My Idea:
A research institute pays an sf author to write a novel every ten years. Each novel must be set exactly ten years in the future and must be based on the most accurate current predictions about climate, technology, population, economics, politics etc. Over several decades, the novels would be compared both with each other and with the actual course of events. They would be unlikely to form a linear series.
Poul Anderson would have been good for such a job because:
he was able to write quickly;
he wrote with both knowledge of technology and understanding of social processes;
he would have continued to write a novel (or more) a year on other topics during such a project so that his creativity would not have been channelled into a single direction.
Maybe such novels would help to communicate what is going on. Where they diverged from what really happened, it would be possible to analyse why.
A novel written in 2020 might have shown, in 2030, global heating causing African populations to flee north, only to be drowned in the Mediterranean by a hostile Europe; government crackdowns both on migrants and on new movements for solidarity with migrants. (That might be all wrong but I heard it predicted today.)
There is another factor. Unpredictable events occur. To be realistic, such novels would have to incorporate some of those. This would make them even less likely to be accurate prophecies. Examples:
a new pandemic is all too possible, maybe statistically probable, but no one knows when, where, how lethal etc;
is it only a matter of time before terrorists nuke major cities?;
all kinds of other possibilities - we can think of some but not of others.
28 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I like that idea, that maybe fifty years ago writers like Poul Anderson, Jerry Pournelle, John Brunner, etc., could have contracted to write a novel every ten years using the specifications you outlined.
Frankly, I've thought the covid pandemic overrated and over hyped. Yes, many people died of it, but it was nothing like the Black Death of the 1340's, which killed millions in the Middle East and Europe. But SF writers in a dystopian mood can imagine far worse diseases than covid!
I think it's only a matter of time before some fanatical terrorists get their hands on nukes and use them! We speculated that might have happened to Rome in the Technic timeline.
I have no sympathy for the idea that millions of people can "rightly" shove their way into other peoples countries. That is already causing fury in the US, due to "Josip's" abandonment of the southern borders!
One unpredictable factor would be what we might start seeing if Elon Musk founds his colony on Mars.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what should African populations do if their countries become uninhabitable?
Paul.
Paul: die, mostly.
Kind of related:
50 years rather than 10 years.
"Earth" by David Brin
Published in 1990, set in 2040.
Predictable stuff, warming of the planet, sea level rise, importance of internet.
Good suggestion re: internet. Rather than algorithms showing stuff similar to what you have just watched. You get stuff in your feed that is contrary views.
Odd ball unpredictable - Helvetian War.
Kaor, Paul!
In that scenario most of them will die. You don't seem to understand the practicalities involved. If, by 2030, a billion people try to leave Africa and succeed in invading Europe, everything will simply collapse due to logistics, administration, political systems, the economy, etc., not being able to COPE. All you will get is wars, chaos, anarchy, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it seems that that is what ahead of us. It is past time to take drastic, widespread emergency measures.
I certainly do not understand the practicalities except that they will be horrific.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Those drastic emergency measures, whatever they might be, are not going to be taken. India and China are not going to cut down on the pollution which is causing so much of the problem. Botswana will not stop selling the brown coal which causes pollution. Nor do I think the nations of Europe will agree to let starving hordes overwhelm them. If they are pushed against the wall they WILL fight.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Then I will be arguing that we should not fight starving migrants. It seems that large changes are going to be forced on society whether they are wanted or not.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You still don't get it, the European nations WON'T BE ABLE TO COPE WITH ANY SUDDEN INVASION of hundreds of millions of starving foreigners. Everything will collapse into chaos, mass starvation, anarchy, etc. No, any leaders who think as you do will be overthrown and the European nations will fight the African INVADERS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I really do get it. If starving migrants are called INVADERS (and the British government is using that language right now), then something is very wrong. Governments need to be thinking now about the best (or least bad) way forward, not just carrying on as if there was no problem with business as usual. The British government is continuing to agree to new oil and coal extractions right now.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong word, INVADERS, not "migrants." If millions of FOREIGNERS swarm into the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc., practically overnight, they are invaders. I do not see the peoples of those nations meekly agreeing to be outnumbered, marginalized, overwhelmed by hordes of illegal "immigrants" without a fight!
If this worst case scenario comes to pass, the first waves of mass invaders may come from north Africa, as the peoples there are pushed out by tribes and nations to their south. Rather as the Huns drove the Goths and other Germanic tribes to their west into the Roman Empire. We may see another "volkerwanderung", with all the wars and chaos that means!
His Majesty's Gov't is agreeing to that further developing of oil and coal because, like it or not, the UK has little other choice. The alternative could be millions of Britons going without fuel, heat, food, employment, etc., as winter begins. The stupidity, idiocy, and shortsightedness of the so called Greens has prevented the developing of practical alternatives to fossil fuels. Yes, I mean demon nuclear power!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
On an earlier point, the current climate crisis cannot be laid at the feet only of other countries. The US elected a climate change denying President.
The oil and coal extraction being agreed now isn't going to affect this winter. But, if it is fossil fuels that are causing the crisis, then the government is wrong to agree to further extraction.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't care about Pres. Trump. For one thing, the US is far less polluting than China and India.
I still disagree, re the UK. I think some in London took note of the troubles Germany brought on itself with its ridiculous Green policies, while still depending on imports of Russian fossil fuels. Berlin stupidly managed to expose itself to blackmail and pressure by Putin!
I repeat, for the forseeable future, the most advanced nations have no choice but to continue using fossil fuels. Instead of using the past forty years to switch from fossil fuels to nuclear, too many in the West were ignorantly demonizing and maligning nuclear power.
I'm also reminded of how that senile dolt "Josip" has been whimpering and begging the tyrants in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia for more oil!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But fossil fuels are causing the imminent irreversible ecological catastrophe.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Try to understand, the most advanced nations, like the UK, US, Germany, have no choice but to continue using fossil fuels. For any such country to even attempt to stop using coal, oil, natural gas will do nothing except bring on an immediate depression, mass unemployment, famine, socio-economic chaos, political upheavals, etc. Even befuddled old "Josip" (or his puppet masters) seems to understand that much!
Given that, the best we can hope for is to use fossil fuels as efficiently and "cleanly" as possible. Which the US has managed to achieve over the past few decades. Unlike China or India, which doesn't care!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I don't think that we are disagreeing. It may be true BOTH that the US etc cannot stop using fossil fuels AND that those fossil fuels are causing an irreversible catastrophe.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not just the US. ALL Western or Westernized nations (like Japan) HAVE to use fossil fuels.
France is the only major exception, getting 75% of its energy from nuclear power. I only wish that was true of the US and the UK!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I did write "the US etc." OK. So an irreversible global catastrophe is imminent.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Oops, I missed that "etc."!
We may live to see what might happen by 2030.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am still not clear on this point even yet: do you expect business as usual to continue indefinitely or do you acknowledge that, according to scientific predictions, business as usual will soon be interrupted by an irreversible ecological catastrophe?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because I am not certain what will happen by 2030. The conservative pessimist in me thinks it might be as bad as some of the scenarios discussed here. Another part of me warns we cannot predict what will happen in the future. Any number of factors might be added or changed, and thus change what we thought would happen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, on the basis of the scientific predictions, a global emergency should be declared. I don't know what should be done. That is up to political and industrial leaders advised by scientists.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except no one has the authority to declare any such emergency. Earth is not unified under the rule of a Terran Federation, Solar Commonwealth, or Terran Empire. What we have are rival powers contending to maintain or gain hegemony. Nor do I see any prospect of some kind of unification happening any time soon.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Again no disagreement. I think that an emergency should be declared. You think, and I agree, that it cannot be declared. But this is an indictment of our entire species, not just of specific groups that we can vilify.
Paul.
Can't a group be *both* refugees & invaders?
Cf: the Goths fleeing across the Danube from the Huns into the Roman Empire.
Mistreatment by Romans turned them from refugees into outright invaders.
Anything wealthy nations can do to improve conditions in the countries the refugees are coming from would help.
I think one of the most important things to improve such conditions would be nuclear to reduce CO2 emissions in the wealthy countries & to provide electricity in the countries that are not now wealthy, but could be.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Indictment? Yes, and another sign, IMO, of how FALLEN mankind is.
There is no point talking about "declaring emergencies" when no one has the authority to do so.
Jim: It was more complicated than that. The Goths tried to negotiate with the Emperor Valens for an orderly migration across the Danube, To be settled on vacant lands again put to productive use. The Emperor was willing, but greed and incompetence by his subordinates scuppered that!
I agree with what you said about nuclear power. The problem is that many countries don't have the educational, economic, technological base, etc., for that. Others that do, like China and India, are not much interested, not when brown coal is quicker and cheaper to use!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Many people recognize that something needs to be done. Talking about an emergency that no one will declare is one way of talking about that. The scientific testimony is just too grave for us simply to wait and see what happens by 2030. How is something else just going to happen to lower global temperatures?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Well, a really major "conversion" to nuclear power, even this late, might help! But I don't expect that to happen. More likely, the world will just muddle along to 2030.
And humans have a talent for ignoring what they don't want to hear--like this talk about emergencies.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment