Star Wars Question...

[Guy Gardener]

Blasters are lasers.

batteries on a star destroyer are turbolasers.

the main gun on the death star is a superturbolaser.

But it's not just the laser, it the ability to generate the power necessary to use a superturbolaser.

Of course,

Obiwan learnt all his tech skills 30 or 40 years earlier under Qua Gon Gin, and he was still about to turn off he tractor beam without having to look at the plans insider Artoo.

 

[DarthTom]

It's just a really big laser cannon, that's hardly something no one ever thought of before.

However, it's possible the power generation needed to develop a planet killer was the innovation.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There certainly seems to be nothing mysterious about the idea that, by scaling known technologies up enough, they should be able to destroy a planet.

And I think it's shortsighted to define progress merely in terms of how big and powerful your guns are. Ultimately the most transformative and influential technological advance of the 20th century was not the atomic bomb, but the silicon chip.

Inventing more effective ways of mass-murdering people doesn't make mankind more civilized, and despite the frequent illusion to the contrary, it likely makes him less so. So in that sense of the word, it's not progress.

But even that is still technical innovation, and so it's still, in that sense, technological progress.

Not all technological progress is good; a lot is bad, and some is very bad. Just because one can do a thing does not mean one should do that thing.

 

[Christopher]

^Yes, it's a kind of innovation, but my point is that it's not the only or most important kind. I guess I can understand why fans of something called Star Wars would pay disproportionate attention to military progress, but it gives a skewed picture of technological progress as a whole. And again, that's what the original question in this thread is about -- not progress in a single specific area, but the overall progress of the whole of galactic civilization over a span of 4000 years. In order to evaluate such an expansive question, we have to broaden our focus to more than just one area of progress.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I guess I can understand why fans of something called Star Wars would pay disproportionate attention to military progress, but it gives a skewed picture of technological progress as a whole.

Well, it's not like the fans are looking at the franchise all wrong, since the warrior aspect is what it focuses on.

 

[Christopher]

^Why do you keep changing the subject? We're not discussing the franchise in general, we're discussing the specific question of why the galaxy's technology hasn't advanced very far in 4000 years.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Why is responding directly to what you say in this thread "changing the subject"? If anyone veered off topic it was you, when you said this:

I guess I can understand why fans of something called Star Wars would pay disproportionate attention to military progress, but it gives a skewed picture of technological progress as a whole.

Are we talking about Star Wars fans, or technological progress?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Here's a part that may be relevant to this discussion, of what I had to say in reply to another poster a few months back on the subject of the technological plateau present in Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy, a work fairly clearly influential in the creation of the Star Wars universe. Obviously, this is not in every way applicable to Star Wars, but my purpose was to justify the structure of the galaxy in the Foundation trilogy, upon which the Star Wars galaxy is partially based.

(...)

That said, there is one aspect that will prevent social science from ever being powerfully predictive, which oddly enough a science fiction writer either overlooked or chose to ignore: scientific and technological progress. It is not because the human factor is too divinely ineffable to quantify. Scientific and technical progress depend partly upon what nature is really like, and no social science could be expected to predict unknown physics, chemistry, etc.

(...)

(...)

I disagree with the point about "scientific and technological progress" that I highlighted. Asimov didn't ignore this point at all. (...) part of the premise of why the Empire fell was that it had ceased being innovative.

If we are going to consider what things might be like in the real world, the situation is very debatable. We have hardly any historical data with which to even guess what the rate of technological innovation might look like in an industrial society that has been operating for 10,000 years.

Based on what we know, it is entirely plausible that the space between milestones in innovation that might radically upset society could be very far indeed by then. One argument in favor of this notion is the idea that all of the low hanging fruit will have been picked, and also all of the lowest hanging fruit among that which remains will have been picked, and so on for many iterations, leaving only very hard to reach fruit representing radical breakthroughs.

Once a level of technology has been achieved where everyone's needs will be met for the foreseeable future, what pressure will there be to reach for the very hard to reach? Little, if any, right?

 

[-Brett-]

That's because Bioware was lazy when developing KOTOR.

I doubt it was laziness. More likely just a desire to sell the game outside of the EU crowd.

 

[Pavonis]

^ Why is responding directly to what you say in this thread "changing the subject"? If anyone veered off topic it was you, when you said this:

I guess I can understand why fans of something called Star Wars would pay disproportionate attention to military progress, but it gives a skewed picture of technological progress as a whole.

Are we talking about Star Wars fans, or technological progress?

As an unbiased observer, the topic appears to be technological progress, and the GFFA's apparent lack of any during a 4,000 year span.

Building a bigger gun and souping up an engine don't constitute galaxy-wide technological progress. Being able to teleport from Coruscant to Corellia would, though, as that would render hyperspatial engines obsolete.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, it's not like the Empire was going to share their planet-busting technology with anyone.

Speaking of, whatever became of the Geonosians?

 

[Santeria]

Building a bigger gun and souping up an engine don't constitute galaxy-wide technological progress. Being able to teleport from Coruscant to Corellia would, though, as that would render hyperspatial engines obsolete.

So the atomic bomb, and the technologies developed in the process of its creation and beyond, had only a minimal impact on modern society?

 

[Pavonis]

Building a bigger gun and souping up an engine don't constitute galaxy-wide technological progress. Being able to teleport from Coruscant to Corellia would, though, as that would render hyperspatial engines obsolete.

So the atomic bomb, and the technologies developed in the process of its creation and beyond, had only a minimal impact on modern society?

Seeing as few people have their own personal atomic weapons, but everyone has a computer on their desktop, I'd say yes.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And yet the Cold War, which was shaped by a nuclear standoff, had a driving force on the space program, which spurred all kinds of benefits, such as the personal computer, so I'd say "no".

 

[Pavonis]

^Meh. I might buy that argument if the personal computer revolution wasn't hot in the 1970s, when the space program was winding down. I don't think the Cold War was the cause of all technological progress; just because it happened at the same time doesn't mean it caused it (y'know, causation versus correlation). I think you'd have to demonstrate that the innovation couldn't have occurred without the Cold War. Do you really think computers wouldn't have been developed if the Cold War hadn't happened?

Anyway, on topic, the technology of the GFFA 4,000 years before Skywalker was alive and 140 years after Skywalker died shows no substantial differences. They have different ships and different guns, but only in appearance, not in operation. The same principles are at work, so it appears the galaxy-wide technological progress was stagnant. They held their ground technologically-speaking, but didn't gain any ground, either.

Again, just because the Imperials managed to scale up a battle station with a weapon capable of obliterating planets, and a smuggler managed to soup up his engines, or improve his navicomputer software, or both, doesn't translate into galaxy-wide progress.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Do you really think computers wouldn't have been developed if the Cold War hadn't happened?

If there had been no Cold War, I really believe that the PC revolution wouldn't have occurred by the 1980's, yes.

Anyway, on topic, the technology of the GFFA 4,000 years before Skywalker was alive and 140 years after Skywalker died shows no substantial differences. They have different ships and different guns, but only in appearance, not in operation. The same principles are at work, so it appears the galaxy-wide technological progress was stagnant. They held their ground technologically-speaking, but didn't gain any ground, either.

Again, just because the Imperials managed to scale up a battle station with a weapon capable of obliterating planets, and a smuggler managed to soup up his engines, or improve his navicomputer software, or both, doesn't translate into galaxy-wide progress.

I agree.

But having now thought more about this technological progress evident in the films, including the evident progress in droid technology, I think there are several important reasons why these innovations didn't contribute to galaxy-wide progress.

One, they were secrets, either trade or military. Two, they occurred very late, near or after the fall of the Republic. So there wasn't a lot of time for the developments' effects to be felt before the period of history in question was over. Third, and perhaps most significantly, this progress which has been exhibited in the Star Wars galaxy occurred during the period of the most profound instability in the galaxy over the period of history in question.

To me, this seems to support the idea that perhaps the 4000 year technological plateau is correlated with galactic peace. Maybe peace existed in part because of the technological plateau. For example, perhaps the advances in droid technology that made the Separatist droid army possible didn't come online until the almost the end of the Republic. On the other hand, perhaps the technological plateau existed because there was galactic peace, e.g. since Palpatine wasn't yet orchestrating the fall of the Republic. Or, see my defense of the technological plateau evident in the Foundation universe. Maybe the rise of instability and the arrival of technological advances came into existence in a sort of feedback relation, each contributing to the other.

Perhaps part of the irony of the human condition is that throughout history periods of extreme instability, especially such as war, have been the only times when significant technological progress has occurred.

 

[Santeria]

Again, just because the Imperials managed to scale up a battle station with a weapon capable of obliterating planets, and a smuggler managed to soup up his engines, or improve his navicomputer software, or both, doesn't translate into galaxy-wide progress.

The point you're ignoring is those aren't the only innovations. Take the gravity well projector of an Interdictor-class cruiser. There's also all of the crazy technology that has mysteriously disappeared over the millenia, such as the mind-control/possession technologies used by the Infinite Empire.

And you're also ignoring the innovations required for the "weapon capable of obliterating planets." Do you have any idea of how much energy that would require with a single blast? The technology powering the Death Star, alone, is beyond the scope of anything we've seen in the franchise, and the impact it would/should/could have on the galaxy is staggering. (Why they'd need an external shield generator when they have that much power is beyond me, however.)

The real point, however, and no matter how much you want to shrug it off, is that there has been room to grow with the technology in the mere ~150 years since the original movie... yet for 4,000 or even 40,000 years prior, next to nothing occurred, despite there being even more advanced technologies from an even earlier period of time demonstrating that innovations did exist if they'd only put their minds to it.

You can compare it to the Dark Ages or whatever you like, but that's just silly when you're talking about hundreds of worlds in an entire galaxy. Even during the Dark Ages, the entire planet wasn't in a technological slum. There were tons of advancements being made outside of Europe. But you'd have us believe that an entire galaxy would fall into a slump due to oppression or whatever? It's absurd.

But, that's Star Wars in a nutshell. Absurd. Fun wins over believability or even sensibility.

 

[Pavonis]

Do you really think computers wouldn't have been developed if the Cold War hadn't happened?

If there had been no Cold War, I really believe that the PC revolution wouldn't have occurred by the 1980's, yes.

That's interesting. I'd ask you for your explanation, but it doesn't seem germane.

But having now thought more about this technological progress evident in the films, including the evident progress in droid technology, I think there are several important reasons why these innovations didn't contribute to galaxy-wide progress.

What evident progress in 'droid technology?

One, they were secrets, either trade or military.

So you're suggesting the large corporations of the SW universe were bad at communicating with each other and the populace in general, keeping most innovations secret to retain an edge? Interesting.

Perhaps part of the irony of the human condition is that throughout history periods of extreme instability, especially such as war, have been the only times when significant technological progress has occurred.

War only leads to war-related technological progress, though, and that doesn't benefit the populace at large. Peacetime is when technology that benefits the public is developed.

And you're also ignoring the innovations required for the "weapon capable of obliterating planets." Do you have any idea of how much energy that would require with a single blast?

Yeah, I do, actually. I calculated the energy required once. It was ridiculously large.

The technology powering the Death Star, alone, is beyond the scope of anything we've seen in the franchise, and the impact it would/should/could have on the galaxy is staggering. (Why they'd need an external shield generator when they have that much power is beyond me, however.)

The impact of the Death Star on the galaxy was fear. It didn't make anyone's life better, it just made everyone afraid of the Imperial government. Seeing as the Imperials had all the ships and a huge army, they'd have been afraid of the government anyway. I don't see how the Death Star's existence changed the lives of the populace, except by threatening to end them.

 

[Santeria]

War only leads to war-related technological progress, though, and that doesn't benefit the populace at large. Peacetime is when technology that benefits the public is developed.

The technology powering the Death Star, alone, is beyond the scope of anything we've seen in the franchise, and the impact it would/should/could have on the galaxy is staggering. (Why they'd need an external shield generator when they have that much power is beyond me, however.)

The impact of the Death Star on the galaxy was fear. It didn't make anyone's life better, it just made everyone afraid of the Imperial government. Seeing as the Imperials had all the ships and a huge army, they'd have been afraid of the government anyway. I don't see how the Death Star's existence changed the lives of the populace, except by threatening to end them.

Wow. You have a painfully short-sighted view of reality based upon these comments. The first one in particular. And I do mean painfully.

Nuclear power plants, jet aircraft, the Internet, rocketry, and satellites, all off the top of my head, owe huge bursts of their development and advancement from war/military innovations. Hell, one of the biggest encouragements for technological advancements is DARPA.

And to go back to Star Wars, the power generation systems used on the Death Star alone would/should be of tremendous -- I mean, mind-bogglingly tremendous -- benefit to the entire galaxy. Not to mention all the other technologies that would have had to have been developed to build the Death Star. They basically built a small planet from scratch for Christ's sake.

 

[Shazam!]

Speaking of, whatever became of the Geonosians?

All these alien races and characters and worlds all disappearing by the time the OT rolls around always kinda bugged me.

Naboo should've been Alderaan.