IFER 5/19 Science Fiction in Ecology

Continuing our more humanities-oriented series this quarter was last week's session on Science Fiction. As with the session on Animals, Ike Sharpless gave a broad introduction to the topic, opening up the topic for discussion. Then, author and now UCSD MFA graduate Ethan Sparks close-read a short story by Octavia Butler, "The Book of Martha."

Discussion began fairly quickly and ranged from this specific short story to the genre of "science fiction" in general. It was objected by some that the name "science fiction" is a misnomer, in that such fiction is not necessarily scientific, something shown, I would add, by the "Book of Martha," which by its Biblical setting reminds one more of fantasy than SciFi. The relation between Fantasy and SciFi was also questioned by Ike, who told us that some authors, like the amazing Ursula LeGuin, prefer the term "speculative fiction" to talk about their work, rather than the standardized "science fiction" and "fantasy."

Another question that occupied us was the matter of utopia and dystopia. What purposes do such fictions, portraying ideal or non-ideal futures, serve? Does it make a difference, for example, when we see a vision so dark as that proposed by the second episode of the BBC series Black Mirror (one that I highly recommend you watch)? Does it make us get off our couch to cure the many symptoms of a burgeoning bleak disease that the dystopic mirror has shown us? Or does the fiction merely remain such, something to entertain us through a boring night when we cannot sleep? Although none of the participants had answers to such questions, talking about them within our multidisciplinary, binational frame was very interesting. I say "binational" because our colleagues from COLEF were present again in great numbers. We thank you for crossing the border to join us, again and again, and for adding your voices to the debate.

The matter of "science" fiction came up again in a different context: in "The Book of Martha," the short story Ethan read for us, the main character, a black female writer called Martha, can change humanity for the better. She just needs to tell God (hence the title: "Book of Martha," as if this was a book in some new bible) how she wants to change humans, and it will happen. After careful deliberation, her solution is to give humans very vivid dreams that would make us less greedy and violent in actual reality because anything we want we would get in these dreams. Martha's solution was heavily contested by the group. Alternative solutions ranged from the purely technological ("giving people cat eyes so they can see in the dark") to the idealistic ("making humans more social and less egocentric"). What struck me was that in doing these things, we were actually writing a science fiction of what science might be able to do in the future. If we had the capacity to choose whether humans can have cat eyes or not, would we? What about making all of us more social through surgery? The debate thus somewhat eerily echoed the one we had during the geo-engineering session, the question of which boils down to: "what are we, humans, allowed to do to our environment? Can we intervene at all?"

Again, there's no definitive answer to these questions, but IFER meetings have allowed us to deepen our knowledge on such debates. Next Tuesday afternoon
, we will go to the other side of the border to explore the theme of environmental justice. We hope you'll join us in Tijuana!

IFER Session on "Geo-engineering our Climate"

Last Tuesday, two speakers addressed the problematic of "geo-engineering" from two very different angles. By "geo-engineering," we meant a large problematic that can be summarized as "What to do if the measures against global warming proposed in the past - mainly cutting carbon emissions - cannot be applied in time? How else can we avert the predicted climatological catastrophe?" Apparently this topic has been taken up in some science circles already, and Jack Pan (SIO), our first speaker that evening, gave a witty and clear introduction to some of the issues involved. Some of the measures (like putting mirrors in front of the sun to reflect light back) seem clearly ridiculous, whereas others (putting extra clouds in the sky to shield us) reminded me of a science fiction film where such measures did not turn out to achieve the desire effects (Highlander II: The Quickening).

After Jack's lucid introduction to the issue from a scientific perspective, Kyle Haines (UCSD Political Theory) talked about the ethical and political implications of such technologies. Specifically, Kyle pointed to the fact that if we ever obtain technology that can fundamentally "protect" our climate, we still don't know who gets to decide to use it. If we already have problems curbing carbon emissions globally, then how can we make a global decision to use climate-altering technologies? Worse, it is probably that some of us, namely the global poor, will not be involved in the decision-making process at all! Kyle then explored this argument via a historical parallel: the peaceful use, by both the US and the Soviet Union, of nuclear arms to alter the shape of the environment.

Kyle and Jack's diverging positions on the subject brought about a lively, roundtable debate with the audience. People from widely varying disciplines, such as economics, biology, climate science, and literature (me) brought their perspectives on the issue to the table. Some argued that no global geo-engineering is necessary, and that all measures will be local (for reasons of cost alone). Others talked about a small token government tax on gas that may cause people to rethink using their vehicles too much. The debate took place in a friendly, welcoming atmosphere, which allowed people to really listen to what others had to say, softening the disciplinary boundaries that so often separate our work.

In summary, this was a very successful session, and I can only hope the session the rest of this quarter proceed in a similar manner. Thank you Kyle and Jack for presenting!