Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > After a lengthy period of isolation, though, why should all of their > artifacts look exactly like those found in contemporary North > America? Even on Earth, you can tell a difference between the > scenery, the clothing, etc., when you travel to Europe, Asia, > Africa, > . . ., even after centuries of contact and trade.
I don't think that is a fair comparison really. On Earth, cultures developed in relative isolation for very long periods of time but are now becoming more and more monocultural as time passes. What is seen on BSG is a vast monoculture (for the greatest part the 12 colonies are almost identical) defined and evolving from its colonial origins. To some extent this development should parallel the development of the only example of "cities carved out of virgin wilderness" we have more than any examples we have of cities built on top of ancient cities as seen in our eastern hemisphere. How long does it take to fully develop a planetary colony? (I see evidence that the colonial planets are not fully developed and populated, and the total population of the entire polity is small multiples of earths population. Remember that 40 years in the past, the cylons had almost wiped out colonial civilisation.) This is a central question. How many different ways are there to transport garbage on a planet that is not fully populated? (All the evidence I've seen from the series points to the colonies being having much smaller populations than Earth [correct me if I'm wrong], and my speculation is that these are originally colonies *from* Earth since all the evidence shows that humans evolved here *first* and then emigrated, hence the lower populations.) This is a central question. >Why should the > people on a planet where the people have not had contact with Earth > in so long that no one from either world knows of the other world > except as an ancient legend just happen to wear suits and ties that > look exactly like what some people on Earth wear, when styles in > other parts of Earth and little more than a century ago in the parts > of Earth where they are worn today look so different? > See above. Of course there is another argument to be made. When you watch a biography of say...George Washingtons life, do you expect the actor to look *exactly* like George Washington? To sound exactly like George Washington? To *be* an exact copy of George Washington? Of course not! The actor is supposed to convey the *idea* of George Washington. In that sense, a terrestrial dumpster is supposed to convey the *idea* of a *pretend-makebelieve-doesn'texistintherealworld* dumpster. And yet another argument. If someone finds a dumpster jarring in a scene on "pretend-Caprica", yet is not jarred by vehicles, asphalt, and average everyday warehouses also seen in the background, then ones suspension-of-disbelief is awfully selective. I'm pretty sure I know which scene Warren is speaking of and it reeked of "ordinaryness of setting in turbulent times" which I wouldn't doubt was intentional. Then too, my line of work brings me into contact with dumpsters on a regular and daily basis. Dumpsters are cheap, functional, and effective, and come in a variety of styles. I think you have to argue/show that there is a vastly different way to design dumpsters of equal or better utility that look nothing like "our" dumpsters in order to advance an argument that the BSG dumpsters are some sort of spatial twonky. Query: Are the events of BSG contemporary with *us* *now*? xponent Space Garbage Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
