Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread

First, sorry, I went back and edited my comment. I realized I said more than I wanted but I think I deleted more than I intended.

But I do think sometimes scientists sometimes get so wrapped up in their discoveries they may forget other factors and uses their technology may be used for. I wouldn't say it's recklessness, or that they're doing things willy nilly.

And it doesn't mean they need to abandon what they are doing.

And scientists are humans as well. They are prone to the same weakness after all. It was scientists that developed atomic weapons. So they're not exactly immune to doing things that are more destructive.

Again, not saying that requires we abandon G.E. And I don't know what the answers are. What steps do we take to make sure eugenics does not occur or nightmare scenarios don't come to fruition? Those are the things that we should work on.

 

What is it Captain Picard said (I think it was Picard)....that at one time our technology outpaced our wisdom, or something to that effect. That's what I want to avoid.

 

Another blanket generalization. "Scientists" are not a single entity. Yes, there are a few reckless ones, but they're kept in check by the well-defined ethical standards established and followed by the rest. You're mistaking a trope of fiction, where mad scientists are free to conduct dangerous experiments at will, for the way things work in real life.

And again, it is absurdly naive to believe that scientists aren't already doing that. Stop trying to pretend you're morally superior to them. You haven't put a hundredth as much effort into contemplating the moral and ethical challenges of this work as they have, because you're just an armchair quarterback and it's not your job.

 

Ok, wow. I'm sorry if that's the impression you got. I simply have concerns, deep concerns about genetic enhancements for a host of reasons. I'm not calling anyone out for being evil, or sinners, or bad people. I'd like to think my concerns are reasonable to have. Maybe they're unreasonable. I don't know.

However, I can't do anything about it one way or another. I'll just have to hope that those working on genetic engineering exercise the wisdom you say they have.

 

I'm sure that was the real reason it was quietly dropped. Personally, I agree with you that I prefer to chalk it up to turning out to be unreliable and thus useless (a lot like the real polygraph was). Could make for an interesting story, although I can't say I could see a TV show doing it.) (Think Cox also used the device in that TOS/VOY novel where Seven gets thrown back in time to the original Enterprise.)

I forget. It would help.

Sure. (Why consider the Questor Tapes as part of the Star Trek Universe, though, if that was made to be its own thing? I've never really understood that idea.)

Will have to look for that.

Seeing as I came into the franchise when a lot of this was set down, I can't really picture it without separated like that, anymore then I can imagine a time when Darth Vader was not Luke's father.

Agree it makes no sense (and it was a bad episode), but what else can you do besides say: "It does't fit, but we could recon it like so if we wanted"?

Wasn't talking about the real life science (as leery as I am about it).

My mistake.

Course, at the end of the day, the franchise was never meant to be a realistic look at the future, but to discuss stuff about the here and now (alongside some fun puzzles and general nonsense). And, as judging by the last couple of pages, that includes questions of how to be responsible about genetic engineering and where the line should be drawn, if drawn at all.

 

Of course they are. Anyone who's seen Gattaca would agree.

 

Whether you realize it or not but every time you look at a member of the opposite sex you are unconsciously appraising their potential as a mate(or as a vessel for your genetic code)...sorry if that sounds a bit squick...
Point is that humans are programmed to look for the best way to improve their DNA and keep improving the species.Genetic engineering is that drive taken to a new more deliberate end.

 

Because it's a Roddenberry production, and the only one of Roddenberry's non-Trek SF pilots that could fit in the Trek universe, because there's nothing in it to contradict the idea. Also because Roddenberry directly based Data on Questor, so positing an in-universe connection between them is an homage to that. Plus, for me, it's because TQT is my favorite of Roddenberry's non-Trek pilots. Since it never got to go to series, I like the idea of giving it a "home" in the Trek universe so it isn't just sitting there on its own.

I also consider Genesis II/Planet Earth to be the alternate timeline where Gary Seven failed to prevent nuclear proliferation in the '60s, which is why there's so much fear of nuclear war in the '70s leading to the construction of the underground subshuttle network, and why the Eugenics Wars in the '90s escalate to a more apocalyptic conflict. The mutant races seen in G2/PE make more sense as descendants of the Augment program than as radiation-created mutations (especially in the novel-continuity version, because without Gary Seven to stop it, Project Chrysalis would've gone much further).

I see no way to fit in Spectre, though, since it treats the supernatural and demonic as very real. I considered trying to rationalize its demonic forces as aliens, but that would be too much of a stretch and too great a conflict with the spirit of the work.

In fact, that is exactly what it was meant to be, at least relative to its contemporaries. Roddenberry was one of the first SFTV creators to consult with scientists, engineers, and think tanks to advise him on creating a plausible version of the future, allowing for dramatic license and necessary budgetary compromises like the "parallel-Earths" concept. Believability was very important to him, in terms of both science and human behavior. The first three pages of the second-season TOS writers' bible were a polemic about the importance of writing believably if you wanted to write for the show.

 

Hmm, I'm not sure I'd agree. When I met my wife I wasn't really thinking in terms of a potential mate. I liked her, she liked me, we started dating and then eventually got married and years later had a child. But I wasn't thinking long term or how compatible we might be early on. I just figured if it worked out, fine, if not I guess I would have moved on.

I'm almost ashamed to admit but I've never seen those other shows. I guess like Anij not learning how to swim I never quite got around to it yet. I'll have to check them out at some point though.

Yeah, I've always believed that, and liked that about Star Trek. That's one of the things that separates it from Star Wars (Lucas himself will tell you his is a work of fantasy--not meant to be taken scientifically). And certainly reading "The Making of Star Trek" and even "The World of Star Trek" reinforces that. From the beginning Roddenberry wanted to make it as believable as possible. Now that's not to say some liberties weren't taken of course. For instance I remember reading in "The Making..." that they considered the fact that sound can't be heard in space but decided they needed to, er, fudge that for dramatic effect. The idea of the transporter came from limitations in special effects and pacing if I recall correctly. First showing the ship landing would cost a lot of money in special effects...and it would take precious time away from showing the story. Having the transporter saved both.

And he placed it far enough in the future to give them some freedom in storytelling and avoided saying too much about the past. While the show itself was vague about when it took place both books I read do state the intention was for it to be in the 23rd century.

Now, as happens with any long lived franchise, some priorities changed. I do think a certain amount of realism carried through the Berman years as well. I think the Abrams films were more concerned with action over science, but that being said they still explore some scientific ideas and theories, like the multi-verse theory, dare I say genetic engineering , and life lengthening technology. But like most big budget movies they are more action focused. For me the jury is still out on Discovery and how much it adheres to Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek at least as far as the science and realism goes. I've only seen season 1 so I'm not in a position to make any judgment calls yet on that front.

 

You're forgetting gay, lesbian, and asexual people.

Nothing wrong with that. They're failed pilot movies from the '70s -- not exactly must-see TV, more of a niche interest for completist Trekkies. I'm familiar with TQT and G2/PE because they were rerun on TV a lot back in the '80s and '90s when such things were still the province of TV syndication rather than home video. But I never saw Spectre until I found it online a few years ago.

 

I see. Not my cup of tea, mixing stuff that was never meant to go together, but that's me.

Once you introduce warp drive and transporters, you're making a statement that realism is secondary to the storytelling.

 

On the contrary -- using warp drive made Star Trek more realistic than its contemporaries. Look at virtually any other science fiction TV show from the '50s, '60s, or '70s -- they all portray interstellar travel as indistinguishable from interplanetary travel, just firing a rocket or drifting from star to star. Lost in Space made a cursory reference to hyperdrive in its first episode but otherwise just had the ship move between planets and star systems as easily as a car driving from town to town. Space: 1999 had the literal Moon just drifting from star to star every week, with only a couple of cursory references to space warps. Those guys didn't know what they were doing. They didn't care enough about realism to bother doing their research. Roddenberry, by contrast, did his science homework. He acknowledged that the speed of light is a limit on normal space travel and that it would require some hypothetical form of space-warping drive -- a concept grounded in Einstein's equations of General Relativity, and thus scientifically literate rather than fanciful -- in order to make interstellar journeys.

And there's been a fair amount of grounded, hard science fiction about teleportation too -- Larry Niven did a whole series of stories on the theme. Hard SF doesn't mean limiting yourself to known realities -- it's not SF at all if there isn't some currently nonexistent phenomenon in it. It means that if you do postulate some hyperadvanced, even unlikely technology, you ground it in as much plausible science as you can. The idea of converting a material object to energy, transmitting it, and reassembling it may seem fanciful to us, but to people in the early to mid-20th century, it was a relatively plausible premise. The equivalence of matter and energy is derived from Einstein's work (E = mc^2), and to writers and readers at the time, it seemed plausible that if you could transmit radio or television signals from site to site, there might eventually be a way to do the same with material objects. And indeed quantum teleportation is a real thing now in a way, at least where single particles are concerned.


Besides, there's a reason it's called "realism," not "reality." It doesn't mean being exactly real, it means adopting an artistic style that mimics reality. (Like how cubism doesn't mean just painting actual cubes, it means painting other things in a cube-like style.) In the case of fantasy and science fiction, a realist style is often used specifically to contrast the imaginary, impossible elements in a work in order to facilitate the audience's suspension of disbelief. I think it was Richard Matheson's rule of writing fantasy to postulate one impossible thing and make everything else around it as grounded and realistic as possible, which would make the impossible thing feel more believable as well.

Richard Donner used this same approach in Superman: The Movie, making "verisimilitude" his buzzword and striving to make the Metropolis (New York) scenes as grounded and realistically textured as possible, to try to make the impossible fantasy of Superman feel like it was really happening in the everyday world. The movie's actual tagline was "You will believe a man can fly." Of course that doesn't mean that the movie hoped to convince the audience that a flying man was actually real -- the goal was to make the unreal feel real through how it was presented to the audience, by depicting its context as realistically as possible.

Roddenberry was doing the same thing. He knew he couldn't make his version of the future completely real, but he wanted to use realism where he could in order to balance out the more blatant impossibilities and make the show as a whole feel more plausible. More importantly, he strove for character realism. No matter how fanciful the phenomena the characters encountered, he wanted them to react to them like real human beings would, which would make it easier for the audience to buy into them through their identification with the characters.

 

And I would add it's something the production designers and illustrators think a lot about. I know Rick Sternbach has noted some of that in his own comments over the years. When they design a room or a piece of technology they try to put some thought into it's purpose. For instance if they are going to put an EPS conduit somewhere they want to know what it's for, what it will do. They don't just build things because they would 'look cool'. They wanted it to have a purpose on the ship or the set. It was amusing in a way to hear them discuss some of that. It made you almost think you could go in your garage and build a warp engine (if you happen to have some dilithium crystals and an antimatter lying around that is--please be careful with antimatter BTW ).

Now that's different from 'technobabble.' That's a dialogue and story writing issue. Personally I never minded a bit of technobabble. That's what separated Star Trek from things like Star Wars. It made it seem more realistic. They're trying to find real solutions for real problems. But I'll agree there has to be a balance. Sometimes they could get a bit too caught up in the technobabble. But that's not the designers fault. Just because Sternbach, Eaves, Zimmerman and the other designers think about those things doesn't mean it would all make it into dialogue. They just didn't want to slap things together. They don't write stories or dialogue though (sometimes fans would accuse them of technobabble).

But there is a difference between real-'ism' and rea-'lity'. It's obviously not reality, and not really meant to be. It's not even on the level of "2001" or the more recent film "Gravity." They knew they had to take some liberties for dramatic effect. I mean, how exciting would the battles in DS9, TWOK or Nemesis be without sound for instance?

Even warp drive. That's obviously not reality but it is still based on reality. They know they can't go faster than the speed of light under normal circumstances. So they find a way around it. Hence warp drive. As the various shows and series went on we learn it uses subspace and it creates a bubble around the ship. The ship never actually goes faster than the speed of light but uses subspace to bend space and time around the ship to make it go faster than light (hence the term 'warp' speed). And they even use antimatter, which is based on reality and mixed with regular matter creates an incredible strong explosive force that properly channeled creates the warp effect. They created dilithium crystals to channel that energy (a fictitious creation but based on the idea that you need to channel that energy). And the warp nacelles were created specifically for that purpose and even where they are placed, above or below the saucer, is important. I remember on trekmovie.com Sternbach and Chambliss had a debate about that because at first Sternbach thought the Enterprise from the Abramsverse movies were level with the saucer (so the ship would be unable to generate a warp field since the saucer blocked the nacelles). I forget what happened, did Chambliss send him other pictures or something but it was discovered the nacelles were in fact above the saucer (it was a 'friendly' debate and Sternbach was gracious in acknowledging his mistake--it was before the movie was released IIRC and my guess is the pictures of the ship that were released at that point made it look like the nacelles were level with the saucer).

I'd say that realism is a big part of Star Trek. And Christopher noted some of the character interactions. Roddenberry did a pretty good job with his creation. I'd highly recommend to anyone that wants to know more about how Star Trek came to be to get a copy of "The Making of Star Trek." It was released originally in 1968 (I'm proud to say I came across an excellent first edition copy--sometimes I get lucky ), and it has some valuable information about just how much realism played a role in the creation of Star Trek. It was a major priority for Roddenberry, not just an afterthought.

Sometimes Roddenberry gets criticism, esp., later in his life with some of his decisions and some of the things he did, and yes, some of that is valid. But I do have to give the guy a lot of credit. He did have a great vision, and I'd say he was a great 'ideas' kind of guy. Now it took a lot of people to put it altogether, which isn't surprising. But his initial foundation for Star Trek is a good one that I hope all future showrunners abide by. That is humanity moving in a generally positive direction (we may take a step back now and again, but we are always moving forward) and to keep it grounded in a sense of realism. That it doesn't cross over into fantasy. If there was a basic foundation to Star Trek (other than it taking place in space of course) it would be those two things IMHO.

 

One thing that must be kept in mind is that writing or producing a television series is all about compromise and balance. If you're a novelist writing original prose fiction, you can do anything you want. But if you're a television producer, you have to try to balance what you want to do with what you're able to do, and that means a lot of compromises. Budgetary and practical necessities required Trek's producers to incorporate some deliberate implausibilities, like humanoid aliens and parallel Earths, but Roddenberry tried to balance those unavoidable breaks from reality with as much realism as possible in other ways. Which put Star Trek light years ahead of other shows like Lost in Space and Land of the Giants that were just out-and-out fantasy with zero effort at realism.

 

To go back to the genetic engineering thing for a moment, unless humanity as a whole goes through some kind of massive, massive, shift there is no way you could possibly convince me it won't just become another advantage available only to the richest and most powerful, and another way for them to push the lower classes even further down.

 

And I still say the history of previous human enhancements argues otherwise. It's a common mistake to assume that the problems of one's own generation have never been faced before in history. More often, they're just rehashes of what's happened in the past. Eyeglasses, braces, hearing aids, all the ways that less physically capable people could increase their abilities, these things weren't hoarded by the rich. They came to be seen as universal entitlements, the right of every person. The only societal "shift" we need is universal health care, the guarantee that people can afford whatever medical treatments they deem necessary. And most civilized countries already have that.

Like I keep saying, this will not be one breakthrough that the rich can control and suppress. It'll be hundreds of individual, incremental advances accumulating so gradually over the course of decades that we won't even notice how they're changing us. And that process is already underway even now.

 

And all of those "incremental advancements" will be hoarded by the rich and powerful. There is absolutely no way you are going to convince me that this kind of stuff would be available to everybody. Even if the people who create the stuff intend for it to be available to everyone, once the rich and powerful find out about it, they will do absolutely everything they can to make it as hard for lower class people to get as they possibly can.

 

As I said, they never have been before. They aren't now.

Then ask someone else. Do the research into current cutting-edge medical treatments, prosthetic limbs, gene therapies, and so forth. As I keep pointing out, this is already happening today. It's not some hypothetical, it's current reality. And nothing is being "hoarded by the rich." Yes, new treatments are expensive, but the only thing currently keeping them from being available to everyone is America's grossly unfair health insurance system, and if we ever get a sane government again, it's a sure thing that there's going to be universal health care because the people will demand it. And if that doesn't happen, then we'll be in a far worse dystopia than the one you're worrying about.

See, of course the rich and powerful try to hoard things as much as they can -- but healthy democracies have laws to keep them in check and ensure fairness for all. America used to have such laws, and if we survive the current assault on democracy, we'll surely put even stronger laws in place to keep the rich in check, like we did after the Depression.

Anyway, we're off-topic by this point, because you're not even talking about whether genetic engineering is dangerous, you're just talking about whether rich people's greed is dangerous, which of course it is. So it's kind of a non sequitur to say the science is the root of the problem.

 

OK, my last post on this topic, I promise.
The problem is things like prosthetic limbs or eye glasses are medical devices and procedures that are correcting a problem, but the kind of genetic engineering we're talking about would be more along the lines of cosmetic surgery, something that a person could live a perfectly healthy, successful comfortable life without getting. I'm not positive, but I believe most most medically unnecessary cosmetic surgeries are not covered by insurance, and are not exactly cheap.

 

As I've already said: Those seem different to you because you're used to the former and not used to the latter. People centuries ago probably drew the line between the two in a different place. Many would have argued that the average person doesn't need 20/20 vision or straight teeth or the ability to read and write, that most people get by just fine without them and they're just indulgences. But over time, we've gotten so used to those indulgences that we've come to see them as necessities. A lot of things about our everyday lives would seem like sheer luxury to the average person in the past, or to people in third-world countries today -- a varied diet with plenty of meat, privately owned automobiles, indoor plumbing, running water, etc. The perceived line between a necessity and an indulgence is a matter of what you're used to. Like I've been saying, the first thing you have to question is always your own assumptions. The things we take for granted are blind spots that keep us from seeing other possibilities.

Besides, why assume it's just cosmetic? What about genetic engineering for increased longevity or improved immune systems or faster healing? What about genetically engineered radiation protection for space travelers? If genetic augmentations can keep people alive and healthy longer, if they can reduce the mortality rate, wouldn't society see that as a matter of necessity?