Not to necessarily fall into the old religion debate trap but: the reason why mostly priests were scientists was the reason that not many others but priests and nobles were able to read, deliberately so by command of nobles and church to same amount. Even after that, how long did it take for someone to even translate the oh so important bible itself into a language readable by anyone but priests themselves? Until after the middle ages, after Martin Luther wrote his 95 thesis, criticizing the Indulgence trade rampant at the time and later translated the bible after being cast out by first his religion, declared a heretic and later declared an outlaw, free to be slain by anyone and forbidden to be helped at all. Without him perhaps people would still buy paper from shady catholics telling them it holds the power to keep them out of hell.
And while the church may have kept knowledge, how much have they denied or simply ignored on religious grounds? (ignoring the technologies of the arabs on grounds of religious differences or murdering galileo galilei).
While I do not say that religion as an idea is at fault, it has indeed enriched lives and helped many a person through it's intended morals and teachings, it has also held back progress and bred hate and resentment for the better part of 2000 years, and in some parts of the world still very much is.
That went on longer than I hoped. My aplologies.
---
To the topic at hand: it's all about suspension of disbelief and perhaps as people mentioned, perhaps a certain loss of technology. I don't believe that the elite universe has gone for a thousand years without any loss of knowledge through any sort of cataclysmic event, and as far as I know none of that is stated in the lore (perhaps something to that extent is written in the original elite handbook, I would not know).
I've also always had taken issue with the idea that internal screens would entirely replace a viewport. The picture would never be as clear as the real thing, prone to failures even through redundancies and generally not cost effective. There is a reason fighter jets use canopies and no plans I know of entail a complete canopy replacement for fighter aircraft even though that idea must have come up at some point.
You make excellent points, but the discussion Greyhawk and I were having wasn't meant as a trap. I honestly enjoy debating such things with people who are open, willing to listen, and willing to discuss peacefully. Religion and politics are topics I discuss with my friends often, without becoming angry or personally insulted. Either way, I didn't intend for this topic to take over this discussion. Greyhawk made a statement I disagreed with and I wanted to provide another perspective.
I'd love to continue this debate but I think we need to wrap it up here before a mod tells us to and/or locks the topic. We indeed went far off topic lol
But I certainly don't mind continuing the conversation in a more appropriate topic or via PM.
As for the topic of this discussion- lots of things people operate has cameras and allows for direct visuals in a combination that improves the operator's awareness. Elite's ships only need some cameras on the ships' hulls in spots that give the pilot greater awareness (kind of like SUVs that have cameras to aid drivers when they're going in reverse).
Maybe this far in the future the "glass" on the canopy is as strong as the alloys covering the rest of the ship? I mean it does not break that often compared to damage of the hull does it?
First, you're probably right that the glass is far stronger than anything we have today. But, I wouldn't say it's stronger than the hull. If someone aims for the canopy, they can bust it out pretty quick. I've had my canopy busted out when I've had a hull strength at 60 and 70 percent. It just depends on where the enemy's shots hit.
The 'Fiction' symbol is made up of many different mythological symbols that encompass the wider subject of religion, therefor it has a valid placement in a topic debating the validity of religion as a whole. I just found it funny the low hanging fruit that is religious debate wound up in a debate of a sci-fi game.
Greyhawk made a statement about religion that I didn't agree with, so I offered my perspective. It just irks me when someone says the success of a religion inevitably and always relies on ignorance. People can say such a debate is "stupid" or "pointless", but it is a discussion that continues among intellectuals even to this day. But as I stated previously, I'm ending my end of the debate here because we're going entirely off topic (I didn't intend for this to go beyond a couple of comments between Greyhawk and me). I'd love to continue this debate in a more appropriate topic or in personal messages.
I suppose I shouldn't have said anything in response to Greyhawk's initial comment about religion, but I notice such comments are allowed throughout the forum, so I felt another perspective was fair and necessary.
If we are not extinct, yes probably.
I imagine we'll remain on the Earth for as long as possible. Now, assuming we don't destroy ourselves, I fully expect humanity to do everything it can to preserve Earth and Sol. IIRC, we only have a couple billion years before the Earth is made uninhabitable by the sun, which is when it becomes hotter and starts stripping off the Earth's atmosphere. And in 4 billion the Earth will likely be consumed by the sun at worst, scorched at the best.
Again, assuming we don't go extinct, we will be able to do amazing things in a couple billion years. Our technology will be so advanced that I don't doubt that Humanity will find a way to keep our sun stable so it doesn't destroy the Earth as we know it. For Humanity, Earth and Sol in general will always be our cradle. It'll always hold that relevance to at least a handful of folks who seek to preserve our species' history. I expect Humanity will always inhabit the Earth if it is at all possible.
