4 ms·

I haven't read Kill Decision, but I have read The Martian, so I'll answer in that vein. I don't think The Martian is realistic, or even a good predictor of any

I haven't read Kill Decision, but I have read The Martian, so I'll answer in that vein. I don't think The Martian is realistic, or even a good predictor of anything. Now, there may be an expedition to Mars in future, but AFAICT there's really no good reasoning for it. What's your argument for an expedition to Mars? EDIT: I just wanted to add: You and I -- humans that we are -- only remember the hits, i.e. the predictions that turned out to be true. There are a lot or predictions (sci fi novels, etc.) that turn out to not be true and are thus forgotten. QED

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lucb1e 7y ago
> What's your argument for an expedition to Mars? You seem to have missed the point of my comment completely. Your takeaway from my saying "just post it as a statement, not a rhetorical question" and "the way you generalized it to all of sci-fi makes it also not very helpful" (for which the books were supporting examples) is to ask what makes me think humanity should go to Mars? The book doesn't even argue we should or shouldn't go to Mars, but it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually (contrary to your generalization) be a realistic representation. As for survivorship bias, sure, I can think of a million sci-fi books that are unrealistic. I never made the argument all sci-fi is good or that their authors have done research or that they are good predictors. But that most don't even try to be predictive doesn't mean some might not be a realistic enough example to relate it to the choices we make and how it might play out. RPO just isn't one of them.
- Quekid5 7y ago
  Ok, so this is a dense comment, so I'm going to try again. AFAICT, your nested quotations contained a quote (by you!), which said "it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually [...]" Ok, so a "ton of research". By whom? An author... of sci-fi? Look, I'm not per se against imagination or exploration, but I am very much for realism.
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    > Ok, so a "ton of research". By whom? An author... of sci-fi? Yes.
    - Quekid5 7y ago
      I honestly don't understand your point was. Help me!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lucb1e 7y ago

> What's your argument for an expedition to Mars? You seem to have missed the point of my comment completely. Your takeaway from my saying "just post it as a statement, not a rhetorical question" and "the way you generalized it to all of sci-fi makes it also not very helpful" (for which the books were supporting examples) is to ask what makes me think humanity should go to Mars? The book doesn't even argue we should or shouldn't go to Mars, but it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually (contrary to your generalization) be a realistic representation. As for survivorship bias, sure, I can think of a million sci-fi books that are unrealistic. I never made the argument all sci-fi is good or that their authors have done research or that they are good predictors. But that most don't even try to be predictive doesn't mean some might not be a realistic enough example to relate it to the choices we make and how it might play out. RPO just isn't one of them.

Quekid5 7y ago
Ok, so this is a dense comment, so I'm going to try again. AFAICT, your nested quotations contained a quote (by you!), which said "it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually [...]" Ok, so a "ton of research". By whom? An author... of sci-fi? Look, I'm not per se against imagination or exploration, but I am very much for realism.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  > Ok, so a "ton of research". By whom? An author... of sci-fi? Yes.
  - Quekid5 7y ago
    I honestly don't understand your point was. Help me!