Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The real question is, does he follow his ?

Thanks for posting this. My position on the issue is "Physician, heal thyself." I can't say that I am too familiar with Stephenson's oeuvre, but from what I have read and what I do know, I'd say his novels aren't particularly positive about the future or technology. I am taking Snow Crash and Anathem here as my cues. Thus far I can't say that Reamde is fairing much better in the analysis.

If anyone is keeping score, I think I have expressed here on a number of occasions my frustration with dystopian futures and the lack of positive visions of the future that inspire and instruct. Glad to see Stephenson finally caught up with me. :P

While I have not solidified my thoughts on what Stephenson has to say with respect to innovation, I do find his terms and ideas rather conventional and disappointing. The very idea of innovation and its economic trappings seem to miss the mark entirely with respect to what I would say that the future needs.

I also find tones of a particular understanding of evolution that seems to have very little to do with real ecological systems and more to do with the particular realities and social structures of Western Industrial society, i.e. competition instead of cooperation, selection instead of the preservation of genetic and phenotypic diversity.

Finally, aspirations of space travel seem to smack of some very dated notions of what progress is. Getting Big Things Done would seem to assume that big things are what is needed. To my mind, considering the impact of our species and our technological existence of other species and "other" people, I would rather see a diminution in the scale of human endeavors to something a great deal more ecologically appropriate.

Unfortunately Stephenson's rant has some serious issues with reality.

First, the idea that the space program is dying is pure bunk. America's manned space program is in trouble, but there are more countries on Earth than the US -- but he flippantly dismisses them as just doing stuff that the US has already done. But far more importantly, manned missions aren't the be-all-end-all of space exploration -- in point of fact, there's very little a human can do in space more effectively than an unmanned probe, and probes will always be cheaper than a ship large enough to support life. There are in fact more space missions taking place now than at any point in history, but because they don't involve a living person, they don't count for Stephenson.

Then there's his claim about clean fusion power. There's an old joke, "Fusion power is just twenty years away, and it has been for the past fifty years." No amount of spending is going to change that.

At the same time, he claims that, "energy is still all about oil." No. Transportation is all about oil. Non-transportation energy is all about coal, nuclear reactors, and hydro-electric. The US gets more energy from renewable sources, including the wind farms and solar collectors that Stephenson dismisses, than from oil-burning plants.

This article is so inane I'm wondering if Stephenson has come down with early onset Brain Eater.

In the USA, big things happen at the tycoon level from the game of "let's make money." In terms of we the people as a country, big things happen when there is an enemy to deal with. Rocketry and the space program was all about THEM being able to lob missiles and hang a nuke in orbit above our heads. Then when THEY went away, the pressure was on to play "let's make money." Also when THEY go away, US and THEM gets internalized, we flock to our own kind, fight over ideological issues and scraps of money leading to big things being off the table.

From REAMDE: "Just like Republicans or Democrats who spend so much time socializing with others of their kind that they could not believe any normal-seeming, mentally sound person could possibly belong to the other faction."

Eisenhower called out that we need more rocket scientists from from the American education system. Kennedy challenged us to go to the moon. It appealed to us mainly in response to them. Today we watch the future of big things fizzle as the education system stagnates. There's no passionate call for scientists, engineers, doctors, ...) while the Chinese (amongst many others... e.g. THEM) prepare their future generations to lead the world in making big things happen.

At this point, I'd just be happy to pull back some of the billions and billions in foreign aid we dole out if it would simply reinstate school bus service for my 12 year old. But for now, we are the divided house that Lincoln spoke of. Big things won't be happening as long as that continues.

I tend to disagree with his base opinion on what sci-fi should be. I believe that what Stephenson describes is one use of science fiction, but it's more of a tool than a static, concrete genre.

I'm currently reading The Republic by Plato and I found the allegory of the cave to share many science-fictional elements we consider modern, not for it's own sake, but as a metaphor of the intrinsic value of justice. Writers like H.G. Wells take science fiction as a tool a bit farther by using science fiction as social commentary.

The use of science fiction that Stephenson describes is also perfectly valid and useful, but I think science fiction is much broader than he lays out.

I don't even think Stephenson is talking about his own SF:

"The audience ... was more confident than I that science fiction [SF] had relevance—even utility—in addressing the problem."

"...the techno-optimism of the Golden Age of SF has given way to fiction written in a generally darker, more skeptical and ambiguous tone. I myself have tended to write a lot about hackers—trickster archetypes who exploit the arcane capabilities of complex systems devised by faceless others."

It would have taken me by surprise to see Stephenson lining himself up with optimistic SF (and REAMDE isn't even much of SF anyway). The article is IMO more of an observation than advise.

I think David Brin's expresses a similar idea.

For Stephenson to say that there are no "Big Innovations" is flat out wrong and somewhat self serving to his argument. We've mapped the human genome! How can that not be a "Big Innovation". There are several other big things that have happened over the past few decades that are deserving of the "Big Innovation" mantle.

I fear what Stephenson means by "Big Innovations" is innovation that can be a inspirational spectator friendly venture. You could as a non-science type person watch and passively participate in the space program. However watching a machine map the human genome is rather dull. I think he wants more romance in his big innovations. Just my 2 cents.

Anyone have a rocking chair and cane to give Mr. Stephenson so we can sit in front of it and have him tell us about how everything was better when he was growing up?

Nick wrote: "For Stephenson to say that there are no "Big Innovations" is flat out wrong and somewhat self serving to his argument. We've mapped the human genome! How can that not be a "Big Innovation". Ther..."

I'm with Mr Stephenson on this one. The mapping of the human genome is not really an innovation but is a painstaking development of earlier pioneering genetic work. Excellent work, but really an innovation.

Noel wrote: "Nick wrote: "For Stephenson to say that there are no "Big Innovations" is flat out wrong and somewhat self serving to his argument. We've mapped the human genome! How can that not be a "Big Innov..."

Your argument would apply to the space program. No innovations there. They were just building on the pioneering work of the Wright brothers. Maybe he needs a firmer definition of "big innovation" because all technological advancement builds on the work done by the scientists that came before them. His is a very lazy argument with a broad generalization that is built more on opinion than fact.

I think the landing of men on the moon is far enough removed from a short hop off the ground to count as innovative, a real giant leap for mankind as it were. Sometimes it seems to me that the real surge of innovation and inventiveness on the grand scale that we experienced in the twentieth century has been subsumed into afrantic obsession with 'inventing' the latest and greatest smartphone. Look at all the tech podcasts that I listen to, all fixated on smartphones :) Still, at least when the world is strangling itself with over population, we'll all have nice phones!

Noel wrote: "I think the landing of men on the moon is far enough removed from a short hop off the ground to count as innovative"

And mapping the genome is far enough removed from discovering DNA to be an innovation. We can argue this all day. Ultimately we have differing opinions. There are so many new and exciting things being done in science and technology. Lots of really cool things being done with green technology. I find it insulting that Stephenson says there is no innovation. You are telling hundreds of thousands of scientists that are working and doing the best they can that what they do and add to the world doesn't matter.

I respectfully and completely disagree with you.

Nick wrote: "Noel wrote: "I think the landing of men on the moon is far enough removed from a short hop off the ground to count as innovative"

And mapping the genome is far enough removed from discovering DNA ..."

Completely disagree? How dare you?
Hey, I have this innovative idea for a new type of smartphone....interested?

Noel wrote: "
Hey, I have this innovative idea for a new type of smartphone....interested? "

Why are you so hung up on smart phones?

Oh dear, looks like my feeble attempts at humour don't work.

I think that Stephenson is referring to the lack of an overarching big idea. In the 60s, the space program could not be avoided. With only 3 national networks and fewer print outlets (for this discussion, let me classify the Internet as a form of print outlet) Americans (and the world) had the space program thrown in their face for the whole decade, particularly the last 3 years.

People today can choose their news. They can totally avoid disciplines that don't interest them. They can have a news network (news magazine or website) that reinforces their conservative views. They can choose not to be interested in the space program or the human genome or the discovery of the building blocks of the universe via the LHC.

There is no big idea that thrusts its way into the (inter)national consciousness; an idea that no one can ignore, that only can be addressed by science in a way that inspires the general populace.

Yes, I know, late post to this discussion.