Complaint Memo: Star Trek and Climate Change – Ways to Improve

These are just a few short notes that I already made elsewhere. Given time I will elaborate on them more completely, perhaps even individually, but I thought I should post this memo here as well.

In the Star Trek universe we learn in the Voyager episode, “Future’s End” (part 1), that most of Los Angeles goes underwater. If I remember correctly, it is because of an earthquake.

How did LA go underwater, but not San Francisco? San Francisco is where Starfleet Headquarters is, and San Francisco is fine.

Why doesn’t newer Trek incorporate what we now know about sea level rise? It is mentioned that future generations have to clean up our climate mess, but sea levels wouldn’t correct themselves.

I can’t recall what Star Trek episode(s) mentioned that future generations have to clean up our climate related issues. What is mostly focused on is the aftermath of WWIII.

I do know when it is mentioned, quite specifically, in The Orville, several times. I am certain Trek references it, too, but they really do need a course correction on attempting to reflect an accurate projection of the future, as best as they can.

Take sea level rise for instance. I am aware too much about climate change is not known with the kind of specifics to include into dialogue, but with sea level rise we know a great deal and with a lot of specifics. There is no reason Star Trek should ignore it as the U.S. is largely ignoring it now.

I wrote a post about how Star Trek would benefit from focusing more on ecology

I have a great many opinions on how Trek should be more realistic with the evolution of living language, linguistics, and portrayal and evolution of language, but I have never written about it. I should and will eventually.

But what is beyond essential is the need for Trek to get involved in incorporating the realities of climate change into historical canon.

Cross-posted here.

Previous Article
Next Article