What may make sense to you based on arguable premises has no necessary bearing on whether a thing is true.
Economic theories of human behavior are about as plausible as religious theories, really.
I have a bit of a problem with La'an being bullied (And Spock in st2009)
- Thread starter hxclespaulplayer
- Start date
What may make sense to you based on arguable premises has no necessary bearing on whether a thing is true.
Economic theories of human behavior are about as plausible as religious theories, really.
In my experience, greedy people always want more, even when they have more than sufficiency.
Simple biochemistry (and by simple I mean impossibly complicated and not even fully understood) creates natural urges and drives - increased testosterone for example would lend itself to a baby being more aggressive/dominant (generally - exceptions are always a thing).
Add to that the idea that humans are tribal creatures (it has not been long enough since the end of the need for tribal nature, nor are they disadvantageous enough, for them to be bred out of the population).
Babies will therefore be born with the natural drive to compete for what is assumed to be a finite resource - being food, attention, etc. The high testosterone kid may shove another out of the way to get the food first due to inherent behavioural traits.
Also, kids are dicks due to the tribal side - you look different from me? Well you are the enemy. They recognise mum and dad quickly (their immediate tribe) and that is part of the crying response when Uncle Jack comes round and holds them are they are unrecognised at first and it is almost like a danger alert response.
As they get older and the scope of their tribe widens it becomes the fat kid, glasses kid, kid with ginger hair that gets bullied because they do not conform to the tribes norms and so as a defence response/way to assert (and this is subconscious to an extent) they make fun of them.
You would think that it would improve as they get older but it depends on parenting.
What I think is likely is that mental health support will improve substantially in that period (for most) and so it will help the parents who have their own emotional, mental, work, resource struggles to feel better/less likely to abuse their kid and so their kids (who would likely be genetically predisposed more to be dominant or bullying) would still demonstrate those traits initially but would live in a supportive environment that would hopefully see them dilute those traits so bullying does become a thing of a past.
Fact is though that this is a perfect system expectation and it is not going to work for all. You learn early on that being bigger, louder, stronger will 99 times out of 100 result in more resources, attention, social power and so inevitably bullies will always exist in one way or another
Add to that the idea that humans are tribal creatures (it has not been long enough since the end of the need for tribal nature, nor are they disadvantageous enough, for them to be bred out of the population).
Babies will therefore be born with the natural drive to compete for what is assumed to be a finite resource - being food, attention, etc. The high testosterone kid may shove another out of the way to get the food first due to inherent behavioural traits.
Also, kids are dicks due to the tribal side - you look different from me? Well you are the enemy. They recognise mum and dad quickly (their immediate tribe) and that is part of the crying response when Uncle Jack comes round and holds them are they are unrecognised at first and it is almost like a danger alert response.
As they get older and the scope of their tribe widens it becomes the fat kid, glasses kid, kid with ginger hair that gets bullied because they do not conform to the tribes norms and so as a defence response/way to assert (and this is subconscious to an extent) they make fun of them.
You would think that it would improve as they get older but it depends on parenting.
What I think is likely is that mental health support will improve substantially in that period (for most) and so it will help the parents who have their own emotional, mental, work, resource struggles to feel better/less likely to abuse their kid and so their kids (who would likely be genetically predisposed more to be dominant or bullying) would still demonstrate those traits initially but would live in a supportive environment that would hopefully see them dilute those traits so bullying does become a thing of a past.
Fact is though that this is a perfect system expectation and it is not going to work for all. You learn early on that being bigger, louder, stronger will 99 times out of 100 result in more resources, attention, social power and so inevitably bullies will always exist in one way or another
We saw in Voyager that kids are still jerks in the 24th century via Torres being bullied by her cousins for being half Klingon. Torres also mentioned being ostracised in school.
Look at how grown adults treated Reginald Barclay in "Hollow Pursuits(TNG)." You can't tell me those attitudes didn't evolve from childhood behavior that wasn't exactly healthy.
Grown adults on Starfleet's flagship no less! Including Captain Picard himself in one slip-of-the-tongue.
You could argue that it's not really "bullying" if it's just accidentally blurted out, or if the offender has no malicious intent; but that type of thing probably makes up most of what the recipient perceives as "bullying." Even in a utopian future, most kids still won't be born automatically understanding empathy and manners.
I definitely would not call what Picard did bullying because of two things.
First, he made it a point, and order in fact, for LaForge to make Barclay feel more like part of the team. His other order was to have the 'Broccoli' term eliminated.
Second, had he not heard broccoli in relation to Barclay, that slip of the tongue very likely would never have happened.
First, he made it a point, and order in fact, for LaForge to make Barclay feel more like part of the team. His other order was to have the 'Broccoli' term eliminated.
Second, had he not heard broccoli in relation to Barclay, that slip of the tongue very likely would never have happened.
The fact that it happened at all in the highly evolved 24th century is probably the most damning. Also, even with these supposed evolved sensibilities they still are subject to basic human emotions. Riker even becomes upset that Troi is betrothed to another, yet there is the assertion that death is not mourned. What the heck?
And it still is, based on the Children of Mars Short Trek. Though I'm sure the peanut gallery will just dismiss that as "kURtzmAn dOESnT gEt stAr TReK!!!!!!!!!!111111111111"
LOL. Yeah, well, sure. Maybe you raise a robot, and not a human kid then.
Greed will always come naturally to human being. Because that is one of nature that we have since the beginning of time. Not only greed, but also Lust, Pride, Wrath, Glutton, Envy and Sloth. You must have known these negative behaviors, as they are actually the famous 7 deadly sins that has been together with us since the ancient time.
And you know, people have did everything they could to suppressed this sins. Ancient and Medieval people could battled these negative behaviors with discipline and religions. But with freedom come to our society, those learning also lost with time. We can say that modern people even have weaker willpower to combat these 7 deadly sins compared to our ancestors. So how can you be sure that the 23rd century people have stronger willpower / education to combat those sins? Unless they come back to our ancestors teaching with a lot of restriction and disciplines. Well, with other name "LESS FREEDOM", more authoritarian / militaristic teaching.
Actually, human behavior is a product of environmental influence. We're not born like that.
We live in a disgusting socio-economic system based on competition so of course you will end up with humans who behave in a negative capacity.
Also, I'm not religious, so these are just abberant forms of behavior which DO have an explanation behind them.
In Trek, Humanity mainly overcame those impulses because centuries prior they decided to grow up and fix their own problems... this resulted in technology and science being used to generate abundance and make it freely accessible to everyone, along with exposing everyone to relevant general education, criticial thinking and problem solving.
For most of our history, humans grew up in scarcity... but then we developed more technologically and started creating abundance... however, we still use outdated social views with relatively modern production methods, and this resulted in creation of the system we use today and lousy patterns of behaviour.
As I said, this has nothing to do with sins, or suppression of impulses... it has to do with an environment in which people grow up in and the education they get... plus the will to implement those into viable action... in Trek, Humans finally did it on a global scale... we can do so to if we stop clining to C(r)apitalism
Its mainly simple as that.
That is the Federation way.
I think humans (and all animals) are born greedy, It's a survival trait.
And some resources are always finite and require learning to manage one's emotions around that.
And yet fields of neuroscience and epigenetics say humans aren't born greedy or selfish... we are mostly hardwired to work together (aka, cooperate with each other).
We are born curious of the world around us, we ask questions constantly as kids... we are inquisitive, explore, etc... until its effectively 'beaten out' of us by the environment/system in which we live.
Its quite simple really.
Traits are not set in stone. You can be born with propensity for anything, but whether this emerges, is realized, or not depends entirely on the environment in which you live.
The argument humans are born greedy is nonsensical and ridiculously unscientific.
Babies want stuff. Food. A clean diaper. Things that entertain them. I don't think co-operation cancels wanting stuff. It is a way of getting stuff.
What they want most is parental attention and that is finite.
Yet we have the Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers that exist in the world.
I think a lot of people are born with bad traits... but environment determines whether it flourishes or fizzles out.
One of the reasons why there's no concrete answer to the nature vs nurture debate is because it varies by person to person. Some people are assholes because of the environment they were raised in, some people just have a natural inclination to be assholes.
After all, 24th century Federation is an alleged utopia with apparently infinite resources where everyone lives in luxury and no one starves or has financial concerns. Yet an alarming number of Starfleet Captains and Admirals are either corrupt or downright Evil.
After all, 24th century Federation is an alleged utopia with apparently infinite resources where everyone lives in luxury and no one starves or has financial concerns. Yet an alarming number of Starfleet Captains and Admirals are either corrupt or downright Evil.
