About the Firefly 'verse. Beyond the obvious.

POSTED BY: Askew
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 23:16
VIEWED: 9150
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

34CYGNI

Friday, July 30, 2004 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by liz:
Well, i could be wrong, but the way it was mentioned off-hand in Shindig ("it must have taken a dozen slaves a dozen days..."), i assumed it was perfectly legal. Indentured servitude might be more common, but i think that slavery is actually legal in the Alliance.

Good catch. I'd forgotten about that line.

Slavery is difficult to reconcile with indentured servitude, as historically slaves displaced indentured servants because of lower labor costs, the lack of personnel turnover, and the fact that slaves, a valuable commodity, have a tendency to create more slaves even under the most horrific living conditions. If outright slavery is lawful in the Alliance, it must be restricted somehow to avoid creating an enormous caste of (and market for) slaves.

On the other hand, if slavery is illegal but tolerated by the authorities, then keeping slaves in one's household might be yet another way for the wealthy and powerful to flaunt their wealth and power...

34CYGNI

Friday, July 30, 2004 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
In a society ruled by a tyrannical government, it is extremely common for food, especially fresh fruit and vegetables, to rise to the top of the commodity list. Most Americans don't understand this concept because they have never had to stand in a ration line or bread line because of food shortages. But the fact of the matter is that the more heavy-handed and controlling a government becomes, the scarcer food becomes.

The key issue is state control of the economy, not how oppressive a government is. Centralized planning, though probably necessary to some extent when a market economy is shifted to a war footing, doesn't work very well and tends to create enduring shortages and weird surpluses. For all its many faults, the free market produces and distributes food and other goods much more efficiently: imagine the simple problem of trying to get bread to every bodega in New York City -- a nightmare for central planners, while market forces find solutions to problems like that all the time and nobody gives it a second thought.

One can certainly argue that highly sophisticated software and pervasive surveillance might result in an efficient, centrally planned economy, but given that there's still such a thing as cash (not to mention the ready availability of secondhand spaceships!) in the 'verse, the Alliance seems to favor the free market. It's an open question whether the Alliance operates on the American model, where business dominates government, or on the model emerging in Russia under Mr. Putin, who appears to be dedicated to preserving the power of the state at the expense of the private sector, or on the Chinese model of influence peddling, under which these days it's often hard to tell where the state ends and the private sector begins...

Not that it matters a whole lot when you're at the bottom of the ladder. Like the man said: communism is a system that allows the wholesale exploitation of man by man; under capitalism, it's exactly the reverse.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, July 30, 2004 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 34cygni:
in the 'verse, the Alliance seems to favor the free market.

I cannot agree. Everything, including the companion guild, transportation, transfer of cattle, and labor seems to be highly regulated by the government. Hardly my definition of a "free" market.

Quote:
The key issue is state control of the economy, not how oppressive a government is.

There is very little distinction between "state control of the economy" and "oppression." When the state starts controlling the economy, it inevitably starts controlling everything else. In the countries I can think of where food is scarce, the state is totalitarian. It controls eonomy, speech, behavior, religion, assembly etc. I suspect that the Alliance is similarly oppressive.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, July 30, 2004 10:13 PM

Just a little helpful thing to know,
First World = Developed Capitalist Nations
Second World = Developed “Communist” Nations
Third World = Undeveloped Nations.

So if you’re going to say, “communist and "third world" countries.” it’s easier to say “second and third world countries.”

It doesn’t matter at all, and it’s not much easier anyway, but if you’re going to say “third world” you might as well use the rest of the terminology too.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, July 30, 2004 10:56 PM

Thanks. I did know that, but most people don't know what "second world" means. For communication purposes, it is a lot easier to say "communist." However, most people do have a general stereotype of the "third world"--poor, underdeveloped, etc.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

DIEGO

Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by justme:
Inadequate soil? On terraformed planets? Unlikely.

*Lunar* soil is more than adequate if humus, water and air are added.

Good point. I guess heavy machines, von neumann machines, and maybe nanotech stuff could all mechanically and chemically prepare the "soil", but where is the organic component, the humus, going to come from? It takes long periods of time to accumulate humus in the soil of terrestrial ecosystems. Is that why cattle are popular on the frontier worlds? ;)

Honestly, I don't have the answer. I'm just pointing out that making good soil might not be a "1-2-3 just add water" sort of deal.

AGREY

Saturday, July 31, 2004 7:03 AM

Well, to throw in my two bits (probably more), let me say my piece about food supplies and such first, then I will move on to the other salient points.
As for fresh food, it would rare for someone like Kaylee, for, contrary to earlier comments, her inter-engine fermentation system does not guarantee a decent hydroponics bay. Actually, a hydronponics bay (to produce any decent amounts of food and air filtration) would take a rather large amount of space in comparision to equivalent technological systems (food paste, processor, or whatever, and atmospheric filters), and, for a ship as small as Serenity, would be contra-indicated: it would eat into the cargo space. Now, as one of my fellow Browncoats pointed out, the main reason it isn't so is because the writers did not make it that way, but a viable hydroponics section in a spacecraft takes many dedicated systems and at least one or two well-trained specialists. Besides, lose power at the wrong moment, or be forced to flush your atmosphere in the 'ponics bays, and, tah-dah, you have a very expensive mess. Now, for larger ships (like Alliance Cruisers), hydroponics bays would be both easily accomodated and very valuable, since it would stretch supplies of processed foods, keep up morale by providing the means to make good food, and help with life support by providing a decently efficient, fairly self-supporting, and widely useful atmosphere/waste scrubber-all without having to worry overly much about spare parts. But for the Serenity, a small ship that makes fast runs and needs the cargo space, hydroponics would not make much sense, and would require (probably) at least decently hard-to-come-by training...since spaceborne hydroponics is more than just "'tending the garden". And yes, it would not surprise me if Blue Sun had some sort of monopoly on food processors, life support gear, rations, or even basic electronic equipment...and probably on all of them.
As for the slavery issue, I think we should remember that, indentured servitude or slavery (and probably both), judging from the conditions we have seen in the show, it is obvious that those labeled as "indentured" are snared in the near-inescapeable cycle of being worked as slaves, regardless of the law or the title. It is also obvious that the Alliance, at least on the Frontier, appoints local rulers/"advisors", sets up a rudimentary local infrastructure, dumps some colonists, and then only worries about the system if someone pays them to, it developes technologically, socially, and economically to a certain point, or there is a military threat (in the day of Firefly, for the moment, that is only the Reavers...). Outside of those bounds, the Alliance lets most people live...but it makes every effort to have some form of control on them from the moment they are born. (Now that is something to think about.)
As for the agents in blue, well, quite frankly, seeing as River is, by dint of her natural intuitiveness, the government-induced psi abilities, and whatever training they gave her (hypnotically or otherwise...and I am sure they managed to train her some, because, incredibly intuitive or no, it was indicated it took even River a few hours to learn something, let alone how to fix three mens' positions, then precisely kill them with one bullet each-and I am also sure that those three rounds were probably all headshots, and, failing that, all in either the head or the heart...)...and, anyway, with all that, River is quite simply the MOST LETHAL person in the 'verse at the moment...when she puts her mind to it. (And the Alliance, having created her, has to know it.)
So it stand to reason that those hunting her would not only be enhanced somehow (boosted strength, senses, and reflexs at the least, and probably processing implant in the brain, subdermal armor, and a broadband Communications/Electronic Warfare/Electronic Intelligence suite as well would be the standard, I would hazard to say...)...and those hunting her would also have carte blanche to do everything in their power and influence (which is proba

ZOID

Saturday, July 31, 2004 7:06 AM

Diego wrote:

Quote:
I guess heavy machines, von neumann machines, and maybe nanotech stuff could all mechanically and chemically prepare the "soil", but where is the organic component, the humus, going to come from? It takes long periods of time to accumulate humus in the soil of terrestrial ecosystems. Is that why cattle are popular on the frontier worlds? ;)

Honestly, I don't have the answer. I'm just pointing out that making good soil might not be a "1-2-3 just add water" sort of deal.

And a point to you as well, Diego. In terraforming terms, the 'humus' is known as biomass. We take for granted the fertility of Earth's soil, for the purposes of agriculture and the animal husbandry that depends upon it. (The joke goes: "There's nothing wrong with animal husbandry, as long as you don't take it too literally.")

By comparison, Mars' dearth of biomass makes Death Valley look like the Garden of Eden. And there's no simple way of putting it in either. Anyone remember the failed Biosphere 2? They started with Earth soil, not Martian or Lunar soil, which have the added feature of a chemical composition resembling powered household cleanser; lots of oxides and volatiles on Mars. Plant some strawberries in that...

Most planetary ecologists figure on a 10,000 year plan for fully terraforming Mars to Earthlike conditions. Starting with arctic lichens and moss to develop biomass and release oxygen and CO2 from the rocks, we might be able to live in the open (120 mb O2 in atmo) in as short as 900 years, but advanced agriculture and fishing? Not for a looong time.

Terraforming 70 planetary bodies in less than 500 years -- and providing Earth normal gravity -- is gonna require a technology that -- to paraphrase Clarke -- would seem like magic in the present day.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

Only 264 days, 22 hours, 4 minutes, and 44 seconds left until The BDM!

NEDWARD

Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
(The joke goes: "There's nothing wrong with animal husbandry, as long as you don't take it too literally.")

I seem to remember a Dr. Samuel Gall, who majored in animal husbandry, until they caught him at it one day...

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, July 31, 2004 3:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nedward:
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
(The joke goes: "There's nothing wrong with animal husbandry, as long as you don't take it too literally.")
I seem to remember a Dr. Samuel Gall, who majored in animal husbandry, until they caught him at it one day...

Ah yes, that guy. Went to Mexico right?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE