Is Star Trek or Babylon 5 more realistic?

[BenitoChavez]

I've never seen Babylon 5 but the way they fight must be more realistic. I sincerely doubt the effectiveness of the two-handed punch.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I tend to think interstellar civilizations will be post-scarcity societies without a lot of conflict almost by definition, given how difficult interstellar travel is.

So I guess Star Trek is more realistic?

Well, the most advanced civilizations in Babylon 5 have probably had post scarcity economies for millions of years. They still use the younger races for their proxy wars. Not because of any material necessity, but to prove to each other the superiority of their own ideology.
I think that's depressingly realistic.

As for how difficult interstellar travel is: humans bought their FTL drives from the Centauri, who also got them from someone else. Iirc nothing is known about the species that originally developed FTL technology, except that they've been gone for a long time.
If some advanced (but not that much more advanced than us) alien species stumbled upon our system tomorrow and and gave us hyperspace engines in exchange for some of our art, our society wouldn't change dramatically.

 

[Commodore]

I tend to think interstellar civilizations will be post-scarcity societies without a lot of conflict almost by definition, given how difficult interstellar travel is

But what makes you think that? Using our own civilization as an example (since, you know, that's the only example we have to go on), the more advanced a civilization becomes, the more resources it tends to consume. Especially since the more advanced a civilization becomes, the larger population it is able to support as lifespans increase and premature deaths decrease. So who's to say that the level of resource consumption of an interstellar civilization hasn't scaled up with its advancement? I mean, maybe they have to strip mine whole planets to meet the resource demands of their civilization. And if there are multiple such civilizations relatively close to each other, I could certainly see them fighting over planets to colonize and consume. And that fighting need not necessarily take the form of open warfare. It could also mean intense negotiations like we see between nations here on Earth over mining rights and such.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

But what makes you think that? Using our own civilization as an example (since, you know, that's the only example we have to go on), the more advanced a civilization becomes, the more resources it tends to consume.

That's assuming further development will go along past trends. We're consuming more resources than before, but we're also consuming some of them more efficiently. We still burn coal and oil, but we also have solar, wind and nuclear energy. We can recycle materials, we use fertilizers to get much more food out of an area of land, and we use automation to increase productivity.
I think hobbs' point is that interstellar colonization requires a level of technology that has solved all of our current economic problems.

You also assume that we'd fight for the same resources/planets. Maybe aliens have a different biology that makes planets that would be ideal for us uninhabitable for them and vice versa. Maybe their technological development has taken a different route and the resources that we want would be useless for them. Or we can all build swarms of solar collectors around some stars -of which there are more than enough for everybody- and use the energy to synthesize any element we need from hydrogen -of which there is more than enough for everybody. If our fusion tech is advanced enough we'll even have an energy surplus from creating anything lighter than iron.

 

[Cheetah]

Maybe aliens have a different biology that makes planets that would be ideal for us uninhabitable for them and vice versa. Maybe their technological development has taken a different route and the resources that we want would be useless for them.

This is a common argument, but considering how rare tool-wielding intelligence is, and how nature solves consistent problems with similar solutions, I'm much more in favour of assuming that convergent evolution will create intelligent aliens with many of the same needs and wants as us:

Carnivorous, sexually dimorphistic bipedals, with a symmetric body plan, two front facing eyes, a head and at least two tool-wielding appendages, living in hierarchical, stratified societies with materialistic markers of status.

What biological evolution is going to happen to make us, not just no longer outwardly hostile and willing to exploit new lands, but not even competitive within our own societies?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Carnivorous, sexually dimorphistic bipedals, with a symmetric body plan, two front facing eyes, a head and at least two tool-wielding appendages, living in hierarchical, stratified societies with materialistic markers of status.

Not sure about all of that.
Carnivorous ? Probably. A big huge brain (or some equivalent neuron-or-somesuch cluster) needs a lot of energy and a lot of free time to be put to good use. A high-energy-density diet like meat would cetainly help with that. On the other hand, aliens with a dedicated eat-hole and a different dedicated talk-hole could discuss political philosophy and higher math while constantly chewing on some grass equivalent.


Sexually dimorphic ? Maybe, maybe not. They'd probably reproduce sexually for genetic recombination, but I don't think dimorphism is strictly necessary. They could be hermaphrodites or have more than two sexes.

Bipedal ? Not necessary. They just need some limbs and appendages to use tools.

Symmetric ? Also not necessary, but probable. I'm not going to research molecular genetics and math stuff, but I guess symmetric shapes can be genetically encoded with pretty high efficiency.

Head ? Definitely a couple of sensory organs pretty close to what passes for a brain. Not sure if it's a shape we would recognize as a head.

Front facing eyes ? Not strictly necessary but good for predators. That is, if they can even see or sight is their most important sense.

Hierarchies and status symbols ? Maybe. Might be necessary for technological progress, or maybe it just accelerates it slightly.

What biological evolution is going to happen to make us, not just no longer outwardly hostile and willing to exploit new lands, but not even competitive within our own societies?

Medicine has made biological evolution obsolete and cybernetic limbs and neural implants are just around the corner. Maybe we and the aliens will just live side by side in our own virtual realities.

 

[Commodore]

You also assume that we'd fight for the same resources/planets. Maybe aliens have a different biology that makes planets that would be ideal for us uninhabitable for them and vice versa. Maybe their technological development has taken a different route and the resources that we want would be useless for them. Or we can all build swarms of solar collectors around some stars -of which there are more than enough for everybody- and use the energy to synthesize any element we need from hydrogen -of which there is more than enough for everybody. If our fusion tech is advanced enough we'll even have an energy surplus from creating anything lighter than iron.

Plenty for all doesn't guarantee there still won't be conflict. Just because there will be enough to go around doesn't mean someone out there isn't still going to try to control the supply in order to profit from it. That's where conflict and negotiation will come into play.

To put it more simply: even when there's enough to go around, there will always be someone who doesn't want to share or that wants a bigger piece of the pie than everyone else.

 

[Archbob]

Well, the most advanced civilizations in Babylon 5 have probably had post scarcity economies for millions of years. They still use the younger races for their proxy wars. Not because of any material necessity, but to prove to each other the superiority of their own ideology.
I think that's depressingly realistic.

As for how difficult interstellar travel is: humans bought their FTL drives from the Centauri, who also got them from someone else. Iirc nothing is known about the species that originally developed FTL technology, except that they've been gone for a long time.
If some advanced (but not that much more advanced than us) alien species stumbled upon our system tomorrow and and gave us hyperspace engines in exchange for some of our art, our society wouldn't change dramatically.

I think many of the first ones discovered hyperspace and thirdspace. Remember, the first race appeared in the serious and told Sheridan that they found the Shadows and Vorlons when they were infant races, meaning that the first civilization had discovered hyperspace by then probably.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

To put it more simply: even when there's enough to go around, there will always be someone who doesn't want to share or that wants a bigger piece of the pie than everyone else.

Yeah, but that's because they want a bigger peice, not because they need it. Conflict is more likely to arise from ideological conflicts than from competition about material stuff.

I think many of the first ones discovered hyperspace and thirdspace. Remember, the first race appeared in the serious and told Sheridan that they found the Shadows and Vorlons when they were infant races, meaning that the first civilization had discovered hyperspace by then probably.

Not the first race, just one of them. The show doesn't tell us anything about their history and there's no way to know whether Lorien's people (or the other First Ones) developed FTL travel before or after they had post scarcity economies. All we know is that the younger races got it at a stage where competition for resources was still A Thing.

 

[The_J]

Sexually dimorphic ? Maybe, maybe not. They'd probably reproduce sexually for genetic recombination, but I don't think dimorphism is strictly necessary. They could be hermaphrodites or have more than two sexes.

2 sexes are in general very likely.
There are situations where especially fungi develop more than 2 sexes, but many of them apparently vanish rather quickly.
This is due to the problem of compatibility.
If you have A and B, they'll be compatible.
If you have A, B and C, (or more), how will you make them easily compatible with each other? Multiple different organs with underlying different genetics? Too complicated.
And not making them compatible will restrict your pool of genetic information, so also not an advantage.

There is though a publication about a simulation with gendered robots (cannot find right now), which showed that more than 2 genders (maybe it was 3, or something between 2 to 3) was more effective.
So not impossible, but unlikely.

Symmetric ? Also not necessary, but probable. I'm not going to research molecular genetics and math stuff, but I guess symmetric shapes can be genetically encoded with pretty high efficiency.

While I also have no idea about the underlying genetics, I'd just say that having some sort of symetry makes it a lot easier to develop anything which requires a pattern. Imagine a non-symetric species trying to develop how to walk. Seems too complicated to me.


EDIT: @topic: If I ever find the time, then I'll really need to watch B5.

 

[Commodore]

Yeah, but that's because they want a bigger peice, not because they need it.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. Even when people have no reason to be greedy, they will still be greedy.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. Even when people have no reason to be greedy, they will still be greedy.

Ah, OK.
The post I replied to wasn't clear about that. I understood it as technological/social development -> increased resource consumption.

 

[Commodore]

The post I replied to wasn't clear about that. I understood it as technological/social development -> increased resource consumption

Yeah, I was saying that too. I was also responding to the idea that even if we achieve a post-scarcity society, I don't see that doing much to reduce conflicts over resources since there will always be those that try to hoard those resources and other that try to stop them (either out of a desire to build their own hoard or to genuinely help others).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, I was saying that too. I was also responding to the idea that even if we achieve a post-scarcity society, I don't see that doing much to reduce conflicts over resources since there will always be those that try to hoard those resources and other that try to stop them (either out of a desire to build their own hoard or to genuinely help others).

I think you are underestimating the definition of "post scarcity." Economics only exists because of scarcity, being the study of systems used for the allocation of scarce resources. "Post scarcity" means that all of the resources are like air is now. There is no saving it, no system for distributing it, no being forced to do without it, no hoarding it, nothing. Air doesn't even register as a resource in economics because it is not scarce (an economic definition of scarce). You are using a more common and colloquial definition. Something like "well, there's enough of it." For something to be "not scarce" in economic terms it has to be so abundant that it literally can't all be used.

In the Star Trek universe, due to apparently endless energy supplies and replicator technology there is nothing that qualifies as a scarce resource, therefore there is literally no economics at all. That's the "post scarcity" world. The writers keep inserting economic themes and trying to justify them, but those plots pretty much fall apart under analysis (except maybe in TOS, where the replicator concept isn't so ubiquitous).

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yeah, I was saying that too. I was also responding to the idea that even if we achieve a post-scarcity society, I don't see that doing much to reduce conflicts over resources since there will always be those that try to hoard those resources and other that try to stop them (either out of a desire to build their own hoard or to genuinely help others).

Fair point.
Actually, I think we might already be technologically advanced enough to create a post scarcity society and all we need is the political will to crush the wealth hoarders.
But that might be a topic for a seditious manifesto...

 

[Archbob]

Not the first race, just one of them. The show doesn't tell us anything about their history and there's no way to know whether Lorien's people (or the other First Ones) developed FTL travel before or after they had post scarcity economies. All we know is that the younger races got it at a stage where competition for resources was still A Thing.

No, Lorien specifically said to Sheridan that he wasn't "one of the first ones" but that he was "The First one". Meaning his people were the first ones to Hyperevolve. He found the shadows and the vorlons when they were infants, signalling that he had FTL before the other first ones. Since they were first, it follows that they were the first ones to invent it.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

No, Lorien specifically said to Sheridan that he wasn't "one of the first ones" but that he was "The First one". Meaning his people were the first ones to Hyperevolve. He found the shadows and the vorlons when they were infants, signalling that he had FTL before the other first ones. Since they were first, it follows that they were the first ones to invent it.

My point was that we only see one member of the species and know almost nothing about their society. It doesn't matter for this discussion that he's literally The First One. The important thing is that almost all space faring civilizations in the B5 universe got hyperspace travel long before they could develop Actually Working Communism.

 

[Ajidica]

No, Lorien specifically said to Sheridan that he wasn't "one of the first ones" but that he was "The First one". Meaning his people were the first ones to Hyperevolve. He found the shadows and the vorlons when they were infants, signalling that he had FTL before the other first ones. Since they were first, it follows that they were the first ones to invent it.

I took Lorien's comment to mean that he literally was the first sentient being in the galaxy. I don't think it was ever established there was anyone else of Lorien's race. It has been a while since I watched the show, but I'm pretty sure he said something along the lines of "I found the Vorlons and Shadows" rather than "We found the Vorlons and Shadows".

 

[Archbob]

But if he was the first one, he had to have invented FTL travel otherwise he wouldn't be able to find all the other first ones.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But if he was the first one, he had to have invented FTL travel otherwise he wouldn't be able to find all the other first ones.

How does "first sentient being" inevitably connect to "invented FTL travel"?

 

[Archbob]

How is he going to find any other race and guide them in the vastness of space if he doesn't have FTL travel? He'd never reach them.