Recently there have been several stories about recent space activities and our thoughts have naturally turned towards the possibility of space colonization. My view has been that not only will that happen, but some day there will be more people living off of Earth than on it.
When that happens, their mere existence will skew what is perceived as the greatest and most influential works of literature on Earth. For it won't be the great religious works of the major religions by which our descendants in space will be able to trace their mere existence. The Bible, Koran, I Ching, or the Vedas won't get us there. It won't be the great works of philosophy from Plato's many works through to modern times. Or almost anything we consider great literature today. One doesn't get into space by the unsteady hand of Hamlet, for example.
Works of economics are similarly disfranchised. This future might be enabled by Das Kapital or Wealth of Nations, but it's not going to be able to trace its lineage to these. Nor most great works of science such as Origin of Species (though Newton's PhilosophiƦ Naturalis Principia Mathematica will have a prominent role in the foundation leading up to this great work).
There is a peculiar aspect to early space engineering (basically everything before the Second World War). Namely, that it was very insular, even from its closest neighbor, astronomy which would reasonably be thought to share common interests. There are very few notable researchers in the field until one gets to the late 1920s. There was little official interest in space development until the Nazis got involved in the mid-30s. But they all share common inspiration. And everything that involves putting anything in space or doing anything in space comes from this inspiration.
So when humanity has gone beyond Earth, there will be one work of literature which will stand out from all the rest. I, of course, speak of From the Earth to the Moon, by Jules Verne, published in 1865.
Reply to: Re:A Sound of Thunder
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday October 09 2016, @04:36PM
Star Trek is 'possible' science (if you put your head sideways at times) whereas Star Wars is pure fantasy
Can you explain the Mirror Universe without invoking a ridiculous coincidence? If ridiculous coincidences are allowed, everything in Star Wars is explainable as an absurdly unlikely series of happenstance particle movements. If they aren't, I think Star Trek jumps the shark as well (albeit far less often).
instead of standing stoically and fencing as in the beginning
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday October 09 2016, @04:36PM
Star Trek is 'possible' science (if you put your head sideways at times) whereas Star Wars is pure fantasy
Can you explain the Mirror Universe without invoking a ridiculous coincidence? If ridiculous coincidences are allowed, everything in Star Wars is explainable as an absurdly unlikely series of happenstance particle movements. If they aren't, I think Star Trek jumps the shark as well (albeit far less often).
instead of standing stoically and fencing as in the beginning
I think you mean the middle. *ducks*