Darwin's Radio 98
| Darwin's Radio | |
| author | Greg Bear |
| pages | 430 |
| publisher | Del Rey |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | James Scott |
| ISBN | 0-345-42333-X |
| summary | Bear spins a plausible yet incredible tale of mankind's next giant leap. |
Greg Bear is indisputably one of the preeminent "hard" science fiction writers working today. His past writings have taken ideas from many areas of contemporary scientific research and spun them into fantastic universes. Blood Music and Queen of Angels, aside from being absolutely engrossing tales, helped nanotechnology enter the mainstream vocabulary. In addition to his excellent treatment of science, the development of his characters seldom suffers at the hands of his concepts, and it is always the characters that make the story rewarding. His latest effort is no exception. Darwin's Radio sets complex and believable characters in a story that puts forth a convincing theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolution.
Darwin's Radio is set just after the (not-even-slightly apocalyptic) turn of the millenium in a universe that is recognizably our own. The story revolves around Kaye Lang, a brilliant molecular biologist who specializes in the study of retroviruses. Specifically, she studies endogenous retroviruses - RNA-based viruses that integrate their genetic material into the host's DNA, becoming part of the host's genome. As the book opens, Lang is on a trip to the former Soviet republic of Georgia, trying to win the cooperation of local scientists in a business venture. On a side trip to investigate a recently discovered mass grave filled with the bodies of pregnant women, she meets Christopher Dicken, a virus hunter for the Centers for Disease Control. Dicken is on the trail of a peculiar illness (eventually known as "Herod's Flu") that seems only to strike young pregnant women and cause miscarriages. Soon after her return to the United States, Kaye finds a media spotlight as other researchers discover that Herod's Flu is actually a Scattered Human Endogenous retroVirus Activation - SHEVA - which she predicted. SHEVA soon reaches epidemic levels around the world, causing virtually every pregnant woman to miscarry.
Meanwhile, two fortune-seeking mountaineers lead anthropologist Mitch Rafelson to a startling discovery in the Austrian Alps - a mummified Neanderthal man and woman with a human baby. Mitch sees the Neandertal family as direct evidence of the speciation of Homo sapiens and soon intuits a connection among his discovery, the Georgian mass grave and SHEVA. Already discredited by a previous fiasco with Native American remains, and held in suspicion for the company he kept in the Alps, Mitch is unable to influence the scientific inquiry into his discovery. However, he does eventually connect with Christopher and Kaye, who are working to explain and control SHEVA amid increasingly panicked reactions from the general population. Lang initially assists the federal government's efforts, but never really supports the view that SHEVA is a disease. Like Mitch, she's convinced that the virus is an agent of change for humanity.
I don't think I'm spoiling the book by stating that the story concerns human evolution. If the title doesn't give it away, a cursory glance at the dust jacket reveals comments like Anne McCaffery's: "WOW!...a human upgrade..." In the first 150 pages or so, through Mitch and Kaye's eyes, Bear gives the reader enough evidence to draw the conclusion that SHEVA is responsible for the human baby born to the Neanderthals and will soon create the next evolution of humans. However, he doesn't grace Christopher Dicken and his fellows in the CDC with the same insight. The government continues to treat SHEVA as a pathogen that threatens humanity's existence (which is not an altogether incorrect viewpoint). The CDC can't prevent the miscarriages, and Bear provides a vivid depiction of the violence that results from the government's inability to accept the truth and communicate it to the people.
This novel provides an excellent story as well as some new concepts to ponder. The evolutionary ideas Bear puts forth, aside from sounding extremely plausible (to this non-microbiologist), provoke some very entertaining thoughts. Humans have spent the last hundred years or so modifying nature to suit ourselves. We're used to dealing with problems that we inflict on ourselves. How do we react when nature modifies us? This conflict forms a vibrant backdrop for the human story - the political ambitions that blind Christopher to the true nature of SHEVA, Kaye's brilliance in research and naivete in practically ever other pursuit, Mitch's frustration as his past prevents him from persuading other scientists to his point of view. Bear renders the romance (yes, there's romance) between two major characters compellingly without being lurid, with a bit of unrequited love as garnish. The plot motors along, but gives the reader some time to consider the implications of evolving humans as the government's efforts to "cure" SHEVA patients goes nowhere. Even then, the author entertains us with nonviolent protests, outright riots, and pagan fertility rites. Bear's prose is crisp, if not quite up to the stratospherically high standards he set in Queen of Angels. The ending, while not totally unsatisfying, leaves several questions unanswered and is wide open for a sequel. This is not necessarily a Bad Thing, since Darwin's Radio presents a world that will certainly bear further exploration.
