If it's something you know a lot about then it's totally understandable you'd get bugged by it. Not jerk-ish at all. I'm the same way, though not with anything like cloning (let's just say science is not my area of expertise.)SckizoBoy said:
Sci-Fi and one of the issues biologists have with it...
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Okay, time travel you may have me on, but a lot of the other stuff is at least PLAUSIBLE. Energy based weapons for example could be possible utilizing plasma rather than lasers. From what I've heard, the only reason you can't have a lightsaber is power issues. It would take a whole power plant to run one.SckizoBoy said:
Examples, please. I don't look for realism in my sci-fi. A space battle entirely with out sound? Snore...But if you came up with some so-called hard science fiction that was compelling, I'd be interested. I mean, cloning is just one example of many.SckizoBoy said:
On that note, what did you think if Moon? I just saw it a few nights ago and I positively loved it. In case you haven't seen it, I won't spoil it by elaborating on why I brought it up. But I noticed the only truly compelling human reaction to a very well-tread sci-fi trope I think I've ever seen. Also, Sam Rockwell rocks.
Love that Sam Rockwell.
No, no... I'm OK with the plausibility, it's the representation that gets my knickers in a twist *hrk*. As per OP, cloning is a concept that has been recognised to be perfectly possible (just not practical). Anyway, with plasma weapons, rather bizarrely, I find myself in a position where the most efficient way is by using ball lightnings (even better would be St Elmo's Fire, but I can't see how such an effect can be... effected in a ranged weapon), but it, like most sci-fi-y stuff that we can make now, it requires too great an amount of energy to create.honestdiscussioner said:
And once again... WTF is this?!
Sure . . . but if we figured out fusion . . .SckizoBoy said:No, no... I'm OK with the plausibility, it's the representation that gets my knickers in a twist *hrk*. As per OP, cloning is a concept that has been recognised to be perfectly possible (just not practical). Anyway, with plasma weapons, rather bizarrely, I find myself in a position where the most efficient way is by using ball lightnings (even better would be St Elmo's Fire, but I can't see how such an effect can be... effected in a ranged weapon), but it, like most sci-fi-y stuff that we can make now, it requires too great an amount of energy to create.honestdiscussioner said:
And once again... WTF is this?!
I just get skeptical when people point out limitations to things we can do. It was once considered absolutely absurd we'd ever be able to invent a ship that can go underwater for extended periods of time at the bottom of the ocean. Same thing with creating a machine that could fly, or the sound barrier, and a host of other things.
I think one day we could create a real portable lightsaber. Maybe not this century, but I believe it is possible.
Well you do realize that what was once Sci-Fi is now a reality. Can you truthfully say that we can't have any of those things in 500 years (or however long) ? There is absolutely no way growth could be accelerated that much, no matter what? Well, 500 years ago, there was absolutely no way the Earth could be anything but flat. 100 years ago, we couldn't pull out someone's kidney and replace it with a brand new one. 50 years ago (maybe longer, not sure how long we've actually had cloning technology), cloning itself was considered "Sci-Fi".SckizoBoy said:
And Trolldor, what would you prefer the aliens be, shoggoths? Amorphous blobs with tentacles and eye stalks and shit? Yea, that'd be pretty cool actually......
Maybe the humanoid build is just the most successful? Makes sense that on similar planets, there will be similar organisms to our own. There are a few obvious exceptions, but it ultimately makes sense...Trolldor said:
Know what bugs me about sci-fi? Space travel where they are at FTL or sub-light, and you suddenly stop. Everyone on the ship is perfectly fine with an instantaneous velocity change, rather than, say, slamming bodily into the wall in whatever direction they were traveling. Inertial dampeners my ass, more like inertial cancelers.
Sure whenever i see something that i know isnt plausable the scientist inside of me dies a little but aslong as it isnt taking the complete piss then it isnt really a dealbreaker for me. Especially if its done well.
This. It seems silly that people would complain about more advanced versions of what we can do in sci-fi just because we can't currently see how it would be possible. Even FTL drives, according to everything we know it's impossible, but if we only went with the possible instead of the possibilities it would be extremely bland.Truly-A-Lie said:
Fair enough... the one that comes to mind is Nemesis by Isaac Asimov, though it's more of a psychological drama/mathematical thriller (though I'm hesitant to describe it thus). Anyway, this is one of those cases where the media can't appeal to everyone. Despite having only seen one season of it (which is currently starting to annoy me immensely) ReGenesis is awesome, though it is science fiction in the literal sense (microbiological/biochemical detectives basically sums it up). That and Copenhagen, really good film, even better stageshow, but that's more speculative historical fact (for those unaware, it's a dramatisation of the final meeting between Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr & Margrethe Bohr).funguy2121 said:
While this wouldn't sound as though it would appeal to you (though on the off chance, perhaps it does), I do look for some scientific accuracy at least in what I watch/play/read (blatant 'high' fantasy notwithstanding), because I find it more palatable that way when its taken at face value. As I mentioned... to someone else, it's probably why I prefer fantasy over sci-fi. However, mine is just an opinion... one probably unencumbered by fact.
Still, I'll take you up on Moon, since I know the concept (rather annoyingly) though haven't seen it.
Yep, and then the next step would be to have fusion reactor the size of one's hand... you'll forgive me if I get a bit skeptical over that. Though, regarding the portable lightsabre, that may happen, though probably more in the style of No More Heroes than Star Wars.honestdiscussioner said:
And while our technology may develope from now to accomplish a great many things, I cannot accept the possibility of FTL. I'll apologise in advance, but it's one of the few things I get into shouting matches about. But regardless of our ability to generate obscene amounts of energy, there are too many factors surrounding mass, distortion of spacetime... and anyone who even thinks of the Albucierre drive or Casimir vacuum deserves to be slapped.
Well, that goes with the times. Science progressed very quickly in less than a hundred years (1850-1950) which is the period in which the greatest proportion of discoveries were made. While I cannot in all honesty say that none of this will happen, nor deny the technological capacity of it (and as above/an earlier post, plausibility is not my problem, it's the representation) I believe that some will be beyond man's ability to accomplish. If I'm proved wrong in 250-however many years, then that's me told. Nanomachines are quick becoming a reality, so all things biological (and to a lesser extent chemical) will be possible in a couple generations' time. But as far as physics is concerned... see above.jigaboon said:
Well, in this case, I like to compare the human with a painting, our genetic material is the image carrier. The way we live, the brush. The experience we accumulate symbolizes the hand.HAVERSHA said:
At our birth (In which I mean, the point where we become conscious) we are born blank, we don't have any experience, we can't make rational decisions, because we don't have any memories which we could compare to the situation we are in. As we grow up, we start to accumulate different memories on which we can later resort to, if we need to make a new decision. A picture starts to form, these first lines pretty much decide what you will draw further (the way you will react in new situations). And In the end, when you die, you will have a painting, which, When you take the same person, and let her life, will look different, than the first time, since you will never experience the same things or in the same order as the first time. You will probably have some similarities, since the form or structure of the image carrier (I'm not talking about simple Canvas, a image carrier can have different forms and structures) dictates as specific approach in specific cases.
To simplify my thoughts, I believe, nature dictates how we react in specific situations, but the nurture is, whats forms us.
(I hope, it's understandable what I want to say, it's quite abstract and I'm not very good in expressing my thoughts in a way, they are easy to understand..especially when I use a foreign language...)
OT: That's always the "problem" with science fiction, if everything would work as science says it works, the fiction would be pretty boring.. because lets face it, the laws of nature are quite strict. Which is a general problem of fiction, we create fiction, because the non-fictional world isn't exciting enough or isn't that what we want it to be, and for this fiction we usually need to bend a few rules to create this fiction.. up to a point where experts of a certain field will start to complain, because the rules are so far stretched that they may disprove he actual rules...
As far as it concerns me(I think of me as well-educated person), as long as they don't contradict their own rules, they can pretty much do whatever they want.