RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,397
Posts: 5,358,751
Members: 24,627
Currently online: 493
Newest member: space2050


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 13 2013, 12:03 PM   #436
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

horatio83 wrote: View Post
On the contrary. The beauty of Data was that he was often the most human character on the show. Spiner played him in such a way that you could get glances of the equivalent of emotions. Which is why the emotion chip idea didn't work.

"Does Data have a soul? I don't know that he has. I don't know that I have. But I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself."


In Measure of a Man, Data comes very close to expressing grief over the death of Tasha. So there's always a glimmer of emotion, chip or no chip, but the vocal inflection and body language isn't quite there.

What Data has, and a lot of real people don't, though, is a good conscience. He is selfless and always does the right thing. In that respect he's a lot like Spock, despite their overall goal being cross-purposes.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 12:06 AM   #437
TheGoodNews
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Of all the strange new worlds Star Trek explores, it's the non-capitalist future, without poverty, that people have the most trouble with.

And I don't really buy that whats objectionable is the lack of explanation. Its the boldness of saying humanity has to grow up to reach the stars. And that growing up means going beyond religion, nationalism, and capitalism.

What is more likely is a mass extinction, huge population loss, and crawl back out of another dark age. But I prefer Roddenberry's worst ideas to more of the same.
Maybe some of the posters here can't envision a world beyond their own dispossession?

"If they had asked," Lededje told her,"I might even have told them; I was running away to the Culture because I heard they'd escaped the tyranny of money and individual power, and that all people were equal here, men and women alike, with no riches or poverty to put one person above or beneath another." Surface Detail by Iain Banks page 159.
TheGoodNews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 05:49 AM   #438
Lt. Uhura-Brown
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Zealand
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Time travel.
Lt. Uhura-Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 04:25 AM   #439
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

TheGoodNews wrote: View Post
Maybe some of the posters here can't envision a world beyond their own dispossession?
Or maybe that they *can* envision it, it just sounds mega-boring. Either way works.
__________________
In labor news: Longshoremen walked off the piers today. Rescue operations are continuing.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 09:36 AM   #440
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas



T'Pring:

But if you did not free me, it would be the same.
For you would be gone, and I would have your name and your property, and Stonn would still be there.


T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 09:17 PM   #441
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
TheGoodNews wrote: View Post
Maybe some of the posters here can't envision a world beyond their own dispossession?
Or maybe that they *can* envision it, it just sounds mega-boring. Either way works.

being dispossessed= excitement?
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 10:44 PM   #442
Lee Enfield
Lieutenant
 
Lee Enfield's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Wasn't there WWIII in the Trek universe? With all that genocide and crawling asf? So, it seems to be part of the Trek idea that currently we live live in that age of self-destruction and we would have to elevate.... because, well, it's still pretty self-destructible out there and we might need that place of piece, from where we can grow...
Lee Enfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 01:02 AM   #443
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

TheGoodNews wrote: View Post
Of all the strange new worlds Star Trek explores, it's the non-capitalist future, without poverty, that people have the most trouble with.

And I don't really buy that whats objectionable is the lack of explanation. Its the boldness of saying humanity has to grow up to reach the stars. And that growing up means going beyond religion, nationalism, and capitalism.

What is more likely is a mass extinction, huge population loss, and crawl back out of another dark age. But I prefer Roddenberry's worst ideas to more of the same.
Maybe some of the posters here can't envision a world beyond their own dispossession?

"If they had asked," Lededje told her,"I might even have told them; I was running away to the Culture because I heard they'd escaped the tyranny of money and individual power, and that all people were equal here, men and women alike, with no riches or poverty to put one person above or beneath another." Surface Detail by Iain Banks page 159.
I think the crucial point here is that dispossession actually implies empowerment of a different kind. I don't need to wield more power or own more than my brother or sister to be happy. I am actually more happy when I do not have to fear that somebody wants to take more power or possessions for him- or herself at my expense.
And no, none of this implies that nobody strives for excellence.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 03:28 AM   #444
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

horatio83 wrote: View Post
TheGoodNews wrote: View Post
Of all the strange new worlds Star Trek explores, it's the non-capitalist future, without poverty, that people have the most trouble with.

And I don't really buy that whats objectionable is the lack of explanation. Its the boldness of saying humanity has to grow up to reach the stars. And that growing up means going beyond religion, nationalism, and capitalism.

