Martyn Plummer
19 February 1997

Of course I'm thinking of The Original Series here. Things are not quite so straightforward in the more recent manifestations of Trek, probably because the budget is higher and there are fewer constraints on production. But will we really have to speak so much techno-babble in the future? The idea that life in the future may be exciting, but at the same time completely incomprehensible, is not something I relish.

In one episode, Riker falls in love with a woman who doesn't really exist. But, hey, I guess we've all been there.

The most striking example of this difference is the holodeck, which seems to be used as a harmless form of entertainment by the crew of USS Enterprise (and, in the case of Worf, as a safe way of introducing some violence into the show). I can only think of two examples where it was psychologically harmful. In one episode Riker falls in love with a woman who doesn't really exist. But, hey, I guess we've all been there. The other example is Lt. Barclay (Dwight Shultz, in a neurotic counterpoint to his role as "Howling Mad" Murdock in the A-Team) who becomes psychologically trapped in his own virtual copy of the Enterprise: a fantasy world in which he is important, powerful, even loved.

If the fate of Lt. Barclay sounds far-fetched, think about the current epidemic of Quake addiction. As a simulation of reality, Quake is obviously a few bytes short of the holodeck. But it does offer a reasonably convincing fantasy world in which you really are empowered to turn your opponents into chunky sauce, and the rules of social interaction are reduced to the basics: if it moves, frag it. Quake is a lot easier to deal with than reality. I stopped playing Quake after realising that there was a strong correlation between how frustrated I felt with real life and the strength of the urge to kick some butt in Quake. God only knows what I would have done with a holodeck.