Spiffy-Tech and the End of the Vs. Debate

As modern technology has improved and we've begun to see some extraordinary things just over the horizon, I've often contemplated the end of the Vs. Debate.

In the not-so-distant future, nano- and other technology advances will bring possibilities largely undreamt of in either Trek or Wars, both of which will rapidly become anachronistic, technologically speaking. The problem is actually going to be worse for Trek, given that there have been so many more hours of it, hours in which technological details have been mentioned. However, it will affect both quite thoroughly.

Take, for instance, simple things like reports. On multiple occasions in Trek, we've seen people tasked with carrying a report to another part of the ship on an electronic padd . . . most notably in "Good Shepherd"[VOY6], but also in TOS (Yeoman Rand) and "Tapestry"[TNG6].

In large degree, this sort of thing was anachronistic when it was written . . . even by TNG6 e-mail was sufficiently prevalent that I can't imagine the writers (even the paper-and-pen Ira Behr) didn't know about it. Certainly it would be more efficient to transmit a report directly to someone else's console or place it on some sort of central shipboard server instead of having some poor guy physically carry a laptop-analogue to another part of the ship.

Of course, we can invent excuses for this sort of anachronism, such as it being a preventative measure against eavesdropping on shipboard signals. Of course, one of the promises of quantum computing is quantum cryptography, which would theoretically make eavesdropping impossible. But, the history of cryptography (not to mention the existence of subspace doohickeys) would suggest that a way might be found around that, assuming quantum cryptography is even employed in Trek.

(Incidentally, eavesdropping-avoidance is why I always liked the whited-out windows on the older physical and low-res CGI models. In truth it was merely because they couldn't show the interiors easily until the CGI ability and budgets got high enough. But personally, I liked the idea of a "white-out option" since, after all, if you're looking at important ship data you'd hardly want to let the enemy simply peek in your window! And just think of the windows of certain quarters on the Enterprise-D that are within line-of-sight of other windows . . . voyeurs would rejoice!)

Similarly, both Trek and Wars have weapons with various sorts of small scope mechanism, little scanners or whatnot with tiny screens, and other similar things. The basic idea is that of hand-held tools that don't obscure the face of the actor. However, even today we're well on our way to tiny hologram generators that would be far more useful than the tiny screen of a tricorder or the vague, zoomless aiming that comes from a handheld pistol or especially a Type I phaser. They could also be used for augmented reality systems . . . or, alternately, a tricorder-like device (using ultra-wideband and other techniques could be worn visor-like over the eyes or as a helmet. Or, as long as we're at it, just go ahead and do a direct overlay-projection into the eye (or from within via nanotech).

Just imagine the difference between traipsing through the woods on some alien planet looking down every few seconds to check your tricorder as you look for some alien object (not to mention lifesigns of your enemies) versus having a display right in front of you that not only gives you a constant reference of which way to head, but will also pull up little target boxes and show you an augmented view of your surroundings with that badguy behind the tree clearly visible. And then, imagine if that were tied in to your weapon so that you could see exactly where you were aiming even if you were aiming from the hip.

Now picture that happening at night.

(Of course, at night and in a situation of stealth I'd rather have a projectile weapon with a flash suppressor as opposed to a phaser or blaster.)

I'm reminded of a paper I recently read that touched on some of the tactical issues regarding the Winter War between Russia and Finland, which (along with the Continuation War) is an often-forgotten conflict from during WW2. In the paper, we hear of how, during the frigid December of 1939, a Russian motorized division (tanks and other heavies) was basically completely wiped out by a bunch of loggers on skis. The Finns, more experienced with dealing with the bitter cold, could approach quietly at night on the powdery snow via their skis and, shooting from the hip with their Suomi submachine guns, pick off the invaders. Naturally, their only real lighting was from the Russian campfires . . . moonlight was generally scarce in mid-December 1939 (-1938 on the chart).

(Though most people in the modern electrified era with its bright city lights have little conception of just how dark night can really be and thus how well one could probably see on a snow-covered terrain reflecting even a moon-sliver's light, it remains true in the final analysis that it was pretty damned dark.)

Ignoring the enhanced mobility of the Finnish skiers versus the non-skiing Russians being forced to wade and trudge through the deep powder, there's still the fact that they were firing on the enemy at night in hit-and-run attacks, perhaps even 'ski-by shootings'. The Finns favored shooting from the hip with the Suomi, since even the "smokeless" powder would produce enough of a cloud to foul up one's efforts at aiming from the shoulder pretty quickly. Just imagine how much more effective they could've been even with modern night-vision, not to mention a full augmented reality system like the type described above.

But I digress . . .

In short, the writers were generally bound by the limitations of the technology during the time they wrote (or at least the popular knowledge of it), along with some Hollywood-specific limitations . . . hence all the macroscopic components, handheld devices, and so on. Indeed, one of the great things about television and film is that you can actually show some really cool stuff . . . but one of the perils of television and film is that you can't go on talking about it if you're trying to tell a story.

For instance, imagine if Riker walked into a briefing with his sleeve rolled up, incessantly tapping a finger at his exposed arm. The camera closes in and we see him hard at work pressing padd-like touch-screen buttons and making a video display on his arm change. It would look absurd, of course, but that sort of thing isn't too terribly far away.

That would certainly be one way to have a padd on you while also roaming about on an observation mission of some 20th-Century-or-less society, wouldn't it?

Of course, some of the Trek and Wars anachronisms would be intentional. For instance, there's the 'dataport' as seen on DS9, a device allowing direct neural interface with a computer and even mind-to-mind contact (leading to 'net-girl' non-physical prostitution . . . evidently dataports are more advanced than the Prytt psionic neural transceiver from "Attached"[TNG7]). This concept has appeared elsewhere, of course . . . perhaps the most useful version I know of was in 3001, where Arthur C. Clarke mentions that everyone uses "braincaps" which allow a person to directly access all the information of the world, and are self-aware secretaries besides. I don't know of any current research that will give us something that advanced, but I can certainly understand why a person might not want to have one, and why it wouldn't be a good idea to solely rely on it. (On the other hand, I could get a helluva-lot more work done if I didn't have to type everything out, for although I'm a helluva-speedy typist it still takes time. And of course, it's remarkable how quickly we come to rely on things that start out as merely helpful. Cellphones, anyone?)

But that brings us to my final point for the moment. In the end, one of the things from either franchise that will continue to be relevant (beyond the entertainment value of the basic storylines) will be the Borg. In an age where people could integrate and internalize technology into their person to that extent, the concept of holding on to one's humanity will become increasingly important. Thus, although Trek and Wars tech will probably look pretty backwards in a few years (not counting things like hyperdrive and excessive energy production), the two might yet have a little bit of relevance for the future.