Star Trek and Science
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
Herkimer Jitty,
A technological singularity would be extremely hazardous on a massive scale and obviously would spell the end of us. V'Ger I supposed would be the closest thing shown in Trek to a technical singularity... but it actually doesn't come close.
One could argue that any society destined to get particularly far would have to know when and where to hold back to avoid extremely rapid advancement that could get out of control and lead to their own complete destruction.
CuttingEdge100
A technological singularity would be extremely hazardous on a massive scale and obviously would spell the end of us. V'Ger I supposed would be the closest thing shown in Trek to a technical singularity... but it actually doesn't come close.
One could argue that any society destined to get particularly far would have to know when and where to hold back to avoid extremely rapid advancement that could get out of control and lead to their own complete destruction.
CuttingEdge100
My theory is the writers were holding back because the more advanced technologies made for interesting plot gimmicks.
One could imagine a Next Next Generation type of Star Trek, where holographic technology and nano-enhancements are just as core to the show as warp drive and transporter beams. Given all the talk about the "Technological Singularity" that would be a more modern form of science-fiction that what Trek has traditionally presented.
Apparently it IS pretty damn valuable if the Romulans went to such great lengths to strong-arm the Federation into giving it up. Again, this defies all political/military/historical precedent UNLESS The Tomed Incident involved the massive and wholesale DEFEAT of the Federation and the signing of the treaty as a concession. Perhaps the Romulans stormed across the neutral zone and annexed a bunch of systems and the Federation signed a new armistice as a term of appeasement.
So what? They would not be COMPARED TO EACH OTHER, and in conflict with anyone else other than the Federation and the Romulans the cloaking device becomes extremely useful. Earth and Romulus are not the center of the universe, you know.
We know Quark bought an inferior copy of one somewhere, but this is probably not a Ferengi device. There's no indication, however, that their FLEET uses them.
Same problem: the Cardassian cloaks would be pretty damn effective against old Starfleet vessels and against their inferior adversaries.
Not neccesarily. Strictly speaking, the "singularity" is only a point where machines become so self-sufficient that human decision is no longer neccesary or sufficient for their continued development; at that point, the machines become a parallel species of their own and no longer really need us.
That's not neccesarily hazardous unless you do something to piss the machines off. In Trek terms, humans make an effort to treat all life--even artificial life--with dignity and respect, so in the event of a singularity their relationship is likely to be somewhat cordial.
Even the example of V'ger may prove this rule: imagine if V'ger returned to Earth in the 24th century with another library of data to offload. Would V'ger remember that nice Captain and that bald chick who helped him evolve? Would V'ger remember his original purpose and say "You created me to be a probe, well I've been probing and here's what I've found. See you again in 100 years."
It would be hard to gets used to, but it's hardly a doomsday scenario. Humans fear being knocked off their pedestal even in the 24th century, but evolutionarily speaking, it's inevitable.
From an evolutionary standpoint, a confrontation would be inevitable. Machine life and organic life would be competing for many of the same resources. When two species are competing for the same niche, they are in conflict until one adapts to use the niche differently or to another niche entirely, or one is eliminated. Any sentient machine "specieis" is going to need materials and terrain, which are in finite supply. So, simply existing would be sufficient provocation for conflict, if the machines and organics can't find a way to co-exist or to avoid each other entirely. Whether or not they can find such a way, along with the speed of doing so if it's even possible, will govern the extent of the conflict.
Why? There's never been a direct confrontation between, say, humans and chimpanzees. We don't compete for the same resources anymore and we've developed a social system that values life to a degree that we would avoid such destructive competition if it ever became an issue.
From an evolutionary standpoint, confrontations only occur when two species are competing for the same niche, correct? This is highly unlikely between humans and their creations, since any divergence between the two necessarily creates a new niche for both of them. It is a highly disruptive development only because BOTH parties would have to adapt to this new reality and some would find this extremely uncomfortable.
To illustrate a point:
Not even close, since machine life 1) isn't likely to have the same values as organic life (different types of currency) and 2) isn't likely to have the same energy requirements. Humans aren't going to fight a war with a race of machines over a limited supply of lithium ion batteries, nor are androids going to nuke America for using up precious bandwidth. Again: the creation of a machine intelligence necessarily creates a new niche for both of them which are fundamentally incompatible; if humans are enough like their machines to come into DIRECT competition, then you know something screwy (genetic engineering, for example
) is going on.
Apparently it IS pretty damn valuable if the Romulans went to such great lengths to strong-arm the Federation into giving it up. Again, this defies all political/military/historical precedent UNLESS The Tomed Incident involved the massive and wholesale DEFEAT of the Federation and the signing of the treaty as a concession. Perhaps the Romulans stormed across the neutral zone and annexed a bunch of systems and the Federation signed a new armistice as a term of appeasement.
Or maybe the Romulans overreacted, and the Feds (aside from a few hardline militarists) figured "Okay, they're agreeing to peace in exchange for us giving up a tech they feel is way more important than it actually is so let's go for it rather than risk an all-out war."
According to the shows, the Federation pretty much IS the centre of the Trekverse
. The Klingons already have the cloak, the Ferengi don't have a unified military so each Captain can out and get their own cloak, the Cardassians' tech would be too far behind to compete with the rest of the Cloaks being made and the other races were pretty much asspull races never heard before.We don't know how they upgrade old Starfleet vessels so it's likely the sensors on them are still capable of keeping up with dangerous tech like the cloaks (the Feds will upgrade those for any vessel) rather than stupidly send out vessels against guys with cloaks who can fool them. As for their other adversaries we never see the Cardies fighting them so it's just not on-screen.
It's the center of the ACTION, yes. But not everything that happens in the Alpha Quadrant necessarily involves the Federation. It's nice to think of them as THE major superpower in the quadrant, until you see people like the Tamarians, the Sheliak, the Breen, or various other races who habitually fight the Federation to a standstill either individually or in referenced "incidents" and you realize that a region of space tens of thousands of light years in diameter cannot be dominated, politically or economically, by any one power.According to the shows, the Federation pretty much IS the centre of the Trekverse
All due respect, but "asspull races" actually do exist and have to be taken into account, same again for other races we have either never heard of our don't know anything about. Besides, the fact that the Klingons have the technology is reason enough for the Cardassians to want them, considering the history of hostilities between the two; this, again, is what makes an Arms Race, and no weapons/equipment buildup in history has ever been suspended just because one party didn't think it could compete with the other (just ask the Russians).
Yes we do: sporadically, and inconsistently. One vessel might get an upgrade to its sensors, another to engines, another to all systems, and another might have the same package it left space dock with seventy years ago.
Of course, even with upgrades, an eighty year old starship against a thirty year old cloaking device would be a pretty interesting match, especially since there's nothing to prevent the Cardassians or other users from making similar upgrades to THEIR devices. Thus the arms race continues.
In which case the Federation is soon to be toppled once other races eventually overtake them in the sensor/cloak race. Actually, the Romulans appear to have already done this if Nemesis is any indication.
And like I said, the inferiority of Cardie tech would make any cloaks they develop on their own rather useless and them buying older devices to try and compensate still wouldn't work in countering the continually advancement of Fed Sensor tech meaning they are a non-entity when it comes to any "Arms Race" with Cloaks.
And seeing how the Feds are in a Sensor vs Cloaks race with the Rommies (who are clearly the most advanced race with Cloaks) this one Arms Race they have is enough to keep them ahead in the race compared to all other races. As for the advances the Rommies made in NEM seeing how easily the Feds countered the Klingon firecloak in TUC they same will happen to the Roms as well, they didn't do it likely because it would just be another ripoff moment for that film.
And seeing how the Feds are in a Sensor vs Cloaks race with the Rommies (who are clearly the most advanced race with Cloaks) this one Arms Race they have is enough to keep them ahead in the race compared to all other races. As for the advances the Rommies made in NEM seeing how easily the Feds countered the Klingon firecloak in TUC they same will happen to the Roms as well, they didn't do it likely because it would just be another ripoff moment for that film.
NewtypeAlpha,
Yeah, but there's no saying the machines wouldn't take a disliking to us... And they would be smarter than us, better connected, faster, and more capable.
Superior ability breeds superior ambition.
Buzzknox,
Very good point.
Newtype Alpha,
Are you kidding me? We experiment on them! We give them drugs and even give them diseases to see how they'll affect or even kill them to see how the drugs will work on us, or to see how the disease would progress on us.
In otherwords we have very little regard for their lives, at least compared to ours even though we are both sentient species.
Now, granted machines would not get diseases like we would, but the point is, is that they would probably have a far lesser regard for our lives than theirs.
And when you consider how fast they would advance and advance in a seemingly never ending upwards spiral, we'd soon be comparatively as advanced as bugs.
Now with that said, do most humans have much regard for the value of a bug's life?
Yeah, but they'd be so much smarter, so much faster, and so much better interconnected with each other than us... They wouldn't have to "compromise" with us -- They could wipe us all out with remarkable ease.
As easily as any one of us could step on a bug and crush it under our weight, they could wipe us all out.
And as you said, they wouldn't necessarily have the same values as us, they might find it perfectly acceptable to "decommission" (i.e. kill) other inferior beings -- even if sentient, whether machine or human.
CuttingEdge100
Yeah, but there's no saying the machines wouldn't take a disliking to us... And they would be smarter than us, better connected, faster, and more capable.
Superior ability breeds superior ambition.
Buzzknox,
Very good point.
Newtype Alpha,
Are you kidding me? We experiment on them! We give them drugs and even give them diseases to see how they'll affect or even kill them to see how the drugs will work on us, or to see how the disease would progress on us.
In otherwords we have very little regard for their lives, at least compared to ours even though we are both sentient species.
Now, granted machines would not get diseases like we would, but the point is, is that they would probably have a far lesser regard for our lives than theirs.
And when you consider how fast they would advance and advance in a seemingly never ending upwards spiral, we'd soon be comparatively as advanced as bugs.
Now with that said, do most humans have much regard for the value of a bug's life?
Yeah, but they'd be so much smarter, so much faster, and so much better interconnected with each other than us... They wouldn't have to "compromise" with us -- They could wipe us all out with remarkable ease.
As easily as any one of us could step on a bug and crush it under our weight, they could wipe us all out.
And as you said, they wouldn't necessarily have the same values as us, they might find it perfectly acceptable to "decommission" (i.e. kill) other inferior beings -- even if sentient, whether machine or human.
CuttingEdge100
Only against the FEDERATION, and to a lesser extent the Klingons and Romulans; there are more than just those three powers in the Alpha Quadrant. Besides the fact that "we can't do it as well as [insert organization here]" has never in the history of the world been sufficient reason not to try. Otherwise, Earth Starfleet never would have developed phasers since they knew any aliens they encountered would have better weapons anyway.
But the feds aren't in a race with the Romulans. Actually, until the beginning of TNG they weren't even in a cold war. They had ignored each other for decades, possibly after the Romulans kicked their asses in the Tomed incident.
In the trekiverse, there is: humans have always been NICE to them.
So are the Vulcans. They may not particularly like us, but as of current canon they haven't slaughtered humans yet.
That's not confrontation. That's active ambivalence in favor of scientific curiosity. If the worst we can fear from machines is that they might dissect a few dozen of us to see how much it sucks to be humans, that's barely a conflict worthy of worrying about.
This is the Trekiverse we're talking about. In the 24th century humans have a high regard for ALL life. Why would machines--which are supposedly evolved from and SUPERIOR to us--be any different?
Yes, they COULd. Just like we could wipe out, say, humpback whales with ease. THat doesn't mean we should, doesn't even mean we would, and in the 24th century, we most decidedly wouldn't.
It's one thing to say machines would get smarter, but why would they neccesarily become more malevolent than us? Isn't the entire premise of Trek that the smarter an organism becomes, the more constructive the object of its intelligence?
Is there ever any indication that the Cardies were fighting anyone other than the Feds, Bajorans and the Klingons throughout TNG and DS9? If not then the point still stands that any cloaks they made wouldn't be worth the cost going up against superior foes like them.
"Yesterday's Enterprise" made it clear that while there was no open contact between the Rommies and the Feds for decades since the Tomed Incident the Feds still did run into the Rommies time and again like at Narendra III and thus would have some idea of their tech level and would upgrade in response.
I think some people have fallen into the common trap of non-diversity and ideological extremes long professed by the worse tech fantasies and science fictions.
Some machines will be actively friendly, some will be actively unfriendly, most will be ambivalent and will take sides as their interests take them (which is not to say they are automatically against little fleshy beings.)
The rise of sentient machines merely means more players that you have to make the right alliances and friendships with.
if the supposedly-enlightened people of ST's 24-century UFP can't wrap there heads around that, then they deserve to be stomped on by the first hostile sentient machine they encounter.
---
Meeting alien life is much the same way. You never know when you're going to be the "caveman" in an encounter. What happens when you meet a metacivilization of comparative supermen? Some will aid you, some will hinder you, and most won't care as long as you don't get in their way. Then what do you do? You make sure you're on good terms with the friendly ones because they're the only ones that can protect you from the not-so-nice ones.
And in the context of ST, burying ones head i the sand and shouting to yourself you're always going to be the ones on top and not have to consider an even more bewildering political, social, and cultural, mosaic is just setting yourself up for an OCP.
There are numerous references to an ongoing conflict with the Breen, among others. Mostly these are throwaway lines, but they are common hooks for dialog involving Cardassian characters. And there's also the matter of Tora Zyel...
Narendra-III is an extremely poor example considering the Enterprise-C was utterly destroyed and never returned to Starfleet any real indication of their tech level. Indeed, in "The Neutral Zone" they made it a point that Starfleet's information about the Romulans was terribly out of date.
Not even close, since machine life 1) isn't likely to have the same values as organic life (different types of currency) and 2) isn't likely to have the same energy requirements. Humans aren't going to fight a war with a race of machines over a limited supply of lithium ion batteries, nor are androids going to nuke America for using up precious bandwidth. Again: the creation of a machine intelligence necessarily creates a new niche for both of them which are fundamentally incompatible; if humans are enough like their machines to come into DIRECT competition, then you know something screwy (genetic engineering, for example
Machines won't require power, metals, space, and similar items? Machines won't be machinery, and thus require the exact same things that our industrial society is based upon? In reality, the materials that allow our society to function are the same materials that machines will require for their very existence. Arguably, our very existence is antagonistic to machine life, since we require a biosphere that is hostile to machinery (some level of humidity and oxygen).
Aaaand there are waaaaaaaaaaaay more uninhabitable planets than planets hospitable to humanoid life. And waaaaaaaay more space than that used by all the major powers of Trek.
Or are you implying that the less than 1 percent of space we've seen is the only space that's usable by any form of civilization?
Or are you implying that the less than 1 percent of space we've seen is the only space that's usable by any form of civilization?
Similar threads
