"Serenity"--a gun slinging libertarian western in space (SPOILERS)

[torpid]

After all, 100 years ago they'd laugh at you if you told them we'd still be buying leverguns and single action revolvers in the year 2005 .

They wouldn't laugh if I told them.

I'm from the future.


(Then I'd tell them about 2006 cowboy action shooting to really confuse them.)

.

 

[Cosmoline]

What's life like in the year 2006? Are there flying cars for everyone?

 

[torpid]

What's life like in the year 2006? Are there flying cars for everyone?

And are pistol frames made with high-tech materials like Bakelite?

.

 

[Herself]

No, Alaska is a frontier. Space is just space. You'll waste more hydrocarbons messing around up there than you'll ever be able to bring back.

With all due respect, Alaska is a State of the Union. It's claimed territory, a lot of it owned by the Feds. I'll grant you it's vast, mostly empty and largely unexploited, but it's small compared to the Moon.

Treaties not withstanding, who owns the Moon? Or Mars? Or individual asteroids? (One of which might be headed your way right now -- and we have no way to steer it away at present).
Those who can hold 'em, is who.

The natural resources available in our Solar System are vast beyond conception. In terms of energy expenditure, Earth orbit is halfway to pretty much all the system, so your fuel concerns are noted but politely declined. Why, the dear old Moon is rich with frozen water and sunlight, which puts it in the rocket-gas business early on.

This is a belief shared by many scientists and otherwise rational people. But it is just a matter of faith. The limitations of human biology and the mandates of human economy are every bit as real as the constraints of astrophysics.

A lot of exploration had no economic payback for the explorers. As for our "biological limitations," there are darned few places on this very planet where you could survive a year unclothed and unhoused. We're already way out of our "natural niche" and many of us are ready to take the next step. You're happier in Alaska. That's very fine, but it does not invalidate my choices.

My point is simply that "science based" SF such as 2001 is just as outrageous as the notion of jumping around at hyperspeed. It's ALL basically fantasy, so why not just have fun with it? Whedon's universe makes sense on its own terms and involves some very interesting characters. It's not completely outrageous to suppose that people on far planets would still use firearms. After all, 100 years ago they'd laugh at you if you told them we'd still be buying leverguns and single action revolvers in the year 2005

What Whedon got right was the Firefly universe was a lot more internally consistent that most film and TV SF; and unlike Star Trek, he got the sociology completely right, with characters no more nor less noble than people are now. Human nature is what it is; we're a stubbon lot and slow to change.

--Herself

 

[Cosmoline]

With all due respect, Alaska is a State of the Union. It's claimed territory, a lot of it owned by the Feds. I'll grant you it's vast, mostly empty and largely unexploited, but it's small compared to the Moon.

It's also warm compared to the moon, and a heck of a lot nicer to live in The moon is an airless rock devoid of life. While it's theoretically possible to put a station there, it would be incredibly costly and pointless.

Treaties not withstanding, who owns the Moon? Or Mars? Or individual asteroids? (One of which might be headed your way right now -- and we have no way to steer it away at present). Those who can hold 'em, is who.

Not quite. Space is regulated by treaty and national law. NASA and the UN do not want private citizens going there, and even selling moon rock is illegal. It's a socialist paradise out in space--which is another reason we'll never go there.

The natural resources available in our Solar System are vast beyond conception. In terms of energy expenditure, Earth orbit is halfway to pretty much all the system, so your fuel concerns are noted but politely declined. Why, the dear old Moon is rich with frozen water and sunlight, which puts it in the rocket-gas business early on.

You can decline my fuel concerns all you want, but ignoring gravity won't help you any more than ordering the tide not to come in. The plain fact is it takes a vast amount of stored chemical energy just to get a few guys into space with almost no equipment. ANd once they get there there's nothing they can do to make money.

A lot of exploration had no economic payback for the explorers. As for our "biological limitations," there are darned few places on this very planet where you could survive a year unclothed and unhoused.

But humans have been able to build shelter and survive all over the planet for tens of thousands of years. This is our planet, and we were made for it. I don't see any migrations to the moon.

The notion that colonization of space is inevitable is pure faith. If you want to believe, it that's fine. But it has very little basis in reality. There's no money in it, and risks that amount to certain death.

You're happier in Alaska. That's very fine, but it does not invalidate my choices.

REALITY invalidates your choices, I"m afraid. Not me. Can you hop to the moon? If so, I wish you luck up there.