From: walter.kehowski@gcmail.maricopa.edu
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 12:27:59 MST
Technotranscendence:
Your comments reminded me of Larry Niven's "Known Universe" that is only now
becoming hospitable to intelligent life after a "Slaver War" a billion and a
half years ago wiped out all intelligent life in the galaxy. The Slavers
were able to control the minds of intelligent beings and developed a vast
galactic empire. However, they couldn't completely control those beings they
relied upon for their technological advancement -- the tnuctipin. The
tnuctipin worked stealthily to overthrow the Slavers and the resulting
conflict depopulated the galaxy. Only after 1-1/2 billion years is the
galaxy once again home to sentient beings.
Many of Niven's stories (and at least one book) have as plot device the
discovery of some remnant of the Slaver Empire. My favorite -- "The Soft
Weapon." The weapon is discovered in a "stasis box" that can preserve its
contents indefinitely. The "soft weapon" turns out to be a swiss-watch of
weapons including an AI. The crew (A man, woman, and a vegetarian/coward
puppeteer) is captured by the carnivorous Kzinti. I won't spoil the story
but only the quick thinking of the man saves the crew.
BTW, Niven's puppeteer race is one of the most imaginative non-humanoid
beings I've come across in all of my sci-fi reading. They have three legs --
two front ond very powerful rear -- and two heads on either side of a hump
that is a brain case. Their knobby-lipped mouths -- one on each head -- are
their hands. They are vegetarian cowards expert at staying alive. In one
story ("At the Core") the puppeteers discover that the core suns of our
galaxy have exploded and that in twenty thousand years all of Known Space
will be sterilized by the radiation from the explosion. The puppeteers
respond by turning their worlds into space ships and leaving the galaxy. To
their way of thinking twenty thousand years might as well be next year.
They're leaving <now>.
Anyone have any other examples of interesting non-humanoids?
Walter Kehowski
Technotranscendence wrote:
> The Fermi Paradox -- why we don't see a universe bustling with
> intelligent life even though it appears that life is likely and
> intelligent life even if only remotely possible should, because of the
> apparent size and age of the known universe be all over the place -- is
> taken dead on in a recent story by Robert Reed, "Lying to Dogs."
> (_Asimov's Science Fiction_, December 2002)
>
> I don't want to spoil the story, but in many ways it harps on a similar
> theme to that of the Strugatsky Brothers' novel _Definitely Maybe_ --
> that what we do makes a difference to our fate because of some
> fundamental physical reaction to our actions. Reed kicks it up a
> notch -- what we do might make a difference to the fate of the universe.
> This is, to some (transhumanists and Extropians), a familiar idea, but
> the context he uses it in might explain the Fermi Paradox. What an
> intelligent species does might change the universe so much that it wipes
> itself out and other intelligent species by basically fundamentally
> altering the universe. Eventually life might spring forth again, after
> billions of years.
>
> A civilization could rise up, reach a very sophisticated technological
> level, and then accidentally (or even intentionally!) alter the universe
> in such a way that leaves it sterile for many years to come. An even
> less bold scenario would be that it need not sterilize the universe, but
> cleanse it of intelligent life. Of course, life -- intelligent or no --
> would probably rise again, but only after a long, long time. A silent
> universe wouldn't be so paradoxical after all, though perhaps more
> terrifying.
>
> Okay, this is science fiction, but just maybe... definitely maybe...
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dan
> See more of my writings at:
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
>
> "You wanna get high?" -- Towelie from "South Park"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:59 MST