Movie Gadget Friday: The Transporter from Star Trek: The Motion Picture
One of the fundamental flaws of the Star Trek series, and of a lot of science fiction for that matter, is that it's taken as read that the Enlightenment belief in the progress of humankind is essentially true and inevitable. So in the future (a mere 300 years) we not only get machines that solve the problems associated with travel – delays, having to talk to other passengers, being searched by customs – we actually get the human beings to match. In the future, being disassembled at the molecular level by a machine styled on a discothèque and operated by a poorly paid technician rarely troubles people. Transporter technicians never go on strike, and intergalactic agreements have been reached that transporter devices are out of bounds for industrial sabotage or terrorist protests. Similarly the users seem to fondly tolerate a catalogue of 'incidents' including the production of doppelgangers, the switching of travellers with themselves from and to parallel universes, possible childhood regression, and the production of Brundle Flies (even worse in fact: Nelix flies).
Im not a luddite by any stretch of the imagination the assertion over at
StarTrek.com that When
technology crosses the line between being a tool for living and becomes a way of life, good rarely comes of it,
fundamentally questions the value of my regular, day-to-day existence. 
However, even I can see that a future populated from a gene pool that
includes people who are mystified and confounded by the animation schemes in PowerPoint is going to contain a fair
amount of transporter anxiety sufferers.
The most terrifying thing about the transporter is that Scotty could be lurking in there somewhere, waiting to
regale you with his engineering tales of the old days. Those of you still not convinced by the foolishness of
transporter technology can make your
own.
Filed under: Transportation
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TIMMAH! @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Well you really don't have anything to worry about unless you happen to be wearing a red tunic...
JK @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Two busted links in this article: 'Brundle Flies' and 'make your own.' Somebody must love typing http// :) That aside, kickass little article- one could (as I'm sure many have) write a weekly column dissecting Star Trek's psuedo-science.
TIMMAH! @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Actually the dread will be in trying to get your grandparents into the transporter... "okay, so now I stand where and do what again?"
LAWADM @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"Im not a luddite by any stretch of the imagination "
No but you are a geek. a very humorous one. good one.
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"...its taken as read that the Enlightenment belief in the progress of humankind is essentially true and inevitable."
Are saying it's NOT possible? Post-Modernism (which is what she's spouting, for those not in the know, read-up on it) is about the stupidest thing ever postulated by mankind (which is hardly a surprise, seeing as it is borne of ignorance). I always like to ask those that proport such a philosophy what alternative they offer to rationalism and enlightenment (which, BTW, are SYNONYMOUS with Humanism. THAT is what you are standing for w/that philosophy.) The only alternative to progression is REGRESSION, a.k.a., back to a place where the weak are preyed upon, and women are raped, abused, and generally exploited, among other things.
If Post-Modernists have taught the world anything, it's that progress in most certainly NOT inevitable, though I really don't honestly think most proponents of this point of view really understand the ramifications of it (again, because it is an ignorant philosophy, BORNE of ignorance). Josie et al, do you really want to hitch your wagon to such an anti-humanistic, hopeless, and nhilistic philosophy?
Suntiger @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Good article. I don't mean to be a nerd, but wasn't it primarily a military device, thus making the "incidents" acceptable?
alex @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Isn't just assuming that humanity is always under all circumstances progressing a recipe for regression and disaster? I can't see why there's anything wrong with questioning the assumption that technology always makes our lives better.
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
BTW, the ST series ended in '67 if I'm not mistaken. The discoteque emerged when? Sometime in the 70s?
Rudy Rodriguez @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
In Anthony Piers novel Cluster, transporters become too expensive when tranferring human-matter across solar systems. So as a financially feasible alternative, only the "soul" is transferred -and into an alien host. But only humans with strong "kirilian auras" can do this kind of travel. That is, humans with a strong soul- usually identified as great leaders, or very loving people.
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
alex: Absolutely. Criticism is essential to progress. Post-Modernism is Nhilistic though. It assumes that sustained progress is impossible and, indeed, views it as undesireable. It is a reactionary idiology, existing only in response to the phenomenon of progress. As such, it offers no alternative. It only says, whiningly, "Progress sucks".
MaxSMoke @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Put this in feather in your cap and choke on it, "People are People". If you look through history, you can quickly see that people's beliefs and actions are defined by their environment. In a world of creature comforts and easy living, people become weak and self-absorbed. The scientific term for them is, "Pussies".
And Pussies always get conquered by people that come from harsh environments where personal survival forces them work harder and strive for greater things. These people, free of the constraints of rampant idealism, always eventually push their resources towards expansion and conquest of others. The scientific term for those people are "Dicks".
Dicks are always screwing Pussies.
All of this BS about people evolving into more "Enlightened" beings is just that, BS. It's an illusion people indulge in when they have the opportunities to become weak and passive. Worse yet, these overly passive people often decide that they are better then everyone else, and use their power and influence to screw up the lives of the less fortunate in their pursuit of a "prefect" society. The scientific term for these kind of people are "Azzholes". Needless to say, the distance between a Pussy and an Azzhole is very short.
You should read up on the works of the Ultimate Post Modernist thinkers, true geniuses of our time, perhaps the greatest minds of the last 200 years: Trey Parker and Matt Stone
(You damn dirty Hippies!)
Bryan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"we actually get the human beings to match."
Sure. Transporter means no security check, sitting next to Talky Tammy, customs searches (just check the transporter log!) when travelling place to place on a single planet. Or up to the ship.
And *everyone* knows you get your own room if you take a ship to another planet, so yeah, people have become nicer by virtue of not being crammed together anymore.
(ok, ok, I took a shot.)
Brian Budin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"What do you mean, you can't beam me up, Scotty?"
Brian Budin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"What do you mean, you can't beam me up, Scotty?"
Craig Stacey @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
I think the piece that's missing from this is the assumption that Transporter use is de riguer in the future for everyone, where I interpreted it as a purely military thing done by Starfleet and the other military organizations.
There's still a lot of shuttles flying about in the Trek era.
Homer J @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Spock, Bones, Ohura, and "Steve", your with me. We are heading down to the surface, leaving people, most of you [Audience] have never heard of in charge of our only means of getting home [Ship], to investigate an unknown force that can be rationalized with even though we dont speak its language.
We ALL expect to return within 4 hours, though there is a VERY high likelyhood that "Steve" may act brashly, or stray a little too close to this unknown entity, which we of course know is totaly harmless.
Transporter, Kirk. Five to beam down.....
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
MaxSMoke: I can't find a single correct line of reasoning in anything you've said, but I'll sum-up my response with one phrase:
Enlightened!=weak
The Greeks were enlightened, and they were ferocious. The Romans were enlightened, and they were even worse. You are the undiciplined barbarian. People like you insist on making everything about survival, and that's sad. Humans are not entirely a herd animal. I can assure you that, while you may get the weakest among us, those left will turn on you and bring new meaning to the word eradication. If you make this life about survival, we will do what is neccessary to preserve our way of life, no matter what the cost.
Our civilization IS headed down a road that will see the likes of you confront, directly and physically, the likes of me. I can assure you, you won't win, though you will try. Much like the Old West was cleared out of people like you and tamed by people like me, so will a similar scenario play-out in the future.
Then again, I could be completely wrong. I guess only time will tell, now, won't it? One things for sure, though: you don't know 1/10000th of what you think you do, and you only know/believe what you want to believe. See you around...
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Max: BTW, I checked your picture out on your website. You have quite an attitude for such a sheepishish-looking individual. Let me guess, you're actually a real badass... right? Good luck to ya man (BTW, you might want to drop a few 50 lbs, there'll be less f/the hordes to carve-up...).
JohnQ @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
I just want to clear up a few things. First of all, in the Star Trek universe, Starfleet and the United Federation of Planets have only explored about 25% of the galaxy and no one has ever visited another galaxy. So the "INTERgalactic" agreements mentioned should have been called "interstellar" agreements or "INTRAgalactic" agreements. "Inter" means "between" and "intra" means "within" in this context.
Secondly, how can you be sure the technicians are poorly paid? I see no indication of this. Almost all the transporter technicians are highly trained by Starfleet, which can be considered a military organization.
Lastly, you say there will be a fair amount of people with transporter anxiety, based upon the fact that a lot of the future population will be the progeny of people who don't understand Powerpoint today.
Well, most young people born in today's high tech age do understand Powerpoint. Only older people who didn't have computers when they were young don't understand today's technology.
How many people are afraid of travelling in a car? The answer is, a very small percentage. That's because cars have been around even before the oldest person today was born. In the Star Trek universe, transporter technology has been around just as long as the automobile has been today.
Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"And Pussies always get conquered by people that come from harsh environments where personal survival forces them work harder and strive for greater things. These people, free of the constraints of rampant idealism, always eventually push their resources towards expansion and conquest of others. The scientific term for those people are "Dicks".
Dicks are always screwing Pussies."
Absolutely correct. Like, that time India up and conquered the shit out of the British.
Or like when the Vietnamese Army marched all the way to DC and declared Ho Chi Min our ruler.
And man, who could forget the Native American tribes and their bloody, vicious conquest of France?
In conclusion, if you've enshrined the South Park guys as leading lights of modern philosophy, odds are you've fucked up somewhere along the line.
subATOMIC @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
xVariable, your intelligence is only superceded by your repugnance. I must admit that I'M the ignorant one ... here I was, agreeing with your wit-n-wisdom-n-whatnot, and you went and poo-poo'd on it by making a whole new post just to make fun of MaxSMoke. Oh, why did you do that, x? Why? Did it buff up that nice, shiny ego of yours to put down someone with a different opinion? Wasn't it enough to express your disagreement, or did I miss the part of Enlightened reasoning where you insult your opposition by virtue of anonimity?
Good for you, xVariable! I hope you walked around with a big juicy smile on your pretty mug all day because you put Max in his place! You sure showed him!
For this reason, I award you the Biggest Loser On The Internet Award, in recognition of your outstanding contribution in the field of Insulting Philosophic Diatribe. Let's give 'im a hand, everybody!! Three cheers for xVariable! Hip-hip hooray! Hip-hip hooray! Hip-hip hooray. Now, go away.
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
/me bows. I'm honoured. :-P (What, did you think I was going to get all huffy? Psychology doesn' work on me man, especially when it's illogical. BTW, unless I'm banned, I won't be gong anywhere, sorreh (where's all your high-falootin' appeals to being tolorant of differng opinions, when you can't even handle mine? I caled bullshit on him, plain and simple.) TTYL!).
Rus @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
The reason why no one goes on strike is because no one is paid on earth or in the federation - it has become true socialism - where income is distributed equally - there is no wealthy class and no poor class. There is only respect and honor in your position - so if you are a dignitary or a ship captain you might have a nicer place to live and get to go to premeir events or get premeir assignments - your benefits are the only thing that seperates you from others.
There's no way this would work - as it would create a class of lazy and a class of narcissists!
Andrew @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Wading cautiously into the philsophical pool here, I think what's missing from the oh so slightly personal debate here between enlightenment and post-modernism (and South Park), and what speaks to the original assertion that it is unrealistic that Star Trek posits that most human problems have been solved, is that enlightenment thinking and rational, sane human societies will likely always be involved in a struggle with their opposite: superstition, aggression, irrationality etc. Being an optimist, I like to think that we have made some progress; but being a realist I also think that this struggle will be eternal as long as we retain our genetic legacy as ape-descendants.
Not that Star Trek hasn't dealt with some of these issues on and off - there are those hippie-types in the original series; various factions and political struggles in later series. Still, no porn in the future? That's something I find hard to imagine...
Jeff McKean @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Ya know, James Doohan currently lives in Redmond. Hmmm. :-)
Edtekker @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Good heavens, I can't imagine that people would be willing to use a transportation system that has risks associated with it. After all, would we tolerate an automotive system that kills 25,000 people a year?
Oh, wait. Bad example...
of_the_apes @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
I'll say this - i think xVariable was right to point out certain things about MaxSmoke. He may have taken it a bit to far by telling him to lose 50, but I think the inital point was completely valid(although not well explained)
Personally, I can't help but think that the view Max holds is based on a few things that can easily be gleamed from his photo/site
1)He's not really based in reality - he plays FAR too much unreal tournament to have a good understanding of the outside world, society, other people, etc.
2) let's be honest, but more importantly illustrative. he has a weight problem, which often leads to poor self-esteem, which often leads to negative thinking about the world in general. how can anyone think the future holds any promise when you hate yourself, or at the very least most of the people on this planet.
so, who am I going to believe when I ask the question "what is the future going to be like for humanity"? I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm going to listen to someone who isn't really "with it" and thinking about more than a game, or that life is more than a game and certainly not someone who holds a negative view of the world because they have a negative view of themselves.
so x - first point was dead on - the good will win in the end provided enough of the good remain. the second point was also dead on, but got a bit too personal(maybe, though this is debatable)
sociotekk @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
has no one mentioned krauss's "the physics of star trek?" not really a big star trek fan here, but those with an astro-, normal-, theoretical- physics interest, tired of chewing through the sawdust of hawking et al, this is a good read.
ex: in theory, the transporters actually are GOOD for your health because they don't transfer pathogens, infectious matter, cancer cells, etc.
oh, about the philosophical/human development discourse here: the fact is, humanity IS better off than it has ever been. to generalize: only 20 years ago there were nearly 3 times as many wars, spain was still a kingdom, white people gave even less of a shit about africa, NO ONE gave a rats ass about the environment, NUCLEAR ANNHILATION was a vastly more credible concern, in 1900 human life-expectancy was like 35 years, etc.
okay, so one could argue that a planet-wide cataclysm notwithstanding, its not totally inconceivable that 300 years hence wed have a star trek-like society (which is far from being portrayed as perfect come on, theyre still doing that stupid human crap: photon torpedoes are NOT a fiery bean burrito, theyre blowing shit up, fighting, and setting phasers on stun left and right).
geeks and philosophers and pseudo-sociologists ought to know that humanity has seen more technological development in the past 100 years than in the ENTIRE history of the species, and advancement is occurring at an exponential rate (some, like ray kurzweil, argue that its actually a double-exponent).
the increasing-entropy argument isnt really relevant either. as part of nature, for now we're defying the 2nd law of thermodynamics (as indicated for systems in the natural world BUT how natural is a human being? not completely artificial hearts/kidneys/lungs/legs/eyes/ears/fillings/on and on!). can we separate ourselves from what our chronologically minute perception sees as the craziness of nature? kinda looks that way.
truthfully, its extremely difficult to imagine what society will be like in 300 years, hopefully well not use our technology to become more efficient destroyers. trends show thats it not the better heart of human nature that will save us from ourselves, it our technology. and hopefully we can convince our technology to not FORCEFULLY save us.
okat thats it thats all.
Gilbert @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Anyone fancy a pint?
palmer eldritch @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
I warned you not to do something from Trek. Mention Trek and out come the freaks.
nevin5 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
human teen + mobile phone = borg.
think about it, teens do two things, they constantly talk to each other and they shop. the borg have the ultimate mobile calling plan - 'the hive mind'. and what is, "we will add your technological and biological distinctiveness to our own", if not just the next level of shopping?
we are borg.
Fahd Waseem @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
A site for information about quantum theory, relativity, black holes, cosmology, cryogenics and subatomic particles.