Avatar - James Cameron

[Orionblamblam]

Cryonics is at best hypothetical.

Sure. But it's canonical in "Avatar." So, that's what there is to work with, along with blue monkeys with USB plugs in their hair and carbon fiber in their bones and magic superconductors in their dirt.

Seems like a good reason to terraform earth. Starting from scratch is no simple task.

Not for us, now, no. But for us, a century or two hence when we have desktop fusion, practical general purpose and not at all genocidal AI, and fabrication technology indistinguishable from replicators?

The biggest engineering problems are difficult due largely to energy needs and resource needs. When you have the power of suns at your command, telling a planet to stop screwing around and fall in line with the program ceases to be that big of a deal.

I'm reminded of a possibly apocryphal story from just before the Manhattan project. A physics teacher supposedly told his students about the possibility of using a cyclotron to separate out weapons grade uranium in order to make a bomb... but it was impossible because it would take such a machine a million years to get enough U 235 to make a single bomb. As goes the story, one student asked something like "Yeah, but how about we make a million cyclotrons?" A project of a million years is beyond us. A project of a million manufactured units might not be.

I don't think that interstellar travel and settlement are impossible, but our descendants will have to adapt to be able to do it and that adaptation will bring fundamental changes in outlook and culture.

Maybe. What happens if it turns out that Zephram Cochrane really does invent a *practical* warp drive forty years from now? Sure, it's unlikely. But such a device would open up interstellar travel as a mission taking months or weeks, not millenia. No need for humans to change into something else.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Sure. But it's canonical in "Avatar." So, that's what there is to work with, along with blue monkeys with USB plugs in their hair and carbon fiber in their bones and magic superconductors in their dirt.


Maybe. What happens if it turns out that Zephram Cochrane really does invent a *practical* warp drive forty years from now? Sure, it's unlikely. But such a device would open up interstellar travel as a mission taking months or weeks, not millenia. No need for humans to change into something else.

There's no warp drive in Avatar, so do we work with that or not? What are the terms here?

One can arbitrarily suppose anything but even Miguel Alcubierre considers warp drive to be essentially a thought experiment - very useful in provoking studies that spin off new insights but nothing even remotely like a practical engineering design. After all, Albert Einstein never actually rode on a beam of light.

If a radical technological innovation appears and proliferates, then it will inevitably have radical sociocultural effects too. The history of warfare is full of examples of that principle.

 

[Rhinocrates]

As goes the story, one student asked something like "Yeah, but how about we make a million cyclotrons?" A project of a million years is beyond us. A project of a million manufactured units might not be.

If you get nine women simultaneously pregnant, you won't get a baby in one month.

 

[Orionblamblam]

As goes the story, one student asked something like "Yeah, but how about we make a million cyclotrons?" A project of a million years is beyond us. A project of a million manufactured units might not be.

If you get nine women simultaneously pregnant, you won't get a baby in one month.

No, you'll get nine babies in nine months, where if you only had one woman, it'd take best part of nine years. But of course that's irrelevant to the discussion. If one cyclotron produces one bombs worth of u235 in a million years, that means it takes, to first order, one year to make a millionth's of a bombs worth of U-235. Stack up a million units and run them simultaneously, one year will get you one bomb.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If a radical technological innovation appears and proliferates, then it will inevitably have radical sociocultural effects too. The history of warfare is full of examples of that principle.

And yet, humanity is essentially the same as it has been before humans learned to carve megaliths. Give us practical warp/hyper/jump drive, we'll be baseline humans while we're out carving up the galaxy. The only tech that'll fundamentally change us is genetics. And if we are at Galactic Empire (or even UFP) levels of power, there'll be no need to change humanity to fit the environment; we'll change environments to fit humanity. It would be insanity to "diversify" humans into wacky and mutually exclusive subspecies dedicated to environments everyone else can't live in. Diversity leads to conflict and death and genocide and collapse of civilizations *now,* just wait until the chlorine breathers decide they want what the low-G spindlies have.

 

[publiusr]

Then too, it could be that their bio-Internet, sky-mounts and such were made by something like the Engineers from PROMETHEUS.

There’s a cross-over for you.

 

[Rhinocrates]

And yet, humanity is essentially the same as it has been before humans learned to carve megaliths

We're an extremely versatile species. 'Essentially' the same has obviously produced many different cultures and lifestyles. There is no human community that does everything that every community does. I'd be interested to see what Apophenia has to say, since they're kept abreast with the current anthropological literature.

No, you'll get nine babies in nine months, where if you only had one woman, it'd take best part of nine years.

A baby is a complex living system and an analogy for a working ecosystem, not a quantity. That was my point. Oceans with food and resource webs that can support megafauna aren't sea monkey sets and it doesn't matter how many eggs you pour into the jar.

Give us practical warp/hyper/jump drive

A fantasy akin to the Philosopher's Stone. That makes the galactic empire a castle built on a cloud.

Diversity leads to conflict and death

How do you impose and maintain absolute uniformity across a galactic empire with a population of trillions? (Hmm... apparently O'Brien was wrong; the future is actually going to be a cookie cutter stamping on dough forever.) Assuming the existence of the Infinite Improbability Drive to make this empire finitely improbable, it amounts in practice to eugenic totalitarianism with absolute surveillance, enforcement - and competence (surely the least likely of the three). The Nazis tried it and lasted a dozen years, the Soviets managed a bit longer before their union fragmented. Leaving aside the fact that it isn't very nice, it's absurdly impractical and if it were possible, it's a recipe for stagnation and revolt.

Anyway, bringing back to Avatar... well, no. I went off on a tangent because the film just doesn't interest me. Like most mass-market sf films, its only aim is to gratify with eye candy without actually exploring any premises.

 

[Orionblamblam]

And yet, humanity is essentially the same as it has been before humans learned to carve megaliths

We're an extremely versatile species. 'Essentially' the same has obviously produced many different cultures and lifestyles. There is no human community that does everything that every community does.

Sure, but you take an infant from any culture on the planet and raise them in any other, they'll almost certain adopt the local culture just fine, outside of difficulties arising from the fact that they don;t look like everyone else.

No, you'll get nine babies in nine months, where if you only had one woman, it'd take best part of nine years.

A baby is a complex living system and an analogy for a working ecosystem, not a quantity. That was my point. Oceans with food and resource webs that can support megafauna aren't sea monkey sets and it doesn't matter how many eggs you pour into the jar.

Ok, there was an intervening clyclotron in the metaphor. Yes, an ecosystem is complex. But if your civilization is sufficiently powerful, you can take a dead planet and rework the existing geology and surface/ocean/atmosphere chemistry with about the same relative level of effort as we take to clean out a swimming pool. Once the world is prepped, seeding it with the critters you want *might* be as simple - for this powerful civilization - as adding packets of pre-prepared "sea monkeys" to the new environment. They will have had prior experience at this. Some worlds that failed spectacularly. But after you've done it a few thousand times... just follow the instructions.

Given "replicator" tech, you might well be able to print off life forms, all ready to go, on up to and including simpler forms like fish and frogs and trees and hippies and whatnot. A *vast* amount of data would be required for each individual life form, but Moore's Law and a few added centuries should make that no more complex than printing off unique space Marines on your desktop 3D printer now.

Give us practical warp/hyper/jump drive

A fantasy akin to the Philosopher's Stone. That makes the galactic empire a castle built on a cloud.

And yet, here we are, in a discussion about "Avatar."

Diversity leads to conflict and death

How do you impose and maintain absolute uniformity across a galactic empire with a population of trillions?

Nobody outside of the Imperium of Man suggests such a thing. But it would be criminal insanity to *set* *out* to mutate humanity into a bajillion different and mutually exclusive species when you have the ability to form the universe to suit *us.*

 

[Rhinocrates]

Sure, but you take an infant from any culture on the planet and raise them in any other, they'll almost certain adopt the local culture just fine, outside of difficulties arising from the fact that they don;t look like everyone else.

Of course. Culture is not fixed. People who try to argue that there is an 'essential, unchangeable' human nature forget that that 'human nature' is half the creation of its context.

Moore's Law and a few added centuries should make that no more complex than printing off unique space Marines on your desktop 3D printer now.

I'm afraid you're still missing the point. Ecosystems are built on foundations of time. Excuse me if I seem to digress a bit but there's something called the Omphalos hypothesis or the Omphalos heresy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis) . Suppose Genesis is literally true - then did Adam have a navel? By extension, did the trees in Eden have growth rings? Did the rocks under Eden have strata and fossils? If no, then theologically, Adam was not the true prototype of man and if yes, then God lies. Both are untenable to a theologian and therefore the heresy is not one answer or the other, but to ask the question itself.

To an agnostic, it's an amusing thought experiment but it reveals an important truth. Complex life comes into existence in a world in which simple life has already been modifying the environment in a way that makes that complex life possible. All the present forms that you see are dependent on a deep foundation of prior activity. Likewise ecological processes are dependent on the geological foundation - nutrients weathered from rock and then washed from the land by rain and rivers to feed the microorganisms in the sea. The weather cycle and oceanic currents need to be established to feed the plankton to feed the krill to feed the whale. That food chain is remarkably short and rorquals are evolutionarily 'clever' in skipping all the middle portions of the food pyramid that would be necessary to feed such large beasts otherwise. It might seem easy to set up something like that with a magic printer but then there are those ocean currents that sometimes take centuries or even millennia to complete their cycles. Fine, suppose all sorts of technological means to facilitate that but it's going to take a lot more than nine months to gestate that baby. It's not impossible in principle but practically it takes a long time. Again, that's not a problem IF you assume a culture capable of implementing plans over millennia. Such a culture does not resemble one that we have today and I doubt that present humans are capable of it and therefore something unlike present humans will be the only agency capable of carrying out such an endeavour.

Possibly the construction of ecosystems might be comparable to the building of cathedrals, though on an even longer timescale. Maybe some sort of quasi-religious faith might facilitate it.

Give us practical warp/hyper/jump drive

A fantasy akin to the Philosopher's Stone. That makes the galactic empire a castle built on a cloud.

And yet, here we are, in a discussion about "Avatar."

Yeah, well I suspect that this thread is in its decadent stage. The movie isn't out yet and the Lord of the Rings TV series isn't out either but we know where the discussion about that ended up...

Diversity leads to conflict and death

How do you impose and maintain absolute uniformity across a galactic empire with a population of trillions?

Nobody outside of the Imperium of Man suggests such a thing. But it would be criminal insanity to *set* *out* to mutate humanity into a bajillion different and mutually exclusive species when you have the ability to form the universe to suit *us.*

What do you mean by 'us' kemosabe? I find the idea of a eugenic gazpacho, I mean Gestapo, criminal insanity. Most of human history is criminal insanity and heresy by someone's definition even though 'different' does not inevitably mean 'mutually exclusive' - that's just the rhetoric of tyrants. Anthropologists use the term 'schismogenesis' to describe the persistent tendency of human populations to define themselves by their differences from other groups. Like it or not, it will happen. Preventing it would require an absolutely ruthless police state that thankfully has proven to be impossible to maintain for more than a 'few' decades but nonetheless has been an utter atrocity for millions. You can't ignore the means needed to achieve an 'ideal' end and then you have to ask who has such a right to use those means. You can't get to the utopia of an homogenous galactic empire from here without digging a few mass graves along the way.

Expect some disagreement from those nominated as 'divergent.' What do you do if they persist in their eccentricity?

Moreover, I don't take technological advancement as being fixed. The Antikythera mechanism, Roman concrete and Damascus steel all represent technologies that were abandoned for centuries or more. (As an example, William Gibson and Bruce Sterling's The Difference Engine presents a plausible scenario of a computer revolution staring in parallel with a steam-driven industrial revolution - if only Charles Babbage had not been as 'difficult' as Robert Zubrin.) 'Moore's Law' is not a law but an observation and it is starting to slow down, reaching the physical limits of its paradigm. Without going into prophesies of civilisational collapse, like whales, high technology is dependent on a pyramid of resources with a wide base and continual advancement is not inevitable if that base is threatened.

Anyway, I suspect that this thread is doomed. The film isn't out yet, I'm personally not intending to spend money to see it, and I apologise for derailing discussion.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It might seem easy to set up something like that with a magic printer but then there are those ocean currents that sometimes take centuries or even millennia to complete their cycles. Fine, suppose all sorts of technological means to facilitate that but it's going to take a lot more than nine months to gestate that baby. It's not impossible in principle but practically it takes a long time. Again, that's not a problem IF you assume a culture capable of implementing plans over millennia.

Eroding a rock is a job of ten thousand years. Unless you have a belt sander, then you can get it done in a few minutes.

The things we think of as jobs of eons might be jobs of months to a civilization with fusion power, robots and automated factories busily chewing up asteroids to make more asteroid-chewing factories.

Possibly the construction of ecosystems might be comparable to the building of cathedrals, though on an even longer timescale. Maybe some sort of quasi-religious faith might facilitate it.

And then it becomes as mundane as the job of building suburban housing by the thousands. Compare the complexity of a cathedral with that of, say, a jetliner or a cruise ship. Not too many people invoking the Machine Spirit to bolt deck chairs onto the Lido Deck.

The movie isn't out yet and the Lord of the Rings TV series isn't out either but we know where the discussion about that ended up...

What, pointing out the mounting bad decisions? With every new press release, the Rings series verifies all the dire predictions.

Nobody outside of the Imperium of Man suggests such a thing. But it would be criminal insanity to *set* *out* to mutate humanity into a bajillion different and mutually exclusive species when you have the ability to form the universe to suit *us.*

What do you mean by 'us' kemosabe? I find the idea of a eugenic gazpacho, I mean Gestapo, criminal insanity. Most of human history is criminal insanity and heresy by someone's definition even though 'different' does not inevitably mean 'mutually exclusive' - that's just the rhetoric of tyrants. Anthropologists use the term 'schismogenesis' to describe the persistent tendency of human populations to define themselves by their differences from other groups. Like it or not, it will happen. Preventing it would require an absolutely ruthless police state...

Once again... nobody said anything about preventing it. What I'm *repeatedly* telling you is that it would be dumb to *promote* it.

' What do you do if they persist in their eccentricity?

Same thing as about people today who are born with genetic, chromosomal or other built-in health flaws. Nobody sane today suggests we kill the babies born with Downs syndrome or muscular dystrophy or incipient heart failure. But how many people are suggesting we engineer babies to have those?

... and I apologise for derailing discussion.

Why? Never apologize for engaging in honest and reasonable debate. those who demand such apologies never accept them anyway, and will instead simply see them as an admission on your part not only that you are wrong, but also weak. They will target you further.

 

[Rhinocrates]

And then it becomes as mundane as the job of building suburban housing by the thousands. Compare the complexity of a cathedral with that of, say, a jetliner or a cruise ship. Not too many people invoking the Machine Spirit to bolt deck chairs onto the Lido Deck.

These are all things that have effectively single-source centralised power systems and are brought to 'life' by essentially flicking a switch and are 'dead' until then. Ecological systems are alive from the beginning and must be kept running while new orders of complexity are added. To use a mechanical analogy, the mechanic starts with one or two components that are already operating and then builds the jetliner around them while it's in flight - and it has to be flying at every stage of its construction, from when it has piston-engined props, then turboprops, then turbojets, then turbofans, then turboramjets, then scramjets. A system is fundamentally different from a static object.

Not quite the same as this.



From the people who brought us the 'Cat Herders' ad:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2zqTYgcpfg&ab_channel=AFallGuy4u

Not saying it's impossible in principle, but it won't be fast.

' What do you do if they persist in their eccentricity?

Same thing as about people today who are born with genetic, chromosomal or other built-in health flaws. Nobody sane today suggests we kill the babies born with Downs syndrome or muscular dystrophy or incipient heart failure. But how many people are suggesting we engineer babies to have those?

Anyone arguing for genetic or cybernetic modification sees it not as a 'flaw' but an augmentation.

(My gf was born with 12 fingers but the 'superfluous' members were amputated shortly after. She's still pissed off about that.)

Parents are always seeking advantages for their children. Back in the 80s or 90s there was a fad for 'Hothouse children' - intense learning supposed to push children developmentally. That trend died out (not literally) but the same impulse persists, manifesting in nepotism and bribing university boards. Hell, even if I had a pet octopus I'd want the poor thing genetically engineered to have lifespan measured in decades, not a year or two and then I'd think, 'Hmmm, wouldn't it be nice if I could take it for walks in the park...'

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against anything in a teleological sense, rather I'm considering what people are more likely to do. Assuming uninterrupted linear technological and economic development while putting the brakes on sociological and evolutionary change (whether by natural or artificial selection) is futile.

Why? Never apologize for engaging in honest and reasonable debate. those who demand such apologies never accept them anyway, and will instead simply see them as an admission on your part not only that you are wrong, but also weak. They will target you further.

Courtesy to one's hosts is not weakness.

 

[Orionblamblam]

These are all things that have effectively single-source centralised power systems and are brought to 'life' by essentially flicking a switch and are 'dead' until then. Ecological systems are alive from the beginning and must be kept running while new orders of complexity are added. To use a mechanical analogy, the mechanic starts with one or two components that are already operating and then builds the jetliner around them while it's in flight - and it has to be flying at every stage of its construction, from when it has piston-engined props, then turboprops, then turbojets, then turbofans, then turboramjets, then scramjets. A system is fundamentally different from a static object.

Sounds like the "irreducible complexity" argument used by Creationists.

Same thing as about people today who are born with genetic, chromosomal or other built-in health flaws. Nobody sane today suggests we kill the babies born with Downs syndrome or muscular dystrophy or incipient heart failure. But how many people are suggesting we engineer babies to have those?

Anyone arguing for genetic or cybernetic modification sees it not as a 'flaw' but an augmentation.

You *do* see the difference between Downs syndrome and transhumanism, yes?

Parents are always seeking advantages for their children. Back in the 80s or 90s there was a fad for 'Hothouse children' - intense learning supposed to push children developmentally. That trend died out (not literally) but the same impulse persists, manifesting in nepotism and bribing university boards.

None of which results in new species or sub-species that cannot live in the same environment as you.

Courtesy to one's hosts is not weakness.

Censoring yourself from honest and interesting and relevant intellectual debate and discussion for fear of offending the easily offended is not "courtesy," it's insulting to them. It says that you think they'll buckle under the shrieking nincompoops and Karens.

 

[uk 75]

An interesting discussion of humankind's relationship with technology and warfare is the theme of this classic British movie

View: https://youtu.be/d0OCod1VPNc


and no CGI!

 

[Orionblamblam]

An interesting discussion of humankind's relationship with technology and warfare is the theme of this classic British movie

and no CGI!

A weird mix of goofy and prescient. Lots of people praise it for foreseeing a world war... but from 1936, WWII must have been pretty obvious on the horizons. What it did get right was the drive by some to use crisis as a way to gain complete totalitarian control over humanity, as well as the rise of an anti-technology, anti-civilization movement of "feels over reals" who try to tear everything down. Relevance to "Avatar:" space travel was depicted in "Things To Come," and it was laughably wrong... probably about as wrong as the depiction of interstellar travel in "Avatar" will end up being.

 

[publiusr]

Heavy gravity worlders will have to have gene tailoring-either fast from labs or the slow-boat method of spinning up your worldship gees to match your destination. Either way leaves a mark.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Sounds like the "irreducible complexity" argument used by Creationists.

Yes, if you stick your fingers in your ears.

Have a look at conservation and rewilding work done in the real world, not using a Star Trek 'Genesis device.' It takes time and subtlety and is dependent on guiding the behaviour of interacting organisms of their life cycles.

I suggest that you find some good books about forest and soil ecology and gain an understanding of the importance of mycelial networks and old growth, bearing mind that the lifespans of sequioas and bristlecone pines are measured by several millennia.

Anyone arguing for genetic or cybernetic modification sees it not as a 'flaw' but an augmentation.

You *do* see the difference between Downs syndrome and transhumanism, yes?

I do, but judging by your rhetorical example, you do not.

Parents are always seeking advantages for their children. Back in the 80s or 90s there was a fad for 'Hothouse children' - intense learning supposed to push children developmentally. That trend died out (not literally) but the same impulse persists, manifesting in nepotism and bribing university boards.

None of which results in new species or sub-species that cannot live in the same environment as you.

That's the same with all speciation. Basic evolution.

Courtesy to one's hosts is not weakness.

Censoring yourself from honest and interesting and relevant intellectual debate and discussion for fear of offending the easily offended is not "courtesy," it's insulting to them. It says that you think they'll buckle under the shrieking nincompoops and Karens.

I don't view the moderators and other participants of this forum as 'shrieking nincompoops and Karens'. I would guess that they do not appreciate your insult. Still, it's useful to know what you think of others here.

Courtesy is respecting the rules of the house. This thread is not the house for this discussion to continue. Open a new thread if you like. Personally I've had enough of your bad faith and misrepresentation. Call it weak if you like.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Personally I've had enough of your bad faith and misrepresentation. Call it weak if you like.

All of the misrepresentation here has been on your part. Whether intentionally or due to reading comprehension issues, I don't know.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Heavy gravity worlders will have to have gene tailoring-either fast from labs or the slow-boat method of spinning up your worldship gees to match your destination. Either way leaves a mark.

A better approach: heavy bombardment of said heavy gravity worlds with relativistic asteroid-mass projectiles. Turn them into rubble which can then be converted into normal-gravity habitats of *vastly* greater living area.

 

[publiusr]

Depends on your tech level and how long you want to wait.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Depends on your tech level and how long you want to wait.

Waiting is temporary. Forever is forever. Might as well do it right, if you are capable of taking the long view. If your technology and power are progressing along a course you can foresee, you plan accordingly. If you know that in fifty years you'll be able to send a probe at 75% lightspeed, it'd be dumb to send a 1% probe to Alpha Centauri now. Similarly, if you know that in the time it'll take to engineer a biosphere for a high-G world, you could tear it apart and turn it into a bagrillion normal-g worldlets - and maybe one or two straight-up Earths - you'd wait and do it right. otherwise you'd have a high-g world that the bulk of the Imperiums citizenry can't visit, that does little but provide you with a new population type that may decide to rise up and squash the low-g types like little old you.