I hadn't been paying any
attention to them -- the last time I'd heard anything about flatscreens
was 20 years earlier. Suddenly here they were, available at Sears.
Weird. And let's not forget clones, robots, lasers and bionics. Not
quite the way they were imagined, but we live in the same world they
do, now. (And honestly, did any of us suspect 20 years ago that we
would be able to have our vision corrected in _minutes_ with laser
beams? I sure didn't. I just think about that and say, "Wow, that's
amazing!")
And that's the thing -- science fiction seems to be losing ground to
reality. It's becoming pretty obvious we aren't getting flying cars,
but I'll take the Internet over that every day of the week. For 50
years we've been warned that corporations are going to take over the
world, and here they are, poised to do just that... and yet it turns
out we can actually control them if we so desire. Globalization and
"The New World Order" are causing consternation, but I have to think
that these are good things. The more interconnected we all are, the
less able the Enrons and Nikes will be able to exploit people, because
we'll all become equal. It seems it will also diminish large-scale
group-on-group violence, because war and terror will be
self-destructive. Growing pains, sure, but the outcome seems worth it.
SF took this sort of thing for granted, and it's coming true before our
eyes. Maybe the Singularity happened already and we're on the other
side now. It's just less transcendental than predicted for
individuals, but it may be exactly that transcendental for the human
race as a whole. Problem is, how does a genre like science fiction
stay relevant? Some of SF's big themes aren't likely to happen any
time soon; I doubt we'll meet space aliens, but even if we do, there
have been so many permutations on the "first contact" story that one of
them is bound to be fairly accurate.
So I'm reading books like Friedman's, and history looked at with fresh
eyes (_Salt: A World History_ by Mark Kurlansky), and finding them far
more interesting than what's currently available in science fiction.
So, what am I missing? Who has my sensawunder? Anyone else feeling
this?
Doug
Jeff & Ann Smith
> So, what am I missing? Who has my sensawunder? Anyone else feeling
> this?
I think it's just a phase. I've gone through it several times over the
years, but I always come back. (I had one writer once implore: "Please
don't read my stuff when you feel like this. Save it for later, when you
can enjoy it.")
Jeff S
trike
>years, but I always come back. (I had one writer once implore: "Please
>don't read my stuff when you feel like this. Save it for later, when you
>can enjoy it.")
>
>Jeff S
I dunno -- I've been kind of feeling this way since about 2001, really.
It's kind of the definitive "future date" and it's come and gone.
It's not dissatisfaction with the writing, either -- I've been through
phases like that, too.
Maybe it's because a whole lot of the stuff being predicted by SF
authors over the years is actually coming true... I just need a new
paradigm to frame my science fictional expectations around.
Doug
William December Starr
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> said:
> Globalization and "The New World Order" are causing consternation,
> but I have to think that these are good things. The more
> interconnected we all are, the less able the Enrons and Nikes will
> be able to exploit people, because we'll all become equal. It
> seems it will also diminish large-scale group-on-group violence,
> because war and terror will be self-destructive. Growing pains,
> sure, but the outcome seems worth it.
And lord know, humans will never indulge in self-destructive behavior.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
David Bilek
>In another thread, JavaJosh said:
>
>"It's that time again. The veins of new SF to read have run out, and
>I'm left wondering what's happened to this once-great genre."
>
>Lately SF no longer has the zing caused by that "sensawunder" I used to
>feel. I read _Hammered_ by Elizabeth Bear, which was fine for reading
>on airplanes but nothing exciting. _Spin State_ by Chris Moriarity is
>just limping along for me, and I'm not looking at my to-read pile with
>any great anticipation.
>
...
>So I'm reading books like Friedman's, and history looked at with fresh
>eyes (_Salt: A World History_ by Mark Kurlansky), and finding them far
>more interesting than what's currently available in science fiction.
>
>So, what am I missing? Who has my sensawunder? Anyone else feeling
>this?
>
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which
is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under
the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it
hath been already of old time, which was before us."
Ecclesiasteses 1:10-11
The sensawunder hasn't changed, you have.. I think you are just
getting older, as are we all. Sensawunder is mostly a young man's
game. A lot of people become jaded and have a harder and harder time
getting that old feeling back; A few people don't. You're likely in
the former category.
Anyway, the best SF has never been about the future. It's about the
present, with the present being defined as whenever the author wrote
the book. I never read SF to learn about the future. I just look
outside for that.
-David
Denni
> And that's the thing -- science fiction seems to be losing ground to
> reality. It's becoming pretty obvious we aren't getting flying cars,
> but I'll take the Internet over that every day of the week.
Actually, flying cars may come our way very soon, but ironically we
will have to drastically curb use of fossil fuels so when the
technology is ready, most of us won't get to enjoy it :(
I've noticed that, if anything, technology lags behind my expectations
from early SF reading. Apart from space exploration being an obvious
let-down (no little green men on Mars, no hotels on the moon), mobile
phone technology has come about two decades later than I expected (and
we still don't have a free, world-wide communications network, although
it won't be long now) and recordable DVDs are even further behind. They
were talked about when the first video tapes appeared.
The Internet has been around for a long time (I certainly remember it
from the late-ish eighties) but it took many years for society to catch
on.
As for the sense of living in the future, I had that for ages but at
present it fills me with a sense of keen anticipation.I enjoy reading
near-future SF (as well as space opera).Ian MacDonald's 'River of Gods'
is a cracking read -- set in India in 2047.
James Nicoll
Denni <denni_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> And that's the thing -- science fiction seems to be losing ground to
>> reality. It's becoming pretty obvious we aren't getting flying cars,
>> but I'll take the Internet over that every day of the week.
>
>Actually, flying cars may come our way very soon, but ironically we
>will have to drastically curb use of fossil fuels so when the
>technology is ready, most of us won't get to enjoy it :(
Nah, even as we speak the fossil fuel companies are funding
research into commercial exploitation of clathrates. Aside from the
minor issue of methane being a gr**nh**se* g*s [1], we shouldn't have
to curtail consumption at all. Which is good, because we won't.
James Nicoll
1: The scare tactics of people who point out that one of the explanations
of the Permian/Triassic extinction involves methane can be easily countered
by pointing that although 70% of land animals [2] went extinct and 90% of
marine animals as well, not one human lost their life as a result.
2: There's an amusing quotation: "For some time after the event, fungal
species were the dominant form of terrestrial life."
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
David Cowie
>
> But... I'm concurrently reading Thomas Friedman's _The World is Flat: A
> Brief History of the 21st Century_, which is the best book I've read
> since _Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science_ by
> Atul Gawande. (They always have those long titles, those
> documentary-type books.)
And speaking of long subtitles, I've recently read these works of military
history:
_1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow_ by Adam Zamoyski
_Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944 - 45_ by Max Hastings and
_Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front 1914 - 1918_ by Richard
Holmes,
> And that's the thing -- science fiction seems to be losing ground to
> reality. It's becoming pretty obvious we aren't getting flying cars,
Are airliners flying busses or flying trains? We've had those for decades.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 14206:42
James Nicoll
David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>Are airliners flying busses or flying trains? We've had those for decades.
They're moving from trains to buses as we speak: the benefit is
that fares go down but the cost is so do amenities.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <1119965606....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> 1: The scare tactics of people who point out that one of the explanations
> of the Permian/Triassic extinction involves methane can be easily countered
> by pointing that although 70% of land animals [2] went extinct and 90% of
> marine animals as well, not one human lost their life as a result.
So few? I thought it was over 90% of genera, implying well
over 90% of species. But that's from a Gould essay I read,
so the information must be ten to twenty years old.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
James Nicoll
Having done a little online research, I am now less illuminated
than I was, since the pages I am finding are annoying non-specific. I
wish I had not loaned out THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE.
The fastest way to find the truth is to state a falsehood firmly,
thus: I am sure it's species.
[For the record, I look at the Siberian Traps with deep suspicion.
It's striking how many of the mass extinctions have flood basalts associated
with them]
Peter Meilinger
>In article <pan.2005.06.28....@privacy.net>,
>David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>Are airliners flying busses or flying trains? We've had those for decades.
> They're moving from trains to buses as we speak: the benefit is
>that fares go down but the cost is so do amenities.
I'd say they've been buses for years. Getting free snacks and
drinks was fine and dandy, but I've never been on a plane that
was as comfortable as a train, and that's more important to
me. Not as important as price and speed, mind you. Of the three,
comfort is the only advantage I've ever seen in trains, though
I would hope they're quicker than buses over distances longer
than Boston to Albany.
Pete
Thomas Womack
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> [For the record, I look at the Siberian Traps with deep suspicion.
> It's striking how many of the mass extinctions have flood basalts
> associated with them]
Is it known what causes flood basalts?
[ this is what a rift valley without a convenient sea to flood into it
looks like? this is the side-effect of a 10km impact antipodal to
thin continental crust? this is what happens if a hot-spot comes up
under continental crust? ]
Is it known that a given source would only fire once?
Is it known what the progenitors look like on a seismogram?
Is it likely that there's a progenitor in the Kitchener-Waterloo area?
Tom
James Nicoll
Thomas Womack <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <d9s0b4$lpl$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> [For the record, I look at the Siberian Traps with deep suspicion.
>> It's striking how many of the mass extinctions have flood basalts
>> associated with them]
>
>Is it known what causes flood basalts?
Plumes originating in the mantle of Earth, I believe.
>[ this is what a rift valley without a convenient sea to flood into it
>looks like?
I don't think so.
> this is the side-effect of a 10km impact antipodal to
>thin continental crust?
No. Absolutely not.
> this is what happens if a hot-spot comes up
>under continental crust? ]
No, you can get flood basalts at sea as well: the Ontong Java
Plateau (two million km^2, and as thick as 30 km) may be one.
Hot spots are bad news but flood basalts are much worse.
Mind you, Ontong Java seems to have been a bit of a dud, mass
extinctionwise. There is a small mass extinction about 120 million
million years ago, which is about when it formed, but we're not
talking Permian or K/T hijinks.
>Is it known that a given source would only fire once?
They run for about a million years (or can, anyway) but I think
not continously.
>Is it known what the progenitors look like on a seismogram?
Don't know.
>Is it likely that there's a progenitor in the Kitchener-Waterloo area?
The time scale for the plume to work its way up to the surface
is millions of years, so I think I'd get some warning. Ontario really
is not known for its volcanos.
>Tom
JavaJosh
> Lately SF no longer has the zing caused by that "sensawunder" I used to
> feel.
> And that's the thing -- science fiction seems to be losing ground to
> reality.
> It's becoming pretty obvious we aren't getting flying cars,
> but I'll take the Internet over that every day of the week. For 50
Actually, I feel like I still have it. I try to live the dream rather
than read about it - that's why I have a car with a built in talking
navigation system and an amazing digital camera with gyroscopically
stabalized lenses, and a cell phone that can execute Java programs that
I write.
We live in the opening moments of the Information Age. It is a
wonderful time to be here, but there are a few things missing. The big
one for me is anti-gravity and/or cheap space flight. Just about the
best we can hope for in terms of basic physical progress (and
admittedly, it's pretty good) are the fruits of Drexler style
nanotechnology. In particular, high-density batteries which could
really change our way of life.
But that's *boring* in some indefinable way. I want FTL travel and
space colonization. Maybe even cold fusion or the ability to tunnel
into the center of the earth. Floating cities. Cities underwater. I
guess the theme is "complete f'ing mastery over the environment", a
boundless humanity. Not "economical" to colonize the sea floor? I want
to live in a time when such a notion is laughable - we'll do it because
we can and for the love of it.
What prevents this sort of fare from entering the bookstores? Authors
(and readers) of SF have gotten incredibly sophisticated about
analyzing the self-consistency of worlds. A recent thread criticizes
Herbert's Fremen's still suites for being a)unthermodynamic and
b)lacking the industrial support for their manufacture. And dammit
they're right!
To battle this increasing sophistication writers had to whip out the
two Big Guns of Modern Science Fiction: virtual reality and
nanotechnology. Both developments grant the fun of making big things
happen in a consistent way. The former essentially an explicit, in
story deus ex machina (Hoffstadter wrap your brain around that!) and
the latter is a shortcut to "post singularity economics" which enable
crazy situations as I've mentioned.
Ian Banks deserves special mention at this point. I think he *gets* the
point of SF more than any modern writer, but I think its somewhat
unfortunate that he had to whip out one of the biggest guns I've ever
seen: the Minds. These are essentially minor dieties in spaceship form,
and benign toward "humanity". This trope has its problems (what keeps
the Minds from wiping out humanity) but its a big gesture and he uses
it well to create memorable situations.
What is the purpose of SF? What is this thing the great masters seemed
to capture with such effortlessness, but which a modern writer cannot
evoke without introducing a Big Gun? I saw Blade Runner the other day,
and Roy's final scene captures the emotion, the point, of SF perfectly.
I'm sure you've seen it: an android, sitting in the rain on a dark
roof, about to die and speaking to the man who just tried to kill him.
The android says, "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in
time, like tears in rain."
Nancy Lebovitz
JavaJosh <java...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>We live in the opening moments of the Information Age. It is a
>wonderful time to be here, but there are a few things missing. The big
>one for me is anti-gravity and/or cheap space flight. Just about the
>best we can hope for in terms of basic physical progress (and
>admittedly, it's pretty good) are the fruits of Drexler style
>nanotechnology. In particular, high-density batteries which could
>really change our way of life.
>
>But that's *boring* in some indefinable way. I want FTL travel and
>space colonization. Maybe even cold fusion or the ability to tunnel
>into the center of the earth. Floating cities. Cities underwater. I
>guess the theme is "complete f'ing mastery over the environment", a
>boundless humanity. Not "economical" to colonize the sea floor? I want
>to live in a time when such a notion is laughable - we'll do it because
>we can and for the love of it.
That's a fine rant.
I don't remember the source, but someone said that the purpose of
sf is "to bring in fine things".
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
James Nicoll
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>On 29 Jun 2005 01:42:43 -0700, "JavaJosh" <java...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What prevents this sort of fare from entering the bookstores? Authors
>>(and readers) of SF have gotten incredibly sophisticated about
>>analyzing the self-consistency of worlds. A recent thread criticizes
>>Herbert's Fremen's still suites for being a)unthermodynamic and
>>b)lacking the industrial support for their manufacture. And dammit
>>they're right!
>>
>>To battle this increasing sophistication writers had to whip out the
>>two Big Guns of Modern Science Fiction: virtual reality and
>>nanotechnology. Both developments grant the fun of making big things
>>happen in a consistent way. The former essentially an explicit, in
>>story deus ex machina (Hoffstadter wrap your brain around that!) and
>>the latter is a shortcut to "post singularity economics" which enable
>>crazy situations as I've mentioned.
>
>wand. The problem with the bloated claims made for it and the
>inherent limitations in the technology seem so obvious to me that when
>a science fiction writer uses it as a "big gun" I'm instantly turned
>off.
I prefer the way Hal Clement used it. He called it psuedolife
and it had actual limitations, some deliberate and some inherent because
of chemistry.
Mike Schilling
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42c29a47...@news.telusplanet.net...
enable
>
> Ehg. Few science fiction premises annoy me as much as the nanomagic
> wand. The problem with the bloated claims made for it and the
> inherent limitations in the technology seem so obvious to me that when
> a science fiction writer uses it as a "big gun" I'm instantly turned
> off.
>
Of course; it should be a collection of microscopic guns.
JavaJosh
> news:42c29a47...@news.telusplanet.net...
> enable
>
> >
> > Ehg. Few science fiction premises annoy me as much as the nanomagic
> > wand. The problem with the bloated claims made for it and the
> > inherent limitations in the technology seem so obvious to me that when
> > a science fiction writer uses it as a "big gun" I'm instantly turned
> > off.
I agree: the use of nanotech is annoying, but when it's misused and
misunderstood it's even worse. My own personal peeve is with VR,
although that has seemingly fallen out of favor of late. VR is more
powerful as a plot tool than nano (actually VR is the most powerful
possible plot tool), easier to invoke on readers of the information
age, and generally has an even more powerful deleterious effect on
story. I think there are ways to use VR effectively for good SF, but I
haven't read anything yet that does so. As the most powerful possible
tool in the SF writers box, I think it should only be wielded by the
best authors.
When everything is possible, nothing is interesting.
David Johnston
>What prevents this sort of fare from entering the bookstores? Authors
>(and readers) of SF have gotten incredibly sophisticated about
>analyzing the self-consistency of worlds. A recent thread criticizes
>Herbert's Fremen's still suites for being a)unthermodynamic and
>b)lacking the industrial support for their manufacture. And dammit
>they're right!
