Of all the photos being taken right now, it's odd to think there probably won't be discoveries of old photos in junk shops in 2150.
Digital storage is far more fragile than many physical storage mediums, digital data in many cases might also be indistinguishable from random data in such cases where it have been heavily encoded, encrypted, or the mata-data was lost.
Time capsules are now becoming more and more important (including us sending one to Mars) because if we blow ourselves up or encounter a calamity that will erase much of modern technology we will lose more data in that instant than all the data lost to history before that.
Most modern storage media will not last a century even under good conditions, yet alone under conditions that we've found many historical manuscripts and objects of significance so it's quite important for us to develop a high-density, long term media which can store current information in ways that will be fairly simple to access, micro-film was a good candidate at one time but the information density was too small, so allot of people are working on more high density storage media including crystals, and even encoding allot of information into DNA, if you can turn an entire forest into a time capsule you might be able to preserve knowledge for a very very long time.
I do like the idea that the information would be self-propagating, but who'd think to look in the DNA of some trees?
The idea is just to have some way to ensure that enough information survives in persistent forms, you can store "important" (for scientific advancement) stuff in various types of media which is progressively harder to access and gets more and more dense, and eventually store everything and it's mother in DNA or anything similar.
As things go if in 50 years we lose Google, Wikipedia, Facebook and Amazon/Kindle we might be on our way back to the stoneage.
[0] - the story of Biblical Deluge tells that part of the reason God had to sink the planet is that because angels descended from heaven and started breeding with people and corrupting them. If one believes in that story and is particularly imaginative, one had to ask just what level of technology did we have back then, after being 'corrupted' by what would be aliens?
Basically modern humans and neanderthals were bred by a more advanced and ancient form of humans (physically similar to AMH) we were all designed to have a naturally occurring fractal antennas in our brains that allowed them to mind control us to be used as slave/servants (humans) and soldiers (neanderthals). Some humans had a mutation (either naturally occurring, or a case of sleeping with the help which was also implied in the game, basically seraphim doing earthling hot chicks > flood recap) that made them immune to the mind control tech. There was a rebellion and a catastrophe (solar eruption) the ancients mostly have died out, some organizations know about them and some parts of the mind control tech have survived (pieces of eden in the game). The templars are after that tech to control the entire world, the assassins want to stop them.
PSA: That's pretty much spoiler free you can probably find a whole recap of the premise online.
Wait what?! Ok, my mind is officially blown here. Thanks for telling me that, I'll check it out.
I think you're confusing reason with Star Trek. Elaborate, repeating patterns can emerge from any number of random or chaotic processes, that doesn't mean an intelligence tried to encode something in it.
And even if it were plausible, given the amount of DNA we've studied by now, the lack of any obvious discoveries of messages from aliens or our ancient ancestors would suggest that it's not that effective as a storage medium for arbitrary messages.
I still sometimes forget that on HN, humour tags are obligatory. ;).
BTW. You mentioned Star Trek, actually that (IMO) pretty ridiculous episode with holographic messages hidden in DNA was on my mind when I wrote the original comment...
There was also a species that had a galaxy-wide empire and used portals instead of starships to get around that only got mentioned once or twice, despite apparently being able to move stars around. And the Dyson sphere could (should) have been it's own series.
The demise of Iconians always felt far-fetched to me. They had a portal network spanning a galaxy that could even be used to stage invasions at unexpecting opponents, and yet the whole empire collapsed down after a single supernova?
A TNG spin-off about the Dyson sphere would be uber-cool. I'd love that.
Ahem. Babylon 5. ;)
The first season was OK given it's budget but when the studio kicked out Wolfe it turned into utter garbage.
Like most syndicated show it pretty much was run into the ground by the networks, less story, more self confined episodes that can be picked up by the average Joe Dumb while flipping channels, and constant budget cuts.
They've spent like 75% of their CGI budget for the 1st season on the Andromeda model for the pilot episode which resulted in pretty much every space battle after it being a scene for scene recut of the 3rd episode from different angles.
I would not recommend that show to anyone.
(Edit after seeing T's responses - I was close!)
I've read a lot of SF and can assure that science is not required for the genre.
"A Scanner Darkly" comes to mind, where SF elements were added to the story to make it SF, but play little role in the story.
Silverber's Majipoor series has technology, but it's so ancient and unused it might as well be fantasy. Things like the ability to send dreams are nominally done by machine, as are many of the things in Babylon 5.
Farmer's Tiers series is another SF example where the super advanced science - the ability to create artificially-constructed universes, for example - are explained as science, but the science element do little to advance the story.
And i don't consider A Scanner Darkly to be pure scifi, just like most of Dick's other works, it's fiction for sure but not necessarily scientific.
For example, "Star Wars" won the Hugo for 'Best Dramatic Presentation' in 1978 so right there it's obvious that a lot of people - and those who are more identifiable and influential than your bland 'many people' - classify it as science fiction.
(Bear in mind that "The Force" or an equivalent has long been a thread in SF. Think of the mental powers of the Lensmen, or precognition in 'Dune', or telekinesis in 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. You cannot handwave it way as "fantasy" without throwing out a lot of other SF.)
I also gave two other examples of mainstream science fiction which are no less fantastical than Babylon V. To that list I'll add Pellucidar.
What is the science driving "Tunnel in the Sky"? A magic device that can slow time and allows space warp. What of the rest qualifies as 'scientific' which makes it notably "science fiction" instead of simply "fiction"?
What is the science behind "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?
Or "The Dispossessed"? The main characters live on a moon, the primary is also inhabited, there is occasional radio and rocket connection between the two, and there's a computer that helps with resource planning. None of those details drive the plot.
For that matter, is there any TV series you think should be called "science fiction"? What actual SF do you think deserves being called SF? I gave names. Now it's your turn.
Science Fiction's classical definition is a work of fiction that uses science as a story telling device to explore ideas.
I don't want to be a gatekeeper to anything, mainly because it's just as presumptuous of me to do that as the opinions you've presented.
There are quite allot of categories in speculative fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction including Science Fantasy ,and Comic Science Fiction which is where i would put Douglas Adam's work in there.
The more finite definition of a work is really dependent on the setting, story telling device used and interpretation.
A tunnel in the sky is a very good example of works that can be classified as Science Fantasy a genre that it's author Robert Heinlein was quite instrumental in it's creation.
I don't disagree that others have that opinion about Star Wars. That's besides the point. You claim is that Babylon 5 is not part of science fiction. You think that the allusion to what other people think about Star Wars is relevant to your claim. But as you must well know, that question of "is Star Wars really science fiction" is old and well-worn (eg. http://pop-verse.com/2014/12/10/is-star-wars-science-fiction... ).
It is therefore a poor tool to use to answer the question of 'is Babylon 5 science fiction?'. My objection was to this use, not that others believe it to be fantasy.
This concept of "speculative fiction" as an encompassing term is a perfectly reasonable one to have. However, it does not address the question 'is Babylon 5 science fiction?'.
You can place Hitchhiker's Guide into "Comic Science Fiction", but note that "Science Fiction" is in the name. Granted, astronomers say that a dwarf planet isn't a planet, but a dwarf star is a star, so it's not always possible to infer an is-a relationship in a name, but so far it looks like Hitchhiker's Guide is part of science fiction.
You give what you say is the "classical definition" of 'a work of fiction that uses science as a story telling device to explore ideas'.
As you must surely know, there is no such classical definition, and "its exact definition remains a contested question among both scholars and devotees." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction and reflective of my understanding.) Furthermore, there's an entire section in Wikipedia on just that topic, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction , many of which are not limited to your 'science as a story' definition.
I can assume your definition for argument's sake, but you still haven't answered the question of which TV series you think is actually science fiction under your definition, nor have you given any books.
This unwillingness to state examples is why I'm getting gatekeeper vibes from you. (A gatekeeper who is used to shutting people down for using the wrong terms is often one who does not want to stick a neck out for worry that it will in turn be cut down.)
Do note that the "science fantasy" link you give says the term "has never been clearly defined". The Heinlein example of 'Magic, Inc.' has many of the tropes of outright fantasy. I would consider "Glory Road" a better example for this category, with mixed fantasy and science elements. Indeed, if you look in the talk you'll see a raging discussion on just that point. In any case, 'Tunnel in the Sky' has no fantasy elements, so cannot fit into this category.
I do wonder how digital archiving will work in the future. Hopefully something better than "the archive.org volunteers decided to archive it"
The best bet would be the Library of Congress.
User-Agent: *
Disallow: /
Many. But, more in the way of actively and enthusiastically supporting the ability to wipe the archive this way than, you know, being concerned that it is a problem.