The Gods Themselves
Paul Krugman, making a point about financial regulation, quotes Friedrich Schiller, “against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.” I know Krugman’s an Isaac Asimov fan so I wonder if he, like me, first met that line in Asimov’s novel The Gods Themselves. It’s a book I’ve been thinking about more lately.
To summarize the plot briefly, it’s the story of a man named Frederick Hallam who makes contact with “para-men” living in an alternate dimension. The laws of physics run differently in that dimension, and the ability to pass some matter trans-dimensionally thus opens up the possibility of a kind of physics arbitrage resulting in the invention of an “electron pump” which provides an unlimited source of cheap energy. Unfortunately, another scientist named Lamont reveals that the electron pump process is actually increasing the strong nuclear force inside the sun and thus dooming the planet to extinction by drastically increasing the rate at which the sun will go nova.
Needless to say, rather than being hailed as a hero Lamont is ignored and villified since people prefer to believe in the possibility of a free lunch. Eventually things reach a happy ending when a different scientist named Denison discovers a process that will allow for the creation of even cheaper energy without the environmental impact. Thus, people are ultimately willing to trade an apparently free lunch for an actually free lunch.
In an unrelated development, all the cutting edge public opinion research indicates that you can’t talk about global warming or environmental risks of any kind when talking about energy policy.
24 Responses to “The Gods Themselves”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 20th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
The only possible conclusion is this, isn’t it?
WE’RE ALL GUNNA DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!111!!!!
June 20th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Another relevant literary reference: An Enemy of the People by Ibsen.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I also thought of the book when I read Krugman’s post. It’s quite probable Krugman was referring to it – after all, we’re talking about someone who decided to study Economics after he read Foundation.
And Matt, I can’t believe you didn’t mention the aliens’ fantastic threesome sex.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Stanley Greenberg is a
pathetic, stupid, milksopkey leader in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with him in the future.June 20th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
If you’re talking Asimov and fossil fuel industrial use-related global warming, a visit to the World of Carbon seems especially relevant.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Why does Matt hate free lunches? He is revealing himself as objectively pro-tradeoff here. Where’s the outrage?
June 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Artistically, this is one of the best MY posts I can remember.
You think it’s a just-for-fun geeking out SF post … all the way to the bitter twist in the final sentence.
Yep. Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
nerd!!!
June 20th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
The same, but different… and earlier: The Man in the White Suit (1951), Ealing Studios, w/Alec Guinness, Joan Greenwood.
An altruistic chemist invents a fabric that resists wear and stain as a boon to humanity but both capital and labor realize it must be suppressed for economic reasons.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044876/
June 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I to assumed that Krugman was quoting Asimov. In fact, I didn’t know the original statement was made by Shiller. I thought Nietzche said it.
June 20th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Well Robert, I guess you were wrong.
June 20th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Nietzsche did say something similar,
“Against boredom even the gods contend in vain.”
June 20th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Well played.
June 20th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Since Matt is mentioned the sun in relation to energy issues, obviously that’s a good reason to re-iterate that the nanotech energy initiative of Dr. Richard Smalley is clearly the only viable solution to the energy problem.
Simply put, we need 20-30 terawatts of power in the next fifty years to support a decent lifestyle for everybody (not just the US). The sun puts 174,000 terawatts of power on the earth every day. Capture a tiny fraction of that and we have all the clean power we need. All it requires is development of efficient local storage and efficient electrical energy transmission – both of which can be done with nanotech research.
The cost? Five cents per gallon extra tax on gasoline for the next ten years, then ten cents a gallon later.
Nobody has even remotely a better proposal.
June 20th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
In the real world, people would keep using the electron pump even after the cheaper, less dangerous, energy source had been invented because their traditional way of life revolved around the electron pump.
June 21st, 2009 at 12:35 am
Matt, your “you can’t talk about X when talking about Y” formulation, when X and Y are irretrievably linked, is a good one; I think you could actually expand it to a list of public policy issues:
You can’t talk about single-payer when talking about healthcare.
You can’t talk about the Geneva Convention when talking about “harsh interrogation techniques” (aka torture, with or without quotes).
You can’t talk about raising taxes on the rich when talking about reducing the deficit.
You can’t talk about unions when talking about income inequality.
You can’t talk about regulation when talking about financial-sector self-destruction.
You can’t talk about right-wing extremist violence when talking about this spring’s DHS report.
Funny how we don’t actually solve problems when we decide not to let people talk about substantial parts of them. Can’t imagine why or how that happens… in fact, let’s not talk about it.
June 21st, 2009 at 7:00 am
Concerning financial regulation, the real question is how you design a regulatory scheme that can survive the next Republican ascendancy, with market fundamentalist stooges appointed to regulatory jobs, perhaps a new Alan Greenspan installed. My guess is that the new reforms, plus a long reign by the chastened Bernanke, will keep us safe for perhaps 20 years.
June 21st, 2009 at 10:00 am
Another relevant literary reference: An Enemy of the People by Ibsen.
I’ve not read the Asimov book, but MY’s summary did very much bring to mind An Enemy of the People.
June 21st, 2009 at 10:19 am
Actually, Denison doesn’t discover a truly free lunch. Siphoning power from the “cosmic egg” parallel universe does counteract the effects of the electron pump, but it does so by altering fundamental forces in the opposite manner.
In other words, if Denison’s device were run without the presence of the electron pump, the resulting alteration in the nuclear forces would cause the Sun to decline in brightness, eventually causing the frozen doom of the Earth.
In addition, while the ending of the novel seems to be win/win, this is only because we define the other effect of Denison’s device (the alteration of the nuclear forces in the “cosmic egg” universe) to be positive. Just as the electron pump increases the rate at which the Sun will go nova, Denison’s device gradually shifts the “cosmic egg” towards an even more cataclysmic Big Bang.
Not to geek out or anything.
June 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Bruce Sterling’s “Distraction” (about a Stephanopolous-like political spin-meister who turns out to be a mutant schizophrenic, but in a good way) also features an ironic free-energy plot about synthesizing energy from sugar, as in human muscles. Naturally that discovery is covered up by the auto industry.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
@Chris Yeh
That did seem like a cop-out.
“But, Dr. Dension, won’t the positron pump increase the strong force in *that* universe, eventually causing a Big Bang.”
“Sure, but that’s a good thing. I can’t picture that there’s any life in the cosmic egg, so we can’t possibly be causing any damage. And there are probably lots of cosmic eggs, so even after it Big Bangs, we can just find another one.”
“And why are you flying away?”
“A combination of low Lunar gravity and how fast my hands are waving.”
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
I remember that novel.
It’s one of Asimov’s best statements of his theme that rational, scientific thinking will save us in the end.
From my own humble experience or human rationality, I have to think that shah8 is correct in his sentiment in comment #1.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Is that cover in 3d?
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I wonder if the book is in 3d too.