Humans and technology in Star Trek and real life

The fact that Star Trek streches thorugh so many ships, series and civilisations, allows for exploring the multi-faceted relationship between humans and technology. And Star Trek goes beyond this. Intorducing controversial isseus around technology thorugh defamiarisation is - forgive my pun - not alien to the series.

Up until the Picard series, Star Trek still kept a kind of upper hand when it came to humans and technology, and bolder concepts have been explored by introducing the relationship of other species to technology. Of course, there was an evolution and also captains were supporting AI in their pursuing to become more human, this fact in itself shows that it was not really questioned that humans are superior to technology.

Another interesting aspect that has been explored was the thin borderline between humans and robots. There has been technology from Giordi's visor to the Borg that resulted in something like hybrid, and while nobody ever questioned the humanity of Giordi, the humans and other species forming a global entity with the inclusion of technology highly questioned their humanity. Seven of Nine, a re-occuring character was very interesting from this point of view pausing the question how much our humanity is defined by us enjoying our individuality.

This is a question interesting to explore today, but also looking into the past. Let's move away from technology for a moment and think about fashion that took huge numbers of people to extremeties and very often uniform ones while they all thought they are so very individual. How much better or worse it is to be identical while thinking you are an individual than being part of a larger entity without having an urge for individuality?

Picture: Admiral insignia courtesy of SmithsonianX

New Star Trek series, new societal challenges?

Star Trek has tackled most of today's societal issues in these past few decades. When the course material was completed, we were yet to see the Picard series that had its take on articifial intelligence and the boundaries between humans and AI at a much higher level than any series before. This would have been a topic to be challenged by a Star Trek series anyway, so I wasn't surprised. What happens if (when?) humans become superfluous and AI will be able to do everything better? Will there be a role for humans? Will humans tolerate a species that is even more invasive than them?

Another topic yet to be included in the Star Trek universe is mass migration. Of course this is nothing new, especially not for the USA where the series originates from, but for this reason it is even more interesting to think how it is possible for a nation of immigrants to cast majority vote on anti-immigration. Is there a moment when you can put up a "Full" sign? And if yes, do you have a responsibility for those left putside?

The past few months of Covid has also shown that we need to remind ourselves as well as politiciant how dangerous it is to have one-sided approaches and protecting people against their will and best interest. The governmental and media reactions to a no-so-deadly virus is a huge warning to all of us. If you only consider a single factor, the consequences are catastrophic. What if we face a real danger in the future? And even if you try to find a little more complex solution (that the majority of governments have failed to do), on the one hand it is difficult to save your people from major impact of other governments' failure in a globalised world, and on the other hand impact outside your country has not been a factor considered in the equation. This would be a very interesting Star Trek topic. How short sighted governments kill far more people than they save, and how to make people aware of the fact and raise against such rules and politicians. Probably a little more ancient history will once show that the wars before the Earth's global government was formed was a result of a coexistence of so many totally short-sighted governments not capable of thinking in a 1-bit way.  

How to introduce humans?

How to explain who humans are as a race? This is the most difficult question in this course so far, especially nowadays when a lot of things we were taken for granted as signs of development are questioned. While we can be proud of a lot of acheivements in the past centuries, there are far too many things to be ashamed of. I paraphrased the question to "how to convince an alien race that humans are worth saving rather than eradicating".

I've just read an article soemwhere that claimed the first trepanation, the first brain surgery in current terms is the moment of humans becoming an inteligent race. And we may find an answer there. Humans are caring. The human baby has a very long period of dependency on parental support, and cannot survive on its own. There are species, for example kangaroos for whom it takes very long to become independent, but they more or less still survive on their own. Caring for children is for the future, but humans also care for the elderly, very often without any utilitarian drive, out of pure altruism. And this is also quite unique. If humans didn't kill each other without any understandable reasons, both legally and illegally, I would put this as a main characteristic.

Humans are an interesting species who are very often ready to do things that are bad for them, and they do it understanding the consequences. This is also unique, but definitely wouldn't make us attractive. Our body has developed in a way that makes it suitable for using tools, but as a result of evolution at the moment we are unable to operate without such tools. This might be an interesting feature, a race fully dependent on limbs that are artificial, be it a screwdriver, a bicycle or even clothes as our fur disappeared and cannot protect us from the weather. At the same time, this is what made humans innovative and will eventually lead us to meeting aliens: making artificial limbs better and better. To aim for more with a body capable of so little, but with a brain that is more or less limitless in inventing new things.

And this leads me to answering the second part of the question. I would somehow humbly let aliens know how little we are capable of as long as we are left to our own devices, meaning the body, and showing them how far we could go with using our brain and inventing these "artificial limbs" to take us far and do it fast.

The image is a reference to Captain Marvel.

Technology for being more self-sufficient?

I think there is a very thin line between technologies making us more self-sufficient and technologies  that seemingly do this, but actually make us more dependent on technology and make our lives more complicated. Also it is important to scrutinise technology from the perspective of humans being social animals and cosidering technology that supports social interaction rather than creating a self-sufficient, but isolated and alienated environment for people. Of course, when it comes to exploration, technology help us overcome challenges and also preserve human life. The past few months of working life increasingly moving online has taught us to understand the importance of being there physically, so I have thought about technology that would make exploration in person safer reaching currently unreacheable froniters.

 Any technology making it possible to easily utilise garbage would be great for becoming more self-sufficient in a way that supports all and takes weight off everybody's shoulder. The replicator is a great idea in Star Trek, and physics make it impossible to make something out of nothing, I guess the replicator must be a tool utilising leftovers and garbage. It is not enough for the replicator to become a reality to have the technology that creates things like a 3D printer. For it to become a reality scientists need to become alchemists - to make the necessary particles available, for example to create iron out of chalk. Such technology would not only be a great relief for the Earth suffering from pollution, but it would also make it possible to travel light, to not carry to many things or too much raw material for any trip.

The other kind of technology that would support humans as exlplorers should be something related to travel. I don't only mean space travel having the possibility to travel far very fast, but we still have a frontier to explore on Earth: deep sea.

In these past few months we have also seen a growing reliance on technology for learning. This is also something really useful if people want to travel far and live remotely, on any frontier, but we have also learnt that we must not rely on technology only. The same is true for medical technology. While robots may be better at the technical part, healing depends more on psychology than on technology or medicine, thus we need the human element.

All in all, I think there is a danger in celebrating technology too much, and too much emphasis on self-sufficient methods may lead many to become similar to doomsday preppers. We need to be critical when implementing technology for this. We need to embrace what makes our life easier and allows more time for exploration - probably not only physically, but by learning new things, trying new things -, but reject those that physically isolate and alienates us.

 

Who should be our captain: a highly principled diplomat or a self-reflective sheriff?

The main challenge most developed countries face today is that they don't have charismatic captains, or if they have them, they more resemble a Ferenghi captain than a Star Fleet one. And we would need captains who can tackle and taim the Ferenghi as well as able to bring our countries back to a democratic future - something badly endangered by Chinese influence using the pretence of the Covid-19 virus. Thus we need a Picard-like diplomat with stong belief in rights, democracy and trusting people rather than wishing to discipline them, or a self-reflective, wise sheriff, like Sisko who can ensure a peaceful, but fast transition back to freedom and rights. Both approaches would be like a breath of fresh air as a "captain" like them would stop the blame-game and let people live their lives again.

As a firm believer of leadership, my view on this was not changed by Discovery's focus on a difficult-to-discipline crew member. There will always be revolutionaries, or simply people who are ready to stick to their own values and beliefs. Today's global events clearly show that people who dare to think are badly punished by those in power, so for a free thinker to succeed, you still need an open, inclusive leader who believes in the rights and abilities of people and thus ready to keep their eyes closed if people don't adhere to rules.

Living in the Netherlands, I see that this is what makes this country much more democratic than others. Politicians still give in to pressure by mainstream, but common sense is always acknowledged. While it is a very rule-adhering country, there are certain rules that are considered unnecessary, or imposed by external forces, and thus they are not followed by many knowing that they will not be punished for it, but it is "gedogen", officially tolerated. This is as much true for marihuana as for the current craze about face masks and social distancing. But for us to live a life according to our beliefs and principles, we also need leaders who understand the idiotism of some rules.

Explorers, guests or intruders?

Humans tend to be an arrogant species assuming superiority on Earth, while we clearly see that a lto of other species can overcome humans ever so easily even on this planet we have tried to totally transform to be human-centred. In case we will become able to explore life on other, far-away planets, we will have a major problem finding the right people to travel: adventureous enough to take the risk, but humble enough to behave as guests of other species.

Exploration on Earth has shown that explorers tend to assume their supremacy. The history of exploration has mostly been based on the assumption that the conquerors' culture, beliefs, ethics and habits are superior to those of peoples not travelling. This behaviour has had an impact on the ways superpowers have operated in the last centuries, always trying to impose their values, political systems and ways of life on others, also preaching that those not adherring to them are barbarians, even not human enough, and/or dangerous for the future of mankind. This has been done by all: the British Empire and other colonial powers, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the USA.

Even when the primary aim was not transforming by conquest, there have been lots of unintended harmful effects of exploration. Just think of the deadly effect of viruses and bacteria nearly totally harmless for Europeans when they were brought to the Americas. Or think of the effect of sheep being brought to New Zealand and upending its biological balance.

I am not convinced that humans have learnt from all these disasters, especially since the colonisation of nations not wishing to implement American-style democracy (or probably a Chinese-style autocracy in the post-Covid world) is ongoing. If you don't adhere to rules considered the "right ones" by those in power, your life is invaded and forced to change.

However, I don't want to say it is a hopeless endavour, just needs to be an absolutely conscious one, choosing the right people for a first trip and also for subsequent ones, until we are able to understand and accept those different from us.   

And who knows, we may already have met them, and they might even be among us until they say: So long and thanks for all the fish.

What are we going to find studying space?

Exploring space may lead us to get acquainted to other species, and it might as well be a great thing as the end of human civilisation. The various possibilities have been explored left, right and centre by sci-fi writers and filmmakers. While I believe that there is a 100% chance that Earth is not the only inhabited planet, I also believe that such encounters can lead to a happy ending or extinction with a 50-50 chance.

I believe that there must be other inhabited planets because there chances of having similar conditions for evolution on other planets are really high given the increadibly high number of stars and subsequently the possibility of solar systems. Even though chances of a winning lottery ticket is low, there are winners. And this in only if we do not consider some kind of doctoring that resulted in life on earth.

However, given technology's limitations and the distance between Earth and other planets, it is highly unlikely that we will meet life on another planet. We may meet life from another planet as they might also be interested and more technically developed, thus coming to see us.

Regardless of these low chances, I think exploring space has been beneficial for humans. Exploring in conditions that are harsh or extreme has led to several inventions that had wider benefits for people. Exploring space also means that scientists leave their comfort zone with an open mind, again with the potential to know more and to understand more as compared to good old scientific discovery on Earth.  

Vice Admiral insignia courtesy of SmithonianX