Yeah, because in a bunch of places it was very scientifically inaccurate and implausible!
Yeah he got the physics and space stuff right but there were a few ridiculous oversights:
First, no one would send up a population almost entirely composed of adolescent science/math specialist, segregated from the command (except for short rotations,) to sit in tiny cans. Even the most basic developmental and organizational psychology ideas would make sure there were plenty of older mentors to help guide them. Even decentralized organizations have hierarchies that help with communication and coordination. There would have been plenty of staff in place from "G pop" to help keep all the "archies" focused and engaged. There would have been a mentor in every heptad or whatever. The idea that the had to be that young and inexperienced is BS. Not all of them. There would have been other considerations.
They would have sent up plenty of (older) people who understood child development (including adolescent development for all the 20 year olds.) The job was to have a lot of babies. Even if the governments were just trying to use the arc as a source of hope, they would have to have plenty of brilliant preschool teachers, and CAD plans for lots of toys and such. There is plenty of hard science that would have justified training in attachment theory, Piaget, Vygotsky and the manufacture of play objects and learning environments – because, regardless of good genes, the babies would be nuts. Again, even if the Arc was a propaganda tool. Especially if it was a propaganda tool.
If the the social/organizational structure of the arc would have reflected a more realistic scenario (even accounting for politics, propaganda, and time limitations) there is no way Julia would have been able to foment rebellion. There would have been plenty of mature, disciplined officers that were totally mission oriented. The moment Julia tried something, the officers would have censured her and if need be put her in isolation.
There would have been security. Basically, the idea Stevenson is selling is that the governments would send up tons of ships filled with teenagers with nothing to do for months and months, while the adults took care of things, and there would be no security force?
The council of the seven eves was, from a developmental psyc/bio point of view, about 25 years out of date. They were talking about "breeding" qualities like intelligence, aggressiveness, discipline, and barely, barely mentioned epigenetics. Basically, we know from brain imaging, that its not about nature vs. nurture. It BOTH nature and nurture. Even if you have some genes that predispose you to some quality like "discipline" (which is a very crude way of thinking about it,) it would still require the careful parenting design to help those genes "express" themselves. The conversation sounded like a bunch of high schoolers in the 80's talking about building a master race.
When Ivy concludes that "intelligence" is supposed to be the saving grace of humanity during the council of the seven eves, I felt like throwing the book out the window. She is sitting there in front of two very, very intelligent sociopaths who almost destroyed the mission, and what does she think was the problem? Not enough intelligence. Ironically, it's a very stupid conclusion.
The whole arc was filled with people with brains. Julia and Aida were both smart. The reason why there had been so many catastrophes was because there was a lack of social and emotional intelligence coupled with terrible (unrealistic) organizational design. Again, Stevenson avoids the important issue like he does with epigenetics, and dismisses the notion of "multiple intelligences." He mentions it but dismissively.
The council of the seven eves was so cheesy...
Each of the the women are supposed to embody some archetypal characteristic like "discipline," "aggressiveness," "intelligence," etc. But healthy people need all of it, and it's as much about nature as it is nurture. The character of Luisa would have known all this. It's meant to be profound but it just reveals his scientific weak spots. No one trained in developmental psychology would focus entirely on breeding because too much of genetics depend on how you treat the child. The first 12 month of a babies interaction with adults is critical to how genetics express themselves. Having a caring responsive adult is much more important to developing discipline than trying to breed it.
All this stuff can be found in any basic developmental psychology textbook at the community college level. Or on YouTube.
Normally, I don't think I would care, but the whole thing about Stevenson is that he goes out of his way to be scientifically accurate with the physics stuff (and gets a few barbs in about characters that are ignorant about such things) and then flubs it so hard on something as basic as how to cultivate discipline in a child (which in most normal circumstance has to do with skillful parenting/pedagogy).
But I still liked reading it ;-) There was a ton of super interesting stuff.
tldr: Stevenson is brilliant at physics and space, sucks at human development and organizational psychology.