chris_gerrib: (Pirates of Mars)
chris_gerrib ([personal profile] chris_gerrib) wrote2015-04-09 11:05 am
Entry tags:

Liberal SF

A friend of mine noted that the people who run science fiction conventions, called conrunners or semi-jokingly SMOFs (secret masters of fandom) are largely liberal. I tend to agree with him, and I think I know why. Science fiction may not be inherently liberal, but it is inherently not conservative.

I'm going to adapt a thought from Megan McArdle, a conservative economist. Imagine you're walking in a wood and come across a fence. The conservative mindset would be "this fence is here for a reason, leave it." But the science fictional mindset would be to wonder what function it served and could that function be done better by something different.

Now, that's a broad statement, and much science fiction doesn't reach that exulted level, if only because of Sturgeon's Law. But the definition of science fiction, which is "a story that, without a scientific foundation, can't be told" lends support to my theory. What is science but an investigation into why and how things happen?

And technology changes society. For example, the technology of cooking food changed our digestive tracts! If technology can change our bodies, it can certainly change our society, as evidenced by 1900 House. So, part of the science in our fiction really should be sociology, psychology and political science.

Now, story and entertainment matter, but if science fiction is inherently not conservative, I'm not surprised that the majority of people active in it aren't conservative either.

[identity profile] catsittingstill.livejournal.com 2015-04-10 08:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, you would kind of think that any time he started feeling unloved he'd go down to the bank and roll in his money until he felt better. I mean, if *I* made millions from selling books I wouldn't care if some people somewhere had once thought I wasn't a real writer.

It comes across as insecure, you know?

[identity profile] chris-gerrib.livejournal.com 2015-04-10 08:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, I'm not sure Larry has "millions" to roll around in. His latest book sold 6,100 copies in hard cover (see http://www.jasonsanford.com/blog/2015/4/yes-people-do-read-the-novels-up-for-the-hugo-and-nebula-awards.) Now, that understates sales by 40% and doesn't cover ebooks, etc., but I suspect he's making around $100,000 / year or so. Still good money but a bit shy of a million.

[identity profile] catsittingstill.livejournal.com 2015-04-10 08:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Wow, the way he talks I thought it was more than that. But fifty thousand or so would still make a nice pile to roll in, don't you think? You'd probably want to crumple the bills a bit to make it softer...