Dead Authors Dinner Party

 

The other night I awoke thinking about which dead authors I would like to talk to.

The first one would be Isaac Asimov. Having my bum pinched by him would be a small price to pay for talking to the man who aroused my interest in science. Besides it's apparent that he was a damaged person whose neuroses impacted him, if I could go back and offer him therapy, who knows how it may have changed him.

After that it would Robert A. Heinlein, the first science fiction author whose books I bought as a lonely child, to pass the time during a wet summer holiday in Ilfracombe, where my family went every year (BTW: William Shatner's comment about Ilfracombe makes me laugh). He was a survivor of tuberculosis and a life long stammerer.

Arthur C. Clarke, who I saw once and met at a one day convention in London, back when it was possible to meet authors at really tiny events. It would be nice to sit down and talk to the man who has probably inspired my writing the most. The pillars in my Gate Walker series are a homage to the Monoliths of 2001. Another author who struggled with prejudice.

After that, A. E. van Vogt would be the next author I would've liked to have met and talked to. Much derided by Damon Knight, which destroyed van Vogt's reputation, his story The Black Destroyer, which I read in The Voyage of the Space Beagle, stands as a testament to how wrong Damon was.

Then Cordwainer Smith, pseudonym of Paul Linebarger. Gosh, I imagine a great discourse ranging from his Godfather Sun Yat-sen to his work in American intelligence, psychological warfare, and perhaps even talking about his experiences with psychotherapy.

Also Robert E. Howard, along with Novalyne Price. I would admit that the temptation to do couple therapy with them, and help Howard with his depression would be a thing. Imagine if they'd married, and he had lived.

Finally, H. P. Lovecraft and Sonia Greene, again this would be one of those situations where I would be tempted to do couple counseling, and help the very damaged Lovecraft with his crippling neuroses to live a happier life.

Sweet dreams are made of this.

PS: A takeaway from this is that all the authors I admire were products of their time and damaged in some way or another.

The Fermi Paradox

I imagine that most science fiction fans will be familiar with the so called Fermi Paradox. From Wikipedia that quotes the Hart-Tipler argument:

1. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun, and many of these stars are billions of years older than the Solar system.

2. With high probability*, some of these stars have Earth-like planets, and if the Earth is typical, some may have already developed intelligent life. And some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now (but we would only see these aliens only if they have faster than light travel).

3. Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.**

I don't think there is an actual paradox, and I'm not the first to come to this conclusion. I'd be shocked if I was.

The Argument

But here's the thing I realized.

A first order approximation for going around our galaxy at light speed, assuming you don't stop, would take 314 thousand years. The minimum if stopping once (as in go halfway around the galaxy and colonize one planet), and you would have to quadruple that to allow for acceleration and deceleration, which means 1,236,000 million years have passed.

Okay, that doesn't sound so bad, but assuming you want to stop at all the planets that can support life (minimum approximation 100,000***), then one has to make a decision how many expeditions can be sent at the same time.

This leaves a range that falls between a minimum of 1,236,000 million years up to 123,600,000,000 one hundred and twenty-three billion years (1 to 100,000 expeditions) to colonize the galaxy. Not a very useful range, but hopefully you can where I'm going with this?

But I seriously doubt that one can colonize the galaxy at a one-to-one equivalent of light-speed.

Therefore, starting again with the assumption that the galaxy can be colonized, then it will have to be done at sub-light speeds. The best theoretical drive would be a black hole (the interesting stuff in the video start at around 8 minutes). For a more detailed explanation of a black hole drive aka Torch engine.

Even so, my best guess for the maximum speed would be 0.5c or 0.25 average for a journey to allow for deceleration again. But that's a highball number, 0.1c or 0.05c average might be more realistic (for definitions of realistic when applied to engineering that's way beyond our current level).

So a minimum of 4,944,000 million years up to 494,400,000,000 four hundred and ninety-four billion years and change.

At 0.1c then the quickest the galaxy can be colonized (100,000 worlds) is 12,360,000 million years up to a staggering 1,236,000,000,000 one point two trillion years.

If we take an average of the highest and lowest times then it would roughly take 31.4 billion years to colonize the galaxy.

So, the universe hasn't been around long enough for us to meet aliens.

