So What’s Faction Paradox Actually About?

This is less of an essay, more a stream of consciousness braindump that I’m going to type until I fall asleep on the keyboard. I’m too tired today to write my Mindless Ones piece, and certainly too tired to work on the other projects I’m working on, so I’m going to dump a lot of thoughts I’ve been having here, specifically about the vision of the Faction Paradox ‘universe’ presented in Dead Romance, This Town Will Never Let Us Go and (what I take to be) Lawrence Miles’ parts of The Book of the War. Faction Paradox is the work of multiple writers, all of them very good, but here I’m going to look at a thread in, specifically, Miles’ writing. I’m writing this now so I can come back to it later and sift it for the good stuff…

So anyway… the Singularity.

I first came across the argument used by Singulatarians (who despite the name are not Doctor Who villains, although Eliezer Yudkowsky seems to aspire to being one) in the preface to a Robert A Heinlein book, which I read when I was 14 or so but which was written in the 1950s. In this he plots a chart of the top speed attainable by human beings, and shows that up to about 1800 it was maybe 20 miles per hour, then after the railways it was 50mph, and then there were jet planes, and then rockets…

Heinlein goes on to say that most people would predict progress to flatten off or continue at the same rate, but that while he didn’t necessarily believe the result you’d obtain “the correct way to extend an exponential curve is exponentially” and that that prediction said that by the year 2000 we’d be travelling faster than the speed of light.

Of course, as we now know, humanity’s top speed essentially plateaud right at the moment Heinlein wrote those words, because when looking at physical events, rather than mathematical ones, the proper way to extend an exponential curve is as a sigmoid, because rather annoyingly the real world has far fewer infinities in it than mathematics does.

In the 1990s and 2000s, this argument was used by people who were actually in many ways Heinlein’s intellectual heirs — usually right-wing libertarian technofetishists — but with speed replaced by information processing. The argument, as laid out in such books as The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil, runs roughly thus — two hundred years ago, there were no computers. Sixty years ago, there was one computer. Now, there are loads of computers. Therefore, by wishful thinking mathematical induction, soon there will be infinitely many computers, and we can all go and live in them as software ghosts and make the entire universe into a computer.

There’s more to the argument than that — well, to be accurate, there’s more to some versions of the argument than that, Kurzweil himself being the kind of cretin who seriously argues that in a post-scarcity economy where anyone can have all the material goods they need without expropriating others simply by pressing a button, some sort of mechanism to protect intellectual property would become necessary — but that’s the basis of it.

(What’s this got to do with Faction Paradox? I’ll get there, but I’ll take the long way round).

And speaking of right-wing libertarian idiots, in 1992 Francis Fukuyama wrote a book called The End of History and the Last Man. Widely regarded as a masterpiece of political thinking by a great political theorist, it was in fact for the most part a restatement of the ideas of those great thinkers Sellar and Yeatman — “America was thus clearly Top Nation, and history came to a .”

(In fact, in 2002, Fukuyama came into conflict with the singularity people, because he wrote a book called Our Posthuman Future, which as far as I can tell from the summaries I’ve read (reading one book by that idiot is enough for me for this lifetime, I think) says “we’d better stop doing science, in case we accidentally have some more history).

The difference was that Sellar and Yeatman thought that America coming out on top was A Bad Thing, because obviously Britain is best, whereas Fukuyama’s book argued that it was, in fact, A Good Thing.

America taking on Britain’s old role and destiny in the world, leaving Britain purposeless, with British imperialism being revealed as a rather shabby thing — hold that thought for me, before it drifts away.

So anyway, the bit about speed (you remember the bit about speed?) is essentially the basis for all science fiction before about 1980ish. We can quibble about dates and how general that is and so on, but in pop-culture terms, certainly, it’s true to say that SF was the literature of fast travel. It’s practically a cliche now to point out that as well as being about Marxism and eugenics, The Time Machine was about bicycling (Wells clearly modelled his machine on the bicycle), but it’s no coincidence that the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of SF was also the period when the human race’s top speed was increasing. In a handful of generations, the horizons of normal people went from an area a few miles across to, potentially, the world. If that continued, why, we’d reach the stars in no time — and given how strange the people in those other countries were, what kind of people would we find out there? It’s a literature of exploration, whether in time or in space.

Post-1980 SF is, on the other hand, more concerned about the idea of the Singularity, in a very loose sense. Writers like Greg Egan, for example, will write whole novels about the implications of ‘uploading’ one’s consciousness into a computer, or about how faster-than-light travel becomes unnecessary when one can spawn multiple immortal copies and send them through space by radio wave, then merge the copies when they get together again. Post 1980, SF has been about information processing, far more than about travel.

Doctor Who was actually in a perfect position to go in this direction in 1980. While Christopher H Bidmead was script editor of the show, there was an extraordinary run of stories (roughly from State Of Decay through Logopolis) which dramatised perfectly ideas from mathematics, information theory and cybernetics, but in a BBC costume drama sense in which these abstract ideas were reified as places and environments.

It was utterly unlike anything else in SF that I’ve come across (though Neal Stephenson’s Anathem has some of the same flavour, or would have had he had an editor who could have cut three quarters of the book out). The closest piece of TV I’ve ever seen to this run of stories is Jonathan Miller’s The Drinking Party, which like the Bidmead stories basically sticks Plato on screen, though Miller’s film has fewer vampires and aliens in it. Bidmead’s version of the show also followed neatly from some elements of the show up to that point (basically, all those stories either written by David Whitaker or Robert Holmes or directed by David Maloney) (another way of phrasing that parenthetical would be ‘the good ones’).

But then Bidmead left the show, and after some of the usual musical chairs in the Doctor Who production office he was replaced by Eric Saward, whose style has been aptly described by Alex Wilcock as “guns with a capital GUNS!”

The show had lost its way, and from then on no matter how good the TV show or the books and audios based on it were (and sometimes they’ve been very, very, very good), they’ve not escaped from the 1960s paradigm of travel and expansion. The brief promise of a Platonist, intellectual, progressive show was recplaced by one that would always be stuck in the past, and one that would always be materialist in the crude sense.

And the Doctor Who notion of ‘future’ is likewise one that is stuck in the past, and has to be. It’s a future of spaceships and Galactic Empires, not a future of disembodied intelligences whose minds span galaxies.

But of course, a cybernetic, game-theoretic, information-driven view of the world has its own problems as well.

So in the Faction Paradox universe, humanity’s destiny, which was always to transcend the material and become, essentially, gods, has been diverted by the Time Lords Great Houses, at some time around the early 21st century. A few quotes here from The Book Of The War (which you should all own already), specifically the entry on humanity. I’m assuming these are by Miles, because they fit so well with his preoccupations, but of course many other authors contributed to that book, so they could be by any of them:

Thus, it became the prevalent belief among human societies that the body itself was a tool, an extension of the “real” inner self. The result were belief-systems centred on the idea of a soul or spirit, and as scheduled this became the cornerstone of most human progress for years to come.
Anthropologically speaking, it’s clear from this evidence what the ultimate fate of humanity should have been. With every society believing itself to be made up of spirits-trapped-in-flesh, from humankind’s earliest years there was a clear unconscious desire to leave its collective body behind and achieve a non-corporeal state…

By the early-to-mid twenty-first century, intelligence-form technology was certainly in existence. All humanity needed was the will. But somehow, after millions of years of effort, the will had unexpectedly vanished. On the brink of finding its own personal kind of enlightenment, it was as if the human species had backed down and decided to enter a period of stagnation instead.

The Great Houses take over humanity’s role, becoming the embodiments of time and history in the universe, and being more like concepts than people. But they, too, stagnate — the replacement paradigm is just as stale as the old one. By creating a settled history, they literally do end history, both for humanity and for themselves. Earth is reduced to merely having an empire, not being really important, but the Great Houses turn inward and don’t bother about the universe. Because the growth of information processing is just as much a sigmoid curve as the growth of speed (and in fact, it’s about to flatline right about now).

But then an enemy appears, and manages to find a weakness in the Great Houses, who were previously thought invincible. A new concept, a way of thinking that is totally alien to them.

But that new concept isn’t the real threat… the real threat is what the Houses do to themselves when confronted by it…

The War is not, of course, the War On Terror — the concept was created years before the September 11, 2001 attacks — but Faction Paradox is at least in part about the larger cultural problems of which they were a symptom.

And I’m too tired to continue this now, so the stuff about Islam, steampunk and identity will have to wait for another of these posts.

Ten things I never want to read online again

Just a short list of things that annoy me beyond all reason:

1) “The Liberal Democrats need to get off the fence and say what their actual policies are”
Yep, because it’s not as if we’ve got tons of policy papers out there, or a simple pocket guide to our policies, is it?

2) “Ringo Starr was a terrible drummer”
Ringo got a reputation as a bad drummer because he didn’t lock in with the bass, as was the fashion in British recordings in the early 60s. That isn’t actually bad drumming, and anyone listening to him can tell that he was one of the most imaginative players of his time period. Just listen to Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows or Happiness Is A Warm Gun.

3) “Pet Sounds is the only good Beach Boys album, and other than that they only did crappy surf songs”
Anyone who says this gets their opinions from the music press and hasn’t bothered listening to any of their other albums. Whether you like them or not, for example, you can’t describe Carl & The Passions or Holland (spotify link) as ‘crappy surf songs’.

4) “New Doctor Who is much more sophisticated than the original series”
The original series was trying to do something rather different than the new series – it was working from a British set of TV conventions that are theatrical in origin, rather than an American, cinematic, set of conventions. This can make it difficult for those attuned to the modern style to watch. But that does *not* make it less sophisticated. In fact, on every level on which one can make a reasonable comparison (except effects – and with a few exceptions the old series was nowhere near as bad as its reputation suggests), the old series was vastly superior. Fewer plot holes (note I don’t say ‘no plot holes’), better performances from the leads, better characterisation, more memorable individual lines, and a more coherent worldview. The new series may be shiny, but it’s for the most part a soulless pastiche of the old series made by people who don’t understand it (or who do but fear their viewers wouldn’t – and I don’t know which would be worse).

5) “The free market would run healthcare more efficiently than the NHS”
I don’t believe this for a second, but assume it’s true for a second – as someone who’s seen my (American) wife collapse in the middle of the night, be delirious and unaware of her surroundings, but try to prevent me from ‘phoning an ambulance because her first thought was “We can’t afford it!”, and who’s seen friends in the US believe they have cancer but be unable to afford to have a checkup to find out, I’ll take a little bit of inefficiency over that any day.

6) “I’m buying [Comic X] to support the character, even though I’ve hated the last dozen issues”
The character doesn’t need your support – it’s a fictional character (see also people saying “Dick Grayson deserves a turn at being Batman”). All that you’re doing is encouraging bad comics to be produced.

7) “Grant Morrison’s comics are just weird for weirdness’ sake”
See the comments to this post for several people’s take on this view…

8) “Where are all the female political bloggers?”
here and here and here and here and here. And that’s just the ones on my blogroll.

9) “ZaNuLieBore”
Grow up. As far as I can tell, no critic of New Labour has ever used this ‘word’ – certainly I’ve never seen it. On the other hand, plenty of apologists for them use it as a way of dismissing the arguments of those they disagree with – “Yeah yeh, teh ZaNuLieBore is teh ev1l! We get it, go away.” Not only is this fatuous, but something about the ‘word’, the very look of it, makes me faintly queasy.

10) Any explicit search terms involving Nicola Bryant
Honestly, this really *isn’t* a fetish site for one-time Doctor Who companions.

Linkblogging for 18/11/08

Sorry I’ve not posted much for a couple of weeks. I’ve had various bits of life-related bits to attend to, and some work stress (can’t talk about that publicly, but I will say “Jacques De Molay, thou art avenged!” as a very subtle hint…)
Anyway, got a comics post mostly written which will be up in the morning, and BFAW tomorrow night, but for now, here’s some links. And if I go a day without posting on here in future, please feel free to leave abusive comments calling me an idle tosser…

Alix at the People’s Republic Of Mortimer has a great post about the Tories’ cargo cult tax policies.

Over at The Independent, they seem to think that… women don’t have ideas… or something? Apparently if Richard Dawkins, Malcolm Gladwell and Christopher Hitchens write ‘big idea books’ (though what the big idea is for at least two of those I don’t know, frankly – Dawkins is a third-rate thinker at best and Hitchens has let alcohol and a forty-year-old grudge against Bill Clinton ruin a once-sharp mind) they’re being typically male, whereas if Naomi Klein or Lisa Jardine or whoever do, then they’re ‘outliers’. Piffle, inspired by the increasingly-reactionary Germaine Greer, and dangerous piffle at that – though the article is so badly written one can’t tell if the writer is arguing for or against the proposition; or if she is merely, in the American ‘journalism’ style, laying out a bunch of quotes from random people with no coherent thought as to a larger context or argument behind those quotes.
Is it me or is the Independent getting really, really sloppy in recent weeks? I only read it online, but the writing’s getting almost as bad as the Guardian, and they appear to have sacked all their sub-editing staff…

Pillock has a really good post on post-Crisis DC Comics, one of many things I want to write about myself, soon…

The Mindless Ones
have a great post up on Edward Gorey

Fred Clark, having finished his several-year-long dissection of the first Left Behind book, now turns his eyes to the film version.

And another post from the People’s Republic of Mortimer to finish off, to remind everyone that the so-called ‘tax cut for the lowest paid’ that Brown was touting last week was actually the fudge he introduced to try to fix the problem he caused by *raising* taxes for the poor to cut them for the rich – and this ‘fix’ makes the poorest of the poor still worse off. Don’t let him get away with it.