Boldly or Barely

"Should we feel encouraged by our new awareness? Perhaps diminished? Suffice it to say humanity hasn’t given it a thought. Most of us, instead of looking outward, have spent the past 17 years sewing ourselves into an earthbound straitjacket of cell-phoned, instant-messaged, Internetted connectedness that has made the species more solipsistic than ever. Forget jihad and global warming; we may just talk ourselves to death. One almost wonders whether all our endless communication about nothing, this clinging together, isn’t some fearful, subconscious response to our new knowledge that other civilizations have got to be out there, perhaps some that can run celestial rings around us. Are we afraid of what we newly know? Is that why we give it no serious reflection?"

This is from an article in the May issue of The Atlantic magazine.  Pretty timely considering the release this second weekend in May of the newest movie in the Star Trek franchise.  I can't remember reading so much about a movie, except perhaps the hype preceding the Harry Potter movies (HBP July 15---can't wait!!!).  The  Star Trek movie is definitely worth the price of admission--a fascinating retake on the original enterprise.  On Tuesday May 12th the first six movies will be released on Blu-ray disc.  What a wonderful way to waste weekends......

Today's New York Times has joined the blitz about the new movie.  Maureen Dowd's column about saving journalism is worth the read if for no other reason than this picture:

There are two other articles in the paper about Star Trek and its influence on our culture.  One is by David Hadju, a professor at Columbia University that discusses the original series and its production---re-using sets, recycling tried and true tv themes.  Personally, I disagree with his article---while I can appreciate his position, I always felt the original series was aired to reflect the views of its creator, Gene Roddenberry, who seemed to believe in the struggle of mankind to allow its intrinsic nobility to shine forth.  This is the premise of the article by Dave Itzkoff in the same paper.  The original series and the new movie are both born of from the turbulence of their times.  And both offer the hope that civilization will prevail over the best efforts of man to destroy himself and his environment.  

So does it all comes down to survival as the "final frontier"?  Will we fulfill the challenge of the spoken introduction of the series and the last words of the movie: "to boldly go where no man has gone before" or will we merely meet the expectations of Darwin and attempt to survive as a species?