Results 61 to 75 of 140
July 11th, 2012, 12:45 PM #61
Even anarchy requires consensus... even if it is a consensus to allow members to act counter to the group's intentions. Either way, anarchy only works when individual actions do not dangerously impact the whole. When they do, and they must be reined in, anarchy is over.
Our present political systems are relatively simple, based as they are either on family dynamics or group dynamics; and both of those dynamics are based on social systems that evolved on this planet (with multiple species) to support survival. Since, as I suggested before, another race may have evolved under very different social or physical pressures, they would have likely evolved different social dynamics, and their politics (if they had any) would likely have been influenced by those social systems.
This doesn't necessarily mean they would be more complex, but they could emphasize different aspects of group dynamics than we are used to (decisions could be heavily influenced by time passed, or argument weight could be impacted by health, etc). So we could see more complex political systems, or simply more incomprehensible systems.
I hate to disagree with Clausewitz, but I don't see war as the continuation of politics by other means... unless you see organized and premeditated murder as a legitimate political tactic (I know some political groups do see it that way, but I don't). As politics and social systems are about Agreement, and murder is about as far from agreeing as you can get, war has nothing to do with politics; war is what we resort to when politics breaks down; it is a refusal to cooperate. War is about usurping another's fundamental right to their life.
July 12th, 2012, 05:32 AM #62
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
From the perspective of agreement, however, I agree with you, that war is about as contrary as can be.
I suppose that an advanced race of beings would have probably come to some agreement about life, develoment, social affairs, in such a way (probably through firsthand experience) that certain behaviors, such as war, neglect of others through famine, poverty, etc, are unacceptable.
Maybe we humans don't yet understand the inherant importance of protecting the human race as a whole. We still think in tribal terms: us vs. them.
July 12th, 2012, 09:17 AM #63
Much of our group "think" is still based on ideas from before the 20th century but we apply those ideas to 20th century technologyl. The nuclear weapons are still there, we just don't think about them as much as in the 50s. Dr. Stranglove is just a cool old movie. We are now turning the Internet into television with feedback.
Any aliens that have survived to cross interstellar distances have gone beyond our current psychology. Maybe we barely understand how they think. The West is just high technology Romans.
July 12th, 2012, 10:03 AM #64
I'm afraid that our brains are just hardwired for conflict and if we rewire ourselves to be different are we still Human? Hmmm. could be a topic for a book (or a library filled with them).
July 12th, 2012, 01:48 PM #65
- Join Date
- May 2012
star wars is more space fanasty then science fiction.
July 12th, 2012, 06:21 PM #66
What I think is lacking in most sci-fi stories:
Not a simple question. So, focusing on the word "most" in the title of your thread, I'll generalise and say this: believable relationships between characters.
To be sure there are many, many sci-fi stories in which the relationships between characters are quite believable indeed. I simply am focusing on the word "most."
What kind of relationship it is does not matter really; father-son, friend-friend, et cetera; I am not speaking purely of romantic (or would-be romantic) relationships. I do enjoy a good one of those, too, but!
I get really caught up in the lives and relationships of a book's characters, so the easier it is for me to suspend my disbelief, the better.
Last edited by Shadowcharge; July 12th, 2012 at 06:22 PM. Reason: typo
July 13th, 2012, 02:30 AM #67
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Out West
- Blog Entries
I've been puzzling over this one for awhile and remembered two early novels from Kim Stanley Robinson, part of his "Future California" series. One of them was The Gold Coast about a group of friends living is a vastly built up and overcrowded Southern California in the near future. Another one was the final book in the trilogy Pacific Edge which sort of presents a utopian version of Southern California that contrasts sharply with The Gold Coast. They are interesting alternate futures explore with no war or battles; just people living in vastly different future societies.
Another book I'm currently reading is Jack McDevitt's Time Traveller's Never Die where the characters stumble on a time travel device and (so far at least) use it to visit famous scientists, philosophers, civil rights leaders, and even The Great Library of Alexandria rather than generals, battles, atrocities (thought the Selma march in the 60's may be an exception). I emphasize however than I haven't finished it yet!
July 13th, 2012, 04:13 AM #68
The Gold Cost bored the pants off me and I gave up at about a 1/3 of the way through.
Last edited by JunkMonkey; July 13th, 2012 at 04:18 AM.
July 13th, 2012, 02:40 PM #69
(is what SF should do for us)
Last edited by Chuffalump; July 14th, 2012 at 11:03 AM.
July 15th, 2012, 06:25 PM #70
Oh, I agree that melodrama between characters can overwhelm and ruin a good sci-fi story, but this is true of any genre. I have trouble getting through a book that basically says "Here! Check out this cool world I built! And all these gizmos! Oh, and as an afterthought, I crammed in a plot with a couple of 2-D characters that fly around shooting stuff and then get into a conversation wherein they explain the physics of the universe for ten hours!" etc.
A much better balance is a story whose science elements (or fantasy for that matter) can transport me to another world naturally, and whose characters (and yes, their relationships) are real enough that they do not distract from the world, but rather, add to it. In "Friday" I was amused and interested in how the space elevator worked, and in how the protagonist's body modifications helped and hindered her, but my real and abiding concerns throughout the novel were what was going to happen to her, whether she was going to succeed, and so on. That is, the fact that Heinlein put so much effort into character-building -- into making her real -- was what ultimately kept me turning the pages.
Last edited by Shadowcharge; July 15th, 2012 at 06:28 PM.
July 16th, 2012, 09:46 AM #71
July 16th, 2012, 10:29 AM #72
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
But then in part 2, we had Yoda (muppets) and Darth declared himself to be Luke's father.. It all seemed to start to "break apart." Return of the Jedi got worse (more muppets)... After that, and especially with the use of animation rather than real people.. it just seemed to become larger and larger groups of robots vs. jedis, and one battle after another.
It all just seemed to go in a direction that I feel was wrong. --Even though I still can't put my finger on what it was about the original episode that left such an impression on me, that when I looked up at the stars at night, I just felt that it could all be quite real. Or at least a hint of where humanity is going..
Anyone else feel that?
July 16th, 2012, 11:29 AM #73
Episode IV was, and always has been, a fairy tale with spaceships. And the relationships in it were very "fairy tale" as well, all positive and happy. I'd consider the relationships in, say, Galactica (the reboot) to be more realistic: People aren't perfect, so their relationships aren't perfect. I could probably name more, but you get the idea.
July 16th, 2012, 11:48 AM #74
July 16th, 2012, 12:25 PM #75