Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
(Cph.) Notabene (1973) 219 s.
Description
A stark, unbridled vision of planet Earth on the brink of collapse, and the inspiration behind the classic sci-fi film, Soylent Green. At the close of the twentieth century, a planet overwhelmed by rampant overpopulation teeters on the edge of self-destruction. In New York City alone, 35 million people are squeezed into its packed boroughs, scrambling like rats for the world's dwindling resources. The only food available is a product called Soylent. And while the government tries to maintain order, the rich get richer and the poor stay underfoot. Finding a killer in this broken world is one hell of a job. But that's exactly what detective Andy Rusch has been assigned to do. If he can stay alive long enough, he might just solve the biggest case he's ever been on-unless humanity finally fulfills its promise and destroys itself first.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member BeckyJG
By the eve of the millennium Earth's population has exploded. New York City alone supports 35 million. There's not enough food or water, the rivers run dirty and the air is barely fit to breathe, and fossil fuels have long since been exhausted. And yet, birth control is a controversial concept that
Andy Rusch, a good cop trying to make his way in a city that is able to provide less and less for him, is assigned a pointless investigation--in addition to his regular job of working the riots that break out regularly in the wake of ever more severe food and water rationing--into the murder of a local black market wheeler-dealer. In the process, he inherits the bad guy's sweet gal, but that's about all he gets…aside from hungrier, thirstier, and more and more tired.
Make Room! Make Room! is a dystopian novel about a future world that in the baby-booming fifties and sixties must have seemed to loom just around the corner (anybody remember the "Stop at Two" campaign?). Thankfully, Harrison's direst predictions have not come true, although his portrayal of the obstinacy of the human race in the face of inevitable misery is chillingly believable. Harrison's prose style is matter-of-fact, devoid of too much invented jargon or futuristic talk. And although in some ways Make Room! Make Room! might seem dated--I don't think there's much fear of overpopulation anymore, at least not in the First World--with just a few tweaks--climate change, anyone?--the story is all too believable.
Show More
causes fear among the majority of the people, who revile it as "baby killing." Andy Rusch, a good cop trying to make his way in a city that is able to provide less and less for him, is assigned a pointless investigation--in addition to his regular job of working the riots that break out regularly in the wake of ever more severe food and water rationing--into the murder of a local black market wheeler-dealer. In the process, he inherits the bad guy's sweet gal, but that's about all he gets…aside from hungrier, thirstier, and more and more tired.
Make Room! Make Room! is a dystopian novel about a future world that in the baby-booming fifties and sixties must have seemed to loom just around the corner (anybody remember the "Stop at Two" campaign?). Thankfully, Harrison's direst predictions have not come true, although his portrayal of the obstinacy of the human race in the face of inevitable misery is chillingly believable. Harrison's prose style is matter-of-fact, devoid of too much invented jargon or futuristic talk. And although in some ways Make Room! Make Room! might seem dated--I don't think there's much fear of overpopulation anymore, at least not in the First World--with just a few tweaks--climate change, anyone?--the story is all too believable.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mushod
This is the book that the film science-fiction film Soylent Green is loosely based on. The two stories are very different, however. Both are set in an overpopulated New York in the near future. In the film, the story is about the police investigation into the murder of an executive of the
Show More
corporation that makes the synthetic food stuff, Soylent Green and has one of the most memorable twist endings I remember in a film. In the book there is also a murder, but the story is very different and less important than the Harrison’s description of daily life in New York. Harrison was writing a warning to his readers about the dangers of unchecked population growth and resistance to birth control , and there is a bibliography at the end of the book. I don’t think the book has dated terribly well. Much of the population growth that Harrison feared has happened, but with few of the consequences that he had feared. Nonetheless, the book makes for uncomfortable reading as he describes the daily fight to live in a city with little food, unreliable sources of power, and insufficient accommodation. The plot, however, is poor, and the filmmakers were right to change it. The ending in the book has nothing of the shock power of the film version. Show Less
LibraryThing member flexatone
I really wouldn't call Make Room! Make Room! suspenseful. It is more of a postcard glimpse of an overpopulated future. The format here is future-noir, the dialog is unfortunately cliche, and the scope is that of a long-form short story, rather than a fully-fledged novel. I love the idea of
Show More
reimagining NYC, though; the streets are the same, but where they lead is completely alien. For that reason, it falls into the same category as the film Escape from New York. In the end, though, Harry Harrison has quite fully developed a society and its laws. Whether this alone is enough to tell a compelling story is for you to judge! Show Less
LibraryThing member ptdilloway
This book really bears no resemblance to the movie "Soylent Green." The biggest twist of the movie (Soylent Green is people) does not happen in the book. Really there's very little mention of Soylent Green at all. Mostly this is about overpopulation. It seems quaint now in that it's 1999, there are
The narrative doesn't really advance much from the beginning to the end, but I suppose that was largely the point. There is no deus ex machina to save everyone or anything like that. Overall it was entertaining even without the cannibalism.
That is all.
Show More
7 billion people on Earth, and everyone is doomed. It's 2013, there are 7 billion people, and while things aren't all peachy keen they aren't that bad. I suppose Harrison didn't take into account how technology can affect the equation, allowing more resources to be found and those resources to be used more efficiently. Basically he just seems to have projected forward using 1960 technology, which is a problem in writing science fiction.The narrative doesn't really advance much from the beginning to the end, but I suppose that was largely the point. There is no deus ex machina to save everyone or anything like that. Overall it was entertaining even without the cannibalism.
That is all.
Show Less
LibraryThing member crazybatcow
I always seem to expect more from these classics than I get from them. This one is okay... kinda... it is very dry and we don't actually care that the whole world is starving to death (well, all of NYC is anyway)... the characters are all a bit of a jerk and the female character trades on her sex
I guess Harrison's underlying premise is that overpopulation would starve out humanity (because "someone"/"the MAN" bans birth control) and, while that might have been an issue in the 60s, nowadays it is more likely that we will starve out humanity by virtue of genetic modifications, disease and toxic water contaminiation... End result = the same, but process of getting there mildly different. (only mildly though because it is still "someone"/"the MAN" who puts their profits from fracking and oil pipelines ahead of clean water, for example).
Anyway, I am glad I read it and can accept that it is a product of its era, driven by the concerns of that era. I won't be looking for more books by Harrison though.
Show More
to get by. Oh, sure, this is par for the course, but I always prefer when authors put some work into character development and have women be something other than independently mobile sex toys, or, perhaps, slothy neglectful mothers.I guess Harrison's underlying premise is that overpopulation would starve out humanity (because "someone"/"the MAN" bans birth control) and, while that might have been an issue in the 60s, nowadays it is more likely that we will starve out humanity by virtue of genetic modifications, disease and toxic water contaminiation... End result = the same, but process of getting there mildly different. (only mildly though because it is still "someone"/"the MAN" who puts their profits from fracking and oil pipelines ahead of clean water, for example).
Anyway, I am glad I read it and can accept that it is a product of its era, driven by the concerns of that era. I won't be looking for more books by Harrison though.
Show Less
LibraryThing member teunduynstee
Make Room, Make Room was the basis for the important 70's SF movie Soylent Green. However, the story line is very different and especially the climax from the film is completely absent in the novel.
About the novel then: it is a typical dystopian science fiction novel, in this case based on the
Of course, in hindsight, it's always easy to ridicule a prediction that turns out off the mark, but in this case I repeatedly felt that Harrison was just doing the numbers wrong. It's just plain incredible to me that society would deteriorate so badly in just 30 years. And this seems an important aspect of near-future SF: you have to be able to believe the scenario. Example: the current population of the USA is not much less than the suggested 350M in the work. It's just not convincing that a country as large as the USA would house several families in a room under the depicted circumstances with so much room available.
Also, many loose ends remain untied at the end. Whatever happened to Billy's obsession with Shirl after his only glimpse of her? What about Judge Santini and his liaisons with the underworld?
All in all, Make Room, Make Room is an entertaining read, but it is certainly not on par with 1984 or Brave New World. I actually think the film is better (remarkable in itself).
About the novel then: it is a typical dystopian science fiction novel, in this case based on the
Show More
dire predictions of the Club of Rome. It is 1999. The worlds population has exploded and only New York city houses 35M people. All oil has long been burned up and all transport is primarily done with manpower. Room and food are extremely scarce. The society under these conditions is vividly depicted from a man-in-the-street perspective. The quiet depressing atmosphere is quiet convincingly depicted. Especially the lack of perspective and the resulting feeling of being trapped was well put across.Of course, in hindsight, it's always easy to ridicule a prediction that turns out off the mark, but in this case I repeatedly felt that Harrison was just doing the numbers wrong. It's just plain incredible to me that society would deteriorate so badly in just 30 years. And this seems an important aspect of near-future SF: you have to be able to believe the scenario. Example: the current population of the USA is not much less than the suggested 350M in the work. It's just not convincing that a country as large as the USA would house several families in a room under the depicted circumstances with so much room available.
Also, many loose ends remain untied at the end. Whatever happened to Billy's obsession with Shirl after his only glimpse of her? What about Judge Santini and his liaisons with the underworld?
All in all, Make Room, Make Room is an entertaining read, but it is certainly not on par with 1984 or Brave New World. I actually think the film is better (remarkable in itself).
Show Less
LibraryThing member everfresh1
Unexpected gem of a different kind from the author of Deathworld and Stainless Steel Rut. How depressing though. The book is totally fresh despite all the geopolitical changes from the time it was written.
LibraryThing member SuBu0820
I loved the movie Soylent Green and I found this book....I LOVED IT! The chilling plot still remains, if not just barely there and even though I enjoyed it, but it is quite depressing. Read it if you love dystopia novels and suspense.
LibraryThing member sturlington
A nightmarish vision of a future New York in which overpopulation has resulted in starvation and people living practically on top of one another, this is the novel that inspired the movie Soylent Green. For the first half of the book or so, the two are so alike that the novel reads like the
Show More
screenplay. But then they diverge, and I think overall the movie's plot was more coherent and interesting. Toward the end of the book, the author begins lecturing, through his character Sol, about the salvation of birth control (illegal in his imagined future), which comes across as quaint and a bit simplistic to modern readers. An interesting read in the sub-genre of dystopian fiction, but not a great one. Show Less
LibraryThing member Jenners26
This is a dystopic novel about what happens when the amount of people far outnumber the resources available. I went in expecting a freaky-ass horror book and found it to be more of a screed about the importance of birth control and resource management. (It was the basis of the movie Soylent Green,
THE BASIC STORY
New York City in 1999 (which was quite far in the future when the book was written in 1966) is miserable and overcrowded, with more than 35 million people competing for scarce resources. The plot focuses on a handful of characters: Andy Rusch, an overworked police officer trying to solve the murder of a rich man (the only kind of murder that gets investigated); Billy Chung, a desperately poor boy who has resorted to robbery to feed himself; Shirl, the attractive, young mistress of the murdered rich man who uses her looks and sex to survive; and Sol, Andy’s roommate and “eldster” (senior citizen) who rants about why society has degenerated The narrative switches between these four main characters—showing how they must struggle to survive in a world where there are too many people and not enough food, water and space.
MY THOUGHTS
I’m sure this book was more shocking and futuristic when it was written in 1966. Today, it feels a bit dated. Yet I think the message—humans must be careful with their management of the planet’s limited resources—is still timely. I suspect that a future world where we’ve exhausted our natural resources would be as miserable and horrible as the one described in the book. However, since I went in expecting more of a horror kind of read, I was disappointed when what I got was more of a political statement disguised as a novel.
The social commentary is not subtle. Sol exists solely to rant about the government and the need for birth control. Shirl represents how the rich will still live well despite the rest of the world barely having enough to eat. Andy is the “regular” guy who works hard and barely catches a break despite doing everything right. Billy represents the lengths people will go to when pushed to their limits. The writing is serviceable and plain; the author’s intent is to get his message across, not to create lovely sentences.
I think my expectations definitely affected my opinion of this book. And, after seeing the previews for Soylent Green, I suspect I won’t be watching it. (It looked incredibly cheesy.) Still, I admire Harrison’s environmental views and foresight; the world he imagined might still come to pass one day, and we’ll all be sorry if it does.
Show More
but the ingredients of soylent green in the book and the movie are quite different. In the book, soylent is just “soy” and “lentil.” The fact that I kept waiting for it to be made of something else based on my limited knowledge of the movie led to my disappointment with the book.)THE BASIC STORY
New York City in 1999 (which was quite far in the future when the book was written in 1966) is miserable and overcrowded, with more than 35 million people competing for scarce resources. The plot focuses on a handful of characters: Andy Rusch, an overworked police officer trying to solve the murder of a rich man (the only kind of murder that gets investigated); Billy Chung, a desperately poor boy who has resorted to robbery to feed himself; Shirl, the attractive, young mistress of the murdered rich man who uses her looks and sex to survive; and Sol, Andy’s roommate and “eldster” (senior citizen) who rants about why society has degenerated The narrative switches between these four main characters—showing how they must struggle to survive in a world where there are too many people and not enough food, water and space.
MY THOUGHTS
I’m sure this book was more shocking and futuristic when it was written in 1966. Today, it feels a bit dated. Yet I think the message—humans must be careful with their management of the planet’s limited resources—is still timely. I suspect that a future world where we’ve exhausted our natural resources would be as miserable and horrible as the one described in the book. However, since I went in expecting more of a horror kind of read, I was disappointed when what I got was more of a political statement disguised as a novel.
The social commentary is not subtle. Sol exists solely to rant about the government and the need for birth control. Shirl represents how the rich will still live well despite the rest of the world barely having enough to eat. Andy is the “regular” guy who works hard and barely catches a break despite doing everything right. Billy represents the lengths people will go to when pushed to their limits. The writing is serviceable and plain; the author’s intent is to get his message across, not to create lovely sentences.
I think my expectations definitely affected my opinion of this book. And, after seeing the previews for Soylent Green, I suspect I won’t be watching it. (It looked incredibly cheesy.) Still, I admire Harrison’s environmental views and foresight; the world he imagined might still come to pass one day, and we’ll all be sorry if it does.
Show Less
LibraryThing member burningtodd
Make Room, Make Room by Harry Harrison is the basis for the movie Soylent Green. The novel and the movie are, however, very different. They both have a premise, in that, due to regulations and birth control being illegal, there are too many people, and there is a murder. That is where they diverge.
Show More
Where as in the movie the man killed is the businessman responsible for the cannibalistic Soylent Green, in the novel the man killed is a gangster. The Cop assigned to the case spends the entire time bemoaning the futility of police work in a giant city but he is pressured by his superiors to find the killer. When he finally solves the case and is catches the murderer, he is demoted and punished for spending so much time on it and not other cases, even though he was ordered to. Cannibalism is not mentioned in the novel and has nothing to do with the plot. The movie is a sensational piece of speculative fiction with elements of horror; the novel is a sensationalist dystopian piece that Harry Harrison uses as a platform for his own political agenda. Not that he is wrong. Besides it’s still a good book and an enjoyable read, if a little bit dry and dated Show Less
LibraryThing member GTTexas
A most interesting read, not at all like I remember the movie "Soylent Green". I'm going to have to watch it again to refresh my memory. The overwhelming message of the book is over population. The origin of "Soylent Green" is never mentioned.
LibraryThing member karl.steel
Like so many others, I came to this book because of the movie Soylent Green. The movie's a standard-issue 70s Hollywood dystopia: it's grotesquely sexist, its plot builds to a climax (whereas the book builds to an anticipated climax at the new millennium, which it deliberately never delivers), and
That punchline's "missing" in the book because it would make no sense within the book's future logic. Distaste for birth control delivers humans to this grotesque population boom. The book itself literally becomes a birth control tract towards the end, with Sol--like Harrison himself, a WWII vet and former sniper--hammering in what we should have already figured out: the problem is the respect for human life itself. In this world, with its outsized and unjustifiable desire for more humans, it's impossible that the sanitation people would convert humans into meat. The film missed that point, and, in fact, by frightening us with a world that doesn't respect human life, runs exactly counter to the book's own logic.
The film fails the book too because it turns its cop into a hero. The book's cop is just a piece of a larger broken machinery in a novel with a Dickensian social panoply, but without a Dickensian resolution or rescue. Among all these folks, our cop's forced to try to solve a murder of some Irish mafia boss, and when he finally does, no one cares. That's essentially the plot, and it makes no real difference at all. We're in a straightforwardly structuralist world.
Still, I'm not recommending the book. Not the movie either, which is even worse. Harrison's produced a period piece where welfare keeps the poor alive, women long to keep a home and cook for their men, and New York is mostly white. It gives us the same broken down inner city that we have in, say, The Forever War, Death Wish, Escape from New York, Adventures in Babysitting, or The Out-of-Towners, with no sense of what would come: that property values themselves, combined with declining real wages and welfare cuts and increased police and prison funding to protect the rich, would transform most of Manhattan itself into a gated community.
If you want good science fiction without a hero, read Adam Roberts' New Model Army.
Show More
it centers on a hero (an honest cop) fighting a wicked corporation (the Soylent company). Structurally, the movie could be anything, were it not for its famous anthropophagous punchline.That punchline's "missing" in the book because it would make no sense within the book's future logic. Distaste for birth control delivers humans to this grotesque population boom. The book itself literally becomes a birth control tract towards the end, with Sol--like Harrison himself, a WWII vet and former sniper--hammering in what we should have already figured out: the problem is the respect for human life itself. In this world, with its outsized and unjustifiable desire for more humans, it's impossible that the sanitation people would convert humans into meat. The film missed that point, and, in fact, by frightening us with a world that doesn't respect human life, runs exactly counter to the book's own logic.
The film fails the book too because it turns its cop into a hero. The book's cop is just a piece of a larger broken machinery in a novel with a Dickensian social panoply, but without a Dickensian resolution or rescue. Among all these folks, our cop's forced to try to solve a murder of some Irish mafia boss, and when he finally does, no one cares. That's essentially the plot, and it makes no real difference at all. We're in a straightforwardly structuralist world.
Still, I'm not recommending the book. Not the movie either, which is even worse. Harrison's produced a period piece where welfare keeps the poor alive, women long to keep a home and cook for their men, and New York is mostly white. It gives us the same broken down inner city that we have in, say, The Forever War, Death Wish, Escape from New York, Adventures in Babysitting, or The Out-of-Towners, with no sense of what would come: that property values themselves, combined with declining real wages and welfare cuts and increased police and prison funding to protect the rich, would transform most of Manhattan itself into a gated community.
If you want good science fiction without a hero, read Adam Roberts' New Model Army.
Show Less
LibraryThing member enemyanniemae
This is my horror group's pick for November. I got a first edition copy from the library. The book was $3.95 The dust jacket talks ad nauseum about this "realistic novel of life in 1999"... and the "frighteningly realistic novel" and that "none of the realistic elements have been invented." Can you
And then someone mentioned that this book was the inspiration for the film Soylent Green and I saw the story from a new perspective. Even though the only thing I remember about that movie is Charlton Heston's anguished yell that "Soylent Green is... (oh, come on, you know)", that alone sparked my interest and I devoured the book.
Harrison's writing is simplistic and very straightforward but DAMN, he is powerfully descriptive. I could feel the crush of humanity, the millions pressing close to the point of suffocation. I could almost smell the stench of garbage and decay. The story has a claustrophobic air about it and it is amazingly powerful.
So, in spite of myself, I'd have to say that yes, it really IS rather realistic... and scary as hell. I LOVED it.
Show More
say overkill? I knew I was going to hate it.And then someone mentioned that this book was the inspiration for the film Soylent Green and I saw the story from a new perspective. Even though the only thing I remember about that movie is Charlton Heston's anguished yell that "Soylent Green is... (oh, come on, you know)", that alone sparked my interest and I devoured the book.
Harrison's writing is simplistic and very straightforward but DAMN, he is powerfully descriptive. I could feel the crush of humanity, the millions pressing close to the point of suffocation. I could almost smell the stench of garbage and decay. The story has a claustrophobic air about it and it is amazingly powerful.
So, in spite of myself, I'd have to say that yes, it really IS rather realistic... and scary as hell. I LOVED it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sundowneruk
A really good and thought provoking read!
LibraryThing member jkdavies
I don't really know what I expected from this book, not having read it before or seen the film, but having seen clips or articles of people talking about it. It was a brilliant dystopian picture, totally believable, horrible yet not too horrible. I had somehow got it into my head that cannibalism
Show More
would be involved and was pleasantly surprised to find that it wasn't - it was the sheer numbingness of the daily grind that was the real horror... I loved that Andy was forced to spend time solving a case due to political reasons, and (mild spoiler alert) at the end, as so often happens in corporate life if not political life, the people above forgot why he had been put on the case in the first place... Show Less
LibraryThing member TerriS
Such an interesting book! This is the book that the movie "Soylent Green" was based on.
It was written in 1966 and set in the future "1999"! Well, we're pretty far past that so it was kind of cool to think what the author, in 1966, thought the future was going to be like.
Well, in this future there
There was a story thread about a cop, one of the main characters, who was trying to solve a murder case, and that kept the story moving.
I just thought it was interesting to see the "future" through eyes of the past.
It was written in 1966 and set in the future "1999"! Well, we're pretty far past that so it was kind of cool to think what the author, in 1966, thought the future was going to be like.
Well, in this future there
Show More
was no birth control. For religious reasons, birth control was not allowed so population growth went crazy. Therefore, the 344 million people living in the United States did not have enough food, water, clothing, medicine, or places to live. And, for some weird reason, they were still trying to vote down a bill that would allow some kind of birth control. It was really awful to see how people lived, or tried. There was a story thread about a cop, one of the main characters, who was trying to solve a murder case, and that kept the story moving.
I just thought it was interesting to see the "future" through eyes of the past.
Show Less
LibraryThing member wealhtheowwylfing
In 1966, Harrison published this tale of the New York City of 1999. Unrestrained population growth and gluttany of natural resources have led to a world packed to bursting with people. There are riots over cracker crumbs, you have to pay up-front to get a job, and people live packed like sardines.
The strength of this novel is in the little details: the sliver of grey soap Andy uses every morning, the unremarked use of slates (presumably because there is too little paper for every-day use), the way Andy has never tasted whiskey before (because grain is too precious), someone being proud of going to the "full three years" of school. Harrison writes the slow grind of scarcity and being constantly surrounded by other people so well that I found myself getting tense every time I opened the book.
Show More
The novel follows a few characters: Andy Rusch, a detective assigned to solve the murder of a politically-connected racketeer, and Billy Chung, whose panicked attempt to make money end disastrously. The real thrust of this story is on the city, and the pathetic lives of those living in it. The strength of this novel is in the little details: the sliver of grey soap Andy uses every morning, the unremarked use of slates (presumably because there is too little paper for every-day use), the way Andy has never tasted whiskey before (because grain is too precious), someone being proud of going to the "full three years" of school. Harrison writes the slow grind of scarcity and being constantly surrounded by other people so well that I found myself getting tense every time I opened the book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member john257hopper
This is another novel set in the future (1999, written in 1966), looking at the effects of over-population. The New York of 1999 has a population of 35 million, one tenth of the population of the United States, in a world where the population is 7 billion (what is actually became a little later in
Show More
2011). Most of the population of New York (the only part of the world we see in the novel) lives a hand to mouth existence, the economy has collapsed through almost complete depletion of resources, and even water is rationed for most of the year. This is the backdrop to a well written novel in which the details of the everyday life of police officer Andy Rusch and those with whom he associates in his work and private lives form the focus of the narrative. The plot based around the hunt for a murder suspect (who is known to the reader, but not to Andy and his colleagues) seems fairly incidental, and the collective condition of the city's inhabitants is really the central character as such. The book was the rough basis for the cult film Soylent Green, made in 1973 starring Charlton Heston. The food substitute soylent appears in the novel, though without the dramatic impact seen at the end of the film. A good read and a worthwhile addition to the dystopian/speculative fiction genre. Show Less
LibraryThing member JHemlock
Not a bad book. Well written...but about as dry as a box of stale crackers. The story was interesting....moral to the story.... LIFE SUCKS deal with it and move on.
LibraryThing member kylekatz
This book is about a hellish future New York (1999!) in which the world has become massively overpopulated and crime and disease are rampant. There's not much food or water. The movie Soylent Green was made from it, but in the book soylent is just a soy-lentil patty. It had a little science
Show More
fiction, a mystery and some romance in it. Cars are useless and people live in them. Pretty cool. Show Less
LibraryThing member antao
(Original Review, 1980-08-19)
Pournelle's virulently infectious optimism is severely misplaced. Other people have already pointed out that his strategy involves the probable abandonment of Earth and the bulk of its population (what-the-hell, they're just gooks anyway); I'll just add that even RAH
Addressing the question of a breakthrough:
There are a number of intended-to-be-humorous laboratory "rules" which many computer people are familiar with even though they are less applicable in the terminal room (I got a full dose of them because I used to be a chemist). Aside from the 1001 permutations of Murphy's Law, there are such gems as "First draw your curves; they plot the data." and "Don't just believe in miracles--rely on them." I contend that this latter is what JEP, JSOUTH, etc. are in fact doing because a technological breakthrough fits many of the usable definitions of a miracle, of which the most important is unpredictability under known physical laws. It's all very well to treat such laws as temporary and superable obstacles in research, but to expect/ to defeat them is foolish.
Looking at the specific example of THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, there is proposed a particularly miraculous breakthrough: the transmutation of lunar rock into food and water. (I suspect that Heinlein may have been deliberately Biblical at this point, since by other evidence he's quite familiar with that overrated book.) The computer which assumed any such breakthrough in even the most optimistic current modeling system would be thought squirrely, and Mike himself admits that he is looking for a breakthrough on the order of 50 years (i.e., 5-500 years, says Weinreb) away --- and he expects cannibalism (not given this breakthrough) in less than 20 (*).
Without more statistics than can conveniently be transmitted, I'm not prepared to accept either of his simple models ("dogmatic" or "enlightened"). Malthus' food production model was in fact optimistic. Granted, certain technologies (hardly breakthroughs either; most are over-application of ancient practices) have increased productivity per acre, but such gains have been near zero in recent years --- in fact, we have to keep producing new insecticides (and sometimes herbicides) to keep pest populations under control as they evolve to deal with current methods. I find the figures recently given for rate of loss of arable land quite credible, especially in view of this month's SMITHSONIAN, which carries an article from someone surviving on a farm that is useless according to current high-technology agricultural standards; the best estimates show a loss of 3 to 5 feet/ of topsoil, the accumulation of over a hundred millennia, in the past 150 years. Nor have I seen any challenges to the assertion of the 1959 edition of the World Book encyclopedia, hardly a gloomy publication given the date and audience, that since the arrival of white men in America the countrywide average depth of topsoil has gone from 9" to 6".
The gas diffusion model of innovation, like many simple models, leaves out a few important factors --- such as the fact that laboratories require substantial amounts of space. Technologists would hardly be immune to the debilitating effects of population pressure --- does anyone believe that a researcher in the world of MAKE ROOM, MAKE ROOM would be as effective as one now, given the effects of poor nutrition, bad air, simple lack of personal space, etc.? (The geniuses in cubbyholes have commonly been those who worked best alone.) Statistics suggest that despite our slowly increasing population this country is producing fewer and fewer people capable of contributing to even the basic drudgework of research from which a breakthrough is most likely to come.
Recall that the first portion of the industrial revolution in Britain had relatively little to do with farming --- I wouldn't be surprised if any increase in the rate of population increase could be attributed to the fact that Britain was producing more manufactured goods which could be traded for food (my recollection is that Britain has been a net importer of food for some time). In any case we are now dealing with a qualitatively different problem; it was trivial, then, to say that if food could be harvested faster and stored better there would be less spoilage, but the total loss today in the fields and in storage (especially if we discount spoilage of grain stored for several years because of policies which encourage the continued production of unusable surpluses, further removing trace nutrients from the land) is small.
I would suggest that believers in ultimate salvation by technology consider the modern tomato as a measure of that potential salvation. Bred to a consistent size and ripening time and to a consistency suitable for mechanical harvesting, it is picked green and gassed to make it turn red (which does/ not/ ripen it); the result is something not worth the energy to throw it out. The problem with any technological "progress" is choosing the parameters; as SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN pointed out 6 1/2 years ago the traditional choice in energy has been to spend a lot of [energy] finding new sources and very little conserving.
It is not surprising that science fictioneers should take guidance from Malthus, he provided a simple mathematical relationship between population (exponential growth, or geometric as he put it), and food production (constant growth). Such a formula is extremely useful since it can be applied to any society or time. Oh, for younger days before I was awakened from my dogmatic slumbers. I too once believed that the world was becoming overcrowded, and that poverty, starvation, disease, and war were due in large part thereunto. Historical study, current observation, or theoretical considerations (if you're a pure Marxist or pure capitalist at least) show things are not so simple. Starting arbitrarily with a million, let us construct a list of areas containing a million people ordered by density. Let us do likewise with 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion, and downwards too if you like.
Correlate this with starvation. It won't. Likewise historically.
The practical and theoretical joker is Malthus' food production model. I suggest that he was observing the beginnings of exponential growth in productivity, and not having a model for it (as he did for reproduction), he assumed linear growth. Seventy years ago, conventional wisdom would have insisted on unlimited exponential growth. Today, in spite of only minor, if any, setbacks, it is stylish to insist on low and immediate absolute limits.
Let me suggest another model, seemingly unrelated: that innovation transfer can be considered as a gas diffusion process. (**) This would indicate that in order to increase our production, we require a denser if not a greater population. I think this was true in the jump from hunter-gatherer to agricultural. It would be interesting to try to figure out whether the population increased before or after the start of the industrial revolution in G.B., but I suspect they didn't keep good enough statistics. (Exercise for the reader - try to apply this model to the difficulties of central and southern Africa in their attempt to industrialize, or even feed themselves).
I'm glad J.E.P. put in his ounce of gold on the recent doom and gloom model before I got in my 2 cents (which would have been on the Club of Rome LIMITS TO GROWTH model anyway). I have a question though, how does one model breakthroughs anyway?
I just had an ironic thought. I got to this point via RAH, and now I'm on the other side of prof's position in THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS. There, if you recall, prof. forced Mike to predict famine in n years (where n was a small integer), as opposed to Mike's original position which included a technological breakthrough. The rest of the plot stems from this prediction.
I personally am not expecting doom (although I am/ hedging a few bets) --- unless the people who believe that there just isn't a problem at all get their way.
Eat, drink, and be merry,
Astragen (2018 EDIT: My moniker from back then…]
(*) I recall at least 3 different numbers given (of which at least 2 must be wrong) but all of them were under 20 years).
(**) I ought to credit somebody, but I can't remember the name.
[2018 EDIT: This review was written at the time as I was running my own personal BBS server. Much of the language of this and other reviews written in 1980 reflect a very particular kind of language: what I call now in retrospect a “BBS language”.]
Pournelle's virulently infectious optimism is severely misplaced. Other people have already pointed out that his strategy involves the probable abandonment of Earth and the bulk of its population (what-the-hell, they're just gooks anyway); I'll just add that even RAH
Show More
[2018 EDIT: Heinlein] saw this approx. 30 years ago (in FARMER IN THE SKY a character acknowledges that even with the huge ships in use they can't possibly take off more than a fraction of the population increase -- or absorb it in a colonial world; they're simply hoping to have some racial survival after Earth is ruined).Addressing the question of a breakthrough:
There are a number of intended-to-be-humorous laboratory "rules" which many computer people are familiar with even though they are less applicable in the terminal room (I got a full dose of them because I used to be a chemist). Aside from the 1001 permutations of Murphy's Law, there are such gems as "First draw your curves; they plot the data." and "Don't just believe in miracles--rely on them." I contend that this latter is what JEP, JSOUTH, etc. are in fact doing because a technological breakthrough fits many of the usable definitions of a miracle, of which the most important is unpredictability under known physical laws. It's all very well to treat such laws as temporary and superable obstacles in research, but to expect/ to defeat them is foolish.
Looking at the specific example of THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, there is proposed a particularly miraculous breakthrough: the transmutation of lunar rock into food and water. (I suspect that Heinlein may have been deliberately Biblical at this point, since by other evidence he's quite familiar with that overrated book.) The computer which assumed any such breakthrough in even the most optimistic current modeling system would be thought squirrely, and Mike himself admits that he is looking for a breakthrough on the order of 50 years (i.e., 5-500 years, says Weinreb) away --- and he expects cannibalism (not given this breakthrough) in less than 20 (*).
Without more statistics than can conveniently be transmitted, I'm not prepared to accept either of his simple models ("dogmatic" or "enlightened"). Malthus' food production model was in fact optimistic. Granted, certain technologies (hardly breakthroughs either; most are over-application of ancient practices) have increased productivity per acre, but such gains have been near zero in recent years --- in fact, we have to keep producing new insecticides (and sometimes herbicides) to keep pest populations under control as they evolve to deal with current methods. I find the figures recently given for rate of loss of arable land quite credible, especially in view of this month's SMITHSONIAN, which carries an article from someone surviving on a farm that is useless according to current high-technology agricultural standards; the best estimates show a loss of 3 to 5 feet/ of topsoil, the accumulation of over a hundred millennia, in the past 150 years. Nor have I seen any challenges to the assertion of the 1959 edition of the World Book encyclopedia, hardly a gloomy publication given the date and audience, that since the arrival of white men in America the countrywide average depth of topsoil has gone from 9" to 6".
The gas diffusion model of innovation, like many simple models, leaves out a few important factors --- such as the fact that laboratories require substantial amounts of space. Technologists would hardly be immune to the debilitating effects of population pressure --- does anyone believe that a researcher in the world of MAKE ROOM, MAKE ROOM would be as effective as one now, given the effects of poor nutrition, bad air, simple lack of personal space, etc.? (The geniuses in cubbyholes have commonly been those who worked best alone.) Statistics suggest that despite our slowly increasing population this country is producing fewer and fewer people capable of contributing to even the basic drudgework of research from which a breakthrough is most likely to come.
Recall that the first portion of the industrial revolution in Britain had relatively little to do with farming --- I wouldn't be surprised if any increase in the rate of population increase could be attributed to the fact that Britain was producing more manufactured goods which could be traded for food (my recollection is that Britain has been a net importer of food for some time). In any case we are now dealing with a qualitatively different problem; it was trivial, then, to say that if food could be harvested faster and stored better there would be less spoilage, but the total loss today in the fields and in storage (especially if we discount spoilage of grain stored for several years because of policies which encourage the continued production of unusable surpluses, further removing trace nutrients from the land) is small.
I would suggest that believers in ultimate salvation by technology consider the modern tomato as a measure of that potential salvation. Bred to a consistent size and ripening time and to a consistency suitable for mechanical harvesting, it is picked green and gassed to make it turn red (which does/ not/ ripen it); the result is something not worth the energy to throw it out. The problem with any technological "progress" is choosing the parameters; as SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN pointed out 6 1/2 years ago the traditional choice in energy has been to spend a lot of [energy] finding new sources and very little conserving.
It is not surprising that science fictioneers should take guidance from Malthus, he provided a simple mathematical relationship between population (exponential growth, or geometric as he put it), and food production (constant growth). Such a formula is extremely useful since it can be applied to any society or time. Oh, for younger days before I was awakened from my dogmatic slumbers. I too once believed that the world was becoming overcrowded, and that poverty, starvation, disease, and war were due in large part thereunto. Historical study, current observation, or theoretical considerations (if you're a pure Marxist or pure capitalist at least) show things are not so simple. Starting arbitrarily with a million, let us construct a list of areas containing a million people ordered by density. Let us do likewise with 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion, and downwards too if you like.
Correlate this with starvation. It won't. Likewise historically.
The practical and theoretical joker is Malthus' food production model. I suggest that he was observing the beginnings of exponential growth in productivity, and not having a model for it (as he did for reproduction), he assumed linear growth. Seventy years ago, conventional wisdom would have insisted on unlimited exponential growth. Today, in spite of only minor, if any, setbacks, it is stylish to insist on low and immediate absolute limits.
Let me suggest another model, seemingly unrelated: that innovation transfer can be considered as a gas diffusion process. (**) This would indicate that in order to increase our production, we require a denser if not a greater population. I think this was true in the jump from hunter-gatherer to agricultural. It would be interesting to try to figure out whether the population increased before or after the start of the industrial revolution in G.B., but I suspect they didn't keep good enough statistics. (Exercise for the reader - try to apply this model to the difficulties of central and southern Africa in their attempt to industrialize, or even feed themselves).
I'm glad J.E.P. put in his ounce of gold on the recent doom and gloom model before I got in my 2 cents (which would have been on the Club of Rome LIMITS TO GROWTH model anyway). I have a question though, how does one model breakthroughs anyway?
I just had an ironic thought. I got to this point via RAH, and now I'm on the other side of prof's position in THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS. There, if you recall, prof. forced Mike to predict famine in n years (where n was a small integer), as opposed to Mike's original position which included a technological breakthrough. The rest of the plot stems from this prediction.
I personally am not expecting doom (although I am/ hedging a few bets) --- unless the people who believe that there just isn't a problem at all get their way.
Eat, drink, and be merry,
Astragen (2018 EDIT: My moniker from back then…]
(*) I recall at least 3 different numbers given (of which at least 2 must be wrong) but all of them were under 20 years).
(**) I ought to credit somebody, but I can't remember the name.
[2018 EDIT: This review was written at the time as I was running my own personal BBS server. Much of the language of this and other reviews written in 1980 reflect a very particular kind of language: what I call now in retrospect a “BBS language”.]
Show Less
LibraryThing member smichaelwilson
Those familiar with the famous film adaptation of this novel - Soylent Green (1973) - who then read the book won't recognize much as far as plot goes. Make Room, Make Room was Harry Harrison's literary warning of the dangers the global society faces from overpopulation, told through the events
It's easy to point out failed predictions in books written about future dates that have since come and gone, and those willing to criticize Harrison's work will find plenty to point and laugh at. His estimated population of New York City reaching 35 Million by 1999 is off by about 28 Million, although he fares better with his prediction of the global population reaching 7 Billion, only being off by a billion on that one.
But of course, these weren't intended to be accurate predictions as much as an exaggerated worst-case scenario based on very real and tangible concerns, such as the eventual depletion of natural resources, the gradual man-driven destruction of the environment, and as the title of the book implies, just trying to make room for an ever-expanding population. Harrison deftly explores the myriad of variables that come into play in such a dystopian future by focusing on the human element through a handful of characters whose lives intersect under these potential conditions. Unlike the film, which injects a corporate espionage driven plot to make the end of the human race a bit more palatable, Harrison's focus is on how people act and react in such extreme environments, and how desperate political and societal attempts at maintaining some semblance of order can often exacerbate the situation even further.
It's a shame that Make Room, Make Room is known primarily through it's film adaptation, as Harrison's treatment of the subject matter reaches a depth that often goes unappreciated by the comparison.
Show More
experienced by New York City detective Andy Rusch leading up to the beginning of the new century in the year 1999.It's easy to point out failed predictions in books written about future dates that have since come and gone, and those willing to criticize Harrison's work will find plenty to point and laugh at. His estimated population of New York City reaching 35 Million by 1999 is off by about 28 Million, although he fares better with his prediction of the global population reaching 7 Billion, only being off by a billion on that one.
But of course, these weren't intended to be accurate predictions as much as an exaggerated worst-case scenario based on very real and tangible concerns, such as the eventual depletion of natural resources, the gradual man-driven destruction of the environment, and as the title of the book implies, just trying to make room for an ever-expanding population. Harrison deftly explores the myriad of variables that come into play in such a dystopian future by focusing on the human element through a handful of characters whose lives intersect under these potential conditions. Unlike the film, which injects a corporate espionage driven plot to make the end of the human race a bit more palatable, Harrison's focus is on how people act and react in such extreme environments, and how desperate political and societal attempts at maintaining some semblance of order can often exacerbate the situation even further.
It's a shame that Make Room, Make Room is known primarily through it's film adaptation, as Harrison's treatment of the subject matter reaches a depth that often goes unappreciated by the comparison.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RajivC
I have classified this book as science fiction, but it does not fall into this category. Harry Harrison wrote the book in 1967 or thereabouts, and it paints a very scary, very plausible view of our future. In New York, 1999, the good cop, Andy, is called in to investigate a murder. He has a brief
The nub lies here. A small elite lives a fabulous life of luxury. The rest, in crowded tenements, live on food scraps, struggling to survive. There is no escape, and in the end, Andy sees his ex-girlfriend get into a taxi - the mistress of a rich man.
There is no escape from this dystopian, Malthusian future. What makes the book scary is that the picture he painted is plausible and closer than we think.
The movie, 'Soylent Green', is based on this book - and is even bleaker.
Read this book along with '1984,' 'Animal Farm,' and 'Brave New World.'
Show More
affair with the victim's mistress, who finally leaves him for a better life. The nub lies here. A small elite lives a fabulous life of luxury. The rest, in crowded tenements, live on food scraps, struggling to survive. There is no escape, and in the end, Andy sees his ex-girlfriend get into a taxi - the mistress of a rich man.
There is no escape from this dystopian, Malthusian future. What makes the book scary is that the picture he painted is plausible and closer than we think.
The movie, 'Soylent Green', is based on this book - and is even bleaker.
Read this book along with '1984,' 'Animal Farm,' and 'Brave New World.'
Show Less
LibraryThing member Matke
A combination of a noir detective story and a polemic for widely available (and used) birth control, written in 1966 and set in 1999.
The writing is just ordinary, and it didn’t hold my attention until the last third of the book, when the pace picked up considerably. The female characters are
I know this book is popular, but it didn’t work for me. It’s very different from the movie, but neither hurts nor helps the reading experience.
The writing is just ordinary, and it didn’t hold my attention until the last third of the book, when the pace picked up considerably. The female characters are
Show More
stereotypical (call girl with a good heart; stupid, slovenly, lazy mother of far too many children).I know this book is popular, but it didn’t work for me. It’s very different from the movie, but neither hurts nor helps the reading experience.
Show Less
Awards
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1966
Physical description
219 p.; 18.2 cm
ISBN
8774900552 / 9788774900559
Local notes
Omslag: Peter Sugar
Omslaget viser en masse mennesker og udstrakte arme udenfor en stor by, nogle er grønne, nogle er røde
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
Oversat fra amerikansk "Make room! Make room!" af Jannick Storm
Notabene science fiction, bind 9
Omslaget viser en masse mennesker og udstrakte arme udenfor en stor by, nogle er grønne, nogle er røde
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
Oversat fra amerikansk "Make room! Make room!" af Jannick Storm
Notabene science fiction, bind 9
Similar in this library
Pages
219
DDC/MDS
| 813.54 |