(Hey, mods, I'm going somewhere with this. Really.)
It appears that sexual reproduction is about a billion years old, give or take. Most forms of life on Earth reproduce sexually, with sex being defined as the production of offspring through the mixing and recombination of traits from more than one parent.
The major advantage of sexual reproduction over fission, for instance, is the spread of advantageous traits possessed initially by one or a few organisms throughout a population.
(If you "don't believe in evolution" you really can just skip this whole thread. Thanks for reading this far.)
Often fans will say that "Star Trek has to evolve" in order to survive. Having said that, they then argue about the bookkeeping details - usually, over what are the core "strengths" or what's the "essence" of Trek or "what Trek needs to get back to" or "preserve."
Fine, but that's got nothing to do with the initial premise of that discussion - evolution.
There are several mechanisms behind evolution. Mutation is an essential but unpredictable and occasional one. Sexual reproduction is the engine that's proved crucial to successful and efficient evolution as we understand it.
Sex is the recombination of elements from more than one parent to produce something new that at best has the strongest characteristics of both parents.
Evolution is not about a single organism pushing out the boundaries from the inside. It's not about getting back to "what worked" for the single organism at an earlier stage of life.
Fans fret about Trek "turning into" some other familiar franchise ("Star Wars" seems to be the most common and anxiety-inducing example invoked) because of permitting elements from those other franchises, films or stories into Trek.
That's what a lot of fans seem to be currently afraid of in regards to the new "Star Trek" movie.
Well, the possibility that this movie will turn "Star Trek" into something that it hasn't been before as a result of bringing in new story and stylistic elements from other successful films and stories is the real hope of the movie, IMAO.
"Star Trek" won't turn into "Star Wars" or "Top Gun" or any other existing film/franchise/story. At best, it will "turn into" something new and vital with characteristics of all its progenitors.
Unfortunately, "keeping Trek pure" means weakening it and not letting evolution occur except through spontaneous mutation. If "Star Trek" is a closed system which must reproduce itself primarily by looking only or mainly to its genetic/memetic past and privileging that over all outside influences, it weakens and will - hell, should - die out.
"Star Trek" can only flourish if the creators are eager to continually bring new elements from other successful story forms - as well as the occasional, rare true mutation of internal innovation - into Trek and allow the combination to become a new form of "Star Trek" - really distinct and with distinctive new strengths that Trek hasn't previously possessed.
"Star Trek" doesn't have to turn into something else, of course. In addition to myriad robust and healthy species now extant, we're aware of many more forms that have existed at one time or another on this planet and no longer do.
We know they were here because we find them in the form of fossils.
It appears that sexual reproduction is about a billion years old, give or take. Most forms of life on Earth reproduce sexually, with sex being defined as the production of offspring through the mixing and recombination of traits from more than one parent.
The major advantage of sexual reproduction over fission, for instance, is the spread of advantageous traits possessed initially by one or a few organisms throughout a population.
(If you "don't believe in evolution" you really can just skip this whole thread. Thanks for reading this far.)
Often fans will say that "Star Trek has to evolve" in order to survive. Having said that, they then argue about the bookkeeping details - usually, over what are the core "strengths" or what's the "essence" of Trek or "what Trek needs to get back to" or "preserve."
Fine, but that's got nothing to do with the initial premise of that discussion - evolution.
There are several mechanisms behind evolution. Mutation is an essential but unpredictable and occasional one. Sexual reproduction is the engine that's proved crucial to successful and efficient evolution as we understand it.
Sex is the recombination of elements from more than one parent to produce something new that at best has the strongest characteristics of both parents.
Evolution is not about a single organism pushing out the boundaries from the inside. It's not about getting back to "what worked" for the single organism at an earlier stage of life.
Fans fret about Trek "turning into" some other familiar franchise ("Star Wars" seems to be the most common and anxiety-inducing example invoked) because of permitting elements from those other franchises, films or stories into Trek.
That's what a lot of fans seem to be currently afraid of in regards to the new "Star Trek" movie.
Well, the possibility that this movie will turn "Star Trek" into something that it hasn't been before as a result of bringing in new story and stylistic elements from other successful films and stories is the real hope of the movie, IMAO.
"Star Trek" won't turn into "Star Wars" or "Top Gun" or any other existing film/franchise/story. At best, it will "turn into" something new and vital with characteristics of all its progenitors.
Unfortunately, "keeping Trek pure" means weakening it and not letting evolution occur except through spontaneous mutation. If "Star Trek" is a closed system which must reproduce itself primarily by looking only or mainly to its genetic/memetic past and privileging that over all outside influences, it weakens and will - hell, should - die out.
"Star Trek" can only flourish if the creators are eager to continually bring new elements from other successful story forms - as well as the occasional, rare true mutation of internal innovation - into Trek and allow the combination to become a new form of "Star Trek" - really distinct and with distinctive new strengths that Trek hasn't previously possessed.
"Star Trek" doesn't have to turn into something else, of course. In addition to myriad robust and healthy species now extant, we're aware of many more forms that have existed at one time or another on this planet and no longer do.
We know they were here because we find them in the form of fossils.
Last edited:
(unless, of course, your child is 2 or under--then it's completely understandable) 
