Lololol

Star Trek is superior! Pt2

A classic debate! Good or Evil? Chocolate or Strawberry? Star Trek or Star Wars? But unlike those timeless questions this one really does seem to have a compelling answer. And its not what the majority seem to think.

A few necessary caveats (take heed ye trolls):

1) Although it hardly needs saying...these are both completely fictional universes whose technology and scientific foundations are, at best, bolted on after the fact as part of the setting and/or necessary plot devices. This entire debate is like meaningfully debating the combat prowess of Unicorns vs. Dragons...but we're going to do it anyway.

2) The goal is to assume the most favourable interpretations for each technology as demonstrated most coherently by each canon. Obvious mistakes (i.e using parsecs as a measure of time...Hello Han) or figures completely inconsistent with the results offered (Star Destroyers with power generation of 7.75 x 1024 W...only 100x times less than the SUN!!) will be ignored. For those crying foul a Star Destroyer that needs that much power (to create the abilities displayed) would represent the most fantastic inefficiency ever conceived. Likewise, some of the energy readings suggested for Star Wars laser weapons would instantaneously vaporize any unshielded craft, not to mention the atmosphere in between them, in rather spectacular fashion. Nothing in the physical behaviour of these weapons supports these values (for instance that Slave 1 has 64,000 GW lasers or 190 Megaton missiles. Never, in any battle, was a blast of that nature or kind observed). Bottom line: All weapons and systems should be evaluated on how they ACTUALLY perform as depicted in the canon as opposed to often innumerate and psuedo-scientific gibberish offered in support of them. As a more concrete example in Prometheus the distance travelled to LV223 is 35 light years but stated by a character of being "Half a Billion miles" from Earth...or just past Jupiter. In a case like this we would assume they were capable of travelling 35 light years. Not the innumerate idiocy of half a billion miles. Having said that, where a vaguely credible explanation has been offered it will generally be taken (i.e. lasers are lasers).

3) The treatment of technology dramatically complicates the task of comparison. Star Trek consciously attempted to provide at least some basis (however weak or novel) for the science behind their technology. Star Trek represents a technological utopia and was promoting the idea of a better future via modern technology. This is also evident in that the technology of Star Trek advances dramatically over the course of the various seasons (including referencing far future Star Trek timelines with mastery over time itself). Star Wars makes no such claims and depicts an utterly static technological milieu in which no appreciable advances have been made (save perhaps the Death Star itself) in tens of thousands of years. In addition, Star Wars often offers little, or no scientific explination for its tech (Hyperspace...its fast). I am assuming the general tech capabilities of Trek as found as late as Voyager.

With those out of the way lets get to the point. This is not a close fight. Despite the desires of the many fans the Star Trek universe is rife with economic, tactical, social, and technological superiority. Claims of Star Wars victories all seem to echo the Stalin-esque view that 'Quantity has a Quality all its own. But this is profoundly misguided. Here's why:

Economic
Star Wars population is very difficult to assess. Some estimates suggest a 1,000,000 world Empire. But the Galactic Senate depicts a vastly smaller political entity. According to Star Wars Wiki the Empire was divided into units of 50 systems each with a senator. However, the Senate only has 2,000 members. Which means a galactic polity of 100,000 active members. This is still vastly greater than the Federation with something like 150 members and 1-5 thousand worlds. However, the nature of this population is most important. The Empire, while having far larger population appears weakly integrated. Entire populations (quite commonly) are depicted as isolated and poor. Basic farming or harvesting seems commonplace. Much of the population appears uneducated and even tribal. While the core worlds are densely populated they are apparently completely dependant on agricultural and other products from the empire. This means Star Wars retains a traditional resource economy model. Star Trek by contrast has matter/energy conversion. The Federation is deeply integrated with almost no poverty and a large decentralized membership of worlds. The importance of matter/energy conversion cannot be overemphasized. On a war footing the only limits to the Federations economic capacity is energy which is in vast supply in both universes. In addition, each world is at least theoretically capable of self sufficiency. Although there still appears to be strategic resources in Trek (dilithium comes to mind) these are relatively limited and the series has routinely demonstrated that they can innovate when necessary around them. The greatest advantage of the Empire is size. But the small highly integrated and economically more advanced Federation is similar to the inequality many leading nations in earth history have held over their more numerous adversaries. Numbers alone cannot determine the issue.