Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AtheistApotheosis

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #673
« on: June 07, 2018, 07:06:57 AM »
I wish that our "escape to reality" didn't have quite so much silly speculation about people becoming cyborgs, in a tone that suggests the speaker regards such sci-fi/fantasy notions to be science. "Gradually downloading our personality to an implanted computer"? Might as well talk about fighting off Bigfoot with a magic wand.

As for having kids on Mars, I cannot imagine anything more cruel and heartless than to condemn your kids to such a life.
Depending. Let us assume for a second that we can make mars within an order of magnitude as safe as earth and children won't just die. It is entirely plausible that health effects of microgravity won't effect individuals born and raised in microgravity. In wich case we are talking the mane downside of only being able to live in microgravity. But any hab would be home.

The gravity on Mars is 38% of 1G, that's not exactly micro-gravity. We've never had people live in that kind of gravity before. The effects of micro-gravity are well known. Mars is a whole new situation and not even comparable to the Moon. The first wave of colonist will have it hardest. Harsh environments can produce harsh people. Limited resources will necessitate strict population control and resource management. The habitats will be small and scattered to start with. Some, if not all will be partly underground. You don't want all of your population in one habitat or even one location, because if there is a disaster you don't want to lose the whole colony at once. And there are all sorts of unforeseen problems that will have to be dealt with, without help from Earth. And it will be a long time before the first martians will be totally independent of Earth. If history tells us anything, colonists will start as innovators and improvisors until they reach a point of stability. But then they may become very conservative and resistant to change. Even fearful of anything new after a few generations. That's what happens when resources are extremely limited and education, science and industry is restricted to only what is immediately useful. But the next wave of colonists will bring new technology, new ways of doing things, and have a much easier time of it as a lot of the hard work will have already been done. Australia and America followed a similar pattern after the arrival of Europeans. The only thing we can be certain of is it's going to take a long time.

I want to be an astrofizzlescist one day.  Because I like things that fizzle in space. ::)

History tells us nothing in this case, because every colony ever established or even attempted in the history of the human race has been in a place with the same 21% oxygen atmosphere as the place they left, the same magnetosphere, the same basic biology; different crops, but the same basic principles of agriculture; different seasons and seasonal day/night changes, but the same sun shining down.

There has never been a colony or even an attempt at a colony in a place where there is effectively no atmosphere, where there is effectively no soil, where there is effectively no readily available water. There are nomads who cross the deserts, but no colonies in the middle of those deserts except at oases where water is available. There are research stations in Antarctica, but even with abundant snow for water and abundant sea life, there is no self-sustaining colony there. Those stations are completely dependent on supplies flown in from outside.

We have, or soon will have, the ability to establish research stations on Mars, for people willing to suffer the consequences of the long exposure to cosmic rays. But a self-sustaining colony there is a fantasy.

With Antarctica "no self-sustaining colony there" That's true because there is no reason to, it's relatively easy to get to and from. But with Mars we have never had the technology to get there or establish a permanent colony on another world before. Most of this will happen over a hundred years or more, like I said... generations. And only if there is a good economic reason to be there in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm very bad at making these kinds of predictions. If you asked me in 2000 when we would have self driving cars, I would have said about 2060 or later. I would have predicted something like spaceX to be closer to around 2080 or 2100. And chat-bots like google's Duplex I wasn't expecting anything like that until  at least 2030 or later, and the same with robots like Atlas or Pepper.  If you listened to the Jennifer Ouellette interview last week, phase transitions and criticality. Technology progresses in the same way "a watched pot never boils", look away for a moment and when you look back suddenly there is a robot serving you coffee and the couple at the next table are photographing them selves with a selfie drone. And you wonder "When the hell did that happen?" We live in interesting times.

2
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #673
« on: June 07, 2018, 05:41:33 AM »
Harsh environments can produce harsh people.

Well, sex-bot technology can help a lot with that.

I thought about that after I finished my post. Dirty minds think alike.

3
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #673
« on: June 05, 2018, 11:51:51 PM »
I wish that our "escape to reality" didn't have quite so much silly speculation about people becoming cyborgs, in a tone that suggests the speaker regards such sci-fi/fantasy notions to be science. "Gradually downloading our personality to an implanted computer"? Might as well talk about fighting off Bigfoot with a magic wand.

As for having kids on Mars, I cannot imagine anything more cruel and heartless than to condemn your kids to such a life.
Depending. Let us assume for a second that we can make mars within an order of magnitude as safe as earth and children won't just die. It is entirely plausible that health effects of microgravity won't effect individuals born and raised in microgravity. In wich case we are talking the mane downside of only being able to live in microgravity. But any hab would be home.

The gravity on Mars is 38% of 1G, that's not exactly micro-gravity. We've never had people live in that kind of gravity before. The effects of micro-gravity are well known. Mars is a whole new situation and not even comparable to the Moon. The first wave of colonist will have it hardest. Harsh environments can produce harsh people. Limited resources will necessitate strict population control and resource management. The habitats will be small and scattered to start with. Some, if not all will be partly underground. You don't want all of your population in one habitat or even one location, because if there is a disaster you don't want to lose the whole colony at once. And there are all sorts of unforeseen problems that will have to be dealt with, without help from Earth. And it will be a long time before the first martians will be totally independent of Earth. If history tells us anything, colonists will start as innovators and improvisors until they reach a point of stability. But then they may become very conservative and resistant to change. Even fearful of anything new after a few generations. That's what happens when resources are extremely limited and education, science and industry is restricted to only what is immediately useful. But the next wave of colonists will bring new technology, new ways of doing things, and have a much easier time of it as a lot of the hard work will have already been done. Australia and America followed a similar pattern after the arrival of Europeans. The only thing we can be certain of is it's going to take a long time.

I want to be an astrofizzlescist one day.  Because I like things that fizzle in space. ::)

4
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #666
« on: May 17, 2018, 01:40:22 PM »
Worrying now about AI and morality is like worrying now about not corrupting intelegent alian coltures from other star systems or galaxies.
Might be entertaining for SF flicks but taking it seriousely is weird.

On the subject of AI, am I the only one missing discussion of the self driving accidents? and the dishonest Tesla/Musk press releases.
This is just a start, since billions are riding on this (no pun..), we are going to experience a lot of fake statistics about the safety of self-driving cars - Skeptics should start being skeptical.
I suspect that people who will point that out would immidiattly become "anti-science" and "anti-progress".

Also, I am missing discussion of the most interesting science news for a long time, Brian Wansink head of the Cornell Food Lab, one of the biggest stars of "nutrition science" and his exploits.
Reading a lot of nutriotion science I was always suspicious of the research standards in the field of nutriotion, shocking to see it so spectacullary exposed. 

Getting a PHD before commenting on morality, really?
Morality is the one thing where a evryones opiniion is exactly equal, envoking elitism here is completly missplaced and is a case of severe scientism.
Consensus and Democracy are the only basis for Morality, not elitist technocrats with PHDs - it will be inetresting to be informed where social engineering by PHDs had such a huge success?

17 August 1896 UK – Bridget Driscoll is the first person to die in a petrol-engined car accident, and the first pedestrian victim of an automobile accident in the United Kingdom.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-10987606
Self driving cars are a new technology, and these days anything new is automaticaly bad and dangerous to some. All technology is dangerous, but it's more often the human factor that's the problem. Mobile phones won't give you cancer, but texting or talking on your mobile while driving is more dangerous than DUI. I hope we reach a point where road accidents are so rare that even a minor dingle is a front page story. The stats for self driving cars have been positive so far.

https://www.axios.com/humans-cause-most-self-driving-car-accidents-1513304490-02cdaf3d-551f-46e6-ad98-637e6ef2c0b9.html

Though opinions are divided.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-autonomous-cars-really-safer-than-human-drivers/

And even the more pesimistic interpretations of the statistics show that human drivers are the problem.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/

5
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #666
« on: May 17, 2018, 12:58:25 PM »
This is what happens when you try to use a very stupid and limited piece of software loose on vulnerable people. And what is worse, they are still doing it.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/04/centrelink-robo-debt-program-accused-of-enforcing-illegal-debts

And this is how the department of human services reacted to questions about the debacle.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/03/the-department-of-human-services-says-robodebt-went-well-and-delivered-lots-of-savings/

The cynicism is jaw dropping, the software showed more compassion.
So what was their next move.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-20/centrelink-cracking-down-on-$900m-worth-of-welfare-debts/9677886

I can't wait for our robot overlords, they are bound to be nicer.



6
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #612
« on: April 17, 2017, 01:35:23 PM »
I repeat that "They laughed at Fulton" is not a valid argument for anything. They also laughed at the guy who jumped off a building because he thought he could fly. They were wrong about Fulton. They were right about the jumper.

Your argument (A.A.) seems to be that anything anybody can imagine is "possible." I call b.s. Plenty of things are not possible. Whether or not self-aware A.I. will be developed within any given time span, or ever, needs to be addressed with valid arguments, not with logical fallacies.

Nobody here is disputing that it might be possible, so your insistence that it's possible because we have airplanes and nuclear energy is irrelevant and does not advance the discussion.

I know of several people who did it from a number of buildings here in aus, hang gliding or wing suits. They get arrested sometimes though. One even strapped carbon fibre wings with small jet turbines attached and jumped out of an aeroplane thinking he could fly, he was right. Everything we can imagine is impossible until we figure out how to do it, if we don't figure out how to do it then it remains impossible. It's when we think we know how to do something or how something works when we really don't that problems emerge. That's when we cross into pseudo-science and pseudo-science can become an obsession.

7
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #611
« on: April 15, 2017, 01:40:02 AM »
... Like for instance when a pediatrician says they have concerns about childhood vaccines, that is pseudo-science, but when Steven claims they are perfectly safe, oh well, he is a doctor, so he must know...Or even when Cara says so, because, ..well, she is a skeptic. 

No, it's about the evidence. It's all about the evidence. What distinguishes science from pseudoscience is not the conclusion or whether any given person agrees or disagrees. It's the evidence. Scientists are people who draw their conclusions from the evidence. Pseudoscientists are people who first decide on their conclusions, and then look for whatever they can twist to fit their conclusions.

Nobody here would say that Cara is right because she's a skeptic, or that Steve is right because he's a doctor. Cara and Steve are people who form their conclusions based on evidence. Anti-vaxxers are people who listen to fear-mongers and reject the evidence in favor of their irrational fears.

The only point I disagree with is "It's the evidence". Steve often says "it's the process of science" which is why he uses the term "science based medicine" as opposed to "evidence based medicine". Cara and Steve are people who form their conclusions based on prevailing scientific opinion and are subject to change. There wouldn't be much of a podcast if they weren't.

8
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #612
« on: April 14, 2017, 10:54:39 PM »
... There are plenty of things we can reasonably assume are highly improbable, based on existing knowledge. Never impossible. ...

My point was that "They laughed at Fulton" is not a valid argument for "Someday we will have self-aware A.I." Posting a long list of (dubious) quotes of naysayers from the past has no place in a serious discussion about whether any given technology will exist in the future.

And we do know that some things are impossible. Two electrons occupying the same quantum state in the same spot, for example. But I never said that self-aware A.I. was impossible. Just that I don't believe it will ever exist. And there's a big difference between saying something is impossible, and saying I don't believe it will ever happen.

"Two electrons occupying the same quantum state in the same spot, for example." they can in adjacent universes, if there are adjacent universes or realities. They just can't do it in the same universe.... or at least it's ridiculously improbable, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.  "Just that I don't believe it will ever exist." they key word is "believe". The naysayers were expressing their beliefs about the future based on the knowledge they possessed at the time, they were just as confident and justified in their beliefs as you or I are now. That's why its relevant. Saying something is impossible is a belief, and we can be as confident in our belief as we like and still be wrong. I'm reasonably confident that human level self-aware A.I won't happen in the next thirty years, but something with the awareness of a housefly or even a mouse is still significant and seems plausible within that time period. I'm not a computer scientist, so I don't know. And that was a short list of only 25, do you really think there were only 25 or so people who were experts in their field, who knew what they were talking about, in the world and who made predictions that proved spectacularly wrong?

https://medium.freecodecamp.com/worst-tech-predictions-of-the-past-100-years-c18654211375
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-smug-predictions-that-were-hilariously-wrong/

Don't be afraid to say "I don't Know".

9
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #612
« on: April 14, 2017, 02:29:53 PM »
An emergent property is a property that arises in a structure as complexity increases. Consciousness is indeed a property of the brain, or more likely, a property of the brain-body complex. As far as we know, insects and reptiles are not self-aware, though they are aware of their surroundings and react to them. But once the brain became sufficiently complex, somewhere in our evolutionary history, consciousness emerged. You are probably right that it did not suddenly appear. It emerged gradually. just as the eye of an eagle did not appear suddenly, fully formed: It evolved over aeons.

I am quite skeptical of the list of "famous" predictions of the past in the link you quote, though it is true that the more we learn about the world the more we are able to manipulate it. However, listing things people once thought were impossible as an argument that any particular thing will be possible in the future, is a logical fallacy. Just because they laughed at Fulton does not mean that one day we will have transporter beams. Just because some famous person thought human flight was impossible, does not mean that one day we'll have self-aware machines. We might, but that argument is not valid.
There are plenty of things we can reasonably assume are highly improbable, based on existing knowledge. Never impossible. That is why we do science. We human beings are notoriously bad at predicting the future. And most predictions fall apart after a few decades with all but a few certainties, and even they are not immune to new discoveries.  "As far as we know" is the problem, we don't, we assume we know a lot of things. In the absence of evidence I might add. I agree some of those predictions may have been taken out of context and possibly one or two made up, I've seen most of them before though, and quite a few more, that was just a short list. Consciousness is just a label we apply to a process, like colour is a label we give to the various wavelengths of light, but colour is simply how the brain interprets the electro chemical signals from the rods and cones on our retina. Also since we don't really experience the present, and we only remember being conscious. Consciousness can never be anything more than a memory constructed after the fact. Our brains can not process experiences instantaneously, it takes time to construct our reality. So if our brain didn't create all of our reality with error correction in advance, we would experience a noticeable lag in perception. Perception is not reality, merely a near approximation. It's why the second hand on a clock sometimes appears frozen or even goes backwards for an instant when you glance at it. Consciousness is no more a emergent property of the brain than Windows is an emergent property of my PC. The emergent properties of the brain are the complex systems that perform the many functions of the brain like consciousness, instinct, senses, motor functions, etc. It's simply deciding what is labelled a property and what is a function or process. Properties can give rise to processes or functions. One is a quality of a thing, the other is what it does. A property is generally static and only changes when acted upon, processes or functions are generally dynamic or autonomous though not exclusively, and can change whether acted upon or not and even stop. Consciousness is the latter not the former. Emergent properties out of complex systems is misleading because you can get emergent properties out of simple systems like fractals including the structure of crystals.  And in biology, there are emergent properties such as symmetry, internal and external organs that serve or perform functions. Using the wrong or misleading terminology can be where a lot of pseudo-science and misunderstandings beguine, and leaves a window open for the Deepak Chopras of the world. Not that they wouldn't sneak in under the carpet.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, nor is it proof of presence. Hence probably no dragons, unless we use CRISPR to make some.

10
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #611
« on: April 14, 2017, 11:53:44 AM »
...
Now that Chiropractic Quackery can go legit, my ambition to become a science based sorcerer/homoeopath/warlock/witch doctor? what doctor? doctor who? oh that doctor, may not be so impossible/implausible/unlikely/not a chance/Buckley's/ridiculous after all. The Latinist said "I can see chiropractors eventually becoming science-based physical therapists" I assume that means not calling themselves chiropractors any more. If I give up golf and take up tennis should I continue to consider myself a golfer? in my case, probably. I can see someone being a physical therapist and a chiropractor with some overlap between the two. But there comes a point where you've removed all of the woo and become a chiropractor in name only, but really a physical therapist.
...

I gather that the notion would be to re-define the term "chiropractor" to mean a physical therapist who specializes in the spine and back. You'd still be a chiropractor, but you'd have tossed out the woo. Just as we still use the term "doctor" for people who no longer bleed you to restore balance to your humors.

Would I be a spiritualist if I tossed out the spirit? I'm not sure you could redefine the term astrologer to mean someone who does not predict the future via the positions of stars and planets without confusing a lot of people. My mechanic calls himself a car doctor. Doctor is a non-specific title that covers a wide range of disciplines. Chiropractor is a bit more specific. And you run the risk of legitimising the quacks. If what you are doing is not chiropractic, you are not a chiropractor not matter what it says on the door.

11
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #612
« on: April 14, 2017, 11:28:43 AM »
Cara's claim that intelligence is more than the sum of its parts is not
something I really understand: it sounds like mysticism to me. What is the
extra stuff that's not in the parts?
This made me stop and go "wait, what?" as well.

