So another thread on..... Mars, this time the early years of the space age
#CountdowntoMars #Mars #Perseverance
More from Space
This is going to be a big thread about climate change, energy, and @TheExpanseWR. Literal representation, analogues, creative decisions in general - I want to talk about it all! Will post my own thoughts, other ppl's tweets, etc.
It's been in the show from day one. The opening titles of season show
- Icebergs breaking free
- The statue of liberty's little island being built up after it's coated in water
- S4,5 sea level rise in Chesapeake bay
It's in the show too. "The gulf of Denmark". Old Boston turned into the square tops of buildings barely visible. Sea walls lock out the ocean. The show is set in 2350: climate change is driving people off Earth.
https://t.co/hy7eUHS71o
Some Redditor actually found a rough comparison angle to compare the CGI future Copenhagen to the real one - I've actually walked down this bit to get the Australian consulate
https://t.co/Prvfgm1xBC
https://t.co/WFTxJqryn7
https://t.co/ljzR5UT7vm
Episode 2 of Season 5 has plenty of rich detail, now there are longer scenes on Earth. Baltimore is a post-climate city: a sea higher than the city itself, widespread apartment solar. Interestingly: not a single car; but a heavy, prominent (electric?) train, cycles, walking.
It's been in the show from day one. The opening titles of season show
- Icebergs breaking free
- The statue of liberty's little island being built up after it's coated in water
- S4,5 sea level rise in Chesapeake bay
It's in the show too. "The gulf of Denmark". Old Boston turned into the square tops of buildings barely visible. Sea walls lock out the ocean. The show is set in 2350: climate change is driving people off Earth.
https://t.co/hy7eUHS71o
Baltimore by S5 of The Expanse. Most of the "old" city is gone, flooded in by climate change.
— Eisenhart (@eisenharten) December 18, 2020
Unlike New York, they never got their seawall up on time to protect most of the present-day city.#TheExpanse pic.twitter.com/Wt515DQBU3
Some Redditor actually found a rough comparison angle to compare the CGI future Copenhagen to the real one - I've actually walked down this bit to get the Australian consulate
https://t.co/Prvfgm1xBC
https://t.co/WFTxJqryn7
https://t.co/ljzR5UT7vm
Episode 2 of Season 5 has plenty of rich detail, now there are longer scenes on Earth. Baltimore is a post-climate city: a sea higher than the city itself, widespread apartment solar. Interestingly: not a single car; but a heavy, prominent (electric?) train, cycles, walking.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?