Stagnation in sci-fi civilizations

[Destructionator XV]

While working on my original universe today, I noticed something that is a problem: technological advance has been terribly slow. One of my constituent planets was able to carry out a limited interstellar war about 1,700 years ago, and in that time, sure things have gotten better, faster ships and such, but still technology hasn't had any real revolution.

I then look at the real world, and in just the last one hundred years, a lot has changed; it seems pretty preposterous for there to be a society remaining pretty well much the same for even periods of a few hundred years.

Looking at other sci-fi than just my original worlds, I see many of the same problems. Star Wars, for example, shows at least hundreds, and I believe thousands of years with relatively little change. The Culture seems pretty stagnate for a long time, as do the Time Lords. oBSG mentioned the Galactica as being over five hundred yahren old [ EDIT: a yahron might not be equal to a year according to some non-canon sources (Richard Hatch's novels) If we use their numbers, 500 yahren = ~300 years, which is still a long time for one ship ] . There are surely many more obvious examples around, but I think the point is clear by now already.

For some of them, such as the Time Lords and one of my civilizations, perhaps even the Culture, the stagnation can be chalked up to cultural things. People are long lived and lack drive nor a overwhelming reason to innovate. But, that doesn't explain any of the human civilizations, including the other planet I am working on for my original universe.

So, that brings me to the point of making this thread: what do you think causes this stagnation in the established universes? Also, if you had to create your own reason for your own culture that is technologically stagnate, what would it be for humans? For an alien civilization?

I was thinking constant infighting might slow things down, but then I look at when many of our inventions are made: war time. Look at what competition between the US and USSR produced in the fifty years of the cold war. Maybe full scale nuclear war could reset things, but I don't think even that would be bad enough to stagnate for hundreds of years.

And I just thought of biological stagnation too, which I suppose should be addressed. How different are humans of today than humans of say, Rome, on a genetic level? Sure, 2,000 years isn't a huge time for biology, but surely there would be some changes, especially once colonization and space travel start up on the large scale. But biological is much less important to me than explaining why technology moves so bloody slow compared to the real world.

[SirNitram]

Stagnation can be a boon. Consider any galaxy-spanning nation: Stability is needed, and that can't be acheived at a breakneck technological pace. Other times, it's a result of longevity; let's face it, most discoveries are made during the young years, before we get set in our ways.

The Enclave's tech base is relatively static; this is chosen for reasons of stability in the face of numerous enemies. They still seek better ways to use what they've got, but too much of their infrastructure is invested in refining their existing technology and uplifting primitive human settlements they find.

[Ra]

Let's remember that while humanity has made great strides in the last few centuries (and even moreso in the last), that's still not even 1000 years out of many thousands of years of human history and pre-history. Most of the time, excluding Rome, we have been rather stagant in the way of technology, at least in several specific areas.

People were using animal-drawn plows in the time of Sumeria, and they were still using them in the Civil War only 140 years ago (yes, they may even still use them in Carjackistan today, but that's beside the point, in the developed world we have mechanized agriculture). That's like many thousands of years that one example of technology simply did not change.

IMO, it's not too unrealistic that such a thing would also happen with a spacefaring civilization. Use the typical example of a future starfaring humanity. We developed working ion drives in the 1990's, as Deep Space 1 demonstrated. This hypothetical future civilization still uses them in 2590. Why, you ask? Because it's the best propulsion system they really have. Solar sails, nuke bomb drives, ect. have disadvantages in cost, safety, practicality, and other things that made ion drives simply more economical for this society.

You could say the basic technology has evolved considerably; DS 1's ion drive would be jack shit next to the Outrageous-class Superdreadnought's ion drive, because the technology has evolved, but it's still a fracking ion drive. To bring up the plow example again, it would be like comparing the most primitive plows that probably used sharpened bones to cut the soil next to a late 19th century plow forged out of high-quality steel.

And even from our PM discussion (which I am going to answer, just give me time p-l-z), you stated how sonic weapons would probably use more energy to do the same job as a regular gun. Sonic guns are kewl and more advanced, but a kinetic gun just does the same job, no frills, and with less energy. It works. In other words, why develop a new technology to have capabilities already filled just fine by something else, when it has no apparent advantage over said "something else"? No need to develop a inverse tetryonic flux capacitor (GREAT SCOTT!) drive when your good ol' ion engine works just fine.

OK, long-ass post that probably has logical flaws aplenty, but I'm just trying to say that there could be plenty of reasons as to why technological stagnation can occur.

[Narsil]

The Culture seems pretty stagnate for a long time,

Slight nitpick: the Culture is still improving and developing, as stated many times during the novels. In Consider Phlebas, the grid was only really harnessable as a weapon of mass destruction (gridfire), while in novels set at a later date (like Excession) it is mentioned that quite a few ships have begun using the grid as a basically infinite source of power rather than a weapon. That essentially is revolutionary technology right there.

As for the Timelords, they're stagnant because their leadership was a megalomaniac scientist named Rassilon, an insane bloke named Omega and The Other. Once those three vanished one by one, the Time Lords were left with a massive power vacuum. Although at least they've tried to make an advance here and there... like the Type 70 Battle TARDIS or the Type 102 TARDIS (now there's wank like you don't see anymore these days).

Stagnation occurs in many places for stability's sake, like Nitram's point, or because of sheer instability, nothing can get done, as with the Time Lords. There's also the fact that, like Ra said, a lot of revolutions cost far too much in the way of resources to implement, and thus it doesn't get done. Revolutionary technology doesn't grow on trees unless you're a Spelljammer Elf I'm afraid.

[Mayabird]

In Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky stagnation followed eventually by civilization collapse happened because there is a limit to how far technology can advance with the laws of physics as we know them. Technology can get pretty damn advanced, but once you hit the top and stop growing, it's all downhill.

Just to throw out a different possibility.

[frigidmagi]

In Consider Phlebas, the grid was only really harnessable as a weapon of mass destruction (gridfire), while in novels set at a later date (like Excession) it is mentioned that quite a few ships have begun using the grid as a basically infinite source of power rather than a weapon. That essentially is revolutionary technology right there.

Doesn't sound all that different from what we did with nuclear tech, just took them longer. I would call it evolutionary not revolutionary.

[Destructionator XV]

I went ahead and split out the Culture discussion, since it was pretty off topic.

[Mayabird]

Another reason for a civilization's stagnation might be its origins as a colony world. If cut off from contact or resupply from the homeworld and with limited resources, the colonists would be forced to scale back their technology, if only for the reason that they would (at least for a while) be unable to produce many of the technological goods they once used. You can't replace a computer, but you can breed some more horses. If in such a situation the colony gained a cultural obsession with "catching up" with the past instead of innovating, centuries down the line they could find themselves rather stagnant. This is just me SWAGing (scientific wild-ass guessing - the step below hypothesizing) though.

Of course, there's also the fact that fiction is limited to the imagination and knowledge of the writer, who is unable to foresee all the possible revolutions of the future, while real life knows no such limitation.

[Hedgecore]

Of course, there's also the fact that fiction is limited to the imagination and knowledge of the writer, who is unable to foresee all the possible revolutions of the future, while real life knows no such limitation.

bingo

This seems most likely to me. Technology grows exponentially. Early hominids used the tear-drop shaped hand axe for thousands of years before putting it on a stick, and from there it just gets more and more and more advanced.

Think of the innovations that occurred between 1870 and 1900. Some pretty big stuff. But now compare that to the advances made between 1970 and 2000. Technology will build upon itself, more specializations within fields, as well as whole new avenues never even imagined before, plus more people developing new ideas, and better methods for sharing them.

100 years from now? 1000 years from now? It will be insane, and ridiculous, but probably not the way anybody thinks it will be. So getting off tangent, I can't think of a good 'in universe' reason for the stagnation of society.

It comes to the creator: it is damn hard to imagine what the world and universe will be like, there's infinite possibilities, but there's a bit of a pre set vision of the future and sci-fi. I think creators may be afraid to stray too far from, as well as the expectations of consumer, who you don't want to alienate (unintentional pun).

This turned out significantly longer than I had anticipated.

[Mayabird]

Re: Hedgecore.


It reminds me of these articles I've read recently about how recent sci-fi isn't inspiring enough like back in the ol' days, with people triumphantly exploring the stars in their shiny spaceships. They never mention that for all the inspiration it might have given people back decades ago, now it all just looks really hokey. Flying spaceships with punch-card computers? Fighting pirate women in the seas of Venus? It's all just wrong, wrong, wrong, and I think writers are a bit scared of trying to think too far ahead, not only for fear of alienating readers, but also being a laughingstock later on. (I know it's mean and unfair, but I really can't help snickering when I read about such things as "complete combustion of coal" and the aforementioned punchcard supercomputers.)

Or the editors say, "This has been done, and redone, and beaten to death, and all by 1940."

Edit: I liked that previous comment of mine, so I'm going to quote it to share with everyone. I hope I don't look like I'm full of myself.

[Ra]

I think that's why Star Wars was such a success. It had some of the aforementioned sci-fi hokey like hawt green-skinned women with brain tails, and wild, crazy planets, but it worked because it was not "our" universe. In other words, you could have your Venusian pirate-women because they're not from Venus, but the made-up planet Qwapjahaw VI or something. It's always easier when it comes to creative license to create a new universe entirely than to try and make up an interpretation of our future.

[Destructionator XV]

The author's lack of imagination or fear of inaccuracy is pretty certainly the out of universe reason. Also, I just like regular things, like trucks and boats and airplanes, etc, which is one thing that keeps me down. Also in the podcast for the season opener of nBSG, Ron Moore said he used trucks instead of hovercraft or whatever because by keeping it simple and mundane, the viewer remains focused on his characters instead of his inventions. A truck is nothing special, so no one pays any attention to it at all, allowing the acting to show.

And I also like the idea of tapes and punch cards too now that you mention it (but that is because I am an old computer equipment fan). Tapes I can still believe though: we do use them today despite hard drives getting better and better, especially for large scale backups (I'm sure KAN has a big tape drive for his database work, for example). Hard drives too are sure to hit a limit on what is possible, and I/O bandwidth is probably still going to be a concern even in a future. I find a way to stick in big ass reels of tape because I like it.

Something else that is pwning me is I know a lot about modern computers. Things like encryption schemes and network protocol, so I use the same basic things when writing. However, quantum computers, which may be reality in the next 50 years, could render things like public-private key encryption algorithms obsolete. [ EDIT: the old phrase 'write what you know' doesn't quite work so well for computer people it seems! ]


So yeah, author bias is definitely a factor. Of course, those are all excellent reasons, but they are also out of universe reasons.


So far, for mine in universe, I think I am going to be going with some laziness (of the society) and a lot of 'it just works'. Like with trucks, they are proven technology that are pretty easy to maintain compared to hovercraft where just so much more can go wrong with it.

The stability of a galactic empire would explain why cutting edge tech isn't common place especially in government, but would a private company care about stability like that? It seems to me that they would still want to grow, and on such a large scale, someone somewhere would surely still be coming up with new stuff.

Unless it is so hard that no one can realistically learn enough to make anything in a field. Even now, people have to go to a lot of school to learn a field, and fields are becoming more and more specialized. Maybe in a sci fi civilization, doing anything that hasn't already been done just isn't realistically possible given a human's learning capacity and life span. Then the guys who live for a long time have the opposite problem, like Nitram mentioned up in his first response, or my view of it where they think 'well, I can always do it later' then by the time they change their mind, it is too late to really get into it at that age.

Another reason for a civilization's stagnation might be its origins as a colony world.

Yeah, that seems good too, however wouldn't quite fit my or many other civilizations I have seen. Definitely a good idea though.

This is just me SWAGing (scientific wild-ass guessing - the step below hypothesizing) though.

heh, good term.

[Graey]

In Warhammer 40K there is practically a new dark age every week. Before the great crusade, and beyond. Mostly due to planets losing contact with each other, so being isolated they develop on their own, or don't develop at all. This loss of contact is defined by warp storms in WH40K but for anyone else's sci-fi it could be for any reason at all.

[Hotfoot]

While quantum computers would render modern public key encryption next to worthless, it would do nothing against one-time pads, which are already easily generated due to quantum encryption (really transmission, but hey). Transmission of one time pads is already a proven technology, while quantum computers are stumbling slightly. Even if quantum computing takes off, without a "quantum leap" as it were, the chances of it catching up with "normal" computers enough to make a tremendous difference in encryption/decryption aren't that great.

When it comes to decrypting something, NOTHING beats finding the endpoints. The way encryption is going, there will be a stronger emphasis on finding endpoints rather than trying to be a better Eve.

In my own universe, trucks and such still "just work", but they have been significantly upgraded "under the hood". Significantly increased battery technology allows for fully electric cars, plus a whole bunch of other advancements. Personal flight vehicles do exist, but are more expensive and restricted for obvious reasons.

Subtle advances aren't as eye-catching, but can be just as important. Another thing to remember is that the cheaper you can make something, the more people will buy it and continue buying everything else that they do.