Newt to the Future
Did you know that Newt Gingrich loves technology? That he's gadget crazy, obsessed with science fiction, and prone to technophile daydreams? Here's Politico with the story of the man who was was known as Newt Skywalker:
Twenty years ago, Gingrich's appreciation of technology was more novel among Republicans, showing that there was a conservative libertarian interest in preserving the burgeoning Internet from efforts to regulate it. The 1995 Wired magazine cover interview was headlined "Friend and Foe." At the time, Gingrich talked up the transformative power of the Internet and a world where schools and hospitals would be wired.
Media in his home state dubbed him "Newt Skywalker."
As House speaker, Gingrich marshaled forces on issues such as data-scrambling technologies, freedom of speech on the Internet and securities litigation reform. He helped launch THOMAS, the Library of Congress website that provides information about bills. He started the High Technology Working Group, now the Technology Working Group, composed of Republican leaders involved in a wide swath of tech issues.
Gingrich is "sensitive to innovation, to job creation, to start-ups and not having the government doing — but getting out of the away," said McNealy, who is now chairman of social-media start-up Wayin. Gingrich "is a spectacular idea guy."
Having a lot of ideas, of course, is not the same as having a lot of good ideas. Which is how Gingrich ended up proposing networks of space mirrors (to reflect light onto America's highways when it's dark out) and "directed energy weapons and laser pusling systems" that could be fired from space.
Like a lot of futurist types, Gingrich was influenced by reading science fiction. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!) As Alex Seitz-Wald at Think Progress points out, Gingrich referenced his love for science fiction great Isaac Asimov in his 1996 book, To Renew America:
Isaac Asimov was shaping my view of the future in equally profound ways. …For a high school student who loved history, Asimov's most exhilarating invention was the 'psychohistorian' Hari Seldon. The term does not refer to Freudian analysis but to a kind of probabilistic forecasting of the future of whole civilizations. The premise was that, while you cannot predict individual behavior, you can develop a pretty accurate sense of mass behavior.
Now, as a former teenage Asimov nut, I sympathize (though I preferred the cool detective work of the robot novels to the bureaucratic bent of the Foundation series). Gingrich, of course, is not the only prominent policy thinker who imagines himself in the Hari Seldon mode: Indeed, he sounds rather like economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who in 2009 wrote, "I went into economics because I read Isaac Asimov's Foundation novels, in which social scientists save galactic civilization, and that's what I wanted to be."
Previously in space-Newt: How Battlestar Galactica explains Newt Gingrich.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Anyone who doesnt read Foundation and immediately call "Bullshit!" on Seldon is a moron.
So, Newt and Krugman to start.
Foundation has some great stories, but people are not molecules.
Lets try again:
"Anyone who reads Foundation and doesnt immediately call "Bullshit"....
There, much better.
So anyone who enjoys scifi and fantasy is a moron? Because they all have implausible premises.
I enjoyed Foundation. But I called bullshit on psychohistory.
And not all sci-fi has implausible premises, at leat not so implausible as psychohistory.
You, on the other hand, have fundamental reading problems if you think I said anyone who enjoys SF is a moron.
Tulpa has many fundamental problems, and not just of the reading type.
It has been a long time since I read Foundation, but isn't a lot of it about how psychohistory inevitably fails? Even if you have a really good idea about how people work (and one has to admit that in may ways people are quite predictable in large groups), there will always be some individual who can change things in unexpected ways.
It has been a long time since I read Foundation, but isn't a lot of it about how psychohistory inevitably fails?
If anything, the message is that incredibly complex top-down planning can work for millenia if you never lose faith and give up and instead just keep tweeking it.
Which is why members of the ruling class are caught so frequently with their pants down in the closet, furiously pounding their pud over well-thumbed hard back copies.
Looks like Tulpa's having another sandy vagina day...yes they all have implausible premises therefore there's no difference between psychohistory and FTL and colonizing Mars.
It's not like psychohistory was something that just dropped out of the blue in the middle of the story; it's the basic premise of the books. If you're expecting basic premises of scifi to be sensible in the real world, you're not going to enjoy much scifi.
"So anyone who enjoys scifi and fantasy is a moron? Because they all have implausible premises."
