|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #1082236 added January 11, 2025 at 11:16am
Restrictions: None
Time Marses On
At the end of last year (almost two whole weeks ago), I linked an article that tried to refute arguments against Mars colonization. Today's article, from Inverse, takes a somewhat different trajectory.
And already I'm giving it the side-eye because of the headline. "Combine science and sci-fi?" Look, I'll give "sci-fi" a pass (I have to because it's an official genre name here, though I never liked that particular abbreviation), but that phrase is meaningless. A thing that exists is either science or it's fiction, literary genres notwithstanding. I take it to mean that Mars habitats will require technology that doesn't exist yet, except in the realm of speculation (or speculative fiction). But by the time we're colonizing Mars—if we do—it had better be science, not fiction, in the habitat design.
As for the sub-head, I think we have over 100 years of awesome SF novel cover art to look at for "striking" and "weird."
On Earth, the buildings and dwellings humans spend the majority of their lives in serve as reflections of our society’s culture, beliefs, and values. So if the shelters we make for ourselves truly mirror and influence our everyday lives, how might that sentiment be translated to living in space?
I'm not a big fan of this first paragraph, either. Sure, architecture is partly art, but it's also partly pragmatic. We didn't start building stuff out of wood because we thought the result was pretty, or because we hated trees; it happened because the trees were available and useful. A slanted roof didn't get invented to make a statement; it exists to keep the rain out and the snow from piling up too high. Once you get these and other functional basics covered, then you can start thinking about aesthetics.
Sure, maybe I have an inherent bias for function over form, but does anyone seriously think the design of first Mars habitat is going to be driven by looks rather than function and durability?
One of the most accurate parts of the 2015 movie The Martian is that when Matt Damon ends up stranded on Mars, everything about the planet is trying to kill him and his habitat holding up is his only hope of survival.
Okay, I will admit here that I haven't seen that movie (yet). I did, however, read the book, where the main character wasn't Matt Damon (yet). Apart from being jealous that the author managed to get his first novel published (bastard), the survival thing wasn't a "part," but the entire fucking plot. By which I mean, like, in your usual novel, you have a protagonist and an antagonist, right? Unless you're going for snooty literary-genre crap, in which case you can throw out plot, characterization, and making even the slightest bit of sense, usually you have what boils down to good guy / bad guy, and the plot is the tension between the two. In this book, the antagonist is the damn planet, and the hero survives by using his brain.
Which is not to say it's a bad book. It's a good book. All I'm saying is that calling this central conflict "one of the most accurate parts" of the story is like calling chocolate one of the main ingredients in a Three Musketeers bar (okay, that's funny because Three Musketeers are produced by Mars Inc., get it?) (Yes, I know it's not real chocolate; shut up, that's not my point.)
Yet some sci-fi classics like Star Wars also offer alternative, less bleak visions of humanity’s future off-Earth.
And with that, the article completely lost me.
Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's fantasy with science fiction props.
I've banged on at length about why this is, but for now I'll just stick to the article: it doesn't present humanity's future off-Earth, but rather famously takes place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."
Please note that this isn't a value judgement, just a categorization one.
Perhaps the author meant Star Trek, which is science fiction, set in the future largely off-Earth, and generally not bleak. But anyone who confuses the two is either a) trolling, which I can appreciate to some extent or b) a complete idiot. As I detect no other signs of trolling in the vicinity, Captain, I'm going to go with b, which means anything else the article has to say can be safely dismissed.
Well, I didn't dismiss it entirely. I read the whole thing, and there's some good stuff there. I just don't feel the need to quote from it further. I'll just note one final thing, since we're talking about science fiction.
As far as I'm aware, there are no fictional depictions of a Mars colony that do not end in revolution and independence. The idea of a Mars colony remaining indefinitely subject to Earth control runs completely counter to history, psychology, technology, and all of known science. That's something else to keep in mind before we go running off building Mars habitats. |
© Copyright 2025 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