NB: When I finished this I realized that there was yet another way to calculate the time to explore/colonize the galaxy and that was work out the average distance between habitable star systems, which a ball park figures comes out to 3,126 light years.****

So running the numbers will depends on how many expeditions you send out. The minimum would again be quite modest 3,142 years, but I don't think it's feasible to travel that fast.

Assuming 0.1c, then the minimum would rise to 31,400,000 and obviously rise higher since the assumption is sending 100,000 expeditions out at once. Your guess is as good as mine about how many expeditions would be sent and how much time would occur between them.

So again I'm left with the conclusion that we haven't been around long enough to have met or discovered aliens.

Addendum: There is another explanation for lack of contact too. It's by Geoffrey A. Landis and is called, The Fermi Paradox: An Approach Based on Percolation Theory. It comes to the conclusion that given how large space is, not all possible planets will be colonized (physic theory of percolation).

In conclusion, this is what I research when writing. Enjoy.

* The Drake Equation.
** Not feasible unless you have faster than light travel.  
*** No one really knows (see The Drake Equation for the assumptions) as there could be one or two trillion stars in our galaxy (1,000,000,000,0000 to 2,000,000,000,0000 stars).
**** Figure derived from a first order approximation of the volume of the galaxy divided by the number of habital star systems to arrive at an average distance between them.

The Divisiveness Around Transgendered People

Disclaimer

This is a long response, to a furore on another blog. A fellow writer, who is a good man with a lovely wife. I posted a version of this on his blog, but I have no wish to troll him with continued comments there.

Hence this post where people can kick the ball in my playpen.

For my British readers, I'm being aware of different sensibilities between myself and Americans.

Conditional Assumptions

I look up to the American Constitution in amazement.

I wish I were an American, but life events have left me unable to realize my dream of being a citizen of the greatest force for good in the world. Without you guys we'd all be speaking German or Russian, and with all due to respect any German or Russian readers, no thank you.

The preamble to the Constitution begins:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These assumptions get us/me to...

The affirmation that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens, and safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments.

I disavow communism, because it's a utopian ideology. Homo sapiens didn't evolve to live in utopias. For communism to work, humanity would have to stop being human beings.

For the record, I regard myself as a pragmatic humanist. A flawed human being like everyone else.

Issues Arising

There are a number of issues, but this should not be thought of as a complete list of all the issues.

1. The refusal to use he for she and vice versa, because it's a lie, and therefore an ethical problem.

People who believe this must be an absolute blast to live with. Imagine when their wife/girlfriend asks, "Does my bum look big in this dress?"

Parties must be a total hoot too, when you truthfully tell friends and family what you really think.

2. The refusal to be forced to use a gender pronoun, restricts the freedom of speech.

I agree with the right for people to have of freedom of speech. But right to say what you want comes with the responsibility for any offense you cause. In my experience, a lack of politeness often leads to a smack in the mouth.

Even Jordan Peterson calls transgendered women she. I've seen him do it.

3. Tired of facts being twisted for political correctness. There are two genders, not 54. Your sex comes from the chromosomes that cannot be changed. Getting a boob job and a choppadickoffame surgery is simply cosmetic surgery.

I agree that gender reassignment surgery doesn't change a persons sex.

I agree that gender reassignment surgery is cosmetic.

If by genders you mean what is observable, measurable, and can be replicated, then the science establishes that sex isn’t so much binary, but a bimodal distribution that appears to be binary at coarse scales.

Therefore science or facts are irrelevant when you say you are presenting yourself as a member of the opposite sex.

So, I support trans rights, but it’s fundamentally not a fact based scientific issue.

4. Wanting to change your gender is a mental illness

Vague, unscientific, wishy-washy and meaningless dog whistling.

5. You can call yourself (insert choice of: gorilla, attack helicopter, etc.)

Gorillas in the room often go unseen. But the argument is fallacious, because they're aimed at straw gorillas that don't exist.

6. They're Trannies.

This is a slur against cross-dressers. Feel free to use slurs, but again you must take responsibility for what you said, and not be surprised when someone smacks you in the mouth.

7. It's insanity, this means War!

Over the top hyperbole, because it isn't a war, yet. And let's hope the current madness in American politics doesn't degenerate into war. The last time you guys had at it, more American died than had been killed in all the wars up until the recent one in Afghanistan.

8. It's a perversion that can't be excused.

The agenda that drives this argument goes against everything that makes America and Americans great.

9. Luring men into sex with men who look like women or vice versa.

Here's a link to an openly transgendered woman

So I can see that being tricked might make you feel ashamed, or disgusted. These are powerful emotions. But feelings are not facts, as I've discussed above, so just mind your own business.

Besides, I seriously doubt that the first thing on any man's mind when he looks at her is whether she has XX chromosomes.

I think she looks like a woman. Pretty too. I wouldn't kick her out of bed. I'm a lesbian, go figure.

Conclusion

If you've got this far, and you agree with me, excellent. If I've triggered an emotional response sorry, but it's not my problem. If you use any of the arguments above to justify your opinions about transgender issues, I'm afraid to tell you this, but you are ill informed.

However, all is not lost, if you go away and challenge your beliefs

Start with this question: How do you know?

SnakeBots

I found this snake robot climbing a tree, and just love how some of the whacky ideas I had for my Gate Walker setting are coming to fruition.

Of course, I'd heard of flexible robots before writing my novels, and just thought "wow, that's cool," I've got to have them in my story.

Moving on. The last couple of weeks have been difficult.

Full of unexpected obstacles that stole from my writing time, and the worries of juggling stuff outside of my control, have left me drained with fewer new words written than I would like.

But despite all that, I've been putting together a short novel.

It's a collection of my three novelettes set in the World of Drei AI cybertank universe with an additional prologue I wrote. Reviewing the text I found a shed load of typos that I'm in the process of correcting.

Once that's done then I just have to sort out a cover. It is what it is.

Two Moons Progress

When writing a story I prefer to start with the seven point novel structure.

My first three novels were action adventures. This means you have a leader who is surrounded by a team to solve the problems they face.

Two Moons, and my other novel The Bureau, are effectively mysteries.

So a center person solves the puzzle, and has others do the physical action, provide humour and perspective, with a fixer, and a boss that the team reports to. This has totally discombobulated me.

Last time I mentioned Two Moons, I was at 14,856 words. I've stalled and restarted this work several times over the last few months just because the narrative is driven by a different set of needs.

Who would've thought, huh!?

Anyway, I'm now entering the middle of the story, running at 32,714 words. Here's a taste of the opening of Two Moons.

TRANSCENDENCE 

I wake in the darkness, stretched out on a cold surface. The air musty from the passage of time. Only the sound of my breath fills the silence.
   "Is anyone there?' My voice echoes around me.
   A soothing voice replies, "You are safe."
   Emotions rush through me. A sadness that is full of grief and loss. "Are you my mother?"
   "No, I am a machine. You can call me mother, if you wish."
   My senses adjust, the reality of the room coalesces around me. Machinery lines the walls, and in the center I lie on a table, with tubes that snake up from my body into a machine.
   Confused, I ask, "What is happening? Where am I?"
   "You are being cared for. The facility exists to create life."
   The answer triggers a flood of jumbled memories.
   This is where we changed the genetic heritage of my kind. A place where the seeds of all life can be shaped. A place where our learning is recorded for all time.
   I am last of my kind, trapped in a secure facility, all alone, waiting to die.

HyperStealth

In my Gate Walker series I call this concept ChameleoFlage, and World of Drei series I call it Adaptive camouflage. Either-way, meta-materials might well be a game changer.

If you follow the link above you can see that this stuff interferes with thermal imaging, which I thought wasn't possible.

First Generation Power Armour

 

Here's a link to Onyx from Lockheed Martin, a further development of their earlier HULC system. For those of us who have dream of power armour and exoskeletons this is exciting news. While Onyx is only a lower torso enhancement it does look promising.

There was a thread on the Heavy Gear FB group about the practicality of mecha – larger walking power armour. I posted this:

In general to the OP. It all depends on your assumptions whether or not large bipedal combat suits make sense. When writing my novels I made some assumptions on how they developed (basically a step on from riding a mechanical horse), to use (dense terrain), and factored in adaptive camouflage (reduce chance of being seen).

So it's all about the assumptions. Open field advances across the steppes of Russia, not so much. Lurking around in urban areas providing fire support for infantry and able to keep up with vehicles, possibly what's needed.

The last couple of weeks I have been writing more, working on my novel Two Moons, which will give the readers more information on where the series story arc is going that the characters will have to work through. I'm excited.