Sci-fi Universe comparisons

[Fluffy]

Hello all, had a musing I thought I'd share. I was thinking about the "vs" debates and decided I'd try making a ranking of universes based on how their technology compares. I don't mean strictly energy production (in which SW has a huge advantage), I mean the general abilities of the technology possessed. Perhaps it's because I'm an Anthropology major and I'm used to more qualitative analysis

So, here goes;

I figured the "low-tech" universes would contain non-existent or very minimal tech like energy weapons, shields, etc, and FTL capabilities are generally pretty shoddy. I'd include:
-neo-Battlestar Galactica
-Firefly
-Aliens (human civ. anyways)

Medium-tech would have plentiful energy weapons, shields, decent FTL, etc. Examples:
-Star Wars
-Peacekeepers from Farscape
-The Goa-Uld from Stargate

High-tech has the above stuff plus "magic tech" like phasers, teleportation, ST-esque matter replication and minute forcefield control. Like:
-Star Trek Federation
-The Asgard/Ancients from Stargate
-Necrons from 40k

Some factions don't fit totally, like the Imperium of Man from 40k; they have teleportation but rely on manually loaded shells and inferior AI. Or the Earth Alliance from B5, which fit somewhere between low and medium tech levels.

Input would be appreciated, both in where other factions might fit and also about the validity of this sort of comparison.

[Batman]

How, pray tell, does Wars rank below the UFP? They've got massively faster stardrives, massively more resilient shields, massively more firepower, massively superior materials sciences, they've got human level AI in what amounts to household appliances (moisture farmers on a backwater shithole like Tattooine take droids for granted) when Data was beyond Starfleet's ability to recreate.
You seem to be confusing 'more convoluted' with 'more capable'.

[Ryan Thunder]

I detect a troll.

[Srelex]

I detect a troll.

Eh, let's not paranoid; probably just a noob.

[Batman]

I'm not sure just yet. So far I'm just figuring him for a guy that assumes that if the explanation is more complicated, it is therefore more advanced. Thus phaser bla bla technobabble KT level energy input with MT level results on occasion equals more advanced than GT level brute force turbolasers.

[Fluffy]

How, pray tell, does Wars rank below the UFP? They've got massively faster stardrives, massively more resilient shields, massively more firepower, massively superior materials sciences, they've got human level AI in what amounts to household appliances (moisture farmers on a backwater shithole like Tattooine take droids for granted) when Data was beyond Starfleet's ability to recreate.
You seem to be confusing 'more convoluted' with 'more capable'.

I didn't say "capable". I specifically mentioned looking at things from a perspective that didn't focus purely on energy generation (notice how in the third sentence I stated SW is superior). Trek has more 'magic", handwavium type technology for instance. I was thinking about types of technology, not the relative power comparisons between similar systems.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Does the Federation have millions of star systems, and create ships the size of moons that can destroy planets?

[mr friendly guy]

How, pray tell, does Wars rank below the UFP? They've got massively faster stardrives, massively more resilient shields, massively more firepower, massively superior materials sciences, they've got human level AI in what amounts to household appliances (moisture farmers on a backwater shithole like Tattooine take droids for granted) when Data was beyond Starfleet's ability to recreate.
You seem to be confusing 'more convoluted' with 'more capable'.

I didn't say "capable". I specifically mentioned looking at things from a perspective that didn't focus purely on energy generation (notice how in the third sentence I stated SW is superior). Trek has more 'magic", handwavium type technology for instance. I was thinking about types of technology, not the relative power comparisons between similar systems.

Just to make sure I understand this, you aren't talking about how good the tech is per se, but how much plot contrivance is required for it to work, or another way of looking at it is how badly its written compared to real science? Or am I totally wrong?

[Fluffy]

Just to make sure I understand this, you aren't talking about how good the tech is per se, but how much plot contrivance is required for it to work, or another way of looking at it is how badly its written compared to real science? Or am I totally wrong?

Actually, despite the sarcasm, that's probably the best way of looking at it. The more "hi-tech" things get the farther away from a valid scientific explanation the technology usually moves.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Like Clarke said.

This was just something I randomly came up with when looking at a chart in Anthro; how societies move from hunter-gather, to pastoral to agricultural, etc. I'm not talking about quantitative output of power. Example: A large agrarian society like ... rural India generates significantly more product than a small, but higher tech industrial nation.

Does the Federation have millions of star systems, and create ships the size of moons that can destroy planets?

Please bother to read/understand the question. I'm not talking about which ones win in a fight

[Batman]

How, pray tell, does Wars rank below the UFP? They've got massively faster stardrives, massively more resilient shields, massively more firepower, massively superior materials sciences, they've got human level AI in what amounts to household appliances (moisture farmers on a backwater shithole like Tattooine take droids for granted) when Data was beyond Starfleet's ability to recreate.
You seem to be confusing 'more convoluted' with 'more capable'.

I didn't say "capable".

Yes you did.

I mean the general abilities of the technology possessed

And by what do we determine those? that's right, the stuff they can do. Hence, capabilities.

I specifically mentioned looking at things from a perspective that didn't focus purely on energy generation (notice how in the third sentence I stated SW is superior).

Trek has more 'magic", handwavium type technology for instance.

Like hell it does. It MENTIONS that technology more often.

I was thinking about types of technology, not the relative power comparisons between similar systems.

So basically you don't care about how advanced the technology is, you're looking for the most convoluted explanation of how it works.

[Fluffy]

So basically you don't care about how advanced the technology is, you're looking for the most convoluted explanation of how it works.

Depends on your definition of "advanced". Reliable teleportation should certainly be considered advanced.

Look, I'm not a Trekkie here to bash Star Wars, I just thought this might be an interesting way to re-consider the "vs" themes that go on here.

[Batman]

So basically you don't care about how advanced the technology is, you're looking for the most convoluted explanation of how it works.

Depends on your definition of "advanced". Reliable teleportation should certainly be considered advanced.

Absolutely. You're claiming that because of it, Trek is MORE advanced than Wars, which has ...pretty much everything way in excess of Trek, possibly even including stupidity thanks to the EU.

[mr friendly guy]

Just to make sure I understand this, you aren't talking about how good the tech is per se, but how much plot contrivance is required for it to work, or another way of looking at it is how badly its written compared to real science? Or am I totally wrong?

Actually, despite the sarcasm, that's probably the best way of looking at it. The more "hi-tech" things get the farther away from a valid scientific explanation the technology usually moves.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Like Clarke said.

This was just something I randomly came up with when looking at a chart in Anthro; how societies move from hunter-gather, to pastoral to agricultural, etc. I'm not talking about quantitative output of power. Example: A large agrarian society like ... rural India generates significantly more product than a small, but higher tech industrial nation.

Er, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was genuinely trying to figure out what you were trying to say. Going on, if you are comparing how much they butcher science with technobabble explanations, then Trek would be high up on the list. Although when we discuss "vs debates" we usually discuss capabilities rather than bad writing per se, however its your thread.

On another note, some aspects of Doctor Who particularly the novels just screw with science so bad it looks like science has just bent over to plot, kind of like Democrats to Republicans.

[Morilore]

"Energy weapons," "shields," "phasers (!)," "ST-esque (!!) matter replication," and minute "forcefield" control are tropes, not technologies. Two universes could both have societies with something called "shields," but the two technologies could be based on radically different principles and have radically different capabilities, and it makes no sense to consider them on the same level unless we are looking at the kinds of literary devices that authors use, instead of

the general abilities of the technology possessed.

[Batman]

As in, the numbers? The very thing Fluffy says he doesn't want to look into?

[Fluffy]

Absolutely. You're claiming that because of it, Trek is MORE advanced than Wars, which has ...pretty much everything way in excess of Trek, possibly even including stupidity thanks to the EU.

Well, perhaps I should have termed the progression "advancement of less plausible technologies". I was hoping to look at types of technology rather than which DEW or shield is more powerful (which there's plenty of already on here).

Er, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was genuinely trying to figure out what you were trying to say. Going on, if you are comparing how much they butcher science with technobabble explanations, then Trek would be high up on the list. Although when we discuss "vs debates" we usually discuss capabilities rather than bad writing per se, however its your thread.

Ah, apologies. Sometimes this forum has a bit of a hostile vibe. Actually, I was going to include a further gradation called "Godlike Tech", with things like the Time Lords, The Kiint (from Night's Dawn) and similar factions.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ah, I rescind my accusation then.

[Fluffy]

As in, the numbers? The very thing Fluffy says he doesn't want to look into?

There's rather a lot of that around, hence the thread.

it makes no sense to consider them on the same level unless we are looking at the kinds of literary devices that authors use

Excellent point, although "cinematic" device would also be appropriate. This is sort of what I'm aiming for.

I apologize if this is too vague, I'm not a hard sciences student. Everything in anthropology is rather subjective and qualitative. Anyways, I must be off, but I'll look forward to continuing tomorrow. Thanks for reading

[Morilore]

As in, the numbers? The very thing Fluffy says he doesn't want to look into?

Hey, this idea could be resuscitated if we jettison the idea of a hierarchichal ranking between these categories. After all, the different categories do appear to reflect writers' different ideas about futuristic technology - or at least different artistic styles. Fluffy, you talk about "qualitative" comparisons, which is fine, but ranking low-medium-high implies a "scorecard" of some kind, which in turn implies numbers - a quantitative comparison.

[Fluffy]

Ah, I rescind my accusation then.

Thank you sir

Hey, this idea could be resuscitated if we jettison the idea of a hierarchichal ranking between these categories. After all, the different categories do appear to reflect writers' different ideas about futuristic technology - or at least different artistic styles. Fluffy, you talk about "qualitative" comparisons, which is fine, but ranking low-medium-high implies a "scorecard" of some kind, which in turn implies numbers - a quantitative comparison.

The hierarchy wasn't meant as a "better than" ranking, it was simply the best way I could think of how sci-fi represented different tech levels. Valid critique though, thanks for the input.

Perhaps a better scheme of classification would be moving from more easily explainable, plausible tech (BSG-type stuff) and progress through to "inexplicable god-like tech" (Time Lords), rather than low-high ranking.

[Ghost Rider]

So for ranking you want to do a idea that allows one to rank things closer or further from what is? To put nicely, that is bordering on the absurd given the insanity people think of so called Hard Science Fiction, let alone how much science fiction regularly rapes science itself.

[Spoonist]

So for just to see how confusedconsitent this is please place these in your comparison:

Human civ from Avatar
The Culture from Bank's books
Bab5, humans
Bab5, ancients
Flash Gordon universe (the movie)
Transformers, pick any side
Kal-el's civ from Krypton

[Fluffy]

Human civ from Avatar
The Culture from Bank's books
Bab5, humans
Bab5, ancients
Flash Gordon universe (the movie)
Transformers, pick any side
Kal-el's civ from Krypton

The humans from Avatar I'd put in the lower end of the spectrum, and I think I'd lump the Bab5 humans in there too, as they do have some DEW and other tech, but lack artificial gravity. Transformers I'd stick in the "high" section, given the "magic" transformation tech, teleportation, etc. Did you mean the Shadaows/Vorlons or the First Ones? And the others I'm not familiar enough with to make a guess. These aren't exactly cut and dry catagories.

[TOSDOC]

I read your OP trying to see where you're coming from--you had me at low tech. I like the anology between Firefly, Aliens, and BG, and I find it very interesting that no one thought to argue about those genres, just where SW and ST should be compared.

If you're trying to qualify them Anthropologically (your major) it is an interesting attempt at extrapolation, but there are major differences involved between the genres you mention which make such a qualititative analysis inherently more difficult, not the least which is differences in social, political, and economical structure as well as tech base. I'm reminded of Voyage of the Space Beagle and Korita's theory of cyclic history in predicting stages of unknown/alien cultures.

[Spoonist]

Did you mean the Shadaows/Vorlons or the First Ones?

The first ones. Hmm, I thought that the Shadows where among the first ones? Could be wrong.

the others I'm not familiar enough with to make a guess.

Kal-el is Supermans real name.
If you have missed Ian Bank's sci-fi then that is a recommendation
Flash is a definite anti-recommendation unless you got plenty of bread and butter with a need for something on top.

These aren't exactly cut and dry catagories.

If so what's the point? Or rather what is the motivation for placing X tech in Y category.

Because to me it looks like SW 4-6 would be in your medium category while SW 1-3 belongs in your high category. Because of the "magic" in their tech. Agree / disagree?