GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Yet another interesting Firefly technology comment

POSTED BY: MILLERNATE
UPDATED: Friday, November 1, 2002 16:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3569
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 6:45 PM

MILLERNATE


I came on the following thread in the groups.google.com archive of Usenet posting and I thought this might be interesting. The comment is at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl75285204d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&oe=UTF-8&selm=89ee99ea.0210291153.43b64f78%40posting.google.com&rnum=16
But (since this is a big long link and I can't be sure it will work) I think I'll quote relavent parts here:
Quote:


From: Cabby (I'm erasing the e-mail just in case)

For future colonists to have lower living standards than today, their
contemporary civilization has to have the same living standards as
today. Only with FTL travel, cryostasis, advance food concentrates and
forcefield barroom windows. This assumption is unreasonable and flies
in the face of the history of science. Just the few advances seen
would have a staggering number of technological spinoffs, not to
mention all the advances needed to make them even possible. Advances
in technology result in an ultimate increase in standard of living.

Exceptions can always come into play. But as such, they need to be
mentioned.

When people colonize, they don't just leave everything behind then go
poke a stick in the ground around their new home world and hope not to
starve (these people are called refugees or immigrants and can be
discussed later). Colonists bring their stuff with them. High and low
tech. Whatever they'll need to survive and live reasonably
comfortably. High on the list of stuff they'll bring are things they
can't make themselves or easily replace. Moreover, they are probably
colonizing under the auspices of a government or corporation, which
translates into more high standard of living technology to encourage
people to leave civilized worlds and make the colonies successful.

But here's the real problem. What we have seen so far in Firefly:
agrarian colonies living a 19th century subsistence existence with
virtually no modern technology. If this is the exception, rather than
the rule, it should have been pointed out as such.



There's more but I think this will do for now



Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:22 PM

MILLERNATE


Well, it seems my post only shows the danger of selective quoting becuase the original answered some of your objections (I'll answer the first one then let part of his post answer the other and I should mention that the individual in question does not seem a Star Trek fan):
Quote:


He/she is brainwashed into believing that technology must necessarily advance. That is not the case. Technology is a function of economy. If you don't have the economy, then you don't have the technology.



Yes but you are overlooking something: Namely that in colonizing an area the driving authority (colonization tends to be far too expensive to not have some underdriving power behind it, with only a few very rare exceptions). Also, technology does always advance unless you have a catastrophe of truly massive proportions (aka the center of learning in that segment of society is more or less completely destoryed ala the fall of Rome, or something as massive as the Black Death, but that affects all learning and not just Tech which does not seem to be the case). Otherwise, except for those exceptions I mention technology either advances or at the very least stays static. It does not go backward. As for your war objection:

Quote:



On this guy's particular issue, he is ignoring that the explanation for the depressed state of economy has been given. A war was fought 6 year prior to the events in question. It was also pointed that it was a particularly bloody and destructive war.



This particular objection was handled later in the guy's post (remember my comment on the dangers of selective quoting) were he stated:

Quote:


The only justification for the conditions seen is war, and it is only
offered in the vaguest fashion. If the original settlements were
destroyed, along with all of their high tech amenities, then the
places we see would be called refugee camps, not colonies. In fact,
switching the terms goes a lot further in justifying the extreme
technological discrepencies. If these places were penal colonies, that
might also make sense. But this doesn't seem to be the case.
If the Alliance swept through and seized all high tech gadgetry after
the war for reparations, then this would be another good reason for
Mal to hate the Alliance and would bear mentioning when he walks
through the results of it.

Any of these explanations would go a long way to adding depth to the
story.

Either there is a very important piece of the puzzle yet to be
revealed, or I was wrong: This is a Western papered over with SF
elements with no rhyme or reason.



Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:24 PM

THELEFTHAND


I would just add the following:
If the Alliance is now the sole controlling power, one could assume they would have a relative monopoly on technology. Doesn't the intro mention something about people moving beyond the control of the Alliance? This would put them beyond the reach of this technology. In addition, we have seen high tech worlds in the new opening credits. It was also pointed out in another thread somewhere that there are people running around in the 21st century on earth with animal skins and pointy sticks. Technology doesn't automatically permeate through an entire society. Case in point: the Amish.
If you expect every group of people to have access to technology, you should brush up on the history of this planet before you ridicule a CONCEPT OF THE FUTURE. This is also Joss Whedon. Metaphor, children, metaphor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:27 PM

LIVINGIMPAIRED


Hear, hear. We may have iPods and space stations, but we're the biggest economy in the world. There are people living today in other parts of the same planet that live like people did thousands of years ago. Stretch that idea over the space of... space, and you got some backwards planets. And no, we do not know how much the colonists could take with them. In space travel, every cubic inch is precious, and expensive. Look at Mal's quarters on Serenity. He's the Captain, and his quarters make my dorm room look like a mansion. The colonist may not have been able to take much at all, techy or otherwise. Also, an electrically powered device generally only works if you have electricty to power it. I didn't see very many Druacell plants on the planets Serenity's visited...

