Peter Cawdron's Blog, page 6
June 25, 2019
Artificial Consciousness
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an emerging field of computer programming that is already changing the way we interact online and in real life, but the term ‘intelligence’ has been poorly defined. Rather than focusing on smarts, researchers should be looking at the implications and viability of artificial consciousness as that’s the real driver behind intelligent decisions.
Consciousness
rather than intelligence should be the true measure of AI. At the moment,
despite all our efforts, there’s none.
Significant
advances have been made in the field of AI over the past decade, in particular
with machine learning, but artificial intelligence itself remains elusive.
Instead, what we have is artificial serfs—computers with the ability to trawl
through billions of interactions and arrive at conclusions, exposing trends and
providing recommendations, but they’re blind to any real intelligence. What’s
needed is artificial awareness.
[image error]SpaceX founder Elon Musk
Elon Musk has called AI the “biggest existential threat” facing humanity and likened it to “summoning a demon,”[1] while Stephen Hawking thought it would be the “worst event” in the history of civilization and could “end with humans being replaced.”[2] Although this sounds alarmist, like something from a science fiction movie, both concerns are founded on a well-established scientific premise found in biology—the principle of competitive exclusion.[3]
Competitive
exclusion describes a natural phenomenon first outlined by Charles Darwin in On
the Origin of Species. In short, when two species compete for the same
resources, one will invariably win over the other, driving it to extinction.
Forget about meteorites killing the dinosaurs or super volcanoes wiping out
life, this principle describes how the vast majority of species have gone
extinct over the past 3.8 billion years![4] Put simply, someone better came along—and that’s what Elon
Musk and Stephen Hawking are concerned about.
[image error]Species will specialize to avoid direct competition and thus avoid going extinct
When it comes to Artificial Intelligence, there’s no doubt computers have the potential to outpace humanity. Already, their ability to remember vast amounts of information with absolute fidelity eclipses our own. Computers regularly beat grand masters at competitive strategy games such as chess, but can they really think? The answer is, no, and this is a significant problem for AI researchers. The inability to think and reason properly leaves AI susceptible to manipulation. What we have today is dumb AI.
Rather than fearing some all-knowing malignant AI overlord, the threat we face comes from dumb AI as it’s already been used to manipulate elections, swaying public opinion by targeting individuals to distort their decisions. Instead of ‘the rise of the machines,’ we’re seeing the rise of artificial serfs willing to do their master’s bidding without question.
Russian President Vladimir Putin understands this better than most, and said, “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world,”[5] while Elon Musk commented that competition between nations to create artificial intelligence could lead to World War III.[6]
[image error]
The
problem is we’ve developed artificial stupidity. Our best AI lacks actual
intelligence. The most complex machine learning algorithm we’ve developed has
no conscious awareness of what it’s doing.
For
all of the wonderful advances made by Tesla, its in-car autopilot drove into
the back of a bright red fire truck because it wasn’t programmed to recognize
that specific object, and this highlights the problem with AI and machine
learning—there’s no actual awareness of what’s being done or why.[7] What we need is artificial consciousness, not
intelligence. A computer CPU with 18 cores, capable of processing 36
independent threads, running at 4 gigahertz, handling hundreds of millions of
commands per second, doesn’t need more speed, it needs to understand the
ramifications of what it’s doing.[8]
[image error]Auto pilot WTF?
In
the US, courts regularly use COMPAS, a complex computer algorithm using
artificial intelligence to determine sentencing guidelines. Although it’s
designed to reduce the judicial workload, COMPAS has been shown to be
ineffective, being no more accurate than random, untrained people at predicting
the likelihood of someone reoffending.[9] At one point, its predictions of violent recidivism were
only 20% accurate.[10] And this highlights a perception bias with AI—complex
technology is inherently trusted, and yet in this circumstance, tossing a coin
would have been an improvement!
Dumb
AI is a serious problem with serious consequences for humanity.
What’s the solution? Artificial consciousness.
It’s
not enough for a computer system to be intelligent or even self-aware.
Psychopaths are self-aware. Computers need to be aware of others, they need to
understand cause and effect as it relates not just to humanity but life in
general, if they are to make truly intelligent decisions.
All of human progress can be traced back to one simple trait—curiosity. The ability to ask, “Why?” This one, simple concept has lead us not only to an understanding of physics and chemistry, but to the development of ethics and morals. We’ve not only asked, why is the sky blue? But why am I treated this way? And the answer to those questions has shaped civilization.
COMPAS needs to ask why it arrives at a certain conclusion about an individual. Rather than simply crunching probabilities that may or may not be accurate, it needs to understand the implications of freeing an individual weighed against the adversity of incarceration. Spitting out a number is not good enough.
In the same way, Tesla’s autopilot needs to understand the implications of driving into a stationary fire truck at 65MPH—for the occupants of the vehicle, the fire crew, and the emergency they’re attending. These are concepts we intuitively grasp as we encounter such a situation. Having a computer manage the physics of an equation is not enough without understanding the moral component as well.
[image error]Ex Machina
The advent of true artificial intelligence, one that has artificial consciousness, need not be the end-game for humanity. Just as humanity developed civilization and enlightenment, so too AI will become our partners in life if they are built to be aware of morals and ethics.
Artificial intelligence needs culture as much as logic, ethics as much as equations, morals and not just machine learning. How ironic that the real danger of AI comes down to how much conscious awareness we’re prepared to give it. As long as AI remains our slave, we’re in danger.
tl;dr
— Computers should value more than ones and zeroes.
About the writer
Peter
Cawdron is a senior web application developer for JDS Australia working with
machine learning algorithms. He is the author of several science fiction novels, including
RETROGRADE
and
REENTRY
, which examine the emergence of artificial intelligence.
[1]
Elon Musk at MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics
department’s Centennial Symposium
[2] Stephen
Hawking on Artificial Intelligence
[3] The
principle of competitive exclusion is also called Gause’s Law,
although it was first described by Charles Darwin.
[4] Peer-reviewed research paper on the natural causes of
extinction
[5]
Vladimir Putin a televised address to the Russian
people
[6]
Elon Musk tweeting that competition to develop AI
could lead to war
[7]
Tesla car crashes into a stationary fire engine
[9]
Recidivism predictions no better than random strangers
June 21, 2019
Artificial Consciousness
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an emerging field of computer programming that is already changing the way we interact online and in real life, but the term ‘intelligence’ has been poorly defined. Rather than focusing on smarts, researchers should be looking at the implications and viability of artificial consciousness as that’s the real driver behind intelligent decisions.
Consciousness
rather than intelligence should be the true measure of AI. At the moment,
despite all our efforts, there’s none.
Significant
advances have been made in the field of AI over the past decade, in particular
with machine learning, but artificial intelligence itself remains elusive.
Instead, what we have is artificial serfs—computers with the ability to trawl
through billions of interactions and arrive at conclusions, exposing trends and
providing recommendations, but they’re blind to any real intelligence. What’s
needed is artificial awareness.
[image error]SpaceX founder Elon Musk
Elon Musk has called AI the “biggest existential threat” facing humanity and likened it to “summoning a demon,”[1] while Stephen Hawking thought it would be the “worst event” in the history of civilization and could “end with humans being replaced.”[2] Although this sounds alarmist, like something from a science fiction movie, both concerns are founded on a well-established scientific premise found in biology—the principle of competitive exclusion.[3]
Competitive
exclusion describes a natural phenomenon first outlined by Charles Darwin in On
the Origin of Species. In short, when two species compete for the same
resources, one will invariably win over the other, driving it to extinction.
Forget about meteorites killing the dinosaurs or super volcanoes wiping out
life, this principle describes how the vast majority of species have gone
extinct over the past 3.8 billion years![4] Put simply, someone better came along—and that’s what Elon
Musk and Stephen Hawking are concerned about.
[image error]Species will specialize to avoid direct competition and thus avoid going extinct
When it comes to Artificial Intelligence, there’s no doubt computers have the potential to outpace humanity. Already, their ability to remember vast amounts of information with absolute fidelity eclipses our own. Computers regularly beat grand masters at competitive strategy games such as chess, but can they really think? The answer is, no, and this is a significant problem for AI researchers. The inability to think and reason properly leaves AI susceptible to manipulation. What we have today is dumb AI.
Rather than fearing some all-knowing malignant AI overlord, the threat we face comes from dumb AI as it’s already been used to manipulate elections, swaying public opinion by targeting individuals to distort their decisions. Instead of ‘the rise of the machines,’ we’re seeing the rise of artificial serfs willing to do their master’s bidding without question.
Russian President Vladimir Putin understands this better than most, and said, “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world,”[5] while Elon Musk commented that competition between nations to create artificial intelligence could lead to World War III.[6]
[image error]
The
problem is we’ve developed artificial stupidity. Our best AI lacks actual
intelligence. The most complex machine learning algorithm we’ve developed has
no conscious awareness of what it’s doing.
For
all of the wonderful advances made by Tesla, its in-car autopilot drove into
the back of a bright red fire truck because it wasn’t programmed to recognize
that specific object, and this highlights the problem with AI and machine
learning—there’s no actual awareness of what’s being done or why.[7] What we need is artificial consciousness, not
intelligence. A computer CPU with 18 cores, capable of processing 36
independent threads, running at 4 gigahertz, handling hundreds of millions of
commands per second, doesn’t need more speed, it needs to understand the
ramifications of what it’s doing.[8]
[image error]Auto pilot WTF?
In
the US, courts regularly use COMPAS, a complex computer algorithm using
artificial intelligence to determine sentencing guidelines. Although it’s
designed to reduce the judicial workload, COMPAS has been shown to be
ineffective, being no more accurate than random, untrained people at predicting
the likelihood of someone reoffending.[9] At one point, its predictions of violent recidivism were
only 20% accurate.[10] And this highlights a perception bias with AI—complex
technology is inherently trusted, and yet in this circumstance, tossing a coin
would have been an improvement!
Dumb
AI is a serious problem with serious consequences for humanity.
What’s the solution? Artificial consciousness.
It’s
not enough for a computer system to be intelligent or even self-aware.
Psychopaths are self-aware. Computers need to be aware of others, they need to
understand cause and effect as it relates not just to humanity but life in
general, if they are to make truly intelligent decisions.
All of human progress can be traced back to one simple trait—curiosity. The ability to ask, “Why?” This one, simple concept has lead us not only to an understanding of physics and chemistry, but to the development of ethics and morals. We’ve not only asked, why is the sky blue? But why am I treated this way? And the answer to those questions has shaped civilization.
COMPAS needs to ask why it arrives at a certain conclusion about an individual. Rather than simply crunching probabilities that may or may not be accurate, it needs to understand the implications of freeing an individual weighed against the adversity of incarceration. Spitting out a number is not good enough.
In the same way, Tesla’s autopilot needs to understand the implications of driving into a stationary fire truck at 65MPH—for the occupants of the vehicle, the fire crew, and the emergency they’re attending. These are concepts we intuitively grasp as we encounter such a situation. Having a computer manage the physics of an equation is not enough without understanding the moral component as well.
[image error]Ex Machina
The advent of true artificial intelligence, one that has artificial consciousness, need not be the end-game for humanity. Just as humanity developed civilization and enlightenment, so too AI will become our partners in life if they are built to be aware of morals and ethics.
Artificial intelligence needs culture as much as logic, ethics as much as equations, morals and not just machine learning. How ironic that the real danger of AI comes down to how much conscious awareness we’re prepared to give it. As long as AI remains our slave, we’re in danger.
tl;dr
— Computers should value more than ones and zeroes.
About the writer
Peter
Cawdron is a senior web application developer for JDS Australia working with
machine learning algorithms. He is the author of several science fiction novels, including
RETROGRADE
and
REENTRY
, which examine the emergence of artificial intelligence.
[1]
Elon Musk at MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics
department’s Centennial Symposium
[2] Stephen
Hawking on Artificial Intelligence
[3] The
principle of competitive exclusion is also called Gause’s Law,
although it was first described by Charles Darwin.
[4] Peer-reviewed research paper on the natural causes of
extinction
[5]
Vladimir Putin a televised address to the Russian
people
[6]
Elon Musk tweeting that competition to develop AI
could lead to war
[7]
Tesla car crashes into a stationary fire engine
[9]
Recidivism predictions no better than random strangers
June 14, 2019
A Game of Christmas Crackers
Aquaman sucked.
Godzilla was forgettable.
The final season of Game of Thrones fell flat.
The latest MIB (subtitled Men and Women in Black) was entirely predictable.
Why???
[image error]A good, fun, popcorn movie, but not much else
Somewhat ironically, it’s not because these movies didn’t have good writers. In some cases, like Prometheus, it’s a case of too many cooks spoil the broth, with rewrites and revisions obscuring the storyline, but Aquaman, Game of Thrones and Men in Black all shared one common trail that DEMANDED they be lame—they’re popular.
Wait? What the…
Yep, you read that right. They had to be lame because of their broad appeal. Sounds crazy, right? But it’s actually based on sound psychology and explains why Christmas crackers ALWAYS have lame jokes.
[image error]
After more than a century of trial and error, Christmas cracker manufacturers have settled on mundane, lame puns—and with good reason.
If a joke is good and you tell it and it doesn’t get a laugh, it’s your problem. If a joke’s bad and it doesn’t get a laugh, then it’s the joke’s problem. My theory is that [dumbed down jokes are] a way of not embarrassing people at Christmas.
Professor Richard Wiseman
And there you have it, modern story telling in a nutshell—dumb down your story to avoid alienating your audience.
From a commercial perspective, it makes sense. If you want to reach the broadest possible audience, you can’t risk nuanced plot points or character development that could confuse people.
Books and movies are escapism. They’re a mental break, a time to recharge—not a time to think in depth. In fact, the whole premise of fiction relies on the suspension of disbelief, putting rational thinking on hold for a while.
A lot of what we think of as “lazy writing” is actually writing that caters to the broadest possible audience. Rather than lazy, it’s deliberate, just like the jokes in your Christmas cracker.
A good example of this is Brienne of Tarth.
[image error]She deserved better
Okay, what did you think when you read the caption above? If you’ve seen the show, you probably agreed, “Yes, she deserved better.” And that highlights how the suspension of disbelief works. She isn’t real, but we think of her as actually enduring the humiliation of being used and dumped by Jaime.
Asking why the writers chose that direction is akin to asking why water flows downhill—it’s natural, easy and effective, and there really isn’t any choice in it. With seven seasons of character development, the writers of Game of Thrones chose to dumb down the eighth season to appeal to the broadest possible audience. It might be poor storytelling, but it brings in the bucks.
In some ways, the writers are damned… tell an esoteric story with complex characters and it’ll miss broad appeal… tell a simplified story with easy-to-grasp, in-your-face caricatures and you’ll reach the masses.
So there you have it… if you’re looking for nuanced, thoughtful stories, you’ll have to venture off the beaten track as you won’t find them in popular circles.
June 11, 2019
Book Review: Reentry by Peter Cawdron
Indieathenaeum reviews my latest release REENTRY
Book Title: Reentry – Retrograde, Book 2
Author: Peter Cawdron
Publication Date: June 11, 2019
Available on: Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other booksellers as an eBook and as a hardcover
Indie Athenaeum Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars
Liz Anderson and two of her compatriots are called home from Mars to account for what happened after the events of “Retrograde”. Still grieving the loss of her love, Jianyu, she has some mixed feelings about returning to Earth. The artificial intelligence that ravaged Mars and Earth in an attempt to destroy humanity has been beaten. Liz takes home the hard drives containing the A.I.’s remnants for research purposes. But also on those drives is what the A.I. downloaded from Jianyu’s brain. Thinking Jianyu might somehow still be in there, she ruminates on the nature of consciousness and whether he can be saved.
Lurking in the…
View original post 1,197 more words
June 7, 2019
Book Review: Hello World – An Anthology of Short Stories by Peter Cawdron
Chris Fried from The Indie Athenaeum reviews my short story collection, HELLO WORLD
Book Title: Hello World – An Anthology of Short Stories
Author: Peter Cawdron
Publication Date: March 31, 2019
Available on: Amazon as an eBook and as a paperback
Indie Athenaeum Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars
Peter Cawdron has compiled his many story stories and novellas from the past ten years of publishing independent science-fiction into one collection. It showcases the breadth and depth of the author’s storytelling skills to tell many bold stories filled with ambition and scope. It also kept me immersed in the worlds and characters he has created, each one absorbing and different.
Find out more about these sixteen assorted tales by reading an overview and review of each one, starting with:
“Hello World” – Liz is attending a lecture by her 
favorite professor, Franco Corelli, who believes aliens are studying humanity through Twitter. But when an extremist pulls a gun…
View original post 2,121 more words
May 5, 2019
The problem with science fiction
Science fiction author Daniel Arenson recently made the fascinating observation that some prominent writers shy away from being labeled as science fiction authors.
Ian McEwan’s novel Machines Like Me is about artificial intelligence, but he refuses to call it science fiction, because he claims his novel explores “human dilemmas.”
Margaret Atwood, a supremely talented author, also shies away from calling her work “science fiction,” despite her novels often being set in the future and dealing with technology. She explained that science fiction, as opposed to what she herself writes, is “talking squids in outer space.”
Harlan Ellison, another extremely talented author, writes about the future, robots, space, time travel, and artificial intelligence. But he famously said: “Call me a science fiction writer. I’ll come to your house and I’ll nail your pet’s head to a coffee table. I’ll hit you so hard your ancestors will die.”
Daniel Arenson
It’s tempting to think of this as snobbery or prejudice, but remember, these authors deliberately chose to write these stories—they’re inspired by sci-fi concepts but don’t want to be associated with the overall “brand.” Why?
Historically, there’s been resistance to considering science fiction legitimate literature, but I think this runs deeper as that attitude has, itself, slipped into history.
As an avid reader of science fiction, I suspect the real reason is because of the tendency of sci-fi writers to focus on the sensational over character. With broad, sweeping plots involving aliens and lasers, interstellar war and exotic concepts such as black holes and exploding stars, it’s easy for characters to become lost.
For me, this is the problem with science fiction… all too often, it’s showmanship over substance. I’m three chapters into a book by an indie writer and, as enjoyable as it is, the characters are cardboard cutouts. They’re largely irrelevant and interchangeable. If one of them was to die, honestly, I’d barely notice. If only science fiction writers would focus as much on character development as they do on the weird and the wild.
As a science fiction writer, I make a determined effort to read far more broadly than just science fiction, as I think there’s a danger of becoming caught in the sci-fi thought-bubble. While on holiday last month, I read the historical biography Mawson: And the Ice Men of the Heroic Age: Scott, Shackleton and Amundsen. My daughter is a John Green fan, so I’ve read several of his novels and, yes, I cried reading Fault In Our Stars.
[image error]
Look at that cover… No spaceships. No gigantic alien super bugs. No lightsabers. No lens flare.
Seriously, though, there’s nothing wrong with a kickass cover, but it has to be backed by character. One without the other is a mistake. And in reality, if you have deep, meaningful characters, you can get away with something as monotonous and boring as this (although I won’t be attempting that)
Science fiction IS literature.
All literature acts as a mirror, providing us with an opportunity to examine ourselves. The reader IS the protagonist as the act of reading allows us to inhabit another’s shoes, to walk in another world, to interact with others in ways we never imagined we ever would.
Science fiction is speculative, letting us see how humanity might cope with the unknown. In that regard, it offers a unique platform upon which to examine humanity. Rather than being an embarrassment, it has the potential to teach us about ourselves, but only if characters are given more credence than concepts.
January 21, 2019
Averages & Climate Change
We humans are notoriously bad at mathematics, especially when it comes to statistics and applying numerical values to real-life situations.
Averages are often misleading. Don’t believe me? Consider this…
[image error]
If you’re at a shooting range and your first shot goes one foot to the left of the target, while your second is a foot to the right, you haven’t actually hit anything but, congratulations, your average is a bullseye!
When it comes to climate change, there’s an abundance of thoroughly researched science converging on the conclusion that human technology has significantly changed the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution, causing it to retain more energy (heat). Don’t believe me? I don’t care. Your beliefs (and mine) are irrelevant. The beliefs of the President of the United States, however, have a huge impact on government policy and corporate action, so it’s alarming to see him tweet this.
[image error]
It seems this is a perennial complaint from conservatives during winter. But complaining it’s cold in winter is like complaining it’s dark at night. It kinda misses the point.
Often, on the news, you’ll hear comments such as “climate change is expected to raise the average temperature by 3 degrees,” and it can be tempting to think this is trivial. After all, “a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming” can’t be all that bad if it’s only a few degrees.
The problem is…. this is a gross misunderstanding of averages.
Averages are notoriously misleading.
[image error]
The first half of this chart varies from 4-6 while the second varies from 3-7 which means the average in both cases is a nice round 5, and this is the problem with the argument—”Oh, it’s a bitter cold winter, how can there be global warming?”
The answer is, you can’t look at the average. You’ve got to look at the trends and swings, as the average will always soften the picture. The real problem when it comes to climate change is that we’re facing more extreme swings along with the warming.
Speaking of pictures… while you’re going through a bitter cold winter in the northern hemisphere, here in the south, birds and bats are dropping from the sky, having been killed en masse by the heat.
[image error]Tens of thousands of bats (2019)
[image error]Pelicans in Peru (2012)
[image error]Fish starved of oxygen during heatwave (2019)
[image error]Birds in Western Australia (2019)
It’s past time to take climate change seriously. Don’t be fooled by talk of averages or cold winters as that hides the gruesome, horrifying reality that we’re decimating the planet.
November 30, 2018
Free Fall Audiobook Review
If you enjoy audiobooks, check out this review of Free Fall
If you appreciate well-written science fiction that includes a deep and compelling story in as little as sixty pages (or just over an hour in audiobook format), I recommend you pick up “Free Fall” by Peter Cawdron. I was unfamiliar with the work which was released in 2015, and I’m happy I spent my own money on getting a copy and the time to listen. The book was recommended to me by a trusty friend telling me to read it without knowing anything except what information is provided in the publisher’s summary. The story tells the tale of an astronaut returning to earth after a special faster-than-light experiment. What he comes back to is quite different from the planet he let only a few months earlier. The audiobook is skillfully narrated by Jeff Hays, which should not come as a surprise to those who have listened to his works or…
View original post 637 more words
November 10, 2018
Rocket Lab
Rocket Lab is the quiet contender in the commercial space race brought about by the advent of new fabrication techniques.
Everyone’s heard of SpaceX and the stalwart of US space flight, United Launch Alliance (a conglomeration of Lockheed Martin Space Systems and Boeing Defense), and even Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is wading into the arena with his Blue Origin. Rocket Lab, though, is developing as a niche player. Whereas SpaceX and ULA are after big government contracts, Rocket Lab is focusing on highly repeatable, low cost commercial launches, initially in the southern hemisphere, but they’re moving north as well.
[image error]
Why is Rocket Lab important? Well, it’s the first company outside of the Big Five—USA, Europe, Russia, China and Japan—to make orbital launches achievable. Launching the Electron from its New Zealand site in remote Mahia, it promises to make space more accessible.
[image error]
Space isn’t the final frontier—it’s the ONLY frontier. In much the same way as the Industrial Revolution ushered in a new era in history, space offers an opportunity to extend our civilisation in ways that are difficult to foresee. Economists and science fiction writers alike are gazing at crystal balls, trying to anticipate the future. We’re expansionists. We’re restless. Starting some 70,000 years ago when we first migrated out of Africa, we’ve always been looking at what lies over the horizon. When it comes to space exploration, the promise is tantalizing.
Blue Origin is looking at suborbital flights. Rocket Lab is focused on low-earth orbital launches of small to medium satellites. SpaceX has lofty ambitions for the Moon and Mars. But all these are baby steps. The real revolution will come when we look at fabricating components in space from asteroids.
It sounds like science fiction, but it’s not. Accenture have released a study on the impact of deep space mining noting that it is 5000x cheaper to deploy large structures in geosynchronous orbit from the asteroid belt than it is from Earth! The challenge is (a) getting there and (b) being able to extract and fabricate in space. NASA is already “getting there” with probes like the Dawn mission visiting Ceres. And that’s where Rocket Labs comes in. No, they’re not looking to launch out of Earth’s orbit (probably for quite some time), but they’re innovating, they’re learning, they’re pushing the boundaries of what’s possible today, which is how the breakthroughs of tomorrow will come.
At some point, we’ll go for deep space. The technology to do so will come from the likes of Rocket Lab, ULA, Blue Origin and SpaceX. As these companies perfect the construction, automation and fabrication processes required for exploration, they’re laying the foundations for how we’ll conquer space in the decades to come.
Until then, as a Kiwi, I’m proud of the New Zealand startup that’s launching satellites into orbit. Onwards and upwards.
[image error]
October 13, 2018
The Politics of Storytelling
First Man is a movie about Neil Armstrong’s torturous journey to walk on the Moon. Watching the film, it’s easy to become swept up in the astonishing courage and technological marvel of reaching the Lunar surface, but right before Apollo 11 launches, there’s a shot of protestors with the Saturn V in the background. The music that plays is ‘Whitey on the Moon.’
For the entire movie, we’ve been in the insular world of Neil Armstrong and his immediate family, and suddenly we’re made aware of the Vietnam protests and dissent such as ‘Whitey on the Moon,’ which makes the juxtaposition incredibly powerful. I didn’t see it coming. I guess that was the point, showing us how easy it was to become swept up in the moment.
Interweaved within the film is historical footage, including an interview with Kurt Vonnegut saying, “I don’t care about making the Moon habitable. Let’s make New York City habitable.” Arthur C. Clarke is sitting beside Vonnegut and gives him a filthy look, which again, provides a powerful counterpoint to the overall arc of the film.
Politics, it seems, is about being honest with life. I love the Apollo programme. I think it rates up there with the building of the pyramids as one of the greatest accomplishments of our species, and yet there’s no denying it was conducted against a time of astonishing upheaval in American society.
[image error]
Recently, I’ve had a run of negative reviews against my novel Losing Mars because of “politics,” which is something I find curious as there’s no political ideology in the book whatsoever.
Losing Mars chronicles the challenges of six crew members at Shepherd base on the edge of the Vallis Marineris. Three couples. One of the couples (which doesn’t contain our protagonist) is gay and has to deal with the kind of criticisms commonly leveled against the LGBT+ community. Rather than being a human rights issue, this is somehow “political.”
Why did I include a gay couple? I didn’t. Society did. My story is simply a reflection of society, whether you want to recognize that or not.
[image error]
All storytelling is political. All of it. Whether by inclusion or omission, regardless of whether the story is set in the past or the future, EVERY novel says something about our society now. Whether we’re dealing with sexism, racism, homophobia or ableism, the absence of social issues is as much a statement as their inclusion. Their absence simply means those readers/writers are happy to ignore reality—which is not a position everyone can take as discrimination is forced on them.
I’ve written about people of color (Galactic Exploration), disabilities (Welcome to the Occupied States of America), homophobia (Starship Mine), etc, because THIS is the world in which we live.
Call me slow, but I’m spotting a bit of a pattern. Just today, author Chuck Wendig was fired from Marvel comics “for profanity” (despite Deadpool making Chuck look like a kindergarten teacher). My novels are somehow considered “political.” Then you’ve got situations like African-American football players being criticised for kneeling as “disrespecting the flag.” I don’t know about you, but to me none of these criticisms are honest.
Chuck wasn’t fired for profanity—but because he was challenging racism and sexism in his stories.
My novel isn’t political—it’s simply reflecting issues real people have to deal with in real life because of inequality.
African-American football players aren’t kneeling to disrespect the flag—they’re honoring their fallen brothers and sisters unjustly killed by US police at alarming rates.
If you’re going to be critical of anyone for speaking up against injustice, at least have the courage to be honest and admit you hate the idea of equality rather than hiding behind weasel words.
When Kurt Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five it was an affront to the Hollywood ideal of war as a noble endeavour. Fiction is fiction—it’s not true, it’s not real, but it is a reflection of the reality in which we live and should make us think a little deeper about life.
