Is Science Fiction the Opiate of the Geek Masses?

jimharris writes "After reading Geoff Ryman's Mundane SF website, where he promotes a new form of science fiction based on real science, I got to wondering if traditional science fiction is just the opiate of the geek masses? Most science fiction is based on speculative fantasy rather than hard science - the common example being stories built around faster-than-light travel. Einstein rules, and FTL space travel has about zero chance of ever existing. SF writer Ian McDonald replied in his blog, Heads down, there's going to be incoming... and a rather wide-ranging discussion and elaboration of the idea is held over at mundane-sf.blogspot.com. Proponents of the Mundane Manifesto readily admit that traditional science fiction is just harmless fun, but I have to ask, how many people out there have a positive view on life because they believe in Star Trek in the same way that other faithful do."

Comments

Who are these 'faithful'???

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFS:

Proponents of the Mundane Manifesto readily admit that traditional science fiction is just harmless fun, but I have to ask, how many people out there have a positive view on life because they believe in Star Trek in the same way that other faithful do.

It's statements like these that make all geeks look bad.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[Mornelithe]

What exactly is the problem with what he said?

Are you saying that people who believe in religion don't use it as a basis for a positive outlook on life?

Or are you saying that people who have faith in a religion or something similar should not be called 'faithful'?

Or are you saying that believing that in the future, we will live in an egalitarian society without poverty is somehow fundamentally different than believing that the universe was created/is guided by a benevolent, omnipotent entity?

Or have I missed something? I'm just curious.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[Mornelithe]

P.S.: On a side note: I agree, the question was pretty lame. I can't image why it would be front-page material.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[PakProtector]

We're still a few centuries away from the Church of Star Trek, though, and then the eventual retaliation where-by all fans of the series are killed in the manner most befitting virgins.

Guy: *Tosses Geek into Volcano* He's Dead, Jim.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[SeventyBang]

Which geeks?

Maybe:
The fat | out of shape, no personality, geeks who wear Star Trek uniforms to events as though they could be crew members but would have a better chance of being shot by a blind terrorist sniper at a distance of two miles after surviving a lightning strike on their way home from winning the lottery three weeks in a row than to make it into the Star Fleet Academy?

Seriously - I've always wondered about this but never found a good answer.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[Scrameustache]

how many people out there have a positive view on life because they believe in Star Trek in the same way that other faithful do.

It's statements like these that make all geeks look bad.

I think it makes the "traditionally faithfull" look back.

The fact that people are as devout towards a recent, outrightly fictional show further bellitles the devoutness of those that obsess over older, obfuscated works of fiction. Even as both have enriched the lives of many.

Of course, anytime you say anything short of "jesus is love!!1!!111111!" when regarding religion you get persecuted through abuse of moderation points, but I don't care, they won't change my mind that way, nor stop me from speaking it.
Now, mod me down, all ye "faithfull", I'm used to it by now.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[jimharris]

The line wasn't meant to make geeks look bad. The point of the post was to examine a new challenge to writing science fiction.

Actually, my last line was edited -- I guess because it used a specific religion as an analogy.

My point was science fiction has become a kind of faith that brings about a sense of well being that generates a positive hope for the future - not unlike various religions I guess I shouldn't name.

If the Mundane SF comments about traditional SF are true, they are in reality an attack on this faith. But more to the point, if what the Mundane SF theorists say about the common tropes of traditional SF is true, and most of the ideas are bogus, why not write fiction projecting other positive futures that are more realistic?

Growing up in the 1960s I thought there was a one-to-one relationship between the love of science fiction and a passion for space exploration. I was obviously wrong. Science fictional themes have become almost universal in fiction, movies, games, comics, etc., but interest in space exploration is so low that most politicians say they consider it non-existant.

I think science fiction did influence the early rocket pioneers, and later space scientists, but all of that is in the past. I'm wondering if the Mundane SF people are not asking writers to write stories that will inspire new generations of engineers to work on practical forms of space exploration.

I've read a lot of science fiction, especially about space travel, and none of it strikes me as realistic. The idea of mankind hopping around the galaxy like we take jets around the world today strikes me as real as the promise of living after death and walking streets of gold in paradise.

I was also asking, in a side-ways fashion, does that love of science fiction inspire a religious like belief in certain concepts because we want them to be true. People passionately want to believe in faster-than-light travel. Why?

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[GreyWolf3000]

This is Slashdot. It's defending Christianity that gets you attacked by the moderators-on-crack.

At any rate,

I think it makes the "traditionally faithfull" look back.

It definately demonstrates the innate desire for humans to search after something to obsess after/find truth in. One man might take that piece of evidence to suggest that all of these things we obsess over are clearly wrong, but another man might take it to mean that this desire to seek after a set of ideals or truths suggests that such a truth exists; someone created us with the desire to "return home." As Solomon put it, God may have set eternity in the hearts of men.

Now I'm not trying to establish that what I just supposed is the case, merely that my conjecture will stem from my world view, and yours will do likewise. What I think I have established is that our final opinions are pretty much guesses that confirm the beliefs we had before we got into this discussion.

It takes wisdom, not intelligence, to consider all the possible reasons for things being the way they are.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[LMariachi]

That's rather narrow. Many religious people understand that their holy texts are fiction in a narrative sense but contain larger "truths" in that the lesson imparted by the fiction is truly a good guideline to live by. Jesus' parables are the most familiar example. (Aesop's Fables might be a closer parallel to Star Trek, since neither are linked to any specific religion.) It's the sad shouty fundamentalist robots who unfortunately propagate the notion that you must believe in the literal truth of every word in the Bible/Q'uran/whatever to be considered truly religious.

Further, there are plenty of religious people who are not "uniquivists" (for lack of a better word.) One can be a Unitarian Buddhist. A devout Jew can learn from the Tao Te Ching.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[jgrahn]

My point was science fiction has become a kind of faith that brings about a sense of well being that generates a positive hope for the future - not unlike various religions I guess I shouldn't name.

Maybe "has become" -- I don't read modern SF -- but it wasn't always like that. It seems to me that there were always parallell tracks in the genre. The techno-optimistic stuff that was intended to educate and to promote science and engineering, and on the other hand the more gloomy stuff. Nuclear holocaust in particular has been a big theme in SF ever since 1946 -- see Theodore Sturgeon's Thunder and Roses, for an early example.

Growing up in the 1960s I thought there was a one-to-one relationship between the love of science fiction and a passion for space exploration. I was obviously wrong.

No, SF readers were supposed to think like that back then.

I think science fiction did influence the early rocket pioneers, and later space scientists, but all of that is in the past. I'm wondering if the Mundane SF people are not asking writers to write stories that will inspire new generations of engineers to work on practical forms of space exploration.

If they do (and I think you're right) then they are trying to revive the "hard SF" idea, where the genre is supposed to be in touch with real science and engineering. I have no problem with that.

But that's not the same as saying that writing that doesn't fit into the manifesto is just "harmless fun". Of all the best SF I've read, most have not met the manifesto's criteria. They have simply used classical SF premises as a tool to present a good story. And yet, most of them are definitely not just harmless fun.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[Xtifr]

As part of my religious ritual, I would now like to chant, "I know I'll get modded down for this, but...." :)

> This is Slashdot. It's defending Christianity that gets you attacked by the moderators-on-crack.

Um, no--I have never defended Christianity in my life, nor am I likely to ever do so (except in the most broad of terms), but I have gotten negative mods nearly every time I've mentioned religion in any way.

> It definately demonstrates the innate desire for humans to search after something to obsess after/find truth in. One man might take that piece of evidence to suggest that all of these things we obsess over are clearly wrong, but another man might take it to mean that this desire to seek after a set of ideals or truths suggests that such a truth exists

And yet a third man (i.e. me) might suggest that it simply demonstrates that people feel a strong need to find explanations for things, without attaching a value judgement, good or bad, to that fact. The human brain is remarkably good at finding patterns, even where no patterns exist. This pattern-finding ability has generally stood us in good stead over the years, but has also lead many, many people to believe in the significance of apparent patterns that spring from randomness.

> It takes wisdom, not intelligence, to consider all the possible reasons for things being the way they are.

Now that I fully agree with. And yet, I have almost never run into a religious person who has actually considered all the possible reasons for things being the way they are. In fact, in one sense, it's impossible: there are an infinite number of possible reasons for things being the way they are. For example, consider the Invisible Pink Unicorn hypothesis. Is it true? I can't say. But I see no reason to think it's any more or less likely than any of the other many theories humanity has come up with.

Most religious people I've encountered (although, to be fair, I do have to say, not all of them) seem to think it boils down to two possibilities: the religion they were brought up with or out-and-out atheism. When you try to throw in all the other religions that exist, and the infinite number more that don't, but could, they get very uncomfortable and try to brush you off. At best, they say their religion "feels right" to them. (They often use far more emphatic terms, but that's what it boils down to.) Well, gee, why, possibly, might the religion you were brought up with feel right? Hmmm? Could it possibly be merely because it was what you were brought up with? Oh no, it must be the One True Religion! They can just feel it in their bones! Bah, pfui!

To bring this back vaguely on-topic, one of the best things I find in science fiction (and even, frequently, in science fantasy), is that it can open your eyes to the mere fact of new possibilities. If the strange alien race has a strange alien religion, it can suddenly make you realize that there's more than one (or even four) possible religions. Of course, that doesn't just apply to religion--it applies to all sorts of things, like politics, economics, biology, sexuality, art, etc., etc. Sure, a lot (probably even most) science fiction is mere brain candy, but the genre is still, at its core, about exploring boundaries and new ideas, and I think that's a good thing, despite Sturgeon's law.

Re:Who are these 'faithful'???

[GreyWolf3000]

All in all, I liked your post.

I suppose Christianity today in America really is so deeply rooted in traditionalism that myopia has set in. I think the nonsense about questioning carbon dating is a good example (if you need me to explain, I will).

Most Christians I've met could have stood to gain more than a bit of wisdom, but I think that goes for non-Christians as well.

Um, no--I have never defended Christianity in my life, nor am I likely to ever do so (except in the most broad of terms), but I have gotten negative mods nearly every time I've mentioned religion in any way.

My experience is exactly opposite; I think I'll be content with religion being a sufficiently polar topic that anyone talking about it will get burned. At any rate, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Christian is a minority in the geek community.

So is ...

[KSobby]

So is mixing pr0n and sci-fi the geek equivalent of chasing the dragon?

Re:So is ...

[gardyloo]

is mixing pr0n and sci-fi the geek equivalent of chasing the dragon?

I believe the accepted phrase is "leaking the lizard."

Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[theluckyleper]

If you base your "SF" novel on currently accepted science only, then how can you do anything other than create a plot set in the present day? You can't know what "accepted" science will be like in the future... if you try to guess, you'll find yourself back in "standard" SF again.

Yes, FTL travel is far-fetched, but it's no less a fantasy than any other science-based predictions an author might make.

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Agreed. "Speculative fiction" entails a certain level of "speculation". This whole 'mundane' nonsense is grossly oversimplifying matters...there's no SF that's completely 'hard'...if it were, it would cease to be SF. Advocating that authors ought to stick to McGuffins that are more plausible is all well and good...I'm a big fan of so-called 'hard sci-fi' myself...but it's simply not plausible to strip all speculation from the genre...if you do, you have nothing left but modern fiction, exactly as you observed.

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[N3Roaster]

Quite a bit of science fiction has been written using accepted science without a present day earth setting. Possible settings include very large spacecraft that travel slower than light, future post-alien conquered earth, and non-earth planets. I refer you to Gene Wolfe and Octavia Butler as examples of authors who, while not shy to move away from accepted science (let's ignore the works with telepaths in them for these purposes, though) present works which can stand very well apart from improbable science/technology while still avoiding present day earth settings.

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[NickFortune]

If you base your "SF" novel on currently accepted science only, then how can you do anything other than create a plot set in the present day?

Well, there is a certain amount of extrapolation allowable. For instance there are technologies that are theoretically possible and for which the science exsts, but which are currently beyond our engineering capabilities. A good example, up until just recently anyway, was the space elevator.

Not that the MSF manifest sounds terribly attractive, you understand

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[shobadobs]

So, either photons have no mass, and therefore don't exist,

If your definition of "exists" requires that existing things have mass, then you're using a very distorted definition of the word.

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[mbrother]

I agree very much with your first point. However, FTL is more of a fantasy than most other science-based predictions one can make, so I must disagree with your second point. There are some creative ways to cheat on it, but our current ideas make it impossible to accelerate ourselves faster than the speed of light. It really is impossible, in the true definition of the word, if special relativity, a very well-tested theory, is correct.

A good, creative writer can work within that constraint, and still have interstellar travel, aliens, and the like. Special relativity also provides you with time dilation, which makes light speed irrelevent to passangers onboard a relativistic ship. If you could travel at lightspeed, to you, no time would pass and you could travel anywhere instantaneously.

It's also important to note an often-overlooked fact associated with FTL. If you can go FTL, relativity says you can travel backward in time and violate causality. I'd be interested in seeing a story with FTL travel that actually handled time correctly. [Gregory Benford's excellent Timescape does this by using tachyons to communicate through time, and the Mundanes actually claim this book as one of their own, which I find amusing since it would seem to violate their manifesto.]

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[TekPolitik]

FTL is more of a fantasy than most other science-based predictions one can make... It really is impossible, in the true definition of the word, if special relativity, a very well-tested theory, is correct.

When I was studying science one of the key things to recognise about any theory of physics was that the theory should be treated as a model which reflects our current understanding of the universe, not as the definition of the universe. The model gets used for as long as it matches all observable phenomena, and should be replaced when it disagrees with some observable phenomenon with some model that explains the new observable phenomenon and the old observable phenomena.

To say that the theory is well tested is merely to say that it adequately explains many observations it has been tested against already. That is not to say that no possible future observation will contradict it.

When you say that general relativity means FTL is impossible, you are using the model as the definition. It may well be that some future observation will reveal a flaw in the general relativity model (and the models derived from it) that leads to the discovery of a new, better model which does provide for the possibility of FTL.

It is impossible to say at any point in time that some outcome is entirely prevented by physics. All we can say is that given our understanding of physics at a particular point of time, there is no way for the outcome to occur that would fit the existing model. FTL may well be possible - but if it is it will need to be explained by some successor model to general relativity.

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[mbrother]

But you're twisting things around to say that if our current understanding of the universe is wrong, then FTL is possible. Duh, of course. But no experiments violate relativity, so to make predictions based on relativity being wrong would be unscientific. If I wanted to make a prediction about future technology that had a better chance of being right, I'd use relativity, not throw it out. Do you see what I'm saying? I'd predict a spaceship, maybe a variation on a Bussard ramjet, that can travel at close to light speed, before I'd predict a FTL spaceship. Again, IF relativity is right (an assumption which is not the same thing as using the model as the definition), we'll never accelerate a spaceship faster than lightspeed. To posit such in a novel would require tossing out relativity -- which could be a very interesting part of the novel if you replaced it with a bigger and better theory that would also meet all of the experimental data we currently have. James P. Hogan did something like this in The Genesis Machine, building a new science on top of the old, and it was a pretty interesting book.

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[bcrowell]

Quantum tunnelling is FTL, but nobody knows why/how yet.
No, quantum mechanical tunneling is not faster than light in any meaningful sense. In the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, no signal can be made to travel from one side of a barrier to the other and carry information across at a speed faster than light. The speed of the signal (or particle) while it's actually inside the barrier is not even a particularly well defined concept. In quantum mechanics, particles don't even have well defined trajectories. And a particle inside the barrier has a negative kinetic energy, which, if you want to be silly and try to interpret it non-quantum-mechanically, means that its velocity on the way through is an imaginary number.

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[Minna Kirai]

Everything in there is believable apart from the part that Jerome could probably have his back

Eh, biotech advances could repair Vincent and Irene's heart defects too.

And that's only the start. There are more unbelievable things in Gattaca. In fact, it is one of a list of scifi stories suffering from the "single advancement" problem: the author takes us 20-70 years into the future to tell a cautionary tale about one specific technological development, but meanwhile everything else has stayed the same.

Specifically in Gattaca, the degree of genetic testing that went on was absurdly frequent- why in the world would NASA retest the DNA of astronauts every few weeks? In case they might mutate or something? A government that engages in that behavior clearly enjoys pervasive privacy intrusions... but if so, then why wasn't there also some more mundane forms of surveilance, like simple database mining that could pick up that two people were living in one man's home?

Re:Mundane SF = Modern Novel?

[einhverfr]

Einstein didn't accept a particular philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics and reject some other philosophical interpretation. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry, but I thought that Einstein was awarded the nobel prize for his work on quantum physics (the photoelectric effect), not relativity. At issue was his endorsement of Bohm's pilot wave theory (for which Bohm was awarded his doctorate after the endorsement by Einstine and eventually won the nobel prize) and his rejection of the nondeterminism inherent in the Copenhagen interpretation. So, unless you can prove otherwise, my comment stands. Bohm's approach allows one to hypothesize some level of determinism with regard to quantum physics.

It is also worth noting that in "Physics and Philosophy," Heisenberg seems to shy away from presenting quantum physics as nondeterministic. At several points, he states that one could determine how a quantum effect will manifest if one knew the exact state of every other particle in the universe (including those making up the observer).

Not true. You don't know what you're talking about. It is possible to have a phase velocity greater than c, but that doesn't have anything to do with the group velocity, which is the velocity of the information.

I think either you don't know what you are talking about or you are more likely misunderstanding me. Look into the experiements re: superluminal connections in Switzerland. Similar experiments have been done using electrons too. The problem is that, since the light is travelling opposite directions down a fiberoptic line, the shift in polarity would have to effect the other stream. Since both streams are each moving away from the central point (in opposite directions) at c, the "information" regarding the polarity must be "transmitted" (if indeed the term applies as I think it does not) such that it "travels" faster than the speed of light. I think it is more likely that something similar to quantum tunneling occurs instead.

Some present approaches to quantum encryption look eerily similar to these experiments. I side effect may be instantaneous communication, though since we are dealing with distances where cabling is possible, c introduces far less lag time than the equipment so the boost in signal speed is probably not to be noticed.

A more promising approach might however be the use of phase-locked electrons. Such a "wireless" approach might allow, say, interplanetary probes to receive and transmit information in real time without having to wait for the light to go back and forth. However, this poses much greater engineering and physical challenges.

If one holds with a simple, deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, FTL pilot waves are indeed required to explain superluminal connections.... Otherwise you have no way to acocunt for a variety of observed quantum phenomina, particularly those observed in Bern in the polarity experiments.

Personally, I don't much like the pilot wave theory, and I don't think it adequately explains superluminal connections so I agree with you regarding its relevance. The above is mostly playing devil's advocate. Also Bohm's theories seem to violate William of Occam's famous quote known as Occam's Razor: "One should not needlessly multiply entities."

Hard-SCI Fi is NOT fantasy based

[Com2Kid]

This is why I rarely read the newer Science Fiction authors (newer meaning after the 1960s!), I prefer the older authors who actually had Doctorates of Science!

(or, in many cases, were on their way towards getting a doctorate in science and writing Science Fiction is how they paid for, in part, their education!)

Often times you can learn a lot about real world science from these authors (albiet some what dated now, as many areas of science have long since surpassed the knowledge possessed when these stories were originally written), something that I find lacking in modern day science fiction.

Re:Hard-SCI Fi is NOT fantasy based

[veltyen]

You might want to read some Brin then.
http://www.davidbrin.com/

Re:Hard-SCI Fi is NOT fantasy based

[Com2Kid]

In a lot of modern day science fiction, the science element is nothing more than a thin veneer placed over what is really a work of sociological investigation into modern society.

Now I am not saying that this is bad, Science Fiction is afterall a rather liberal genre, and this has been quite useful at times, (Aliens, Robots, etc, serving as standings for oppressed racial groups, allowing us to view situations in a more objective light and take what we have learned back to the real world), but sometimes I want something where I can actually sit down, read a book, and be entertained and learn something at the same time!

A lot of the older science fiction authors were excellent at this. I find that the current (current being the last 40 or so years) group of science fiction authors tend to disregard science completely, only rehashing what they have read in other science fiction stories.

Hard-Science Fiction is about taking one little fact of science, twisting it a bit, and seeing how that would effect the rest of our scientific knowledge, and in the process gaining a further understanding about how science in the real world works.

Re:Hard-SCI Fi is NOT fantasy based

[mbrother]

Check out my first novel, Star Dragon, which came out in paperback earlier this year from Tor. I have a PhD in astrophysics.

The other current sf writer with a PhD in astronomy is Alastair Reynolds, and I like his work.

There are quite a few physicists with PhDs who write great books (Benford and Brin come to mind) and some in other fields like Computer Science (Vernor Vinge). And there are a few others who don't have doctorates, but write very good hard sf (Joe Haldeman, Greg Bear, Syne Mitchell, and Wil McCarthy). You do have to look around a little harder, but that's the name of the game, isn't it.

Re:Hard-SCI Fi is NOT fantasy based

[elrous0]

This is why I rarely read the newer Science Fiction authors (newer meaning after the 1960s!), I prefer the older authors who actually had Doctorates of Science!

You obviously don't read much science fiction these days (or don't know where to look for the quality stuff).

A much higher percentage of science fiction writers have advanced degrees today than in the "golden era" and 60's. There are many physicists, mathmaticians, etc. out there writing (I can think of several just off the top of my head, including at least one who has already been mentioned in this thread).

There are even a couple of prominent NASA engineers who often grace the pages of Asmimovs from time to time.

-Eric

No

[DanthemaninVA1]

If we "believe in Star Trek..."? Are you kidding me? Science fiction is ENTERTAINMENT, not religion. It's a genre of books, film, and television, not a protestant denomination or somesuch. If you "believe in Star Trek," I feel sorry for you.

Re:No

[TripMaster Monkey]

You really ought to attend a Star Trek con sometime.

Best argument for euthanasia/compulsory birth control on the planet.

^_^

Re:No

[PakProtector]

I went to one when I was twelve (oddly enough, the same year I joined /., I think. But I digress), and William Shatner was there. No one was allowed to get within ten feet of him, and at one point I remember somebody pointing at his Toupe and shouting, "LOOK! A TRIBBLE!"

Yes, for the love of the Gods, none of us need to reproduce.

And not just because of Star Trek. Every person born is another person breathing my precious, precious oxygen.

My oxygen.

Re:No

[jimharris]

I think everyone has beliefs that make them feel positive or negative about the world and the future, either for the future of mankind, or for their own future. For some people, the meaning of life might be surfing. For others, it might be making money, or spreading their religious beliefs. I think lots of people have a belief in the future that is inspired by Star Trek or science fiction. I don't know how many that number is, but I'd guess it could be large.

I once was talking with a young woman, about twenty-two, who was gushing about her love of Star Wars. I asked her if she thought the future would be like that. She said no. I asked her if she thought mankind would travel to the stars and she said yes. I asked her what if we can't travel faster than light. She was truly horrified at that idea. She said the future would be boring and depressing if we couldn't travel to the stars.

I said, mankind could still travel to the stars, but it would take years to make the trip. I mentioned generation ships and other science fiction stories about slower-than-light travel.

She said, "that sucks."

He is just a pessimist

[tftp]

Einstein rules, and FTL space travel has about zero chance of ever existing.

Yes, and Isaac Newton would just laugh if someone told him about weird quantum effects which we accept as obvious today.

In fact, we know that we know almost nothing about the fundamental nature of this Universe, and it's just pointless to discuss what one can and can not do with it.

Re:He is just a pessimist

[Draconix]

I'm moderately sure he does understand the problems. I do, yet I don't think FTL is impossible. The only thing I know to likely be impossible is to accellerate a mass to beyond the speed of light in normal spacetime. Any decent SF writer knows this, and will often note this in their work; any 'FTL' travel requires either the translation of mass to something without mass, or leaving normal spacetime in order to get from point A to point B faster than light. I've yet to have even read an SF novel in which a ship travels faster than light by accellerating a normal mass beyond the speed of light while keeping that mass within normal spacetime, and I've read hundreds of science fiction novels.

As for science fiction being fantasy... well, duh. There really isn't much difference between the two, except that science fiction is _usually_ speculative, and has more of a basis in our own reality, while other fantasy is free to explore the more farfetched. A careful writer can actually make it very difficult to tell the difference between SF and fantasy. (Frank Herbert, China Mieville, and others.)

As was kind of stated before in this topic, you can only make science fiction so 'realistic' before it's no longer science fiction, but simply realistic fiction.

Re:He is just a pessimist

[Hiro Antagonist]

We know quite a bit more than 'almost nothing' about the fundamental nature of the Universe thank you, and while it is quite possible that we might surprise ourselves and find a way around the light-speed barrier, it's highly unlikely.

Your comparison with Newton is quite flawed; Newton bascically founded classical physics as we know it, and other than the work done by Greek mathmaticians, had basically no 'head start'. By contrast, the physicists of today have much more advanced tools, much broader knowledge and talent base, and about ten orders of magintude more in the way of experimental data. In short, while it is true Newton was a true genius, he is still quite far in the past as far as today's physics are concerned.

Re:He is just a pessimist

[Johnno74]

Relativity does NOT preclude FTL.

It says you cannot travel AT the speed of light. Important distinction there. Subatomic particles can change velocity instantly without acceleration, one day it may be possible for macroscopic objects to hop up to FTL travel, without actually passing through through the "light barrier".

Another potential possibility is the Alcubierre Drive although you'd need a large quantity of negative energy to make this work. (Negative energy is a scientific fact, but not in these quantities... as far as we know (look up the casimir effect))

These theories are far, far in advance of our current abilities, and may well not be achievable - but we simply don't know enough to discard the possibility.

I find it very interesting though that a theoretical physicist has come up with a potential faster-than-light drive that may just be possible, and it appears to be very similar to the "warp drive" used in star trek :)
This teaches us something about the true value of science fiction.

A

Is it the opiate?

[Apreche]

Yes, yes it is. Notice how most real nerds will frolic and adore anything with a science fiction theme. Even if those things, stripped of their sci-fi theme, are terrible. For example Star Trek is just a soap opera, it happens to be in space. Same for shows like Farscape. And the same goes for many books and fan-fics about various sci-fi universes.

Not that all sci-fi is actually crap. I'm not one to deny the quality of original Star Wars or great novels from Asimov or Heinlein or Stephenson. But it seems to me that many nerds will like anything and everything sci-fi just because its sci-fi.

What bothers me the most is that I'm a somewhat well rounded geek, but most sci-fi TV shows really don't do it for me. And when all my friends like a show they act like I'm lying when I have no interest and they think its the best thing ever. Things are good because they are good, not because they have a robot, alien, spaceship, magic, etc.

How about this.......

[m93]

It does not matter how many warp drives, alternate realites, laser guns, or jedi mind tricks a science fition work has...it all comes down to how the story is used to help the audience explore some segment of actual human nature. The science should be there to compliment the characters, not overtake them. What the hell good is a story if it does not give you a new perspective on your own existence/nature? If you want to strictly predict future technologies, that is what essays and doctoral thesis' are for. Sci-Fi is an opiate for the masses? Perhaps, but you can apply that label to many different genres of film and literature.

Re:How about this.......

[0racle]

What the hell good is a story if it does not give you a new perspective on your own existence/nature?

I believe that it's then called entertainment, and its the whole reason most people watch movies, read books and play games. Whenever some form of entertainment starts to try and make me get some 'new perspective,' I go to something else. If I wanted that I'd stick with real life, the rest of this is to get my mind off things, to be entertained and relax a little.

Re:How about this.......

[imaginate]

What you have hit on is exactly the opiate of the masses. The idea of entertainment, disentangled from any thought or life experience, is exactly the sort of pleasurable escape offered by any drug use.

It's this whole thing that "entertainment" is so sanctified, that it is above any reproach. Really, it's fine; I really am not judging, but I guess that it seems worth it to have a life that's not so bad that one needs escape from it. Once can be engaged in games, books, or movies, and experience them as a useful part of getting to know others, the world around us, or ourselves. Or one can only take those same things as frivolity, tune out the mind, escape. If that's the aim, it's the same as crack or opium. In fact, I have to say that the experiences I got when I tried crack were overall more interesting (if not necessarily positive) than I ever got from playing a video game or zoning out on the television.

When something is looked at as only "entertainment," it's basically like saying, "I just want to sit and let the thing push the positive brain chemical buttons in my brain." It's a denial of any true depth of experience and it seems a waste. I dunno... I'm not trying to get all agro, it just seems like your opinion comes up over and over again here, that when someone engages a subject another person has to rejoin them with, "relax, it's only *entertainment*". It's as if that's some god-given reason why critical thinking should just be discarded.

