What I think is lacking in most sci-fi stories

[Steven L Jordan]

Ah ok; I think I see what you're saying. But Luke's yearning to break away from his uncle's farm and see the world (galaxy) was not exactly shallow non-psychological fluff; it's a real emotional challenge that many adolescents go through. Well, maybe not the galaxy part....

I daresay most adolescents experience the desire to leave home and seek adventure. If nothing else, it's a familiar desire that needs no explanation to the audience. And the only possible source of conflict--approval of his aunt and uncle--were removed, making the decision a no-brainer. That's why there's no psychological edge to the decision. Now, if Owen and Beru were left alive, and his leaving would sacrifice the farm or risk the alienation of the only parents he's ever known... that's heavy stuff.

Anyway, like I said, Star Wars wasn't meant to be heavy... and it wasn't. It was meant to be a thrill ride, which it was.

Personally, when I think of SF movies with heavy psychological messages, I think of the P.K. Dick movies (Blade Runner, Minority Report, Through a Scanner Darkly, Readjustment Bureau), Vanilla Sky, 1984, Solaris, Gattaca, like that. As it so happens, all of them had strong adult relationships, and they weren't alone. Most of them were slim on detailed character backgrounds, but we are talking about 2-hour movies, here.

A similar list of books would take me longer to put together, but they're out there.

 

[JunkMonkey]

On a more "superficial" level, let's look at Chewbacca. An interesting character. Lots of "history" and fascination that could have been discovered about Chewbacca and his race/planet of origin. But it didn't happen.

You mean you've never seen the Star Wars Holiday Special in which Han and Chewie have to get back to Chewie's home planet, Kashyyyk, to celebrate 'Life day' (the most important day in the Kashyyykian calendar) with his wife Mala, son Lumpy, and father Iggy?

 

[ahigherway]

You mean you've never seen the Star Wars Holiday Special in which Han and Chewie have to get back to Chewie's home planet, Kashyyyk, to celebrate 'Life day' (the most important day in the Kashyyykian calendar) with his wife Mala, son Lumpy, and father Iggy?

Wikipedia says Kashyyyk was also mentioned in episode three. But I had so completely lost interest in the direction they were taking the story that by part two I was basically uninterested.

But from your description of Chewbacca's "family," I get the feeling that creativity was somewhat lacking here, too. --After all, why do aliens have to have uncles, aunts, wives, etc..??


brian

 

[kennychaffin]

.--After all, why do aliens have to have uncles, aunts, wives, etc..??


brian

For evolutionary purposes.

 

[ahigherway]

For evolutionary purposes.

From a physiological perspective, I agree. But what about the social perspective? Why should we expect the human social structures in alien races?

If an alien has offspring, why should they be called "children?" Or why should it be necessary that an alien has a "wife?" (or just one?)


brian

 

[kennychaffin]

Write your story, I'll read it, and let you know.

 

[ahigherway]

Write your story, I'll read it, and let you know.

I don't think I've got the "stuff" to write. But I do have ideas, and some sci-fi has really inspired me to think higher. (This forum has also been a great discussion area, too!)

One sci-fi TV series that I really liked, and still do, is the "Tripods" series (originally the "White Mountains" or "City of Lead and Gold"). It's such a shame they didn't do the last part of the trilogy..!


brian

 

[Steven L Jordan]

From a physiological perspective, I agree. But what about the social perspective? Why should we expect the human social structures in alien races?

Like so many other things, writers take these conventions from familiar sources, in this case, terrestrial family/support groups. I've said before that lower survival pressures might create very different social groups, or no social groups at all, if there is no need for support/cooperation for survival.

Bearing offspring that are essentially fully adult and prepared to fend for themselves at birth would also negate the need for support/cooperation/protection; but on Earth, only the simplest life forms (think: bacteria) are capable of producing fully functional, fully independent offspring.

Some believe that significant survival pressure is required to evolve higher life forms. I'm not sure about that, but such pressure does tend to encourage social/family cooperative groups... on Earth. Create an alien race that is capable of independently handling their survival pressures, and you've got a race that may have no social/family groups.

Of course, if such groups are intelligent enough, they may find other reasons to group, such as for entertainment, intellectual stimulation, or exercise...

 

[warrior6]

The problem is so many people think like that. I had a history teacher in high school who I would swear was looking forward to a war with China.

The thing is we do need a different attitude toward science and science education. Too often the only reason some research gets financed is because they think it will be a useful weapon.

psik

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

 

[gainespost]

it seems to be the kind of species we are.

Yeah, for the most part. But not all people are warlike

Some kids are able to keep from punching each other when they are mad. Some are not mature enough / don't have enough self-control. Both are human.

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.

 

[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's_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.