________________

You know, I think the thrall has really gone out of our relationship.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:37 PM

MILLERNATE


Quote:


Hear, hear. We may have iPods and space stations, but we're the biggest economy in the world. There are people living today in other parts of the same planet that live like people did thousands of years ago. Stretch that idea over the space of... space, and you got some backwards planets.



See there is one glaring logical problem with that: The countries/socities that would colonize these areas would be from the wealthiest (and thus highest tech) areas/socities. I mean did the poorer countries colonize america? No it was the wealthier English, Dutch, Spainish (in the beginning), and French who did.

Quote:


In space travel, every cubic inch is precious, and expensive.



Well, unless the colonizing authority is completely and utterly idiotic (I'm talking *badly* stupid here folks) then they would have a ship that would posses a huge variety of technological goods for the use of the colony as a whole (much like Spainish/English colonist ships had a huge hold of items for use by the colony).

Quote:


Also, an electrically powered device generally only works if you have electricty to power it. I didn't see very many Druacell plants on the planets Serenity's visited...



I would think that by this point they've mastered: Solar Power, cold fusion, or some other clean, relatively easily-renewable power source which would be relatively easy to import (heck, part of the concept of the show requires them to have developed it, otherwise how does Serenity fly?). Heck, Solar power is nearly at that point now (nearly 500 years before Firefly is set). Have a heavy duty energy storage device hooked to a solar power collector and charge your items from that. I wouldn't say this is hard.

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:20 AM

QUILL


The opening voiceover of the show doesn't give a lot of data about how the colonizations were done. We don't really know what history has been like between our own "present day" and the Firefly present, except that there was a recent war that the rebels lost. Those colonies could have been founded by force--nations from Earth-that-was rounding up undesirables or just their own oppressed citizens and dumping them on a freshly terraformed planet to make their own way, and not spending money on lots of technology.

Or, another possibility--the voiceover says that Earth was used up. Maybe the colonists didn't want to use up their own planets and so have deliberately kept their technology levels down (except for mag trains I suppose) so as to avoid poisoning the planet or using up resources. This contradicts the clean energy source idea, of course, but a "dirty" one could be used freely in space if one had enough shielding.

Inside every cynic there's an idealist desperately yearning to be let out, and when they are let out they're usually a real pain and cause all sorts of trouble. --Chris Boucher

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:42 AM

SILVERADO


Okay, this guy *really* sounds like a brainwashed Trekkie (or however they spell themselves).
Many good arguments here for the tech-level seen on Firefly.
Not much to add but a real life, real history example perhaps- straight from the time we call the "Wild West".

Pick any year during that era, let's say 1875, get a time machine, travel back, step out of it first in New York, Boston or Chicago, then back with your butt in the machine and this time travel to the frontier towns in the west.

Look around and be amazed.

Looks like you made a *big* jump in time again but all you did was travel geographically.

As somebody clever here already said- the only difference we have here is that it's not a continent this time but stretched out in space.

Showed an episode to an old history professor on campus.
The old guy just blinked and muttered:
"Damn. This is brilliant. And prolly what it will actually look like."

On a sidenote: Yep, he watches Firefly too now.
Let the recruitment continue ;)

See you in space, pardners:

Silverado.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:16 AM

LIVINGIMPAIRED


Quote:

Originally posted by millernate:
Quote:

Quote:


In space travel, every cubic inch is precious, and expensive.



Well, unless the colonizing authority is completely and utterly idiotic (I'm talking *badly* stupid here folks) then they would have a ship that would posses a huge variety of technological goods for the use of the colony as a whole (much like Spainish/English colonist ships had a huge hold of items for use by the colony).




