21 replies to this topic

[wjfox]

Why Star Trek’s Vision of the Future is Out of Date

Without a doubt, no show has done more to promote a positive vision of the future and a limitless sense of possibility than Star Trek. It's a series that has inspired several generations of fans, and helped to spur the development of actual technologies we now take for granted.

So it's a crying shame that Star Trek's vision of the future is totally incorrect. But the sooner we admit this, the faster we can embrace more realistic futures. Here's everything that Star Trek gets wrong.

http://io9.com/59065...dium=socialflow

[Time_Traveller]

I'm a Star Trek fan but i've never said that the future would actually be like the Star Trek universe so i actually agree with this article.

[SG-1]

I never got into Star Trek, but right now I am actually watching Voyage Home for the first time. I was just thinking the same thing, but can we really expect someone from the 80s to understand the future when they don't even hardly know what the internet is?

Likewise, I bet the timeline is in for some crazy changes. Once the middle of the century hits with the singularity or something similar, by definition we don't have a clue what crazy things we haven't even thought of will happen. Good article too.

EDIT: I hope the timeline stays online until then with backups so we can see the changes, would be good for future history too, the future then

Edited by SG-1, 02 May 2012 - 03:36 AM.

[Logically Irrational]

Awesome article. I suppose the timeline isn't entirely inconsistent with this. It certainly emphasizes non-biological space travelers one you get into the mid 2100s. I just like it because it makes me think about what's to come, regardless of how right or wrong it is.

[Time_Traveller]

I think Real-Life Sci-Fi wise is more like Doctor Who or Stargate at the moment.

[Dead Redshirt]

Well, Star Trek's vision may be out of date, but I think it's more than made up for it by inspiring technologies to be developed, such as tricorders, 3d printing (replicators), transporters (they're researching the transporting of atoms from one location to another), and hypospray-like devices for the field, etc, which will carry it forward for quite some time to come. So, we must look beyond the vision and look to what it has inspired. As far as the vision goes though, it's just like any other sci-fi future: It's not any more right or wrong than any of them.

Edited by Dead Redshirt, 03 May 2012 - 06:39 AM.

[Caiman]

I wonder if the new series of Star Trek movies will dare to introduce some newer ideas of what culture and technology might be like two hundred years in the future or if they’ll be constrained by the rabid canon-loving fanboys. They do have an alternate timeline to play in now, but I think some existing fans would still throw a hissy fit if it started diverging from the previous Trek they love and know.

It’s a shame there’s no decent scifi on television that explores the idea of a singularity in technology occurring and what happens to humans thereafter. I suppose ‘Caprica’ was leading that way, but that’s neither set on Earth and we know how that wound up...

[Time_Traveller]

I wonder if the new series of Star Trek movies will dare to introduce some newer ideas of what culture and technology might be like two hundred years in the future or if they’ll be constrained by the rabid canon-loving fanboys. They do have an alternate timeline to play in now, but I think some existing fans would still throw a hissy fit if it started diverging from the previous Trek they love and know.

It’s a shame there’s no decent scifi on television that explores the idea of a singularity in technology occurring and what happens to humans thereafter. I suppose ‘Caprica’ was leading that way, but that’s neither set on Earth and we know how that wound up...

I think they won't divert from the original Star Trek as ships etc but may create more technology due to the alternate star trek universe, I've always thought how the alternate star trek universe would deal with the Borg maybe do more military based technology or new treaties than in the normal Star Trek Universe.

Edited by Time_Traveller, 03 May 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Dead Redshirt]

I wonder if the new series of Star Trek movies will dare to introduce some newer ideas of what culture and technology might be like two hundred years in the future or if they’ll be constrained by the rabid canon-loving fanboys. They do have an alternate timeline to play in now, but I think some existing fans would still throw a hissy fit if it started diverging from the previous Trek they love and know.

Yeah, I'd really love to see them explore the alternate timeline and do things that they missed out on the first time around, or just in general see them be creative. This is something I'm frustrated about seeing the new revelations about the sequel, about their returning villain. Pooh pooh on that. The whole point about the new timeline was to cut themselves lose from the constraints the continuity created, yet what are they doing for the sequel? Getting themselves tangled with TOS by bringing back a villain. Where's the creativity in that? Makes me sad that the best they can do is steal a famous villain instead of coming up with something of their own. During the media leading to the first movie's release, they kept saying that this "isn't your Daddy's Star Trek." Well, what are they doing using Daddy's villain then?

I'd love to say that I can easily forget what happened in the first movie, but it created a consequence when it destroyed a major planet in the prime universe, which makes it hard going forward if they ever want to pick things back up from there in the future. So yeah, not very fond of it even though it was fun. It's just not as fulfilling a movie and actually lacks quite a bit fo depth compared to the rest of the Trek movies. Shame they had to cut so much of Nero's backstory out. The stuff from the comic book should have been in the movie.

[Tumaini12]

I'd love to say that I can easily forget what happened in the first movie, but it created a consequence when it destroyed a major planet in the prime universe, which makes it hard going forward if they ever want to pick things back up from there in the future. So yeah, not very fond of it even though it was fun.

It was ridiculously laden with plot holes, too. If Nero's ship arrived from the future at the time of Jim Kirk's birth, where did it go for the next 25 years? When Kirk was marooned on Delta Vega (a planet which was nowhere near Vulcan in the original series), how come he conveniently ended up within walking distance of Spock Prime?

If Scotty was able to beam Kirk onto the Enterprise while she was moving at warp and already light-years distant, doesn't that negate the very need for starships? People could simply transport from star to star! And why did the acting captain and first officer of the Enterprise risk their lives in boarding the Romulan vessel to sabotage it - why not just beam over a bomb?!

Most of all, I can't believe that a mere cadet - who had never even graduated from officer training - would be given the permanent rank of captain and command of the Federation flagship, no matter how heroic his actions.

Edited by Tumaini12, 06 May 2012 - 10:09 PM.

[Dead Redshirt]

I'd love to say that I can easily forget what happened in the first movie, but it created a consequence when it destroyed a major planet in the prime universe, which makes it hard going forward if they ever want to pick things back up from there in the future. So yeah, not very fond of it even though it was fun.

It was ridiculously laden with plot holes, too. If Nero's ship arrived from the future at the time of Jim Kirk's birth, where did it go for the next 25 years? When Kirk was marooned on Delta Vega (a planet which was nowhere near Vulcan in the original series), how come he conveniently ended up within walking distance of Spock Prime?

If Scotty was able to beam Kirk onto the Enterprise while she was moving at warp and already light-years distant, doesn't that negate the very need for starships? People could simply transport from star to star! And why did the acting captain and first officer of the Enterprise risk their lives in boarding the Romulan vessel to sabotage it - why not just beam over a bomb?!

Most of all, I can't believe that a mere cadet - who had never even graduated from officer training - would be given the permanent rank of captain and command of the Federation flagship, no matter how heroic his actions.

Yeah, exactly. The whole movie was more or less a series of consequences. I watched it again recently, and I felt it didn't hold up very well. The plot was extremely thin. If we were supposed to care about Nero, well, they failed by not giving us anything to make us care about him. The comic book went over why he had done everything, and it was quite compelling, but the movie doesn't give us anything beyond a very short explanation. The sad thing is, as terrible as Nemesis was, at least you could see where Shinzon was coming from and his character had more depth due to the fact that he was cloned from Picard. But Nero? Oh, just some guy who's pissed off at Spock for accidentally destroying Romulus. Practically no backstory. In the comic book, you could see that he was actually a well-reasoned family man with a wife and child, but went off the deep end when Romulus was destroyed because they got killed in the process. So, grief stricken, he goes after Spock for revenge. Why that was cut out is beyond me. It gives so much more weight to the character. All because apparently Spock had assured him and the government of Romulus that they could stabilize it.

Edited by Dead Redshirt, 07 May 2012 - 06:34 AM.

[Italian Ufo]

Yeah I still watch star trek and many things I see on tv is just a vision of the future with the lenses of the 1980s -1990s or everly 2000.
As more we go on with science we become aware of our capabilites and how things will be or might be.
That's an intresting article.

[Logically Irrational]

So... Apparentlly it's not out of date... LOL

Engineer thinks we could build a real Starship Enterprise in 20 years

http://io9.com/59097...ise-in-20-years

In Star Trek lore, the first Starship Enterprise will be built by the year 2245. But today, an engineer has proposed - and outlined in meticulous detail – building a full-sized, ion-powered version of the Enterprise complete with 1G of gravity on board, and says it could be done with current technology, within 20 years. "We have the technological reach to build the first generation of the spaceship known as the USS Enterprise -– so let's do it," writes the curator of the Build The Enterprise website, who goes by the name of BTE Dan.

This "Gen1" Enterprise could get to Mars in ninety days, to the Moon in three, and "could hop from planet to planet dropping off robotic probes of all sorts en masse –- rovers, special-built planes, and satellites."

Complete with conceptual designs, ship specs, a funding schedule, and almost every other imaginable detail, the BTE website was launched just this week and covers almost every aspect of how the project could be done. This Enterprise would be built entirely in space, have a rotating gravity section inside of the saucer, and be similar in size with the same look as the USS Enterprise that we know from Star Trek.

[tornado64]

This makes no sense, he wants to spend 250 billion to bring stuff to LEO. Oo

[Logically Irrational]

Ha. Who said anything about it making sense?

[tornado64]

Ha. Who said anything about it making sense?

No one, but if you plan to build a space ship in LEO in that size, it's obvious that you should first think about reducing the costs to bring things to LEO or build it with material which is already in space. If you invest 100 billion you could easily bring down the cost to something between 25 and 50 billion. So I just criticize his approach. However, I agree that our manned space programs make no sense either at the moment. There is no real development since the 60s in space exploration. We need to find solutions to scale it up and at the current costs there will nothing happen.
So I think we should heavily invest in asteroid mining, space elevator research and other non-rocket launch facilities like http://en.wikipedia....iki/Launch_loop, Skylon and similar things who could bring down cost for further exploration.

[Alric]

I think that is true with most things. If you write about the future, then wait twenty years its going to be outdated. There is just so many unforeseen things that come up, and most writers don't know all the trends in every technological field. So if someone was able to get a good prediction that lasts for a long period of time it is not going to be a writer, but a scientist or engineer.

[Time_Traveller]

Cool, that would be good to see and be on but it'll cost lots though.

[kjaggard]

I wouldn't write it all off just yet. Some people have their sites set for some pretty fancy 'flying cars and Jet packs' right now, but what does the future actually hold?

I think the original post linked to is full of holes honestly. Really? You think nobody will want to leave the planets? That's a load of crap. They will leave and they will be on ships. Likely colony ships, made like spinning cylindrical stations. Their lifespans will be so long that long trips across the vast differences will be as if they took place in days compared to the full lifespan. And many things we think might give us the abilities of somebody like Q may be about a plausible when we actually get down to trying to make it happen as the hoverboard from the second back to the future movie.

In short we don't know yet where we've been a bit too optimistic and where we've failed to properly imagine. So I won't count out the idea that we may well someday be booming around the local quadrant in big ships with food replication systems and self contained environments powered by a matter antimatter system.

Computers and machines may never be much more than the programable and content to serve Droids like in star wars. We might be able to surgically alter ourselves and augment ourselves and live longer but I imagine we'll be like we are for a good while yet. We may never achieve immortality because of some unforseen catch in the process, and we may never find a way to upload.

We will likely be meat and bone, running around on cities hurtling through space and stuck at that level by a glass ceiling on tech advancement past certain points.

[Raklian]

I wouldn't write it all off just yet. Some people have their sites set for some pretty fancy 'flying cars and Jet packs' right now, but what does the future actually hold?

I think the original post linked to is full of holes honestly. Really? You think nobody will want to leave the planets? That's a load of crap. They will leave and they will be on ships. Likely colony ships, made like spinning cylindrical stations. Their lifespans will be so long that long trips across the vast differences will be as if they took place in days compared to the full lifespan. And many things we think might give us the abilities of somebody like Q may be about a plausible when we actually get down to trying to make it happen as the hoverboard from the second back to the future movie.

In short we don't know yet where we've been a bit too optimistic and where we've failed to properly imagine. So I won't count out the idea that we may well someday be booming around the local quadrant in big ships with food replication systems and self contained environments powered by a matter antimatter system.

Computers and machines may never be much more than the programable and content to serve Droids like in star wars. We might be able to surgically alter ourselves and augment ourselves and live longer but I imagine we'll be like we are for a good while yet. We may never achieve immortality because of some unforseen catch in the process, and we may never find a way to upload.

We will likely be meat and bone, running around on cities hurtling through space and stuck at that level by a glass ceiling on tech advancement past certain points.

Well, one thing we can count on for sure is that the future is not going to be what we expect. We can make very educated predictions all we want, but we can't predict what discoveries we will find that will radically change the landscape. For some of us who intend to be cyrogenically preserved shortly after clinical death, you'll be in for a dramatic surprise when you wake up again.