Science Fiction: conservative vs liberal

[Tom Kalbfus]

So is science fiction a conservative or liberal media.
Is being a conservative make you less likely to be sucessful as a science fiction writer?
Are the publishing houses looking for a particular political bias in science fiction writing?
One thing science fiction is about is the future, and the future is also what politics is concerned about.
I've read quite a few science fiction books, and the ones written by seemingly conservative authors appear to be in the minority. I will list a few of them:
S.M. Stirling, Travis L Taylor
Can you name any others?

Generally Liberals have certain archtypes they use over and over again, there is the "evil Megacorporation" for example, the "War happy US General" is another one. basically the identity of the heroes and villains indicate the possibly political bent. Generally if there is a creative enterprise geared towards entertainment, its dominated, or shall I say infested with big government liberals, who's favorite villians are the United State Government, or the MegaCorporation. An example of a left of center author would be Kim Stanley Robinson, Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps someone else who's widely read can recommend some other science fiction authors that they would consider conservative.

[badkarma]

you realize that just because a book is written a certain way or concerning a specific political bent, it does not mean that the author is a member of that political party or outlook, right? There is no conspiracy to keep right wing authors from being published.

[Tom Kalbfus]

you realize that just because a book is written a certain way or concerning a specific political bent, it does not mean that the author is a member of that political party or outlook, right? There is no conspiracy to keep right wing authors from being published.
You think Kim Stanley Robinson is not a liberal or a left of center writer?
People tend to write about what interests them, and if one is a sucessful writer, you don't think he would use that opportunity to export his political views in the subtext of the story? In his books Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars the consistent villains were the evil "Transnats" who were always murdering people and fighting wars amongst themselves and killion millions of people while pursueing their economic interests, and it all builds to a conclusion where the protagonists rebel and write an alternative to Capitalism in their Martian Constitution.

One constant among liberals is to always look for alternatives to Capitalism when searching for the solution to a more immediate problem. You have one "bad actor" that happens to be a CEO of a corporation, then there must be something wrong with corporations in general and an alternative to them must be sought, that is typical of a liberal, he always tries to go further than the immediate problem of one evil CEO, he looks for "systematic solutions" when the problem is more immediate and involves a particular person.

I think Robert Forward was a conservative author as well, as his protagonists were often corporate CEOs, Ben Bova was also a conservative I think.

[Buffalo]

Some people can suck the joy out of a puppy for Christ's sake.

[jimjames418]

An example of a left of center author would be Kim Stanley Robinson, Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps someone else who's widely read can recommend some other science fiction authors that they would consider conservative.
Robert A. Heinlein was a very conservative, what some would call a neo-con, and was a very sucessful writer of science fiction. Try reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" which has a very conservative bent.

Iaasc Asimov on the other hand was a flaming liberal, but you would never know it from his writings. He came across in "Caves of Steel" as a big anti big government type of person. This also came through in the Foundation series.

[Vic Daring]

AMUEB

A Monster Under Every Bed

[Tom Kalbfus]

Robert A. Heinlein was a very conservative, what some would call a neo-con, and was a very sucessful writer of science fiction. Try reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" which has a very conservative bent.

Iaasc Asimov on the other hand was a flaming liberal, but you would never know it from his writings. He came across in "Caves of Steel" as a big anti big government type of person. This also came through in the Foundation series.
Caves of Steel was the first in his Robot Series, that is aside from his anthology I Robot, which featured a short story called the Bicentenial Man.

What would a conservative think of the types of robots he talks about in his novels?
I suppose a person who was against human cloning, and abortion, might have something against the Positronic Robots of Asimov's novels that obey the three laws of robotics, or maybe not.

Certainly in order to have the three laws of robotics hardwired into the robots, you need some sort of monopoly over robot production, or a great deal of government regulation to enforce it, and someone could still probably build a robot that did not obey the three laws.

If you could manufacture your workers, this would have a great deal of implications for Capitalism and free markets, in order for this to work, every human being would have to be a Capitalist owning some robots that do the work for him. Being an employee working for someone else would no longer be an option in an "I Robot" society, after all, why would an employer hire you if he can have a robot that he owns doing the same thing that you are capable of?

[texan_rep]

Caves of Steel was the first in his Robot Series, that is aside from his anthology I Robot, which featured a short story called the Bicentenial Man.

What would a conservative think of the types of robots he talks about in his novels?
I suppose a person who was against human cloning, and abortion, might have something against the Positronic Robots of Asimov's novels that obey the three laws of robotics, or maybe not.

Certainly in order to have the three laws of robotics hardwired into the robots, you need some sort of monopoly over robot production, or a great deal of government regulation to enforce it, and someone could still probably build a robot that did not obey the three laws.

If you could manufacture your workers, this would have a great deal of implications for Capitalism and free markets, in order for this to work, every human being would have to be a Capitalist owning some robots that do the work for him. Being an employee working for someone else would no longer be an option in an "I Robot" society, after all, why would an employer hire you if he can have a robot that he owns doing the same thing that you are capable of?

"I, Robot" did not include "Bicentennial Man". That story was written much later.

[texan_rep]

Robert A. Heinlein was a very conservative, what some would call a neo-con, and was a very sucessful writer of science fiction. Try reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" which has a very conservative bent.

Iaasc Asimov on the other hand was a flaming liberal, but you would never know it from his writings. He came across in "Caves of Steel" as a big anti big government type of person. This also came through in the Foundation series.

"Starship Troopers" is even more so.

[WorldWatcher]

Robert A. Heinlein was a very conservative, what some would call a neo-con, and was a very sucessful writer of science fiction. Try reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" which has a very conservative bent.



Jim,


Most conservatives (well lets be honest, social conservatives [well lets really be honest, social authoritarians]) would have an epileptic fit, stroke, and coronary all combined if they read some of the social and sexual structures common in Heinlein's later works such as Stranger, Number of the Beast, Time Enough for Love, and To Sail Beyond The Sunset.




:mrgreen:


>>>>

[badkarma]

Caves of Steel was the first in his Robot Series, that is aside from his anthology I Robot, which featured a short story called the Bicentenial Man.

What would a conservative think of the types of robots he talks about in his novels?
I suppose a person who was against human cloning, and abortion, might have something against the Positronic Robots of Asimov's novels that obey the three laws of robotics, or maybe not.

Certainly in order to have the three laws of robotics hardwired into the robots, you need some sort of monopoly over robot production, or a great deal of government regulation to enforce it, and someone could still probably build a robot that did not obey the three laws.

If you could manufacture your workers, this would have a great deal of implications for Capitalism and free markets, in order for this to work, every human being would have to be a Capitalist owning some robots that do the work for him. Being an employee working for someone else would no longer be an option in an "I Robot" society, after all, why would an employer hire you if he can have a robot that he owns doing the same thing that you are capable of?
And here I was all set to have a reasonable debate on this topic, then you posted this and I realized that regardless of whatever anyone ever says to you, you will find what you want anyway. have fun playing the victim.

[texan_rep]

Jim,


Most conservatives (well lets be honest, social conservatives [well lets really be honest, social authoritarians]) would have an epileptic fit, stroke, and coronary all combined if they read some of the social and sexual structures common in Heinlein's later works such as Stranger, Number of the Beast, Time Enough for Love, and To Sail Beyond The Sunset.




:mrgreen:


>>>>

It did take some getting used to...:))

I would hesitate to call Heinlein "conservative", although he does (did) have many congruent beliefs. I think of him as more libertarian.

[jimjames418]

Caves of Steel was the first in his Robot Series, that is aside from his anthology I Robot, which featured a short story called the Bicentenial Man.
Which was also the very beginning of the Foundation series if you read the whole thing, which I have. He ties it all together in a very good way.

What would a conservative think of the types of robots he talks about in his novels?
Have you read all his books and stories? What about the one where Steven Byer is elected as director. Steven happens to be a robot, which he has to hide. The line I remember from that story is "A very good man would obey the three laws and you could not tell the difference between the man and a robot".
I suppose a person who was against human cloning, and abortion, might have something against the Positronic Robots of Asimov's novels that obey the three laws of robotics, or maybe not.
What is there to be against? The robots do not have God given rights as do all humans. ;)

Certainly in order to have the three laws of robotics hardwired into the robots, you need some sort of monopoly over robot production, or a great deal of government regulation to enforce it, and someone could still probably build a robot that did not obey the three laws.
Some were, "Little Lost Robot" comes to mind. And there was enough flexiblity in the three laws to allow all kinds of mischief. The Dovan stories prove that.

If you could manufacture your workers, this would have a great deal of implications for Capitalism and free markets, in order for this to work, every human being would have to be a Capitalist owning some robots that do the work for him. Being an employee working for someone else would no longer be an option in an "I Robot" society, after all, why would an employer hire you if he can have a robot that he owns doing the same thing that you are capable of?
The robots cannot "think", they can only follow instructions given to them. And they perform jobs that are too dangous for humans, but they cannot solve problems. There were many stories written about that subject.

[jimjames418]

Jim,


Most conservatives (well lets be honest, social conservatives [well lets really be honest, social authoritarians]) would have an epileptic fit, stroke, and coronary all combined if they read some of the social and sexual structures common in Heinlein's later works such as Stranger, Number of the Beast, Time Enough for Love, and To Sail Beyond The Sunset.




:mrgreen:


>>>>
I am aware of that. But it is still a conservative trait, which is what the op was asking for. :wall:

Can you tell where the breaks are in "Stranger"? It was written in three parts, years apart and held until the mores of the country could take the sexual structures built into the story. ;)

[jimjames418]

It did take some getting used to...:))

I would hesitate to call Heinlein "conservative", although he does (did) have many congruent beliefs. I think of him as more libertarian.
You have to be a conservative before you can be a libertarian. A libertarian is just a branch of the conservative family. IMHO anyway.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Which was also the very beginning of the Foundation series if you read the whole thing, which I have. He ties it all together in a very good way.


Have you read all his books and stories? What about the one where Steven Byer is elected as director. Steven happens to be a robot, which he has to hide. The line I remember from that story is "A very good man would obey the three laws and you could not tell the difference between the man and a robot".

What is there to be against? The robots do not have God given rights as do all humans. ;)


Some were, "Little Lost Robot" comes to mind. And there was enough flexiblity in the three laws to allow all kinds of mischief. The Dovan stories prove that.


The robots cannot "think", they can only follow instructions given to them. And they perform jobs that are too dangous for humans, but they cannot solve problems. There were many stories written about that subject.
Daneel Orlov was a robot detective in the Caves of Steel was he not, and being a detective requires the ability to think, does it not? The reason Asimove uses the term "I Robot" is the fact that the robots in his novels have a first person perspective just like humans do, the fact that their actions are constrained by the Three Laws of Robotics do not in anyway make them less of a character in his novels. If a robot can be thought of as a character in a novel rather than just an object, then we can presume it to think.

[Tom Kalbfus]

And here I was all set to have a reasonable debate on this topic, then you posted this and I realized that regardless of whatever anyone ever says to you, you will find what you want anyway. have fun playing the victim.
Debate on what?
All I said was that the presence of robots that can do anything a human could do would affect the economy and the type of society that exists.
The Capitalist model requires the presence of capital, and workers, so what happens when the capital and the workers are the same thing?
What exists now is the capital, for the most part doesn't not manufacture goods nor provide services all by itself, it requires the presence of human workers to operate the machinery. Much of what is liberal or conservative depends greatly on how people earn their living, whether they work for someone else and earn a salary, or receive profit from their investments. Under a society described by Asimov, having a job is no longer an option if you are human, or at least it shouldn't be in a totally consistent society. In the Caves of Steel however they carefull segregate the humans from the Robots. The Robots work outdoors and the humans stay indoors in the "caves of steel" as they are called. Most humans on Earth are agoraphobes, they are afraid of open spaces, and they only feel comfortable when they are within close-in walls, that is why they depend on Robots to do all their out-of-door work. The Spacers are another group of people that depend entirely on their servant robots to do all their work for them. There is a conflict between Spacers and Earthlings in this story, as one society has alot more contact with its robots than the other which avoids them.

[jimjames418]

Debate on what?
All I said was that the presence of robots that can do anything a human could do would affect the economy and the type of society that exists.
The Capitalist model requires the presence of capital, and workers, so what happens when the capital and the workers are the same thing?
What exists now is the capital, for the most part doesn't not manufacture goods nor provide services all by itself, it requires the presence of human workers to operate the machinery. Much of what is liberal or conservative depends greatly on how people earn their living, whether they work for someone else and earn a salary, or receive profit from their investments. Under a society described by Asimov, having a job is no longer an option if you are human, or at least it shouldn't be in a totally consistent society. In the Caves of Steel however they carefull segregate the humans from the Robots. The Robots work outdoors and the humans stay indoors in the "caves of steel" as they are called. Most humans on Earth are agoraphobes, they are afraid of open spaces, and they only feel comfortable when they are within close-in walls, that is why they depend on Robots to do all their out-of-door work. The Spacers are another group of people that depend entirely on their servant robots to do all their work for them. There is a conflict between Spacers and Earthlings in this story, as one society has alot more contact with its robots than the other which avoids them.
And both societies go the way of the do-do bird, because the human condition will not sustain itself with those conditions.

[Apatriot]

So is science fiction a conservative or liberal media.
Is being a conservative make you less likely to be sucessful as a science fiction writer?
Are the publishing houses looking for a particular political bias in science fiction writing?
One thing science fiction is about is the future, and the future is also what politics is concerned about.
I've read quite a few science fiction books, and the ones written by seemingly conservative authors appear to be in the minority. I will list a few of them:
S.M. Stirling, Travis L Taylor
Can you name any others?

Generally Liberals have certain archtypes they use over and over again, there is the "evil Megacorporation" for example, the "War happy US General" is another one. basically the identity of the heroes and villains indicate the possibly political bent. Generally if there is a creative enterprise geared towards entertainment, its dominated, or shall I say infested with big government liberals, who's favorite villians are the United State Government, or the MegaCorporation. An example of a left of center author would be Kim Stanley Robinson, Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps someone else who's widely read can recommend some other science fiction authors that they would consider conservative.

Another Conservative (albeit on the libertarian side) was Robert Heinlein.

[Apatriot]

Caves of Steel was the first in his Robot Series, that is aside from his anthology I Robot, which featured a short story called the Bicentenial Man.

What would a conservative think of the types of robots he talks about in his novels?
I suppose a person who was against human cloning, and abortion, might have something against the Positronic Robots of Asimov's novels that obey the three laws of robotics, or maybe not.

Can't understand how the two principles go together--i.e. pro-life and anti-positronic robot.

Certainly in order to have the three laws of robotics hardwired into the robots, you need some sort of monopoly over robot production, or a great deal of government regulation to enforce it, and someone could still probably build a robot that did not obey the three laws.

Just a bit of government regulation would be necessary. The thing is there is nothing inherent about pro-life that is anti-government regulation.

If you could manufacture your workers, this would have a great deal of implications for Capitalism and free markets, in order for this to work, every human being would have to be a Capitalist owning some robots that do the work for him. Being an employee working for someone else would no longer be an option in an "I Robot" society, after all, why would an employer hire you if he can have a robot that he owns doing the same thing that you are capable of?


Cost.

[Apatriot]

Jim,


Most conservatives (well lets be honest, social conservatives [well lets really be honest, social authoritarians]) would have an epileptic fit, stroke, and coronary all combined if they read some of the social and sexual structures common in Heinlein's later works such as Stranger, Number of the Beast, Time Enough for Love, and To Sail Beyond The Sunset.

The ones written during Heinlein's dirty old man stage, in which the dashing powerful older man had wild sex with the young woman he stole from the effete young man.


Classic Goldwater conservatives have no problem with the above.

[James Juno]

The ones written during Heinlein's dirty old man stage, in which the dashing powerful older man had wild sex with the young woman he stole from the effete young man.


Classic Goldwater conservatives have no problem with the above.

Post of the day! :))

[merickson]

Expanded Universe is probably the best reading to determine Heinlein's personal politics.
I don't think that he fits neatly in any "conservative" or "liberal" box. In The Happy Days Ahead he proposes that the immigration problem be solved by "the fence (Mexican border) never worked. So we tore it down." Its hard to call that conservative.
He also supported the huge government expenditure in the space program and thought it should be expanded.
(What would he make of the gay marriage debate? Probably that a marriage licsence is governmental recoginition of a fact, not governmental approval of a relationship.)

The main point that I get from his writings is that he thinks that citizens should work on making the country work well. If they do, they can't be stopped. If they don't, there isn't any substitute. Their specific idea of what a good country is is less important than their willingness to work on the country. One might say that the later part of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (after Prof.'s death) shows people's idea of "good government" changing as they work on making the country good.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Can't understand how the two principles go together--i.e. pro-life and anti-positronic robot.



Just a bit of government regulation would be necessary. The thing is there is nothing inherent about pro-life that is anti-government regulation.




Cost.
The factory producing them would of course be staffed by robots, the materials to produce them would of course be obtained by robots, the robots themselves would be repaired and maintained by other robots, there is no human labor involved here, the robots reproduce through factories instead of through live birth as we are.

[merickson]

I recall a story about a society where robots made everything. That took care of supply, however demand had to keep up with supply. Some people had to do more "work" than others, however the work to be done was consumption. Only the rich could afford to wear denim. Most folks had to wear silk.

The hero of the book made everything much better when he discovered that robots could also consume things. A robot could don pants and repeatedly sit and stand until they were worn.

[Drawz]

Jim,


Most conservatives (well lets be honest, social conservatives [well lets really be honest, social authoritarians]) would have an epileptic fit, stroke, and coronary all combined if they read some of the social and sexual structures common in Heinlein's later works such as Stranger, Number of the Beast, Time Enough for Love, and To Sail Beyond The Sunset.




:mrgreen:


>>>>

Not to mention what he has to say about Religion. The quote in my sig line being one example, this being another:



History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.

[Hereintheusa]

Anyone who reads science fiction to be politically educated have no business voting.

I love science fiction but I read it because I enjoy it and it makes me think. I do not read sci-fi to become politically aware.

[ThrowCop]

Some people can suck the joy out of a puppy for Christ's sake.Well said.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I recall a story about a society where robots made everything. That took care of supply, however demand had to keep up with supply. Some people had to do more "work" than others, however the work to be done was consumption. Only the rich could afford to wear denim. Most folks had to wear silk.

The hero of the book made everything much better when he discovered that robots could also consume things. A robot could don pants and repeatedly sit and stand until they were worn.
Robot production turned society upsidedown in the Caves of Steel, in that book, Asimov was comparing two societies, one society was of those living in the Caves of Steel on Earth, they were basically "Shopping Mall" like cities, everything was under one roof, the cities were single buildings which contained everything, to go from one city to the next, you could get on "slidewalks" in underground tunnels connecting the cities, there were also little used highways in tunnels, and the really brave flew in airplanes without windows. The people in the Caves of Steel kept their robots at a distance, those robots worked outside where few native humans dared to tread, but inside the Caves people had jobs, those jobs could have been done by robots, but they were indoor jobs, and thus were reserved for humans - a sort of make work program if you like, I guess you could call it socialism. It was in the Caves of Steel that life most resembled our own, that is they had to go to work to earn a living.

The other society talked about were the Spacers, the Spacers lived on about 50 planets, surrounding the Solar System, in this society the robots did all the work, and all the humans owned robots, the most extreme of these societies was that on Solaria, where you had a few thousand humans living on an entire planet each surrounded by millions of robots. Each human had indefinite life extention, and each rarely ever cam in contact with another human, each Solarian was extremely paranoid and risk adverse, he or she would surround himself with robots and would talk only by electronoc means with other humans, physical contact was deemed too risky as one never knew what a human was going to do.

Technically the Society of the Spacers was more capitalistic than that of the Caves of Steel, I believe the argument Asimov was putting out, was basically that humans need work, having robots taking care of all their material wants and desires isn't good for them and leads to social decay of society and laziness.

So which of these two societies is more conservative and which is liberal?

[WorldWatcher]

Robot production turned society upsidedown in the Caves of Steel, in that book, Asimov was comparing two societies, one society was of those living in the Caves of Steel on Earth, they were basically "Shopping Mall" like cities, everything was under one roof, the cities were single buildings which contained everything, to go from one city to the next, you could get on "slidewalks" in underground tunnels connecting the cities, there were also little used highways in tunnels, and the really brave flew in airplanes without windows. The people in the Caves of Steel kept their robots at a distance, those robots worked outside where few native humans dared to tread, but inside the Caves people had jobs, those jobs could have been done by robots, but they were indoor jobs, and thus were reserved for humans - a sort of make work program if you like, I guess you could call it socialism. It was in the Caves of Steel that life most resembled our own, that is they had to go to work to earn a living.

The other society talked about were the Spacers, the Spacers lived on about 50 planets, surrounding the Solar System, in this society the robots did all the work, and all the humans owned robots, the most extreme of these societies was that on Solaria, where you had a few thousand humans living on an entire planet each surrounded by millions of robots. Each human had indefinite life extention, and each rarely ever cam in contact with another human, each Solarian was extremely paranoid and risk adverse, he or she would surround himself with robots and would talk only by electronoc means with other humans, physical contact was deemed too risky as one never knew what a human was going to do.

Technically the Society of the Spacers was more capitalistic than that of the Caves of Steel, I believe the argument Asimov was putting out, was basically that humans need work, having robots taking care of all their material wants and desires isn't good for them and leads to social decay of society and laziness.

So which of these two societies is more conservative and which is liberal?



Depends on which definition of "conservative" and which definition of "liberal" you choose to use.



If you mean ": tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" then Earth would be much more conservative then the Spacers who broke from tradition.


On the other hand if you want to define conservative in terms of emphasis on personal freedoms then the Spacers were much more "conservative" then the liberals on Earth who had a much more socialist society.




>>>>

[merickson]

Robot production turned society upsidedown in the Caves of Steel, in that book, Asimov was comparing two societies, one society was of those living in the Caves of Steel on Earth, they were basically "Shopping Mall" like cities, everything was under one roof, the cities were single buildings which contained everything, to go from one city to the next, you could get on "slidewalks" in underground tunnels connecting the cities, there were also little used highways in tunnels, and the really brave flew in airplanes without windows. The people in the Caves of Steel kept their robots at a distance, those robots worked outside where few native humans dared to tread, but inside the Caves people had jobs, those jobs could have been done by robots, but they were indoor jobs, and thus were reserved for humans - a sort of make work program if you like, I guess you could call it socialism. It was in the Caves of Steel that life most resembled our own, that is they had to go to work to earn a living.

The other society talked about were the Spacers, the Spacers lived on about 50 planets, surrounding the Solar System, in this society the robots did all the work, and all the humans owned robots, the most extreme of these societies was that on Solaria, where you had a few thousand humans living on an entire planet each surrounded by millions of robots. Each human had indefinite life extention, and each rarely ever cam in contact with another human, each Solarian was extremely paranoid and risk adverse, he or she would surround himself with robots and would talk only by electronoc means with other humans, physical contact was deemed too risky as one never knew what a human was going to do.

Technically the Society of the Spacers was more capitalistic than that of the Caves of Steel, I believe the argument Asimov was putting out, was basically that humans need work, having robots taking care of all their material wants and desires isn't good for them and leads to social decay of society and laziness.

So which of these two societies is more conservative and which is liberal?
I don't know which one was liberal or conservative. The society of Earth was determined largely by population pressure, the society of the Spacers was determined largely by their need for physical labour. Population was the key shaper of both societies.

I also recall that in Foundation and Earth, Asimov showed that the successful expansion into the universe was acheived by Earthlings who rejected the subteranian lifestyle and went into space without robots. Both Earth and the Spacers died out.

SPOILER WARNING ----- SPOILER WARNING
Ultimatly the survival of humanity came from a single mind reading robot following the 0'th law "No robot shall harm humanity."
END SPOILER WARNING

The SF of both Asimov and Heinlein are more hero stories than political treatises. That was also a feature of Soviet SF. Piers Antony's Space Tyrant series is an interesting series that mirrors modern America.

I think that the main message of SF would be that one has to look at the world objectivly. That one's hopes and theories have no power over reality. "There is no substitute for knowing how a buzzsaw works".

SF would reject both the liberal meme that people are inherently good and the conservative meme of American exceptionalism.

[EnchantedFrog]

I just finished Saturn by Ben Bova.

As the colony ship approached Saturn, a new Constitution was to be established and leaders were to be elected.

The bad guy was:

• A 'government' bureaucrat
• A sneaky, charismatic who jockeyed himself into the political hierarchy
• Used a corrupt African head of security to commit murder and spy
• Blackmailed the ship's Captain in order to steal power
• Rigged the elections to manipulate his victory
• Let the peasants write anything in the Constitution that they pleased, as long as he got the "In Case Of Emergency" clause.

Then he could create an "Emergency" at will, and seize complete and total power.

[jimjames418]

I read the short story "Nightfall" when it was first published in 1939. The original story is much better, IMHO, than the book that was made from the short story.

I made it a habit to read anything and everything published by Issac Asimov, even his college leve textbooks. He had the ability to take a complex subject and reduce it to words so that anyone with an IQ over 90 could understand.

And I heard, can't verify it though, that in the 1980's a univeristy in Ohio was offering a Masters Degree in Creative writing based on the works of Asimov. I personally though at the time that someone was smoking some of the "funny weed".

[TheBurningRed]

So is science fiction a conservative or liberal media.
Is being a conservative make you less likely to be sucessful as a science fiction writer?
Are the publishing houses looking for a particular political bias in science fiction writing?
One thing science fiction is about is the future, and the future is also what politics is concerned about.
I've read quite a few science fiction books, and the ones written by seemingly conservative authors appear to be in the minority. I will list a few of them:
S.M. Stirling, Travis L Taylor
Can you name any others?

Generally Liberals have certain archtypes they use over and over again, there is the "evil Megacorporation" for example, the "War happy US General" is another one. basically the identity of the heroes and villains indicate the possibly political bent. Generally if there is a creative enterprise geared towards entertainment, its dominated, or shall I say infested with big government liberals, who's favorite villians are the United State Government, or the MegaCorporation. An example of a left of center author would be Kim Stanley Robinson, Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps someone else who's widely read can recommend some other science fiction authors that they would consider conservative.

My original post was going to be alot more brutal to you, but I decided against it. Anyways look for Orson Scott Card (Enders Game, Empire) he would be considered conservative. Also who cares if there liberal or conservative; aslong its a good story that gets the reader engaged into the story. And if you are deliberatly looking for "politics" in these works of FICTION, then thats just pathetic.

[Hereintheusa]

Empire was one of the most dissapointing novels I have ever read. The premise of the book was just the type of genre I enjoy but Empire was boring. Never really went anywhere and had me ****ed of at the end that I had been stupid enough to waste $25 on it.

[jimjames418]

I really enjoyed the book "BattleField Earth". The movie sucked. Nothing like the book at all except for the name. And, IMHO, it was not a well made movie.

[Tom Kalbfus]

My original post was going to be alot more brutal to you, but I decided against it. Anyways look for Orson Scott Card (Enders Game, Empire) he would be considered conservative. Also who cares if there liberal or conservative; aslong its a good story that gets the reader engaged into the story. And if you are deliberatly looking for "politics" in these works of FICTION, then thats just pathetic.
Was there politics in the work 1984 by George Orwell, or was it just a good story? 1984 was not a pleasant book to read I must say, the good guy does not win, and Big Brother lives happily ever after, but I think the author was trying to make a point in writing this book, and yes, technically 1984 was a work of science fiction. Do you want another science fiction book with politics in it? How about Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, that sort of makes a political or perhaps moral point about playing God, and trying to create life. H.G. Wells wrote quite a few political works of science fiction, how about The Time Machine, the time machine basically acts a a vehicle so that the protagonist, simply refered to as the 'Time Traveler', can witness the future with a point of view close to our own, and he witnesses the drama between the morlocks and the eloi, the morlocks are descended from the lower classes and the eloi from the upper classes, it is basically a treatis on the long term effects of sustained social stratification, and one possibly result of them evolving into different creatures with the morlocks feeding on the eloi and getting their revenge on their former masters by raising them on the surface like 'cattle'. H.G. Wells was a socialist who believed in equality, in another example he wrote an antiwar novel called The War of the Worlds. these works all had political messages to the reader in addition to being mere escapist fantasy. I think Jules Verne was more conservative than H.G. Wells, as he wrote a novel about an Antiwar Activist, who also happened to be a submarine captain in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

[merickson]

To anyone interested in SF, I highly recommend a subscription to Analog, Science Fiction and Fact.

Shortly after 9-11, Stanley Schmidt wrote an editorial pointing out that one consequence of the advance of technology is that it gives small groups of individuals the ability to do more damage. (2 dozen extremists can kill 5,000 people without having to club each of them to death individually.) If your freedom to swing a fist ends at my nose, as technology both extends your arm and increases the results of a fist contacting a nose, a sane society will have to increase the restrictions on fist swinging.

Similarly, an increase in the number of arm swingers in a fixed space (aka population increase) requires more control of fist swinging. What that control should be (blinking lights on the fist?, swing from the elbow not the shoulder?, everyone face north and stay on a grid so as to put one's neighbors out of harms way?, give everyone nose guards?) is determined both by the liberal/conservative quotent AND by the advance of technology (better nose guards vs. better brass knuckles.)

New tech and population increase are old themes in SF, but speculation on the result of different answers to the problems they cause is varied. Hence, new writers.

To see a conservative/liberal pairing in SF, I'd suggest reading Heinlein and Spider Robinson.

[Sennik]

To anyone interested in SF, I highly recommend a subscription to Analog, Science Fiction and Fact.

To see a conservative/liberal pairing in SF, I'd suggest reading Heinlein and Spider Robinson.

I agree. I have had an active subscription to Analog for about 10 years as well as Fantasy and Science Fiction since the 80's and they are both great.

I'd also like to recommend a less well known Sci-Fi author who in his personal life was conservative leaning libertarian; coined the term 'terraforming' among others, Jack Williamson. I might be a little biased though as I grew up across the street from him :)

[sgtmac_46]

Jim,


Most conservatives (well lets be honest, social conservatives [well lets really be honest, social authoritarians]) would have an epileptic fit, stroke, and coronary all combined if they read some of the social and sexual structures common in Heinlein's later works such as Stranger, Number of the Beast, Time Enough for Love, and To Sail Beyond The Sunset.




:mrgreen:


>>>>
Heinlein considered himself a Libertarian.

[sgtmac_46]

You have to be a conservative before you can be a libertarian. A libertarian is just a branch of the conservative family. IMHO anyway.

Sort of........it would be more accurate to say that the 'conservatism' we define as such, and Libertarianism, are both branches of the Classical Conservative family.........with the Libertarians being devoid of the 'Social Conservatism' influenced by the fundamentalist religious segment of the Conservative movement.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Sort of........it would be more accurate to say that the 'conservatism' we define as such, and Libertarianism, are both branches of the Classical Conservative family.........with the Libertarians being devoid of the 'Social Conservatism' influenced by the fundamentalist religious segment of the Conservative movement.
It has always been my contention that Science was an inherently conservative disappline, what gets me is the fact that many scientists are politically liberal, they won't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible for instance, they'll say, "Where's Noah's Great flood? Prove it!, When did Moses part the Red Sea? Prove it! You say Jesus rose from the dead? Prove it!" But give them a 1,000+ page healthcare bill written by the Democrats in Congress and that's good enough for them, they want that bill passed unread and as quickly as possible. Lots of conservative scientists switch to liberal "goonie birds" when you switch the subject from science to Politics, haven't you noticed. And when a certain branch of science becomes a political "hot potato", then they no longer have to prove that human made carbon dioxide emmisions cause global warming, they want cap and trade passed right away! Alot of people have compartmentalized minds, that have disapplined focus in one field, but in another they become "goonie birds" flapping their arms. Albert Einstein was a goonie bird socialist for instance, he didn't have the same sort of skepticism towards socialism as he did towards science, why for instance would be believe in socialism but not that the Earth is hollow for example. Someone has to prove to him that the Earth is hollow, but not that Socialism works, isn't that curious?

[sgtmac_46]

It has always been my contention that Science was an inherently conservative disappline, what gets me is the fact that many scientists are politically liberal, they won't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible for instance, they'll say, "Where's Noah's Great flood? Prove it!, When did Moses part the Red Sea? Prove it! You say Jesus rose from the dead? Prove it!" But give them a 1,000+ page healthcare bill written by the Democrats in Congress and that's good enough for them, they want that bill passed unread and as quickly as possible. Lots of conservative scientists switch to liberal "goonie birds" when you switch the subject from science to Politics, haven't you noticed. And when a certain branch of science becomes a political "hot potato", then they no longer have to prove that human made carbon dioxide emmisions cause global warming, they want cap and trade passed right away! Alot of people have compartmentalized minds, that have disapplined focus in one field, but in another they become "goonie birds" flapping their arms. Albert Einstein was a goonie bird socialist for instance, he didn't have the same sort of skepticism towards socialism as he did towards science, why for instance would be believe in socialism but not that the Earth is hollow for example. Someone has to prove to him that the Earth is hollow, but not that Socialism works, isn't that curious?

