What if we really had transporters? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  What if we really had transporters?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   What if we really had transporters?

OhWell posted 06-23-99 01:33 PM ET
Suppose, if you will, that an alien ship landed today and gave us the �Star Trek� technologies of transporters and matter replication. What kind of effect would that have on society? I can see that it would sure knock the props out from any industries that involved the manufacturing or movement of physical items.
Hugo Rune posted 06-23-99 01:36 PM ET
And what of the immortal soul in such transactions? Can this
machine transmit and reattach it as well? Or is it lost forever,
leaving a soulless body to wander the world in despair?
^
^ -- Sister Miriam Godwinson,
^ "We Must Dissent"
Spoe posted 06-23-99 01:41 PM ET
All I know is that we wouldn't have any trouble integrating it with the internet. RFC 1437 already defines MIME type matter-transport/sentient-life-form as well as(for the sake of orthoganaility) matter-transport/sentient-nonlife-form, matter-transport/non-sentient-life-form,
and matter-transport/non-sentient-non-life-form.
OhWell posted 06-23-99 01:46 PM ET
That�s a good question! I remember a SciFi short story where they were going to �transport� a guy to the Moon. It was a one way trip and to do it they had to atomize his �original� body and transmit to a receiver on the Moon. As the �copy� on the Moon couldn�t come back, they had another receiver on the Earth so, after the transmission, there were two of him. One on the Moon and one on the Earth. The guy agonized over whether the real �he� would be dead.
Rex Little posted 06-23-99 02:01 PM ET
Science fiction author Larry Niven wrote a number of good stories exploring this question; I wish I could remember the name of the book they're in. One of them was called "The Permanent Floating Riot Club"; the premise was that any time anything interesting got reported on the news, people from all over would teleport in to watch, resulting in an instant mob scene. The "riot club" in the title was a group of pickpockets who kept each other informed of these occurences so they could pop in, work the crowd and pop out.
Krushala posted 06-23-99 02:02 PM ET
If we had hallodecks or whatever from TNG then we would have no need for whorehouses. Our society probably could not handle that kind of change. Fossil fuels would be obsolete. you can just materialize steel. Entire industries would go bankrupt.
OhWell posted 06-23-99 02:15 PM ET
�Entire industries would go bankrupt�
That�s exactly my point. But what difference would it make if you use matter replication to make what you needed? There would be no hunger: Just push a button any out pops a steak. Money and �wealth� would be obsolete. Why have money when you can just push a button and get what you need.
Remember the �Stepping Disks� in Larry Niven�s stories?
Krushala posted 06-23-99 02:52 PM ET
One problem with that. Some people need to work to feel needed. For others it's their lively hood. Social strife would definately go up. Suicides, murders, etc. If you look at some of the indian cultures where their whole way of living has been uprooted and changed. Some of them committed mass suicide.
OhWell posted 06-23-99 03:07 PM ET
Oh very funny Spoe. I checked out that paper and downloaded a beta version from the site. I tried to e-mail my self to Hawaii but ended up in Antarctica! Now I�m freezing my *** off and the **** penguins are after me! **** beta software anyway!
JT 3 posted 06-23-99 10:08 PM ET
Yes, many compinies would go bankrupt. But it would be an overall good thing. Think about it. Hunger, Poverty, Wars(hey, why have wars when everyone has infinite weapons?), and most diseases(infinite amount of vaccines). Crime wouldn't nessecarily go up, 'cuz the police force would still be as well armed as the criminals.
White_Cat posted 06-24-99 02:11 AM ET
How would having tons of weapons result in less wars?
Galen posted 06-24-99 02:30 AM ET
MAD
Galen posted 06-24-99 02:31 AM ET
Mutually Assured Destruction I mean. That is why we would have less wars if we had alot of weapons
Galen posted 06-24-99 02:38 AM ET
However, if we had replicators, we would still need energy to power them and matter to transform. We could just set up a bunch of matter transporters on asteroids in the asteroid belt (eat them up) and use Solar power, big solar panels, which we replicate. So all we do is use up a few asteroids. It's heaven. Plus we can use all the ****. And landfills. We could have a utopia. And make the gardens and computers worked and programed by the people that need to work. Oh yeah, we also can have scientists. We could have LOTS of scientists. That would be the most meaningful job out there. Incidentily, that is what I want to do.
jig posted 06-24-99 02:50 AM ET
If.
Resource Consumer posted 06-24-99 06:13 AM ET
New unit?
What if we had trainspotters?
Gives information on enemy logistical movements.
New tech - anorak armour!!!
OhWell posted 06-24-99 09:46 AM ET
JT 3 / White_Cat / Galen,
Many wars are fought over �stuff�. With the matter replicator it would be easier to just make your own �stuff�. Some wars are �holy wars� (the ultimate oxymoron). They would be worse �cause it would be easy to get weapons. Also, if you replicated a nuke, you could just transport it into you enemies cities. To prevent this we would program the replicators so that they could not make weapons and the transporters to not transport weapons.
M_ashwell posted 06-28-99 02:35 PM ET
i would like to teleport into the vault at fort noxs (well u know how it is spelled)
or "borrow" a large TN Device
DerekM posted 06-28-99 03:59 PM ET
It all depends upon how it works.
1) How much energy does it use?
2) Are there any side effects?
3) Are there size or weight limitations?
4) Does it require a receiver, or just a transmitter?
5) What happens to the stuff that was where the new stuff appears at?
6) Is it instantaneous, speed of light, or slower?
7) What won't it work through, if anything?
8) Is there a range limitation?
9) Is there anything it won't work with?
10) How hard is it to create?
I remember reading a story about a machine that would let you look into the past. The only problem is that it would only let you look, say, 50 years into the past. It wasn't much use for anthropology, archaeology, etc. Set it to look less than a second into the past, though, and set the location coordinates, and you had a hell of a spying device. Things don't always work the way you would think.
OhWell posted 06-29-99 09:03 AM ET
DerekM,
I remember that story you mentioned. I think that I saw it in an SciFi anthology years ago.
When I started the thread, I was thinking more of the profound social and economic impacts of that type of technology rather than the details of how it might work. I was using the premise that the technology was provided by aliens, but the effect would be largely the same regardless of the source. I guess that, if someone ever did develop this technology, most governments would try to suppress it because of the disruption that it would cause.
DerekM posted 06-29-99 10:32 AM ET
All I was saying was that the social impact would depend upon what it was capable of. If it required a receiving station, then the implications for privacy and security would not be nearly as far reaching, for example. You couldn't just teleport a bomb into an airplane, for example. If there was a size limit, then there would still be a need for shipping bulk quantities with other methods, and therefore shipyards and trains wouldn't necessarily be driven out of business. If it required massive amounts of energy, then it would probably be beyond the reach of anybody but the very wealthy and the government, at least for the time being.
Were you making the assumption that you could telport anything anywhere, at any time, with a reasonable energy cost? That would, to me, seem to require strict regulation by the government -- owning an unlicensed teleporter could be a criminal offense.
OhWell posted 06-29-99 11:25 AM ET
DerekM
�All I was saying was that the social impact would depend upon what it was capable of. If it required a receiving station�
Ahh, yes good points. I was assuming a �Star Trek� type transporter technology which doesn�t require a receiving station. I was also thinking about the impact of both the �transporter� and �replicator� together (they would seem to be related technologies).
With a replicator, you could generate a product on the spot with out any �manufacturing process� and therefore no need for bulk transport of raw materials. In that scenario, the thing that you would be most likely to transport would be people.
DerekM posted 06-29-99 02:17 PM ET
As portrayed in Star Trek, they are related technologies. They both deal with assembling and disassembling matter at at least a particle level. You also have to take into account things like the holodeck, because it was in part based upon the same technology.
The difficulty here is illustrated by the fact that the Trek writers and crew had to come up with numerous artificial restrictions on the technology to keep it from ruining any conceivable plotline. For example:
1) If you can eat replicated food, then why can't you take things out of the holodeck?
2) Why does Voyager have to deal with resource shortages when they should theoretically be able to make anything they want with enough energy?
3) Why can't you transport through shields, when you can through miles of rock?
4) Why does it take so long to build a starship? Couldn't they just replicate an infinite number of them?
OhWell posted 06-29-99 02:54 PM ET
DerekM,
Well, this is all just fun speculation anyhow. We don�t have a real replicator. When I tried to take my replicator apart to see how it worked it blew up!
DerekM posted 06-29-99 03:36 PM ET
Sorry, I AM having fun. I like to pick these things apart, I guess. If you really want to have fun, think about what would happen if you had a transporter/replicator/holodeck and NOBODY ELSE DID! Ah, now that would be interesting.
Shadwhawk posted 06-29-99 03:44 PM ET
Well, suppose I'll have to reveal my true Geekiness here, if only to set some things straight.
First off, from the tech manuals, replicators are limited--they're not that accurate (foods just don't taste the same), and they require some sort of raw foodstuff to make food. It can't turn a couple pounds of rock into dinner.
Second, industrial replicators do exist, but I think that they make components, not entire craft. It gets quite a bit harder to replicate something the bigger and more complicated it is.
Transporters appear to be affected by various types of radiation (even low-level radiation from rocks or reactors) and really dense materials.
Obviously, transporters take a good amount of energy to use--otherwise, they wouldn't use turbolifts and shuttles so often. They rarely use transporters for medical emergencies on their own craft.
But, yes, DerekM's questions need to be answered in order to determine any effects on society.
If it was Star Trek style transporters and replicators, it'd still probably be cheaper to drive to your nearest store or use container ships to move products. I can see the airline industry as it stands now ruined, but that generally depends on the cost of the airplane and fuel. It'd probably be cheaper to take a 737 from New York to Washington DC than to transport there.
It'd totally change the space industry. We could transport satellites into near-geosynch orbit. Cost per kilogram would probably plummet when compared to what we pay now and what we'll pay in 20 years (I can't afford $10,000/kg now, and I doubt I'll be able to afford $100/kg in 20 years).
Manufacturing costs would probably drop. Instead of spending $70 million on a new CD-pressing factory, you spend a few million on a replicator, and fire it up. Probably costs less to operate a replicator than it does to power all of the machinery in a plant. Lots safer, too.
Personally, I think reliable fusion would change the world more. Virtually unlimited power, and fuel costs would be miniscule.
Shadowhawk
OhWell posted 06-29-99 03:54 PM ET
DerekM,
Oh, no problems. Was just trying to think up �good� answers to your post and thought �WTF, this is just make believe anyway! Some answers:
�Why does Voyager have to deal with resource shortages...�
Why have they been screwing around so long trying to get home? I mean Kirk would have had them home in time for next weeks episode!
�Why can't you transport through shields, when you can through miles of rock?�
Shields disrupt the carrier signal. Sometimes things in the rock does too.
� Why does it take so long to build a starship?�
Maybe you can�t replicate something that big. But... you could replicate parts and then build it. Maybe this is where the Voyager gets it infinite supply of shuttles someone was talking about.
sandworm posted 06-29-99 05:08 PM ET
The important thing to do is figure out which government agency would oversee transporter safety. I'd assume the FAA in the US would be all over that. What's an acceptable "accident" rate for personal matter transport, should it be safer than flying?
kidding,
sandworm
OhWell posted 06-30-99 08:04 AM ET
Shadowhawk,
The tech manuals? How did you get those? They are supposed to be restricted!
�true Geekiness�... hehehe.
Sandworm,
Yes! Put a government agency in charge! That will kill the technology for sure!
DerekM posted 06-30-99 08:18 AM ET
Ah, yes, Shadwhawk. I'm familiar with those concepts, somewhat. I also own the NextGen Technical Manual, the Encyclopeida, the Compendium, etc. My point was that those limitations are made up by the writers to keep the technologies from becoming overwhelming.
If you can take somebody apart, turn them into a stream of particles, and then put them back together again elsewhere, then why can't you turn a rock into a sandwich? If you can create a component, like a plasma conduit, then why can't you simultaneously assemble those components? Starfleet has obviously mastered technologies like forcefields, tractor beams and the holodeck. I'm not criticizing Star Trek. What I'm saying is that, if you really want to think about what effect that type of technology would have on society, then don't build in the limitations Star Trek uses for dramatic purposes.
OhWell posted 06-30-99 09:17 AM ET
When I started this thread I really wasn�t thinking of the specific technologies from the Star Trek �universe�, just the concept of transporter and matter replication. I should have made that clear. I agree that there are many limitations placed on the technology in Star Trek so that it doesn�t dominate the story. I also agree with Shadowhawk that these technologies would likely take a ton of power and, with our currently available power sources, would not be economical.
Earwicker posted 07-01-99 03:32 PM ET
If transporters were cheap to use, think how drastically world cultures would be homologized by instantaneous travel between points. Just think about how much the last century's technology has shrunk the world.
The whole concept of "getaways" and "remote" would change. Zap over to Bali for a quick dip. Do a day trip for some quick ecological damage down in the Amazon basin. Shoot over to the Serengeti for an afternoon lark.
There are parts of the world where it's a good thing that people can't just show up at (mountaintops, war zones). Imagine if some yo-yo thought he'd like to check out the top of Everest just 'cause he'd never done anything like that. No conditioning, no training, probably not even proper gear. Adios, muchacho.
Rex Little posted 07-01-99 03:56 PM ET
Might not be such a bad thing. Think of it as evolution in action. . .
Darksider posted 07-06-99 09:27 PM ET
You know what I never got about STTNG? How come no matter how many times Q appeared and snapped his fingers to bring all the senior staff to the brigde, no one was ever in the shower at the time. Or worse, on the toilet.
Picard : "Commander Data? Have you had any luck in getting that brown stain out of the bridge carpet?"
Data : "Perhaps if we use the quantum destabilizers to depolarize the ....
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: What if we really had transporters?
OhWell	posted 06-23-99 01:33 PM ET Suppose, if you will, that an alien ship landed today and gave us the �Star Trek� technologies of transporters and matter replication. What kind of effect would that have on society? I can see that it would sure knock the props out from any industries that involved the manufacturing or movement of physical items.
Hugo Rune	posted 06-23-99 01:36 PM ET And what of the immortal soul in such transactions? Can this machine transmit and reattach it as well? Or is it lost forever, leaving a soulless body to wander the world in despair? ^ ^ -- Sister Miriam Godwinson, ^ "We Must Dissent"
Spoe	posted 06-23-99 01:41 PM ET All I know is that we wouldn't have any trouble integrating it with the internet. RFC 1437 already defines MIME type matter-transport/sentient-life-form as well as(for the sake of orthoganaility) matter-transport/sentient-nonlife-form, matter-transport/non-sentient-life-form, and matter-transport/non-sentient-non-life-form.
OhWell	posted 06-23-99 01:46 PM ET That�s a good question! I remember a SciFi short story where they were going to �transport� a guy to the Moon. It was a one way trip and to do it they had to atomize his �original� body and transmit to a receiver on the Moon. As the �copy� on the Moon couldn�t come back, they had another receiver on the Earth so, after the transmission, there were two of him. One on the Moon and one on the Earth. The guy agonized over whether the real �he� would be dead.
Rex Little	posted 06-23-99 02:01 PM ET Science fiction author Larry Niven wrote a number of good stories exploring this question; I wish I could remember the name of the book they're in. One of them was called "The Permanent Floating Riot Club"; the premise was that any time anything interesting got reported on the news, people from all over would teleport in to watch, resulting in an instant mob scene. The "riot club" in the title was a group of pickpockets who kept each other informed of these occurences so they could pop in, work the crowd and pop out.
Krushala	posted 06-23-99 02:02 PM ET If we had hallodecks or whatever from TNG then we would have no need for whorehouses. Our society probably could not handle that kind of change. Fossil fuels would be obsolete. you can just materialize steel. Entire industries would go bankrupt.
OhWell	posted 06-23-99 02:15 PM ET �Entire industries would go bankrupt� That�s exactly my point. But what difference would it make if you use matter replication to make what you needed? There would be no hunger: Just push a button any out pops a steak. Money and �wealth� would be obsolete. Why have money when you can just push a button and get what you need. Remember the �Stepping Disks� in Larry Niven�s stories?
Krushala	posted 06-23-99 02:52 PM ET One problem with that. Some people need to work to feel needed. For others it's their lively hood. Social strife would definately go up. Suicides, murders, etc. If you look at some of the indian cultures where their whole way of living has been uprooted and changed. Some of them committed mass suicide.
OhWell	posted 06-23-99 03:07 PM ET Oh very funny Spoe. I checked out that paper and downloaded a beta version from the site. I tried to e-mail my self to Hawaii but ended up in Antarctica! Now I�m freezing my * off and the penguins are after me! ** beta software anyway!
JT 3	posted 06-23-99 10:08 PM ET Yes, many compinies would go bankrupt. But it would be an overall good thing. Think about it. Hunger, Poverty, Wars(hey, why have wars when everyone has infinite weapons?), and most diseases(infinite amount of vaccines). Crime wouldn't nessecarily go up, 'cuz the police force would still be as well armed as the criminals.
White_Cat	posted 06-24-99 02:11 AM ET How would having tons of weapons result in less wars?
Galen	posted 06-24-99 02:30 AM ET MAD
Galen	posted 06-24-99 02:31 AM ET Mutually Assured Destruction I mean. That is why we would have less wars if we had alot of weapons
Galen	posted 06-24-99 02:38 AM ET However, if we had replicators, we would still need energy to power them and matter to transform. We could just set up a bunch of matter transporters on asteroids in the asteroid belt (eat them up) and use Solar power, big solar panels, which we replicate. So all we do is use up a few asteroids. It's heaven. Plus we can use all the ****. And landfills. We could have a utopia. And make the gardens and computers worked and programed by the people that need to work. Oh yeah, we also can have scientists. We could have LOTS of scientists. That would be the most meaningful job out there. Incidentily, that is what I want to do.
jig	posted 06-24-99 02:50 AM ET If.
Resource Consumer	posted 06-24-99 06:13 AM ET New unit? What if we had trainspotters? Gives information on enemy logistical movements. New tech - anorak armour!!!
OhWell	posted 06-24-99 09:46 AM ET JT 3 / White_Cat / Galen, Many wars are fought over �stuff�. With the matter replicator it would be easier to just make your own �stuff�. Some wars are �holy wars� (the ultimate oxymoron). They would be worse �cause it would be easy to get weapons. Also, if you replicated a nuke, you could just transport it into you enemies cities. To prevent this we would program the replicators so that they could not make weapons and the transporters to not transport weapons.
M_ashwell	posted 06-28-99 02:35 PM ET i would like to teleport into the vault at fort noxs (well u know how it is spelled) or "borrow" a large TN Device
DerekM	posted 06-28-99 03:59 PM ET It all depends upon how it works. 1) How much energy does it use? 2) Are there any side effects? 3) Are there size or weight limitations? 4) Does it require a receiver, or just a transmitter? 5) What happens to the stuff that was where the new stuff appears at? 6) Is it instantaneous, speed of light, or slower? 7) What won't it work through, if anything? 8) Is there a range limitation? 9) Is there anything it won't work with? 10) How hard is it to create? I remember reading a story about a machine that would let you look into the past. The only problem is that it would only let you look, say, 50 years into the past. It wasn't much use for anthropology, archaeology, etc. Set it to look less than a second into the past, though, and set the location coordinates, and you had a hell of a spying device. Things don't always work the way you would think.
OhWell	posted 06-29-99 09:03 AM ET DerekM, I remember that story you mentioned. I think that I saw it in an SciFi anthology years ago. When I started the thread, I was thinking more of the profound social and economic impacts of that type of technology rather than the details of how it might work. I was using the premise that the technology was provided by aliens, but the effect would be largely the same regardless of the source. I guess that, if someone ever did develop this technology, most governments would try to suppress it because of the disruption that it would cause.
DerekM	posted 06-29-99 10:32 AM ET All I was saying was that the social impact would depend upon what it was capable of. If it required a receiving station, then the implications for privacy and security would not be nearly as far reaching, for example. You couldn't just teleport a bomb into an airplane, for example. If there was a size limit, then there would still be a need for shipping bulk quantities with other methods, and therefore shipyards and trains wouldn't necessarily be driven out of business. If it required massive amounts of energy, then it would probably be beyond the reach of anybody but the very wealthy and the government, at least for the time being. Were you making the assumption that you could telport anything anywhere, at any time, with a reasonable energy cost? That would, to me, seem to require strict regulation by the government -- owning an unlicensed teleporter could be a criminal offense.
OhWell	posted 06-29-99 11:25 AM ET DerekM �All I was saying was that the social impact would depend upon what it was capable of. If it required a receiving station� Ahh, yes good points. I was assuming a �Star Trek� type transporter technology which doesn�t require a receiving station. I was also thinking about the impact of both the �transporter� and �replicator� together (they would seem to be related technologies). With a replicator, you could generate a product on the spot with out any �manufacturing process� and therefore no need for bulk transport of raw materials. In that scenario, the thing that you would be most likely to transport would be people.
DerekM	posted 06-29-99 02:17 PM ET As portrayed in Star Trek, they are related technologies. They both deal with assembling and disassembling matter at at least a particle level. You also have to take into account things like the holodeck, because it was in part based upon the same technology. The difficulty here is illustrated by the fact that the Trek writers and crew had to come up with numerous artificial restrictions on the technology to keep it from ruining any conceivable plotline. For example: 1) If you can eat replicated food, then why can't you take things out of the holodeck? 2) Why does Voyager have to deal with resource shortages when they should theoretically be able to make anything they want with enough energy? 3) Why can't you transport through shields, when you can through miles of rock? 4) Why does it take so long to build a starship? Couldn't they just replicate an infinite number of them?
OhWell	posted 06-29-99 02:54 PM ET DerekM, Well, this is all just fun speculation anyhow. We don�t have a real replicator. When I tried to take my replicator apart to see how it worked it blew up!
DerekM	posted 06-29-99 03:36 PM ET Sorry, I AM having fun. I like to pick these things apart, I guess. If you really want to have fun, think about what would happen if you had a transporter/replicator/holodeck and NOBODY ELSE DID! Ah, now that would be interesting.
Shadwhawk	posted 06-29-99 03:44 PM ET Well, suppose I'll have to reveal my true Geekiness here, if only to set some things straight. First off, from the tech manuals, replicators are limited--they're not that accurate (foods just don't taste the same), and they require some sort of raw foodstuff to make food. It can't turn a couple pounds of rock into dinner. Second, industrial replicators do exist, but I think that they make components, not entire craft. It gets quite a bit harder to replicate something the bigger and more complicated it is. Transporters appear to be affected by various types of radiation (even low-level radiation from rocks or reactors) and really dense materials. Obviously, transporters take a good amount of energy to use--otherwise, they wouldn't use turbolifts and shuttles so often. They rarely use transporters for medical emergencies on their own craft. But, yes, DerekM's questions need to be answered in order to determine any effects on society. If it was Star Trek style transporters and replicators, it'd still probably be cheaper to drive to your nearest store or use container ships to move products. I can see the airline industry as it stands now ruined, but that generally depends on the cost of the airplane and fuel. It'd probably be cheaper to take a 737 from New York to Washington DC than to transport there. It'd totally change the space industry. We could transport satellites into near-geosynch orbit. Cost per kilogram would probably plummet when compared to what we pay now and what we'll pay in 20 years (I can't afford $10,000/kg now, and I doubt I'll be able to afford $100/kg in 20 years). Manufacturing costs would probably drop. Instead of spending $70 million on a new CD-pressing factory, you spend a few million on a replicator, and fire it up. Probably costs less to operate a replicator than it does to power all of the machinery in a plant. Lots safer, too. Personally, I think reliable fusion would change the world more. Virtually unlimited power, and fuel costs would be miniscule. Shadowhawk
OhWell	posted 06-29-99 03:54 PM ET DerekM, Oh, no problems. Was just trying to think up �good� answers to your post and thought �WTF, this is just make believe anyway! Some answers: �Why does Voyager have to deal with resource shortages...� Why have they been screwing around so long trying to get home? I mean Kirk would have had them home in time for next weeks episode! �Why can't you transport through shields, when you can through miles of rock?� Shields disrupt the carrier signal. Sometimes things in the rock does too. � Why does it take so long to build a starship?� Maybe you can�t replicate something that big. But... you could replicate parts and then build it. Maybe this is where the Voyager gets it infinite supply of shuttles someone was talking about.
sandworm	posted 06-29-99 05:08 PM ET The important thing to do is figure out which government agency would oversee transporter safety. I'd assume the FAA in the US would be all over that. What's an acceptable "accident" rate for personal matter transport, should it be safer than flying? kidding, sandworm
OhWell	posted 06-30-99 08:04 AM ET Shadowhawk, The tech manuals? How did you get those? They are supposed to be restricted! �true Geekiness�... hehehe. Sandworm, Yes! Put a government agency in charge! That will kill the technology for sure!
DerekM	posted 06-30-99 08:18 AM ET Ah, yes, Shadwhawk. I'm familiar with those concepts, somewhat. I also own the NextGen Technical Manual, the Encyclopeida, the Compendium, etc. My point was that those limitations are made up by the writers to keep the technologies from becoming overwhelming. If you can take somebody apart, turn them into a stream of particles, and then put them back together again elsewhere, then why can't you turn a rock into a sandwich? If you can create a component, like a plasma conduit, then why can't you simultaneously assemble those components? Starfleet has obviously mastered technologies like forcefields, tractor beams and the holodeck. I'm not criticizing Star Trek. What I'm saying is that, if you really want to think about what effect that type of technology would have on society, then don't build in the limitations Star Trek uses for dramatic purposes.
OhWell	posted 06-30-99 09:17 AM ET When I started this thread I really wasn�t thinking of the specific technologies from the Star Trek �universe�, just the concept of transporter and matter replication. I should have made that clear. I agree that there are many limitations placed on the technology in Star Trek so that it doesn�t dominate the story. I also agree with Shadowhawk that these technologies would likely take a ton of power and, with our currently available power sources, would not be economical.
Earwicker	posted 07-01-99 03:32 PM ET If transporters were cheap to use, think how drastically world cultures would be homologized by instantaneous travel between points. Just think about how much the last century's technology has shrunk the world. The whole concept of "getaways" and "remote" would change. Zap over to Bali for a quick dip. Do a day trip for some quick ecological damage down in the Amazon basin. Shoot over to the Serengeti for an afternoon lark. There are parts of the world where it's a good thing that people can't just show up at (mountaintops, war zones). Imagine if some yo-yo thought he'd like to check out the top of Everest just 'cause he'd never done anything like that. No conditioning, no training, probably not even proper gear. Adios, muchacho.
Rex Little	posted 07-01-99 03:56 PM ET Might not be such a bad thing. Think of it as evolution in action. . .
Darksider	posted 07-06-99 09:27 PM ET You know what I never got about STTNG? How come no matter how many times Q appeared and snapped his fingers to bring all the senior staff to the brigde, no one was ever in the shower at the time. Or worse, on the toilet. Picard : "Commander Data? Have you had any luck in getting that brown stain out of the bridge carpet?" Data : "Perhaps if we use the quantum destabilizers to depolarize the ....