The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
The Calculating Stars
2019 Reads
>
TCS: My problem with the whole premise
date
newest »
newest »
I wondered this myself, and reasoned that the temperatures on Mars are more managable than the temperature on Earth was going to be. I don't know if this is right, or if there are other explanations, but I figure if it gets hot enough for ocean to boil that is bad news for us, and the energy it would take to make a cooled space would just produce more heat (right?) so I don't know how that could be solved.
Colin wrote: "Not really spoilery, since it's kind of the premise of the whole book.I get that the earth is going to become uninhabitable because of the climate change triggered by the asteroid strike, but by ..."
Actually, the climate scenario the author describes makes no sense. If an asteroid strike could completely wreck the Earth's climate the way she describes, it would already have happened.
I also agree with your criticism. It makes far more sense to concentrate on building shelters on Earth and trying to engineer the climate. The space program should be focused on weather satellites, not putting people into space.
M. wrote: " If an asteroid strike could completely wreck the Earth's climate the way she describes, it would already have happened." I don't understand this. I'm not sure how long a thing has to not happen for it to be rendered impossible; surely it just means it is unlikely.
Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "M. wrote: " If an asteroid strike could completely wreck the Earth's climate the way she describes, it would already have happened." I don't understand this. I'm not sure how long a thing has to ..."
It already has. That’s why there aren’t any dinosaurs.
Well yes, Trike, but not in exactly the same way, unless I am mistaken. But sure, these things are rare but do happen and they have variables, so it hardly seems impossible to me.
Trike wrote: "Ask her in the AMA."Not sure about that. Seems a bit confrontational. Not really the way author interviews go on S&L - asking her to defend her book!
I've willingly suspended my disbelief for a whole lot less. Overall, I've felt that MRK created a very real seeming alternate 1960's Earth. The characters, the descriptions of the space program operations, incorporating real events along side her fictional ones all gave it a very real authenticity for me. Even the protagonist's name, Elma, resonates with the time. But that's more personal for me as my grandmother's name is Elma and she is about the same age that TCS:Elma would be.I am very curious, though, if she 'hired out' the modeling for the impact and resultant catastrophe.
tbh with spec fic I think you often kind of need to just suspend your disbelief a bit and go with the flow of the book, and this book's premise is much less outlandish than some others I can think of. Only last month we had to accept that using a different calendar would warp reality to the extent that bizarre weapon effects would somehow happen.
Like Trike alluded to, I get the feeling a lot of the "projections" about climate change after the asteroid strike is based on what our best theories are for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Assuming that, I don't find the premise that unbelieveable. And, from there, I don't think it's that far of a leap to conclude Earth would be so uninhabitable as to make any manmade attempts to adapt to the new environment moot, especially given the projections Elma and Nathaniel give to the president and the UN.Like Dave and Ruth said, compared to other sci-fi and fantasy premises, this seems a relatively easy leap.
We're experiencing this story through Elma's point-of-view. Her expertise and experience is with math and flight. For all we know, there could be other branches of government, other country's governments, or private companies planning to stay on Earth. They could be digging underground shelters or domes or something but as they don't pertain or intersect with Elma's life, the reader doesn't know about it.
I took it as part of a 'don't keep all your eggs in one basket'. Migrating some of the human race to another planet would help in preserving the human race. What are the chances that asteroids would hit 3 heavenly bodies? I also assume that only a portion of humans would be migrated. How many ships/sizes would be needed to transport the lot? Not viable - so migrate a few thousand to other planets, and look at ways to preserve life on Earth as well.
Dara wrote: "For all we know, there could be other branches of government, other country's governments, or private companies planning to stay on Earth. They could be digging underground shelters or domes or something but as they don't pertain or intersect with Elma's life, the reader doesn't know about it."That's a good point I hadn't considered. And given that we know people who don't support the Space Program exist, that makes a lot of sense.
Colin wrote: "Trike wrote: "Ask her in the AMA."Not sure about that. Seems a bit confrontational. Not really the way author interviews go on S&L - asking her to defend her book!"
This book is being marketed as hard SF. That makes asking her about the science fair game. This isn't like last month's pick where all of the science was basically gibberish.
A few things... 1) There's no habitat that works if the oceans literally boil.
2) "if it hasn't happened, it can't be possible" is a weird stance for an SF fan. Add to that that the asteroid that hits is about 8 miles across and you have an event that is far larger than others. For more, read We Interrupt This Broadcast.
3) "But that event wouldn't do what MRK posits..." is kind of insulting to her research. Especially when no one making this argument has, I'd wager, done any research at all.
4) This is the story she wanted to tell. Complaining that she should have told another story because that's what you'd do is silly (and, again, kind of insulting). It's like heading to a Italian place and complaining that they could have made French food with the ingredients instead.
Rick wrote: "This is the story she wanted to tell. Complaining that she should have told another story because that's what you'd do is silly ..."Oh, absolutely. And I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. That would be an entirely different story to the one she set out to write. It was just an observation that wouldn't go away once I had it!
I would be hesitant to hold the author responsible for the marketing of her book. I haven't seen any quotes from her saying effectively "this is hard sci-fi, and the science is air-tight!" And even so, I think it would be missing the point of the book to subject the text to the rigors of peer review. I have heard her talk about the lengths she went to get the space program details as close as she could.However, as I stated above, I don't think that questions about where she got her numbers or if any of the results were exaggerated for dramatic effect are necessarily out of line. As long as it's done from the perspective of wanting to learn more about her process in writing and not as a 'gotcha! your science is wrong!'
Mod
I though we hunted them to extinction back in the bible times ;-)
(j/k) My mother actually believe that.
The weather change was bad for the big dinos, but good for us and the smaller dinos (birds)
Dave wrote: "I would be hesitant to hold the author responsible for the marketing of her book. I haven't seen any quotes from her saying effectively "this is hard sci-fi, and the science is air-tight!" And even..."Actually, these days authors are at least partly responsible for their own book marketing. But that doesn't mean that MRK can control the categories that the book is put into on Amazon.
I agree that she did a great job on the space program details. And maybe that's why I expected the rest of the book to be just as rigorous.
Gregg wrote: "I agree that she did a great job on the space program details. And maybe that's why I expected the rest of the book to be just as rigorous. ..."
How do you know it's not? I've no idea either way, but people here are assuming her predictions for what happens to the earth are not accurate and as I said earlier, I doubt any of us have done the research to actually be able to say that.
Colin wrote: "Trike wrote: "Ask her in the AMA."Not sure about that. Seems a bit confrontational. Not really the way author interviews go on S&L - asking her to defend her book!"
Just be nice about it.
“I was wondering if there are plans in future books to show what happens back on Earth. Do they build habitats, etc.?” But, you know, in your own words.
A couple of links I ran into while doing some googling 'research':https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway...
https://planetplanet.net/2019/02/11/h... (specifically the section: "Heating (and overheating) planets: the Greenhouse Effect")
Another note: I hear that there is a note on the science by MRK in the paper copy of the book. It isn't available in the audiobook (which is how I 'read' it), but I'm wondering if she mentions anything about this topic. Maybe I'll have to track it down.
Ruth wrote: "tbh with spec fic I think you often kind of need to just suspend your disbelief a bit and go with the flow of the book, and this book's premise is much less outlandish than some others I can think ..."Yep. Plus, just because it’s not talked about doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
I bought both books at the same time but haven’t gotten around to reading The Fated Sky yet. Maybe she mentions something there, but I’m given to understand it features the Moon and Mars missions.
Rick wrote: "A few things... 1) There's no habitat that works if the oceans literally boil.
2) "if it hasn't happened, it can't be possible" is a weird stance for an SF fan."
See, this is you using your powers for good. Thumbs up on that.
I’m reminded of a discussion on Usenet back in 90s when The Sparrow came out and someone was complaining that the aliens were unbelievable because no animal species on earth had ever had predators mimic their prey. I was like, why are you bothering to read SF at all if you just want Earth with the serial numbers scratched off?
Dave wrote: "Another note: I hear that there is a note on the science by MRK in the paper copy of the book. It isn't available in the audiobook (which is how I 'read' it), but I'm wondering if she mentions anything about this topic. Maybe I'll have to track it down. (..."
I just re-read that and this isn't mentioned nor does she seem to talk about this on her site (at least not in the FAQ). I don't know what the effect on Earth would be of the impact as described. Might be as catastrophic as she outlines, might not be.
She wanted to tell a story of the space program being accelerated drastically and the meteorite event spurs that and then it takes off as it does (so to speak).
While I'd imagine that people who can't go to space would try to build habitats here, I don't see those surviving if the ocean's literally boil. That implies a temp more than 212F and no crops nor animals etc would survive that. Even if we assume living underground etc, I don't see how anyone gets through that for the long term... but it could be an interesting story.