Missing the point here! A space ship is more like a submarine than a boat. Space is at a premium. TO illustrate, I once read somewhere that if you wanted to send a letter to your mother in style, and you decided to send it up in the space shuttle, counting in fuel, and the very precious space in the ship, it'd cost you around $100,000. Now obviously technology is more advanced in Firefly, and space travel is cheaper. But the cost of making a large ship on a budget is still a limiting factor. Space ships are expensive. So it's not as if colonists could just go wild and bring along the kitchen sink.

Oh, and yes, Serenity does use fuel. In the pilot, one of the factors stressing the characters was that they had this cargo to unload, and if they couldn't sell it pronto, they wouldn't be able to afford to fuel to keep her flying.

________________

You know, I think the thrall has really gone out of our relationship.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:08 AM

HOBBES


Quote:

Originally posted by LivingImpaired:

Space is at a premium. To illustrate, I once read somewhere that if you wanted to send a letter to your mother in style, and you decided to send it up in the space shuttle, counting in fuel, and the very precious space in the ship, it'd cost you around $100,000.



Although the Central Planets (if they have any sense) would have skyhooks. Which would be much cheaper than using a space ship to lift it out of the gravity well.

Quote:

Originally posted by LivingImpaired:

Oh, and yes, Serenity does use fuel. In the pilot, one of the factors stressing the characters was that they had this cargo to unload, and if they couldn't sell it pronto, they wouldn't be able to afford to fuel to keep her flying.



If they're using tech that we know about than the fuel could be hydrogen - used in fusion engines. Or antimatter :)
Or (ultra simple) water replacing hydrogen. Not as good, but as a makeshift.

-------------------------------------------------
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:21 AM

BULBUS


I think there's a lot of good points in all these quotes, and that there's not one that's absolutely correct though. I agree that some of the colonies we've seen so far have the average technology of a third world country, but that doesn't mean that ALL of them are the same way.

I imagine that after the war, the Allience probably took over a number of the colonies that had rebelled, thus prompting citizens fearing reprisals to seek out other homes. And given the nature of the other ship captains we've seen so far (think the would be hijacker in Out of Gas) I can imagine the cost of hitching a ride would jump astronomically. Mal might have a streak of nobility in him, but some others might just stop midway and decide to up the price before going any further. So it's very possible that some of these refugees might have arrive on a new planet with nothing but the clothes on their back.

Of course, not all the colonies might be this way. Some might be the bustling and futuristic metropolis' we've come to expect. There might be big money there just waiting for Serenity, but what else would you find there but a big Alliance presense. Remember, Serenity and her crew are trying to stay under the radar of Alliance types, so they'd avoid those colonies like the plague. So just to stay hidden they might have to restrict themselves to scraping for jobs in these one horse towns.

Not to say that there are probably some well to do colonies out there without an Allience presense. There might be, but it's just the start of the series so maybe we haven't seen them yet.

One last thing to bring up. "Jeremiah" made a point about the levels of technology. Just because someone might be a oh... systems engineer or a worker in a steel plant, doesn't automatically mean they know how to build a working windmill and grinding stone to grind wheat or something like that. Some of these refugees could very well have doctorates in physics or be computer mainframe designers and have absolutely no use for their skills on a primitive world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:01 PM

EVANS


My ex said, years ago, that not too far into the future most of us will be living in shacks, but we'll have really neat toys (such as future versions of cell phones and PDAs).

m.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:58 AM

QUILL


Quote:

Originally posted by Thegn:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hobbes:
Although the Central Planets (if they have any sense) would have skyhooks. Which would be much cheaper than using a space ship to lift it out of the gravity well.

Only if you assume the existence of "magical" materials.




Well, according to a discussion I've kibbitzed on among some scientists, it could be done with variations on buckminsterfullerine--carbon nanotubes. Not possible as yet, but they're working out a path to get there.

Inside every cynic there's an idealist desperately yearning to be let out, and when they are let out they're usually a real pain and cause all sorts of trouble. --Chris Boucher

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2002 2:15 AM

QUILL


More science-fiction than fantasy.

Inside every cynic there's an idealist desperately yearning to be let out, and when they are let out they're usually a real pain and cause all sorts of trouble. --Chris Boucher

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2002 1:06 PM

QUILL


The discussion can be found at
http://forums.keenspace.com/viewtopic.php?t=40000&highlight=nanotubes

I'm no scientist, but it sounds interesting to me.

Inside every cynic there's an idealist desperately yearning to be let out, and when they are let out they're usually a real pain and cause all sorts of trouble. --Chris Boucher

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL