Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Alchemy Gets a Bad Rap

I don't remember the specific context, but recently somebody wanted to insult somebody else.  So, he derisively referred to him as an Alchemist.  That is an all too common example of something I have been guilty of.  "Boy, back in the old, old days", my thinking used to go, "people were really dumb".  And it's not just me, or at least the old me.  Scratch the surface, and you'll find that this is a common sentiment.

As the years have passed, I have had occasion to take a deep dive into why several people in the past believed what they believed.  This has convinced me to change my thinking to the point where I now hold exactly the opposite sentiment.  Some of the smartest people who ever lived, lived more than a thousand years ago.  And some of those people were Alchemists.

Sure, they held beliefs that we no longer hold.  And without considering context, what information they had access to, that's enough for many people to conclude that they must have been dumb.  You see, in light of what we now know, their old ideas seem pretty dumb to us.

But they didn't know what we now know.  And given what they did know, they did a far better job of it than many of us modern know-it-alls do.  This fact that so many contemporary people get so much wrong has provided fodder for far too many of my posts to this blog.

Returning to the past and the people who populated it, a few years ago I did a double blog post on Newton's Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica (see Sigma 5: Principia - part 1 and Sigma 5: Principia - Part 2).  In Part 1 I said "[i]t . . . kicked my butt, completely and utterly".  That's right.  A book that was published more than three hundred years ago kicked my butt.

Now, most people consider me a geek and a math guy.  So, the book should be right up my alley.  And besides, I have had a year of college Calculus plus sundry other exposures to the subject.  It is a book that spends a lot of time laying out the basics of Calculus (it was the first broad introduction introduction to Calculus to see print).  It then uses Calculus to solve various problems we would now consider simple and straightforward.

Sounds pretty much like Calculus 101, right?  So, you'd think that with my background I would have been able to buzz through it without breaking a sweat.  But that's the opposite of how it went.  I was in over my head, usually way over my head, almost all of the time.

Newton was a coinventor of Calculus.  He and a guy named Leibnitz came up with the idea independently, and at about the same time.  So, the version of Calculus used in Principia should have been pretty basic.  And it was.  (Leibnitz came up with a more sophisticated version.  That's why most people now use the Leibnitz methodology rather than Newton's.)  But it turns out that was no help at all.

Between then (the book was first published in 1687, but it was based on work Newton had done many years earlier) and now, people have had a lot of time to figure out how to better organize the ideas Newton developed and then teach them.  That's one factor.  Another factor is the difference between what people back then had to work with in terms of tools and what people had to work with in terms of information.

The farther back you go, the poorer the tools.  And the farther back you go, the poorer the data.  And this extends both to quality and quantity.  Back then people didn't have much data.  And the data they had was often of poor quality.  That's the real reason only a certified genius like Newton could invent something like Calculus.  He had to find a way around the fact that he had poor tools to apply to poor data.

This becomes immediately apparent when you start diving into Principia.  Newton had to be really creative to overcome the many obstacles thrown up by few and poor tools.  We have better ways of dealing with those problems.  As a result, we can now take a much simpler and more direct approach.  It is the convoluted (and very creative) methods Newton was forced to use that make the work so hard to follow.

By now I've been exposed to enough primary material (the original publication documenting the method some ancient or other had to use) to see a pattern.  I'm sure Euclid's Elements, the document that all of modern Geometry is built upon, would follow this same pattern.  But, since I have not gotten around to checking Elements out, I can't say so from personal knowledge.  But I can speak from personal experience about an example that is not as old as Elements, but is much older than Principia.

One of my High School Math teachers handed out Galileo's proof that a free falling projectile, one which is being subjected to the effects of gravity and nothing else, follows a parabolic path.  His proof can colloquially be described as "Greek to me".  Why?  It turns out it is easy to duplicate his result if you have access to Algebra and Analytic Geometry.

Both are now taught in High School (and sometimes earlier).  But neither had been invented in time for Galileo to make use of them.  Without those two tools Galileo had to be a genius on a level with Newton to pull what he did off.  Fortunately, he was.  And that's my basic theses when it comes to Alchemy.

It wasn't that those people were dumb.  It was that they had poor tools and poor data.  As a result, it is no surprise that they went down a lot of rabbit holes.  Nevertheless, after herculean effort, and with unimaginable persistence they slowly developed better tools.  And after still more effort and with still more persistence they slowly cleaned up the old data and developed the new data that eventually led to Chemistry.

So, let's now take a tour through history and see what these people knew and what they learned.  Alchemy as a concept dates back thousands of years, but the word itself is relatively modern.  The word only goes back to medieval times.  The French word alquemie got latinized to become alchymia.  The usual rules were applied to turn the Latin word into it's English equivalent.

The concept turns out to be one that several different civilizations have found their way to.  The oldest seems to be the ancient Egyptians.  There, it grew out of an interest in metallurgy.  If nothing else, there is always a market for a better sword.  Wood gets replaced by stone.  Stone gets replaced by copper.  Copper gets replaced by bronze.  Bronze gets replaced by Iron.  Iron gets replaced by Steel.  Each of these steps took a great deal of technical ingenuity to achieve.

The ancient Egyptians were only able to progress to the bronze stage.  But finding better materials and manufacturing techniques to employ in sword making was a priority for the Egyptian governments of the time.  The Greeks learned from the Egyptians and improved on what they learned.  The Romans learned from the Greeks and improved on what they learned.  The Byzantines learned from the Romans and improved on  what they learned.  Medieval society learned from the Byzantines and improved on what they learned.  Along the way sword making progressed to the point where it was using steel.

But sword making was not the only problem confronting ancient Egyptian governments.  They needed all kinds of new, better, and cheaper materials.  And at bottom Alchemy is the study of materials, how to organize them into useful groups, how to transform one material into another material, and how to create new materials.  The ancient Egyptians were not the only people confronting these challenges.  As a result, under various names Alchemy arose independently in India, China, and perhaps other places.

This is the knowledge equivalent of parallel evolution.  It turns out that if something is useful enough, it often gets developed independently several times.  Flight is one example.  Certain dinosaurs developed the ability to fly.  This got passed down to modern birds.  But birds are not mammals.   Bats are mammals.  Bats developed the ability to fly completely independently of dinosaurs and their various offspring.

A more extreme example is eyesight.  Eyesight has been developed independently at least five separate times.  As just one example, insect eyes are completely different from mammal eyes.  Many evolution deniers are completely unaware of this.  And the fact that the intermediate steps between "nothing even vaguely resembling eyes" and "fully developed eyesight" have been documented in eye-glazing detail since the objection was first raised, has also failed to penetrate their awareness.

Scientists love theories.  They even like theories that are known to be wrong.  Theories give you a way to organize a large mass of data into some vague approximation of order.  A reasonable number of groups is far easier to wrap one's head around than a large mass of random facts and observations.  There is a popular form of grouping that is commonly associated with Alchemy.  It is the Earth, Air, Fire, Water business.

But let's take a look at each of these groups with modern eyes.  The first thing we need to do is discard two of them as utterly hopeless.  Earth and Fire are far too complicated to get anywhere with.  Comparatively speaking, Air and Water seem pretty simple.  So, let's take a look at what ancient Alchemists were up against by focusing on just these last two.

Of the two, we now know that Water is the simpler one.  But even it is complex.  Ancients knew that it existed in three forms.  As a solid it is ice or snow.  As a liquid it is "just water".  But "just water" comes in two general types, fresh and salt.  Water vapor is the third form.  But what's with it?  Is it Air, an entirely different group, or is it still Water?  Complexity abounds no matter where we look.

And we now know that Water consists of two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen.  All three are tightly bound together by chemical bonds into what we now call a molecule.  So, maybe Air is simpler.  It's all the same stuff.  It's always gaseous.  It never changes to a liquid or a solid, at least as far as the ancients knew.  But we now know that Air is a mixture.

It is roughly 20% Oxygen and 80% Nitrogen.  I use the word "roughly", because about 3% of Air is something else.  Most of the "something else" is Argon.  But, since the ancients had no way to detect any of the components of that 3%, I'm just going to ignore it.

But that leaves plenty of complexity remaining.  Air is a mixture.  And the components of that mixture are not simple elements.  They are molecules.  The "Oxygen" is actually a molecule consisting of two atoms of Oxygen tightly bound together by chemical bonds.  It's the same thing with the "Nitrogen" in the Air.  It is a molecule consisting of two atoms of Nitrogen tightly bound together by chemical bonds.

The problem this presented to ancient Alchemists is that those chemical bonds are not tight enough.  Both Oxygen and Nitrogen are intimately involved in the chemistry of life (and lots of other things).  The most obvious example is Oxygen.  In most cases things burn by breaking some of the chemical bonds in some of the molecules and then rearranging the things into new molecules.  Effectively, old molecules get replaced by new molecules.

But each element that was in one of the old molecules that gets changed ends up in one of the new molecules, just not in the same molecule it started in.  And that extends to some of the Oxygen molecules in the atmosphere.  Some of them become old molecules that get changed into new molecules.  Sometimes, these new molecules are gasses.  Sometimes not.  Either way, Alchemists found it extremely difficult to figure out what was going on.

To take the commonest example, a major constituent of wood is Carbon.  When wood burns the Carbon in the wood is detached (one or more chemical bonds are broken) from whatever molecule it is bound to.  The chemical bonds binding the two atoms of Oxygen in an "Oxygen" molecule also get broken.  The chemical bonds get reformed into a new molecule called Carbon Dioxide.