>
>To battle this increasing sophistication writers had to whip out the
>two Big Guns of Modern Science Fiction: virtual reality and
>nanotechnology. Both developments grant the fun of making big things
>happen in a consistent way. The former essentially an explicit, in
>story deus ex machina (Hoffstadter wrap your brain around that!) and
>the latter is a shortcut to "post singularity economics" which enable
>crazy situations as I've mentioned.
Ehg. Few science fiction premises annoy me as much as the nanomagic
JavaJosh
news:42c29a47...@news.telusplanet.net:
> Ehg. Few science fiction premises annoy me as much as the nanomagic
> wand.
I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in this.
JavaJosh
news:d9utf0$86u$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> I prefer the way Hal Clement used it. He called it psuedolife
> and it had actual limitations, some deliberate and some inherent because
> of chemistry.
Wow, he's really prolific (http://www.sff.net/people/hal-
clement/hcpubs.html). Can you narrow it down to a recommendation or two?
Thanks!
JavaJosh
news:d9u518$n23$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> That's a fine rant.
Thanks. Writing that post was one of those rare examples of catharsis - I
hadn't realized how much the Big Guns and their genesis really bothered me.
Steve Simmons
> In another thread, JavaJosh said:
> "It's that time again. The veins of new SF to read have run out, and
> I'm left wondering what's happened to this once-great genre."
> Lately SF no longer has the zing caused by that "sensawunder" I used to
> feel. I read _Hammered_ by Elizabeth Bear, which was fine for reading
> on airplanes but nothing exciting. _Spin State_ by Chris Moriarity is
> just limping along for me, and I'm not looking at my to-read pile with
> any great anticipation.
> But... . . .
> For decades now I've read science fiction, anticipating the incipient
> future world . . .
> And that's the thing -- science fiction seems to be losing ground to
> reality . . .
> So I'm reading books like Friedman's, and history looked at with fresh
> eyes (_Salt: A World History_ by Mark Kurlansky), and finding them far
> more interesting than what's currently available in science fiction.
> So, what am I missing? Who has my sensawunder? Anyone else feeling
> this?
Sensawunder passes with age and exposure. When you're starting out as
a reader, everything is new. If (like me) you're now around 50, you've
pretty much consumed most of the main tropes of SF; the only thing
that's going to twig your sense of wonder is something genuinely new
(or at least old stuff dressed up in genuinely new ways). Think of
it as reading a series. For the first 20-odd years, you were able to
read one, finish it, then go right back to the bookstore or library
and get the next one. Now you're all caught up, and you have to
wait a year for each new one. Frustrating as all hell, ain't it? :-)
And for some of us, tastes change. I devoured E. E. Smith and a few
others at fourteen. A few years ago I re-read them with affection,
but with the thought that if they were published as new today I'd
throw them against the wall. Conversely, Jack Vances 'Dying Earth'
stories left me dead cold in my teens. When Orb published the recent
omnibus edition (thank you, Orb!) I picked it up only because I knew
Wolfes 'New Sun' was a bit of an homage to it. What a joy to find that
what I once thought boring had simply been over my head.
So - yes, there's good SF out there, but brand new novels with sense
of wonder that will engage a brain of 50 are rare things. On the other
hand, there are still probably lots of books out there that you could
revisit with new eyes. I'm looking for a reasonably-priced set of
the Storisende edition (Cabell) myself.
--
If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.
-- Alan Greenspan
Moriarty
Having just read a book on the subject: Michael J Benton's "When Life
Nearly Died", I can say that at the time of publication estimates were
60-65% of families, translating to 90-95% of species.
-Moriarty
James Nicoll
NOISE, in which a lifeless water world is colonized using pseudo-
life. It's a harsh world but the people settling it wanted somewhere that
other people would be unlikely to covet.
THE NITROGEN FIX, in which a poorly thought out fertilizer (?)
program results in the runaway conversion of the atmosphere to oxides
of nitrogen (plus N2, since I don't think there's enough O2 to handle
all the N2). Set amongst the survivors many years later.
There's a short story as well, in the second Hal Clement collection
from NESFA.
Christopher P. Winter
part):
>In another thread, JavaJosh said:
>
>"It's that time again. The veins of new SF to read have run out, and
>I'm left wondering what's happened to this once-great genre."
>
>Lately SF no longer has the zing caused by that "sensawunder" I used to
>feel. I read _Hammered_ by Elizabeth Bear, which was fine for reading
>on airplanes but nothing exciting. _Spin State_ by Chris Moriarity is
>just limping along for me, and I'm not looking at my to-read pile with
>any great anticipation.
>
>But... I'm concurrently reading Thomas Friedman's _The World is Flat: A
>Brief History of the 21st Century_, which is the best book I've read
>since _Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science_ by
>Atul Gawande. (They always have those long titles, those
>documentary-type books.) The thing about _The World is Flat_ that
>strikes me every time I pick it up is that "the future" is here. Not
>all the way and certainly not for everyone, but it's knocking on the
>door.
Indeed it is. You should look up this non-fiction book:
Joel Garreau
Radical Evolution
Doubleday, 2004
0-385-50965-0
It's in the same vein as Great Mambo Chicken: A report on what
cutting-edge outfits like DARPA are working on. Lays out three possible
futures for humanity -- Heaven, Hell, and Prevail. The last looks like the
one to root for.
ObSF quote (possibly garbled):
Spock: "How often you humans have wished for an Earthly paradise like this."
Kirk: "And we never made it... Just lucky, I guess."
>
>
>
>So, what am I missing? Who has my sensawunder? Anyone else feeling
>this?
>
>Doug
trike
>> seems it will also diminish large-scale group-on-group violence,
>> because war and terror will be self-destructive. Growing pains,
>> sure, but the outcome seems worth it.
>
>And lord know, humans will never indulge in self-destructive behavior.
I did say "diminish." People being people, we are prone to doing
stupid things.
However, a couple years ago NPR ran a story about riots in Indian
cities, clashes between Muslims and Hindus. They were trying to figure
out why some cities were prone to these altercations while others were
unscathed, despite the fact that they had similar populations. Turns
out the key was interaction between the two groups. In the cities
where they had few clashes, the middle-class versions of each group
worked together.
The lawyers, teachers, doctors, construction workers, etc., worked
side-by-side with people from the other persuasion. Even though they
went to separate neighborhoods at night and did different things on
weekends, that daily interaction almost completely alleviated fighting
between the two groups. Cities where this interaction didn't happen
had numerous violent clashes.
Hence "diminish." As Twain once said, "Travel is fatal to prejudice."
It's kinda like that.
Doug
trike
>>strikes me every time I pick it up is that "the future" is here. Not
>>all the way and certainly not for everyone, but it's knocking on the
>>door.
>
> Indeed it is. You should look up this non-fiction book:
>
> Joel Garreau
> Radical Evolution
That sounds interesting, thanks for the recommendation.
Doug
Richard D. Latham
I'm not sure the trains are faster than busses, anymore.
Fort Worth to LA by Amtrak is showing 46 hours
Fort Worth to LA by Greyhound is showing 30 to 31 hours.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
James Nicoll
Richard D. Latham <lat...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> writes:
>
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <pan.2005.06.28....@privacy.net>,
>>>David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Are airliners flying busses or flying trains? We've had those for decades.
>>
>>> They're moving from trains to buses as we speak: the benefit is
>>>that fares go down but the cost is so do amenities.
>>
>> I'd say they've been buses for years. Getting free snacks and
>> drinks was fine and dandy, but I've never been on a plane that
>> was as comfortable as a train, and that's more important to
>> me. Not as important as price and speed, mind you. Of the three,
>> comfort is the only advantage I've ever seen in trains, though
>> I would hope they're quicker than buses over distances longer
>> than Boston to Albany.
>>
>
>I'm not sure the trains are faster than busses, anymore.
>
>Fort Worth to LA by Amtrak is showing 46 hours
>
>Fort Worth to LA by Greyhound is showing 30 to 31 hours.
>
Huh. Funny, both the stories I have involving trains not
working correctly due to external invention are from the same
German family [1].
1: The father was supposed to go to Dresen midway through February 1945 but
the tracks were out and he never made it.
After they moved to Brazil, his son discovered that the local
train was not really up to the job that it was supposed to do and by
putting soap on the upgrade tracks, he could bring it to a complete
halt. This was very funny until his parents were told. The son later
grew up to be an engineer.