Real life can offer relaxation too... it just seems a waste of the small time we have to disregard it. Even the experience of reading a book or playing a game with someone interesting can be a cool addition to life rather than a dulling of it. Advertisers and media agents just love the entertainment angle though; it allows them to make crap that is disconnected from anything that might inspire tumult or conflict. I'm not saying that I don't disengage sometimes, it's just worth realizing that when we do that we're doing no different than smoking the crack pipe, hitting the opium... sometimes hard to resist, but ultimately incredibly dull.

Creating New Technology

[rmjohnso]

What about new technology created due to science fiction? For example, I remember reading a few articles about how doctors thought the diagnostic beds they saw in ST: TOS were a great idea. They took an idea from science fiction and made into a very useful reality.

On another tangent, if you surveyed a large portion of scientists who like science fiction, you would probably see a lot of them having entered the sciences due to the influence of science fiction. So what if FTL is most likely impossible, does that mean all those guys at JPL who love Star Trek, Stargate, B5, etc. should stop watching since it isn't science fact?

My last tangent:
What about programs that look very much like science fact but in reality are much more science fiction? The common example here is the "oh let's just enhance this image through our nifty little computer software, and viola, there's your murder suspect." I somewhat think that this type of fiction does a disservice to real science, not helping it.

Slashdot is the Opiate of the Geek Masses.

[dmoen]

This is based on how much time I spend reading science fiction, vs how much time I spend reading slashdot.

Doug Moen

New Hard Sci-Fi

[FroBugg]

There's still plenty of good hard sci-fi being produced these days. The first one that comes to mind is Kim Stanley Robinson's series about the colonization and terraforming of Mars (Red Mars, Blue Mars, and Green Mars).

I'm willing to admit that I go in for lots of the more fantastical stuff myself, but I'm sure others here can make good reccomendations.

Einstein doesn't have to be wrong

[MagPulse]

In a warp bubble, you are moving at sub-light speed relative to the space inside the bubble, but space itself is warped so that relative to the surrounding space you are moving at FTL speed.

My favorite author, Vernor Vinge, writes about a universe where we are in a "slow zone", and the laws of physics allow FTL travel in other places but not here. Vinge has a Ph.D. in math, and writes the kind of hard sci-fi that I like most. In fact it might be that writing with Einstein's constraints helped Vinge since he had to come up with a creative solution.

What in the...?

[AstrumPreliator]

I always thought the phrase, "science fiction" was pretty self-explanitory myself. Why in the world would you want to limit authors to only using current science? Let's just assume for a second that we do know everything and our current model of the universe is 100% accurate and complete (which is such a laughable statement in itself), wouldn't it be more fun to escape into a different universe, one where FTL travel is possible, one where anything is possible? That's the point of fiction. Science fiction wasn't meant to be a rehash of your college physics book with a storyline thrown in, it was meant to be fun.

WI humans could live 5,000 years?

[tjstork]

The whole reason interstellar travel gets ruled out is that it takes too long. But, what if humans could live for 5,000 years. Then, taking a trip to another planet would certainly be within reach.

Faith in the future, more than Stra Trek.

[bluephone]

I think it's that we have a hope, a faith, a wish maybe, that people will become better than we are now, regardless of if we're flying aroundat thousands of times the speed of light. We look around and see a dirtball with 6.3 billion dirty little people looking for new ways to kill each other because they have the wrong religion, the wrong color skin, the wrong land, the wrong language, the wrong whatever. We're not pleased at seeing this. We see CEOs of megacorporations worth billions of dollars, and not too far away we see thousands of people starving to death because local warlords hijack the sacks of grain good hearted people send to try to feed them. We'd like to believe that in just a few hundred years, humanity will finally have dragged itself out of the stone age. It's a nice dream.

FTL is the same as time travel

[foreverdisillusioned]

As my understanding of relativity goes, there is no real need to go faster than light. We often hera the phrase "light from that star takes blah blah blah years to reach us," but what is so rarely mentioned is we're measuring time from our point of view. From the photon's point of view, no time has elapsed at all. TRUE LIGHTSPEED TRAVEL IS INSTANTANEOUS FROM THE SUBJECT'S POINT OF VIEW. Read that over and over until it sinks in.

Yes, it is impossible to reach the speed of light, but that's not really a problem. Using slower than light technology, it is perfectly (theoretically) possible to cross the Milky Way in five seconds. Five seconds to YOU that is--the rest of the universe would strongly disagree (probably on the order of many millions of years.)

The problem has never been traveling faster than light, because such a thing is clearly absurd (what's faster than instantaneous travel?)--the problem is cancelling out time dialation which is really just good old fashioned time travel. For those of us that are joining late, remember that as you move faster through space the universe around you seems to speed up AND space itself seems to contract--from your frame of reference distances are shorter, and you thus do not need to travel as far.

Anyway, last time I checked most physicists were not comfortable completely ruling out all possibilty of time travel (if not on the macroscopic scale, then at least on the microscopic scale.) If time travel may still be possible, then so is faster than light travel. The two are, in fact, one and the same.

Appologies for errors, but I'm coming down off of a pretty nasty buzz right now. (Heh... it's a pretty sad state of things when a high school dropout with a hangover has to explain 100 year old scientific concepts.)

Re:FTL is the same as time travel

[DavidTC]

There's a series somewhere that has humanity establish trans-temporal wormholes, with the ends hundreds of years apart in almost the same place.

But they don't use them for 'time travel', they put them between solar systems, and fly at slow-than-light (with suspended animation and time dilation shortening the trip) to them, go back in time, and continue their flight, arriving mere days after they left the other planet, after a trip that took hundreds of years.

They have to have a comm blackout and autopilot so they don't transmit messages back in time, and people protecting both the uptime and downtime end. And some of the series revolves around what can happen if the rules aren't followed.

Re:FTL is the same as time travel

[John Newman]

The problem, of course, is that travel at relativistic velocities is fairly pointless. By the time you get anywhere, everything has changed. You cannot build or maintain a civilization over interstellar distances, outside of a very small volume of space, if limited to light speed comms and slower than light travel.

Pointless only for biological beings with our infintesimally short lifespans and ridiculously high metabolic rates. For beings - biological or, even-better, non-biological - that have adapted themselves to a more cosmically appropriate pace of life, it may be quite practical. I mean, what's 100,000 years out of the lifespan of a star? About equivalent to 45 days out of the lifespan of human civilization.

Re:FTL is the same as time travel

[coaxial]

For those of us that are joining late, remember that as you move faster through space the universe around you seems to speed up AND space itself seems to contract--from your frame of reference distances are shorter, and you thus do not need to travel as far.

Space doesn't contract for the traveler. The traveler seems to contract when viewed by an outside observer, since the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. It's called Lorentz Contraction.

Re:FTL is the same as time travel

[jschrod]

Some of the best plots take the light speed limit (and the associated time travel question) seriously.

Try Allistor Reynolds, for example. One of the best new hard SF authors, IMO.

Science fiction a revision of our times

[a3217055]

Science fiction is a review of the world we live in. It asks questions about our soical and moral and even ethical lives we live in. Star Trek is a fine example of the world we live in, with all the problems. Star Trek the Next Generation and even Star Gate seem to touch on this. Sure the technology is cool, but it is not an opiate. An opiate would be a sort of belief people will have saying everything will be alrite. Just like religion, where people think if they lead a certain life style there essence or soul will be saved. For geeks most probably the dynamic world of technology is there opiate. But not science fiction. Science fiction is a sort of technology mixed with a story line. Issac Assimov and Phillip K. Dick wrote stories about how our lives may change in the future because of non-moral and non-ethical uses of technology, even some Japanese Anime ( Mechs ) actually have some ammount of moral dialouge. End result science fiction is a package of a medium, one can read Shakespere for the essence of a story or read Arthur C. Clarke for another lesson. They are all the same yet different.

Science fiction has changed...

[srothroc]

Science fiction originally was science first and fiction second - look at the Grand Masters of Science Fiction, the Big Three - Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Anson Heinlein. All three of them wrote SCIENCE fiction. You have to look for it, but it still exists today. The problem with the science fiction world today is that too many people have grown up with Star Wars and Star Trek - the former is a technological fantasy and the latter is more speculative fiction than science fiction. Science fiction, unfortunately, has become a catch-all genre - if it doesn't have swords and serpents and isn't set in a relatively modern era, then it MUST be science fiction. Especially if it has technology. To get off of my personal soap box and address the topic, I do believe that it has become the opiate of the geek masses - it's both escapist and self-gratifying at the same time. It provides an escape, through the halo of Trekkie popularity, where one can be a 'cool' person. I mean, what else is a genius, a wizard, or a superhero than a glorified techie? Furthermore, by reading something that professes to be vaguely scientific and speaks of a greater future built by geeks, it can give people a purpose in life. Of course, there are a lot of geeks (myself included) who would rather just read a book than go outside or do anything else. Not quite escapist, but definitely a distraction from other things. In my opinion, though, the saddest thing about the science fiction genre at the moment is its bleak, dystopian outlook. It doesn't seem like people think there's much to look forward to nowadays.

Try this perspective

[neostorm]

I don't beleive he's saying that a large portion of people only find life worth living because of some geek, sci-fi fiction universe. At least not in that pitiful perspective that you can read it as. I believe what he's saying is that it is human nature to wonder about the unknown, and we find that teasing our imaginations of the unknown through fictional stories and universes like "Star Trek" and the like, satisfy a large part of our wonder despite being highly unplausible. Not only because of thier ability to paint a potential future for mankind, but also paint a positive one.
So what exactly is wrong with hoping that a future of peacful space travel and exploration that does not involve wanton destruction, prejudice and war (all things currently and constantly plaguing our race on this earth), is a bad thing? That thought alone *does* allow me to be a bit happier in life, because if I look around me right now, there aren't a whole lot of things our people are doing to making life better for everyone as a whole.
If you take a gander at the world today you can't help but see the damage the human race brings on itself and it's environment. If you see optimistic things though the extincting of animals, controlling populace through fear and war, and the growing of individual goverments world-power over controlled medicines, unhealthy food production and inequality in living conditions, then *your* opiate is to lie to yourself.

Re:Try this perspective

[prockcore]

So what exactly is wrong with hoping that a future of peacful space travel and exploration that does not involve wanton destruction, prejudice and war (all things currently and constantly plaguing our race on this earth), is a bad thing?

The irony is that a lot of star trek geeks don't get that the utopian universe of star trek is pretty much identical to the utopian world of A Brave New World.

Star Trek is a world without feeling, without art, and without passion. It's a world where the only difference between a human and a robot is the ability to use contractions.

Re:Try this perspective

[superiority]

Impossible? Unrealistic utopia? My god, what world are you lot living in? Ask any noble in the 14th century or thereabouts, doubtless he would have said it was impossible for a person who was not a born noble to become wealthy and be respected in upper-crust society. Ask a peasant, he would have said it a 'utopian dream'. Capitalism sUx0rz!

The Hard SF Dogma

[mbrother]

I hate the word "mundane" to start with, as sf fans have warped the meaning of the word to indicate those who have little vision or imagination, so I'm already biased against this "movement." Taking an objective step back, I still think it's full of crap. It's possible to play with the entire universe and stay within the realm of known science, which is something I try hard to do myself. I've even been funded by the National Science Foundation to edit an anthology to be used in conjuction with astronomy classes.

I teach this stuff. I live this stuff. I'm a working scientist and a published science fiction writer, a big believer in the positive power of science and the positive power of fiction to educate, illuminate, and enlighten.

Sure, write some "mundane" science fiction, but don't pretend it's intrinsically better than anything else. Do recognize you've put yourself in a box that will limit the stories you can do, and will eliminate some perfectly wonderful stories containing very good hard science. I have to say I pretty much agree with Ian McDonald here in his criticisms.

If Ryman wants to be such a "realist" and limit himself to what is known, he and similarly-minded people should probably write mainstream and forget the future entirely. His guesses are going to be as unlikely as aliens visiting us tomorrow, and he's foolish to think otherwise. Robert Heinlein, a visionary writer to be sure, had his characters using slide rules as they flew from planet to planet. While I think we can still use some thoughtful stories about near-future cloning, I think elevating such tales above and beyond those extropolating into a future where interstellar travel is possible is clearly hubris.

My personal manifesto is to use only known science, or new science that doesn't violate known science. I enjoy fantasy as much as anyone, but it does irk me when writers don't understand enough science to write science fiction. Star Wars is a fantasy, and a good one, but it's not science fiction.

So try technology-based predictions

[roystgnr]

Why would a story set in an interstellar spaceship suddenly become too mundane if that spaceship is limited to light speed? Would there be too much of the "present day" in a story about the lives of some of the quintillions of people an average solar system could support in orbital cities? Are nanomachines too boring when authors are careful not to turn them into thermodynamics-defying magic dust?

Nobody wants science fiction stripped of the fiction, some people just don't want it all stripped of the science. Science fantasy can still be entertaining, but it shouldn't be allowed to slip into otherwise consistent science fiction any more than traditional fantasy should corrupt traditional fiction. I suspect most of the Slashdot readers currently whining about how "why does everything have to be based on real facts" would turn the TV off in disgust if the next episode of "24" featured a nuclear bomb stolen by leprechauns or if "CSI" started occasionally solving mysteries with magic spells.

Re:So try technology-based predictions

[CmdrGravy]

You thin Evil Leprechauns are "fucking awesome" do you ?

Both my parents were slain by Evil Leprechauns and there was nothing "fucking awesome" about that you unfeeling bastard.

Here is a one-liner for you....

[jiriw]

When you can imagine, you can set the next step.

For me thats, for the serious part of it, SciFi is all about. I heared the sentence on Discovery channel once (though in Dutch translation so i don't know if I retranslated it correctly)... Anyone can attribute this to an actual person?

Hard-SCIENCE is SOMETIMES fantasy based

[da5idnetlimit.com]

I seem to remember that one Arthur C. Clark has been officialy recognized as the "inventor" of the satelite concept...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._C larke
And yes, he has a first class degree in mathematics and physics at King's College, London...

Lets see, hmm, yes it was in a sci-book.

I agree with having "knowledgeable" people writin sci-fi, but I also remember all I read about nuclear fusion and now I see it made available(ok, in actual testing and producing actual electricity) in a breadbox sized box...

What I really like about sci-fi is that sometimes you see In Real Life situations or Technologies that you already read about, already had a time to dream or think about or appreciate the implications and possibilities of something that is, for the rest of the world, new.

Lets take fusion and/or betavoltaics... (both recent /. articles)

Now take everything you ever read on fusion, interstellar travel, cheap energy everywhere, human facilities and the such...

I already have 3-4 marketable products popping in my head just from the fact I have a possibly durable, cheap and transportable energy source...

On another subject, lets take solar sails.

I'm sure I read about them in some 50's scifi books.

They're launching the first one in 1 day, 18 hours, and 35 seven minutes as of now...
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/

I always thought that books, and sci-fi books moreover, were made to make me think and dream.

And nowaday, wherever I look, I see the sci-fi from the past in everyday use, and some more sci-fi being announced as coming soon (sic)...

Well, at least I'm more ready than the rest if just because of that. And so are you 8)

Re:Hard-SCIENCE is SOMETIMES fantasy based

[roystgnr]

I seem to remember that one Arthur C. Clark has been officialy recognized as the "inventor" of the satelite concept...

Not quite. AFAIK Clarke was the first person to publish the idea of geosynchronous communications satellites, but the idea of artificial satellites in general is much older.

In a word, yes

[be-fan]

Modern Sci-Fi has very little science in it. Somebody, I don't remember who, remarked of Star Wars: "it's not really sci-fi, it's a cowboy western set in space." Perhaps what pisses me off the most is the "geek culture" that's arisen around sci-fi. It is at once ignorant (most sci-fi "geeks" know jack shit about real science), and arrogant (most sci-fi "geeks" think sci-fi is better than, say, cowboy westerns). The superior attitude a lot of people have about sci-fi reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about comic books. We came to the conclusion that comics like the X-Men are fundementally little different than soap operas. Sure, the plot lines are completely different, but both focus mainly on the characters, their growth, and how they cope with the world around them. Really, the main difference between "Apartment 3G" and "The X-Men" is that Cyclops gets mopey and emotional about a completely different set of problems.

It doesn't have to be accurate...

[Max_Abernethy]

...because it's not about science. Science fiction offers authors a chance to pose a massive what-if question and attempt to reveal something about humans by showing how they would behave in an impossible situation. There's a lot of scifi that is like "cool aliens and monsters and space lasers," I don't really like that stuff, but the best of it uses the construction of unreal settings to do basically the same things all good literature does.

Re:Ya think?

[bursch-X]

Well considering that "Jedi" is a legally acknowleded religion in Australia, YES!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2218456.s tm

StarTrek and "positive views of life"

[Nicopa]

Star Trek does convey a powerful positive view on life. No poverty. No money (inside the federation). No "alienated work" (people work to develop theirselves as human beings, not just to manage to simply exist). No religion.

Is amazing that such an obvious reference to the Marxist utopia came from Hollywood... =)

Problems with "scientific" science fiction

[Spy der Mann]

The main problem with realistic sci-fi is, you have to be updated on scientific discoveries and technology (well that shouldn't be so hard for us slashdotters, would it? :) . Let's take an example. Suppose you write a story around 2040 where cars don't fly. Suddenly in slashdot there's a story about flying cars to be appearing in 2030. Darn. You have to rewrite everything. Or how about this: You imagine a world where computer viruses are spread over common videoplayers. But then turns out that videoplayers will run Linux. Wham, no viruses.

In the end, this turns into a massive speculation. How accurate are your current predictions going to be?

Still, I find realistic sci-fi much more appealing than say, Startrek, because of the possibility of such future ACTUALLY happening. This has a very good potential.

Now - the second problem is, the future might be much darker than we imagine. Suppose you write about a near future (2050) where ecology is rule #1. But recently on physorg I read that global warming cannot be stopped easily and that the current trend is that the planet will heat about 1 degree centigrate per year. This means that in the future there would be a scenario of overheated regions of the planet (i.e. deserts), something like Mad Max. Not exactly a post-nuclear wasteland, but certainly worrysome.

So, the question is: How much realism do we want to impregnate our stories with, and how benevolent are we going to be with the future?

Well, there's got to be some degree of freedom. Besides these obstacles, writing a realistic story is very appealing, at least to me. I've been slowly losing interest for unrealistic sci-fi. Why? I know it's not real. There are no time portals, warp speeds, so I know this thing will NEVER EVER become real. So why think about something that will never happen but PRETENTS to be possible?

When Star Wars was created, I fantasized about all those things becoming real. (After all, that's the catch, isn't it?) Space travel was thought far-fetched, but NOT impossible. And this is what lets us dream.

Because, sci-fi and fantasy is about dreaming, isn't it?

"Star Wars" was highlight of my abusive childhood.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Star Wars" was the highlight of my abusive childhoo. My father brutally belted me frequently, and the rest of the family, a term which I use very loosely, just hid what he did to me.

When I saw "Star Wars", I loved it, and I loved Princess Leia. She was so beautiful. At that time, I had this hope that if I just believed in the values of the Jedi, then I could transcend my abusive childhood. This belief was just like a drug. It created a hallucination that was not real.

Later in life, I simply gave up hope. I stopped believing in Jedis and Christianity. I only wanted to die.

For me, science fiction did serve as an opiate that helped me to live throughout my abusive childhood.

As for now, I make sizeable donations to the local child-abuse-prevention organization. These donations help me to deal with the inner child that my father killed.

Science Fiction

[QMO]

The genre of movie science fiction bears very little resemblance to the genre of printed science fiction, especially short stories, the heart of true sf.

The sci-fi channel is even less a part of the same genre. There is a little overlap, but not very much.

Sf purists (e.g. Asimov, when he was around) hate the term sci-fi. They consider it a Hollywood term that has very little to do with sf.

An interesting paper on theoretical FTL travel

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

Oh, I'll just give the Google link to the ton of search results: here

Regardless, I was (once) a physics major and I couldn't easily find a flaw with it. Implementing it would require some funky spacetime/gravity manipulation, however. If you have not read it yet (it's been out a while), it will certainly fire up your imagination!

I find it interesting that all this sci-fi stuff seems intimately linked to gravity, which is not well-understood (yet).

Re:Ya think?

[Thangodin]

Star Trek functions in much the same way as religions in that it predicts dark times but eventual triumph. It encourages the belief that no matter what happens, we'll get through it. Sartre might have called this a form or collective bad faith, but frankly, I see nothing wrong with this. Pure defeatism just isn't a productive attitude. Pessimists may have a more accurate estimation of their own abilities, but optimists are more likely to succeed. We need both.

The main upside to the Star Trek 'prophecies' is that it is supposed to be based upon cooperation amongst the entire human race (tribalism is death), requires the application of hard science to address our current problems, and stresses that no hand from the sky is going to reach down and clean our diapers for us. We're going to have to do it ourselves. I'll take that over the Great Wet Nurse in the Sky any day. The boneyard of history is littered with civilizations whose motto was "God will provide."

Does it serve as an opiate? It probably does...to trekkies. But then, the really hardcore fanatic is always winged out on something. Better "Live long and prosper" than "Die, unbeliever!" I prefer my loonies sedated rather than armed.

Different kinds of science fiction

[ajdecon]

It really depends on what you're looking for. Science fiction can be divided (very roughly) into "hard" and "soft" SF: the hard being that based only on current science or its closest extrapolations, and soft being more free-ranging, and less concerned with detailed explanation of the science involved. You might also divide it into the "probable" as opposed to the merely "possible."

So, it depends what kind of story you want to tell. Hard SF is often much more restrictive: no galaxy-spanning civilizations, ESP, or conveniently human-shaped aliens. However, it's a wonderful format for exploring in detail the manner in which changes in science and technology change our lives, and teaching the readers more about what our world actually is in a way less boring than a textbook. Soft SF, conversely, is often more focused on the characters than the science. It's not about how the flying car works and what effect it will have on society, but more about how an individual person will interact with their much cooler flying car, and what sorts of adventures they can have with it. Overall the difference is a matter of taste, or the mood of the moment: I personally enjoy both kinds of story immensely.

No matter what the style, however, science fiction always has the same purpose. It's about telling stories that re-introduce us to our world, and inspire a sense of wonder and a new interest in what's around us. Whether you do that by exploring the rise of a flying car industry, or what happens when George Jetson crashes into a tree, doesn't matter so much as the fact that at the end of the story, some kid is going to want to build that car.

The Death of Science Fiction...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...has been caused by these people who think that Science Fiction and a Physics textbook should be much the same thing. It's been an ongoing problem. Years back people like Asimov basically enforced rules in the magazine over which they were influential stating what the laws of physics had to be in anything they published. The same has happened in TV science fiction. It's reached the point where you can have a series like Firefly which has been so denuded of Science Fiction that it doesn't have aliens and the characters use regular firearms.

The whole point of Science Fiction is to be speculative. The question to ask is "what happens if I change the rules?" not "what can I do within these rules?"

It's not surprising that this came out of a

[multiplexo]

Clarion workshop, from everything I've read they combine the masturbatory inclusiveness of a bad SF con with the masturbatory inclusiveness of an academic conference. I fail to see how any of the ideas they lay out for SF in the Mundane Manifesto are in any way new or interesting. Poul Anderson wrote Tau Zero and The Stars are Only Fire, which didn't use any magical FTL physics. Larry Niven wrote A World Out of Time which didn't use any magical FTL physics. A lot of P.K. Dick's stuff is, quite frankly, crap (Clans of the Alphane Moon anyone?) and Neuromancer is as dated as disco and cyberpunk fanboyz are every bit as annoying and disconnected from reality as Star Wars fanboys or Star Trek fanboys.

Those who have actually been reading SF, and not wanking at SF writing workshops, realize that there is more to SF than human looking aliens in latex prosthetics on badly written TV shows. It seems to me that the authors of the Mundane Manifesto have stopped their navel gazing long enough to set up a straw man and weakly thrash at it in the appearance of doing something cool.

There are plenty of authors out there writing SF that is thoroughly grounded in our understanding of physics and does not rely on any magic such as FTL, time travel, parallel universes, etc, etc, etc, and there have been for years. Of course these authors probably aren't hanging around Clarion East wanking away writing articles with titles such as Was Marx a Mundane.

Sci fi is real life, pretending to be fake

[iabervon]

Hard science fiction, done well, is generally an exploration of the consequences of a universe which could be real but happens not to be (or isn't currently). Consider Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars series; it raises a huge number of issues that arise as consequences of technology which is not yet available, but probably will be. When the real world catches up, we will have to deal with these issues, and it's probably worth starting now. (E.g., if we find ways to cure everything at a high cost, which seems likely, how will we deal with rich people who live forever, which the poor die of old age and the young have reproductive urges to replenish populations that aren't dying?)

Soft science fiction, done well, is generally an exploration of aspects of how the universe really is, projected for expository purposes into a universe that is different in many ways. The original Star Trek, for example, was a discussion of 1960s American gender and race relations, with a veneer of unreality that made it acceptable to broadcast in explicit detail. Aliens and FTL travel were just props; the vision of the future was a black woman on the bridge and nobody finding it notable.

Re:Sci fi is real life, pretending to be fake

[mbrother]

The kind of thing you say about Star Trek in the 1960s was even more true in places like the Soviet Union where freedom of speech didn't exist. Someone wanted to comment or criticize was often forced to cover their tracks through the plasuible deniability of science fiction.

Star Trek is a dystopia

[zippthorne]

It's the ultimate extension of a safety obsessed communist culture. Life seems good for the ruling class (Starfleet) but for everyone else? Like the workers in Metropolis, they are hidden from view. Pretty much any form of self-improvement except new-agey personal well-being is frowned upon. No one in the federation travels without papers (in fact, there is not enough industry to support heavy starship building. Let alone interplanetary shipping and travel.) Intra-planetery movement is limited as well. Transporter usage is heavily rationed for civillians. (And why should this be the case in a civilization that has the technology to mine the stars for energy?) Unless you're in the ruling class, life is very prison like. It's a prison with glass walls and satin sheets, but it's a prison nontheless.

ST and the world from Minority report are very similar in this approach. After analyzing the situation, I would not want to live in either world, yet people (and i assume the creators as well) believe these societies to be goals for the future. (everyone has the same car? and like soviet russia, car drives you? what's up with that?)

Re:PURE FUD. FTL not quite impossible

[Morlark]

Yes, I was quite disappointed when I read that. I truly am surprised how little people understand about science in general, and relativity in particular. Then again, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised any more. What is it with people attributing blatantly false information to famous people. Is it human nature or something, to make themselves look knowledgeable? Doesn't really work, does it. Einstein was very open to the possibility that FTL speeds could be attained. As the parent said, it would be tricky since it requires using non-Einsteinian space, but it is still possible. Einstein said so, so there.

Re:Ya think?

[Martin Blank]

None of those countries 'recognized' it as a religion. They simply put it on the list of responses because the number of respondents was high enough. It was a fun joke while it lasted. We'll see what happens in ten years' time.

Warp bubbles are Einstein-compatible

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

The first version suffered from some "trivial engineering problems" like being impossible to turn off from the inside and requiring more energy than exists in the universe. It has since been tweaked so that you could do it with nothing but gravity control and some negative-density matter.

The point is, it's FTL and doesn't contradict our understanding of how the universe works.

FTL is impossible if you assume the following

[einhverfr]

1) Velocity is a continuous function. In other words, to move faster than the speed of light, one must cross all possible velocities between your current and target velocities. This is a reasonable assumption unless one sees great breakthroughs in physics...

2) You travel entirely within Einsteinian space.

3) You travel in the conventional manner, and your position is a continuous function in three dimensions.

Under these assumptions, FTL is quite impossible. However, if any one of these can be circumvented, special relativity does not apply.

"The Entire Human Race"

[captainjaroslav]

Has anybody else ever noticed... okay, I'm relatively new to Slashdot (this is my first post) and I'm sure Star Trek has been discussed here A LOT, so it probably has been brounght up... that the "entire human race" portrayed on ST is not even as ethnically diverse as the current US population? I don't even think it matches the gender makeup of the modern American workplace. Of course, so many of the early, scientist-type SF writers who are praised later on in this thread tend to write about futures that extrapolate based on the scientific trends of their time but entirely ignore the sociological trends.

Re:Ya think?

[m50d]

It doesn't always predict eventual triumph. There's plenty of SF about a post-apocalyptic setting where humanity is on the way out, or just dark hopeless futures. I've just read Dick's "Second Variety" (very good short story, with nothing that could be described as science) and am working my disordered way through Reynolds' revelation space series, which although it finishes on a high note for the moment has humanity's extinction being inevitable in another billion years or so, and a sort of epilogue about having to flee again.

Pessimists are better engineers

[elhaf]

Engineers need to adhere to Murphy's law to succeed. If we design it in a way that it can fail, it will. If we design it in a way that it can only fail if a certain thing happens at a certain time, it will. This restatement of Murphy's law better captures the original intended spirit. No, Murphy was not an optimist. He was a good pessimist engineer like me.