Talk:Naturalistic science fiction/Archive 1

NPOV Request

Ok, folks, I see some major problems with this article:

• A lot of it reads like it's the purpose of this site to bash Star Trek
• Some of it is quite simply false:

In StarTrek, energy is not provided by "inexhaustible dylithium". Rather, the dilithium crystals serve as a matrix for a controlled matter/antimatter reaction, similar to moderators in a nuclear fission power plant (cf. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/technology/article/2743.html ) As such, not being the fuel, they don't need to be exchanged beyond wear and tear. And matter/antimatter reaction is a very feasible energy source for huge amounts of energy. In fact, I doubt it is possible to get a higher efficiency. Compared to that, it is Tylium that is sheer fantasy.

Photon torpedos, while glowing in animation, aren't "energy weapons" other than in having a matter/antimatter warhead. They are very solid vehicles.

etc.

• Guns'n'bullets are very good weapons on a planet. In space, they have their uses, too, but they also have their limitations. Due to the immense speed theoretically possible in space and the relatively small speed of bullets compared to these, the useful range of regular projectile weapons is quite limited. At greater distance, psychic qualities would be necessary to predict where the target will be once the bullet is there. While energy weapons have issues of focussing, those aren't insurpassable. On the other hand, they have, in the case of a laser, speed of light, and in the case of a particle accelerator, close to that, meaning they can bridge even large distances in relatively short time. None of that is "fantasy", as the article suggests, but rather technology that exists today which requires miniaturization. So guns and bullets are quite ok as point defense weapons in space, but for anything further away, either guided weapons or weapons achieving a speed that is a significant fraction of the speed of light are necessary. One tends to think of huge vessels such as Galactica or a Cylon basestar as slow. But give them enough time to accelerate, and they can be whizzing by at several miles per second.

• While a lot of the stuff mentioned in the text might be RDM's intention, the question is how much it fulfills the claims raised. While obviously, there should be a place on this site to cite RDM, I believe that the individual articles of a Wiki should be a source of information were the creator's views are but one source of information. RDM's take is already provided with the link to Galactica2003.net and while it should be summarized here, I don't think it should be taken as holy writ.

The jetliner in space and other things might feel "naturalistic", but that doesn't mean it's a sound concept. The "plausible technical accuracy" in the "in theory" paragraph is a bold hypothesis. However, to me the setup honestly looks more like "doing soft SF with the bad stuff left out". And the "no deus ex machina" concept needs to be looked askance at vis-a-vis the cancer cure as well.

The stories Galactica has to tell are great, but I personally believe that as a consequence of RDM not wanting to "tie himself down" dramatically, what is lacking is a solid concept of the level of technology. A lot of things might look perfectly feasible when seen isolated, but on an overall level, I believe putting FTL (or quasi-FTL) and anti-gravity together with a lot of 20th and 21st century technology, and in some aspects apparently even less, RDM actually backpedaled to a lot of early SF, which had FTL travel because it was dramaturgically necessary, and some development in the physics department such as beam weapons, but lacked any development in biology. Likewise, BG shows technologies that suggest availability of humongous amounts of energy but shows little other use than one or two applications. This gives a discontinous impression of the technological level.

So, theoretically, my concerns would require a complete rewrite of the text, which is why I rather voiced them here before changing something. I believe, though, the false information re:StarTrek should be thrown out posthaste, since it weakens any other points. --OliverH. 15:49, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Over the months, this article has been edited to the point where it does have a bias towards "Star Trek," which, given its location in the pop SF food chain, is a deserved prime target. Yet, I agree, the article need not be a "Star Trek"-bashing article, but to contrast and compare it (and other series, such as another high level target, "Stargate SG-1") to what BSG strives to be. And, as you've noted in other articles, BSG isn't perfect. Rather than duplicating what is on the Science in the Re-imagined Series page, dividing the page by section with comments and comparison relevant to where NSF principles succeeded or failed so far in BSG could be useful. To aid in this, I've tagged this article with the (rarely used here) tag of disputed neutrality to get some attention. --Spencerian 16:00, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I must disagree utterly with OliverH's comments:

• Yes, I agree with Spencerian that certain small tweaks should be made. However, if Oliver wanted to change small-sclae complaints like "inexhaustible dilithium crystals to "inexhaustible energy supply based on dilithium controlled matter/anti-matter reaction", he should simply have done so immediatly instead of forcing debate on the subject. Although "photon torpedos" are not energy weapons, phasers are; he should have just edited this accordingly, as he saw fit.
• Yes, Guns aren't as good weapons as lasers. That doesn't change the fact that 1) At dogfight and regular battle distances, they're still pretty useful and 2) The BSG universe is intentionally not that technologically advanced. The fact that lasers are superior to guns doesn't change the fact that they still use these more "realistic" weapons. The entire point of that, of course, is more story design: being shot with bullets (i.e. Tarn), has more emotional impact than being shot with "lasers").
• Yes, it is almost certainly the direct purpose of this article to critique Star Trek, by contrasting it with BSG. Oliver, the entire concept of making the new BSG was that it was RDM's "answer" to the poor quality of the later Star Treks (Voyager and Enterprise, rife with technobabble an implausibility), in this area as well. Quite frankly, it's impossible to separate the two: when the first page of the series bible states that "we propose nothing less than the re-invention of the scifi tv series genre"...it's kind of required that you make comparisons to the "old" model of the genre which was "re-invented". This part of the article must stand.
• So, basically, no, your comments do not "require" a "complete rewrite of the text". This is overboard. However, I do *commend* you on stating your feeling on the talk page instead of just making them without consensus. I would like to say that I do not mean to offend, Oliver, but these Star Trek/BSG issues bring up strong emotions. Like the silly pages and other talk-commentary, the "Naturalistic Science Fiction" page, is, by its very nature, going to be NPOV. I do agree with Spencerian's assessment that it could use some tweaking here or there, mostly for fact correction (dilithium, phasers,etc.) but the derision of Star Trek must remain, because BSG defines itself in opposition to this. --The Merovingian 16:51, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I believe it's possible for this article to reach a reasonably NPOV status. Sadly, it's going to have to be near the bottom of my considerably long to-do list. --Peter Farago 18:45, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I concur.--The Merovingian 19:04, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I obviously disagree with Merovingian. While it is ok to contrast BG with StarTrek, this should be done in a professional, matter-of-factly way, not by derisive comments and certainly not with plain falsehoods. It also should not be done with exaggerations by labelling everything "fantasy" that one doesn't like. It's totally ok if the ST/BSG issues "bring up strong emotions". But they should stay on talk pages, or the article be justly brought in question.

The comment that the BG universe is intentionally not "that advanced" is not tenable, and I already pointed that out above. Lasers are no "advanced" technology, they exist today. And if I have some kind of reactor which can give me enough energy to fold space, I have plenty of energy to cut open a sheet of metal. Remember that lasers capable of at least destroying a satellite or a warhead have already been worked on by 20th century engineers and scientists, but deemed not feasible for the forseeable future at that time. The prime limits, however, were energy and the material capable of handling it, and they are being overcome at this point in time with planned airborne anti-missile lasers at least. This is the main problem with the approach: Immensely advanced technology in two specific points (BG technology is already more advanced than that of Babylon 5 Earth in that they are capable of large-scale artificial gravity) but in most others a technological level on par with the third quarter of the 20th century. You speak of "realistic" weapons. Is it realistic that mankind researched practically only FTL travel and artificial gravity, and that this research did not bear fruit in other fields? And "realistic battle distances" are those at which you can hit your enemy. Of course when your weapon has a low effective range due to predict problems, then battle distance is short. If your weapon has near speed of light, it's entirely possible to engage your enemy at large distances.

Likewise, you still maintain some "inexhaustible" energy supply on the part of StarTrek, when that is not, in fact, the case. Hydrogen and antimatter tanks exist on Star Trek ships. Antimatter can be produced -again, that is no fantasy, but 20th century technology, albeit in larger quantities. And hydrogen can be gathered in space. Again, no fantasy, but the working principle behind the bussard ramscoop proposed as far back as 1960. This principle has been used by the likes of Heinlein, Niven, and Poul Anderson. As I already mentioned, Tylium has much bigger questions to answer.

By the way, dilithium crystals were already introduced in the original Star Trek series. This alone should illustrate that they can hardly be instrumental in the quality problems of late Star Trek. So I suggest rather than picking random aspects to actually get to specific points.

Point being: There's plenty of "technobabble" in StarTrek, but the cited examples are the least suitable to criticize that. They in fact fall back on the author, because they suggest being familiar neither with key concepts of the pioneers of astrophysics and ideas for interplanetary and interstellar space travel, nor with those of the pioneers of science fiction literature. And not the least, they fall back on BSG, because they suggest that there's a lot of hype about nothing.

While it's perfectly ok to cite that line from the series Bible, it's in my opinion not ok to uncritically reproduce it as holy writ. JMS started B5 with quite similar intentions, and that was ages ago. RDM is fallible. He's also capable of misdiagnosing. Doesn't matter, as long as he intuitively does the right thing. --OliverH. 20:08, 13 February 2006 (EST)

No. First, I always mean practically inexhaustible; using bussard ramscoops, starships can have a cheap and easily available source of fuel (gas clouds, etc.) while on BSG, Tylium is rare and hard to find. Second, this failed on the later Star Treks, even though it was present in all of the series, because the later ones overused these; every week the ship was spic and span and never had any problems finding fuel, fixing the ship, etc. --The Merovingian 20:36, 13 February 2006 (EST)

While it's true that B5 adopted a "hard sci-fi" position with regard to some aspects, its atmosphere does not greatly resemble the new BSG's. "Naturalistic sci-fi" actually eschews accuracy when it interferes with story - the point is to tell a modern, relevant story in the clothing of science fiction. When realism on the show makes that connection clearer, it's an asset (the use of nukes, for example) - but when it doesn't serve the story, it's generally overlooked (artificial gravity, hyperspace).

The difference, I guess, is that BSG is "The Day After", B5 is a weird hybrid of "1984" and "The Lord of the Rings", and Star Wars is "The Hidden Fortress". Each one uses the trappings of literary sci-fi where it suits their purpose, and discards them where it doesn't. The concept of naturalistic sci-fi as defined by Moore is only relevant to the particular story he's trying to tell. --Peter Farago 20:27, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Peter's comments detail the flaw of NSF better than anything I've read to date, and clarifies what he had been trying to tell me earlier here in talk. Any show is subject to the whim of the writer. While NSF tries to prevent technological limits to what they can write, NSF can also be selective of what is relevant or in need of explanation. With that, I'm aware of the needed revisions, and will do so when time allows to show a better opposing viewpoint to NSF in brief bullets. --Spencerian 20:46, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I also, based on the above, would feel far more comfortable with Farago making the updates than Oliver. --The Merovingian 21:19, 13 February 2006 (EST)

For the benefit of everyone who hasn't been on this wiki forever, I believe the prior comments Spencerian is referring to were on Talk:Science in the Re-imagined Series. --Peter Farago 22:10, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I think it might also behoove us to compare some of RDM's intentions/plans and his executions of those to others who've tried to do the NSF thing. It's not like RDM invented the idea. We could talk about Niven, for one (for instance, he tried to make his Known Space stuff as "realistic" as he could, bar FTL travel) and probably Asimov (though I'm less familiar with his stuff... long "To Read:" list I've got). And, anyway, we could at least compare RDM's defenition of NSF to ones used by other story tellers in the past (whatever the media).

One note on combat ranges: Just because my laser has an effective range of roughly a light-second doesn't mean I can actually hit a Raider or Viper that's that far away. I doubt I could see something that small against a black-with-stars background so far off. In short, "combat distance" is also a function of ship size.

Also, a note on realistic things: Just because something is possible doesn't make it "realistic" for purposes of NSF. You get shot with a Disruptor, you vaporize. That probably sucks. They say on screen that it's excrutiating, but I watch it happen and it evokes aolmost no response from me. However, when Lee got shot in "Sacrifice", I winced and said, "Oh... bad." It looked very painful. This is similar to the note on using nukes vs. using photon torpedos. Something is realistic, if the average audience member has a good feel of what's involved in what they're seeing. Because I don't know how a laser work (I mean how it reacts to things and operates, not how to build one), it would mean less to me to see one being used. Similarly, I know, pretty well, anyway, what it feels like to be under about a G of gravity, thus, zero-G would actually be less "realistic" to me (and most viewers) because it is more foreign to our life experience. --Day 00:23, 14 February 2006 (EST)

I think we're closer than it sounds. Merovingian points out that technology was overused in later parts of Star Trek -or let's say the bad parts, because a lot of the problems already manifested in TNG. The point is not that these technologies are fantasy, they are for the most part (Heisenberg compensators aside) credible extrapolations of propositions that are being made today. The critical point that made a lot of stories bad was how they were used in the story, i.e. for example technical devices were introduced only to be able to resolve a plotline because writers couldn't come up with a more personal idea, or, God forbid, technical concepts being invented just for the sake of one single story and subsequently ignored because they make life a pain ("Force of Nature" However, that episode also showed that "tackling issues" is not always a good idea). That, however, is not a bad technological concept, it's plain bad storytelling. The answer against that is, of course, good storytelling. And I don't think that "going retro" is in and of itself a solution for that. Wing Commander-The movie showed that going retro in space can be quite problematic. Also, jargon in and of itself in my opinion is not really a problem, if used properly. Would the movie suffer if the commander did not order "Bow up 10, Stern down 7" in "Das Boot"? People can deduct with common sense and context that he's ordering something about the inclination of the boat, and the details aren't really that relevant. Point being: The technology issues are really missing the point, and where RDM pushes them, he's misdiagnosing in my eyes. Technology isn't the problem, but how it's used in the story is. @Day re:Combat range: You're of course right if targeting is visual only. But any spacecraft, no matter if radio silent or not, will be a source of electromagnetic radiation that will be travelling very fast with respect to anything in the background and against the backdrop of space likely also have a pretty recognizable infrared signature (It's not that hard to be warmer than background radiation). Re:Realistic: A lot of people have unrealistic expectations on a lot of issues, so personal connection and realism are distinct issues. Which is why science relies on methodology to peel apart the layers of how things work. Gut feelings can be quite useful, but aren't really a ledger of how real things are. As for being able to personally connect, I think the scene of Garibaldi being shot in the back in B5 had quite an impact on the audience, despite the fact that it was done with a PPG. Again, I think this is a situation in which actual story and presentation are much more important than the tool being used. --OliverH. 12:37, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Regarding combat ranges: Photonic crystals and other materials science advances will likely manage radar immunity of correctly operational (i.e., undamaged) vehicles well before we manage FTL or artifical gravity; emissions are entirely optional (IFF beacon, active radar, and "noise" from electronics being the only sources I can think of, the last of which is easily shielded). Infrared is just a kind of light, so all of the visibility problems are shared at significant ranges; the heat itself doesn't propagate in a vacuum, of course. --CalculatinAvatar 01:37, 8 March 2006 (CST)

First of all please excuse me for any spelling errors, english is not my native tongue. What I think everybody fails to observe about artificial gravity and FTL travel is that the colonials did't develope it. They received it. The colonials migrated some 2-3000 years ago from a planet where they "lived with the gods". We don't know if they evolved on that planet or not, but what we do now is that a few indivduals on that planet were advanced enough (probably tehnology) so as to be considerd gods be the 13 tribes. By what many characters say in "Kobold's Last Gleming" and other episodes, the tribes were primitive: human sacrifices, excesive violence etc. The "gods" were probably trying to advance the tribes civilization but failed, one of them took her one life because of it (Athena). The tribes then left Kobol, and they probably did so in space craft equiped with artificial gravity and FTL drives that were build be the "gods". Some if not all of the members of the crews had to be capable to repair and maintain the tehnology, and they probably were able to replicate it and teach others how to do it. They did not need to understed the science behind it for that. For exemple a mechanic today can build an engine from scratch, but that dose't requiere him to know thermodynamics and material science. Repairing and maintaing FTL and artificial gravity was esential to the survival of the migrating tribes, weapons tehnology was not, neither was for that fact medicine, biology and other sciences. Considering how primitive they were, they were probably not more advanced in those matters then we were in early 20th century. After they arrived they regresed even more. Think of what will happen on New Caprica if they loose Baltar or doc Cottle, the only scientist and medic respectivly, before they manage to teach others. Even if the medics and scientist tramsmited ther knowledge, they probably lacked the infrastructure to maintain whatever advanced tehnolgy they had. The only exception to this rule were space based technolgys: FTL, sublight engines, artificial gravity and probably computer technolgy that were self suficient (it did't require planet based ifrastructure) and easy to maintain. It had to be like that otherwise it would not have got them from Kobol to the Colonies. So the sitution was likelly like that in A. E. van Vogt's novel "Empire of the Atom" were after some cataclysm humans had overall the technolgy level of the Roman Empire but were capable of interplanetary travel and had nuclear energy.(Armies from Earth were fighting on Mars and Venus with nothing more advanced then a bow and arrow and an iron sword, they did't even have gun powder). So the colonial civilization probably started from the same point (Roman Empire with ships) and evolved until it is now on the same level with our own except for FTL, artificial gravity, space propulsion and computer technolgy that were not developed by the colonials but received from individuals probably belonging to a more advaced civilization. --DArhengel 16:34, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Here's what appears to be established: A) the neutrality of the article is compromised, as it's begun to paint Star Trek as a watse of time; completely inaccurate, etc. B) Because of RDM's involvement and its popularity, Star Trek is the best example by which to compare. There are many who have never seen Babylon 5, and StarGate is a completely different series of issues. C) it's actually a pretty easy article to fix- we just need to remove words such a "fanciful." Ragestorm 07:08, 29 March 2006 (CST)

In defense of artificial gravity

I believe it is a strawman argument to reason along the lines of "If they have artificial gravity then they should also be advanced enough to ... <insert obviously missing technology>". The reality is, it just isn't practical to do sci-fi without artificial gravity. Very few TV shows or movies have the staff and budget to realistically portray zero-g life which, in my opinion, would likely interfere with the storytelling. Yes, Babylon 5 and 2001 used rotating hulls to avoid the problem, but even B5 went to artificial gravity when it came to Minbari and Vorlon ships. Heck, the Vorlon ships were even organic ... sound familiar?

The point is that artificial gravity is basically unavoidable if you want to show space yarns and have your audience identify with the characters. You simply have to cut the producers some slack here.

The same reasoning applies to FTL, at least if you're doing interstellar travel. Without FTL or some equivalent technology (hyperspace, wormholes, space-folding etc.) you got no way for the same characters to appear in different places show after show.

So the obvious (to me) thing to do is ignore the tech level of the sine qua non of the genre, and focus on what's left. Viewers must allow for these two highly advanced technologies without considering them indicative of other technologies in that Universe. --JohnH 14:14, 5 March 2006 (CST)

Battlestar doesn't just depict FTL, they depict the ability of jumping into the middle of a group of moving objects (e.g. a fleet) safely, which suggests capability to determine that the destination spot is safe over jump distances. While FTL might be a sine qua non, jumping into hazardous terrain most definitely is not.

B5 went to artificial gravity with other species thousands of years more advanced than humans (Remember the Minbari could put B4 to good use when they were provided with it roughly 1000 years before the show).

While it is true that most shows have both artificial gravity and FTL, they generally present it in a background that has advanced in other fields as well. Even Blade Runner, with its unspecified advances in space travel enabling at least offworld colonies, presents a society akin, but still profoundly changed from ours. Technology and society don't evolve separate from each other, but influence each other. Even in the early dime novels, what was depicted -while usually very selective to only a handful of areas in its technological advancement- seemed advanced to people at that time. Of course we can't expect a novel from the 1930s to anticipate biotechnology. But I see little reason to staple FTL and artificial gravity on mid-80s to early-90s technology. The problem is that aside from FTL and gravity, most of the technology seems, quite to the contrary, outdated. While the Galactica itself is supposed to be rather old, that shouldn't hold for what we see on Caprica or on the other ships.

If the two technologies are not indicative of other technologies, that means there is an artificial rift in the background described. Such as rift, rather than allowing people to relate more, in my opinion distracts from the actual story. It's one thing to have such completely noncontinuous concepts in shows such as "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", which quite visibly and fully explicitly stood in the tradition of early daily comic strip tradition (and in fact the first sci-fi comic strip to begin with) fully expected by audiences to have a certain degree of silliness and to have such rifts in a storyline with very tough and intellectually stimulating stories. It's a basic popcorn vs. brains issue. You either tell people to sit back, relax and have a good time or you tell them "Hey, think about this". If you tell people "Hey, think about this" while on a stage that falls apart when you think about it, you have a problem. And if you want people to sit back, relax and have a good time, then abortion, rape and lynch justice maybe aren't particularly fitting subjects. Disjunctions such as this work in avantgardistic stagings in theater and opera, because the audience knows they are being shown something symbolic, however such a treatment doesn't aim at people relating with the characters (who are rather archetypes) and it's rather antithetical to naturalism. --OliverH. 10:42, 7 March 2006 (CST)

I think, maybe, that jumps are more dangerous than you think. When plotting a mass-jump of The Fleet, maybe they can trigonomitry out any collisions, but in the most recent episode, a Raptor jumped right into a mountain. That doesn't seem so safe. Also, you're not allowing a story teller to say, "Hey. THink about abortion and rape and lynch justice." You're implying that the average Television viewer is either too dumb or lacks the descretion to realize that BSG is discussion social issues not (generally) scientific issues. RDM isn't saying, "Hey! Look at FTL drive." He's just using that to get you to look at other things. I don't think, by demanding the viewers to use their brains, RDM is demanding that we apply that to every little detail and condemn him for missing one. I mean--he's not crazy like Tolkien and writing primers on how to speak Gemenese or whatever. If he were, we'd have a more complete, pat world (as is Middle Earth), but we'd probably still be waiting for the Mini-Series to be made. --Day 23:43, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Well, there's a difference between a Raptor and a Battlestar. If a Raptor jumps into the middle of a fleet and realizes he's on a collision course, he might still be able to fire thrusters and escape. A battlestar would likely be unable to avoid a crash. You also seemed to misunderstand what I said about story vs. stage. FTL is part of the stage. Abortion, rape etc. are part of the story. No, I am not implying dumbness on part of the viewer. Quite the contrary. I think it's dumb to assume the viewer would not note discrepancies and disjunction in the background. And sorry, either you want people to use their brains, or you don't. It's highly questionable to tell people "Well, yes, you are supposed to think, but not about this, this, this, this and this...." That's not really thinking. It's being told what to think. --OliverH. 10:01, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Nothing ever done on BSG implies detection of problems at the destination; at least one jump into ambush contradicts it. Additionally, such detection is FTL communication without having to send a courier, which is contradicted. --CalculatinAvatar 20:36, 8 March 2006 (CST)

It's only being told what to think if BSG is the government or something. I'm not saying that you're disallowed to think about FTL drives in your life. I'm saying that a detailed discussion of FTL drives is tangental to the discussion that is BSG. So, as the moderator of the discussion at hand, RDM is well within his rights to say what it is we are and aren't talking about. If we want to talk about FTL drives, we can go watch Professor X tool around the universe on Reading Rainbow or read a book by a paraplegic man. Those are other discussions. I guess, really, I'm saying, "Stay on topic." --Day 04:34, 9 March 2006 (CST)

If you want a society adapted to artificial gravity and FTL travel and technology on a par with that all around, you are simply asking for too much. It's too much to even ask for a society fully adapted to the major advances.

For example, let's think about FTL drives tactically. My first question is delay, which in BSG seems to be significant, followed by the allowablity of multiple drives per ship to have parallelized delays. This leads to a super-battlestar with, say, 30 FTL drives that can't be targeted effectively since it jumps every, say, 4 seconds. Think about a maximum-DRADIS-ranged FTL nuke that jumps to the side of its target (or a cloud of nerve gas or pyrophoric incendiary with an FTL drive to move it inside of an enemy ship). Think about minefields of these; n could easily protect a planet from n capital ships for far cheaper than n capital ships, leaving only fighters to mop up, assuming the mines cost more than CAPs, and they'd be even easier to target than lasers, since their own travel would be instant.

Frankly, survivability of military hardware/personnel in space is horrible given serious thought. The USA, with far less resources than the colonies, had 23k nukes at peak and fields cruisers with 64-tube VLS's; just equipping every BSG capital ship with a bank of ~50 nuke launchers significantly reduces the odds of point-defense making any difference to survivability.

FTL drives would be (in my opinion) vastly beyond current computation in design requirements; this would imply protein folding, e.g., is a reasonably routine kind of problem in BSG, and this implies an understanding of gene expression that's so vast in ramifications that cancer would have been a first course. The nonviolent causes of death list shortens dramatically.

For that level of development in the hard sciences, one of the softer sciences must have solved something by the BSG present; there's no indication that any social, psychological, or economic problems we experience have been eradicated.

None of these exist in BSG because they would not be fun to watch, or they have too vast a set of implications for us to identify with them. It is an absolute requirement to have such a rift for a show with BSG's themes. Accuracy and speculation on ramifications is delightful in print; excessive doses inhibit storytelling in video. --CalculatinAvatar 01:37, 8 March 2006 (CST)

What I am asking for is a more continuous spectrum of technical development as opposed to a deep rift between one part and the rest. Inhibition in storytelling is not a bad thing, quite the contrary. Properly done, it prevents you from gambling away all credibility. If you want to connect with the viewer, the viewer has to believe you. If you tell an outrageous yarn, the viewer will be amused, but he won't see any further implications of what you told him above and beyond that amusement. Giving people something to think about usually translates to "Hm, difficult situation, how would I have acted?". That requires as a sine-qua-non premise that you consider the situation credible. If it's not, if you consider the situation posing itself as completely artificial, then you have no reason to consider it further. If it doesn't seem "true" to you, why ponder its implications? As RDM put it himself in his criticism of Voyager: "At some point the audience stops taking it seriously, because they know that this is not really the way this would happen. These people wouldn’t act like this." There are many reasons why "this is not really the way this would happen". One of them is that the specific constellation that leads to the situation wouldn't exist.

The key, however, is that for the claim of naturalistic storytelling to be accurate, specific parameters have to be fulfilled. These are by definition of naturalism not fulfilled if there is a disjunction between staging and story. Note: There's not a problem with having a disjunction between story and staging, but if you do, it's most certainly not "naturalistic". Cf. also Wikipedia:Naturalism (literature) which states "Note that even a fantastical genre such as science fiction can be naturalistic, as in the gritty, proletarian environment of the commercial space-freighter in Alien." However, in Alien we have sleeper pods and even the regular projectile weapons in Aliens -while based on 20th century weapons- are assembled in a fashion suggesting a level of advancement in firearms technology and more advanced weapons are hinted at in a special edition scene -and society has also changed in a way extrapolatable from today. The Sulaco very much has particle beam weapons, if only to disable electronics systems as well as lasers as point defense weapons. See, the problem is that "naturalistic science fiction" isn't really a new concept. It's been around for a while, be it in aspects of the Alien series, be it in "Outland", or even, for that matter, "Blade Runner". For that matter, a lot of Cyberpunk material has naturalistic traits. Not surprisingly, since William Gibson stated he was inspired by the implied background of "Alien" and was writing "Neuromancer" while Blade Runner was in theatres. Consequentially, it has also already been around on TV, even if some of the pertinent series were short-lived, such as Total Recall 2070. "Outland" has been called "Western in Space". Still, it does not figure sixguns nor Winchester lever-action repeating rifles, but modern shotguns in a very near-future scenario. If you want to do "West Wing" in space in a naturalistic fashion, it's not enough to put Josiah Bartlet on a space ship while leaving the rest as it is. "Accuracy and speculation" are irrelevant when the technology is not even up to the technology level at the time of the airing of the show. There's nothing speculative about video conferencing. There's precious little speculative about the Land Warrior program. (In fact, "Aliens" was a pretty good anticipation of it in my eyes, despite predating the original Land Warrior program). There's not much speculation involved if you check army-technology.com or read Jane's. There's nothing speculative about using at least what's out there. But with the marines on BG running around with MP5s which are already being replaced on Earth was we speak by USPs and MP7s because of the proliferation of body armor, the technology level depicted is not even current, but in this and in many other fields, quite outdated. And MP7s have already been featured in Stargate, in Ghost in the Shell:SAC, in Stealth and in a whole bunch of computer games.

It is the hallmark of naturalism as an art form that it concerns itself with accuracy in details. Painters used scientific principles, authors researched their environment meticulously. Have you ever read parts of Emile Zola's Rougon-Macquard cycle? For "Germinal", Zola repeatedly visited mining towns in northern France and witnessed the after-effects of a large miners' strike -and even went down into a coal pit. If you say having a rift here is essential for BG -which I personally doubt- then BG by definition isn't naturalistic. Note: It is perfectly ok to have such a rift. Modern theatre performances have it, most of the time, as I already noted. But as Wikipedia notes, that is at best semi-naturalistic, with naturalism restricted to the delivery of the lines, and neither fully naturalistic nor "cinema verité". The 1966 movie "The battle of Algiers" painstakingly reconstructs the tactics of both the National Liberation Front as well as the French counter-insurgency. The filmmakers rejected the original layout by Sadi Yacef from his own memoirs because -despite being sympathetic to the Algerian cause, they found it too biased. The filmmakers spent two years in Algiers scouting locations and learning the customs and culture of the locals. If you dismiss restrictions as "limiting on video", you dismiss naturalism. Because naturalism by definition limits itself and demands truckloads of research. That's what naturalism is, and it's what cinema verite is, and if it's not what BG is, then BG is neither naturalistic nor done in a "cinema verite" style.

