Transcribe
Translate
Scientifictionist, issue 2, after 1945
Page 17
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Coslet's STF IDEA CORNER was great stuff. His author-index was informative, and might prove handy to have around. I haven't read all the P-Z's, but I enjoyed his comments on the ones I did read. Harlow's REDOUBLED! was just as disgusting as the rest of the stuff I've read with the same theme. Now we come to Bertram's WAR AND PROGRESS. WOW! You certainly picked a good article for this spot. Great stuff! For once somebody explained the cause of wars in language I can understand. But I think Hal greatly underestimates the amount that war accelerates progress. Someday I might find some facts to prove that. Also, I still believe that the cooperation among scientists is more the cause for said progress than the money behind their research during wartime. He's quite right about the companies that buy patents and don't use them. Ever wonder how many 'tubeless' radios have been invented? I wonder if the radio-tube manufacturers will ever tell us. They're the ones that buy the patents. I don't think he has the way to prevent wars anymore than anybody else. Mr. Bertram provides us with a very cheap way to win a war, and thinks it will eliminate its profit. Don't you think the natural resources of the pulverized nation can be considered as profit? But be that as it may, this is the best article on war and its causes and cures I have ever read. -- Norman Wegemer, 332 Benedict St., St Marys, Pa. //...And Con// I wonder if the ads in stf pulps necessarily indicate the kind of readers. Most stfzines are put out by big pulp chains, who contract advertising for all their magazines, and probably pay little attention to the results in any of them. Your "scientifictionist" policy seems to have developed a leak in the Scientification Commentary dept. Sure, it's related to stf, but no more than a lot of FAPA material that would be classed as non-fantasy. The main fault with Bertram's article is that he let himself wander off onto a general description of all the things he disliked about our attitude toward the war, even though his criticisms are often justified. Some particular remarks call for reply. I wonder which of his three causes, conquest, expansion, or religion, would advance to account for the American Revolution, the War of 1812, or the Civil War. Of course scientists don't get together and decide a war is needed to stimulate science. But isn't it true that by-products are the most important results of wars and other activities, instead of the purposes in mind of the people who began and waged them? I'm a bit amazed at his implication that the purpose of the Confederacy in the Civil War was "to destroy the North and impose the same method of social control upon the beaten states." The War for Southern Independence was 100% a defensive war as far as the South was concerned; the occasional advances to northern soil were only for the purpose of ending the Union's efforts to subjugate them. We hear a lot about suppressed inventions in the abstract, but blow me if I've heard of many in fact. It would be worthwhile to rehash for our benefit a lot of the cases Hal has in mind. He seems overly sanguine about the effect of the A-bomb in ending war profiteering. In the way of supplying defensive and evasive equipment, quite a few factories could still be kept busy. The argument showing that Russia has no motive to expand or wage aggressive war is very convincing. The only trouble is the Russians refuse to conform to it. Maybe they're just trying to safeguard themselves against expected foreign aggression, but that's the surest way to bring it on. -- Jack Speer, 5229 University Way, Seattle 5, Washington. page 17
Saving...
prev
next
Coslet's STF IDEA CORNER was great stuff. His author-index was informative, and might prove handy to have around. I haven't read all the P-Z's, but I enjoyed his comments on the ones I did read. Harlow's REDOUBLED! was just as disgusting as the rest of the stuff I've read with the same theme. Now we come to Bertram's WAR AND PROGRESS. WOW! You certainly picked a good article for this spot. Great stuff! For once somebody explained the cause of wars in language I can understand. But I think Hal greatly underestimates the amount that war accelerates progress. Someday I might find some facts to prove that. Also, I still believe that the cooperation among scientists is more the cause for said progress than the money behind their research during wartime. He's quite right about the companies that buy patents and don't use them. Ever wonder how many 'tubeless' radios have been invented? I wonder if the radio-tube manufacturers will ever tell us. They're the ones that buy the patents. I don't think he has the way to prevent wars anymore than anybody else. Mr. Bertram provides us with a very cheap way to win a war, and thinks it will eliminate its profit. Don't you think the natural resources of the pulverized nation can be considered as profit? But be that as it may, this is the best article on war and its causes and cures I have ever read. -- Norman Wegemer, 332 Benedict St., St Marys, Pa. //...And Con// I wonder if the ads in stf pulps necessarily indicate the kind of readers. Most stfzines are put out by big pulp chains, who contract advertising for all their magazines, and probably pay little attention to the results in any of them. Your "scientifictionist" policy seems to have developed a leak in the Scientification Commentary dept. Sure, it's related to stf, but no more than a lot of FAPA material that would be classed as non-fantasy. The main fault with Bertram's article is that he let himself wander off onto a general description of all the things he disliked about our attitude toward the war, even though his criticisms are often justified. Some particular remarks call for reply. I wonder which of his three causes, conquest, expansion, or religion, would advance to account for the American Revolution, the War of 1812, or the Civil War. Of course scientists don't get together and decide a war is needed to stimulate science. But isn't it true that by-products are the most important results of wars and other activities, instead of the purposes in mind of the people who began and waged them? I'm a bit amazed at his implication that the purpose of the Confederacy in the Civil War was "to destroy the North and impose the same method of social control upon the beaten states." The War for Southern Independence was 100% a defensive war as far as the South was concerned; the occasional advances to northern soil were only for the purpose of ending the Union's efforts to subjugate them. We hear a lot about suppressed inventions in the abstract, but blow me if I've heard of many in fact. It would be worthwhile to rehash for our benefit a lot of the cases Hal has in mind. He seems overly sanguine about the effect of the A-bomb in ending war profiteering. In the way of supplying defensive and evasive equipment, quite a few factories could still be kept busy. The argument showing that Russia has no motive to expand or wage aggressive war is very convincing. The only trouble is the Russians refuse to conform to it. Maybe they're just trying to safeguard themselves against expected foreign aggression, but that's the surest way to bring it on. -- Jack Speer, 5229 University Way, Seattle 5, Washington. page 17
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
