Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:14:25 -0400
From: Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Culture
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Michael Walsh wrote:

> > StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL 05/20/02 02:24PM
> >       Mike and I are discussing culture in SF, especially noir.  Many
> >people are pessimistic about life, but I take the opposite view.  While
> >there are a number of contributing factors to my Pollyanna view, two of the
> >biggest are a study of history and reading science fiction.  History shows
> >that people can make things better -- yes, they often make things worse
> >but the general trend is, IMHO, upward.  We live longer, heathier lives;
> >democracy is spreading around the world; and science is advancing daily.
> >True, there are negative trends, particularly the growth of bureaucratic
> >governments and proliferation of armmaments among marginalized peoples, but
> >my reading of history teaches me that there is room for optimism.  Reading
> >(and watching SF) reinforces this by pointing the way to a brighter possible
> >future ahead.  So, I've seen _Blade Runner_ 4 times as often as I've seen
> >_Conquest of Space_ but watch the former as an interesting discussion of
> >ideas and a warning while working towards the latter.
>
> No question that we are living in a far better world now than 50 or 100 or
> whatever years ago.  Otto Bettman - founder of the Bettman Archive, now
> owned by Microsoft - produced a book entitled: The Good Old Days - They
> Were Terrible.

I don't agree.  I think for the first half of the 20th Century people were
optimistic about Things Getting Better (despite the Great Depression) mostly
Through Science.  More and better appliances to help do away with drudgery,
medical advances like penicillin.  Cars, airplanes, telephones.  The invention
of the mass media via radio, movies and records.   Lotsa SF magazines.

But the atomic bomb (and, worse, the H-bomb) changed Everything.  Cataclysmic
doom hung over our heads like the sword of Damocles.  And the downside of
technology appeared:  we were gobbling up the word's irreplacable resources like
there was no tomorrow, creating worldwide polution, acid rain, smog, et al as
byproducts.  As quickly as we made medical advances new (and more horrible)
medical problems began to appear.  The current generation is much more highly
prone to allergies (I have none), asthma, and associated problems like diabetes
(which I do have).  Three of my friends (in fandom) have had brain tumors in the
last five years -- two are now dead.   And the deadly bacteria are mutating to
overcome the drugs we've created.

Globalization (which I support in theory) has opened us up to the instant
transmission of disease halfway across the world, and has spread terrorism
enormously.

I sit here in the house I grew up in and I reflect upon the changes.   As a kid
I pounded out letters on an old L. C. Smith elite typewriter; now I use a
computer.  The typer used only my own physical energy; this computer requires
electricity, a phone or cable connection, and its use costs money on a
continuing basis.   As a kid I listened to 78 rpm records on cheap portable
phonos -- some were windup, and used no electricity.  The fidelity was
primitive, but I had little better to compare it with.  Today I have several
high-quality sound systems in my house (including one in this computer) and can
record live music digitally and make and copy my own CDs.  Definitely "better"
from my point of view.

As a kid I helped my folks garden and I ate the freshest produce possible.  It
has permanently spoiled me for store-bought tomatoes and corn, even from produce
stands.

I contrast my childhood with that of my son (now 14 -- I'd been a fan for a year
at that age).  In nearly every respect mine was better in terms of the physical
surroundings, opportunities to bicycle places, and woods and fields to explore
and play in.  (I tell my son what thing were like then, and he agrees.)

Human nature hasn't changed, but the civility of our society and culture has.
Kids were a lot safer 50 years ago.  People used to treat each other better when
we all had less in the way of material things.  We didn't lock our doors and
"road rage" hadn't been coined (or needed).  Nobody stole our appliances.
(Who'd try to break in and steal a refrigerator or a washing machine?)

> >       You found the underside of Corescent "too 'pretty'."  Not sure how
> >to interpret this one, kemo sabe.  Sarcasm?  Statement that the colors were
> >too bright?  What?
>
> No . . just that it was all too . . . clean.  It's hard to explain, but
> essentially with Blade Runer one felt as if there really was dirt in the
> future, while Lucas just can't seem to do it.  Speilberg had the same
> problem with AI.  Just too . . .organized?

There's a currently-running TV commercial (for some termite-treatment) in which
a young couple welcome their parents to their new house -- all entirely made of
concrete, including the sofa.  That's not far from the house interior made
mostly of stainless steel in a recent POST "Home" section, or the other
museum-like dwellings celebrated there and in the POST Magazine:  all hard
surfaces, sparsely furnished with what look like Works of Art rather than
comfortable furniture, and Very Clean.

When too many people make skiffy movies they construct their futuristic sets on
sound stages rather than using real locales which show use and age.  That was
true of AI and it was equally true of BICENTENNIAL MAN.  Ridley Scott being from
England, where decay is part of the landscape, and every dwelling was until
recently Rather Old, undoubtedly saw the future in more realistic terms,
set-wise.

--Ted White