I think she was talking about emergence as in consciousness beeing an emergent property of the brain.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-science-consciousness/201702/is-the-brain-more-the-sum-its-parts

What's with this emergent property business? consciousness is a function not a property of the brain like walking is a function of legs. You wouldn't say flying is an emergent property of wings, you could, but it would sound silly. Consciousness is a term to mean awareness of ones environment,  it identifies the processes of spatial, temporal cognition, interpretation and response. And we seem to holding on to the mysticism of some kind of spontaneous emergence of consciousness when the brain crossed some magical threshold, rather then a slow progression starting with single celled organisms developing a very simple chemical process to communicate with other. That's how every biological process seams to have developed, with numerous small incremental steps. Just as it is with AI, though following a different and shorter path. And Steve reminded me of that old adage "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." and Steve is getting more distinguished every day. You can't predict when or if something is going to be possible unless you know how it will be achieved. Self aware AI could be a decade away, or ten decades or a thousand. It's too soon to say.

http://list25.com/25-famous-predictions-that-were-proven-to-be-horribly-wrong/

12
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #611
« on: April 04, 2017, 05:30:51 PM »
Science or Jewy never fails to put a smile on my dial, and gives me an Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response every time. Joshie Berger should be a regular rouge... and my spell-check has decided his name is Josephine, who new?

Now that Chiropractic Quackery can go legit, my ambition to become a science based sorcerer/homoeopath/warlock/witch doctor? what doctor? doctor who? oh that doctor, may not be so impossible/implausible/unlikely/not a chance/Buckley's/ridiculous after all. The Latinist said "I can see chiropractors eventually becoming science-based physical therapists" I assume that means not calling themselves chiropractors any more. If I give up golf and take up tennis should I continue to consider myself a golfer? in my case, probably. I can see someone being a physical therapist and a chiropractor with some overlap between the two. But there comes a point where you've removed all of the woo and become a chiropractor in name only, but really a physical therapist.

ASMR, just another weird thing my brain does. Strangely I didn't know you needed sound stimulation, I never have. I just do it. Though if I do it for too long my fingers and toes start to tingle and I get pins and needles sometimes. It's like the clicking or thunder noise you make in your ears when you flex certain muscles in your head close to your ear canals. You just do it without knowing exactly how, and sometimes it makes your ears pop if you inhale or exhale at the same time. There is also the thing where I roll my eyes up, focus on a point about three inches inside my head and give myself chills, it also helps me fall asleep quickly. Or that point right between my eyebrows, where if I focus on it I get a really unpleasant feeling of pressure and sometimes results in a headache. I get the same effect if I use something like a pencil and get it as close as possible without touching that spot. Weird. At least it's not as unpleasant as exploding head syndrome or sleep paralysis. I get both of these, usually once or twice a year. But they're no where near as irritating as tinnitus which is like having a head full of tiny cicadas going shring in your head 24/7. And like the other things get louder if I listen and focus on them. My tinnitus used to give me night terrors when I was little and on quiet nights still can wake me up. I need some other noise to block it out like a fan running next to the bed. ASMR is much more pleasant.

13
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #605
« on: February 15, 2017, 11:33:15 AM »
Re: Name That Logical Fallacy

The first one that popped into my mind was Hasty Generalization.

Taking the form, because you were wrong on this one thing, you must be wrong on other things as well.

I think it fits better than the ones discussed in the podcast.

Sounds good, the first one to come to mind for me was poisoning the well. But I thought hasty generalisation would be more like.

 >:(: "You're a republican voter! sorry we don't let racist bigots in here."
 ???: "But I'm not racist."
 :-\: "But you just said you were a republican voter!"
 :rant:: "That doesn't make me racist. Wait, if I was a Liberal voter, would that make me a believer in open borders with Mexico."
 :ughh:: "Obviously!"
 :o: "Wow, I had no idea. Bye."
 :350:: "Where are you going? you can't drive in that state."
 :patriot::  "No choice, I have to call immigration so I can fire my driver and have him deported."

14
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #603
« on: February 02, 2017, 04:09:25 AM »
You only need to look at Australian wildlife extinctions since European settlement to see how bad this Human caused mass extinction event is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia

My own small state has lost several large species and we could lose our most iconic. The Tasmanian Devil is on the endangered list because of facial cancer.

