Which Science Fiction Visions of the World Tomorrow Will Come Closest to the Actual Future?

[BAYLOR]

@Elckerlyc: yeah, cloud cities might not work. just saying though that we don't have to think of Mars as the only place that humans could colonize.

Yes, but It does the makings of a good hard Science fiction novel

 

[ryubysss]

Pamela Sargent wrote an '80s (early '90s?) trilogy about terraforming Venus. I can't remember the details.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Let's start a bit closer to home and see what we can realise on the Moon. We may learn a lot by what we can (or cannot) achieve there.
And let's not give up Earth too soon!

 

[ryubysss]

it has less to do with giving up on Earth as a fallback plan in case a meteor (or whatever) hits Earth, as I understand it.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Yes, but It does the makings of a good hard Science fiction novel

I have never read those but are the books from Kim Stanley Robinson not about just that topic?

 

[BAYLOR]

I have never read those but are the books from Kim Stanley Robinson not about just that topic?

Ive never read those and, Id quite forgotten about them

 

[BAYLOR]

it has less to do with giving up on Earth as a fallback plan in case a meteor (or whatever) hits Earth, as I understand it.

The asteroid that took out the Dinosaurs was about size was about the size of Manhattan. if that were to happened today , there is not much we could do about . But as bad as extinction event which took out the Dinosaurs, it pales in comparaioto the Permian/Triassic extinction event which too place about 250 million years ago. In that one about 90 percent of everything that lived omg Earth died. An long period of volcanism in a chain of volcanoes in Russia may have triggered a prolonged period of Global warming and acidification of the oceans. Thats the closest life came to going out altogether on Planet Earth. I doubt we could survive that kind of event.

 

[Vertigo]

I suspect it would take far far less effort to create self sustaining space habitats than it ever would to colonise any other celestial body in the Solar system.

 

[Parson]

I suspect it would take far far less effort to create self sustaining space habitats than it ever would to colonise any other celestial body in the Solar system.

I'd agree. In fact I would estimate that some of the moons of Jupiter have no greater problems than what Venus and Mars do. Another thought is that a self propelled habitat could (in the VERY long run) be the key to human colonization of other solar systems.

 

[-K2-]

I'd agree. In fact I would estimate that some of the moons of Jupiter have no greater problems than what Venus and Mars do. Another thought is that a self propelled habitat could (in the VERY long run) be the key to human colonization of other solar systems.

Like these?

We saw how that worked out... savages

K2

 

[Elckerlyc]

I suspect it would take far far less effort to create self sustaining space habitats than it ever would to colonise any other celestial body in the Solar system.

Probably. But even self-sustained space-habitats will demand huge investments. Which amount of money, I maintain, would be better spent on Earth on innovations for our way of living and use of Earth's resources. If people had the choice of living in a space-habitat or somewhere on Earth (in a closed biosphere) they would choose Earth.
I would love to see space-habitats realised, but I don't see them as a way to save humankind.

I'd agree. In fact I would estimate that some of the moons of Jupiter have no greater problems than what Venus and Mars do. Another thought is that a self propelled habitat could (in the VERY long run) be the key to human colonization of other solar systems.

Perhaps, on the VERY long run! Provided some engineer accidentally discovers the warp-engine. The only other option is a generation-ship, that will need hundreds of years (if not thousands) to reach the nearest solar-system with planets, of which we have no idea yet if they are in any way habitable. And who is going to finance such an undertaking, which will never (or maybe in a few millennia) bring in some revenue?
We all like to dream of such explorations, but we have to remain realistic in our expectations.

 

[BAYLOR]

Like these?

We saw how that worked out... savages

K2

I always loved those ships in Silent Running . They were re-used in Battlestar Galactica and Galactica 1980

 

[Parson]

The only other option is a generation-ship, that will need hundreds of years (if not thousands) to reach the nearest solar-system with planets, of which we have no idea yet if they are in any way habitable. And who is going to finance such an undertaking, which will never (or maybe in a few millennia) bring in some revenue?

A generation ship is exactly what I was aiming at and the 100's of years as well, If the space habitat was self-sustaining in the long run, such a journey might be contemplated. And if Habitats are doable financially as a place to live in a solar system, a star ship of that sort would not likely be more than about double the cost. Some sort of propulsion would be necessary for a habitat anyway, it has to be able to avoid meteors and the like. I don't think they have to be profitable, but they have to be able to source what they need aboard the habitat. There would need to be serious leaps forward in even non-warp propulsion, and in biosphere management before any such thing even makes the realistic dreaming stage.

 

[ryubysss]

I (and many other people) have considered the possibility of space habitats. the biggest problems seem to me population numbers and if a factional dispute happens, you have two or more opposing sides in a limited space. like on Earth, only more so. with colonization of a planet you could have the option of making another colony. not easy, maybe, but easier than building another habitat.

 

[-K2-]

Besides countless potential hazards, ships I jokingly used from Silent Running and numerous (most) others, really wouldn't work unless we also develop 'magical gravity.' We're a species that can endure, sometimes adapt, and so on, but, zero-Gs over a prolonged period, let alone generations, I suspect would be devastating to human physiology.

Imagine leaving your ship and taking the first step onto a new, perfect world, now able to enjoy life as a puddle.

K2

 

[Vince W]

 

[ryubysss]

I don't think we can look to the 20th century (even as late as the '80's, when V For Vendetta came out) as predictor of our actual real world future.

science fiction has to make up new dark futures, based on today.

really, I don't get it. nobody looks at 1960s or 1980s Star Trek and says, "yeah, the future could look like that." but a blindspot seems to exist in regards to bad futures.

 

[Parson]

really, I don't get it. nobody looks at 1960s or 1980s Star Trek and says, "yeah, the future could look like that." but a blindspot seems to exist in regards to bad futures.

That really depends on who you talk to. I know a lot of people who assume the worst and refuse to believe that we might not be headed to "you know where" in a basket. Almost no one in the general public would believe that in most measurable ways worldwide we are living in the best time in history.

 

[ryubysss]

I will explain and clarify what I meant by that: Star Trek presented a 1960s Utopian future. TNG presented a more '80s variant on that future. but people nowadays recognize both versions as dated and outmoded. they appear to me dated and outmoded as well. yet take a bad future from the same time or earlier and people see that as a plausible future for now. I just don't get it.

so, I did not mean that people just don't believe in Utopian futures, anymore, though fewer do. I meant that they, wisely, don't accept the Star Trek version of a Utopian future, specifically.

 

[Parson]

I will explain and clarify what I meant by that: Star Trek presented a 1960s Utopian future. TNG presented a more '80s variant on that future. but people nowadays recognize both versions as dated and outmoded. they appear to me dated and outmoded as well. yet take a bad future from the same time or earlier and people see that as a plausible future for now. I just don't get it.

so, I did not mean that people just don't believe in Utopian futures, anymore, though fewer do. I meant that they, wisely, don't accept the Star Trek version of a Utopian future, specifically.

Ah! I see. Sorry, I was confused. I also agree with what you are saying.