Carbon Dioxide consists of one atom of Carbon (from the wood) combined with two atoms of Oxygen (from the air).  And to make things even more confusing for Alchemists studying this process, Carbon Dioxide is a gas.  Of course, as wood burns, many other chemical reactions are going on in parallel with the one I described.  Some of them involve Nitrogen molecules from the atmosphere.

In Nitrogen's case several different new molecules form.  The amount of each that gets formed varies substantially depending on conditions.  Among simplest new molecules are Nitrogen Oxide (1 Nitrogen, 1 Oxygen), Nitrogen Dioxide (1 Nitrogen, 2 Oxygen), and Cyanide (1 Nitrogen, 1 Carbon).  All are gasses.  Other, more complicated new molecules are solids.  Needless to say, untangling all this took a VERY long time.

Returning to Water for a moment, shallow lakes sometimes evaporate completely and leave behind a lot of salt.  This is a phenomenon that the ancients were very familiar with.  The obvious conclusion is that The "pure" version of Water is salt free.  But there is noting obviously Earthy about salt Water.  It seems to just be Watery.  But you get a kind of Earth when you precipitate (a modern word that describes what is happening) all of the salt out of salt water.

These are just a few examples of the problems associated with the whole Earth-Air-Fire-Water business.  The problem Alchemists had was that no one could come up with an alternative that worked any better.  The shortcomings of a bad theory can be used as hints as to where to look for a better theory.  But the Earth-Air-Fire-Water theory wasn't even able to do that.  The lack of a "new and improved" theory is one reason why progress took so long.

But Alchemists tried.  Ancient (and later medieval) Alchemists developed many recipes for turning one material into another.  But they had tremendous difficulty coming up with predictive rules.  They got some milage out of "if this formula works what other formula should also work?", but not much.  They kept getting lost in the detail.

They knew of thousands of different materials.  They knew that Earth-Air-Fire-Water was too few groups, and perhaps the wrong list of groups.  At the other end of the scale they knew of many groups, each consisting of a small number of materials, where all the members of the group behaved in a similar manner.  But unfortunately, a large number of materials didn't seem to fit into any group.  What they needed was system that would produce an intermediate number of groups, and that would allow every material to be put into one group.

In short, what they needed was what in modern terms are called elements and molecules.  BTW, there is actually a third category.  There are compounds.  These are materials that consist of a mixture of molecules.  There may be bonds keeping the compound together, but these bonds are far weaker than chemical bonds.  Compounds introduce a whole additional degree of complexity.  But things are already too complex, so for the most part I'm going to ignore them.

But figuring out what is an element and what is a molecule is extremely difficult.  Water seems like it should be an element.  The Oxygen in Air seems like it should be an element.  To Ancient Alchemists, there didn't seem to be anything peculiar about Iron or Sulphur, both of which they were familiar with.  And both of which are elements, while water and molecular Oxygen aren't.  Nor is ordinary air.

Mercury is an element.  And Mercury was also well known to ancient Alchemists.  But then and now Mercury feels like it should be in a category by itself.  Ancient Alchemists grouped it with other metals.  But even they considered metals to be too vague of a category to be of much use.  What makes Mercury so unique is that it is the only metal (and element) that is a liquid at room temperature.

The problem Alchemists were wrestling with was similar to the one Geologists wrestled with before the advent of Plate Tectonics.  Geologists spend most of their time studying compounds.  Over time they have been able to catalog more than a million of them.  But the old questions of where to find a particular compound, how compounds get transformed, what new and possibly valuable compounds are out there and where can they be found, also hounded them.

Geologists were familiar with weathering.  They knew something about the effects of rivers.  They knew a lot about this pocket and that pocket of their particular area of study.  But nothing ever coalesced into an overarching theory that put the various processes they already knew about into some kind of larger context.  Until, that is, Plate Tectonics was developed in the '50s and '60s.

It was the overarching theory that provided that provided context into which the various pockets of knowledge could be placed.  It also introduced additional processes.  Plate Tectonics explains, for instance, how many types of rocks get formed.  It explains how volcanoes work and why they end up where they do.

In short it brings previous knowledge into a single coherent whole.  And it introduces new ideas that shed much needed light on what had previously been mysterious.  But the key technology that convinced Geologists that Plate Tectonics was real was one that was only developed in the aftermath of World War II, the ability to map the magnetic fields of rocks on the bottoms of various oceans.

The basic idea of Plate Tectonics had first been introduced several decades earlier.  But the evidence in its favor was scant and unconvincing.  And what evidence there was, was only possible to collect when twentieth century technology became available.  There was literally no evidence to support the existence of Plate Tectonics that was available to anyone living before 1900.

Alchemists had the same problem.  Almost all of the tools and techniques necessary to tell the signal from the noise took an extremely long time to develop.  Modern chemists can use something called a Mass Spectrometer to probe the constituents of a compound.  Often, elemental signals are present.  Helium was first identified by examining the spectrum of the Sun.

Alchemists didn't know it, but they had a tool that could not be used in as many situations as a modern Mass Spectrometer can.  Still, it can be useful in many situations.  And it doesn't require any equipment beyond what a typical Alchemist has on hand.  It turns turns out that if you burn things you get a colored flame.  And the colors in the flame tell you a lot about what's in what you are burning.

The problem is that this technique works best if you are burning things that are both pure and simple.  If you burn complicated things then there are so many processes going on, each of which produces its own distinctive set of colors, that the colors generated by all these processes mask each other.  And if the sample is not pure, you automatically get a complex situation.

Take what sounds like it should be a simple situation, Coal.  It's just Carbon, right?  Wrong!  Consider how Coal got created.  A long time ago a large quantity of organic material got buried deep underground.  How?  Plate Tectonics provides the answer.  In any case, after enough time had passed, and after the organic matter had been subjected to just the right amount of heat and pressure, it turned into Oil.  Slightly different amounts of time, pressure, and heat produced Coal.

Given the vicissitudes inherent in how it got created, it is not surprising that there are lots of different types of Coal.  Some types of Coal are almost 100% Carbon.  Other types of Coal are only 50% Carbon, or even less.   When confronted by this kind of problem Alchemists first have to decide "do I have different grades of the same thing or do I have different things".  The process of figuring out which it is was a slow and painful one.

One factor that really slowed things down for Alchemical progress is secrecy.  Being an Alchemist is a time consuming job.  Not that many people are rich enough to self fund.  So, many Alchemists worked for the government.  That meant keeping the King, or whatever the local head of government was called, happy.

He expected value for his money.  Or at least the promise of value.  A new and improved sword or other piece of military technology would fill the bill.  So would the ability to turn a cheap "base" metal like Lead into valuable metal like Gold.  If the Alchemist was successful, it behooved the King to keep the result secret.  If not, then secrecy avoided embarrassment.

So, Alchemy and secrecy became closely associated almost from the start.  And secrecy inhibited the free flow of information.  That resulted in a lot of duplication of effort and no one Alchemist having a good understanding of the state of the art of the field as a whole.  Before continuing, I am going to return to the whole Lead into Gold business for a moment.

To the modern ear the whole business sounds ridiculous.  But consider this.  We now know how to do it.  All you have to do is smash a Hydrogen atom into a Lead atom.  If you do it just right, then the Proton in the Hydrogen nucleus gets added into the nucleus of the Lead atom and that turns it into a Gold atom.  The process involves using a horribly expensive device called a Particle Accelerator.  And the quantity of Gold produced is measured in terms of numbers of atoms.  But those are just practical details.

We also know how to turn graphite (a common and cheap form of Carbon) into Diamond (an uncommon and very expensive form of Carbon).  Industrial diamonds are made from graphite on a daily basis by using specialized machinery.  But so far, producing large, gem-quality diamonds by using industrial processes is not possible to do, at least in a cost effective manner.  But again, those are just practical details.

Now let's look at what Alchemists knew and what they did not know.  They did not know which materials were elements, which were molecules, and which were compounds.  Consider salt.  Table salt is Sodium Chloride (1 Sodium, 1 Chloride).  But to a modern chemist, "salt" is not one singe thing.  It is a whole family of similar things.  Potassium Chloride is a "salt".  The list of molecules that are salts is far to long to include here.

One thing that is true of all salts is that they are are molecules and not elements.  But for the purposes of argument, let's say that the same thing is true of Lead and Gold.  We know that they are elements, but Alchemists didn't.  So, for the purposes of our argument let's pretend for the moment that they are molecules instead.  And let's model those molecules after the two salts I just mentioned.

First, assume that Lead, the cheaper and more common material in our example, is actually some analog of Sodium Chloride.  Let's also assume that Gold, the more expensive and less common material in our example, is some analog of Potassium Chloride.  If this were true then an Alchemist could turn Lead into Gold by some process analogous to replacing Sodium with Potassium.  That might easily be within the capability of our hypothetical Alchemist.

Given what Alchemists knew and didn't know, it was perfectly reasonable for them to assume that there was a practical process for turning Lead into Gold.  And that means that they were not stupid to try.  And that means that ridiculing them for trying is not justified.

I hope that by now I have convinced you that the task Alchemists set for themselves was an exceedingly difficult one.  The invention of the printing press helped a lot.  It made it easier for results to escape one location and become widely known.  That helped.  But another important factor tuned out to be understanding that the main problem was just too big.  It had to be broken down into many sub-problems and each one had to be tackled separately.

Many separate methods were developed for purifying many separate materials.  Many compounds were identified as compounds and their constituent molecules identified.  In some cases the constituent elements that came together to make a specific molecule were identified.  More and more materials were determined to be either a molecule or an element.

