Neither of which have crippled society, by the way.
I mean, it could, hypothetically. But there's no canonical evidence it has.
The Utopian Federation: Restart
- Thread starter Deimos Anomaly
- Start date
Neither of which have crippled society, by the way.
I mean, it could, hypothetically. But there's no canonical evidence it has.
Some actors and musicians do end up dropping out of sight, but many have struggled for so long, even after they make it big, the struggle defines them.
Now think about all the rich kids we've seen through our collective lives. The ones who had to work for nothing and had everything handed to them. Some make their own way, most end up just riding the coattails of their parents living off what they worked for. Or the actors who made millions at a young age and then end up burning out.
And that's the major difference. Those who work for what they have, in most cases, continue to work even after it's no longer necessary. Those who have stuff handed to them tend to expect things to continue to be handed to them.
So my expectation of the human race is that if you start handing things out en masse through a magic slot in the wall, they will begin to expect it.
I hate to tell you this, but actors don't act because they embrace the "struggle" to succeed. They act because they have a compulsion to act--because it's what they're good at and what they love. Plenty of brilliant, successful actors in fact hate the struggle, hate the process of auditioning and competing and being judged.
You mean like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who were raised in upper middle class/lower wealthy class families and basically wanted for nothing their entire lives?
What a bunch of unaccomplished lazeabouts they turned out to be!
It is really intellectually dishonest to cut off the quote before this part...
But hey... anything to make a point I guess.
I'm always baffled when I find people here arguing that the Federation is a communist dictatorship where the population is composed mostly of weak-willed proles without creativity and ambition spending all day immersed in masturbatory fantasies in the holodeck. I mean, what kind of Star Trek have they seen? 
Okay. Give me some statistics, then. Some hard numbers. What percentages of people born rich become accomplished or unaccomplished?
The notion that goal orientation is what gives meaning to life is itself a rather narrow social construct.
People tend to define human nature as "that human behavior that's familiar to me and that I'm reasonably comfortable with."
People tend to define human nature as "that human behavior that's familiar to me and that I'm reasonably comfortable with."
The basic answer to this question is: "We don't know."
And we don't know because we're never explicitly told. And we're never explicitly told because the writers can't imagine a plausible and working scenario either.
And in the end, that's a good thing --- because it would take away some of the magic.
The answer is: "After yet another terribly destructive world war, mankind makes contact with alien life, and it forever alters human society. Human civilization gradually shifts toward a workable harmonious vision where its noble values and impressive technologies reinforce one another in a positive way for the betterment of all people."
And that's it.
And really, that's all that needs to be said. Trying to examine the shift (the premise of Enterprise) won't yield a very successful payoff.
Because that's not the story, and it's not the point. The point isn't how the change happened, but that it actually did. Star Trek is getting to experience what happened on the other side.
And we don't know because we're never explicitly told. And we're never explicitly told because the writers can't imagine a plausible and working scenario either.
And in the end, that's a good thing --- because it would take away some of the magic.
The answer is: "After yet another terribly destructive world war, mankind makes contact with alien life, and it forever alters human society. Human civilization gradually shifts toward a workable harmonious vision where its noble values and impressive technologies reinforce one another in a positive way for the betterment of all people."
And that's it.
And really, that's all that needs to be said. Trying to examine the shift (the premise of Enterprise) won't yield a very successful payoff.
Because that's not the story, and it's not the point. The point isn't how the change happened, but that it actually did. Star Trek is getting to experience what happened on the other side.
well, Humans are the only animals advanced enough to contemplate themselves as continuous individuals through time, and to consider the future in a meaningful way.
A cat thinks to itself only of getting the mouse, or eating food, or whatever it is immediately occupied with.
Since Humans have that unique feature, it means goals are an inevitable part of our existence.
Even NOT to plan is a decision about how one wants to live their life.
Notice that in some episodes particularly TNG, they seem to be saying that humans 'evolved' out of their bad behavior--and it seemed to imply it was some biological thing, not a philosophical one.
Some scientist are claiming that certain behaviors may be hard wired in our brain.
I really hope not, but then the Vulcan thing may not be too far from the truth.
Sometimes with the replicator issue, I think it could go either way.
Imagine introduce the replicator into the 20-21st century that can make food, clothes, luxury items.
Suddenly being rich has no meaning.
That means people can no longer impress others with their wealth or being affluent. Being arrogant because of where you live, how you live and how much things you have would be pointless.
So humans would have to work a lot harder on things like personality, intelligence and personal achievement to impress others.
On the other hand, the only thing that might happen is that people will take advantage of what the replicator has to offer, and still be bigoted, narrow minded, xenophobic, selfish.
It won't change their view at all about religious strife, political arguing, respecting other people.
Especially if these behaviors are biological the way some--"some" scientists or studies are trying to claim.
Imagine introduce the replicator into the 20-21st century that can make food, clothes, luxury items.
Suddenly being rich has no meaning.
That means people can no longer impress others with their wealth or being affluent. Being arrogant because of where you live, how you live and how much things you have would be pointless.
So humans would have to work a lot harder on things like personality, intelligence and personal achievement to impress others.
On the other hand, the only thing that might happen is that people will take advantage of what the replicator has to offer, and still be bigoted, narrow minded, xenophobic, selfish.
It won't change their view at all about religious strife, political arguing, respecting other people.
Especially if these behaviors are biological the way some--"some" scientists or studies are trying to claim.
I suppose what we're not taking into account here is a society of continual motivation, which starts with parents/family/community and is assisted by education. Now I'm not advocating a system where everyone gets a trophy (which is the height of feel-goodism that really sabotages progress), but challenge need not come from monetary rewards, either. Before the 17th century in Europe, primary motivation of the working class didn't come from wealth accumulation, but by excelling at their trades: the finest swords, the best sailors, the biggest crops, etc. Compensation would be required, of course, but the ones who were most often motivated by wealth accumulation were usually those who were already in the upper classes. The challenge presented not just to others, but to the self can't really be suppressed if it's nurtured properly.
With that said, I'd say Sci's reasoning is perhaps the more optimistic of humans, and when dealing with social issues, Star Trek has usually been about optimism in the future.
With that said, I'd say Sci's reasoning is perhaps the more optimistic of humans, and when dealing with social issues, Star Trek has usually been about optimism in the future.
Isn't that something that has been said many times for about a century and there has yet to be any evidence of this?
Yes to the first part, no to the second. There's plenty of evidence for hard-wired behaviors.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. First contact with Vulcans + replicators = commie hippie socialist Federation utopia.
The inhabitants of the "utopian" Federation haven't given up their wicked ways, however. Instead of hating Russians, they hate Klingons.
The inhabitants of the "utopian" Federation haven't given up their wicked ways, however. Instead of hating Russians, they hate Klingons.
Lest someone take my comments too far, I feel like I should specify one thing:
I don't believe the Federation is a society without money. The canonical evidence is contradictory on this, but it seems to me that no large economy can function through a small elite attempting to control resource allocation, whether that small elite be government bureaucrats or Wall Street plutocrats who bribe the government into serving its will. I believe that Capitalism is an evil system that inevitably subverts democracy and leads to the concentration of wealth in a very small number of hands, but that doesn't mean I think state ownership works, either.
Rather, I think the Federation, insofar as a post-scarcity or nearly-post-scarcity economy can be compared to modern system conceptions, that the Federation is some form of social democracy. That is, there's a strong socialist component in place to provide a safety net -- nobody falls into poverty in the Federation, no one gets left behind; the essentials of living a healthy life are provided for free at public expense. You're guaranteed a home, enough to eat, medical care, an excellent education, etc. In other words, the benefits of what we today would call a middle class life.
But what you do with those building blocks from there determines what else you get in life. I think there are still private businesses who compete, but I also think that the Federation (or its Member governments) have certain tax laws to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth into too few hands, and to make sure that wealth isn't inherited to the point where an aristocracy develops. And if you want luxuries -- if you want to live in a mansion with an ocean-side view, for instance, or if you want to get five hundred thousand channels on Interstellar Insta-Vision On Demand, or if you want to go to the holosuite regularly, then you have to find a job and earn some money.
No one is left behind, and there is no poverty, and classism is prevented. But there are still things that have to be earned, and success still gets rewards.
To me, that seems more plausible than the idea that any given economic system is the One True Way, and a good compromise between Star Trek's historical anti-Capitalist bent and the basic human need to have a certain level of competition and accomplishment.
I don't believe the Federation is a society without money. The canonical evidence is contradictory on this, but it seems to me that no large economy can function through a small elite attempting to control resource allocation, whether that small elite be government bureaucrats or Wall Street plutocrats who bribe the government into serving its will. I believe that Capitalism is an evil system that inevitably subverts democracy and leads to the concentration of wealth in a very small number of hands, but that doesn't mean I think state ownership works, either.
Rather, I think the Federation, insofar as a post-scarcity or nearly-post-scarcity economy can be compared to modern system conceptions, that the Federation is some form of social democracy. That is, there's a strong socialist component in place to provide a safety net -- nobody falls into poverty in the Federation, no one gets left behind; the essentials of living a healthy life are provided for free at public expense. You're guaranteed a home, enough to eat, medical care, an excellent education, etc. In other words, the benefits of what we today would call a middle class life.
But what you do with those building blocks from there determines what else you get in life. I think there are still private businesses who compete, but I also think that the Federation (or its Member governments) have certain tax laws to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth into too few hands, and to make sure that wealth isn't inherited to the point where an aristocracy develops. And if you want luxuries -- if you want to live in a mansion with an ocean-side view, for instance, or if you want to get five hundred thousand channels on Interstellar Insta-Vision On Demand, or if you want to go to the holosuite regularly, then you have to find a job and earn some money.
No one is left behind, and there is no poverty, and classism is prevented. But there are still things that have to be earned, and success still gets rewards.
To me, that seems more plausible than the idea that any given economic system is the One True Way, and a good compromise between Star Trek's historical anti-Capitalist bent and the basic human need to have a certain level of competition and accomplishment.
Earth seemed quite fine to me. Clean air and one needs not choke on exhaust fumes, food that's not full of crap like MSG, hydrogenated oils, aspartame and so on; one where one's not judged by his or her job, sexuality and what not. And space travel is commonplace there, Starfleet's just the more possibly dangerous space travel.
~Spends 10 minutes laughing~
Right.....conflict and competition making us better? Give me a break....we are fighting and killing each other over resources, politics and god. And I see no good progress made...for example, you can find the best, clean, free energy sources, or try cure a nasty illness, but you really think those in power will allow such a thing to happen....like an energy company allowing, say a technology that would allow people to power their house on a 9 volt battery for a month, I doubt they'd congratulate the inventor and calmly step aside for a new way of living....competition and conflict only keeps us staying in the dark ages. Look at how everyone trying to get this or that, or trying to out do another person just leaves to negative feeling and anger, making people compete even harder. To say that our world is a better place than what is seen in Trek is like saying the Spanish Inquisition was not that bad.
We might as well stop trying to better ourselves as a species and go back to the dark ages, since it was chock full of competition and conflict. ~grabs a spear~ If you'll excuse me, I got a village to plunder so I can have more stuff than the other guys.
Yep, most people I know never get to do what they want or desire, because right now, what they wanna do does not pay the bills, or because of the bills. In the 24th century, when one does not have bills, taxes and all that, and let's face it, it is, bullshit to deal with, one can better themselves. Struggling, competing and all that makes folks miserable....they are just existing, not living, people seem to be much happier, healthier and overall BETTER than what we got now.
[/QUOTE]
When you end need in a society that doesn't have any use for 85 percent of its' population then you begin to breed a populace that is docile and lacks direction.[/QUOTE]
You know, you sound a lot like those elitists that would love to see the population reduced to 1/5 of what it is now.
Plus a lot of the world is already docile and lacks direction...
...here's the basic daily life of the average person.
Wake up
Go to Work
Come Home
Eat
Go to Bed
Repeat.
People today are not living, they are just existing. There's more to life, a lot more, than just being a good behaved tax payer, you know.
Then you also have the argument that being in poverty causes high crime, dysfunctional behavior and so forth--the opposite of Utopia.
Verses the idea that too much prosperity for everyone causes stagnation, loss of purpose, bland group thinking mentality.
Still this addresses mainly the financial aspect of Utopia, can technology solve the psychological part as well?
Has anyone noticed that, starting after TNG, that human society or Starfleet is progressively worse with each new series or movie?
Don't get me wrong, earth is still a paradise by our and Trek's standards.
DS9-humans easily get insulted by words, uses slurs themselves, attempted coups, uses biological weapons, has secret shadow organizations etc.
Voyager-the Maqui are shown as being hateful, violent and distrustful towards the Federation even though many of them are human/Federation members.
They hate Cardassians, though humans have evolved out of judging an entire species for the acts of some.
Abram's Trek finally shows dysfunctional kids, militarism, arguing, bickering humans/Vulcans, slurs, need for civilian police officers etc.
It's like they're forgetting the Utopian message that 'started it all'.
Verses the idea that too much prosperity for everyone causes stagnation, loss of purpose, bland group thinking mentality.
Still this addresses mainly the financial aspect of Utopia, can technology solve the psychological part as well?
Has anyone noticed that, starting after TNG, that human society or Starfleet is progressively worse with each new series or movie?
Don't get me wrong, earth is still a paradise by our and Trek's standards.
DS9-humans easily get insulted by words, uses slurs themselves, attempted coups, uses biological weapons, has secret shadow organizations etc.
Voyager-the Maqui are shown as being hateful, violent and distrustful towards the Federation even though many of them are human/Federation members.
They hate Cardassians, though humans have evolved out of judging an entire species for the acts of some.
Abram's Trek finally shows dysfunctional kids, militarism, arguing, bickering humans/Vulcans, slurs, need for civilian police officers etc.
It's like they're forgetting the Utopian message that 'started it all'.
This is all a function of the simple fact that the Federation is not, and has never been, a utopia. It's always been a culture whose political institutions had progressed, but the idea that Trekian Humans were just inherently "better" or "more evolved" was always just nonsense. Hell, it was nonsense in the early TNG episodes where it was articulated--TNG Humans were as likely to be prejudiced against alien cultures and ethnocentric in their belief in their culture's superiority as anyone else. (Witness the numerous conclusions they jumped to about Ferengi society after only one encounter with a single ship, or their smug and ethnocentric attitudes towards Klingon rituals.)
Later STAR TREK hasn't depicted the Federation in degenerating ways. It's just making it clear that early TNG was full of shit when its characters tried to pretend their culture was truly superior.
The only dysfunctional kid is Kirk, and Kirk is treated far kindlier by the education and criminal justice systems of United Earth and the Federation than he would be today.
Militarism? The Starfleet I saw in ST2009 responded to an invading hostile vessel responsible for the destruction of dozens of Starfleet ships and the deaths of hundreds of crews by offering to arrange a conference rather than jumping to violence; the Starfleet I saw in ST2009 offered to save the Narada as it neared its fate rather than simply leave it to be crushed by the black hole; the Starfleet I saw in ST2009 identified Nero as a rogue terrorist rather than blaming the entire Romulan Star Empire for his actions. If that's militarism -- well, damn, I'd like to see that sort of militarism today, because that's much less militaristic than society is today.
All of which were long-established in TOS.
Who ever claimed there was no more need for civilian police officers?
TOS was never utopian. It was better than society today, but it was not utopian by any means. Hell, the very second episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," establishes widespread Human prejudice against telepaths.
