Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence?

[Praxius]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

We're told many times how humanity has moved past its violent past, and that crime etc. is virtually non-existent.

So why are Bashir and Miles constantly playing out such tragically violent episodes in Earth's history in the holosuites (eg, Battle of Britain, The Alamo)? They seem to be entertained by violence. If humanity truly had moved beyond its dark past, why are they enthused — rather than repulsed — to relive events in which people were killing each other?

History will always repeat until we learn from our past mistakes AKA: to ignore our history and the things we did in our past, regardless of how horrible they were, can create a situation where we can end up doing those same things again..... besides that, just because they played around in the holodeck, just because Picard fenced, just because one delves into violent entertainment or historical re-makes, doesn't make that person a violent or dangerous person.

They claim humanity evolved because we no longer seek out conquest and power, which is usually derived from violence..... When it comes to defending ourselves, we'll pull out all the stops. What O'Brien and Bashir were doing were re-creating things like the Battle of Britain and the Alamo..... which all focused on them defending against what seemed like impossible odds and a very powerful enemy, and with the Alamo in particular, it better represented what they were going through on DS9 with the Dominion.... the Alamo was a battle that always had only one outcome.... which was they lose.

Over time, they continually tried to think of different ways to win or somehow last as long as possible, because that was what they were facing in real life.

What they were doing and what you suggest they were doing are two different things. It was their way of coping and dealing with the things happening in their lives at that time.

In comparison, Worf had a holodeck program that was about a great klingon warrior who conquered a village/city (going from memory here) and ordered all the women and children to be killed and burn the village/city to the ground..... would one say that is the same thing as what O'Brien and Bashir were re-creating?

Just because humans in the Federation say we evolved to a better way of life and reasoning, doesn't suddenly mean we're a bunch of pacifist hippies hugging rainbows and sunshine.....

 

[Cepstrum]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

It's the same reason we still enjoy playing harmless war games and stuff right now, when we have no real violent urge to do so. It's just fun for the sake of fun.

Yes, it is possible to be a more humane, less violent culture and still want to have fun in some harmless but still bizarre way that can appear violent when it really isn't. That doesn't make the UFP humans hypocrites for reliving the Alamo, because they're all aware it's not real.

Seriously, does playing stuff like Starcraft make us no different from Viking Raiders from centuries ago? No, it just means we're having fun in a way that may appear violent to someone else but it is in NO WAY violent.

I'm going to agree with Anwar. *sounds of heads exploding can be heard across the internet*

I like to think of myself as a reasonably "evolved" human being that refrains from violence, I'd rather watch a political debate than a boxing match. But for some reason the most entertainment I have experienced over the last year was playing Red Dead Redemption, a cowboy game where you ride around the wild west shooting people. I'm not even a fan of westerns, but the game was so much fun and the world so immersive that I couldn't help but enjoy myself. I played it so much that my Xbox broke down.

Holodecks are merely the ultimate version of video games, they're about living through fantasies that we didn't even know we had. There's something within all of us that gets a thrill from violent and suspenseful actions even though we have intellectually moved away from such actions in our daily lives, and these games allow us to experience that thrill in a safe place where there are no consequences.

The one difference though between todays video games and holo programs is the fact that holo characters are more life like than computer characters, so wouldn't that change anything or do you still treat it the same by saying to yourself that the person you just killed is just a projection of light and photons and made up of 0's and 1's.

I'd say that it would change our attitudes towards the games, even the move to HD graphics has had an effect on how I play games like GTA. Back in the 2D days I used to find it funny if innocent pedestrians got killed, partly because I could only see the tops of their heads and shoulders and partly because the AI was useless. When GTA3 made the jump to 3D it was still funny because the characters were blocky, the animations were awkward and the AI just walked around. When I first played GTA4 I shot I man to see what would happen, and as I saw him trying to crawl away in a realistic human way I found myself feeling guilty. Then he collapsed and started wheezing on the ground. I shot him in the head just to put him out of his misery. Ever since then I've refrained from killing innocent pedestrians at close range, it's just not fun like it used to be.

I couldn't even contemplate the possibility of doing something like that to a hologram.

that is kind of my point. I'd think humans that are unused to violence would find the highly realistic gore presented in a holoprogram quite distasteful. I doubt if most people in modern societies today could stomach play-acting a holoprogram of a vicious and bloody battle. And if they did it often enough, I'd think it would desensitize them to violence and end up making them rather unaffected by killing someone who enraged them — they might start confusing fantasy and reality.

But then again, perhaps those sorts of programs are not allowed by the Federation — just in neutral places like Quark's bar on a Bajoran station. So maybe very few UFP citizens engage in this type of activity, and it might actually help encourage morale as well as help develop the necessary fighting instinct for those typically peaceful Starfleet officers who now find themselves on the front lines of a savage war.

Hmm?

 

[Ensign Johnson]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

I've always thought that earth becoming almost crime free was a crazy notion, especially after seeing all the trouble ppl get into in Star Trek episodes.

I could believe that ppl in the future will look down on how we act now because we do exactly the same thing. To me it seems sick that ppl would go watch a public hanging but if I lived in those times (without TVs) I'd prolly do the same thing.

I liked in "Hard Time" when Miles realised he wasn't as evolved and enlightened as he thought.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

I'd say that it would change our attitudes towards the games, even the move to HD graphics has had an effect on how I play games like GTA. Back in the 2D days I used to find it funny if innocent pedestrians got killed, partly because I could only see the tops of their heads and shoulders and partly because the AI was useless. When GTA3 made the jump to 3D it was still funny because the characters were blocky, the animations were awkward and the AI just walked around. When I first played GTA4 I shot I man to see what would happen, and as I saw him trying to crawl away in a realistic human way I found myself feeling guilty. Then he collapsed and started wheezing on the ground. I shot him in the head just to put him out of his misery. Ever since then I've refrained from killing innocent pedestrians at close range, it's just not fun like it used to be.

I couldn't even contemplate the possibility of doing something like that to a hologram.

that is kind of my point. I'd think humans that are unused to violence would find the highly realistic gore presented in a holoprogram quite distasteful. I doubt if most people in modern societies today could stomach play-acting a holoprogram of a vicious and bloody battle. And if they did it often enough, I'd think it would desensitize them to violence and end up making them rather unaffected by killing someone who enraged them — they might start confusing fantasy and reality.

But then again, perhaps those sorts of programs are not allowed by the Federation — just in neutral places like Quark's bar on a Bajoran station. So maybe very few UFP citizens engage in this type of activity, and it might actually help encourage morale as well as help develop the necessary fighting instinct for those typically peaceful Starfleet officers who now find themselves on the front lines of a savage war.

Hmm?

The gore factor was quite low in the presented holoprograms.

I'm thinking about Worf's training programs in TNG or the ones presented on DS9 - the defeated enemies just disappeared.

Bashir/O'Brien's Alamo could very well employ a similar policy.

 

[SpyOne]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Indeed: sanitized experiences for modern sensibilities.

Over on Youtube there is a series of videos called David Mitchell's Soapbox, where comedian David Mitchell holds forth on a variety of subjects, one of which was how the emotional impact of the word "rape" changes if you add "and pillage" to the end of it. How neither "rape" nor "pillage" is something you'd like to have happen to you, yet when combined they become almost comical, as they evoke pictures of cartoon vikings making off with saxon milkmaids who are probably quite happy to go.
He concludes that if you simply must commit an atrocity, it's best to do it thousands of years ago.
He also posits that once everyone who was alive in WWII has died, and everyone who knew anyone who was alive in WWII has died, that WWII will begin it's slide from horrific to comical.

 

[Cepstrum]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Indeed: sanitized experiences for modern sensibilities.

Over on Youtube there is a series of videos called David Mitchell's Soapbox, where comedian David Mitchell holds forth on a variety of subjects, one of which was how the emotional impact of the word "rape" changes if you add "and pillage" to the end of it. How neither "rape" nor "pillage" is something you'd like to have happen to you, yet when combined they become almost comical, as they evoke pictures of cartoon vikings making off with saxon milkmaids who are probably quite happy to go.
He concludes that if you simply must commit an atrocity, it's best to do it thousands of years ago.
He also posits that once everyone who was alive in WWII has died, and everyone who knew anyone who was alive in WWII has died, that WWII will begin it's slide from horrific to comical.

You're probably right: the programs are likely not too gory.

But I tend to disagree that WWII would ever become comical. I still think, for example, the Mongol invasion and mass slaughter of Baghdad in 1258, in which upwards of one million people were killed, still horrifies me. Or on a smaller scale, Ottomans occasionally nailing their conquered Christian European people to their doors; and likewise, the infamous reprisals of "Vlad the Impaler" who lined his roads with Turks stuck through spears.

My point is if we find those types of things distasteful now (and I'm assuming most people do), I'd think humans that have very little exposure to violence would simply not enjoy play-acting vicious battles.

My initial take on it was clearly wrong: humanity hasn't "evolved", but its society has. And because of that, I just had a hard time reconciling the fact that normal, well-adjusted, 24th century humans would want to relive the Alamo or some of the old Irish wars (at least the Battle of Britain would not expose them to much bloodshed).

 

[jojolimited]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

What are crime and suicide rates like in Northern European countries (Scandinavia) plus Canada (very European sociologically and politically) which have "gift"/Socialist economies similar to Earth in the 24th century. Are they truly egalitarian, or are they still class conscious.

Roddenberry was dreaming about a secular utopia. DS9 (post Roddenberry) was closer to reality. It's also recognized the importance of religion in peoples everyday lives. (which is one of the reasons it generally the least liked by athiests.)

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Something about the notion of how humans "evolved." When the Maquis began fighting the Cardassians in the Demilitarized Zone, then-Commander Sisko said to the higher ups in Starfleet, "It's easy to be a saint in paradise." In the DMZ, you couldn't be a saint; you were just a person, fighting for your home and what you'd worked for.

 

[TheGodBen]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

that is kind of my point. I'd think humans that are unused to violence would find the highly realistic gore presented in a holoprogram quite distasteful. I doubt if most people in modern societies today could stomach play-acting a holoprogram of a vicious and bloody battle. And if they did it often enough, I'd think it would desensitize them to violence and end up making them rather unaffected by killing someone who enraged them — they might start confusing fantasy and reality.

But my example was about killing an innocent pedestrian and feeling guilty about the fact that I shot some guy that wasn't doing me any harm. Whenever I play GTA and I'm being attacked by an enemy, I feel no qualms about killing them because it's them or me, and that's fun for some reason. Put me in a holodeck recreation of New York and I imagine I'd feel the same way, I wouldn't kill the "innocent" pedestrians on the street because there's no fun in killing something so lifelike, but if some guys started shooting at me and threatened my "life" then I'd try to kill them and feel no guilt about succeeding.

What are crime and suicide rates like in Northern European countries (Scandinavia) plus Canada (very European sociologically and politically) which have "gift"/Socialist economies similar to Earth in the 24th century. Are they truly egalitarian, or are they still class conscious.

Well, in terms of murder (which is what we're talking about in this thread) they come out quite well:

Finland: 2.17 (per 100,000)
Canada: 1.83
Denmark: 1.01
Sweden: 0.92
Norway: 0.73
Iceland: 0.31

And for comparison:
US: 5.4
UK: 1.49
France: 1.6
Germany 0.86
Ireland: 1.12
Honduras: 67
Liechtenstein: 0

Roddenberry was dreaming about a secular utopia. DS9 (post Roddenberry) was closer to reality. It's also recognized the importance of religion in peoples everyday lives. (which is one of the reasons it generally the least liked by athiests.)

It is? I don't remember us agreeing to that at any of the atheist meetings.

I don't find that DS9 conflicts with my non-theism at all, it actually works quite well with my opinion that if there is a god it is merely an advanced alien that we cannot comprehend yet. Those that choose to worship those aliens may do so for the aliens are real and they are powerful, and those that consider the aliens as being aliens may do so too. DS9 also showed that religious organisations are sometimes abused by those that don't really have faith in their gods but only seek power. There's nothing in there that conflicts with not believing in a god.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

What are crime and suicide rates like in Northern European countries (Scandinavia) plus Canada (very European sociologically and politically) which have "gift"/Socialist economies similar to Earth in the 24th century.

Admirable though those countries are in many ways, they are capitalist countries and most certainly do not have '"gift"/Socialist economies similar to Earth in the 24th century'.

 

[jojolimited]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

that is kind of my point. I'd think humans that are unused to violence would find the highly realistic gore presented in a holoprogram quite distasteful. I doubt if most people in modern societies today could stomach play-acting a holoprogram of a vicious and bloody battle. And if they did it often enough, I'd think it would desensitize them to violence and end up making them rather unaffected by killing someone who enraged them — they might start confusing fantasy and reality.

But my example was about killing an innocent pedestrian and feeling guilty about the fact that I shot some guy that wasn't doing me any harm. Whenever I play GTA and I'm being attacked by an enemy, I feel no qualms about killing them because it's them or me, and that's fun for some reason. Put me in a holodeck recreation of New York and I imagine I'd feel the same way, I wouldn't kill the "innocent" pedestrians on the street because there's no fun in killing something so lifelike, but if some guys started shooting at me and threatened my "life" then I'd try to kill them and feel no guilt about succeeding.

What are crime and suicide rates like in Northern European countries (Scandinavia) plus Canada (very European sociologically and politically) which have "gift"/Socialist economies similar to Earth in the 24th century. Are they truly egalitarian, or are they still class conscious.

Well, in terms of murder (which is what we're talking about in this thread) they come out quite well:

Finland: 2.17 (per 100,000)
Canada: 1.83
Denmark: 1.01
Sweden: 0.92
Norway: 0.73
Iceland: 0.31

And for comparison:
US: 5.4
UK: 1.49
France: 1.6
Germany 0.86
Ireland: 1.12
Honduras: 67
Liechtenstein: 0

Roddenberry was dreaming about a secular utopia. DS9 (post Roddenberry) was closer to reality. It's also recognized the importance of religion in peoples everyday lives. (which is one of the reasons it generally the least liked by athiests.)

It is? I don't remember us agreeing to that at any of the atheist meetings.

I don't find that DS9 conflicts with my non-theism at all, it actually works quite well with my opinion that if there is a god it is merely an advanced alien that we cannot comprehend yet. Those that choose to worship those aliens may do so for the aliens are real and they are powerful, and those that consider the aliens as being aliens may do so too. DS9 also showed that religious organisations are sometimes abused by those that don't really have faith in their gods but only seek power. There's nothing in there that conflicts with not believing in a god.

I meant it as a general observation, not a hard fast rule. Most atheists are not condescending jerks. And yes technically you could consider God an Alien, since he is not from Earth.
In one episode about the worm hole aliens, they give the most perfect description about how they view linear time I've ever heard, ie, linear time is irrelevant to an eternal being.

btw thanks for the stats.

 

[jojolimited]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

What are crime and suicide rates like in Northern European countries (Scandinavia) plus Canada (very European sociologically and politically) which have "gift"/Socialist economies similar to Earth in the 24th century.

Admirable though those countries are in many ways, they are capitalist countries and most certainly do not have '"gift"/Socialist economies similar to Earth in the 24th century'.

Capitalism is not a political system, it is a monetary system and very much exists in the Trek universe.

In DS9, Sisko's father ran a restaurant, you know, a place where people come and pay to eat. Quarks charged for their drinks...the dabo girls were there to motivate the gamblers. something you couldn't have without money. You don't think people would work in mines for no pay? the list goes on.

These countries I am referring to have many free or low cost services available for their citizens. They have small populations with large amount of natural resources, so they use them to benefit their people. they are socialist countries who practice a Republic/Democratic form of government.
Capitalism is practiced in a controlled manner in COMMUNIST CHINA.
So, please don't confuse social and political systems with a monetary system.

 

[TheGodBen]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

I meant it as a general observation, not a hard fast rule. Most atheists are not condescending jerks.

Indeed, I prefer to be unbearably smug myself. It's a subtle difference.

I don't have a problem with DS9 showing theists like Kira or Sisko in a positive light because most theists are good people, and religious faith often inspires many good things, such as charity work. I don't feel that I need it in my life, but I would be a fool to suggest that nobody does because faith brings a lot of people comfort and joy. My biggest problem with religion are the institutions, such as the catholic church, that try to impose their definition of morality upon others while being corrupt themselves, as evidenced by the various child abuse scandals around the world. In that regard, DS9 is fine by me because it addressed such corruption.

Capitalism is not a political system, it is a monetary system and very much exists in the Trek universe.

Capitalism exists in the Trek universe, but it doesn't exist on Earth, and it arguably doesn't exist on most Federation worlds. This is one of the rules that Gene Roddenberry laid down when he created TNG, it was a part of his utopian vision of the future. Several writers have made it very clear over the years that this was one of the rules they had to stick to even though they didn't understand how Earth operated without money. They chose not to address it openly because nobody (including Gene) had any idea how it worked beyond the idea that humans were out to better themselves.

Across the galaxy, latinum appears to be a common currency that pre-dates the rise of the Federation and their money-free utopia, that's why many races such as the Ferengi try to acquire latinum. There does seem to be an arrangement where Starfleet officers serving outside Federation space are allotted a certain amount of latinum in order to acquire goods, that's how Starfleet officers had latinum to spend in Quark's bar. Bajor possibly uses a capitalist system based on latinum, I don't think it is ever stated outright if they do or not.

As for Joseph Sisko's restaurant, nobody knows how that worked. Going by Roddenberry's logic, Joe opened the restaurant because he loves cooking and he wanted to share his passion with others. Perhaps people bring him gifts if they like his food. Nobody knows.

 

[Cepstrum]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

I meant it as a general observation, not a hard fast rule. Most atheists are not condescending jerks.

Indeed, I prefer to be unbearably smug myself. It's a subtle difference.

I don't have a problem with DS9 showing theists like Kira or Sisko in a positive light because most theists are good people, and religious faith often inspires many good things, such as charity work. I don't feel that I need it in my life, but I would be a fool to suggest that nobody does because faith brings a lot of people comfort and joy. My biggest problem with religion are the institutions, such as the catholic church, that try to impose their definition of morality upon others while being corrupt themselves, as evidenced by the various child abuse scandals around the world. In that regard, DS9 is fine by me because it addressed such corruption.

Capitalism is not a political system, it is a monetary system and very much exists in the Trek universe.

Capitalism exists in the Trek universe, but it doesn't exist on Earth, and it arguably doesn't exist on most Federation worlds. This is one of the rules that Gene Roddenberry laid down when he created TNG, it was a part of his utopian vision of the future. Several writers have made it very clear over the years that this was one of the rules they had to stick to even though they didn't understand how Earth operated without money. They chose not to address it openly because nobody (including Gene) had any idea how it worked beyond the idea that humans were out to better themselves.

Across the galaxy, latinum appears to be a common currency that pre-dates the rise of the Federation and their money-free utopia, that's why many races such as the Ferengi try to acquire latinum. There does seem to be an arrangement where Starfleet officers serving outside Federation space are allotted a certain amount of latinum in order to acquire goods, that's how Starfleet officers had latinum to spend in Quark's bar. Bajor possibly uses a capitalist system based on latinum, I don't think it is ever stated outright if they do or not.

As for Joseph Sisko's restaurant, nobody knows how that worked. Going by Roddenberry's logic, Joe opened the restaurant because he loves cooking and he wanted to share his passion with others. Perhaps people bring him gifts if they like his food. Nobody knows.

I think when it comes to the unfathomable workings of the UFP's "economy", it's best to treat it with the same approach as certain other far-fetched technologies, such as FTL travel or transporters. Just suspend disbelief and enjoy the notion of such a utopian system (I mean the economy, not necessarily the UFP as a whole; clearly there are dissidents and even on another thread we've been speculating about just how "just" the UFP really is....).

Regardless, I enjoy pretending that that's how things will be one day, realistic or not. After all, the OP concerned how the "enlightened" and rather sterile 24th century UFP citizens could stomach reliving bloody battles on the holodeck/holosuite. But I believe the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction, whether we ascribe it to censorship, the hardships of living on the front lines of a savage war, nostalgia (along with an improved ability to disassociate fantasy from reality), or simply freedom of expression and an outlet for the otherwise sterility of such a sanatized society. Who knows.

 

[jojolimited]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Cepstrum, in the part of the USA where I live, there are lots of Revolutionary and War of 1812 reenactors. So, it seems to be a human thing to want to better understand the past by living it for short periods, instead of just reading about it.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

So why are Bashir and Miles constantly playing out such tragically violent episodes in Earth's history in the holosuites (eg, Battle of Britain, The Alamo)? They seem to be entertained by violence. If humanity truly had moved beyond its dark past, why are they enthused — rather than repulsed — to relive events in which people were killing each other?

Both of the examples you sighted (The Battle of Britain and The Alamo) were time where Bashir and O'Brian Human culture fought for their freedoms and independence from others. I very much doubt that they were "holodecking" on the side Santa Anna or Hitler, even though in the case of Santa Anna that would have made Bashir and O'Brian the victors.

So while violent events, perhaps it wasn't the violence that they were participating in? They were participating in the cause that was being fought for.

Neither The Battle of Britain nor The Alamo represent a "dark past."

Maybe it's because of the gift economy — people don't need to rob to get what they want

People who are "mugged" are often beaten after handing over their money, store clerks are often shot after handing over the money. So the gift economy wouldn't be able to give every robber what they want, because sometime they want more than the gift of money.

Capitalism exists in the Trek universe, but it doesn't exist on Earth, and it arguably doesn't exist on most Federation worlds.

The example of Picard's brother Robert would seem to show that capitalism is live and well on Earth in the 24th century. Robert Picard lives in a large house and apparently owns a considerable amount of land. While it's possible that he simply gives away the wine that he produces, more realistically the elder Picard is in fact running a business. The few large vineyard owners I've met tended to be fairly wealth.

Jean-Luc and Robert had a adversarial relationship. I believe that Robert taking over the family business, doing it quite well and (as a capitalist) becoming wealthy, was the basis behind Jean-Luc Picard's statement:

"The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. ...We work to better ourselves ...and the rest of humanity."

Captain Picard didn't agree with his brother's gain of financial wealth. Picard is making a personal statement, reflecting Picard's own philosophy belief system. This reveals that Picard is a idealist when it comes to Humanity as a species. Acquiring financial wealth isn't important to Picard,

Picard has power, position and respect, these are Picard's wealth. When Picard announced he was assuming command of the fleet during the battle in First Contact, the other captains didn't hesitate to follow him, that was a example of Jean-Luc Picard's wealth.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

In TNG, some of the characters strongly implied that 24th century humans had biologically evolved out of violent behavior.

They didn't flat out say it, but seem to strongly imply it.

The slip ups however;

Tasha Yar's colony. The colony Tasha Yar came from was supposed to be a human one.

According to the storyline, the government collapsed, and now thugs and gangs rule, and roam around underground caverns.
And this was supposed a Federation colony with all the advanced technology.

The Maquis. The Maquis have committed atrocities, or attempted to, or threatened to. (I know that's tricky issue)

Remember the Voyager episode where Chakotah hits a fellow Maqui, and says, 'that's how we do things in the Maqui too, isn't it?'. (Although it's to make a certain point, I always thought Chakotah was a moral person.)


Admiral Leighton? Section 31? The crew of the Valiant?

 

[Anwar]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

But still, they never said they had biologically evolved out of it (which isn't even how evolution works, but I digress...). So, it still stands it's just a social statement.

 

[TheGodBen]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

The example of Picard's brother Robert would seem to show that capitalism is live and well on Earth in the 24th century. Robert Picard lives in a large house and apparently owns a considerable amount of land. While it's possible that he simply gives away the wine that he produces, more realistically the elder Picard is in fact running a business. The few large vineyard owners I've met tended to be fairly wealth.

Jean-Luc and Robert had a adversarial relationship. I believe that Robert taking over the family business, doing it quite well and (as a capitalist) becoming wealthy, was the basis behind Jean-Luc Picard's statement:

"The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. ...We work to better ourselves ...and the rest of humanity."

Captain Picard didn't agree with his brother's gain of financial wealth. Picard is making a personal statement, reflecting Picard's own philosophy belief system. This reveals that Picard is a idealist when it comes to Humanity as a species. Acquiring financial wealth isn't important to Picard,

Picard has power, position and respect, these are Picard's wealth. When Picard announced he was assuming command of the fleet during the battle in First Contact, the other captains didn't hesitate to follow him, that was a example of Jean-Luc Picard's wealth.

Then why did Jake say it too? Jake had no such grievances with anybody, and he had a job as a reporter for the Federation News Service, so why did Jake give almost the exact same speech to Nog in In the Cards. The real-world reason is simple: Ron Moore was making fun of the fact that he had no idea how the Federation's economy works when he co-wrote First Contact.

TrekMovie.com: In the DS9 episode "In the Cards" you kind of made a play on this. There is an exchange between Nog and Jake, where Nog says to Jake "it’s not my fault you don’t have any money" and Jake says "we are here to better ourselves" and Nog says "what the hell does that mean." Jake was saying the line from a movie you wrote, First Contact, "we strive to better ourselves" So were you making fun of yourself?

Ron Moore: Oh yah [laughs] None of us knew what that meant. I think Nog’s next line is "what does that mean exactly" and Jake kind of fumbles and says "it means something good" or whatever. It is a strange platitude that we used on the show, the need for money was gone and everything was about bettering yourself. It was no longer about any kind of material gain or personal gain, everyone was just trying to be a better person So none of us could understand what that mean or how that society functioned. It all seemed very vague. None of the writers took it seriously. We all kind of laughed about it and joked about it. We all had to pay homage to it because that was something that was built into the structure of the show. At every opportunity we tried to sneak in ways. How do you play poker if you don’t have currency? Again The Original Series had credits and currency and we never understood why they could do all these great things and we couldn’t. It was very odd.

Source: http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-interview-ron-moore-on-breaking-out-of-the-box/

The 24th century Earth economy is to economics what warp drive is to physics, it is so far advanced from what we understand today that we can't comprehend more than a few simplistic concepts from it. Nobody knew how the economy worked, not even Gene, just like they didn't know how warp drive or transporters worked beyond simple concepts such as the warping of space-time and matter-to-energy conversion. All we really know about Earth's economy is that there's no money and it is not capitalistic, that's all Gene felt we needed to know.

Why did Robert have a vineyard? Because people enjoyed drinking real wine and producing wine is what made Robert happy. That's the in-universe explanation.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

But still, they never said they had biologically evolved out of it (which isn't even how evolution works, but I digress...). So, it still stands it's just a social statement.

Yes, I know, that's what I thought whenever I would hear them say things that, but some of the statements sounded suspiciously like they were implying that 24th century humans had biologically evolved out of violence by then.

I might try and see if I can find some examples where it really seems as if they're implying that they evolved out of violence biologically.

"The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. ...We work to better ourselves ...and the rest of humanity."



Then why did Jake say it too? Jake had no such grievances with anybody, and he had a job as a reporter for the Federation News Service, so why did Jake give almost the exact same speech to Nog in In the Cards.

Kind of creepy almost-Jake gives an almost word for word copy of that speech to Nog years later.

It's almost as if that slogan was drilled into everyone.

In an article on another site, someone wrote that the Federation is communist because they don't use money, among other things.

I think that claim is overkill, and would choose to be Federation citizen any day, but word for word slogans like that do raise suspicions.