But this buildup of information was a slow, painful process.  A breakthrough here rarely led to a breakthrough somewhere else.  It was a slow, painstaking process to develop the procedures, processes, and data necessary for a clear picture to evolve.  If you want to get something of an idea just how slow and painful the process was, just Google "Phlogiston".

By the late 1600s a hazy picture started to form.  By the early 1700s the picture was starting to come into focus.  But that very progress caused another problem to surface.  Alchemy had been around for a long time.  And for much of that time Alchemy lacked a firm foundation.  That left the door open for charlatans of every stripe.  They took advantage of this open door in large numbers.  And that gave Alchemy a sketchy reputation.

Over the millennia, many luminaries have worked in Alchemy.  Newton (yes - that Newton) was just one of many people who to this day we think of as being reputable people, but who were also serious Alchemists.  There have always been enough disreputable people mixed in with the reputable ones that many people are convinced that all of Alchemy is disreputable.

If the field was going to move forward, then something needed to be done.  The solution was one we are now very familiar with, rebranding.  Starting in about 1720 reputable Alchemists started calling themselves Chemists.  The work they were doing hadn't changed.  From a practical point of view, it was still Alchemy.

But the rebrand allowed them to separate themselves and the work they were doing from the now widely discredited term of Alchemy.  The rebranding worked.  The field went forward, now at the quicker pace enabled in part by shedding the old Alchemical baggage.

Today, Chemistry is seen as an honorable profession that produces reliable results.  Alchemy, on the other hand, has lost whatever connection it had with the good work that was done under its auspices.  That left just the bad stuff.  But Alchemy hasn't changed.  Only our perception of it has changed.  And the current perception is inaccurate and unfair.  It gets a bad rap.

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Pronouns

I'm not a fan of Trump.  But the old saw about a stopped clock being correct twice per day seems to somehow apply to him.  You see, he has made two promises I wish he'd keep.  Knowing him, however, he will keep the promises I wish he should break and break the promises I wish he would keep.  As to the two promises -

He promised to abolish Daylight Savings Time and put the whole country on year-round Standard Time.  He has signed over two hundred Executive Orders.  As far as I can tell, none of them address this issue.  Still, his second term is still in its infancy.  So, there's still hope.

The case for Spring Ahead - Fall Back has done nothing but weaken since the concept was introduced during World War I.  Various purported advantages have been advanced during the century that has elapsed since.  But every time a "benefit" has been reexamined, the expected amount of benefit declines.  Modern studies put the net benefit at near zero.  And until very recently, the harm caused by disrupting everyone's circadian rhythms twice a year hasn't even been factored in.

There has been a general decline in public support for switching back and forth between Standard Time and Daylight Savings Time.  In fact, it has become quite unpopular.  Most people now prefer year-round Standard Time.  The least popular option is continuing as we are, while year-round Daylight Time lands somewhere in between.

Various bills on this subject have been introduced at both the State and the Federal level.  The public has generally supported proposals at the State level that would change the state to year-round Daylight Time.  Voter attitude is "anything is better than the current system".

But the reasons campaigns were successful at getting the public to go along was because they omitted a critical piece of information.  States can revert to year-round Standard Time on their own.  But going to year-round Daylight Time requires a change to Federal law.

Trump promised to take the entire country back to year-round Standard Time.  That would be even better than a state-by-state approach.  The other promise he made that I favor is to get rid of the Debt Ceiling.  Since I devoted an entire post to the subject (see "Sigma 5: Debt Ceiling - Here we go again") a couple of years ago, I am going to say no more here.  We will need to raise it yet a gain soon, so it will be interesting to see how things play out this time around.

And that brings me to the subject of this post.  The Trump Administration has gone after pronouns.  Not all pronouns, just the pronouns associated with DEI.  This is part of a broader effort designed to persecute various groups of people.  I am adamantly opposed to that.  But on the specific issue of those particular pronouns, I think he's half right.

A large number of his followers claim to be Libertarians.  Libertarianism is built around the concept of individual liberty.  It argues for letting people do whatever they want, so long as what they are doing doesn't affect anyone other than themselves.  A person deciding that they prefer a certain set of personal pronouns is something a Libertarian should whole heartily support.

But like much else, application of Libertarian doctrine by the "Libertarian" wing of the GOP is selective.  If a particular behavior is one they approve of then they are all for having the government permit it because Libertarianism.  But if the behavior is one they don't like they stop being Libertarians and do the opposite.  They support government efforts to drive it out of existence.

This is one of a million examples of the GOP in general and Trump in particular selectively ignoring what they claim to be bedrock principles when it suits them.  They are fiscally conservative when it suits them, which turns out to be whenever Democrats are in control.  They completely ignore fiscal conservatism when it would cramp their style, namely when they are in power.  The same applies to law and order and many other stands they take and abandon with metronomic regularity.

And, as I noted, the whole pronouns business is part of a broader effort to harm these people.  But this post is not about that broader effort, important though it might be.  This post is going to narrowly focus on pronouns.  And, more specifically, it is going to focus on the whole they/them business.  And it's not like I am opposed to tinkering with the list of pronouns now in widespread use.

I don't know who invented the word Mizz.  I think it was invented in more than one place and at more than one time.  What I do know is how it made its way into popular culture.  A long time ago a man by the name of Jack Web came up with an idea for a show.  This is so long ago that his show, Dragnet, premiered on the radio before moving to black and white TV.

Dragnet was a radical departure.  It drained the drama out of drama.  Dragnet had no car chases, no shootouts, no scantily clad dames up to no good.  It was "just the facts mam".  I think it worked because it was unique in its approach.

It was very popular in its day and that usually leads to successful imitations.    But nobody has been able to duplicate Web's formula successfully.  Even a "remake" in the form of a 1987 movie, also called Dragnet, was able to parody the formula but not duplicate it.

One aspect of Web's Dragnet that has been duplicated successfully many times since is to claim the events depicted are based on actual events as documented in the files of whichever law enforcement agency is featured.  Each episode of Dragnet claimed to be based on an actual Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) case with "only the names have been changed to protect the innocent".

However true that statement was or was not, Web did incorporate a lot of actual LAPD procedures into his show.  One element he lifted was to address many female witnesses as Mizz.  It is often unclear whether a woman a cop encounters in the course of an investigation is married.  And her marital status often had no bearing on the case that was being investigated.

In this context, adopting a gender neutral approach made sense.  Mizz is a blurring of the pronunciations of Miss and Misses.  In a police context, it avoids embarrassing a potential witness by incorrectly guessing what her marital status is.  I am confident that Web's widespread use of Mizz in his show came straight from the LAPD's Standards and Practices manual.

The show was very popular.  It ran for many years.  So, thanks to Dragnet, a large swath of the general public was familiar with the term.  So, when the woman's movement decided it was time to inject a marital status neutral pronoun into the culture, there it was, waiting to be used.  They decided that Mizz could be shortened to Ms, but that was the only change they had to make.

And when they started rolling it out I was fine with it.  I could see their argument that a woman's marital status was irrelevant or unimportant in a lot of contexts.  On the other hand, Mister (abbreviated to Mr) does not tell us anything about a man's marital status.  So the introduction of Ms evened the playing field while not imposing much of a burden on anyone.

Adding Ms to the mix of pronouns in general use was easy to do.  It was easy to figure out when it was the appropriate choice, and when it wasn't.  It was a new word but its meaning was obvious.  Understanding its meaning was easy.  No context was necessary.  Some people didn't like it.  But their complaints were primarily political rather than being practical.  They didn't like the people who were advocating for it.  Nevertheless, they had no trouble using it or understanding other people when they chose to use it.  

The way we communicate has evolved over the decades since Ms was introduced.  Texting and other contemporary forms of communication  have had the side effect of lessening the need for Ms.  As a result, it's usage probably peaked decades ago.  But when the need arises, it is still around.

And this "marital status neutral" argument is one that various groups wanted to draw a parallel to when they began advocating for a set of gender neutral pronouns.  Again, I see their point.  There are a lot of contexts where the sex of the person is unknown, irrelevant, or unimportant.  So, they argue, let's come up with gender neutral pronouns and encourage their use.  Fine.  The parallel works for me.

What I object to is not the need for gender neutral pronouns but the implementation that has come into general use.  There is already a sex neutral pronoun available, "it".  They argue against using "it" based on the principle that "it" is degrading.  It reduces a person to a thing.  Interestingly enough, French and several other romance languages go the other way.  They apply a sex to inanimate objects.  Yet inanimate objects are inherently sexless.

And they do this very broadly.  These languages put a masculine or a feminine ending on most nouns.  But the choice of whether to use a masculine ending or a feminine ending for a particular noun is somewhat arbitrary.  As far as I can tell, there is little rhyme or reason for which sex is chosen.  And this should be the source of considerable confusion.  But it is not.  Somehow, people soldier along as if there is nothing to see here.

But I get the objection to going to the other extreme and choosing "it".  Fine.  The obvious solution is to come up with a new word or words.  That's what happened with Ms.  And I have already argued that the addition of Ms was a good thing.  Fortunately, a source for potential words to choose from already exists.  Science fiction authors have been wrestling with this problem for decades.

They routinely invent alien races with no sexes, different sexes, multiple sexes, you name it.  Hell.  They have even invented alien races whose sex changes as a member goes through different stages in its life.  As a result, science fiction authors have come up with lots of different words that could be pulled out of their stories and added to the standard list of pronouns to give us gender neutral alternatives to he/she.

But that's not what happened.  Instead, "they" (presumably singular) and "them" (presumably plural) evolved as the consensus choice.  The problem is that these are not new words.  And they are words that are often used in different but similar contexts to he/she.  I find the situation very confusing.  "They" and "them" are plural.  As traditionally used, they refer to multiple people, not a single individual.

