Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by ZapBrannigan, Mar 16, 2013.
being dispossessed= excitement?
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...
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.
Non-profit is anti-American. Why do you hate America, post-scarcity economy?
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?
Empowering to whom? The people or organization preforming the dispossession? A dispossession is something that happens to you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can consolidate two or more posts and delete redundant ones after they've been posted.
Harry Mudd: "Lonely, isolated, overworked, rich lithium miners!"
"Eve ... I'll get you a man who can buy you a whole planet."
Of course in a capitalistic system, exploration is followed by utilization and exploitation of discoveries. The early space race provide America (and others) with access to Earth orbit. Satellites, weather and communications and navigation. These satellites are commercial products and generate profits for the companies/corporations that build them, launch them and operate them, and for the businesses that make use of the information and signals that the satellites produce.
One example would be that while the weather report might be a passing segment on your evening news, the images and information from weather satellites have enabled farmers to increase their agricultural output significantly.
More money, more money, more money.
I agree with Jeryl. TOS was so sexist. Simply having women in the programme was not equality and the lengths of their "skirts" was ridiculous.
I thought that Vina was trying to look as she used? Younger but slim, blonde, pretty? At least that's the impression I got looking at it. She kept the same image all throughout the show except when she was green and "like an animal".
Didn't like that she felt she had to remain on the planet just because she had been in an accident.
A. Why couldn't they fix her
B. Looks aren't supposed to matter in Star trek
Gene Roddenberry was such a chauvinist.
Gene Roddenberry was also pretty much a hack. Outside of TOS the rest of his filmography is garbage.
At a time when the only women serving aboard US Navy vessels were nurses on hospital ships, having one-third of the Enterprise's crew be female was progressive. As was the woman First Officer in the original pilot.
Presentism, presentism, presentism.
This is pretty sexist, but the top quote is just flat out funny.
This stuff is harmless, but this is what makes some fans criticize the claims Trek make.
So women can't command a ship in the 23rd century? Even though they are considered completely equal and share all the work?
Why not just admit women and men aren't equal at everything and most of the time don't want to be all the time anyway?
But, just to make a point, they gave us the man skirt in season 1 of TNG to show us the sexes are absolutely equal--because men wear skirts on duty.
I think you're thinking about Gomez.
Khambatta had stunning hair, but was just insanely beautiful without it.
It's a good idea, but more like 53rd century.
Yeah, props to DS9 for clearing that up.
scottpenn is referring to the original concept for Troi.
I came up with the idea a while back that Vina might have been a physical composite. They pulled her out of the wreckage a "lump of flesh," and they had never seen a Human Being before. There were other people's bodies in the wreakage, what Vina was missing in terms of organs and bone and skin, the Talosian took from where they could.
The Taloisans internal anatomy might have been considerably different than a Humans, they couldn't tell for example a man's vertebra from a woman's, or in what order they were arranged.
Separate names with a comma.