Nowism vs the Replacement Principle

I saw a documentary on the making of Star Trek: TNG, and the designers said they started with the things that wouldn't change. First up: bucket seats.

One thing I think won't change is people's desire to live near water and to have a small patch of land of their own.

I think that the answer partly relies on how far into the future you are dropping the character.

For example, if you picked up someone (we'll call her Jane) from 1988 and plopped them into 2005, what will she notice? That cellular phones went from the size of a tennis shoe to the size of a credit card, but they are still cellular phones. That cassette tapes have become CD's and digital downloads, but music is still transportable and recordable. That we have computers instead of typewriters, but we still type the written word.

It's only seventeen years, within our lifespans, but still the future to Jane. Now let's say we take someone from 2005 (Joe) and drop them into 2022. Another seventeen-year gap, and still the future to Joe (although our mindset would argue that only 2022 is "the future," but *any* time is the future, depending on your POV).

How will cell phones have changed again? Will they be smaller? Larger? Permanent implants in our ears? What about music and computers and books?

Even in Star Trek (all series roughly 200-400 years from now), they have recognizable items. Guns (phasers, rather than the projectile bullet variety), food dispensers (replicators), clothing (although fashion design has gone downhill ), cell phones/walkie talkies (Communicators/comm badges).

Electronic technology and advances in medicine seem to have changed the most rapidly in the last sixty years or so. It stands to reason that they would continue to change dramatically in the coming decades and centuries. I think I'd still recognize a cell phone in one hundred years, but it may not look anything like the little Nokia in my purse.

-Kelly....in need of coffee....

It's definately partially dependant on how far into the furture you have gone. It also depends on the events of the past years. Has some war prevented progress? Are the rainforests dead, therefore destorying a means of obtaining coffee? Has a movie stars obsession with pink and purple conviced the pshyco idolists to tatto themselves in color? Where is Carmen Sandiago?

Okay so I got carried away. My point, everything matters...patterens in progress, past events, characters statis (I doubt anyone here would recoignize the stuff in top secret military areas...but that's current. People of a high military statis do) and what you feel is right. Personally, I have no trouble with the level of tech and items and stuff...my issue is futuristic settings. I've been hit with this annoying bug in my brain that makes me think of silver stuff...Help Me..AHAHAHAHAHAA.................................. *DIES, BUT WILL COME BACK TO LIFE LATER*

If you could bring a person from 1505 to 2005, what would they recognize? Basic kitchen stuff hasn't changed appreciably in 500 years--your cast-iron skillet, for instance, and wooden spoons and so forth. Outside, rakes and other garden tools are still pretty much identical to what they were 500 years ago. Furniture hasn't changed. Clothing styles have changed radically, but I'm sitting here wearing a cotton T-shirt and jeans and leather boots, so it's not like we're all clad in plastic or anything radical (and even if we are, we take pains to make it look natural).

In short, I'd say things that have basic uses, like clothes and furniture, are not going to change much in the next 500 years. Technology is going to change a lot. That person from 1505 would be amazed at some of the comforts we take for granted, like electric lights, but not confused by most of them. They had oil lamps in 1505. Everything we use has been designed to give us comfort or pleasure, and people are not going to turn into strange alien beings in 500 years.

There's a web site with a picture of a doctor's kit from one of the first Roman doctors compared with what doctors would use now. Virtually every instrument was still present and in much the same shape and size as before. If you plopped a doctor from now into the past and he had a way of obtaining instruments, he'd recognize them and know their use. Same goes in reverse.

Sorry I don't recall the URL for that site. It might come up on Google with the right search terms.

There's also the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. Why replace something if it's still working? Walk through any city and you'll see a mix of architectures from the glass and steel skyscrapers to the historical sites. Take a look at your kitchen drawers, or in your closet. Unless you can afford to replace everything each time something newer or niftier is invented, you'll see a mix of items from different time periods. In a house, the mix of styles will also be a function of how old the occupants are. A newlywed couple will more likely to have items of the same time period (the time when they were married) than a couple who has been married for fifty years.

Another thing is the sentimentality factor. Older items are kept in use because of attachments, like using a fountain pen because my grandfather gave it to me.

It always bothers me watching futuristic movies to see only "future" items. Doesn't anyone in the future collect antiques? I think the TV series Firefly did a good job of mixing future/current items.

Form follows function. Certain functions do not require new forms. Also, primitive does not mean stupid. Some forms haven't been improved upon.

There's a web site with a picture of a doctor's kit from one of the first Roman doctors compared with what doctors would use now. Virtually every instrument was still present and in much the same shape and size as before. If you plopped a doctor from now into the past and he had a way of obtaining instruments, he'd recognize them and know their use. Same goes in reverse.

Sorry I don't recall the URL for that site. It might come up on Google with the right search terms.

Click to expand...

http://www.mcatmaster.com/medicine&war/ancientrome.htm

Some really interesting material.

Then again, it's also amusing to watch some of the older SF movies and see what was new then being completely outdated now. I'm thinking of things like spinning tape drives and 5 1/4 floppy disks, or even older cell phones and record players. A lot of older books use tapes as a storage medium. Maybe there is some advantage to creating your own new technology for your story. No one can come along and replace it.

On the other hand, some authors got it right to begin with. I recall in some of Andre Norton's YA books that I read back in the 1950s(?) where the ship was piloted automatically by small program disks. There were different ones for each destination that apparently automatically plotted the necessary course.

I agree with the poster who said sentiment would allow some things to stay the same. I think there will be projectile weapons for centuries to come, either because they will become cheap, gun enthusiasts claim more stopping power, and the ever popular 'it worked for your father, it'll work for you.' Until we all get personal shields, projectile weapons will be the choice weapon for some people.

I think wrist phones will eventually occur, too. I might be alone in that, I know of no company that has one out now. As big as they were in the Bond and other spy movies, I thought they'd be out by now.

I'm still wondering where the data crystals are, LOL. Will they have hover cars in 20 years? Beam me up, George, I'm not smarter than the average bare. (everything in that sentence is intentional, just thought I'd say that before you think I'm an imbecile because of it.)

David

Dhewco said:

I think there will be projectile weapons for centuries to come, either because they will become cheap, gun enthusiasts claim more stopping power, and the ever popular 'it worked for your father, it'll work for you.' Until we all get personal shields, projectile weapons will be the choice weapon for some people.

Click to expand...

I think you're right that a weapon that in effect throws an object at your enemy (whether by hand or by an explosion) is going to be around for a long time. But projectile weapons inside a pressure vessel, such as a space ship, where there is vacuum on the other side of the hull may not be prudent. Even though explosive decompression is generally considered a myth currently, blowing a hole in your space cruiser's hull is a really bad idea.

I think wrist phones will eventually occur, too. I might be alone in that, I know of no company that has one out now. As big as they were in the Bond and other spy movies, I thought they'd be out by now.

Click to expand...

Well, they are, sorta, aren't they? But instead of occupying real estate on the wrist, they clip over the ear. Not as snakey as the ones on Stargate: Atlantis they nonetheless are very small. The Wrist Radio/TV posited in "Dick Tracy" of years ago, is now a very real possibility. The reason it is not in general use is probably due to lack of interest, rather than limited technology.

I'm still wondering where the data crystals are, LOL.

Click to expand...

Data crystals are sometime off in the future, yet, I'm afraid. Although the idea of storing binary data in the atomic matrix of a crystal had been around for awhile, getting it to work in an economical manner hasn't been achieved. Yet. Stay tuned.

Will they have hover cars in 20 years?

Click to expand...

Maybe. Probably not. Takes too much energy. That's the main problem with "cars" in the first place. Besides the fuel necessary to operate them, they need roads, places to park, and they kill more humans than just about anything else. Some other method of transporting humans to where they want to go when they want to go there will come to light first, I think. (I'd love to see implementation of Niven's stepping plates for example.)

Trying to come up with a scenerio for the future is what writing science fiction is all about, isn't it?

I think it's more likely that the spaceship interiors will be made of bulletproof materiels, rather than people using lasers or energy weapons. The energy weapons will be there, but there'll always be some people who prefer projectile weapons.


David

Wrist phones are cooler than clip to the ear phones. LOL. To me, anyway

Dhewco said:

I think it's ... likely that the spaceship interiors will be made of bulletproof materiels...

Click to expand...

Just so the it's possible to use projectile weapons against the occupants without blowing a hole in the hull?

hm. Maybe.

But think of a Brinks' armored car. Or a Bradley fighting vehicle. Now imagine sending such a heavily armoured vehicle into space from the surface of an Earth-like planet. Now imagine the overdraft charges on your bank account.

Now imagine your average get-around-town automobile. Bullets go right through them. The concussion from the discharge of even a small calibre firearm inside the cab of a car is enough to burst ear drums. As I said, projectile weapons will no doubt still be in use far into the future. But I maintain their use on space ships will be limited to those invented by Hollywood.

In one of my stories, I needed a weapon for the 'cops' to use against an uprising of a segment of the population in a space station. I had already eliminated projectile weapons for the reasons above. In fact, in my space station, there are no guns at all, but something like a taser. Inside a pressure vessel, you don't need a long-range weapon anyway. I looked online--discovered sonic weapons. I postulated that to a gentleman who was a retired submariner.

He shook his head. "You'll play hell with echos. Even the bearers of the weapon will be affected." Then he grinned. "But you might consider a gun that shoots ice needles. The ice can contain an anaesthetic--or poison. The individual crystals won't have enough mass to ricochet, but will penetrate skin and knock out your opponent."

Sage said:

Or maybe just so it's possible to fly at FTL speeds & not have a tiny piece of a space rock that's in the way blow a hole in the hull from the outside of the ship....

Click to expand...

That should be a worry only if you don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics. (If you don't, then you'd better have a darned good case for not doing so.) For an object travelling faster than C is, from the viewpoint of things NOT going that fast, pure energy. And in that case, pity the poor rock, not the space ship.

Pthom said:

He shook his head. "You'll play hell with echos. Even the bearers of the weapon will be affected." Then he grinned. "But you might consider a gun that shoots ice needles. The ice can contain an anaesthetic--or poison. The individual crystals won't have enough mass to ricochet, but will penetrate skin and knock out your opponent."

Click to expand...

We have something like that today, although they're not made of ice.

Flechette Rounds are REALLY, REALLY nasty. Think of sending a couple thousand steel needles downrange at about 2000 ft/sec. Then think about what they'd do to a target. . . ick.

They're not really useful against metal armored opponents, but against people wearing kevlar, it's just nasty (goes right through the ballistic weave). Really useful against dismounted infantry these days, but they'd be devestating inside a space ship but highly unlikely to penetrate all the way through a bulkhead or a port window.

Sage said:

Okay, then how about, just under light speed? Still pretty fast, not pure energy, ne?

Click to expand...

Yeah, very fast. You are correct that in high-speed collisions, there is a vast amount of energy released. Physicists call the kind of collision that converts a Brinks Armoured Car into a puddle of slag an "elastic" collision. The same kind of collision of a baseball with a bat. If it weren't for the strength of the wood of the bat or of the leather covering of the ball, things would go poof and the game would be over. (An inelastic collision is one like dropping the pie dough on the floor. It lands there and stops.)

But the kinetic energy has to go somewhere. It can be converted to heat (asteroid hitting Siberia and causing massive forest fires), sound, or redirected kinetic energy. This last is what Hollywood likes to show in space opera movies: big (and little) pieces of space ships and space men flying all about accompanied with wonderful sound effects.

So, how to get from our galaxy to the next? While we still have all our hair and teeth? Why, in Very Fast Ships of course. (Or with magic, but I'm limiting our discussion to science fiction where magic is usually not involved.) In a VFS, you have the risk you state: running into Bits of Stuff That Are Inconviently In The Way. You can make shields such as they have in Star Trek (but never use for this purpose), or have some sort of laser broom to get the Inconvient Bits out of the way (curling in space, anyone?) or an amazing navigational computer to locate and dodge them all.

Personally, if it's important to the story, I prefer the broom idea. The shield has the problem of what to do with the energy of the collision with the object. It has to go somewhere, and unless you have a cool engine that can somehow convert grit into fuel, the collision(s) will just serve to slow you down. And the navigational computer might work, but everyone'd be car sick once they got to Andromeda.

Or you could just write about travelling to and fro in the universe while watching in-flight movies and not worry about road hazards. Just as Thelma and Louise didn't worry about potholes until the very end.

Richard White said:

We have something like that today...Flechette Rounds.
...
they'd be devestating inside a space ship but highly unlikely to penetrate all the way through a bulkhead or a port window.

Click to expand...

Right.

I still worry about ricochet. If I'm arming my police force aboard my space vessels, I want them to have something that will stop the opponent but not damage the user of the weapon or the surroundings.

As for whacking on an intruder...let's come up with some sort of system so the intruder never gets in, eh?

They already issue special bullets to air marshals for use in thin-skinned aluminum passenger liners. The bullets are designed to shatter on impact with metal.

Lead bullets. Copper jacketed bullets. Rubber bullets. Bullets that shatter upon impact with metal. Fletchets. Ice needles.

All are iterations of throwing rocks at your opponent. And although I have no doubt such weapons will be in existance centuries from now, I can't help think that armorers of the future will invent weapons that 1) don't need to be aimed very carefully or at all and 2) incompacitate the intended victim without permanent damage to either the victim or his surroundings.

Maybe it's some kind of a gun. We seem to be in the mindset that guns (or their cousins) are the ideal weapons.

But maybe it's something else. Focused psychic waves? What if your army had a squad of folks who could, merely by concentrating on it, cause your enemy's army to think they were on the battlefield just to pick daisies? Wouldn't that be a better way of winning a war than destroying lives and irreplacable property?

Maybe in a future, fire and brimstone battles will be just a diversion for what really wins or loses wars.

Maybe we're already doing that.

Pthom said:

Maybe in a future, fire and brimstone battles will be just a diversion for what really wins or loses wars.

Maybe we're already doing that.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that's classified.

If I told you, we'd have to cut off your head and store it in a safe.

Please ignore the man behind the curtain.