Pick this book up at Amazon
SHEVA? how cheesy (Score:1)
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
General state of humanity?->Greg Bear's Psychother (Score:1)
Given the powers that we have (atomic energy, pervasive communication, etc) and the powers we are on the verge of acquiring, (nanotech, gene engineering, etc) we're in trouble, as a species. It may be due to mere luck and a little extra maturity at the critical times that we've survived so far. With the coming advancements, our chances may be just about nil.
We either have a LOT of maturing to do as a species, and FAST, or we need some other way to achieve the same end.
I believe that is where Bear's Therapy comes in. He has little hope of us growing up fast, and needs to find another way for the human race to survive long enough to become plot movers in his stories of the future.
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:2)
By your argument, all classes of fiction are just fiction - historical fiction is fiction. Horror is fiction. Romance novels are fiction. Well of course they are! How else are we going to seperate Greg Bear from Ray Bradbury from Jackie Collins if we don't label their works? If, in fact, we don't use the very labels they give themselves!
If you want to argue whther or not Bear should be classified as hard science fiction, fine. But don't just dismiss the whole category out of hand.
My Review (Score:2)
Re: Creationist condemnation (Score:1)
Who the fsck tells you this?
Assuming this isn't a strawman of sorts, I'd like to apologize for the behavior of my fellows. Please do make a distinction among people responsibly pursuing their own faith (and spreading it when such is welcome) and rabid... ahh, how can I politely describe them?
Never mind.
It doesn't - and I'm a creationist. (Score:3)
Rather unfortunate, that.
I seriously doubt you'll find any of the better-informed creationists embracing that belief.
(Oh... you wonder how I manage to believe in creationism? I just don't interpret things in quite as bounded a manner as many of my fellows... that is to say, I'm more than glad to believe that, for instance, God created the universe by selecting it from the series of all possible ones. I suppose this could be almost termed a meta-creation... how the 0-stage creation itself occured is not necessarily relevant. Of course, the possability I just threw out has interesting implications for free will and the like; I'm offering it as an example of compatibility, not as a belief I espouse).
I was about to start debunking... (Score:1)
Fossil evidence indicates Homo Sapians/CroMagnons lived alongside Neanderthals. Oddly enough, though they often lived peacefully RIGHT beside each other, there's no evidence they ever lived WITH each other (that I've heard of anyway). This co-existence would seem to put a damper on the virus in the book, which seems to be quite communicable. If it's so damn communicable to warrant mass graves, how could the poor infected Neanderthal population hope to survive alongside proto-humans long enough to leave the fossil records they did?
Of course, they would be two different viruii, with two different levels of communicability. Maybe the Neanderthal variant just took longer? I get one head smack there.
Not to mention the fact that these proto-humans weren't as crowded as we were. Even up to the last few centuries, certain populations were spared the horrors of viruii that are common all over the world today. Look at the affect Europeans had on the native American populations! Not anymore; the global economy and environment today is in the chute for some nasty virulent surprises.
Since I can't debunk the premise, I'll have to buy it. Looks damn interesting! ;)
Re:SHEVA? how cheesy (Score:1)
I dunno. I think it's realistic given the tendancies real people have for forming these silly acronyms. ;)
Re:The best Sci-Fi doesn't have much to do with te (Score:1)
Indeed. You have just illustrated the difference between SciFi and Science Fiction.
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:2)
I disagree. Let me start out by saying your post SHOULD NOT have been moderated to Flamebait. It's certainly on topic, and while it will probably draw considerable fire, Flamebait it ain't.
