Why "Clovenfoot"? Could it be that deformity runs in the family? Is Yarvi's birth defect a congenital abnormality.... perhaps hypophalangism (the congenital absence of one or more phalanges of a digit) ?
It's grossly unfair, of course.
A by-invitation group blog for busy authors of SFR, Futuristic, or Paranormal romances in which at least one protagonist is an alien, or of alien ancestry.
I've been reading a lavishly illustrated book called THE FUTURE IS WILD: A NATURAL HISTORY OF THE FUTURE, by Dougal Dixon and John Adams. (It's a companion to a TV series I haven't seen.) It speculates about the climate, geography, and plant and animal life of our planet's vastly distant future, beginning five million years from now. The imaginary life-forms, wildly creative but based on sound evolutionary principles, could spark fantastic ideas for SF world-building. Sidebar quotes from scientists illustrate the real-world basis for the environments and creatures described in the text. Global maps illustrate the positions of the continents in the various eras being explored. The book also has a decent index and a helpful glossary.
After an introductory overview of continental drift, climate change, and the evolutionary process, the book visits Earth five million years from now, 100 million, and 200 million. Five million years hence, these authors assume humanity will have long since gone extinct. At the peak of a prolonged ice age, Earth has become cold and dry. The Mediterranean Sea is now the Mediterranean Basin. Most of Europe is covered with ice, and North America is mostly desert. At 100 million years, sea levels have risen, and a humid, hothouse climate has replaced the cold phase. The authors postulate a mass extinction of 95 percent of Earth's species at the end of this period. At 200 million years, the continent of Pangaea has re-formed, one single land mass in the midst of a global ocean.
I do have reservations about the extinction of the human species in only five million years. After all, our ancestors survived a previous ice age without the advantages of our technology. A graphic timeline from the Precambrian Era to the future 200 million years hence shows mammals vanishing by the end of the "Hothouse Earth" period. Many exotic creatures are imagined to replace them, though.
Some of the imagined future life-forms, which are often shown alongside contemporary animals with similar features: Scrofas, similar to wild boars, their omnivorous diet including fringed lizards called cryptiles. Babookaris, baboon-like inhabitants of the Amazon grasslands, clever enough to weave fish nets from grasses. The armor-plated rattleback. The ocean phantom of the Shallow Seas, a colony organism modeled on the Portuguese man-of-war, its upper surface covered by algae. Sea spiders called spindletroopers. The swampus, descended from the octopus but able to survive on land for brief periods. Toratons, vaguely tortoise-shaped giant reptiles, bigger than the largest dinosaurs. A four-winged bird, the Great Blue Windrunner. Mound-building insects evolved from termites and growing their own food in the form of green algae. The slickribbon, a three-foot-long, cave-dwelling millipede. The most incredible creature is the squibbon, a huge, land-dwelling, arboreal squid with intelligence equivalent to that of chimpanzees or maybe a bit higher. Many of these animals might as well be inhabitants of alien planets; indeed, the Earth envisioned in the second and third eras has become radically alien to the world we know.
This book is worth checking out for the pictures alone.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's CryptThe September-October issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND includes an article titled, "When Computers Surpass Us." The new generation of AI differs from computers such as Deep Blue, the famous IBM chess-playing machine, in the way the software learns. These computers are taught by trial and error, similar to the learning processes of human and other organic brains. This method leads logically to the familiar SF prospect of machines with the ability to "self-improve by trial and error and by reprogramming their own code." Nick Bostrom, author of SUPERINTELLIGENCE: PATHS, DANGERS, STRATEGIES, contends that there is no reason why computer AI shouldn't eventually surpass human intelligence.
AI can be divided into "weak" or "narrow" and "strong" or general. Our technology has already achieved dazzling progress in narrow AI, computers "able to replicate specific human tasks," such as driverless cars and facial identification software. Some futurists, including Bostrom, believe we'll produce general AI, with the versatility, language comprehension, and learning capacity of a typical human brain, before the end of this century.
We might ask why we'd want to create a computer that thinks exactly like a human being, except as a research project. We already have a planet full of human thinkers. The advantage of computer intelligence is its ability to do things we can do only with difficulty or not at all, such as lightning-fast mathematical calculations or analysis of vast, complicated systems. Even if or when superintelligent computers are built or evolve, thinking like human beings but on a far higher level, would they be likely to threaten us? Presumably the original AI minds from which all others descend will be designed with some version of Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Machine intelligences, having no emotions, wouldn't experience greed, ambition, or hate unless programmed to have those drives.
Of course, as the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND article discusses, an AI constructed with completely benign motivations could still be dangerous, even a "weak" or "narrow" one. A narrow AI tasked with "maximizing return on investments" might decide a national or worldwide disaster would be the most efficient method of increasing the earnings of its designated businesses. A computer ordered to make people happy might fulfill that command by implanting electrodes in the pleasure centers of their brains. A "strong" or "general" AI single-mindedly motivated to maximize human welfare might accomplish that goal by reshaping the world in directions we don't expect or want. Remember Jack Williamson's novel about the robotic overlords who decided the optimal way to preserve human safety and happiness was to prevent human beings from doing much of anything?
Asimov's Three Laws can't solve the problem by themselves, since they're subject to complex difficulties of interpretation. The definitions of "human" and "harm" contain potential minefields. A robot must not harm a human being or allow a human being to come to harm through inaction. Suppose the only way to protect one person from harm is to hurt another, such as saving the victim of a would-be mugger? A robot must obey the orders of human beings (subject to the limitations of the first law). Does a robot have to obey a small child, a mentally disabled or deranged person, or a convicted criminal? Ambiguities such as these are why, in many of Asimov's stories, use of robots on Earth is forbidden, their employment being restricted to controlled environments. In one story, two superintelligent robots analyze the meaning of "humanity" and decide it should be defined by mental capacity, not physical form. Therefore, they conclude the two of them are the most "human" entities they know, and hence they don't have to obey anyone else.
Would a computer whose intelligence surpasses ours necessarily become conscious? Heinlein assumes so in works such as THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, with the self-aware lunar-wide computer system, Mike, and in TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE, where the self-aware computer Minerva decides to have her consciousness transferred into a flesh body (as much as will fit in a human brain, anyway) so she can experience love.
Another SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article, "Intelligence Without Sentience," addresses this question:
Intelligence Without SentienceThe author maintains that our assumption of an intrinsic connection between high intelligence and consciousness isn't valid. The AI systems described in this essay are intelligent in the sense that they learn and remember, yet they "have none of the behaviors we associate with consciousness." He bluntly declares, "They are zombies, acting in the world but doing so without any feeling, displaying a limited form of alien, cold intelligence." Many people might argue that this behavior is by definition not intelligent, simply automatic. That would be circular reasoning, though, since if we include awareness as part of the definition of intelligence, the question implied in the article's title has no meaning. The prospect of a superintelligent but non-sentient AI doesn't seem as dire to me as this author hints. Without self-awareness, the computer wouldn't have any selfish motives or irrational emotions to prevent it from acting in humanity's best interests.
With the reservation, again, that an AI might view our best interests quite differently from the way we do.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt"When Instagram attempted to change its terms of service that would allow the company to monetize the work of the individual without the individuals permission, consumers went ballistic. It seems that permission is not such a difficult concept to grasp when people are personally effected. This is why privacy is a much more universal issue, because everyone is effected by it....."http://thetrichordist.com/2013/05/08/permission-privacy-and-piracy-where-creators-and-consumers-meet/
Current U.N. projections predict that global population will rise to 11.2 billion by 2100. While population increase has been steadily slowing and is expected to level off eventually, it hasn't stopped yet:
World to Get More CrowdedAnd another article on the same study: World Population
Most of that predicted increase will occur in Africa, while birthrates continue to fall elsewhere. I was surprised to note that North America and Oceania together account for only five percent of the world's people. I knew we were in the minority, but I didn't realize how small a minority. Also, everywhere outside of Africa the proportion of older people is increasing. At present, about a quarter of Europeans are age 60 or older. The global median age today is 29.6. It's expected to reach 36 in 2050 and 42 in 2100.
Back in the 1960s, the prevalent fear was that population would keep increasing out of control until the planet became uninhabitable. Isaac Asimov wrote an essay calculating how soon this fate would overtake us at the then-prevailing rate of increase. I don't remember when he published this article or exactly when he figured the limit would be reached, but his doomsday date fell in the surprisingly near future. In that hypothetical year, he predicted the entire Earth would have the population density of Manhattan at noon on a work day. Everybody would live in high-rises, and food would be grown on the roofs, probably in tanks. Of course, in the real world rather than the realm of mathematical models, society would collapse under the strain and populations would crash long before that point.
The SF motif of relieving terrestrial overcrowding by interplanetary colonization isn't likely to materialize. When such colonies become possible, they will siphon off only a tiny percentage of Earth's people. New World colonies might have revitalized Europe in many ways, but they didn't make a significant dent in the population of the Old World.
At present, though, it appears that our long-term problem won't be overpopulation but an aging society. What solution to the potential shortage of working-age people in first-world countries wouldn't lead to unwanted population increase? Maybe robots?
Also, as has often been proposed, a society dominated by elderly people would need to shift its focus from working for a livelihood to the fruitful use of leisure time. Work as we know it would become only one phase among several stages of life. The residue of our country's Puritan work ethic (one hangover of which is the peculiar "early to bed, early to rise" attitude that sixteen active hours out of twenty-four are somehow more worthwhile if they start at sunrise) will have to be reexamined. We need to question the still too prevalent idea that workaholism is a virtue and relaxation a wicked indulgence. We can hope the world won't look like Jack Williamson's classic novel, in which robots took over all jobs and forced human beings into total idleness for their own safety. Ideally, people relieved of the need to labor for survival would devote themselves to tasks or leisure pursuits that would enrich their lives.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's CryptGini Koch and Jacquelne Lichtenberg |
Having just reread LIGHTNING, one of my all-time favorite Dean Koontz novels, I was newly impressed by the way Koontz manipulates time travel to create suspense. It would be easy to think time travel lets characters do almost anything to solve their problems. But ingenious authors place conditions on time travel by which it complicates protagonists' lives and sometimes generates as much trouble as it prevents.
The most extreme example of time travel as more of a curse than a boon appears in THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE. If you've read the novel (or seen the movie), you'll remember that the protagonist jumps to different moments in his past or future (and in at least one case, after his own death) at random and involuntarily. He has no control over when or where he arrives. Worse, he can't take anything with him that isn't part of his body, not even tooth fillings. He can, however, appear in a time and place where he already exists and often does. In theory there could be any number of versions of him in a single location at once. Thanks to the nonlinear nature of his time travel, he can develop his relationship with his future wife in foreknowledge of their life together.
The TV series QUANTUM LEAP allows its hero, Sam, to leap only into the past and only within his own life span (although late in the series exceptions were finagled). He travels by changing places with a person native to that time period, who's made to wait in a sort of holding area until Sam leaps into another person's life. People in the other time see and hear him as the person he replaces. Therefore, he of course can't bring objects with him.
Connie Willis's time travel series (DOOMSDAY BOOK, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG, BLACKOUT, and ALL CLEAR) features a research facility at mid-21st-century Oxford University, which sends historians back to study the past. They can go to any time and place, but some force inherent in the nature of time prevents them from getting too close to critical events, so they can't change pivotal turning points. (As far as they know—doubts on this issue plague the characters in BLACKOUT and ALL CLEAR.) They can wear and carry items from their own period into the past. But more than one version of an individual can't occupy the same moment. Although the exact outcome of accidentally doing so seems unknown, it's certain to be disastrous.
In Diana Gabaldon's OUTLANDER and its sequels, the magic inherent in certain spots on the earth (usually marked by stone circles) transports people into the past or forward to their own native era. The traveler can take as much as she can wear or carry. There's no control over when the traveler will arrive, though. Each circle seems to transport people a fixed number of years backward or forward. Therefore, nobody has the option of staying in the past for years and then returning to her "present" minutes after leaving. The same amount of time will have transpired as if she'd stayed in the present.
With the time turner in the Harry Potter series, a wizard can travel to any point in the past (or the future?—I don't remember that the books addressed that question), can carry objects along, and can exist in the same moment as an earlier or later version of himself or herself. The only limitation seems to be how long the device will allow someone to stay in a different time.
The closest approach I can recall to a time travel method that empowers the hero to do almost anything occurs in Heinlein's TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE. Lazarus Long's time-traveling spaceship can go to any spatiotemporal location, and the system freely allows two or more versions of an individual or object to exist in the same moment. So any character can survive apparent death if a time traveler rescues him or her even at the last microsecond, as long as it's soon enough for transportation to the distant future where almost any disease or injury can be healed. This method saves "dead" people in both TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE and TO SAIL BEYOND THE SUNSET. Maybe that power contributed to the impression of one reviewer who wrote about one of Heinlein's late novels that his characters "have no problems, only transient difficulties."
Stephen King devises an especially odd variant in his novel about the Kennedy assassination. The time portal in this book leads to a particular moment on a particular date in the 1950s, no other time or place. Most peculiarly, any trip back through the portal by anyone resets to the default timeline all changes made during the previous visit. The only way to ensure permanent changes would be to destroy the gate after the last trip. Thus, a traveler can always wipe out his mistakes (or someone else's) and start over. Unfortunately, all changes, whether bad or good, get obliterated. Each visit to the past is a total reset. (Or maybe not exactly, but that wrinkle shows up only toward the end of the story.)
The heroine of Koontz's LIGHTNING enjoys the protection of a mysterious "guardian" who pops in and out of her life at critical moments to head off various disasters. In fact, he has watched over her since before she was born, for his intervention prevents her from dying at birth along with her mother. Because he's a time traveler, he doesn't have to experience her life in linear order. If he learns an event has gone horribly wrong, he can return at an earlier date to fix it. (I won't mention what time period he originates from, since that's one of the book's thrilling surprises.) He can carry items back and forth. He wears a device that allows him to return to his own era at will, so he has no constraint on how long he can stay in a given period. Because of the limitations of his time machine, though, he's far from all-powerful. He can't travel to a moment when he already exists. Anyone who tries simply bounces back to the base site. Koontz uses this condition to create nerve-wracking suspense at the novel's climax. To save the heroine from certain death, the hero has to take advantage of a tiny window of opportunity. If that attempt fails, he has run out of moments he can travel to and still make a difference in the outcome.
For such conditions to incite the desired emotional responses in readers, of course, the rules have to be set up clearly in the early part of the work and adhered to with faithful consistency.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's CryptSymbolism Bride&Groom Pray Before Ceremony Without Seeing Each Other |
Bride Praying Before Ceremony |
Armenian Couple Crowned & Blessed |
Theme-Symbolism Integration Part 3 Why Do We Cry At Weddings Part 2 by Jacqueline Lichtenberg Symbolism Bride&Groom Pray Before...