Down to earth and straightforward just like his story telling, with out insulting his audience intelligence, I tried reading a large sci-fi book multiple times, never could keep my interest until I picked up a foundation book his writing style just click and I was gone.
I read the 5 of Foundation in the time of 1 month. I have a bit of OCD, though, might explain why his precise writting and ample details kept me hooked up. The only writing comparable to making someone "medused" I found is probably Dune from F.H. I want to precise I only read the 2 first base part of Dune, not the expanded stories.
A conversation record between the two of them is probably something I would find to be as much important as is the Bible for others. Asimoz and Sagan chilling and talking together? For me, this would be a worth I cannot define.
I like his point that when people talk about SF writers "predicting" the future, they are really cherry-picking from a huge body of work, including lots of wrong stuff too.
wow, didn't expect him to be so... normal! so lovely. :) i love writers from his time, they have a simple-ness to them, effortlessly talking about what may be complex to good conversation, or story.
I like the reference to Lem. I’ve read Lem fairly extensively and consider him and H.G. Wells the best two science-fiction writers ever. In my youth I read Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Fred Hoyle. and Andre Norton. I also read some Heinlein, but I found myself generally disliking Heinlein (with two exceptions: “Stranger in a Strange Land” and a children’s book called “Have Spacesuit, Will Travel”). My favorite Asimov science-fiction novel is “The Gods Themselves”.
The interviewer kept interrupt him when he was building up to a point he wanted to express. It surprised me that Asimov didn't even seem annoyed at this, let alone that he didn't just bulldoze over the old fart.
Excellent movie he wrote. 'nightfall'. Grreat sci fi movie. they say the best of all time :) Also wrote ligit book about free energy back in the late 50's. 'life and energy'.
Dr Asimov,one of my favorite authors,is proof positive that even though you have an accent that others look down on(Mine is South Side Chicago) it does not interfere with your intellect. An author of Space stories(among others),he shares with me an aversion to flying.He died of AIDS due to a bad blood transfusion. R I P
Such an accurate introduction, and then what would amount to a roasting by today's standards! Dr. Asimov toughed it out, answered accurately, and made it positive. If anything, you were too modest. Your predictions were the best, and we will make the year 2520 the best year ever, Lije.
Yes, true. I noticed this with The Naked Sun. To be fair it was written in the 50's, but his prediction of media still being mechanically delivered on film and strips of paper when humans had colonised other planets and evolved for centuries was clearly the limits of his technological imagination. Ironic that he devised the positron brain and the three laws of robotics, but not entirely digital media. Still, it's a great book.
@Miss Steele _"Baley took the plane and kept his eyes firmly on the news-strip that unreeled smoothly and continuously from the eye-level dispenser."_ ~ 1. A QUESTION IS ASKED, THE NAKED SUN.
@@Valelacerte How could he have predicted digital technology in the 1950s,in the Univac age. Transistors were not even invented when "the Caves of Steel" was written. he merely extrapolated on known technology.
I just started reading Foundation. it's interesting. Last year I read Fahrenheit 451 for the first time and that was really good, so I should like Foundation because I like sci-fi
If you like science fiction, this is a must-watch video. I had no idea it existed. A lovely and insightful conversation - honest and non-self promoting in a way that seems rare today. A few things that stood out. That the love of writing may be at odds with a love of reading. That the study of a thing might make that thing less enjoyable (science fiction in this case!). That the 'literariness' of science fiction is a net loss (he says this in a self-effacing way - that he does not feel literary enough to contribute). I personally believe that the truth is otherwise - a lovely flight of words can hide the ordinariness of the ideas involved). That most science fiction does not turn out to be true, but it is nevertheless the most important literary form because it imagines a world that will be very different from that of today, and that is the actual reality we live in.
An object lesson in what makes a bad interviewer- he cuts in, fusses about in his chair (on mike) mutters and 'uh-huhs' over the answers-Asimov is still Asimov though.
Asimov was a genius, but most of his interviewers were definitely not. "The machines we create are going to be Frankensteins" is an incredibly ignorant phrase.
Our science and technology are stagnating. The only thing we are making any progress in is smaller computers. We are not sending millions of people to live in space. We are living in the internet and staring at our phones. I hate to say it, but my prediction for 50 years from now is more novel ways to stare at screens and get nothing done. More games. More videos. Maybe more 3D stuff, maybe some kind of new way to have augmented/virtual reality with digital spaces that is different and newer than what we currently have, who knows. (I doubt everyone will do that, but it might get really popular in some places.) But we most certainty won't have 1 million people living, working, and having children in space. We will be staring at screens 15 hours a day, and I honestly believe we will believe we are smarter, but we will be less capable of doing physical tasks than the last 3 generations. We KNOW of more advanced technology, but if I asked you to MAKE me a cellphone, you would stare at me blankly, as if actually making a cellphone was somehow less useful than finding something interesting to point a camera at and uploading a video of it. Nope. Actually making the phone will only be possible for a handful of people. Even those people in factories, in assembly lines, "making phones". None of them know how to make a processor. All that is stored on some usb stick, or in some computer, connected to some multi-billion dollar machine that spits out a thousand advanced chips a day and only a couple dozen people in the whole world even know how to design a chip. We are not progressing science. Only a tiny amount of people are making any progress, and you and me are not the ones doing it. We are sitting down, as a species. We have given up. Now go find another video to watch... Don't go outside, or anything. Don't make anything new. Or, well, make a new video, so that a million other people can sit and watch it, instead of doing anything original themselves. I know I will.
Going to space is incredibly expensive and rather dangerous. We lost two Space Shuttles and their crews in over 100 missions, making the failure rate 1/50 or so. The task for us (or generations coming of age) is to create a sustainable global society. He said that in 25 years (2000) if we weren't on our way to solve the current problems (of 1975) then we'd be in trouble. We've put off solving so many problems that things have only gotten worse. So many grownups were still angry about globalization in the 1990s that they were manipulated by lies on social media, voted "Leave" in Brexit, and stood by and let far-right would-be dictators take over in several countries.
@@sandal_thong8631 I agree. Technology isn't necessarily the solution to problems, actually working on them would. Cavemen would be better at solving pollution than us.
@@musikSkool Interesting. Perhaps there was a time before we adopted a follow-the-leader mentality and were cooperative? Also, I've felt for awhile doing what rich people want or suggest just prevents progress and keeps a lot of people poor.
