SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Yeah, man. That's a tough one!

Would you rather have to be the first person on a planet (and therefore also the first person to test new foods) or be the respected food tester of royal court?

both are potentially dangerous but the royal court would be more interesting, so I'll go with that. I need people to talk to

As a member of Exotic Food Fandom I'll go with Door #1. After all, if we have the technology to go interstellar planet hopping, I would assume I'd have the technology to test new (potential) foods for compatibility with the human system before actually putting them in my mouth.

Hmm. Margaret has a good point. I was originally going to say court tester, because I figure you're going to potentially die by poison either way, but at least everything else wouldn't be an unknown threat in a palace. But if the technology is good enough to travel that far, we would hopefully have been smart enough to create a machine that was like "Hey moron, this will for sure kill you if you eat it."

However, the thought of leaving the planet gives me MASSIVE anxiety. So I think I'm still going to stick with the court tester.

Margaret's point is a bonus. I totally want "to boldly go" and at least catch a glimpse of a new planet.

I don't really fancy royalty and court life so I'll take the space food tester instead.

I definitely want candied duck or whatever else, and have the delicate system to remove toxins from potential assassins. Fitzchivalry would have to work to kill me, na'mean? Also, have you met me? I'm social in the extreme, I might be able to stop people from poisoning me, and then I get to eat delicacies the rest of my life.

(But probably other people would be all too glad to poison me...I'd have so many exciting negotiations in my future!)

Count me in for royalty-adjacent.

truffles for me (not the chocolate ones) - mmmm

Have you read Poison Study? The main character is a food taster

As long as there's water (or equivalent), I'll take the new planet... twice. There's a knack to surviving and new experiences like that aren't to be avoided, they're to be embraced.

I'll be a planet taste tester. Better technology, but also, I'll still be able to eat my "normal" stuff before getting adventurous. There's no way I'm there without gummi bears.

ooh.. gummi bears... :crave:

New planet. That way I get to choose what I taste. Royal tables can have some really weird stuff on them, and as taste tester, you have to try everything.

Notice there I would go to a new planet, but not eat weird stuff? I clearly haven't thought this through . . .

Helena wrote: "New planet. That way I get to choose what I taste. Royal tables can have some really weird stuff on them, and as taste tester, you have to try everything.

Notice there I would go to a new planet, ..."

XD you'll have all sorts of time in the spaceship to plan menus.

A quest world would be more dangerous. A high tech world, despite high surveillance would be mopre survivable with more hope of changing things for the better. Being hassled by the police and being eaten by dragons are essentialy the choices here.

Arthur wrote: "A quest world would be more dangerous. A high tech world, despite high surveillance would be mopre survivable with more hope of changing things for the better. Being hassled by the police and being..."

An interesting way of looking at it! You could go to an uninhabited world with earth tech. Or be a royal tester for a modern day dictator sort!

This discussion reminds me of the Apprentice Adept Series by Piers Anthony which begins with Split Infinity.
Would you rather be a game champion on the SF planet of Proton or a wizard on the fantasy world of Phaze?

CBRetriever wrote: "truffles for me (not the chocolate ones) - mmmm

Have you read Poison Study? The main character is a food taster"


I've read that series, and I really like it... so I'm gonna pick food taster because then I'll secretly become (view spoiler)[a badass assassin! (Ok, not exactly how the books went, but close enough.) (hide spoiler)]

Would you rather live in a world free of disease or poverty? We're talking all diseases (for all ages) versus everyone having a home they can afford with food and medicine inside.

I'd pick poverty, because I believe more criminal issues stem from it (both because people struggling to survive at the bottom and the people on top exploiting that struggle).

I'd also pick poverty. It would stop so many causes of and free up so many resources to research disease, on top of giving people safety until some sort of illness hit, and the ability to cope better if they got sick.

I'd pick free of diseases, because free of diseases would also mean that people would have more money on their hands because they wouldn't need to spend them on medicines and such.

Poverty. We all have to die of something!

Definitely poverty - which could easily help with disease.

Michelle wrote: "Poverty. We all have to die of something!"

Injuries, accidents, and violence are still on the table.

Of course they are! Looking back, my response probably seemed cheeky. I have experienced true poverty in all of its ugliness. I was homeless for several years, and experienced true hopelessness. I am so, SO grateful for the many blessings since that bleak point in my life. I can't tell you what it means to me to leave work and come home. HOME! Poverty is horrendously crippling. So, I did not mean to give the impression that I'm a clueless halfwit. If any of you knew me on a personal basis, you would have seen that this comment was normal for me. I had always had somewhat of a gallows-style humor. But I digress! By removing the poverty, medical care would be able to be pursued instead of something wished for.

Michelle wrote: "Of course they are! Looking back, my response probably seemed cheeky. I have experienced true poverty in all of its ugliness. I was homeless for several years, and experienced true hopelessness. I ..."

Thanks for sharing that with us, Michelle! But it's your response, it's okay to have gallows humor about it! I don't know about others, but I assumed there was some sort of personal recollection in the comment and I took it for the joke as intended :) I'm glad things turned around!

Me, too, Allison! And thank you. I don't know what prompted the Big Reveal, because I'm a very private person. But what happens on the internet, stays on the internet! Unfortunately.

I don't think it's something to be ashamed of! But if you'd rather take it down, I understand that as well and will follow suit!

No, it's okay. Maybe someone else will see it that has had something similar happen to them. They wouldn't feel so alone anymore!

<3 I love that outlook!

Would you rather have an instant teleportation device BUT instead of movies or videogames you had a Holodeck that had at least a 75% chance of malfunctioning, OR take a car that might just decide to kill you in order to balance the established world order BUT you don't have to work and you have access to all the resources necessary to practice the things you love?

I would definitely take the car with access to all resources to practice what I love. I just won’t use the car. Not a big fan anyway!

The not working one! Being able to read and write all day, and be able to travel when I wanted (even if it takes a little longer) sounds heavenly.

I choose car. 75% is too high of odds. Plus, I'd hook my car up with that premium gas, so we good.

Y'all cool with possibly being murdered for the greater good! That's....that's good to know... ;-)

It’s difficult to make an educated decision because we’re missing at least two pieces of critical info, no doubt part of Allison’s diabolical plan to mislead us! ;)

1) What kind of holodeck malfunctions are we talking about? Dangerous ones, like creating a villain smart enough to defeat Data, or silly ones like people walking around on their hands? A 75% change of malfunction isn’t so bad if they’re mostly harmless malfunctions.

2) What is the % chance of death if we go with the car?

I also notice that nothing says we HAVE to use the holodeck. If it’s very dangerous, we could just stay out of it and read a book instead. On the other hand, a car is pretty much a necessity, at least where I live, so you'd be forced to take the dangerous car unless you were content staying at home all the time. Although I suppose “access to all the resources necessary” could include sufficient money to hire a non-death-trap-car to drive you where you need to go?

I like my job, for the most part. I’m also a very impatient person and I live in Atlanta where traffic is nuts, so instant teleportation sounds awesome. It sounds even more awesome when I consider travel opportunities, far away countries, family visits, popping into a favorite ice cream shop at a place I used to live years ago, etc. If the holodeck doesn’t commonly have life-threatening malfunctions, that would be a lot of fun too.

So in case that long and rambling response wasn’t clear, I think I’m going with the transporter.

Ditto, YouKneek. :)

Sooo Star Trek vs Too like the lightening huh. Mmmm I gotta go with Star Trek and teleportation (though are we the same person or are we actually clones of ourselves every time we use it?!

you may factor those questions into your response, Rachel! :)

I think I'd take instant teleportation. Who needs a holodeck when you could travel the world at your leisure, or sit home and read a book? (Though, I admit, I am considering minor malfunctions not, like, deadly ones.)

Yeah, either are fine, don't use the car and don't use the holodeck. I'd take teleportation so long as my job included vacation time and wasn't too strenuous/dangerous in itself.

the second option but I won't use the car.

Option two sounds better to me. Under that plan I assume we still have access to trains and planes for longer distance travel? Living in a city I don't use a car anyway.

all travel is controlled by people who might crash something for the greater good

Allison wrote: "all travel is controlled by people who might crash something for the greater good"

ah, so we could be an innocent bystander... eek...

Would you rather make half the median income (whole household) for your area working in a job you absolutely love

or

Make twice as much as the median income doing something you can barely tolerate

or (bonus option)
Make five times as much of the median working in an industry you despise.

All jobs require the traditional forty-hour work week. You may not move or work from home (in case you think half of the normal is fine when you commute from an expensive area to a cheaper one on the weekends). You work with 25% cool people, 25% jerks, and 50% professional indifference. You are good at whichever job you do, but promotion is unlikely. Your friends, in all cases, make the median income.

Doing something I love and being paid less. I make good money working at a cancer center; but I am pissed off half of the time. I just want to be happy. No workplace drama, no sexual harassment, no yearly learning modules about a job you do every frickin' day; no commute.

I guess retirement it is!! LOL

Doing something I love with less pay. Which is what I am doing now, actually :)

Since I'm working in the field of day-nursery for children I already live the first option. I love it (but it is only possible cause my income isn't the only one in the family). Changed to this one cause I worked for six years in option b) and wasn't happy.

I was surprised by universal love of the job. I would pick the middle option of twice the money for a job that is barely tolerable (however, still technically tolerable).

A forty-hour work week is only 24% of my time available in a week. With a third of my time sleeping (55 hours) That leaves 73 hours of active me time each week. True, money isn't everything, but I'd rather have the money to enjoy the 43% of my week left to me. This isn't as possible if I make half of what my friends and neighbors make. I could do a lot of awesome things with five times the money, but hating 24% of my life is unhealthy. Therefore, option B seems to lead to the most happiness for me.