Spoilers DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread

[Enterprise1701]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

Does Jena Noi Prime as of The Collectors also come from 3051? I thought in Watching the Clock, Lucsly told Dulmur she was from the "late" 31st century?

 

[DS9forever]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

I enjoyed this - in particularly the commentary on the conservative nature of the Federation (show writers? it was also meta-commentary as well wasn't it?).

Yeah -- it kind of frustrates me how often the shows introduced potentially transformative technologies that were never heard from again. DS9's first season alone gave us... consciousness transfer ("The Passenger"),

Wasn't that episode referencing Star Trek III?

 

[Christopher]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

Does Jena Noi Prime as of The Collectors also come from 3051? I thought in Watching the Clock, Lucsly told Dulmur she was from the "late" 31st century?

He did, but at the time, he may not have known exactly when in the century she came from. There were other references that led me to conclude she should be from midcentury.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

I enjoyed this - in particularly the commentary on the conservative nature of the Federation (show writers? it was also meta-commentary as well wasn't it?).

Yeah -- it kind of frustrates me how often the shows introduced potentially transformative technologies that were never heard from again. DS9's first season alone gave us quick-cloning ("A Man Alone"), consciousness transfer ("The Passenger"), and nanotech repair for fatal injuries ("Battle Lines"), which, if harnessed and used in conjunction, should have been able to conquer death once and for all. Also, the far-future setting was my chance to play with some of the transhumanist ideas you can find all over the place in prose science fiction these days but that Trek rarely addressed except in limited ways.

Plus, in the Seeds of Dissent reality, Khan Noonien Singh lived to be 213 years old. (probably because the 28th century Order of Omega may or may not have introduced their genetic engineering knowledge to 20th century Earth). I wonder what excuse the Federation has for not publicly allowing that aspect of genetic engineering on humans.

And also, I wonder. David Mack's Mirror Universe novels have established that Memory Omega acquires technologies from other quantum realities. I wonder if they've seen Ira Graves's successful uploading technique in the Brave New World reality.

Does Jena Noi Prime as of The Collectors also come from 3051? I thought in Watching the Clock, Lucsly told Dulmur she was from the "late" 31st century?

He did, but at the time, he may not have known exactly when in the century she came from. There were other references that led me to conclude she should be from midcentury.

Ah, I see.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

Plus, in the Seeds of Dissent reality, Khan Noonien Singh lived to be 213 years old. (probably because the 28th century Order of Omega may or may not have introduced their genetic engineering knowledge to 20th century Earth). I wonder what excuse the Federation has for not publicly allowing that aspect of genetic engineering on humans.

I think you just answered your own question: Remember that Admiral Bennett (in Dr. Bashir, I Presume) actually brings up Khan as an example. The Federation is too worried - rightly so, IMHO - that any genetic engineering will lead to Khan, or people similar to him, arising once again. Genetic engineering created Augments, and that almost destroyed the Earth.

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

Plus, in the Seeds of Dissent reality, Khan Noonien Singh lived to be 213 years old. (probably because the 28th century Order of Omega may or may not have introduced their genetic engineering knowledge to 20th century Earth). I wonder what excuse the Federation has for not publicly allowing that aspect of genetic engineering on humans.

I think you just answered your own question: Remember that Admiral Bennett (in Dr. Bashir, I Presume) actually brings up Khan as an example. The Federation is too worried - rightly so, IMHO - that any genetic engineering will lead to Khan, or people similar to him, arising once again. Genetic engineering created Augments, and that almost destroyed the Earth.

That's a (logical) in-universe justification but the broader point still stands, the science fiction elements of Star Trek are still largely stuck around the late 1950s, early 1960s - it's a vision of the future that aggressively resists (on TV at least) pretty much every major trend or idea that has comes along since then - Post-humanism and transhumanism is just one example. Even simple stuff like wearable tech is completely ignored - so you have the explorers of the 23rd and 24th century running around in basic 'dumb' clothes and the like*.

As a one-off experiment, it's a shame someone can't do a novel set in a Star Trek universe if it was created today with modern Science Fiction concepts.


* Although props to GR, in his adapation of TMP - I think the Uniform belt buckle is a bioreader/transmitter?

 

[Christopher]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

I think you just answered your own question: Remember that Admiral Bennett (in Dr. Bashir, I Presume) actually brings up Khan as an example. The Federation is too worried - rightly so, IMHO - that any genetic engineering will lead to Khan, or people similar to him, arising once again. Genetic engineering created Augments, and that almost destroyed the Earth.

That's a (logical) in-universe justification...

I don't think it's a logical justification at all. It's ridiculous to propose that a society that's normally as pro-technology as the Federation would still be paranoid over something that happened four centures before. There'd be nobody alive who still remembered those events. And there'd surely be a lot of people who'd see the potential benefits of genetic engineering and push back against such a ban. The concern about abuse of the technology would lead to new safeguards that weren't in place when the Augments were created, and over time, people would be sufficiently comfortable with those safeguards to take advantage of the benefits of the technology. That's how these things usually happen -- one generation's resistance to a new technology eventually gives way as it becomes more familiar and the initial fears recede into history.

If anything, if one generation goes to extremes in dealing with a problem, the next generation is likely to rebel against those extremes because of the new problems they created. For instance, the suppression of valuable cures and longevity treatments as a result of a ban on genetic engineering. There's no remotely plausible way that over a dozen successive generations would all obediently cling to the same taboo as the reasons for that taboo faded farther and farther into history.

The problem is that the people who wrote DS9 were not 400 years away from "Space Seed," but only 25-30 years. It was within their own lifetimes, clear in their memories, so it was hard for them to realize just how remote the Eugenics Wars would seem to people in the 24th century.

but the broader point still stands, the science fiction elements of Star Trek are still largely stuck around the late 1950s, early 1960s - it's a vision of the future that aggressively resists (on TV at least) pretty much every major trend or idea that has comes along since then - Post-humanism and transhumanism is just one example. Even simple stuff like wearable tech is completely ignored - so you have the explorers of the 23rd and 24th century running around in basic 'dumb' clothes and the like*.

Exactly. Science fiction has evolved a great deal since Star Trek began, but as long as the franchise resists a wholesale reboot, it can't really be modernized.

* Although props to GR, in his adapation of TMP - I think the Uniform belt buckle is a bioreader/transmitter?

Also, in "Spock's Brain," the standard uniforms had hidden thermostat controls. When they beamed down to the planet, Kirk ordered, "Suit temperatures to 72," and they tweaked something on their waists. Of course, this was just done to avoid the expense of creating warm-weather gear, but it was a neat bit of accidental futurism that the later series unfortunately ignored.

And then there's the frustrating fact that TMP introduced such things as security armor and radiation suits for engineers, but then the later shows totally ignored these things. DS9 had people in ground combat during wartime wearing nothing but cloth uniforms, no helmets or body armor of any kind -- it was ridiculous. It's not like they were caught off guard; they knowingly went into battle totally unprotected. Why were the producers willing to do that? Why didn't they spend a little money creating body armor? Or even just some little blinky-light props that generated personal force fields?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

Post-humanism and transhumanism is just one example.

Another problem, that I can see, is if the population of the Federation embraces this "transhumanism" stuff too readily, they may lose their humanity - i.e. they would become a society of soulless Borg-like creatures. (And what happens to those who choose not to enhance themselves in that way? Can they still function? Are they discriminated against just because they don't replace half their bodies with machines?)

It's all well and good to discuss the benefits of technology, but not if it makes us less human.

 

[Christopher]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

Another problem, that I can see, is if the population of the Federation embraces this "transhumanism" stuff too readily, they may lose their humanity - i.e. they would become a society of soulless Borg-like creatures.

That's a common sci-fi cliche, but I don't buy it. Humans have been altering ourselves with our technology for our entire existence. Inventing cooking led to changes in our digestive systems and shrinking of our jaws and teeth. Domesticating livestock led us to evolve lactose tolerance in adulthood. And am I somehow less human because I wear glasses to see better? Our ability to invent, to transform ourselves and our world, is part of what defines our humanity. There are already many different ways to be human. Changing ourselves further wouldn't make us less human, it would just continue to refine and expand the definition of humanity.

Besides, there have been plenty of dehumanizing hive-mind communities in human history -- just look at North Korea. That's not caused by trechnology, that's caused by the abuse of technology to serve a dehumanizing agenda. Technology can just as easily serve an individualist, humanist agenda -- by giving disabled people the ability to achieve independence, by bringing education and medical care to isolated parts of the world, by giving the common people the ability to communicate without reliance on government networks or to employ sousveillance to keep an eye on the powerful, etc. Technology just means tools, and tools are only as good or bad as the intentions of the wielder.

(And what happens to those who choose not to enhance themselves in that way? Can they still function? Are they discriminated against just because they don't replace half their bodies with machines?)

Again, we've been enhancing ourselves with technology for centuries. I imagine that eyeglasses were originally the province of the elite and the wealthy, but now they're seen as a universal entitlement, given away for free to people in need, etc. I think enhancement technologies could just as easily become an equalizer in the same way, seen as an entitlement for anyone who wants them.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

^ I'm just going out on a limb here and assuming that there's a HELL of a lot of difference between things like eyeglasses, replacement hips, COWS, etc. and completely altering the structure of the body and mind. Getting a new hip, or even limb, doesn't change the way people think or act.

And you didn't answer my question: all those life-changing technologies you spoke of, like instant cloning, consciousness transfer, nanotechnology, etc., what happens to those who choose not to use them? You speak of being able to achieve immortality with things like that. Well, what happens to those who don't WANT immortality? Are they to be made to accept these things anyway? I guess resistance really IS futile, innit?

I mean, even in works like Arthur Clarke's 3001 - which contains references to things like the 'BrainCap,' which I consider to be a frightening assault on personal liberty and freedom - it allows for those among the human population who just don't WANT to use them. Wouldn't you also grant that kind of personal choice as well?

 

[Idran]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

^ I'm just going out on a limb here and assuming that there's a HELL of a lot of difference between things like eyeglasses, replacement hips, COWS, etc. and completely altering the structure of the body and mind. Getting a new hip, or even limb, doesn't change the way people think or act.

The invention of language certainly did, but no one seems to object to that technological advancement.

 

[Christopher]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

^ I'm just going out on a limb here and assuming that there's a HELL of a lot of difference between things like eyeglasses, replacement hips, COWS, etc. and completely altering the structure of the body and mind.

See, that's the problem -- "completely." Of course it wouldn't be all at once. It'd be incremental, one advance at a time, each one gradually gaining acceptance. I mean, look at us. We're communicating over thousands of kilometers' distance by typing words into plastic boxes, and that's an everyday thing to us. Would someone from a thousand years ago have seen that as "human" or as the lot of sorcerors? Good grief, it was just a couple of decades ago that people were saying that technology like this would isolate humans from each other, cut them off from real human contact and dehumanize them. And here you are, using that exact same technology to complain about dehumanizing technology. Do you feel less human?

Getting a new hip, or even limb, doesn't change the way people think or act.

I disagree. Because "people" is an aggregate term. The technology to prolong and improve human lives, to heal injuries and cure diseases, has transformed the way humans live their lives profoundly. That's another thing that would seem alien and magical to people from thousands of years ago. Their definition of how humans lived and acted was a lot different from ours, but we consider ourselves just as human as they did.

And you didn't answer my question: all those life-changing technologies you spoke of, like instant cloning, consciousness transfer, nanotechnology, etc., what happens to those who choose not to use them?

Why would anything happen to them? Humans are diverse. We've always been. There are thousands of different ways that people choose to live their lives. Sure, sometimes there are people who try to force a single way of life on everyone, but they never succeed, because that isn't human. You're trying to insist that "human" is defined narrowly and exclusionistically, and that's exactly why you're so completely off base -- because a large part of what makes us human is how diverse and mutable we are, how endlessly inventive we are at coming up with new ways to live and to define ourselves. There will never be anything that all humans conform to in lockstep. And the more technology we invent, the more it broadens, rather than narrows, our opportunities to redefine ourselves.

And honestly, what's so horrible about not being human? Surely there are other intelligences out there in the universe, and there are species here on Earth that have their own awareness and right to exist. The idea that someone who diverges from your personal norms is somehow wrong or undeserving of existence is a very ugly notion that's been used to justify all kinds of evil and persecution.

Basically all you're doing is parroting cliches from countless old movies, kneejerk fears about progress. Cautionary tales can be useful, but they're not meant to be the whole story. They're not supposed to blind us to the positives of progress, merely to keep us alert to the potential downsides so that we can pursue progress responsibly.

 

[Idran]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

As many problems as the webcomic has nowadays, I think an old Dresden Codak summed up how cautionary tales can get silly pretty spot-on.

 

[Christopher]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

^What problems does Dresden Codak have nowadays, besides infrequent updates?

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

^ I'm just going out on a limb here and assuming that there's a HELL of a lot of difference between things like eyeglasses, replacement hips, COWS, etc. and completely altering the structure of the body and mind. Getting a new hip, or even limb, doesn't change the way people think or act.

And you didn't answer my question: all those life-changing technologies you spoke of, like instant cloning, consciousness transfer, nanotechnology, etc., what happens to those who choose not to use them? You speak of being able to achieve immortality with things like that. Well, what happens to those who don't WANT immortality? Are they to be made to accept these things anyway? I guess resistance really IS futile, innit?

I mean, even in works like Arthur Clarke's 3001 - which contains references to things like the 'BrainCap,' which I consider to be a frightening assault on personal liberty and freedom - it allows for those among the human population who just don't WANT to use them. Wouldn't you also grant that kind of personal choice as well?

You are approaching this like it's a novel debate in Sci Fi, it's not - plenty of people are writing about transhumanism and have for decades and none feature Borg like droids - Peter F. Hamilton's work for example features all sorts of post and transhumans but also plenty of baseline humans and nobody is forced to be immortal or turn into a machine.

Fundamentally you are exploring a different question - which is "would transhumanism be bad?" rather than the question at hand "why is Star Trek so resist to new ideas?"

The transhumanism is just an example, another could be the complete absence of sentient starships - another very common concept.

 

[Christopher]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

You are approaching this like it's a novel debate in Sci Fi, it's not - plenty of people are writing about transhumanism and have for decades and none feature Borg like droids - Peter F. Hamilton's work for example features all sorts of post and transhumans but also plenty of baseline humans and nobody is forced to be immortal or turn into a machine.

Excellent point. Mass-media science fiction tends to focus on the more conservative, familiar ideas and don't-rock-the-boat cautionary tales, but it's only a narrow sliver of what's actually out there in the literature, and doesn't come anywhere close to representing the entire conversation. Things like the Borg are just one possible outcome of transhumanism, and science fiction has been exploring countless other possibilities for decades. It's hard to find a modern work of prose SF that doesn't feature transhumanist protagonists -- characters who have communication/computer implants in their brains, who use medical or cybernetic methods to prolong their lives by centuries, who have built-in medical or pharmaceutical implants to regulate their health and moods, who adapt themselves to thrive in alien environments or alter their gender identities, to make themselves into shapeshifters, even to turn themselves into AIs and live forever in cyberspace or downloaded into robotic bodies. And none of these portray them as dehumanized hive minds. They're still people, still human and relatable characters, but they've given themselves abilities and options that their ancestors lacked -- just like our technology gives us abilities and options our ancestors lacked, like the ability to communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world or the option to have our genders surgically reassigned.

Heck, a number of my own works of original SF have had transhumanist themes: Only Superhuman, a hard-SF take on superheroes; "No Dominion," a murder mystery in a future that's largely rendered death a curable condition; "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing," set in a star system where human castaways have had to modify themselves extremely in order to survive. Transhumanism is a basic part of the vocabulary of modern science fiction, probably as central to the literature today as space travel was in the '40s and '50s.

Fundamentally you are exploring a different question - which is "would transhumanism be bad?" rather than the question at hand "why is Star Trek so resist to new ideas?"

The transhumanism is just an example, another could be the complete absence of sentient starships - another very common concept.

The problem is largely that series television tends to be about maintaining a status quo, while science fiction is ideally about exploring transformative innovations. Because of that tension, series SF tends to need to inject excuses why the transformative ideas don't transform the world: Either they're always bad and the heroes defeat them, or they're top-secret and the heroes don't allow them to get out into a world that "isn't ready" for them; or the heroes are traveling to alien planets or alternate realities that have been transformed by the innovations while their own society stays largely unaffected. But that last one became harder for Star Trek to justify as it continued to push further into the future and established a more unified, interconnected, and settled interstellar community than TOS had depicted -- and simply as it continued on for year after year after year, letting the world-changing innovations keep piling up while the status quo remained unchanged.

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

The problem is largely that series television tends to be about maintaining a status quo, while science fiction is ideally about exploring transformative innovations. Because of that tension, series SF tends to need to inject excuses why the transformative ideas don't transform the world: Either they're always bad and the heroes defeat them, or they're top-secret and the heroes don't allow them to get out into a world that "isn't ready" for them; or the heroes are traveling to alien planets or alternate realities that have been transformed by the innovations while their own society stays largely unaffected. But that last one became harder for Star Trek to justify as it continued to push further into the future and established a more unified, interconnected, and settled interstellar community than TOS had depicted -- and simply as it continued on for year after year after year, letting the world-changing innovations keep piling up while the status quo remained unchanged.

Right and I think if Star Trek ever came back to the TV, if it was trying to maintain that sort of status quo and took no account of the intervening period would look fair poor (on a conceptual level) to other contemporary TV shows. For example, odd as it seems, Person of Interest to me is one of the better examples of though provoking science fiction on the TV at the moment - all sorts of weighty well thought out ideas in there.

And talking about a different tack, I didn't watch it an awful lot but I think that SG1 and the spin-off series were better at integrating found technology into what they did - Humanity developed Space-ships as the series went on and also retro-engineered much of what they found.

 

[Christopher]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

And talking about a different tack, I didn't watch it an awful lot but I think that SG1 and the spin-off series were better at integrating found technology into what they did - Humanity developed Space-ships as the series went on and also retro-engineered much of what they found.

On the other hand, I found the SG franchise one of the worst offenders in terms of gratuitously keeping the innovations secret from the world at large in order to avoid letting it be really transformed. I mean, eventually it got to the point where Earth was a central player in the interstellar community and countless government officials and scientists and corporations were cooperating in the project, and there was no longer any story reason for it to remain secret, and yet the secrecy remained in place out of sheer force of habit. I always wanted to see the stories where the Stargate program was revealed to the world at large and we saw its impact on society. Because that impact is what science fiction is supposed to be about.

 

[ATimson]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

On the other hand, I found the SG franchise one of the worst offenders in terms of gratuitously keeping the innovations secret from the world at large in order to avoid letting it be really transformed.

From what I understand, we have the show's continued renewal to blame for that. The original plan, when "Lost City" was going to be a movie instead of the seventh-season finale of SG-1, would have been for it to go public at that point. (And really, that fight over Antarctica would have been a bit hard to miss!)

Unfortunately, the show kept getting renewed, so the movie was folded back into the show (because they needed it to seed Atlantis). I suspect that they wanted to try to keep the status quo while SG-1 was on the air just for the verisimilitude.

 

[Christopher]

Re: DTI: The Collectors by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoil

I suspect that they wanted to try to keep the status quo while SG-1 was on the air just for the verisimilitude.

But why did they need verisimilitude? I've never understood the desire of SFTV shows to pretend they're taking place in the real world behind the scenes. Of course they're not in the real world, so why the pretense? It's so much more interesting to actually show the ways in which the world is changed and affected. This was one thing The 4400 did well.