In what ways does the U.S.S. Enterprise function as a character, not just a vehicle in Star Trek? Does “she” have a personality? Do the other ships in the Star Trek universe have the same level of character development?
To be honest I do not think that the starships actually can be viewed as characters. Yes, Enterprise is named, gendered, and the “real” characters talk to her. And the computer responds. But as a general rule, the computer has no selfawareness, does not solve problems (only at the prompt of the real characters), and only has a personality to the extent that the real characters project their own perceptions and ideas on to the ship.
We like to talk about Enterprise as a character. And Star Trek would not have been Star Trek without Enterprise. But I flatly dismiss the idea that Enterprise is actually a character in her own right.
Where do you think ion propulsion and future engine technology will take us? What are the dangers? Are there other applications?
It will take us further out in space! But where it will also take us is not places far out in space. But also to more local spaces. Solving problems related to it, will give us new technology. And we have no idea where that will take us, in the same way that we did not know how the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics would bring us GPS-navigation.
The dangers? Hard to say. I would claim that we should be mindful of not using all our reserves of Xenon for this. Other than that. Probably none. Unless it turns out that ion propulsion damages subspace in some way.
Eller – hvad gør man når det er en leder der mobber. Og den mobbedes reaktion bruges som undskyldning for yderligere mobning?
Tja. Man søger nok andet arbejde. Hvis resten af ledergruppen synes det er helt i orden, er der tale om en organisation der er så dysfunktionel, at der næppe er meget at stille op.
More homework for Star Trek: Inspiring Culture and Technology.
Why is it important to see yourself on television? Why is television an important subject for scholarly study and how does what we watch shape the world we live in?
Also:
Scott asks if you think we’re getting closer to realizing the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) here on Earth. What would it take for that to happen? What would it look like? How might things be different?
The first question. Well, Scott answers it. It is important to see yourself on Star Trek. Because it shows a vision of a future. That has room for people like me.
I know it from myself. Seeing Jadzia Dax kiss her former wife in rejoined was important. It was not a lesbian kiss as such. And yet it was, and as a gay man, that actually meant something. Especially since we had waited for so long to actually see any representation of gay and lesbian characters in Star Trek, a thing Roddenberry had promised would be adressed in season five of TNG.
This makes a difference. We all to a certain degree view ourself through the stories we are told or shown. Small girls (and some boys) imagine themselves to be princesses when they are read fairytales. Grown men (and some women) imagine themselves to be action heroes when they watch Die Hard. And seeing yourself, or someone like you, portrayed positively makes a huge difference.
That is the real true promise of Star Trek. That the diversity we have on Earth today – not always ideal, will live on in the future, in a more positive and meaningful way, than it does for young people. No matter what their circumstances. In that words of Dan Savage, that it will get better.
That Vulcan ideal, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, is still in the future. But not as far off, as it has been. What it would take to get closer? I could come with a lot of politically correct suggestions about educating the ignorant, and fighting racism. But I think the underlying problem is scarcity, and a clash of cultures. Make sure that immigration does not mean that I have to pay more in taxes to support unemployed immigrants, and that they do not threaten my livelyhood by putting pressure on wages. And make sure that people of all cultures, accept the basic foundation of a liberal (in the original sense, not necessarily the american political sense) society, democracy, equality of the sexes, and non-discrimination, I think we will be all right. Not that we won’t still have idiots discriminating. But we should try to move to a point where idiots cannot get away with justifying their discrimination with religion and/or culture.
If we can do that, and despite bumps on the road, we are getting ever closer, we will be able to realise the alien ideal of IDIC.
Maybe that also explains why television makes sense as a subject of scholarly study. Television is one of the most important common representations of popular culture. We are placed in front of this entertainment for an inordinate amount of time every day. It affects a lot of people, in diverse ways. If that should not be an important subject of study, I don’t know what should be.
