Star Trek: Star Charts by Geoffrey Mandell

[Arpy]

Perri-air! Brilliant!

I don't see why we can't have both a far larger human population and a far more pristine environment.

...Though let's remember that nature can be a real bitch - natural disasters kill senselessly thousands of people, and there is no peaceful coexistence between predator and prey.

But I digress. Roddenberry wrote of cities underground and we saw one version in VOY's premier. Above ground, there could be immense structures soaring into the empty sky or floating on water that could house similarly immense populations - ones that today are spread over hundreds or thousands of square miles.

Regarding waste, if they recycle every molecule on a starship, surely they could apply some of that technology to make a population five times the size of ours produce one thousandth the waste. Same with energy - a few anti-matter reactors in orbit (for safety's sake) could do the trick.

Heat's a little trickier. Especially since I'd like to see MORE plants and animals...including from other worlds, times in history (dinosaurs) and entirely artificial ones flourishing alongside more humans and alien immigrants. All coexisting in a balanced, resilient, evolving ecosphere. But I'm sure there are ways around that as well. Ways to block some of the sun's heat, or moving slightly adjusting the planet's orbit, or releasing some of the Earth's geothermal energy into space - or exporting it?

Don't get me wrong...I don't think we should get started on any of this till it's technologically reasonable to do so, but let's not throw this fantastical future out with the bathwater because the real present is in bad enough a state. This is one of the reasons I love Star Trek especially in the realm of science fiction - it explores the possibilities for good as well as just ill.

 

[Christopher]

I don't see why we can't have both a far larger human population and a far more pristine environment...
Regarding waste, if they recycle every molecule on a starship, surely they could apply some of that technology to make a population five times the size of ours produce one thousandth the waste. Same with energy - a few anti-matter reactors in orbit (for safety's sake) could do the trick.

Sure, maybe you could, but what's the advantage in doing so? If the planet's survival is dependent on the functioning of an artificial technology that keeps it from collapsing under the weight of an artificially inflated population, how is that better in the long run than allowing it to achieve equilibrium by its own natural means? Just because it's possible to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. An artificially maintained environment is fine if you live on Mars or Titan, but since Earth's already got a life-support system that's worked perfectly well for the entire history of life, where's the logic in replacing it with a newer, less perfected system just for the sake of having an arbitrarily bigger number of people on the planet?

Heat's a little trickier. Especially since I'd like to see MORE plants and animals...including from other worlds, times in history (dinosaurs) and entirely artificial ones flourishing alongside more humans and alien immigrants. All coexisting in a balanced, resilient, evolving ecosphere.

But why limit all that to one planet? In the Trekverse, they have the virtually unlimited capacity to colonize and terraform other worlds. So why would they want to crowd all those people and species and ecosystems into just one little ball? Sure, bring back dinosaurs, but put them on an uninhabited planet whose environment is suitable for them. (Large dinosaurs could never survive on the same planet as humans; the modern Earth is just too cold and oxygen-poor to sustain land animals of such size, and there's no ecological niche available for them anyway.)

With all those different M-class planets available, and with warp drive being ubiquitous and convenient, people could easily pick out different planets whose environments or cultures suited their tastes. In the Trek context, there's just no reason for humanity to have such a strong centripetal impulse as to crowd the Earth with 25 billion people. If anything, the impulse would be outward instead. (Although ST writers rarely acknowledge this; virtually every major human character is established or assumed to be an Earth native.)

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Late to the party as usual but I love the Star Charts. Now if I could only create a 3D holographic one that you can turn on in a room, that would be neat. I'm not a computer genius so I won't be starting on that, but it's the thought that counts.

That would indeed be cool, but would also be a massively complicated undertaking. And I don't mean the programming, but mapping everything in 3D.

I suppose if someone wanted to they could try such a project using Celestia, which already has quite a few fictional planets and spacecraft available as add-ons.

 

[foravalon]

...you don't know the half of it.

 

[Arpy]

Sure, maybe you could, but what's the advantage in doing so? If the planet's survival is dependent on the functioning of an artificial technology that keeps it from collapsing under the weight of an artificially inflated population, how is that better in the long run than allowing it to achieve equilibrium by its own natural means?

Because it allows more people the opportunity to live, and in this case, in a pretty idyllic world. And hey, if nature gives us the brains to create such technologies and the hearts to use them responsibly, isn't it "natural" that we do so?

Just because it's possible to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. An artificially maintained environment is fine if you live on Mars or Titan, but since Earth's already got a life-support system that's worked perfectly well for the entire history of life, where's the logic in replacing it with a newer, less perfected system just for the sake of having an arbitrarily bigger number of people on the planet?

It isn't about some arbitrary number of people…whatever's in FASA v Star Charts v what have you…but how is progress to be made if one does not try to make it? What if we come up with an even "more perfected system" than nature on its own? And how has nature perfected anything if not by trial and error on far larger scale than anything we might attempt in a lab or island or other smaller scale?

But why limit all that to one planet? In the Trekverse, they have the virtually unlimited capacity to colonize and terraform other worlds. So why would they want to crowd all those people and species and ecosystems into just one little ball?...With all those different M-class planets available, and with warp drive being ubiquitous and convenient, people could easily pick out different planets whose environments or cultures suited their tastes.

I'm saying 1) I don't think they'd be crowded if the space and resources were better used, and 2) there's no reason why Earth couldn't be like that AND other planets be more specialized. Or be even more diverse.

But remember for Earth I said "balance". It wouldn't be like Coruscant or there'd be no wilderness, there'd be no Tholians walking around without some encounter-suit because the atmosphere and temperature and maybe gravity wouldn't do, and not just any creature could be introduced into the ecosystem…i.e. no Romulan "Rauwak" vines permitted because they'd eat all the other plants, or similarly, maybe no earthworms permitted on a terraformed Venus.

(Although ST writers rarely acknowledge this; virtually every major human character is established or assumed to be an Earth native.)

That's a mistake IMO too, and one of the reasons I like Elias Vaughn – for being a human from Berengaria.

 

[Christopher]

Because it allows more people the opportunity to live, and in this case, in a pretty idyllic world.

But why only one world, when there are millions available? In Trek, there's plenty of room for more people to live, and no reason at all for them to be limited to Earth alone.

And hey, if nature gives us the brains to create such technologies and the hearts to use them responsibly, isn't it "natural" that we do so?

Responsibility is the key. Sometimes the more responsible decision is to let nature manage things the way it's evolved to manage them, rather than arrogantly assuming that we young upstarts have such perfect, wonderful technology that we can do everything better than nature. What you're talking about is using technology to achieve an artificial equilibrium that would be impossible without it -- analogous to, say, building an impossibly high and steep mountain and using forcefields to sustain it. The question is, what happens if the technology fails? It's an unstable situation and will collapse without that artificial support. And it's grossly irresponsible to create such an unstable situation with a whole ecosystem at stake just so you can be smug about how wonderful your technology is. It's stupid and pointless. It's the kind of hubris that leads to disaster. The responsible thing to do is to avoid creating that artificial, unstable situation to begin with -- to recognize that our intelligence does not make us better than nature. Often, the key to using power responsibly is knowing when not to use it.

It isn't about some arbitrary number of people…whatever's in FASA v Star Charts v what have you…but how is progress to be made if one does not try to make it?

Why does progress have to go in one direction? That idea is already out of date. There was a time when people assumed that progress meant replacing the natural with the artificial, dominating nature with technology, taming and regulating it at every stage. Now we've come to understand that didn't work. Natural foods are healthier for us than artificial ones; letting rivers flow freely is better than damming them up; letting forests go through their periodic cycle of burning is better than trying to prevent all forest fires. Progress has been redefined as pulling back our control, learning to live in harmony with nature rather than dominating it. Changing direction doesn't mean going backward; it means gaining a better understanding of what going forward really is. Progress doesn't just mean getting bigger or more powerful. It means getting wiser, finding a better balance.

What if we come up with an even "more perfected system" than nature on its own?

That would be fine -- for a created environment or a terraformed world. But why is it right to replace something that works just because we have something different? This reminds me of a disagreement I had yesterday with someone on another forum who claimed that 3D computer animation is destined to replace 2D animation. There's no reason why progress has to take the form of replacement. People didn't stop painting when photography came along. People didn't kill off all the horses when bicycles and cars came along.

The first rule of engineering is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Replacing something that's proven to work isn't progress, it's just gratuitous destruction. There's no reason we can't try to develop a "more perfected system" in a world of our own creation -- a terraformed Mars or Venus, a Banks Orbital megastructure, whatever. Earth is not the only place in the universe where we can wield our intellect.