Liu Cixin, China’s hottest science-fiction writer
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
I recently finished the first book of the "The Tree Body Problem" series (the second one will be translated to English soon) and I really enjoyed the beginning and middle part of it, which are packed with interesting scientific ideas and an intricate and captivating plot. Towards the end the book tends to become a lot more unrealistic and even a bit "cheesy" though. An example would be the hyper-dimensional computers that the Trisolarians send to Earth to hinder our scientific progress. Still, it is a very good read and packed with fascinating ideas that will make you think.
Another example of very good contemporary science fiction is Ramez Naam's "Nexus Arc" series of books, which I actually liked much better than the Three-Body Problem, and which are a bit more plausible and realistic as well.
The author does a good job of keeping the science plausible and grounded in reality. It certainly does get fantastical, but never to the point of distraction. I never found myself making eye rolls at the book and it's clear the author, Richard Philips, did his research.
The story itself is entertaining and it features very short chapters, which makes it easy to find a stopping point very quickly when you need it. There are a lot of intertwined subplots to follow, but never too many as to be overwhelmed. And that also means if one of them is boring (I didn't quite like the reporter's one), then you can sort of gloss over those sections. And the short chapters keep the "pain" of those sections to a minimum at a time.
And as a bonus, it's free to rent on Amazon Prime. I'd definitely give it a try.
I read the latter in English. I wonder how much of the sometimes tediously long exposition and ham-handed language was due to translation.
"... there are many civilizations in the universe, they all want to survive, and there is only so much space out there. Follow the logic through, and it’s clear that every civilization must regard every other civilization as an existential threat, leaving attack on sight as the only safe strategy. All that keeps technologically inferior civilizations safe is the ignorance of others about their existence."
"And here is humanity firing messages into space, building bonfires and standing beside them screaming, “Here I am! Here I am!”
How so?
Later pretentious edit: To quote Wittgenstein, "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."
Finding a message would be hugely significant, even if we're too dumb to decode it.
That is actually what the majority of my above mentioned His Master's Voice is about - is this relatively regularly appearing signal a message? Or is it just regularly looking noise from some physical object we haven't discovered yet?
Some thing will have to be the same for the aliens. Some things like mathematics (Pi, Pythagoras, Primes). If you send a message that needs to be understood, send mathematical information.
It may desire to be heard and understood, but not necessarily by everyone.
So another interesting thought is that if there are civilizations out there who are more advanced than us, it's likely that they are by default peaceful and not aggressive, because if they were aggressive they would have stopped existing due to escalating internal conflicts aided by advanced technology.
One can imagine a conquering civilisation though, that has peace enforced on the inside.
Suppose you wanna conquer a civilization 1M lightyears away, but by the time you get there, the technology of the civilization will out grow yours. What's your strategy?
"This assumes every other civilization thinks like humanity does"
Survival of the fittest is a fact of life, and whatever mindset one has about it may be irrelevant.
As game theory proves, the majority, or even all players may dislike the game, but they have to play it all the same.
"the resource allocation problem might be solved with technology"
Perhaps there are resource allocation problems that can't, eg. the scarcity of habitable planets.
"it's likely that they are by default peaceful and not aggressive, because if they were aggressive they would have stopped existing due to escalating internal conflicts aided by advanced technology"
Or it could be a bell curve with a self-destructing "war of all against all" on one side, "peaceful but defenseless monks" on another, and the middle-of-the-road compromise of "disciplined legions where backstabbing is forbidden" being best fitted for survival, preying on less efficient civilizations from both ends of the spectrum alike.
There are of course other limits that may or may not be solvable, like most of that metal being stuck in relatively deep gravity wells. But it's still an interesting thought.
I've wondered about this! If "the singularity" is something that really can happen, then perhaps it IS wise to fear any civilization that has developed basic computing, as it could quickly spawn an incredibly advanced, immortal being in a very short amount of time.
And if it can happen, then I'm sure at some point in history, an AI did take hold somewhere. Realizing how dangerous this whole singularity thing can be, it sought out the destruction of any biological life that could someday create their own singularity.
I've wondered if the Fermi paradox is simply that a few AI's developed long ago, and decided not to take any chances.
> Imagine that you encounter a signal. It is structured, and dense with information. It meets all the criteria of an intelligent transmission. Evolution and experience offer a variety of paths to follow, branch-points in the flowcharts that handle such input. Sometimes these signals come from conspecifics who have useful information to share, whose lives you'll defend according to the rules of kin selection. Sometimes they come from competitors or predators or other inimical entities that must be avoided or destroyed; in those cases, the information may prove of significant tactical value. Some signals may even arise from entities which, while not kin, can still serve as allies or symbionts in mutually beneficial pursuits. You can derive appropriate responses for any of these eventualities, and many others.
> You decode the signals, and stumble:
> I had a great time. I really enjoyed him.
> Even if he cost twice as much as any other hooker in the dome—
> To fully appreciate Kesey's Quartet—
> They hate us for our freedom—
> Pay attention, now—
> Understand.
> There are no meaningful translations for these terms. They are needlessly recursive. They contain no usable intelligence, yet they are structured intelligently; there is no chance they could have arisen by chance.
> The only explanation is that something has coded nonsense in a way that poses as a useful message; only after wasting time and effort does the deception becomes apparent. The signal functions to consume the resources of a recipient for zero payoff and reduced fitness. The signal is a virus.
> Viruses do not arise from kin, symbionts, or other allies.
> The signal is an attack.
> And it's coming from right about there.
Hmmm ... this makes me think of how much time I spend reading information on the Internet, reducing my fitness with little payoff. A virus indeed.
I read the book earlier this year and I loved it. One thing I had been thinking about though was the carbon nanotube wire and the ship.
Single-atom-thick wires used as knives have shown up in science-fiction before. In Ringworld, for example, a character is decapitated when they run into a nano-wire strung across a path.
In The Three Body Problem, I don't think you could ever 'cut' metal like that with carbon nanotubes - you'd have to overcome the cumulative bonding energies of all of those iron atoms in the ship and I doubt even the ship's engines running at full blast could push hard enough to do that. And that's assuming that a string of nanotubes has the strength to resist all of that tension. Apparently carbon nanotubes can resist about 100000N of tensile force (about a 10000kg weight in earth's gravity), so perhaps it wouldn't break - but I doubt that the metal in the ship would cleave, either.
Is there anyone who knows more about chemistry/solid state physics/materials science to comment?
For example, Robert Heinlein's books are hardly "actually good" in any sense understood by conventional literal criticism, but they certainly have made a lasting impression by extrapolating upon some very American political ideas and national archetypes.
What I found most interesting with the first novel 'The Three-Body Problem' was it to me shows an immature view to science by the Chinese.
This is assuming I'm guessing correctly how this book sits with the public and scientific community there. Maybe it's not considered Sci-Fi in China. I'm not saying it's pulp either.
An interesting and entertaining read anyway.
A daring thought as it is 'just' a fictional novel ? Can you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion ?
If not, then you are incredibly ignorant about China.
It is true, though not to the extremes I think you believe. I would guess that you're getting downvoted because you go from that to "Anything that is published in China, by definition is representative of the opinions of the Party." which is just patently not true (there is plenty of criticism of the CCP in both official published mediums - print, media, etc. - and even more so on blogs, weibo, etc.)
Lastly, your statement can also be applied to many western countries...
For example, from http://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-Censorship-China-A...
"Contrary to previous understandings, posts with negative, even vitriolic, criticism of the state, its leaders, and its policies are not more likely to be censored. Instead, we show that the censorship program is aimed at curtailing collective action by silencing comments that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization, regardless of content."
The point I am trying to make is that people think China is a smidgen way from North Korea, when the actual difference is night and day.
* Mass arrests of human rights attorneys and dissidents: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/world/asia/china-arrests-h...
* Online political dissent shut down: http://www.afr.com/technology/social-media/how-china-stopped...
The point I was trying to make is that, a sweeping statement such as "Anything that is published in China, by definition is representative of the opinions of the Party.", simply isn't true.
It is not even true for the mainstream media, nevermind a work of fiction.
This is a dangerous way to view another culture. Instead of accepting that an author is an independent creator and a work is an independent creation, you seem to be saying that any Chinese work can be interpreted as a slice of "what China is like".
There's no such thing as immutable "Chinese-ness" that would be inevitably expressed by Chinese authors. To think otherwise is basically Orientalism in the Edward Said meaning [1].
I will say the book provided an interesting insight into some people in China's view of the West. It reinforced what I've observed, a love/hate perspective mixing an admiration of achievements, inferiorty complex / assumption of Westerners' superiority (undeserved, surprising, and embarassing, but I've seen it many times), and resentment of Westerners' arrogance and disregard. People in the West have forgotten or written off the horrors inflicted under colonialism, including what Chinese call their 'Century of Humiliation"; people in the countries that were oppressed often have not.
al-Qaeda™, Suicide Consultants
I'm calling it now. Facebook buys the NY Times.
See you later journalism.
Sounds like the author is tapping into the fear of being invaded by USA? with the NSA listening in on everything? and preparations for an inevitable war having to be made
I will pick up this book to read once I can find it on shelves, sounds like good sci-fi albeit its obvious who the "Trisolarans" are meant to be ;)
thats what scifi has always done, explore current events and extrapolated future from the point of view of FICTION AND SCIENCE
sheehs whats the fucking point of discussing anything on this site if you are going to downvote opinions/theories you do not agree with.
sci-fi is often based on current geopolitical fears, just look at Battlestar Galactica reboot few years back reflecting on the wars in the middle east.
First off, stop whining about downvotes. Second, I don't downvote anyone.
> sci-fi is often based on current geopolitical fears
And you provide no proof of your ideas other than it must be based on the US.
Lets assume it MUST be beasd on current events, and not the fact that nations have used espinage to monitor and sabotage other nations progress since there was a second nation to spy on. Why does it have to be the American's this is based on? The British spy. The Canadians spy. The French are well known practitioners of industrial espionage. The Russians spy. North Korea spys. The Chineese government themselves spy. If this has to be based on current events, why could this not be looking at Chineese spying from the other side?
But no, it MUST be based on the Americans. Everything is about America. There is nothing else to write about.