From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, “A Big Number”:

“Overheard at the fish mongers:
Woman: “I see you’re reading a book. Do you have a favorite?”
Man: 1984.
Woman: “Wow, so many!””

Lynn

In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>
>Overheard at the fish mongers:
>Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>Man: 1984.
>Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>
>Lynn

Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
a number.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 10/21/2022 2:29 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>>
>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>> Man: 1984.
>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
> a number.

Seveneves ???
https://www.amazon.com/Seveneves-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0062334514/

Lynn

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
> >
> >Overheard at the fish mongers:
> >Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
> >Man: 1984.
> >Woman: "Wow, so many!"
> >
> >Lynn
> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
> a number.

Disch's 334.

William Hyde

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:

> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>>
>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>> Man: 1984.
>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>
> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many,
> of course, have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on
> another one with just a number.

Depending on the rigidity of your notion of "number" and "other":

1Q84 by Haruki Murakami

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On 2022-10-21 1:29 p.m., Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>>
>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>> Man: 1984.
>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
> a number.

11/22/63

On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>>>
>>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
>>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>>> Man: 1984.
>>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>>>
>>> Lynn
>> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
>> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
>> a number.
>
> Disch's 334.
>
> William Hyde

Got a URL on that ?

Lynn

In article <tj27ml$18be$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
> >>>
> >>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
> >>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
> >>> Man: 1984.
> >>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
> >>>
> >>> Lynn
> >> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
> >> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
> >> a number.
> >
> > Disch's 334.
> >
> > William Hyde
>
> Got a URL on that ?
>

It hasn't had a reprint since 1999 (which isn't bad considering it was
originally published in 1972). The ISFDB has an entry of course
(<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2481>)

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 05:45:52 UTC+1, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <tj27ml$18be$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > >> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
> > >>>
> > >>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
> > >>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
> > >>> Man: 1984.
> > >>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
> > >>>
> > >>> Lynn
> > >> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
> > >> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
> > >> a number.
> > >
> > > Disch's 334.
> > >
> > > William Hyde
> >
> > Got a URL on that ?
> >
> It hasn't had a reprint since 1999 (which isn't bad considering it was
> originally published in 1972). The ISFDB has an entry of course
> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2481>)

Incidentally, ISFDB seemed to be unhappy searching
for a numeral as a fiction title. I got a lot of results
that were Chinese and Japanese.

And, depending on what you mean by title or
subtitle: _2001_. Also, _2010_, _2061_, and _3001_.

There's a parody short story, I've forgotten by whom,
whose title is something like "4,285,714,285", but
not that? (Mine is 30 billion / 7. I like the rhythm.)

On 22/10/2022 21.08, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,

>>> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
>>> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
>>> a number.
>>
>> Disch's 334.
>>
>> William Hyde
>
> Got a URL on that ?

Typing:
Disch 334
into a search engine provides lots of URLs.

Or you could go to the Disch page at the ISFDB:
<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?821>

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

On 23/10/2022 08.02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 05:45:52 UTC+1, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <tj27ml$18be$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:

>>>> Disch's 334.
>>>>
>>>> William Hyde
>>>
>>> Got a URL on that ?
>>>
>> It hasn't had a reprint since 1999 (which isn't bad considering it was
>> originally published in 1972). The ISFDB has an entry of course
>> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2481>)
>
> Incidentally, ISFDB seemed to be unhappy searching
> for a numeral as a fiction title. I got a lot of results
> that were Chinese and Japanese.

I'm glad that it wasn't just me.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
> >
> >Overheard at the fish mongers:
> >Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
> >Man: 1984.
> >Woman: "Wow, so many!"
> >
> >Lynn
> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
> a number.
>

Bester did one...yeah " 5,271,009". And Avram Davidson did "Twenty-Three".
I think Flint's 1632 & 1633 came without subtitles.
- Tony

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 19:26:24 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-10-21 1:29 p.m., Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>>>
>>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
>>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>>> Man: 1984.
>>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
>> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
>> a number.
>
>11/22/63

I actually bought and read that turkey.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
> >>>
> >>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
> >>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
> >>> Man: 1984.
> >>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
> >>>
> >>> Lynn
> >> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
> >> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
> >> a number.
> >
> > Disch's 334.
> >
> > William Hyde
> Got a URL on that ?
>
> Lynn

It is available on kindle for about five bucks. Amazon has some used copies as well, and abe books has some which
are a little cheaper.

William Hyde

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 10:45:52 PM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:

> It hasn't had a reprint since 1999

And according to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/334_(novel)

that reprint badly mangled the text with some misguided
spelling "corrections".

John Savard

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 8:37:26 AM UTC-6, Tony Nance wrote:

> Bester did one...yeah " 5,271,009".

It's a short story, not a book, though.

https://archive.org/details/Fantasy_Science_Fiction_v006n03_1954-03

John Savard

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 9:01:37 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 8:37:26 AM UTC-6, Tony Nance wrote:
>
> > Bester did one...yeah " 5,271,009".
> It's a short story, not a book, though.
>

Yes, and Ted said " Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? "
- Tony

On 10/23/2022 9:37 AM, Tony Nance wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>>>
>>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
>>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>>> Man: 1984.
>>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>>>
>>> Lynn
>> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
>> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
>> a number.
>>
>
> Bester did one...yeah " 5,271,009". And Avram Davidson did "Twenty-Three".
> I think Flint's 1632 & 1633 came without subtitles.
> - Tony

Oh man, I forgot the Flint and Weber books.

Lynn

On 10/23/2022 8:02 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 05:45:52 UTC+1, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <tj27ml$18be$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
>>>>>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>>>>>> Man: 1984.
>>>>>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
>>>>> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
>>>>> a number.
>>>>
>>>> Disch's 334.
>>>>
>>>> William Hyde
>>>
>>> Got a URL on that ?
>>>
>> It hasn't had a reprint since 1999 (which isn't bad considering it was
>> originally published in 1972). The ISFDB has an entry of course
>> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2481>)
>
> Incidentally, ISFDB seemed to be unhappy searching
> for a numeral as a fiction title. I got a lot of results
> that were Chinese and Japanese.
>
> And, depending on what you mean by title or
> subtitle: _2001_. Also, _2010_, _2061_, and _3001_.
>
> There's a parody short story, I've forgotten by whom,
> whose title is something like "4,285,714,285", but
> not that? (Mine is 30 billion / 7. I like the rhythm.)

How could I forget 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001 ?

Lynn

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 00:10:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/23/2022 8:02 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 05:45:52 UTC+1, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> In article <tj27ml$18be$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
>>>>>>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
>>>>>>> Man: 1984.
>>>>>>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
>>>>>> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
>>>>>> a number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disch's 334.
>>>>>
>>>>> William Hyde
>>>>
>>>> Got a URL on that ?
>>>>
>>> It hasn't had a reprint since 1999 (which isn't bad considering it was
>>> originally published in 1972). The ISFDB has an entry of course
>>> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2481>)
>>
>> Incidentally, ISFDB seemed to be unhappy searching
>> for a numeral as a fiction title. I got a lot of results
>> that were Chinese and Japanese.
>>
>> And, depending on what you mean by title or
>> subtitle: _2001_. Also, _2010_, _2061_, and _3001_.
>>
>> There's a parody short story, I've forgotten by whom,
>> whose title is something like "4,285,714,285", but
>> not that? (Mine is 30 billion / 7. I like the rhythm.)
>
>How could I forget 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001 ?

When I was reading/re-reading Clarke, I read those as a series.

They aren't a series. They are four different novels on an idea.

Which was that, since God does not exist, and Evolution cannot explain
Man, it must have been Space Aliens that turned apes into sentients.

The first two were worth reading. And made two good movies. The
others, not so good. The last one was marred by Clarke's strident
vegetarianism (as many later works were, it turned out when I read
them).
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 14:02:37 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 05:45:52 UTC+1, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > In article <tj27ml$18be$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> > Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/21/2022 3:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> > > > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > > >> In article <tiuqqr$mhjd$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > > >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> From SRW in the Fort Bend Journal, "A Big Number":
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Overheard at the fish mongers:
> > > >>> Woman: "I see you're reading a book. Do you have a favorite?"
> > > >>> Man: 1984.
> > > >>> Woman: "Wow, so many!"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Lynn
> > > >> Hmm. Are there any other SF titles which are just numbers? Many, of course,
> > > >> have number in the title, but I'm drawing a blank on another one with just
> > > >> a number.
> > > >
> > > > Disch's 334.
> > > >
> > > > William Hyde
> > >
> > > Got a URL on that ?
> > >
> > It hasn't had a reprint since 1999 (which isn't bad considering it was
> > originally published in 1972). The ISFDB has an entry of course
> > (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2481>)
> Incidentally, ISFDB seemed to be unhappy searching
> for a numeral as a fiction title. I got a lot of results
> that were Chinese and Japanese.
>
> And, depending on what you mean by title or
> subtitle: _2001_. Also, _2010_, _2061_, and _3001_.
>
> There's a parody short story, I've forgotten by whom,
> whose title is something like "4,285,714,285", but
> not that? (Mine is 30 billion / 7. I like the rhythm.)

I meant
<https://classicsofsciencefiction.com/2022/01/24/5271009-by-alfred-bester/>
So thanks to anyone who nominated it here!

And that URL reproduces a nice introduction to it
by Bester in his collection, _Starlight_, as well as its
intro in _Fantasy and Science Fiction_.

Also talking about it interestingly:
<https://auxiliarymemory.com/2018/06/29/5271009-by-alfred-bester/>

I think I wasn't wrong to call it parody, but on this
telling, it's more than that. Which is fair enough.
It's parody to the extent that science fiction scenes
that I'd still happily read straight are made ridiculous.

On 26/10/22 09:19, Robert Carnegie wrote:
snippage

5271009 alfred-bester

> I think I wasn't wrong to call it parody, but on this
> telling, it's more than that. Which is fair enough.
> It's parody to the extent that science fiction scenes
> that I'd still happily read straight are made ridiculous.

Thank you for reminding me of this. It is still an incredible read so
many years later.

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:33:27 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> They aren't a series. They are four different novels on an idea.
>
> Which was that, since God does not exist, and Evolution cannot explain
> Man, it must have been Space Aliens that turned apes into sentients.

That _would_ have been a crazy and stupid idea, if Clarke actually
took it seriously. However, as a premise that makes for interesting
story ideas, it's not bad.

Essentially, the biggest problem is the same as with panspermia as an
explanation of the origin of life. Panspermia _could happen_, but in order
to be possible, it must also be possible for life to originate naturally,
otherwise, it would never have gotten started.

Evolution by natural selection, of course, _is_ perfectly sufficient to
explain Man. There may be a few lingering mysteries, but there are ways
to deal with them; Elaine Morgan's _The Descent of Woman_ addresses
some of those.

Basically, though, our giant brains are explained by the very common
evolutionary phenomenon of "preadaptation". Yes, when our brains
evolved to become powerful enough to understand calculus and
harness the atom... that didn't immediately pay off in letting our
caveman ancestors survive better by building AK-47s to fight
sabre-toothed tigers with.

But our large brains developed in order to handle increasingly complex
human social interactions. This had an immediate reproductive payoff,
and the additional benefit of mastery over the environment would come
much later.

John Savard

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 22:25:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:33:27 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> They aren't a series. They are four different novels on an idea.
>>
>> Which was that, since God does not exist, and Evolution cannot explain
>> Man, it must have been Space Aliens that turned apes into sentients.
>
>That _would_ have been a crazy and stupid idea, if Clarke actually
>took it seriously. However, as a premise that makes for interesting
>story ideas, it's not bad.

I still have a memory of having read /exactly/ that explanation
(differently phrased to sound more reasonable) from AC Clarke himself,
but I can't recall where and have never been able to find it. It's not
in the introduction/afterword (if either exists) in my current copy of
2001, and may have been in a magazine.

>Essentially, the biggest problem is the same as with panspermia as an
>explanation of the origin of life. Panspermia _could happen_, but in order
>to be possible, it must also be possible for life to originate naturally,
>otherwise, it would never have gotten started.

You correct to the extent that you are pointing out that it merely
moves the problem back one level, so to speak.

I make no comments on what might have happened on /that/ level.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 10/27/2022 9:20 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 22:25:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:33:27 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> They aren't a series. They are four different novels on an idea.
>>>
>>> Which was that, since God does not exist, and Evolution cannot explain
>>> Man, it must have been Space Aliens that turned apes into sentients.
>>
>> That _would_ have been a crazy and stupid idea, if Clarke actually
>> took it seriously. However, as a premise that makes for interesting
>> story ideas, it's not bad.
>
> I still have a memory of having read /exactly/ that explanation
> (differently phrased to sound more reasonable) from AC Clarke himself,
> but I can't recall where and have never been able to find it. It's not
> in the introduction/afterword (if either exists) in my current copy of
> 2001, and may have been in a magazine.
>
>> Essentially, the biggest problem is the same as with panspermia as an
>> explanation of the origin of life. Panspermia _could happen_, but in order
>> to be possible, it must also be possible for life to originate naturally,
>> otherwise, it would never have gotten started.
>
> You correct to the extent that you are pointing out that it merely
> moves the problem back one level, so to speak.
>
> I make no comments on what might have happened on /that/ level.

My problem with panspermia is _TIME_. It takes a rock 100,000 years to
get from Mars to Earth and you think that method is going to spread life
through an entire galaxy within the current lifetime of the universe?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.