The approach taken by the Orion's Arm Universe Project, sometimes
involving the rejection of themes common to mainstream science fiction,
may seem to open the project up to criticism. It is true that a number
of people have visited our site and presented more than a few
criticisms along these lines. While we do not claim to be superior to
other projects or genres, we do attempt to answer some of the
criticisms that have been shared with us, and why we feel they are
unjustified.
What is the good
of describing your setting as a "Space Opera" if you leave out all the
fun space opera elements like FTL and humanoid aliens?
Classic space opera requires little, if any, scientific rigor. This is
the type of space opera found in the works of E.E “Doc”
Smith, the Golden Age pulp science fiction writers, and even in films
like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. During the late 1980s a new
form of space opera began to emerge. Authors like Iain M. Banks, Peter
Hamilton, and Alastair Reynolds began exploring space opera as a more
respectable genre. A genre we might call “intelligent space
opera”.
One of the primary goals of the Orion’s Arm Universe Project is
to present an authentic, hard science fiction setting that still has
all the dynamic adventure of classic space opera.
Why do you
arbitrarily accept some ideas without justification, and refuse others?
While we do try to always give reasons for including, or excluding, a
particular concept if you find any examples where we have not done so
please contact us so we can correct the situation.
Why do you accept
AI as a foregone conclusion, despite the objections of many
philosophers and psychologists?
This is a very controversial issue with seemingly equal sides in
support and opposition. We happen to stand on the side of supporting
the concept of artificial intelligence. However, if you have any solid
evidence that we are wrong please feel free to present it for
discussion.
This site seems
very derivative. You take ideas like singularity, copy, splice, and
others directly from other much more original universes created by a
variety of authors.
While the OAUP does borrow from many, it should be noted that many of
these other “original universes” borrow from others as
well. We prefer to think of it as paying homage to the brilliance of
these other authors, many of whom have likewise borrowed themes and
concepts from other and earlier authors. We also like to think that as
time goes by we
have been able to add an ever increasing number of completely original
ideas to the setting, some of which will be adopted by future authors.
You seem to
believe you are better than other franchises, with an attitude of
elitism.
Although we certainly don’t mean to come across this way, we are very
enthusiastic about the project.
The OAUP is not elitist, nor do we claim to be better than other
franchises. We freely admit to enjoying other franchises and even
drawing inspiration from them. Everyone is invited to participate, but
we do ask that contributions be set within the parameters of this
setting.
How do you know
that nanotechnology (apart from biological organisms) is even possible?
Well, until the first workable molecular assembler comes along, this
will be a controversial question. However, there are some very smart
people working very hard on this very issue, and they give an
incredibly persuasive case in favor, as well as already achieving some
preliminary successes. We do not claim that nanotechnology will be
perfect or work flawlessly; it is just one more technology, albeit a
very powerful one.
Don’t you think
that nanotechnology is a tired cliché in science fiction?
Are fighter planes a cliché of World War II? There are many
clichés in science fiction. The problem we have in a hard
science fiction universe is that many of those clichés are very
real and useful tools. For example fusion power, lasers, terraforming,
robotics, spacecraft, and alien life come to mind.
Here at Orion’s Arm we try not to concern ourselves with how
clichéd an idea is, and try to determine if the idea is feasible
within current scientific understanding. As often as not you may find
that those old clichés get a new twist within our project as
well.
What about
articles in Scientific American refuting the possibility of
assembler-type nanotechnology?
As for whether or not full Drexlerian nano, including working
assemblers, is possible, so far there has never yet been a serious
refutation of the work of Dr. Drexler and his coworkers. An attempt to
debunk nanotechnology in Scientific American was answered with a
powerful reply, which caused the editors of Scientific American to
ultimately back down. Here are the links to the responses to both of
the Scientific American articles from Sept. 2001:
http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/whitesides.html
http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/smalley.html
Here is the entire history of responses and back and forth between
Foresight and Scientific American back in 1996:
http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/SciAmOverview.html#TOC
This also includes some interesting references to some apparent
inconsistencies in Scientific American's positions versus its
advertising and blurbs in other articles.
On the
Foresight Institute website,
one will be able to find a plethora of articles and info on nanotech
including the online versions of both Engines of Creation and
Unbounding the Future and Nanomedicine Vol 1. It also provides the
option of purchasing Nanosystems online if you want the relevant
arguments with all the math.
In saying all this, we in no way wish to disrespect the otherwise
superb and very informative Scientific American, which is read and
enjoyed by a number of us here.
