Like the 1950s
Thomas Jones · 'Physics of the Future'
In Understanding Media (1964), Marshall McLuhan distinguished between 'hot' and 'cool' media: hot media, like the radio, are 'high definition' but 'low in participation'; 'cool media', like the telephone, are 'low definition' but 'high in participation'. (In the early 1960s, TV was 'cool', compared to the 'hot' movies. Obviously that was long before the arrival of hi-def.) Predictions about the way technology is heading, whether made by SF writers or tech companies, tend to assume the future will be hot. Characters in Brave New World go to the Feelies. Thirty years ago, everyone (well, maybe not everyone) imagined that by now we'd be watching holographic movies and wandering around with virtual reality helmets on. But no one foresaw the rise of text-messaging or Twitter. Michio Kaku's whiggish Physics of the Future, published last month, follows the trend, confident that the future will be lived in high definition.
The weirdest thing about Kaku's book isn't the 'startling and provocative vision of the future' promised by the publicity material, but how incredibly old-fashioned it all seems. Kaku, a professor of physics at the CUNY Graduate Center, begins the book with a confession of how much he loved watching Flash Gordon on TV as a child. It shows. Laser-propelled spaceships, robot dogs, self-driving magnetic cars, colonies on Mars, surfing the internet telepathically through our contact lenses – weren't we, according to the SF of the 1950s and 1960s, already meant to have all this stuff by now?
Kaku's final chapter, 'A Day in the Life in 2100', reads like Asimov on a very bad day:
January 1, 2100, 6:15 a.m.
After a night of heavy partying on New Year's Eve, you are sound asleep.
Suddenly, your wall screen lights up. A friendly, familiar face appears on the screen. It's Molly, the software program you bought recently. Molly announces cheerily, 'John, wake up. You are needed at the office.'
In many of the important ways, you'll notice, 2100 will be remarkably like the 1950s.
On the other hand, the entire species may be wiped out at some point in the next 89 years, and a day in the life in 2100 will begin more like this:
After a night of heavy sulphuric acid consumption, the colony of extremophile bacteria had doubled in size.
Or maybe not, since apocalypse, like techno-utopia, has a tendency to be permanently postponed.
Comments
Cyberspace was the underlying structures of data that Case experienced, a virtual audio-visual space, capable of being explored and where one's own presence also registered (unless it could be masked). The electrodes on the head being facilitators of exchange in both directions, ie: security programs can 'flat-line' the user, potentially killing them. It remains closer to the representation/conceptualisation engaged in by hackers, rather than users, so the social dimension did not feature. (Anybody who is accustomed to quantitative viewing of data, as 'packets', rather than as content, is familiar with this view of the internet.) Gibson's move was clever, because it turned the hacker's position, potentially, into that of somebody sat in the electric chair, a place where Julian Assange, that 'thief of cyberspace, may, potentially, yet end up.
I'm still amazed reading sections of description especially in fiction, e.g. Balzac, Zola or Conrad, the extent to which they are 'cinematic'. Film tried to supply the plenitude perceived to be lacking in literary descripton, but the latter functioning as it did on synecdoche and suggestion often did a better job of making the reader 'see' scenes. (I'm thinking especially of the rendering of cityscapes, interiors, material culture aspects.)
I find the novels of Thomas Bernhard to be the closest thing to experiencing, in art, how the mind functions, that's why I enjoy them so much.
I've never read Thos. Bernhard. Maybe I will now. Thanks for the tip.
C'mon, guys, chant it. Chant
There is nothing ordinary about this at all
there is nothing ordinary about this at all