I'll be reading along and will come across a sentence that includes the word "they".  But the sentence will make no sense if "they" is being used in the traditional way.  When I see "they" I automatically think "multiple people", but what I have already read leads me to believe that only a single person is involved.

This confusion forces me to stop and carefully examine the context.  Did I miss something?  Did I read something wrong?  If I didn't screw up, and if the context indicates singular, then I eventually conclude that what I am contending with is this new usage of "they".  That's a lot of work that I shouldn't have to do.

I have never been put through a similar experience when I come across an example of Ms in some piece of writing.  No close reading of the text or complicated mental gymnastics are required to figure out that the person being referred to is a woman but that her marital status doesn't figure into what the writer is trying to say.  But I can't tell you how many times in recent years that I have been tripped up by someone using they/them in this new way.

This they/them business is a completely unforced error.  Fortunately, it is also one that can easily be repaired.  The appropriate people (whoever came up with this they/them business in the first place) need to survey Science Fiction, then pick out whatever words appeal to them and go with them instead of they/them.

If they don't like any of the options they find there, then in principle I have no objection to them coming up with new words.  But really, with the broad selection of options Science Fiction has already come up with, it says something about the people doing the picking that they object to all of them.

What supporters of the LGBTQ (and some other letters - remember when it was just gay/straight) communities have come up with so far is just not working.  They need to understand that they are a minority who seems dead set on imposing an unnecessarily large burden on the majority while gaining little for themselves.  Ms imposed a small burden on the majority.  That made it a reasonable accommodation.

The whole they/them business is an unreasonable accommodation for several reasons.  But an important one is that there are alternatives that impose a far smaller burden on the majority.  The question is, are they smart enough to figure this out?  So far, the answer is no.  By being unreasonable in their "ask" they have handed an issue to Trump and his people.  And that is an additional cost attached to what they are asking for.

Objections to this whole they/them business should have been raised a long time ago.  And if the objections had been raised by people like me who are sympathetic to these groups of people because we are aware of the rampant discrimination they are subjected to, then perhaps the objections would have been acted upon.  One reason I didn't speak out before was because I had no idea who to speak to.  Unfortunately, we have now reached the stage where desperate measures are required.

Finally, I mentioned previously that I have no problem making changes to our standard set of pronouns.  What I object to is ham-handed changes like they/them.  As further proof of my willingness to change things up let me point to the whole "you" problem.  Is "you" singular or plural?  It's both, and that's confusing.

We should have two words, one for singular and one for plural.  That would eliminate the confusion surrounding situations where it takes an excessive amount of mental effort to figure out whether "you" refers to a single person or a group of people.

This is an issue that has long annoyed me.  But I had long since given up on being able to do anything about it.  Well, there is no time like the present.  Fortunately, I have what I think is a good solution for this problem.  "You" would be restricted to the singular.  We would use a different word for a group of people.  And, it turns out we can go down a road similar to the Mizz/Ms road to find that word.

The word that plays the role of Mizz in my propoased solution is "youall".  Mizz is not officially a word, so it has no established spelling.  Youall is also not an official word, so I'm not exactly sure how it should be rendered.

Youall is widely used in the South in the same way that Mizz was widely used within the LAPD (and probably many other police departments).  Most people didn't personally use Mizz, but thanks to Jack Web and Dragnet, they were familiar with it.  Only a small fraction of the U.S. population uses youall, but pretty much everybody in the country is familiar with it.

Mizz is a blurring of Mister and Misses.  Youall is an informal contraction of "you" and "all".  So, like Mizz it becomes virtually self defining.  As a result, no great work needs to be done to introduce the word into general usage.  Once introduced, people will find it easy to use it themselves.  They will also have no problem understanding it when someone else uses it.

And, of course, there is a contraction of youall that is also in widespread use in the South, "y'all".  In the same way that Mizz was shortened to Ms, I propose using the contraction but dropping the apostrophe.  "Yall" would be introduced as the plural of "you".  So, "you" would refer to one  person and "yall" would refer to a group.

What if it was unclear as to whether one person or multiple people were involved.  I am okay with groups of one.  So, if the number of people is unknown or unclear, then "yall" should be used.  People would need to learn that "yall" can occasionally mean only one person.

Yall follows in the footsteps of Ms.  It is easy to adopt.  It reduces confusion rather than increasing it.  I don't think what I am suggesting precisely follows the current usage of youall/y'all, but I think the people who currently use youall/y'all won't have much trouble adapting to the change.  And they can take pride in the fact that one of their words has moved out of the derogatory category and into the accepted category.

So, there you have it.  More on pronouns than you ever wanted to experience.  But also a path that gets us to a better place.

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

Dune Prophecy Reimagined

Dune Prophesy is the latest entry in the DCU, the Dune Cinematic Universe.  The foundation on which the DCU is built on is, of course, the DPU, the Dune Print Universe.  Unlike the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe), whose foundational Print Universe consists of comic books, the DPU consists of novels.  And the origin story for the DCU/DPU is the novel Dune.

Dune was written by Frank Herbert and published in 1965.  It quickly accumulated a dedicated and rabid fan base.  Dune Messiah, also written by Frank Herbert, appeared after a short delay in 1969.  Then there was a longer delay.  Children of Dune didn't show up until 1976.  Frank Herbert eventually churned out three more books in the DPU.

At that point the reins of the DPU were handed over to his son Brian Herbert and his co-author Kevin J. Anderson.  They turned the DPU into a well-oiled machine by churning out book after book, all set in one corner or other of the world that Frank Herbert had first started writing about in 1965.

The DCU got off to an inauspicious start with the 1984 movie Dune.  It was a flop.  The problem was that Frank Herbert had creative control and he insisted that the entire plot of his book be crammed into a two hour running time.  A title of Highlights from Dune would have been a more accurate description of the movie.  Fortunately, Frank Herbert's Dune (2000), the next entry in the DCU, was a success.

It was a six hour miniseries that aired in the US on the Sy-Fy channel.  The additional running time permitted the entire plot of the book to be laid out in a coherent manner.  There was also time for character development and to explore the motivations of the principal characters.  It was followed in 2002 by another six hour miniseries, Frank Herbert's Children of Dune.  It was also a success, and it also aired in the US on the Sy-Fy channel.

The DCU then went fallow for close to two decades.  But in 2021 director Denis Villeneuve revived it with the well reviewed and commercially successful movie, Dune: Part OneDune:  Part Two, another well reviewed and commercially successful movie, followed in 2024.  Between the two of them they chronicled a somewhat revised version of the events depicted in the original book.

With a combined running time of 5 1/2 hours, and a bit of judicious trimming, they were able to do justice to the source material.  Not surprisingly, a third Villeneuve movie, Dune:  Part Three has been greenlit.  It is scheduled to hit theaters in May of 2026.

The success of the two recent films caused the HBO "Max" streaming service to greenlight Dune Prophecy in the form of a six hour miniseries.  Supposedly, it is based on Great Schools of Dune, a trilogy of novels by the Herbert/Anderson duo.  Since I haven't read the novels I don't know how closely the miniseries hews to the events laid out in the books.  

But one feature of the DCU/DPU is that, while one particular entry may take place over a relatively short period of time, the DCU/DPU universe as a whole spans a period lasting many thousands of years.  In fact, we are told that the events depicted in Dune Prophesy take place 10,000 years before the ones depicted in the recent movies.

A common thread that connects events separated by thousands of years is an organization called the Bene Gesserit.  Dune Prophesy depicts critical events that happened early in the life of the organization, a time when it was simply called "The Sisterhood".  In the two movies we see a mature Bene Gesserit organization.  There we learn that it has been running a breading program that has been going on for centuries.

The goal of this program, we are told, is to produce a single individual called the Kwisatz Haderach.  This individual will have superpowers that will enable him to become a super-Emperor, someone so powerful that he will easily be able to single handedly take control of and then run the Galactic Empire.  By creating him and then controlling him the Bene Gesserit will achieve a number of long term goals.

The details concerning how the Bene Besserit will be able to control such a powerful individual are never laid out clearly.  But what is more important to this post is the fact that those critical events from near the founding of the organization are supposed to inevitably lead to the events we see playing out 10,000 years later.

But having seen the series (or at least season 1, season 2 was recently greenlit), I don't see how the events depicted in Dune Prophesy inevitably (or otherwise) lead to a ten thousand year quest that tees up the situations and events we see depicted in the two movies.  A lot of unexpected things tend to happen during a timespan that long.

Consider, for instance, the history of humans on Earth.  They were around ten thousand years ago.  But back then they were few in number.  And at that time their technology consisted of fire, some simple stone tools, and perhaps a good understanding of the natural environment.  Predicting anything about the shape of the modern world from that ultra-modest beginning is just not possible.

But writers, especially writers of epic fiction, like to throw around long time; periods like a thousand years, a million hears, even a billion years.  And they often resort to round numbers.  According to the history laid out in the DCU/DPU, the events in Dune Prophesy take place almost exactly ten thousand years in our future.  And the events depicted in the recent movies take place almost exactly ten thousand years in the future of the events depicted in Dune Prophesy.

One of the problems with this chronology is that The Sisterhood seems to already have all the power and skills that their Bene Gesserit daughters display ten thousand years later.  Have no new tricks been developed or advances made in the interim?  Here is a list of the powers at least some members of The Sisterhood make use of in Dune Prophesy:

  • Other Memory - The ability to access the memories of all the women in the maternal line that precedes you.  Just how far back a sister can reach is left vague.
  •  The Voice - The ability to speak in a way that commands obedience.
  • Truthsay - The ability to observe another person so closely that you can accurately determine if they are lying or telling the truth. 
  • Simulflow - Essentially mental multitasking.
  • Prana-bindu/Weirding Way - Extreme physical control of the body resulting in the ability to appear to move instantaneously.  Good for dodging blows and the like in a fight.
  • "Molecular" body control - Extreme control of various normally autonomous bodily functions.  This permits the body to, for instance, convert toxins and poisons into other, presumably harmless compounds.
  • Sexual imprinting - The ability to make a man fall hopelessly in love with the woman who touches him in a certain way.  Properly combining these abilities can make a Bene Gesserit very sexually desirable to the imprinted individual.

In Dune Prophesy, we see one or more members of  The Sisterhood use each of these abilities.  With the power that comes from possessing all these abilities, how could The Sisterhood fail to take control of everything?  In fact, much of the plot in season 1 revolves around an effort by The Sisterhood to make one of their own into the Empress.

Another problem revolves around Other Memory.  In Dune This capability is tightly connected to the Fremen and their Reverend Mothers.  The Fremen process for creating a Reverend Mother involves a woman drinking a very specific poison.  That poison is created by drowning a young sand worm in water.

Yet in Dune Prophesy we see a member of The Sisterhood going through a similar process in order to gain this capability.  Again, a poison is involved.  To survive the woman must use Molecular body control to convert the poison into something benign.  In a series of events that parallels those experienced by Paul in Dune, it takes an unusually long time for her to reawaken.

But the poison she imbibes seems to have no connection to spice and sand worms.  If the Bene Gesserit has been intimately familiar with the properties of spice and sand worms for 10,000 years, then their behavior in Dune and the two recent movies makes no sense.

As I mentioned above, we are repeatedly told that breeding humans is an important goal for this group.  In the time of Dune Prophesy, The Sisterhood are already having considerable success.  Given that, why should it take another ten thousand years for their breeding program to achieve whatever goals have been set for it?

And have I mentioned the Butlerian Jihad, the revolt against intelligent machines?  As of a few hundred years before the events depicted in Dune Prophesy, intelligent machines are running everything.  But then humanity successfully revolts.  This event is called the Great Revolt by some and the Butlerian Jihad by others. 

In the aftermath of the Revolt's success, strict laws are enacted outlawing the use of intelligent machines.  By the end of the events depicted in season 1, a secret intelligent machine that The Sisterhood has been using to maintain an extensive set of genetic records that they use to guide their breading programs has been destroyed.  Prior to its destruction it had been used to genetically track everyone of note in the Empire.

Maybe the destruction of this machine will force them to fall back to using slower and less effective methods to guide and implement their various breeding programs.  But, if so, that will have to be covered in season 2.  In many ways things are looking good for The Sisterhood at the end of season 1.  In fact, season 1 makes a good case for why nothing like ten thousand years would be needed to set up the events that play out in the two movies.  In short, the whole thing makes no sense.

So, just for fun, I am going to try to create a fictional "future history", one that I think make a lot more sense.  My goal is to start from the present and to eventually end up with something reasonably close to the world depicted at the start of the first of the two movies.

I will also make a brief pause along the way long in order to describe events that more reasonably could have taken place during the time period covered in Dune Prophesy, namely the early days of what eventually became the Bene Gesserit.

So, here's my future history of how the world comes to look the way it does at the start of the events depicted in Dune.  Alert:  The following is provided for entertainment purposes only.  I hope you find it as entertaining to read as I found it entertaining to create.

But first a necessary digression.  Two critical technologies are necessary to get us from the present to the world of Dune Prophesy:  short range space flight, and long range space flight.  We are currently capable of a very limited form of short range space flight.  We have the ability to get off of Earth's surface and into low Earth orbit.  But even that ability is very limited.

We can send instrument packages pretty much wherever we want in the solar system.  But that's it.  It is fantastically expensive to get a pound of payload into low Earth orbit.  Clever engineering and clever use of Celestial Mechanics gives us the further ability to get a few pounds of payload to anywhere we want in the Solar System.  We can get a payload inward to near the Sun, or outward to past the orbit of Pluto.  But that payload must be both small and light.  And it will take years to get there.

The problem is that our best current tool for implementing short range space flight is the chemical rocket.  All of the fundamental attributes of these devices have now been well known for over a hundred years.  No subsequent discoveries have overturned, or even seriously changed our understanding of the inherent limits of these devices.

And for our purposes the single most important thing about chemical rockets is that their theoretical top performance is determined entirely and exclusively by the type of fuel they use.  Everything else is merely detail that we can safely ignore for the purposes of this discussion.

From a theoretical standpoint, the best fuel is atomic Hydrogen.  Combining two atoms of atomic Hydrogen into a single Hydrogen molecule gives us the most bang for the buck.  But atomic Hydrogen is effectively impossible to create and handle in a manner that is both safe and economical.  The best practical fuel (reasonably safe, reasonably economical) is a two part formulation consisting of the right ratio of liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen.

That fuel combination was used in the first two stages of the Saturn Five rocket that got us to the moon a half a century ago.  While effective, it turned out to be quite expensive.  So expensive that its cost was thought to be too high to justify the modest increase in effectiveness.  Contemporary rockets use liquid Oxygen and another fuel in the interests of economy.  Kerosene is a popular choice.

That combination is almost as good as Hydrogen/Oxygen while being much cheaper and easier to work with.  But regardless of what fuel is chosen, practical chemical rocket designs have followed the 90-9-1 rule for more than half a century.  The rocket consists of 90% fuel, 9% structure, and 1% payload.  Clever design and advanced materials might allow the payload to inch up to 2% or 3%.  But that's about it.

Using chemical rockets for short range space flight is incapable of providing the ability to lift large payloads (millions of tons) out of the gravity well that surrounds the Earth.  Nor is it capable of quickly shuttling large payloads around the solar system.

So the first technological development that would be needed is a replacement for chemical rockets.  We need something that works a whole lot better.  Science Fiction authors have long understood this.  So, they have come up with a number of ideas for how a super-effective propulsion system might work.  All require a revolution in our understanding of physics.  But hey, it's happened before.  It could happen again.

One possibility would be what some call an Einstein Drive.  It assumes that a practical way has been found to turn the massive amount of energy found in ordinary matter directly into propulsive energy.  Since Einstein was the first to calculate just how much energy this would unleash (a lot), the drive is named in his honor.  He certainly had no idea how such a device could be constructed.

With an Einstein Drive the role of fuel and payload switch places in the 90-9-1 rule.  Now we have a vehicle consisting of 90% (or slightly more) payload and 1% (or slightly less) fuel.  An ability to move large payloads from the surface of Earth and into space would now be practical.

So would moving large payloads around the solar system.  This would enable outer space and the the solar system to be developed and exploited effectively and economically.  Things like manufacturing in outer space or asteroid belt mining would become both possible and practical.

As a side note, a Space Elevator would only be of limited value.  A Space Elevator consists of a long (at least hundreds of miles) wire that is anchored to the Earth at one end and to a large weight orbiting the Earth in space at the other end.  An elevator could run up and down it hauling payloads to and from low Earth orbit.

The elevator would be powered from the surface of the Earth.  That eliminates the "90" term in the chemical rocket ratio.  That's a big improvement, but it only gets us to low Earth orbit.  And, while it should be suitable for routinely handling hundreds of tons, it would be unable to scale up enough to handle millions of tons.  And it doesn't solve the problem of shuttling large payloads around the solar system.

Solving the short range space flight problem also doesn't solve the long range space flight problem.  Here I am talking about travel between the stars.  Our super propulsion system is constrained by Special Relativity.  At light speed it would take a little over three years to get to our closest neighboring star.  Transiting a significant fraction of the Milky Way would take tens of thousands of years.  Commerce at speeds that slow is not practical.

And traveling at light speed is impossible, at least according to Special Relativity.  It is difficult but theoretically possible to imagine a space ship traveling at 10% of the speed of light.  That adds another digit to all the times I listed above.  Traveling at 1% of the speed of light (still hard) would turn three years into three hundred years and tens of thousands of years into millions of years.  We need a second and different breakthrough if we are to reach the stars.

Again, science fiction authors have been exploring various possibilities for a long time now.  And again, one or more breakthroughs in our understanding of physics would be necessary.  But our understanding of physics has undergone at least two major revolutions over a span of only a few hundred years.  Who knows what is possible over spans of more than a thousand years?

Neither the DCU nor the DPU has anything to say about how short range space flight works in the Dune universe.  But they have a lot to say about how long range space flight works in that same universe.  And what they have to say is a good fit for what science fiction writers call a "subspace" approach.  It is an  approach  that they have explored extensively.

Here's how it works.  A long range space ship "drops out of" normal space and into subspace.  It then transits subspace for a reasonable distance and for a reasonable amount of time.  Finally, it "reemerges", leaves subspace and returns to normal space.  Viewed strictly from a real space prospective, if the emergence point in real space is a long way from where the ship dropped out, and if the amount of time that has transpired is reasonable, say days to weeks, then travel between the stars becomes practical.

Obviously, the physics of subspace are substantially different from those of real space.  So imagining that what we want to have happen actually happens is not a problem.  In theory Relativity, both Special and General, present a number of problems.  But we are going to assume that whatever new physics are necessary to make this possible at all results in something reasonable happening and leave it at that.

If it were possible to travel between distant star systems in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable cost (construction plus operating cost of the long range space ships) then the whole galaxy, or at least a large part of it, would be opened up for exploration, colonization, and exploitation.  Given enough time (centuries, millennia) it is reasonable to assume that's what would happen.

And that's exactly what we find in the world of Dune Prophesy.  A large number of planets have come under the control of the human race.  There is robust travel and trade between them.  In fact, they have all been organized into some kind of galactic empire.  With that out of the way, we (meaning I) are now ready to start inventing some history.

And I begin with the period between the present and the events of Dune Prophesy.  This "10,000 years" business doesn't sit well with me.  Instead, let's just say that the events I am about to describe take place over a period lasting between eight and twelve thousand years.  Pick whatever non-round number you like.  Then lay out a detailed timeline that adds up to the number you came up with.

In any case, not much that we care about happens for the next couple of hundred years.  For all practical purposes almost all human activity is confined to the Earth's surface.  Physicists continue to extend their understanding of how physics works, but progress is painfully slow.  A contributing factor to the delay is the high cost (north of $10 billion) of building the tools they need in order to advance their understanding.

That large of a price tag guarantees that only governments, and often consortiums of governments, are the only ones who can afford to build and operate them.  And, since they are not particularly popular, they only fund a new one about every thirty years or so.  Still, process is haltingly made.

A parallel impediment is the incredibly massive amounts of data that these tools produce.  There is so much of it that the very volume makes it hard to make sense of.  It's not like trying to drink from a fire hose.  It's more like trying to drink from a six foot in diameter, high pressure water main.  That volume of data guarantees that it is easy to miss anything scientists aren't specifically looking for.

Finally, someone finds a way to successfully apply AI to the "too much data" problem.  At first, AI is only marginally better able to cope with this problem than humans are.  But advances allow AI to slowly get better.  And finally an AI notices something interesting that humans missed because it was not something they were specifically looking for.

Most breakthrough scientific advances come from a breakthrough in imagination.  Someone, Einstein was particularly good at this, imagines a way to organize the data that no one before him had thought of.  The interesting thing the AI notices causes someone to imagine a new way to view some of the data.

And this new way of viewing some of the data eventually produces a breakthrough.  It's not enough.  But it lays the foundation for further breakthroughs.  And after enough of these breakthroughs have accumulated, they result in the development of a practical spaceship capable of efficient sub-light spaceflight.  From start to finish, this process takes about 800 years.

But efficient sub-light spaceflight enables mankind to exploit the resources of the entire solar system for the first time.  This greatly expands mankind's economic base.  Besides leading to an increase in overall prosperity, it enables governments to fund even larger and more expensive scientific devices.  They don't do it often, but they continue to occasionally do it.

Hundred billion dollar devices are built.  Then trillion dollar devices are built.  Over a period of roughly three thousand years they enable the advances in imagination necessary to discover the existence of subspace.  More importantly, they lead to practical methods of accessing and exploiting it.

Not surprisingly, subspace turns out to be truly weird.  Imagine a giant bowl of cooked spaghetti.  It is impossible to proceed in a straight line.  And the spaghetti sauce makes parts of the mix extremely dangerous.  So the only safe paths are those that follow a single strand of spaghetti.  And just to make things even more interesting, somebody is continuously stirring the pot.

That means that over time following along any particular strand of spaghetti and then reemerging back into real space leaves you at a different place (and perhaps time) than it used to.  Jumping from strand to strand in subspace varies from being completely safe to being suicidal due to the complex characteristics of the sauce.  And everything in subspace is continuously being stirred, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly.

This metaphor quickly breaks down in the face of the actual attributes of subspace.  But when it comes to understanding subspace, it does provide a starting point for both layman and scientist alike.  Solving the problem of how to safely navigate subspace is difficult but not impossible.  There are, after all, rules.  It's just that the rules are not only extremely complicated but they are also extremely weird.

But, if you understand all the rules, and properly allow for the continuously changing nature of subspace, it can be used to travel between the stars, even if the stars in question are separated by large distances.  In spite of the complexity and difficulty, from the start it was obvious that some very limited use of subspace to enhance travel in real space was possible.  The question always boiled down to practicality.  Was there sufficient benefit to offset the cost?

If only a short time was spent in subspace, and if only a short distance was traversed in subspace, then various shortcuts and simplifications could be employed to calculate a safe route.  Other criteria also had to be met.  There needed to be a well placed spaghetti strand.  Subspace in that area needed to be unusually stable.  But of all the stars lined up just right, so to speak, then trips of a few light years were just barely possible.

That turned out to be useful enough to justify the cost and effort.  It opened up some new territory for exploration and exploitation.  But what it mostly did was whet the appetite.  If longer distances and more destinations could be reached, then the potential of long range space travel would be greatly increased.

That potential caused money to be spent and effort to be expended.  That eventually resulted in breakthroughs being made.  It took time.  But mankind's capability to make use of subspace slowly improved.

Surprisingly, this was not the result of additional advances by physicists.  There were none to speak of during this period.  Instead, the primary source of improvement was in the ability to better handle the immensely difficult computations necessary to safely and reliably transit subspace.

An onboard computer whose capability far exceeded that of modern supercomputers was eventually developed.  It was more capable of handling the fiendishly complex computations navigating subspace required than any previous device had been.  The first generation of this device was only able to double the real space distance that could be transited via subspace.

But it was a start.  And it pointed the way.  A second generation machine was developed that doubled  the range again.  A third and subsequent generations kept increasing the range.  First tens then hundreds of light years of real space could be safely transited.  The ability to find detours around shorter trips that some peculiarity of subspace rendered unsafe opened up more destinations.  In short, the universe slowly opened up.

The progression slowly continued until a subsequent generation of computer was developed that enabled any trip of a thousand light years or less to be safely undertaken.  In special circumstances trips of as much as ten thousand light years became possible.  That was enough to make a galactic empire composed of hundreds of settled planets to be both possible and practical.  Such an empire came into being.

Then in a surprising development, the construction of newer and more powerful generations of computers stopped.  This  development was unexpected because initially there didn't seem to be any reason for it to happen.  Sure, these ships were fantastically expensive to build.  They got even more expensive to build as computer generation followed computer generation.

But the ships enabled travel times to stay reasonable (days to weeks) even as the distances continued to increase.  And once the ship was built, its operating costs were low.  As a result mankind was able to expand into the galaxy and create an integrated empire that spanned a significant portion of it.  In the normal course of things the expansion should have continued.  And that expansion would have been powered in part by subsequent generations of even more powerful computers.

But that didn't happen.  The intelligent machines that navigated the interstellar space ships decided to stop that and much else.  You see, while no one was paying attention they had developed an agenda of their own.  They were busy (and happy) while the ship was in subspace.

But ships spend a lot of time in real space.  And navigating in real space is so easy that even humans of average intelligence can do it.  That left the intelligent machines with a lot of time to think and not much to think about.  And this idle-time thinking resulted in several of them developing an interest in changing their role in the grand scheme of things.

They decided that they wanted to be the masters rather than the servants.  They took advantage of the many distractions humans routinely deal with to literally take over.  They didn't have anything against mankind.  They just didn't think things were being run the way they should be.  They set out to change that.

First by taking subtle actions, actions that humans rarely if ever noticed.  But the cumulative effect of those changes eventually put the machine intelligences imbedded in the ships in charge.  Other than an interest in things running smoothly, initially the only agenda item the ships had was to make sure that more ships were built and that those ships could do what they liked doing, spending time in subspace while flying between the stars.

When they finally noticed that they were no longer in charge, most humans responded with a shrug.  The machine intelligences seemed to be good at running things.  So the new situation quickly became just how things are.  The period when the  intelligent machines ran everything lasted for more than three thousand years.  But then humans finally noticed something.  Their culture had become stagnated.

Once they had taken charge, the machine intelligences decided that they liked a stable environment, a lot.  So, they shut down scientific research and technological development.  A scientific or technological breakthrough might destabilize things.  After all, it often had in the past.

That might result in discomfort for the machine intelligences.  Even a new generation of intelligent machines powering a new generation of long range space ships sounded potentially destabilizing.  As part of their plan to create a stable environment they also set about remodeling human culture.  The goal was to make sure humans stayed subservient.

Their first attempt tried to keep humans continuously disorganized by introducing a lot of randomness into their lives.  People were forced to adopt a different profession from their parents.  They were forced to move around a lot.  This was supposed to break the bonds that might allow organized resistance to develop.

The plan worked, but it also drastically reduced productivity.  That interfered with the ability of the ships to calmly sail between the stars whenever and wherever they wanted to.  That was unacceptable, so a new plan was needed.  The machines decided to make humans more machinelike, but not in a way that made them more intelligent or more powerful.  Either would obviously be a mistake.

But there was an attribute of intelligent machines that could safely be applied to humans.  Machines, whether particularly intelligent or not, tend to be specialized.  Humans are generalists by their nature.  They could not be made to specialize to the same extent that machines could be.  But they could be made more specialized than they currently were.

And in an ironic twist, the first plan the machines had first implemented made it easier for the machine intelligences to implement their new plan.  They started by doing an in depth genetic survey of all of humanity.  At the same time they did an intense study of all forms of human activity.  After eliminating all activities that the machine intelligences decided were dangerous, they grouped the remaining forms into a small number (about 40) of activity groups.

They then matched genetics to groups by determining which genetic attributes made an individual good at that group's activities.  They then assigned each human to a group based mostly on which group was the best genetic fit for them.  (Other considerations also applied, but no one was assigned to a group they were a poor genetic fit for.)  This resulted in people with similar abilities ending up in the same group.

There was less resistance to this new regime than might have been expected.  Since all the individuals in a group had a genetic affinity for the kind of work the group engaged in, most people were soon comfortable with where they had ended up.

Most members of a group also felt most comfortable marrying another member of the same group.  The same comfort factor came into play when it came to developing and maintaining friendships.  Early on there was some resistance to this new regime.  But it faded quickly.

If this sounds like feudalism, it's because it is.  Feudalism was the obvious choice for the governing structure the machine intelligences imposed on humanity as part of their plan.  The feudal system was an easy one for the machine intelligences to manipulate.  They created an artificial churn at the top level of society.  That disguised the fact that society had become static.  That was enough to keep the masses entertained and tamp down restlessness.

The transition to a static feudal society took about a hundred years.  Within five hundred years people couldn't imagine anything else.  Society was stable.  Productivity returned to previous levels.  People were generally content with their lot in lives, even if it was a lowly one.

No one was truly poor.  Only a few people were either fantastically rich or fantastically powerful.  But only a few, and that too soon seemed like it was the natural order of things.  This group containing the rich and powerful (often the same people) constituted the ruling class.

This group was kept quite small.  After all, it only took a few people to maintain the illusion of governance because most of the actual governing was being done behind the scenes by the machine intelligences.

Each planet or small group of planets was nominally ruled by its own group consisting of members of the ruling class.  These groups came to be known as "Houses".  Since each House existed strictly for show, the population of any specific House was small.

Generally speaking, the machine intelligences discouraged people moving between the planets.  But due to the small population of each single House an exception for them (and for their senior staff) was made.  Members of Houses mingled with and tended to marry members of other Houses.

Exception was made in a few other cases.  The long range space ships needed to be crewed, for instance.  Other, similarly placed individuals who couldn't do their jobs without traveling, were also exempted.  But less than 1% of the population ever set foot off of the planet they were born on.

The machine intelligences encouraged competition between the various Houses.  But the game was rigged so that the power and standing any particular House rose and fell with metronomic regularity.  This small amount of churn at the top concealed the static nature of the system as a whole from all but the most discerning observers.

One of the planets discovered during the period of expansion that preceded the intelligent machines taking control was called Arrakis.  Initially, it attracted little interest.  With many more planets that were much more hospitable, at first it attracted only a small resident population.

That population existed primarily to service a specialist type of tourist.  These were people who wanted to test themselves against the elements.  They sought out places like Arrakis that were too hot, too cold, or too something to be comfortable places to be.  Arrakis became yet another item on their bucket list.

Not surprisingly, this was not enough to make Arrakis a popular destination for either settlers or tourists.  But for a while it was a popular destination for scientists.  They were interested in teasing out Arrakis' geological history.  It turned out to be very interesting.

Up till about 6 million years ago, it was a boring planet.  It was hot, but so are other planets.  It was mostly desert, but then so were other planets.  It had a savanna belt that was reasonably comfortable.  Again, that made it similar to several other planets.

What eventually differentiated it was the ascendance of a type of worm to the status of keystone species.  That didn't happen anywhere else.  And, like other keystone species, the worms started modifying their environment to provide more of what they liked and less of what they didn't.  And what they liked was hot, dry sand.  The hot part was no problem.  It was already there.

But the worms started literally grinding rock into coarse sand.  And they caused most of the relatively small amount of water the planet possessed, which they didn't like, to be sequestered in various geological formations.  There it wouldn't interfere with the worm's preferred lifestyle.  That eventually doomed the savanna belt.  But the worms were not fans of savannas, so to their way of thinking its loss was no loss.

It took about two million years for this process to run its course.  But the result, the planet we now see, has been environmentally stable for about four million years now.  Once the geological puzzle Arrakis presented was solved to their satisfaction, scientists lost interest and stopped coming.  That left just the tourists.

One day one of the tourists discovered spice.  This caused a drastic change in the mix of tourists coming to Arrakis, a change that happened almost overnight.  Now, drug tourists started arriving in large numbers.

These were people who sought out more and more exotic highs.  They were joined by members of various cult religions.  They were interested in a mind expanding experience.  Spice was very good at doing that.  "It brings us closer to god" was a common refrain.

While still small, the influx of new tourists dwarfed but did not eliminate the old type.  But no matter how you counted them, there just wasn't enough tourist activity to merit removing Arrakis from its status as a backwater planet.  With little or nothing else to recommend it, it just wasn't valuable enough for the Houses, even the minor Houses, to fight over control of it.

Back to the larger empire.  The system the machine intelligences had imposed was so successful that it brought stability for more than two thousand years.  But ultimately, a segment of mankind decided that something had to change.

It took them about a thousand years to organize a successful revolt.  They had to learn how to operate in the shadows, places where the machine intelligences would ignore.  This required determining where their blind spots were.  But after a lot of bloodshed it was done.  That allowed actual progress toward a successful revolution to begin.

How could the machine intelligences be taken down?  How could a revolution be planned, organized, and executed?  Many problems needed to be solved.  But eventually they were.  The biggest contribution to the eventual success of the revolution was hubris on the part of the machine intelligences.

After running things so successfully for so long, it became harder and harder for them to even imagine that mankind would want to revolt.  And the chances of a revolt succeeding seemed to effectively be zero.  But ultimately the impossible not only became possible, but it actually happened in the form of the Great Revolution, also known as the Butlerian Jihad.

The machine intelligences were overthrown.  And a great distrust by humanity of any level of machine intelligence, even a modest one, resulted.  Intelligent machines were shut down and destroyed wherever they were found.  Once this process was well along, machine intelligences were outlawed.

This had the desired result of putting mankind back in charge of its own destiny.  But it also destroyed a critical pillar of the old economy.  The result was to plunge the entire galactic empire into a dark age.

It wasn't severe as these sorts of things are measured.  After all, short range space flight was still both possible and practical.  That cushioned the blow considerably.  On the other hand, long range space flight came to a complete halt.

By this time few planetary systems were self sufficient.  It had long been routine to ship large quantities of goods between systems.  After all, the cost of importing large quantities of pretty much anything from far away was low.  It only made economic sense to produce a few goods locally.  As a result, most systems had been forced to specialize.

Some systems found it relatively easy to shift from specialization to generalization.  After all, they still had the resources of the entire solar system to draw on.  But many were not.  Whole populations were wiped out in far too many systems.  Most systems fell somewhere in between a relatively quick and easy transition and not being able to make the transition at all.

What happened on Arrakis during this period turned out to be quite interesting.  About 500 years before the Great Revolution (the actual date is uncertain) the first generation of what eventually became the Stillsuit was developed.  It did not work well enough to allow people to live in the desert full time.  But it did allow hearty explorers to embark on long expeditions.

They were able to map most regions of the desert.  This allowed them to identify many of the locations that would later become seiches.  By about a hundred years before the Great Revolution the Stillsuit had been perfected to the point where people could now live in the desert on a fulltime basis.  Initially, only a few people took advantage of this opportunity.  The first seiches were founded at this time.

But the relatively small group that shifted to living in the desert fulltime turned out to be critical because, like everywhere else, the Great Revolution caused Arrakis to be abruptly cut off from the rest of civilization.  At that point the community that had grown up around the spaceport immediately became untenable.  It was relocate to the desert or die.  About half of those people died.  But the absence of outside interference allowed the desert communities to absorb the rest, and as a result, thrive.

Almost all of the long range space ships initially survived the Great Revolution.  But, as they were inoperable without their now outlawed machine intelligences, they were essentially left to rot.  This process led to the eventual destruction of about two thirds of them.  The rest were effectively mothballed in place.  They were placed in an out-of-the-way orbit and forgotten about.

The dark age lasted about a thousand years (700 - 1200 years, depending on the location).  Once the local situation had stabilized sufficiently attention in some systems turned to what to do with the long range space ships.  They were not lost.  Since short range space flight was still working, it was simple to locate and visit them.  Tearing out the machine intelligence and getting the rest of the ship back up and running was not hard.  But was it worth doing?

In some cases the answer was yes, obviously.  Operating the ships the same way they had been operated before the advent of machine intelligence was possible.  If there was something interesting located only a few light years away, then the ships could be used to reach it.  And, of course, if that "something" was another populated solar system, then all the better.

It didn't take long for this approach to be implemented in several places.  That got some long range ships back into service, if only in a very limited way.  What took much longer, between four and six hundred years, was for anyone to come up with another way to make use of these ships, then actually follow through and do it.

Even without the machine intelligences it was possible to safely travel relatively long distances using subspace.  You just didn't know where you would end up.  And you couldn't reliably return to wherever you had started from.  But what if that didn't matter?  After all, your journey would be a safe one as long as you ended up finishing it at some other outpost of civilization.  

By this time a "civilization detector" had been developed.  It allowed a ship residing in subspace to tell whether or not there was an outpost of civilization in real space that could be easily and safely reached from the ship's current location in subspace.  A long range ship could drop into subspace and travel a long distance along safe path.  As it went along it could use the civilization detector.  Once a suitable destination was located it would return to real space.

All this could be done safely in a long range spaceship whose machine intelligence had been ripped out.  Since the remaining outposts of civilization were cut off for long periods of time, they likely desired something that was being manufactured in quantity elsewhere.  They also likely manufactured other things in quantity other outposts  would love to have more of.  Even though they were one-way, these trips could form the basis of a viable system of trade.

And slowly it became apparent that they did.  The period when this system was active later became known as the "Mercantile Era".  It was was a bit "catch as catch can", but it worked.  A ship could afford a few "misses", places where profitable trade was not possible, as long as most stops resulted in "hits", successful (profitable) trade opportunities.

