You’re misunderstanding my point completely.
Star Trek doesn't need to follow our 90s and 2000s.
The Eugenics wars happened in the 90s so it already doesn't.
And it already hasn't because of the Eugenics War and other events that contradict it.
Another example is cryonics, in took off Star Trek's 90s, but didn't in ours.
https://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/1990s
And don't forget Scotty jump-starting the discovery of transparent aluminium in the 1980s.
Seems we're talking about the exact same thing, just disagreeing on some of the details.
doesn't mean it taking place in an alternate timeline.
Altering the timeline creates an alternate timeline, unless said events are a predestination paradox. Which we don't know if Kirk and Co. travelling back to the 1980s altered the timeline, or just fulfilled their roles.
You know I've always taken for granted that Star Trek though fictional references our world, therefore we are its history. Many examples of Trek doing that. If we are its history then is it not our (fictionally projected) future?? At least in part?I feel like Star Trek has crossed this line, though I understand the desire to have it still fit in "our world." But, I don't think it lines up any more than the Marvel films do now.
As I said I think it is a little bit of both. At the same time it feels both its own thing, like its own history, as well as part of our world. I'm not convinced that anything is lost by it not being our world, as I think valuable lessons can still be taught from it as an alternate history in some form. But, that, again, a distinction without a difference.You know I've always taken for granted that Star Trek though fictional references our world, therefore we are its history. Many examples of Trek doing that. If we are its history then is it not our (fictionally projected) future?? At least in part?
This stands out to me as another possible distinction. The idea of a possible future is to be differentiated between that and obviously our future. I think that needs to be noted and a possible source of contention is that "this is our past, out future" without acknowledgement, tacit or otherwise, that there are minor changes to support the development of the world.For Star Trek, it's one of it's core foundational pillars and main appeals that it is a possibility for our future.
Trek may have started out as an indistinct future that in theory might be "ours", minor issues notwithstanding. But within TOS already, it decided to actively steer away from that: it decided the future we see came to be because of major things happening in the 20th and 21st centuries already.
We the audience have now lived through much of that. Many of us will see the day when everything is supposed to change, and yet it won't. What is the practical relevance of that?
Well, Trek tells us that the future is bright because fictional things will happen. Not because of us or our work, but because of fiction. Trek dismisses us and our world as a factor in the future. How can it be "our" future, then?
Timo Saloniemi
You can make commentary on our humanity without it being strictly our timeline. Alternate, for this purpose, being the "What if?" of speculative fiction (Sci-fi and fantasy).That's true for ALL science fiction though - "Alien" takes place in 2122, Prometheus way earlier - it's already pretty unlikely humans will have colonized that much of the cosmos at that point. We have already catched up to the years of "Blade Runner", "Back to the Future" and "2001 - A space Odyssee". Yet all of these pieces are supposed to take place in "our" future, and the commentary is about our humanity, not some alternate timeline.
If you keep that rigorous standard you apply to Star Trek - there will simply be NO science fiction left at all.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.