View Single Post
Old February 24 2009, 08:53 PM   #367
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post
sci wrote: View Post
One word: Bullshit.

The Star Trek Universe is not somehow inherently more or less moral than the real one. It simply possesses political actors who are more dedicated to the principles of modern liberal democracy than most people in the real world today, from whose POV we see the STU. To argue that the Star Trek Universe "possesses a moral substrate" that the real world lacks is an absurd piece of nonsense you're introducing to try to prevent real-world parallels from being cited.
Wait. You are actually saying that the universe where Picard can do no wrong, where Janewas solves every problem - ethical, sociological, etc - in the last 5 minutes of the episode through technobabble and where Sisko's ship is invulnerable through plotarmor is THE SAME AS THE REAL WORLD?
No. What I'm saying is that the real world is far more moral, and the Star Trek Universe far more immoral, than you're portraying either as being. Both the real world and the Trekverse are full of moral ambiguities, and to try to claim that there's some fundamental moral constant that's different in one from the other is nothing more than a cheap tactic to avoid having to confront real-world examples that defy your ideology.

In that case, friend - I admire your optimism. NOT your realism.
One of the most regrettable trends in the world is the presumption that there's a conflict between realism and optimism. That presumption -- which tends to lead to the presumption of hostility on the part of The Other and to a belief that peaceful co-existence and compromise is not possible -- is the source of a great deal of suffering in the world. And, it's untrue.

As President Barack Obama said in 2008, "We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics.... We've been asked to pause for a reality check; we've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." That's true of the United States, and that's true of the world.

No one ever accomplished anything worth a damn by being "realistic," which is nothing more than a euphemism for "pessimistic and paranoid"--the mindset of a Richad Nixon or a Dick Cheney. Realism means recognizing that the world is full of nuance, of moral ambiguity, of faction--and, therefore, that your enemy is not necessarily committed to your destruction, and that there are opportunities to bring your enemies in and convert them into your friends. It means recognizing that the world is not morally simple.

And I recomend you read more history books - real history books, that is.
I've read plenty of history books, thanks. Being educated doesn't mean sharing a unilaterally negative assessment of the world. (Though it does involve learning how to spell properly.)
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote