From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Subject: Re: Bio filters in transporters..
Organization: CIRES, University of Colorado
	<EJH.92Oct13182355@khonshu.colorado.edu>
	<1992Oct15.140657.8754@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:49:48

In article <1992Oct15.140657.8754@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:


   >I can't believe I'm actually such a star trek nerd that I'm staying
   >after work to add to this conversation, but what the hell.

   You're only a Star Trek nerd if you add to this conversation INSTEAD
   of doing work.  (Hi, Charles)

Well, now I am.

   >As a big fan of SF, and ST-TNG in particular, I believe that they are
   >far from exploring the possibilities of the technology they're
   >supposed to have.

   I don't think Star Trek's intent is to explore technology.  It is to
   tell a story about the future.  As Michael Okuda put it: "the
   technology is just part of their environment."  Insofar as telling the
   story is inseparable from postulating the technology, it makes sense
   to spend some of the storytelling looking at gadgets and such.

   Another problem is the technology gap.  Some parts of our culture
   today have fantastically advanced technology.  Other parts remain
   unchanged over hundreds of years.  Some of us can communicate with
   others around the globe almost instantly, while others have yet to see
   an electric light bulb.

   Starfleet has transporters, replicators, holodecks, warp travel, and
   so forth.  But what about the rest of the inhabitants of the galaxy?
   We've seen pictures of some fictional cultures living in despicable
   circumstances.

   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.
Here's an example: I read not too long ago about the following
military gadget: an infantry guy has one of those computer screen
sunglasses, which paint a picture on your eyeball like there's a
monitor hanging in front of you. Attached to this is that device to
follow your eyeball, and there's a little computer on his belt, linked
via satellite to all of the ships, artillary units, etc. in, say, a 30
mile radius. There's a little arrow on his view of the world, and he
puts the arrow at an enemy tank, hit's the botton in his palm, and the
computer selects and fires a shell which lands on that target, from
whichever battery is closest and ready to fire. Now that guy has the
power that used to be considered godlike. He can literally destroy
anything in sight, instantly and at whim. What kind of effect will
that have on his personality? How will the other side react (to
protect itself and deal with the moral problems it would cause!).
Just think of how interesting that all is, and that's just
off-the-shelf hardware! I'd be surprised if something like that doesn't
appear in the next U.S. war. 

So my point is, that no matter what the rest of the galaxy is like,
Star Fleet would be just as creative about applying the technology as
modern military guys are. 


   The point is that the Paramount folks don't WANT that kind of
   technology.  Fiction thrives on conflict and resolution, and if you
   have no conflict you have no fiction.  Having omnipotent technology
   destroys the conflict, so in the interest of fiction you have to limit
   the technology.

The technology per se would not need to provide all the answers. 

   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?
--
Edward Hartnett			ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu