On January 16, 1995, UPN launched its brand new television network simultaneously with the 2 hour premiere of the new “Star Trek” series “Voyager.” An unprecedented 18 million viewers tuned in; and when “Voyager” ended in 2001, 8.81 million viewers watched. That same year, “Star Trek: Enterprise” debuted to 12.54 million viewers, which slid to 3.8 million viewers when it concluded in 2005. Even the popular “Star Trek: Next Generation” ended with a scant 4.0 million viewers in 1994 after a successful 7 year run during which it ratings fluctuated between 8.5 to 11.5 million.

With the proliferation of new television networks, increasing timeslot competition, and a larger variety of niche markets, it was believed that much of the failing science fiction audience retention could be blamed on a multitude of factors.

Yet despite the declining sci-fi audience, premiere ratings for sci-fi shows remained at an all-time high. In 2004, “Lost” premiered to 18.65 million viewers; in 2006, “Heroes” premiered to 14.1 million viewers; in 2008, “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” premiered to 18.3 million viewers; and in 2009, “FlashForward” debuted to 12.47 million viewers. Remarkably, the premiere numbers for sci-fi series were still showing a strong interest in science fiction television.

But it is the end ratings that tell a startling story. When “Lost” concluded in May 2010, it pulled in 13.56 million viewers, a bump from its previous low of 8.7 million. When “Heroes” ended in February 2010, it only pulled in 4.41 million viewers. When “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” ended in spring 2009, it got 3.6 million viewers. And when “FlashForward” ended in May 2010, it only got 4.96 million viewers.

How is it that sci-fi shows that debut to 18 million viewers end with less than one-half its original audience? Fans and non-fans are quick to point out the slip in writing quality, which creates retention problems. But I hazard to speculate that it is not merely a disillusionment with writing quality, but rather it is the lack of commitment by sci-fi fans.

As we have seen time and time again, there is a vast array of inferior television shows populating the TV landscape. There are shows that viewers lament over and over again that are not TV-worthy at all. Yet incredibly, they pull in high and consistent viewership. It is not quality that drives viewers away, it is the lack of commitment. Sci-fi fans are simply not willing to commit to their series. They do not have patience to allow storylines and characters to develop. They want their instant gratification and if it does not meet up to their impossibly high standards, then they are gone.

However, by doing so, they are virtually guaranteeing the death knell of sci-fi television. What television programmers are looking for is consistency. They want to know that the viewers they have lured into checking out a new show will stick around. They need to know that their product will provide a guaranteed number of viewers so that they can sell their advertising ad space. But because sci-fi shows start strong and then rapidly decline, it is difficult to find out what the average viewership base will be. It is that continual erosion that leads to quick cancellation, shifting timeslots and crazy gimmicks to attract back viewers.

Loyal fans of sci-fi shows want to blame studios for the lack of promotion of the shows, but if anything, studios have gone overboard to promote their shows. Premiere ratings validate that more than adequate promotion was given. When sci-fi shows debut to 14 to 18 million viewers, clearly the promotion machine has done its job.

What is not working is the dedication of the sci-fi fans. Current sci-fi shows such as “Stargate: Universe” and “Fringe” are at the top of their game. Creatively, they are providing some of the finest sci-fi stories ever to grace the television screen. Yet viewership is at an all-time low. “Fringe” went from a debut of 9.13 million viewers to an all-time time high of 13.27 to now only pulling in 5.13 million viewers. “Stargate: Universe” debuted at 2.34 million viewers and now only pulls in 1.09 million viewers.

As a fan, it does not matter how often the broadcast network may shift a show around, switching nights or timeslots — for I know, no matter when it is on, I will be there. Yet, clearly, the ratings show that not all viewers feel the same. For some reason, despite the writing quality becoming better, ratings continue to decline.

So it is not about the quality of the show. It therefore must be the viewers. Why are they not tuning in? Are they preferring to watch other non-science fiction shows? They cannot blame conflicting sci-fi loyalties as “Fringe” competes with “CSI,” “Nikita,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and “The Office.” “Stargate: Universe” competes with “Raising Hope,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” and “Life Unexpected.” If anything, television programmers have made it easy for fans to watch sci-fi shows. So why aren’t the sci-fi fans tuning in? Surely, the 9:00 p.m. timeslot on Tuesdays and Thursdays is not so difficult a time to be home or to tune-in. Why did “Stargate: Universe” pull in over 1 million more viewers on a Friday night (a.k.a. “The Death Slot”) than on a Tuesday?

It is unfathomable. To each sci-fi fan who says that there are no good sci-fi shows on television, I respond: then you are just not watching.

And this is not the first time that sci-fi fans have cut-their-own-throat, so to speak. Iconic sci-fi shows such as “Star Trek,” “Battlestar Galactica” and even fan-favorite “Firefly” were all cancelled because of the lack of viewers. Yet years later, and sometimes decades later, these shows are the most consistently heralded “best science fiction” shows ever. So what happened? It is a simple formula: if the sci-fi fans do not watch, the show dies.

I am constantly amazed at the ratings for Syfy’s Saturday night sci-fi specials. While the concepts are cool, they really lack the storyline and character development that warrant rave reviews. Yet, incredibly, sci-fi fans are tuning-in on Saturday nights and watching the special of the week — in record numbers that put the ratings of finer sci-fi shows to shame. I posit that it is simply because it is low commitment that sci-fi fans are tuning in. If a serialized sci-fi series was put on at 9:00 p.m. on Saturday nights, the fans would avoid it like the plague. It would be too much commitment. But because they can tune in for just two hours, the average sci-fi fan figures it is okay to watch.

Since when did sci-fi fans have commitment problems? Has it always been an issue or is this a recent trend? Given the retention problems since the 1995 debut of “Star Trek: Voyager,” I am speculating that it has become a problem since 1995. The way we interact with the world has changed dramatically in the past 15 years. We have witnessed the launch and complete global domination of the internet, the growing popularity of video games, and economic recessions that have eradicated our faith in stability in the world. It has become all too easy to “check-out.” We are no longer glued to our television sets for entertainment with steep competition from internet entertainment and video games; and our viewing priorities have changed. With the world around us shifting with uncertainty at all times, many feel that they cannot take the time to commit to television shows. They want something mindless and easy to slip in and out of.

This is one argument. But it still does not explain why non-science fiction shows are still pulling in record numbers in the ratings. Why is only science fiction showing such dramatic retention loss? My speculation is: sci-fi viewers lack commitment. They are not patient. Science fiction is not all about action — explosions, gun fights, space wars. Science fiction is about stories and the characters we get to know along the way. That takes time to set-up and establish. Not each episode of a serialized sci-fi show will be action-filled. There will be times that episodes will be plodding, filled with exposition and yet at the same time laying the foundation and cookie-crumbs for later episodes. Story arcs take time to develop. Characters do not emerge as heroes in the first episode. The best science fiction shows took their time and unpeeled layer after layer until it revealed the hidden gem within. Did anyone know after watching one hour of “Battlestar Galactica’s” initial six hour mini-series that it would become the mesmerizing, gripping story that kept us enthralled for 4 seasons? If you are being honest, then the answer is “no.” It was simply too soon to tell. The same could be said of just about any other amazing sci-fi series. Good stories take time and commitment.

It is time that sci-fi fans realized this basic tenant of story-telling: all good things come to those that wait. It is time for sci-fi fans to embrace commitment and watch sci-fi shows with a tenacity that shows the world that we are behind our shows for better or worse. If we do not want sci-fi to die on television, we need to commit to it. Make time, make an effort and be a sci-fi fan dedicated to ensuring longevity for the entire genre — or it will be too late and there will be no sci-fi shows left to watch.

Do not let the curse of the vanishing 18 million viewers be the legacy of science fiction.