chris_gerrib (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chris_gerrib) wrote2015-04-09 11:05 am
chris_gerrib) wrote2015-04-09 11:05 am
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.
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.
no subject
But yes, cuddling up to VD is like spooning with a porcupine, and three or four years of not handing out awards will greatly dent the value of a Hugo. (One or two years is survivable.) Torgersen's finally figured out that VD's goal is to torch the Hugos, and from reading his own comment threads some of Sad Puppies are bringing matches and gasoline.
Unfortunately, neither man can say "I was wrong." They just can't.
no subject
Of course they can't say "I was wrong." They come from a tradition where changing your mind is a visible sign that you are not fit to lead. Instead, when things to pear-shaped it will be "look what you made me do!"
no subject
no subject
I'm still not sure Brad can be quite as clueless as he comes across...
no subject
no subject
no subject