Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Most authors don't even bother building in reasons why that can't happen, its just that no-one thinks of doing it.

Is it really necessary to spell out that a civilization capable of building a FTL starship is also capable of building a sufficient defensive technology?

> I daresay such a civ is not doing it for conquest, but to discover and explore. If the urge is militaristic, then such a civ would turn on itself long before the project succeeds.

I think this is much more complex. Consider a civilization so advanced that this is children's toys for them - and then that civilization falls. Then, on the scraps of it, a new imperialistic faction is built and they go for the conquest; they don't even need to understand the magic that powers their warships. I recommend you to read the full Foundation series in chronological order.




"Is it really necessary to spell out that a civilization capable of building a FTL starship is also capable of building a sufficient defensive technology?"

We have had ICBMs for a long time, yet no sufficient defensive technology as of yet.

Beyond the fact that using them would lead to MAD, that is.


I've read everything. I probably read the Foundation series before you were born (assuming you're 20-something). In fact, Asimov certainly knew that FTL was fraught - but he was writing for a living, and FTL was in vogue and he used the hyperspace version of it. It's unfortunate - I would have liked to see more grounded SF from him


Well the issue remains the same with Bussard ramjets. It's just simpler to make so the whole scenario is more likely (though still very unlikely, ofc).


Kind of like tribalism on earth prevented empires?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: