DOORS: Tina

Adam Stephanides · 21 Jan 2003, 14:52 · from urth-v0301.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) DOORS: Tina
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:52:32 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0301-2747 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0301/2747.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

on 1/20/03 1:50 AM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:

> However, when Green rediscovered Tina in our world, everything changed. T=
ina
> claimed to have been "born" (i.e., first activated) on Christmas day. (25=
1)
> She mentions Christmas presents and a pretty tree. She also refers to Gre=
en
> as her "god" and compares him to "a jealous god, like the one they talk
> about". That's an obvious Old Testament reference. So, both books of the
> Bible are known in the Otherworld. Yet the Goddess is a living reality and
> the society is matriarchal. I don't see how two such antithetical traditi=
ons
> could co-exist.

Both these things may not represent traditions indigenous to Otherworld, but
bits of our culture that have "leaked" across.  Otherworld could have
adopted Christmas as a purely secular, gift-giving holiday, as Japan has.
Similarly, they might know of Yahweh without believing in Him (though why
Tina should have been programmed with that bit of knowledge I don't know).

But in general, I doubt that Wolfe's set-up can be made to work
consistently.  Roy's point about Tina is one example:

> Such a life-like doll as Tina was beyond the technical
> ability of our world fifteen years ago, yet in every other way the
> Otherworld seems decades behind ours in technology.

It's beyond our abilities now; it's even beyond our abilities to build a
robot with a much larger "brain" than Tina's which can function like a human
as well as Tina, if I'm not mistaken.  And Wolfe's bit about how a
woman-dominated culture would worry more about children being lonely doesn't
explain anything.  For one thing, a major impetus for the development of
computing technology has been war, which there's supposedly less of in
Otherworld.  For another, while our government and universities may not put
much effort into relieving children's loneliness, they have put a great deal
of effort into artificial intelligence.  How much would the Defense
Department give for artificial soldiers which can function as well, and be
produced as inexpensively, as Tina?

> Orgasm seems to be fatal. How
> many would die from having a wet dream?

We seem compelled to conclude that males in Otherworld don't have wet
dreams, regardless of the stimulus.

--Adam

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net