College Publisher Test Site

Issue date: 10/8/09 Section: Opinion

Robinson

Watching Star Trek this summer got me all excited about science fiction gadgetry again. The transporters have always been a personal favorite since the original series, even if Captain Kirk never exactly said "Beam me up, Scotty."

The transporter began as a budget maneuver for the producers of the original television show. Beaming somebody down to a planet spared the cost of filming expensive miniature sequences with model spaceships. Within the fictional Trek universe, the transporters also contribute to the show's sense of unlimited adventure. Star Trek is a fantasy of travel and transporters are one expression of the freedom to boldly go.

Trek likes to paint a rosy image of the future. While we do sometimes see the downside of transporters (being disintegrated, winding up in alternate universes, etc.), on the Enterprise beaming is a relatively safe way mode of transport. I can't help wondering though, how would transporters make life back on Earth?

I grew up in Cape St. Claire, Md. Living close to the Bay Bridge, I learned how the desire of others to travel could mess up my plans. Every warm weekend people drove across that bridge to and from Ocean City, creating massive traffic jams. If humans could travel with even more ease, would they all go to the popular places? Just imagine all the people who would go to Disneyworld or Vegas on a whim. Think about all the folks who would beam over to see the Mona Lisa or the Eiffel Tower. There wouldn't be traffic jams though. No, we'd all be buffered up in the transporter computers, waiting to come out the other end. Hopefully this proverbial fender bender wouldn't end up a body blender.

Which raises the question, why just transport? If we're sending our molecules around, why not modify them along the way? Years ago at a comic convention, I heard X-Men writer Chris Claremont wonder why Star Trek: The Next Generation's Commander Riker couldn't step into the transporter and say "Twenty pounds off please." It was a dig at actor Jonathan Frakes' weight, but the question is still a good one.

As long as molecules are shuffling around, why not edit off some pounds, delete some moles, or change hair style and color? Fashion would be instantly achievable. Why stop there? People could literally be the celebrity. Would celebs do this? Yes, they'd sell their DNA in licensing deals. Fans could pay to be Brad or Angelina (watch out for cheap knock-off patterns that result in Brangelina though).

Why have just human DNA? Why not toss a little cat or something in there. Yes, I'm familiar with The Fly. I know this can go horribly wrong. But flies stink. Cats are cool. I'd enjoy purring, always landing on my feet, and having an excuse to sleep most of the day away.

Maybe you wouldn't do this but through the miracle of peer pressure, tattoos went from rebellious statements to mundane expectations. I think many people would. C'mon, all your friends are flying-unicorn-dolphin-tigers, don't you want to be cool too?

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools