|
|
![]() |
12/04/00: No Future! The 21st century is just a few short weeks away. I’m sure I speak for
most of the IMC crowd when I say I’m darn disappointed with the distinct
lack of moon bases, AI computers, and space ships to Jupiter. It seems
that Arthur C. Clarke, one of the world’s most respected futurists,
was well off the mark. He wasn’t the only one. Heck, according to my third grade teacher there were going to be robot
butlers and water-powered zeppelins carrying cargo across the globe
about now. Sure, this whole Internet thing is nice, but is it as cool
as a robot butler? I don’t bloody well think so! Man, when I was a kid,
I envisioned the year 2001 as a time when I'd be living in a geodesic
dome, with one of those bubble-windshield cars in the driveway, being
washed by smiling robot servant. Internet? Phooey! Anyway, with the end of the century bearing down on us at 60 seconds
a minute, I thought it might be interesting to talk to a self-professed
futurist, to see what they thought of it all. As Arthur C. Clarke lives
in Ceylon and will only talk to CNN, I had to settle for a lesser futurist
- Mr. Bruce Sterling. Sterling, the author of the recently released
book Zeitgeist, and of the cyberpunk classic Islands in the
Net, kindly agreed to grant a short interview to The Guide to
the NonExistent Universe. And here it is. Guide: What did you think life in 2001 was going to be like
when you were 10 years old? Sterling: When I was ten years old, I couldn't see my way past
surviving the fourth grade. Guide: Oh. Um... okay. (Cough, shuffle notes.) Still, what part
of the present do you think would have impressed you most as a 10 year
old? Sterling: Well, I'm kind of pleased that I'm now famous enough
to impress and even intimidate elementary school teachers. Guide: (Laugh) Gotcha. Well, SF authors have always regarded
themselves as accurate prophets, but very few of them have had much
success in the last 25 years of the century. Will modern SF writers
be any closer to the mark predicting future developments than writers
of the first half of the 20th century? Sterling: That's an interesting question. I'm inclined to think
that it works out about even. It's easier to get good information and
there are more people working on trend assessment, but there is also
a glut of radical technological possibilities and some severely disruptive
environmental trends. These are crazy times, but the society itself
is rather self-satisfied, censorious and dull, increasingly top-heavy
with old people. Maybe it's wisest to say that writers will always get
the future wrong but they may get it wrong in different and more inventive
ways. Guide: (Thoughtful pause) Do you see your near-future books
as prophetic in any way? Sterling: Yes, I do, actually. I think prophecy is an occupational
hazard for science fiction writers. It usually means that the writer
has succumbed to some kind of pathetic dementia. But if I'm to be of
any use as a futurist, I can't merely play empty games. I have to offer
people some sense of genuine engagement with the future. A good historian
doesn't just relate colorful anecdotes of the past, he has to bring
it to life and relate it to us in a coherent way. The future is history
that hasn't happened yet. Genuine choices will always have genuine consequence. At the moment I am loudly and direly prophesying to anyone who will
listen that the Greenhouse Effect will kick us from hell to breakfast.
Pretty soon, however, it will obvious to any sane person that the Greenhouse
problem is very real. Once that "prophecy" becomes a mainstream truism
obvious to everyone, I plan to retire from prophesy and go back to making
up cool wacky stuff about Martians. Editor Pieter van Hiel looks forward to the wacky Martian books.
All this corporate culture SF angst stuff brings him down. |