|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
title = "Films from the Future: The Technology and Morality of Sci-Fi Movies - Andrew Maynard"
|
|
|
|
|
date = 2018-11-29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
category = "review"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[taxonomies]
|
|
|
|
|
tags = ["books", "andrew maynard", "movies", "scifi", "technology",
|
|
|
|
|
"philosophy", "4 stars"]
|
|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[GoodReads summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41045578-films-from-the-future):
|
|
|
|
|
Science, technology, and society: In Films from the Future, former physicist
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Maynard threads together his love of science fiction movies with his
|
|
|
|
|
expertise on emerging technologies to engage, entertain and make you think
|
|
|
|
|
about the relationship between technology, and society as they discover
|
|
|
|
|
astounding, transformative advances in science. Through the imagination and
|
|
|
|
|
creativity of science fiction movies, Maynard introduces readers to the
|
|
|
|
|
profound capabilities presented by new and emerging technologies, and the
|
|
|
|
|
complex personal and societal challenges they present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- more -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ stars(stars=4) }}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing a review of this book is hard, 'cause all I have are some disconnected
|
|
|
|
|
options about it -- and, in a way, these opinions may only reflect the
|
|
|
|
|
disconnected points in the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, first point: I find it weird to read a *book* about *movies*
|
|
|
|
|
which, in most part, are based on *books*>. One of the points, about Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Brown's "Inferno" even mentions that, as a ethics discussion, the book takes a
|
|
|
|
|
step further than the movie. Although the point of using movies was more of
|
|
|
|
|
"opening discussions using art", it seems weird not to use the books, which are
|
|
|
|
|
more rich and more intricate, to raise moral and ethical points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second point: Some movies seem just an excuse to discuss other things. For
|
|
|
|
|
example, "Transcendence" (which, against the first point, it is not based on a
|
|
|
|
|
book). Instead of giving real focus to nanotechnology -- and its ethical and
|
|
|
|
|
moral uses -- and focuses way too much on the Luddite part it, talking about
|
|
|
|
|
some real life counterparts and explaining their point of view and how it
|
|
|
|
|
affects science in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third point: It is way too long. I mean, most of the subjects the author just
|
|
|
|
|
keeps dancing around the topic and don't move forward. "Transcendence" is,
|
|
|
|
|
again, a typical case: Yes, Luddites have some points, yes, maybe we shouldn't
|
|
|
|
|
listen to all the point, but the fact is, all the time, those two points keep
|
|
|
|
|
coming and going, for pages, without reaching a conclusion. At some point, I
|
|
|
|
|
was just reading the first half of the paragraphs 'cause I noticed the second
|
|
|
|
|
half would be repeated either in the first part of the next paragraph or just
|
|
|
|
|
the one following it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, on top of that, I guess the "Morality" part of the title may lead to some
|
|
|
|
|
confusion. It's not "you, random person reading this book, here are some
|
|
|
|
|
morality discussions about things you do"; it's way more as "we, scientists,
|
|
|
|
|
must have some moral discussions about what we are doing". It could clear the
|
|
|
|
|
air for "random persons reading the book" about how science -- and scientists
|
|
|
|
|
-- work, but still it is a discussion about morality with scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, in a way, it may also throw people into sciences, because it shows that
|
|
|
|
|
scientists are not just "let's find out what's here", but they are worried (or,
|
|
|
|
|
at least, as the book tries, should) about the moral repercussions of what they
|
|
|
|
|
are working on.
|