That being said, I need this term! Without it I could be saddled with crappy Piers Anthony books (no offense to the legions of 13 year olds who seem to enjoy them!) and no way to tell them apart from the good stuff.
Hard Science Fiction is just that... fiction. Part of the fun lies in finding the scientific errors and debunking them.
Take Ringworld for example. As an abtract idea, it's brilliant! An artifical ecosystem that offers the benefits of a planet on a huge scale. The first novel however, left glaring holes in it's implemenation. (The ring world is unstable! The ring world is unstable!) Erosion, instability, and numerous other snafus were detected and addressed in the next novel (which also contained it's share of snafus).
Hard Science Fiction, while giving us a healthy dose of entertainment, also gives us an opportunity to exercise our intellect and decide for ourselves what's plausible, possible, and probable.
Re:Greg Bear's Psychotherapy (Score:2)
I never came away from his novels with that impression. The impression that all humans would be expected to undergoes some form of psychotherapy, yes. Given the touchy feely attitude prevalent in today's society, and the fact that it's just getting worse I think it makes for a rather realistic (and scary!) view of the future.
He's also partial to his main characters NOT requiring this help. Look at Olmy in Eon for example. He's entirely self-contained, extremely private, and considered somewhat anarchistic by his peers. A throwback, but a necessary throwback. I think what he's saying is fiddling and fixing is all well and good, but shit gets done by unmodified, crazy humans. ;) Larry Niven takes the same slant in his Known Space stories (at least the pre-Man-Kzin war stories) where the ARM pretty much runs the show and keeps the population uninformed and conditioned. Who runs the ARM? Old men who are not well adjusted by their own standards. Who does the dirty work? Borderline wackos and paranoids kept in check with medicines.
It's the wackos that get things done, and I don't want anyone messing with my head either! ;)
Re:Microbiotic Agents (Score:1)
where did the virus come from?
If the new species of man was "caused" by the virus - what caused the virus?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Few bad eggs. (Score:1)
Ever hear the phrase "bear a cross"? It could be worse. Christians used to get thrown to the lions.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Amazon link, Darwin's Radio (Score:1)
So is Slashdot now joining the legion of web sites that make a little nookie on the side by linking to Amazon catalog records? ;-)
I read Darwin's Radio a couple of months ago and found it a very engaging and well written book with an unfortunately implausible and poorly justified central hypothesis. I am very much looking forward to the sequel, however, when the problem of why the thing happened will be far less central than the cultural and societal problems that come out of it.
Greg Bear is on my list of hard sci-fi authors to pick up on sight, but I think the actual scientific plausibility of Darwin's Radio is a bit weak, for all that Greg Bear's writing does emphasize the science.
Re:Silly Little Nitpick (Score:1)
Agriculture was the biggie, though, no doubt. Beginning of The End.
Sounds like "Childhood's End" (Score:1)
Anyways, if you're into the whole "evolving in one step" thing, I strongly recommed Childhood's End.
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:2)
Have to disagree. John Cramer, author of ``Einstein's Bridge'' and ``Twistor'', is a working physicist when he's not writing. Those two novels are full of references to current scientific theories. At least one of the novels I mentioned has an appendix that describes the relationships between those theories and the concepts used in the story.
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
POSSIBLE SPOILER
Parents won't be similar to their children -- that's the whole idea of a virus changing the human species. But maybe they will be given adaptations so that they can interact with their "different" children better.
And yes, if it's a speciation event, then a neanderthal could give birth to a homo sapien -- that doesn't mean the dead homo sapien is the end of ALL homo sapiens -- that's the whole point of the book (evolution isn't an "accident" that only happens in isolated incidents).
Re:Microbiotic Agents (Score:1)
Nanotech and Bear (Score:1)
Take a look at "The Forge of God".
Depressing ending, but some interesting nanotech
shows up in the book. Some in "The Anvil of Stars" too.
Re:Microbiotic Agents (Score:1)
Aquatic ape theory (Score:1)
Let's hear it for the Aquatic ape theory !!! Humans have a pronounced diving reflex, streamlined shape,water-wasteful waste disposal, a tendency to pig out on shellfish, quite good 3D spatial awareness, etc. etc. We're much better adapted for shoreline life than for the savannah. (and cetaceans seem to have a soft spot for us... maybe they remember something...:-) )
It seems to me we're actually specialised to be nonspecialists - we function adequately on land, in shallow water, and in the trees..
Offtopic:Strings of atoms (Score:1)
I love the erudite literacy of these AC guys (Score:1)
Hard science fiction is soft (Score:3)
Still a Valid Term (Score:1)
I would argue that science fiction has been very predictive in many occasions, even where the 'hard' sf seemed implausible at the time. C.f many stories about cloning, prior to the advent of Dolly.
Oh, and just to be on topic, I do highly recommend Greg Bear, esp. the Queen of Angels series & Forge of God/Anvil of Stars (esp. the latter).
Greg Bear's Psychotherapy (Score:2)
Has Bear undergone a lot of therapy in his life? I don't know that much about his past.
Besides, we non-social geek types will probably be the first to get "corrected". :(
Read a good book lately?
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
\end{sarcasm}
Anything that is plausible is hard sf. Are you claiming that nanotechnology, space colonies, biological / mechanical enhancement of humans, etc., will never come to pass?
Strings of atoms (Score:1)
build things using other strings of atoms.
can you say nanotechnology?
crack open a chicken egg. spread the yoke and
white around on a large plate. poke around in
it till you find a leg bone.
Re:Offtopic:Strings of atoms (Score:1)
Re:Note on a Sequel (Score:1)
Silly Little Nitpick (Score:1)
Silly little nitpick: you said:
Humans have spent the last hundred years or so modifying nature to suit ourselves.
I'd argue that humans have been doing that since at least the dawn of agriculture.
Re: Creationist condemnation (Score:2)
Try spending some time in talk.origins [talk.origins].
Assuming this isn't a strawman of sorts, I'd like to apologize for the behavior of my fellows.
Oh, nobody (least of all me) is trying to attribute the rabidness of the most fundamentalist creationists to creationists as a whole. There are plenty of zealots who are only too willing to resort to vague threats to try to get their point across. Nevertheless, the sentence of mine that you quoted was overly sarcastic and was, in retrospect, ill-advised. Please consider it stricken from the record.
Re:Microbiotic Agents (Score:5)
Evolution violates the Creationists' Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is the law that says that things tend to progress from order to disorder, and since evolution says that the opposite is true, it must violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now, this conveniently ignores such pesky terminology as "closed system", and for the sake of simplicity, minor things such as the Sun are not factored in. (Incidentally, I wonder if any of the creationists who claim that order cannot come from disorder in nature have ever seen a snowflake.)
Anyway, you might want to check this link out:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability [talkorigins.org]
It is only my intention to provide more information related to this query; it is not my intention to ignite some drawn-out thread about religion versus science in a place where it is clearly inappropriate. So creationists, before you condemn me, allow me to pre-emptively point out that I know that I am truly a horrible person, and that I am condemning myself to everlasting pain, and that as far as I'm concerned, all of you people are completely right and modern science is completely wrong
Disappointment (Score:1)
First of all, the style he assumed for this book is of a movie script. I got the same impression from the style of this book as I did from "Airframe" by Michael Crichton (also read recently) that the book was written to be adapted to a movie. Every chapter ends the same way with the same contrived suspense.
Second, I think Bear spent more time explaining aspects of biology than developing the plot. But he explained the wrong things. The simple biology he explained concisely, but the more complicated biology he let pass without an explanation.
Though he characterized well, the plot was thin as hell. The entire book led to a [predictable] conclusion which I feel should have come about 200 pages earlier.
The science fiction in this book was minimal. This felt like the kind of book I get when I'm desperate for something to read on a long airplane ride.
Bleh, skip it.
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
I didn't think so. Lets check the flaws:
1) Neanderthal's are humans, just of a difference species or subspecies.
2) The 'hopeful monster' approach described above is like something from the worst excesses of creationist misunderstandings. Parents will be very similar to their children.
3) If really this was the speciation event, then there wouldn't be a homo sapiens species, because the baby died!
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
Neanderthal's are Homo neanderthalensis or Home sapiens neanderthalensis, depending on if you currently belive them to be a seperate species or subspecies. In either case, they are in the genus Homo, and are therefore humans. If you read any book discussing human evolution, then they will use a term like 'modern humans' when informally discussing homo sapiens.
Ponies and horses are of the same species, Equus caballus. The only difference between the two is that ponies are smaller, and really this is a very minor difference which is maintained for no particular good reason. Dogs come in a very large range of sizes, and we don't call small dogs a different name to large dogs.
The differences you give between parents and child are very minor differences. Dwarfism isn't always genetic, it can be developmental as well, autism has unknown cause at the moment, and hair and eye colour vary in almost all mamalian species (And invisible when comparing skeletons).
The virus idea causing speciation doesn't stop it being totally silly! If speciation happened like that, then every birth would be a new species.
Re:Note on a Sequel (Score:1)
Microbiotic Agents (Score:1)
Let's get rid of all literary genres (Score:2)
What I consider fantasy, some people interpret as religious truth, and vice versa.
And let's get rid of that pesky Dewey Decimal system, classifications are bad.
And let's get rid of book titles too, since they can be misleading. An author can name his book just about anything she or he wants, it doesn't necessarily have to relate to the book matter in the way I think it does.
So we'll end up with a huge mass of undifferentiated, unorganized texts, but we won't offend anyone.
Please Chris, I understand that "hard science fiction" may break the rules of physics, but it is fiction after all, and as a science fiction reader I appreciate the way the genre is divided into hard, cyberpunk, soft, fantasy, alternate history, etc. It makes it easier for me to find a book that I will enjoy, and avoid the sub-genres that I don't like.
Thanks,
George
Re:"Science Fiction" is an inherent contradiction (Score:2)
I don't want Romantic Fiction to take me out to dinner and buy me flower, I want it to crack Microsoft for me.
George
The Earth is not a closed control volume (Score:3)
Hey AC, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to evolution because the Earth is not a closed control volume, you have scads of energy pouring in from the Sun, a far lesser amount emanating from the Earth, matter falling on the Earth and a far lesser amount leaving the Earth.
The Earth and the Sun taken together as one control volume are closer to a closed system. The increasing complexity of life on the Earth is more than balanced by the increasing entropy on the sun, and soon (universally speaking) when all the hydrogen on the sun is gone and it swells into a red giant, we'll see that.
Do you know anything about thermodynamics besides what you parrot of web pages? My qualifications come from several thermo courses I passed to get my BS in Aerospace Engineering.
George
Re:Note on a Sequel (Score:2)
Unless maybe your story ends at the Omega Point like Charles Sheffield's strange and interesting Tommorrow and Tomorrow, though I guess even that has room for a sequal of sorts.
Re:General state of humanity?->Greg Bear's Psychot (Score:1)
I don't know... given what we started with (a slow, weak, hairless body ill-adapted to an upright posture) I think we're doing rather well. It's not as if we've met anyone else who's doing any better.
Re:Note on a Sequel (Score:1)
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
"Neanderthal's are humans, just of a difference species or subspecies"
I mean come on...
if I was a different species than you and you were human then how could I also be human?
I would be a dog and I'd pee on your lawn.
Re:Note on a Sequel (Score:1)
Re:SHEVA? how cheesy (Score:3)
(And what's wrong with an author using this name to pull in such a rich cultural reference, anyway?)
Authors and their beliefs (Score:2)
Robert Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers, in which the charachters lived in a fascist state. A Lot of the book was spent on *why* that state was the way it was and what rights it and the citizens within it had, but Heinlein wasn't advocating such a state; he firmly believed in freedom of the individual. He had simply created an interesting idea and was exploring the possibilities; that's what fiction authors are supposed to do.
I see in the preview I mispelled something in my sig.. Natch
Compare and Contrast (Score:2)
I much preferred Blood Music.
BullShit; Hard science fiction IS Hard Science. (Score:1)
Hajo
Re:Microbiotic Agents (Score:2)
--
Creationists vs. thermodynamics (Score:2)
You can disprove the creationist version of thermodynamics right in your own home. All you need is some potting soil (preferably sterilized so you have no other living stuff in there), some seedling plants, and a big bottle or balloon you can seal adequately for use as a terrarium. (A 5-gallon springwater bottle will probably do.) Put the seedlings into the bottle, give them adequate light, and keep them from overheating. Add water and carbon dioxide as needed, and some inorganic plant food (nitrates, phosphates, potash) now and then.
After a while your seedlings will have turned this input of purely inorganic, high-entropy stuff (and light) into a lot of low-entropy plant mass and oxygen. The grown plant is a lot more organized than the matter which went into it. So doesn't this violate the 2nd Law? No. The ignored input is sunlight, which has very low entropy. Some part of the sunlight which is absorbed by the plant's leaves gets turned into useful energy, but the rest of it comes out as heat. A given amount of energy in the form of heat at room temperature has much higher entropy than the same amount of energy as sunlight. So the Earth merrily absorbs low-entropy sunlight at the effective temperature of about 5700 Kelvin, and radiates high-entropy heat at the effective temperature of about 250 Kelvin. The Earth is constantly creating and radiating entropy, and some of that entropy has been extracted from disordered matter when it is organized by some process (biological or otherwise). So there's nothing at all in thermodynamics which rules out the increasing organization of life over time, so long as the Sun continues to shine.
--
Re:The Earth is not a closed control volume (Score:1)
Correct.
Almost exactly the same amount emanating from the Earth, but at a lower temperature.
Bear's Best is Fantasy not Hard Sci-Fi (Score:1)
Songs of Earth and Power is almost totally Fantasy.
Re:The Earth is not a closed control volume (Score:1)
Note on a Sequel (Score:2)
I had the same feelings about the ending of Darwin's Radio as the reviewer. When I loaned my copy of the book to my girlfriend I told her that I thought the ending was not entirely what I would have liked. Not bad, just not what I had hoped for.
Being hooked into the Seattle SF scene, my girlfriend asked around and found out that Greg Bear does have a sequel planned. Meaning that the ending is intended to set up the next part of the story.
Jack
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
From what I vaguely remember from the novels, I thought that the "Ringworld" was a bunch of free-floating trees with "orbital correction" capabilities. I know that a static "ring" around the sun is unstable, but given that the "ring" in those novels is actually dynamic, doesn't that make it theoretically possible for it to hold itself together?
Re:Hard science fiction is soft (Score:1)
Yeah, makes the book unreadable (Score:1)
Re:Microbiotic Agents (Score:1)
I don't really understand Bear's point from the review - is he saying that nature forces evolutionary events, or that wide, catastrophic events crop up every so often and force a change? The former smacks of anthropomorphism... the latter I can buy.
SA
Re:This also violates 2nd Law of Thermo (Score:1)
Re:"Science Fiction" is an inherent contradiction (Score:1)
-Andy
Sounds like "White Plague" (Score:1)
Amazon Link (Score:1)
However, given /.'s highly political stance on software patents (and that of its readership) is perhaps a different bookseller in order? I personally have sworn off Amazon as long as they insist on pursuing their one-click patent. It would be nice to see /. put its money where its mouth is. In fact, it might be very nice if they spearheaded a techie boycott of Amazon on this subject.
Re:Amazon link, Darwin's Radio (Score:1)
Re:SHEVA? how cheesy (Score:1)
SHEVA = AEHSV
SHIVA = AHISV
AEHSV != AHISV
Or does "anagram" also mean "variant spelling" in some world?
I agree with the hundreds of other posters who noted that people love to give cheesy allusive names to things -- that's certainly the way it works in the computer world.
Re:Microbiotic Agents (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech and Bear (Score:1)
I felt it to be the most thought provoking of all his books.
Nanotech with the therapied and AI..