Forgot your password?

Trek Tech That Most Needs To Be Invented Before I Die:

Displaying poll results.
Warp Drive
  8742 votes / 27%
Transporter
  6812 votes / 21%
Replicator
  5649 votes / 17%
Holodeck
  5306 votes / 16%
Phaser
270 votes / 0%
Cloaking Device
  721 votes / 2%
Synthale
  467 votes / 1%
"Fully Functional" Androids
  3958 votes / 12%
31925 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trek Tech That Most Needs To Be Invented Before I Die:

Comments Filter:
  • Replicator (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mark72005 (1233572) on Monday December 27, 2010 @02:52PM (#34678066)
    Serious question?

    The replicator would solve all the world's hunger and resource problems.
  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Monday December 27, 2010 @03:16PM (#34678308) Homepage Journal

    Yes, the gap between the haves (those with a replicator and power source) would be transcendentally elevated above the have-nots to such a degree that the have-nots would likely be regarded as a subordinate species, lest the guilt from living such a lavish life while others suffer in abject poverty cause a plague of suicides.

    If you have a replicator that can replicate (with relative ease) another replicator and power source, AND you can secure enough of the technology to create a self-sustaining project for making and distributing the devices, then you will change the world. Otherwise, the world will only change in the regard that some will live better and others will live worse, just like every other technology.

  • by N1tr0u5 (819066) on Monday December 27, 2010 @03:38PM (#34678518)
    Pick the one that CREATES energy... not consumes it. The only logical choice is the warp drive.

    One has to assume that all of these lovely devices consume MASSIVE amounts of energy in order to function, and we as a species are already having problems managing the "scant" resources we have. Make the warp drive, even just one, and we get MUCH further toward the rest of the tech than the other way around.

    Also, reaching other planets and/or system to obtain more resources is possible with this tech.
  • Re:Replicator (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IronicToo (514475) on Monday December 27, 2010 @03:42PM (#34678556) Homepage
    Actually we have more than enough food to go around right now. We don't have a food shortage problem we have a wealth inequality problem. This is a political/moral problem. A replicator would not change this any more then refrigeration, fertilizer, or tractors solved the hunger problem (despite the huge increases in food production they enabled).
  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Monday December 27, 2010 @03:51PM (#34678646) Homepage Journal

    Put more eloquently; "one bends space around you, the other bends you around space"... No word yet on how the Soviet Russian version will operate, but it perhaps involves creation and use of a 12th dimension: The State.

  • Re:warp drive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WrongMonkey (1027334) on Monday December 27, 2010 @04:04PM (#34678768)
    No transportation technology would be able to take pressure off the environment. There is currently a population of about 7 billion with an annual growth of 1.2%. We would need to send about a quarter million people off the planet every day just to balance population growth. Even if we discovered warp drive tomorrow, its reasonable to assume that it would have at least the same per person costs as conventional spacecraft. After all, you still need all the same life support and you still need to get people into orbit using conventional rockets.
  • by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Monday December 27, 2010 @04:18PM (#34678880) Homepage Journal
    The difference is, with warp drive you're probably still going to have to get the TSA grope down before you travel with it.
  • by pyalot (1197273) on Monday December 27, 2010 @05:31PM (#34679488)
    Actually, the med-tech in star-trek is is pretty disappointing.

    See, there you have a people that can disassemble and reassemble a human atom by atom. They can command stupendous amounts of energy, toy with anti-matter as if it was candies, possess nanobots and computers so stupendously powerful that frequently they'll have to fight off incidental self-awareness and to top it of they can also create force-fields wit a superb resolution as well as create new objects out of thin air (and a lot of energy).

    And all they manage is to make you life 150 years tops? really?
  • Re:Replicator (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clone52431 (1805862) on Monday December 27, 2010 @06:04PM (#34679784)

    Do you really believe that a person who doesn't work should be as wealthy as someone who works hard? That an alcoholic bum is equal to a brain surgeon or rocket scientist?

    Um, actually I think your problem is that you misunderstand the term “wealth inequality”. It is the concept that the average guy working his ass off in Africa still doesn’t make enough money to feed himself, much less his family. And it’s a problem.

    Granted I don’t agree with what socialists claim the answer to the problem is, but I won’t deny that it exists.

  • by Spatial (1235392) on Monday December 27, 2010 @07:24PM (#34680576)

    Only if you classify a person as matter. We're made of matter but I think it's more accurate to describe a person as a state or configuration; mutable; destructable; transferrable.

    By the way - it's already happened. How many cells in your body remain from birth, from a decade ago? Most of your body has been destroyed and recreated many times.

    It's fun to think about. Our instincts about identity completely fall apart beyond a certain point. Like the way we think of the world, the way we think of ourselves is merely a model with finite accuracy and relevance.

  • Re:Replicator (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @05:41AM (#34684338) Homepage Journal

    Do you really believe that a person who doesn't work should be as wealthy as someone who works hard?

    Just for arguments sake: Why shouldn't he? Please try to argue that without assuming a priori what should be the result of the argument, namely that being wealthy is a sign of being more valuable.

    The whole idea of wealth actually rests on this circular argument. And we don't even have to think hard to know that it isn't even remotely true. I'm sure everyone here can immediately come up with some names of people who contributed vastly to humanity and weren't wealthy (Mozart, most artists in fact, but also a good number of ancient philosophers, writers, scientists) as well as a lot of wealthy people whose "value" to the rest of us is largely in providing entertaining gossip (inherited wealth, mostly).

    In fact, "working hard" is the least reliably successful way towards wealth.

    Comparing middle-class "wealth" to street-bum "wealth" really only distracts from what "wealth inequality" is about, namely the fact that the majority of all wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer people.

    That said, I'm myself far from a socialist. I do believe that my knowledge and effort justify me having more stuff to play with. However, I also believe that fighting over the 20% of the nation's wealth is not what it should be about, and that very few of the people earning 100x my income and more are as much ahead of me than I am of even the people that earn 1/10th of me. And that is the inequality that needs to be fixed. This spread has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity, skills, hard working, study or anything else.

  • by Dr_Barnowl (709838) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @08:52AM (#34685130)

    I rather think the society needs at least one future technology for it's base - fusion reactors. Because energy is the foundation of all wealth, and you don't have an enlightened society without universal wealth (I'm not talking gold toilets, I'm talking water, food, house, and health).

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

 



Forgot your password?
Working...