Do you wish there was a bit more science fiction in Star Trek?

[JoeZhang]

I've been on a science fiction kick for a bit and it occurs to me that the Star Trek universe is a bit stale when it comes to Science Fiction concepts and how they impact on the Federation and more importantly the human experience. Everything is pretty the same as it was during TOS - it's a guy in his PJs with a ray-gun and a radio riding around on a sailing ship.

I don't think any science fiction concepts of the last 30 years have made any advance into the Star Trek universe - AI ships are a rarity, Human have no enhancements (genetic, cybernetic or otherwise) and have not changed in any significant way, social structures are the same, even the advent of things like social networking seems to missing in this future. Even minor things like clothes - it's the 24th century and people are not using smart-clothes?

Is Trek stuck in a 1960s future?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I would say - trek puts alot of accent on humanism and none at all on transhumanism.

Does trek explore science-fiction concepts? In my opinion, yes - but is restricted in this area by its humanistic thematic.

 

[JoeZhang]

I would say - trek puts alot of accent on humanism and none at all on transhumanism.

Does trek explore science-fiction concepts? In my opinion, yes - but is restricted in this area by its humanistic thematic.

I think it goes a bit further than that - we occasionally get mention of transhumanism themes but always within a rather clunky framework of characters saying "we don't that - THE END".

I think my main point is that Trek doesn't really ring true in how people interact with technology and genetics now, let alone 400 years in the future.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Well, I think the humans of Trek at least are possibly a little technophobic, certainly cautious when it comes to certain technologies; genetic enhancement, cybernetics, robotics and AI, nanotechnology. Part of that's their history- eugenics wars, etc (plus in the late 24th century setting someone is invariably going to make the Borg comparison).

Second, the humans in the Federation seem to be going through a long period where their culture venerates the fairly distant past; they love anything to do with the 19th or 20th century, but not the 22nd. They have horse-drawn carriages in New Orleans. The music and literature they value are those dating back to before the 19th century, etc.

Thirdly, I think many humans in Trek are like Bajorans- they prefer a "simple" life in many ways, but not in the same manner as, say, the Ba'ku. They certainly embrace new technologies but as a means to improving their chosen way of life, not to significantly change that lifestyle. I think humans in Trek are a somewhat conservative people- they know what they like and are content with it. Progress technologically isn't an end in itself to them. If they want it, they'll develop it. Technology is just a tool to help make that somewhat conservative lifestyle comfortable and remove the negative aspects of any historically "simple" life. So technologies like replicators and advanced medicines, transporters and defensive forcefields, and instant communications are embraced, because they enhance that lifestyle but don't destroy it. Okay, it does make it all artificial, but we do know some humans reject at least some of these comforts.

Personally, I would applaud this approach. To me, technology should be a tool, not a way of life. Maybe Starfleet forms a distinct sub-culture among humans where technological progress is valued far higher (like the situation of Picard's brother at his vineyard Vs Jean-Luc in his high-tech starship)? They might well experiment for the sake of it and represent a more driven arm of society to balance the general population?

Overall, I'm fine with Trek not being too "science fiction-y" in this particular manner. I think Trek's sci-fi strengths lie elsewhere. There are plenty of other places to find the technology-centric speculation. I very much appreciate those Trek books which make an effort to base everything in genuine science, because that always helps make the setting convincing, but that's just a platform for the real story and the real focus, which to me should be about characters and cultures not technology. Trek for me is about Klingons wielding swords and Romulans seated in their Senate chambers in robes, and Bajorans farming. I like exploring these civilizations and the characters who exist there, and how individuals and cultures and races interact. The technology is just a backdrop and a means to get those cultures and characters to one another- or give them things to argue over.

 

[JoeZhang]

Well, I think the humans of Trek at least are possibly a little technophobic, certainly cautious when it comes to certain technologies; genetic enhancement, cybernetics, robotics and AI, nanotechnology. Part of that's their history- eugenics wars, etc (plus in the late 24th century setting someone is invariably going to make the Borg comparison).

Second, the humans in the Federation seem to be going through a long period where their culture venerates the fairly distant past; they love anything to do with the 19th or 20th century, but not the 22nd. They have horse-drawn carriages in New Orleans. The music and literature they value are those dating back to before the 19th century, etc.

Thirdly, I think many humans in Trek are like Bajorans- they prefer a "simple" life in many ways, but not in the same manner as, say, the Ba'ku. They certainly embrace new technologies but as a means to improving their chosen way of life, not to significantly change that lifestyle. I think humans in Trek are a somewhat conservative people- they know what they like and are content with it. Progress technologically isn't an end in itself to them. If they want it, they'll develop it. Technology is just a tool to help make that somewhat conservative life comfortable and remove the negative aspects of any historically "simple life". So tech like replicators and advanced medicines and transporters and defensive forcefields and instant communications is embraced, because it enhances that lifestyle.

Personally, I would applaud this. To me, technology should be a tool, not a way of life. Maybe Starfleet forms a distinct sub-culture among humans where technological progress is valued far higher (like the situation of Picard's brother at his vineyard Vs Jean-Luc in his high-tech starship)? They might well experiment for the sake of it and represent a more driven arm of society to balance the general population?

Overall, I'm fine with Trek not being too "science fiction-y" in this particular manner. I think Trek's sci-fi strengths lie elsewhere. There are plenty of other places to find the technology-centric speculation. I very much appreciate those Trek books which make an effort to base everything in genuine science, because that always helps make the setting convincing, but that's just a platform for the real story and the real focus, which to me should be about characters and cultures not technology. Trek for me is about Klingons wielding swords and Romulans seated in their Senate chambers in robes, and Bajorans farming. I like exploring these civilizations and the characters who exist there, and how individuals and cultures and races interact. The technology is just a backdrop and a means to get those cultures and characters to one another- or give them things to argue over.

I can see your point but it all seems increasingly quaint and static to me, even the cultures are pretty boring as they tend to have this big "THIS TRAIT OF HUMANITY" thing going on.

Even leaving that aside, I don't think it's an either/or situation, you can have more modern sci-fi concepts and still have a focus on character.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

[....the cultures are pretty boring as they tend to have this big "THIS TRAIT OF HUMANITY" thing going on.

On the TV shows, certainly (with a few exceptions). I think the novels have been quite successful about fleshing most of these cultures out a bit, and demonstrating some variety.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I would say - trek puts alot of accent on humanism and none at all on transhumanism.

Does trek explore science-fiction concepts? In my opinion, yes - but is restricted in this area by its humanistic thematic.

I think it goes a bit further than that - we occasionally get mention of transhumanism themes but always within a rather clunky framework of characters saying "we don't that - THE END".

I think my main point is that Trek doesn't really ring true in how people interact with technology and genetics now, let alone 400 years in the future.

Yes, in star trek some transhumanistic ideas were presented, but at the end of the episode, the conclusion was always: humanism (human nature as it is now) is better.
The best example is Data, an AI who sees human nature as better than himself.
Or the Augments - biologically better - but here, too, the human nature proves superior.
Or the physically/mentally superior aliens present everywhere (vulcans) - but humans have that 'je ne sais quoi' quality that makes their achievements dwarf the vulcans'.

Trek has always put accent on humanism (afirming present human nature as the highest ideal) and rejected transhumanism as inferior. This, obviously, restricted the use of transhumanistic elements in trek.
Another reason for preserving humans as they are today is relatability - today's audiences will find it very hard to empathise with vacuum breathing cyborgs, as transhumanists predict our descendants will be.

As for other types of sci-fi elements: they are present in trek - mostly in TNG; DS9/Ent are more politically/sociologically inclined; TOS is more a 'historical tour' story; VOY is mostly a pleasure cruise, with few twists.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think any science fiction concepts of the last 30 years have made any advance into the Star Trek universe - AI ships are a rarity, Human have no enhancements (genetic, cybernetic or otherwise) and have not changed in any significant way, social structures are the same, even the advent of things like social networking seems to missing in this future.

I think a number of more modern SF concepts have worked their way into the novels. Titan: Synthesis deals with AI, as does the character of Torvig and the increasing emergence of sentient holograms. I've tried to introduce hard-SF ideas into my novels, like transhumanism in The Buried Age and ocean planets in Over a Torrent Sea, and Dave Mack did a great job portraying a posthuman(oid) nanotech-based civilization in Destiny. The Federation hasn't changed much from its pulp-SF roots, but we're managing to work some new ideas in there.

Even minor things like clothes - it's the 24th century and people are not using smart-clothes?

Heck, they had smart clothes in TOS. See "Spock's Brain," where the characters beam down to a glacial planet and adjust some invisible control on their belts to activate some kind of heating elements in their standard uniforms. (Okay, it was no doubt done because it was cheaper than making parkas for the actors, but it was an idea ahead of its time.) Something similar is depicted in the TOS trilogy The Janus Gate, where the characters wear special cave-exploration gear with a nanoweave fabric that adjusts to regulate the wearer's temperature, wick away moisture, etc. So perhaps they've had smart clothes all along but it's rarely acknowledged.

 

[Stevil2001]

^ Yeah, they can't be wearing those jumpsuits because they like how they look.

 

[stonester1]

I think each writer has a particular style and elements that are their strength. Mr Bennet, for example, is especially strong at using science ideas and still keeping it entertaining. Other writers do action adventure. Or character drama. Or politics. Or a combination of elements.

And it depends on the thrust of the series. Science stuff comes up in Titan a lot because of the nature of the series. The new Voyager books, probably will see it in there, too. You see some in Vanguard as well, considering what is driving some of the major plot lines in there.

 

[Thrawn]

I have perhaps a slightly different working definition of sci-fi than some do; the appeal of sci-fi to me lies in its ability to isolate elements of real life but place them in radically different contexts, allowing me to think about those elements in different ways. So, for instance, DS9's portrayal of religious faith, isolated from the specific cultural traits of religion in my society, changed my mind about that. Also, as I've posted at length a couple times, the Trek perspective of defining everything as a problem to be solved has helped me examine my own similar worldview.

That said, there are certainly elements of modern society that Trek is not in a position to isolate or examine very effectively (your list was pretty comprehensive). But that doesn't invalidate it, nor does the term "1960s future" really mean anything. Rendezvous With Rama is still as effective an exploration of the feeling of a sense of wonder as anything that's ever been written, and would still be if it were written and published today. And, with David Mack's stuff particularly and the Dominion War and post-Destiny stories in general, I think Trek is pretty sharply tackling some very valid modern societal difficulties or human feelings.

So, to an extent I agree that Trek is not progressing with the times, and I do agree that that's the result of it being in continuity with a bunch of concepts established more than 40 years ago. But if anything, that's an opportunity, not a hindrance; there's plenty of more cutting-edge, Singularity-based sci-fi; Trek has an established universe within which it's able to tell more accessible sci-fi analyzing other sociological truths. Nowadays, there isn't much sci-fi that's hitting on those particular truths; in part because of Trek, the kind of worldbuilding necessary to do so is almost a cliche.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

[...]Trek is pretty sharply tackling some very valid modern societal difficulties or human feelings.[...]

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

 

[Thrawn]

I disagree completely. As one of a billion examples, TOS itself had several episodes explicitly designed to confront things like racism and the vietnam war.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I disagree completely. As one of a billion examples, TOS itself had several episodes explicitly designed to confront things like racism and the vietnam war.

It's NOT a matter of agreeing/disagreeing, Thrawn, It's a matter of definition.
If a story confronts ONLY contemporary things like racism, it is NOT a sci-fi story. It may be a good story, but not sci-fi.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

[...]Trek is pretty sharply tackling some very valid modern societal difficulties or human feelings.[...]

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

They're both sci-fi. Placing social and cultural issues in fresh perspectives or through allegories involving fictional societies (or hopefully something more complex than direct allegory) is part of science fiction. Extraterrestrial societies, future societies, alternate universe societies- that's all sci-fi speculation, and these are often trying to explore current social issues. And speculation on real society's possible adaptations to new and developing concepts or technologies is sci-fi too.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I disagree completely. As one of a billion examples, TOS itself had several episodes explicitly designed to confront things like racism and the vietnam war.

If a story confronts ONLY contemporary things like racism, it is NOT a sci-fi story. It may be a good story, but not sci-fi.

