Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek

[Anwar]

I gave you my examples to back up my POV, and what you paraphrased there was just one (from Uhura, pointing out how it was illogical for Spock to express condescending surprise at her acting like a human being). Maybe you could provided some examples of your own?

When McCoy expresses incredulity over Spock being able to sense the deaths of the Vulcan ship in the Space Amoeba episode Spock then takes a shot at him over how humans can feel little sympathy over large amounts of death.

Patterns of Force, Spock ends the episode listing off all the great butchers of history (like they're all perfect examples of Humanity) and Kirk and McCoy just laugh.

Enemy Within, Spock makes fun of Rand for nearly getting raped and no one minds.

Off the top of my head.

Just repeating opinionated statements as if their facts doesn't leave much room for discussion out sideof 'Yes it is! No it's not!'

Oh, and they just mentioned how the TOS crew tended to argue a lot and butt heads with each other. 'Tis deh canon.

Well, to be fair a lot of those conflict characters were one-shots who were never seen again.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

here are these lovely little things called lines. You might want to look between them.

Star Trek presents a lot more to the audience than just exploration and everyone being happy. It shows us that a military coup can happen at the drop of a hat, that a secret organisation works nefariously in the shadows, that the prime directive will be utterly ignored when it suits, it shows us a universe without need or want where people do things purely to better themselves... and yet we see Ezri's family running a depressing mining operation and Cassidy slogging her guts out as a cargo work-monkey etc. It shows us lots of things.

To those of us paying attention at least.

Isn't it telling, that basically most of those negative things come out of DS9? The dourest of all Treks. The one closest to Ronald D Moore's dour vision in Battlestar Galactica? And that the examples ignore the evidence of TNG? I know that there is a sub-cult within Trekdom that seems to worship that show (and BSG), and considers it the only worthy Trek, but not everyone shares that opinion.

I like it, and I consider it the third best, but this cult-like propensity to credit it with being uniquely complicated just because it had moral ambiguity and 20th Century 'realpolitik', is a case of people seeing something they like, that suits their world-view, and eulogizing it over everything else. Were YOU paying attention to TNG, I could easily ask, in the same manner? Because there is plenty between those lines too; you may not agree with it's themes, but they are there. I just personally happen to enjoy those themes more, so naturally favor that show. I also think they are rarer in a show; Babylon 5 explored what DS9 did, and better; so did other shows like Space: Above and Beyond, and BSG. Its quite rare to see something like TNG.

Cassidy Yates, may well choose to earn a living running freight, because it's her raison d'etre, and she wants to be "out there". But she can come to Earth and enjoy the full amenities of a post-scarcity society any time she wants; we know the Federation does not let people simply die the slow death of poverty - in contrast to our own times. What a way to pick and choose evidence. The Prime Directive being ignored? Imperialism at work? Or simply following the Vulcan adage that "whatever is necessary is never unwise", when all other options have expended themselves? It can be seen in such negative terms if you really want to build Star Trek into a dystopia in your mind's eye; but there is no supporting evidence whatsoever that this is some clandestine policy.

 

[Trekkin]

I gave you my examples to back up my POV, and what you paraphrased there was just one (from Uhura, pointing out how it was illogical for Spock to express condescending surprise at her acting like a human being). Maybe you could provided some examples of your own?

When McCoy expresses incredulity over Spock being able to sense the deaths of the Vulcan ship in the Space Amoeba episode Spock then takes a shot at him over how humans can feel little sympathy over large amounts of death.

Patterns of Force, Spock ends the episode listing off all the great butchers of history (like they're all perfect examples of Humanity) and Kirk and McCoy just laugh.

Enemy Within, Spock makes fun of Rand for nearly getting raped and no one minds.

Off the top of my head.

Just repeating opinionated statements as if their facts doesn't leave much room for discussion out sideof 'Yes it is! No it's not!'

Oh, and they just mentioned how the TOS crew tended to argue a lot and butt heads with each other. 'Tis deh canon.

Well, to be fair a lot of those conflict characters were one-shots who were never seen again.

Spocks comment about Rand almost getting raped was sexist and a product of the show being made in the 60's (see: everything about Palmers and McGivers.) Whilst it is a horrible moment, it's a) nothing to do with Spocks views on humanity, and b) not a moment fans defend. If you see criticisms of the episode, that's usually the major thing brought up.

http://www.theviewscreen.com/the-enemy-within/

Kirk and McCoy don't laugh at Spock in 'Patterns...' McCoy starts arguing with Spock about humans adherence to power, and Kirk tells them both to shut up. The line is something like 'we just survived a war, don't start another one'.

In Immunity Syndrome, Spock is talking only to McCoy. He is also right, in that people really do tend to be more emotionally affected by the one death of someone they know, than by the faraway death of masses. It is meant to be harsh, because he was angry with McCoy assuming he couldn't feel anything at all for 400 people dying. Their whole plot in that episode is that they have to stop being dicks to each other.

You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours

And no, the documentary was talking about the main crew. They were talking to Shatner himself about how the main characters of TOS (which was only Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley) would conflict with each other, whilst in TNG the leads were initially nearly always in unison with Picard. Later in the same documentary, Stewart said he thought the show improved after TBOBW because Picard started being allowed to be fallible and make mistakes.

 

[hux]

Isn't it telling, that basically most of those negative things come out of DS9? The dourest of all Treks. The one closest to Ronald D Moore's dour vision in Battlestar Galactica? And that the examples ignore the evidence of TNG? I know that there is a sub-cult within Trekdom that seems to worship that show (and BSG), and considers it the only worthy Trek, but not everyone shares that opinion.

Well my favourite Trek is actually Voyager but I personally love the fact that DS9 chose to deconstruct a lot of what we took for granted in the Trek universe. DS9 definitely undermines a lot of what has been established but that was absolutely necessary. One man's utopia is another man's dystopia. There were always going to be people unhappy with the status quo, there were always going to be examples that contradict the apparent societal cohesion. DS9 made the Trek universe far more interesting - and far more human - as far as I'm concerned.

I like it, and I consider it the third best, but this cult-like propensity to credit it with being uniquely complicated just because it had moral ambiguity and 20th Century 'realpolitik', is a case of people seeing something they like, that suits their world-view, and eulogizing it over everything else.

Or just seeing something that makes sense. A universe that claims that all people apparently "do things to better themselves" which is a universe that also has waiters in it... does not make sense. A universe where "some" people do things to better themselves but others struggle along in an entirely different way... does make sense. It's got nothing to do with an increase in complexity and has everything to do with... a decrease in unrealistic simplicity.

Were YOU paying attention to TNG, I could easily ask, in the same manner? Because there is plenty between those lines too; you may not agree with it's themes, but they are there.

I pay attention to both. But only one gets undermined.

Cassidy Yates, may well choose to earn a living running freight, because it's her raison d'etre, and she wants to be "out there". But she can come to Earth and enjoy the full amenities of a post-scarcity society any time she wants; we know the Federation does not let people simply die the slow death of poverty - in contrast to our own times.

Ah, this again. The argument that people working in the sewers are blissfully happy in their work. Ask millionaires today why people are homeless and a lot of them will tell you..."it's because they like the freedom it brings."

Well of course it is.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Star Trek makes it quite clear that undesirable jobs have basically bean eliminated by labour saving devices (another potentially radical statement). I'm sure the Federation inspector who has to tour Chicago's robot-cleaned nano-composit-lined sewer's in a fully protected environmental suit docent mind doing this once a year to keep his city running - after all, most of the advances in labour came from giving worker's extra safety and comfort. The fact that people don't regularly lose their hands in machining accidents anymore, and that they have welfare if they do, goes a long way to making those jobs better than they were. Now imagine 1900-2015's advances, extended from 1900-2266. This MIGHT NOT happen - but that is why we call it science fiction. I can read about human misery any time - just look out of my window - look at my life, and those of my freinds - or just look at the news - hardly imaginative.

BTW, if you feel that DS9 deconstructed Trek, think about what I said about TNG deconstructing society:

The idea that utopias are less edgy or radical than dystopias, I think, we can safely say is wrong - utopian sci-fi is often far more politically radical and controversial in themes - dystopias often just extend the same system we have today into the future - utopias often deconstruct/destroy gender norms, economic systems, religion, nationality, etc. Things deeply worrying to any establishment

I've encountered a lot of people who feel that miring stories in the present day is radical, but there are many others who feel that this is basically just the exact opposite - to argue that the present bourgeois reality will continue ad infinitum is a deeply conservative political statement to make. Michael Moorcock famously criticized Tolkien, and other sci-fi and fantasy authors for this very tendancy.

Are we now living in a world where sci-fi has to ape neoconservative values to be considered 'realistic'?

 

[Makarov]

The Expanse kind of has the darker view of space covered so I don't need Trek to also take that stance. Much more interested in a positive Trek future, luckily that's still been the case in the JJ movies, Into Darkness especially. You get Spock arguing non violence, Kirk getting lectured to about the prime directive, the crew working together, the entire movie is about avoiding war, it's not really that far from TNG imo.

 

[hux]

Star Trek makes it quite clear that undesirable jobs have basically bean eliminated by labour saving devices (another potentially radical statement). I'm sure the Federation inspector who has to tour Chicago's robot-cleaned nano-composit-lined sewer's in a fully protected environmental suit docent mind doing this once a year to keep his city running - after all, most of the advances in labour came from giving worker's extra safety and comfort.

This is what I mean about paying attention. We've seen waiters, we've seen manual labourers, we've seen cargo couriers, we've seen resort staff, we've seen miners, we've seen Baryon sweep staff, we've seen countless examples of people doing work that no one would realistically describe in any way as... bettering. We've even seen human underworld criminals like Bilby who choose to reject the affluence and comfort of post-scarcity Earth and instead prefer a life of risk and profit.

Are we now living in a world where sci-fi has to ape neoconservative values to be considered 'realistic'?

No, it just has to follow its own rules.

If Trek says its a utopia, I can accept that. If it says it's a utopia and doesn't bother to explain how this utopia works, I can even accept that.

But if it says that it's a utopia then shows examples of this demonstrably NOT being the case then you have no option but to question its claims.

If I watch a TV show and in episode six they establish that everyone on the planet is a called Keith but then in episode nine a guy called Steve gets killed, I have no option but to question what was told to me in episode six.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Star Trek makes it quite clear that undesirable jobs have basically bean eliminated by labour saving devices (another potentially radical statement). I'm sure the Federation inspector who has to tour Chicago's robot-cleaned nano-composit-lined sewer's in a fully protected environmental suit docent mind doing this once a year to keep his city running - after all, most of the advances in labour came from giving worker's extra safety and comfort.

This is what I mean about paying attention. We've seen waiters, we've seen manual labourers, we've seen cargo couriers, we've seen resort staff, we've seen miners, we've seen Baryon sweep staff, we've seen countless examples of people doing work that no one would realistically describe in any way as... bettering.

There are quite a lot of people who would disagree with you there, but we are clearly on a different page, so I don't think pointing it out will really help resolve anything - needless to say, not everyone finds those jobs completely unfulfilled - its a matter of values. I mean, I can clearly see a reason why running a baryon sweep on a Starship might be fulfilling, but not everyone shares my values. Also, for all we know, there are extra benefits to employment, above and beyond the Finland-style 'basic income' or guarantee of a good life provided to all citizens.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The idea that utopias are less edgy or radical than dystopias, I think, we can safely say is wrong - utopian sci-fi is often far more politically radical and controversial in themes - dystopias often just extend the same system we have today into the future - utopias often deconstruct/destroy gender norms, economic systems, religion, nationality, etc.

Which has fuck all to do with being an action-adventure sci-fi drama that typically involves its heroes cruising around the galaxy running into weird shit.

And if they did run into a "utopia" it usually had Kirk and Spock finding out it had some dark secret before they brought the whole house of cards down.

 

[Anwar]

Kirk and McCoy don't laugh at Spock in 'Patterns...' McCoy starts arguing with Spock about humans adherence to power, and Kirk tells them both to shut up. The line is something like 'we just survived a war, don't start another one'.

So in other words, it's all just laughed off with nothing really done to counter what Spock says.

As for "The Immunity Syndrome", little is resolved there because in the Spock still gets off a "See? I was right again!" over how he was right and McCoy was wrong.

And no, the documentary was talking about the main crew. They were talking to Shatner himself about how the main characters of TOS (which was only Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley) would conflict with each other, whilst in TNG the leads were initially nearly always in unison with Picard.

Because they only had three main characters (and that was on a good day, plenty of times it's just Kirk and Spock) opposed to TNG's ensemble of at least twice that number.

It's easier to write three guys in argument because that forms a Freudian Trio (McCoy is the Id, Kirk the Ego and Spock the Super-Ego) as opposed to writing a story where 6-8 people are all in conflict with one another every episode.

As for Merry Christmas:

Or, in recognition of the fact that they seemed to be good and decent people, their attitudes and beliefs were a key part of any solution

If you met a US Southerner from the 19th Century who was outraged that a colored man was President and all that, would you think that persons' attitudes and beliefs were somehow key to Reconstruction after the Civil War?

Who in the world Anwar is taught to think less of the people in the past?

Go watch stuff like "The Amazing Race", you're bound to see some contestants who have little regard for other cultures TODAY much less the ones of the past.

That would be because he was able to discern what was actually going on with the Romulan in only a few seconds, while Picard sat clueless in his chair?

I can respect that one instance, but up til then all the guy cared about was how much money he had.

Hardly, Kirk treated Christopher with considerable respect, and seem to enjoy showing off his ship to the man. He never exhibited contempt, or attempted to shove Christopher off on subordinates.

He did admit that Christopher had little place in their future.

And then there was McCoy writing off 20th Century medicine as barbaric.

 

[Trekkin]

Except McCoy was responding to what Spock was dishing out, and Kirk got annoyed at both of them. Plus, McCoy was the one who started the species grandstanding, and Spock pointed out a hole in his arguement.

MCCOY: What he's saying, Spock, is that a man who holds that much power, even with the best intentions, just can't resist the urge to play God.
SPOCK: Thank you, Doctor. I was able to gather the meaning.
MCCOY: It also proves another Earth saying. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Darn clever, these Earthmen, wouldn't you say?
SPOCK: Yes. Earthmen like Ramses, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Lee Kuan. Your whole Earth history is made up of men seeking absolute power.
MCCOY: Spock, you obviously don't understand
SPOCK: Obviously, Doctor, you fail to accept
KIRK: Gentlemen. Gentlemen, we've just been through one civil war. Let's not start another. Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Warp factor two, and hurry.

I quiet literally have no idea what you're talking about from 'Immunity Syndrome.' The last bit of snark he gives McCoy in the episode is nothing to do with being human, and is a potshot that McCoy is speaking over Kirk.

MCCOY: Shut up, Spock! We're rescuing you.
SPOCK: Why, thank you, Captain McCoy.

Even then, McCoy gets the last word by ribbing him for not doing all the tests he said he would, and again ends with Kirk telling them both to stow it. It's all a whole less racist and personal than it was at the start of the Ep.

KIRK: Spock, you're alive!
SPOCK: Obviously, Captain. And I have some fascinating data on the organism
MCCOY: Don't be so smart, Spock. You botched the acetylcholine test.
KIRK: Later, later, later. Bring the shuttlecraft aboard, Mister Scott

And sure, the main cast of Trek was only three people, but no one argued that all the TNG players should be in conflict with each other at the same time. Also, TOS had Uhura arguing with Spock, Scotty and Chekov argueing with everybody about their pet issue (being under the permanent impression that command would get them blown up, and Russia respectively), and even Sulu occasionally had 'are you nuts?!' reactions to instructions. The point was that even the recurring day players of TOS had more to do then the regulars in early TNG.

Except for Crusher a few times, funnily enough. She did act as Picards McCoy a few times before she left. But she was never allowed to be 'more right' than Picard - that came later when she got a some focus episodes, and even in those she ended up seduced by an evil alien ghost.

 

[T'Girl]

Star Trek makes it quite clear that undesirable jobs have basically bean eliminated by labour saving devices

Quite the opposite, it was made clear that people do the labor, robots (mysteriously) are rare. Yes, Riker says the ship cleans itself, but we hear of conduits that need to be hand cleaned, people crawl though tubes to make repairs, there's wait staff to serve food.

As for Merry Christmas:

Or, in recognition of the fact that they seemed to be good and decent people, their attitudes and beliefs were a key part of any solution

If you met a US Southerner from the 19th Century who was outraged that a colored man ...

Stop, when did any of the people in Neutral Zone exhibit anything like this? There was no "outrage."

the way people are educated TODAY to probably think less of past humans

Who in the world Anwar is taught to think less of the people in the past?

Go watch stuff like "The Amazing Race", you're bound to see some contestants who have little regard for other cultures TODAY much less the ones of the past.

No, you said people were educated to think less of pass people, who is this? You gave an example of someone who doesn't like current people.

That would be because he was able to discern what was actually going on with the Romulan in only a few seconds, while Picard sat clueless in his chair?

I can respect that one instance, but up til then all the guy cared about was how much money he had.

The Businessman made it clear to Picard that to him the money was a means of controlling his own life, a position which can only be respected.

The Businessman initially was polite and correct (which he wasn't receiving in return), it was after he discerned that he was being given the run around that he began to push.

.

 

[Trekkin]

The Businessman initially was polite and correct (which he wasn't receiving in return), it was after he discerned that he was being given the run around that he began to push.

.

In the EU, that ended up making Offenhouse quiet the successful diplomat (and later a Minister, I think.) He could be both civil and forceful when the situation called for it, and even when he didn't like or understand some people, he didn't look down his nose at them (other than literally with the Ferangi, and having special loathing for one particular rapist.)

Being able to reply to a commerce-centered species with something other than 'We think money is greedy and outdated' was probably also a useful tool for an ambassador.

Picard still hates him. Though Picard sometimes was a bit...off in the earlier novels.

 

[Anwar]

]And sure, the main cast of Trek was only three people, but no one argued that all the TNG players should be in conflict with each other at the same time.

If you want the same amount of conflict in TNG that there was in TOS, then you need the whole main cast to be conflicting with each other just as much. As there was more than double the amount of central characters in TNG that there were in TOS, then all of them have to be in conflict.

Also, TOS had Uhura arguing with Spock,

Maybe once or twice, at most.

Scotty and Chekov argueing with everybody about their pet issue (being under the permanent impression that command would get them blown up, and Russia respectively),

Joke moments.

and even Sulu occasionally had 'are you nuts?!' reactions to instructions. The point was that even the recurring day players of TOS had more to do then the regulars in early TNG.

Maybe once or twice, at most.

Stop, when did any of the people in Neutral Zone exhibit anything like this? There was no "outrage."

The Businessman didn't care he out in space and that aliens existed and all that, he just cared about his money.

No, you said people were educated to think less of pass people, who is this?

Television shows, movies, hell even some debates in History classes will have Professors admitting that they did things we'd consider barbaric.

 

[T'Girl]

The Businessman didn't care he out in space and that aliens existed and all that, he just cared about his money

Actually he did seem interested in where he was and what was going on around him. This was how he was able to figure out that something unusual was happening aboard the ship that was atypical.

 

[Makarov]

Picard was annoyed that the guy wouldn't stay off the intercom while he was dealing with more important stuff. Then later he tried to explain that their society moved past the greedy mindsets which led to another world war. It's common sense that if someone from the past showed up in modern day and started trying to apply their old fashioned views you can bet they'd get schooled on modern day sensibilities.

 

[IndyMac]

The Expanse kind of has the darker view of space covered so I don't need Trek to also take that stance. Much more interested in a positive Trek future, luckily that's still been the case in the JJ movies, Into Darkness especially. You get Spock arguing non violence, Kirk getting lectured to about the prime directive, the crew working together, the entire movie is about avoiding war, it's not really that far from TNG imo.

Yeah, I keep seeing TV critics (admittedly not the most intelligent group) calling The Expanse a dystopia, but I can't see how it is. It's not any darker or more dystopian than DS9 was during the Dominion War. The only difference is Star Trek sticks pointy ears, forehead ridges, neck bones, and robotic appendages on the competing factions so that "humans" are no longer the ones fighting each other.

 

[Makarov]

Yeah, I keep seeing TV critics (admittedly not the most intelligent group) calling The Expanse a dystopia, but I can't see how it is. It's not any darker or more dystopian than DS9 was during the Dominion War. The only difference is Star Trek sticks pointy ears, forehead ridges, neck bones, and robotic appendages on the competing factions so that "humans" are no longer the ones fighting each other.

There's more than that which makes it a darker story, but even that itself is a huge difference that can't be glossed over imo.

Humans are no longer fighting each other (and friendly with a lot of other worlds) vs. humans brought all their shit into space and on the verge of wiping itself out. A lot of The Expanse is more pessimistic about humanity's future compared to Trek, even down to how space travel would be.

With Trek you have to pick and choose which series to believe in order to argue that humanity still sucks, but there's no doubt about it in the Expanse.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

There's more than that which makes it a darker story, but even that itself is a huge difference that can't be glossed over imo.

Humans are no longer fighting each other (and friendly with a lot of other worlds) vs. humans brought all their shit into space and on the verge of wiping itself out. A lot of The Expanse is more pessimistic about humanity's future compared to Trek,

I hope this is based on more than just watching the first episode.

even down to how space travel would be.

So being more scientifically plausible is being more pessimistic?

 

[T'Girl]

Then later he tried to explain that their society moved past the greedy mindsets which led to another world war

How do you figure? Star Trek has never established the cause of the third world war, all we know is the ultimate fatality numbers and the approximate year it ended.

What could lead you to believe that "greedy mindsets" was even a minor factor?