Ian Mackinder Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Then why is nobody saying "by now the should have developed Flames Swords/Magical Airships"? Eberron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Eberron. Then the generic "this is not like it would be" sentence will be: "But with the combination of Magic and Technology they should have come further in the same time." For example: "In that time they should have been able to create a magic space programm in ebberon". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? I'm just wondering why a civilization that has mastered cloning, cyborging, AI(C3P0, et al), hyperdrive, holonet, energy swords, megascale engineering, force fields etc., comes up short wrt such things as anti-aging technology, replacing lost limbs with cloned ones, etc. (even back in the original episodes, Anakin's hand got borged, instead of having a new hand grown and attached). It would be nice to see at least one(1) televised/filmed/animated series where human lifespans are extended dramatically. Sure there was that brief cameo by Dr. McCoy in ST:TNG, but even that was kinda limited(he LOOKED 170+, fer crying out loud!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? There are the following Reasons: - Technology is very localised. Those guys on kamino are most likely the most advanced cloners that exist, and perhaps they never developed to partial clonong. And complete cloning to harvest a hand could have problems with age/morality/the force/the jedi in general. - In Episode 6 Vader got his mechanical hand chopped of. He needs to have a mechanical hand first in the first place. - That level of technology could induce mayor problems for the story. And the story trumps "that should be possible/that should be impossible". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Which gets back to the whole setting being science fantasy, rather than science fiction. The difference is that even "soft" sci fi tends to be more internally consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Which gets back to the whole setting being science fantasy' date=' rather than science fiction. The difference is that even "soft" sci fi tends to be more internally consistent.[/quote'] No matter what subgenre of fantasy Star Wars is, it is not a real world "what if" simulation. It is a universe created for the sole purpose of showing us "battles between good and evil". As such, if the storys demands for something being possible/being impossible that will always trumph anybody saying "but from my knowledge it should be like..." or "from the logic of technological development it should be...". Of course that gives you the freedom to make your "between the wars" or "after EP6" Star Wars Universe however you like, even with the internal consistence you seem to require so much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? But we try to let it make sense (the entire conversation is a try). We would never even try that to other fantasy, would we? People can and do. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis "this might have something to do with the world being run by rigid rules governing the selection of rulers and commerce and travel between the kingdoms. Additionally, many of its leaders are immortal and have been strictly charged by the heavens with achieving and maintaining a happy status quo. The lack of any fossil fuels might also be a cause. " "Their society was artificially sealed into the Dark Ages by an external force after the collapse of this civilization. With stability enforced by genocide of uppity populations." "It has also been mentioned (especially in the Science of Discworld series) that a world where many tropes (such as the Rule of Funny) are fundamental laws does not lend itself to technological advances - things are simply too unpredictable." "In Succession (published as The Risen Empire in the UK) by Scott Westerfeld the Risen Empire has been technologically stagnant for about 1,000 years as a result of the ageless Risen controlling the entire government. The Empire's enemies, who lack immortality, do keep advancing." "ampshaded and justified by Samar Dev in The Bonehunters: She noted (lamented, really) that the power of The Warrens means will never really have a need to strive for technological solutions to their problems. If they can't magic it, they'll just buy or trade for what they need from another race." "In Janny Wurts's Mistwraith series, five immortal wizards have forcibly maintained medieval stasis for more than 10,000 years, by removing the memories of anyone who discovers technologies they disapprove of." "In The Darksword Trilogy, the use of magic has caused society to stagnate. The idea of The Magocracy essentially suffocating itself by suppressing all non-magical innovation is an important motif throughout the series." And more. Saying "It's fantasy" doesn't explain anything. Both authors and internet geeks feel the need to explain why a fantasy culture is stagnant (or show that it isn't even if it isn't advancing by leaps and bounds). Tolkien himself had a wacky religious reason for why everything was going downhill, but it was still a reason. *Remember that the main reason for the halt of progression in our timeline was the church, fearing advances (dark ages). Hah! Yes that myth has driven both fantasy and science fiction periods of stasis and regression. It's hokum of course. The "Dark Ages" were not world-wide, and were not in fact a time in which technological advance stopped even in Europe. 3 crop rotation for example dates back to Charlemagne and there was obviously a continuous trend of development of arms and armour and fortification. At the same time however, it's notable that the pre-Columbian American civilizations, while they did develop technological advances of course, were perhaps not quite so good at retaining and building on what their predecessors already had. And China, once the world's greatest innovators, did reach a point where it seemed like further innovation was nearly stillborn at least for a few centuries, which is how Europe managed to import their developments and then build on them, finally overtaking a culture that had such a huge head-start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? "Okay. I tried every other possibility to hide the truth from you, but you fell for none of my ploys. Now I have no other choice, I will tell you the terrible truth. Be aware that you may have difficulties to accept it. And even if you believe me, it is unlikely anybody else would want to believe you. Actually, if you believe me is must asume that you are totally carzy. The reason the galaxy never develops certain technology and never seems to get over a certain point - or even declines over time - is a single one: Space Gozilla! I know what you think, heck I thought it too when I heard it first. And I warned you, didn't I? Anyway, while most may think he is a myth, he is real. And in fact ever couple of thousand years, whenever we reach a certain treshold of development, he just pops up and destroys one technology center after another. Every modern technology, every data storage with info how to build it and most technicans and scientist just vanish from the planets he visits - then he just goes on to the next planet. And he moves fast, legends have it faster than you can fly with our fastest ships. His visits last for a year, sometimes less. No matter how often we tried to fight back, we always loose. How do you fight something that destroys every technology with technology? He leaves us barely enough to re-develop the hyperdrives. Some planets are not even that lucky. The survivors don't want to remember it and even if they do, most people just don't want to believe it. Of course that still leaves the question why we never develop certain technology. Well, it seems like he hates certain things even more. If we start using it, he makes an early visit, often only to the planet that makes it. And usually those planets are deep on the less lucky side after that. You should ask the Wookies and especially the Ewoks what they did to be bombed back that far the last time, but they don't remember so they ain't talking". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escafarc Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragitsu Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Actually people dying is good for peace. It serves both as a deterent from going to war again (at least for one or two generations)' date=' [b']lowers the population pressure[/b] and improves the Resoures/People ratio. ...sigh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? ...sigh... I'm not exactly a fan of that concept, but this is the fact: And the outward reason is as trivial and unimportant as they can be. It all boils down to "not enough space, not enough resources", wich will create any number of "official reasons" for a war (vendetas with your "rich" neigbours, armsraces to "protect what is yours", falling into fanatism as the only sollution). Actually I think if it wasn't for all those problems that put us ad odds, humanity would full of nice people... And this thematic was bound to pop up, after all we are talking about Star Wars here. Not exactly a universe where you expect simple diplomacy without a mayor, all diciding battle to win the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragitsu Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? The difference is that Earth is one planet, whereas Star Wars is many many many planets. Also, I shudder any time someone considers war to kill off people due to population issues a "good" thing. (Finally, Metal Gear Solid 4 said "War has changed"). And this thematic was bound to pop up' date=' after all we are talking about Star [b']Wars[/b] here. Not exactly a universe where you expect simple diplomacy without a mayor, all diciding battle to win the day. Erm. Star Wars is flexible enough for any number of scenarios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? I'm not exactly a fan of that concept' date=' but this is the fact: And the outward reason is as trivial and unimportant as they can be. It all boils down to "not enough space, not enough resources", wich will create any number of "official reasons" for a war (vendetas with your "rich" neigbours, armsraces to "protect what is yours", falling into fanatism as the only sollution). Actually I think if it wasn't for all those problems that put us ad odds, humanity would full of nice people... And this thematic was bound to pop up, after all we are talking about Star Wars here. Not exactly a universe where you expect simple diplomacy without a mayor, all diciding battle to win the day. He was sighing at the idea that war curbs population growth. It almost never does. Something to bear in mind is that Star Wars history is not one of continuous violence. In the lead-in to the prequels, they had just experienced an enormous stretch of uninterrupted peace, one so long that nobody was armed and prepared for warfare. The Jedi would use their precognition to nip any potential warfare in the bud, taking advantage of the fact that they were effectively unopposed by any other force users. Only once Palpatine somehow developed an effective way of obscuring their senses so that his machinations and nature were invisible to them, could the Sith start causing trouble again. Even if technology advanced in other ways, the art of warfare had no push to reward innovation until the Clone Wars break out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? The difference is that Earth is one planet' date=' whereas Star Wars is many many many planets.[/quote'] Planets yes, but travel times are close to the time you need to move an army from one mayor city to another (marching). So all you do is replace citys with planets and nations with system-spanning empire/coalition/federation/republic and we are right back to square one Also' date=' I shudder any time someone considers war to kill off people due to population issues a "good" thing.