Traitors to the Human Species

The Three Body Problem is a gripping science fiction novel by Liu Cixin, which contains a wealth of information about ancient and modern Chinese history. But I fear it distorts science. And my first golden rule of good science fiction is not to distort science. I think distortions are dangerous because uninformed readers can be led to believe that certain false things are true.

I’m not worried about the assumption that string theory is true. It could be, although it has lost a lot of backing in recent years. But the description in the novel of the three-star system Alpha Centauri has nothing to do with reality, even though that description is crucial to the plot.

Alpha Centauri A and B are two sun-like stars, whose mutual attraction pulls them into elliptical orbits where their separation oscillates between 1,670 million and 5,300 million kilometers. Alpha Centauri C is a red dwarf star whose distance from the center of mass of Alpha Centauri A and B is 0.2 light-years, equivalent to 430 times the radius of Neptune's orbit. This distance is so great that the orbit of a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri C in its Goldilocks zone cannot be affected by Alpha Centauri A and B; and vice versa, the orbit of a hypothetical planet orbiting Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B, or both stars at the same time, cannot be affected by the attraction of Alpha Centauri C. For none of these planets would there be a three-body problem, which is very difficult to solve, but rather a two-body problem, which is much simpler and has an analytical solution. But if things were described as they really are, the title and the plot of the novel would not make sense.

On a planet like the one described, life would be impossible, even the most basic, much less intelligent life. The succession of civilizations presented is also impossible. Of course, this is a novel, not an astronomy book, but readers might believe that the Alpha Centauri system is as it is described, and for me, that’s unacceptable.

A surprising and interesting point in the novel is the description of a computer whose transistors are people. Eduardo César Garrido Merchán and Sara Lumbreras used this idea in one article about the limits of artificial intelligence.

Arthur C. Clarke

The aliens in Liu Cixin's novel are diametrically opposed to those in Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey. These come to save us, to give us immortality, for Clarke sees them as substitutes for God. In contrast, The Three-Body Problem is full of nihilism and existence has no meaning. The Earthling characters in this novel are amoral. Some even go so far as to murder. And these are supposed to be the "good guys." Of course, they are all atheists. On the other hand, aliens are incredibly evil and only want to destroy us, but they believe in God. You can see what this means.

The novel features a group of radical environmentalists who desire our extinction and play the role of traitors to the human species, collaborating with the aliens to destroy us. This point isn't as absurd as it seems: there are currently environmentalists who argue that it would be better for the Earth if humans disappeared. They have even formed the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which supports our extinction to prevent environmental degradation. I have no doubt that we should consider them traitors to our species.

But not all environmentalists are so pernicious, although many of them are, to a greater or lesser degree. In another post, I discussed the ecological ignorance of ecologists and showed a specific case where their determination to eliminate human activity and allow natural ecosystems to develop as they please had disastrous consequences for the ecosystem in question. Environmentalists are also blamed for the increasing damage caused by fires, of which there have been many examples this summer. Many of the fires that have broken out, often as a result of human malice or folly, would have caused less damage if the forests had been cleared and fire-fighting structures such as firebreaks had been designed, as has been done for centuries. But today's politicians seem blinded by environmentalists and as ignorant of ecology as they are. In many places, they have stopped taking protective measures, so fires are becoming more and more damaging. 

Climate change, which is certainly one of the contributing factors, is used in practice as the scapegoat that makes it possible for responsible persons to evade their responsibility. We also hear blaming the harmful effects of the fires on adverse meteorology (or adverse climatology). But meteorology (and climatology, which is its synonym) is the science that studies atmospheric phenomena. As a science (just knowledge), it cannot be guilty. So, are the scientists who practice this science to blame? It seems that saying that the blame lies with excessive wind, or dryness, or simply unfavorable weather, is too vulgar, and things must be said in an apparently more scientific way.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread on Literature and Cinema: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca