?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

There's a word for that

I've written (briefly) before in praise of Jonathan McCalmont's article Cowardice, Laziness, and Irony:  How Science Fiction Lost the Future.  But one passage has stuck in my mind:

The most common account of why science fiction no longer attempts to engage with the future is that the future is now deemed to be out of bounds. The world, we are told, changes so quickly that any attempt to predict the future would necessarily be out of date by the time the book was released.  In an effort to acknowledge this particular difficulty without necessarily confronting it, science fiction manifests the intellectual inaccessibility of the future as a cultural event known as the singularity. Popularised both by the SF author Vernor Vinge and the futurist Ray Kurtzweil, the singularity is (broadly speaking) the point at which machine and human intelligences begin to sharply increase in both size and speed resulting in a rate of cultural change that tends towards the infinite.


As a non-futurist, non-critic, and non-expert reader, I can't comment on the claims McCalmont reports, much less assess their probability.  But I will say this, about the wider world:  if the past is unrecognizable and the future unimaginable, if cultural change seems hectic and change impossible to predict, if even the present is beyond comprehension ... well, honey, you've just reached middle age.