Sci-fi, coffee, and the future

[sabotabby]

Leigh Phillips joins authors Gwyneth Jones, Marge Piercy, Ken MacLeod and Kim Stanley Robinson to discuss the role of science fiction in extending the radical horizons of our imaginations.

I don't agree with everything in this article, especially in regards to Zizek (Ken MacLeod, you know that's not what he meant) but it's a pretty fascinating read on the radical potential of science fiction and a good starting point for discussion. I particularly liked the last question, about technology and its place in cultural narratives. All of the authors really hit the nail on the head in terms of describing exactly why I feel uncomfortable with the emphasis on anti-GMO/anti-Monsanto/pro-woo stuff on the left:

Gwyneth Jones: Progressives have a right to be cynical about nanotechnology, likewise GM foods and crops, as long as these developments are controlled by ruthless corporate interests. It isn’t about the science; it’s about the tragedy of the commons.

---

On a more mundane (but still futuristic!) note, this article on organizing workers in a service economy (from Macleans, no less!) is also an interesting read. The premise is that traditionally middle class jobs aren't coming back (likely true) and thus minimum wage service sector jobs should be transformed so that one can actually earn a living at them.

Proponents of the idea that service jobs can become the new ticket to the middle class point to sweeping changes in the manufacturing sector in the early 20th century that helped transform factory work from dangerous low-pay jobs into secure careers that could support a family. From 1914, when Henry Ford declared he would pay his employees what was then an exorbitant sum of $5 a day in order to reduce turnover and boost demand for his cars, governments saw higher wages and greater workplace regulation as the start of a virtuous economic cycle. But whether the service industry can follow the same model is far from certain.

Read and discuss.

Comments

[agatharuncible.livejournal.com]

Gwyneth Jones: Progressives have a right to be cynical about nanotechnology, likewise GM foods and crops, as long as these developments are controlled by ruthless corporate interests. It isn’t about the science; it’s about the tragedy of the commons.

I don't get it, is that wrong? I mean, if ruthless corporations are the ones controlling science-y stuff, it stops being something that could improve the lives of people who need it most (like GMO crops used to help populations in less agriculturally fertile areas, etc.) and becomes more about selling cool but unecessary stuff to people who can afford it.

[sabotabby]

That's what she's saying. It's not the inherent science, it's the economic arrangement of how that knowledge is used.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

That might be why one of the oddest arguments about GMOs is that Monsanto is infecting non-GMO crops with GMO and then suing the farmers. It's not true (the farmer that claimed that his crops became GMO was lying) but it is less schizophrenic than putting up a farmer as an anti-Monsanto crusader when the farmer was basically hoarding GMOs in order to use them and replicate them in contradiction to the contract (so the farmer was so pro-GMO that Monsanto was suing him for breach of contract - which is a funny argument coming from the anti-GMO zealots).

Is there a better way of getting GMOs to people who want them?

[ironed_orchid]

It isn’t about the science; it’s about the tragedy of the commons.

Beautifully put!

I really hope something good comes of these minimum wage and workers' rights protests. I am so lucky to work somewhere with a decent minimum wage, although a side effect is that a lot of things here cost much more than you would expect from simply calculating the exchange rate. International companies often cite the high cost of employing Australian retail workers as a reason for the difference, but there are times when that doesn't nearly account for the discrepancies.

[sabotabby]

I really hope something good comes of these minimum wage and workers' rights protests.

It seems like it would have to, but maybe I'm hopelessly naïve. It's incredible what people will put up with before they snap.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

I so, so wish I had the brain to read and discuss!
It sounds like something I would really like to read and understand but I have baby brain big time.

I don't get economics enough to grasp service economies. Doesn't make sense to me, but then so little of economics does.

[sabotabby]

I feel like most economists, people likely to read this entry aside, don't actually grasp economics. Because it's made up, yet treated as objective scientific fact.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

That is how I feel but am scared to say it, except in the heat of an argument, because I have not the education to back it up. But surely even economists must admit it looks suspiciously like that from the outside!