Beyond the Death of Silver Screen Space Operas

Contents:

1. Back to the Future Moon

2. Dystopia Blues

3. Other (space) Sci-fi Worthy of the Title

4. Back into Deep Space, TV and Further Discussions

== Back to the Future Moon ==

During a Facebook message thread, started (1.5 months ago!) on the topic of the new movie "Moon" (as yet still unseen by myself): I was whinging about the implausibility of of the setting and it's possible efficacy as pro human space-flight propaganda (when I consider any question of such pursuits moot). We started discussing a (potentially) similar movie and the genre in general. The following is a quote from one of my good friend's comments (my reply turned into this blog entry):

"I also thought Sunshine was a disappointment, but mostly because of the way the climax of the film declined into teen-slasher territory. Its important for sci-fi to be realistic enough to suspend disbelief, but I think any film ultimately has to make compromises with the story. That the idea of jump-starting the sun is preposterous to me doesn't make the film less interesting. Like all such films its about the journey rather then the destination."

I absolutely agree that it's entirely valid to have a major violation of reality (and any subsequent deviations that directly stem from that) in a movie (TV series or book), in order to explore another (entirely unrelated) topic.

My gripe is that no, so called, “sci-fi” films set in space have actual been about sci-fi since the early 70s, when there was a slew of them: “2001 a Space Odyssey”, Solaris, “Silent Running”, etc. Since then space has been used solely as an alternative backdrop for movies that I think belong more predominantly to other genres:

- Action blockbuster (Independence Day, Armageddon)

- Fantasy adventure romp (Star Wars, Fifth Element)

- Horror (Event Horizon, Alien)

- Western (Firefly/Serenity)

- Psychological Thriller (Sunshine)

- Comedy (HHGTTG, Space Balls, Mars Attacks)

Remakes don't count! (e.g. War of the Worlds, Solaris, The Day the Earth Stood Still). The only exception I can currently think of is the 1997 film "Contact" (and that's based on a novel from 1985). [I dug up some more possible exceptions later: see below]

One might argue that culture has moved on from the moon landings era obsession with space travel (hence no market for traditional space sci-fi). That is part of it. But I don't think it's a case of maturing beyond unrealistic fantasies: interplanetary human colonisation and encounters with unimaginatively biological aliens (inexplicably intent on genocide). Space just went out of fashion. The movie industry is fixated on recirculating the same old ideas, albeit with updated technobabble and stunning visual effects. But a lack of innovation by Hollywood is not limited to this specific genre, for sure.

Remakes are the most obvious aspect of this. Then there are tributes to the heyday of the genre: "Moon" appears to be one, but seeing as no cinemas within 25 miles of me deigned to show it, I haven't found out yet. This cinematic commission might seem a little odd given it's critical acclaim and coincidence with the 40th anniversary of the moon landings. One can only assume the film's distributors weren't on good enough terms with most cinema chains. Or the easy money to be made, by devoting 3 screens entirely to Harry Potter, outweighed any desire to provide choice to customers. (and 'the industry' wonders why there's so much pirating)

[Above: Mark Kermode reviews Moon.]

The remaining class of Features, are only ostensibly original; where there should be some solid concepts, there is just the watered down echoing of dependable old favourites. A near universal bias towards a certain area of the sci-fi 'idea space'.

== Dystopia Blues ==

The most immutable theme is the Orwellian Dystopia. So much is planted firmly at the foot of films like "THX 1138" and "Fahrenheit 451"; it's a genre of it's own: Blade Runner, Escape from New York, Demolition Man, Gattaca, Equilibrium, Minority Report, Aeon flux, Children of Men, The Island....

Much of the general public seems to have unconsciously accepted technological advance as synonymous with a gloomy, dystopian future. Any, self proclaimed, fictional utopia is *always* shown to be flawed and dystopian, probably a fascist dictatorship too.

I would go as far as to blame this (in part) for the new romanticism permeating our culture: a rosy fantasy vision of the past; the perceived superiority of organic food, and the false environmentalism of living off your own land, for examples. Somewhat reminiscent of the revival of mysticism in pre-Hitler Germany (and other countries): a backlash to the impersonal horrors of industrialism and WW1.

Maybe, if films had been pushing the frontiers of sci-fi, in the process depicting *some* instances where progress provides mostly boons to society, there would be more for people to be positive about in the mid-distant future.

Keanu (i.e. devil's advocate): "u couldn't have a story line where nothing goes wrong and everyone's happy: it'd be boring!"

Obviously I'm not suggesting that; there is drama and strife aplenty in my favourite sci-fi novels, that also harbour pro-progress sentiments. OK, so I'd be expecting a lot for a major film company to bank-roll a feature based in or around Vinge's Technological Singularity (for the moment at least). Even if they went with one of Stross's books, those leave human kind (as we know it) sidelined into unfavourable positions, because of a Singularity. Besides he was only first published this millennium: far too avant-guard for popularisation! It seems there's a 20-30 year period before hard sci-fi ideas can be de-classified for widespread media consumption. Ironic, given that they're generally outdated within 10-15 years, these days.

However, Iain M. Bank's has been writing stories set in his "Culture" universe since 1987. In many ways they're pretty damn bleak: often, most of the main characters get killed off just before they might have reach a happy end. But there is an ever present, positive leitmotif: the galactic civilisation of "The Culture" itself. An unmistakable utopia, where an anarchy of super-intelligent, yet emotional, machine minds (embodied in space ships and entire planets) altruistically cater for a race of near-humans. Because of their near god-like control of matter, it's trivial to provide for the humans' every whim, however lavish by today's standards. The tribulations come in dealing with other, less advanced civilisations, and characters there-in.

I would be overcome with joy (caring not of being proven wrong) if a film were based on the substance and spirit of any of those novels. I think it would easily make sufficiently compelling viewing for a contemporary audience too, with: action, violence, plenty of scope for overblown use of CGI, prolific sex and drugs. However, because the latter two aspects are presented as entirely acceptable, without any drawbacks, I expect this vista would be considered, by our current 'powers that be', too liberal to be shown to the general public. Not that there's any political bias in our media of course.

Perhaps that is part of the problem: an (implicit) conspiracy not to show people how good they could have it, to prevent dissatisfaction with their continuous drudgery in the pursuit of material possessions. “Nothing is perfect” or comes for free!? (not even the 'best things in life'!) Anything that equips imaginations, highlighting society's blind spot to alternatives to the current monetary system, would be a most dangerous heracy. [But more on that when I finish distilling my thoughts on Douglas Rushkoff's "Life Inc." into a blog entry.]

== Other (Space) Sci-fi Worthy of the Title ==

+ Deep Impact - A glaring exception to my earlier moan. Although it had a near identical plot to Armageddon, it is it's total antithesis. This is a sci-fi movie with good science throughout! Even the name of the nuclear pulse propulsion spacecraft, used to rendezvous with the comet, is a reference to the real world “Project Orion”, abandoned in 1963 because of the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Also, although nuclear bombs are used to blow apart the comet (twice), the result is a much more realistic semi-fail, with an epic tidal wave wiping out much of America (and presumably other parts of the world too; I never said it wasn't US-centric). Released in the same summer as Armageddon (1998) it somehow opened more strongly at the box office. Armageddon did end up grossing more worldwide ($555M vs $349M), but then it cost twice as much to make. So not a total fail for science there.

+ Spielberg has an unparalleled track record here, with: “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “E.T.” and “A.I.”. If he manages not to totally eviscerate the live action remake of “Ghost in the Shell” (1995), my all time favourite film, then he may move even further up my list of favourite Directors. Perhaps then the original, and “Stand Alone Complex” series too, might reach beyond anime fans watching “Adult Swim”. We'll have to wait until 2011 to find out though (22 years after the cutting-edge manga).

[Above: "Tank Wins" by Me; Composition from parts of the end of G.I.T.S.]

A.I. (and E.T.) was (were) largely designed for lacrimation (i.e. 'weapies'), but they had undeniably high conceptual production values. A.I. was somewhat of an epic tale of a robot boy, with a strong message that artificial beings can be every bit as human as ourself. Unfortunately most people I know had fallen asleep by the end, which is the most interesting part (from a futurist's POV): he is dug up and revived by advanced aliens, who are actually told to be the descendent of machines, if one pays attention. Naturally, I'm not keen on the ultimate ending: apparently it's impossible to turn 'Pinocchio' into a "real boy", so he gets 1 "perfect" day with his mommy before dying. OK, it made me cry a little (more from the sentiment of the little robot teddy bear than anything else, mind), but it's still an utter pile of religiousisational gash!: why *not* be able to turn him into a biological boy? He was clearly within a simulation during his perfect day; why not persist there, walk off into the sunset, live and grow with other sentient simulations (of other 'revivers', play on survivors)? Buying into the singularity thing (Tiplerian or otherwise) might be too much, but getting that close to it and then turning around and producing the usual line of: all life is finite, death is the natural order, we should just enjoy the rare good moments and be satisfied....: Bah!!!!

+ Matrix - (including Reloaded), though again I had high hopes for the conclusion of this arc that were brutally murdered by Revolutions: you expect us to believe that after swiftly dispatching humans, the super-advanced, conscious programs of the machine world had just sat and twiddled their thumbs for thousands of years?!!... Even if they had been inexplicably confined to the surface of this one planet, with the capability of simulating an entire world, would they not also have simulated a plethora of other worlds/ecologies/levels and types of intelligence??!! If it's too difficult to visualise these, at least give us a hint they, or something interesting exists...

+ Terminator - up to T2 only, which was largely an action shooter with some brilliant chase sequences. It also largely responsible for founding public expection of human extermination by future A.I.. But at least it raised awareness, and the sucessively advanced terminator robots imply perpetual progess beyond the influence of human creativity.

+ Titan AE - though animated and puerile (and the "pure energy" beings posses no features of such) it has a genesis device spaceship that is kind cool in a retro/steam-punk kind of way.

+ Vanilla Sky (remake of the Spanish original, "Open Your Eyes", featuring the same lead actress) - very impressed that this turned out to be set in a simulation, with Tom Cruise having been resurrected from cryogenic storage. Disappointed there wasn't any hint of events outside the simulation, but was to be expected.

+ Minority report - hmm, kind of; though clearly a distopia, it had a few pieces of hard science-futurism in.

== Back into Deep Space, TV and Further Discussions ==

+ Surprisingly, Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 largely met my standards. Although action heavy, dark themes replaced whimsical swashbuckling, and there was even a brief nod to the conspicuous lack of (trans)human level AI in their universe. [previously blogged]

+ Star Trek - As the films go, the first, "Star Trek the Motion Picture", is clearly high concept sci-fi that happens to use the established characters from the fictional universe. Because of it's lack of profitability and critical reception, Gene Roddenberry lost creative control of the sequels, probably why their priorities appear to have been turned around: action adventure in a space setting.

If there is a missing link that bridges between the space sci-fi of the 70s and the new millennium, it would undoubtedly be the "Star Trek, the Next Generation" franchise (including most of “Voyager” and the earlier “Deep Space 9” series). Perhaps an episodic structure, and lower costs made this the ideal vestal for space-fiction proper. In my late teens I rejected Star Trek, to an extent, cringing that my earlier self had accumulated the Star Trek fact files in a search for further inspiration/answers to the future. Of course, as a profit extending item of merchandise for hardcore, geek fans, they contained no such revelations. Also, I became painfully aware of how deeply uncool Star Trek appreciation was, thanks largely to a high school peer nicknamed "Trekky". Getting into bona fide sci-fi novels, such as A.C. Clarke's “2001” quadrilogy (that I read in reverse order), also helped foster disdain for the Star Trek universe.

From an even greater retrospective height, I can appreciate the value of the Star Trek series; they introduced me to a plethora of sci-fi, philosophy and psychology concepts. They may even be significantly responsible for shaping my world view and interests in science and technology that took me to degree level studies. I only regret that kids (like me) growing up in the 00s won't have had access, to such a good stepping stone, into sci-fi literature and beyond. Contemporary 'sci-fi' series have gone the way of the space-opera movie: concentrating on drama, character development and TV-soap style story arcs, while focusing on contemporary or nostalgic issues and replacing any humanist philosophy with Hollywood style Christianity.

The TV section of the Wikipedia article on Sci-fi confirms and clarifies my view. The 90s were actually somewhat of a hay-day for good sci-fi TV with: "Babylon 5", "SeaQuest DSV" and even "Red Dwarf" (though primarily comedy) and "The Outer Limits" (despite close similarities to "Goose Bumps"; a child oriented horror mini-novel series). There were some inspirational episodes of the X-files too (even if we never did conclusively discover the "Truth... Out There"). The one episode I most strongly remember enjoying (involving a human having been uploaded to the internet) turns out to have been written by William Gibson (the Godfather of cyberpunk novels). However, that episode, "Kill Switch" (series 5), and his latter collaboration, "First Person Shooter" (series 7), were among the last ever examples of Sci-fi authors working with TV production. It is no wonder that science (particularly physics) graduates are in such steep decline. I hope the current (3rd rate) sci-fi, and reruns of shows from the glory days, are enough to inspire *some* of our next generation into sci/tech related vocations.

[Edit 2014-10-21 - Minor corrections and kermode video fixed.]

Classic Lewy - Musical Composition on Evolution

On BBC2 last night - "Classic Goldie": The famous drum'n'bass populariser composes a piece for the 2009 Proms with full orchestra and choir. Themed on (his interpretation of) evolution; Starts with big bang, has tribal phases, spirituality heavy, etc. It's not that surprising that he manages to pull it off with some style, despite having no formal musical training and being initially unable to read notation; he has a professional composer as a personal assistant, an operator to solidify all the details onto computer and an entire orchestra of the most talented musical minds in the country to inspire and assist him.

[Above: compossition of 2 screen shots from the show, via iPlayer]

+ Anyway, I couldn't help thinking about how I would go about creating a piece embodying evolution, starting from the *very beginning*, especially having recently been thinking about genes, memes, and temes.

It would be:

- A musicalisation (audio equivalent to visualisation) of an exponentially scaled (allegorical) history of the universe.

- It would have to show patterns (refrains), like sections of genetic code, cropping up, being copied/repeated (to other instruments), being slightly modified (some fail = stop, some continue & expand in length/complexity). The layers build up on top of one another, being played simultaneously, like a food web/musical ecology.

- A fairly simple concept that would take a musical genius (not me!) to make sound good, as well as being informative. The important bit would be the evolution of tunes ('melod-emes' as i call them), the linear history of time structure could be stripped away if desired.

+ Structure wise it would go somewhat like this:

- Start with a very, very rapidly crescendoing roar of every instrument played evenly (no distinguishable stick impacts or anything).

{inflation}

- The homogeneous roar slowly diminuendos, abruptly cutting out (but not *quite* all at once), leaving part of the percussion department still going.

{first atoms form, universe becomes transparent}

- Distinct beats can be discerned, but in no pattern and very rapid. Low, quiet tone from across the whole orchestral slides very slowly (so at first is not noticed; it has been there since transparency), then increasingly rapid, as it gets higher pitched, culminating in a blowtorch noise {stars ignite}. Perhaps a series of sliding notes from different parts of the orchestra (getting closer together in time) each resulting in a new layer of blowtorch noise.

{gravity takes hold; formation of galaxies, stars ignite}

- Difficult... but most of the layers of blowtorch noise would stop with a crash, one at a time.

{heavier elements synthesised & supernovas}

- Cyclical rhythms emerge in percussion, the more wild/haphazard/syncopated ones end abruptly end (in very loud bangs), leaving one steady beat (no syncopation).

{planetary systems resolve to stable orbits}

- Percussive bangs (not as loud as the planetary collisions, but the tail end of them), frequent but tailing off. Blowtorch still quiet in background. During the bigger gaps between bangs, bits of tune start to emerge, then are temporarily silenced by a bang (or 2), before resuming (the same, timid, simple tune (on one instrument)).

{Cometary impacts}

Difficult to represent asteroids bringing water to the earth's surface unless imitating or using recordings of ocean (wave) sounds, and splashes; don't want the piece to turn into a clip-art esq collection of sound effects!

- Several fairly discordant melod-emes (i.e. tune ideas/memes) might be heard around one section of the orchestra (at random timings, on different instruments of e.g. the string section) then one catchy melodic tune appears and is repeated immediately across that section (so becoming louder, more distinguishable), then split octaves (for cello vs viola), harmonised too perhaps.

{organic chemistry leads to self replicating molecules & genes}

- The above process is repeated for each new section of instruments {species of animal}. In principle they should start with the same tune as the section before, then embellish and add to it. The effect should be a little like singing "London's Burning" in rounds, but much more complicated and with intermediate steps (which are free to clash a little with the existing notes for a while).

{building of ecosystems}

The first melod-eme could start on double-base (e.g. 3-4-3-1-2-4-repeat; bass riff notes), repeating every bar. Then cello (or whatever) joins in the same tune for a bar before adding additional notes in-between on the next repetition. (now i'm just thinking of a jazz number with each instrument coming in, in turn until the star trumpet/clarinet player really takes the tune away into ad-lib craziness. Not quite what i was aiming for, but a good alternative.)

Harmonies/chords on the same (set of) instrument(s) could represent {multicellular organisms}, but perhaps that's a bit of a stretch of interpretation.

- After the bunches of tunes have reached crescendo for a little while (and been dominated by low brass instruments {dinosaurs}), another cometary crash silences the more complicated (recently added) half of instruments/tunes. A new set of melod-emes emerges (more rapidly this

time) along a distinctly different feel of refrain.

{mass extinction > beginning of mammals}

- Need a particularly catchy tune (melod-eme) for humans, medium long, and perhaps on an instrument/played in a way that definitely hasn't been heard yet (in the piece).

{humans}

- Much of the detail of different/convoluted tunes across different instruments can be stripped away now, being replaced by/turning into harmonies of that fit with the dominant {human} tune.

{Agriculture/animal domestication, massive extinction}

- Choir would come in at this point, no words as such (obviously would spoil the music as an analogy, rather than dialogue), should give a ominous effect. Drops away a little as the next feature comes in fully.

{religion}

- Synth/electric instruments (perhaps traditional rock band set) kick in with their own (complimentary, but more jagged/cutting/staccato) tunes.

{technology memes}

This has now become distinctly rock music (with orchestral backing). 2 drum fills could be inserted for the world wars.

- Volume is now becoming unbearably loud, with lots of extra detail stemming from and fitted around the main human refrain (that has transferred dominance to the electric instruments (perhaps lead by lead-guitar)). Extra layers of guitar and funky beats joining in.

{20th century => Current => G.N.R. revolutions}

- Perhaps a very rapid electronic tuned synth whizzing around everywhere like at insanely fast auto (tone) dialler/modem.

{Internet through to AI}

All tunes/rhythms/patterns that have been heard throughout the piece join back in for a brief, orgasmic climax (fairly strong choir/religious sound permitted, but not dominant).

{Singularity}

- Ending is a paradox, because the Singularity (and evolution itself IMHO) is all about eternal progress, without end, in subjective time. I think, if the roar of orgasmic detail where to inverse rapid-fade (like a backwards explosion/cymbal crash) to deliberately mirror the very beginning (of the piece), that would be as good as could be done:

That way it shows the perspective from real time (if we have Tiplerian Singularity in a closed universe). It also rounds off the whole of existence; there is nothing external to the piece, no before or after movements; all of the meaning/purpose/detail is contained within. And the manically chaotic ending roar is shown to be the polar opposite of the homogeneous beginning roar (having experienced all the details being built up), despite it sounding indistinguishable on first impressions.

