4 ms·

Maybe it'll cause him to reflect on some of his other techno-optimism too. I like stephenson fine but he has a huge blind spot about the role of tech companies

Maybe it'll cause him to reflect on some of his other techno-optimism too. I like stephenson fine but he has a huge blind spot about the role of tech companies in positive transformations. I read seveneves a couple years ago and it was so intensely offputting to see obvious neil degrasse tyson and elon musk standins in straightforwardly heroic roles. For someone with such a sophisticated eye for power and change it just seems mindbogglingly naive. I think the crypto thing fits into that same blind spot as well.

arethuza 4y ago
I know a few people seem to think that Sean Probst was modelled on Musk - but I didn't see him like that at all.... Edit: Wasn't Probst supposed to be from New Jersey?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Eh I think he's a composite representing just a general "tech visionary world changing genius guy." Based on when the book was written and some of the concrete details (space mining company) I read him as pretty significantly based on musk and bezos though.
  - arethuza 4y ago
    I suspect my idea of what he was like was heavily influenced by the narration of the audiobook!
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    This is my read. Not Musk, or any other guy, specifically. But it's also true that it's hard to find a single person in that crowd who doesn't act and talk like they're trying to become a supervillain.
petesergeant 4y ago
The real Rorschach test here is who Julia Bliss Flaherty is meant to be: HRC or Sarah Palin (who was still relevant in 2015)
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Interestingly I didn't read her as being as clearly based on any real figure, just a kind of personification of political hubris and hypocrisy. The other two are also I think definitely mixes of multiple real people though so why not her also.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I don't really see that she's meant to be either of them. Have I failed the test?
danschuller 4y ago
Maybe you already know but it was purposely written to be optimistic. https://web.archive.org/web/20120319135605/http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starvation https://web.archive.org/web/20120319135605/http://www.worldp... The idea being sci-fi feeds scientific discovery, but recent sci-fi had stopped doing this, so it was an attempt to address this.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I could have been more clear I guess. It's not the optimism about the future that bothers me, or even about technology per se. It's the apparent belief that irreverent vision-driven geniuses leading technology-focused companies is a coherent path into a positive future. To me this view is extremely american, contemporary and unproven, having emerged just in the last few decades and already running into serious issues with its viability as a mechanism for wide spread long term positive change. It's not that I mind someone exploring this model, or portraying it in fiction. I think it's a backdrop for some genuinely interesting and dynamic conflicts, as demonstrated by the book itself. My issue is that this system has been taking on an almost religion-like character in some groups, and stephenson seems to be a true believer. Again not necessarily a mortal sin, but it leaves him with some blind spots that are frustrating as a reader and as someone who is also, on a good day, an optimist about technology and the future.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    One thing that both techno-capitalists and techno-commies have in common is that they will absolutely destroy the world today with the assumption that a visionary humanitarian warrior-scientist will arise and fix everything tomorrow. The belief doesn't arrange itself along a left-right scale. It's mostly a self-serving belief held by wealthy upper-middle class professionals who insist that the WeWorks and Ubers (that they work for or invest in) are where these magical people will come from. It's the material philosophy of people who have never missed a meal unless they were on a diet.

arethuza 4y ago

I know a few people seem to think that Sean Probst was modelled on Musk - but I didn't see him like that at all.... Edit: Wasn't Probst supposed to be from New Jersey?

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Eh I think he's a composite representing just a general "tech visionary world changing genius guy." Based on when the book was written and some of the concrete details (space mining company) I read him as pretty significantly based on musk and bezos though.
- arethuza 4y ago
  I suspect my idea of what he was like was heavily influenced by the narration of the audiobook!
- JohnFen 4y ago
  This is my read. Not Musk, or any other guy, specifically. But it's also true that it's hard to find a single person in that crowd who doesn't act and talk like they're trying to become a supervillain.

petesergeant 4y ago

The real Rorschach test here is who Julia Bliss Flaherty is meant to be: HRC or Sarah Palin (who was still relevant in 2015)

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Interestingly I didn't read her as being as clearly based on any real figure, just a kind of personification of political hubris and hypocrisy. The other two are also I think definitely mixes of multiple real people though so why not her also.
JohnFen 4y ago
I don't really see that she's meant to be either of them. Have I failed the test?

danschuller 4y ago

Maybe you already know but it was purposely written to be optimistic. https://web.archive.org/web/20120319135605/http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starvation https://web.archive.org/web/20120319135605/http://www.worldp... The idea being sci-fi feeds scientific discovery, but recent sci-fi had stopped doing this, so it was an attempt to address this.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I could have been more clear I guess. It's not the optimism about the future that bothers me, or even about technology per se. It's the apparent belief that irreverent vision-driven geniuses leading technology-focused companies is a coherent path into a positive future. To me this view is extremely american, contemporary and unproven, having emerged just in the last few decades and already running into serious issues with its viability as a mechanism for wide spread long term positive change. It's not that I mind someone exploring this model, or portraying it in fiction. I think it's a backdrop for some genuinely interesting and dynamic conflicts, as demonstrated by the book itself. My issue is that this system has been taking on an almost religion-like character in some groups, and stephenson seems to be a true believer. Again not necessarily a mortal sin, but it leaves him with some blind spots that are frustrating as a reader and as someone who is also, on a good day, an optimist about technology and the future.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  One thing that both techno-capitalists and techno-commies have in common is that they will absolutely destroy the world today with the assumption that a visionary humanitarian warrior-scientist will arise and fix everything tomorrow. The belief doesn't arrange itself along a left-right scale. It's mostly a self-serving belief held by wealthy upper-middle class professionals who insist that the WeWorks and Ubers (that they work for or invest in) are where these magical people will come from. It's the material philosophy of people who have never missed a meal unless they were on a diet.