Re: Was re: RFACS but diverging into philosophic ramblings about future tech...

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/15/00 4:33:54 PM Central Standard Time, 
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca writes:
> 
> << 
>  I guess that in the end, the whole point of what I was saying was to
>  question the assumption we (well, some of "we") have that technology
is on
>  a constantly developing/improving upward slope, and that by necessity
>  everything that exists a couple hundred years from now will be so
advanced
>  that it is nearly unrecognizable to us today.  That may be the case. 
Given
>  the rate of change of technology we're seeing now, and over the past
50
>  years, it is easy to see that as a realistic probability. >>
> 
> MAN is the ultimate robot - he can hold a rifle, drive a tank, repair
a 
> grav-drive - monitor a computer intelligence hadndling things at a
rate he 
> cannot hope to match - BUJT if you take man out of the loop - it;s
certainly 
> going to be NO fun as a war game.

*exactly*.

technology gets more advanced, but there are still many things we are
nowhere in sight of being able to do. that's why i don't believe that
the
bleeding edge of combat (ie infantry, battlefield ground vehicles, etc)
can be fully automated (remote control aside - see those proposals for
diddy RC GMS-armed vehicles, and the teletrooopers from (getting beyond
a
joke now) Ken McLeod's 'the star fraction').

i'm not advocating the robotic battlefield, or the removal of humans
from
the tactical decision chain. i'm just saying that nobody in 2150 will be
using 2000-era weapons, and that the weapons they will be using will be
much more advanced than ours, most notably in their smartness. is that
really so hard to believe?

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:

> It's kind of strange that we allow certain tech advances to be part of
> the acceptible suspension of disbelief (grav tech, FTL, etc), but
> don't go the whole way.  Why is this?  'Cause we're playing a game,
> and it is much more interesting and compelling and fun to have
> SOLDIERS fighting each other.

i disagree with your starting assertion: that it's strange, or somehow
inconsistent, to allow grav and FTL but not robot troops. it's not a
binary choice between modern or SF: there is a ladder of advancement,
starting with minor improvements over current tech (eg ARs with thermal
imagers) and ending with the super space-age (eg robot troops). i think
the Tuffleyverse is halfway up this ladder - far enough to have FTL, PA,
some grav, and smart fire control, but not far up enough to have robot
troops, ubiquitous grav, personal plasma cannons, etc.

tom