What I think is lacking in most sci-fi stories

[psikeyhackr]

If we ever do make it off of Earth in a more permanent fashion, both types of humans will go. There will always be the little spoiled brats playing power games and starting fights because taking from others is easier than earning your own stuff, and there will always be the "adults" there to clean up those kids' messes. Just like here on Earth.

Actually Heinlein wrote a story about the kind of people that will be allowed in space.

It's Great to be Back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Great_to_Be_Back!

Would you want to be on a ship where a dummy making a stupid mistake could get you killed? We may be getting more advanced technology on Earth but it is not like most of our lives depend on it from one second to the next. What if no one with an IQ below 120 is allowed in space or can qualify? That would only be about 10% of the population. Would such people be as inclined or be led into wars?

psik

[gainespost]

Great reference, psik :-) I love most of Heinlein's stuff and will be sure to give that one a read when I get a chance.

As for the IQ idea, unfortunately having a high IQ and being violent / childish don't seem to be mutually exclusive, and I doubt that would be different in space. Plenty of "smart" people throw temper-tantrums, too. And when they are in positions of power, those tantrums can start wars. And have done, throughout history.

Likewise, there are plenty of "smart" people out there (notice my quotes -- I am a firm believer that it takes much, much more than having a high IQ to be truly intelligent) who are power-hungry and will do anything to get ahead, including forcibly taking their playmates' toys. Or territories / oil reserves / gas pipeline routes / bank reserves / telecommunications takeover deals / etc, in the case of the rich and powerful kids out there who have such big expensive toys to play with.

But the idea of a limitation on who could "be allowed" into space, based on some sort of criteria, is indeed interesting :-) I'll read that Heinlein story and think more on it.

[psikeyhackr]

Plenty of "smart" people throw temper-tantrums, too. And when they are in positions of power, those tantrums can start wars. And have done, throughout history.

But to have a WAR you need enough foollowers to be soldiers and go along with it. Where/when has a society existed with an entire population of people in the current top 10%? Would it behave like any society that ever existed before?

psik

[ahigherway]

it seems to be the kind of species we are. even if we do reach the stars as portrayed in sci-fi, colonies will gain independence, and we will continue our habits in space. there is no real evidence to suggest otherwise other than vague statements like o we will evolve into space teletubbies and live in harmony forever.

meanwhile there is thousands of years of history and even the history of space exploration to suggest that we will continue our militaristic ways.

wars in space will enhance our technology unlike anything

I disagree. I don't think war helps us. But a crisis can certainly help. If man were stripped of his warlike tendencies, he'd be forced to look for other solutions to problems.

There's lots of talk today about going to war with Iran. But if enough people speak up against the war-drums, diplomacy could win out.

2001 was kind of on the theme of the "continuation" of war-like tendencies within man. Personally, I don't think it's man's destiny to be warlike. On the contrary, I think man's war-tendency is a type of "short-circuit" response.


brian

[gainespost]

But to have a WAR you need enough foollowers to be soldiers and go along with it. Where/when has a society existed with an entire population of people in the current top 10%? Would it behave like any society that ever existed before?

psik

Personally I don't think such a population would behave like any previously existing society, no. But it is difficult to speculate without knowing the parameters. For example, even if a certain level of education / a certain amount of knowledge were one of the criteria, what types of knowledge and expertise would be deemed "important" or "crucial"? Would, say, Person A, who has a keen mind for woodworking and a deep understanding of the relationship between social anxiety / depression and substance abuse or other methods of escapism, be more or less likely to make it into that top 10% than, say, Person B who is adept at solving long-term macroeconomic problems for non-Terrestrial, isolated environments? How long can a good economy be sustained if half the population suffers panic attacks or depression? How can a population be happy if it is headed for economic ruin?

Is someone with mild autism and an inability to communicate "normally" less smart, and therefore not in the top 10%?

Plenty more examples come to mind. The more I think about it, the more complex the problem appears. Hmm.

Secondly, unless I'm misunderstanding you (which is very possible, lol.. my brain is slow today), you seem to be making the assumption that only stupid people start wars. I have a feeling some of the powerful people who have started wars (or made decisions that directly -- or indirectly -- led to war) in history were not exactly dummies. *shrug*

[ahigherway]

Personally I don't think such a population would behave like any previously existing society, no. But it is difficult to speculate without knowing the parameters. For example, even if a certain level of education / a certain amount of knowledge were one of the criteria, what types of knowledge and expertise would be deemed "important" or "crucial"? Would, say, Person A, who has a keen mind for woodworking and a deep understanding of the relationship between social anxiety / depression and substance abuse or other methods of escapism, be more or less likely to make it into that top 10% than, say, Person B who is adept at solving long-term macroeconomic problems for non-Terrestrial, isolated environments? How long can a good economy be sustained if half the population suffers panic attacks or depression? How can a population be happy if it is headed for economic ruin?

Is someone with mild autism and an inability to communicate "normally" less smart, and therefore not in the top 10%?

Plenty more examples come to mind. The more I think about it, the more complex the problem appears. Hmm.

Not all societies are based on economic gain. Some are content just to exist.

brian

[gainespost]

Not all societies are based on economic gain. Some are content just to exist.

brian

Fair enough. But how can one exist if one cannot feed oneself? Where does one get food? Or the other things necessary for existence?

When I say economy, I am not talking about getting rich. I very much *am* talking about existing. Without economy, we would perish. Even if the economy in question were a currency-less (woot, new word, hehe) bartering economy; it's still an economy.

And since we were talking about life in space or off Earth, there are many MUCH more expensive things in question than filling the population's bellies: hydroponic farms, atmosphere, radiation shielding, unique long-term medical requirements of living in a non-Terrestrial gravity and all the medical supplies that would entail -- and the mass-production of such supplies -- and the facilities / factories needed to mass-produce them.... etc etc... you name it.

We can't be content to exist unless we can produce the materials needed to exist. To produce those, we need an economy.

[ahigherway]

Fair enough. But how can one exist if one cannot feed oneself? Where does one get food? Or the other things necessary for existence?

When I say economy, I am not talking about getting rich. I very much *am* talking about existing. Without economy, we would perish. Even if the economy in question were a currency-less (woot, new word, hehe) bartering economy; it's still an economy.

And since we were talking about life in space or off Earth, there are many MUCH more expensive things in question than filling the population's bellies: hydroponic farms, atmosphere, radiation shielding, unique long-term medical requirements of living in a non-Terrestrial gravity and all the medical supplies that would entail -- and the mass-production of such supplies -- and the facilities / factories needed to mass-produce them.... etc etc... you name it.

We can't be content to exist unless we can produce the materials needed to exist. To produce those, we need an economy.

Yes; but do ants have an economy? They all work to make their "society" function, but I don't know if that's what you mean..

Just brainstorming here...

brian

[gainespost]

Ants don't (and I would even go so far as to say can't) live in space.

[Steven L Jordan]

Don't see why an ant or colony couldn't live in space (assuming something else took them up there). Sure, the anthills could be a bit more confusing without gravity, but as long as there was food for them, they could handle it.

Ants operate primarily on instinct, which is why their "economy" is simple: Survive and provide for the colony.

[gainespost]

Right. But unless we're talking about fiction, ants could not get themselves into space. We're getting side-tracked by semantics. Which is okay, I guess.

If you want to talk about fiction/fantasy and presuppose a highly involved race millions of years in the future that is directly descended from ants, and which has evolved the technology (and yes -- *shudder* -- the economy which would absolutely indispensible for providing the resources required to build flying machines that could both get Ants into orbit and could sustain life up there), then sure, that would be another interesting conversation. But it's a tangent to what was being talked about just before.

Which, of course, is what's cool about a thread like this :-) It drifts around fairly aimlessly.

[psikeyhackr]

Secondly, unless I'm misunderstanding you (which is very possible, lol.. my brain is slow today), you seem to be making the assumption that only stupid people start wars. I have a feeling some of the powerful people who have started wars (or made decisions that directly -- or indirectly -- led to war) in history were not exactly dummies. *shrug*

No, I am not talking about who starts them, I am talking about all of the cannon fodder that are supposed to follow. How many men died in World War I, supposedly because some archduke was assassinated?

How many men fought for the Confederacy even though they did not own slaves?

If the people who want to start a war can't get enough peons to go along with the idiocy, then how do you have a war?

psik

[Mostlyharmless]

No, I am not talking about who starts them, I am talking about all of the cannon fodder that are supposed to follow. How many men died in World War I, supposedly because some archduke was assassinated?

How many men fought for the Confederacy even though they did not own slaves?

If the people who want to start a war can't get enough peons to go along with the idiocy, then how do you have a war?

psik

Nice theory but I offer a list of British volunteers for WW1 to illustrate a minor problem. Most are the poets commemorated at Poet's Corner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poet%27...ld_War_I_poets. There are also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moseley or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saki. I could probably find many others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick...Baron_Blackett is perhaps special as he was already in the Navy in 1914.

[psikeyhackr]

And since we were talking about life in space or off Earth, there are many MUCH more expensive things in question than filling the population's bellies: hydroponic farms, atmosphere, radiation shielding, unique long-term medical requirements of living in a non-Terrestrial gravity and all the medical supplies that would entail -- and the mass-production of such supplies -- and the facilities / factories needed to mass-produce them.... etc etc... you name it.

We can't be content to exist unless we can produce the materials needed to exist. To produce those, we need an economy.

We have a problem with how the economy works with technology.

Ever notice how our so called economists do not talk about PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE? I haven't been to an auto show in more than 20 years. I don't give a damn what that junk looks like. Shouldn't people who like science fiction know that the Laws of Physics do not change year to year? But we don't even hear about the drag coefficient of these cars.

So the next question is what will really good robots do to the economy. How do you have an economy when 80% or more of the population does not need to work at all?

Are we only upgrading computers because we are making more bloated and inefficient software? Hey, now you can't run a Ma & Pa grocery store without a 3 GHz quad-core with 8 gig of RAM.

Can we mine the asteroids with just robots? That Mars landing was pretty impressive. Or maybe the robots can do all of the prospecting, not having to use fuel to push food and oxygen supplies around would make asteroid mining much more economical..

psik

[Steven L Jordan]

Right. But unless we're talking about fiction, ants could not get themselves into space. We're getting side-tracked by semantics. Which is okay, I guess.

If you want to talk about fiction/fantasy and presuppose a highly involved race millions of years in the future that is directly descended from ants, and which has evolved the technology (and yes -- *shudder* -- the economy which would absolutely indispensible for providing the resources required to build flying machines that could both get Ants into orbit and could sustain life up there), then sure, that would be another interesting conversation. But it's a tangent to what was being talked about just before.

Which, of course, is what's cool about a thread like this :-) It drifts around fairly aimlessly.

Actually, I was simply assuming a small group of ants accidentally stowing aboard a human ship and thriving well enough (ie, finding enough to eat) to start a colony. (Hopefully they brought a queen.)