07-17-2018, 12:41 AM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
They definitely have technologies that we have strong reason to regard as "impossible" and that would count as superscience: warp/FTL and the concomitant time travel, transporters, I think force fields, tractor beams, probably artificial gravity (they aren't relying on centrifugal force to give them a sense of up and down, and they seem to be able to compensate fairly well for acceleration). So they're TL(7+x)^. So what are their capabilities, once you set aside the superscience that might have shown up at any TL? We can set aside the interstellar flight; they're doing that with superscience, not with anything vaguely realistic like Bussard ramjets or antimatter reaction drives. Their phasers might be compact particle-beam weapons of a sort; on the other hand they might be simply disintegrators, which count as superscience. Stylistically they appear a lot like compact lasers, which are TL10. They have antimatter energy storage, which is TL10, and isn't used on anything smaller than a starship. They don't have cellular rejuvenation, regeneration, or full metamorphosis; they don't even have uploading, and while we do see what amounts to a brain transplant, it's presented as McCoy achieveing a virtual miracle with the aid of advanced science and exceeding his normal limits. So they seem to be retarded in the biological sciences in some ways. The overall impression I get is that they look rather like TL10, with a few capabilities that aren't realistic and that, if they didn't violate natural light, might just as well be discovered tomorrow as with the benefit of a few centuries of scientific advance. So I'd probably call them TL(7+3)^.
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
|
07-17-2018, 12:55 AM | #12 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
The difference between this and TL(7+x) is that we are past TL7, so we have the necessary hindsight to say what counts as TL8 and what counts as a divergent TL(7+1). |
|
07-17-2018, 01:07 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
In my Trek universe there's a show popular in the Klingon Empire called "Battlecruiser Vengeance" that gives the opposite perspective. Unfortunately with Trek you have several continuity and philosophical problems that can't be resolved based strictly in on-screen evidence. For example, insisting Starfleet isn't a military organization... then holding a court martial for Kirk, some thing that by definition only military organizations do. So, yeah... you can't resolve some discrepancies with on-screen evidence. |
|
07-17-2018, 01:18 AM | #14 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
As far as I can remember, “Starfleet is not a military organization” is an idea that was introduced in the Next Generation, and so is not binding on TOS. Heck, I don't even consider what Star Trek Enterprise said to be binding on TOS, despite it supposedly being set in the same universe a century earlier. Once you bring in revisions from TNG and its various spin-offs, you're no longer talking TOS. Heck, even the original movies are suspect.
|
07-17-2018, 06:49 AM | #15 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
They do have cellular regeneration though. In Star Trek IV, Bones gives a little old lady a pill that regrow her kidneys in a few minutes, which suggests the equivalent of TL 12 biotechnology (using a specialized form of highly accelerated proteus virus to transform fatty tissue into organ tissues, in the correct location, and connecting it to the rest of the body). He also uses a regeneration ray to repair Chekhov's brain without surgery, which could be interpreted as just a remote device that was directing previously implanted medical nannites to focus their attention of repairing his brain damage. Just because they do not harp on about thd miracles of nanotech in the series does not mean that it does not exist (most modern stories do not harp on about the miracles of modern sanitation, but we assume that they have running water and flush toilets).
|
07-17-2018, 07:17 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
But stipulating otherwise, you can also take that as "TL(7+3)^ advanced in a science (medicine)." What TL something is is a rough average of all of its technologies; it's not simply defined by the most advanced technology it has in anything. And I'd also mention that that level of healing capability seems to be beyond anything that was shown in the actual origianl television shows, so it looks like an inconsistency. Your argument about a "healing ray" being a signal that activates and directs implanted medical nanites doesn't sound like anything that's justified by the original script or images. It sounds like you making up an after the fact explanation in terms of what we now imagine may one day be possible. I think we can be confident that the original scriptwriters had no thought of implanted medical nanites; that when they showed McCoy using a "healing ray" they meant, plainly and simply, that he was directing a form of radiation that stimulated cellular regrowth. (If they had thought of "medical nanites" they would likely enough have used that as their medical technobabble.) What happens in ST has be be viewed phenomenologically: There is a surface appearance of what is happening in the narrative universe, but there is no actual physical reality underlying any of it. If the surface appearance is that McCoy trreated someone with a regeneration ray, then that's what happened. Any statements about the underlying physics are pure speculation—or, in other words, they're you making up a narrative to supplement the original narrative. Kind of like the fanfic writers who identify mithril as titanium, or the people who explain the "chariots of fire" in the scriptures as extraterrestrial spacecraft. And there's nothing wrong will telling that sort of story. But it doesn't tell us anything about the source material. It's certainly true that the source material is inconsistent. But a lot of what they're doing is limited in a way that the GURPS description of TL12 is not.
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
|
07-17-2018, 09:02 AM | #17 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
|
|
07-17-2018, 09:21 AM | #19 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
In fact I generally dissent from characterizing Star Trek as a "Safetech" universe. The technologies you don't see in Safetech civilizations aren't shunned because of philosophy, preference or neuroses. Star Trek is a DangerTech universe where many technologies are inherently dangerous and rationally avoided.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
07-17-2018, 09:33 AM | #20 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
As for genetically engineering supermen, what indication is there to support this? "Space Seed" referred to eugenics, which in the 1960s meant selective breeding for desired traits and/or sterilization of the "unfit"; it did not refer to genomic editing or anything along those lines. And the changes that could be seen in Khan and his allies weren't anything radical like TL11-12 species modifications; they were high-end human traits. So you might call it TL(7+2) or even TL(6+3), or maybe one TL above that: attaining the benefits of (minor) genetic engineering by the older technology of selective breeding, exactly like an analytical engine being a digital computer built with mechanical linkages. It's still not the equivalent of TL12 by other means.
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. Last edited by whswhs; 07-17-2018 at 09:39 AM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|