I don't think I've ever sounded so cynical in my life, but something about the way sci-fi fandom bleeds into real science really makes me deeply uncomfortable.
I'm always so alienated (sorry) by the excitement around things like this. People start fantasizing about FTL and space arks and there is just no evidence that any of that is possible, desirable, effective, anything really.
I know I'm a killjoy, but I do think there's something negative about the impact of science fiction on engineers. Like, the people who tend (no offense) to be the most literal, black and white thinkers get exposed to art and instead of processing it as the output of human creativity, they start to imagine that it's desirable or even real.
You don't have to wait 100 years. You can build a bridge to alleviate traffic without any understanding that the bridge will in fact generate more traffic, and then you have to widen it a few years later (which also doesn't help). I know this has happened several times in NYC and I'm sure it has happened many other places where engineering know-how far outstrips knowledge of urban planning.
My grandmother used to give me mix CDs as gifts. One time I asked her where she found all the music and she told me "Oh there's this amazing app called Limewire." She then taught me how to pirate music.
That's an absurd false dichotomy. I'm assuming the historians are the cucks in your analogy? As the author points out, many of the "chuds" haven't even read translations of Greek or Latin texts, while historians can read the text in the original. The main skill historians have is exactly the strawman you've set up to knock down. They understand the limits of our knowledge of ancient societies, and the "chuds" do not.
You are holding historians to an epistemological standard that I am confident you don't hold anybody else to. Whether intentionally or not, you're muddying the waters to undermine their expertise. Why?
You should work on the ability to distinguish respect from charitability.
One can be charitable to views that one does not respect. And if one ends up being disrespectful it does not mean that they were insufficiently charitable.
I did a pandemic project of reading Dredd from the start for as long as I could. I made it through about 25 case files volumes, which took me from 1977 to the late 90s (I think).
Is Judge Dredd cyberpunk? I don't care. It's an incredible run of comics, that touches on many of the same themes as cyberpunk.
There are many people involved in Dredd over the years, but I do think John Wagner has had the rare opportunity among work for hire creators to shepherd a fictional universe over decades of real and in universe time.
“Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves.”
But I don't think it's all that interesting of an argument. When people say save/destroy the Earth, they mean humanity. Call that arrogance, but it's true.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you've become addicted to instant gratification and you've rationalized it. Up is down, down is up, and low value social media comments are actually better than reading a book by an expert.
Of course, I'm just projecting. That's what's happened to me, and I'm miserable about it.
I just speed ahead, and I always retained more than I thought I did. If I keep going, eventually I can reach a kind of flow. It doesn't matter if I missed bits here or there.
Or, you could try the opposite, and slow down. It sounds like torture, but eventually, it will become habitual.
When I say it like that, it sounds pathetic. And in fact, it is. Yet, here we are.