• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 day ago

    It’s why a lot of sci-fi written in the 1900’s takes place in like the 90’s and 2000’s. Writers thought that we would keep on exponentially advancing and have Mars colonies and flying cars by now. They could have never predicted that interest in space exploration would have waned, like people stopped caring about the space shuttle, and that the actual technological revolution took place in the computing space.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      216 hours ago

      This is because of the socio-political dimension of things. It’s not just that people just randomly changed their minds, so much technological innovation is driven by war or the threat of war.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        419 hours ago

        It’s weird reading work by authors like Asimov, where people travel between planets as a matter of routine, and we have sentient robots, but not mobile phones.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 hours ago

          but then on the flipside there’s stuff like star trek, which since it’s literally the inspiration for cellphones is remarkably normal

          even the fucking tricorders aren’t that far off these days, just today i used an app on my phone to identify plants automatically for fuck’s sake, that’s insane!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          118 hours ago

          Or there are phones or cybernetic radio implants but they’re just a way to make phone calls.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      320 hours ago

      i think a lot of people simply couldn’t have imagined computers back in 1900. that is simply because computers are a rapid qualitative progress instead of just a quantitative one.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        519 hours ago

        And some even got the cyberpunkiness almost right (Johnny Nmemonic swung so hard!). I think for every visionary piece, we have 100 lost contemporary ‘trash’ (not trash, more like a picture of the spirit of the time) that has already been lost.

        I mean Star Trek was pretty wickedly ahead of it’s time for all of the creator’s shortcomings. Still can’t believe that teleporting doesn’t kill you every time.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          117 hours ago

          Has it ever been proven in any of the shows that the transporter didn’t kill everyone that used it and just made such prefect copies that no one realized?

          Like it created an extra copy of Riker and there was the tragedy of Tuvix. Though I’d say the former is evidence that it is new copies but the latter might be evidence against it, since they each had memories of their time merged when they separated. Actually, that whole incident kinda brings into question what’s going on for a transporter to accidentally merge two people and not in a “horrible teleportation into a wall accident” way and then somehow de-merge them.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            it’s just the ship of theseus, at what point do you consider it a new ship?

            like think about it, people only start questioning if it’s the same person after they learn how transporters work, doesn’t that indicate that it really doesn’t matter? if people can go their entire lives with neither them nor anyone around them noticing a difference, how could they somehow be a different person?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            217 hours ago

            Yeah, there definitely are some waved away elements that are basically magic. I’m just binging TNG now, but I saw the Lower Decks tribute to many-a transporter incidents.

            I mean if you can transport and not at the same time (the copy version), it is not hard to think that once that buffer is cleared on the one side, it’s game over man.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 hours ago

              it’s only a problem if you think the sole thing defining “you” is an intangible soul that for some reason wouldn’t just transfer between or get copied alongside instances of yourself

              the line of reasoning you talk about has always been so strange to me, you’d be talking to a person walking out of a transporter and insist they’re dead, as they look you in the eye and ask if that’s an insult

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 hours ago

                I had a similar argument with a friend, and I think he won that time. It came out of left field and rephrases the whole thought experiment.

                Instead of me defending the argument, how would you interpret a clone incident? Would you get ‘the other feed’ as well? We have the sleep cycle where we don’t actively get input (even though our conciousness is present during dreams to a certain extent). So if a transporter clone incident rebuilds the person on the other side, but an original instant could go on experiencing a life that wouldn’t be if the transporter functioned correctly.

                Hopefully that took the soul out of your argument!