[/quote'] Again, I am not a fan of it but these are the facts: Making war keeps us from doing it again soon. The longer, the bloodier and destructive the war was. WWI brought us a peace for 20 Years. WWII brought us a peace for currently 56 Years. Most appokalypse scenarios give you a view how long the peace after WWIII could last. It's close to what Einstein predicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragitsu Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Planets yes' date=' but travel times are close to the time you need to move an army from one mayor city to another (marching). So all you do is replace citys with planets and nations with system-spanning empire/coalition/federation/republic and we are right back to square one[/quote'] Even so, and without the "wars", the SWU isn't going to run out of habitable areas any time soon. Again, I am not a fan of it but these are the facts: Making war keeps us from doing it again soon. The longer, the bloodier and destructive the war was. WWI brought us a peace for 20 Years. WWII brought us a peace for currently 56 Years. Most appokalypse scenarios give you a view how long the peace after WWIII could last. It's close to what Einstein predicted. Asides from the fact that WWII was pretty spurred on by WWI, I get the feeling some of these doomsday experts are wanting the next big war to happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Even so' date=' and without the "wars", the SWU isn't going to run out of habitable areas any time soon.[/quote'] A doomed colony is "habitable", but not really a place with future or where you would want to grow old/raise your kids. Take a look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for that matter. When people are locked on level 1-3 you are easily seduced something terrible when it has a chance to improve your situation. But don't do one mayor mistake people do: A action must not have the nearest need. We seek to be in groups, but we do so out of nessesarity for 1-2. Level 3 is only when the same action "serves itself". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragitsu Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? A doomed colony is "habitable"' date=' but not really a place with future or where you would want to grow old/raise your kids.[/quote'] The SWU is at doomed colony/without a future level? News to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vondy Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Planets yes' date=' but travel times are close to the time you need to move an army from one mayor city to another (marching). So all you do is replace citys with planets and nations with system-spanning empire/coalition/federation/republic and we are right back to square one.[/quote'] Its not just about plot-device drive travel times. The equation also requires supply and demand economics and galactic scale macro-infrastructure logistical planning. Ergo, compatability! Just because one planet develops a new technology doesn't mean every other planet can afford to adopt it or that the materials needed to produce the product for 10,000 worlds is easily obtained - or exists in such quantities to start with. Or that they intend to share! As a result, a combination of local alliances and simple wealth will dilineate how far many technologies can spread despite know how. You also have another problem: if not everyone can adopt your advanced technology it can't become a 'galactic standard.' Some outer planets, poor planets, etcetera - perhaps even many - won't be able to interface with you. As a result, you are likely to see a galaxy-wide technology base that is lower what many wealthy, advanced planets have in place. You also have a cultural question about the republic. It was a weak republic with strong planetary rights. When the clone wars erupted it hadn't had a standing army in almost a thousand years! It had a navy and relied on the Jedi as peace-keepers and negotiators to settle disputes between worlds. You don't even have to go to novels, comics, and video games for this. Its laid out in the films (and broadened by 'the clone wars' tv show that lucas says is canon). The Trade Confederation invasion of Naboo, said to be over Republic taxation, let alone the hullabaloo about creating a clone army in the senate, and the sepratists consisting of groups who wanted laissez-fair economic policy and no interference, makes the republic's aversion strong central government clear. I would put money on the republic having a ton of bureaucrats and very little real power. I mean, these people had major conflicts with the Sith and Mandalorians in their history that almost brought the republic down (and there is a mention of a "dark age of the sith" 1,000 years before) and still had an ethos that "centralized army is bad." That kind of thinking means planets are maintaining their own militias and system defense forces, though how strong those are probably depends on what "neighborhood" they are on or why they wan them - the trade confederation had a force strong enough to repossess planets! Its starting to sound not like a central government, but a somewhat more robust united nations! Heck, look how easily the separatists under Dooku attacked Corsucant! I would bet the republic navy was small and underfunded - a hermaphrodite coast guard and peace-keeping force that could be brought in to solve localized problems if the senate could agree, but not one suited to fighting a full-scale war. This despite their previous wars - 1,000 years is a long time to forget in. I suspect, with that much peace, investment in the republic's military research and infrastructure was not a priority. Let alone powerful, wealthy, advanced planets not necessarily wanting the republic to take the money and edge that comes with having their own, local, competitive, profitable military industries. And that takes us back to technology: most planets were not going to give up their trade secrets, technological edges, and relative autonomy to the Republic without Sidious' manufactured crisis driving them to it, which is why he had to manufacture the crisis in the first place. The aliens who created the clone army gave the republic the clones - not the technology to make more