How do you know it's not? I've no idea either way, but people here are assuming her predictions for what happens to the earth are not accurate and as I said earlier, I doubt any of us have done the research to actually be able to say that. ."It occurs to me that I've been looking at this wrong. The climate scenario she's describing might well be what 1950's era scientists would predict. That's a way to justify what's in TCS without worrying about what current climate science says about such an asteroid impact.
Gregg wrote: "It occurs to me that I've been looking at this wrong. The climate scenario she's describing might well be what 1950's era scientists would predict. That's a way to justify what's in TCS without worrying about what current climate science says about such an asteroid impact. ..."
That too but that doesn't really address the question I asked. People here who are saying that they don't believe the posited effects on the earth need to back that up. It's not enough to say "well I just don't think that would happen."
Now, MRK might have made up the effects out of whole cloth but this is a woman who did quite a bit of research, even going to NASA and talking to astronauts. She had all of the math checked and verified. So, it's fine to say you disagree with her premise that the earth will be uninhabitable, but you need to provide some basis for that assertion.
Just dial up the way back machine, the Permian extinction, 251 million years ago, 96% of species disappeared in an extremely short geological time. This one did not even have a meteorite involved.. The dino killer came at the end of a period of heightened volcanic activity which had destabilised the environment (change volcanoes for human produced free house gasses) and conditions are not that different to today.
The real trick is balancing the damage so it is bad enough without wiping us our too quickly.
Rick wrote: "So, it's fine to say you disagree with her premise that the earth will be uninhabitable, but you need to provide some basis for that assertion.."No, the burden of proof is on MRK because it is her book. And, as I said, the real issue is what would scientists have predicted during the time period the book is set in. As far as the TCS storyline, It's actually not relevant what current climate science says.
Climate science is old, the first paper describing the greenhouse effect was back in 1896 (Arrhenius) and had been proposed 40 years earlier. The warming trend was reported in the thirties and global warming proposed as the cause before the second world war.
Climate science was developing rapidly in the fifties with the development of the first computational model of the atmosphere and simple calculations models that Elma could have used were available by then.
MRK has moved some research earlier by about 5 years which is the effect of water vapour. However, given the amount going into the atmosphere it is not a big leap (overall temp patters for a planet are not that complicated, it is the detailed climate predictions that are hard.
The basic findings of a couple of degree temperature rise due to green house gasses has been know since the late sixties. The difficulty getting action is purely social/political. For example an Australian commission for the future in the late seventies proposed climate change as the number one threat facing humanity.
Note, this is all anthropogenic climate change due to slow changes over a long time. Calculations based on a mass of water vapour thrown up into the atmosphere are much simpler (especially ifs the change is many tens of degrees Celsius.
Also, as the book develops the understanding of the problem also develops ((view spoiler))
These changes are relatively minor compared with moving the space programme forward by a decade (in fact the changes in climate science are similar).
Another example is the first work proposing a nuclear winter was done in 1952.
This book is science fiction. MRK uses plenty of science for this book but it's also a fictional story. It's okay if she fudged a few things in order to tell the story she wanted to tell.
Iain wrote: "Climate science is old, the first paper describing the greenhouse effect was back in 1896 (Arrhenius) and had been proposed 40 years earlier. The warming trend was reported in the thirties and gl..."
In addition to this post, I’ve been following global warming since the late 1970s — my first schoolwork on the topic is dated April 1981 — and climatologists have been sounding the exact alarm we hear today since the early 1950s. Global warming concerns are cited as part of the original nuclear test ban treaty.
Science Fiction authors are typically followers of science news and the mid-1960s was full of dire warnings about climate change, especially anthropogenic global warming due to overpopulation. That’s when we get works like John Brunner’s specifically talking about this stuff. The most famous example of sci-fi global warming is the 1973 movie Soylent Green, based on Make Room! Make Room! (1966) by Harry Harrison.
So this topic is not something that has been retconned for this book.
From the Acknowledgement section of this book:"Lucianne Walkowicz is an astronomer at Adler Planetarium and is the one who turned the disaster into a water strike, when she explained how very bad that would be. Without coffee with her, the runaway greenhouse effect would not be part of this novel."
So MKR's not coming up with this off the top of her head.
Gregg wrote: "But that doesn't mean that MRK can control the categories that the book is put into on Amazon."
Have you seen what kind of stuff Amazon lists under "hard science fiction"? Ready Player One, Asimov's Foundation, and a self-help book! I'm speaking as a frustrated librarian here, but the metadata of publishers and retailers is next to worthless in this day and age.
Gregg wrote: "No, the burden of proof is on MRK because it is her book. And, as I said, the real issue is what would scientists have predicted during the time period the book is set in. As far as the TCS storyline, It's actually not relevant what current climate science says. ..."
First, no. You're both making assertions, you and others that the effects would be less.
Second, since MRK has done a lot of research on other aspects, she gets the presumption that she's tried to make the science as plausible as possible within the confines of the story she wants to tell (and goes on about this both on her site and in the Historical note).
Third, while I understand that the 'my opinion is as valid as anyone else's' stance is popular now, its bull. Informed person who does research > unsupported person on the internet.
Also, burden of proof? You are talking about a story, not a murder trial!
Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "Also, burden of proof? You are talking about a story, not a murder trial!"Uh, no. I'm talking about the fact that MRK is responsible for what's in her book, not me. Please read my actual posts and not what other people are reading into them.
Joe Informatico wrote: "Have you seen what kind of stuff Amazon lists under "hard science fiction"? Ready Player One, Asimov's Foundation, and a self-help book! I'm speaking as a frustrated librarian here, but the metadata of publishers and retailers is next to worthless in this day and age. ."Sadly, this kind of thing is rampant. Both publishers and authors routinely abuse Amazon's categories in their desperation to get more sales. And then there's the fact that a lot of people disagree on what terms like "hard science fiction" even mean.
Gregg wrote: "Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "Also, burden of proof? You are talking about a story, not a murder trial!"Uh, no. I'm talking about the fact that MRK is responsible for what's in her book, not me..."
Hmmm, not sure why you assume I am being influenced by others here. I read your comment. I will clarify my own. MRK wrote a story. There is no burden of proof, because she has nothing to prove. Using a legal term to talk about whether or not an author's work is believable seems a little extreme to me.
Gregg wrote: "Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "Also, burden of proof? You are talking about a story, not a murder trial!"Uh, no. I'm talking about the fact that MRK is responsible for what's in her book, not me. Please read my actual posts and not what other people are reading into them."
I don’t know what you’re talking about here. She did the research, you didn’t. There’s nothing else to compare. In other threads people have posted websites which simulate such disasters and I don’t see anything based on those sites to contradict what’s in the book.
You talk about “burden of proof” but she’s given plenty of evidence that backs up what she’s written, both in the book itself and in various interviews/podcasts, sufficient enough to engage the willing suspension of disbelief. If you choose not to read that stuff, that’s on you.
How do we know you have even the most basic knowledge of impacts or climate change? Asserting disbelief of such things without evidence of your own bona fides is just as problematic.
Try this: pretend it’s an even bigger rock that *can* cause the effects she writes about.
Aaron wrote: "I think as much as it's a 50's /60's setting for the story, I also feel like the book itself is written from a sci-fi sensibility of that time where we were going to have colonies in space anyway.a..."
In the Historical Note she mentions that Von Braun wrote a novel that's basically an outline of how the US could go to Mars with then current tech or things that were clearly possible in the near future. The year? 1947. The current printing of that is The Mars Project about which MRK says:
The novel is ... technical. It has charts. It has a table of equations in the back. It demonstrates that von Braun was a brilliant scientist and was incredibly useful for research details. Did I mention the graphs?
The point being that if people had thrown money at him in 1945, von Braun had a plan to get people to Mars. So I put a president in power who would throw money at him, and then I dropped an asteroid on D.C.
So, yes, there was that sensibility that we were at the opening of space exploration but also a grounded expectation that we COULD, it wasn't a far future fantasy. Sadly, the intervening half century saw nothing but cowardice and lack of vision in this regard.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
The Mars Project (other topics)Make Room! Make Room! (other topics)
The Sparrow (other topics)
The Fated Sky (other topics)
We Interrupt This Broadcast (other topics)
I get that the earth is going to become uninhabitable because of the climate change triggered by the asteroid strike, but by what logic does heading off to Mars become an easier solution than building whatever artificial habitats are going to be needed right here on Earth? You know - where the gravity is as we are used to, and there is oxygen in the atmosphere, and freely available water.
Did I miss some compelling bit of reasoning?