I think you'd really enjoy the "Ringworld" stuff by Larry Niven, especially the Man-Kzin wars series.

There's a strong emphasis on what you are describing whereby space weaponry by it's very nature is so accurate and long ranged that what we might think of as conventional warfare is not really an option anymore.

e.g. a typical beam weapon could just invisibly cook the enemy crew alive in their own ship from the other side of a solar system.

To the point that the human race had pretty much given up on the idea of warfare entirely before they encounter the Kzinti.


I might argue that with Drones, Lasers, Tesla howitzers and god knows what else we on the verge of inventing we might well hit a similar wall in real life.

i.e. We get so good at doing war that we spoil it for ourselves and make even tactical level conflict pointless. (much like nuclear weapons did at the strategic level)

One can but hope....

Whenever I watch these videos about amazing space probes it reminds me of Larry Niven's short story "Like Banquo's Ghost"

>> ^budzos:

>> ^deathcow:
refer to the 1976 book "A world out of time" By Larry Niven

Wow that looks awesome. I'm gonna get a copy.


Go to book store (or amazon, kindle or otherwise),
follow aisles until "Larry Niven" section found,
purchase a copy of everything found there,
win.

>> ^deathcow:

refer to the 1976 book "A world out of time" By Larry Niven


Wow that looks awesome. I'm gonna get a copy.

>> ^messenger:

Think you could just tell us? I, for one, am not going to go find and read a book based on a vague comment on the Sift.>> ^deathcow:
refer to the 1976 book "A world out of time" By Larry Niven



they use this exact system

Think you could just tell us? I, for one, am not going to go find and read a book based on a vague comment on the Sift.>> ^deathcow:

refer to the 1976 book "A world out of time" By Larry Niven

refer to the 1976 book "A world out of time" By Larry Niven

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Totally with you here. I would love to see some more classic SF made. Rendezvous with Rama is coming! >> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Farhad2000:
The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

Star Trek is sorta the gold standard of positive futures for humanity. It's really the only sci-fi universe in which humanity really seems to have advanced as a culture.
Most other stories assume we'll be essentially the same as we are now, or worse.
Also, a Mars colonization story wouldn't be that hard. Just adapt Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy.
Considering how conservative Hollywood is these days, you'd think they'd have started to do adaptations of some Hugo Award-winning sci-fi novels that're newer than, say, 1970 or so.
Even sticking to apocalyptic themes, there are some really good ones that haven't been tapped yet. It's almost a crime that they haven't made a movie out of Larry Niven's Footfall, for example.

>> ^Farhad2000:

The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.


Star Trek is sorta the gold standard of positive futures for humanity. It's really the only sci-fi universe in which humanity really seems to have advanced as a culture.

Most other stories assume we'll be essentially the same as we are now, or worse.

Also, a Mars colonization story wouldn't be that hard. Just adapt Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy.

Considering how conservative Hollywood is these days, you'd think they'd have started to do adaptations of some Hugo Award-winning sci-fi novels that're newer than, say, 1970 or so.

Even sticking to apocalyptic themes, there are some really good ones that haven't been tapped yet. It's almost a crime that they haven't made a movie out of Larry Niven's Footfall, for example.

>> ^spaceman:

Why I don't care:
1) You once believed in a god.
2) You are a guy.


@spaceman | The reason why the rest of us watch and listen to "just some guy; who believed in God":

The only reason you can type your sentence is from/due-to "other" men. Religion in all forms is from "other" men (unless you claim to hear voices or a physical divinity; but, please, not as an affront to you, make sure you're not psychotic or schizophrenic before telling us your interesting story as that is the case almost always; same with drug use; same with some other illnesses: narcolepsy, sleep walking, night terrors/sleep paralysis, and many other sleep related issues and all nervous system illnesses). Only a few things below talk more about what you said.
--------------------------
--------------------------
A little more to add to the conversation. Hopefully, this gets it all out as it will be fairly long, but the video is hard to reply to in a short manner. I hope this covers a large extent of what I wish to say about this very well done video witness/testimony.


One set of values you can research and witness to it's validity on your own, as he has done. Science also allows for this methodology, using the well known precept of "The Scientific Method".

A quick example is that many people of faith, even Evid3nc3, talks of feeling "x" with their "hearts" and knowing "x" with their "soul". In science there is nothing more than a simple, yet complicated, physical processes. It's all a creation and manifestation in your brain; if you think you "feel" something with your heart you're causing minor self-hysteria to the extent of creating a minor hallucination.

The "soul" is called the(primarily in psychology, neuroscience, and neurology; there are many other terms that try to mean "you"; typically, in grossly inaccurate ways, such as: ghosts, "psychic" remote viewing, many religions use of the magical-energy-divine soul, etc...) psyche which is typically (starting from the outer-functions and moving into core-functions) sensory systems, language center, feelings, memory, and then the key-piece the neo-cortex. So it must be understood that your brain does a lot of things still baffling (mostly the mechanics or mechanisms of function and chemistry), but the overall picture is fairly clear.

But, the brain is not a floating energy source, nor is it an absolute definition at any given point or time. Depending on how and where you look at the brain the very concept of you is different. It more akin to superposition of an electron or a kaleidoscope; the definition of you is not concrete until measured and even then you are already not what was measured.

Even from what little we do know, belief plays a central role in how our neo-cortex makes decisions and operates (even with memory and other functions, which is why we do make many mistakes as it's due to how our brain physically commits to anything it must or will do; it's perhaps the single best reason to show why, "To err is human; to forgive, divine."; you don't understand the human condition if you cannot forgive...). Could this translate into a bigger picture; our connected neurons telling us to accept faith and belief, sometimes, because that is what it does at the small scale?

*Offtopic Look up articles, books, and videos (look at TED for Marvin Minsky, Jeff Hawkins, Craig Venter, Jonathan Haidt and others --some of which are here on the sift-- related topics on there like the Mind, AI, facial-pattern-contextual-semantics-divergent-cat vs. dog software based Recognition, and then other media pertaining to 'Artificial Intelligence') or if you want to know strictly about how the brain works and makes it's decisions, look for a type of setup called a "hierarchical structure"; also known as a pyramid or pyramid scheme. One cell makes a decision based off of the accumulations of "guesses" the other millions of cells connected to it made; these cells are fundamentally the foundation for that setup, but the neurons are more flexible than that as each can be a parent and also part of the "foundation" structure, making the brain a fantastic structure. With time this becomes accurate (this occurs in less than a few milliseconds), although our vision, for an example, is horrifically distorted and wrong, if you could look at one "frame" based on a few cells. Only a small fraction of the frame would be correct; literally it would be as though your senses got one pixel correct in a 1080p image. Yet, repeat this millions of times with different data sets each round (and this is done as said above, fast) you get an accurate picture; or at the least 20/20-to about one-arc minute (the resolution for the human eye, on average).

One set you can't test, we call that belief or faith. "What is the reasoning for taking the leap of faith?", this is what you have to defend at this point. If faith is your only defense, I will (like many others will) assume you haven't looked into your own faith enough yet or you even refuse to look out of fear of being wrong. If you do not understand the topic you must be willing to ask for help as he did or you'll be a slave to your willful decision of ignorance, to the extent that you feel compelled to defend them, but you never convince anyone except yourself--and for yourself it is only because of the rote-righteous indignation.

If it's true it should withstand all scrutiny. Unless truth isn't your ultimate goal. Then, for us and many others there is no reason to follow your faith. Usually, this type of merit and defense are directly related to age due to learning this all when you're a child and devoid of an intense ability to decipher, attribute values, connect, and draw in a belief (if with some facts and proof you could call it a hypothesis).

It's all from men... I'm wagering you're dismissing this flippantly due to religion; if not what exactly is your point, as I truly would like to know why and where this claim of non-relativistic knowledge comes from, without a woman or man?

Also, if it has to do with his belief in being mistaken for believing in God that's a moot point as we have all erred in life. I know of no person that has reliably been able to "claim divinity", other than Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, etc... But, we also know now that mental illness and other factors can account for any manic or psychotic leanings. We also know magicians (or magister, proper) have been around A LONG TIME.

Plus, as Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". Which then one must ask another question, "Can divinity itself ever be established as being magic only?". This is then rounded up by a statement from Larry Niven (sometimes called Niven's Law(s)), "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology.". These collide and distinctly form a conclusion about divinity and any of it's powers (descriptive magic or divinity and it's "how to use it" manual are indefensibly getting closer in each step to being more akin to physics; plus the Christian God hates magic, which begs the question, "Why do you need a God, if we can exact the same effects?"):

Divinity can only hope to use advanced knowledge and technology in a collusion to bring about one standpoint alone: "divinity" if described by God in any kind of ruleset (some of it is in the bible, already) stands on a rigorously tested and time shown: shaky ground.

Men would be gods whether God existed or not.

(P.S.: only the beginning and some bits here and there are for you, @spaceman. The rest is for our vestibule.)

Again I must add that this is a great find @dystopianfuturetoday.
You're doing yourself a great disservice not watching it (or all of it as the case may be).

@Stormsinger speaks the truth. This reminds me of a Larry Niven short story about a man who is sentenced to die so that his organs may be harvested. In the end it is revealed that he was convicted for running a red light.

There is a constant need for fresh organs. If organs are to be harvested from death row inmates, and the current 'stock' does not meet the current demand then all that needs to be done is extend the death sentence to more crimes. Where should the line be drawn? Will parking tickets eventually warrant a death penalty?

The divide between the rich and poor is growing ever larger and the rich will always be able to pay for the organs they need in order to extend/improve their own life. It is the rich who influence the government and the laws it makes. Does making organ harvesting legal make it ethical as well?

To me, the obvious solution is to have no death penalty, and if an in-mate wishes to donate his organs then they can be donated when he dies from causes other than execution.

>> ^moonsammy:

I think they might owe Kevin Smith partial credit for that "move your head" moment towards the end. Couldn't find the relevant Mallrats clip online, but it's basically Jason Lee's character discussing why Superman would need to have a super girlfriend for exactly that reason.


Concept waaaaay predates Kevin Smith. Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex, by Larry Niven.

I'm glad you finally got around to reading The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, dag. I told ya you'd like it. I just finished Larry Niven's 1983 novel The Integral Trees. It wasn't nearly as good as Ringworld, and his idea of humans evolving so quickly in just 500 years seemed a little preposterous, but it was alright. If nothing else it might give some of you transhumanists pause about being frozen for the future, though that's not at all the thrust of the novel. I don't want to be a spoiler, so google "corpsicle" or "copsik" if you really want to know what I'm talking about.

Another Larry Niven fan! awesome! It's nice to meet you!

You might be interested in this one:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-TAS-The-Slaver-Weapon-1973

In reply to this comment by jdbates:
It's straight out of Larry Nivens " A world out of time." Cats evolved and lost their extremities, becoming serpentine!

It's straight out of Larry Nivens " A world out of time." Cats evolved and lost their extremities, becoming serpentine!