Free associating on the Metro back home, it becomes clear that what the new rebooted Trek really needs is a re-do of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home but dealing with a more contemporary environmental threat than the need to save humpback whales from extinction. For example, The Enterprise could travel back in time to try to urge the Senate to pass strong climate change legislation. I’m sure Spock would have some choice words for the illogical nature of the filibuster rule. Or maybe Scottie could teach us about some dilithium-based sources of clean energy, spurring a green jobs boom.Funny. But also dissonant. Within the fictional Star Trek universe, the future's climate is doing just fine. So why would they want to go back in time to alleviate an environmental disaster that did NOT materialize? Either the dangers of global warming had been greatly exaggerated, technology had advanced to the point where it wasn't a problem, or some combination of the two. Going back in time for this is a solution in search of a problem.
To be cogent, Yglesias should advocate that Trek be changed to portray a much more dystopic climate future, so that traveling back in time to fix it would make sense. Alternatively, he should advocate that Trek portray "strong climate change legislation" has having already been enacted in a timely and effective fashion, such that this explains why (by his logic) everything turned out peachy in Trek's future. Of course, in that case, the opportunity for an amusing remake of The Voyage Home—clearly the most entertaining of the original movies—would be lost.
Ah well, it's probably silly of me to expect Yglesias' post to be logically consistent when he's appealing to human emotion. As Trek teaches, emotion is more fulfilling than cold logic. So grab your popcorn and have a nice laugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment