Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 22:07 -0400, Bruce A. Metcalf wrote: This is obvious, yet many will continue to insist that history can offer relevant answers. I do not believe that it can. ... I am looking for ostensibly neutral and academic and broad-based studies. But they aren't available because we don't have any other example of a culture enduring such a high rate of technological change for such an extended period. Academia, by its nature, cannot address novel phenomenon. OK let me re-post something that I posted a few days ago in response to Chew Lin Kay's thread about whether SciFi can change the world At the bottom are links to two videos - one from the 1920s and the other from the 1960s predicting the future. Please watch them and judge for yourself, but I will post my own reactions first. The first thing that strikes me about the two videos is not what they got wrong, but how much they got right. To me the question is Were these simply accurate predictions or road maps that inspired people of that age to make those predictions come true. Someone did say in this discussion that SciFi would serve as a beacon to inspire - so were these predictions simply made to come true? That would be SciFi guiding and moulding society, not necessarily (but possibly) in the right way. The second thing that strikes me is the fact that both these videos had the stereotype heterosexual core family - faithful husband, earning and paying the bills, expressing anxiety about wife's bills; devoted wife and mother, playing the female role, cooking, looking after the house; an adolescent girl child whose dress and behaviour appears totally out of place today - as she allows he mother to come her long straight hair. So what did the videos get right and what did they get wrong? The videos got much of the technological aspects right. The videos got the social and psychological aspects wrong.. So how good would Sci Fi be in guiding future societies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czr-98yo6RU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RRxqg4G-G4 shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, SS cybers...@gmail.com wrote: Ignoring pace of change and its effect on humanity as a subject of study would be a mistake On this topic: History is the trade secret of science fiction - Isaac Asimov. History is the trade secret of science fiction, and theories of history are its invisible engine. Ken Macleod, whose books I also recommend if you're trying to unravel this particular relationship. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On 09/10/2014 01:15 AM, SS wrote: On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 10:14 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Again, not really. It turns out that the pace of change is such that such studies are not the most useful way to deal with the future. Udhay the pace of change is exactly what I am talking about. Who does the studies that tell us how humans adapt and use game-changing technology when the pace of change is slow (many generations), or medium fast (one generation) or super-fast (every few years). Usefulness or lack thereof of data cannot be pre-determined in the absence of that data. I think that history can be a very useful guide to slow change, and perhaps helpful with moderate change. I also think it will fail utterly to provide examples of super-fast change, as mankind hasn't had to deal with that before in the manner we do today. Without such historical precedent, science -- especially social science -- well, it doesn't so much fail as it completely misses the point. Hence the resort to thoughtful authors writing fiction as our best alternative. Note please the plural authors in the above. None of us will guess right, but with enough of us writing, presumably different scenarios, there may be meta data worth gathering, and some may come sufficiently close to offer some guidance. Ignoring pace of change and its effect on humanity as a subject of study would be a mistake. This is obvious, yet many will continue to insist that history can offer relevant answers. I do not believe that it can. ... I am looking for ostensibly neutral and academic and broad-based studies. But they aren't available because we don't have any other example of a culture enduring such a high rate of technological change for such an extended period. Academia, by its nature, cannot address novel phenomenon. If you want broad-based, read *lots* of science fiction. Regards, Bruce
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Bruce A. Metcalf bruce.metc...@figzu.com wrote: ... I am looking for ostensibly neutral and academic and broad-based studies. But they aren't available because we don't have any other example of a culture enduring such a high rate of technological change for such an extended period. Academia, by its nature, cannot address novel phenomenon. If you want broad-based, read *lots* of science fiction Right on cue, here's Nancy Kress on a related topic: http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2014/09/guest-post-nancy-kress-on-why-she-writes-so-much-about-genetic-engineering/ Nancy Kress on Why She Writes So Much About Genetic Engineering By Nancy Kress | Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 12:30 am “DNA Yet Again, Kress?” or, Why I Write So Much About Genetic Engineering by Nancy Kress Every once in a while some critic says, “Science fiction is over. The future is here now. Science has caught up with science fiction and there is nothing left to write about.” To these people I say, “Huh? What are you talking about?” Science is advancing at a dizzying rate, but that produces more to write about, not less. Bi-weekly, Science News dazzles me with fresh discoveries in all fields. So why do I mostly (not exclusively, but very definitely mostly) choose to write about genetic engineering in my fiction? Three reasons. First, genetic engineering is immediate, affecting everyone’s daily life right now. This is not true of, say, the discovery that a new species of microscopic creature has been found living in Antarctica, or that there may be double black holes at the hearts of many galaxies. If you ate a Danish for breakfast, you partook of a genetically modified crop: the canola oil widely used to make pastries. If you have Type 1 diabetes, your insulin was manufactured by genetically altered bacteria. If you have a genetic disorder that requires ATryn to prevent blood clots, you were given a compound harvested from the milk of genetically modified goats. If you take pretty much any drug for any medical condition, it may have been developed and tested on lab mice genemod for that condition. In one sense, the critics are right: the genetic future has arrived. And it will keep on arriving, which is what makes genetic engineering such a rich lode to mine for fiction. Science fiction-especially hard SF-is a thought experiment, a kind of mental rehearsal for the future: If humans can do this, what might happen? Would we do it? Should we do it? With what consequences, and to whom? Genetics brings in questions of not only science but of ethics, power, money, and love. Nowhere is this more evident than when the engineering concerns not bacteria, crops, or animals, but human beings. And yet this, too, is sneaking up on us. I remember the furor when Louise Brown, the first child conceived in a petri dish through in vitro fertilization, was born in 1978. The press exploded into accusations of “playing God” and “creating monsters.” Today there are over 200,000 people in the United States alone conceived by in vitro fertilization, and nobody can tell who they are (you may be one of them-are you positive you are not?) That was the first, very modest step toward manipulating our genome. The second is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. In vitro embryos are screened for inherited genetic diseases and chromosomal abnormalities, and those “of best quality” are chosen for implant in the womb. Practically nobody has issues with this bit of manipulation because it is done for health reasons. But the same time, if there are enough quality embryos, the parents can also choose the baby’s gender. And as we know more about the human genome, and screening becomes more detailed and cheaper, will we allow parents with enough disease-free embryos to choose among them for, say, height? Extroversion (an allele of gene DRD2 on chromosome 11 seems to contribute to this)? Musical ability? The step beyond that is actually replacing genes in the embryo, via gene therapy, to change its DNA. We do this with mice all the time (“knocking out,” for instance, the genes that create an immune system). I’m told that the technique would not be that different for human blastocysts. This has been declared illegal in most of the world-but consider this: The UK has already approved the knocking out of defective mitochondrial DNA from a human egg and its replacement with healthy DNA from a donor, effectively giving the infant three parents. Do I believe that eventually we will tinker with human DNA? Yes, if the demand is strong enough and the profits high enough. If the work isn’t done in the United States, it will be done elsewhere (right now, Brazil is bullish on genetic experimentation). To explore these kinds of scenarios, I wrote Beggars in Spain, in which DNA is modified to create humans who never need to sleep, as well as a host of shorter works about different genemods. They are all rehearsals for possible futures.
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 10:22 +0530, Mahesh Murthy wrote: I would imagine you can covet whatever you like. Its your right to have any desire. Freedom of thought. Acting on that covetousness is a compact between you and the coveted person, at the very least. But freedom of thought doesn't naturally turn into freedom of deed. Sometimes, with consenting adults, it can. Sometimes, based on non-moral reasons, it doesn't. The point is, if there is an action that one can take that is not forbidden by law, is it your right to take that action. You may or may not choose to exercise your right, but it is a right nevertheless. If it is not your right, why not? Assuming it is a right, and excluding the choice of not exercising one's right what non-moral reasons could might be there for not exercising one's right? If it is the threat of being punished under some pretext or other - that threat then becomes a restriction of your right. Morality is one type of restriction of rights. Laws are another type of restriction of rights. Morality is a pre-emptive restriction. Morality tells you that something should not be done before you do it. Laws are post facto restrictions. They tell you, If you do something that should not be done, you will be punished Morality acts as a first layer of protection against undesirable actions. Laws are a second layer. You can remove morality and say that morality is redundant as long as good laws are implemented. But here's the rub. I think you and Udhay both pointed out that there is no universal morality. That is because different societies have differing ideas of morality. If one has to do away with morality and replace it with laws, it means that given two societies with two differing ideas of morality, the laws that replace morality in each society have to be different, to reflect the different moral requirements of two different societies. That also means that there cannot be universal laws. shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On 09/08/2014 10:32 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: On 08-Sep-14 10:27 PM, SS wrote: But surely it would have to be sociologists, more than any other people who would be able to comment with authority and knowledge on all societies and express some opinion on features of societies that may be negative or positive. If they don't know who would? I'm not really sure what you're saying here - but one comment is that that being a sociologist doesn't really bar you from being a SF writer, for one thing. I rather think it helps. Indeed, much good science fiction is just that; sociological treatises on the human condition, viewed through a literary if filter. These traditional if filters for SF being, What if, If Only, and If this goes on. The latter in particular is an effective tool for extrapolating present trends to see if they're leading in a direction the reader wants to go. Cheers, Bruce
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 20:56 -0400, Bruce A. Metcalf wrote: Indeed, much good science fiction is just that; sociological treatises on the human condition, viewed through a literary if filter. These traditional if filters for SF being, What if, If Only, and If this goes on. The latter in particular is an effective tool for extrapolating present trends to see if they're leading in a direction the reader wants to go. This is fascinating, but the problem is that history serves the same purpose for societies. If you compare what is known of AD 1000 with AD 1500, and then what is known of AD 1500 with what we know of AD 1800 we have an idea of the direction in which societies moved in 800 years - which is a reasonable number for human history. Sci Fi on the other hand is exploring the future - it is not examining the records of the past. There is another important difference. From the beginning of human history till about 1700, human history was predominantly about humans. From 1700 onwards human history has been about humans+technology. Sci Fi deals only with humans+technology. It is easy to anticipate or create technological change, but humans are not evolving physically or mentally to keep up with that rate of change. History should be a good pointer to what humans do with technology. If we ignore the industrial revolution and look at individual game changing technological advances that have occurred in the past - say from 10,000 BC to 1700 (The wheel, domestication of animals, agriculture, bows and arrows, writing, bronze, iron, steel making) we can make a rough comparison of how changes in technology were applied and used by human societies back when as compared to what has happened after the industrial revolution. I would have thought that such studies are more in the field of expertise of historians, sociologists and perhaps anthropologists, rather than Sci Fi writers? shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 10:27 +0530, Ingrid wrote: Do also see the reading list for this Political Science course: http://jakebowers.org/PS300S14/ps300s14syl.pdf Thanks. That reading list is interesting - it includes among other things a book by Cory (Doctorow) and Jared Diamond (Collapse) shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:59 AM, SS cybers...@gmail.com wrote: History should be a good pointer to what humans do with technology. Not really. To quote one example, there were no examples of broadcast technology at scale before the printing press. The radio increased scale further added another dimension of time. No amount of reading history would have prepared one for that. (the phrase phase transition comes to mind) All of this is without even succumbing to the temptation to talk about the internet. If we ignore the industrial revolution and look at individual game changing technological advances that have occurred in the past - say from 10,000 BC to 1700 (The wheel, domestication of animals, agriculture, bows and arrows, writing, bronze, iron, steel making) we can make a rough comparison of how changes in technology were applied and used by human societies back when as compared to what has happened after the industrial revolution. I would have thought that such studies are more in the field of expertise of historians, sociologists and perhaps anthropologists, rather than Sci Fi writers? Again, not really. It turns out that the pace of change is such that such studies are not the most useful way to deal with the future. Again, phase transitions. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 10:14 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Again, not really. It turns out that the pace of change is such that such studies are not the most useful way to deal with the future. Udhay the pace of change is exactly what I am talking about. Who does the studies that tell us how humans adapt and use game-changing technology when the pace of change is slow (many generations), or medium fast (one generation) or super-fast (every few years). Usefulness or lack thereof of data cannot be pre-determined in the absence of that data. Human psychology does not change rapidly - but the environment (as in way of life, not as in ecology) changes with technological change. The rate at which the environment (way of life) changes has had a bearing on human history and how societies across the globe have absorbed and adopted technology or have rejected it. Ignoring pace of change and its effect on humanity as a subject of study would be a mistake. I can quote a few examples but the ones I quote would definitely be biased to suit my own views and my narrow concerns - so I am looking for ostensibly neutral and academic and broad-based studies. shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/08/2014 12:57 PM, SS wrote: On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 11:37 +0200, Dave Long wrote: (to what degree do the philosophers and the priests differ from the fiction writers?) Please correct me if you think I am wrong, but Sci Fi writers ( to the extent that I have read scifi in recent decades) generally do not deal in questions of morality except in terms of some power or entity who is a threat to humanity or something that restricts rights. I would certainly agree that not all science fiction deals with morality, unlike philosophy/religious (although I'm tempted to point out the bits about things like origin stories, or a chunk of Greek mythology, where there's just random stories about the Gods that don't have much moral focus) assuming we use principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. as the definition of morality, I think amongst other examples Ray Bradbury's work certainly deals with issues of morality. Admittedly, sci fi doesn't always explicitly spell out the reasons why some action that is considered moral/immoral is actually the opposite, so they tend to attack more obvious topics, but they still focus on morality. Specific examples would be censorship from `Fahrenheit 451' and multiple issues in `The Martian Chronicles'. The television show Babylong 5 definitely deals with morality as well. Other obvious general definitions are: what an ideal society looks like, and the fate of the universe or man, but I'm just going to leave this article from Spectacle [0] here because many of the examples I'm remembering are partly derived from this article anyway. Philosophers and priests tend to address morality. Morality is generally a restriction of rights. The proof through a story about how something deemed immoral but is not actually immoral wouldn't deal with the restriction of rights. It would deal with them in the context of showing why they aren't, but something deemed moral doesn't have to inherently be a restriction of natural rights. Presumably natural rights deals with moral issues after all (or did I just misinterpret that statement) Sci Fi can be taken as one type of literary output from societies where science and technology have profoundly influenced the lives of people in those societies. The creation of science fiction (as opposed to pure fiction) I believe has occurred only in some societies. If the mood of SciFi output has changed over many decades from positive to negative, it could possibly indicate a change of attitude about the future in that society. But this would be a sociological judgement, unless I am mistaken. Strictly speaking I don't think the societal issues that Sci Fi writers deal with coincide with the issues that priests and philosophers deal with. The common areas are restricted to where science has affected morality - and to that extent science and morality have come into conflict. I am not sure if Sci Fi writers have taken sides on these issues. Once again, please correct me if you think I am wrong. The science (if that is what it is) of sociology came up only because of the need This is just a massive personal bias in definition but: the science of anything is the correct application of mathematics to a field of study, because maths is how you actually