From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Bio filters in transporters..
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:44:23 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
>jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>
>   If one were to tell a story about the U.S. military today, one would
>   expect to see lots of expensive, high-tech devices.  Does that mean
>   that the entire American culture lives this way?  No, it doesn't.  My
>   house doesn't even have a garbage disposal in the sink -- no place to
>   connect the wires.
>
>Yes, but the American military is affected by these technologies.

The American military DRIVES these technologies.

One reason commonly given for Japan's technological lead over the U.S.
is that the research efforts in Japan are expended toward consumer
products, while in the U.S. most research goes to the military and the
general public never sees any of it until it's already old hat.

My point was that while Starfleet might be endowed with real neato
gadgets and technologies, this might not represent the way the vast
majority of the galaxy lives.  I don't think holodecks, transporters
and such are as commonplace as we are led to believe.

I think a better explanation, though, would be that viewers want to
identify with certain elements of future technology.  It's simpler for
the viewer to assimilate some new technology if it somehow relates to
present day technologies.

Four hundred years from now it might be plausible to have
transporters, and that these transporters will have the capabilities
we'd like them to have, not the capabilities given them by arbitrary
storytellers who want to make their stories exciting.

Real world technologies are driven by capability -- "here's what this
machine can do" -- while Star Trek technologies seem to be driven by
need -- "what do we need the machine to do?", or more precisely, "what
shouldn't this machine be able to do."

Again, I agree that this is not the best exposition of technology, but
it is somewhat pleasing fiction.

>   Pulling Dr. Pulaski "out of the hat" was a good example of this.  It's
>   consummate "deus ex machina," and it was disappointing.
>
>I don't understand what you mean by that?

Forgive me if I sound patronizing -- I'm not sure what it is you don't
understand.

"Deus ex machina" is a Latin phrase meaning "god from a machine."
This alludes to the practice in Greek drama of introducing a deity in
the climax of a play.  The god ("deus") is lowered onstage from a
suspension apparatus ("machina") and proceeds to solve the dramatic
conflicts with godlike powers; i.e., he waves his hands and makes
everything better.

Today the phrase is used to denote a dramatic climax where the central
conflict of the story is defused or sidestepped, rather than met
head-on and resolved.  It makes for very bad fiction.

The TNG episode to which I refer was one in which Dr. Pulaski is
infected with a communicative genetic disorder.  To restore her DNA
composition, the ENTERPRISE crew obtains a fragment of DNA from a hair
follicle found in her quarters and from this extrapolates the
information necessary to restore her using the transporter.

Not only does this violate restrictions commonly associated with the
capabilities of the transporter, it lets the viewer down.  The writer
simply invented a machine which happened to magically solve the
problem.

The implications are foreboding.  Not only does this encourage the
writers to simply keep solving increasingly difficult problems with
increasingly magical technology, it leaves dangling questions about
why this magical technology isn't applied to similar problems.  In
other words, it sets a precedent by which conflict is eliminated and
everybody lives happily with no cares or problems.  I don't know about
you, but to watch drama with no tension, no problems, no conflict, no
dilemmas is about as appealing as watching paint dry.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | Error non est sed facilitas.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech