User talk:StylusEpix

Older comments on my talk page are in the UserTalk:StylusEpix/Archive

Merging Scenarios?

 * I'd be strongly against the various space scenarios merging. To do so shows a lack of understanding of what a Scenario is!  Instead can I suggest that supporting material that is 'objective' go into non scenario articles.  So if you have ideas on spacecraft design, those can go into an article on that topic, and be argued/agreed there?  JC 16:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the current Space Scenarios do not, in my opinion, fit the definition of Scenario. As I talk about on my user page, I believe that they are a form of fiction rather than a scenario. I believe that this Wiki has significant Fiction content, and should categorize them as such, rather than as Scenarios. Also, even though this may not have been the original goal of the Wiki, it has evolved this way, and change must not be resisted, but rather embraced. Otherwise, I have no objection to the merging of fiction or of scenarios, as it is merely a form of collaborative writing. StylusEpix 16:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The evolution point is valid. I think that Fiction: namespace can be used. Merging can obviously be done only when various pieces complement each other. And the best way is to take the good objective referenced stuff and place it into good objective articles. Paranoid 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with StylusEpix that a lot of the scenario articles are actually fiction. Yes, it would be better if they were so categorised.  Once that is clearly recognised, I've no problem at all if the joint authors want to merge their fiction and work together on it.  I would add to Paranoid's point that some ideas in fiction can be made into Scenarios - for example if a piece of fiction relies on Scenario:AI Assisted Telepathy, that scenario could and should paint a convincing picture of how that arises from existing technology.   The scenario article might in turn reference objective articles on body language, Subvocal recording and Brain Computer Interface.  All of this is optional, but gives a reason for having all three kinds of article.  JC 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If War in Space is Your Thing
This is an interesting idea. However, merging the two universes will not be an easy task. My universe is in the very early stages of development, however, and I don't mind changing it.
 * It has come to my attention that you hold an interest in spacecraft and starfleets. I would suggest that you contribute your ideas from Scenario: Cold War in Space to the currently extant pages Scenario: The War in Space and Scenario: The War in Space Outline.

I believe that the fundamental difference between our two universes is that yours is post-apocalyptic and very pessimistic. My world, on the other hand, is pre-singularistic - that is, leading up to the Singularity. It has seen no disaster on the scale you suggest. This is non-negotiable. My world is an evolution of today's earth.
 * While they differ sociopolitically—yours concerns communism and capitalism and mine concerns the Scenario: Cataclysm, the idea of space warfare seems rather similar, with bases, fleets, weaponry, etc.

I am comfortable with doing it. I warn you however, that if we decide to do this, there are rules that, in the universe I'd write about, cannot be broken. This list of rules is neither complete nor exhaustive; I believe that the rules of a universe have to be defined and documented, and that they can change in time.
 * I would prefer to have all our thoughts go into the one article rather than split them. If you’re uncomfortable with doing so, that’s okay. However, I strongly encourage that we work together on this project.
 * 1) Pre-Singularitarian Universe, 21st century
 * 2) No FTL travel or communications
 * 3) No aliens in the solar system
 * 4) Maximum tensile strength for materials, mid-21st c. 70-100 GPa, late 21st c. 150-200GPa
 * 5) Maximum reactor power, mid-21st 10GW, late 21-st 100GW
 * 6) No new elements, no new laws of physics or chemistry; the basic laws of our universe still apply
 * 7) Must respect causality, the speed of light and special relativity; newtonian physics allowed at smaller scales. No time travel except forward through cryonics.
 * 8) Any Strong AI must be fully explained and documented before introduction into the universe. A strong AI is a likely cause for the Singularity.

Here are more specifications for the universe.

I foresee a reasonably optimistic future. I have no interest in a universe where the human race is destroyed. I imagine a future I want to live in, a future I want to help create. I foresee a pre-singularistic universe, admit that my foresight is limited, and that it is null and void concerning a post-singularistic universe. I certainly am not even certain that there will be a Singularity. I think that I might want to avoid the Singularity, to prevent it. I do not care for revolution; I favor evolution. In 2100, if the Singularity hasn't happened yet, the Earth has a population of over 5 billion humans, and the population has never dipped below that number. The Singularity is a positive event with a positive outcome, according to the transhumanist point of view.

I believe that there is are no absolute moral values, and I reject the idea that all humans will come to share any common moral principle. All taboos have been broken and will continue to be broken in the future. Humans are independent, and at least until the Singularity, they will continue to be. Earth will never be under the total control of a single entity. Substancial areas of Earth will be freer than the freest countries of the early 21st century. Some areas will be less free than others, perhaps with oppressive regimes that embrace technology.

I believe that there is no One True religious, spiritual or political belief; all belief is relative, with no absolute point of reference. I believe that religious systems will continue to exist in the future. I am an agnostic atheist transhumanist social-libertarian. My most profound statement of faith is: I believe that I cannot know the True Nature of the Universe, and that no human can.

Or the long version: I believe that I cannot know the True Nature of our Universe, and that no human can. I believe that there are no sign of gods, and assume that none interferes with our Universe. I believe that Science and Technology helps humans grow, and that they will drive the evolution of our species. I believe in beliefs and in their ability to spread and to embed themselves in people, sometimes blinding them. I believe in the relativity of all beliefs.

I can explain my beliefs further if you wish; just ask on a specific belief and I will elaborate. Why was it important for me to expose my beliefs? Because of how I can write. Let me explain:

I write fiction. Sometimes I write about morally controversial topics, and I do not embrace the moral values of my text. I do not write from the perspective of a sincere narrator who creates scenarios, concepts and characters that I approve of, or wish to see happen. Consider Cybernetic Animals and Be you fearful of Death?. Certain people do not like the topics I approach in those texts, or the way that I approach them.

I recognize the futility of trying to predict the future, and will not have it be a bland thing. It will be humorous. I do not try to predict the future perfectly. I embrace satire and absurdity. I do my best to avoid using these tools to break big rules or to affect large changes in the universe; I try to keep their effect localized.

Now, about Technology. I am more interested in technological systems and how they interact with humans, than in the detailled inner working of a single technology. If I explore the function of a technological device, I try to do so by explaining how humans relate to that device. The material strength and power production values provided above are reasonable values that must be considered when imagining a future technology or device. I do not like magical devices, and I do not write about them.


 * Here’s how I imagine it:
 * 1) Get my background sociopolitical ideas set forth at Scenario: Cataclysm.
 * 2) Skim through Scenario: The War in Space Outline for any ideas you like, as well as better understand where I’m going.
 * 3) Add to Scenario: The War in Space with any ideas you may have. In other words, merge it with your article on Cold War in Space.
 * 4) Maybe we can actually turn the project into a game of sorts, with you playing as one faction and I as another and we writing about our sides’ exploits.

Please tell me what you think of this idea. --Yunzhong Hou 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly. I need to think about it, and see if it can be done. You need to read what I wrote and tell me if you think we can work together, and how you imagine we should do that. StylusEpix 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Tips
After seeing some of your edits, I have decided to share the following tips with you:


 * 1) If you are creating a list, you can use either the # key at the beginning of each line (and DON'T separate the list items with empty lines) to create a numerical list like I'm doing now;
 * 2) You can use the * key instead to make a bulleted list;
 * 3) You can create subgroups of lists like this: ##, #*, *#, **, etc.
 * 4) Don't place a space before a line of text unless you actually want to have the text appear inside boxes.
 * 5) To make a comment to yourself that will be evident only on the edit pages, use < followed by ! and then -- (without spaces) and end with -- and then > . (Hint: edit this page to see an example, right here.)
 * 6) If you want to place a signature, simply type in four ~'s . This will automatically generate your signature for you.
 * 7) If you want to send any of us a message, go to our User Talk: pages and use the tab with the plus sign. If you want to send a message to the community, go to Talk:Main Page (the Community Portal).
 * 8) If you have any questions, be bold--ask!

--Yunzhong Hou 19:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tenets
Some reasons I believe that our two projects can be reconciled:


 * My project does not espouse absolute moral principles.
 * My project does not espouse religious principles.
 * My project does not espouse magic.
 * My project does not espouse singularity.
 * My project does not espouse super-artificial intelligence.
 * My project does not espouse discoveries of new elements, etc. that are not soundly based on science.
 * My project does not espouse the end of humanity.
 * My project does not espouse any technological advancements not currently being investigated in this world.

Conflicts
I declare that while Scenario: Cataclysm is post-apocalyptic, it does not entail the end of the human race, but rather raises its awareness of its need to expand into space.

The Cataclysm results in the establishment of the Hegemony, while yours supports the view of two opposing sides.


 * 1) Go ahead, change Scenario: Cataclysm so that although a new cold war is going on, the Hegemony is a coalition of the remaining peoples with the Hegemon as a figurehead and the real power in the hands of two or more alliances. That way, power is not so concentrated—it’s the same way with Kofi Annan in the UN nowadays.
 * 2) Then, if you wish, set the Sons as the side of the United States or Russia, and set MinCol as the other side.

Your project is optimistic. Mine is at first glance VERY pessimistic, but underlying it is some optimism as well. With the recovery of the Earth in a mere decade and the colonization of space, I should think that it is quite optimistic. Even if it may not possibly reach your level of optimism (99.99% humanity dying out), society and technology continue to advance.

If you still believe that the two projects cannot be merged, that’s okay as well. I would then encourage you to spend some time pondering my scenario and adding speculations to it along the way.

Technologies
Technology is going to develop ever farther in my project. Nevertheless, all technologies are based strictly off those currently under research, such as biological weapons, cloaks, spacecraft, lasers, mirror plating, reactive armor, etc. The following are several tenets that I follow, which I think mirror your plans rather closely:


 * 1) The colonization of space
 * 2) This is actually more complicated than it sounds, and in my project takes the form of self-sustaining asteroid bases with seed factories that can produce other factories that can then integrate into new seed factories; solar power close to sun and nuclear power farther from sun; microwave power replacing hundreds of individual power plants; subterranean biospheres in the asteroid belt; extractors (mines); control centers; shuttles as transport AND as military craft when armed, etc. More on this later.
 * 3) Earth Port as original launch site, now rarely used because of exorbitant fuel costs
 * 4) Moon Port as intermediary to alleviate fuel costs
 * 5) No Mars Port—who wants to pay for getting back off planet?
 * 6) Space travel at sub-FTLT-- travel to the moon takes 1 day, to Mars takes a month, to the asteroid belt takes 2-3 months, and this is one-way trip
 * 7) Asteroids as obstacles of line-of-sight
 * 8) Anything that can be seen can be attacked using laser
 * 9) Focus on bases, expeditionary fleets, vanguard fleets, etc.

--Yunzhong Hou 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Own Book
I've set up a Book for your own use at Book:StylusEpix.



You don't have to use it, but it's good for organizational purposes. You may want to list all of your scenarios and articles on it. Then if you want to you can also go to the top of each of your scenarios/articles and add "Part of Book:StylusEpix". I think doing so will be better than having everything you write fit on your user page. --Yunzhong Hou 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Email
I've left my email at the bottom of my user page. If you want to establish contact with me please send me an email from your primary email, so as not to expose your own email to spam. I would also wish that you take a look at any new posts on the community portal every day. Thank you. --Yunzhong Hou 21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)