3 ms·

plausibility isn't the point - the scfi devices used are for reduction-ad-absurdum, to zoom-in on aspects of our current society. Also, in the real world some

plausibility isn't the point - the scfi devices used are for reduction-ad-absurdum, to zoom-in on aspects of our current society. Also, in the real world some things develop faster than others. In San Junipero they can perfectly simulate a world and upload people into the cloud (heaven), but they can't cure quadriplegia with stem-cells. That's ok because all science and tech doesn't move at the same pace: some tech grows very fast while other techs never get funding and die by whatever market-force fashions.

dharma1 10y ago
I don't disagree with you, but for me you still need to retain some plausibility or it just feels sloppy. The perfect memory recorder in the previous episodes - that was my favourite one, because we are not very far off from it, yet the implications are profound. But indefinitely flying, self-replicating nanobees, just because one of the writers read about drones, 3d printers and bees dying out? Feels forced and lazy, even if it's just a prop to a bigger story about bullying on social media
- wwggggoi 10y ago
  yeh that was one of my favourites too but thing is, nobody can predict which technologies are more of less likely to take-off, it's a mysterious thing but many smart people poo-pooed the internet, cinema, cars, computers
- worldsayshi 10y ago
  Self replicating bots are feasible in some form, probably not in the one presented. Also, it isn't plausible that the rest of world would look as similar to ours presented in the episode as such technology would have many far-reaching implications on the rest of society. Still, at some point you have to limit yourself. Having this one change and not change the rest of society makes it possible to imagine and relate to that one tech. One bite sized chunk at a time. Edit: Interesting example: What if we had teleportation technology that you can carry in your pocket? It's extremely hard to figure out all implications of this and if you manage to figure out how the world would look like it would probably be hard to relate to because it would change everything. So we have to keep a balance between relateability and plausibility.
  - dharma1 10y ago
    I agree with you, it's walking a fine line between the two. But in ways science fiction is in ways like chess - the author thinking more than one move ahead makes it more enjoyable. There are many interesting topics to explore though. For instance, I'd like to see a Black Mirror style exploration of a world where CRISPR use (on everything, including humans) is rampant and genetic evolution has become subject to memetic evolution, to cultural/technological/financial selection pressures. It's within realms of possibility with profound implications on everything
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - worldsayshi 10y ago
      So let's say we'd make a Black mirror episode about CRISPR. What could it be about? Biomachines making most of our stuff including houses? Designer babies that glow in the dark and can communicate telepathically? Both? 10 other things? Let's choose one. It's difficult enough to imagine the social impact of that. If we choose multiple such inventions in one swoop you would have to make a lot of assumptions that each would be enough content for a single episode. Then audience will no longer be able to use what they know about today's society because they don't know what assumptions the author has made. edit: I realize I might be overselling a point that you're already agreeing on...

dharma1 10y ago

I don't disagree with you, but for me you still need to retain some plausibility or it just feels sloppy. The perfect memory recorder in the previous episodes - that was my favourite one, because we are not very far off from it, yet the implications are profound. But indefinitely flying, self-replicating nanobees, just because one of the writers read about drones, 3d printers and bees dying out? Feels forced and lazy, even if it's just a prop to a bigger story about bullying on social media

wwggggoi 10y ago
yeh that was one of my favourites too but thing is, nobody can predict which technologies are more of less likely to take-off, it's a mysterious thing but many smart people poo-pooed the internet, cinema, cars, computers
worldsayshi 10y ago
Self replicating bots are feasible in some form, probably not in the one presented. Also, it isn't plausible that the rest of world would look as similar to ours presented in the episode as such technology would have many far-reaching implications on the rest of society. Still, at some point you have to limit yourself. Having this one change and not change the rest of society makes it possible to imagine and relate to that one tech. One bite sized chunk at a time. Edit: Interesting example: What if we had teleportation technology that you can carry in your pocket? It's extremely hard to figure out all implications of this and if you manage to figure out how the world would look like it would probably be hard to relate to because it would change everything. So we have to keep a balance between relateability and plausibility.
- dharma1 10y ago
  I agree with you, it's walking a fine line between the two. But in ways science fiction is in ways like chess - the author thinking more than one move ahead makes it more enjoyable. There are many interesting topics to explore though. For instance, I'd like to see a Black Mirror style exploration of a world where CRISPR use (on everything, including humans) is rampant and genetic evolution has become subject to memetic evolution, to cultural/technological/financial selection pressures. It's within realms of possibility with profound implications on everything
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - worldsayshi 10y ago
    So let's say we'd make a Black mirror episode about CRISPR. What could it be about? Biomachines making most of our stuff including houses? Designer babies that glow in the dark and can communicate telepathically? Both? 10 other things? Let's choose one. It's difficult enough to imagine the social impact of that. If we choose multiple such inventions in one swoop you would have to make a lot of assumptions that each would be enough content for a single episode. Then audience will no longer be able to use what they know about today's society because they don't know what assumptions the author has made. edit: I realize I might be overselling a point that you're already agreeing on...