define the relationships between two or more constructs as an entity rather than an untestable hypothesis. to study non western societies and document the differences between the normal society of the sociologist with the exotic other society. Not a lot of effort was expended in observing western societies from the outside because all sociologists were from within western societies and were unable or unwilling to comment on western societies that funded their work and left it to the priests, philosophers and more recently Sci Fi writers. So following the above, sociology that actually used statistical methods correctly (Otis Duncan is an important example) was/is a science, even if it only studied western societies. The lack of representative sampling for the world simply means that you can't generalise models that fit the sampled society to non-western societies without rigorously testing that assumption that the model is invariant across those cultures. I'll certainly agree that psychologists (much to my deep annoyance), sociologists, and others ignore, or simply do not know/understand, many of the assumptions that are built into statistical models, (e.g., ones who tried to understand Chinese culture using US sampled models, or those who just kinda looked at things and guessed in the dark) do not deserve the title of scientist though. happy to have something to contribute finally, landon Please note that I don't agree with everything the author states in the following link (the mildly rampant christian morality viewpoint especially), but I certainly think it represents sci fi
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
Shiv, Morality does not stop you from coveting anyone's neighbor's wife. Occasionally religion might, but as there's nothing called universal morality, that won't stop you. So do go ahead, if thats what your primary angst is about :) :-) On 09-Sep-2014 9:38 am, SS cybers...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 08:02 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: On 08-Sep-14 10:27 PM, SS wrote: Morality is generally not about restriction of rights, except as they impact Right. And Wrong. Which are what morality is about - the identification of Right and Wrong. Morality can be completely individual, or applicable within a context. There is no such thing as universal morality. (e.g, perhaps the most often quoted example of a universal moral rule is thou shalt not kill - but if were truly universal then one wouldn't have the death penalty, for instance.) All morality is a restriction of rights. The free born human individual technically has the right to do any damn thing he wants, including steal, lie and covet his neighbour's wife. Morality restricts these rights. Sci Fi can be taken as one type of literary output from societies where science and technology have profoundly influenced the lives of people in those societies. In other words, every society in today's world (barring a few outliers [1])? I have not seen much Indian, Chinese or Egyptian SciFi. In fact Indian society has barely been touched by science and tech the way say European societies have. Oh yes many may have cellphones and TV sets, but possession of cargo is not the same thing as being a technologically aware society, barring a educated few outliers. SF, like other literature, is at the end an exploration of what it means to be human (this includes the literature of ideas or gee whiz aspects). This is, at this level of abstraction, *exactly* what priests and philosophers deal with. I would be interested in Sci Fi views on child sex, age of consent, marriage, divorce, contraception and abortion I'm not really sure what you're saying here - but one comment is that that being a sociologist doesn't really bar you from being a SF writer, for one thing. The problem as I see it is that Sci Fi cannot stand in for sociology and vice versa. It is possible to write fiction and pass it off as a sociological study - I think it has been done - but that is not the point. The point is What is a good society? If priests, philosophers and Sci Fi writers have ideas - what are sociologists doing? What would be their role in defining what is good or bad about societies, given that as a group, sociologists are held as being distinct from priests and philosophers. In fact - who is even looking at what a good future society should look like given that no one takes philosophers and priests seriously and Sci Fi is, well, Fi. shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On 09/09/14 09-Sep-2014;9:38 am, SS wrote: I have not seen much Indian, Chinese or Egyptian SciFi. Udupa? That's your cue. In fact Indian society has barely been touched by science and tech the way say European societies have. Oh yes many may have cellphones and TV sets, but possession of cargo is not the same thing as being a technologically aware society, barring a educated few outliers. I'd argue that the changes due to technology and globalisation are even more stark in the underdeveloped parts of India. Here's one particularly well-known example [1]. I would be interested in Sci Fi views on child sex, age of consent, marriage, divorce, contraception and abortion As Mahesh pointed out,try the later works of Heinlein, particularly the Lazarus Long books [2]. Udhay [1] http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/view/241 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 08:55 +0530, Mahesh Murthy wrote: Shiv, read Heinlien. Thanks. Will do shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
I would imagine you can covet whatever you like. Its your right to have any desire. Freedom of thought. Acting on that covetousness is a compact between you and the coveted person, at the very least. But freedom of thought doesn't naturally turn into freedom of deed. Sometimes, with consenting adults, it can. Sometimes, based on non-moral reasons, it doesn't. On 9 Sep 2014 10:15, SS cybers...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 09:43 +0530, Mahesh Murthy wrote: Morality does not stop you from coveting anyone's neighbor's wife. Occasionally religion might, but as there's nothing called universal morality, that won't stop you. But would coveting your neighbour's wife be a right? It would have to be if that is what someone wanted and there was no restriction. That restriction is called by the general term morality. There is nothing in between - there is no no man's land (pun unintended) between rights and morality shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On 9 September 2014 10:17, SS cybers...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 08:55 +0530, Mahesh Murthy wrote: Shiv, read Heinlien. Thanks. Will do shiv Do also see the reading list for this Political Science course: http://jakebowers.org/PS300S14/ps300s14syl.pdf that incorporates SF as a way to enhance the political, social and economic imagination of the social sciences, [because] science fiction allows us a much more detailed view of life in alternative futures, and the writers that we choose to read here tend to think seriously and logically about how current cutting edge technology might have social and political ramifications. Ingrid Srinath @ingridsrinath
[silk] Anthropology and Sociology
I have had an amateur interest in the subjects that (I thought) were studied under the headings anthropology and sociology. After a couple of decades of imbibing information by osmosis and random diffusion, it seems to me that these fields deal primarily with people and societies as they exist. There is no field that I know of that tells us what societies should be like. I would have thought that if people study a thousand societies over several thousand man years and document them classify them and catalogue them, surely at least one person should have developed some ideas about what a society should be like. Has there been an ideal society? Is there, for example - a society in the past that lasted for 500 years or more without changing much? Does that mean it was better than others that did not last so long? Or is the fact that it is gone now an indicator that if it's dead it can't be good? For example - if guidelines for a good society could be formulated, would it not be feasible to teach it as a subject rather than simply study existing societies and people? It could be debated and refined or trashed. Who does that? I know people like Marx and the religions have views on society - but they have been discarded as not good enough except maybe by ISIS. But if those are not good enough what is good? Is change the only way for society? If change is the only way then was it always so? shiv
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On 09/07/2014 10:24 AM, SS wrote: I have had an amateur interest in the subjects that (I thought) were studied under the headings anthropology and sociology. After a couple of decades of imbibing information by osmosis and random diffusion, it seems to me that these fields deal primarily with people and societies as they exist. There is no field that I know of that tells us what societies should be like. I would have thought that if people study a thousand societies over several thousand man years and document them classify them and catalogue them, surely at least one person should have developed some ideas about what a society should be like. Has there been an ideal society? Is there, for example - a society in the past that lasted for 500 years or more without changing much? Does that mean it was better than others that did not last so long? Or is the fact that it is gone now an indicator that if it's dead it can't be good? For example - if guidelines for a good society could be formulated, would it not be feasible to teach it as a subject rather than simply study existing societies and people? It could be debated and refined or trashed. Who does that? Science fiction writers, mostly. Also the odd futurist (which is to say, a science fiction writer who can't build a story). The occasional dictator. But there's a missing piece in your evaluation: how to determine what features of society are desirable, and how to balance the trade-offs? Strict dictatorships bring civil order, but at the cost of free speech and toleration for deviance. Most will agree that a balance must be struck, few can agree on where that should be. Hence the resort to fiction. Cheers, Bruce
Re: [silk] Anthropology and Sociology
On 8 September 2014 06:16, Bruce A. Metcalf bruce.metc...@figzu.com wrote: But there's a missing piece in your evaluation: how to determine what features of society are desirable, and how to balance the trade-offs? Strict dictatorships bring civil order, but at the cost of free speech and toleration for deviance. Most will agree that a balance must be struck, few can agree on where that should be. Hence the resort to fiction. There's also Sid Meier's Civilization - https://www.civilization.com -gabin -- They pay me to think... As long as I keep my mouth shut.