[Above: a little composition by me for this article]

+ In principle the music should build up in layers, each on top of the next; the blow torch of the suns, rhythm of the orbits, basic repetitive first tunes {of the micro-organisms}, should continue in the background behind the detail of everything that comes thereafter (like the foundations of an upside-down pyramid). In practice they will definitely need to be gradually faded down to allow the next layer to be properly heard, and probably faded out altogether (until the very end).

+ Writing the combined, interlocking ecosystem of tunes for the end of the piece will be almost all of the work. From there, one can work backwards, taking out notes and simplifying rhythms, making deviations for failed attempts {at species} and writing the alternative {dinosaurs} themed tuned section.

- An existing piece of music (with sufficient depth of layers) could be deconstructed in a similar manner, for this purpose.

- Fragments of Well known tunes could be incorporated into the piece for an ultimate mash-up. However, this would distract too much from the overall meaning of the piece (if that was what was considered important); listeners would start playing name the song.

- The deconstruction could be done automatically with an algorithm/AI. Or built up dynamically using genuine evolutionary algorithms, with a fitness function that rates the resulting listenability or the music (the difficult bit; getting an AI to appreciate music effectively).

+ It might be possible to get the bare bones of this idea done with just jazz band (or even rock band) instruments... That should certainly keep it from getting unhearably complex. In the mid section that would be desirable, but at the end that's the exact effect aimed for. Would have to increase the tempo instead to achieve the same effect.

+ I just realised that a visualisation made to fit with my hypothetical composition would be somewhat like a scientifically rigorous version of the "Big Bang Theory" introduction... They'd do well to replace their original (annoying as hell) theme tune with a (highly condensed) version of my composition!

[Above: another collage of mine - "Evolution of Musicianship?"]

The Audacity of Spotify

In response to a Facebook post: I think Spotify is a pretty impressive offering. I've been wondering for a while why no one had made something like this. Finally 'they' have. Think I'll be sticking to using my enormous mp3 collection most of the time still.

+ What's hot:

• Very immediate playback (far quicker than torrenting mp3s)
• Full quality sound (as good as 160kbit/s mp3 imho).
• Good buffering (track will finish playing even if connection is entirely lost).
• Plenty of information on albums and artists (like a sleek version of AMG/IMDB); intuitive and highly functional interface.
• Good as a music discovery tool (with links to buying too).

+ What's not so good:

• It lacks similar artist links or a recommended artists/customised radio channel functionality like Last.fm or Pandora.... Oh, hang on! I just found them! But the “Artist Radio” doesn't play similar songs, it just links to the other artists. Wait, it does that too! Wow.
• The search function is simplistic, requiring exact spelling.
• You never own your music, but that's all right because it never tries to pretend that u do (unlike DRM locked downloads).
• The ads are unavoidable on the free version; it knows if u mute your sound or turn it right down, or if u move the banner ad off the screen it moves to a different part of the window, which is fair enough and besides, the adverts are mostly targeted and the audible ads are quite brief (but fairly frequent).
• No internet connection means no music, even though it stores content locally, presumably because it can't show adverts (does the pro version work fully off-line?).
• No track numbers shown in play list; clearly it's intended for use as an iTunes substitute, used mainly by people who want to cherry pick favourite tracks rather than listening to entire albums.
• Some big name material is unavailable, e.g. no “In Rainbows” as yet (though the ad banners seem to suggest it's coming to spotify premium). But there is a lot of my slightly obscure artists on there and they are still in Beta so I'll give them some leeway.

+ The artist biography information is the same exactly the same blurb that can be found on any site pertaining to music, so I wonder where it originally comes from, and whether Spotify pay for it? The only place I found it attributed to a specific person was “All Music Guide”.

+ I'm curious what licensing arrangements they have, that they can allow people to listen to an unlimited amount of music for only £10/month... could it be too good to last? It must certainly be an enormous headache for them to negotiate with the different labels with content only being made available in certain countries and being able to be withdrawn at any time.

+ It would be cool for small artists if it included geographical information too: local live performances. This could form the perfect basis for a micro-royalties system (paying money to artists only for songs that were actually listened to), perhaps enabling tiny artists to bypass record labels. However, if they only get as much per play as the biggest artists, they're probably going to get very little money. I think there should be a principle of diminishing returns applied (e.g. An artist with 1 million plays only gets twice as much money as an artist with 100k plays, etc). So there's still incentive to create the best music, and one could certainly make a living from it, but at the same time many more artists could also afford to go full time, leading to an explosion in the number of creative minds at work in the 'industry'.

+ Why didn't (doesn't) Kindle take this approach too? (or at least have it as an optional package): unlimited book access for a flat monthly cost? I expect it's because publishers (or publishing laws) are *even less* reasonable than record companies.

+ If Spotify can be kept alive with it's content collection continuing to grow, and later versions incorporate fully featured music discovery, it could become the perfect music tool for desktop PCs.

+ As to reaching mobile platforms, that's a different matter. In principle they could start giving away (high speed) wireless handsets with a minimum Spotify subscription: a flat rate Kindle for music. Of course, mobile operators/makers cold take the initiative too and bundle Spotify with contracts. Given Apple's record so far, with 3rd party iStore apps, this does not yet look likely.

On: "The Third Replicator" from New Scientist 01-Aug-2009

I was a little inspired by the elegance of the framework Susan Blackmore proposes in this article. I've long been a firm believer in evolution in all domains, particularly in technology (i.e. beyond biology and genetics), but I may have been a bit fuzzy on where "Memes" (pronounced: meems not mems apparently) fitted in. What follows is my interpretation of the ideas.

* My Definitions:

+ Behaviour: is the instructions that translate current state into future state.

(State includes all of the world that influences and is in turn influenced by an entity.)

+ Genes are molecular-machines; a particular subset of entities in biochemical phase-space (a conceptual, multi-dimensional, graph space in which all (bio)chemical structures can be defined).

+ Humans (and all species of life forms) are 'gene-machines'.

+ Memes are concepts learned by certain gene-machines. (Meme-capable Gene-machines: MCGMs)

+ 'Meme-machines' include all of our (technological) creations.

+ Temes are the hypothetical, next type of replicators (where memes and genes where the previous two). And i think (as far as suggestions for naming Temes is concerned) they should be called "T3M3S" or "T3MES", standing for *Tier-3* (T3) replicators with the l33t speak adding the connotations of digitisation/computerisation.

** Replicators take control:

+ Genes control *behaviour* of biochemistry.

+ Memes control *behaviour* of specific species of gene-machines.

+ Thus, Temes should control the *behaviour* of a specific 'species' of meme-machine.

** Replicators are shaped:

+ Genes are selected by their utility in the environment (the biosphere) and distorted by it.

+ Memes are selected by their utility in the meme-o-sphere (brain-space) and the success of their physical implementation, if there is one.

** The march of the replicators:

When genes first appeared (in primordial biochemistry) they were able to evolve/emerge new biochemistry so much faster, than the previous (almost entirely surreptitious) biochemical processes, that they took control of biochemistry and quickly began to utilise all the biochemical resources (in the world).

When a species passes a critical threshold, where after memes are able to proliferate, genes can no longer compete for control of the species' behaviour (because memes evolve/emerge orders of magnitude faster, it would be a very biased arms race). Thus memes assume control of genetics: they assert huge selection pressures for genes that increase the size (depth and breadth) of the meme-o-sphere (i.e. the pool of human minds available for use). They don't stop at controlling the host species' genes either; as the mem-o-sphere grows, it asserts increasing influence over the entire genetic phase space, through that to the entire biosphere.

Genetically complex species can only emerge and persist within an environmental niche created by the baroque mountain of genetic species that emerged previous to it (like an exponentially expanding mass of foam). This is exactly the same for memes; the more complex (e.g. baking bread) build out (and sometimes up) from the less complex (e.g. how to make fire). The 'landscape', into which this web of concepts expands into, I will call 'meme-space': an unimaginably multi-dimensional place in which all possible concepts can be contained. In it is everything from: linking an oral noise to an object, to how a state of the art computer processor is built, and much more beyond that.

The amount of physical matter controlled, by these replicators, increases during each epoch: primordial biochemistry would almost certainly have been limited to a very meagre resources (e.g. the some organic compounds in an ideal zone around a hydrothermal vent). Cellular life conquered the world, incorporating practically all sources of water, carbon, nitrogen, etc, into trillions of tonnes of usable biomass. Now that us Meme-machines dominate the world, we (with our agriculture) account for much of that biomass, but far beyond that we're shifting around enormous amounts of inorganic matter too (housing, industry, infrastructure, mega-engineering projects like dams); a significant fraction of the earth's surface has been configured by us (for better or worst).

** Inferences on the next replicator King:

By analogy to the previous two phase changes (between dominant replicators), we would expect the "Temes" (the next level of replicators) to exhibit the following traits:

+ They are an emergent behaviour of a specific species of meme. i.e. an entity created by that meme, like a computer, or, more realistically, a particular type of software running on computers.

+ The domain of their possible natures (Teme-space) will have been ponderously explored, to a relatively limited degree, by Memes. Controlling their species' behaviour in a similarly blunt way to how hedgehog behaviour is modified to favour running away from moving cars, rather than curling up: through the ruthless pruning of individuals with unsuitable genes, rather than a logical induction.

+ Multiple Teme-capable Meme-machines (TCMMs) may begin to emerge in tandem, as may have been the case with proto-humans (Neanderthals, 'hobbits', homo-erectus, etc). Or perhaps a merging of two potential candidates may spontaneously create a suitable Meme-machine, rather than a gradual enhancement of a single Meme-machine (Memes are much less limited than genes when it comes to hybridisation).

+ We're not aware of Teme control over memes as yet, so: Either, no TCMMs have been created yet, or their influence is still fairly small (on a par to higher mammals that teach offspring some simple ideas by example). The latter would put us in a period of hybrid control (between Memes and Temes), where we are unwittingly assisting Temes increased prevalence by satisfying our own goals (our exponential increasing of computing power mirroring the earlier explosion in human brain size.

+ Following the pattern of increasing dominion over matter, Teme-machines could go far beyond merely scratching the surface of one planet; if they took the best features of Meme and Gene machines, for example, they would be able to manipulate an unlimited amount of inorganic matter at the molecular level: nanotechnology at it's most fanciful; utilisation of all planetary matter for the Teme-o-sphere!

** Conclusion (end of Meme)

A view I find enticing is that there is, and will never be a transition to Temes; digital information is just another change of medium for Memes. After all, they've gone from, learning by example to verbal to written to a bifurcation of various multimedia. What difference does encoding them in microscopic bits of matter make? It might not even make any difference if the ones slinging them about are Artificial Intelligences of superhuman intellect.

On the other hand, perhaps these superhuman intelligences will not be created in out image: consciousness as we know it is playing an ever decreasing part in the replication, transmission and even recombination of Memes (i.e. on the Internet); what if this trend continues to the point were the Memes are pushing themselves around; pure ideas coming into a life of their own in an entirely unfathomable level of reality.....

Ok, so that's probably just me flapping my trap with the delusion of thinking I'm saying something vaguely profound, when I'm just taking an idea an inference too far. However, just because we are unable to imagine any level of intelligence beyond our own logical consciousness, is that a good reason to believe one won't emerge? By definition we would lack the ability to comprehend that domain. Just as it's impossible to frame the concept of MMPORPG gold farmers [1] in a way that a dog could appreciate.

This "replicator" categorisation may be entirely useless; a trend line drawn from 2 cherry picked data points. Alternatives that follow a similar vein may be more pertinent. Ray Kurzweil, in "The Singularity is Near" suggests 6 epochs: (1) Physics/Chemistry (2) Biology/DNA (3) Neurons/Brains (4) Technology [where we are now] (5) Merger of humanity and technology (6) Universe awakens [all matter is intelligently configured].