Don’t Fear the Future

Whenever our country goes into an economic downturn we have outbreaks of Chicken Littles crying the sky is falling.  In today’s New York Times there is an article “Imagining Life Without Oil” by John Leland.  Leland profiles new groups claiming the end is near because oil is running out.  Kevin Kelly gives all Chicken Littles a modern name,  Collapsitarians, which is a good enough word for me.  Science fiction has always loved Collapsitarian stories.  While some people like to plot a future where everything gets better, other people like to plot a downward slope for civilization. 

These end of oil is near folks will love The Windup Girl, which just won a Nebula and has a good chance of winning the Hugo in a few months.  But bleak stories of the future should only be lessons in teaching us what to avoid.

We have a weird national psychology, when things are booming on Wall Street everyone thinks they’re going be billionaires, but when stock prices head south, everyone thinks the USA will become a set for Mad Max chaos.  Few people see life as merely a bumpy road.

Our world has only depended on oil for a little over a hundred years.  Even if we’ve reach peak production like the Collapsitarians claim, it doesn’t mean all our tanks will go empty on the same day.  It will take decades to finish off the global supplies of petroleum.  We should have plenty of time to transition to new energy technologies.  Oil disasters like current Gulf Coast nightmare, and the evil Avatar like rape of the Amazon, only illustrates it’s time to give up the oil habit.

The problem is not oil, but people.  What the Collapsitarians fear is society going through withdrawal from it’s oil addiction and how painful that will be.  The Gulf Coast oil disaster only teaches us how painful living with oil is, like a heroin addict realizing their drug is destroying their body.  What we need to do is man up, admit our problem, go on a global 12 step treatment program, and change our lives.  That will certainly be less painful than what the doomsters are predicting.

Many Americans have embraced Big Oil like evangelicals embracing Jesus – they put all their faith in the word of Big Oil.  Whereas, the Big Oil companies should merely transition to thinking of themselves as Big Energy companies and embrace alternative forms of energy themselves, rather than trying to stomp out alternative energies as heretics of the faithful.

Just applying conservation techniques and energy efficiency should match the rate of oil production decline for a few decades.  The eight Bush years has nearly ruined our chances of becoming the world leaders in green technology, but we could still catch up if we stop running around crying the sky is falling.  We must fight the Drill Baby Drill desire with Build Baby Build competition of constructing massive green energy producing sites.  We have to transfer our faith in oil and coal to wind, solar, bio-fuels,  geothermal, nuclear and all the other emerging technologies.

Actually, we have two major addictions, oil and coal, like heroin and cocaine, that we need to throw off.  The way to fight negative addictions, is with positive additions, like a alcoholic who goes on the wagon and takes up running.  Things might look bad now, and bad on numerous fronts, but there are lots of positive fronts too.  Too many people see the gloom in each scenario.  For example the health care crisis.  Yes, it’s costing us too much.  But on the other hand, modern medicine is working miracles.  Oil is running out, but technology is inventing numerous alternatives.  The sky is not falling.  It’s just a little cloudy.

The key is always us.  The future only looks dark when millions get scared.   When those same millions find hope, people start seeing the return of good times.  We need to be realistic Pollyannas, because when we get depressed we’re our own worst enemy.  Don’t listen to the Collapsitarians.   

JWH – 6/6/10

Are You Willing to Pay for News?

If you subscribe to newspapers or magazines then you are already paying for news, so the precise question is:  Are you willing to pay for news on the Internet?  One June 1 The Times (London) is going behind a paywall, and The New York Times is planning on trying yet another online subscription plan next year.  The gold standard of news has always been to read a world-class newspaper.  For years people have gotten used to reading these papers online for free, but now it looks like free days are over.

For most of my life I got my news from the plebian news source, television.  Since the 1990s, Internet has introduced me to the world’s great newspapers and I now realize their value, and I have decided to become an online subscriber.  I just have to decide which paper to marry for my news partner.

The old way of doing things was to subscribe to the local paper and it would include a syndication of state, national and international news stories.  Newspapers were the world wide web before the WWW.  Now, I’m not sure that’s the way to go.  I’m thinking I’d rather have the best news writing, and go with something like The New York Times.  But if everyone thought like that, we’d end up with half a dozen newspapers for the U.S.A.

But then I’m not typical.  I think most people prefer local news.  It’s sad to admit, but I pay zero attention to what goes on in my city and state.  My local paper has a beautiful, and extremely easy to read, free web site, but I don’t read it.  They also offer a modest $10 a month digital edition that’s closer to the looks of a newspaper, but their free site is so nice I can’t imagine even spending that much money.

I think it’s going to be awhile before people pay for local news online, but if The New York Times and the The Times are indicators of the future, will people be willing to pay for a national newspaper?  I don’t think we will know until publishers cut off the free news spigot.  And that’s what the The Times is doing June 1.  The Times will even cut Google off from indexing the paper.  That’s going to be a major experiment. 

So far The New York Times has always kept it’s free web edition going concurrent with any of its paid experimental editions, which have always failed.  I do read the free portions of TimesReader 2.0 that I got when downloading Adobe Reader.  The full edition is $4.62 a week.  $20 a month seems steep compared to what I get from Rhapsody for $10 a month – access to 9 million songs across many major and minor record labels.  The New York Times is preparing a new paid edition for iPad owners, and I think that might be the turning point for switching from paying for printed news to paying for online news.

If I had an iPad I would subscribe to The New York Times, if the web site edition closed down.  I would also consider subscribing to magazines for the iPad.  Again, which magazines I bought would depend if they weren’t available online.  Right now I have little incentive to subscribe to electronic editions of The New Yorker or The Atlantic or Wired because they offer too much content for free.

I used to spend hundreds a dollars a year for magazine subscriptions, but cut them all out because I believe it’s more Earth friendly to read the content online.  And I don’t always expect to get a free lunch, but as long as the content is free I have no incentive to pay either.  I pay Rhapsody $10 a month because I want the music and I don’t want to steal it.  There’s plenty of free legal music on the web, but it’s too much trouble to collect.  For $10 a month I get legal access to 98% of what’s for sale.  I’d rather pay $10 a month to a service like Rhapsody if they distributed legal news and magazines reprints, than make individual subscriptions, but that’s not available.

I’m currently pay Safari Books Online $34 a month for online access to 10,000 plus computer books.  Thus, I’m proving I’m willing to pay for online content.  But I don’t always like the deals being offered.  The online editions of The New Yorker and Scientific American are more expensive than discount offers I get for the paper editions.  No incentive there to subscribe.  I don’t like paying print edition prices for digital editions – it feels like I’m getting ripped off.  Publishers are saving on paper, printing, shipping, distribution, and postal costs, and they aren’t passing any of those savings on to me.

Rupert Murdoch wants people to pay for what they read on the net, at least when they are reading something he’s selling in the analog world.  Now that’s totally against the way the Internet works now.  The reason why the Internet is great is because you can share links.  If some content goes behind paywalls, the Internet will fork into the free and non-free, that which can be linked, and that which can’t.

The Internet is big enough to handle such diversity, but what does that mean at the social level?  We get part of the population reading high quality paid journalism, and the rest will live off of free blog news.  It will also mean those sites that depend on ad revenue will have more readers, those fleeing the paid sites, thus beefing up their financial model.

But think of it this way.  Do you prefer paying for HBO shows, without ads, or watching NBC shows with tons of ads?  That also means, any content I subscribe to on the net better be ad free.  If the TimesSelect 2.0 was $5 a month, instead a week, I’d probably subscribe now if it was totally ad free.  The free, but extremely limited version, has a few ads, but they are still tastefully placed so I can ignore them.  And the amount of great content the New York Times provides with the free edition of the TimesSelect 2.0 also discourages me from paying.

Publishers are going to have a hard time selling content online, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.  It’s better for the economy, and creates more jobs if we pay for what we read.  And we get better written news.  But publishers can’t sell quality content in one place if they also give it away in another just as easy to get to location.

JWH – 3/31/10

Nebula Awards Showcase 2010

WTF?  You’d think an anthology with Nebula Awards in the title would be filled with all the award winners and as many of the nominees as they had room to cram in.  Not this one.  It has the winners for each category, and even an excerpt from the winning novel, but all the runner-ups get the hook.  See this Locus page for the entire list of nominees.  Winning must be everything to the editor Bill Fawcett, but I like reading all the nominees for the awards because more often than not, I don’t agree with the voting.

Everything else in these 420 pages is padding, and there’s lots of it.  And to be honest, I also bought the volume for several essays that promised to be a history of science fiction in the 20th century decade-by-decade, but even on that count I was burned badly.  But for a book subtitle, “The Year’s Best SF and Fantasy” I’d have to say I’m extremely disappointed.

To give the publisher and editor the benefit of the doubt, most of the 2009 nominees were available on the net for free reading during the voting period – but so was lots of the padding, like a listing of all the Nebula Awards back to the beginning.  The non-fiction portion of this volume was so slight in actual information, with some essays showing no more work than blog level nattering, that I’d rather trade them all for fiction from the non-winning nominees.

On the cover and title page is “Nebula Awards Showcase 2010 – The Year’s Best SF and Fantasy – Selected by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America.”  From that I expected all fiction, no non-fiction filler.  I would also expect fiction that the SFWA endorses as their absolute best writing for the year.  Of course even this is confusing.  The title says 2010, because that’s when the volume is published, but it’s for the 2009 award year, for fiction first published in 2007 and 2008.  This volume contains two excerpts from novels that I wouldn’t have include either, to make more room for complete stories.  I would have called it Nebula Awards 44.

When I found Nebula Awards Showcase 2010 at my bookstore I thought cool, a good collection of stories to keep.  When I flipped through the table of contents and saw this listing of additional essays below, I bought the volume thinking it had two reasons to add it to be collection.

  • Early SF in the Pulp Magazines by Robert Weinberg
  • The Golden Age by David Drake
  • Science Fiction in the Fifties: The Real Golden Age by Robert Silverberg
  • Writing SF in the ‘60s by Frederik Pohl and Elizabeth Anne Hull
  • Science Fiction in the 1970s: The Tale of the Nerdy Duckling by Kevin J. Anderson
  • Into the Eighties by Lynn Abbey
  • Science Fiction in the 1990s: Waiting for Godot … or Maybe Nosferatu by Mike Resnick

These essays are really disappointing.  I’m sure part of their fault lies with my expectations.  I assumed in an anthology about great fiction, the essays would be surveys of the best fiction from each of the decades covered.  It appears the business of SF/F is more interesting to the SFWA writers. 

I was wanting to be reminded what were the best novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories from each decade.  How can you write an essay about SF in the 1960s and not mention the New Wave?  And, not mention work by Samuel R. Delany and Roger Zelazny, the two authors I think of as the decade’s brightest stars?  Delany won 4 Nebula awards in the five years they were given in the 1960s.

What I would have loved from these essays, is for their authors to list, with brief comments, the novels and stories that they felt were Nebula Award worthy before 1965, and for the years after that, comment on how the winners have been remembered and what stories have emerged as more memorable since the awards.

If the Nebula Awards Showcase 2010 had just included all the winners and nominees from the non-novel categories I would have been very happy with the collection.  It would have been a keeper, instead I’m going to leave it on the free table at work.

JWH – 5/31/10 

Does Jesus Matter?

When I became an atheist at 13 I figured I wouldn’t have to worry about who Jesus was anymore, and I could stop reading The Bible.  Around age 55, I returned to reading The Bible, to understand its place in history and to find out why so many people claimed it was so significant.  I’m still not religious, or even spiritual, but The Bible is like the world’s hardest jigsaw puzzle, you start to put a few pieces together and you get hooked.

In this week’s issue of The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik describes the latest crop of books about Jesus in, “What Did Jesus Do?”  I highly recommend you taking the time to read this essay.

Gopnik claims ten books came out about Jesus in just one month.  I always figured Jesus was a real historical person, that we have very little actual evidence about him, and that there is a difference between Jesus the philosopher and Christ, the deity with infinite aspects.  I might be right or wrong about all points.  In fact, there are so many interpretations of who Jesus the real person was that I have to wonder if I shouldn’t write him off as unknowable.

The trouble is about 2 billion people want to define reality by their interpretation of Jesus.  Would reading all of these books that Adam Gopnik surveys put enough puzzle pieces together to produce a consistent view?  No, you won’t get a conclusive answer to who was the historical Jesus, but your sense of history and reality would be greatly expanded.  Here are links to some of the books he reviewed, and some others I ran across.

And there is no end in sight.  I put “Jesus” in the search box at Amazon, and then set the order to date, and there were over twenty pages of books scheduled to be published.  So I have to ask, should I even study a subject that produces so many opinions?

I know the faithful will say Jesus is someone I should study forever, but I don’t think that’s true.  He either had a definite message or he didn’t.  I also know the faithful will claim the definitive message is found by reading The Bible, but that’s also not true, because of the zillions of books trying to interpret The Bible.

And why try to understand Jesus and not all the other religious figures who have thousands of books written about them?  I do know from the many books I’ve already read, that the more one studies Jesus, the more one tries to understand him in a historical and political context and not as a metaphysical being.

In other words, if we can get a clear picture of the time in which he lived, it reveals much about what he supposedly said.  Studying history is fascinating, but why spend so much time on one person in one tiny portion of the globe for one very short period of time?  Wouldn’t it be more important, and even more spiritual, to study now?  Let’s assume Jesus was an astute observer of life, and his message was different from the teachers of his time, because he was revolutionary, choosing not to look backwards. 

All religions eventually come up with the golden rule.  The basic direction of religion is to inspire people to be better people.  Do we really need to know about people and their problems 2,000 years ago, when we have plenty of people and problems now?  My guess is people would be more Christian if they forget the past and just worked and studied in the present to improve their own lives and help other people around them.

The only real reason to study Jesus is to study biblical history and that eventually leads to studying ancient politics and sociology.  I think the reason why there is so much scholarship on the historical Jesus is because his life is such a delicious mystery.  And if you study biblical times you’ll eventually migrate into classical studies and the study of prehistory.  It’s a deep well to fall into.  Obsessive scholars even take up ancient Greek and Latin.  Eventually these studies turn into the psychoanalysis of the western mind.  Look what happened to Bart D. Ehrman.  He started off as a Evangelical Christian and now he’s almost a  pure historian.

I’m not the kind of atheist that wants to convert the faithful to the scientific worldview.  I don’t want to argue The Bible with others.  I can live with an indifferent reality, but most people need the comfort of answers, even if they are fantasies.   I wish the religious wouldn’t kill each other, or go on jihads and crusades, but I can’t do much about that.  Attacking their beliefs doesn’t do much good.  I do think I contemplate many of the same concepts Jesus is said to have meditated on, and seek many of his same goals, but I just don’t believe any of the stories written about him after he died. 

I’m willing to accept Jesus as a philosopher, say like Plato.  But does he matter?  Not to me.  But then neither does Plato.  In terms of leading a good life one only needs to endlessly explore the golden rule.  The study of history is like the study of science, it is meant to explore the nature of reality.  In this content Jesus is the most famous person in history, and understanding why does matter.

JWH – 5/25/10

Three on a Match (1932)

three-on-a-match-bette-davis-joan-blondell-ann-dvorak

I wish I could put into words how I feel about old movies from the 1930s.  I wish I could understand why I love them.  I didn’t live through that era like my parents, not being born until 1951.  I grew up with black and white television and reruns of old films were a staple of TV stations back then, so that’s how I got hooked.  Millions of my fellow baby boomers growing up at the same time never learned to enjoy these films.

So why did I?  I think it has something to do with staying up late and watching them in the dark, with their flickering black and white light creating a strange alternate reality that imprinted on my mind.  I like to watch them best now late at night, when my mind is half dreamy, when they put me in a trance.

Last night I watched Three on a Match, a film I’ve seen before.  This DVD I got from Netflix is part of a collection called Forbidden Hollywood, Volume 2, a series that focuses on pre-code films (before hard censorship in 1934).  A good book that introduces that era is Sins in Soft Focus by Mark A. Vieira.  Many of the great pre-code films deal with feminist issues, and Three on a Match is one of them, even though it’s ending completely supports the status quo.

I think the best of modern movies are better made, better written, better acted than the old shows from the 1930s, but my soul resonates with the old black and white films.  Three on a Match is not a great movie, and most young people if they did watch it, would find it strange and clunky, if not silly and laughable.  For me, Three on a Match oozes history, both about life in America before 1932, and tinsel town.

What the moral police wanted back then, was to censor Hollywood from showing strong willed women.  The kind of women who wanted their own careers, or ones that wanted to explore their sexuality or escape the bondage of marriage, motherhood and even morality.  Three on a Match is actually a slight film, only 64 minutes, and much of that is filled with filler and back story.  Young Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart have minor roles in this film, but story is about Vivian Kirkwood, played by Ann Dvorak, who is little remembered today.

Vivian Kirkwood does well in school, marries a rich New York lawyer, and has a child, but is bored.  In the scene pictured above she runs into two old friends from school.  The Bette Davis and Joan Blondell characters envy Vivian’s success and can’t understand why she’s not happy.  The flaw in this film is the audience is not shown why she’s unhappy.  We are given in a few short scenes where Vivian avoids her husband, especially his touch, and shows little interest in her son.  I wanted much more.  Maybe real explanations were too explicit even for pre-code Hollywood.

Mrs. Kirkwood asks her husband, a slightly older man played by Warren William, if she can go off on a vacation without him. William, another forgotten star, is wise enough to indulge his wife.  He hates to see her take his son, who he dotes on, but feels the kid belongs with his mom, and assumes the mom is less likely to go running around if she has the kid.  He was wrong.  Three hours after her husband leaves her, Vivian takes up with low life Michael Loftus, nicely played by Lyle Talbot.  Everything happens way too fast in this movie.

The movie is too short, but well illustrated by a few key scenes.  Vivian gets caught up in parties, drinking, and even cocaine if you catch a gesture that Humphrey Bogart makes.  Ultimately, Vivian comes to a tragic, but heroic end.

I wished the movie had been twice as long so we could have gotten deeper into Vivian’s head.  What made her so unhappy with riches, marriage and motherhood?  What drove her to risk everything?  We know the subject all too well, because we see it happening to young women today, with modern films telling the same story far more explicitly, depicting girls taking a walk on the wild side, but are today’s films any better at explaining why?

Personally, I think Bette Davis or even Joan Blondell could have played Vivian Kirkwood better.  Ann Dvorak does a good job, but she doesn’t look the part.  Ann Dvorak looks more suited to play the Joan Blondell part, and we know Bette Davis had the personality for the role.

Even though this film was slight, it was delicious.  I almost feel like watching it again tonight, to savor the beautiful black and white cinematography and to study all the character actors, but I’ve got to watch the end of Lost tonight.

I’ve leave you with this clip that mostly shows the back story, but it has many fascinating news reel clips – especially notice the two girls dancing, something that couldn’t be shown after the code was enforced.  There is practically nothing in this clip that deals with the heart of this film, so don’t judge Three on a Match by it.  It’s design to showcase the music, and uses extra content from the film for imagery.

JWH – 5/23/10