How do you get resources from the planet to space? meta question

[MichaelJanuary]

Re the economy and global resource pool, you are thinking of it in the wrong way. The resources are not sitting in some magic space warehouse in your empire.

Think of it as a futures market. It's what we do here on earth all the time. When traders buy oil or gold or pig bellies, they are just moving numbers on paper, or electrons nowadays, or quantum entangled particles in the future.

The actual goods are moved or shipped after the fact and is built into the logistics of 'build times' etc.

 

[RoverStorm]

Stellaris is just soft scifi

Soft Sci-fi is actually a term used to describe sci-fi focused around "scientific advancements" in society. In Stellaris terms, it's the society research tree. It's often...well berated for "not being REAL science", since it's dealing with behaviors rather than physics or unchanging concepts (like mathematics).

Also "space fantasy" is a dumb concept.

I don't understand why. The idea of using magic to fly through space in very un-scientific methods does not strike me as dumb, it strikes me as the premise for a lot of extremely popular franchises. Star Wars comes to mind; The Force make it undeniably Fantasy even though it's set in Space. Space Fantasy.

Stellaris has psionic mind-power, space dragons, extra-dimensional invaders, functioning communism, alternate universes, and a bunch of supernatural events I'm probably forgetting. It is undeniably fantasy. It's also in space, rather than medieval fantasy. I don't understand what's so bad about calling a Fantasy game set in Space, "Space Fantasy".

The way you're splitting this up just makes it harder to discuss.

Elaborate, if you could please. I find it harder to discuss the difference between something making logical sense (I.E. obeying OUR laws of physics) and something needing a made-up explanation (I.E. does NOT obey our laws of physics) if we call both "science".

We all know FTL is impossible IRL. But we're talking about Stellaris, where its completely possible. Not because of "magic", because Stellaris is its own fictional universe.

That just sounds like magic. If it's not possible in our universe, then it's not something that can be explained by scientific logic: it MUST be hand-waved at some fundamental level of how that universe operates which diverges from our own universe, and that is the very essence of magic.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Soft Sci-fi is actually a term used to describe sci-fi focused around "scientific advancements" in society.

Nnnnope. "Hard" vs "soft" describes how scientifically accurate the scifi is (and its a sliding scale). Stellaris certainly isn't "fantasy"- it makes an effort to ground stuff where it can, to present this as a future vision of the galaxy- but its not concerned with making that vision any more scientifically plausible than it needs to be.

The hardest SF is stuff where there's no FTL, for instance. Stellaris, Star Trek, and Star Wars are all soft SF, because the actual science takes a backseat.

 

[RoverStorm]

Nnnnope. "Hard" vs "soft" describes how scientifically accurate the scifi is. Stellaris certainly isn't "fantasy"- it makes an effort to ground stuff where it can, to present this as a future vision of the galaxy- but its not concerned with making that vision any more scientifically plausible than it needs to be.

The hardest SF is stuff where there's no FTL, for instance. Stellaris, Star Trek, and Star Wars are all soft SF, because the actual science takes a backseat.

A quick google search says otherwise. Wikipedia is the most generous:

1. It explores the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (for example, anthropology, sociology, or psychology), rather than engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry).
2. It is not scientifically accurate or plausible; the opposite of hard science fiction.[1]

Note the definition I mentioned is the FIRST and MOST common description. In fact I had never even heard of it being used for the second definition because it's not a logically sound position. Most sites agree with me as well.

Most seem to agree on this: "If something is IMPLAUSIBLE, but POSSIBLE, then it can be considered Sci-fi. If it is IMPOSSIBLE, it is NOT Sci-fi, but Fantasy."

This can be extremely blurred, of course. Steampunk tends to really blur the lines since a franchise in that universe can easily be either true to science, or complete BS science, but both look nearly identical. We think of Space and we think of cutting-edge science, but it could easily be a Fantasy setting.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

A quick google search says otherwise.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

This is a VERY common term when discussing science fiction, I'm honestly shocked you're not familiar with it.

 

[RoverStorm]

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

This is a VERY common term when discussing science fiction, I'm honestly shocked you're not familiar with it.

Well I'm a frequent TVTropes browser and somehow I missed that page. I don't know why the second description of "Hard-Soft Sci-fi" has eluded me; I've done research on Sci-fi for elective classes before and most top results for Soft or Hard sci-fi are the first definition (and I didn't check Wikipedia because for some reason schools don't like Wikipedia. Could be the fact anyone can edit it at any time).

