Skip to main content

A History of the Future - Peter Bowler ***

Having just read What's Next, a book of futurology, it was quite interesting to move onto a book about futurology - specifically futurology in the first half of the twentieth century before it became such a recognised entity in its own right.

 It's interesting that in the subtitle, Peter Bowler chooses H. G. Wells and Isaac Asimov to bracket the periods he is covering, as both are better known as science fiction writers than for their non-fiction. Although Bowler does bring in a number of 'straight' writers on the future, he doesn't draw a hard line between science fiction and futurology, which makes a lot of sense. As he points out, while there have always been SF writers who go way beyond extrapolation to the near future - think, for example, E. E. 'Doc' Smith's wide ranging space operas or Asimov's Foundation series - there has equally always been plenty of science fiction where we are dealing with the near future and science/technology that is based on what's current. And while the purpose of science fiction is not to predict the future, science fiction writers inevitably speculate about what is to come.

 Personally, I found the content of the book very interesting, but the way that it was presented less so. Although I had heard of many of the books that Bowler references and read some of them, from Bernal's quirky futurology in The World, The Flesh and The Devil (not a Hammer Horror as the title suggests) to Brave New World, there was plenty in here that was new to me. I wasn't aware, for example, that there was a lot of interest in renewable energy in the first half of the twentieth century. Though driven more by concerns about running out of oil than climate change it seems the ideas were ahead of the technology. Apparently, for example, the British Empire Exhibition, held at Wembley in 1924, featured a discussion of alternative power sources, taking in geothermal, tidal, solar and wind.

 Another interesting point that Bowler makes frequently is the distinction between the future visions of those with a science and engineering background - usually overly rosy - and those from a literary background - mostly distinctly dystopian. The visions of the future both in non-fiction and fiction seemed strongly tied to the level (or lack) of scientific expertise in the writer.

 Lots of information, then. Unfortunately, though, it was quite heavy going to read, because most of it consists of unadulterated collections of facts. 'X said Y in 19zz in this publication.' There's very little in the way of narrative flow, which makes it stodgy to digest. On top of this, the approach taken can feel quite repetitive. I think this is because Bowler has chosen to split up the book by topic - but futurology or science fiction rarely covers a single future topic, so we get the same books mentioned over and over again. Brave New World, for example, is mentioned in over a dozen places. H. G. Wells alone takes up half a page in the index.

 I don't think I can recommend this book as popular science or (or even popular history of science communication). However, it certainly should be of interest to anyone who has an academic interest in either science fiction or futurology. And that definitely includes me.

 Paperback:  
 
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Keep a Plane in the Sky - Alex Davies ****

If there's one big gap in the science writing sphere, it's popular engineering (you can quibble over whether engineering is science, but where else would you put popular engineering?). Alex Davies does the field a real service with this insightful introduction to the world of test engineering. The concept is simple. If we build something and sell it, we need to test it to make sure that it won't fail in a way that's dangerous to the consumer. The most obvious example is airliners, which feature at some length, but this applies to everything from cuddly toys to hair straighteners: someone needs to predict what could go wrong and to put the product through its paces to see if it will survive under any reasonable circumstances. When Davies is telling a story of test engineering in action, the book is a delight. He opens with the way that real bears are used to test if bears can get into coolers and trash cans - and the impressive ways these animals can  circumvent human in...
Post a Comment
Read more

On the Equality of All Things - Carlo Rovelli ****

There is a wide gulf between the worldviews of physicists and philosophers. Many physicists present a rather sweetly naive, child-like view of the world, where philosophers bring a distinctly more adult, cynical tone. This being the case, it can be a little worrying when a physicist dips a toe into the philosophical mire. Infamously, in The Grand Design , Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow told us that philosophy was now dead because science could deal with anything it had previously been needed for. Thankfully, Carlo Rovelli is not trying to do away with philosophy, though it has to be said that when he veers into the topic that physicist's naivety can make it feel like the philosophising of an earnest eighteen-year-old. Take the opening paragraph, which tells us 'electrons and minds, stones and laws, judgements and galaxies do not essentially differ in nature from one another. They are notions that illuminate each other'. I almost expected a Pink Floyd soundtr...
Post a Comment
Read more