While the Dobbs ruling doesn't directly affect authors, it serves as a good catalyst for thought experiments. So let's use it as a lesson in causes and effects.
1. If abortion is seen (and used) as a method of birth control, then the social effects are largely the same as for birth control. (Ignoring the *moral* implications for the moment.)
2. Widespread access to reliable contraception, whether abortions, vasectomies, or just pills, will create/incentivize hookup culture. Conversely, restricting abortion and other methods of preventing unwanted births encourages, and indeed forces, more long-term relationships.
From these, we already see two possible trajectories. The pro-abortion society has a faster pace, but less chance to put down roots. The anti-abortion society, conversely, moves more slowly, and would tend to be more insular, owing to its more permanent bonds.
Which one is better is not a question we authors can answer. Both, however, offer plenty of fertile ground (pun intended) for stories involving social drama.
1. If abortion is seen (and used) as a method of birth control, then the social effects are largely the same as for birth control. (Ignoring the *moral* implications for the moment.)
2. Widespread access to reliable contraception, whether abortions, vasectomies, or just pills, will create/incentivize hookup culture. Conversely, restricting abortion and other methods of preventing unwanted births encourages, and indeed forces, more long-term relationships.
From these, we already see two possible trajectories. The pro-abortion society has a faster pace, but less chance to put down roots. The anti-abortion society, conversely, moves more slowly, and would tend to be more insular, owing to its more permanent bonds.
Which one is better is not a question we authors can answer. Both, however, offer plenty of fertile ground (pun intended) for stories involving social drama.
Potentially inhabited planets are everywhere. I can't wait until the Rare Earth Hypothesis is named alongside phlogiston, global warming, and other nonsensical theories.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-022-01699-8?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosspace&stream=science
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-022-01699-8?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosspace&stream=science
Nature
Potential long-term habitable conditions on planets with primordial H–He atmospheres
Nature Astronomy - Modelling of Earth- or super-Earth-sized planets with a thick H–He atmosphere shows that the hydrogen collision-induced absorptions in the infrared wavelength can make the...
Interplay between guns and magic has given us the wonderful riflepunk and flintlock fantasy subgenres, but what about going in the other direction? Instead of adding guns to the past, what would it look like to take guns away from the future?
The concept has been illustrated in some popular fiction already: the personal shields of _Dune_, for example, stop fast-moving projectiles, so characters in the novel's far-future setting use a melee fighting style instead. Simple evolution, really. People adapting to the environment.
Other science fiction scenarios can also make guns unwieldy or unviable. A story set on a spaceship, say, or within the fabric and glass domes of a Martian colony, provides a very good reason for a general ban on firearms. The same could also apply to an undersea research facility. (Horror writers take note!)
But you should also think about the characters in these settings. How do they feel? We in the US, or at least in states that respect the Second Amendment, understand that we can easily defend ourselves if need be. We have that power, but those living in the progressive utopia of 2184 might not. That can very easily lead to a heightened state of fear, because it's terrifying to live in a place where your life is not entirely in your hands. In addition, the knowledge that every person you meet is going to be unarmed would drive crime rates through the roof, as it has done in deeply blue cities. How does the society counter those tendencies?
That's something to explore, I think.
The concept has been illustrated in some popular fiction already: the personal shields of _Dune_, for example, stop fast-moving projectiles, so characters in the novel's far-future setting use a melee fighting style instead. Simple evolution, really. People adapting to the environment.
Other science fiction scenarios can also make guns unwieldy or unviable. A story set on a spaceship, say, or within the fabric and glass domes of a Martian colony, provides a very good reason for a general ban on firearms. The same could also apply to an undersea research facility. (Horror writers take note!)
But you should also think about the characters in these settings. How do they feel? We in the US, or at least in states that respect the Second Amendment, understand that we can easily defend ourselves if need be. We have that power, but those living in the progressive utopia of 2184 might not. That can very easily lead to a heightened state of fear, because it's terrifying to live in a place where your life is not entirely in your hands. In addition, the knowledge that every person you meet is going to be unarmed would drive crime rates through the roof, as it has done in deeply blue cities. How does the society counter those tendencies?
That's something to explore, I think.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not the cause of WWI. It merely served as the spark for a fire that was waiting to light. Today's assassination of Shinzo Abe could very well be seen in the same light by future generations.
What caused the wars in your stories? Were there alliances and rivalries that brought the whole world into conflict, as in WWI? Was there a force universally seen as evil, as with the Nazis or the WEF?
What caused the wars in your stories? Were there alliances and rivalries that brought the whole world into conflict, as in WWI? Was there a force universally seen as evil, as with the Nazis or the WEF?
I'm back from my weekend adventure, and it made me think about other long-distance relationships.
Whether your characters are from different tribes, different kingdoms, or different planets, the potential for drama is there. The long times between visits, the emotional outpouring when they finally do meet, the constant potential for disaster.
Have you written a long distance relationship into any of your stories? How did you handle it?
Whether your characters are from different tribes, different kingdoms, or different planets, the potential for drama is there. The long times between visits, the emotional outpouring when they finally do meet, the constant potential for disaster.
Have you written a long distance relationship into any of your stories? How did you handle it?
The James Webb Space Telescope. For years, it was a myth at best, a joke at worst. Now, it's finally doing what it was promised to do all those years ago. What does that mean for sci-fi worldbuilding?
Mainly, JWST's purpose as an author's aid is to observe and characterize exoplanets. In that role, it can follow up on discoveries by Kepler/K2 and TESS, hopefully getting us detailed looks at potentially habitable worlds. Armed with that knowledge, we'll be able to create settings with better realism while also gagging the chance to take advantage of a whole new playground. And maybe we'll finally be able to kill off the Rare Earth Hypothesis once and for all.
Mainly, JWST's purpose as an author's aid is to observe and characterize exoplanets. In that role, it can follow up on discoveries by Kepler/K2 and TESS, hopefully getting us detailed looks at potentially habitable worlds. Armed with that knowledge, we'll be able to create settings with better realism while also gagging the chance to take advantage of a whole new playground. And maybe we'll finally be able to kill off the Rare Earth Hypothesis once and for all.
This week marks the 53rd anniversary of humanity's single greatest achievement.
Alt-history authors, ask yourselves this; What world the world be like today if Apollo hadn't been canceled?
Yes, the writing was on the wall even as Neil was taking that small step. Apollo 20 had already found its way to the chopping block, and with it went our first dream of a far-side landing. But if our leaders had seen reason and ended the Vietnam debacle sooner, 18 and 19 might have made it through.
In the intervening half century, would we have continued the journey? Longer stays, semi-permanent residences, a Shackleton outpost for water and solar power...the possibilities are endless, because the Moon is a very big place.
Alt-history authors, ask yourselves this; What world the world be like today if Apollo hadn't been canceled?
Yes, the writing was on the wall even as Neil was taking that small step. Apollo 20 had already found its way to the chopping block, and with it went our first dream of a far-side landing. But if our leaders had seen reason and ended the Vietnam debacle sooner, 18 and 19 might have made it through.
In the intervening half century, would we have continued the journey? Longer stays, semi-permanent residences, a Shackleton outpost for water and solar power...the possibilities are endless, because the Moon is a very big place.
The whole point of the climate "emergency" is not to protect anyone. It isn't even to control. It's about the destruction of our modern way of life.
So what happens after that?
Post-apocalyptic fiction has a long history, as we all know. And there are even stories about the aftermath of a mythical global warming catastrophe.
What few have dared, however, is the converse: the fall of civilization because of misguided environmental policies.
Imagine, for example, 200 years after the Great Reset. Bans on sensible methods of energy production, combined with censorship of heretical ideas such as individualism, would effectively create a new Dark Age. Like that of the 6th-9th centuries, we would see a period of technological and social regression, but it would be even worse. Modern industry's collapse would leave visible reminders of the past, and the destruction of history and science could even give rise to cults surrounding the "elder race" that once inhabited the land.
This has been on my list of story ideas for almost a decade, but I'd love to see what others could do with the seed.
So what happens after that?
Post-apocalyptic fiction has a long history, as we all know. And there are even stories about the aftermath of a mythical global warming catastrophe.
What few have dared, however, is the converse: the fall of civilization because of misguided environmental policies.
Imagine, for example, 200 years after the Great Reset. Bans on sensible methods of energy production, combined with censorship of heretical ideas such as individualism, would effectively create a new Dark Age. Like that of the 6th-9th centuries, we would see a period of technological and social regression, but it would be even worse. Modern industry's collapse would leave visible reminders of the past, and the destruction of history and science could even give rise to cults surrounding the "elder race" that once inhabited the land.
This has been on my list of story ideas for almost a decade, but I'd love to see what others could do with the seed.
Following on from yesterday.
The goal of the Great Reset and similar anti-human initiatives is depopulation, as illustrated on the now-destroyed Georgia Guidestones. But our modern way of life *requires* our current population, or at least something close to it.
Therefore, simple logic dictates that the WEF's plan wouldn't just reduce global population by 95%. It would also remove the ability to maintain an industrial society for those lucky few who are left. This, by the way, is *in addition to* the effects of de-education and indoctrination that remove valuable skills from humanity's collective living memory. The two together are how we get a new Dark Age.
So that's the preamble for the setting. Half a billion people living amid the ruins of a fallen world, scrounging for what little tech is left to be recovered while avoiding the thought police.
Beyond a certain point, the knowledge that we were once great will be forgotten, and those of us living now will be mythologized. We will be the new Atlantis.
The goal of the Great Reset and similar anti-human initiatives is depopulation, as illustrated on the now-destroyed Georgia Guidestones. But our modern way of life *requires* our current population, or at least something close to it.
Therefore, simple logic dictates that the WEF's plan wouldn't just reduce global population by 95%. It would also remove the ability to maintain an industrial society for those lucky few who are left. This, by the way, is *in addition to* the effects of de-education and indoctrination that remove valuable skills from humanity's collective living memory. The two together are how we get a new Dark Age.
So that's the preamble for the setting. Half a billion people living amid the ruins of a fallen world, scrounging for what little tech is left to be recovered while avoiding the thought police.
Beyond a certain point, the knowledge that we were once great will be forgotten, and those of us living now will be mythologized. We will be the new Atlantis.
As part of the first date weekend with my partner, we visited the Civil War battlefield near her town. For the next, I may take her to the one near mine.
That got me thinking about one of the great salt-history topics: What if the Confederates won?
Let's disregard the very real logistical issues that plagued the South in the final year or so of the war, or imagine that Britain or France came to its aid. Whatever the case, there was no surrender at Appomattox. What then?
Slavery would remain legal in the CSA, yes, but there would be no Jim Crow laws, and probably no poll taxes. Most of the harshest anti-black laws were put into place *after* the Civil War, as a response to the ruinous conditions of Reconstruction.
The Confederacy would have remained more federalized than the Union, avoiding the centralization we see in modern times. States' rights were, in fact, the most important factor in secession, and those states which chose to leave wouldn't want to put themselves in the same predicament again.
Most importantly at the start, the South would have had the chance to make its very distinctive culture into a national identity, instead of being marginalized and ridiculed. Without the forced influence of the North, the Confederate states would develop their own dialect, their own style of dress, and so on.
There's a lot more to the story, of course. Take away Pickett's Charge, the death of Stonewall Jackson, and the war crimes of Sherman, and a great many things change. But this is a start, and it's not a bad one.
That got me thinking about one of the great salt-history topics: What if the Confederates won?
Let's disregard the very real logistical issues that plagued the South in the final year or so of the war, or imagine that Britain or France came to its aid. Whatever the case, there was no surrender at Appomattox. What then?
Slavery would remain legal in the CSA, yes, but there would be no Jim Crow laws, and probably no poll taxes. Most of the harshest anti-black laws were put into place *after* the Civil War, as a response to the ruinous conditions of Reconstruction.
The Confederacy would have remained more federalized than the Union, avoiding the centralization we see in modern times. States' rights were, in fact, the most important factor in secession, and those states which chose to leave wouldn't want to put themselves in the same predicament again.
Most importantly at the start, the South would have had the chance to make its very distinctive culture into a national identity, instead of being marginalized and ridiculed. Without the forced influence of the North, the Confederate states would develop their own dialect, their own style of dress, and so on.
There's a lot more to the story, of course. Take away Pickett's Charge, the death of Stonewall Jackson, and the war crimes of Sherman, and a great many things change. But this is a start, and it's not a bad one.
Continuing on the theme of alternate histories, one thing to bear in mind is that creating an alternate timeline is harder when you have to do more of it.
In other words, the farther back in time your point of divergence, the more work you have to do.
Changing a recent event doesn't change much. Assuming Trump won the 2020 election (rather, that he won by such a margin that no amount of fraud could call the result into question) means you only have to account for 2 years of history, all of which you've experienced.
By contrast, letting the Nazis win i
WWII not only changes the outcome of one war that is just barely within lining memory, but also everything that has happened since. No Allied victory means no partitioning of Germany, no Cold War, no Vietnam War. Von Braun and the rest staying home stops the space race, or alters the list of participants. And that only takes us to the 1970s!
If you diverge at a point in an earlier era, the problems grow exponentially. That's partly because of the Butterfly Effect: a small change in initial conditions can have an outsized effect given enough time.
Go back far enough, however, and the differences are so great that you might as well be worldbuilding from scratch. Which is easier, really.
In other words, the farther back in time your point of divergence, the more work you have to do.
Changing a recent event doesn't change much. Assuming Trump won the 2020 election (rather, that he won by such a margin that no amount of fraud could call the result into question) means you only have to account for 2 years of history, all of which you've experienced.
By contrast, letting the Nazis win i
WWII not only changes the outcome of one war that is just barely within lining memory, but also everything that has happened since. No Allied victory means no partitioning of Germany, no Cold War, no Vietnam War. Von Braun and the rest staying home stops the space race, or alters the list of participants. And that only takes us to the 1970s!
If you diverge at a point in an earlier era, the problems grow exponentially. That's partly because of the Butterfly Effect: a small change in initial conditions can have an outsized effect given enough time.
Go back far enough, however, and the differences are so great that you might as well be worldbuilding from scratch. Which is easier, really.
Summer has been fun. I didn't do a lot of worldbuilding, but we can fix that.
Have you ever gone on vacation? More importantly, have your characters? Anime lovers, for instance, will recognize the "fan service" episode, a common theme involving the main characters visiting a spa, resort, or something to that effect.
A vacation obviously needs to be a single event within a larger continuity, so it's more appropriate for long-running series than for one-offs. (Thus the connection with anime, because those series never truly end.)
If you have such a setting, writing a vacation scene, short story, or episode can be a fun little distraction, a nice break from the hard work of serious writing.
Tomorrow, we'll look at just where these vacations can take place.
Have you ever gone on vacation? More importantly, have your characters? Anime lovers, for instance, will recognize the "fan service" episode, a common theme involving the main characters visiting a spa, resort, or something to that effect.
A vacation obviously needs to be a single event within a larger continuity, so it's more appropriate for long-running series than for one-offs. (Thus the connection with anime, because those series never truly end.)
If you have such a setting, writing a vacation scene, short story, or episode can be a fun little distraction, a nice break from the hard work of serious writing.
Tomorrow, we'll look at just where these vacations can take place.
Well, I was going to do that second post yesterday, but my phone (which I use to write most of these Telegram posts) decided it wanted to take a vacation instead. I'll be back as soon as hardware allows.