Intelligence is the Answer

[Junghalli]

Unfortunately, that can only operate as a selector for activities that are connected to structures primarily affected by government motivation.

Which, in a society so thoroughly centralized that there is no currency anymore, would be virtually every aspect of the economy right down to what everybody eats for lunch. Literally.

despite the institutionalized incompetence of their industrial and scientific sectors, Russia still produced brilliance in areas unrelated to those factors, such as Chess, Mathematics, and Art

We've never seen much Federation chess tournaments, art, or mathematics in the show so by what basis do you say they're dumb in these areas? The Federation does seem to have a very poor culture from what we see, virtually all forms of human cultural expression seem to have stopped at the twentieth century, but before that ST Earth had a culture just as vibrant as ours based on what we know. Certainly the fact that it produced people like Shakespeare, Bethoven (sp?), Einstein etc. doesn't seem to jibe very well with your "they're Neanderthals with spaceships" hypothesis.

Also, we had the development of rich and competent organization in those few areas where a command-control system like communism CAN generate good selection mechanisms, like small unit competence(Spetznatz, the Russian Space Program, etc) and self organizing selectors, like the Russian Mafia.

Proof that this doesn't happen in the Federation? Let's keep it in perspective: all we've seen through all of Trek is a few ships and a space station of the Federation's navy, and a few very brief glimpses of Earth, Vulcan etc.

They all seem to suffer from the same generalized intellectual deficit. The Romulans may have made the least mistakes(minus their ridiculous 'invasion' of Vulkan, and Nemesis events) but they remain at the same level.

Consider the historical context. As of the beginning of TNG there's been close to a century of peace. It's not hard at all to imagine a scenario where all the major powers turned inward. The Klingons focused all their attention on squabbles between their Great Houses, the Federation falls into the hands of a bunch of commie-hippie types, the Romulans were stuck in their mostly empty portion of the BQ twiddling their thumbs, the Cardassians are still playing catch-up to everybody else. The result would be a general degredation in competence on all sides between TOS and TNG-which is sort of exactly what we see.

As a side-note, I'm not sure why you would characterize a hive-mind as a naturally uncreative form of intellect.

Because a huge amount of human creativity comes from the synergy of many different individuals with different points of view arguing or working together. Two or three people working together are more likely to come up with a solution to a given problem than one person on his own. That's not just a matter of sheer brain power or knowledge, it's also each person taking a different approach to the problem that might not occur to somebody else, or that the other person might dismiss out of hand.
With a hive mind, like the Borg, you've got everybody thinking the exact same things in the exact same way. The hive mind may have vast raw intelligence but in terms of actually applying its intellect it's equivalent to one person working on his own, with no outside input. That's why the Borg assimilate the technology and ideas of other species: cultures of individualistic intelligences are much more innovative than a big monolithic collective could ever be. The Borg are the intellectual equivalent of Vikings; plundering the minds and intellectual heritage of others for stuff they themselves can't produce.

[Mark S]

Show ANYWHERE in Trek, they've EVER indicated that their universe came about somehow differently.

Five words my friend. Crack in the event horizon.

[Ghost Rider]

Show ANYWHERE in Trek, they've EVER indicated that their universe came about somehow differently.

Five words my friend. Crack in the event horizon.

Oh blow me .

I know all about Voyager....well, let's just say interesting take on a black hole.

[outlawpoet]

Show ANYWHERE in Trek, they've EVER indicated that their universe came about somehow differently.

Five words my friend. Crack in the event horizon.

Oh blow me .

I know all about Voyager....well, let's just say interesting take on a black hole.

Actually, I'm with Ghost Rider on this one, that's actually not a good example of the laws of physics being different. It requires a tortured explanation, but in theory, they could just be using the words wrong.

An event horizon is essentially the radius at which it's impossible to escape from a gravity field, and given the fact that gravity can be altered in the Trek universe, it's theoretically possible that a black hole could have an assymetric gravity well. Therefore, at a given distance from the hole, one orientation would be within the event horizon, and another would not. So you find a deep 'valley' where gravity is weakest, and you can reach a point 'outside the event horizon' without increasing your radial distance from the black hole and not violating the rules.

This depends on you being able to move within the radius of an event horizon, which is kind of... bizarre, but I would suspect that superluminal drive would tend to change the characteristics of 'being within the event horizon' in the first place.

[outlawpoet]

There was also the part about the Vulcans injecting advanced technology into a devestated world and the Federation perhaps trying to play catch up and therefore not understanding the fundamentals of their technology, but I guess you skipped that.

You are right, of course. I can generate special case arguments for just about all these events as well.

I reach different conclusions, though, because I believe that it's simpler to imagine a general factor, than many many special cases that happen to be so.

I'm going to try to present my case a bit better in a few posts.

[outlawpoet]

None of this is evidence that there is a physical law preventing the protagonists in Trek from acting intelligently.

I am absolutely not positing any such physical law.

I was responding to Ghost Rider's challenge to show "that their universe came about somehow differently"

So in other words you are saying that somehow the mechanism of natural selection would have favoured the stupid rather than the most intelligent creatures?

absolutely not. Obviously, more intelligent creatures have some advantage in the trek universe, or intelligent creatures would never evolve.

evolution is not a magical optimization process. there is no 'physical law' preventing humans in our world from being more intelligent(unless Anders Sandberg's Communication Constant S has any creedence) but we only have 7 +-2 short term objects in memory, and only three dimensional object handling in our visual corticies. Why can't we remember thousands of objects or rotate fifty dimensional objects mentally?

Because there was no easily accessible adaption that provided a direct reproductive differential in the populations that our ancestors belonged to. I'm positing that in the Trekverse, culture can arise in less complexity, because technology is more accessible. Which means that there will be no reproductive advantage to certain cognitive expansions that exist in our own evolutionary history. They will be swamped by cultural advantages, just like small differences in intelligence don't net you any more children in modern america(quite the opposite).

There is a mountain of physical evidence for you to overcome. The humans in Star Trek look exactly like the humans in our reality, and their brain size is the same. It is supposed to be an alternate universe, so everything is the same as in our reality unless there is explicitly stated difference. For example the events in their reality in 1800ish would be the same as our reality in 1800ish, unless there was an explicit difference stated in the show.

Trivially untrue. Medical science in Trek is radically different, and in many cases gives biological factors that are very different than modern day humans. Example, the Voyager episode where Borg nano-assimilators are shown under microscopy in human body fluid. The cells shown are radically different than any human cells I've seen under the microscope, they lack intracellular structure, have monstrous and undifferentiated nuclea, etc etc.

I previously mentioned that stellar mechanics and abiogenesis occur differently in Trek than in real life, this isn't a 'stated difference' between our reality and Trek? Those are major factors to be included in the starting conditions to evolution, and seem more than sufficient to show at the very least, a material difference between modern day humans and Trek humans.

[outlawpoet]

Which, in a society so thoroughly centralized that there is no currency anymore, would be virtually every aspect of the economy right down to what everybody eats for lunch. Literally.

true. it weakens the case for humans, certainly.

We've never seen much Federation chess tournaments, art, or mathematics in the show so by what basis do you say they're dumb in these areas? The Federation does seem to have a very poor culture from what we see, virtually all forms of human cultural expression seem to have stopped at the twentieth century, but before that ST Earth had a culture just as vibrant as ours based on what we know. Certainly the fact that it produced people like Shakespeare, Bethoven (sp?), Einstein etc. doesn't seem to jibe very well with your "they're Neanderthals with spaceships" hypothesis.

Absolutely true. This is a major problem for my hypothesis. If we assume that the historical figures mentioned in Trek are identical to our own, my theory of course must be false, as they imply that conditions must be identical.

However, the existence of the same words in Star Trek, which have very different meanings than their accepted current day meanings(SI units, for example) implies that similar words and names can be very different for the Trek universe as compared to ours. This is perhaps the weakest point in my theory.

Because a huge amount of human creativity comes from the synergy of many different individuals with different points of view arguing or working together.

This could just as easily be because human brains are not large enough to contain enough concepts to be very creative, but I see your point.

The Borg are the intellectual equivalent of Vikings; plundering the minds and intellectual heritage of others for stuff they themselves can't produce.

it seems to be so, certainly. But then, all Trek races steal from each other all the time. None of them are really free of that mentality.

[Mark S]

...and given the fact that gravity can be altered in the Trek universe, it's theoretically possible that a black hole could have an assymetric gravity well. Therefore, at a given distance from the hole, one orientation would be within the event horizon, and another would not. So you find a deep 'valley' where gravity is weakest, and you can reach a point 'outside the event horizon' without increasing your radial distance from the black hole and not violating the rules.

Who fucking farted in the thread? Oh, it's just you talking out of your ass. You're really stretching here.

And that's the problem that everyone is trying to tell you with this 'Evolved Stupidity' theory, it's just stretching too far. You've gone back to the beginning of time and changed the nature of humanity, not to mention the very universe itself, to explain what you view as a culture of stupidity, ignoring completely the fact that human development is exactly the same up until the beginning of that culture. It's more likely that a super being started putting a chemical in the water to make everyone more peaceful and docile, that had the side effect of also dropping IQs. Since the IQs dropped, no one could tell that it was happening and no one was stopping it. Yeah, see. That's why Geordie can invent things in ten minutes. He's been drinking pure well water all of his life and the drugged water on the Enterprise doesn't have as much of an effect. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is every other species just as inept? They were all given it too. I blame the Horta.

[outlawpoet]

I'm going to try and delineate the basic factors in my theory, and some of the supporting evidence I see. I think this may forstall more questions than responding piecemeal as I have been previously.

First of all, I'm working backwards from the assumption of a consistent physics and history. Obviously, the reason why Trek has such bizarre and stupid plot points and inconsistent technology is because of it's vast array of different writers and poor direction. But for our purposes, what we see is what we get.

My theory is that in the Trekverse, the coupling constant in chromodynamics is fractionally higher.

This is several major effects:

1. Baryonic matter is stable earlier in the formation of the universe, and at a higher temperature.

2. Certain reactions behave differently at the time period in Trek, some require much less input energy because the global temperature is higher, others seem to require much more energy. (more depressingly, this would mean that as the universe cools to the temperature we're used to, some reactions get harder and harder to initiate, good for avoiding proton decay, but not for continuing to be dynamic beings without massive operating energies)

3. Materials science is vastly different. This would explain why in Trek there are more transuranic elements, may of which are unreasonably stable. This would also potentially explain alloyed metallic elements occuring in situ on naturally formed planets. It would also explain natural materials with extremely high magnetic flux.

4. Stars existing in a high-entropy, high temperature environment would have unpredictable effects, for the purposes of my theory, I assume that this would lead to faster stellar phenomena(as the Enterprise in TNG encounters many times) as well as some of the more bizarre events, like an exploding star throwing out what appears to be a solid glowing chunk far in advance of the main radiative explosion(in that case it would be a form of degenerate matter(with a higher coupling constant, this would be more likely in 'normal' star densities)).

5. (and most contentiously) animals evolving in a universe with the previous changes would be able to initiate chemical and kinetic reactions with much lower input values, and thus much earlier in mental development. This would lead to cultural accretion of knowledge and power, removing evolutionary forces from cognitive development at lower absolute intelligence.

This last point has several important sub points:

5a. intelligences will exist at the lowest neccesary value to support culture, if evolved, thus in a universe with these laws, this average intelligence value will be similar across similar evolutionary contexts.

5b. with lower absolute intelligence, but simpler technological development, the primary limitation to progress will be having the ideas in the first place, giving rise to the 'inspiration' process we see in trek, where once engineering concepts are originated, they can be put into practice almost immediately.

5c. with interactive elements becoming increasingly important over simply initiating reactions in advanced technology, technological progress will initially accelerate and then hit an asymptotic wall, as the physical advantage of the universe gives way to the general disadvantage of lower natural intelligence.

5d. the most advanced technologies will differ little from less advanced technologies in application and interface, as physical constraints are less important at the edge compared to 'understanding'.

[outlawpoet]

And that's the problem that everyone is trying to tell you with this 'Evolved Stupidity' theory, it's just stretching too far. You've gone back to the beginning of time and changed the nature of humanity, not to mention the very universe itself, to explain what you view as a culture of stupidity, ignoring completely the fact that human development is exactly the same up until the beginning of that culture.

of course I'm reaching far. I need a simple differential to explain not only a culture of stupidity, but many parallel cultures of stupidity, vastly different materials science, engineering principles, energy beings running around doing things vastly out of proportion to their seeming mass, and frankly bizarre physical theories.

I don't think that any of these can be explained in the context of 'the exact same universe' that we live in, certainly not with the exact same laws.

I'm being conservative in not just reaching for magic, I think.

Unless you have a simpler factor that explains all these.

[Junghalli]

Absolutely true. This is a major problem for my hypothesis. If we assume that the historical figures mentioned in Trek are identical to our own, my theory of course must be false, as they imply that conditions must be identical.

Plus there's the factor that TOS is much less retarded than TNG, suggesting a cultural as opposed to biological explanation. And the decline of the culture nicely coincides with the Long Peace and the Federation's apparent communization (more on that when I go on to respond to your theory).

However, the existence of the same words in Star Trek, which have very different meanings than their accepted current day meanings(SI units, for example) implies that similar words and names can be very different for the Trek universe as compared to ours.

Or we could simply write it up to human error. Hey, apparently even Data slips up occassionally. And it could also have something to do with a government-run school system that rewards proper ideology over actual ability, or a military that promotes ideologically correct officers to plum assignments like the Enterprise regardless of the fact they're actually clueless morons, while more intelligent men languish in border outposts because they don't say the right things.

This could just as easily be because human brains are not large enough to contain enough concepts to be very creative, but I see your point.

I tend to think that the differences of opinion, viewpoint, personality, goals, interpretation, and life experience that exist in a community of individuals fuels a great deal of creativity, based on what I've seen.

it seems to be so, certainly. But then, all Trek races steal from each other all the time. None of them are really free of that mentality.

That's tech sharing, and is actually fairly realistic.

[Junghalli]

My theory is that in the Trekverse, the coupling constant in chromodynamics is fractionally higher.
This is several major effects:
1. Baryonic matter is stable earlier in the formation of the universe, and at a higher temperature.
2. Certain reactions behave differently at the time period in Trek, some require much less input energy because the global temperature is higher, others seem to require much more energy. (more depressingly, this would mean that as the universe cools to the temperature we're used to, some reactions get harder and harder to initiate, good for avoiding proton decay, but not for continuing to be dynamic beings without massive operating energies)

Wouldn't this result in radically different lifeforms from what we're familiar with, making the development of humans unlikely?
Anyway, most of the really weird science in ST seems to involve either subspace or some other bizzare mythical phenomenon. Common chemical reactions don't seem any different from our own universe. The main divergence of Trekverse physics (if we accept that Trekverse physics is actually different and not our physics, we just don't realize it yet) from real physics is that Trek physics seems to be much more unstable. All kinds of strange macroscopic quantum processes seem to be common in Trekverse that are probably rare or impossible in RL. If you're looking for a cosmological divergence between the two universes it has been suggested by some that spacetime in the Trek galaxy is much more unstable than it is in our neck of the universe (possibly the fabric of reality is gradually coming unglued from all the people messing with it with time travel and such). This would neatly explain the technobabble, because the more dynamic and "compliant" spacetime would let you do all kinds of interesting stuff that you couldn't do here. It wouldn't have any effect on intelligence though, just make a lot of handy stuff much easier (like FTL).

3. Materials science is vastly different. This would explain why in Trek there are more transuranic elements, may of which are unreasonably stable. This would also potentially explain alloyed metallic elements occuring in situ on naturally formed planets. It would also explain natural materials with extremely high magnetic flux.

The substances you refer to (tritanium, duranium etc.) are IMO far more likely to be new alloys, composites, or ceramics than transuranic elements. The only thing indicating that they're elements is the "ium" ending, and I have a much easier time swallowing the idea that the language could change so "X-ium" can refer to a compound than swallowing the idea that Trekverse has a ton of elements ours doesn't. How such alloys could exist naturally is rather difficult to explain, but if I may venture a hesitant suggestion it may be that the characters were simply referring to base compounds and metals from which they would be manufactured. It would be rather like somebody referring to a region as being rich in aluminum when that would actually be impossible, it would be rich in bauxite.
As for magnetic elements, it's probably just that transporters are very sensitive to magnetic fields. There ARE magnetic metal deposits on Earth, you know?

4. Stars existing in a high-entropy, high temperature environment would have unpredictable effects, for the purposes of my theory, I assume that this would lead to faster stellar phenomena(as the Enterprise in TNG encounters many times) as well as some of the more bizarre events, like an exploding star throwing out what appears to be a solid glowing chunk far in advance of the main radiative explosion(in that case it would be a form of degenerate matter(with a higher coupling constant, this would be more likely in 'normal' star densities)).

Would you care to expand on this? I can't remember stars behaving very differently in Trekverse than they do in RL. Aside maybe from references to inhabited worlds around stars that in RL probably wouldn't have them (Acamar, Mintaka, Mizar etc.) which is anything would suggest stars in the Trekverse are more stable and last longer.

5. (and most contentiously) animals evolving in a universe with the previous changes would be able to initiate chemical and kinetic reactions with much lower input values, and thus much earlier in mental development.

Wouldn't such a change in the nature of the universe vastly alter the way mitochondria, muscle cells, nerves etc. would have to work too? For starters in such a universe organisms would have to consume much less food because they could initiate metabolic reactions with much less energy and get much more out of the energy they produce. Who knows, active animals that live entirely off air or photosynthesis might actually be viable in such a universe. I don't notice Enterprise crewmembers only needing to eat once a month. Not to mention a lot of Earth tech development would be different too, because fossil fuels would give you much more energy.

This would lead to cultural accretion of knowledge and power, removing evolutionary forces from cognitive development at lower absolute intelligence.

Just out of curiousity, how do you reconcile Spock with this hypothesis? He seems pretty damn good at math for a homo erectus level intellect, no?
Generally, while interesting I don't think your theory is necessary. I give you the following alternative.

With the peace between the Klingon Empire and the Federation seen in ST: TUC the Trek galaxy entered an age of general isolationism that I call the Long Peace. During the Long Peace the following occured.
The Klingon Empire had been devestated by the disaster of Praxis and did not have the resources to continue expanding into the galaxy. They essentially closed their borders and were wracked by a series of little civil wars and continuous antagonism between the Great Houses. There was a revival of dueling and its associated traditions as a primary means of settling disputes while civil planning and military competence decayed, resulting in the bonehead screaming idiot Klingons we know today.
The Romulans retreated back into their own borders and focused on expanding into the mostly uninhabited deep Beta Quadrant, away from the Klingons and Federation. Over several decades their military atrophied considerably from simple lack of anyone to fight.
The Federation for the first time had little to worry about from outside powers and the military was disbanded. Extreme liberal elements gradually gained a stranglehold on the society, resulting in the commie-hippie Federation of TNG.
The Cardassians began expanding, but they are a small and resource-poor empire playing technological catch-up.
Meanwhile over in the Gamma Quadrant the Dominion hadn't fought any war for generations, just little GWII-style easy conquests were they rolled in over a much weaker enemy, crushed them, and pissed on the smoking remains. Any suprise their capabilities declined without a serious enemy in God knows how long? As for the Borg, well they're a naturally uncreative type of intellect.
Granted it's a long chain of coincidences to create the kind of galaxy-wide isolationism that'll let the general competence atrophy all around (to paraphrase 1984 when making a gun or dealing with other nations 2+2 must equal 4, but in philosophy or politics it's OK to make it equal 5). But I think it's rather more plausible than saying the laws of physics in Trekverse are stacked in such a way as to make everyone stupid.

[brianeyci]

I am absolutely not positing any such physical law.

I was responding to Ghost Rider's challenge to show "that their universe came about somehow differently"

So you are not suggesting a physical law, but suggesting that "doing things in the Trekverse is easier" for some general, undefined reason?

absolutely not. Obviously, more intelligent creatures have some advantage in the trek universe, or intelligent creatures would never evolve.

evolution is not a magical optimization process. there is no 'physical law' preventing humans in our world from being more intelligent(unless Anders Sandberg's Communication Constant S has any creedence) but we only have 7 +-2 short term objects in memory, and only three dimensional object handling in our visual corticies. Why can't we remember thousands of objects or rotate fifty dimensional objects mentally?

Because there was no easily accessible adaption that provided a direct reproductive differential in the populations that our ancestors belonged to. I'm positing that in the Trekverse, culture can arise in less complexity, because technology is more accessible. Which means that there will be no reproductive advantage to certain cognitive expansions that exist in our own evolutionary history. They will be swamped by cultural advantages, just like small differences in intelligence don't net you any more children in modern america(quite the opposite).

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that technology is somehow "more accessible". Since this is a parallel universe, unless explicitly sated so everything is exactly the same as in our universe.

Trivially untrue. Medical science in Trek is radically different, and in many cases gives biological factors that are very different than modern day humans. Example, the Voyager episode where Borg nano-assimilators are shown under microscopy in human body fluid. The cells shown are radically different than any human cells I've seen under the microscope, they lack intracellular structure, have monstrous and undifferentiated nuclea, etc etc.

You ignore TOS, when we see Dr. McCoy look under a microscope and see cells as much they would look like under a real microscope. The Voyager episdoe with the Borg nano-assemblers could have been graphically enhanced. And besides, even if your proposition was true, in the end everything is the same unless specifically stated so since this is a parallel universe, so unless you have direct proof of technology being so accessible that it would encourage less intellectually developed humans, I don't see the point.

Maybe I should just take the fact that Jedi are radically different and there are midichlorins in SW bloodstreams as proof for some sort of stupid or smarter SW humans .

I previously mentioned that stellar mechanics and abiogenesis occur differently in Trek than in real life, this isn't a 'stated difference' between our reality and Trek? Those are major factors to be included in the starting conditions to evolution, and seem more than sufficient to show at the very least, a material difference between modern day humans and Trek humans.

Even if human beings evolved differently, this is not sufficient proof to state that humans are universally "stupider" in the Trekverse than our humans. See TOS, when there were far less instances of technobabble and intelligent decisions. This suggests a cultural rather than a biological difference, and you still haven't met the burden of proof for your "general stupidity" argument other than by linking a whole bunch of individual cases of stupidity which can be explained by lack of proper training and a culture that encourages these types of stupid decisions.

Brian

[Bounty]

The Klingon Empire had been devestated by the disaster of Praxis and did not have the resources to continue expanding into the galaxy. They essentially closed their borders and were wracked by a series of little civil wars and continuous antagonism between the Great Houses. There was a revival of dueling and its associated traditions as a primary means of settling disputes while civil planning and military competence decayed, resulting in the bonehead screaming idiot Klingons we know today.

Or you can follow the canon explanation from ENT - Klingons have always been boneheaded spacevikings, and the smarter, smoothheaded ones from TOS were the result of the Klingon's failed attempts to make their own Augments. Gorkon, Chang and Azetbur would be the last remnants of these augmented Klingons, with superior intelligence and greater restraint and smaller or no ridges.

[outlawpoet]

I was responding to Ghost Rider's challenge to show "that their universe came about somehow differently"

So you are not suggesting a physical law, but suggesting that "doing things in the Trekverse is easier" for some general, undefined reason?

There is a pattern here, and I confess I don't quite understand it. It's happened a few times in my conversation and with more than one person.

A question or challenge is given, and I answer it. The person quotes my answer, and objects that my answer does not neccesarily specify all the details of my proposal.

If you wanted to object more generally to the theory, why quote that section? If I didn't sufficiently answer that point, why not say that? If you're pointing out a general flaw, isn't that a separate issue? Perhaps my english is failing me here.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, my 'general undefined reason' is a fractionally higher coupling constant.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that technology is somehow "more accessible". Since this is a parallel universe, unless explicitly sated so everything is exactly the same as in our universe.

This seems like quite a stretch. Where is this assumption that everything in Trek is just like it is in the real world, unless stated differently? How would such a theory even be established? Nobody will ever look directly at the camera and say 'other than that, we're just like you', because Trek is a TV show.

Obviously Trek has a different history, and exists in a very different universe. You could try to argue that all the changes occur between now and the first ep of Enterprise, but that seems fantastic.

You ignore TOS, when we see Dr. McCoy look under a microscope and see cells as much they would look like under a real microscope. The Voyager episdoe with the Borg nano-assemblers could have been graphically enhanced. And besides, even if your proposition was true, in the end everything is the same unless specifically stated so since this is a parallel universe, so unless you have direct proof of technology being so accessible that it would encourage less intellectually developed humans, I don't see the point.

I didn't say there were NO similarities between humans and Trek humans. You asked if there were differences, and I gave you some.

As for technology being more accessible, there are plenty of examples in the canon. Kirk making a gunpowder weapon with his bare hands, starting from scratch is a good one. "Evolving nanomachines" being able to live on photoelectric power and take over a starship, the many examples of 'moment of genius' invention of complex new technologies, the macguyver -esqe work of Noonian Soong building Data, Lore, and co. out in the boonies with no collaboration, no supporting infrastructure, and no organizational/scientific culture. The general lack of prototypes and abortive implementations.

Maybe I should just take the fact that Jedi are radically different and there are midichlorins in SW bloodstreams as proof for some sort of stupid or smarter SW humans

I would say that yes, there likely genetic differences between SW humans and current, real humans, if they existed. Fortunately, in Star Wars, at least, we see a more normal gaussian distribution of intelligent and unintelligent actions and behaviors. So as yet, we have no need for that hypothesis.

Even if human beings evolved differently, this is not sufficient proof to state that humans are universally "stupider" in the Trekverse than our humans. See TOS, when there were far less instances of technobabble and intelligent decisions. This suggests a cultural rather than a biological difference, and you still haven't met the burden of proof for your "general stupidity" argument other than by linking a whole bunch of individual cases of stupidity which can be explained by lack of proper training and a culture that encourages these types of stupid decisions.

At this point, I begin to doubt you are interested in the details, as this is a continuing misrepresentation of my points.

I begin with the observation of depressed intellectual performance, and simplistic, and visibly problematic engineering, as well as some clear physical differences, throughout star trek.

This exists throughout the shows, although it's easier to explain in TOS, there remains the fact that we get few clues as to the actual capabilities of these humans. TOS still has no real instances of particularly impressive intellectual achievement, but it's not that kind of show, they aren't doing math, or engineering, or riddling each other logical paradoxes. They manage to make every political gaffe possible, fail to have any serious security precautions(Enterprise begins a rich history of being taken over constantly here) and get infected from plague zones, aliens, and other sundry (and anticipateable) dangers. ((I digress, I apologise)).

Not only does the Federation have these problems in every incarnation, but so does every single other race shown in the show. They all make very similar mistakes, and the majority of their 'brilliant insights' are either trite realizations, or treknobabble. Again, of course it's possible to generate explanations for each example of stupidity, but I simply think that a general factor is a more conservative assumption.

[outlawpoet]

Wouldn't this result in radically different lifeforms from what we're familiar with, making the development of humans unlikely?

Sadly, I have yet to work out the math on this, it being a rather distant last on my priorities. But I think it would actually make life more likely to happen, and in more contexts. This would be consistent with the incredible diversity and sheer density of wierd and wild life-forms. As compared to the current Fermi Paradox.

Anyway, most of the really weird science in ST seems to involve either subspace or some other bizzare mythical phenomenon. Common chemical reactions don't seem any different from our own universe. The main divergence of Trekverse physics (if we accept that Trekverse physics is actually different and not our physics, we just don't realize it yet) from real physics is that Trek physics seems to be much more unstable. All kinds of strange macroscopic quantum processes seem to be common in Trekverse that are probably rare or impossible in RL. If you're looking for a cosmological divergence between the two universes it has been suggested by some that spacetime in the Trek galaxy is much more unstable than it is in our neck of the universe (possibly the fabric of reality is gradually coming unglued from all the people messing with it with time travel and such). This would neatly explain the technobabble, because the more dynamic and "compliant" spacetime would let you do all kinds of interesting stuff that you couldn't do here. It wouldn't have any effect on intelligence though, just make a lot of handy stuff much easier (like FTL).

Everything has an effect on intelligence. Well, I should say, everything has an effect on attributes that sit on top of a nonlinear dynamical process like evolution, so long as there is a causal relationship. But it would be unpredictable, and probably too late in human evolution to make a difference, agreed.

Your space-time theory could work, actually, if the mechanism for inertia (assuming there is such a thing) were connected in some way to this fluctuation. That would affect the feasibility of FTL, as well as potentially rendering more realistic the various methods of action-at-a-distance.

The substances you refer to (tritanium, duranium etc.) are IMO far more likely to be new alloys, composites, or ceramics than transuranic elements. The only thing indicating that they're elements is the "ium" ending, and I have a much easier time swallowing the idea that the language could change so "X-ium" can refer to a compound than swallowing the idea that Trekverse has a ton of elements ours doesn't.

a clever simplification, and one that requires little else to support it. IIRC, there are some mentions of these or similar large elements existing naturally, but I don't have references handy, so I'll let this portion of the debate rest until I do. A good idea, though.

How such alloys could exist naturally is rather difficult to explain, but if I may venture a hesitant suggestion it may be that the characters were simply referring to base compounds and metals from which they would be manufactured. It would be rather like somebody referring to a region as being rich in aluminum when that would actually be impossible, it would be rich in bauxite.

it would be difficult to explain a Science officer scanning for materials and announcing the presence of aluminum, when bauxite deposites existed... but colloqualism is a powerful thing, and I've certainly see such terms transposed.

Trek materials dialogue is shaky enough anyway that I wouldn't want to use it as major supporting arguments. If I remember any cases where such deposits made a material observable difference in the show, I'll bring it up, but I largely included this point in order to show some the tertiary support I think my theory has.

As for magnetic elements, it's probably just that transporters are very sensitive to magnetic fields. There ARE magnetic metal deposits on Earth, you know?

absolutely, but not metals with high gauss, because they would less stable. but.. you're right. It's easier to just assume that transporters are more sensitive, than the magnetic materials are more powerful.

Would you care to expand on this? I can't remember stars behaving very differently in Trekverse than they do in RL. Aside maybe from references to inhabited worlds around stars that in RL probably wouldn't have them (Acamar, Mintaka, Mizar etc.) which is anything would suggest stars in the Trekverse are more stable and last longer.

I am referring here to several episodes (which I am potentially conflating) where global changes occur within a star in very short timescales. A star 'going nova' because of an event after less than a day is a profound difference from this person's understanding of stellar mechanics.

Also, in one of these stellar explosions a big 'chunk' is thrown out at the Enterprise and somehow being 'hit' by this chunk is more dangerous (or in front of) the radiative explosion. I can explain this chunk, and potential faster stellar changes if most Trek stars contain degenerate matter, which would be a consequence of my theory.

Wouldn't such a change in the nature of the universe vastly alter the way mitochondria, muscle cells, nerves etc. would have to work too? For starters in such a universe organisms would have to consume much less food because they could initiate metabolic reactions with much less energy and get much more out of the energy they produce.

Yes, it would in fact. Unfortunately, we dont' know what aliens look like in real life, so we can't compare them to Trek. However, we do have several examples of entities existing without any known food or power source, as well as photosynthetic organisms doing things that are out of proportion with what they could do in our universe(the nano-things in the lab).

Who knows, active animals that live entirely off air or photosynthesis might actually be viable in such a universe. I don't notice Enterprise crewmembers only needing to eat once a month. Not to mention a lot of Earth tech development would be different too, because fossil fuels would give you much more energy.

well, interestingly, in terrestrial evolution anyway, how much you have to eat is actually determined in large part by competitive pressures. You see, certain animals are extremely efficient digestors, because the effort required to get a certain volume of food-energy is much higher. This can be seen by the existence of certain creatures (like top predators, and invincible herbivores, like elephants) whose input is enormous, and much of their excretion so high in energy value that it supports sub-food chains. On the opposite end are energy starved, high competition, deep-sea creatures, like giant squid, whose prosposed food ecology and activity cycle are so out of range, in comparison to terrestrial creatures of the same mass that I really couldn't say whether they were in the ballpark or not. (very few giant squid specimens have been found, and the research is largely inductive).

But generally yes, I would imagine so. Of course, we see crew members eating for social reasons and in some places to add flavor, but we can't really tell whether humans in star trek eat 3 meals a day the way modern americans do.

Just out of curiousity, how do you reconcile Spock with this hypothesis? He seems pretty damn good at math for a homo erectus level intellect, no?

I'm afraid I only have a smattering of the TOS, and the movies to judge off of, but I don't actually see Spock doing much math. (Although I do see him make many probabilistic 'proclamations', and that's not a good example for you, because he has the sadly heroic tendency to give a likelihood to four significant figures that turns out to be wrong by several orders of magnitude).

Generally, while interesting I don't think your theory is necessary. I give you the following alternative.

With the peace between the Klingon Empire and the Federation seen in ST: TUC the Trek galaxy entered an age of general isolationism that I call the Long Peace. During the Long Peace the following occured.
The Klingon Empire had been devestated by the disaster of Praxis and did not have the resources to continue expanding into the galaxy. They essentially closed their borders and were wracked by a series of little civil wars and continuous antagonism between the Great Houses. There was a revival of dueling and its associated traditions as a primary means of settling disputes while civil planning and military competence decayed, resulting in the bonehead screaming idiot Klingons we know today.
The Romulans retreated back into their own borders and focused on expanding into the mostly uninhabited deep Beta Quadrant, away from the Klingons and Federation. Over several decades their military atrophied considerably from simple lack of anyone to fight.
The Federation for the first time had little to worry about from outside powers and the military was disbanded. Extreme liberal elements gradually gained a stranglehold on the society, resulting in the commie-hippie Federation of TNG.
The Cardassians began expanding, but they are a small and resource-poor empire playing technological catch-up.
Meanwhile over in the Gamma Quadrant the Dominion hadn't fought any war for generations, just little GWII-style easy conquests were they rolled in over a much weaker enemy, crushed them, and pissed on the smoking remains. Any suprise their capabilities declined without a serious enemy in God knows how long? As for the Borg, well they're a naturally uncreative type of intellect.
Granted it's a long chain of coincidences to create the kind of galaxy-wide isolationism that'll let the general competence atrophy all around (to paraphrase 1984 when making a gun or dealing with other nations 2+2 must equal 4, but in philosophy or politics it's OK to make it equal 5). But I think it's rather more plausible than saying the laws of physics in Trekverse are stacked in such a way as to make everyone stupid.

These are good explanations, for each case. But they fail to address the many races encountered in TOS and TNG who are 'in the midst' of major conflicts, 'scientific golden ages' and otherwise in very results-oriented situations, and they have the exact same problems. In fact, they usually have significantly inferior technology, processes, political systems, and design philosophies to the Federation!

Another point which I meant to bring up earlier is the fact that every single species in Trek is a monoculture. This makes very little sense if they're just as smart and contentious as we are, but much more if they's just a little less personally effective.

Coincidences, as they say, happen. I am still of the opinion that there should be a coherent mechanism, if Trek is to be made a consistent universe post-facto.

I'm going to have to withdraw the theory, though, in light of the few sticking points I think have been raised, specifically the on-screen coincidence of real-world personalities(we could assume they're just trek people with similar names, but their backstories are a little too consistent, even if we never hear them talk the math of Einstein, or Hawking), the rather shaky materials science theory, which you've been good enough to provide details on, and the uncertain actual biological repercusions of altered chromodynamic characteristics, except in a wildly speculative manner.

[brianeyci]

There is a pattern here, and I confess I don't quite understand it. It's happened a few times in my conversation and with more than one person.

A question or challenge is given, and I answer it. The person quotes my answer, and objects that my answer does not neccesarily specify all the details of my proposal.

If you wanted to object more generally to the theory, why quote that section? If I didn't sufficiently answer that point, why not say that? If you're pointing out a general flaw, isn't that a separate issue? Perhaps my english is failing me here.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, my 'general undefined reason' is a fractionally higher coupling constant.

A higher coupling constant. My mathematics and science knowledge fail me, and as I am not a science major, and as I don't feel like going on google, unfortunately I cannot rebuttal this point. However, I don't feel as if this is a general concept that I should be familiar with. Since you mentioned it though, I ask that you explain this and how the observations you have made are consistent with this higher coupling constant. I'll even take a book out of the library if I have to, to give you a benefit of the doubt, if you demand that I already know this.

This seems like quite a stretch. Where is this assumption that everything in Trek is just like it is in the real world, unless stated differently? How would such a theory even be established? Nobody will ever look directly at the camera and say 'other than that, we're just like you', because Trek is a TV show.

Obviously Trek has a different history, and exists in a very different universe. You could try to argue that all the changes occur between now and the first ep of Enterprise, but that seems fantastic.

Not, it is not a stretch. It is convention while debating. It is not because "Trek is a TV show" or because of any other writer's intent excuse. I do not have to prove that Christianity existed with Star Trek, I do not have to show the existence of Caligula, I do not have to prove that any other historical event happened in the Trek universe, because it is assumed that it happened because there are so many similarities between our history and the history of the Trek humans such as Hitler, Shakespeare and so on, that to deny them would be ridiculous.

I don't have to argue that all the changes happen between now and Enterprise, because it was already explicitly stated that there is a difference. Eugenics wars, Nuclear holocaust, and so on. What is not explicitly stated or can be reasonably inferred from explicit statements still happened. For example Himmer, Auchwitz (sp), The Great War, all still happened.

You ignore TOS, when we see Dr. McCoy look under a microscope and see cells as much they would look like under a real microscope. The Voyager episdoe with the Borg nano-assemblers could have been graphically enhanced. And besides, even if your proposition was true, in the end everything is the same unless specifically stated so since this is a parallel universe, so unless you have direct proof of technology being so accessible that it would encourage less intellectually developed humans, I don't see the point.

I didn't say there were NO similarities between humans and Trek humans. You asked if there were differences, and I gave you some.

These differences are not sufficient to prove your "things are easier in Star Trek" hypothesis. You've given reasons so far which include different origins of life in the universe, different biological structure, and so on. However, you haven't considered what if the protagonists are wrong, or the ideas are being misrepresented. For example, when Picard so-called went back to the beginning of life on Earth, what if Q was playing a trick on Picard. What if the so-called cell enhanced imaging was a visual enhancement by the computer on Voyager. What if the crew was simply wrong about "crack in the event horizon" rather than the truth being dogma.

Let's put it another way. If we took what the protagonists said literally, conservation of energy would not hold in the Star Trek universe, because Data says he can fully recharge his own batteries without external help -- in other words, a perpetual motion machine.

Now, why should the nature of the universe in general be changed to accomodate all these instances of irregularity, when there are other far more reasonable explainations to all the fuckups?

As for technology being more accessible, there are plenty of examples in the canon. Kirk making a gunpowder weapon with his bare hands, starting from scratch is a good one. "Evolving nanomachines" being able to live on photoelectric power and take over a starship, the many examples of 'moment of genius' invention of complex new technologies, the macguyver -esqe work of Noonian Soong building Data, Lore, and co. out in the boonies with no collaboration, no supporting infrastructure, and no organizational/scientific culture. The general lack of prototypes and abortive implementations.

What Kirk made could have been a chemical reaction with unknown compounds. Tritanium doesn't exist in our world, but there is sufficient evidence out there that tritanium is titanium, and perhaps the World Wars changed the nomenclature of periodic elements. Therefore, perhaps what Kirk was constructing was not gunpowder as we know it, but a mix of exotic chemicals.

Saying that nanomachines are impossible in our world and therefore there are certain physical laws that are different in the Trek universe is fine, but that does not mean that things are "easier" in the Trek universe in general. It just means that it is possible to construct nanomachines.

Moments of genius can be intepreted as sheer luck, guesswork, or human ingenuity.

Noonian Singh might have taken more credit than he was due. He might have had a team working with him, and it was mentioned that Singh left the Federation after being humiliated. So there was some prior work that Singh did that was not in isolation. He may have left taking a large amount of the prefabricated materials and knowledge with him. If you are saying Singh did not have infrastructure, then you miss the episode when we actually see one of Singh's labs, in a colony. He was not in total isolation, could have recruited help from the colonists, and replicators could have fabricated components for him out of blueprints which he did not totally understand himself.

There is organizational and scientific structure in the Federation in the Federation Science Council, the Vulcan Science Council, and so on. Prove that there is a lack of prototypes. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and you are using an argument from ignorance approach. It is assumed that there are prototypes in the Star Trek universe since, as you mentioned, it would be nearly impossible to get things perfectly right the first time. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean things are "easier" in the Star Trek universe. Computer modelling in holodecks and sheer luck can explain how things work in the field so well. And sometimes, things in the field jury-rigged don't work so well either. I seem to recall many failures in hastily constructed equipment such as the theatre forcefields which were supposed to keep out sandstorms.

I would say that yes, there likely genetic differences between SW humans and current, real humans, if they existed. Fortunately, in Star Wars, at least, we see a more normal gaussian distribution of intelligent and unintelligent actions and behaviors. So as yet, we have no need for that hypothesis.

It is high time that I ask you to prove that the gaussian distrubution of intelligent and unintelligent actions is so radically different in the Trek universe as to necessitate your theory. Note that you cannot because of something called insufficient sample size. We see mostly humans in Starfleet, inundated with a culture of stupidity. As well you ignore TOS, where there were less stupid decisions.

Even if human beings evolved differently, this is not sufficient proof to state that humans are universally "stupider" in the Trekverse than our humans. See TOS, when there were far less instances of technobabble and intelligent decisions. This suggests a cultural rather than a biological difference, and you still haven't met the burden of proof for your "general stupidity" argument other than by linking a whole bunch of individual cases of stupidity which can be explained by lack of proper training and a culture that encourages these types of stupid decisions.

At this point, I begin to doubt you are interested in the details, as this is a continuing misrepresentation of my points.

I begin with the observation of depressed intellectual performance, and simplistic, and visibly problematic engineering, as well as some clear physical differences, throughout star trek.

This is where the buck stops pal. Prove that the gaussian curve of intelligence is so radically different to necessitate your theory. Of course you cannot, because of insufficient sample size, so you lose. To counter your general statement all I need are a handful of counterexamples of intelligent behaviour, and since you are suggesting an evolutionary mechanism I can go all the way back to TOS and indeed use any Trek.

This exists throughout the shows, although it's easier to explain in TOS, there remains the fact that we get few clues as to the actual capabilities of these humans. TOS still has no real instances of particularly impressive intellectual achievement, but it's not that kind of show, they aren't doing math, or engineering, or riddling each other logical paradoxes. They manage to make every political gaffe possible, fail to have any serious security precautions(Enterprise begins a rich history of being taken over constantly here) and get infected from plague zones, aliens, and other sundry (and anticipateable) dangers. ((I digress, I apologise)).

All this can be explained by poor training, lack of experience, and I don't know all the other things we do to normally explain stupid behaviour. If you go specific I can construct more plausible definite explainations.

Not only does the Federation have these problems in every incarnation, but so does every single other race shown in the show. They all make very similar mistakes, and the majority of their 'brilliant insights' are either trite realizations, or treknobabble. Again, of course it's possible to generate explanations for each example of stupidity, but I simply think that a general factor is a more conservative assumption.

Oh noes, the "we don't understand it completely therefore it must be wrong" approach. Just because we don't understand the treknobabble, doesn't mean that the protagonists don't. Where have I seen this kind of tactic before? In the fundamentally rabid perhaps, in the irreduciable complexity hypothesis?

The general factor is not a more conservative assumption. You are saying the following, "there are so many explainations and rationalizations needed to explain Y concept scientifically that we should appeal to a larger overriding mechanism, an X factor, which is more reasonable." In other words, "science sucks, and creationism is cool because there is only one X factor, GOD" is the approach you are using.

Brian

[RThurmont]

If I might just quickly interject a comment on the thread starter, I would disagree strongly with the assertation that the Star Wars universe is technologically static.

From the end of PT through to the beginning of the OT, we see the completion of the planet-destroying superlaser system, which, while based on older technology, is considerably more powerful and advanced. It is conceivable that to produce the Death Star, the super laser aside, many substantial innovations had to be made in terms of power generation, propulsion systems and other aspects of spacecraft construction. Another example of improved technology is the tremendous leap forward Luke Skywalker's prosethetic hand represents over Darth Vader's. So whereas we haven't seen any extreme breakthroughs in the brief span of time occupied by the OT, the PT and the post-PT EU, we have seen considerable technological progress, and remember, we are only talking about 50 or 60 years here. How many centuries passed in the previous millenia that had no really earth-shattering technological breakthroughs in them?

Also, in response to your main point, I think that it's more or less likely that the majority of ST:TNG characters are highly intelligent, but their logic and effectiveness has been severely dampened by the bizarre wacko-Marxist culture that has sprouted around them. I think Kirk in TOS is actually substantially better in terms of his effectiveness and on-the-job performance than (dare I say it?) many of the Imperials we come across in the SW OT.

[Noble Ire]

From the end of PT through to the beginning of the OT, we see the completion of the planet-destroying superlaser system, which, while based on older technology, is considerably more powerful and advanced. It is conceivable that to produce the Death Star, the super laser aside, many substantial innovations had to be made in terms of power generation, propulsion systems and other aspects of spacecraft construction. Another example of improved technology is the tremendous leap forward Luke Skywalker's prosethetic hand represents over Darth Vader's. So whereas we haven't seen any extreme breakthroughs in the brief span of time occupied by the OT, the PT and the post-PT EU, we have seen considerable technological progress, and remember, we are only talking about 50 or 60 years here. How many centuries passed in the previous millenia that had no really earth-shattering technological breakthroughs in them?

The Star Wars Universe is technologically static. There is no technology observed in the OT and post-ROTJ EU (with the possible exception of the Galaxy Gun and Sun Crusher) that cannot be seen in the PT era, or even the KOTOR era, 4,000 years previous. Superlaser technology already exists, if in a smaller scale. Look at the anti-personel ball turrets GAR Gunships use. They generate fire the same way. The rest of the construct is even more old technology, just applied in a new way. The Old Republic would never want to construct something like the DS, but they did have the resources and tech.

As for the hands, it would seem that Anakin's bare-bones hand was merely a stylistic choice, spartan and as little as was needed for combat. Also, he enjoyed making modifications to his arm, and an open interface would be simpler. There is also evidence that the arm could feel pain, like Luke's (CW volume 25.)

In short, the SW galaxy is Technologically static, its just that we see the galaxy undergoing such dramatic changes that the alterations to existing technology for usage of the times is very drastic (switching from the stylistic, less military OR to the cold, spartan Imperial era.)

[brianeyci]

If I might just quickly interject a comment on the thread starter, I would disagree strongly with the assertation that the Star Wars universe is technologically static.

I would disagree too for the same reason that I disagree with the argument that Trek races are stupid for all getting phaser technology and using shields with frequency. How do we know that it is not a technological stagnation but a result of already finding and discovering all the laws of physics and already having the most powerful weapons and efficient technology that is possible? Trek races too all seem to head towards the shields and phasers result. There are also powerful phasers as seen in the phaser lance, but a phaser is a phaser and Delta quadrant seems to have it as abundantly as the Alpha quadrant.

Also, in response to your main point, I think that it's more or less likely that the majority of ST:TNG characters are highly intelligent, but their logic and effectiveness has been severely dampened by the bizarre wacko-Marxist culture that has sprouted around them. I think Kirk in TOS is actually substantially better in terms of his effectiveness and on-the-job performance than (dare I say it?) many of the Imperials we come across in the SW OT.

Indeed, Kirk has his own faults like not attacking Khan's Reliant from the soft underbelly and being unable to think "3 dimensionally" while accusing Khan of the same thing, and so on, but he is a pretty adaptable character, and think of all the situations he's been in, exotic situations which he never freaked out and was able to pull victory after victory out of his freaking ass.

Brian

[Bounty]

not attacking Khan's Reliant from the soft underbelly

Soft...underbelly ? It's a spaceship, not a crocodile. He was aiming for the exposed sections near the IDC.

[Isolder74]

not attacking Khan's Reliant from the soft underbelly

Soft...underbelly ? It's a spaceship, not a crocodile. He was aiming for the exposed sections near the IDC.

Yes Kirk's targets were...The Bridge, The Warp engines, the Weapons pod, and the ENGINE room. Sounds pretty much like he was trying to disable the ship not blow it to bits

[brianeyci]

Soft...underbelly ? It's a spaceship, not a crocodile. He was aiming for the exposed sections near the IDC.

Notice any photon or phaser banks under the Reliant?

Either Kirk risked his ship for no reason by putting himself in the cone of fire of the Reliant rear torpedo launcher, or he was stupid and didn't think of attacking by using thrusters, pivoting the ship to be perpendicular to the Reliant, and attacking from below.

Brian

[Bounty]

Soft...underbelly ? It's a spaceship, not a crocodile. He was aiming for the exposed sections near the IDC.

Notice any photon or phaser banks under the Reliant?

Either Kirk risked his ship for no reason by putting himself in the cone of fire of the Reliant rear torpedo launcher, or he was stupid and didn't think of attacking by using thrusters, pivoting the ship to be perpendicular to the Reliant, and attacking from below.

Brian

Ah, in the second engagement. I thought you were talking about his first attack. Carry on.

[Wyrm]

The best I can come up with is a slightly stronger coupling constant in chromodynamic forces.

Completely bogus. A slightly stronger coupling constant in strong interactions (that's what "chromodynamic forces" are called) would mess everything else up. And when I say "everything," I mean every other interaction in nature.

A stronger coupling constant would mean that the mass of the proton would be less. This has several important consequences. The first consequence is that nuclei would be more easily jerked around. See electron orbitals change and Chemistry As We Know It go baibai.

Also, because the de Broglie wavelength of nuclei are different (smaller mass == larger de Broglie wavelength), reaction cross-sections of nuclear physics will be different. See Nuclear Physics As We Know It go down the crapper. Also, since the nuclear binding forces are stronger, deuterium forms more readily, and so in the early universe, helium fusion consumes almost all of the availible hydrogen. Why is this a problem? Because helium burning in stars is unstable, and occurs only at the end of their lives. See Astronomy As We Know It go kaput.

Here's the kicker: a lower mass of the proton would mean that its apperances in Feynman diagrams of electromagnetic interactions (as well as the entire particle zoo). This would screw up the electromagnetic force, which would feed back into everything above, including the strong force. See Physics As We Know It go tilt.