Politics and Propaganda In Sci-Fi...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Politics and Propaganda In Sci-Fi...

Page 1 of 10 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Politics and Propaganda In Sci-Fi...

Author

Message

darwinist...

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:43 pm

Guest

Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?

If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?

Butch Malahide...

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:45 pm

Guest

On Oct 30, 12:43 am, darwinist <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?
[/quote]
Of course not. (I shouldn't be responding to this thread but I have
too much spare time since I went into semi-retirement.)

[quote]If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?
[/quote]
If you mean the funniest or most entertaining:
Eric Frank Russell in "And Then There Were None"
Robert Sheckley in "A Ticket to Tranai"
Jonathan Swift in "Gulliver's Travels"

What were you expecting, Plato?

Butch Malahide...

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:52 pm

Guest

On Oct 30, 2:39 am, "Joel Olson" <joel.ol... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]The one where the leader got to wear an exploding necklace.
[/quote]
"All government officials," Melith explained, wear the badge of
office, which contains a traditional amount of tessium, an explosive
you may have heard of. The charge is radio-controlled from the
Citizens Booth. Any citizen has access to the Booth, for the purpose
of expressing his disapproval of the government."

That one? "A Ticket to Tranai" by Robert Sheckley, already mentioned
upthread.
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?45874

Bill Snyder...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:05 am

Guest

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:43:34 -0700 (PDT), darwinist
<darwinist at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?

If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?
[/quote]
The ones that I agree with, of course.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

Mike Schilling...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:29 am

Guest

darwinist wrote:
[quote]Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?

If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings,
this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?
[/quote]
Terry Pratchett. Ankh-Morpork is a lesson in practical civics.

Joel Olson...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:39 am

Guest

"darwinist" <darwinist at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff9113af-b006-46c8-abe3-f73a9ebcea03 at (no spam) v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?

If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?

[/quote]
The one where the leader got to wear an exploding necklace.

Mike Schilling...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:48 am

Guest

Butch Malahide wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 2:39 am, "Joel Olson" <joel.ol... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
The one where the leader got to wear an exploding necklace.

"All government officials," Melith explained, wear the badge of
office, which contains a traditional amount of tessium, an explosive
you may have heard of. The charge is radio-controlled from the
Citizens Booth. Any citizen has access to the Booth, for the purpose
of expressing his disapproval of the government."

That one? "A Ticket to Tranai" by Robert Sheckley, already mentioned
upthread.
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?45874
[/quote]
Cool. I was thinking it was a misremembering of Vance's The Anome
(where everyone but the ruler wears one.)

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:40 am

Guest

darwinist wrote:
[quote]Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?

[/quote]
Atlas Shrugged.

I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be. Socialism wants
to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
depending on postulates), etc. Still, it was an eye-opening work to read
at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother handed the books to me.

I'm now a... "Practical Objectivist" or "rational Libertarian", I
suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than they
are currently, and I'd like to keep "The People" as a large,
uncontrolled mass of busybodies masquerading as government out of
everyone's personal business as much as possible, but I also recognize
that the real world is much, much messier and requires a lot of
compromises for ANYTHING to work at all.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Shawn Wilson...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:41 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 9:49 am, "Steven L." <sdlit... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]Laissez-faire capitalism not only breaks down because people are irrational.

It also breaks down when resources are limited. That causes
externalities to have more and more nasty effects. When there are seven
billion people on earth, it becomes harder and harder for market
economies to create giant industries without polluting the environment,
causing global warming, etc.
[/quote]

Sigh...

Since you obviously don't undertsand economics, what drives you to
comment on it?

Limited resources cause externalities? You don't know what an
externality is, do you? It has nothing whatsoever to to with limited
resources (which economists call 'scarce' and which includes
approximately *everything*).

At least you correctly identified that pollution is an externality.

Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?

[quote]Modern game theory, about which Adam Smith and Ayn Rand knew nothing,
shows that in such situations, when all participants in a market pursue
their own self-interest, the global result can be *sub-optimal*,
refuting Smith's notion of an "invisible hand." See, for example, the
Traveler's Dilemma problem.
[/quote]

"Can be" is not a synonym for "will be", and there are damn few
(read: none) alternatives that are superior to the free market, even
if it's 'sub-optimal'. Ideal public policy is not available to human
beings. At best we get government policy.

[quote]So the Smith/Rand laissez-faire capitalist model assumes rationality of
all players;
[/quote]

As far as the economic definiton of rational is concerned, it is
perfectly reasonable. All economists demand for rationality is that
people have preferences that affect their choices. In that we observe
this in the real world universally, there's no problem.

People like you assume that 'rational' means *much* more than it does
to economists.

[quote]and it assumes that the number of players is so small, and
resources are so vast, that externalities are few and relatively
harmless.
[/quote]

Nope. And there you go misunderstanding 'externalities' again...

Shawn Wilson...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:42 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 11:00 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<seaw... at (no spam) sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

[quote] Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
to see if their current self interest might work against them when
carried through;
[/quote]

OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it? Or is it something you
read on a bumper-sticker and internalized?

it's also that to apply your long-term enlightened self
[quote]interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how
your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the
economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.
[/quote]

No, not really. There is uncertainty in the world. That's why
there's money to be made in insurance.

Shawn Wilson...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:56 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 12:48 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny... at (no spam) airmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson

ikonoql... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?

It's called "sanity." You should try it some time. Once you
have, feel free to post again.
[/quote]

Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
ago? The difference is global warming. Do you think short growing
seasons are better than longer? Slower superior to faster? Tundra
superior to plains? Ice superior to tundra? Winter superior to
summer?

In what way would the world be superior if it were cooler? Be
specific. In what way is warmer worse than cooler? Be specific.

Shawn Wilson...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:57 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 12:50 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<seaw... at (no spam) sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
[quote]Shawn Wilson wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:00 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
seaw... at (no spam) sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
to see if their current self interest might work against them when
carried through;

OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it?

Yep.
[/quote]

Feel free to do so. Expect a call from Sweden, a large pile of money
and a shiny medal shortly after.

I'm pretty sure you can't. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Shawn Wilson...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:04 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 12:59 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny... at (no spam) airmail.net> wrote:

[quote]Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?

It's called "sanity." You should try it some time. Once you
have, feel free to post again.

Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
ago? The difference is global warming. Do you think short growing
seasons are better than longer? Slower superior to faster? Tundra
superior to plains? Ice superior to tundra? Winter superior to
summer?

In what way would the world be superior if it were cooler? Be
specific. In what way is warmer worse than cooler? Be specific.

Fuck off, wacko.
[/quote]

And here we get to the heart of the matter-

It isn't reason with you, it's your *religion*. I don't share your
religion, and I object to your claiming that your *religious* beliefs
are a function of reason, which they manifestly aren't.

Cece...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:30 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 8:40 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<seaw... at (no spam) sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
[quote]darwinist wrote:
Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?

Atlas Shrugged.

I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be. Socialism wants
to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
depending on postulates), etc. Still, it was an eye-opening work to read
at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother handed the books to me.

I'm now a... "Practical Objectivist" or "rational Libertarian", I
suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than they
are currently, and I'd like to keep "The People" as a large,
uncontrolled mass of busybodies masquerading as government out of
everyone's personal business as much as possible, but I also recognize
that the real world is much, much messier and requires a lot of
compromises for ANYTHING to work at all.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal:http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[/quote]
Rational anarchist, maybe?

Cece...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:35 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 1:00 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<seaw... at (no spam) sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
[quote]Steven L. wrote:
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
darwinist wrote:
Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?

Atlas Shrugged.

I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can
modify human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be.
Socialism wants to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one
direction, Randian Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional
human beings aren't always going to make rational decisions (and that
"rational" will vary depending on postulates), etc. Still, it was an
eye-opening work to read at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother
handed the books to me.

I'm now a... "Practical Objectivist" or "rational Libertarian", I
suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than
they are currently, and I'd like to keep "The People" as a large,
uncontrolled mass of busybodies masquerading as government out of
everyone's personal business as much as possible, but I also recognize
that the real world is much, much messier and requires a lot of
compromises for ANYTHING to work at all.

Sounds like you and I had similar reactions to that book.

I came to regard "Atlas Shrugged" as a fascinating theoretical
abstraction--like the kinetic theory of gases that regards each molecule
as behaving like a point mass at the usual temperatures and pressures.

I became more of an advocate of market economies--while at the same time
realizing where that theoretical abstraction can break down.

Laissez-faire capitalism not only breaks down because people are
irrational.

It also breaks down when resources are limited. That causes
externalities to have more and more nasty effects. When there are seven
billion people on earth, it becomes harder and harder for market
economies to create giant industries without polluting the environment,
causing global warming, etc.

Modern game theory, about which Adam Smith and Ayn Rand knew nothing,
shows that in such situations, when all participants in a market pursue
their own self-interest, the global result can be *sub-optimal*,
refuting Smith's notion of an "invisible hand." See, for example, the
Traveler's Dilemma problem.

So the Smith/Rand laissez-faire capitalist model assumes rationality of
all players; and it assumes that the number of players is so small, and
resources are so vast, that externalities are few and relatively
harmless.

Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
to see if their current self interest might work against them when
carried through; it's also that to apply your long-term enlightened self
interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how
your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the
economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal:http://seawasp.livejournal.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
A lot of politics depends on the culture of the people. Ringo
explains this very well in The Last Centurion. The conclusion I
drew: democracy works among folks who can be trusted to borrow lawn
mowers and give them back in good condition, but not among those who
consider non-relatives beneath notice..

Page 1 of 10 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:29 pm Science Forum Index