It IS a very common term, but the one I'm familiar with is the FIRST definition. It's the one that was the center of controversy a few years ago. Is the second definition a new definition? A definition from a different country?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Well I'm a frequent TVTropes browser and somehow I missed that page. I don't know why the second description of "Hard-Soft Sci-fi" has eluded me; I've done research on Sci-fi for elective classes before and most top results for Soft or Hard sci-fi are the first definition (and I didn't check Wikipedia because for some reason schools don't like Wikipedia. Could be the fact anyone can edit it at any time).

It IS a very common term, but the one I'm familiar with is the FIRST definition. It's the one that was the center of controversy a few years ago. Is the second definition a new definition? A definition from a different country?

I have literally no idea how you're not familiar with the "second" defintion, because its the one I've seen in use since I first started discussing science fiction outside my family in junior high, like, 15 years ago.

Hard science fiction is the stuff that's concerned with scientific accuracy, and its "harder" the less fictional science it makes up. Soft science fiction is the stuff that uses science more as a prop or a plot device, and is "softer" the less it cares about plausibly explaining the unrealistic elements.

This is the only definition I've ever seen- I've never actually witnessed somebody say that "soft science fiction is science fiction that deals with soft sciences like sociology".

ANYHOW, this is all a whole lot of quibbling to get to a very simple point: fictional physics and fictional science aren't "magic" and shouldn't be referred to as such unless they are self-described as magic. We all know we're talking about Stellaris, and that Stellaris is fictional, so there's no need to say that FTL is "fantasy magic" because within the context of Stellaris it isn't.

 

[RoverStorm]

ANYHOW, this is all a whole lot of quibbling to get to a very simple point: fictional physics and fictional science aren't "magic" and shouldn't be referred to as such unless they are self-described as magic. We all know we're talking about Stellaris, and that Stellaris is fictional, so there's no need to say that FTL is "fantasy magic" because within the context of Stellaris it isn't.

And I disagree because that simply doesn't work, and the REVERSE proves it. If I were to bring a smartphone back to the medieval era, it's safe to say it'd be considered magic. You can try to explain how it uses "Safe lightning" and a list of metals they've never heard of, but I can guarantee you they'll think it's magic. Just because all the books they write of it call it magic doesn't MAKE it magic, because it still obeys the laws of our universe!

Actually enough of the semantics, here's Dictionary.com's definition:

"1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

"Mysterious" forces is in fact included in the definition of Magic, meaning magic CAN be something that is "scientific" and not supernatural in another universe but is NOT logical in our own. It's any force that cannot be explained by the laws of physics (or biology), relevant to our universe. Since anything can be theoretically non-mysterious to a fictional universe, there's no difference between a universe that calls mechanicX as "magic" and a universe that calls the exact same mechanicX as "Science", except in background theme.

Since traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible in our own universe, any portrayal of such is fantastical as a result. Within Stellaris, it is a science, sure. I'm sure magic in Harry Potter is also a science (within realm of possibility since it's being taught alongside mathematics). Doesn't matter how it's portrayed in that universe for the point of defining it.

Very important in how it's portrayed when discussing thematics, of course. 1984 checks all the boxes of being a Sci-fi, but because of the theme and setting, that's not what the focus and theme of the book is.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

Surprised no ones mentioned Arthur C Clarke yet. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Personally I would put Harry Potter and The Force in the realm of magic rather than science .... since its effects are not reproducible simply through knowledge of the mechanics of it.

Whereas I would put FTL and other 'science fiction' technologies in the realm of science even if it's fictional science, because its effects are reproducible without requiring 'special ability' or 'superpowers'.

 

[RoverStorm]

Personally I would put Harry Potter and The Force in the realm of magic rather than science .... since its effects are not reproducible simply through knowledge of the mechanics of it.

I have to disagree with this definition of science. Blind people will never be able to reproduce most of our science experiments solely through knowledge of the mechanics because they are incapable of selecting variable that are, in fact, reliant on visual confirmation. Much like how being a muggle prevents one from using magic in Harry Potter.

EDIT: *selecting variables, not observing results. Yes they can't observe results, but not being able to see results isn't the same as not being able to reproduce it.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

I have to disagree with this definition of science. Blind people will never be able to reproduce most of our science experiments ...

This is a false argument (imo). Blind people are perfectly capable of understanding the concept of electromagnetic radiation, can feel sunlight on their skin etc.

 

[Methone]

since its effects are not reproducible simply through knowledge of the mechanics of it.

So? The Jedi and Sith are presumably capable of somewhat making the things happen when they want it to. Wizards are capable of casting spells after much study.

This seems a lot like an electric eel saying "Our electric shocks aren't science, because just knowing about it doesn't let the humans release electric shocks from their bodies"

 

[Cordane]

Most seem to agree on this: "If something is IMPLAUSIBLE, but POSSIBLE, then it can be considered Sci-fi. If it is IMPOSSIBLE, it is NOT Sci-fi, but Fantasy."

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke (emphasis mine)

I wouldn't call Stellaris as a game setting "science fantasy" necessarily, as it doesn't rely heavily on fantasy-style tropes for its setting or gameplay. I would put it at best as a 2 on the Mohs Scale, probably a 1 on a number of elements (somewhere between Star Trek and Star Wars; please use the link in the earlier post). Stellaris makes plenty of attempts to couch what it's doing in scientific terms - it doesn't just flat handwave everything away. It also tries to be consistent with its use of Phlebotinum (TVtropes is your friend). Lastly, it does make some efforts to look at the soft sciences rather than just the tech-heavy hard sciences, but when people talk about Stellaris as "soft sci-fi", it's almost entirely about its disconnection from known and reputably-theorized sciences.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

And I disagree because that simply doesn't work, and the REVERSE proves it. If I were to bring a smartphone back to the medieval era, it's safe to say it'd be considered magic. You can try to explain how it uses "Safe lightning" and a list of metals they've never heard of, but I can guarantee you they'll think it's magic. Just because all the books they write of it call it magic doesn't MAKE it magic, because it still obeys the laws of our universe!

Actually enough of the semantics, here's Dictionary.com's definition:

"1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

"Mysterious" forces is in fact included in the definition of Magic, meaning magic CAN be something that is "scientific" and not supernatural in another universe but is NOT logical in our own. It's any force that cannot be explained by the laws of physics (or biology), relevant to our universe. Since anything can be theoretically non-mysterious to a fictional universe, there's no difference between a universe that calls mechanicX as "magic" and a universe that calls the exact same mechanicX as "Science", except in background theme.

Since traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible in our own universe, any portrayal of such is fantastical as a result. Within Stellaris, it is a science, sure. I'm sure magic in Harry Potter is also a science (within realm of possibility since it's being taught alongside mathematics). Doesn't matter how it's portrayed in that universe for the point of defining it.

Very important in how it's portrayed when discussing thematics, of course. 1984 checks all the boxes of being a Sci-fi, but because of the theme and setting, that's not what the focus and theme of the book is.

What are you even trying to argue?

Stellaris isn't "space fantasy". It's soft science fiction/space opera. It presents even its most bizarre phenomena as scientific in nature- even psionics, the closest thing to space-magic and space-gods the setting has, are unlocked through careful research and experimentation. FTL is a scientific breakthrough. We don't talk about how the warp drive from Star Trek is "space magic", because FTL is established in that setting as a scientific discovery that fits within the setting's (fictional) physics; the same thing applies here.

Can we step back for a second and look at what started this argument?

Portal Guns.

I assume they are also how communications are instant over hundreds of thousands of light-years. Probably related to how FTL works, since it's actually impossible to literally go faster than the speed of light.

Psionics and space dragons and Unbidden. Stellaris laughs at you saying 'actually impossible'.

I mean, it can scientifically be impossible to go faster than the speed of light while being magically possible....

Of course not that I'm any better. I'm still waiting for NASA to explain the science behind Portal Guns....

You brought real-world physics into a discussion about fictional physics. That's why we're disagreeing with you. We're all happily discussing fictional physics, and you're confusing matters by constantly treating the fictional physics discussion as if we were discussing real physics.

 

[Cordane]

Surprised no ones mentioned Arthur C Clarke yet. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Personally I would put Harry Potter and The Force in the realm of magic rather than science .... since its effects are not reproducible simply through knowledge of the mechanics of it.

Whereas I would put FTL and other 'science fiction' technologies in the realm of science even if it's fictional science, because its effects are reproducible without requiring 'special ability' or 'superpowers'.

I'm also a big fan of the corollary to the famous quote: "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science." Depending on how you view the whole "midi-chlorian" explanation for Force sensitivity, it could be an understanding of how individuals tap into a kind of entanglement field that allows for far-reaching effects, or it could be a layer of BS smeared in big letters spelling "SCIENCE!" to hide what is basically a magic force in the galaxy. But trying to explain the "science" behind the Force, doesn't eliminate the facts that you have wizards (Jedi counselors) and (Jedi) knights wielding swords (lightsabers) traveling to save the princess in the foreboding structure of war (Death Star), going against the super powerful armored wizard/knight (Darth Vader) - this is why Star Wars is a "science fantasy". Yes, Stellaris has space dragons, psionics, and female heirs to Imperial heads of state, but the feel of the game is much more science-grounded, even if it's also implausible as hell.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

This seems a lot like an electric eel saying "Our electric shocks aren't science, because just knowing about it doesn't let the humans release electric shocks from their bodies"

I get what you are implying ... but I don't agree with you. We may not be able to shoot lightning out of our fingers but we are perfectly capable of manufacturing cattle shock prods, stun guns, and other devices that replicate what an eel does.

The jedi cannot build machines to replicate what they do, or develop a technology based on it.

In theory, if an alien shows up tomorrow with the ability to levitate, we can assume that he has magical powers, or we may discover he has an organ or device that generates an anti-gravity field. In the latter case, its science, since its theortically possible to figure out how that organ/device works, and to reproduce its effects. In the absence of an identifiable organ or device, I would concede its magic.

With regards the Force, the only concession i might make, is if you bring in the hated midichlorians ... as this potentially opens the door for a scientific explanation .... i.e., we might be able to inject somebody with midichlorians to make them a Force user. (Yech /spit)

EDIT: @Cordane had to mention it before me

 

[Methone]

The jedi cannot build machines to replicate what they do, or develop a technology based on it.

So? That just means that the 'law of physics' that makes the Force, or magic in HP, only allows biological life to use it.

Clearly, they can reproduce its effects. Jedi can teach others to be Jedi, and wizards in HP can train other wizards.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

So? That just means that the 'law of physics' that makes the Force, or magic in HP, only allows biological life to use it.

Clearly, they can reproduce its effects. Jedi can teach others to be Jedi, and wizards in HP can train other wizards.

I suppose this is where I and Stellaris diverge, or our current knowledge of biology and Stellaris diverge.

Stellaris: Biological species can be gene-engineered to be psionic, but synthetics and machines can't. Why not?
IRL: We don't know what makes a person 'alive' but not a piece of coal. At what point in the chemistry of complex carbon molecules does 'life' enter the equation. What is the nature of consciousness? Is a microchip conscious?

This begs the question, in Stellaris, are synthetics considered to be lifeforms? or merely machines following a program?

 

[Yaskaleh]

Isaac Arthur has a few great episodes about this. The Upward bound series:

Orbital Rings feels like a must for a space based economy and in Stellaris it could be used to further develop and advance a planet allowing for more Tall play. I hope that they'll add Space rings in the future.

 

[Ezumiyr]

the "farm planet" is a sci-fi trope, that's why we have it in the game. it doesn't really make sense (and doesn't have to)

Well it depends. Sometimes the "farm planet" is there to supply food for people living in spaceships who can't grow their own food. Sometimes there's a teleportation technology that makes it viable.
It only has to make sense internally. Sometimes it doesn't, but sometimes it does.

"Hard" vs "soft" describes how scientifically accurate the scifi is (and its a sliding scale).

I agree with you overall, but there's still a distinction to be made there.
Hard SF claims to be more scientifically accurate. That's the important part. It means that hard science fiction is usually more accurate according to the knowledge we had at the time it was created. And it has to sound plausible to the audience/reader/player. But it's usually not actually very accurate, because if you're doing science fiction, then you're using at least some dose of speculation.
Hard SF tends to get old faster than so-called "soft SF".

I also really dislike that distinction that is usually only made by "hard" SF fans to say that "their" SF is more accurate and better, while soft SF allows anything. Which is obviously not true. Most of the time, "hard" SF is based on annoying, arrogant descriptions of machinery. In fact, it's usually much more "engineeringly" accurate than scientifically accurate - when it comes to social sciences and linguistics, it's usually very wrong.