And that gives me the rank I would really like. Commander:
At the end of the video, Margaret says that space exploration was controversial in the 1970s and 1980s. People wondered why the government was spending time and money exploring the solar system when critical problems existed here on Earth. What do you think? Should the government resolve Earthly issues before exploring space? Or is a scientific investigation of distant worlds a fundamentally human endeavor of exploration? Explain your argument.
No. Governments should not attempt to solve all problems on the globe, before exploring. One. Human life is one continous series of problems and challenges. We will never get past the goal-post, because it will continously move. It is an impossible goal.
Should we not try anyway? Why pour money into a spaceprogram, when we could instead help homeless people, to take just one of the, relatively, smaller problems we are facing? It is hard to argue for exploration, especially in an endeavour as expensive as spaceexploratoin, in the face of a homeless man.
But humanity is fundamentally an exploring race. The reason we are everywhere on this planet, for good and bad, is that we have explored. The reason that life-expectancy is at a record high, even in poor countries in the third world, is that we are explorers. The introductory video mentions that. We are explorers, not only in a geographical, or astronomical sense, but in every sense of the word. Abandoning the exploration, even the expensive space-version of it, betrays our future. To take just one very basic example, the images brought home from the moon, for the first time showing how small, beautiful and fragile our planet is, made it clear to humanity how extraordinary lucky we are to live. And how important it is to take care of the one planet in the universe where we know live exist.
Now we just need to prove that intelligent live exists somewhere in the universe. Demonstrating that it exists on Earth, would be a good place to start.
And even more homework for Star Trek: Inspiring Culture and Technology
Think of a global issue that we are facing today that causes fear or concern. What would be the plot of a television show that depicted a utopian and optimistic vision of the future of that issue?
Climate. No doubt. The consequences of globalisation, and the problems arising from that, populist political leaders in most of the world to begin with could be another. But the most pressing should probably be climate change.
And the plot. Well, it could simply be – Star Trek. We do see a lot of plots for episodes and movies in that universe that adresses that specific issue. “The one with the whales” (Star Trek IV – the voyage home) is the most obvious. But we see a lot of other episodes. Night in VOY, where Janeway confronts the Malons. The existential threat to Star Fleet and the Federation in “Force of Nature”. So I will abstain from trying to device my own show. And simply ṕoint to Star Trek.
Star Trek confronts the problems head-on. The problems are more or less simply solved. Or at the very least they try to solve them. I am not sure the problems in “Force of Nature” are actually solved. But the Federation, at least in that episode, and some of the following, actually tries to mitigate the effects of their environmentally damaging actions. We see similar issues in Discovery, where the use of the spore-drive, must be said to present som environmental problems. That might be the reason we do not see spore-drive in the existing series.
Scott asked, “What Star Trek technology is on your list of must-haves?” Could the Star Trek universe exist without this type of technology? How would it be better (or worse) with (or without) this technology? Be sure to use evidence to support your argument.
The obvious answer: Star Trek could not exist without warp-drive. Getting from planet to planet would be impossible. What is really cool is the transporter. But that is not at must-have. Neither are phasers, quantum-torpedoes, (medical) tricorders etc. Would Star Trek be worse without warp-drive? No, it would not exist.
But I think the most important technology is the replicator – in combination with, for all practical purposes, unlimited energy. That, in my opinion is the important technology.
What it does, is making the Star Trek universe a universe without scarcity. Picard sums it up in “First Contact”:
“The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.”
Humanity does not want anymore. No one needs to starve, no one has to be without housing, food and clean water. And assuming that what ever delivers the energy required, does so in a clean way, we can do it without destrying the environment.
That, the unlimited energy, the instant delivery of “earl grey. Hot”, is the most important technology.
Star Trek can work without it. Voyager frequently has to ration the energy reserves, and in TOS at least a couple of episodes are centered around the need to get fresh dilithium crystals.
That does not imply that money is a thing of the past. It might be in the ideal world of the Star Fleet flagship. But we see several instances of Star Fleet officers having to pay for things. And the other races, Ferengis is the obvious example, do have money. But hunger, and need for material things is a thing of the past in the Federation. And that, makes the replicator and unlimited energy the most important technologies in Star Trek.
More homework for “Star Trek: Inspiring Culture and Technology”.
To what extent did the business model of network television enable Star Trek: The Original Series to appeal to such a wide range of audiences? In ways did that same model constrain it?
Network television, and especially the syndication concept, made it possible to reach a lot of different audiences. Viewers would know when the show would air. Broad, family friendly programming filled the need at the networks to cater to a very wide range of audiences – to hit all segments of society with advertising. And Star Trek provided a narrative of a positive future. With a cast that covered almost all segments of viewers.
Network television and syndication also hampered the series. Or rather the lack of information about what demographics actually watched it. That meant that it appeared to get too few viewers, and was subsequently cut.
The course “Star Trek: Inspiring Culture and Technology” asks me to do a media analysis. Or – write about Star Trek. The latter interpretation is much more interesting 🙂
The question posed is:
“Which pilot, best adresses the contemporary societal issues from when it was produced while taking the most advantage of the television format on which it was shown? Rank the episodes you watch in mumerical order, where 1 is the episode that best answers the question prompt.”
The episodes are:
“The Cage” – TOS (first pilot)
“Where No Man Has Gone Before” – TOS (second pilot)
“Encounter at Far Point” – TNG
“Emissary” – DS9
“Caretaker” – VOY
“Broken Bow” – ENT
“The Vulcan Hello” – DIS
Before answering, it might be worth noting, that watching Star Trek from outside the US, actually makes it a bit difficult. What were the contemporary societal issue in the US in 1987? And how does that relate to “Encounter at Far Point”? Those of us living in the rest of the world (96% of it) do have a pretty good idea about the current societal issues in the US. And as a die-hard trekkie, it is pretty easy to figure out what they were. Just look at the issues treated in Star Trek. On the other hand – those are the issues that we notice today, and might reflect the issues that we today think are important, were important, should be important, or should have been important.
Anyway, here goes.
Discovery. Women, women everywhere! An issue that is clearly perceived as important today is female underrepresentation in media, and other places. The gender-atypical name “Michael” of the protagonist also speaks to the societal issues of trans-rights, and we finally saw a gay couple on-screen in Star Trek.
TNG. Not quite yet out of the cold war, humanity is on trial for our past transgressions. We are being held accountable for our wrongs, by an omnipotent being. In a post-apocalyptic setting, after a nuclear war. I would say it adresses the fears of war and the growing awareness of environmental disaster.
DS9. The first black captain! Also religion is treated quite different from what we have previously seen.
ENT. My best guess is the race-issue. We are confronted with a very different culture, that is, to some extent a threat to humanity. At the same time humanity is put in is place, or rather tried to be put into our place, by a superior race.
TOS. “Where no man has gone before”. A black woman in command! A person of, probably, japanese descent, presented to an audience that must have grown up learning that Japan was an existential threat to the US. Both on the bridge, in positions of relative authority.
TOS – especially “The Cage”. To be honest. To cerebral. The only issue I can find is the female number one.
VOY. A female captain. Feminism takes center stage in Star Trek. But last on my list, because we have already seen strong female characters in all the previous series, at times where these issues were, or perhaps should have been, more pressing.
As to the use of the television format. I do not really see a difference between the series. All of them where first broadcast on a single channel, and then went into syndication. Even Discovery is basically broadcast on a single channel. The main difference is that we do not have to tune in at a certain time, but can watch the episodes at our leasure. That might make it easier to gather new audiences. The main difference is probably that the way the stories are told, streamed or not, has changed. The long story archs gives room for more character development, compared to the more episodic storytelling of previous series. But that change began before streaming. Enterprise has long story archs as well, as do DS9.
