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

[TerraUnam]

Great post flemm.

I would ad that Roddenberry created Trek in the 1960's. The trackrecord of science and industry to that point had been quite erratic. One the one hand you have radio, television, and the benefits of industrial production. On the other hand you have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, two World Wars and the Great Depression.

The revolution that was Modern Physics began in the 1890's and culminated in the Atom Bomb in 1945. Fritz Haber, who made modern fertilizer possible was also the leader of Germany's poison gas program in WWI. The generally unalloyed benefit of computer technology was still in the future.

So it's not unusual for Trek to take a humanistic stance. The preceding 60 years had been profoundly dehumanizing. Many science advances turned out to be science threats.

For instance, Trek intimates that genetic engineering will end up in the same category as nuclear weapons and poison gas rather than computers.

Heck, according to Trek's timeline Khan should have already run amok and have been blasted off into space.

 

[Myasishchev]

For instance, Trek intimates that genetic engineering will end up in the same category as nuclear weapons and poison gas rather than computers.

Which has always been really suspect, given that a bullet or two would stop an Augment the same as anyone else.

The history of the Eugenics War was probably written by Vincent Freeman.

 

[Christopher]

I would ad that Roddenberry created Trek in the 1960's. The trackrecord of science and industry to that point had been quite erratic. One the one hand you have radio, television, and the benefits of industrial production. On the other hand you have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, two World Wars and the Great Depression.

The revolution that was Modern Physics began in the 1890's and culminated in the Atom Bomb in 1945. Fritz Haber, who made modern fertilizer possible was also the leader of Germany's poison gas program in WWI. The generally unalloyed benefit of computer technology was still in the future.

So it's not unusual for Trek to take a humanistic stance. The preceding 60 years had been profoundly dehumanizing. Many science advances turned out to be science threats.

Actually that's exactly the opposite of the attitude Star Trek takes toward technological progress. In stark contrast to most mass-media science fiction, ST has generally taken a very optimistic view of science and technology, portraying it as something that betters our lives and brings us more rewards than dangers. Nuclear and antimatter power haven't destroyed us but have brought us prosperity, advancement, and the ability to spread out to the stars and build a great civilization. Medical science has advanced to the point of curing almost any disease (except when the story requires otherwise). Transporters occasionally malfunction, but are more often a way of solving problems, rescuing people, curing people.

Yes, ST was very humanistic, but that's not anti-technology. On the contrary -- part of humanism is the belief that human ingenuity is capable of achieving great things and mastering all challenges. So portraying technology as something in our control that we can wield to our advantage is very humanistic. The idea of humanity being too weak or foolish to survive the perils of advanced technology is just the opposite of the kind of humanism Roddenberry embraced.

For instance, Trek intimates that genetic engineering will end up in the same category as nuclear weapons and poison gas rather than computers.

But that's not a response to fear of technology. Using the term "genetic engineering" in reference to the thinking behind "Space Seed" would be anachronistic, because it wasn't a widely known concept at the time, not in its modern sense. The recombinant DNA technique wasn't proposed until 1972. The language actually used to describe the Eugenics supermen in "Space Seed" was "engineered through selective breeding." Carey Wilber and Gene L. Coon, the episode's writers, were extrapolating from the theories of the eugenics movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the idea that you could breed superior humans the same way you bred dogs or cattle or orchids into desirable forms. It wasn't seen as a high-technology field the way modern genetic engineering is, but more of a social movement applying existing breeding techniques to human beings for ideological reasons. Those eugenics movements were generally rooted in white-supremacist thinking, and their most extreme expression was, of course, the Nazi Party. So members of the WWII generation like Wilber and Coon would've associated eugenics with Nazism, not with the crushing advance of technology.

And DS9's much later postulate that the Federation had banned genetic engineering struck me as merely a retcon to explain why the humans of the 24th century hadn't engineered themselves into a superior form. When ST was created in the '60s, science fiction hadn't really explored the concept that we now call transhumanism in any depth, except to postulate that we might naturally evolve into superior forms in the extremely distant future. But by the time DS9 came along, genetic engineering was a much more developed science, the possibilities of transhumanism were being recognized in fiction and futurism, and so ST's pulp-era depiction of a future humanity that was no different from present-day humanity was looking antiquated. So in order to rationalize that depiction, DS9's producers decided to assert that the UFP had outlawed genetic engineering as a reaction to the Eugenics Wars. Even though that was pretty starkly in contrast to ST's traditional optimism toward technology. It was the exception, not the rule.

 

[MNM]

For instance, Trek intimates that genetic engineering will end up in the same category as nuclear weapons and poison gas rather than computers.

Which has always been really suspect, given that a bullet or two would stop an Augment the same as anyone else.

Not if the genetic engineering came up with a Wolverine-type gene that lets people heal.

 

[Christopher]

The idea behind the Augments isn't just that they're physically superior, but that they're smarter and more cunning as well. They wouldn't have to do all the fighting themselves; they'd be able to use their intellect and charisma to gain political power and get millions of troops to do it for them. And they'd be able to outsmart and outmaneuver their unaugmented enemies.

 

[flemm]

Yes, ST was very humanistic, but that's not anti-technology. On the contrary -- part of humanism is the belief that human ingenuity is capable of achieving great things and mastering all challenges. So portraying technology as something in our control that we can wield to our advantage is very humanistic. The idea of humanity being too weak or foolish to survive the perils of advanced technology is just the opposite of the kind of humanism Roddenberry embraced.

I agree insofar as Star Trek's humanism is not built around a fear of technology, generally speaking. But it is built around a certain notion of the rapport between human beings and technology: technology is something that we use, but it doesn't fundamentally change us or marginalize the experience and aptitudes of individual human beings. Even very advanced beings and technology turn out to want to be human, or to have emotions and desires that are comparable to ours, thus affirming the importance of how human beings experience the universe.

So, technology in general is perfectly compatible with the Trek universe, but I think that certain modes of interaction with technology tend not to be, basically those that would fundamentally change the nature of the human experience, or render certain aspects of it obsolete.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I always thought that despite genetic engineering being 'banned' in the Federation, it would have been practiced to some extent, to the point where the population had been altered to the extent that we see on the shows. I wouldn't be surprised if certain hereditary diseases would have been eradicated. We wouldn't know about them, because 'normalising' the genome wouldn't be imediately apparent. Maybe no one in the future gets cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia, progeria, because they have been eliminated through genetic modification.

Also 'enhancements' such as eliminating short and long sight, eliminating tooth decay, eliminating predisposition to cancer would have taken place.

Maybe stronger enhancements would have happened prior to the ban, a World War III scenario may have required children of that era to be made more resistant to mutation through radiation. Maybe the length of time before the discovery of artificial gravity may mean that humans in the future are more resistant to bone loss in zero g.

We've never really had that 'ban' on genetic engineering quantified beyond a desire to avoid another Khan. We've seen in TNG that genetic engineering is permitted in certain cases.

My own personal conceit is that the Augments that appeared in DS9, weren't the result of genetic augmentation, rather the result of undoing genetic normalisation. In an attempt to augment their children further, mistakes were made that undid the work that has bred through for centuries, which is why the Jack Pack seemed afflicted by emotional and psychological conditions akin to autism, bipolar disorder, and sociopathy. Conditions that are more prevalent today, but that we never really saw in Trek of the future.

Given that some forms of autism are akin to genius, one wonders what effect that sort of engineering has on future society. Did the Einsteins get eliminated with the Hitlers?

 

[Myasishchev]

The idea behind the Augments isn't just that they're physically superior, but that they're smarter and more cunning as well. They wouldn't have to do all the fighting themselves; they'd be able to use their intellect and charisma to gain political power and get millions of troops to do it for them. And they'd be able to outsmart and outmaneuver their unaugmented enemies.

Except they're not that much smarter or more cunning, at least not outside of actual human bounds. Being twice as smart as the average human is meaningless given that there are probably about a billion people who fit the criterion walking the planet today. Yet they seem conspicuously incapable of conquering Earth or motivating or tricking millions of troops to overthrow governments, although occasionally we'll elect them to office.

And assuming the Augments, given what we've seen, are twice as smart is probably being really generous. The only really brilliant Augment we've ever seen was Bashir, and even his abilities were not outside the human limit (lightning calculators, after all, do exist)... as for the rest, well, what did Khan think he was going to do once he got the Enterprise? Get hunted down and killed by Starfleet. Great foresight there, Nostradamus. On the other hand, this lends credence to my idea that Khan's actions arose out of desperation instead of deliberate, malevolent planning.

The Eugenics War only ever made sense, to me anyway, as the violent and international extension of an existing class war, ala Gattaca. But I suppose that's a bit off topic. The main point is, that the Augments, as portrayed, are no more threatening to an organized state apparatus than any random human, except in counter-organized numbers, and in the context of the irrational fear and persecution of their people on the part of United Earth and its successor, the Federation.

I do agree that DS9's genetic engineering ban was a retcon, although as these things go it was a very good retcon, and one replete with bad connotations about humanity and the Federation that would make excellent story springboards.

Not if the genetic engineering came up with a Wolverine-type gene that lets people heal.

Why not genetic engineering that gave babies weather control or the power to summon punches from the punch dimension, too? It's about as plausible as Wolverine's frictionless, conservation-of-matter-violating healing factor.

 

[TerraUnam]

Re: flemm et al.

The reason Trek came down hard on genetic engineering is because "superior ability breeds superior ambition" and a consequent lack of empathy, discipline and compassion. The Augments represented a very dehumanized form of human evolution.

Whereas warp drive on the other hand opens up contact to many new species and ideas, it initiates you into interstellar civilization, a humanizing event.

Or on a mental level, the Borg Group Mind is a terrible thing, whereas Vulcan mind-melds and Betazoid telepathy are OK. Same sort of difference.

 

[Myasishchev]

I always wondered why it never occured to them to just genetically engineer empathy and niceness into them. Of course, go too far and you'd probably wind up with a guy like Kirk in "The Enemy Within," but at least he'd be pleasant to be around.

Also, why would superior ambition etc. apply only to Augments? Is everyone of high intelligence or achievement to be considered a threat?

 

[MNM]

Why not genetic engineering that gave babies weather control or the power to summon punches from the punch dimension, too? It's about as plausible as Wolverine's frictionless, conservation-of-matter-violating healing factor.

Rapid healing is much more plausible than controling the weather!

And besides, it already exists in the Star Trek universe (at least in the novels). Check out the Takarans, they are quite Wolverine like with their ability to heal (see the Destiny trilogy and A Singular Destiny for examples of this) and could certainly take a bullet or two and not die.

 

[flemm]

The reason Trek came down hard on genetic engineering is because "superior ability breeds superior ambition" and a consequent lack of empathy, discipline and compassion. The Augments represented a very dehumanized form of human evolution.

Yes, but why does Trek choose that vision of the impact of genetic engineering? Without or without genetic enchancement, certain human beings are going to vary a lot as far as their innate aptitudes are concerned. Does superior ability breed superior ambition in the absence of genetic modification? Sometimes, maybe. But not always. And anyway, having superior ability and superior ambition does not mean you are a going to become a danger to society. On the contrary, such an individual might well end up making some important contributions to society.

I'm not sure what impact genetic enchancements will have on human beings and what their impact on society will be in the long run, but I can easily imagine a fictional universe where they are largely beneficial, at least within certain limits. Star Trek after all certainly values superior ability, ambition and achievement, yet genetic enhancement is portrayed as dangerous and is not practiced by the Federation. It is practiced by other races such as the Founders, but here again it is not portrayed in a positive light (a bit like cybernetic enhancements and the Borg).

Now, Christopher has pointed out that the original concept had more to do with eugenics than genetic enhancement as we conceive of it today, and that the current state of Trek canon on the matter is the product of a retcon for practical reasons. However, I think there is probably more to it than that. Trek is confortable with technology as a tool, but less so with technology that impacts our notions of individuality, independance and self-determination.

I was struck by a different sort of example the other day rewatching some TNG episode or other. Data and Geordi are discussing Geordi's visor, and Data asks why all humans don't replace their eyes with similar implants, since they are functionally superior. The idea is that "something would be lost." It's not technophobia by any means: technology provides a good solution when it is needed, but in Trek the basic human experience must always retain its value in the face of technological advances. Of course the visor is ugly, but I think Trek's answer would be the same even if the optical implants were just as esthetically pleasing as biological eyes.

 

[Myasishchev]

^I sort of wonder if it's even legal to get cybernetic augmentations like Geordi's visor, if you're not approved by dint of being disabled already. I mean, could Riker, on a lark, just walk into the prosthetics shop and, in his best Dean Stockwell voice, demand "I want to see gamma rays!"

If so, you'd think you'd see more of that sort of thing. I want to see gamma rays (well, not really, because by the time I saw them, it'd be a bit too late to do anything about them. I think I'd rather just be ignorant of gamma rays. )

 

[Arpy]

I think the aliens "want to be human" insofar as they want certain Federation-like progresses. Yet they want it in their own alien way in their own alien societies. Like when a foreigner likes America - they don't want to be Americans necessarily but wish their own country would be similar in some way.

Some of the aliens who feel so may be far more advanced in some ways than the humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are so in all ways, and it's those specific deficiencies (usually ones we today find backward let alone humans of the 23rd+ centuries) that they wish they were more human/Federation. I'm sure there are lots of advanced alien societies that have no wish to mimic us in any way but maybe we do theirs. The Metrons, Travelers, Organians, a bunch others. The Q may be intrigued by us, but for all we know, they're in everybody's business all the time - part of being omnipotent I think. Still, they wonder about what we might be one day. Today we're just "potential" to them.