Is it fun to watch people being raped or murdered? Cinema verite doesn't really care if it's "fun" to watch. What it cares for is how things are. It lets its storytelling be limited by the way things work. It doesn't dismiss restrictions as "too limiting in storytelling". It is defined by restrictions. None of this means in any way that BG is bad -nor, as Merovingian recently accused me of, that I want to drag BG through the mud. It merely means that I think terminology is not being used appropriately, and that I think RDM is exaggerating some things. I still consider it great storytelling -I just consider the presentation artificial. --OliverH. 10:01, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Assuming "Naturalistic Science Fiction" = "Naturalism" + "Science Fiction" would be nice, but, given definitions I've seen of each, is not right. I realize that, for consistency reasons, it should be true, but examples of far worse terminology exist. ("Planar graphs" are "graphs," but "plane graphs" aren't.)

They don't use video conferencing because they don't want to. They certainly have television, they just don't seem to be as obsessed with it as we are. Maybe they just have no interest in encrypting large amounts of data for something they don't need. More ciphertext transmitted is more to analyze; it's more plaintext/ciphertext pairs if a Cylon agent has access to either end. (Video is also notably easier to capture losslessly from a distance without even a direct tap.)

Land Warrior is a bunch of computers, displays, and radios designed to unify a mess of C&C, C4I, and ISTAR garbage into a mess of C4ISTAR garbage. That is, I'm not sure what it is in there that you think the Colonials are missing out on. Anyway, we haven't seen any groups of professional human land soldiers who were equipped to fight independently at length as part of a unit large enough to make hauling around C4ISTAR madness worthwhile.

The fact that some weapons carried by the Colonials on BSG look like MP5's is irrelevant. They obviously aren't supposed to be made to an H&K design, so they just happen to look like MP5's. What they fire is independent of what weapons that look alike do here and now. (Note they have also in the past carried weapons resembling P90's and Five-seveN's, which have a similar armor-piercing cartridge design to the MP7 ammo.) Best current miltary doctrine restricts the SMG/PDW/whatever to secondary roles, anyway; we could assume they normally carry full assault rifles with even better penetration for land war. For that matter, serious planetside soldiers probably carry SAW's and MANPADS's that cut down Centurions and aircraft like barley before Oktoberfest, probably at least one of each at the fireteam level; they probably thought of the whole "armored cavalry" thing, too. Ship's complements are equipped for inside ships, as would make sense. --CalculatinAvatar 20:36, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Some good points, CAv. Well said. --Day 04:42, 9 March 2006 (CST)

Recent Edits and Comment on Article Purpose

Please note that this article is based on Ron Moore's concepts as applied to the new series. As such, it WILL have a particular slant to it by design.

Perhaps to bring this article back to a level of neutrality requires that the article should list out the word-for-word essay by Moore if necessary or allowable without interpretation or edit. Then, a second section can note where, in episodes or through other proveable works where NSF falls short or works, with supporting information.

I have removed the debating and speculative comments in the article for now. I may rewrite this article soon with the unabridged article from Moore, then with our comments that allow contrast and comparison without tainting the one view that makes this article relevant--Moore's. --Spencerian 14:17, 30 March 2006 (CST)

I have added Ron Moore's essay to the page. This was from Galactica.TV, but they had to have received it from an alternate official source, which will need to be found. The Analysis section summaries or details what the essay points are, but now can be used for editors to note problems in the concept--where it falls flat or works too well. Episode examples should be cited. Windy theoretical explanations should be avoided unless there is a detailed point that can connect it to the topic at hand. After a week or two I will remove the NPOV banner if there is no objection. --Spencerian 14:09, 2 April 2006 (CDT)

Is there some way to lock the quoted section (for content, not position, etc.)? --CalculatinAvatar 14:02, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

My first reaction would be that we could create a subpage that has the text of the quote, protect that page, then transclude (like using a template) that page so that it appears in the article. --Steelviper 14:09, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Dei ex Machinis

I had based my edit on this (rather than relying on my shoddy and long forgotten Latin skills): Deus Ex Machina "The latin phrase (deus ex māchinā, plural deī ex māchinīs) is a calque from the Greek ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός ápo mēchanēs theós, (pronounced in Ancient Greek [a po' mɛ:kʰa'nɛ:s tʰe'os])." --Steelviper 09:02, 31 March 2006 (CST)

Cool. Good to know. Also, thanks for looking into that. --Day ^(talk) 19:47, 31 March 2006 (CST)