What is more likely is a mass extinction, huge population loss, and crawl back out of another dark age. But I prefer Roddenberry's worst ideas to more of the same.
Maybe some of the posters here can't envision a world beyond their own dispossession?

"If they had asked," Lededje told her,"I might even have told them; I was running away to the Culture because I heard they'd escaped the tyranny of money and individual power, and that all people were equal here, men and women alike, with no riches or poverty to put one person above or beneath another." Surface Detail by Iain Banks page 159.
I think the crucial point here is that dispossession actually implies empowerment of a different kind. I don't need to wield more power or own more than my brother or sister to be happy. I am actually more happy when I do not have to fear that somebody wants to take more power or possessions for him- or herself at my expense.
And no, none of this implies that nobody strives for excellence.
I think the problem is that some people have a hard time imagining how excellence will be MEASURED if there's no money.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 03:38 AM   #445
Lt. Uhura-Brown
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Zealand
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Non-profit is anti-American. Why do you hate America, post-scarcity economy?
Lt. Uhura-Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 12:54 AM   #446
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

TheGoodNews wrote: View Post
Maybe some of the posters here can't envision a world beyond their own dispossession?
Maybe some of the posters here can't comprehend why people need to submit to any form of dispossession? In a legal sense, dispossession is characterized with language such as wrongful, illegal and non-consensual. An example of the act of dispossession would be ouster or removal of a person from their property by trick, compulsion, or misuse of the law.

What kind of hellhole future would see an entire populace exposed to this kind of horrifying treatment? To have people capriciously strip of their possessions and properties?

horatio83 wrote: View Post
I think the crucial point here is that dispossession actually implies empowerment of a different kind.
Empowering to whom? The people or organization preforming the dispossession? A dispossession is something that happens to you.

horatio83 wrote: View Post
I don't need to wield more power or own more than my brother or sister to be happy. I am actually more happy when I do not have to fear that somebody wants to take more power or possessions for him- or herself at my expense.
Of course if you freely choose to divest yourself (but not others) of all possessions and property, this would be your choice. But there should never be assumption that others will do the same. Nor should here be any level of societal pressure, nor misuse of law, to compel others to follow your freely chosen path.

There'll always a hot meal waiting for you down at the mission.

horatio83 wrote: View Post
And no, none of this implies that nobody strives for excellence.
But there is a heavy implication that no one will receive the fruits of their labors, compensations for their intellectual and physical efforts. Not if another person receives the exact same compensations for doing essentially nothing.

Every year the Nobel committee awards Nobel prizes to select individuals, for their accomplishments in their chosen fields, comes with a nice 1.2 million dollar check. People who do nothing noteworthy don't get even a chance at the award, nor at the check from the committee.

There's nothing remotely wrong with exspecting to compensated for what you do, it's a form of recognition. In the future as in the past, people with intelligence, or born talents, or unusual levels of drive will be compensated more generously, than those who come up lacking in the attributes department.

***

KIRK: No matter how long it took, he came out with multitronics. The M-5.

MCCOY: Right. The government bought it, then Daystrom had to make it work.



T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:28 PM   #447
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

But there are opportunities in the Federation. Tens of thousands of its citizens choose to die in miserable dilithiium mines just to better themselves, just as millions of Soviet citizens thought clearing trees in Siberia would be personally fabulous and advance the state to a more perfect future where humanity moves beyond the need for money. They didn't ask for any pay, just the chance to freeze to death in a camp like any enlightened member of their advanced society.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:49 PM   #448
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

T'Girl wrote: View Post
In the future as in the past, people with intelligence, or born talents, or unusual levels of drive will be compensated more generously, than those who come up lacking in the attributes department.
The italicized and bolded phrase highlights the false facts upon which politically conservative ideologues rely. No, the past was not meritocratic. In fact, it was notably not so. The sly insinuation of such a blatant falsehood is not an acceptable argument. (Whether or not this was sincerely believed, blindly accepted second-hand is irrelevant. It's still every bit as untrue.)

Further, quite aside from the relevant facts that driven people have not been rewarded while undriven people have, the implication that being forceful deserves a reward assumes that not only is society a zero-sum game, but that "winning" such a competition is inherently moral. This is assuming the conclusion in effect. This makes it doubly unacceptable as an argument.


Valin wrote: View Post
CaptainStoner wrote: View Post
Its the boldness of saying humanity has to grow up to reach the stars. And that growing up means going beyond religion, nationalism, and capitalism.
If you look at history it was religion, nationalism, and capitalism (and competition) that helped make us the explorers that reached out to new vistas in the past and probably will continue to do so in the future.
Egyptian religion and nationalism didn't make the advanced civilizations of Egypt or China or Japan explorers. Mediaeval Europe wasn't notably nationalistic (though the notion of "Christendom" is thoroughly romanticized) either. And the European voyages of exploration at the end of the Middle Ages were far more a cause of capitalist development than a result.

Lastly, the real context here is exploration of space. History tells us that the capitalist and competitive US has only a limited interest in space exploration, not counting space based weaponry. It was the Soviet Union that started space exploration and after its disappearance, space exploration is marginal, in constant threat of extinction. Space race for competitive prestige? The real question is why the USSR government could see space exploration as prestigious, while the capitalist, competitive US could not?

PS It seems Scotpens was right.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.

Last edited by stj; May 19 2013 at 08:56 PM.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 07:07 PM   #449
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Yes T'Girl, you are a quasi-capitalist revanchist whose weak morality and ignorance of the Communist dialectic undermines the strength of the state and the power of the worker! Your rations are cut for a week. Now get back to shoveling!

***

The driven people usually produce more, often directly from nothing, which means society is not a zero-sum game. Take a look at inflation-adjusted GDP charts and you'll notice the graphs trend strongly upwards. This is a result of the simple cause and effect of "the more stuff you make, the more stuff you have. If you want to have more stuff, make more stuff," which leads directly to purposely making stuff that's in demand (higher value stuff), trading for other stuff, wholesaling, retailing, franchising, etc.

Money is way to assign simple numeric values to what would otherwise be an impenetrable diversity of different, incomparable items, and to delink a product being sold from another product being bought. (If you have an '11 Mustang and want to buy a '12 Prius, you sell the Mustang for money and use the money to buy a Prius, adjusting the amount of money by the price difference, instead of spending two years hunting the one guy who wants to trade a Prius for a Mustang.) Meanwhile in socialist utopias, there's a massive toilet paper shortage in Venezuela being blamed on "excessive demand."

Communist appeals to morality don't carry much weight, since they happily starve farmers en masse and shoot workers in the back of the head for failing to meet the production quota. Their main industry was building walls to keep workers from fleeing. And of course the universal currency in all communist countries was the US dollar, because it was the only thing there that had actual value. Yet even they knew to maintain internal domestic currencies because without a currency system, even government projects have to operate via forced appropriation or bartering.

Star Trek's lack of any monetary system is an obvious leap backwards. How can the Federation figure out what a Galaxy class starship costs? How can it assign and procure resources or make any rational decisions regarding economic inputs? Without the ability to assign financial numbers to different courses of action, all their decisions would be nearly random guesses.

"Should we source hull plating from Procyon 7 or Dadelon 5?" In our universe, we'd compare price, quality, and schedule. In their universe, they have to calculate production costs, which to them would mean calculating hundreds of thousands of hypothetical barter or trade exchanges required to shift resources, equipment, and personnel to their project instead of some other project. Unless they are given the power to commandeer equipment and order citizens about on a whim, they have to figure out, have to negotiate, what it will take to draw each worker onto the project.

Weeks of negotiation later:
"Okay, worker XB71539, the Federation will give you three original Al Yankovic CD's, a year's supply of cat food, an apartment with a north facing view, a season pass to the Red Sox games, a set of Zephram Cochran commemorative stamps, and tell your girlfriend that you're on a vital mission in Romulan space."

By the time they finish figuring out what it will take they'll have to start over with renegotiations because people and equipment don't stand idle for two years waiting for someone to make up their minds.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 07:24 PM   #450
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Looks like at least line person here is living in reality.

And as for the Nobel Prize, I can think of two individuals (maybe three) just off the top of my head, Peace Prize recipients, who have done not a damn thing to promote peace.

No, I wont call them out in this forum. Not the place for it.

But for all the proselytizing about this or that philosophy, only one has in its entire existence sought to bestow liberty and freedom on as many people as who would accept it.

Over and out.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.