posted
Ok what I am wondering is we live in a world that just about anything is possible due to technology, and movies use digital effects to make something that is not real look real.
Now in say 20 years when humans have begun to master genetic modification and making living creatures from scratch what would stop someone from making themselves their own creature, like that guy from the movie Blade Runner who had all of those cool genetic creatures that he kept as pets.
I would think that it would spell the end of fantasy and Sci-Fi books due to the fact that if you can think it, you can make it. What is to say that some crazed fan of the Enders Game series makes a Bean, or a Bugger, etc? Or some movie Director who is making an Underworld like movie and makes real werewolves using genetic modification.
I asked people in my Company (I am in the army for those who don’t know) what they thought, and they didn’t think much of it. So I thought to myself who would know or would be interested, or would like to have an input. Hatrack River is what came to mind thought.
posted
When's the last time you saw something brand new about the first moon landing? (Excluding fantasy and alternate timetrack stuff.) We live in the future the writers of the past dreamed and wrote about.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle fantasy.
I live a pretty good life. I have friends. I enjoy my work and my hobbies. If I could build fantasy companions I probably would. But I couldn't have adventures with them. Why not? Because adventures are dangerous and uncomfortable and take a long time and are boring for long stretches. Reading about them is much more fun.
That is what is wrong with the "realism" meme that ruins a lot of beginning writers. Your fiction has to be more interesting than real life. Otherwise, nobody will read it.
posted
RFWII, here is the infallible answer you're seeking:
First order of business would be self-survival. Body part replacements. Making a young clone for "namesake" would not be as satisfying (or horrible) as extending life.
Second: amusement. *Cough*
Third: Biological equivalents to the present social networking, such as Second Life.
Fourth: stratification of society into various human and artificial life special interests.
Fifth: Lawyers. Lawyers everywhere. Clones of lawyers, too.
Sixth: apocalypses and rumors of apocalypses
In parallel to the above civilian uses, there would be critters designed to be, essentially, antimatter to all other manner of critters (including humans).
posted
There would still be fantasy, and there would still be science fiction. They would not look like ours.
If you get the chance, read science fiction from the 60s and before and compare them to what is possible today. You will find there will be a big difference. Heck, compare big game hunting of the late 1800s and early 1900s to haw it is today. We no longer long lines of pack bearers carrying our stuff. It is no longer a hardship. one now has luxury tents with satellite entertainment. The stories of the future will be just as different.
posted
One thing that is true about biotechnology and genetic manipulation, is that the more we learn the less we know. I've been working in this field for 20+ years. Its nutty how the unknowns expand much faster than the knowns. One of the biggest surprises was the small number of genes found in the human genome. A lot less than expected and that number appears to be dropping! (60K--> 35K-->~20K). What that means is that other things, call it meta information are controlling. So we though we would have a complete understanding of the genome when we had the sequence and we found out, we were not even close.
I wouldn't worry too much. There will be lots to imagine. On a side note, there was a really interesting future study sponsored by Microsoft in 2005 called Science 2020. http://tinyurl.com/f7uvy
A major prediction was the integration of biology and computation. This is being driven by an understanding of cellular processes made possible by greater computing power. So does that mean we will have synthetic life in 2020? Yes, but probably only the simplest level. The actual mechanics of producing complex kind of life are complex (Buggers and Bean) are probably not in our reach anytime soon.
What is fun is that this merging could also drive predictive biology and understanding of complex ecosystems, like earth or the Bugger world. So, maybe if you want to be way ahead of the curve you should write about planet based intelligence....8)
Check out the report, its pretty readable at the Scientific American level. Leslie
“Fifth: Lawyers. Lawyers everywhere. Clones of lawyers, too.”
GOD I HAVT LAWYERS
They are always in the way.
So to put it into easy terms we are far off of being overrun by our own genetic creations? Like 100+ years? So I don’t need to stock pile extra ammo for the uprising of genetic modified/ created local 501 right demanding equal rights as humans?
Ok that puts my mind at ease a bit.
So when humans are flying through the universe at warp speed and “everything” there is to know, authors might as well start writing books on the past?
posted
you HAVT lawyers? Hate And Vanquish Terribly? Hug And Verify Triply? Hound, Aspirate,Victimize, Taunt? Your statement intrigues me, Furred one. Unless you mean that you HAVE lawyers, and it was just a typo. In which case, I hope they're female lawyers, and you buy them chocolate and flowers.
posted
flowers and chocolate refers to the possibility that Rommel is having them in the classical sense.
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
