So... sure... one might argue we're not going to get star-trek-esque warp factor 9 kind of interstellar travel, but that's different than saying "we'll never have interstellar travel."

And there's an old adage in physics... if a young physicist says something is possible, they're probably wrong. If an old physicist says something is impossible, they're probably wrong. I have "wonderful" memories of an older astrophysicist in the 1970s telling me why it's impossible for humans to directly detect exoplanets.

I agree with the authors primary assertion... Star Trek, Star Wars and all the other "big" SciFi shows are probably more like "Science Fantasy." There was a decent discussion of what "Science Fiction" really was in the preface to one of the Arthur C. Clarke novels (sorry, can't remember which one.) Clarke suggested that "SciFi" should try to limit the amount of hand-wavey science-fantasy. In the stories I've written (and many of the corporate market analyses), I try to explicitly call out one or two bits of physics that change while keeping everything else in line with consensus reality.

But my disagreement w/ this article comes from what seems like an argument with no evidence. My mentors as a young physicist were still fans of Bertrand Russell (which might let you guess my age.) That era of science was sort of high on Karl Popper who was big on falsifiability. If you say something like "feature X is impossible in the future," then you have to wait until the future before you can determine whether the statement is true or false. And the problem with statements like this is a) there's an aweful lot of future out there, and b) we don't claim to understand all of physics.

If the author would have said "It looks very, very unlikely we'll have Star-Trek-ish warp drives by (what was it?) 2250," I would have heartily agreed. As of yet, I don't think we have any ideas about how to bend local space with an anti-matter reactor. (And if you're screaming at me about the Alcubierre Drive, sure, but the descriptions I've seen require "negative mass" which I don't think we have a handle on.)

And as a reminder... the second word in "science fiction" is "fiction". Though I (and I think the author of the original piece referenced in this post as well) would prefer "sciencism fiction." Much of what we call "Science Fiction" really is fantasy dressed up in futuristic looking clothes. Either to escape the mundane present or to hide political messaging. Or because the author thought it would be fun.

In summary... I guess what I'm saying is... Predicting things is hard. Especially about the future. It seems more correct to say "While we can't predict the future, the likelihood we're getting warp drive in the next 300 years is on par with Mets winning the World Series in game seven against the Cardassian Black-Rocks, which is to say slightly less likely than fire breathing dragons setting the Rock and Roll Museum in Cleveland alight with their igneous breath."

[1] The word "lossless" alone ought to raise eyebrows since, as far as I understand it, FTL travel is far more plausible than circumventing the laws of thermodynamics.

The amount of energy required is the only sensible perspective from which to analyze interstellar travel. If you make things really small, again, it's not much of a problem.

The author also neglects the time dilation. Go fast enough and the time dilation takes care of the duration.

Give my team the resources and I'll put a few billion base pairs of Picard's DNA into orbit around Proxima long before Daenerys is riding a dragon.

Also "I have never studied a foreign culture in any level of detail"

ETA: but also everything you really need to know is right at the top: "my 'controversial' book is out now and you should buy it"

Just track Star Maker to Star Wars, Lucas unconsciously took the bait and visualized scale invariance using motion control, and what space film first used motion control? 2001.