4 ms·

We are not approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. In Star Trek, they can heal wounds by shining a light on them. They can erase and alter people's memory. Th

We are not approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. In Star Trek, they can heal wounds by shining a light on them. They can erase and alter people's memory. They can scan for problems using a handheld device. They can cure blindness with a visor. We are nowhere near any of that. I know this doesn't really matter much, but if we're going to throw in hyperbole, it should at least be somewhat accurate. I think people are boo'ing anyone who brings up this point because it's such an incredible achievement. That's true, it is, and it's amazing that brain damage was reversed. But Star Trek is a useful, iconic yardstick for measuring our progress. Saying we're close to it discounts how much work we have left to do.

taeric 9y ago
I think you have to keep charity in mind on that compliment. It was meant as high praise for the medical achievement of curing someone. Not as reductionism to shining a light and magically curing something. More, that was pretty clear just in the comment. To that end, I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? My assertion would be that it is not. It is a common one. But there is nothing useful in it. Precisely because you have to cherry pick what parts you use and how you interpret them. For example, you interpreted it to refer to the method of curing. The comment was taking it for the level of the sickness that was cured. Both are valid places to look.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? I suppose it's sentimentality. If you watch TNG (which is difficult nowadays -- it's so far out of time), the writers made some interesting observations. We now have the capability to ask the computer for information (Google), the ability to send each other messages (email), and we can verbally ask the computer questions (Siri). Touch interface (iPhone). These are landmark achievements, and they were all predicted by a show which ended in 1994, before the advent of the internet. The technology predictions have generally been on-point, and it seems like a useful metric for how far humanity can progress.
  - arcanus 9y ago
    It may have more to teach: it was clearly a Post-scarcity society with some form of UBI,etc. Simultaneously it postulated that the humans of the future would not be cyborgs, which appears unlikely. Furthermore, few tasks were automated in a manner we might see in our lifetime, let alone the time of the show.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    Star Trek doesn't so much predict as it does inspire. We keep getting Trekky things in the real world because people want to make Trekky things; there's much work going on right now on tricorders, more directly inspired Trek tech.
  - joshuacc 9y ago
    > These are landmark achievements, and they were all predicted by a show which ended in 1994, before the advent of the internet. Umm. I was reading about TNG on the web in 1994. The internet had been around for a long time before the web was useful to ordinary people. Email has been around since the 70s. Search engines were certainly limited, but were already available in the early 90s. All these predictions succeeded because they were "predicting" incremental improvement on something already known to exist.
  - taeric 9y ago
    I get the sentimentality. But about the only part of the show that I feel resonates in the truly somewhat predictive mode, is how many tablet style interfaces they had. And even then, that is a bit of a stretch. I'd wager most of the things that you are quoting were less pioneered by Star Trek, and moreso popularized to an audience. In particular, using a computer to find information, talking to a computer, and sending messages electronically have long been staples in science fiction. Before science fiction, the only thing that was different was the "electronically" part. And really, I don't know as even Star Trek was treating "electronically" any different than earlier stories used "magically."
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Call it sentimentality, but I don't feel like watching TNG is that difficult nowadays. It's old and missing some of the tech we have today, but if you can suspend your disbelief on that, it stands pretty well. (To those who haven't watched TNG, the whole series is on Netflix, mostly (entirely?) in the remastered edition, so no TV-like quality. A piece of caution: this is not your typical sci-fi; it's much more positive about the future, science and technology than what we get served on TV these days.) RE the yardstick thing - there's still lots of things that in Star Trek are shown as easy, and that they feel like they should be easy with sufficiently advanced tech, and that are still hard for us today. So it's maybe less of an yardstick and more of a goal / reminder that there's lots to be done yet.
technofire 9y ago
> if we're going to throw in hyperbole, it should at least be somewhat accurate Exaggeration is an essential part of the definition of hyperbole. Merriam-Webster literally gives the definition of the word simply as "extravagant exaggeration."[1] [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole
nkoren 9y ago
> In Star Trek, they can heal wounds by shining a light on them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy > They can erase and alter people's memory https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572521 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572521, plus lots of pharmacological stuff in spook-land which is well-attested but rarely peer-reviewed. > They can scan for problems using a handheld device. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/26/health/ai-system-detects-skin-cancer-study/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/26/health/ai-system-detects-s... > We are nowhere near any of that. In the case of your specific examples, we are. It's early days and unevenly distributed, but actually we are getting there.
syphilis2 9y ago
Maybe your comment is correct in whole, but your examples immediately brought to mind science headlines from the past few years. Specifically the use of Near InfraRed (NIR) light to treat Multiple Sclerosis, the use of blue light to heal wounds and disinfect, reading the states of neurons in hydra and also in mice, implanting false memories into mice, and a plethora of transportable medical scanners. The implementation is not what a viewer would imagine, but they all meet the descriptions as written. Even if we are not near, we are undoubtedly approaching "Star Trek" technology by so narrowly attempting to replicate it. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022102227.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022102227.h... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910142334.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910142334.h... http://www.dailytech.com/New+Miracle+Diagnosis+Handheld+Medical+Scanner+800+Times+More+Sensitive+Than+Fullsize+Scanners/article12322.htm http://www.dailytech.com/New+Miracle+Diagnosis+Handheld+Medi... https://www.cnet.com/news/esight-video-glasses-restores-sight-legally-blind-star-trek-visor-headset/ https://www.cnet.com/news/esight-video-glasses-restores-sigh... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/03/vision-chip-sight-blind-man https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/03/vision-chip-...

taeric 9y ago

I think you have to keep charity in mind on that compliment. It was meant as high praise for the medical achievement of curing someone. Not as reductionism to shining a light and magically curing something. More, that was pretty clear just in the comment. To that end, I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? My assertion would be that it is not. It is a common one. But there is nothing useful in it. Precisely because you have to cherry pick what parts you use and how you interpret them. For example, you interpreted it to refer to the method of curing. The comment was taking it for the level of the sickness that was cured. Both are valid places to look.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? I suppose it's sentimentality. If you watch TNG (which is difficult nowadays -- it's so far out of time), the writers made some interesting observations. We now have the capability to ask the computer for information (Google), the ability to send each other messages (email), and we can verbally ask the computer questions (Siri). Touch interface (iPhone). These are landmark achievements, and they were all predicted by a show which ended in 1994, before the advent of the internet. The technology predictions have generally been on-point, and it seems like a useful metric for how far humanity can progress.
- arcanus 9y ago
  It may have more to teach: it was clearly a Post-scarcity society with some form of UBI,etc. Simultaneously it postulated that the humans of the future would not be cyborgs, which appears unlikely. Furthermore, few tasks were automated in a manner we might see in our lifetime, let alone the time of the show.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  Star Trek doesn't so much predict as it does inspire. We keep getting Trekky things in the real world because people want to make Trekky things; there's much work going on right now on tricorders, more directly inspired Trek tech.
- joshuacc 9y ago
  > These are landmark achievements, and they were all predicted by a show which ended in 1994, before the advent of the internet. Umm. I was reading about TNG on the web in 1994. The internet had been around for a long time before the web was useful to ordinary people. Email has been around since the 70s. Search engines were certainly limited, but were already available in the early 90s. All these predictions succeeded because they were "predicting" incremental improvement on something already known to exist.
- taeric 9y ago
  I get the sentimentality. But about the only part of the show that I feel resonates in the truly somewhat predictive mode, is how many tablet style interfaces they had. And even then, that is a bit of a stretch. I'd wager most of the things that you are quoting were less pioneered by Star Trek, and moreso popularized to an audience. In particular, using a computer to find information, talking to a computer, and sending messages electronically have long been staples in science fiction. Before science fiction, the only thing that was different was the "electronically" part. And really, I don't know as even Star Trek was treating "electronically" any different than earlier stories used "magically."
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Call it sentimentality, but I don't feel like watching TNG is that difficult nowadays. It's old and missing some of the tech we have today, but if you can suspend your disbelief on that, it stands pretty well. (To those who haven't watched TNG, the whole series is on Netflix, mostly (entirely?) in the remastered edition, so no TV-like quality. A piece of caution: this is not your typical sci-fi; it's much more positive about the future, science and technology than what we get served on TV these days.) RE the yardstick thing - there's still lots of things that in Star Trek are shown as easy, and that they feel like they should be easy with sufficiently advanced tech, and that are still hard for us today. So it's maybe less of an yardstick and more of a goal / reminder that there's lots to be done yet.

technofire 9y ago

> if we're going to throw in hyperbole, it should at least be somewhat accurate Exaggeration is an essential part of the definition of hyperbole. Merriam-Webster literally gives the definition of the word simply as "extravagant exaggeration."[1] [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole

nkoren 9y ago

> In Star Trek, they can heal wounds by shining a light on them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy > They can erase and alter people's memory https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572521 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572521, plus lots of pharmacological stuff in spook-land which is well-attested but rarely peer-reviewed. > They can scan for problems using a handheld device. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/26/health/ai-system-detects-skin-cancer-study/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/26/health/ai-system-detects-s... > We are nowhere near any of that. In the case of your specific examples, we are. It's early days and unevenly distributed, but actually we are getting there.

syphilis2 9y ago

Maybe your comment is correct in whole, but your examples immediately brought to mind science headlines from the past few years. Specifically the use of Near InfraRed (NIR) light to treat Multiple Sclerosis, the use of blue light to heal wounds and disinfect, reading the states of neurons in hydra and also in mice, implanting false memories into mice, and a plethora of transportable medical scanners. The implementation is not what a viewer would imagine, but they all meet the descriptions as written. Even if we are not near, we are undoubtedly approaching "Star Trek" technology by so narrowly attempting to replicate it. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022102227.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022102227.h... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910142334.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910142334.h... http://www.dailytech.com/New+Miracle+Diagnosis+Handheld+Medical+Scanner+800+Times+More+Sensitive+Than+Fullsize+Scanners/article12322.htm http://www.dailytech.com/New+Miracle+Diagnosis+Handheld+Medi... https://www.cnet.com/news/esight-video-glasses-restores-sight-legally-blind-star-trek-visor-headset/ https://www.cnet.com/news/esight-video-glasses-restores-sigh... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/03/vision-chip-sight-blind-man https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/03/vision-chip-...