But Thrawn's example didn't say those episodes confronted only contemporary issues. Those TOS episodes had alien civilizations and FTL space travel in them.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

[...]Trek is pretty sharply tackling some very valid modern societal difficulties or human feelings.[...]

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

They're both sci-fi. Placing social and cultural issues in fresh perspectives or through allegories involving fictional societies (or hopefully something more complex than direct allegory) is part of science fiction. Extraterrestrial societies, future societies, alternate universe societies- that's all sci-fi speculation. And so is the speculation on real society's possible adaptations to new and developing concepts or technologies.

And in ALL your examples, the sci-fi stample is given not by the 'contemporary societal issues', but by 'future', 'alternate universe', etc - extrapolations on how societies would have developed/will develop given certain influences.

Plus, alternate history or fantasy is not really sci-fi.

But Thrawn's example didn't say those episodes confronted only contemporary issues. Those TOS episodes had alien civilizations and FTL space travel in them.

And this is what made them sci-fi, not the contemporary problems analysed.
But that was in the '60. Is contemporary star trek's sci-fi old and stale, regurgitating anachronistic ideas, or is it utilizing new, fresh sci-fi ideas and concepts?

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I've always looked for a little science fiction in Trek, but I think our expectations have changed over the past few decades. There was a time that FTL starships, transporter beams, ray guns and androids were sci fi. Now we want more, as if we've recognised these building blocks of the Star Trek universe as just that, building blocks, not concepts.

Part of that has to be down to technobabble, where a particle of the week, or another deflector dish get out of jail free card seemed to cheapen the whole thing.

But there are novels that play with sci-fi concepts in Trek Lit, and do approach hard sci-fi. And not just Corona by Greg Bear.

I think Tears of the Singers has a really cool concept at its heart, a truly alien alien, and manages to be a good comment on man's abuse of nature, one I find preferable to Trek IV's blunter instrument.

I was also fascinated by Federation's postulate of a subspace event horizon, and how it used the idea in its story.

But I feel a proper hard sci-fi novel would no longer be Trek.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

They're both sci-fi. Placing social and cultural issues in fresh perspectives or through allegories involving fictional societies (or hopefully something more complex than direct allegory) is part of science fiction. Extraterrestrial societies, future societies, alternate universe societies- that's all sci-fi speculation. And so is the speculation on real society's possible adaptations to new and developing concepts or technologies.

And in ALL your examples, the sci-fi stample is given not by the 'contemporary societal issues', but by 'future', 'alternate universe', etc - extrapolations on how societies would have developed/will develop given certain influences.

Sure, I see what you're saying. But I don't think anyone said the social issues made it sci-fi, or that alone = sci-fi, we're saying that's one form of sci-fi; that type of sci-fi concerned not with technologies and physics and future developments primarily but in using newly created worlds to explore social and cultural issues, with those worlds generated through scientific speculation. Those scenarios and possible worlds with their speculative tech, etc, are often being created for the express purpose of exploring issues past and present as well as future. Not for the, I don't know, "pure" sci-fi of just speculating for its own end. That's what Thrawn meant, I assume- that this type of sci-fi is Trek's strength.

 

[Thrawn]

And this is what made them sci-fi, not the contemporary problems analysed.

Well no shit. Star Trek was sci-fi because it was about a spaceship and aliens? YOU DON'T SAY!

You and I are talking about different things. You are talking about the context. I'm talking about the moral. Clearly, the context has to be futuristic or an alternate timeline, and there have to be new or different alien societies or technologies. Duh.

But I'm saying, the reason you write something taking place in those alternate contexts is so that you can isolate, extrapolate, or analyze something that matters now from a different perspective. Or at least, that's what I find interesting.

TOS did that every week. TNG did that every week. DS9 did that with the Dominion War especially. Etc, etc. And my point is, TrekLit is keeping this fine tradition alive - using Trek's particular context to analyze all kinds of interesting things that matter now.

You're bummed because the context itself still contains many 60s ideas, and is thus constrained from including some more recent sci-fi developments. I'm saying I don't care, because the morals, emotional journeys, and issues presented are still outstanding.