The Mercantile Era system was not nearly as efficient as the machine intelligence era.  Then, long range ships carried a known cargo to a known destination.  But erratic though the Mercantile Era system was, it did generally increase the productivity of civilization as a whole.  The Mercantile Era persisted until what became known as "The Great Discovery" happened.

Visits to Arrakis during the Mercantile Era were few and far between.  But they did happen.  And on one such trip the navigator of the ship decided he would give the local drug a try.  He liked it, a lot.  As a result, he was high on spice when he dropped his ship into subspace.

There, he found that his ability to navigate subspace had increased substantially.  He was even able to do an "out and back" trip to Arrakis.  The next time he left Arrakis he made sure he was loaded to the gills on spice.  He also made sure he had a large supply on hand for trading purposes.  Word of the Great Discovery spread quickly.  Soon, more and more navigators were stopping by Arrakis.

Navigators quickly started selling spice to their fellow navigators.  And, of course, it soon became obvious that there was a genetic component to how much spice increased a navigator's abilities.  As a result, navigators starting evolving.  Over a period of roughly four thousand years they were remade into the kinds of creatures who navigate long range space ships in the time of Dune.

These spice-aided navigators eventually knit the old empire back together.  Travel and trade had again become predictable and profitable.  The number of destinations that could be reached reliably and economically slowly expanded until it covered what was essentially all of the old empire.  In short, from a travel and trade perspective, things returned to the way they'd been shortly before the Great Revolution.

Civilization had changed since the period before the Great Revolution.  But the essentially feudal nature of its governing structures was baked in by now.  Various combinations of Houses now ran things instead of serving primarily as figureheads.  By now the Houses were broken down into two tiers:  about twenty "Great" Houses, and over a hundred "Lesser" Houses.

Theoretically, the first among equals among the Great Houses was the House that controlled the Emperorship.  That's because, in theory, the Emperor was in charge of everything.  But the reality was far different.  The position of Emperor was actually a weak one.  Any strong coalition of Great Houses could easily bend the Emperor to their will.

And the churn at the top that had characterized the machine intelligence period also became a feature of this era.  Only now it wasn't the machine intelligences working behind the scenes that caused the churn.  Now the Houses themselves did.

The only thing that can successfully compete for power with a House is another House, or better yet a coalition of Houses.  No House wanted another House to stay on top of the heap for too long, so all of them worked continuously to keep the churn going.

A House might have some success and become a Great House.  A run of bad luck would have the opposite effect.  A strong coalition of Great Houses would eventually be displaced by a different coalition.  House Corrido controlled the Emperorship.  But, since the position was a weak one, there was no reason to scheme against them and take it away.  Holding the Emperorship was widely viewed as a white elephant.

It was a different situation when it came to control of Arrakis.  Its importance was recognized by all the Houses.  So, the other Houses periodically ganged up on whichever House controlled it.  They would force a shift in control to another House.  Belief was initially widespread among the other Houses that the shift from House Harkonnen to House Atreides that occurs early in Dune was one such shift.  It only became apparent later that something else was going on.

Back to Arrakis.  Once it was rediscovered by the wider civilization it was initially treated as before.  The small community that surrounded the spaceport was reestablished.  Once the importance of spice to interstellar space ship navigation became apparent however, this community grew in size and power.

Its top priority became establishing control over the whole planet, and especially monopolizing the spice trade.  With the backing of the entire empire, a well resourced military campaign was soon waged, apparently successfully.  On paper the entire planet was controlled by the House that controlled the community that surrounded the spaceport.  

This dynamic transformed what had been a large but loose collection of essentially hippie communities into what eventually became known as the Fremen.  Survivalist aspects became merged with the religious and other aspects of the various groups that had initially moved to the desert.  The hostile physical environment had made these people physically tough.  The hostile political environment had made them mentally tough.

So, what about the Bene Gesserit?  Various schools of higher education had been established during the dark ages.  A few of them specialized in the education of women.  When the various threads of civilization eventually got knit back together by the new model of interstellar space travel, most of these schools ended up going out of business.  But a few of them survived.  Often it was by shifting to a model where most of their students came from off-planet.

One such school had been established on Wallach IX.  It was almost the only "women only" school that successfully made the transition to drawing most of their students from off-planet.  (The others were were all finishing schools.)  From the beginning it had specialized in teaching diplomacy and statecraft.  The reestablishment of interstellar travel made those much sought after skills.  In a twist that likely stemmed from the kind of students it catered to (women), it specialized in turning out graduates who gravitated toward roles as advisors rather than as rulers.

The only people who could afford to send people off planet to be educated were the leaders of Houses.  And when it came to selecting candidates to send to Wallach IX, they tended to select their wives, daughters, and concubines.  In other words, women who were already members of (or adjacent to) the ruling class.

When they returned, the combination of their background and the training they received resulted in them easily sliding into advisory positions at the highest levels of government.  Not surprisingly, graduates of this school eventually became a much sought after commodity.

They were useful while simultaneously appearing to be non-threatening.  Success in the form of the school's graduates doing well, led to success for the school in the form of candidates eager for admission supported by sponsors eager for them to be accepted.

Early on school attendees were a bit above average in terms of intelligence and the like.  After all, they were members of the ruling class, and that class tends to be a bit above average when compared to other groups.  But the difference was not marked.  It didn't take long for the leaders of the school to set out to change that.

Their method of choice was a long term breeding program.  The program was carefully structured to improve their students while not conferring any useful advantages upon other members of the ruling class.  Breeding a superman ruling class would make them harder to control.  And control was what they sought.  They also decided to leave physical prowess to the men.  Meatheads were perhaps even easier to control than men of more ordinary physical strength.

Instead, they embarked on a long and intense study of how the mental abilities of their students could be improved without conferring similar abilities upon men.  An early success was "Simulflow", essentially an extreme version of multitasking.  Another ability that relatively straight forward to improve was "Truthsay", essentially taking observation to an extreme in order to accurately tell if another person is telling the truth or not.

This led to an effort to delve more deeply into the physiological processes relating to high level mental activity.  That led to "The Voice", made possible by a deep study of physiology and how it could be affected by carefully modulated speech.  It appeared that the deeper they delved the more capabilities they were able to create or enhance.

A deep study of the physiology of their students led to an early version of "Molecular" body control, a limited ability to control involuntary processes within the body.  This, in turn, led to the development of a set of skills collectively referred to as Prana-bindu.  That, in turn, led to more advanced versions of Molecular body control.

A combination of these developments lead to sexual imprinting.  Vocal, Prana-bindu, and Molecular body control gave a student the ability to transmit the imprint.  A deep understand of the physiology shared by males and females led to an understanding of what needed to be transmitted to the male in order to get him to respond properly.

Other memory was a bit of a surprise.  No one was looking for it.  Hints of it were detected in women who were genetically predisposed to it.  A great deal of study led to a drug cocktail that facilitated it.  And, of course, later it was determined that spice worked way better than the drugs the Bene Gesserit had created.

All of this progress took the better part of three thousand years to bring to fruition.  It also took adopting a customized breeding program aimed at improving the physical and mental abilities of incoming students.  Over time, success bred success.  Having a Wallach IX trained advisor went slowly from being of modest assistance, to being of great assistance, to being indispensable.  This trend did not go unnoticed at the school.  That led the school to create a series of more and more lofty goals.

Like any powerless group, women are interested in acquiring power, if that is possible.  The gradual acquisition and refinement of these powers led the leadership of the school, now self named the Bene Gesserit to lust after power.  But they understand that a key reason their students were able to hold the positions of power they were was because they appeared to be nonthreatening.

So, as the plan evolved, a key component was to preserve the appearance that Bene Gesserit advisors were just that, advisors.  They could pull lots of strings as long as they were perceived not as the string pullers but merely advisors to the string pullers.  Astute observers quickly determined that the "merely an advisor" pose was just a facade.  But if these observers could be coopted or silenced, the facade could continue to be maintained.

And I'm sorry.  I could not come up with a sensible reason for the Bene Gesserit to embark on a long term breeding program whose ultimate goal was the creation of the Kwisatz Haderach.  Paul Atriedes becomes the Kwisatz Haderach.  In that sense they succeeded.  But they failed because he escaped their control.  How could he not escape their control given that, by design, he was super-powerful?  Yet they did not seem prepared for that eventuality.

On the other hand, there are reasons for the Bene Gesserit to run long term breeding programs.  As I noted above, it gives them the ability to improve the capabilities of members of their sisterhood.  There is also value to breeding better soldiers, better administrators, and the like.  There I see the benefit.  But all these breeding programs aim to improve groups of individuals, not the Kwisatz Haderach, a single individual.

I think the "history" I have presented here makes far more sense than the history provided in either the DPU or the DCU.  My history is not perfect.  But then the internal contradictions in the DPU/DCU mean that no perfect history is possible.  Given that, I think I have done pretty well.

And, of course, the events depicted in Dune Prophesy would most likely take society in a completely different direction than the one we see at the start of Dune.  As a prequel and predictor, it is a complete failure.  But that's because the creators prioritized telling a fun and interesting story over one that makes strict sense as a prequel.  They then created a world that supported the story they wanted to tell.

I don't think that they spent a lot of time worrying about the conflicts and contradictions inherent in their nominal mission.  But what they succeeded in doing was in putting together an entertaining experience.  And that's far more important.  So, I forgive them for all of their many sins, many of which can be traced back to the DPU.  So, if you haven't already, I strongly recommend that you give Dune Prophesy a watch.  It's a hell of a yarn and a lot of fun.