Help offset server costs by donating. This is totally optional. Any overages will go to library fines or new books.
Theory of Bastards - Q3: Science!
Science and technology are in the forefront of the book. In technology, an implanted interface called a Bindi (which is the red dot Hindu people wear on their brows) connects everyone into an internet of things, interfacing with everything from doors to books. Food can be printed on a 3D printer. Cars are driverless. These are all extrapolations from current technology. It is the failure of the Bindis during the sandstorm which causes the (local?) collapse of civilization, and of course this technology causes the severe weather like the sandstorm in the first place. The science is mainly in the study of Bonobos by Frankie and Stotts - Theories, experimentation, and discovery about Humans and Bonobo are all central.
Is this enough to imply a greater setting beyond the Institute? Does this carry through properly through the novel? Is this enough to serve as the base for what happens?
Comments
I thought that the interconnectedness was a really strong point of the book, especially in two areas
a) the positive one of doing the equivalent of Google searches and not really memorising anything (leading to problems when the system crashed)
b) the negative one about people ceasing to relate directly to one another or even (in many cases) not really being aware of the presence of others nearby
Both are obvious extrapolations from today but were IMHO well described and presented. This aspect of the novel seemed to me to be well developed in terms of wider society, including the presence of roaches (hacking) and pseudo-geek language. We never find out why the system collapsed (act of nature or act of hacker are the main two theories) but I think that's OK - in the survival plight of the protagonists and the low level of information available to them, I don't think they would have any clearer idea anyway.
The biology, however, although I found it quite fascinating, didn't seem rooted in a broader world. How did the institute place connect with other research establishments? Did it even try? Why would visitors go there when presumably they could have a virtual tour whenever they wanted? So that aspect felt like it was needed to get the various people/bonobos together, but didn't have a reason to exist within the world itself.
As to the people visiting, most had children with them, who did not have Bindis. which makes sense.
Hm, maybe so, though the teens did (there's a comment about some young lad not realising that his hand moves to page through results were bashing into Frankie). And presumably the parents of young kids could simply have cast Bindi results onto a big screen at home rather than drive/fly/bus/train into the middle of nowhere. There didn't seem to be much "we need to see these things for real" opinion there.
It seemed to be a research institute and sanctuary for the apes. There were mentions of low numbers of apes in the wild. In that case, the visitors are a source of supplementary income and an audience to educate about apes.
And I did like the perpetually distracted adults. Very much a commentary about people always staring at their phones, not attending the moment.
Research Institutes and Wildlife Sanctuaries, and the institute is both, primarily run on the income from endowments and a lot of corporate funding, with visitors bringing welcome cash - not just tickets but snacks and souvenirs - and the occasional odd small donation. Hiring people like Frankie raises their reputation, and thus raises corporate sponsorship from companies who want to share in that reputation.
Many people grew up going to zoos and sanctuaries, and enjoy going to see animals, bringing their children with them, as their parents brought them; and this is not so far in the future that the parents were not of our time when children. When our son was young, we were members of the local zoos, and went to them all the time, and since many zoos have reciprocal arrangements with other zoos, we often went to those non-local zoos when we traveled.
The Theory of Bastards was what was motivating Frankie as she began to get involved with the Bonobos, as they didn't seem to follow the Theory.
Maybe it's a US thing? I can't remember the last time any of my severally-aged family members went to a zoo (and the book didn't foreground any of the ethical questions of keeping animals like that, making, I think, the assumption that they had their best chance of survival this way). Over here the focus for a day out is more on physical activity - theme parks with rides, outdoor areas with playgrounds for younger kids and more challenging stuff for older ones, and so on. Probably with a petting zoo with farm animals for those folk who don't have sheep all over the place all the time
I was surprised while reading the book how it was just taken for granted that tourist visitor people (as opposed to research / study people) would travel into the middle of nowhere to go see the various species of ape.
I think in the book, it was inferred that it was their ONLY chance at survival. as these apes were all but extinct in the wild. But yes, a lot of people over here really like animals, and like to go see them. Not everyone, mind, but it's a big country!