A scientist should be a skeptic in all things.......meaning he shouldn't believe in gods or demons as explanation of anything, and that includes Christianity AND the Religion of the Left........and religion is the root of why the left despises Christianity.........the left considers it a competing religion.

Me, I like to think of myself as an equal opportunity iconoclast.

[Tom Kalbfus]

A scientist should be a skeptic in all things.......meaning he shouldn't believe in gods or demons as explanation of anything, and that includes Christianity AND the Religion of the Left........and religion is the root of why the left despises Christianity.........the left considers it a competing religion.

Me, I like to think of myself as an equal opportunity iconoclast.
Yet the left fails to be skeptical of Socialism, even though it has failed to prove superior to free markets. Whenever there is a problem, the left never fails to come up with a big government socialist solution for it, that is despite the fall of the Soviet Union, they want to follow it its footsteps.

Now if the left can have faith in Socialism despite abundant evidence to the contrary, then why is it so hard for them to believe in God? Should be a no brainer you'd think.

Economics is probably one of the least objective of sciences, because people believe what they want to believe, much like a person who chooses a religion.

Dr. Frankenstein is a good analogy to a socialist, he stitches together body parts from various corpses he stole from the morgue, he bolts a head onto a body, and he connects it to a lightning rod, hoping that when lightning strikes, he will bring the corpse to life. In reality, he'd probably cook alot of meat, but Dr. Frankenstein will keep on experimenting despite his lack of success, the same can be said of the socialist, he's always trying t invent new forms of economic systems as Capitalism never satisfies him, the levers of control are in too many hands instead of his. People crave power and socialism delivers power to those who regulate, control, and run things from government, the world can be the socialist's playground, he can build spaceships and monuments to himself, and if it makes the world poorer, so what? he has his levers of contol, and the system keeps him in power.

[Clintville]

Yet the left fails to be skeptical of Socialism, even though it has failed to prove superior to free markets. Whenever there is a problem, the left never fails to come up with a big government socialist solution for it, that is despite the fall of the Soviet Union, they want to follow it its footsteps.

I don't know, the New Deal kind of worked.

[jimjames418]

I don't know, the New Deal kind of worked.
:)):)):)):)):))

[Kelzan]

Science fiction can be liberal, Conservative or Libertarian but often it is none of these things. Whatever the writer's politics are often they address issues of the future, how this or that advance would affect society.

[texan_rep]

It has always been my contention that Science was an inherently conservative disappline, what gets me is the fact that many scientists are politically liberal, they won't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible for instance, they'll say, "Where's Noah's Great flood? Prove it!, When did Moses part the Red Sea? Prove it! You say Jesus rose from the dead? Prove it!" But give them a 1,000+ page healthcare bill written by the Democrats in Congress and that's good enough for them, they want that bill passed unread and as quickly as possible. Lots of conservative scientists switch to liberal "goonie birds" when you switch the subject from science to Politics, haven't you noticed. And when a certain branch of science becomes a political "hot potato", then they no longer have to prove that human made carbon dioxide emmisions cause global warming, they want cap and trade passed right away! Alot of people have compartmentalized minds, that have disapplined focus in one field, but in another they become "goonie birds" flapping their arms. Albert Einstein was a goonie bird socialist for instance, he didn't have the same sort of skepticism towards socialism as he did towards science, why for instance would be believe in socialism but not that the Earth is hollow for example. Someone has to prove to him that the Earth is hollow, but not that Socialism works, isn't that curious?

Believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible does not make one conservative or liberal.

[texan_rep]

I don't know, the New Deal kind of worked.

Depends on what it "worked" for. If you mean it extended the Depression beyond what it should have been and paved the way for the entitlement mentality shown by so many on the left today, then yes I'd say it worked.

If you mean it actually helped the country come out of the Depression...ummmmm, no.

[TheBurningRed]

Was there politics in the work 1984 by George Orwell, or was it just a good story? 1984 was not a pleasant book to read I must say, the good guy does not win, and Big Brother lives happily ever after, but I think the author was trying to make a point in writing this book, and yes, technically 1984 was a work of science fiction. Do you want another science fiction book with politics in it? How about Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, that sort of makes a political or perhaps moral point about playing God, and trying to create life. H.G. Wells wrote quite a few political works of science fiction, how about The Time Machine, the time machine basically acts a a vehicle so that the protagonist, simply refered to as the 'Time Traveler', can witness the future with a point of view close to our own, and he witnesses the drama between the morlocks and the eloi, the morlocks are descended from the lower classes and the eloi from the upper classes, it is basically a treatis on the long term effects of sustained social stratification, and one possibly result of them evolving into different creatures with the morlocks feeding on the eloi and getting their revenge on their former masters by raising them on the surface like 'cattle'. H.G. Wells was a socialist who believed in equality, in another example he wrote an antiwar novel called The War of the Worlds. these works all had political messages to the reader in addition to being mere escapist fantasy. I think Jules Verne was more conservative than H.G. Wells, as he wrote a novel about an Antiwar Activist, who also happened to be a submarine captain in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

I don't have a problem with a "over-arching" theme to the stories written by there authors. I don't think there was really a political meaning for Frankenstein, more on the possible dangers of "playing god". As for The War of the Worlds, that was written when the British Empire was the dominant colonial and military power in the world. So when you think your the best there is something better, and in that book it happens to be martians with there war machines that no human weapon could even touch. As for HG Wells, he was considered a "social darwinist" which has been soiled by the policy of one Adolf Hitler (ie, the Aryan Race) back in the day.
Seriously when is the last time you have heard this phrase, "what is the politics of the story"?

[Tom Kalbfus]

Believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible does not make one conservative or liberal.
Doesn't it? The Bible asks you to believe a lot. A conservative position would be not to go out on a limb with their beliefs, liberals on the other hand like to take chances, they take chances with economics and socialism, they take chances with big government. I see capitalism as an extension of biological evolution, the big government secular liberal sees things differently, he believes in biological competition between species, but when it comes to economics, he somehow believes that humans should be acting different from all the rest of the animals, that we should all "hold hands" and work for one government and take orders from the top. We don't see these animal cooperatives in nature, maybe a bee hive, but not herds of different animals all working together taking orders from the top to accomplish something globally like a socialist might.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I don't have a problem with a "over-arching" theme to the stories written by there authors. I don't think there was really a political meaning for Frankenstein, more on the possible dangers of "playing god". As for The War of the Worlds, that was written when the British Empire was the dominant colonial and military power in the world. So when you think your the best there is something better, and in that book it happens to be martians with there war machines that no human weapon could even touch. As for HG Wells, he was considered a "social darwinist" which has been soiled by the policy of one Adolf Hitler (ie, the Aryan Race) back in the day.
Seriously when is the last time you have heard this phrase, "what is the politics of the story"?

What was Frankenstein's Monster but a man made creature, it was a rather hideous and horrible creation made with stolen human body parts sewn and bolted together, it was not a thing as graceful as a thing of nature. Nature makes creatures better than Dr. Frankenstein could. I liken those left-wing socialist democrats to "Dr Frankensteins", they have a "monster" to do this and a "monster" to do that, whenever there is a problem in society that needs to be solved, they want to create a "monster", this monster doesn't work as well as something of nature like capitalism. Socialism was a man made economic system, every bit as hideous and horrible as "Frankenstein's Monster". So solve the health insurance gap, the liberals want to play "Dr. Frankenstein", they always seek the justification for bold experiments that put everybody at risk, just like a Frankenstein's monster let loose and run amok in the village, Dr. Frankenstein doesn't really care what happens to the poor villagers, he just wants to keep conducting his experiments, and he doesn't care about the cost to others, he just wants to prove that he can create life.

[TheBurningRed]

What was Frankenstein's Monster but a man made creature, it was a rather hideous and horrible creation made with stolen human body parts sewn and bolted together, it was not a thing as graceful as a thing of nature. Nature makes creatures better than Dr. Frankenstein could. I liken those left-wing socialist democrats to "Dr Frankensteins", they have a "monster" to do this and a "monster" to do that, whenever there is a problem in society that needs to be solved, they want to create a "monster", this monster doesn't work as well as something of nature like capitalism. Socialism was a man made economic system, every bit as hideous and horrible as "Frankenstein's Monster". So solve the health insurance gap, the liberals want to play "Dr. Frankenstein", they always seek the justification for bold experiments that put everybody at risk, just like a Frankenstein's monster let loose and run amok in the village, Dr. Frankenstein doesn't really care what happens to the poor villagers, he just wants to keep conducting his experiments, and he doesn't care about the cost to others, he just wants to prove that he can create life.

So you just basically taken a great piece of literature and turned it political to prove a point?!?! Sorry but that is just taking it a bit TOO FAR, and you know somthing seriously if you do have to deduce everything into something political then do you really enjoy life? Anything in life can be deduced to politcal, mathematical, religious, or scientific meanings. But I feel that I must applaud your tenacity to take Mary Shelleys Frankenstein (she was 18 when she started and 19 when she finished it) and apply it to todays politcal atmosphere, that does take a talent and one that I frankly (no pun intended) glade that I don't have. Ever heard of "suspension of disbelief"? I suggest you try it.
Also try reading the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but that might be too liberal for ya, since considering that it mentions god was wrong.

[Tom Kalbfus]

So you just basically taken a great piece of literature and turned it political to prove a point?!?! Sorry but that is just taking it a bit TOO FAR, and you know somthing seriously if you do have to deduce everything into something political then do you really enjoy life? Anything in life can be deduced to politcal, mathematical, religious, or scientific meanings. But I feel that I must applaud your tenacity to take Mary Shelleys Frankenstein (she was 18 when she started and 19 when she finished it) and apply it to todays politcal atmosphere, that does take a talent and one that I frankly (no pun intended) glade that I don't have. Ever heard of "suspension of disbelief"? I suggest you try it.
Also try reading the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but that might be too liberal for ya, since considering that it mentions god was wrong.
My point is, the only place you really ever see Mad Scientists is in the field of Politics or Economics. What was the Soviet Union, but a "Mad Scientist's" experiment gone horribly wrong! When people tamper with Genetics, there is pressure to make sure none of the experiments every get out to contaminate the environment, not so with political/economic systems, people want to let those things out of their cages to terrorize the public, and hardly anyone ever complains about it, as if its routine. No one ever said to Karl Marx, "Why don't you have a controlled experiment in a small community of volunteers and see if your Communism actually works," but apparently he would have none of it, he wanted his revolution and to impose his system untried and untested on as many people at once, hardly a scientic way to go about it. Scientists don't typically work the way Victor Frankenstein operated in the Novel, stealing body parts and sewing them together, and placing it in the lightning cage and raising it to the roof of some secret castle, and saying, "Its Aliiiiive!", but that is how socialists operate, its always one mad scientist's experiment after another with them.