Couple of thoughts in response to this thread:

  1. I think the Borg, as a concept, somewhat falls apart when we considering that natural, biological systems are actually often perfect models for the efficiency that the Borg claim to strive for. And, to clarify, I’m not saying the concept falls apart from a doylist perspective - I think that the fact that Borg technology evolves independent of any particular intent and is highly automated to take the most efficient route to its endpoint kind of reveals the folly of the Borg, which would be super interesting to explore. They’re just recreating systems which already exist in nature, from a certain point of view.

  2. Considering the miracle of dermal regenerators and similar technology, I actually think Assimilation is highly reversible. Just still really traumatic.

PS - I’m not really sure on what the policy is on linking topics from the subreddit but I’m trying not to post on Reddit so.i guess this is my way of transitioning. Remove if not ok, I guess?

  • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 年前

    Biological systems are evolved to their habitat. Space travel is different. Also, we still need surgeries and joint replacement, cybernetic implants are merely augmentation to enhance communication or fighting or work efficiency.

    Seven of Nine didn’t get both eyes back, one was a prosthetic.

    But I’m definitely enjoying this topic.

    • commander_la_freak@startrek.websiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 年前

      I think we can use the term environment instead of habitat to cover more ground - The Borg or their precursors certainly created a different environment in the macro sense by living in spaceships, but their tech is still navigating systems -biological and otherwise - on a microscopic level (nanoprobes are developing/ functioning in a humanoid body in space just as on a planet - that’s their environment/ habitat)