The rogues mentioned the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine) and how it has been claimed to have been sighted many times since the last recorded one in the 1930s.
I do think it could have survived for a few decades after that. Most of the southwest of Tasmania is thick rainforest that is hard country to explore.

But with the searches that have gone on since the 70s and the building of roads into that area since, I think we would have found them, or evidence, by now, if they were still around.

The Thylacine is one of the few extinct animals where there is enough preserved DNA for it to be resurrected. The DNA is complete but fragmented. Geneticists can study the genomes of these animals now in the lab though they a long way of from producing a living animal. There has been an on and off cloning project since 1999, it's currently on hold. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/02/15/1302459.htm The technology isn't there yet but who knows what will be possible in the next decade. But to be honest I really want to see a mammoth, or an eight foot tall carnivorous kangaroo with fangs. http://www.aussiebushadventures.com.au/blog.php?id=40 Or even one of these. http://www.snopes.com/2016/03/28/new-fossils-found-unicorns/ And people think that drop bears were just something we made up. http://thagomizers.tumblr.com/post/36276781471/thylacoleo-carnifex-pouch-lion check out thumbs in the second picture, these predators were serious tree climbers. I grew up in central NSW where there were regular Thylacine sightings in the area up to the 1970's. Mind you there are still the odd reports of tiger sightings allong with yowies, panthers, UFO's and giant opals. Actually the yowie is described by some Aboriginal elders to be a tribe of people covered with hair, similar to people with hypertrichosis. Rather than the popular image of hairy giant humanoids like sasquatch or yeti. It was probably a genetic disorder that ran in one particular family that died out before or not long after the first settlers arrived. The hairy people from TV series Cleverman are based on the yowie. Of course the real ones if they existed, probably didn't have superhuman strength and weird eyes. http://www.oddee.com/item_97812.aspx. I have always suspected most myths have a greater basis in truth than we realise, due to the fact that most human beings suffer from a severe lack of imagination or original thought. Just take a good look at what comes out of Hollywood these days.

15
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #600
« on: January 13, 2017, 09:42:40 AM »
Funnily, I didn't think of Ripley either. Now I'm too young for Ripley to have been in my childhood. But thinking on it, I'm not sure I would have thought of Ripley as a "sci-fi" heroine. Alien was basically a horror movie and Aliens was an action movie. Thinking on it, I'm not sure I ever considered her a "sci-fi" heroine.

Which now has me spinning off into thoughts of "Where is the line between sci-fi..." and other genres. Like when is a movie a "Science Fiction" movie vs a "Horror Movie set in Space."

An ACTION heroine, especially after Aliens, absolutely. But the Ripley from Alien seemed a lot more similar to your "last girl standing" Horror heroine.
I think the distinction your making is, unnecessary.  Any fictional media can be any combination of genre(mostly)  Alien was sci-fi and horror even if the plot was really just a horror movie, it was more sci-fi than Star Wars which was really just fantasy in space at any-rate.  The alien franchise is clearly sci-fi with installments in various other genres.  I think Ripley is the clearest example of a sci-fi heroine.  Leia in the first Star Wars film was as much a damsel in distress as she was a heroine, "Save me Obi Wan!"  Ripley was clearly a women of action, even if she was in a horror movie.

There's probably an interesting TV show in Sarah Connor's life between 1984 and 1991.  Hanging out on the fringes of society, occasionally running drugs or escaping ATF raids on the compound.  With any luck, it would last like 10 years.
Something like The Sara Connor Chronicals which was set after Terminator II, and covered a period from 1999 to 2007. Though it ran for only two seasons and they time jumped eight years so it was very short. I always thought they should do the same for batman and superman, both start their careers at the age of thirty. The problem with the genre of science fiction is that science isn't really a part of it. We call anything science fiction if it's set in space, in the future, has aliens, involves time travel, advanced technology, robots, astronauts, William Shattner, cyborgs, large astronomical objects colliding with other large astronomical objects, lasers, teleporting, William Shattner, alien planets full of aliens being alien, really big guns with digital counters on the side, space stations and people exploding in the vacuum of space. You really only encounter real science fiction in novels. Anything written by real scientists like Issac Asimov, Arthur C Clark, Robert Heinlein, Carl Sagan is a good place to start.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4