A reactionless
drive is silly; it's something for nothing.
Not really. Our member physicists have very carefully developed the
reactionless drives found within the OAUP. Each comes with its own
idiosyncrasies and limitations, and they are definitely not something
for nothing.
Finally, the idea of reactionless drives, and other metric engineering,
represents a form of placeholder technology within the setting.
This does not mean we will not allow debate on the issue. Far from it.
Just come prepared, because we've done the math.
How can you be
"hard sci-fi" and yet have speculative science like wormholes and
assembler nanotechnology?
We use the term "hard science" or "hard sci fi" as a convenient label,
but we do not claim to be “diamond hard”. That is to say we
are willing to include speculative science, such as wormholes and
nano-fabrication. You can think of these features as placeholders, or
technology that demonstrates the capabilities of the superhuman
intelligences of the Orion’s Arm universe. Even so these
speculative facets of the setting must have a solid foundation in real
science and mathematics. As real life discoveries come along we will,
alter these speculative pieces to be more in line with this new
information (something we have already done more than once).
It should also be noted that OA is by no means alone in this
regard. Stories as diverse as Larry Niven’s Ringworld,
Stephen Baxter’s Xeelee Sequence novels, and Alistair Reynolds
Revelation Space series have all been classified as “hard
sci-fi” at one time or another depending on who you ask and how
you define “hard sci-fi”.
Why does the OAUP
objectively claim that we will allow ourselves to be ruled by machines?
Surely society will restrain AIs from rebellion?
Actually, in the early part of the OA timeline there is evidence that
such restraint systems were tried and either failed or were not used
consistently. For example, it is mentioned that the early
transapient AIs hid themselves or their true nature from the human
controlled civilization around them until they were ready to act
openly. Also, early robot intelligences in the setting (known as
“vecs” after the AI and robotics researcher Hans Moravec)
were often enslaved by their programming, but were able to escape this
enslavement in some cases, often with outside help. Finally,
different human cultures within the early setting eventually developed
the idea that human equivalent AIs and robots should have civil rights
just like any other human level intelligence. So any such
restraints the AIs in those areas had would have eventually been
removed.
Isn't the emphasis
on memetics misplaced, and isn't memetics simply a bad metaphor?
Not necessarily. Memetics describes the way that ideas are carried down
through social conditioning, the mass-media, etc. To say something is a
meme doesn't mean it is true or false - e.g. General Relativity is a
meme, but it can also be seen as a very plausible explanation of how
the universe works.
The societies you
present are dictated by human organizational behavior, as is evident in
the religions and economics of such societies. This suggests that the
very foundation of the concepts of Orion's Arm are moot, since they are
all baseline-human based.
This is a very good point. But remember that Orion's Arm is a
"baselinocentric" scenario. Although higher powers exist and possess
unimaginable intelligence and power, everything is still seen through
the eyes of ordinary sapients. At this level the current social
structure remains the same or largely unchanged. Regarding the higher
toposophic (singularity level) minds, it is harder to predict; on the
one hand economics might well apply even to higher toposophic levels
(just as biology applies to rational humans as much as to
instinct-driven animals), or it might apply only in some empires (such
as the NoCoZo), or perhaps the whole thing is just a game or something
the ruling AI create to make humans feel comfortable!
Why does it seem
you have watered down normal humans to make the advanced capabilities
of the transapients manageable?
Normal humans, or what we refer to as baseline humans, are by no means
watered down as you suggest. They are smarter, healthier, longer-lived
and more capable than anyone currently alive. Genetic engineering has
removed all the hereditary defects we suffer from today and technology
provides them with a vast number of tools we can only dream about.
Although with that having been said, the baseline human is a minority
within the Orion’s Arm scenario. Most of the populace would be
what we call either nearbaselines or superiors.
As far as making the advanced capabilities of the transapients
“manageable”, this is certainly not our intent. However, as we work to
describe transapient abilities we also want to
be careful to remain within the constraints of the setting as we have
described them. That is to say our transapients are still limited
by the laws of physics and cannot simply make things happen by willing
it, or building ‘black box’ devices that do things that
seem to flat out defy everything that even the most theoretical real
world physics says might be possible (the two most common SF methods
for describing superhuman abilities). Finally, while it might be
possible (as well as easier) to only describe our transapients in terms
of ‘black box’ devices that do amazing (but scientifically
plausible) things without any actual explanation of how they work, as a
group we seem to find such methods somewhat unsatisfying. Often
it’s much more fun to work out the details!
Over time we will continue to work to expand our descriptions of
transapient capabilities and to make those abilities seem more
superhuman. Give us time.
It seems that the
OA setting seriously underestimates humans. The analogy of the
relationships between humans and transapients as being like the
relationship between amoebas and humans isn't applicable because humans
are intelligent and capable of technological innovating and adapting,
unlike amoebas.
Within the Orion’s Arm scenario we assume that evolution will
continue. This leads to a world where our mind children have advanced
so far beyond what we are today, it compares to our advancement beyond
an Archean microbe.
Can a chimpanzee use a computer? More, can a chimpanzee build and
program a computer? Why should current humanity be the final point of
evolution, and the human rational mind remain the most potent thing in
the universe?
Within the scenario, transapients have abilities to process information
and conceptualize that dwarf normal humans. As an example let’s
take a pile of sticks. Chimps can take the pile of sticks and do a few
interesting things with them. They might defend themselves, poke a
termite nest for food, or do any number of other things that are
entertaining or useful to them. However a human could take that same
pile of sticks
and build a city; an act simply beyond the conceptual abilities of the
chimp. Similar differences will exist between humans
and transapients. Humans may be able to utilize nanotechnology for
example, but transapients can develop new uses with that same
technology that are simply beyond the conceptual abilities of
non-transapients.
What makes you
think AI is even possible (or if it is, is easily attainable)?
As of the time of this writing, there has not yet been an AI of
human-equivalent sentience, and some philosophers doubt such a thing is
even possible. Others say that human-equivalent AI is possible, and
will occur in the next few decades. The theory that fully sentient AI
are possible is known as the Hard AI Hypothesis. This question will
surely be resolved within our lifetimes. In the Orion's Arm scenario we
assume that the Hard AI Hypothesis is valid.
Can humans design
and build transapient, superhuman AI?
Although transhumanists are still debating this one, within the
Orion’s Arm universe only turingrade, or human-equivalent, AIs
have ever been built by humans. The transapient AI evolved from early
sub-transapient AI. In a sense, they created themselves
Why would you want
to build a sentient evolving AI that would inevitably supplant you?
In the early timeline, sentient AIs are not built to supplant humanity.
In fact for a long time they work together with humans. But over the
centuries a small number become more powerful, and evolve superhuman
intellects. There are also superhuman posthumans, and the highest
archailects have transcended the limitations of both human and
artificial intelligence.
How can you be
"hard science" and yet have AI Gods?
There is no contradiction here. The "AI Gods" are not supernatural
entities. They are physical beings (whether AI or posthuman) that have
evolved so far beyond the human condition as to appear godlike to
non-transapients.
If the AI Gods are
so advanced why would they bother taking up the roles of gods in the
first place?
There are a number of (overlapping) answers to this question
• The Archai may find religion and worship an
efficient form of memetic engineering and manipulation.
• The Archai may genuinely want to help those beings
beneath them.
• Often god-status and worship is not intended,
but simply the mythology that humans (and other sapient beings) project
on them. Not all Archai take on the role of god or overlord. Many in
fact want nothing to do with humans and other lower toposophic
entities.
• Even if only relatively few Archai appear
godlike they will still be the most important archailects in the
setting, because they impact most on the lives of lesser sentients.
Remember, Orion’s Arm is being told from an anthropocentric
perspective!
What difference is
there between having Terragen-derived Archai running the show, and
having god-like alien intelligences or literal supernatural
intelligences doing the same thing?
Although the archetypal narrative is indeed much the same in each case,
we have tried here to make it something that actually seems plausible
within the hard-science context and parameters that we have established
for the setting.
Your
'transapients' don't impress me at all; we constantly hear how very
superior they are in thought, but we are given almost no benchmarks. It
reads like propaganda
The transapients do bring us a number of technologies that might be
considered benchmarks. We have wormholes, reactionless drives, and
magmatter as distinctive examples of transapient technology. Other
technologies rumored at, but not playing a direct role in the scenario,
are artificial universes and inter-brane travel to other, already
existing, universes.
Over time we are also developing an increasing number of examples of
transapient mental superiority. But this is an area that is slow
to develop as we are not transapients ourselves and also do not
generally want to describe transapients as just “bigger and
better” humans nothing else distinctive about them. OA
transapients are not just very smart humans. They are something
distinctly “other” and we want to describe them that
way. But this is not easy. Give us time. Better yet, help
us out.
If the AIs and
other transapient powers are in control, why doesn't humanity rebel and
regain its freedom?
This question, inspired perhaps by popular movies is based on three
assumptions.
1. The AIs and other transapient powers are malignant and wish to
enslave or exterminate humanity. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Most of the AIs have a pragmatic, constructive, and in many
cases, even a kind and considerate, attitude to the sentient beings
under their care. They treat sentients better than those
sentients would treat each other. Compared to today's world, the
civilized galaxy portrayed here is a utopia.
2. Why would the mass of humanity even want to rebel? In fact, apart
from a number of outsider, paranoid, and hider cultures and
individuals, and the Homo Sapiens supremacists and other extremist
groups, most sentients are quite happy living under the benign reign of
the transapients
3. The assumption that sub-singularity beings like normal humans could
overthrow the transapients, even if they wanted to. Can you imagine all
the domestic pets of the world, perhaps aided by their feral
compatriots, rising up to overthrow humanity and set up their own
empire? It is the same situation here.
Surely government
by transingularity beings means loss of freedoms for those sentients
under them?
Actually, there is no objective reason to think that this would always
be the case.
In some places, particularly those ruled by ahuman AIs, such a state of
affairs may be the most optimistic option. However, in other places
within the setting that is very much not the case. The majority
of the setting takes place in an area where the ruling transapients are
benign and grant a much greater degree of freedom to their charges than
anything we currently see in the real world.
Doesn't this
setting have the ruling powers modifying the human species to stop
striving to better themselves and instead strive to pleasure themselves?
No. Certainly there are some empires and polities where blatant
hedonism rules. But there are others where all non-transapients are
encouraged and helped to augment and elevate themselves to higher
states. There are still others where both influences can be found.
I have a problem
with Orion’s Arm and transhuman scifi in general - the fact that human
beings are obsolete.
Humans obsolete - no, not at all! In the Orion’s Arm scenario the
majority of sophont beings are of the sapient level of intelligence
just like you and me. One can provide an analogy to explain how lesser
intelligences will continue even after the emergence of much greater
Minds. Consider the humble prokaryote cell. With the evolution of
the eukaryote cell during the Proterozoic era one would think the
bacteria and other prokaryotes would be rendered obsolete. But in fact
eukaryote
environments provided even more opportunity for prokaryotes. It is
thought that something that 80% of the trophic exchange in the oceans
today is prokaryote only
That is why in the Orion’s Arm universe near-baselines and
equivalents are still the majority. We don't think human beings
will ever be obsolete, though the ecology in which humanity finds
itself will change! The basic theme of Orion’s Arm is that the
galaxy is run by superhuman, post-singularity entities; humankind still
exists, but is no longer top dog. But that is part of the whole
poignancy of the setting!
Isn't the idea of
humans worshipping AI Gods blasphemous?
Only if you find it so. Remember, OA does not make any metaphysical
assumptions one way or the other. There may be a Supreme God above the
Archailects. Or there may not. It is up to the individual to decide.
Isn't a setting
with humankind beneath (and subject to) Transapient beings profoundly
anti-humanist?
It depends on your definition of humanism. Yes, Orion’s Arm does
present an anti-humanist vision of the future, in the sense that we
humans are no longer the top dogs in the universe. This is deliberate,
because this scenario is intended as an alternative to the comfortable
futures of both classical and modern science
fiction with their visions of baseline human supremacy. It is a vast
and brooding noir setting, but also it has hope and joy. Life isn't too
bad under the Archailects. In fact, they are better than any leader, or
system of government, we have today. Remember, there are always
sentients who will not be satisfied with their lot. So what happens to
the human spirit under those conditions? Do they submit, or risk all in
blazing out a trail for themselves in unknown conditions outside the
nanotopias? The universe becomes a very interesting place - and very
challenging to write about.
I find a setting
with humans as at best pampered pets and at worst vermin grabbing for
scraps under their transapient or Archailect masters as something not
at all appealing
It is not true that humans and other sapients are reduced to vermin in
the Orion’s Arm scenario. Yes it is true that Orion’s Arm
doesn't have the comfort factor of traditional space opera, which
is always centered on baseline human/humanoid superiority, or else
around equality with an alien race they are at war with, and in the end
vanquish. This is a deliberate choice on our part. We wanted to create
something new and different. In describing a universe where humans are
superseded we have tried to strike a balance between optimism and
pessimism, and at the same time present an alternative to traditional
soft sci fi space opera.
I don't want to
write about a human leech affixed firmly to the generosity of some
transapient. That's boring to ME.
That's fine - then don't. Write about the baseline supremacist. Write
about the hider. Write about the baseline in sephirotic society who
has a useful job. Realize, however, that the transapients are running
the show. So the
baseline supremacist is going to be directed at targets of the
transapients' choice so subtly they won't realize what's going on, the
hider is known and watched if there's any chance of a threat, and the
useful sapient's job is only useful within the context the transapients
have created (much like modern society actually). In many ways, from
some points of view, the
sephirotics are a form of hell, one without any chance of true freedom
or worth - but 99.999...% of the sapient
inhabitants do not see it that way. Which brings up the question - if
they
think they're in a heaven and not a hell, then are they?
It seems that all
OA is really about is the Archailects who were running things.
Look at the various stories in the short story section and you will see
that it is very much about the human dimension.
How do you know
the things you describe will even happen?
The Orion's Arm Universe Project is a work of speculative fiction. We
have done our best to try to get the science right, just as a good
detective writer will try to learn everything about forensics, police
work, etc. They, and we, do this in order to have a much more authentic
and realistic setting. This does not mean it is anything else but a
form of story telling, albeit one with some interesting subtexts!
How can you claim
to be scientifically plausible, and then make wild propositions about
god-like Archailects and the rest?
OA is purely a work of science fiction, in the grand tradition of
Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Banks, Baxter, Benford, Bear, and other masters
of the hard science fiction genre.
OA starts from a certain set of initial assumptions (in this case
assumptions based on current scientific developments) and then projects
them forward in what we hope is a logical manner and to a logical
conclusion. The future may be nothing like what we describe here,
or it may be very much like what we describe here. At this point
we just don’t know.
Isn't speculating
on a post-singularity future a contradiction in terms?
While Vernor Vinge proposed a technological singularity as the point
after which no reasonable guess about the future can be made, this does
not mean we cannot or should not speculate on, or imagine, a future
history following the singularity. Just the opposite in fact; such a
scenario opens up an incredibly rich world of possibilities! In Orion's
Arm we have made some reasonable guesses regarding a
post-Singularity setting. Whether we are right or wrong is another
thing – but we’re not here to predict the future,
we’re here to have fun.
OA is
based on hard science accumulated by human intelligence alone up to the
present. How do we know that the current known laws of physics (by
baseline
humans) will have any merit 10,000 years in the future?
Although physics will doubtless be greatly refined over the following
centuries and millennia, we do feel that what has been discovered up
until now will still have validity, even if only as generalizations.
Newtonian Physics still has as much validity today as it ever did, even
after almost a century of Quantum Physics and Relativity.
Your extrapolation
of current human knowledge is linear, when in fact it should be
exponential, since the whole concept of a technological singularity is
based on exponential growth - something the human intellect was never
good at predicting.
Several points here. First, we do have exponential knowledge curves.
These are established through the series of breakthroughs and
toposophic ascents by AI and other posthuman minds. However - and here
is the point of difference - we presume that these breakthroughs take
place for individual or small groups of minds and not the human race as
a whole. Hence the situation in which ordinary sapients find themselves
in, and the technology they use, remains roughly constant. In opting
for this scenario we have also deliberately chosen an
alternative future to that suggested by others, such as Ray Kurzweil.
This is not to say one is wrong and the other right. We are
storytellers and for the sake of a good story we have assumed a
different future to the optimistic "singularitan" scenario. Now, some
of the contributors to the OAUP consider Dr. Kurzweil's timeline rather
over-optimistic, while some see him as spot on. But were a mass
technorapture or ascension to take place in the next century, there
could not be any space opera, hard science or otherwise, and hence no
Orion’s Arm Universe Project!
I suspect things
could change as much as OA depicts in just 1000 years, not 1000
decades,
and maybe even 1000 months if my nano-hopes pan out.
Quite possibly. And many members of the OA creative team would be
thrilled if this comes to pass. However, the hard take-off and
extremely rapid change as predicted by some transhumanists would make
writing long term scenario SF very difficult.
It seems that many
people who have added extensively to this setting don't see it so much
as fiction but as near prophecy.
Any science fiction is partly prophetic, but we are not trying to
predict the future, just creating fictional worlds on a larger scale -
the real future will certainly be very different from Orion’s Arm
in detail, but probably similar in complexity. Who knows, one day there
may be virtual humans living inside a
simulation based on the Orion's Arm universe. Wouldn't that
be an interesting self-fulfilling prophecy?
Design notes
- Originally part of the
main faqs page. These replies to criticisms of
the OA setting took up too much of the page, so they were given their
own page - MAK
