Manhattan Projects #11: "Building"

[superboyprime]

'The Manhattan Projects takes place during what was arguably the high holy days of "adventure science" -- when what was impossible became possible. We're really trying to create stories that are about recapturing the wonderful and mysterious nature of discovery. A push back against the blase attitude that permeates "discovery" now -- "We just found a planet 22 light-years away that could have life on it... Super, I just hope the fat kid makes it to the next round on America's Got Talent.'

- Jonathan Hickman

Manhattan Projects was nominated for an Eisner Award this year for Best Continuing Series. Didn't win, though.



Henry Daghlian is lamenting the fact that he can no longer eat food in his post-human state.

Comments

[mrosa]

I don't care about TMP, it's a terribly written series full of stereotypes and one-dimensional characters. But Hickman, like the adult JMS who writes revenge fic to get even with sidekicks, never ceases to hold me in thrall with the nonsense he sputters:

'The Manhattan Projects takes place during what was arguably the high holy days of "adventure science" -- when what was impossible became possible. We're really trying to create stories that are about recapturing the wonderful and mysterious nature of discovery."

If Diana Preston's Before the Fallout is any indication, the period Hickman alludes to - and I have difficulty wrapping my head around 'adventure science,' whatever that is - happened between the 19th century and before WWI. Up until then the scientific community was an exciting, generous, cooperative, international community where scientists exchanged ideas freely and motivated solely by the joy of discovering things, unaffected by politics, greed or nationalism. This all came to an end with World War I, when scientists had to pick sides and produced weapons of destruction; scientists became responsible for morally reprehensible things and friendships ended. Not to mention that science became too important for knowledge to circulate freely and started being kept in secret. And of course, WWI also brought passports, which made the circulation of scientists harder.

The original Manhattan Project, a shadowy enterprise hidden in the middle of a desert, funded and heavily guarded by a sovereign government for the sole purpose of creating weapons, is the perfect illustration of this change in science. Knowledge was no longer pursued for the mere pleasure of discovery, it was now being effectively sought to win wars. Hickman's romantic but risible vision of the science of yore has no support.. if you've read a couple of books on the history of science.

"A push back against the blase attitude that permeates "discovery" now -- "We just found a planet 22 light-years away that could have life on it... Super, I just hope the fat kid makes it to the next round on America's Got Talent.'"

Well, I'm not going to defend singing shows, but maybe what he calls blasé attitude is just the realization that science is not going to solve all the problems of the world, as it was once preached. I honestly don't care about a planet that may harbour life on it, not with the amount of problems we have on our own planet right now. Since the Enlightenment generations have been sold the gospel of a new religion - scientism, the belief that science is going to explain and solve everything. As the utopias of Wells and other visionaries failed to materialize, and as the world has become more and more dystopic, in good part thanks to science (nuclear bombs, surveillance technology, etc.), I think we're all beginning to wise up to the fact that science, at best, can invent better pills for head aches, but as to solving the real problems - famine, poverty, pollution, corruption, economy - it's ridiculously ineffective.

[espanolbot]

"I think we're all beginning to wise up to the fact that science, at best, can invent better pills for head aches, but as to solving the real problems - famine, poverty, pollution, corruption, economy - it's ridiculously ineffective."

Wow, that's actually kind of insulting.

Science probably COULD solve those issues, or at least contribute towards fixing them, but due to the amount of ignorant people in charge of legislation (in the US for example, one of the people on the board that provides guidelines to research thinks the Bible is literally true, for example) OR people with an invested interest in making sure that those problems can't be solved.

For example, if someone invented a cure for the common cold or cancer, it would never reach the people on the street as there is more money in things that treat the symptoms but not the disease.

OR, due to the investment people have in the oil industry it's unlikely that an effective electric or biofuel car will ever become mainstream.

OR, the production of genetically modified grain that can be grown in harsher environments that would put strain on the amount of regular grain being exported to said countries.

OR, potentially life changing cures for paralysis, blindless and genetic conditions being shut down in their infancy due to some moron who doesn't even understand how stem cells or genetic engineering WORKS claiming that doing so is "playing God!".

Science can save the world if people were invested in it succeeding, but there's more money in what's proven to work NOW that people are reluctant to try for something better.

[sadoeuphemist]

Ok well I agree that science in general is pretty great, but if someone invented a cure for cancer (or the common cold I guess) they would make themselves and the people they work with incredibly rich, and it's pretty conspiracy-theorist to suggest that 'Big Pharma' has interest in suppressing a cure. Also, depending on genetically modified monocultures is not without its drawbacks.

What I'm saying is yes it's pretty ridiculous to deride science as useless, but just the same imagining that there is a technological solution to everything, but there are just a million idiots standing in Science's way, is sort of deifying the idea of Science.

[espanolbot]

Yeah, I did kind of exaggerate a little about it being able to fix everything (or at least how it can prove why it can't fix everything), but there is significant investment in some advances not being made though, be it financially or dogmatically motivated.

[mrosa]

I didn't call science useless. I think more effective pills for head aches is an excellent thing since I suffer from migraines occasionally. But sarcasm aside, I don't think science is pretty great, it's just something that exists and produces things for people to use, rightly and wrongly.

espanolbot did a good job himself explaining why science can't ameliorate, let alone solve, the world's problems: greed, vested interests, ignorance, religion. It all comes down to human nature, unchangeable and eternal; human nature will change science faster than science will change human nature.

[sadoeuphemist]

??

Is science somehow not part of human nature now? I don't even know how you're defining "human nature"; is it human nature to live in nomadic pre-agrarian hunter-gatherer societies? Or is it human nature to create cities and nations and surveillance states? The "nature" of a human being is going to vary wildly depending on which of those societies they live in.

This is not a meaningful thing you're saying, it's just pessimism. You could replace the word "science" with anything. Democracy cannot change human nature. Religion cannot change human nature. Socialism cannot change human nature. Nothing can change human nature, we're all fucked, let's all give up.

[mrosa]

Science is a human activity. It has contributed to some external changes, ie. city building. But it hasn't affected the way our emotions and thoughts work to a considerable degree. If culture and literature from the past to our days shows anything, is that we're still driven by the same passions, beliefs, prejudices and illusions as before.

For that matter, I also don't think democracy, religion or socialism can change human nature. There's a core part of us which has survived the most sinister and intrusive attempts at moulding it by as varied institutions, worldviews and regimes as the Holy Inquisition, Positivism, eugenics, Fascism, the Soviet republics, Behaviourism, the Israeli Kibbutz, sects like The Objectivists, etc. What is human nature? I'd say it's what remains after all these things have failed to change it. What that is I have no idea, but it has to be something, because it's still here after all these forces have come and gone.

[sadoeuphemist]

You are defining human nature as what fails to change. So it is no surprise that everything fails to change it! This is a useless concept.

[mrosa]

Human nature is hardly a useless concept given that it's been a much discussed topic since antiquity, and it's hardly a closed matter in the nature/nurture debate that informs so much of modern science and philosophy, from linguistics to neuroscience to evolution to ethics.

[sadoeuphemist]

No I'm saying your specific conception of human nature is useless. A neuroscientist, for example, might define it via brain chemistry and neural patterns and so on - these things are totally changeable, and can be studied and discussed. You're defining human nature as whatever does not change. That's equivalent to saying 'we are what we are.' It's a pointless tautology.

[mrosa]

I've read my share of neuroscience books, and as interesting as it may be, it just runs into all the usual trappings of any science trying to explain the human brain and why we do this and think like that.

[skemono]

For example, if someone invented a cure for the common cold or cancer, it would never reach the people on the street as there is more money in things that treat the symptoms but not the disease.

Yeah, that's why the people on the street still suffer from polio and smallpox. Because evil, greedy people withhold medical cures.

[coldfury]

There was an article just this weekend on CNN (or was it reddit? Meh) that mentioned that the person who created the polio vaccine declined to patent it for the good of the world. The article projected that decision cost him over five billion dollars.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But it doesn't take much of a cynic to look at the state of the world today, and think "Yeah, there's a pretty good chance that a cure to something major got buried. Or they'll gate it to be super expensive to earn back R&D costs."

[sadoeuphemist]

Okay sure if someone invents a cure for cancer it is likely to be very expensive. But that just contradicts your first hypothetical - why would anyone bury a cure that would make them (way) over five billion dollars?

[cainofdreaming]

If someone offered them more to do that?

Dunno about that whole scenario, but the money angle in the medicine business comes really apparent in the priorities. There's more research into new cold treatment medicines than there is for malaria. How mad is that?

[blackruzsa]

This is true. I have heard of people who could make fuel out of water, pee, or what have you and no one funds them because oil is too big an investment. I've heard of miracle cures governments hide because they have agreements with big pharmaceuticals. Science has solved QUITE a lot but money talks and science has been fighting a losing battle with money for years.

[sadoeuphemist]

I'm pretty sure it's scientifically impossible to replace fuel with urine!!!

[blackruzsa]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewdepaula/2012/11/08/teens-create-a-way-to-use-urine-as-fuel/ I'm no expert though.

[donnblake]

Or... no one funds them because their demonstrations aren't repeatable under controlled conditions?

[arilou_skiff]

You're having an extremely weird picture of what science is.

Science cannot save the world. At most it can point out ways in which the world may be saved. Science is a process of knowledge accumulation, nothing more, nothing less. It is also hard and complicated, it cannot produce silver bullets because the world is too complex for it.

And Manhattan Projects is... All sorts of problematic for other reasons. Like taking real historical people and twisting them without regard for their actual thoughts and opinions.

[mrosa]

You're having an extremely weird picture of what science is.

If this is addressed to me, my personal picture of science is actually something invisible and mute that makes my life reasonably more comfortable without my giving it too much thought.

Now for the picture I painted, I'm merely recovering the picture from the turn of the 20th century, when it was thought that science was going to create a World State Utopia, residues of which belief we can find in Hickman's comics. Hence why I consider it relevant to bring it up.

I think perhaps more interesting than trying to rekindle a passion for science and discovery, it'd be interesting to show why modern society has lost faith in science. But perhaps that involves a sociological study whose subtlety is above Hickman's capacity to articulate into interesting fiction. So, over-the-top characterisations of ordinary scientists.

[sadoeuphemist]

That's bizarrely dismissive of science, which is an incredibly huge concept. Famine - take the Green Revolution, which is not without its own major problems, but was pretty good at helping people not starve to death. Or pollution, the environment - how would we even be able to measure the effects and sources of, say, greenhouse gasses, without science? Or the medium of the internet allowing a global spread of information and communication, allowing people to organize protests and revolutions, or spreading leaked information about government corruption.

I mean, a hell of a lot of things are made using science. I agree it's not a panacea for the world's ills, but it's pretty goddamn useful.

[mrosa]

The Green Revolution occurred because, although the world may have the means to end starvation, most nations chose not to aid those in need, meaning it takes the initiative of people like Norman Borlaug to do something about it. One out of billions chose to do something. Science may give the means to end famine, but hasn't made humans more humane to actively want to end it.

Pollution is a product of science - pesticides, nuclear power stations, oil, plastic. And although science also gives ways to measure and perhaps reduce it, it hasn't made people change their consumer habits to effectively reduce it.

The internet is great to spread information and to build networks; it's also a fact most people won't be bothered to organise protests and revolutions; and if protests are organised, there's no evidence the powers and institutions that run the world will cower before them; and if revolutions are carried out, there's no evidence they'll turn out for the better. Look at Egypt, it's on the brink of civil war, and before that the noble revolution had only resulted in putting an extremist religious party in power.

I'm not condemning or condoning, it's just the way it is. All the science in the world won't change humans from being humans. To get back to TMP, that's why I don't feel any excitement about new discoveries or 'adventure science'. If anything science had too much good PR for most of its life.

[sadoeuphemist]

In your mind, is there anything at all in the world that is meaningful or useful in the face of this all-consuming "human nature"?

[mrosa]

You mean meaningful in an autotelic sense?

[sadoeuphemist]

No, I mean to you, personally.

Because as it is now, you're saying science can't end famine. Okay, fair enough. But why would ending famine itself be useful? Even if they aren't starving to death, people would still be subject to economic and political subjugation, it would contribute to overpopulation, etc. And then they are all subject to the heat death of the universe and will die anyway, etc, etc, etc.

You seem to be taking such a broad scope so that everything ultimately comes short because nothing will ever be perfect. Well yeah, no duh. Why can't mitigating a single famine be a success in and of itself, without having to end world hunger forever?

[mrosa]

I'm a very prosaic person, for me useful is anything one does for one's own happiness. Since our consciousnesses have released us from the yoke of purpose, we can chose how to devote our lives to activities that contribute to our happiness, whether these be selfish or altruistic, solitary or communal.

To get back to science, I don't know if ending famine would be useful. That was not my point. Keep in mind that I did state before that I do not find science useless, I think it's effective in small steps, for small problems, ie my jocose example of better head ache pills. I just question its ability to solve all problems. I stated this in the context of a discussion of a comic book that fetishises and romanticises science as a great human endeavour that will usher a new golden age for mankind. I believe Hickman is working from a flawed premise and reviving unfortunate narratives that were popular at the turn of the 20th century but also very harmful. I think science has a role in society but that role also needs to be kept in the right proportions.

Hickman complains people prefer to watch America's Got Talent than following scientific discoveries, but he hasn't cogently explained why anyone should do so. I've attempted an explanation of why people don't care about science. I've not yet seen anyone give a reason why they should.

[sadoeuphemist]

Like I suggested above, you could replace "science" with anything: philosophy, theology, economics, politics, etc. It is an argument that applies to everything, and is therefore so general as to be pointless. No one should care about anything, by that argument.

Because what I'm getting from your answers - you've said that you think science is an effective means of solving famine, it's just that people aren't sufficiently motivated to do so. I thought originally you were going to have a beef with the Green Revolution for, like, reducing biodiversity, or increasing economic disparity through globalization, etc. That's a specific criticism of scientific fetishism - that technological solutions are usually developed and implemented by those already in power, and thus tend to entrench already-existing relationships of political and economic subjugation.

But as it stands, you're just saying, 'well, science can't solve everything'. And that's barely a criticism at all.

[mrosa]

It is a criticism because people, not that long ago, used to believe in that, and this series is informed by that belief.

[sadoeuphemist]

This series pretty obviously isn't informed by that belief at all. It's based on the Manhattan Projects and the Cold War. The characters unlock all this incredible superscience and primarily use it to murder each other and struggle for power. I mean, it's pretty obvious to me that Hickman was lying in that interview and trying to sucker in science-lovers, because as you pointed out yourself everything about the series is contrary to what he said.

Also, seriously, when you were talking about Borlaug as if he was literally the only person among billions who brought about the Green Revolution: that comes across as way more lionizing of science and scientists than anything Hickman's said re: this series.

Now, call me wrong, if you must...

[bewareofgeek]

But I don't think the proper way to venerate the scientific geniuses of the past is to write them as megalomaniacs, alcoholics, or disguised aliens.

Call it a gut feeling, but I don't see him making science look all that attractive....

The book that really embraces the spirit he talks about? ATOMIC ROBO, where science is not only used to better mankind, but also is not the exclusive purview of madmen.

(I make no claim about the sanity of disembodied brains or possibly genetically-engineered dinosaurs, however).

Re: Now, call me wrong, if you must...

[icon_uk]

Agreed, "Atomic Robo" and "Tom Strong" both qualify I think, with Tom being a "science hero" in a world where steampunk was developed and expanded upon.

Re: Now, call me wrong, if you must...

[mrosa]

But I don't think the proper way to venerate the scientific geniuses of the past is to write them as megalomaniacs, alcoholics, or disguised aliens.

No indeed; Diana Preston's Before the Fallout was fascinating exactly because it showed how most of these figures were ordinary, down to earth people. Real scientific discovery is a dreary, dull process, not very cinematic or photogenic. But I'd rather read more about Ernest 'Crocodile' Rutherford than space alien Fermi.

Re: Now, call me wrong, if you must...

[terrykun]

The book that really embraces the spirit he talks about? ATOMIC ROBO, where science is not only used to better mankind, but also is not the exclusive purview of madmen.

Don't be so sure... even Tesladyne employee screening isn't infallible...

"You built an evil computer. Why did you build an evil computer?"

Re: Now, call me wrong, if you must...

[bewareofgeek]

I will note that the engineers in question were neither mad nor evil. They just had a poor design phase. :)

(And, as an aside, actually based on Brian & Scott, the strip's creators).

[md84]

I just think of science -- heck, knowledge in general -- as a double-edged sword. It can potentially solve all of the problems the world is facing now while creating entirely new ones. A little knowledge is worse than none at all, since you know just enough to really make a mess of things without fully appreciating the risks. Not that ignorance is much better. Look at those scientists/doctors from the turn of the century who still believed in eugenics and thought drinking mercury cured all ills.

A lot of the problems with the world have nothing to do with science and everything to do with the fact that humans in general are a little batshit insane and really, really suck at calculating risk.

[silicondream]

Bit late for a rant, but I'm quite baffled by Hickman's rationale for this series. He says:

The Manhattan Projects takes place during what was arguably the high holy days of "adventure science" -- when what was impossible became possible. We're really trying to create stories that are about recapturing the wonderful and mysterious nature of discovery.

But, for a comic about scientific figures, this could hardly be less focused on scientific discovery. There's almost nothing here about the scientific process, or about the culture of the scientific community, or about the social impacts of science. Virtually all of the issues driving the plot are either sociopolitical--which nation will win the war, which shadowy conspiracy will control the Earth, whether mankind will beat aliens or whatnot--or personal drama stuff like whether this guy will win his freedom or that guy will manage to defeat his rival. Nor is the reader invited to follow along with characters as they figure out how to solve their problems in some halfway scientific fashion, even to the degree you'd expect from the average issue of Flash or Iron Man or Fantastic Four.

Take the scenes shown above. Fermi invents an "excess energy containment unit." OK, that's a scientific discovery. It's a big discovery. It would have to depend on totally unknown principles of science. What are those principles--I'm not expecting hard SF or anything, but give me some sort of hand-wavy concept of how a device can suck radiant energy out of nearby space? What inspired Fermi to come up with the theory for this thing? How did he test it? How hard was it to build the thing? What will this technology mean for the world--does it mean that we can absorb stray nuclear radiation from anywhere we want? Are meltdowns and radiation hazards a thing of the past? Wouldn't that massively alter the possibilities for nuclear power and the consequences of nuclear war?

Instead, it's "hey, I made this magic backpack that lets my friend leave his room. Now, on to the personal melodrama about how he was lonely but now he's found love and friendship!" Talk about a "blase attitude" toward science.

And the whole series is like that. FDR's an AI, but he could be a disembodied spirit trapped in a magic mirror by a passing sorcerer, for all that we learn about how he was developed, or what his technology could mean for human society. There's AI and cyborg enhancement and outright magic, and it's almost all just backstory trivia and justifications for characters' powersets. I mean, jeez, Hickman wants us to value the discovery of life-habitable planets over "America's Got Talent," but he's written a story where Fermi's being an extraterrestrial is treated about the same as if he was secretly a transvestite or an Objectivist or something. It's just another twist in the soap opera.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with writing stories about scientist characters, where the science itself is not central. Girl Genius is like that--the scientists are practically just wizards who use gears and circuits as reagents--and it's awesome. But the Foglios know they're writing fantasy which happens to star mad scientists. Hickman seems to think he's writing about science, and that ain't happening here.

..uh, the end.

[mrosa]

Like I wrote before, science is not photogenic.