If there is one consistent theme in science fiction since the true boom of the genre in the 1950s it's the prediction of the end of the world. For decades the world's demise had been graphically dramatized through alien abductions, nuclear holocausts, the sun exploding and storms of meteorites crashing into Planet Earth - but that was then. Today, the collective apocalyptic fear has more to do with climate change than invasions of little green men.
While some on the fringe still argue that global warming is science fiction not science, the heartening news is that many world leaders have agreed to put politics aside (at least for this week) and put the health of the planet first. As Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned on Tuesday: "Science leaves us no space for inaction."
Clearly, something dramatic needs to be done.
This week more than 100 world leaders gathered at the United Nations to begin a summit meeting on climate change. Fortunately, this critical issue has been brought to the world stage with vitally important countries like China saying that they are committed to cleaning up their own air.
And across town at the Clinton Global Initiative, experts and prominent thinkers were gathered to discuss harnessing innovation to tackle global concerns like the collapse of eco-systems, health care, clean water and education along with the safety and education of the world's women and girls. The message this week is that technological innovation, together with political commitment, can drive social change. Interestingly this is a very sci-fi theme.
Last March, in a surreal and extraordinary life imitating art experience, I had the opportunity to host a panel discussion about Battlestar Galactica at the United Nations' Economic and Social Council chamber. With Whoopi Goldberg moderating and BSG stars Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell sitting on the panel along with the show's executive producers, we were invited by the UN to discuss the social and political issues that were addressed on the show including: terrorism, reconciliation and dialogue among faiths and civilizations, human rights, and children and armed conflict.
This was the first time that the United Nations had invited a television series (albeit, a smart and provocative one) to appear in their chambers and analyze global concerns through the prism of a sci-fi show. The United Nations' representatives who contributed to the discussion spoke passionately about the work that they are doing and the work that still desperately needs to be done.
It is rare when a television series ignites passionate discourse on timely social issues.
And it was thrilling that the very real conflicts of our time, incorporated into BSG storylines, were addressed with seriousness inside a UN chamber, a chamber that ironically, with its smoking hallways and spaces, seemed a relic of the past.
So while the UN, often maligned as an anachronistic and politically charged organization, embraces climate change this week, I hope that just as hunger, poverty and human rights has attracted UN attention, the preservation of our planet also becomes a priority. Carbon emissions and melting ice caps were never a storyline on Battlestar. But if the environment becomes an issue on any other Syfy shows, I hope that the United Nations is prepared with some solutions.
It's hard to spend any time with Israeli President Shimon Peres and remain pessimistic about the possibility of peace.
Gateway to the UN System''s Work on Climate Change - Gateway to ...
Also, BBCA is not available in as many parts of the country as Skiffy.
You viewers would welcome programming that made their imaginations stretch and not just languish in paranoia over a doomed world. Explore the speculations on space based solar energy, fusion, and life in the geosynchronous orbit, but not as a soap opera as you have in an egregious underestimation of your audiences level of interest. The marketeers all sucked at math and they're who your listening to?
Check out Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy.
Science, in common with many belief systems, has the potential to benefit or burden us.
Depending on its method of manipulation, in the minds of humankind.
If belief in a possibly factitious bogeyman causes us to behave in a more practical way. Who is to say such deception is unwarrantable?
The most famous people in science are those who can overturn the prevailing paradigm. You can bet that if it were possible to disprove one of the current tenets of modern science - such as evolution or anthropogenic global warming - it would have been done already. Belief has nothing to do with this.
Isn’t CO2 supposed to be rising high into the sky and creating the greenhouse effect and therefore causing global warming? Isn’t CO2 supposed to be a thin layer of invisible gas lurking somewhere a hundred or so miles up in the sky, reflecting heat back onto our planet?
How in the world can CO2 be rising into the sky and creating the greenhouse effect if it’s heavier than air? Isn’t it more likely to be accumulating down around my feet?
“CO2 most certainly does not form some sort of magical layer in the atmosphere that then acts like a greenhouse,†says analytical chemist Hans Schreuder. “That is pure pseudo-science!â€
Do you suppose, just maybe, that we’re not getting the full story?
Listen to the canary. If the canary is still singing, we’re okay.
The facts are simple and clear: Earth is getting warmer; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; there is a one-for-one correspondence between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures; human activities have caused an increase in CO2 levels. Oh, and if CO2 pooled at our feet like you say then we'd all suffocate.
We're getting the full story, as much as anybody understands it. The problem is that some, like your "analytical chemist", refuse to hear it. Please don't let this kind of ignorance sway you.
One hundred and fifty contestants from all over the world, with no common language, on an island in the rising sea.
They have one year to get off the island and go home with a million bucks each. Thing is, EVERYBODY has to get off the island -- or NO ONE wins.
Please consider bringing the cancelled show "Kyle XY" to the Sy Fy Network. Or if not a full blown series, a made for TV movie, so the amazing story can have a proper conclusion.
I agree with Harlan Ellison that "Sci-Fi" is a childish term for a literary form that has produced a so much work that is intelligent, artistic & important, and I find "SyFy" to be a giant step in an even more ludicrous direction.
"The end of the world" has been a theme of many great cultures for centuries -- a response to earthquakes, floods, plagues, wars, et al. "Prediction" of that or anything else has never been "a constant theme" in science fiction -- science fiction isn't about prediction, it's about exploring issues & how the human condition is affected by those issues. Sometimes, that produces cautionary works which are most successful if their dire visions DON'T come to true.
Nevertheless, we deeply need a well-made series showing a plausible path to an optimistic future. I want the world's children glued to each episode, knowing it's fiction but also knowing they are seeing things they can make real. I want adults also glued to each episode, wanting a better future for their children, researching the underlying premises of "claims of the possible", in a position to help steer the kids toward resources that aid evolving curiosities and involvement.
There are so many technological breakthroughs (for good AND ill) just reaching feasibility that the next few decades are the world's richest vein of storytelling that almost no one is mining. Imagine a journalist born in 1999 covering...
Regions lifted from poverty practically overnight! Terrorist methods beyond present nightmares! Supercomputers in your pocket! Viral commercials attempting to spoof your walk-down-the-street firewall! At-home medical diagnostics! And, yes... the decade-long construction of the first space elevator.
Now THAT's a show I want to watch.
In addition to the technological advances, this show should also take into account the advances in the study of human consciousness. These areas could potentially harmonize along with a realization of the value of compassion.
OK, I just realized that I'm again focusing more on the engineering than the human realities (well, we are talking TV series, and what's easier to film?)... so how about this: an episode or three regarding a growing organization of parents who truly want their children to be smarter and saner than themselves? In most cases they'll only see incremental advances... but, now and then, the stars align and a child develops who seems so perfect it's scary? What kind of hell does a family like that go through?
Meanwhile, the world around them seems to be changing at an ever-accelerating pace... damn, I'm not describing 20-30 years from now, I'm describing now!
I'm going to continue using Sci-Fi -- when I use it at all. It would take a Sci-Fi celebrity who used only Sy-Fy, to make even a dent in the previous term.
AND the "Sy" part has to actually STAND for something everyone knows, which it doesn't, or every conversation will be about THAT, rather than about Sci-Fi.
Don't worry, it can't hold.
1) Global warming is man-made
2) Global Warming is bad
3) Global warming is reversible by human efforts
I repeat that there is no consensus whatsoever in the scientific community on these three points. In fact, in the time period between AD 800 and 1300, known as the medieval warm period, temperatures were higher than those predicted by Al Gore to be catastrophic to the earth. Some how, the polar bears and penguins survived. Not only that, but this was a time of great prosperity in Northern Europe, as the climate was so amenable to the production of crops. If carbon output is the culprit, where did all the carbon come from when the earth's population was significantly smaller and there were no factories or automobiles? If it's so bad to have these warm temperatures, how did the people and animals survive?
(2) Rapid global warming and climate change result in chaning of local enviroments faster then the ecosystems can adapt via migration and evolution. increases in antarctic tempreture result in melting ice and rising sea water. Increases in atmospheric CO2 results in increased aquatic CO2, causing acidification of the oceans, killing off coral and shellfish among other effects.
(3) You are right, we may not be able to reverse past effects. Trying to mitigate them is still more likely to have some effect then not trying.
Carbon emmissions are one factor in global climate. The lack of them does not eliminate other factors.
1) Increased CO2 quantities must play SOME non-zero role. Of course, we know this effect to be trivial by itself. The idea that initial CO2 warming spurs strong positive feedbacks that amplify the original forcing by 3-6 times - THAT is the shaky assumption, in my opinion.
2) The amount we've seen to date is certainly beneficial for the biosphere. Runaway temperatures would be harmful, obviously, but there's good reason to doubt a climate tipping point. I'd argue that a major glaciation would cause more harm to the natural world.
3) If AGW theory is true, then cap and trade or a carbon tax do nothing to solve the problem - they merely slow the rate at which it is exacerbated.