Some science fiction "firsts"

[RAMA]

Cloning:

Cloning in biotechnology is a complex discipline where several different processes are used to create copies of DNA, cells, or organisms. It was possibly first accomplished in 1952 on tadpoles and the first published work was from a procedure performed on carp, 1963. Mammals were cloned in 1986 and 1997, with the first ape cloned in 2000. Today cloning stem cells is seen as a major area of research. In 2006 the FDA approved mass consumption of cloned meat in USA. In 2009 the first extinct animal(Ibex) was cloned but only lived for 7 minutes. On the 7th of December 2011 its was announced that a team from the Siberian mammoth museum and Japan's Kinki University plan to clone a woolly mammoth from a well preserved sample of bone marrow found in August 2011.

And since we've never gotten an extinct animal to live for more than a few minutes -- and that was the best result out of multiple attempts -- there's no guarantee we'll have any better luck with the mammoth. Not to mention all the practical difficulties even if we could successfully pull it off -- what would its habitat be? How could it be raised when it has no parents of its own species and nobody has any idea what its behavior is supposed to be? If mammoths were anything like elephants, they were probably highly social, and we've seen how much damage it does to elephants when they're cut off from healthy social interaction with their own kind.

http://io9.com/5865590/no-we-wont-be-able-to-clone-a-woolly-mammoth-in-the-next-five-years

So, let's recap. First, these bone marrow cells need to be absolutely pristine for cloning to work...and there's no guarantee of that. Next, we need to transplant those cells into African elephant eggs...and many of those will fail. Then, the embryos need to survive the pregnancy...and if 1 in 100 do that, it'd be a massive success. After that, the mammoth needs to be born and survive infancy...again, the odds are stacked against it. Finally, the mammoth clone needs to thrive in a world in which it is completely, absolutely alone...which is hardly a guarantee. And that's not even worrying about the question of this clone giving birth to more mammoths down the line.

Taken all together, the odds that any of us will ever see an adult woolly mammoth with our current levels of cloning technology is probably somewhere between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in a million. And whatever, I'd say the five-year estimate is hugely optimistic - I'd be pleasantly surprised if a live birth of a mammoth happens in the next twenty years, even if it dies almost immediately.

Yes, with this new discovery, we're closer to cloning a mammoth than ever before. The problem is, we're still a long, long, long way away, and in the absence of some major breakthrough in cloning technology, that's likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.

On Star Trek, clones were treated as abominations.

That's not accurate. If you're referring to "Up the Long Ladder," the Mariposans' cloning was portrayed as flawed because it was their only form of reproduction, but the only thing that was portrayed as immoral was stealing someone's genetic material and replicating them without their consent. It was the lack of consent, the violation, that was condemned, not the cloning per se. There's also "A Man Alone," where Odo stated rather bluntly that killing your own clone was still murder, suggesting it's taken for granted that clones have equal rights. Then of course there are the first clones in Trek history, the giant Keniclius and Spock clones of TAS: "The Infinite Vulcan." Neither of them is treated as an abomination; Keniclius is wrong to abduct and clone Spock without his consent, but the clone itself is accepted as a sapient being with a right to live. The Vorta were all clones, but they weren't discriminated against or vilified on that basis; it was their policies and practices that the protagonists objected to, not their nature. Then of course there's Shinzon, another clone created without the donor's consent, but again, Picard was willing to accept him as a being with a right to exist and tried to bring out the best in him.

So I can't find a single instance where a clone in ST was treated as an abomination simply on the basis of being a clone.

I think Roddenberry was generally conservative with tampering with human biology itself (genetics/cloning)...and while Riker did have a right to control the use of his cells, the look of disgust on his face over the existence of a clone was enough to demonstrate ST's stance.

I never claimed cloning extinct species for any length of time was possible only that it is being tried...and I would rather watch for the results rather than claiming it's not possible before empirical evidence to the contrary. Advances in science are not made by distinguished scientists who claim something is impossible, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

I believe I answered the exponential limit claim already...exponentials reach limits only until surpassed by a new paradigm. My example was processor technology. Something claimed by critics for many years...that there would eventually be a materials limit in Moore's Law, but which has again been surpassed: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=153184

RAMA, you make the mistake of assuming that new paradigms will keep appearing, based on the recent past, on the scientific/technological revolution.
In other words, you make the mistake of assuming you can extrapolate forward indefinitely - a mistake Christopher already pointed out to you.


Indeed, one can prove logically that there are not an infinte number of paradigm shifts in our future:

There are a finite number of laws of nature AKA there are a finite number of combinations one can make using them.
Almost all these combinations are useless - they have no useful result, are not technology.
The few combinations that are useful are finite AKA they will not appear ad infinitum.


One erroneous assumption of singularity proponents is forward extrapolation ad infinitum - that there is an infinite number of paradigm shifts/advances posible.

Another one, made by some of them, is the assumption that the frequency of appearance of these infinite paradigm shifts/advances will increase exponentially (which is how Kurzweil came up with 2050 as the date for singularity).
In many fields, this assumption was already proven wrong.

It's not a mistake, there are 3-4 different technologies already being explored that can make faster processing speeds possible, the first one was predicted and has already occurred. The mistake is in expecting that we won't come up with new technologies, which is contrary to prior historical and current demonstrable evidence...as long as there is a theoretical limit to processing speed(in fact no one has claimed this was infinite), but it is much higher than we can reach now, there will likely be away these new technologies can reach it.

 

[Christopher]

I think Roddenberry was generally conservative with tampering with human biology itself (genetics/cloning)...and while Riker did have a right to control the use of his cells, the look of disgust on his face over the existence of a clone was enough to demonstrate ST's stance.

No, it wasn't, because again, I'd argue that his disgust wasn't at cloning per se, but at the fact that he was cloned WITHOUT HIS CONSENT. Remember, the episode was an allegory on reproductive rights. It wasn't actually about the ethics of cloning, since that was a very distant possibility at the time it was written. The cloning issue was just a disguise for a statement about abortion rights, an issue that was far more current at the time the episode was written and produced. If a female character showed disgust at the prospect of being impregnated by rape, and expressed a willingness to get an abortion in those circumstances, that wouldn't mean she was disgusted at the idea of pregnancy itself, but at the idea of having it forced on her against her will. And the same goes for Riker's reaction here.

And even if you were right that Riker showed disgust at cloning, you'd be wrong to say it showed ST's overall stance, because as I've already shown, there are numerous other examples of clones in Trek being treated as equal beings with a perfectly valid right to exist. It would be the exception, not the rule. A single example doesn't prove a pattern, especially when it's contradicted by every other example.

I never claimed cloning extinct species for any length of time was possible only that it is being tried...and I would rather watch for the results rather than claiming it's not possible before empirical evidence to the contrary.

For one thing, I never claimed it's not possible, I merely pointed out that it's extremely difficult and far from a sure thing. I didn't want people reading your post to get the false impression that the mammoth project was likely to succeed, so I elaborated on the difficulties that still remain. Don't confuse "difficult" with "impossible."

For another, you're getting the burden of proof backwards. The empirical evidence to date shows consistently that, with current technology, clones of extinct species are very unlikely to survive. Therefore, the premise that cloning is feasible is the one that has to be proven, because so far there's no evidence to support it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- Carl Sagan.

 

[RAMA]

For one thing, I never claimed it's not possible, I merely pointed out that it's extremely difficult and far from a sure thing. I didn't want people reading your post to get the false impression that the mammoth project was likely to succeed, so I elaborated on the difficulties that still remain. Don't confuse "difficult" with "impossible."

For another, you're getting the burden of proof backwards. The empirical evidence to date shows consistently that, with current technology, clones of extinct species are very unlikely to survive. Therefore, the premise that cloning is feasible is the one that has to be proven, because so far there's no evidence to support it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- Carl Sagan.

There was never a judgement call on my part claiming that cloning of mammoths would succeed, only that it was going to be attempted....giving a progression of the technology over the years, from "Dolly" in 1997, to cloning an Ibex only 12 years later.

There is very little evidence to go on as of yet, and if you were to ask the question: "is it possible", the answer is a resounding "yes"....now as to whether the subject will last the next quarter hour...who knows.

It's true, it's up to those conducting the experiment(did I say otherwise??--I was referring to the article you posted as to those who claim it is not possible or unlikely...without seeing if it is first proven by those conducting the experiment)--those who say it is possible to prove it--and that's just what they are doing and I want to see..every time I see these elaborate articles claiming its impossible or unlikely, I would rather see them try...within reason of course.

I think Roddenberry was generally conservative with tampering with human biology itself (genetics/cloning)...and while Riker did have a right to control the use of his cells, the look of disgust on his face over the existence of a clone was enough to demonstrate ST's stance.

No, it wasn't, because again, I'd argue that his disgust wasn't at cloning per se, but at the fact that he was cloned WITHOUT HIS CONSENT. Remember, the episode was an allegory on reproductive rights. It wasn't actually about the ethics of cloning, since that was a very distant possibility at the time it was written. The cloning issue was just a disguise for a statement about abortion rights, an issue that was far more current at the time the episode was written and produced. If a female character showed disgust at the prospect of being impregnated by rape, and expressed a willingness to get an abortion in those circumstances, that wouldn't mean she was disgusted at the idea of pregnancy itself, but at the idea of having it forced on her against her will. And the same goes for Riker's reaction here.

And even if you were right that Riker showed disgust at cloning, you'd be wrong to say it showed ST's overall stance, because as I've already shown, there are numerous other examples of clones in Trek being treated as equal beings with a perfectly valid right to exist. It would be the exception, not the rule. A single example doesn't prove a pattern, especially when it's contradicted by every other example.

Clones don't fare well in Roddenberry's universe, technology unchained is fine, but improving human beings...well that just dangerous!

The largest sample of clones in ST are the Jem Hadar and Vorta, both of whom do not share admirable traits, and are at the mercy of their flaws...the Jem Hadar must be on white, and Vorta are basically whimpering, servile drones to the only non-clones in the triad of the Dominion.

Picard/Shinzon: Shinzon comes into power but in generally ineffectual and again at the mercy of his genetic flaws.

The Riker example is not the only one from the Mariposans: they suffer bio-technological flaws, they are thought of as not being imaginative, and are stiff...only combining their DNA with a more viable non-clone people make them worthwhile to carry on as a civilization.

The Ibudan clones were the result of a murderer and criminal who only wanted to use the technology to survive.

Ultimately genetic creations in ST are humanity playing "God", with the UFP forced to stay out of it by law, and this is pretty much in tune with Roddenberry's views.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/genetic_engineering.htm

 

[Christopher]

Clones don't fare well in Roddenberry's universe, technology unchained is fine, but improving human beings...well that just dangerous!

The largest sample of clones in ST are the Jem Hadar and Vorta, both of whom do not share admirable traits, and are at the mercy of their flaws...the Jem Hadar must be on white, and Vorta are basically whimpering, servile drones to the only non-clones in the triad of the Dominion.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that they're clones, but only with the fact that the people who engineered them are tyrants. What you said was that Trek treats clones as "abominations," and that is completely wrong. If anything, the Jem'Hadar and Vorta were often portrayed as victims of the Founders, objects of sympathy rather than disgust. The idea that Star Trek would treat any entire category of beings as an "abomination" -- in other words, would treat that category with hatred and bigotry -- is anathema to how Star Trek approaches things.

The Riker example is not the only one from the Mariposans: they suffer bio-technological flaws, they are thought of as not being imaginative, and are stiff...only combining their DNA with a more viable non-clone people make them worthwhile to carry on as a civilization.

But that's because they'd been forced to rely exclusively on cloning a very small gene pool for hundreds of years, and had fallen prey to the technical limitations of the process. (In fact, the episode's concept of "replicative fading" was rather prophetic -- there are similar problems with cloning in reality.) Saying there's a problem with cloning is not the same as saying there's a problem with clones, or that they're "abominations" that don't deserve to exist.

The Ibudan clones were the result of a murderer and criminal who only wanted to use the technology to survive.

But Odo overtly stated that killing one's own clone was still murder -- which means, by definition, that clones are considered people and are equal to other beings in the eyes of the law. Again, that is not consistent with treating clones as "abominations."

Ultimately genetic creations in ST are humanity playing "God", with the UFP forced to stay out of it by law, and this is pretty much in tune with Roddenberry's views.

Actually it's something of a contradiction to Roddenberry's views, since he generally painted technological progress as a positive, beneficial thing. "Don't play God" is the way most mass-media sci-fi treats technology, but Star Trek has generally tended to be less cautionary and more optimistic about the power of technology. The main exception has been the franchise's resistance to transhumanism of one sort or another (AIs, cyborgs, genetic augments), but there are exceptions to that in characters like Data, the EMH, and Bashir. (TOS was a lot more prone to see AI as a negative than its sequel shows were; most androids and thinking computers in TOS were dangerous or evil, but in TNG etc. they were usually nobler and more sympathetic. Maybe the next generation of Trek shows will be more tolerant of transhumanism than the previous one.)

And again, while the process of cloning has often been shown in the wrong hands, that's a far cry from expressing hate toward the clones themselves.

 

[RAMA]

Cloaking/Stealth technology:

Early stealth involved camouflage with like natural objects, the first time troops were clothed in drab colors was in the 17th century, when British troops experimented with it. Submarines in the 18th and 19th century gave craft at sea the ability to hide from surface warships, reaching full potential in WWI and WWII. Dazzle camouflage was used in WWI and somewhat in WWII to confuse ships at sea in terms of rangefinding, not to keep them from being seen. Yehudi lights were used in WWII to brighten aircraft approach to blend in with a light sky. Radar rendered this approach obsolete, but then countermeasures were needed to confuse radar waves. Finally in 1958 the A12, later developed into the SR-71 had a measure of what we now think of as stealth technology both in shape and materials. Later stealth fighter methodologies turned from angular and slab-sided(Have Blue/F-117) to blended(F-22, F-23, F-35, B2 bomber), and this was eventually used on warships, such as the Skjold Class, Arleigh Burke and French Lafayette Class.

In the 1950s a US scientist first postulated a particle accelerator to block radar. In the 1960s, Project Oxcart attempted to block air inlets with an electron beam generator. The Soviet Union claimed a new "stealth" plasma device was being tested in 1999, both on aircraft and tanks, and in the early 2000s both the US and France also was working on the application of this for aircraft. The technology could form a layer or cloud of plasma around a vehicle to deflect or absorb radar, from simpler electrostatic or radio frequency discharges to more complex laser discharges. Newer methods may involve "meta-materials" that structure reflective properties of materials to mimic their surroundings. Scientists at Duke University were able to use a series of rings that propagate radio waves around an object so that the radiation entering the ring structure pass through with little interference, essentially rendering the object less visible in the presence of radio waves.

In SF early stories of invisibilty include 1859's "What Was It" about a natural invisible creature. Several other stories appeared before HG Well's popular "Invisble Man". He also posits moving very fast will cause one to be invisible in his "The New Accelerator", adapted by the BBC BBC Wells . In 1939, invisible aliens appeared in "Sinister Barrier". In 1966, Star Trek took the idea of submarine warfare, and created a spaceship that bent the rays of light around it to render it invisible. In later years, Doctor Who, Star Wars, and Predator used cloaking technology to great effect. Stealth technology has appeared in the movie "Firefox", "Stealth".

http://science.discovery.com/videos/popscis-future-of-invisibility-cloak.html

http://www.amazon.com/How-to-Become-Invisable/dp/B003ZV273Y

 

[RAMA]

Once or twice is fine, but 80-90% are negative, and that's a pattern...

Clones don't fare well in Roddenberry's universe, technology unchained is fine, but improving human beings...well that just dangerous!

The largest sample of clones in ST are the Jem Hadar and Vorta, both of whom do not share admirable traits, and are at the mercy of their flaws...the Jem Hadar must be on white, and Vorta are basically whimpering, servile drones to the only non-clones in the triad of the Dominion.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that they're clones, but only with the fact that the people who engineered them are tyrants. What you said was that Trek treats clones as "abominations," and that is completely wrong. If anything, the Jem'Hadar and Vorta were often portrayed as victims of the Founders, objects of sympathy rather than disgust. The idea that Star Trek would treat any entire category of beings as an "abomination" -- in other words, would treat that category with hatred and bigotry -- is anathema to how Star Trek approaches things.

The Riker example is not the only one from the Mariposans: they suffer bio-technological flaws, they are thought of as not being imaginative, and are stiff...only combining their DNA with a more viable non-clone people make them worthwhile to carry on as a civilization.

But that's because they'd been forced to rely exclusively on cloning a very small gene pool for hundreds of years, and had fallen prey to the technical limitations of the process. (In fact, the episode's concept of "replicative fading" was rather prophetic -- there are similar problems with cloning in reality.) Saying there's a problem with cloning is not the same as saying there's a problem with clones, or that they're "abominations" that don't deserve to exist.

The Ibudan clones were the result of a murderer and criminal who only wanted to use the technology to survive.

But Odo overtly stated that killing one's own clone was still murder -- which means, by definition, that clones are considered people and are equal to other beings in the eyes of the law. Again, that is not consistent with treating clones as "abominations."

Ultimately genetic creations in ST are humanity playing "God", with the UFP forced to stay out of it by law, and this is pretty much in tune with Roddenberry's views.

Actually it's something of a contradiction to Roddenberry's views, since he generally painted technological progress as a positive, beneficial thing. "Don't play God" is the way most mass-media sci-fi treats technology, but Star Trek has generally tended to be less cautionary and more optimistic about the power of technology. The main exception has been the franchise's resistance to transhumanism of one sort or another (AIs, cyborgs, genetic augments), but there are exceptions to that in characters like Data, the EMH, and Bashir. (TOS was a lot more prone to see AI as a negative than its sequel shows were; most androids and thinking computers in TOS were dangerous or evil, but in TNG etc. they were usually nobler and more sympathetic. Maybe the next generation of Trek shows will be more tolerant of transhumanism than the previous one.)

And again, while the process of cloning has often been shown in the wrong hands, that's a far cry from expressing hate toward the clones themselves.

 

[Christopher]

Once or twice is fine, but 80-90% are negative, and that's a pattern...

I'll say again: what you said was that the show treated clones, i.e. the people themselves, as "abominations." All you've actually demonstrated is that the show treated the process of cloning as something that could be abused. That is a completely different premise.

By analogy, if a show portrays kidnapping as an immoral act, does that mean it's calling kidnap victims abominations? No. It's criticizing the kidnappers. The ST episodes you cite are critical of the people doing the cloning, but are often sympathetic to the clones themselves.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well I don't think any of us were trying to be comprehensive...as I mentioned the first story with a biosip was likely in 1953...

I think you'll find bioships of one kind or another in Stapledon.

 

[RAMA]

I sadly I haven't read most of his stories yet(though I have most), but from what I can find, there are only mentions of "worldships" (planets as spaceships) and references to living stars, which I suppose could be considered a living ship, but not a bioship or organic ship.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Solar sailer(s): The fact that electromagnetic radiation produces pressure was discovered in 1871. In 1924, Friedrich Zander proposed solar sails as a means of propelling a spacecraft.

Likely the earliest story in sci-fi involving this method of propulsion was in 1960's: "The Lady Who Sailed the Soul", by Cordwainer Smith. In 1964, Arthur C. Clarke speculated about a "solar yacht race" in "Sunjammer".

In visual fiction, Tron(1982) used a "solar sailing simulation", though it was not actually a physical spacecraft. The first appearance of a physical solar sailer was in May of 1995 on STDS9's "Explorers", followed closely by Outer Limits in July, 1995 with "The Message".

Ikaros, the first actual non-experimental solar sail mission ever was launched in 2010 by the Japanese space agency, followed by the Nanosail-D2 by NASA in Nov, 2010.

RAMA

Addendum: Severely missed the visual fiction appearance, Doctor Who had a solar sailing race in 1983!!!! Then again in 1994, in the fan made "Shakedown"!! Tiger Moth was captured by Sontarrans: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tiger_Moth

Odin Photon Space Sailer Starlight appeared in 1986 as well:

http://www.imdb.com/r/tt_moviemeter_why/title/tt0288143/

 

[Sci]

Shelley also wrote a second novel called The Last Man, released in 1826, which is about a post-apocalyptic, plague-ravaged Earth of the 21st century, and was possibly the very first novel of that genre ever written. There's even mention of a "black sun". In addition, Shelley's introduction to the novel suggests that it was based upon some prophecies she discovered in a cave - predating by many years the "Blair Witch"-style genre of "this is based upon so-and-so's journal that we discovered".

Just for the record, it's my understanding that that framing device -- the "literary agent framing device" -- was actually exceedingly common in 19th Century literature, and does not originate with Shelley. We see something similar in the opening to Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, for instance.

 

[Christopher]

Oh yes, it was quite routine for novels, especially fantasy novels, to be presented in that form, as "This is a manuscript that was delivered to me" or "This is a tale that was told to me." Just about anything by Verne, Wells, or Burroughs is told in that way. And what I consider to be perhaps the first science-fiction novel, Gulliver's Travels, was written as a satire of actual traveler's-tale accounts published by mariners and explorers in the period, and was meant to be published anonymously and passed off as nonfiction, though Swift's authorship was exposed shortly before publication.

Hmm. I guess that could count as the first spoiler.

 

[Mistral]

I sadly I haven't read most of his stories yet(though I have most), but from what I can find, there are only mentions of "worldships" (planets as spaceships) and references to living stars, which I suppose could be considered a living ship, but not a bioship or organic ship.

RAMA

Not sure about Old Olaf but isn't McCaffrey's The Ship Who Sang a bioship?
As far as worldships, I know both Heinlein and Blish wrote about them decades ago, Heinlein in Orphans of the Sky, 1963 (fix-up novel comprising the novellas "Universe" and "Common Sense", both originally published in 1941) and Blish in his Cities In Flight stories.
Regarding the Singularity and computing limits in general-I believe I recently read an article about practical molecular computing, which would upscale current capabilities by 100-1000 times current speeds, although I can't find it now. So who's to say that, or DNA computer coding might not lead to a Singularity effect?
I saw an earlier citation for a handheld computer. I know Clarke describes one pretty well in Imperial Earth-1975. And Norton describes efficient hovercraft in Star Rangers-1953.

Just some minor observations.

 

[Christopher]

Not sure about Old Olaf but isn't McCaffrey's The Ship Who Sang a bioship?

More of a cyborg -- human brain in a mechanical "body."

As far as worldships, I know both Heinlein and Blish wrote about them decades ago, Heinlein in Orphans of the Sky, 1963 (fix-up novel comprising the novellas "Universe" and "Common Sense", both originally published in 1941) and Blish in his Cities In Flight stories.

Well, cityships rather than worldships. Although there are those who consider New York City a world unto itself...

 

[Redfern]

Not sure about Old Olaf but isn't McCaffrey's The Ship Who Sang a bioship?

More of a cyborg -- human brain in a mechanical "body."

Hmm, I understand that the earlier stories of that series implied it was a case of little more than a brain wired to a mechanical body, but didn't one of the later books reveal she was actually a tragically deformed body, though more or less whole, encased within a life support module sealed within the ship? That would make her something more akin to a benevolent Kaled mutant, a nice "Dalek". I recall that only because it frustrated some fans' expectations and they were a bit vocal about it.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Christopher]

I don't remember. Either way, not a bioship.

 

[Mistral]

ok