The range of ideas from Hiroko to Arkady to Phyllis Boyle to Frank Chalmers to John Boone (reds, greens, Bogdanovists, areophanists …) are hugely diverse, playing out the tensions between existing nation-states (Chalmers as ‘US’, Maya as Russia), uber-capitalism (Phyllis and her UN-cum-transnation megacorp), radical environmentalism which sees the planet itself as the ideal (Reds), Mars as a separatist movement (Bogdanovists) and Hiroko’s areophany which seems to be a model in which planets and people must co-evolve to find a new equilibrium. I’d think that in that diversity, KSR is suggesting that scientists are focal points representing ideas and philosophies from across the spectrum of human ideas. Besides which, the scientists change their minds at times (eg Sax) while others cause radical problems while pursuing science per se (such as the impact of the longevity treatments – which make sense of Mars – on the already overpopulated Earth). So, I guess I’d be hesitant to call the book technocratic or even scientist-centric except insomuch as the scientists are representative of the range of human ideas, politics and philosophy.

A friend once pointed out, though, how incredibly technocratic his ideas are – basically, scientists are clever enough to fix the world, if only we give them the chance. I’m not entirely sure about this, but it does seem to be a legitimate reading of his work. What do you think?