Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…

PM T'Bonz.

 

Ok. Thanks for the info. I'll do that when I come up with a good name.

 

This has gone on long enough.

 

Agreed. Is there a point to this thread anymore?

 

Cook

 

This thread did have a very legitimate topic. One that I don't agree with, but someone else could've held up their side of the argument, and I think it would've led to a more interesting thread.

But reality clearly has other plans. In our reality, Funhouse Mirrors rule the day. I cite 2020 as Exhibit A.

 

Ultimately, i think it comes down to how much weight you give Star Trek and it as a vision of the future. From various places I have read Star Trek is very much sacred, something neither to be questioned nor to be altered. Which, is reflective of even Gene's own viewpoint during TNG's production. I think that lay the groundwork for the larger narrative of Trek carrying great significance in the exploration of space.

For myself, Star Trek lacks that sacredness, that special touch that served as a touchstone for hope in humanity, that sacred nature. So, the "destruction of Trek's utopia" is something I regard with more skepticism because Trek's importance I regard with much skepticism. Not saying it isn't important to some people; it clearly is. I am saying that Star Trek's continued importance for human's positive vision of the future largely diminished after TOS.

I agree that the argument could have been interesting. But I think we have trailed in to sacred territory and that limits discussion.

 

I never put people on ignore. I would rather call people out on their bullshit than just ignore them.

 

But what of the people who are just trolling and don’t care what you say? Seems pointless to call them out if it does nothing.

 

It’s not so much that I worry about if they care what I say. It’s more that I like making them look like the idiots they are.

But honestly, I’m tired of talking about this and would much rather get back on topic if that’s possible.

 

Trying to get this back-on-track.

So, earlier, some of us were saying that Star Trek didn't always show Earth or the Federation as Utopia. That was a retcon TNG made. In TOS, the argument was "Maybe we weren't meant for Paradise." But by the time you get to DS9, you have...

"The Maquis, Part II" (DS9)
Sisko: "The problem is Earth. On Earth, it's Paradise. It's easy to be a Saint in Paradise. But the people in the Demilitarized Zone do not live in Paradise."

"Past Tense, Part I" (DS9)
Sisko (in 2024): "This isn't the Earth you know. That's still at least a century away."

I take examples from DS9 because even DS9 was still playing off the TNG Rulebook.

PIC is a follow-up on TNG/DS9/VOY, so it shouldn't be following the TOS Rulebook. It should either be following the TNG Rulebook or showing how it didn't work or wasn't actually what people living in that time thought it was.

In TNG/DS9/VOY, the perception was probably that the Federation had been the way it was for 200 years, which happens to be at odds with the perception Picard had and Janeway had of the 23rd Century. Picard called it a time of "Cowboy Diplomacy." Janeway said "It was a very different time" and "They all would've been booted out of the service today." So right there, you have conflicting ideas about what the past was like.

Kind of like we have conflicting ideas of what our past was like. "The '80s were a great time! The best music and movies ever!" "No it wasn't! The '80s were a horrible time! Deregulation! Prisons were filled up! The LGBT Community was stigmatized!" It was only a "great" time depending on who you ask. And we've seen how Reaganomics haven't worked for the Middle Class. But the general byline (at least in the United States) is that ever since the 1960s, we've become a better, more tolerant society. We just sweep the unsavory parts under the rug. And, after half-a-century, we've finally reached a point where people are waking up and not sweeping it under the rug anymore.

So "The Federation is great! It's perfect!" is their version of sweeping the unsavory parts under the rug. "But what about the 22nd or 23rd Century, or even any time before the Enterprise-D was commissioned?" "Oh, well! We don't talk about that!" "And speaking of not talking about things: let's not talk about the Cardassian War going on that lasted all way up until 2366, a few years after the Big D was actually launched!" That's the way it probably was for a while. But after DS9, and especially leading into PIC, the citizens of the Federation are beginning to wake up about what's really going on.

Earth probably was this great "Utopia", and people who live on Earth think it's this great Utopia, but there were lots of other places that weren't. The body of TNG and DS9 suggests that the colonies had it extremely rough.

But Earth itself still looks like it's sitting pretty in 2399, even if Starfleet and the Federation themselves have settled into middle-age. It's just the Romulans that are screwed up. Though it doesn't look like they were screwed over anywhere nearly as badly as the Cardassians at the end of DS9.

Freecloud isn't even part of the Federation. It's this whole other thing. So how does that affect the Federation's Utopia? If the existence of vice right next door is enough to upset your Paradise, then it probably wasn't much of a Paradise, filled with virtuous people, to begin with.

 

I like this point in particular, but I do honestly even Earth wasn't as utopian as assumed. I do agree that Earth in Star Trek largely had more paradise style but that was about where paradise stop and started. I am not certain how far advanced the various Federation worlds would be, though I would imagine they would be close to Earth to some degree.

But, yeah, if the Federation utopia is undone by undesirable neighbors then it would be difficult to argue for that paradise/utopia based upon their neighbors and colonies, like Yar's home colony.

 

Here's another thing: If Earth is so great, then why leave it? Why colonize anywhere? Something about Earth, "paradise" that it was, had to be unattractive to the people who left it. Something about it had to make people want to leave in the first place.

Picard is the first time that's ever even hinted at in a serious way. Look at where Picard lives, look at where Musiker lives. But that can even be applied to Old Trek. Look at Admiral Kirk's apartment in TWOK/TSFS. Then look at Lieutenant Barclay's apartment in "Pathfinder" (VOY). Quite the difference. Even in "paradise", some sort of class system seems to exist.

Before someone says, "Maybe Barclay wants to live in a homely apartment!", I disagree. Barclay's the kind of guy where, if given a choice, he'd live in a super teched-out mancave with hologrid walls. You know it's true.

 

I think there's a difference between there existing a form of economic inequality, and there existing a class system. A really important element of a class system is that it perpetuates itself through the generations -- there remains a top of the ladder, a middle of the ladder, and a bottom of the ladder. There may or may not be some level of mobility between the classes within a class structure, but the systemic inequality is perpetuated across multiple generations.

But that's not per se the same thing as the existence of some form of inequality. United Earth or the Federation might practice some version of "jubilee," where wealth above a certain level gets seized and redistributed every few decades, for instance. So you might have a situation where within one or two generations, levels of inequality set in, but then at the third generation things get "re-set." That could create a situation where there's some level of inequality, where those levels of inequality are more directly tied to individual merit than to family status, and where inequality gets periodically negated and prevented from perpetuating into a full-blown class structure.

 

I got an impression Musiker suffered from poverty of the mind rather than a real material poverty, choosing to sulk in a trailer looking unit like that: she had many opportunities to get a new rewarding job or hobby and be allowed to upgrade her home, but she just sat there taking drugs.

 

Yeah.

Although, there was no indication whatsoever that the state of Musiker's home was in any way tied to lack of productivity in the economy.

Her living arrangements were at least as symbolic as anything else, I think, especially when factoring in the location of her humble abode at Vasquez Rocks, which suggests both (sulky) meditation on and having emotional issues with star-trekking itself. If it had been the intention to imply literal poverty, I would think they would have placed her home somewhere far more nondescript.

 

Tos already answered this question in This Side of Paradise. (Some) People need more than just having all their needs taken care of and living a happy, care-free existence. Paradise doesn't necessarily offer you achievement, human connection, or genuinely satisfy your curiousity. It can do those things, of course, but it won't necessarily for everyone, so there will always be people going elsewhere to find the things they haven't found on Earth.

 

This is my thinking as well. Taking Musiker's barbed comments at Picard at face value misses the fact that she is struggling, doesn't trust anyone and has basically retreated in to her drugs and conspiracy theories.