Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'The Future is Wild' Discovery Channel
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 13 (50800)
08-18-2003 2:06 AM


[intro: Mods, I think this forum should be expanded as to include not only books but also other publications like videos]
Anybody seen Discovery Channel's speculative program 'The Future is Wild'? Let me know and let's discuss it!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 08-18-2003 8:05 AM Andya Primanda has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 13 (50827)
08-18-2003 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
08-18-2003 2:06 AM


It's interesting. I enjoyed it, but it is impossible to take seriously.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-18-2003 2:06 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-19-2003 4:31 AM John has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 13 (50986)
08-19-2003 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by John
08-18-2003 8:05 AM


In the longer version of the show, some authorities like Neil Shubin and Peter Ward were giving short comments on what will survive, what the Earth will look like in the future, etc. I wonder if those scientists are involved in writing the script.
I agree, most future creatures in the show were quite hard to believe. And the writers seem to prefer cephalopods too much, and underestimating vertebrates. Of all major vertbrate groups, only fish remain at the end? What happened to tough crocodiles, versatile snakes (nowhere in the series), and fecund small mammals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John, posted 08-18-2003 8:05 AM John has not replied

  
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 13 (53168)
09-01-2003 6:27 AM


Never seen it. I suspect large amounts of science fiction with good special effects trumpeted as the work of scientists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 09-01-2003 1:45 PM defenderofthefaith has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 13 (53231)
09-01-2003 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by defenderofthefaith
09-01-2003 6:27 AM


Basically...
What the show presents could happen. My objection is with the idea that they can infer that it WILL happen.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-01-2003 6:27 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2003 7:38 PM John has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 13 (53565)
09-02-2003 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
09-01-2003 1:45 PM


What the show presents could happen. My objection is with the idea that they can infer that it WILL happen.
Wholly agree. ToE has always been about interpolation, not extrapolation. We look at starting and end points, not the future. If it's the one I'm thinking of, the future Man o' War was a great laugh. It was like a floating battle ship. This is what happens when science is made into entertainment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 09-01-2003 1:45 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 09-02-2003 7:41 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2004 8:07 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 13 (53567)
09-02-2003 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Loudmouth
09-02-2003 7:38 PM


I don't remember the Man-o-war. I really liked the arboreal cephalopods though.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2003 7:38 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-09-2003 6:40 AM John has replied

  
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 13 (54539)
09-09-2003 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by John
09-02-2003 7:41 PM


Arboreal cephalopods???? You mean, jellyfish swinging merrily through the trees? Perhaps I'd have enjoyed The Future is Wild if it were formally labelled as science fiction. Certainly they seem to have stolen their people from Star Wars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John, posted 09-02-2003 7:41 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 09-09-2003 9:32 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied
 Message 10 by John, posted 09-09-2003 11:01 AM defenderofthefaith has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 13 (54550)
09-09-2003 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by defenderofthefaith
09-09-2003 6:40 AM


defenderofthefaith,
Arboreal cephalopods???? You mean, jellyfish swinging merrily through the trees?
Jellyfish belong to phyla Cnidaria, not Mollusca. But then there are arboreal molluscs, if not cephalopods.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-09-2003 6:40 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 13 (54554)
09-09-2003 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by defenderofthefaith
09-09-2003 6:40 AM


quote:
You mean, jellyfish swinging merrily through the trees?
They weren't jellyfish, defender. They were, supposedly, the ancestors of cuttlefish, octopi, squid, et al. Ie. they were cephalopods-- Class Cephalopoda.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-09-2003 6:40 AM defenderofthefaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:29 AM John has not replied

  
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 13 (54881)
09-11-2003 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by John
09-09-2003 11:01 AM


Whoops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John, posted 09-09-2003 11:01 AM John has not replied

  
extremophile
Member (Idle past 5594 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 12 of 13 (114289)
06-10-2004 11:27 PM


I liked the series, it's perfectly fine if you see that's no intended to be a exact prediction of what life on Earth is going to be, but just a speculation of the spirit of the things that we'd be seeing if we were around here.
About the arboreal cephalopods, I'd not be so skeptic about the possibility, since in the end we're all fishes typing in computers, and we had ancestrals that were arboreal fishes as well. In fact, the cephalops have nowadays more potential exaptations (already done arms/tentacles) than the fishes that came to land had. This thing leds to one of the 2 main good points of this series: a non-anthropocentrist evolution. Isn't unlikely to found people saying about the human form as if it were as a sort of si ne qua non to intelligence, a bauform that unavoidably brings intelligence, and a sort of target form that beings that are developing intelligent unavoidably "seek". Remember Dale Russel's humanoid-Troodondid? (aka "dinosauroid" with apparently no etymologic sense, since it would be a dinosaur anyway).
The other good point is that remembers or shows to some people that evolution is a ongoing process, not something that occurred a long time ago, and now is "done" already.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 13 (114381)
06-11-2004 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Loudmouth
09-02-2003 7:38 PM


This is what happens when science is made into entertainment.
i think this show did a disservice to evolutionary biology and paleontology everywhere. because it is 100% speculation. fiction, passed off as fact.
and yet when you watch it, it looks and feels just like the "walking with dinosaurs," which is actually based on realy studies, and is backed up by a lot of evidence. very very little speculation is used, and the only fictionalization is the individualized plots and "characters."
basically, it makes the other legit shows look bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2003 7:38 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024