themselves. And none of this even takes into account the cultural mores and attitudes towards assorted technologies and integration of individual planets. Something the size of the republic - especially when it is weak and decentralized - is of ludicrous scale and faces all the logistical problems inherent in that ludicrousness. The republic standard tech base will always lag behind what many individual - fractious - words possess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? I'm not exactly a fan of that concept' date=' but this is the fact[/quote'] Except it's not a fact. Humanity has never had a war that has significantly reduced population over more than minor regions - and even then, only for very short periods (we're talking a few years, not a generation). Wars, in fact, tend to have little or no effect on population density - as an example, from 1939-1945, during the period of the most destructive war we've ever had, world population increased by about 100 million. Even countries like France and Germany which were ground zero for the fighting, returned to, and then surpassed their pre-war populations in the space of 1 year (France) and 3 years (Germany) after the war. Other factors - economics, famine, disease all have far more profound effects on human population density than war has ever had. The idea that war is good for technology is also largely myth: yes, short wars can have a stimulating effect - as long as they have the resources of prior prolonged peace to draw on. In the longer term, though, wars tend to degrade the resources needed for development. Sun Tzu stated "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare" and it looks like he was right. Africa is a perfect example of a a continent riven by war: there isn't a country there that hasn't had at least one war in the last couple of generations and many of them have been more at least continuously at war for several generations now. Not surprisingly, countries like South Africa which had the smallest wars, are the most advanced, while places like DR Congo which have known almost nothing but war for decades, produce no advancement. In contrast, our current world, born out of an unprecedented burst of technological advancement, was also born out of prolonged periods of peace. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hopcroft Posted July 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? The idea that war is good for technology is also largely myth: yes' date=' short wars [b']can[/b] have a stimulating effect - as long as they have the resources of prior prolonged peace to draw on. In the longer term, though, wars tend to degrade the resources needed for development. Sun Tzu stated "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare" and it looks like he was right. Africa is a perfect example of a a continent riven by war: there isn't a country there that hasn't had at least one war in the last couple of generations and many of them have been more at least continuously at war for several generations now. Not surprisingly, countries like South Africa which had the smallest wars, are the most advanced, while places like DR Congo which have known almost nothing but war for decades, produce no advancement. In contrast, our current world, born out of an unprecedented burst of technological advancement, was also born out of prolonged periods of peace. cheers, Mark Also note that when you are engaged in a "total" war (as opposed to a sideshow conflict of the type we are in now that does not require a nation's entire resources) everything becomes tertiary compared to weapons. You put all your scientific and technological research efforts into building better ways to kill people in large quantities. Everything you do needs to have a military application or it just doesn't get funded. It's only in peacetime that technology that goes into improving human life as opposed to terminating it becomes viable for research. We didn't have the technological explosion of the 1990s, with all its advancement in information, entertainment, and other consumer technologies, until the Cold War ended. Sure we put a man on the moon during the Cold War, but that was largely to prove that we had the technology to hurl unstoppable waves of atomic death at our enemies. It took a cooling down of the conflict with the Soviets before consumer-driven technological advancement could take place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Geeks must puff up their chest feathers and debate theoretical play-pretend minutiae. If they don't they do not accrue geek cred. Best argument evar. I bow to your skillz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragitsu Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? Best argument evar. I bow to your skillz. You mean you don't wax your chest??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novi Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? What is really perplexing though is... why hasn't fashion changed? For one, I don't think they ever showed us space-Milan. But it could just be that we manage to catch the universe at the exact moments in which fashion has cycled around to the same things again. And just be glad we didn't have to look at their space-Disco phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Mackinder Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? And just be glad we didn't have to look at their space-Disco phase. What makes you think we haven't? For all we know, the "typical" fashion might be unisex burqas. On the other hand, there are all those naked aliens - when was the last time Chewie wore pants? O_o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Hawk Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation? What makes you think we haven't? For all we know, the "typical" fashion might be unisex burqas. On the other hand, there are all those naked aliens - when was the last time Chewie wore pants? O_o What makes you think he's not? It's just that his pants are also covered in brown fur. It's the Wookie way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.