| Home Forums Library Media Gallery Glossary Links |
 |
July 27, 2004
Beyond Trek: A New Sci-Fi Series
I've been a Trek fan since I was a little kid. Not those silly people that go bonkers over the show, but just a person who has enjoyed the show on many levels, with the Next Generation being my favorite incarnation of the franchise. Having said that, there are several problems I've always had with the Roddenberry universe, which ironically has a definite anti-transhumanist bent. I remember thinking how odd it was that 300 years in the future, people would still only be living to no more than a hundred years. George Dvorsky too has his complaints about the anti-technology trend that now dominates the new series Enterprise. I have yearned for sci-fi fare that capture a more forward thinking vision, and along the way came up with several concept tv shows. Below are some of the major shortcomings of Star Trek, and what I would change:
LONGEVITY
People are still only living to 100 years. With all the technologies available three centuries from now, why has there only beeen a 20% gain in longevity?? Just in the 20th century 60% gains in longevity have been achieved. Within 300 years people should be able to live as long as they want to. With cellular repair machines, there is no reason why people can't live for centuries.
TECHNOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE
In a universe billions of years old, we know from the episode Birthright that there was a thriving intelligence species 4 billion years ago. Why is it then, that so many species the Federation encounters are at the same level of technological development? The odds against this are ovewhelming. The Vulcans alone have been spacefaring for at least a 1000 years before humans, yet it's the human federation that's pushing the technological envelope. You would think that the Vulcans would be way past the federation in capability. A 1000 year head start would entail technologies that would appear "magical" to the federation. As Arthur C Clark so eloquently said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Just from looking at our current pace of technological advancment, I expect the world 50 years from now to be unrecognizable.
SOCIAL UNIFORMITY
Although I like the vision that Rodenberry portrayed of a peaceful utopian federation, why is it then that most everyone seems so uniform? Not just officers in the federation, but people generally. It's as if the Federation is one big interstellar, bland suburbia. There is no "Burning Man" wildness. Any character that is outside of this bland standard is often portrayed as a criminal.
WHY, HOW, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
I think Star Trek has been with us long enough now, that it's no longer just a show, but a larger a part of our culture, an integral part of how people think about the future. Just look at how many scientists today pursued their careers because of the inspiration they found in Star Trek.
Because of that, I think opening a dialog on ST's shortcomings is worthwhile and ultimately inspirational, especially in the light that the present is catching up to the future awfully quick these days. Many of the technologies in Star trek are either already here, or will be shortly.
Therefore the aim of my opening this dialog, was to get people to think beyond the vision of Roddenberry, which is rapidly approaching obsolescence, and think BIGGER! More vision, more advancement, a greater, even more inclusive utopia. There are so many ideas I would like to see be a part of the star trek universe, but aren't do to an incredible lack of vision of the writers, and/or a strict adherence to Roddenberry original less advanced vision of the future.
It's time Star Trek began integrating these more advanced concepts to keep up with the changing times. If it doesn't, and apparently it isn't, Star Trek is in serious risk of becoming a has-been show. There is already talk of canceling 'Enterprise' with no replacement series in sight. This is tragic. With all that is going in the world today, such a visionary series is needed now more than ever!!!!
If only they could create a new series that took us to new heights of social, technological and utopian challenges like the first shows did when they first aired.
..If only I was in charge of Paramount.
Actually Stargate SG-1 seems much more willing to play with Transhumanist ideas than the declining Trek franchise. (I'm withholding judgment about the Stargate Atlantis spinoff until more episodes have aired on the Sci Fi Channel.) Many of the technologically advanced races in the Stargate universe (the Goa'uld and their dissident Tok'Ra cousins, the Asgard, the Wraith in Atlantis) have the means to remain negligibly senescent, and not all of them are portrayed negatively. The series has dealt with radical life extension, nanotechnology, mind uploading, artificial human enhancements and Matrix-like virtual realities, giving it a flavor more in line with early 21st Century technological enthusiasms than the various and increasingly outdated Trek incarnations.
Moreover, the series promotes an implicitly Humanist message through its premise that technologically advanced and negligibly senescent ET's assumed the role of humanity's "gods," including ones mentioned in the Old Testament like Marduk and Ba'al. (No word about an alien named Yahweh yet, though the biblical Jesus displays abilities in line with ones demonstrated by the show's aliens, including superior recuperative powers that could easily shake off a crucifixion.) By contrast, a technologically and socially advanced human offshoot civilization, the Tollans, had dispensed with supernatural beliefs altogether, as one of them explains to the show's female scientist character in the first season episode, "Enigma," after sheepishly admitting that during his rescue from mortal peril he mistook her for an angel-like being his people used to believe in before deciding that reason and science provide the proper way for humans to live.
Unfortunately, SG-1's overall quality and message have been uneven, so its value in promoting a better view of future potentials is marginal. But it definitely has some advantages over the deservedly struggling Star Trek Enterprise.
Posted by: Mark Plus at August 1, 2004 11:54 AMWho came up with the name for 'ShaKaRe' for a planet. I would really like to email them. It has been a name that has been with me, since I was 12.
I have a photo that they may be interested in.
I took it over my flat in July 2002.
Also, I would like to know thier definition of the name.
Posted by: rachel kleypas-sparrow at August 7, 2004 03:49 AMI agree with the author of this post. I can remember even during the time of Star Trek TNG wondering "If they have all this advanced technology including replication technology why don't they enhance themselves cybernetically? Not only would they be more efficent explorers but they would also increase their responsiveness and effectiveness in dealing with new threats" But of course to do that then they would begin to look like the "bad guys" like the Borg. Or maybe such a concept was too "alien" even for the producers at Paramount to have a show about humanity's spacefaring descendants traveling the galaxy with cybernetic implants and superhuman abilities and living for as long as they like. I think it's definitely time for paramount to take a bold new leap into the unknown and explore not only the outer space of sci-fi but also the inner space of humanity and show where we could be going centuries from now. I have read scifi novels with themes and characters so alien, so bizarre and yet so futuristic and cool that it would make even the most futuristic technology on star trek seem ordinary or bland. I think it's time we re-draw the timeline in the star trek universe and go to a new direction. Oh yeah please forgive my spelling and grammar :) Also if anyone wants to chat with me further my messenger name is nmatrix9@hotmail.com
Posted by: nmatrix9 at September 8, 2004 03:57 PM