Altered Carbon

    I watched both seasons of Altered Carbon on Netflix a while back. As in, season one was one of the first shows I watched after we subscribed, and I watched season two shortly after it was released. Just recently, I found out that it was based on a book by the same name- Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan. This is the first of a trilogy, but so far I've only read it. 

    First impression? It is different. The two works rhyme, they hit the same beats, yet the show is like a jazz version, adding riffing on the music written for the book. And that's a good thing since they correct most of the biggest issues in the novel. The author was a tad bit overenthusiastic when it comes to breasts. And broken noses don't sound like celery... I think...

    I'm having trouble wording this in a manner that doesn't sound disparaging. Altered Carbon has an amazing story. It manages to weave science fiction, intrigue, and action into a single compelling narrative. Characters have depth to them. Motivations are entirely human. The whole world feels inherently lived in. More over, it is the original work, so Richard Morgan is the one who created the story. 

    But the show's writers managed to take all of this and just turn it up that extra bit. They added the eighth note to every quarter beat, building a greater harmony with even more depth to it. What was a rich story became downright unnervingly complete. And to top it off, the actors and crew did a fantastic job of bringing it to life.

    After all of this raving, I feel obligated to at least explain what it's about. Altered Carbon lies at the intersection of a whodunit murder mystery and dystopian warning to mankind about the way humanity's darkness merges with technology. Takeshi Kovacs, whose name is an incredible blend of Japanese and Eastern European (with a canonical reason!), was a super soldier. And a criminal. And had skills that the rich desired - namely special training when it comes to observation. So when a suicide may be murder, he's recruited to track down the clues and be a hero.

Amusing Ourselves to Death

I must confess: I have a rather bad addiction. And that addiction is the need for constant stimulation. Something must engage my attention at all times. Without a constant stream of video or audio, I start to feel lost. They say that the first step is admitting you have a problem, so that's done. Moving on to learning more.

That's where Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman comes in. I read the title and thought, "Well, that seems applicable." And strapped in for a revelatory experience. Please note, I missed the step where you glance at the summary or reviews or, frankly, anything other than the title. Even the subtitle, which emphasized the focus on entertainment didn't clue me in. As a result, it wasn't what expected, but still ended up being an interesting critique of modern forms of communication. Actually, rant might be a better word.

I was in total awe when reading this - a total rejection of television and active disparagement of computers. It is a Luddite's dream. In fairness to Postman, he does some valid points regarding the trivialization of culture and the obsession with entertainment. Maybe I wouldn't go so far as to consider us voluntary participants in the society envisioned by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, but he does raise a few thought-provoking points.

The overarching theme, in the author's words, is that "The form in which ideas are expressed affects what those ideas will be." There is truth in those words. Inherently, reading and watching a movie or television program are inherently different processes. But on a deeper level, they also touch us differently, set different expectations. Postman is unfair in his nearly utter rejection of the medium. Seriously, who hates Sesame Street? No, it isn't just an excuse to plop kids in front of the television. And technology doesn't need to come at the cost of reading. I love both. Actually, if anything, my computer makes me want to read even more. It opens a whole new world for me. 

Now, the interesting thing comes with television. It is largely an escapist entertainment machine. But society does need the outlet. Postman criticizes sports viewing, news channels, and game shows all under the same umbrella. However, while they all can are entertainment, there is more to it. Take, for example, sports. I love to watch hockey and MMA. Then, I go on to discuss them with family, friends, and even strangers. They help form communities and strengthen bonds. So while it isn't an intellectual pursuit, there is benefit to it. After all, life can't just be about stuffy academics criticizing fun.

I'm not going to recommend Amusing Ourselves to Death. It's all about an unhinged perspective of entertainment and it does not contribute enough valuable points to offset the madness. The most worthwhile use of it is to remind oneself not to be a stuck up kill joy. Unless, of course, this was a satirical take that I took seriously. In that case, it isn't worth reading because good satire must be understandable as such, and I had no sense that.

PS: Please go read Brave New World if you haven't yet. It is, unequivocally, one of the greatest literary masterpieces illustrating dystopian society, along with 1984, and Fahrenheit 451. These three works essentially laid the foundation of my views on how societies operate and the role of government and society. I cannot stress enough how amazing I consider those three to be.

 

Вода

Я не хочу идти в бассейн
Но всё равно иду.
От бортика толкнулся,
И вперед плыву.

Но всё же как-то скучно
Болтаться на воде.
Плохой я собеседник
Когда наедине.

Пока плыву туда, сюда,
От мозга не сбежать.
Мысли все пытаются
Вниманьем обладать.

Пока они приятные,
В этом нет беды.
Только вот плохие
Всплывают из воды.

Но их я приглушаю,
Вхожу в ритмичный транс.
Там пузыри витают,
Несут с собою шанс.

В пузырях спокойно,
В бульканье ответ.
Какой вопрос? Не знаю.
Но и грусти нет.

September 2, 2023

Why You Can’t Catch a Rocket to Mars

I think I might owe Dr. DeGrasse Tyson an apology. In my comments about his books, I said that he had a condescending tone, and seemed incredibly self absorbed. Well, although that's true, I now realize I was too harsh on him.

This realization comes courtesy of Dr. Lyndon Smith who published Why You Can’t Catch a Rocket to Mars: Some Personal Reflections on Science and Society in November 2020.Going into the book, I expected a critical analysis of the current state of technology and research. After all, the blurb on the rear cover states "here you will learn about what's been holding back science and technology for years, and what we can do about it."

In all fairness to the author, it is a fairly interesting read. He discusses everything, from the conflict between teaching and research at universities, to the NHS (British public health system). And there are interesting insights into the way that world of scientific research works. In fact, I've seen some of these effects first hand. In particular, his anecdote about publishing a paper in 1997, then seeing almost the same work "rediscovered" by other authors multiple times in the 2010's is something that appears painfully true. There is a lot of insular-ism, where fields interact so little that the same discoveries need to be made time after time. He also discusses a vast variety of fields, spanning many of my interests. There aren't too many books that discuss the feasibility of time travel just a few chapters after talking about brain waves.

On the downside though, he is amazingly condescending. Take the aforementioned story with rediscovery. The same idea can be related with different intonations: humor, annoyance, arrogance, curiosity, etc... It all depends on what the goal is. Want to have a sad laugh that we humans are so inefficient? Be a bit humorous. Want to explore possible fixes to this unfortunate situation? Curiosity is a good option. Dr. Smith, however, opts for arrogance and annoyance, sounding like he's bragging for being more than a decade ahead and peeved that this situation exists. It's a fairly minor change, but intonation really can make or break my opinion of an author. It leaves a lasting perspective.

He also holds no punches about his political views, going on about the "Woke" opinions holding back research. It's a political hot-button topic right now (particularly by the conservative media and politicians in the United States, but Dr. Smith is from Great Britain). The criticism of university research fields with this in mind may be justified, but at the same time it's a rather explicit introduction of the author's biases into the sphere of academics. I may be an idealist, but I do prefer to believe that research should be pure. It's impossible to eliminate all biases, one way or the other, but throwing politically charged ideology into the mix definitely doesn't help the situation.

So, I'm left with a bit of a mixed impression. It's really interesting, but but slightly off-putting. If you're willing to deal with a bit of arrogance, it's a great read and could maybe be interesting to some folks.