how StarTrek should have been?

I was just reading the post about StarTrek Ultimate and it piqued my interest,. I have long thought that Gene's vision of StarTrek was deeply flawed (because of when it was written) as in if you look at Futurists predictions (Future Timeline.net which uses computer modeling on historical events and input from many scientists and futurists) StarTrek would look completely different to how it was written.
Remember these are my thought's and I'm not trying to stir up trouble with anyone.

For one Transhuman's (genetically perfected, cybentically enhanced Homo-Superior) would populate Earth by 2300ad, with biological humans (homo-sapiens) being a very small minority. Homo-sapiens would have no say in how the planet is run (the world government would consist of sentient AI with transhuman input via the internet/full immersion virtual reality) or even understand the current technology (they wouldn't be able to even truly log in to the internet as they would not have encephalon's implanted (nanite based micro computers blending the human mind with AI implants in their brains, expanding the hosts intelligence and ability to process information) or the neural interfaces.
The clear prejudice against Augments contradicts Gene's vision of a "more enlightened and evolved humanity"

StarFleet would be a far more militant organization, especially as it seems to be based largely on the American naval fleet/early space program (America leads the way in space exploration and is the world leader, hence their influence is understandable), they would definitely have a "explore the universe/gather as much information as possible" mandate but that wouldn't negate the fact they would do so strongly. StarFleet personnel would have a firm foundation in military doctrine and in fact joining Starfleet would be the same as today if someone joined the Navy/army today (with the same expectation of commitment and danger)

I continue when I have time, Thought's so far?

example of a Homo-Superior
http://xeriar.com/oldwiki/Homo_supernus

nanites/catoms would be integrated into everyday use (for example nanite clothing would replace all other types of clothing), in fact they would be in us, enhancing us in an infinite amount of ways)

Androids and other synthetic life would be completely integrated into our society. Robots would also be everywhere. In fact some humans would choose to ascend into "avatar" form (bio-synthetic nanite constructed body, with their consciousness uploaded to a "neural-net")
http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Sapiens

these Singularities (sentient AI's) and sentient synthetic life forms (artilects in startrek) would have the same rights as other sentient life. Robots would be programmed with the 3 laws of robotics, sentient programs would not be hampered by such limitations.

nanite's/catom's would be in daily use throughout society, including being integrated into our bodies (encephalon's would be made up of nanites, the full immersion virtual reality would require nanite interfaces, rapid healing would use nanites etc).
An example of nanite tech would be nanite clothing
http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stce...uture-clothing
catoms would be used in many area's of our society (programmable matter constructed furniture, surfaces, building, clothing etc)

here's what a transhuman would look like
http://xeriar.com/oldwiki/Homo_supernus

some humans would eventually ascend to become avatar's
http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Sapiens

Sentient Andriods (artilect's) and sentient AI programs (singularities) would be fully integrated into human society. Robots would also be everywhere (all programmed with the 3 laws)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

For one Transhuman's (genetically perfected, cybentically enhanced Homo-Superior) would populate Earth by 2300ad, with biological humans (homo-sapiens) being a very small minority.

---

The thing is, that is literally a fascist imagining of the purpose and production of genetic engineering. I'm not being facetious or hyperbolic; rather, it is specifically a contemporary recapitulation of the Social Darwinistic expression of fascist state mythology that the intervention of technology in human lives would create a superior 'strain' of human that would render the previous obsolete. Trek's identification of ideas of 'engineered superiority' with totalitarianism and the critique thereof is actually still totally relevant.

I have made posts in this thread that have to approved (WTF) that would expand on the OP.

as far as the human genetic thread and Gene's obvious bias and prejudiced, I cit these examples, you have Vulcan's, who are basically "superior humans" (superior in intellect and physicality to humans) who do not show the problems augments were supposed to exhibit. Then there was the Denobulan's who had used genetic engineering for century's and again no mental aberrations. Then they continuously reinforced that human genetic engineering was "bad" and caused all kinds of megalomania and mental aberrations. It would have been far more realistic (and follow current treading and future modelling) if Augments adopted "hides emotions" or some sort of code of honor and assumed the role of care takers of Earth.
My point is human genetic engineering will happen and eventually a Homo-superior will exist, and Homo-sapiens will go the way of Neanderthal, it is inevitable. Anyway who wouldn't want to be smarter, stronger, faster, live with out ever becoming sick, live forever (or at least many century's) etc.

Read Future Timeline.net and you will have a glimpse at how Earth may turn out, modeled on current events and futurists projections, it is completely different to how StarTrek went. I point is I suppose, I would have preferred a more realistic StarTrek rather then pure fiction.

BTW Transhumanism doesnt have to be fascist or fascist imaging, there are a vast array of Transhumanists, I like Libatarian Transhumanism personally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_transhumanism
you are making generalizations that are incorrect.

Actually, Transhumanism WAS specifically dealt with in TOS. Remember Khan? The Eugenics Wars which came out of it put a permanent bad taste for gengineering in the mouths of Earth. Bashir is a Transhuman. Trek just took a different tack on the "this is good and inevitable" philosophy you're espousing.

To quote you, "you are making generalizations that are incorrect.".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

I have made posts in this thread that have to approved (WTF) that would expand on the OP.

---

There is a anti spam filter that checks the first few posts of member, and it appear to be a bit overzealous. I have approved the posts and modified the threshold a bit. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

as far as the human genetic thread and Gene's obvious bias and prejudiced, I cit these examples, you have Vulcan's, who are basically "superior humans" (superior in intellect and physicality to humans) who do not show the problems augments were supposed to exhibit.

---

Except for the half a million years of war before Surak. The idea that society consists of individuals or clades of individuals in constant class-warfare with each other, though the underlying assumption of our current economic structure, is an idea that Trek explicitly rejects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cpt. Lundgren

There is a anti spam filter that checks the first few posts of member, and it appear to be a bit overzealous. I have approved the posts and modified the threshold a bit. :)

---

thanks for that mate, I actually made the second post because I didn't know was going on (sorry that most of the info is repeated, but I will leave it there)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton

Actually, Transhumanism WAS specifically dealt with in TOS. Remember Khan? The Eugenics Wars which came out of it put a permanent bad taste for gengineering in the mouths of Earth. Bashir is a Transhuman. Trek just took a different tack on the "this is good and inevitable" philosophy you're espousing.

To quote you, "you are making generalizations that are incorrect.".

---

true and that was part of my point, as in the underlying bias against augments and the inconsistency shown in many of the themes. As far as being "good" maybe for the Transhumans, but IMHO very bad for Homo-Sapiens(whom I am a proud member of BTW), as they would be little better then second class civilians with a similar status as a service robot.

I am sorry if I give the impression that I am an augment lover, rather my point is that it is inevitable so why not explore it. I really liked the adventure thread in All Our Yesterdays and Khan Ascendant (p34). I personally think the Augments would have eventually won the Eugenics war.
this is how I reckon the time line would look like
http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Scenario:_Homo_Novus

Quote:

---

Except for the half a million years of war before Surak.

---

and then thousands of years of peace after embracing logic and emotion suppression. I postulate that would happen in the same way with the Homo-Superior/Homo-Sapiens transition and as I said above IMHO the Eugenic war would have gone far differently to how startrek portrayed (prime universe). This is basic evolution (a concept I do embrace as an atheist)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

This is basic evolution (a concept I do embrace as an atheist)

---

Except that evolution doesn't make value-judgements—there can be no 'Homo Superior' without a culture which inherits class-distinctive language—merely another variation of the homo genus, one which may outcompete other genuses for local resources or not. (I tend to agree with Gould about the importance of environment-structuring in the evolutionary process, something that directly contradicts the pseudo-Neitzschean individual-worship that much of transhumanist value-judgement is predicated on.) You are not superior to the bacteria in your gut, just differently adapted. Trek's future human culture, as we just said, rejects the idea that local adaption merits any consideration of social or economic superiority. For illustration, see Geordi's conversation with Bochra in 'The Enemy' over differing treatment of disability in Human and Romulan cultures. Instead, the fact of their being an experiential being is more important than any specifics of physical capability.

Furthermore, the belief in a hierarchial relationship with other beings in the same ecosystem betrays a lack of functional understanding of the actual relationships that exist between the component parts of that ecology, or even the economic structures which produce genetically engineered life today.

Quote:

---

and then thousands of years of peace after embracing logic and emotion suppression

---

Thousands of years of peace... except for all the wars.

EDIT: Here's an okay post on the subject.

yeah I should have said homo-novus (new man) rather then homo-superior (I understand what you are saying and agree transhumanism can be very elitist).

As far as the Geordi character is concerned I always felt it was a scientifically flawed plot line, Federation medical science would have screened all pregnancy's for genetic abnormalities and birth defects (as he was described as being afflicted with) (trimester scans, we do them today) and corrected any problems simply as standard practice.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Geordi_La_Forge

Transhumanism is one possible way for the future to unfold. It is not inevitable. Trek has explicitly taken another path. That does not make it scientifically "wrong" As I pointed out, it has dealt with the issue rather than ignoring it. In Trek's future history, Earth has had a very bad experience with Transhumanism, and may well have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, but it hhas acknowledged that.

Historically, Earth cultures have made decisions that have had long-ranging effects, both for good and for evil. Likewise, Trek has rejected Cyberpunk's view of the future and has made cyborgs (in the form of the Borg) something of which to be suspicious. Yet you don't hear Cyberpunk fans coming here and complaining that Trek is therefore "wrong". Also, Trek does not see an Asmovian/Star Wars future where humaniform robots are ubiquitous, nor does it see a future with superheroes like Guardians of the Galaxy... These are all different types of Science Fiction. Trek is a Space Opera, and proud of it. There's room for everything in SF. Trek is not the be-all and end-all, but neither is Transhumanism, Cyberpunk, Robot Utopia or anything else..

You're just complaining, in effect, that a banana should taste more citrusy. Now, if you wanted to discuss what Star Trek might look like if it had embraced Transhumanism, that might be an interesting discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton

Earth has had a very bad experience with Transhumanism, and may well have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, but it hhas acknowledged that.

---

More than acknowledged its scripted in DS9 Doctor Bashir I Presume. After Bashir Genetic modification is added / revealed. An Admiral points out that the Tans Human ban on Starfleet service is because for each Bashir there is a risk of a Khan Soong

This episode also seems to indicate a slight careful re-wording of the Federatio ban on GM Humans that indicates that Trans-human do indeed exist, but the elitism works in reverse impeeding these Trans Human from position of authority.

Anyway point being that this issue is indeed addressed, and it may be that there is room for further redress, but I am not convinced that Trek got it 'wrong'. Maybe a good place to start would be in an alternative universe episode, or perhaps a campaign leaving a cew there for a period to explore both the good and the bad?

I think Picard summed up the general Federation attitude to genetic manipulation of humans in the episode "The Masterpiece Society":

"They have given their humanity away to this genetic manipulation... many of the qualities they breed out -- the uncertainty, the self-discovery, the unknown - those are the very qualities that make Human life worth living... at least to me. I would not like to live with the knowledge that much of my future has been written, that my boundaries have been set. Would you?"

At the same time, however, Picard says in "Justice" that Federation science can "detect the seeds of criminality" (or words to that effect). The implication - at least to me - is that brain structures that can identify sociopathy and psychopathy can be detected and corrected via some sort of genetic modification. I guess it becomes a question of where the line is drawn...and the line between correcting a flaw and enhancing an ability is a very fuzzy one indeed.

Quote:

---

You're just complaining, in effect, that a banana should taste more citrusy. Now, if you wanted to discuss what Star Trek might look like if it had embraced Transhumanism, that might be an interesting discussion.

---

You are quite correct and I apologize for the tone of my posts, and I should have gone the way you suggested (as in Star Trek embracing transhumanism). I suppose I have been stewing about this subject for many years and basically exploded. Again I am sorry for that. I did allude to it the way I wanted to go with mentioning Khan Ascendant, just wish I had the foresight to have gone that way.
I also don't want to imply I dislike Star Trek, to be brutally honest I love almost all aspects of it and it is for me, my favorite sci-fi series. I think my ShadowRun (RPG) bias was showing thru (love of cyberware...LoL) I have seen every episode (I either own the DVD's or have downloaded them) of all the different series(original series, next gen, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, all the movies, and including most of the fan based stuff that recently has been done (Prelude to Axanar for example)and consider myself a Trekkie at heart.

As far as the inevitability of human genetic manipulation, cloning, integration of humans and machine, biosyntectic replacements of all major organs for all those that need them....etc IMHO yes I truly believe it is inevitable. We can already see these technology's emerging and there are already precedence's of them starting to be integrated into our lives. I also believe andriods/robotics will also be a massive part of human culture(again already started).

here's a view of homo-novus that I could see becoming a reality in the near future (nootropic drugs [brain enhancing drugs, the first step in creating the next stage in our evolution] are a reality, just not refined to this degree)
http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Homo_Novus_%28species%29

Waveman,

With respect, isn't the "inevitability" argument you're using a little like someone in the late 19th century steadfastly maintaining the inevitability of extremely efficient steam-engines taking us to the Moon?

