How Good Is Star Trek's Record at Predicting the Future of Tech?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In this month’s Scientific American column, I wrote about Hollywood’s depiction of personal technology in the future. Lots of it is pure wishful-thinking silliness. But sometimes, you can sense the thought that’s been put into these props, and inventors eventually create them for use in the real world.

“Star Trek,” of course, was one of the most influential sci-fi shows of all time. Even the technologies of the original series, which ran on TV from 1966 to 1969, have inspired all kinds of inventions that have become commonplace in the real world. How many? Let’s have a look at the “Star Trek” Prediction Scorecard.

  • Bluetooth earpieces. There it was, stuck into Uhura’s ear: The original Bluetooth wireless earpiece, looking and working just as they do today.

  • Hello, computer. What are Siri, Cortana, and “OK Google,” if not the kind of call-and-response computer that Captain Kirk routinely queried?

  • Communicators. In “Star Trek’s” day, phones were wired to the wall; the first cellphone prototype was still eight years away. Eventually, of course, our calls went wireless. And for about 30 years, the flip phone—a close lookalike of the Enterprise’s communicator—is what “phones” looked like.

  • Universal translators. How do you think the Enterprise crew was able to converse with aliens speaking their own wacky languages? Using a Translator, of course. Now, products like Google’s Pixel Buds and Skype Translator purport to do the same thing: To translate a language someone is speaking into your own language, directly into your ear.

  • Sliding doors. Yep. They’re everywhere now, primarily at entrances to buildings you enter with your arms full, like airports and grocery stores.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“Star Trek: The Next Generation” (1987–1994) scored some bullseyes, too, including the tablet computer and the Holodeck, whose creation of virtual worlds around you is precisely what our virtual-reality goggles attempt to do today.

Then there’s the show’s depiction of racial harmony, well-meaning space exploration, and teleporters. On those developments, we’re still waiting.

David Pogue is the anchor columnist for Yahoo Tech and host of several NOVA miniseries on PBS.

More by David Pogue
Scientific American Magazine Vol 318 Issue 1This article was published with the title “How Good Is Star Trek's Record at Predicting the Future of Tech?” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 318 No. 1 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican012018-5QAIzU7Y9m5hhDFDhumdwi

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe