Complaints about humanizing Spock

[Crazy Eddie]

But Vulcan society is based on logic, not science. Those are, again, two very different things.

They have a Science Academy!

So does my home town.

They were more advanced than Earth.

So were the Klingons.

It had to be a significant part of their culture and if it wasn’t to start with it should become so over time.

Why? Tuvok wasn't even Voyager's science officer. And T'Pol was an intelligence operative who filled that role on Enterprise only because she was smarter than anyone else in Starfleet.

For some reason people like to think such behaviour is inevitable. I don’t agree.

It may not be inevitable, but it IS extremely common.

Your describing how they are portrayed by (human) writers.

Yes. Because no other portrayal exists, or WILL ever exist, period.

And that’s what I meant about our emotions getting in the way and forcing investigation away from areas we have a vested interest in retaining. Since that force is supposed to be greatly reduced on Vulcan, all aspects of their society should be open to improvement.

So goes the theory. But theory and practice don't always reflect one another. We've seen that enough times with organized religion, for example.

Look at how much cars have advanced in a century. Have you ever wondered why child raising methods haven’t made similar progress?

They haven't? That's news to me.

Its different in the case of Vulcans because the systems being ignored should prevent those same systems from being ignored!

Why? If you can temporarily ignore one social construct you can ignore them all. Vulcans, being on average more intelligent than humans, can be far more inventive in coming up with excuses for their behavior. But do not make the mistake of confusing intelligence with honesty; some of the smartest people I have ever known have also been the most effective bullshitters.

 

[UFO]

Science is an important part of any technology based culture. Presumable your home town has a science academy for that reason. Science must be even more significant to the Klingons than us. What I am saying is it would be more likely to reach in to every aspect of such societies if there weren't cultural taboos preventing or slowing that advance.

Why? Tuvok wasn't even Voyager's science officer.

Not every Vulcan can be a science officer. Thanks to his emotion training Tuvok was able to suppress his shame however.

And T'Pol was an intelligence operative who filled that role on Enterprise only because she was smarter than anyone else in Starfleet.

Which of course helps to proves my point. Even a Vulcan who is not a science specialist knows a great deal about it!

It may not be inevitable, but it IS extremely common.

And will remain so if we don’t do something to fix it.

Yes. Because no other portrayal exists, or WILL ever exist, period.

Back the point-missing bus up!

So goes the theory. But theory and practice don't always reflect one another. We've seen that enough times with organized religion, for example.

Even humans are getting there slowly. Anything that reduces the resistance can’t help but be both benefical and self reinforcing in my view. You may well disagree.

They haven't? That's news to me.

Oh there have been improvements in child raising but even then the theory is not uniformly put into effect. I would still claim car technology, particularly implementation, has advance far more.

Vulcans, being on average more intelligent than humans, can be far more inventive in coming up with excuses for their behavior.

But the training is intended to prevent them even wanting to do things that require excuses. Whereas training involving honour etc, still has to compete with other emotional demands. Those other demands have supposedly been lessened in Vulcans.

If you can temporarily ignore one social construct you can ignore them all.

Its not a social construct so much as an internalised method of thought. I agree we would both have a hard time trying to imagine what goes on in a hypothetical Vulcan mind, but their training may make it significantly different to how humans have ever thought.

 

[number6]

A couple of things:

TOS Spock always seemed to fight to control his emotions, but his human half got more face time than we have given him credit for, largely because we fans have chosen to define the Vulcan culture in ways that the writers of TOS didn't (yet) intend.
TOS Spock did pretty much explain his struggle with emotions as early as Enemy Within, and you see him punch Nancy Crater in the mouth.. His emotional outbusts in the pilot are totally fair game because the Menagerie uses this footage to portray Spock 13 years prior. I think Quinto's Spock pretty much nails how this struggle may have been, some 7-10 years prior to the Cage's Spock and growing up as a child with a nice homage to Yesteryear.

The new film is pretty consistent in showing us the bridge crew at least 10 years before the TOS crew. I'm curious where they take it from here.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Science is an important part of any technology based culture. Presumable your home town has a science academy for that reason.

No, science is an important part of a technology-based ECONOMY. Vulcan culture is many things, but unlike, say, the Borg or the Binars, it is not based on technology.

Science must be even more significant to the Klingons than us.

It isn't. They just have a much longer history of development and are that much farther ahead of us. That Klingons managed to develop technology AT ALL is somewhat amazing given their widespread warrior ideology.

And T'Pol was an intelligence operative who filled that role on Enterprise only because she was smarter than anyone else in Starfleet.

Which of course helps to proves my point. Even a Vulcan who is not a science specialist knows a great deal about it!

That makes her better educated in general, not scientifically inclined. The fact that you're capable of even reading this sentence puts you at an advantage over about a quarter of the human race; that you know enough about computers to type a response covers another quarter.

And will remain so if we don’t do something to fix it.

More importantly, it will remain so if the VULCANS don't do something to fix it. They haven't, and they probably won't.

Vulcans, being on average more intelligent than humans, can be far more inventive in coming up with excuses for their behavior.

But the training is intended to prevent them even wanting to do things that require excuses.

Is it? I thought you said most Vulcans DON'T go through with the Kolinar ritual? Beyond that there's nothing in Vulcan philosophy that calls for the elimination of desire, only the SUPPRESSION of that desire by force of will and adherence to logical thought processes. In that sense the training doesn't change what you want or why you want it, it simply changes how and when you go about obtaining it.

If you can temporarily ignore one social construct you can ignore them all.

Its not a social construct so much as an internalised method of thought.

Yeah, that's what social constructs are: thoughts and methods that large groups of people have chosen to internalize.

Again, like any social construct, Vulcans can and do allow their moral and philosophical principles to fall by the wayside if they have a good enough reason. Nine times out of ten, that reason is a pretty girl.

 

[UFO]

Science is an important part of any technology based culture. …

No, science is an important part of a technology-based ECONOMY. Vulcan culture is many things, but unlike, say, the Borg or the Binars, it is not based on technology.

Pretty much everything you do at every stage of the day is foundered on technology in some way, be it sport or music or your job. And lets not forget the obvious things like cars, the Internet and cell phones! No, the influence of science goes way beyond the economy. It pervades everything we do and shapes most if not all of it. We don’t have to be cyborgs for that to be true, though it would make it more obvious when it is so easy to take lesser examples for granted. The more advanced we get the more important it is. Nor is it possible for Klingon culture to be any different, even if they wanted it to be.

That Klingons managed to develop technology AT ALL is somewhat amazing given their widespread warrior ideology.

I can understand why you might think that, but perhaps you are aware that science can tend to benefit from periods of war?

That makes her better educated in general, not scientifically inclined.

I’m not sure how restating what I have just written advances your contention?

The fact that you're capable of even reading this sentence puts you at an advantage over about a quarter of the human race; that you know enough about computers to type a response covers another quarter.

Cultures can be based on different technological levels.

More importantly, it will remain so if the VULCANS don't do something to fix it. They haven't, and they probably won't.

Well not if they keep employing humans to write their history!

Yeah, that's what social constructs are: thoughts and methods that large groups of people have chosen to internalize.

Yes, don't know what I was trying to "delineate" there!

Is it? I thought you said most Vulcans DON'T go through with the Kolinar ritual?

That’s my current understanding but of course there is a whole layer or more of training below that which should still have considerable effect for the majority.

Beyond that there's nothing in Vulcan philosophy that calls for the elimination of desire, only the SUPPRESSION of that desire by force of will and adherence to logical thought processes. In that sense the training doesn't change what you want or why you want it, it simply changes how and when you go about obtaining it.

What does it mean to suppress a desire? Is it no longer an itch? Or are they just not acting on it but it is still there in full force? If its more the former than the latter, then sticking with Vulcan teaching is going to be easier that adhering to other (as you say) social constructs.

Again, like any social construct, Vulcans can and do allow their moral and philosophical principles to fall by the wayside if they have a good enough reason. Nine times out of ten, that reason is a pretty girl.

Which makes them sound exactly like humans! It seems strange to imagine Surak would agree with you that that was what he intended, whether Vulcans are portrayed that way or not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Science is an important part of any technology based culture. …

No, science is an important part of a technology-based ECONOMY. Vulcan culture is many things, but unlike, say, the Borg or the Binars, it is not based on technology.

Pretty much everything you do at every stage of the day is foundered on technology in some way, be it sport or music or your job.

You've got that backwards: technology is founded on everything you do. Most of the devices you're using now exist because somebody somewhere wanted to find a faster or more efficient or more interesting way of doing something. People don't start doing things BECAUSE the technology exists, except for lame/pointless/useless bullshit like Twitter or texting while driving.

Ultimately, even technology derives its form, function and development from the whims of society, and the mechanism of its development is the consumer electronics market. The absence of either of those things makes technology even more meaningless than twitter.

I can understand why you might think that, but perhaps you are aware that science can tend to benefit from periods of war?

Insofar as scientists have always been very good at tricking politicians into steering defense contracts their way. You again have it backwards though: science prospers BECAUSE of war, no one ever starts a war just to benefit science.

Except, obviously, the Borg.

I’m not sure how restating what I have just written advances your contention?

That isn't what you wrote. You said she was more scientifically inclined. She's not, she's better educated IN GENERAL.

Concrete example: My sister is a pediatrician at one of the top hospitals in the country; the closest my wife got to being a doctor is a C-minus in organic chemistry. Yet EITHER of them has considerably more practical medical knowledge than a 16th century commoner, or possibly even a 16th century physician. Yet by modern standards, only one of them is an actual doctor.

Cultures can be based on different technological levels.

No, because cultures do not use technology as a basis. It's the other way around: technology bases itself on the needs of a culture.

History bears this idea out: cultures develop technology based purely on their needs, and cultures that have little direct conflict between tribal/religious/political entities usually experience the bare minimum of innovation over a very long period of time. Technology itself is merely a means to an end, it is neither a basis for cultural development nor is it an intended end product, as societies that employ technological development usually do so in the context of a competitive struggle for dominance or survival.

What does it mean to suppress a desire? Is it no longer an itch? Or are they just not acting on it but it is still there in full force?

Sarek described it very simply: "Emotions run deep within our people, in many ways, deeper than in humans. Logic offers us a serenity humans seldom experience: to control your emotions, so they do not control you."

In essence, then, Vulcan mental disciplines are just that: discipline. In these terms it would be a person who is trained never to scratch an itch in public, or if that fails, a set of pre-determined movements designed to scratch an itch without looking like a scratch. Students of the more traditional Catholic schools will probably understand this concept (I know I do).

Which makes them sound exactly like humans!

In point of fact, it makes them exactly like EVERYONE ELSE. If there is one universal truth that holds true even in the Trekiverse, it's that men of any species will abandon dignity, decorum, tradition, duty, honor, even the most cherished moral precepts of their culture and society if it means winning the favor of a pretty girl. Even Surak probably understood this; the preservation of the Pon Far ritual was probably his idea in the first place, in recognition of the fact that no matter how well Vulcans manage to adhere to the precepts of logic, sometimes they just need to fuck!

 

[UFO]

You've got that backwards: technology is founded on everything you do.

By "founded on" I mean dependent on. Any primitive culture might include eating, movement and communications, but our culture is based on doing those and many other things in a technological way. Not just that but technology allows us to do things we wouldn't do otherwise like flying. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say our culture as "technology based" (which is how I originally put it).

Certainly if you took away technology, our lives (our culture) would be massively different and very rudimentary.

Most of the devices you're using now exist because somebody somewhere wanted to find a faster or more efficient or more interesting way of doing something.

In most cases that’s true. But it's irrelevant because it doesn’t matter how a technological foundation for a culture comes about. The fact remains that at any given time, a particular level of technology exits and that level forms the foundation of our culture in terms of how we do things and to a large extent what we do (driving etc).

People don't start doing things BECAUSE the technology exists, ….

Of course any given technology has to fill what we perceive to be a need, but the capabilities of our technology as a whole at any particular time in history, dictates how we are able to do things and the kinds of things we can do.

Its an obvious fact that we are all taught to use whatever level of technology is available to us at any given point in history, in schools and elsewhere. It is just a given that we grow up in a technological environment which we absorb by a kind of osmosis (learning by example etc). In fact we are enveloped by it to such an extent that I can understand how its pervasiveness is often not even questioned.

Technology isn’t a new thing. Its not as though when we are born there is no technology and we can choose from a list exactly which bits of it we want to use. It has been with us since we first started manipulating our environment with sticks and while it is used because it is helpful, it also in turn, shapes our behaviour. That is why and how it is the foundation for our culture. It’s hard to imagine how things could be otherwise.

Technology provides a framework and a jumping off point for our choices. Hardly anyone chooses to wash their clothes in a stream if they have a washing machine and hot and cold running water available etc. Think of all the similar examples and you will start to understand why technology is so influential.

Ultimately, even technology derives its form, function and development from the whims of society, and the mechanism of its development is the consumer electronics market. The absence of either of those things makes technology even more meaningless than twitter.

The invention of the ploug or soap, for example, are hardly meaningless. Just because older technologies didn’t involve "consumer electronics" doesn’t mean they didn’t shape their cultures profoundly. Technology of any level has always done that. It’s just a matter of degree. You seem to believe we have to combine ourselves with mechanical parts for it to be a cultural foundation, but that’s just one point on a much bigger spectrum.

I’m not sure how restating what I have just written advances your contention?

That isn't what you wrote. You said she was more scientifically inclined. She's not, she's better educated IN GENERAL.

What I actually wrote was:

… Even a Vulcan who is not a science specialist knows a great deal about it!

This implies that while not "scientifically inclined" she knew enough about it to be useful because she is "better educated IN GENERAL" than humans and thus suggests science is important to Vulcan culture.

... perhaps you are aware that science can tend to benefit from periods of war?

You again have it backwards though: science prospers BECAUSE of war...

Which is what I said.

..., no one ever starts a war just to benefit science.

Not impossible, but I obviously didn’t imply that. You were sceptical that a "widespread warrior ideology" was conducive to scientific progress. I simply implied that such a warlike culture might actually advance science as a by-product of its activities. Why would you restated my position, even though it agrues against your view of Klingon advancement, and then mischaracterised my version of it?

No, because cultures do not use technology as a basis.

Clearly cultures don’t "use" technology as a basis. It simply "is" the basis. There is no planning, thought or deliberation (or indeed choice for that matter) involved. Yes, technology is a tool, but its main by-product is to warp a culture progressively as advancement increases. Think of it as a kind of accumulating feed back process if you like.

Technology itself is merely a means to an end, it is neither a basis for cultural development nor is it an intended end product, as societies that employ technological development usually do so in the context of a competitive struggle for dominance or survival.

Ignoring accidental developments, any particular advance may happen in response to a need, but that obviously doesn’t mean that a society’s technological development, as a whole, is not the foundation of it’s current culture. Clearly it is in fact. Nor of course does technology have to be intended to be the foundation of our culture for that to be the case. Perhaps this explains why some have difficulty accepting it. Maybe it’s one of those situations where its hard to see the wood for the trees.

Sarek described it very simply: "Emotions run deep within our people, in many ways, deeper than in humans. Logic offers us a serenity humans seldom experience: to control your emotions, so they do not control you."

There seems to be a bit of conflict between: "… to control your emotions, so they do not control you." And your explanation of its practical effect:

In these terms it would be a person who is trained never to scratch an itch in public, or if that fails, a set of pre-determined movements designed to scratch an itch without looking like a scratch. Students of the more traditional Catholic schools will probably understand this concept (I know I do).

The former seems more about "self discipline" and the latter just about "show" or camouflage.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You've got that backwards: technology is founded on everything you do.

By "founded on" I mean dependent on.

Still wrong. We depend on these things because we're used to them and because we find them incredibly convenient. Take them away, we have to adapt to the lack of convenience. It'll suck for a couple of years or so, but the next generation never knows what they're missing.

Culture is no more "based on" technology than sex is based on porn.

In most cases that’s true. But it's irrelevant because it doesn’t matter how a technological foundation for a culture comes about. The fact remains that at any given time, a particular level of technology exits and that level forms the foundation of our culture in terms of how we do things and to a large extent what we do (driving etc).

True as that is, technology itself only develops because of a specific need for it, which by definition means that only the utility of that technology is of any value to society. Science ITSELF will not be transferred into a cultural virtue unless there is a specific widespread need for it. In a modern society, though, that need seldom materializes; as long as there is someone out there who knows how to program a computer better than you do, you can always give him that responsibility and focus on something you're good at (say, music, cooking, mass production of ritual melee weapons, etc). The difference between producers and consumers will still exist and only producers need to know anything at all about the science of their products, and even then, only the DESIGNERS.

Of course any given technology has to fill what we perceive to be a need, but the capabilities of our technology as a whole at any particular time in history, dictates how we are able to do things and the kinds of things we can do.

Which doesn't change the fact that 99% of us do not know or care how these things work, only THAT they work. They are simply a means to an end, not ends in themselves.

The invention of the ploug or soap, for example, are hardly meaningless.

That's because society has a need for both of them, and thus those things serve a specific social purpose. A society that has no interest in bathing or regular cleaning of their clothes would not (and did not) bother to invent soap, and even if they did, it would be a meaningless discovery as it serves no social purpose to them except to give little kids something to blow bubbles with.

This implies that while not "scientifically inclined" she knew enough about it to be useful because she is "better educated IN GENERAL" than humans and thus suggests science is important to Vulcan culture.

But it DOESN'T suggest that. It only suggests that scientific education is SUPERIOR in Vulcan culture, generally because ALL education is superior among Vulcans. T'pol obviously knows more about history, mathematics, biology, philosophy, basic logic, even battle strategy than anyone else on the Enterprise, but I don't see you claiming that any of THOSE things have elevated importance in Vulcan culture. And well you should not, because we know that of those categories only LOGIC has special status to them.

T'pol knows more about science than humans because Vulcans have a better educational system. Nothing more, nothing less. They probably value the sciences like most enlightened societies, but that is, again, just a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Not impossible, but I obviously didn’t imply that. You were sceptical that a "widespread warrior ideology" was conducive to scientific progress.

No, only your premise that a technologically superior society would by definition place a higher priority on science. The Klingons are an example proving that this is not generally the case; Klingon society places a very LOW value on science and yet is shown to be technologically superior to the Federation in many ways, even in the 23rd century.

Clearly cultures don’t "use" technology as a basis. It simply "is" the basis.

That's what you have backwards. Technology is not a basis, NEED is the basis. Technology is a tool that serves culture's needs. Klingons need to win their battles, so they develop better swords and better weapons. The actual science behind those weapons is clearly (and explicitly) irrelevant to the majority of them, they only care that the weapons work, and that the people who know how are able to maintain them in a timely fashion.

Sarek described it very simply: "Emotions run deep within our people, in many ways, deeper than in humans. Logic offers us a serenity humans seldom experience: to control your emotions, so they do not control you."

There seems to be a bit of conflict between: "… to control your emotions, so they do not control you." And your explanation of its practical effect:

In these terms it would be a person who is trained never to scratch an itch in public, or if that fails, a set of pre-determined movements designed to scratch an itch without looking like a scratch. Students of the more traditional Catholic schools will probably understand this concept (I know I do).

The former seems more about "self discipline" and the latter just about "show" or camouflage.

They're the same thing, actually. Self-discipline is partly about the ability to establish and maintain an external facade regardless of your inner feelings. Husbands demonstrate this every time they pretend to be interested in their wives' incomprehensibly long stories about their friends/coworkers/cousin's boyfriend had some big controversial argument about whatever. In a religious context, it is embodied in outward piety; inner piety is considered to be irrelevant, as long as outward behavior is consistent with the standard.

The actual reason for this is self-discipline is more a matter of habit than willpower. If you behave a certain way for a long time, that behavior becomes reflexive and easy to replicate. This is why Catholic schools are (or used to be) so hardcore about proper posture and fidgeting in class: when you are forced to sit perfectly still in a pre-determined position for hours on end, and have to keep up that performance for, say, six months in a row, suddenly you wake up and realize you are capable of sitting perfectly still just about ANYWHERE. That is more than I can say for most six-year-old boys.

 

[UFO]

Still wrong. We depend on these things because we're used to them and because we find them incredibly convenient. Take them away, we have to adapt to the lack of convenience. It'll suck for a couple of years or so, but the next generation never knows what they're missing.

Your comment is unfortunately irrelavent because it doesn’t matter whether we could survive without technogly or not. Our current culture is still based on it. That’s the point you have to refute.

As an "amusing" sidenote however, one of the "convenient" things most (over 90% I should think) of the population of the Earth would have to do without would of course be their lives due to starvation and disease etc. And yes that would suck!

But perhaps you are having me on? Or are you envisaging a much larger Earth where there might be room for us all to have an idyllic pastoral or hunter/gatherer existence which would almost certainly have to include some technology if it wasn't to be extremely "... nasty brutish and short".

Culture is no more "based on" technology than sex is based on porn.

Well that’s a helpful contribution. Sex is possible without porn but our (current) culture is not possible without technology.

… technology itself only develops because of a specific need for it, which by definition means that only the utility of that technology is of any value to society. Science ITSELF will not be transferred into a cultural virtue unless there is a specific widespread need for it. In a modern society, though, that need seldom materializes; as long as there is someone out there who knows how to program a computer better than you do, you can always give him that responsibility and focus on something you're good at (say, music, cooking, mass production of ritual melee weapons, etc) The difference between producers and consumers will still exist and only producers need to know anything at all about the science of their products, and even then, only the DESIGNERS.

Whether you know anything about the science which underpins the technology which underpins our society/culture or not is sadly, again, irrelevant, because whatever you do and what everyone does is dependent on a certain level of technology and wouldn’t be possible without it in the vast majority of cases. That’s why any culture that manipulates the environment by other than natural means has to be technology based to some degree. By the time a culture gets into space it is obviously a very high degree.

Which doesn't change the fact that 99% of us do not know or care how these things work, only THAT they work. They are simply a means to an end, not ends in themselves.

Which doesn't change the fact that that’s not important to whether our culture is based on technology. Not even a little bit. By the way, I never said they are ends in themselves. My contention is that science is unavoidably important to and the basis of, any advanced culture.

The invention of the plough [corrected] or soap, for example, is hardly meaningless.

That's because society has a need for both of them, and thus those things serve a specific social purpose. A society that has no interest in bathing or regular cleaning of their clothes would not (and did not) bother to invent soap, and even if they did, it would be a meaningless discovery as it serves no social purpose to them except to give little kids something to blow bubbles with.

A reply that doesn't address the point that lower levels of technological advancement than our own electronic age, can still be important to their cultures.

But it DOESN'T suggest that. It only suggests that scientific education is SUPERIOR in Vulcan culture, generally because ALL education is superior among Vulcans.

Thinking about it, you are right regarding my conclusion. As I showed above, what any particular person thinks or knows about science is not relevant to how important science is to their culture. However we already know that it has to be important to any advanced culture including Vulcans and Klingons.

No, only your premise that a technologically superior society would by definition place a higher priority on science.

Such a society doesn’t have any choice. It would cease to exist if it didn’t. Certainly Klingons are not presented as being interested in science, so I can understand your conclusion, but that’s not important.

The Klingons are an example proving that this is not generally the case; Klingon society places a very LOW value on science and yet is shown to be technologically superior to the Federation in many ways, even in the 23rd century.

We are not talking about the value Klingons individually or collectively place on science. We are talking about how important it is to their culture/society. The answer to that has to be "very". Granted, we are given the impression that in non critical ways Klingon culture is perhaps based on less advanced technology, but even if so, it can’t be completely absent.

That's what you have backwards. Technology is not a basis, NEED is the basis.

No, "need" just created, (in most cases) the technology. The "existence" of that and all other current technology becomes the basis of culture. The thing it can’t do without if it wants to continue.

In a religious context, it is embodied in outward piety; inner piety is considered to be irrelevant, as long as outward behavior is consistent with the standard.

You seem determined to "humanise" even Vulcan teaching methods!

The actual reason for this is self-discipline is more a matter of habit than willpower.

But wouldn’t such techniques work as well internally as externally, assuming that’s the Vulcan secret?

If you behave a certain way for a long time, that behavior becomes reflexive and easy to replicate. This is why Catholic schools are (or used to be) so hardcore about proper posture and fidgeting in class: when you are forced to sit perfectly still in a pre-determined position for hours on end, and have to keep up that performance for, say, six months in a row, suddenly you wake up and realize you are capable of sitting perfectly still just about ANYWHERE. That is more than I can say for most six-year-old boys.

An ability that must be in high demand. I would have thought it was a particular example of a more general method of instilling obedience. But I have no first hand experience fortunately.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Still wrong. We depend on these things because we're used to them and because we find them incredibly convenient. Take them away, we have to adapt to the lack of convenience. It'll suck for a couple of years or so, but the next generation never knows what they're missing.

Your comment is unfortunately irrelavent because it doesn’t matter whether we could survive without technogly or not. Our current culture is still based on it. That’s the point you have to refute.

I just did. Technology is developed to serve the needs of society, not the other way around. When culture is deprived of technology, it develops new methods to serve its needs. But society develops first, not technology, and technology does not develop at all unless society needs it to. Therefore, technology is based on the needs of society, not vice versa.

You're confusing culture with "standard of living." They are NOT the same thing. Literacy rates, wages, accessible nutrition and health care, accessible education, public order, public justice... these are social benefits engineered by state/industrial programs, not cultural artifacts. Otherwise it's like picking up a stainless steel saucepan and saying "This is cooking."

Sex is possible without porn but our (current) culture is not possible without technology.

Of course it is. "Current" culture is mostly the same as it was 100 years ago. Technology has changed the way we do most things, but it hasn't changed what we do or why we do it. "What" and "Why" are generated by societal values which must exist before any technology can be developed to serve society's needs.

Whether you know anything about the science which underpins the technology which underpins our society/culture or not is sadly, again, irrelevant, because whatever you do and what everyone does is dependent on a certain level of technology and wouldn’t be possible without it in the vast majority of cases.

It's actually VERY relevant, when you consider there's no particular need for those technologies to develop in OUR society. If we were a nation with no engineers or scientists whatsoever, we could still maintain our current standard of living just by buying technologies from someone who had invested in that sort of thing. Foreign import and trade would supplant engineering and innovation as societal values, and yet nothing about our standard of living would change.

A reply that doesn't address the point that lower levels of technological advancement than our own electronic age, can still be important to their cultures.

You're shifting the goalposts here. Again, the need for soap and the need for ploughs came from the societal need for clean clothes and high-volume agriculture. Societies that didn't wash their clothes didn't invent soap; societies that didn't farm didn't invent the plough.

Most societies do not value technological advancement for its own sake. What they value is anything that they can add to their society that will improve their standard of living. In the case of Vulcan, they place a much higher value on logic than most other societies, because logic and education are both integral to raising the overall standard of living for their people. Science is part of this, as is technology, but neither stand apart from any other factors in and of themselves.

However we already know that it has to be important to any advanced culture including Vulcans and Klingons.

But science ISN'T important to Klingon culture. WEAPONS are important to Klingon culture. Science is only as important as the benefit it brings to the development of better weapons. In the scheme of things, this makes science considerably less important than physical training, martial arts, mental discipline, military history, and (if you believe Kirk) the systematic and efficient implementation of slave labor. Science, again, is only as important as the benefit it brings to these other issues.

Such a society doesn’t have any choice. It would cease to exist if it didn’t.

Eventually, it would, if only because scientists are better problem solvers than warriors. OTOH, Klingon society very nearly ended as a result of the Praxis disaster and yet they were able to avoid extinction by enlisting the aid of other more scientifically minded societies, namely the Federation. To use a real world example, it's a little like the Dakota Indians adapting European horses and firearms to better support their nomadic lifestyle. The Dakotas never acquired the actual technology to make firearms--in fact, it was all they could do just to maintain them properly--and yet the addition of firearms increased both their standard of living and helped to forestall the downfall of their society by at least thirty years.

Societies that do not place a high value on science--and there are many right here on Earth--find other ways to survive, for as long as they can, usually by borrowing implements and techniques from others. OTOH, even scientifically inclined societies are destined to collapse eventually, so it's really just a matter of prolonging the inevitable.

We are not talking about the value Klingons individually or collectively place on science. We are talking about how important it is to their culture/society.

You are again confusing culture/society with "standard of living." "I agree that technology is VERY important to their standard of living. But culture and society are made up of individuals, their beliefs, their motivations, their values, activities and priorities. A society where everyone uses iPods to tile their bathroom floors but never actually use them as music players is a society that doesn't care much about portable music storage. The fact that portable music storage is very important to their bathroom architecture doesn't change this.

But wouldn’t such techniques work as well internally as externally, assuming that’s the Vulcan secret?

Only insofar as outward behavior becomes reflexive and natural. Just because you're trained to sit still for hours at a time doesn't mean your desire to get up and walk away vanishes. It simply makes that desire totally controllable, and you can act on it when it is appropriate and even feel quietly relieved to do so. An internal change would occur as well in certain aspects, but as is evident in the Pon Far ritual, Vulcan nature cannot be changed by any amount of training.

 

[UFO]

Sex is possible without porn but our (current) culture is not possible without technology.

Of course it is. "Current" culture is mostly the same as it was 100 years ago.

Now that comment set me back on my heels. For that to be true your definition of culture must be so narrow as to apply to just about any society. No more than a few basic values and behaviours I guess.

Would you accept that, for example, how women behave and are treated in modern society is considerably different to how things were 100 years ago and attitudes to gay relationships even more so? Surely these sorts of things are part of a culture by any reasonable definition? And that’s without mentioning differences in religious affiliation etc.

My meaning of culture is a little broader than that: A particular society at a particular time and place. E.g. "Early Mayan civilisation".

No wonder there isn’t much room for agreement!

But even if I narrow things down a bit, it is still hard to see where you are coming from. Isn’t it true that the pill, a technological innovation designed to prevent unwanted children, also changed not just how people behave sexually but as a consequence, our cultural views about sex? The latter especially is not exactly a result anyone planned, or that someone in power thought there was a need for! It seems to me that technology has changed our attitudes and thus our culture in a myriad of more subtle ways. Fore example mass production and automation changed our views on whether a job was for men or women etc.

Even more importantly, your view that our "culture" (attitudes, values and presumably basic behaviours) dictates what technology will develop but never the reverse (with the exception of things like twitter apparently!), seems hopelessly outdated. Even with your more narrow view of culture, it is safe to say technology, in ways that are not always obvious, can certainly change our views and social behaviours as per above.

Technology has changed the way we do most things, but it hasn't changed what we do or why we do it. "What" and "Why" are generated by societal values which must exist before any technology can be developed to serve society's needs.

Most living things involve feed back loops and to suggest that culture is an exception ignores the fact that culture had to come from somewhere in the first place.

Whether you know anything about the science which underpins the technology which underpins our society/culture or not is sadly, again, irrelevant, because whatever you do and what everyone does is dependent on a certain level of technology and wouldn’t be possible without it in the vast majority of cases.

It's actually VERY relevant, when you consider there's no particular need for those technologies to develop in OUR society. If we were a nation with no engineers or scientists whatsoever, we could still maintain our current standard of living just by buying technologies from someone who had invested in that sort of thing. Foreign import and trade would supplant engineering and innovation as societal values, and yet nothing about our standard of living would change.

Whether you buy the technology or create in yourself is also irrelevant because either way, the technology which shapes your culture, exist in your society, however it got there. As explained earlier, it is the existence of the technology that is critical. It follows that where it comes from isn't. If anything the effects technology can have on a culture are much more pronounced when it is introduced over a short period of time.

In the Klingon Praxis example you give, they were forced to act contrary to their cultural norms due to the lack of being able to use a particular technology. Who knows where that could lead? If I understand you correctly, your suggestion that a culture would instead find, import or develop another replacement technology that would allow them to keep their current culture largely intact, didn't seem to happen in this instance.

A reply that doesn't address the point that lower levels of technological advancement than our own electronic age, can still be important to their cultures.

You're shifting the goalposts here. Again, the need for soap and the need for ploughs came from the societal need for clean clothes and high-volume agriculture. Societies that didn't wash their clothes didn't invent soap; societies that didn't farm didn't invent the plough

Not unless pointing out that you didn’t reply to the question is shifting the goalposts.

Ultimately, even technology derives its form, function and development from the whims of society, and the mechanism of its development is the consumer electronics market. The absence of either of those things makes technology even more meaningless than twitter.

You state above that technology that isn’t produced by the mechanism of the consumer electronics market is effectively meaningless. I just pointed out that non-meaningless technology existed before that "mechanism" exited. And what's that "whims of society" business? You do seem to have a low opinion of technology.

But wouldn’t such techniques work as well internally as externally, assuming that’s the Vulcan secret?

Only insofar as outward behavior becomes reflexive and natural. Just because you're trained to sit still for hours at a time doesn't mean your desire to get up and walk away vanishes. It simply makes that desire totally controllable, and you can act on it when it is appropriate and even feel quietly relieved to do so. An internal change would occur as well in certain aspects, but as is evident in the Pon Far ritual, Vulcan nature cannot be changed by any amount of training.

I believe Pon Farr is supposed to cause physiological symptoms as well, which is a bit different, although some eastern monks seem to have some success in that area too. Anyway it may be possible to lessen internal desires by whatever methods Vulcans use. Not perfectly perhaps.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Sex is possible without porn but our (current) culture is not possible without technology.

Of course it is. "Current" culture is mostly the same as it was 100 years ago.

Now that comment set me back on my heels. For that to be true your definition of culture must be so narrow as to apply to just about any society. No more than a few basic values and behaviours I guess.

Would you accept that, for example, how women behave and are treated in modern society is considerably different to how things were 100 years ago and attitudes to gay relationships even more so? Surely these sorts of things are part of a culture by any reasonable definition? And that’s without mentioning differences in religious affiliation etc.

Good examples, but the difference is mainly by degree, and with a few variations and a few creeping anachronisms. Mormons still practice polygamy and still defend the practice while pretending not to; Christians still argue about the trinity, protestants still bash Catholics and Catholics still bash protestants and both pretend they have no differences at all when Jews are in the room. Rebellious teenagers are still having too much sex, their parents are still having too little, homosexuals still fear persecution, and "nigger" still means about the same thing now as it did in 1911. The differences, IMO, are a matter of style, and only run as deep as the difference in behavior between any two generations, let alone three or four.

Some differences DON'T boil down to generational/stylistic changes and are caused by massive shifts in national infrastructure or layout. Colonial culture pre-revolution, for example, is in alot of ways fundamentally different from 19th century New England culture; the political structure has changed completely, so has the socioeconomic layering of the population. Other differences are geographical as a matter of common practices not being shared, others are simply the language barrier at work. But in the end, common traits that define a culture really aren't much more than basic values, beliefs, practices and aspirations. It's the basic psychological DNA of a mass of people, the few mental traits you can reasonably expect all of them to have in common even including the usual generational gaps and subcultures.

My meaning of culture is a little broader than that: A particular society at a particular time and place. E.g. "Early Mayan civilisation".

Which is an example of a civilization, not a culture.

Isn’t it true that the pill, a technological innovation designed to prevent unwanted children, also changed not just how people behave sexually but as a consequence, our cultural views about sex?

Yes and no. It didn't really change the way people thought about sex, it only changed how those thoughts manifested behaviorally. People who thought casual sex was meaningless now had one less reason not to sleep around; puritanical dolts who thought that sex was only for reproduction ground their teeth and tried (and failed) to stigmatize the pill and its users. People in between--for lack of a better term, "normal" people--used the pill just because they didn't want to have kids but didn't want to have to keep their fly zipped if something pretty enough came along.

Didn't really change how people felt about it, just changed how and when they did what they wanted to do.

Even more importantly, your view that our "culture" (attitudes, values and presumably basic behaviours) dictates what technology will develop but never the reverse (with the exception of things like twitter apparently!), seems hopelessly outdated.

Only if we're living in a post-singularity society where technology can design itself. Otherwise, technology invariably serves the needs of the society that develops it, and does not develop for its own sake. As long as that remains the case, then cultural ideas will always develop from the interaction of their needs with technology's ability to fill those needs.

Most living things involve feed back loops and to suggest that culture is an exception ignores the fact that culture had to come from somewhere in the first place.

Of course it did. It came from PEOPLE, not from technology, because people are not technology. And this is not going to change, ever, until people ARE a form of technology.

In the Klingon Praxis example you give, they were forced to act contrary to their cultural norms due to the lack of being able to use a particular technology. Who knows where that could lead?

We know exactly where that lead: the Klingons (eventually) adapted the Federation as friends and went right back to doing what they had been doing already for centuries. Friendship with the Federation served their needs, as does (occasionally) war with the Federation.

If I understand you correctly, your suggestion that a culture would instead find, import or develop another replacement technology that would allow them to keep their current culture largely intact, didn't seem to happen in this instance.

Actually my assertion is that cultural values more than anything else determine what a society invests its energy on. Klingons do not value science or medicine, so their culture did not invest alot of energy in science and was therefore ill prepared to handle the Praxis crisis. Incidentally, they don't value diplomacy all that much either, but they lucked out by having a pragmatic chancellor who was willing to give it a try, and that gamble saved their collective asses.

It can be said the Klingons value politicians considerably more than they value scientists. This is probably why we see far more batleth fights over political disagreements than we do over the latest scientific theories.

You state above that technology that isn’t produced by the mechanism of the consumer electronics market is effectively meaningless.

Actually, I stated that technology derives its form and function from the whims of society and that society expresses itself through the consumer electronics market. Technology that isn't derived from society's needs and desires is effectively meaningless, which is why no one (or at least, very few people) ever buy meaningless technologies.

Some things can be justified just because they're free, so the very small amount of meaning they posses comes at virtually no cost (twitter, for example). Other things are justified because society places a high value on entertainment and expression of desire and imagination (xbox, for example). Certain things have such a low priority to society that no amount of innovation will ever make them desirable. A.I. controlled suppositories that allow you to track your shit via GPS, for example; not alot of people really want to know where their shit goes after they flush, and the lack of GPS shit-trackers on the consumer market reflects this.

Anyway it may be possible to lessen internal desires by whatever methods Vulcans use. Not perfectly perhaps.

It's obviously possible; that's what the Kolinar is supposed to be. My point is it isn't NECESSARY, because external discipline will suffice 99% of the time. As with the old Catholic School example: you don't have to become a priest, you just have to stop scratching your ass in public and catcalling at the girls. External discipline is mandatory, inner piety is optional.

 

[UFO]

Good examples, but the difference is mainly by degree, and with a few variations and a few creeping anachronisms. Mormons still practice polygamy and still defend the practice while pretending not to; Christians still argue about the trinity, protestants still bash Catholics and Catholics still bash protestants and both pretend they have no differences at all when Jews are in the room. Rebellious teenagers are still having too much sex, their parents are still having too little, homosexuals still fear persecution, and "nigger" still means about the same thing now as it did in 1911. The differences, IMO, are a matter of style, and only run as deep as the difference in behavior between any two generations, let alone three or four.

Heck a lot of important distinctions are "mainly by degree". But even if the differences are "only" matters of degree, which I don’t necessarily concede, the degrees in question are enormous and easily equate to a significant cultural change. So, are you saying you really don't get that? Can you show that gays are at least as persecuted and suppressed now as in 1911 and that women had the same freedom of employment opportunities then as now (though obviously there is still room for improvement)? Those changes only occurred once in the last few thousand years, that I know of, yet you are trying to write them off as what you would expect from one generation to the next! As matters of style?

Actually I doubt the Protestants/Catholics antagonism is as great as it was, or that Jews are held in the same regard as they were 100 years ago. Antisemitism doesn’t seem anywhere near as prolific either come to that.

…and "nigger" still means about the same thing now as it did in 1911.

If may or may not but you don’t hear as many people using it in "polite" company!

… But in the end, common traits that define a culture really aren't much more than basic values, beliefs, practices and aspirations. It's the basic psychological DNA of a mass of people, the few mental traits you can reasonably expect all of them to have in common even including the usual generational gaps and subcultures.

So you are saying that basicly all human societies have the same culture?

Which is an example of a civilization, not a culture.

Obviously its possible for one word to have essentially the same definition as another in certain circumstance and this is one of them. Its not as though the meaning I gave is one I invented. In other words dogmatically stating something is the case doesn’t make it so. In fact its pretty hard to believe you haven't heard that usage before.

It [the pill] didn't really change the way people thought about sex, it only changed how those thoughts manifested behaviorally.

There was a great deal more guilt and anxiety about sex pre pill, than now, among the younger generation particularly. That means that over the last 40 years or so most people’s attitudes towards sex have changed, not just how and when they did what they wanted to do. There was even a time last century when unwed pregnant girls were shipped off to special religious institutions because of the guilt and social sigma. That no longer happens, so our attitudes must have changed. Its certainly a pretty big cultural change.

Only if we're living in a post-singularity society where technology can design itself.

Once again, that's irrelevant. Are you sure you understand my argument? By "reverse" I mean that technology could dictate what culture develops, not whether technology might cause itself to develop, which may one day happen, but has nothing to do with my point.

Otherwise, technology invariably serves the needs of the society that develops it, and does not develop for its own sake. As long as that remains the case, then cultural ideas will always develop from the interaction of their needs with technology's ability to fill those needs.

Well at least you are admitting that technology can influence culture, that it isn’t just a one way street.

… It [culture] came from PEOPLE, not from technology, because people are not technology. And this is not going to change, ever, until people ARE a form of technology.

Ok, that realisation didn’t last long! Actually the distinction between people and technology isn’t as great as all that. Science can be thought of as a more efficient form of evolution by natural selection. But no man (or society) is an island. We live in an environment in which technology is an increasingly important part of and there is no reason to think it isn’t effecting culture as well as being effected by it. You just have to have a holistic view point.

We know exactly where that lead: the Klingons (eventually) adapted the Federation as friends and went right back to doing what they had been doing already for centuries. Friendship with the Federation served their needs, as does (occasionally) war with the Federation.

I can see why you would like to portray it that way but I thought the movie itself made it look like there was a significant shift in Klingon attitudes toward the Federation and by extension, potentially other species. Sure there could still be disagreement but the feeling was that Klingons could be trusted. Prior to that, it seemed like their culture was about dominating other species where possible and at best tolerating anyone they couldn’t out-fight. I’m not saying such a change would happen all at once of course.

Actually my assertion is that cultural values more than anything else determine what a society invests its energy on. Klingons do not value science or medicine, so their culture did not invest alot of energy in science and was therefore ill prepared to handle the Praxis crisis.

And that doesn’t rule out the possibiliy that their technology was more that advanced enough for it to be a significant influence on their attitudes and behaviours although more subtle and long term than you or they might realise.

Incidentally, they don't value diplomacy all that much either, but they lucked out by having a pragmatic chancellor who was willing to give it a try, and that gamble saved their collective asses.

Could it not be that, like communist Russia on which the situation was based, the Klingon culture was being shaped by the fact they were losing technical competitiveness, which would be likely if they diverted their economy towards armament and didn’t value science. So maybe having someone in power wasn’t so much a matter of lucking out, but a crisis that had been coming to a point for sometime in a number of ways. Rather like the overthrow of communism. Thus there was a real cultural change produced in part at least by technology or the lack of it.

You state above that technology that isn’t produced by the mechanism of the consumer electronics market is effectively meaningless.

Actually, I stated that technology derives its form and function from the whims of society and that society expresses itself through the consumer electronics market.

No, what you "stated" was:

Ultimately, even technology derives its form, function and development from the whims of society, and the mechanism of its development is the consumer electronics market.

Actually that could easily be seen as a totally different idea (whatever it means). But anyway the consumer electronics market is a relatively recent innovation, so you still seem to be saying that an otherwise useful technology (e.g. soap) is meaningless if the consumer electronics market is absent(?).

Technology that isn't derived from society's needs and desires is effectively meaningless, which is why no one (or at least, very few people) ever buy meaningless technologies.

Ok, lets swim after this red herring: Maybe a technology occurred by accident and then someone saw a use for it?

A.I. controlled suppositories that allow you to track your shit via GPS, for example; not alot of people really want to know where their shit goes after they flush, and the lack of GPS shit-trackers on the consumer market reflects this.

What do you mean? If such technology existed, it would be the first thing I’d do each morning! Although it could add new meaning to "anally retentive".

It's [lessen internal desires ] obviously possible; that's what the Kolinar is supposed to be. My point is it isn't NECESSARY, because external discipline will suffice 99% of the time. As with the old Catholic School example: you don't have to become a priest, you just have to stop scratching your ass in public and catcalling at the girls. External discipline is mandatory, inner piety is optional.

Assuming that is in fact the distinction between normal Vulcan training and the Kolinahr, of course we don’t know that, it would still be preferable because of the improved inner peace if nothing else. Besides, while 99% sounds great, a system that only fails you when you most need it, still leaves something to be desired.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Heck a lot of important distinctions are "mainly by degree". But even if the differences are "only" matters of degree, which I don’t necessarily concede, the degrees in question are enormous and easily equate to a significant cultural change. So, are you saying you really don't get that?

They're trend shifts to be sure, not all that significant; the general pattern remains.

On the treatment of women, for example. There's a spectrum of independence/domestication where western women swing back and forth from being housewives to active members of the workforce. Some generations women are expected and encouraged to join the workforce in droves, others they're stigmatized for even thinking about starting a career instead of a family. Other years it's somewhere in between. This constitutes a balance of competing values where cultural norms will swing from one to the other generation after generation, depending on what's going on in the world.

Contrast this with, say, Pashtun culture where women swing back and forth between being the property of their husbands or the property of their fathers. Depending on which side they're swinging to, their rights and treatment can be dramatically different; the fathers tend to be repressive and overreactive of their daughters' aspirations, the husbands tend to be demanding and over-enthusiastic about them (though not to the point of actually giving them a free hand to express them). It's not the same spectrum of concepts, in a lot of ways it's entirely incompatible with western values to the point that Afghani women usually find it really hard to understand what the hell is going on in American families--and vice versa--unless they take some time to get acclimated to western culture.

American families stopped thinking of women as commodities some time ago, around the time of the Enlightenment when marriage became less about the mixing of familial franchise and more about interpersonal/sexual/romantic partnerships. Marriage as the BASIS for a family--as opposed to, say, a mutual and heavily negotiated merging of two families--is a fundamental cultural difference between how we are now and how we used to be. Married women having drivers licenses... not so much.

Can you show that gays are at least as persecuted and suppressed now as in 1911

No, because it's irrelevant; gays ARE persecuted, to some degree or another, everywhere in western culture. They're less persecuted than they were in 1911. Of course, in 1911 they were probably less persecuted than they were in 1880, more persecuted than they were in 1940, and again less persecuted than they were in the 1980s.

Then contrast this with Pakistani and/or Indian culture where certain types of transexuals are believed to have mystical powers. That's a cultural difference. Whether or not homosexuals are getting beaten to death by club-wielding angry mobs or just beaten up by single teenaged bullies... not so much.

Actually I doubt the Protestants/Catholics antagonism is as great as it was

But it STILL EXISTS, and for precisely the same reasons. That's what I mean by "a difference of degree." Again to contrast: the divide between Catholics and Protestants has an ENTIRELY different dynamic in, say, Vietnam, where their history is different and so is their power balance in society, and both have curious and troubled relationships with the Buddhists.

So you are saying that basicly all human societies have the same culture?

I'm saying that all groups of people that can be shown to share a subset of moral and practical values and have similar ideas of what constitutes "normal" behavior can be said to belong to the same culture. Small variations within that group can be called a "sub-culture." Differences arising from changes in trends and practices within that culture over a period of years is a "generational gap" and constitutes a trend shift within the same culture.

Obviously its possible for one word to have essentially the same definition as another in certain circumstance and this is one of them.

No, because civilization also includes political structures, architecture, organizations, borders, infrastructure, the utilization of resources and the various mechanisms the State uses to maintain order. Culture is about the beliefs and practices of the people that live within a given civilization.

It's sort of like the difference between a household and a family. "Household" describes a physical location that may contain one or more people, their property, income, expenses, etc. A "family" would be the people who live in that household, how they're related to each other, and in many cases, to members of other households. In the same way, culture describes the people of a civilization via their motives, beliefs and values.

There was even a time last century when unwed pregnant girls were shipped off to special religious institutions because of the guilt and social sigma. That no longer happens

Of course it doesn't.

Believe me, it still does. It just happens LESS OFTEN, because the generation that grew up with the pill has grown up to become parents and grandparents and are less likely to think of sex in puritanical terms.

Meanwhile, other segments of the population that NEVER thought along those lines continue to do so today, hence my point about a spectrum of competing values. Many catholic families STILL exile their daughters to those types of reform schools to try and correct promiscuity (it's increasingly popular among methodists and baptists, for some reason) while many poor white families still practice shotgun weddings and many poor black families still resort to kludges of extended-family households. The only difference is FREQUENCY.

By "reverse" I mean that technology could dictate what culture develops

I know what you mean. My point is it doesn't work that way, because technology itself doesn't actually have motives or action potential. It's kind of like saying that a microwave influences what you're going to have for dinner. It doesn't; your desire for a quick meal with a minimal amount of cooking determines whether or not you turn to the microwave.

Follow this: the MICROWAVE doesn't have any motives to speak of. The choice of whether or not you use the microwave or the stove has, in the end, nothing to do with the microwave and everything to do with YOU. If you want something INSTANTLY, you toss last night's leftover KFC in the microwave and choke down the rubbery texture of your Original Recipe "I can't believe it's not chicken". If you're willing to wait for something a little better, you grill some pork chops on a skillet and make mashed potatoes from scratch.

Technology gives you the options, but technology cannot by virtue of its existence influence which option you choose. THAT decision comes from cultural values and your own personal motives.

Actually the distinction between people and technology isn’t as great as all that. Science can be thought of as a more efficient form of evolution by natural selection.

No it cannot, because science does not select NATURALLY. Science selects ARTIFICIALLY, which means the direction of evolution is ultimately steered by intent.

The distinction between people and technology is as simple as cause and effect: people create technology, but technology does not create people. Human beings created purely through technology--artificial people, either simulated or mechanical--would sufficiently blur the distinction that a certain type of technology would be able to evolve independent of human influence, and would gain agent function enough to influence human behavior. In this case, SELF-REGULATING technology takes whatever form IT decides is best, irrespective of what humans think about it, and therefore human culture is forced to adapt to changes in the technology and not the other way around.

I can see why you would like to portray it that way but I thought the movie itself made it look like there was a significant shift in Klingon attitudes toward the Federation and by extension, potentially other species.

Temporarily, I'm sure. And yet sixty years after Azetbur is named Chancellor of the High Council, we have Gowron tell us in "Redemption Part I" that women aren't allowed on the Klingon High Council.

Suffice to say, Klingons are not the most progressive species in the galaxy.

Could it not be that, like communist Russia on which the situation was based, the Klingon culture was being shaped by the fact they were losing technical competitiveness, which would be likely if they diverted their economy towards armament and didn’t value science.

Indeed it is. Trouble is we find out in "Enterprise" that this has apparently been going on for centuries and Klingon culture has undergone a long period of stagnation because of it. After two hundred years this is unlikely to change, and the Klingon Empire may suffer the same fate as the Ottomans.

So maybe having someone in power wasn’t so much a matter of lucking out, but a crisis that had been coming to a point for sometime in a number of ways. Rather like the overthrow of communism. Thus there was a real cultural change produced in part at least by technology or the lack of it.

And then for whatever reason, the culture UNchanged and reverted back to what it was before.

Actually that could easily be seen as a totally different idea

It isn't.

However you want to phrase it, society has certain needs. Technology serves those needs. The means by which society (at least, OUR society) develops technology to serve those needs is the consumer electronics market.

But anyway the consumer electronics market is a relatively recent innovation, so you still seem to be saying that an otherwise useful technology (e.g. soap) is meaningless if the consumer electronics market is absent(?).

No, to again repeat, it's useless when the SOCIETAL NEED for it is absent.

Ok, lets swim after this red herring: Maybe a technology occurred by accident and then someone saw a use for it?

It didn't. Technology developed when someone set about a particular task and then thought of a tool of some kind that made that task easier. A pointy stick doesn't walk up to a caveman and say "I'm sharp enough to kill a tiger, why don't you try it?" It works the other way around: a caveman looks a pointy stick and thinks "I really need to kill that tiger... maybe I could use this?"

Assuming that is in fact the distinction between normal Vulcan training and the Kolinahr, of course we don’t know that, it would still be preferable because of the improved inner peace if nothing else.

Which is exactly why the Kolinar is preferable to "layman's" discipline training.

Besides, while 99% sounds great, a system that only fails you when you most need it, still leaves something to be desired.

I don't think even Vulcans are immune to Murphy's Law. And even the Kolinar occasionally fails.

 

[UFO]

They're trend shifts to be sure, not all that significant; the general pattern remains.

Unless you are a woman or gay I suppose! (shakes head in astonishment and sadness). But come to think of it, going form a pretty well defined sex/job correlation to pretty much anything goes, is more a change than a trend despite the fact that different jobs may have been added over time to what either sex could "rightfully" do.

*** Edit: How did I miss the fact that homosexuality was actually illegal until about 30 years ago here. Was that not similar in the US? Surely that's not just a matter of degree but a black and white difference?

On the treatment of women, for example. There's a spectrum of independence/domestication where western women swing back and forth from being housewives to active members of the workforce. Some generations women are expected and encouraged to join the workforce in droves, others they're stigmatized for even thinking about starting a career instead of a family. Other years it's somewhere in between. This constitutes a balance of competing values where cultural norms will swing from one to the other generation after generation, depending on what's going on in the world.

There was a minor backlash when automation (technology!) started taking mens jobs, but it didn’t seem to have much real effect. It gets mentioned occasionally but not as a serious culture wide appeal. Apart form that the only major dumping of women from male jobs was when the men came back from the second world war, I believe.

… This constitutes a balance of competing values where cultural norms will swing from one to the other generation after generation, depending on what's going on in the world.

Generally it seems like almost one way traffic, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. There was even an advertising campaign stating "girls can do anything". I don’t see that "swinging" much.

Contrast this with, say, Pashtun culture where women swing back and forth between being the property of their husbands or the property of their fathers.

Your are using a culture that hasn’t had our technological history to demonstrate what exactly?

American families stopped thinking of women as commodities some time ago, around the time of the Enlightenment when marriage became less about the mixing of familial franchise and more about interpersonal/sexual/romantic partnerships. Marriage as the BASIS for a family--as opposed to, say, a mutual and heavily negotiated merging of two families--is a fundamental cultural difference between how we are now and how we used to be. Married women having drivers licenses... not so much.

I’m sure you were trying for a flippant put down of recent cultural improvements, but actually whether a subgroup of a culture can have a driving license would be a pretty big deal in our culture. As would getting the vote.

Can you show that gays are at least as persecuted and suppressed now as in 1911

No, because it's irrelevant; gays ARE persecuted, to some degree or another, everywhere in western culture. They're less persecuted than they were in 1911. Of course, in 1911 they were probably less persecuted than they were in 1880, more persecuted than they were in 1940, and again less persecuted than they were in the 1980s.

When you can provide statistical support for you opinions about such variations and their relative extents over time, I will be happy to concede the point. Anyway, I am arguing the degrees of persecution are relevant especially as you will probably never get total absence of prejudice in any area.

Then contrast this with Pakistani and/or Indian culture where certain types of transexuals are believed to have mystical powers. That's a cultural difference. Whether or not homosexuals are getting beaten to death by club-wielding angry mobs or just beaten up by single teenaged bullies... not so much.

Unless it massively alters you chance of getting beaten up!

But it STILL EXISTS, and for precisely the same reasons. That's what I mean by "a difference of degree."

We are talking the degree of the difference of degree.

No, because civilization also includes political structures, …

So you are saying you are not familiar with "my" usage or you just disagree with it?

There was even a time last century when unwed pregnant girls were shipped off to special religious institutions because of the guilt and social sigma. That no longer happens

Believe me, it still does.

Oops, did I give America credit or a greater degree of enlightenment than it deserves? Perhaps it still happens in most places but you obviously understand what I am saying.

I know what you mean. My point is it doesn't work that way, because technology itself doesn't actually have motives or action potential.

Why on earth would it need to have motives in order to be an influence? Storms don’t need to have any intentions in order to effect the way we build houses.

It's kind of like saying that a microwave influences what you're going to have for dinner. It doesn't; your desire for a quick meal with a minimal amount of cooking determines whether or not you turn to the microwave.

We probably always had that desire but only due to the existence of the microwave are we really able to do it in such a convenient way.

The choice of whether or not you use the microwave or the stove has, in the end, nothing to do with the microwave and everything to do with YOU.

Yes, it does appear you want to give people a greater degree of credit for what happens in such circumstances than they deserve. A better way of looking at it is to say that a number of factors come together to produce a particular outcome. One of them being the mere existence of the mirowave as an option, thereby tempting people to use it and thus getting them "addicted" or "habituated" to doing so more often in the future. Particularly when other technology has increased the pace of our lives thus making it even less likely we will take the longer route.

Technology gives you the options, but technology cannot by virtue of its existence influence which option you choose.

You can argue semantics if you want, but the outcome is that the existence of a single or collection of technologies can change the way we behave and thus potentially our culture. Even if you only chose a given option at random and decided you liked it, that is sufficient to potentially change how be behave possibly even why be act in a certain way.

Science can be thought of as a more efficient form of evolution by natural selection.

No it cannot, because science does not select NATURALLY. Science selects ARTIFICIALLY, which means the direction of evolution is ultimately steered by intent.

I mean that science can be thought of as a more efficient form of producing improvements than evolution by natural selection. But thanks for being so understanding.

The distinction between people and technology is as simple as cause and effect: people create technology, but technology does not create people.

That looks like a pretty weak and probably relatively short-lived distinction. Already it is starting to become involved in producing life, in vitro fertilisation, colning etc. But again I think we are getting distracted.

In this case, SELF-REGULATING technology takes whatever form IT decides is best, irrespective of what humans think about it, and therefore human culture is forced to adapt to changes in the technology and not the other way around.

Just like human beings, that technology will be "influenced" (effected if you prefer) by many things in its environment, not just its own internal "desires" (unless it has been poorly programmed perhaps).

Indeed it is. Trouble is we find out in "Enterprise" that this has apparently been going on for centuries and Klingon culture has undergone a long period of stagnation because of it. After two hundred years this is unlikely to change, and the Klingon Empire may suffer the same fate as the Ottomans.

For some reason in this fictional universe development overall seems to have almost stopped to let Earth catch up!

It didn't. Technology developed when someone set about a particular task and then thought of a tool of some kind that made that task easier. A pointy stick doesn't walk up to a caveman and say "I'm sharp enough to kill a tiger, why don't you try it?" It works the other way around: a caveman looks a pointy stick and thinks "I really need to kill that tiger... maybe I could use this?"

So the caveman couldn’t have just grabbed a pointy stick in desperation and found that it was better than a non-pointy stick for killing tigers?

I don't think even Vulcans are immune to Murphy's Law. And even the Kolinar occasionally fails.

As I admitted, but the "'layman's' discipline training", whatever it is, was (as you say) working well enough for Spock until the writers needed a quick and dirty way for Kirk to take command, instead of giving Spock the chance to re-evaluate matters in light of Kirks new info and technology.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They're trend shifts to be sure, not all that significant; the general pattern remains.

Unless you are a woman or gay I suppose! (shakes head in astonishment and sadness). But come to think of it, going form a pretty well defined sex/job correlation to pretty much anything goes...

I take it you don't remember the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?

How did I miss the fact that homosexuality was actually illegal until about 30 years ago here. Was that not similar in the US? Surely that's not just a matter of degree but a black and white difference?

No, because
1) It's STILL illegal in some parts of the U.S. (and never was in others) and
2) Anti-sodomy laws are pretty much back-door codes (no pun intended) that give cops legal cover to beat up homosexuals. Vagrancy laws serve the exact same purpose. The one thing they both have in common is that these laws are impossible to enforce AS ACTUALLY WRITTEN and are only applied selectively to people they don't like.

And despite this, homosexuals still aren't allowed to marry, they still have to put up with sensationalist slander in local newspapers, they still have their parenthood and even their sanity questioned by shock jocks and "expert" sociologists on the flimsiest pretenses. Persecution of homosexuals hasn't ended, it's just become alot less violent. And I am not one of those people who automatically assumes that things will always continue to get better; give it another couple of decades and we might just live long enough to lament the return of the lynch mob.

There was a minor backlash when automation (technology!) started taking mens jobs, but it didn’t seem to have much real effect. It gets mentioned occasionally but not as a serious culture wide appeal.

Are you kidding? That very subject inspired the Legend of John Henry, the lyrics of a few hundred country songs and not less than thirty major motion pictures. I wouldn't call that MINOR at all.

Mind you, in the same way that culture is not equivalent to "standard of living," it isn't equivalent to political activism either.

Generally it seems like almost one way traffic, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

What "traffic"? More women entered the workforce by sheer necessity wages plummeted during the second half of the 20th century and single-income households became economically untenable.

Again, it depends on what's going on in the world; if the minimum wage suddenly jumped to $30/hour, you would see a sudden decline in the number of women in the American workforce, with a simultaneous jump in the percentage of female workers with college degrees. Likewise, World War-II saw a massive jump in the number of female workers in industrial labor; these are trends that are affected by what's going on in and around society.

But the trends only superimpose themselves on existing values and patterns, which was my point about Pashtun culture. In good years, Afghan women cling to their husbands and have a bit more leeway in the pursuit of their aspirations. In bad years, they fall victim to their fathers' dictatorial quirks. But Afghan women aren't going to just get up and start looking for jobs just because the war is over.

I’m sure you were trying for a flippant put down of recent cultural improvements, but actually whether a subgroup of a culture can have a driving license would be a pretty big deal in our culture. As would getting the vote.

And yet, women WANTED to vote long before they actually COULD. Black people WANTED to vote centuries before the Civil Rights Movement granted them that right. CULTURALLY, not a whole lot has changed in that regard, except that chauvinists and white supremacists no longer hold the position of influence they used to.

Both are still around, but they no longer wield the power they used to have.

When you can provide statistical support for you opinions about such variations and their relative extents over time, I will be happy to concede the point. Anyway, I am arguing the degrees of persecution are relevant especially as you will probably never get total absence of prejudice in any area.

Which doesn't change the fact that the root of that prejudice IN AND OF ITSELF is a cultural artifact. The frequency and form that prejudice changes from year to year, decade to decade. That is a change of behavioral trends while OVERALL behavior remains constant. Otherwise you could say "They stopped lynching black people and started planting bombs in their churches" constitutes the transformation to an entirely different culture, and I can't agree. I think that culturally the schoolyard bully who beats up a kid for being gay is not ideologically or psychologically any different from the cop who beats a prisoner to death for the same reason. It's simply a difference in degree.

Unless it massively alters you chance of getting beaten up!

A loaded revolver has a considerably greater effect on that particular situation, but I don't think loaded guns are cultural artifacts.

Oops, did I give America credit or a greater degree of enlightenment than it deserves?

Probably.

Why on earth would it need to have motives in order to be an influence? Storms don’t need to have any intentions in order to effect the way we build houses.

Considering what passes for "storm proof" these days, I would say they DON'T. But the overall point is, human motives would take storms into account when pursuing the goal of having a durable enclosure that will survive them. If you don't care whether or not your house survives the storm or not, you won't take storms into account.

We probably always had that desire but only due to the existence of the microwave are we really able to do it in such a convenient way.

And the microwave was created to cater to that desire. We did not develop the desire for quick and easy food just because microwaves were invented.

Yes, it does appear you want to give people a greater degree of credit for what happens in such circumstances than they deserve.

Since people are the only ones capable of taking action at all, then people are the only ones who DO deserve credit. Microwaves cannot talk people into using them more often than the stove; if someone becomes addicted to convenience, it's because there's something IN HIM that causes him to be so. It's not like there's some sort of techno fairy out there whispering in people's ears telling them to rely on more and more technology. People do this because they instinctively seek the path of least resistance, sometimes at the expense of their own health. How and when and how often they do this is defined in patterns of culture.

You can argue semantics if you want, but the outcome is that the existence of a single or collection of technologies can change the way we behave and thus potentially our culture.

And even then, the change originates from PEOPLE, not the technology itself. In the same sense that the sudden removal of that technology would again force people to find alternate ways of doing things that had seemed much easier than before.

Bear in mind this all stems from your assertion that modern cultures are "based on" technology. I pointed out that this is incorrect, because a culture is based on IDEAS, and ideas--by definition--can only be possessed by people. Semantics aside, technology does not possess ideas, and therefore cannot be the basis for culture in and of itself. As far as this applies for the Vulcans, it means that whatever technology they chose or don't chose to adapt, their culture is based on the ideas they have cultivated over the centuries, not on their technology. They can just as soon discard that technology if their cultural sensibilities deem it neccesary to do so, which they evidently did after the Syrannite revolution by mothballing most of their space fleet.

I mean that science can be thought of as a more efficient form of producing improvements than evolution by natural selection.

Natural selection doesn't produce "improvements." It produces SURVIVORS.

Just like human beings, that technology will be "influenced" (effected if you prefer) by many things in its environment, not just its own internal "desires" (unless it has been poorly programmed perhaps).

The point is it will interact with its environment in a way that is not dictated by humans, and will therefore alter itself and its activities in a way that is consistent with its own motives, NOT human motives. In other words, when a form of technology does not adapt to human needs, then human beings must adapt to technology's needs. That type of technology doesn't (yet) exist.

So the caveman couldn’t have just grabbed a pointy stick in desperation and found that it was better than a non-pointy stick for killing tigers?

No, because in the case of an accident he wouldn't have been able to figure out just what it was about the stick that made it a more effective killer. It isn't until he gets the idea "I need to use something to help me kill that tiger" does he start to go about the process of analyzing his environment and looking for things that will serve that purpose.

Even animals are able to do this. When my cat wants to get on top of the counter and steal my sandwich, he usually stares intent at the counter and looks for a way up. He doesn't just jump around randomly until happens to end up on top of the counter, he forms a plan, and he executes it. Now dial this up to my son--who is perhaps twice as smart as my cat on a good day--instead of looking for a way to jump up, he'll usually start looking around for something he can stand on so he can reach over the counter and grab the sandwich. In either case "I'm gonna get that sandwich" is the driving force of their inventiveness, whether it's just a well-planned jump or a novel use for a rice cooker.

As I admitted, but the "'layman's' discipline training", whatever it is, was (as you say) working well enough for Spock until the writers needed a quick and dirty way for Kirk to take command, instead of giving Spock the chance to re-evaluate matters in light of Kirks new info and technology.

So what? OldSpock knows enough about his younger self to know that his facade of external control is as fragile as an eggshell and could come crashing down at any moment.

The other thing to consider is that Kirk didn't have any halfway descent plan to attack the Narada until Chekov computed Nero's final trajectory. They would have come up with the exact same plan if they had followed Kirk's advice from the beginning, only they probably would have intercepted the Narada an hour or two earlier.

 

[ST-One]

Oh, please, get a room, guys!

 

[number6]

Oh, please, get a room, guys!

FTW!

 

[UFO]

I take it you don't remember the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?

I must have been fairly young at the time. However it is not immediately obvious to me how that contradicts what I wrote.

No, because
1) It's STILL illegal in some parts of the U.S. (and never was in others) and
2) Anti-sodomy laws are pretty much back-door codes (no pun intended) that give cops legal cover to beat up homosexuals.

So no parts of the US made it [homosexuality] legal where it wasn’t before? Interesting. The above does suggest that there are considerable difficulties in considering the US "one culture" in important ways. Given the situation with Adam Lambert a couple of years ago on US Idol I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but at least he wasn’t lynched on suspicion! So there has to have been some improvement.

No, And despite this, homosexuals still aren't allowed to marry...

They were for a while Isn’t it possible again in one state? Certainly there are western cultures where it is (or something very similar).

And I am not one of those people who automatically assumes that things will always continue to get better; give it another couple of decades and we might just live long enough to lament the return of the lynch mob.

With at least a century of improvement generally it doesn’t seem likely to go backwards, but I wouldn’t say it’s impossible. Yet it doesn’t seem a coincidence to me that these improvements are happening at a time of the most rapid technological advancement.

Are you kidding? That very subject inspired the Legend of John Henry, the lyrics of a few hundred country songs and not less than thirty major motion pictures. I wouldn't call that MINOR at all.

No, not kidding. I don’t recall any lyrics in the Legend of John Henry lambasting women for taking men’s jobs but I guess there could be some in there. Since I was replying to your comment about women in the workplace, I was suggesting that they caught a bit of the anti-automation backlash. But whatever the reason I don’t think it has been seriously questioned in a long time.

Again, it depends on what's going on in the world; if the minimum wage suddenly jumped to $30/hour, you would see a sudden decline in the number of women in the American workforce, with a simultaneous jump in the percentage of female workers with college degrees.

That’s an easy assumption to make because you think it supports your contention but I seriously doubt you would be able to get western women to react or submit the same way your Afghan women might. The basic assumption those women subscribe to involves various degrees of submission to males. That’s not the case in the west much anymore. If wages increased as you suggest, you might see more part time workers or job sharing or males becoming house husbands or something else. But I would suggest western women are now too independent to go back to 50’s style behaviour en-mass. If so, we have a sustained cultural change.

And yet, women WANTED to vote long before they actually COULD.

I am not so sure of that. Many women may well have subscribed to the current paradyne just as your Afghan women seem to.

CULTURALLY, not a whole lot has changed in that regard, except that chauvinists and white supremacists no longer hold the position of influence they used to.

Whether they wanted it is hardly relevant anyway. A society’s culture is the way it actually is, not how some members might like it to be. So there was a significant change.

Which doesn't change the fact that the root of that prejudice IN AND OF ITSELF is a cultural artifact.

Only in the same way that the root of significant changes in levels of prejudice is a cultural artefact.

The frequency and form that prejudice changes from year to year, decade to decade. That is a change of behavioral trends while OVERALL behavior remains constant. Otherwise you could say "They stopped lynching black people and started planting bombs in their churches" constitutes the transformation to an entirely different culture, and I can't agree.

Of course but "they" have greatly reduced or stopped doing both. Which is why the culture can be said to have changed.

I think that culturally the schoolyard bully who beats up a kid for being gay is not ideologically or psychologically any different from the cop who beats a prisoner to death for the same reason. It's simply a difference in degree.

