Science fiction and you!

I've been a busy little bee lately. Between bouts of scouring Downtown Houston for bits of my identity and diligently coding away at work I stumbled upon this interesting article on io9.com. For those of you who don't read io9, it's basically a science/technology wankfest of a Gawker blog that appeals to my constant desire to be force-fed nerdy, delicious news-- like a Slashdot that appeals to people under the age of 40 or 400 pounds, whichever comes first.

The aforementioned article poses some relatively deep questions about the relation of science fiction to science fact, like how our blooming imaginations have the effect of shaping research, engineering, and society's perceptions of the former two. It certainly points out some classic examples of negative (if not cautious) influence-- rampant AI in the Terminator series, genetic engineering in Gattaca, unchecked scientific endeavors in Frankenstein, et cetera. Those works of sci-fi have not only served as pervasive warnings to scientists of the dangers of unguided technology, but also hampered research in those respective fields due to the unjust fears they peddle. The list of fictional works that have made positive impact, on the other hand, is a bit harder to compile. I mean, this article cites WALL-E as shaping sentient robotics and environmental awareness, for chrissake. Talk about a stretch.

My thoughts on the subject are a little biased, being an engineer myself. I can ashamedly, albeit with a smirk, admit that playing Half-Life all throughout my adolescence got me interested in quantum technologies. I mean, portals? Entanglement? Strange matter? Popular media certainly has a way to inspire us to delve further into a subject and educate ourselves properly.

My biggest irk with popular media that tries to make a point about technology is that, well, most people are stupid. I'm no objectivist, though-- I think Ayn Rand was a pretentious [word that McCain called his wife] who tried to tie her selfish worldview into a philosophy, and that the thinkers of the world should indeed answer to the authority of the masses.

But people are generally stupid. Stupid people are more than willing to affirm themselves as experts on a subject after seeing one Hollywood blockbuster that touches upon it. How many people are probably scared shitless (or at least overly wary) of the concept of artificial intelligence after seeing all the Matrix films? How many senators, world leaders, policy shapers, and gatekeeprs probably learned everything they know about engineered foodstuffs from Soylent Green? How many people know nothing about genetic research outside what they read in Marvel comics?

Those movies were written with the expressed purpose of being entertaining, NOT as educational films to be broadcast to seventh graders during science class. And yet that happens all the time. The scientific community is then at the whims of voters who know nothing about the scientific world but the fear instilled upon them by popcorn-laden Saturday matinées.

And that's no good for a kid who wants to build space lasers and teleportation devices.

Is there any easy solution to rectifying society's perceived fears of potentially life-changing, beneficial science? I suppose that harping on the "educate the masses" argument sure would be a start. More importantly, though, I think that artists on all fronts need to realize the impact that their works have on fields of seemingly unrelated research.

After all, it's the dumb people that are handing out the grants.