One thing I never "got"

[Brutal Strudel]

Even when I was a kid, I never understood how Trek squared its "we humans have learned to live together as peaceful beings and put aside our savage tendencies and thus we have reached the stars" pollyannaism (expressed even more strongly with the Vulcan variant of "we learned to completely subjugate all emotion--positive and negative--in order to survive") with the plethora of right bastards that seemed to have avoided nuclear self-destruction and made it to the stars just fine without such a species-wide awakening, particularly the Romulans, who seem to be the living proof that Surak was a blue-nosed fuddy-duddy.

(Damn. That's a long-ass sentence right there, that is.)

 

[BillJ]

I don't think it's so much about awakenings. More about unification of the said people.

Once the people are unified and all resources under one central control, then they can point those massive resources towards space. Plus, after unifying the people they probably need the resources that other worlds can provide.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I don't think it's so much about awakenings. More about unification of the said people.

Once the people are unified and all resources under one central control, then they can point those massive resources towards space. Plus, after unifying the people they probably need the resources that other worlds can provide.

Indeed. But Trek showed us that a race can unify without disposing or even reigning in its worst impulses. Hardly optimistic but necessary for good drama.

 

[FalTorPan]

Once the people are unified and all resources under one central control...

There's nothing I'd rather do than put all of humanity's resources under one central control.

Ack.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

That just proves you don't need to be nice in order to survive.

And the powerful empires we've seen do have ways of cooperating so that they won't ever turn on each other in an orgy of self-destruction:

Klingons - Have elaborate systems of behavior, ceremonies and traditions that function to keep everyone in line and the mayhem in check. That's the reason why they are always blathering about their "honor." Keeps them from murdering each other. Getting soused on bloodwine probably helps, too.

Romulans - My theory is that they could eschew the Vulcan "solution" of emotional repression because they came up with another solution - turning their negativity outwards via xenophobia. The Romulans behave pretty loyally towards each other but with paranoid hostility towards outsiders.

Cardassians - They appear to be bastards of fairly recent vintage. Previously they had an advanced civilization of refined sensibility which might not have been particularly imperialistic. Also, they're highly egotistical and think everyone else is inferior, which suggests they have respect for each other, plus they have rigid traditions in place that everyone must follow. So they've combined aspects of the Klingon and Romulan strategies.

Borg - Eliminating free will is the ultimate in social unity.

Dominion - Not too far behind the Borg in using elimination of free will as their social glue, only in their case blind obedience is genetically engineered into its military/diplomatic personnel. Interestingly, the Dominion allows a fair degree of freedom among its species other than the Vorta and Jems. Subject worlds trade some freedom for a lot of security and the economic benefits of the Dominion network - generally keeps rebellion to a minimum.

Presumably the empires that didn't hit on a means of maintaining unity blew themselves up. These are the survivors. And then there is...

Terran Empire - This is the most tenuous example of a major empire I can think of. It's basically like the Klingons except that the social controls are dangerously weak and nobody seems to care much about honor, tradition, and all that. Klingons would consider knifing your commander in the back simply for personal gain to be a breach of honor - if the commander were a coward, okay, but then it's for the benefit of all. And tellingly, the Terran Empire did not last as long as the others.

 

[ria 75]

Even when I was a kid, I never understood how Trek squared its "we humans have learned to live together as peaceful beings and put aside our savage tendencies and thus we have reached the stars" pollyannaism

Yes, what a load of crap! Ahem. I mean, what a sweet utopia. Science fiction so often makes humanity advance at the speed of light.

I don't think it's so much about awakenings. More about unification of the said people.

Once the people are unified and all resources under one central control, then they can point those massive resources towards space. Plus, after unifying the people they probably need the resources that other worlds can provide.

It breaks my heart, but communism doesn't work. People just can't help being individualistic.
It's like the absence of money: completely unrealistic. Some people will always want more stuff than others!
And as much as I hate to admit it, it is very much what makes the world go round.

 

[Sean Aaron]

It breaks my heart, but communism doesn't work. People just can't help being individualistic.
It's like the absence of money: completely unrealistic. Some people will always want more stuff than others!
And as much as I hate to admit it, it is very much what makes the world go round.

I never get tired of people who claim to know everything about human nature based on their own limited personal experience.

Ever read any works on anthropology? There are plenty of examples of human society that aren't centred around money or wanting lots of stuff; I see nothing unbelievable about a future society without money and individualism isn't incompatible with working for the benefit of wider society. Firefighters and police don't just do their jobs for the perks, people.

 

[ria 75]

I never get tired of people who claim to know everything about human nature based on their own limited personal experience.

Ever read any works on anthropology? There are plenty of examples of human society that aren't centred around money or wanting lots of stuff; I see nothing unbelievable about a future society without money and individualism isn't incompatible with working for the benefit of wider society. Firefighters and police don't just do their jobs for the perks, people.

No need to be scornful. I'll let this one pass because you don't know me and because until now I had a rather good opinion of you.

I do have an interest in anthropology and I know these things, but unfortunately they are exceptions. Call me a pessimist but don't insult me.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Sorry. I spend most of my time in TNZ and there's a thread on the economics issue already which drew the same kind of "it's human nature" opinion that I find tiresome.

 

[FordSVT]

I never get tired of people who claim to know everything about human nature based on their own limited personal experience.

Ever read any works on anthropology? There are plenty of examples of human society that aren't centred around money or wanting lots of stuff; I see nothing unbelievable about a future society without money and individualism isn't incompatible with working for the benefit of wider society. Firefighters and police don't just do their jobs for the perks, people.

No need to be scornful. I'll let this one pass because you don't know me and because until now I had a rather good opinion of you.

I do have an interest in anthropology and I know these things, but unfortunately they are exceptions. Call me a pessimist but don't insult me.

I think you underestimate what the elimination of hunger, major disease, education for all, and access to massive, nearly unlimited amounts of material resources and energy might do to benefit a society. Not to mention the fact that the entire population of the planet faced nuclear war and narrowly avoided total destruction, that's bound to effect people. Imagine 9/11 times 1000, that kind of stimulation is bound to last many, many generations.

Most wars are fought over land, access to water, resources, and wealth. Religious and tribal beliefs and all the other bullshit are secondary, usually used as the means to get the end result. A fat, free, and happy population has little desire to go to war, no matter what their religious or social preferences.

All I mean to say is, Trek's future version of human Utopia is only possible because a certain set of circumstances has occurred there, one that is unlikely to occur soon in reality. So it's probably not realistic to assume human beings will ever be like the ones we see in Star Trek, but within the context of the show I don't think it's unbelievable.

 

[Sector 7]

Sorry. I spend most of my time in TNZ and there's a thread on the economics issue already which drew the same kind of "it's human nature" opinion that I find tiresome.

That is the reason I do not go into TNZ. I'm a fairly patient person, until I reach my limit. I don't trust myself in that kind of atmosphere.

 

[ria 75]

A fat, free, and happy population has little desire to go to war, no matter what their religious or social preferences.

Absolutely. But this

the elimination of hunger, major disease, education for all, and access to massive, nearly unlimited amounts of material resources and energy

is not very likely to happen. That's all I'm saying.

Now we may have a debate of utopists vs pessimists - until we're blue in the face, and we won't go much farther than speculation. Both sides have strong arguments to their avail.

I'll admit that the Star Trek premise is not illogical, just wishful.

Anyway, this is not about what may or may not happen in the real world, or within Star Trek, this is not about Earth or the Federation alone. The thread opener was pointing to a certain manichaeism, in Star Trek, between different civilizations.

Or rather, it said, "In ST, you don't have to be enlightened to be advanced. Is that credible?" Well in Star Trek, bad guys often owe their technology to other races. They stole it or acquired it. They just need to be clever enough to use it and adapt it, not to have invented it. Although I'd rather not reduce this to technology. Aren't we talking progress in general?

Or it is really saying, both enlightened and "evil" civilizations take you to the stars, so don't Humans and Vulcans look a bit silly to pride themselves so much in their enlightenment as if it was the only way?

(I am not really finished here, but I have to stop.)

 

[Marie1]

I imagine the peace of humanity in ST is a generalization. Sisko points out in... the Maquis that maybe you look out the window of SF headquarters and think you see "paradise" but not all humanity has the same deal, some people still have to fight just to survive, and the people in "paradise" can't forget that.

I thought at its core- that communism is more equality of all and a kind of gathering of stuff and equal distribution. Now, that only works if everyone cooperates and pulls their weight... is the suppression of individualism a necessary attribute of communism? I mean, its never been happy and successful in practice and its not something I agree with really... but I find that people my age, and people who go through university seem to go through a communism "phase"... ?

 

[Chariel]

I think we need to take the Federation's perfect attitude with a grain of salt. The citizines of the British Empire once considered themselves the most advanced and cultured humans on Earth. Beyond this , the Humans of the Federation are not realy Communist, They are more "social/capitalists", the capital not being money, but prestige, responsibility, self improvement (to some degree) and even the use of goods and property (I'm not going to buy a Starfleet Admiral living in th same type of dwelling as a low level maintanance worker.) They still have problems, they get drunk, have prejudices, buck the system and on and on ...ad nauseum. I do wonder about art.. We hear and see little of new creations and a strong draw to the old and nostalgia throughout each series. All in all it does not seem a bad world to live in, we are just not ready for it at this time.
Chariel

 

[ria 75]

I thought at its core- that communism is more equality of all and a kind of gathering of stuff and equal distribution. Now, that only works if everyone cooperates and pulls their weight... is the suppression of individualism a necessary attribute of communism? I mean, its never been happy and successful in practice and its not something I agree with really... but I find that people my age, and people who go through university seem to go through a communism "phase"... ?

There's nothing wrong with communism in theory, so there is nothing wrong with "agreeing". It is the enactment that doesn't work because most people are not that selfless. Also, it is wrong if it forces people to conform to a norm, particularly in ideology. You can't force opinions upon people. (But I won't stress that communism is wrong for imposing a system upon people, because capitalism does the same and I am very angry with that.)

It is also normal to have a idealistic phase around the age of 19-20. Theoretical anarchism is the pinnacle of communism, its purest form. (Although the very nature of libertarianism makes all libertarians different and they can't really unite and go beyond the level of theory.)
Personally, I've been there and I militated and I got my slap in the face and I grew up.

Starfleet/the Federation are indeed a bit like British imperialists. And they don't like dissidents too much (cf maquis). For sure, as a whole, they have a slight superiority complex, like most Vulcans...
All this has been said.

 

[kissthestar]

Economic systems are like water to a fish or like oxygen to land animals. We think what we're used to is natural, and we don't see the assumptions and peculiarities.