So a guy with one hair on his head is still not balled?

A loaded revolver has a considerably greater effect on that particular situation, but I don't think loaded guns are cultural artifacts.

As you know the issue has nothing to do with guns or clubs etc.

But the overall point is, human motives would take storms into account when pursuing the goal of having a durable enclosure that will survive them. If you don't care whether or not your house survives the storm or not, you won't take storms into account.

Well it seems reasonable that technology can so change our lives that we would care about the results of those changes. Which is not to say we mightn’t act subconsciously or for some other reason. Interactions can be subtle and work at a distance or with intermediaries.

Since people are the only ones capable of taking action at all, then people are the only ones who DO deserve credit. Microwaves cannot talk people into using them more often than the stove; …

To a large degree we act the way we do due to our interactions with our environments both now and in the past. In fact everything we are, ultimately comes from that environment in one way or another. Either since our own birth or that of our species. I think you just have to adopt a more holistic/organic point of view to appreciate that. The top down linear one struggles to cut it.

… if someone becomes addicted to convenience, it's because there's something IN HIM that causes him to be so.

It is how that "something" got to be there I am concerned with.

It's not like there's some sort of techno fairy out there whispering in people's ears telling them to rely on more and more technology.

Ever heard of advertising?

And even then, the change originates from PEOPLE, not the technology itself.

In a feed back loop one thing plays off another, back and forth. Often, even usually, in unplanned ways. You only want to look at one side of the equation.

No, because in the case of an accident he wouldn't have been able to figure out just what it was about the stick that made it a more effective killer.

So afterwards he couldn’t start using various sticks on smaller animals and work out why the first stick was so successful?

It isn't until he gets the idea "I need to use something to help me kill that tiger" does he start to go about the process of analyzing his environment and looking for things that will serve that purpose.

And yet a number scientific advances are indeed due to accidents (that were only realised afterwards, not part of your preconceived plan theory. The microwave oven is a good example. The person who discovered that microwaves can heat things up wasn’t trying to add anything to our culinary abilities. But once it was realise what was happening the rest was just engineering.

Bear in mind this all stems from your assertion that modern cultures are "based on" technology. I pointed out that this is incorrect, because a culture is based on IDEAS, and ideas--by definition--can only be possessed by people.

And I pointed out that there are wider definitions of culture than yours which do allow my comment to be correct. But even on a narrower view, you have to ask where ideas come form. Hint: Its not just other people.

Semantics aside, technology does not possess ideas, and therefore cannot be the basis for culture in and of itself.

But it doesn’t need to possess ideas in order to effect people’s views just as any part of the environment can.

So what? OldSpock knows enough about his younger self to know that his facade of external control is as fragile as an eggshell and could come crashing down at any moment.

That’s the excuse but we don’t know that. All we know is Kirk pushed the "mommy button" to get the desired results. A) SpockP may have been "implying". B) NuSpock should have been given the chance to make a decision with all the info. A practical way of getting back at Nero might have shored him up nicely.

The other thing to consider is that Kirk didn't have any halfway descent plan to attack the Narada until Chekov computed Nero's final trajectory. They would have come up with the exact same plan if they had followed Kirk's advice from the beginning, only they probably would have intercepted the Narada an hour or two earlier.

And been destroyed without the long range beaming tech. Kirk was having his own breakdown when he came up with "lets chase Nero" idea. Fortunately he had a chance to "cool off".

Actually though ST-One does have a (kind of) point. Er, not his literal one I hasten to add. It doesn't seem like we are going to agree on most of this.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I take it you don't remember the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?

I must have been fairly young at the time.

No, you just slept through your history class, evidently. The point is, about a hundred years ago the United States ended a dubious flirtation with sweatshop labor after a series of major industrial accidents prompted the laborers to organize for better working conditions. Because "adult male textile worker" was basically an oxymoron, the overwhelming majority of those laborers were women.

So no parts of the US made it [homosexuality] legal where it wasn’t before?

To the extent that it was ever actually illegal, no. What I'm basically saying is that while homosexuality has never been illegal, BEATING UP homosexuals no longer is.

With at least a century of improvement generally it doesn’t seem likely to go backwards, but I wouldn’t say it’s impossible. Yet it doesn’t seem a coincidence to me that these improvements are happening at a time of the most rapid technological advancement.

Change begets change, that's for sure. OTOH, the Dark Ages were also followed by a similar boom period of technological advancement under the Roman Empire. Powerful societies inevitably experience a major downfall, and when they do, they have a tendency to drag alot of people down with them.

I don’t recall any lyrics in the Legend of John Henry lambasting women for taking men’s jobs

Not women, automation. The same automation that took men's jobs also took women's jobs, so the backlash has mass appeal to both sexes.

That’s an easy assumption to make because you think it supports your contention but I seriously doubt you would be able to get western women to react or submit the same way your Afghan women might.

My entire point is that they won't, because Afghan and Western culture have two COMPLETELY different ideas about relationships between men and women. In western culture, men see women as prizes for them to compete for and win; in Afghan culture, men see women as property for them to give from one man to another. The woman's point of view is equally disparate, where in western society the tendency is to consider themselves the all-purpose manager of just about everything, while in Afghan society it's more of a "lead by example/prove your worthiness" type of ethos.

As to the point:

I would suggest western women are now too independent to go back to 50’s style behaviour en-mass.

Independence has nothing to do with it. Women who WANT to be independent have always been free to do so; it has become considerably easy over the years, as access to college and high-paying jobs has become more available to female students and workers. The problem is, women who want to raise families have the deck stacked against them and wind up having to work full time as well, whether they're single parents or married women. In other words, western women love to be in charge of their lives, and a rise in wages means women of all stripes would suddenly gain the ability to fully commit to their lifestyle of choice instead of being hamstrung by economic necessity.

Contrast this with Afghan women, who by most accounts prefer to be admired and praised (and a few pissed-off Chicanos have told me this is also true of Mexican culture to some extent, but I'm not as sure about this).

Whether they wanted it is hardly relevant anyway. A society’s culture is the way it actually is, not how some members might like it to be.

"How some of its members want it to be" is another aspect of how it is. Aspirations and desires factor into this as well, as do fears and collective memories. There's "what we hope to accomplish" and there's "what we hope to prevent from happening again." It's sort of like how the Holocaust is deeply ingrained in Israeli culture despite the fact that relatively few Israelis actually lived through. "Never again" is also a trait of that culture, with the same curious fact that most Israelis never experienced it the first time.

Of course but "they" have greatly reduced or stopped doing both. Which is why the culture can be said to have changed.

And in context, it's the same culture. The motives and beliefs haven't changed, only the patterns of behavior.

So a guy with one hair on his head is still not balled?

No, he's bald. He's just 50% more bald than the guy with two hairs. They're BOTH bald, it's just a difference of degree.

Well it seems reasonable that technology can so change our lives that we would care about the results of those changes.

Of course we could, but whether and how much we LIKE those results is determined by culture, not the technology. A race of nomads with zero interest in agriculture and a romantic obsession with nature would probably find a permanent storm-proof dwelling less than useless, asking "How the hell are we supposed to pack this up and move it?"

You tell them "You don't have to, you can wait for the storm to end," and they answer "Why would I want to WAIT for a storm? The herds run from the storm and we're supposed to follow them, so how am I supposed to fit fifty tons of brick house on the back of a horse?!"

Your values determine what you find useful. Not everyone lives for the same outcomes, and not everyone WANTS to.

It is how that "something" got to be there I am concerned with.

Me too. I'm saying that "something" is not a piece of technology, nor is it based on technology. You yourself mentioned interactions with our environment and our world; but technology is a very small aspect of that world, and in the context of human interactions with EACH OTHER, an at best marginally important one. We spend a lot more time learning behavior from other people than we do from available technology, after all.

Ever heard of advertising?

Machines do not create their own advertisements. PEOPLE create them.

In a feed back loop one thing plays off another

Machines, being not alive, do not produce feedback. Until they do, it IS a one-way street in that regard; the feedback effect is only in play between the producer of a technology and the consumer.

So afterwards he couldn’t start using various sticks on smaller animals and work out why the first stick was so successful?

At that point, he's inventing technology, not discovering it. The process of experimentation is how he looks for a more efficient way of killing animals. The question is, why does he want to kill animals in the first place?

If technology is the basis of culture, then he's off hunting tigers because he's discovered a pointy stick and he needs something useful to do with it. But since technology is based on the needs of culture, then he's off hunting tigers because he needs to kill the tiger and only the stick will let him do that.

And yet a number scientific advances are indeed due to accidents (that were only realised afterwards, not part of your preconceived plan theory

Not a preconceived plan, a PREEXISTING NEED. The discovery of the microwave was a useful thing because it was thought that people might NEED a faster way to heat up their food. ALL technology that has ever existed was created this way. "Because we can" has never been a compelling reason to do anything that isn't either inexpensive or embarrassingly pointless.

But even on a narrower view, you have to ask where ideas come form. Hint: Its not just other people.

Yes it is. You're either borrowing someone else's idea, or you're inspired to come up with an idea yourself. Ideas, being composed of thoughts, cannot originate from things that do not think.

But it doesn’t need to possess ideas in order to effect people’s views just as any part of the environment can.

"Effect peoples views" and "create an idea" are two COMPLETELY different things. A giant dog turd on my front lawn might affect my behavior in the morning, but the dog turd cannot BY ITSELF determine what that effect is. Going back to your caveman example, the guy who kills the tiger by accident might suddenly burst into tears as he somehow believes that tigers are divine beings and he is now going to be sent to eternal damnation for killing one; do you suppose he's going to spend alot of time experimenting with pointy sticks to eventually invent the spear?

So what? OldSpock knows enough about his younger self to know that his facade of external control is as fragile as an eggshell and could come crashing down at any moment.

That’s the excuse but we don’t know that.[/quote]
Yes we do, because it did.

NuSpock should have been given the chance to make a decision with all the info.

He had exactly the same info Kirk had at that point. The only thing Spock DIDN'T know about was where Nero got his black hole technology from.

A practical way of getting back at Nero might have shored him up nicely.

It did. But it was Chekov--NOT Kirk--who came up with the idea.

And been destroyed without the long range beaming tech.

WHAT long range beaming tech? By all accounts they used conventional transporters to board the Narada.