|
|
Post by cyberpaladin85 on Oct 1, 2006 17:52:05 GMT -5
I was simply curious as to which Star Trek genre people here prefer.
Star Trek is official canon, even though there are some major inconsistances and headaches.
Star Fleet Battles is not canon, but it is better thought out, with far fewer inconsistances and headaches.
Sadly, both lack Transhumanist Technologies, as they are basically retro sci-fi. But seriously, make a parallel Star Trek universe where molecular nano-technology, advance genetic engineering, and truely sentient and sapient AI exists and works, and damn, with you have awesome given to you on a silver plater!
|
|
Steedo
Padawan
Salvage Captain
Posts: 202
|
Post by Steedo on Oct 2, 2006 14:59:22 GMT -5
The Starfleet Universe(which is what the SFB universe is acalled) isn't really any better thought out, and the reason there are fewer inconsistancies are that they've had a lot more of the same few writers working on it over a long period of time instead of a large group of writers writing for a few years hen leaving... Also they avoided having any "Next Generation"s or prequels, so their timeline is more contiguous and consistant. But it's still full of it's own stupidities such as missles in space, Klingon's total lack of Photons torps, Andromedan's and Power Absorber panels, the stupidly high number of survitor races as ship's crew that tend to mutiny about a starship, but send them alone by themselves in a "Prime" team and they won't...
Anyway, both have their good points and bad points. Starfleet universe is better for what it is designed to do, which is sell tactical war games. The canon Star Trek is better for a general stary telling vehicle. In general I perfer my own mix of canon, material from the Star Trek novels, and other fan sources including games like Starfleet Battles and Fasa's old Star Trek RPG. Sorry Cyberpal, it's pretty much in that order. If you want well thought out, read a novel. I especially recommend "The Final Reflection", by the recently late, but perpetually great John M. Ford.
Molecular nanotechnology is nearly impossible to work with in a 'well thought out universe', it has been done, but it ends up to be the central theme, which ends up weakeining the rest of the universe. Basically if molecular nanotech exists, anyone without their own nanos can be assasinated instantly, with virtually no evidence left behind especially if the nanos can self distruct on completing their task. So after not too long everyone will have nanos. Then what? More advanced nanos? Repeat.
Advanced genetic engineering exists, but most sane species have outlawed it for very good reasons. Terrans in particular remembr the Eugenics war, and Kirk's encounter's with Khan brought those memories right back up to the top for a while. Othe than the whole "Superior capabilities breads superior aggression" them the biggest problem any species will find is that either everyone must have equal access to genetech(or else you quickly get us vs. them) and that enhancements will have to be very tightly controlled to prevent an 'arms race' atmoshere where everyone is in such a rush to keep up and/or out do everyone else that allethics and sanity is tossed out the window.
The reason Transhyoomanist technologies aren't used in well thought out serial Sci-Fi is that by it's very nature it dehyoominizes the story. Without the hyoomin interest you'd find it will quickly loose interest amoung hyoomin readers. Once you start twinkin around at the molecular level, who you are isn't imporant anymore, because in minutes (or probably seconds the way most write it) you can be something else entirely, complete with a new personality.
How many stories can you name that have no hyoomins in them? Well, okay, outside of anthropomorphic universes. Anthropomorhic stories give animals(and other things) people like properties, making them interesting and understandable to hyoomin readers. They aren't transhyoomins, they have very hyoomin vulnerabilities and natural emotions that hyoomin readers relate to. Transhyoomins tend to take that out of the story and leave most readers firmly ungripped without characters they can realte to.
Transhyoomanist type technologies take the focus away from hyoomins and onto technology. The most you rely on that technology to drive your story, the less hyoomin your story is. The less people relate and understand the people in your story the less they understand, the less they care.
In what way do Soong's Androids not qualify as sentient or Sapient AIs?
Some of the best sci-fi is best because it limits the technology below the accepted standards. Firefly/Serenity is very low tech, very dirty and gritty. Babylon Five also had much lower technology than Star Trek. I think Star Gate also has a lower level of tech. The original Star Trek stands the test of time, because it was about the people, not about the technology.
From what I've seen, authors can oull off one story (usually a short one), where the focus is on tachnology and not peple, but to create a lasting enduring universe that endears itself to any audience large enough to bother writing for, it has to be more about the people than "awesome on a silver platter" technology. 9
|
|
|
|
Post by cyberpaladin85 on Oct 2, 2006 20:19:35 GMT -5
I... am humbled. Humbled by your words of wisdom, Steedo. I am at a loss of words as of now, but will try to come up with a response later.
|
|
