Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Does the Science Fiction Genre Need a New Subgenre? Andrew Liptak seems to think so and readers wonder what he will dub it? ''Sci-fic 2?''

Does the Science Fiction Genre Need a New Subgenre? Andrew Liptak seems to think so and readers wonder what he will dub it? Cli-fi, maybe? RE: Omni magazine's uncorrected text: ============================== After he wrote this very good article, searching for a new term for a new subgenre of sci-fi, Liptak tweeted the real reasons he wrote this piece. And his sci fi friends added their venom to the stew even Joe Monti! @Andrew Liptak with a cartoon thought balloon based on a real tweet he posted online in this series: "I can't say this was the real reason I wrote this piece, but yes, I was so sick and tired of him being so passionate about the cli-fi term and getting press everywhere, even in foreign countries overseas, that I just could not take it anymore and had to write this piece to stick it to him. What do you think?'' @AndrewLiptak "My point with the [Omni] article is that the term [cli-fi] is needlessly constricting and excludes context.'' @AndrewLiptak ''In other words, Cli-Fi is a dumb term.'' Joe Monti [@joemts] chimed in on same Twitter convo: "Awful" @Andrew Liptak" ''Clifi is a dumb term that he's trying to get to cover climate change fiction. He's very [passionate] about it.'' Andrew Liptak cartoon thought bubble: ''He's very passionate about the cli-fi term, and despite my criticism and carping, he has had considerable success turning the term into a popular buzzword, and its been written about in the NYT and Guardian and the Atlantic, much to my chagrin and anger, and disgust, actually, and HuffPost too, and the term received oped support from the likes of Margaret Atwood no less. So maybe cli fi is not such a dumb term and I'm wrong to keep firing pot shots at him. Maybe I'm the one who is harassing him. But I just hate that term, I don't know why. Wasn't sci fi mocked and critized as a term when it first appeared also for being needless contricting and lacking context? It's true, yes. Maybe I need to get off my high horse and come down to earth, this pale blue dot. Maybe my hatred of the cli fi term is due to soemthing I don't understand. Gve it time. Maybe I will ease up on him, BUT NOT IN THIS LIFETIME!" Tobias Buckell added for good measure: "Thank you (for saying that, Andrew, re ''In other words, Cli-Fi is a dumb term.'') @AndrewLiptak to Tobias Buckell '':D'' ============================================== Science Fiction Needs a New Subgenre The next movement of science fiction will look at our status as a pale blue dot. by Andrew Liptak Throughout science fiction’s history, stories fall into a range of movements, aligning themselves stylistically and thematically as they each react to one another. The Golden Age of Science Fiction, heralded by editor John W. Campbell Jr. sought to inject a level of scientific rigor into pulp fiction. The New Wave was expressly a movement against Golden Age conventions, turning its back on the space travel it heralded. Cyberpunk was a brash moment that melded a new outlook on the genre alongside the computer revolution. There’s always the eye towards what will happen next: What movement is the heir to the genre’s historical movements, and how will it change genre fiction and influence writers decades into the future? Climate Change in Sci-Fi Science fiction concerned with the effects of anthropomorphic climate change on the planet, and certainly, authors such as Paolo Bacigalupi and Margaret Atwood have been writing excellent and dire stories about where we’re headed. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that we will face in our future, and such an impending challenge is ripe for science fictional interpretations. While this is a topical (tropical?) subject, it’s an overly narrow one that misses a larger contextual framework that should inform and influence genre fiction. Climate change is one small part of this mindset: humanity’s fragile position in the larger universe. Earth is an isolated oasis in the depths of space, and it is the only place where we can life. Science fiction has broadly assumed throughout its history that humanity will propagate far into space, settling in new solar systems, discovering new alien species to interact with, and to boldly go into the unknown. The "wagon train to the stars" mindset fits well with humanity’s (read: America's) can-do attitude and ability to forge a future to the stars. But space isn’t the American West. Instead, it’s like the Arctic. It’s cold, difficult and expensive to reach, and prolonged exposure will certainly kill anyone not properly equipped. Those who live there endure a difficult environment: and that’s just our planet. Earth is the only place humanity can live and thrive, and there is a growing body of literature that explicitly deals with the fragility of our place in the universe. In recent years, several notable space-based science fiction novels have depicted a more realistic environment. Space in Sci-Fi A notable case in point is Andy Weir’s The Martian, depicting a Martian astronaut stranded on Mars when his team evacuates the planet. Mark Watney discovers the hard way that establishing and sustaining life is a difficult proposition, and his life literally hangs on the skills and tools with which he has brought with him. "The farm is dead. With a complete loss of pressure, most of the water boiled off. Also, the temperature is well below freezing. Not even the bacteria in the soil can survive a catastrophe like that. Some of the crops were in pop-tents off the Hab, but they’re dead too. I had them connected directly to the Hab via hoses to maintain air supply and temperature. When the Hab blew, the pop tents depressurized as well. Even if they hadn’t, the freezing cold would have killed the crops. Potatoes are now extinct on Mars." Weir’s depiction of Mars is largely accurate: It is uninhabitable, without major efforts on the part of scientists and colonists. Colonists require extensive facilities and infrastructure to sustain their lives: Materials from Earth—a long and hazardous journey in and of itself—would be required. Moreover, transforming Mars into a place where humans could actually survive could take upwards of 100,000 years: half as long as human civilization has existed. It’s an impossibly long time for humanity to even begin thinking about sustaining a single, massive project. When it comes to incredibly long projects, a good example is Kim Stanley Robinson’s novel Aurora, which follows a generation ship novel as it heads out to Tau Ceti. Once it arrives after hundreds of years in transit, its passengers discover that while their destination is somewhat habitable, it’s not an optimal environment for humans. While the colonists can breath the air, the planet is home to a deadly life form: "A beautiful world, for sure. Too bad about the bugs. But I guess we should have known. That stuff about the oxygen in the atmosphere being abiologic—I guess you’ll have to rethink that one. I suppose it could still be true. But if these things Jochi found exhale oxygen, then probably not." Robinson followed up his book with several essays about the challenges that face potential colonists: The sheer size of interstellar distances are staggering, and a major barrier for colonization of another world, in our solar system or out. "That array of living beings has to function in a dynamic balance for us to be healthy, and the entire complex system co-evolved on this planet’s surface in a particular set of physical influences, including Earth’s gravity, magnetic field, chemical make-up, atmosphere, insolation, and bacterial load. Traveling to the stars means leaving all these influences, and trying to replace them artificially." If travel outside of the solar system is improbable, other bodies within our solar system are relatively easy to reach. In The Expanse series, author James S.A. Corey (Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck), examine a solar system that has been populated. In Leviathan Wakes and its follow up novels (Calibran’s War, Abbadon’s Gate, Cibola Burn, and Nemesis Games), they demonstrate just how difficult living in the solar system can be. There are biological challenges: Humans living in the asteroid belt or various moons grow tall, brittle, relying on small reservoirs of air and water to survive. The challenges become greater as these fragmented pockets of humanity develop warring political factions. Those with the hardest existences find themselves marginalized by those with greater resources. The Expanse series is an illustration that it’s not biology alone that challenges life away from Earth: Society as a whole, in its present form, is not equipped to sustain human life away from our home. Self-Destructing Humanity in Sci-Fi Stories that take place far out in space aren’t the only ones that examine the delicate nature of human life. Linda Nagata’s Red trilogy (First Light, The Trials, and Going Dark) follows a special forces soldier as he receives instructions from a powerful artificial intelligence, one that organizes a team called ETM: Existential Threat Management. The purpose of this squad isn’t to protect humanity from the likes of aliens or rogue asteroids, but from itself. After the detonation of a nuclear warhead in the United States, it sends James Kelly and team members after other rogue warheads across the world, and above it. The purpose of this unit is to safeguard humanity from things that can really harm its existence: The Cold War waged between the Soviet Union and the United States, put our existence in stark relief; first-strike doctrine was essentially a gun pointed at one’s own head; a pulled trigger meant that the entire planet would have been rendered inhabitable. ETM’s job in Nagata’s trilogy attempts to further mitigate this threat, first by removing the immediate problems from the board, and presumably by working to shift human behavior in more positive directions. This mindset obviously isn’t limited to space operas designed to reveal the fragility of life as we know it, but they do add an additional perspective that climate change fiction really doesn’t hit. Rather, climate-related fiction plays a role in this wider approach. A slate of recently-published books such as Claire Vaye Watkin’s ''Gold Fame Citrus,'' Emily St. John Mandel’s ''Station Eleven'', Paolo Bacigalupi’s ''The Windup Girl'' and ''The Water Knife'' and Jeff Vandermeer’s ''Area X trilogy'' each touches on not how the Earth’s climate has been altered by humanity, but by the repercussions of human activities. Station Eleven depicts the destruction of the human race through the work of a flu virus, aided by global infrastructure while The Water Knife examines how climate change will push society to desperate, angry actions as resources dwindle. Defining Genres Determining where books fall can be an academic exercise: Defining where a book should lie, or what the precise definitions should be for entry into a literary genre or canon is usually futile. There are no hard characteristics within speculative fiction’s "Golden Age" or "New Age" movements, and academic arguments about what should and shouldn’t be included will persist for as long as the genre is a thing. But, loose definitions of such literary movements are useful: In a broad sense, they can help to guide works by either working with or against a shared cluster of tropes. With rising and vocal proponents pushing for a shared movement of works that explicitly deal with climate change, we should be wary about strict definitions for any movement. Criteria, particularly when it comes to literary movements, can act as walls, and thus restrict the raw exploration and storytelling that movements require to thrive. Focusing only on climate change serves only to tell a select grouping of stories, while missing out on the much greater context that it aims to warn against. We can tell the stories of how we change the world by our own hands, but in doing so, we fail to recognize something bigger: We’re destroying the one and only place we call home in the cosmos

Monday, May 23, 2016

OPED: ''Does Science-Fiction Need a New Subgenre? The next movement of sci-fi will look at our status as a 'pale blue dot'. -- A ''Food for Thought'' Oped by American sci-fi book reviewer Andrew Liptak

Andrew Liptak
Written by @andrewliptak
Andrew Liptak on 24 May, 2016Freelance writer and historian who lives in Vermont. Weekend Editor of Gizmodo/io9. Founder of Geek Mountain State and the Vermont SF Writer’s Series. Events and Marketing Coordinator for Bear Pond Books of Montpelier, Vermont. Trilobite enthusiast.

 
QUESTION: BUT DOES SCI-FI REALLY NEED A NEW SUBGENRE? Isn't sci-fi good enough on its own. What is Andrew getting at here? Any comments pro and con, on this thoughtful oped from a new editorial voice in the sci fi world?
EXCERPT

Science Fiction Needs a New Subgenre


The next movement of science fiction will look at our status as a pale blue dot.


by Andrew Liptak

After he wrote this very good article, searching for a new term for a new subgenre of sci-fi, Liptak tweeted the real reasons he wrote this piece. And his sci fi friends added their venom to the stew even Joe Monti!

@Andrew Liptak with a cartoon thought balloon based on a real tweet he posted online in this series: "I can't say this was the real reason I wrote this piece, but yes, I was so sick and tired of him being so passionate about the cli-fi term and getting press everywhere, even in foreign countries overseas, that I just could not take it anymore and had to write this piece to stick it to him. What do you think?''

@AndrewLiptak "My point with the [Omni] article is that the term [cli-fi] is needlessly constricting
and excludes context.''


@AndrewLiptak
''In other words, Cli-Fi is a dumb term.''
 

 

Joe Monti [@joemts]  chimed in on same Twitter convo: "Awful"
 
 
 
 
@Andrew Liptak"  ''Clifi is a dumb term that he's trying to get to cover climate
change fiction. He's very [passionate] about it.''
 
Andrew Liptak cartoon thought bubble: ''He's very passionate about the cli-fi term, and despite my criticism and carping, he has had considerable success turning the term into a popular buzzword, and its been written about in the NYT and Guardian and the Atlantic, much to my chagrin and anger, and disgust, actually, and HuffPost too, and the term received oped support from the likes of Margaret Atwood no less. So maybe cli fi is not such a dumb term and I'm wrong to keep firing pot shots at him. Maybe I'm the one who is harassing him. But I just hate that term, I don't know why. Wasn't sci fi mocked and critized as a term when it first appeared also for being needless contricting and lacking context? It's true, yes. Maybe I need to get off my high horse and come down to earth, this pale blue dot. Maybe my hatred of the cli fi term is due to soemthing I don't understand. Gve it time. Maybe I will ease up on him, BUT NOT IN THIS LIFETIME!"

 

 
Tobias Buckell added for good measure: "Thank you (for saying that, Andrew, re ''In other words, Cli-Fi is a dumb term.'')
 
@AndrewLiptak to Tobias Buckell '':D''

Andrew Liptak to Tobias Buckell in reply:
                          

''
I'm not gonna say [this Omni] article was inspired by that, [re  ''Clifi is a dumb term that he's trying to get media coverage for re  climate issues and literature]
change fiction. He's very [passionate] about it.''] but the narrow-mindedness behind it was a contributing factor [to my writing it for Omni.]''
 
To which Tobias Buckell replied to Andrew and his friends online: "good. I’m hoping more and more ppl resist :)''
 
To his credit, Andrew does say in the article way down, "loose definitions of such literary movements are useful: In a broad sense, they can help to guide works by either working with or against a shared cluster of tropes. "

BUT THEN HE TAKES AIM THE RISE OF CLI-FI GENRE which he hates with some uncontrollable hatrd: "With rising and vocal proponents [of the cli fi term] pushing for a shared movement of works that explicitly deal with climate change, we should be wary about strict definitions for any movement [including sci fi] . Criteria, particularly when it comes to literary movements, can act as walls, [even for sci fi, too] and thus restrict the raw exploration and storytelling that movements require to thrive. [For the cli-fi writing community worldwide now,] focusing only on climate change serves only to tell a select grouping of stories, while missing out on the bigger picture."
 
 READ BELOW. And this blogger loved the article itseld, so much so that I tweeted the link from here to Kingdom Come. Andrew is a good writer and a thoughtful thinker. -- Dan Bloom
====================
 
THE ARTICLE BEGINS:
 
Throughout science fiction’s history, stories fall into a range of movements, aligning themselves stylistically and thematically as they each react to one another. The Golden Age of Science Fiction, heralded by editor John W. Campbell Jr. sought to inject a level of scientific rigor into pulp fiction.

The New Wave was expressly a movement against Golden Age conventions, turning its back on the space travel it heralded. Cyberpunk was a brash moment that melded a new outlook on the genre alongside the computer revolution.

There’s always the eye towards what will happen next: What movement is the heir to the genre’s historical movements, and how will it change genre fiction and influence writers decades into the future?

Climate Change in Sci-Fi

Science fiction concerned with the effects of anthropomorphic climate change on the planet, and certainly, authors such as Paolo Bacigalupi and Margaret Atwood have been writing excellent and dire stories about where we’re headed. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that we will face in our future, and such an impending challenge is ripe for science fictional interpretations.
While this is a topical (tropical?) subject, it’s an overly narrow one that misses a larger contextual framework that should inform and influence genre fiction. Climate change is one small part of this mindset: humanity’s fragile position in the larger universe. Earth is an isolated oasis in the depths of space, and it is the only place where we can life.

Science fiction has broadly assumed throughout its history that humanity will propagate far into space, settling in new solar systems, discovering new alien species to interact with, and to boldly go into the unknown. The "wagon train to the stars" mindset fits well with humanity’s (read: America's) can-do attitude and ability to forge a future to the stars.

But space isn’t the American West. Instead, it’s like the Arctic. It’s cold, difficult and expensive to reach, and prolonged exposure will certainly kill anyone not properly equipped. Those who live there endure a difficult environment: and that’s just our planet.
Earth is the only place humanity can live and thrive, and there is a growing body of literature that explicitly deals with the fragility of our place in the universe. In recent years, several notable space-based science fiction novels have depicted a more realistic environment. 
Recommended Reading:MaddAddam by Margaret Atwood
The Windup Girl by Paolo BacigalupiThe Water Knife by Paolo Bacigalupi


Defining Genres


Determining where books fall can be an academic exercise: Defining where a book should lie, or what the precise definitions should be for entry into a literary genre or canon is usually futile. There are no hard characteristics within speculative fiction’s "Golden Age" or "New Age" movements, and academic arguments about what should and shouldn’t be included will persist for as long as the genre is a thing.

But, loose definitions of such literary movements are useful: In a broad sense, they can help to guide works by either working with or against a shared cluster of tropes. With rising and vocal proponents pushing for a shared movement of works that explicitly deal with climate change, we should be wary about strict definitions for any movement. Criteria, particularly when it comes to literary movements, can act as walls, and thus restrict the raw exploration and storytelling that movements require to thrive. Focusing only on climate change serves only to tell a select grouping of stories, while missing out on the much greater context that it aims to warn against.

We can tell the stories of how we change the world by our own hands, but in doing so, we fail to recognize something bigger: We’re destroying the one and only place we call home in the cosmos.

Andrew Liptak
Written by
Andrew Liptak on 24 May, 2016Freelance writer and historian from Vermont. Weekend Editor of Gizmodo/io9. Founder of Geek Mountain State and the Vermont SF Writer’s Series. Events and Marketing Coordinator for Bear Pond Books of Montpelier, Vermont. Trilobite enthusiast.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Florida journalist and humorist par excellence Craig Pittman at the Tampa Bay Times newspaper has a new book out on Juy 4 titled "Oh, Florida! How America's Weirdest State Influences the Rest of the Country"

Remember that Florida Governor who said to state employees NOT TO USE THE TERMS climate change or global warming in any state PR that is about climate change or global warming issues in Florida?

Well, now, Florida journalist and humorist par excellence Craig Pittman at the Tampa Bay Times newspaper has a new book out on Juy 4 titled "Oh, Florida! How America's Weirdest State Influences the Rest of the Country" See amazon.com for details!

http://www.amazon.com/Oh-Florida-Americas-Weirdest-Influences/dp/1250071208

  • Hardcover: 336 pages
  • Publisher: St. Martin's Press (July 5, 2016)
  • ''Suggestive'' Retail Price: US$2016.16
  • Oh, Florida! That name. That combination of sounds. Three simple syllables, and yet packing so many mixed messages. To some people, it's a paradise. To others, it's a punchline. As Oh, Florida! shows, it's both of these - and, more importantly, it's a Petri dish, producing trends that end up influencing the rest of the country. Without Florida there would be no NASCAR, no Bettie Page pinups, no Glenn Beck radio rants, no USA Today, no "Stand Your Ground," ... you get the idea.
    To outsiders, Florida seems baffling. It's a state where the voters went for Barack Obama twice, yet elected a Tea Party candidate as governor. Florida is touted as a care-free paradise, yet it's also known for its perils - alligators, sinkholes, pythons, hurricanes, and sharks, to name a few. It attracts 90 million visitors a year, some drawn by its impressive natural beauty, others bewitched by its man-made fantasies.

    Oh, Florida! explores those contradictions and shows how they fit together to make this the most interesting state. It is the first book to explore the reasons why Florida is so wild and weird - and why that's okay. Florida couldn't be Florida without that sense of the unpredictable, unexpected, and unusual lurking behind every palm tree. But there is far more to Florida than its sideshow freakiness. Oh, Florida! explains how Florida secretly, subtly influences all the other states in the Union, both for good and for ill.

    About the Author

    CRAIG PITTMAN is an award-winning journalist and the author of three previous books. He is a native Floridian and in 2013 wrote a popular blog for Slate called "Oh, Florida! " which became the genesis for this book, and which led to his appearance on TV and radio discussing why Florida is so odd and entertaining. He lives in St. Petersburg with his wife and two children.
  • Craig Pittman, author of the twisted and amazing new non-fiction book "Oh, Florida! How America's Weirdest State Influences the Rest of the Country," is a native Floridian.

    Born in Pensacola, he graduated from Troy State University in Alabama, where his muckraking work for the student paper prompted an agitated dean to label him "the most destructive force on campus." Since then he has covered a variety of newspaper beats and quite a few natural disasters, including hurricanes, wildfires and the Florida Legislature.

    Since 1998 he has reported on environmental issues for Florida's largest newspaper, the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times), where his coverage has won both state and national awards.

    A series he co-wrote with Matthew Waite became their book, "Paving Paradise: Florida's Vanishing Wetlands and the Failure of No Net Loss" (2009). Since then Pittman has written "Manatee Insanity: Inside the War Over Florida's Most Famous Endangered Species" (2010), which the Florida Humanities Council declared an "essential read" for all Floridians, and "The Scent of Scandal: Greed, Betrayal, and the World's Most Beautiful Orchids," which the Atlanta Journal-Constitution declared "irresistible."

    He lives in St. Petersburg, Fla., with his wife and two children.

    Editorial Reviews

    Review

    "Oh, Florida! is hilarious, creepy, and sobering. Craig Pittman makes the compelling argument that all of America is being warped by Florida's off-the-chart weirdness, which we eagerly export. This book should be required reading for anyone who's ever thought about moving down here, with or without a concealed weapons permit."―Carl Hiaasen, New York Times bestselling author of Bad Monkey and Skinny Dip
    "Craig Pittman is not only a brilliant humorist, he's a terrific historian and arbiter of all things Florida, past and present. Oh, Florida! is everything you hope it will be, yet so much more!"―Gilbert King, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Devil in the Grove
    "Craig Pittman's Oh, Florida is the definitive compendium of Sunshine State weirdness, properly placing everything from the method of Ponce de Leon's demise through Linda Lovelace's contribution to film and the National Enquirer's journalistic acumen along the continuum of significant world affairs. What the Periodic Table of Elements is to science and the Junior Woodchuck Manual is to scoutcraft, Pittman's collection is to understanding the hotbed of the goony, the astoundingly tasteless, and the impossibly strange."―Les Standiford, author of Last Train to Paradise and the John Deal mysteries
    "Pittman's bone-deep knowledge of Florida helps make the airtight case that weirdness has officially passed citrus as our state’s major export crop -- and why the rest of the country should stop laughing and be very afraid."―Tim Dorsey, author of Coconut Cowboy and Florida Roadkill
    "Craig Pittman digs for stories in the shifting sands and shifty characters of Florida and unearths gems and surprises on every page. Oh, Florida! is at once hilarious and full of heart. Masterful storytelling and research, layered with a strong sense of justice and a native Floridian’s born irony, make Oh, Florida! much more than a hashtag. Whether you’re dreaming of a sunny vacation, looking down at us in horror, or lucky enough to live here, Pittman brings perfect clarity to this flawed paradise." – Cynthia Barnett, author of Rain: A Natural and Cultural History.
    "Florida, that sandy, sunny, coda hanging off the gothic Deep South, is the strangest of American states, half-land, half-water, all fantasy. Nobody knows the dubious history, fractious present and overall oddity of the place better than Craig Pittman. He writes like a trippy combination of Carl Hiaasen and Gail Collins, sharp as a stingray's tail, deep as a first magnitude spring and seriously funny. Oh, Florida! is a smart, sly wild ride of a book."―Diane Roberts, author of Dream State
    "Whether or not you've seen albino scorpions big as lobsters drop from a loft in your mom's garage or waited out a hurricane in the Lightning Capital of the World, you need Craig Pittman's brilliant tribute to the Sunshine State. Rich in detail, from historic and political to criminal, from comic to bizarre, Oh, Florida! is swift, absorbing - and funny. It’s perfect for Floridians, snowbirds, tourists, in fact, for everybody out there. You'll see."― Kit Reed's novels include THINNER THAN THOU and WHERE. Her next, MORMAMA, ends with a sinkhole in Jacksonville
    "This book is a fun romp through Florida's weirdness, wackiness, and wonder. This is must-read fare for readers of SCENE who can appreciate more than most what author Roxane Gay once claimed: "Florida is a strange place. I love it here, and I love how nothing makes sense."―Scene magazine
    "This entertaining book will amuse and astonish Floridians and anybody interested in the absurdity of the Sunshine State or human nature in general."―Library Journal

    Come the Clima-Apocalypse, what will you pack in your 'Get Out of Dodge' survival kit? Paolo Bacigalupi's answer is the best one here!

    Come the Clima-Apocalypse, what will you pack in your 'Get Out of Dodge' survival kit? Paolo Bacigalupi's answer is the best one here!


    re

    PERFECTLY PACKED FOR THE ....well, read on....

    What does one pack for the end of the world? The writers of Fiction Unbound sought expert advice from Paolo Bacigalupi, among others, asking him:

    In the event of an apocalypse, what's in your bug-out bag
     
    Check out his reply below and leavea comment to tell how you would pack to survive a post-apocalyptic future.



    via

    http://www.fictionunbound.com/blog/packing-for-the-apocalypse

    Paolo Bacigalupi:

    So candidly I hate the concept of the Bug Out Bag and I feel like this is precisely what is wrong with a specific strain of literature and that’s apocalyptic literature. It’s not dystopian in the classic sense. It’s not a broken future. I think of myself as writing accidental futures. I think there’s a strong layer of the pornographic in apocalyptic literature, the deep desire to see everyone wiped out so that a plucky band of deserving people can restart the fucking world. And somewhere in there they’ll battle motorcycle gangs.

    The zombie apocalypse is going to look exactly like the drought apocalypse and there’s no specificity to why any of those things exist except to give us the excuse to run around and shoot at bad people. I despise that trope because it leads to this idea that only if you bottle yourself up in a shed with a  bunch of guns and canned food will you actually survive. And I do feel like - talking about toxic tropes and talking about weird templates - I see preppers, see these people living inside a false narrative about what human survival is. Bugging out is not a survival tactic. Solving the problem now is a survival tactic. Looking at our bad decisions now and not being dysfunctional is a survival tactic.

    We’re in this together. Why wait until everything falls apart? Maybe we should just stop the fucking apocalypse. By the time you’re talking about a bug out bag you’re already dead - you already failed. You failed as a species and you’ve also failed as a person. There’s that repetitive “epic adventure” quality and the ego of saying “I’ve got my plan! Look at me, I’m the clever one.” Well, no, you’re not - you’re toast. You let your society burn around you. It’s not an adventure, it’s a big fail. So I think by the time you’re talking about bug out bags it’s too late. The fact that we do talk about them, says so much about our current abdication of our responsibilities for our society and our world.

    There’s my very bitter take on that.

    Paolo Bacigalupi is the author of two novels--TheWater Knife and The Windup Girl, which won the Hugo, Nebula, Locus, Compton Crook and John W. Campbell Memorial Awards.

    Watch video pf "Mr Osamah Sami winner of literary prize this week in Australia give an hilarious yet powerful reminder acceptance speech at Australia's Premier's Literary Award event

    CLIMATE REFUGEES will figure into these climate issues very directly, so listen!

    Watch Mr. Osamah Sami .....the recent winner of a top literary prize this week in Australia .......give an hilarious yet powerful reminder ...in an acceptance speech at Australia's Premier's Literary Award event --

    he is the first Iraqi to win in Australia" amd his and short speech is so REAL!

     LISTEN and **pass on link to your friends** worldwide. YOUTUBE video, - 5 minute speech! APPLAUSE! --


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MywuOBg8Yuk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Cli-Country? Don Henley "Praying for Rain"

    HAT TIP to Ricky Egeland on FB -- MUSIC LYRICS AND CLIMATE ISSUESS with DON HENLEY of the EAGLES --
     
    Ricky posted:
     
     
    Cli-Country? Don Henley "Praying for Rain"
    Why did he write this song?
    "This Cass County cut offers a farmer's perspective on changing weather patterns. "I had to be very careful with that song, and I did it deliberately because I live in Texas," Henley told USA Today. "I'm aware of the politics, and I'm aware of all the controversy surrounding climate change. I worked hard on that song so it might reach people who would otherwise not listen to what it has to say. We'll see how that goes.""
    "Don Henley is angry about the subject of climate change and was concerned he would come across "getting all preachy," so he decided to approach the song from the viewpoint of a farmer who's not sure what the answers are, but just knew from personal observation that "the weather patterns are not the way they used to be.""
    ""I wanted to address that subject, which is still a very controversial subject, because there's still a lot of denial in the face of trainloads of science. [Laughs]. Overwhelming science," Henley continued. "A consensus in the world scientific community among scientists who are legitimate and respected. And yet, the seeds of doubt have been sown by certain corporations and their allies in Congress. There have been millions of dollars poured into sowing the seeds of doubt. There's a book about it.""

    Saturday, May 21, 2016

    HUMBLE OIL's 1962 ADVERTISEMENT -- PHOTO! - Humble Oil ran an advertisement back in 1962 boasting how they could melt 7 million tons of glacier every day.

    Humble Oil ran an advertisement back in 1962 boasting how they could melt 7 million tons of glacier every day. As the world heats up in 2016, look back and sigh: cli-fi!

     
    h/t cli-fi noveslist Mr. Chris McGee !
     
    SEE ALSO THIS LINK 2016 for update!
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/14/3769380/exxon-ad-melt-glaciers/
     
    re

    50 Years Ago Big Oil Bragged About Being Able To Melt Glaciers, While They Knew About Climate Change

    Claim:   Humble Oil ran an advertisement back in 1962 boasting how they could melt 7 million tons of glacier every day.  TRUE!

    TRUE



    Example:   [Collected via e-mail, June 2010]

    Is this a real ad from a 1962 edition of Life Magazine?

    Click photo to enlarge
     

    Origins:   When looking through collections of advertisements from previous eras, one can often find ads that were perfectly innocuous in their day, but which — due to political, social, or technological changes that have taken place in the meanwhile — would now seen ridiculous, offensive, or otherwise unacceptable. The above-displayed 1962 magazine advertisement for Humble Oil & Refining Company and Enco brand gasoline is a prime example of this concept.

    Back in the early 1960s ad copy such as the following, which touted an oil company's size and technical efficiency by boasting that its output could melt several tons of glacier every day, would have raised no eyebrows:
    EACH DAY HUMBLE SUPPLIES ENOUGH ENERGY TO MELT 7 MILLION TONS OF GLACIER!

    This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries. Yet, the petroleum energy Humble supplies — if converted into heat — could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second! To meet the nation's growing needs for energy, Humble has supplied science to nature's resources to become America's Leading Energy Company. Working wonders with oil through research, Humble provides energy in many forms — to help heat our homes, power our transportation, and to furnish industry with a great variety of versatile chemicals. Stop at a Humble station for new Enco Extra gasoline, and see why the "Happy Motoring" Sign is the World's First Choice!
    What those copywriters couldn't have imagined in 1962, of course, was that three or four decades in the future scientists would begin warning about the potential harm of
    global warming, a phenomenon attributed in large part to the global use of petroleum products for fuel. Nor could those ad men have anticipated that melting glaciers would become one of the most common symbols used to illustrate the perils the world would have to confront if scientific predictions about global warming proved to be true.

    Some viewers have doubted that this purported 1960s advertisement is real, believing it instead to be a modern effort created for satirical or political purposes. But the advert did indeed appear in the 2 February 1962 issue of LIFE magazine (which featured U.S. astronaut John Glenn on the cover).

    Last updated:   21 May 2014
     
    and
     

    50 Years Ago Big Oil Bragged About Being Able To Melt Glaciers, While They Knew About Climate Change

     
     
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/14/3769380/exxon-ad-melt-glaciers/ 
     



    Climate

    50 Years Ago Big Oil Bragged About Being Able To Melt Glaciers, While They Knew About Climate Change


    CREDIT: LM Otero, AP


    Newly-released oil industry documents push back the start date of the world’s most successful disinformation campaign to the 1960s, if not earlier.
    The must-read documents, published by The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), strengthen the hand of the numerous attorneys general investigating whether ExxonMobil engaged in a cover-up to mislead the public and investors about the dangers of human-caused climate change.
    The New York Times quotes CIEL director Carroll Muffett on the stunning implications of these documents:
    From 1957 onward, there is no doubt that Humble Oil, which is now Exxon, was clearly on notice” about rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming, he said.
    The first thing that quote made me think of is a story I wrote years ago about a ridiculously ironic ad that Humble oil published in a 1962 edition of Life Magazine found on Google Books (for larger version, click here). The headline: “EACH DAY HUMBLE SUPPLIES ENOUGH ENERGY TO MELT 7 MILLION TONS OF GLACIER!”:
    humble-oil
    “This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries,” the ad begins without a trace of irony. “Yet, the petroleum energy Humble supplies — if converted into heat — could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second! To meet the nation’s growing needs for energy, Humble has supplied science to nature’s resources to become America’s Leading Energy Company….”
    At the time, I noted the scientific reality that “More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.” But what we now know is that by 1962, the phrase “Humble has supplied science to nature’s resources” also included supplying some of the early science on global warming and its impacts.
    CIEL documents that back in 1946, the leading oil companies created a “Smoke and Fumes Committee” to back scientific research into air pollution issues and use their findings to shape the public debate about the environment. CIEL explains, “The express goal of their collaboration was to use science and public skepticism to prevent environmental regulations they deemed hasty, costly, and unnecessary.” The Committee, which perhaps should have been named “Smoke and Mirrors,” was later folded into the American Petroleum Institute (API).
    The scientific understanding that certain gases trap heat and warm the planet dates back at least to Irish physicist John Tyndall in 1820, as NASA has explained. By the turn of the 19th century, Svante August Arrhenius was quantifying how CO2 contributed to the greenhouse effect and later made the connection between global warming and fossil fuels combustion.
    In 1955, as CIEL notes, Hans Suess, a Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) scientist, “demonstrated that naturally occurring carbon-14 in the atmosphere was being ‘diluted’ by depleted carbon-12 derived from fossil fuels.” In 1957, a paper by SIO’s Roger Revelle and Hans Suess determined that “far more CO2 would remain in the atmosphere than previously assumed, potentially accelerating the impact of global climate change.”
    Two months later, scientists with the Humble Oil and Refining Company Production Research Division published — under the company name — a study called “Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels.” In other words, by 1957 the precursor company to Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels was boosting CO2 levels in the air.
    As an aside, you may recall that the very next year, 1958, the American public saw the first televised warning about the dangers of CO2, global warming, and sea level rise. In a TV episode, “Unchained Goddess,” written and produced by three-time Oscar winner Frank Capra, viewers learn that unrestricted CO2 emissions could “melt the polar ice caps” leading to a world where “Tourists in glass bottom boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami.”
    By February 1968, Stanford Research Institute (SRI) scientists had completed their Final Report to the API on “Sources, abundance, and fate of gaseous atmospheric pollutants.” The SRI report notes that the best explanation for rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is the “fossil fuel emanation theory”!
    The researchers explicitly warn the API that because of rising CO2 levels, “Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000,” and “there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.” The report points out:
    “If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur, including the melting of the Antarctic ice, a rise in sea levels…”
    The researchers go on to make “Estimates of the possible rate at which the Antarctic ice cap might melt,” ranging from 4000 years down to a beyond-alarming 400 years! Indeed, they make a simple calculation that if the ice cap melted in 1000 years, “the resulting 400 foot rise in sea level would occur at a rate of 4 feet per 10 years. This is 100 times greater than presently observed changes.”
    You’ll be happy to know that their math was off by a factor of 2. The melting of all of the land-locked ice on the planet, of which the vast majority is on Antarctica, would “only” raise sea level some 230 feet. Ironically, or tragically, SRI’s crude 1968 estimate of the possible rate of sea level rise if we kept burning fossil fuels isn’t that much different from the worst-case scenario laid out by James Hansen and 18 leading climate experts in a peer-reviewed paper last month.
    We may never know whether the PR geniuses who came up with the 1962 melting glacier ad — and the corporate executives who approved it — had any idea of just how tragically ironic it was. But thanks to CIEL — and Inside Climate News and the L.A. Times — we know that #ExxonKnew a half century ago about the very serious dangers their product would some day inflict on humanity.
    And yet Exxon chose to lie to its investors and spread disinformation to the general public about those dangers. The courts will decide whether Exxon broke the law. But considering that the Pope laid out in great detail in his climate encyclical why climate inaction is morally wrong — it’s quite safe to say that knowingly spreading disinformation for the purpose of delaying action on preventing catastrophic global warming is uniquely immoral.