• 1
Isn't this the one that has the line about "irrefragable Africa"?

By the way, James, I sent you this video about the vast improvements in child mortality over the last 50 years, particularly in Africa http://www.openculture.com/2013/02/hans_rosling_visualizes_the_incredible_progress_of_the_developing_world.html which demonstrates how non-irrefragible Africa realy is.

I've only ever seen the word "irrefragable" used seriously a few times, but so far the person using it has always been wrong.

I don't know why; it's a perfectly cromulent word.

Is there any sign yet of the cyberfunkywinkerbean sub-genre ending?

......everyone gets Computer Cancer and dies?

The stuff about the Africans and India sounds damning. The more philosophical stuff in the review leaves me going "eh?"

And wow, the review she links to. "Terraforming without geophysical or moral limits in the 24th century permits the arrogance of humanism to justify the wholesale pillage of the sun's revolving neighbors that pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment inhabitants on Earth had hitherto approached with wonder, awe and restraint."

Talk about Romanticizing pre-modern non-Europeans.

'Evidently, Robinson has still not recognized, as Wendell Berry so astutely acknowledged, that no less than on Earth, there is "an ecology of the heavens."'


Edited at 2013-03-19 08:44 pm (UTC)

I think that from a scientific perspective, there's a point to be made here. Even if there's no indigenous life elsewhere in the solar system, remodeling another planet means destroying information about its preexisting environment, and at the very least it has to be thought through carefully.

As one of the commenters said, Robinson actually explored that question at some length in the Mars trilogy (and the novella that preceded it). Maybe he figured he was done with that issue.

Preserving scientific information is an interesting concern but almost entirely unlike what I read in that review.

Yeah, there were a few annoying bits in there. One wonders what her "scientific background" consists of? She seems to be confusing the right-wing engineer brain-eater with the scientific enterprise in general.

"There are consequences to having a scientific-technological viewpoint that sees the world in disconnected little (or big) chunks."

Does she actually know anything about climate scientists?

Kim Stanley Robinson is a man. His formal academic qualifications are all in literature as far as I know. His wife of 30 years is an environmental chemist.

Bruce's "she" was Vandana Singh, the reviewer James linked to.

One wonders what her "scientific background" consists of?

Well as noted down thread, she's a Particle Physicist, but that's beyond the point that bringing up her background relative to her argument is bullshit: No ad hominems pls, they're uncouth.

She's the one who brought up her background.

Sure, but merely to say that she had the right to have an opinion in the matter -- she didn't go all I Am the Real Scientist, Bow Down Before My Knowledge about it.

In my defense, that was an actual question, not a rhetorical flourish. If she's going to be offering sweeping (and IMHO somewhat dubious) criticisms of the scientific enterprise, and saying she's doing it from the POV of someone with a scientific background, my immediate reaction is annoyance and suspicion of the person's knowledge: I, alas, tend to assume badly of people. I suppose as a particle physicist, she certainly works with very small chunks... :)

In any event, this is a side issue: on the main point of KSR's blinkered world view, I have little to quarrel with.

"gorgeous inventiveness of placing a moving city-on-rails on the planet Mercury, designed to stay on the night side through the motion provided by the expansion of the rails on the sun-side"?

Does he think KSR came up with that idea? I saw exactly that in a short story published at least 30 years ago.

  • 1

Log in