I don't think so mate. I take it you don't believe these things will come to pass?

Well, they might, and from our position in 2014, they may even be likely...but my point is that we cannot, by definition, predict the unpredictable.

Back in the 1920s every "futurist" depiction of the early 21st century had mile-high cities, people flying around in hovercars, and afternoon trips to the Moon. None of these have come to pass...but the unpredictable did: ubiquitous electronic communication has changed the world more profoundly than hovercars, but in the 1920s the idea of this was simply not thought of.

In the 1880s, the idea of thermonuclear fusion was starting to float around in Einstein's mind, but for most people - futurists included - steam power was the most modern, up-to-date form of generating power. There was, quite simply, no way anyone then could have predicted that only a little over a century later, we would be working steadily toward a form of clean, unlimited energy that produced no nasty side-effects. Even Jules Verne, with his forward-thinking, thought the Nautilus would be powered by electricity provided by chemical batteries.

So from here, esconced in our early 21st-century level of technology and knowledge, we might confidently predict that genetic engineering of humans leading to Transhumanism is inevitable. But in ten or twenty or a hundred years time, we may discover something that renders it obsolete. What? I have no idea...I'm the 1922 "World of the Future" designer that has no idea how a microchip will change the world because neither I nor anyone else has, at this stage, thought of a microchip.

I just like to avoid absolutist terms like "inevitable" when it comes to human progress and change, because if history tells us anything, it's that we're terrible at predicting where things will ultimately go. We're very good at looking at stuff in hindsight and saying, "Oh, of course that would have happened! Makes perfect sense!". In our hubris, however, we rarely see things coming.

the one thing all those people you mention lacked was computer modeling, which takes into account history and then model future predictions on current events extending them into the future (using the logical progression, governments all over the world presently use it to predict infrastructure, population etc expansions). I am not deluded enough to believe futurists are precognitive but they do have a lot of computing power available to them and can make a far more educated guesses as to how the future may unfold.

Why is the computer modelling so important to you. I recall that stuff like computers and their ability to predict events have been the stuff of sci fi long before they could actually do it. Doesn't that score bonus points for the authors over computers?

Computer modelling may be powerful, but it is limited by the data we feed to it and our knowledge in programming it. A modelisation that would have absolutely no knowledge of electrical or nuclear power (let's assume the computer running it is a working version of Babbage's analytical engine) would simply not be able to predict anything resembling our current world and may consider "inevitable" the fact that we will need city-sized steam engines if we are to reach the Moon.

To answer the initial question, the Trekverse technology seems to be based mainly on ethical concerns instead of the other way round. Of course there are inconsistencies here and there, but on the whole they seem to give the human spirit priority over any other technological advances. You can find that irrealistic of course, but that is how the universe was designed (just like all the senior officers on a ship beam down headfirst on potentially dangerous planets).

We can however try answering the question: "What would Trek be like if Treknology could exist in our own world ?" (the answer is probably "not much like Trek", but that would is still fun to ponder).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

the one thing all those people you mention lacked was computer modeling, which takes into account history and then model future predictions on current events extending them into the future (using the logical progression, governments all over the world presently use it to predict infrastructure, population etc expansions). I am not deluded enough to believe futurists are precognitive but they do have a lot of computing power available to them and can make a far more educated guesses as to how the future may unfold.

---

Nope, that doesn't address what I'm saying. I'm talking about unpredictable variables introduced into the modeling. Doesn't matter how powerful a computer model is, if it misses a variable, it will be wrong.

If a futurist in 1880 had access to the most sophisticated, powerful computer in 2014, they could still only program the model with variables they had thought of. They couldn't put in some kind of technology like fusion power, or cold fusion power, or dark energy, or the Casmir Effect, because nobody had any inkling of those things in 1880. Doesn't matter how good the model is, if it doesn't take the "x-factor" into account and that "x-factor" becomes a reality further down the track, the model will quite simply be wrong.

Which brings me back to my original point: we cannot, by definition, predict the unpredictable. And history shows that we are constantly blindsided by things about which we think "Oh yeah...we should have thought of that", but we didn't, because it wasn't inherently predictable. Whether it was someone doing a double-slit experiment, or discovering the electron, or devising E=mc², or superconductors, or dark matter, or...well, anything else that wasn't anticipated, it changes how things are perceived at a fundamental level. A hundred years ago, nobody thought of quantum computing because nobody had come up with quantum theory or invented a computer. Yet quantum computers may well revolutionise (again) how we store and access data in the future...or not. Because some other hitherto unkown thing discovered next year may flip it all upside down.

To assume we can predict something as "inevitable", given the history of human knowledge and development and technology, pretty much defines the word "hubris", in my opinion.

Bah! C5 ninja'd me! :)

Computations to predict the future have two main problems. First of, it can only compute on what is known; so as mentioned above, it will miss all the game changers. The second problem is chaos theory. Even in a perfectly understood model, where there are a lot of integrated parts, the slightest change somewhere can cascade to a completely different result down the line.

But whit that said, there are some really interesting stuff already on experimental and prototype level. Goats producing spider-silk in their milk, for one. How long ago was a pacemaker science fiction? The ability to connect electronics to the nervous system is still in its infancy. So while not inevitable, a lot of things are at least quite plausible.

Good thing with Trek, thanks to the Mirror Universe and the TNG episode Parallels, it can always be explained away as being in a different parallel universe :)

OK I concede it may not be inevitable, but that being said it is probable that it will end out like I am suggesting. I do believe medical science will solve many of our shortcomings, which leads into the probability of all the above posts I have made.
Why I keep going back to computer modeling is , computers can process vasts amounts of data (in the not so distant future strong AI computers will process more info in one second then all of the thought processes of all mankind over our entire history...) and if you can use this ability to process vasts amounts of possibility's and make predictions from that data, then you can make best guesses as to what may come to pass, but as said above crap in then crap out so modelling can go only so far, that raw data still has to be processed by futurists and then predictions made. You guys will also note I said "best guess" for computer modeling and I understand that's what it is.

But you will also have to concede that we can see trends occurring now (say for instance the progression of the "G" network, we are currently at 4G phone network, eventually we will have 5G and so on, and you can speculate on how that will effect us. I personally think the next big step for us as a species will be the creation of a true Singularity, and the merging of AI with the human brain. This may either make us or break us.

Quote:

---

Good thing with Trek, thanks to the Mirror Universe and the TNG episode Parallels, it can always be explained away as being in a different parallel universe

---

I like this quote, well said mate...:cool:

Current predicted technology that interests me is the Alcubierre drive, reminds me of the coaxial warp drive that star trek was visionary enough to postulate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
this could be science fiction becoming science fact eventually.
Cold fusion will also be the "next big thing" for us for clean energy production.

I also feel many that posted here didn't bother to actually read through all the links I included, there is some very interesting reading in all of them.One thing I hope doesn't take so long to achieve is FTL travel (in Future Timeline they predict it will be a million years AD before we will crack the light speed barrier...)
http://www.futuretimeline.net/beyond...00.htm#1000000

I like to say that our predictions of the future are like tangents (in the mathematical sense) to a curve: a straight line drawn from a specific point, and sharing the same direction as the curve at this point, but usually going nowhere near the eventual destination of the curve (especially for exponentials).

So, no matter how strongly we think that the future will involve cybernetic or genetic enhancements, it is quite possible that none of these could come to happen as we see them, while on the contrary something else we never thought of would take place instead. I'm still waiting for the personal jetpack countless sci-fi stories were promising me, but the same stories were surprisingly silent about smartphones and Internet.
An middle age alchemist may have been convinced that the discovery of the transmutation of lead to gold would happen very shortly. It took us centuries to achieve it, and it's done in such a way that it costs more to transmute than the resulting gold.

We may have completely misunderstood a basic law of physic that prevents what we consider a given. For instance, it could be that a true AI is simply not possible with our current computer technology, and may need either a quantum computer or simply another computing paradigm we have no idea about, and may not have until year 2200. Cybernetics may not be possible without eventually causing horrible psychoses for which there is no cure to be found without having empathic powers. Conversely, it might be ridiculously easy to transfer our mind into a piece of hardware without losing any human quality. Just as we can imagine spectacular breakthroughs, we can also imagine spectacular blocks.

We can have fun guessing what Trek could have been, but I don't think we could say with certainty how it should have been (and I don't think we ever will before the year 2300).

PS: Sorry Aldaron ;)

Quote:

---

I'm still waiting for the personal jetpack countless sci-fi stories were promising me,

---

announced today on Aussie news networks, a functioning New Zealand design that costs $200K

http://www.gizmag.com/martin-jetpack...avwatch/34830/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

announced today on Aussie news networks, a functioning New Zealand design that costs $200K

http://www.gizmag.com/martin-jetpack...avwatch/34830/

---

I remember back in the very early days of the new millennium an ad with Avery Brroks saying "It's the 21st century - they said we'd have flying cars by now. I want my flying car!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton

I remember back in the very early days of the new millennium an ad with Avery Brroks saying "It's the 21st century - they said we'd have flying cars by now. I want my flying car!"

---

Attachment 1721

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

As far as the Geordi character is concerned I always felt it was a scientifically flawed plot line, Federation medical science would have screened all pregnancy's for genetic abnormalities and birth defects (as he was described as being afflicted with) (trimester scans, we do them today) and corrected any problems simply as standard practice.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Geordi_La_Forge

---

There is no indication in TNG that Geordi's blindness is genetic. Certainly it was congenital, as he is stated to have been born blind, but may it have occurred for any number of reasons, including exposure to a teratogenic substance while his mother was pregnant. It was, however a plot point so Gene could make one of his humanistic statements about overcoming disabilities. He was originally a CONN officer - literally a blind man driving the bus.

If you're going to go down that path, you might as well ask why Picard is bald, since they could have screened ou male pattern baldness (Sisko, however, is bald by choice).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton

I remember back in the very early days of the new millennium an ad with Avery Brroks saying "It's the 21st century - they said we'd have flying cars by now. I want my flying car!"

---

yeah me too, 2079 seems to be the predicted date of practical flying cars, still the 21st century just a bit late for most of us (I won't be around then)
http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stce...m#.VG-4efmUeJg

I am however amused at this thread. As open fans of the Sci Fi genre, and all of us advocating future thinking. All in support of a show where the lead characters will often ask the Computer to do half their work for them...

Our relatively negative view of computer modelling futurism is amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Gurden

I am however amused at this thread. As open fans of the Sci Fi genre, and all of us advocating future thinking. All in support of a show where the lead characters will often ask the Computer to do half their work for them...

Our relatively negative view of computer modelling futurism is amusing.

---

Well, just to be clear, I don't have a relatively negative view of computer modelling futurism - I just think we should be aware of its limitations. Computer modelling is fantastic when we can account for known variables - testing aerodynamics in a virtual wind-tunnel, for example. The problem I have is that there are things which completely turn societies upside down that are impossible to account for when modelling a possible future. So a computer model can give you an outcome that's interesting to think about, and in the short term may work for certain things (predictions of population growth or traffic flow with regard to city planning, for example), but they can't give you an "inevitable" result or even a necessarily "most likely" result over a long period and large-scale scenario.

Remember, the computer couldn't translate the Tamarian language in Darmok, because it didn't have the right variables to go on (a listing of Tamarian myths). :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Gurden

I am however amused at this thread. As open fans of the Sci Fi genre, and all of us advocating future thinking. All in support of a show where the lead characters will often ask the Computer to do half their work for them...

---

Only when they're not with someone else there to talk to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

yeah me too, 2079 seems to be the predicted date of practical flying cars, still the 21st century just a bit late for most of us (I won't be around then)
http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stce...m#.VG-4efmUeJg

---

Hell, I'd only be 122 by then - seems doable with real-world advances in medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Gurden

I am however amused at this thread. As open fans of the Sci Fi genre, and all of us advocating future thinking. All in support of a show where the lead characters will often ask the Computer to do half their work for them...

Our relatively negative view of computer modelling futurism is amusing.

---

Science fiction has had an abysmal record when it comes to predicting the future of computers. In Trek, computers are smart enough to do amazing things, but dumb enough to fall prey to a Kirk Logic Bomb. Imagine what he'd do to Data...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton

Science fiction has had an abysmal record when it comes to predicting the future of computers. In Trek, computers are smart enough to do amazing things, but dumb enough to fall prey to a Kirk Logic Bomb. Imagine what he'd do to Data...

---

Yeah, I'd bet it would take Data a whole episode and heartfelt conversation with everyone in the senior staff to resolve some conundrum posed by Kirk.

Really, Landru's problem was that he didn't have any friends.

Yeah, but Norman had a whole planet of friends...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton

Yeah, but Norman had a whole planet of friends...

---

Norman's friends were the problem, though!