Not enough change?

[Wil]

Another thread brought up an interesting point for me...what is "not enough" change in a science fiction setting? I mean, the whole transhumanist thing assumes that technology is going to completely change human scoiety (for better or worse) - that it's going to change what it means to be human. What if it doesn't? Is is that unrealistic or dated to postulate people not really changing all that much and living life much as they always have? What about a setting where technological innovation (like AI or nanotechnology or genetic engineering) in certain fields is consciously regulated? Is that somehow "dated"? Or are we just to accept the "fact" that technological change is going to transform the human race into something unrecognizable by us?

 

[Crothian]

Twilight Zone had a few really good episodes about this.

 

[Turanil]

Or are we just to accept the "fact" that technological change is going to transform the human race into something unrecognizable by us?

Well, consider natural evolution on Earth. It began with bacterias from which evolved many species up to humans. Today humans may be the dominant race but we still have bacterias, insects, reptiles, animals, etc.

So my idea is that maybe we will have something totally new, but it will probably coexist with something we are already accustomed to. At least it would make a more interesting setting : one where players can relate to ("normal" humans with a "normal" way of life), along weird and mysterious things that should provide with many RPG plots. Just imagine that machines have evolved by themselves beyond anything we could imagine; but at the same time normal humans still live around. These machines have shaped a new world, are unfathomable, without animal needs, and have intelligence and speed of thought (information processing) hundred of times better than humans. These machines pursue their own goals, but don't care for humans as long as they don't interfere too much with them. Many things could happen...

 

[Wil]

Just imagine that machines have evolved by themselves beyond anything we could imagine; but at the same time normal humans still live around. These machines have shaped a new world, are unfathomable, without animal needs, and have intelligence and speed of thought (information processing) hundred of times better than humans. These machines pursue their own goals, but don't care for humans as long as they don't interfere too much with them. Many things could happen...

That's kind of the point...this is assuming that machines will be allowed to evolve on their own. It's always assumed that it will happen, and a setting without (for example) self-aware AI is somehow not "realistic". Why not a setting where there is the technology to create self-aware AI but there are political or social restrictions against it (and I can name one right off the top of my head)? Or (probably more realistically) the AI is controlled? I guess I'm just challenging the notion that the only foreseeable future for mankind if one of rampant AI/nanotechnology/genetic tampering.

 

[Mortellan]

This scenario leads directly into 'The Matrix'. See the Animatrix for further details.

 

[Wil]

This scenario leads directly into 'The Matrix'. See the Animatrix for further details.

So settings that don't have virtual samurai running around trying to kill each other are unrealistic? *j/k*

BTW, I'm definitely not implying that technological advances will not change society - they already have and will continue to do so. Yet, somehow, I'm still sitting here with a pad of paper and a pen beside me. I still wake up, go to work, go home, take care of the kids. My actual activities (type on a PC keyboard to people scattered across the world, get in a car and drive to and from work, play video games) might be incomprehensible to, say, an ancient Greek without some context...but the meat of it is still the same.

Maybe the question is...how much is considered too little change? A game set in the 63rd century where gunpowder-based firearms are still the most common military weapon? A setting 200 years from now that has no nanotechnology? I'm sure that there were people in the 60s who couldn't conceive of not having settlements on Mars in 2005...but we don't.

Maybe I should just wait 20 years and see what the world is like and compare it to what people thought 2025 would be like...

 

[Mortellan]

People in the 60's definitely didn't get their 'flying cars future' and now instead of Russian nuclear bombs we are more concerned with human bombs. I used to think writers like William Gibson were going to be right about the future rather than the antiseptic Star Trek future. Now instead I'm thinking we are heading more towards a pseudo-Orwellian future of Big Brother.

 

[Wil]

Kind of the point, really...dictating that a setting isn't "realistic" based on assumptions for how the future will turn out is kind of putting the cart before the horse.

And I still want my robot maid and my flying car...and food pills...dammit...

 

[WayneLigon]

I think the main assumption is that an advance is forever, while laws and mores and cultures are ephemeral so that a truly useful advance will eventually triumph over any restriction put on it's use.

Certainly there will be restrictions on, say, human organ cloning when we get to that point. Some countries might ban it on ethical or religious grounds. Those consideration totally fall apart when you see the people in Country X being cured of terminal illnesses while yours still die of them. Most nations or political entities will either repeal such laws (people tend to forget that that can happen - they think of laws as something that lasts forever, when in fact they're just speedbumps in a historical sense) or find ways around them. The nations that don't will fall by the wayside and eventually be forgotten.

For some ideas, like the AI or nanotechnology, the regulation idea also falls apart because all you need is one country or one research lab that cares nothing for the law or its restrictions.

Now, another consideration is culture. Some cultures develop things.. and others do not. The bidet is a wonderful invention but how many American homes have one. Some things, even some very useful things, catch on and some do not.

Another consideration is cost. Just because a thing is possible doesn't mean it's cheap enough to enter into common use. We have thermocouples capable of delivering water at precise temperatures every single time. Yet every day, I have to fumble with my shower to get it to the right temperature. We have water heaters capable of delivering hot water instantly to a faucet instead of wasting water while hot water travels from the water heater to the faucet, but I don't want to spend the $600 to install that system in my house.

Another idea is that some ideas just don't work the way we thought they would. Artifical intelligence proved to be vastly harder than anyone dreamed. Nanotechnology will probably never live up to Drexler's vision. I doubt anyone in 1966 would have forseen NASA's budget being gutted, or us not having a reusable non-rocket-based space vehicle in 2005.

 

[Mortellan]

Food pills and robot maids, awww yeah. I know based on what we have already that when I am an old infirm man I won't be lacking any gadgetry and toys to keep my twilight days occupied.

As for realistic in a RP sense, yup, realism isn't as interesting as different. Transporters is something we likely won't have so that makes for good scifi. Flying cars as well. Robot maids will never replace human maids I'd wager, unless you are Bill Gates but they make good scifi. PDAs and Cell phones used to be futuristic now that's modern.