Hard sci-fi specializes in much more plausible premises--such as colonizing Mars. Fantasy books such as The Chronicles of Amber or LOTR much less so. I think it's moronic to equate them with the same brush of implausibility.
Thats not what he said at all.
Why do you constantly make yourself look so fucking dumb...
Anyone who reads LOTR and doesn't immediately call bullshit when they don't have the eagles drop the ring into Mt Doom is a moron.
And don't give me the crap about the Nazgul being able to catch them; at the beginning the Nazgul were riding friggin horses.
Agreed.
However, it isnt entirely unrealistic, real life people often fail to see the obvious path to success too. I dont know why people expect more from characters in a novel.
NFL coaches miss the obvious stuff on a weekly basis, for example.
Well, Gandalf had just hitched a ride on an eagle a couple of days before the Council of Elrond, so I'd expect that possibility to be fresh in his mind.
Wizards have weird ulterior motives.
Sauron was probably waiting for that kind of move. Anti-aircraft, drones, radar, you know the drill. Little dude brazenly carrying it in? No so much. It's like Star Wars and that Death Star thingee.
Someone tried this on me the other day and it took me a minute to see why the Eagles couldn't just have done that.
The only reason they succeeded was that Sauron had no idea that they were there or that they even intended to destroy the ring. Presumably, he woudl have noticed an overt approach to mount doom and figured out what was going on. The Eagles never approached Mt. Doom until the ring was already destroyed, not because they didn't feel like it, but because they couldn't.
If there is anything far fetched, it is the perfect timing and several incredibly lucky escapes, but that is every adventure story.
And, as Gandalf implies on more than one occasion, they were getting some divine assistance, anyway.
Umm, isn't Gandalf more or less an angel in the theology Tolkien created?
He was a Maia, who are sort of second tier angels, you might say.
The eagles weren't willing to play ball and invade Mordor (until the downfall was already in progress). Just like treebeard's crew took awhile to come around,and only then because the hobbits manipulated their prestigous ancient asses.
Whoa. Dudes. Mordor? Sauron? Not just flying in there. We're the eagles, bitch!
Isn't this where someone has to make the Occupy Mordor joke and point out the unfairness of one ring ruling them all?
I detected statist BS pretty early on. Of course I had already read Atlas Shrugged, so I had that going for me.
When I was a kid, and was militantly opposed to the teaching of humanities ("a giant waste of time that could be spent in physics lab) I found the whole idea of psycho-history alluring.
But the deeper I got into the series, the more apparent its impossibility became: Asimov's plot devices to introduce narrative drama required unpredicted perturbations. Moreover, it made no consideration of natural disasters or discoveries.
In the end, I am profoundly distrustful of anyone who didn't figure this out. Like Doctor Who during the Tom Baker years it's a fun bit of entertainment that has little to do with how society really functions.
The Second Foundation was in charge of manipulating the Foundation to correct for those kinds of deviations from Seldon's plan.
I think the unpredictable was the whole reason he introduced the Second Foundation, and it makes loads of sense.
And didn't the mule pretty much fuck up the pschyohistory thing? I mean its been a while but after that novel I was under the impression that the entire model had to be thrown out. I want to say that Asimov was interviewed to that effect but I might be remembering something that never occured.
I vaguely remember him saying something about the Mule being intended to show the flaw in the system, but I can't remember for sure.
That was always my interpretation of the Mule. He was a demonstration of how psychohistory could always fail.
There are, in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible. If a statistician determines that a rise of 10 percent in the supply of potatoes in Atlantis at a definite time was followed by a fall of 8 percent in the price, he does not establish anything about what happened or may happen with a change in the supply of potatoes in another country or in another time. He has not "measured" the "elasticity of demand" of potatoes. He has established a unique individual historical fact. No intelligent man can doubt that the behavior of men with regard to potatoes and every other commodity is variable. Different individuals value the same things in a different way, and valuations change with the same individuals with changing conditions. . . .
The impracticability of measurement is not due to the lack of technical methods for the establishment of measure. It is due to the absence of constant relations. . . . Economics is not, as . . . positivists repeat again and again, backward because it is not "quantitative." It is not quantitative and does not measure because there are no constants. Statistical figures referring to economic events are historical data. They tell us what happened in a nonrepeatable historical case. Physical events can be interpreted on the ground of our knowledge concerning constant relations established by experiments. Historical events are not open to such an interpretation. . . .
Experience of economic history is always experience of complex phenomena. It can never convey knowledge of the kind the experimenter abstracts from a laboratory experiment. Statistics is a method for the presentation of historical facts. . . . The statistics of prices is economic history. The insight that, ceteris paribus, an increase in demand must result in an increase in prices is not derived from experience. Nobody ever was or ever will be in a position to observe a change in one of the market data ceteris paribus. There is no such thing as quantitative economics. All economic quantities we know about are data of economic history. . . . Nobody is so bold as to maintain that a rise of A percent in the supply of any commodity must always ? in every country and at any time ? result in a fall of B percent in price. But as no quantitative economist ever ventured to define precisely on the ground of statistical experience the special conditions producing a definite deviation from the ratio A:B, the futility of his endeavors is manifest.
See, if you paid attention in your humanities classes, you would have developed the synoptic, wide-view of human events that would have enabled you to realize that "psycho-history" was nonsense from the get go.
Jus' sayin.
It's not that big a surprise that he's gadget-crazy. For every gadget geek who thinks of ways tech could free you, there are five who see it as the way - finally! - to organise people and make life less messy and weird. Add in his ADHD strain and of course he's going to get distracted by something new and shiny. See also: every alleged policy he's put forward.
Wow. Krugman actually wrote that?
Really explains a lot, don't it?
New ad from Ron Paul on Newcular Titties is more brutal than the first one.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/pag.....?pid=1212b
Welcome to yesterday!
Sorry. Out sick yesterday. Just reconnecting to the world.
Does this make Ron Paul into The Mule?
The premise was that, while you cannot predict individual behavior, you can develop a pretty accurate sense of mass behavior.
Uh, during the first "Seldon Crisis", Seldon's recorded hologram references Salvor Hardin's coup overthrowing the Encyclopedists, which happened decades after Hari's death.
Not by name. It was just that the civil government would take over from the academicians. I think I could make that prediction.
I love Asimov. I also think some of the criticism he gets is a little off base. For instance, with the Three/Four Laws of Robotics, people often criticize them as completely unrealistic. But he wasn't predicting something (other than the idea that we might generally build in protections), he was playing with an idea--What if we could create something that had to operate under these limitations? Where could those limitations fail? Etc.
Yes, that's the heart of scifi.
Not CGI crap flying around all over the screen.
Of course, he also predicted the *time* and the manner in which it would happen.
I thought Asimov occasionally got too specific or cheated to apply psychohistory to individuals, but he was trying to tell a story, not found a new science.
I was into Asimov and Clarke at a pretty young age, then I was entranced by Bradbury and New Wave writers like Zelazny. I went back to hard SF later on, but was much more aware of its weaknesses, especially in characterization and dialogue.
Hari Seldon always seemed like an argument for central planning to me.
Isn't this one of the central conceits of Marxism? That the future is somehow predictable--if only we had a genius to recognize the patterns and tell us what to do?
Libertarianism and Capitalism are so awesome because they let people thrive despite the inherent uncertainties of the real world.
My work has depended on predicting the future--as it relates to certain properties in certain sub-markets--going out 18 months to 3 years. Rather, it's about squeezing as much uncertainty out of the future as possible and drawing a circle around the worst case scenario 18 months to 3 years out.
Anybody that finds it inspiring--the idea of being able to predict the future with any certainty on something with more variables than I'm juggling? Is someone who shouldn't be trusted to formulate public policy.
All working individually, we are so much better at contending with the uncertainties of the future than some Seldon--if he existed--or Gingrich or Krugman.
Here's my long-term prediction for the future--hardly anyone will foresee future crises, and almost everyone will claim to have seen them coming in hindsight.
But then human nature's pretty easy to predict that way--the real variables of history?
Not so much.
I don't think Asimov was advocating anything like that. He was definitely left-leaning, but not to that extreme. Again, he was playing with ideas.
That might not be what he was trying to say, but that would seem to be the natural interpretation.
We can predict weather better than we could eons ago. We can predict how much dirt it will take to build a road. Technology has given us the ability to predict the best route for UPS driver to take in seconds--and to change his route for the better, if things change, en route!
Telling people that reading the currents of history and making the right calls to get where we want to go--is a function of one man's genius?
Isn't that like Barack Obama's campaign slogan?
Thanks Barry (or Newt), but I'd rather make my own choices, and I think we'd all be better off, generally, if we weren't subject to Barry's or Newt's.
Of course, the Foundation era is close to 50,000 years from now, so current capabilities do not apply.
What I was trying to say is that the technical ability to predict the amount of materials we need for a road or to recalculate a UPS driver's optimal route--is fundamentally different from the ability to predict historical outcomes and correctly prescribe public policy.
I doubt an increase in technical ability in the future will make predicting historical outcomes more accurate, and there's no way prescribing public policies for the rest of us to follow will become more effective in the future because of technology.
Public policy isn't just a matter of physical laws and computation. It's about human desire, values and unique perspectives about the relative worth of those things to different people.
Oh, I don't know about that. Are we completely unpredictable? Given sufficiently advanced AI, I wonder if that's true.
AI can't tell me what I care about.
AI doesn't give a shit.
We still have a hard time predicting the behaviors of lower animals--you want to compound that with what they care about and how much relative to something else they care about?
Look at this beagle...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnBjQDeZPag
LOOK AT IT!
Why does one beagle do that and the others don't? Is there a computational algorithm to explain why one beagle does and the other beagles don't?
I don't think so.
They're all subject to the same limitations, the same environment.
But one of them is Kwisatz freakin' Haderach of Beagles!
If we can't predict what one beagle's desires are going to be or how big that one desire will be relative to others--even when compared to other similar beagles in the same circumstances? Then how's AI going to do that with us?
AI has the same limitations we do in this respect. Public policy isn't a function of computation--it's a collection of personal preferences based on personal criteria no one could possibly predict. That's why we're better off when we're free to choose for ourselves.
AI won't change that ever.
P.S. Beagle Kwisatz Haderach!
To be fair, there was no chaos or complexity theory to balance out the idea of humans as molecules, but mostly I see it as taking advantage of a college dorm idea--a small step above "what if atoms are solar systems, dude".
Also important to keep in mind that an author speculating about things that might be possible in the future does not necessarily mean that the author thinks any of those things would be good or desirable. Goos sci-fi should be about how things might play out in the future, not about how the author thinks they should.
the bureaucratic bent of the Foundation series
Wha-huh? You skipped over "The Traders" and "The Merchant Princes", I guess.
A fat, sarcastic Star Trek fan former teenage Asimov nut. You must be a devil with the ladies.
You nailed it. These books were enjoyed by the chess club AND the math club. Score!
That picture reminds us all that freedom stops at the end of an anal probe...
Ah! The joys and wonders of middle age!
This is the first thing that makes me like Newt Gingrich.
We've already had a black president. I never thought I'd live to see a nerd president.
As a great woman once said, for the first time in my life, I am proud of my country.
John Adams says Hi.
I always found the libertarian love for dead white male slaveholders incomprehensible.
I turned off incif because I wondered what the response to this was.
2/3 aint bad.
But wow, thats a bad miss on number 3.
Back to incif you go.
I wonder how many slaves Hobie thinks John Adams owned. I know he has no fucking clue what he's talking about so whatever number he comes up with I hope he explains in great detail. I've got popcorn.
Could he have been a nerd without science fiction?
A product of the budding Age of Reason and the development of modern science itself, Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726) was one of the first true science fantasy works, together with Voltaire's Microm?gas (1752) and Johannes Kepler's Somnium (1620?1630).
from Wikipedia's science fiction article
Those posers got nuthin' on my best sellers.
Thomas Jefferson says wassup
Obama is a huge sci-fi/comic book geek.
Check out the White House Halloween Party.
Yes, he's so geeky that he hosts live-action crossovers that have R2D2 face off against an Ent.
He certainly does look like Urkel. Point for Heroic Mulatto.
Should be very interesting to see how that all works out. Wow.
http://www.AnonSurfing.tk
I haven't read them in years, but I recall the Foundation series as starting out with a fascinating premise, and then going seriously awry with the later books. Asimov's ham-fisted way of uniting the Foundation and Robot storylines was a disappointment, even though those later books did have their moments.
I don't hate the later books, but I'd have preferred them remaining separate. He started integrating everything, even The End of Eternity.
Other than the original trilogy, all the books were written 30 or more years after the original trilogy, and most of them with co-authors. So the feel definitely changes.
Co-authors? Not in the series. I think he did a couple with Robert Silverberg to expand short stories into novels.
Yeah, for some reason I thought Foundation & Earth had a coauthor. Maybe my subconscious was trying to explain why it sucked so bad.
Nightfall REALLY sucked, and that was a Silverberg assist.
The short story was one of the great ones--not sure it needed or needs lengthening.
I tried reading Foundation as a kid, but grew bored with the first book very quickly. I still have the set around somewhere, so I should probably give it another go.
It will allow you to peer into the mind of our opinion leaders. Well worth it.
I recommend the whole series. It's worth your time.
Despite my earlier comment, I agree. You'll laugh when you read pretty much any Asimov and realize how much later TV and movie sci-fi cribbed from his work.
When Star Wars Ep. 1 came out, I was amused that Lucas appropriated the idea of Trantor pretty much unchanged for his capital planet.
Thats just a form of selection bias, but you keep thinking youre observant
Why don't you gambol away somewhere else? Preferably someplace where punctuation is taught.
Gingrich, of course, is not the only prominent policy thinker who imagines himself in the Hari Seldon mode: Indeed, he sounds rather like economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who in 2009 wrote, "I went into economics because I read Isaac Asimov's Foundation novels, in which social scientists save galactic civilization, and that's what I wanted to be."
Why in fuck couldn't they have read Heinlein instead?
Back in the 80s, when I subscribed to Analog, Fantasy & Science Fiction, and Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine, I used to get fund-raising appeals signed by Newt Gingrich; I think it was related to SpacePAC. He seemed to want to divert a lot of tax revenue toward the space program, star wars-style missile defense, etc. If I had had to label him then, I suppose I would have called him a high-tech oriented moderate republican. I never gave him any money. Something seemed off-putting about the rhetoric -- a studied, pandering phoniness, perhaps? Anyway, I always wondered if and when someone would haul out his nerd-cred. After his earlier rise and fall I thought it would never happen, that we wouldn't have Newt to kick around anymore. But never say never in politics. So now is the time to examine his earlier, nerdlier pandering. Let the games continue.
You know if all Newt did was try to get the goverment to build giant space mirrors and stuff like that I wouldn't be nearly so oppossed to him as I am.
Well, for all his faults, Newt's personal interest in sleeze and his personal desire for technological advancement do bode well for the proliferation of the sexbot industry. Most of those fuckwads would quickly ban the emergent technology the second the first feminazi made a stink.
I'm guessing the Japanese already have too much of a head start on us in that area. Even Newcular Titties isn't going to be able make up for that.
Most of those fuckwads would quickly ban the emergent technology the second the first feminazi made a stink.
There's already a push to make them preemptively illegal in Canada. And it being feminists, I'll give you 3 guesses as to what their stated reason is (if you need all 3 tries, you haven't been paying attention).
I have no fucking idea what their reason is.
Too much competition?
Objectifying fake women?
Rape. It's always rape. In this case they're "rape simulators".
Click over to Drudge and tell me if the main picture gives the impression that the guy on the left just farted.
Mr. President, we must not allow a space-mirror-moon-base-death-ray gap!
Holy Christ! Foundation again? It's a good story, but that shit seems to have inspired more morally reprehensible behavior than Mein Kamph.
An Epic, about saving galactic civilization from the social scientists. Its the anti-Foundation.
No wannabe future dictators will jack off to it and hide it under their bunk bed along with their spunk-stained copies of Playboy and Das Kapital.
No, I envision a different sort of reader - one who is interested in liberty, the frontier, and preservation of the things that give human beings a sense of wonder. Ie, a normal compassionate human being.