I hesitate to inject my opinion on this topic because its one that I think
isn't in a majority or likely to be well received.
In essence, you can't compare SciFi settings unless the settings 'share'
similar assumptions for their 'hand-waving'. This hand waving are the set
of principles that the author hopes the consumer 'buys' into to experience
the story being told. The story is the point not the setting/hand waving.
Many that enjoy SciFi enjoy the technical aspects of the settings they tend
to gravitate towards without considering that the technical stuff isn't the
point, very very few authors put enough thought into their hand waving to
adequately realize the ramifications of what that hand waving will do when
in interject the human condition over thousands of years into the system.
A while ago I simply stopped considering the A vs B SciFi setting theory
crafting because it seemed to me to be a false discussion due to too many
levels of abstraction necessary. Over a coffee between friends sure no harm
no foul, but between folks that don't know each other or more importantly
don't respect each other and things spiral out of control quickly.
Arguments against an aspect of a setting comes from, in my opinion, when
the consumer hasn't 'bought' in to an aspect of the setting.
Consumers often make the mistake of saying "I see X interact with Y with
result Z. A in the real world works sort of like X and B is similar to X so
result C must be true." ignoring that there are 2 levels abstraction that
are not necessarily true making the statement of C highly suspect.
In the end not all settings are created equally in the minds of their
authors.
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
isn't in a majority or likely to be well received.
In essence, you can't compare SciFi settings unless the settings 'share'
similar assumptions for their 'hand-waving'. This hand waving are the set
of principles that the author hopes the consumer 'buys' into to experience
the story being told. The story is the point not the setting/hand waving.
Many that enjoy SciFi enjoy the technical aspects of the settings they tend
to gravitate towards without considering that the technical stuff isn't the
point, very very few authors put enough thought into their hand waving to
adequately realize the ramifications of what that hand waving will do when
in interject the human condition over thousands of years into the system.
A while ago I simply stopped considering the A vs B SciFi setting theory
crafting because it seemed to me to be a false discussion due to too many
levels of abstraction necessary. Over a coffee between friends sure no harm
no foul, but between folks that don't know each other or more importantly
don't respect each other and things spiral out of control quickly.
Arguments against an aspect of a setting comes from, in my opinion, when
the consumer hasn't 'bought' in to an aspect of the setting.
Consumers often make the mistake of saying "I see X interact with Y with
result Z. A in the real world works sort of like X and B is similar to X so
result C must be true." ignoring that there are 2 levels abstraction that
are not necessarily true making the statement of C highly suspect.
In the end not all settings are created equally in the minds of their
authors.
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.