So, largely, what we already have on this world…
This Side Of Paradise message
- Thread starter Frontis
- Start date
So, largely, what we already have on this world…
I guess I chose the word poorly, then. The point I was trying to make is that the original script portrayed the spores as a controlling sentience rather than a mindless intoxicant as the final episode implies. That does make a difference. I've seen people suggest that Omicron Ceti III could've been used as a way to cure disease and injury, just getting people mad enough to break free when they're healed. If the part about the spores being sentient had been left in, it would be clearer why submission to their mind control would be seen as an unacceptable tradeoff for restored health.
Because it's the principle of the thing, you mean? Allowing it for even a moment would defeat the purpose of being healed, which is to continue to live life healthily and genuinely happily in freedom.
So then the effect of mind control would outlast your healing and your supposed liberty from their effects, as one cannot be sure if or when they will re-assert control somehow. Meaning the presence of the spores are in and of themselves a parasitic illness - something which doesn't belong and wasn't asked for.
So then the effect of mind control would outlast your healing and your supposed liberty from their effects, as one cannot be sure if or when they will re-assert control somehow. Meaning the presence of the spores are in and of themselves a parasitic illness - something which doesn't belong and wasn't asked for.
Are "duty" and "responsibility" collectively the purview of any one political bearing? That may not have been the message you intended to convey, but it could be read that way. To me, Star Trek is optimistic in that in shows humans - once their needs are satisfied - will still find a never-ending series of "wants" to chase after. They'll hitch their wagons to some sort of (non-destructive, non-oppressive) ambition.
By the way, it seems to me that most writers focus less on "Slavery is evil." (because most intelligent and reasonably civilized folk recognize that slavery is evil) and more on "This is slavery." (whatever "this" happens to be at the time).
It's incredibly antiquated to think that "left-leaning" means "hippies, druggies, and subversives." That's how many people in power in the '60s caricatured and lied about what liberalism is, to divert from the fact that it's really about civil rights, favoring constructive policies over destructive or regressive ones, and a standard of justice that applies equally to everyone instead of the privileged race, gender, or class.
Just saying that a starship's mission was to explore rather than exploit, to seek out new civilizations rather than conquer them, and to serve discovery over profit and power was an extremely left-leaning message for its day. TOS's generally anti-war, pro-peacemaking stance was very liberal, even subversive during the Vietnam Era. Including women and nonwhite people as equals in the service, and even a Soviet citizen (presumptively, since Leningrad was still named that), was extremely progressive and ahead of its time.
Although it was by no means atypical for 1960s-80s TV to be progressive and egalitarian in its messaging. The Twilight Zone frequently did allegories condemning war, bigotry, and fascism. M*A*S*H was certainly famous for its liberalism (an ironic contrast to the hardcore conservatism of the original novel's author), and there were shows like Quincy, M.E. and MacGyver that frequently embraced socially activist themes like civil rights, environmentalism, fighting corporate abuse, etc. Although there were occasional shows that seemed to take a more conservative stance, like Battlestar Galactica (which treated any character who favored peacemaking with an enemy as a fool or a quisling), although even it was progressive in certain ways (like not oversexualizing its female characters with skimpy costuming like most of its contemporaries did, while frequently putting the men in skimpy outfits).
Just saying that a starship's mission was to explore rather than exploit, to seek out new civilizations rather than conquer them, and to serve discovery over profit and power was an extremely left-leaning message for its day. TOS's generally anti-war, pro-peacemaking stance was very liberal, even subversive during the Vietnam Era. Including women and nonwhite people as equals in the service, and even a Soviet citizen (presumptively, since Leningrad was still named that), was extremely progressive and ahead of its time.
Although it was by no means atypical for 1960s-80s TV to be progressive and egalitarian in its messaging. The Twilight Zone frequently did allegories condemning war, bigotry, and fascism. M*A*S*H was certainly famous for its liberalism (an ironic contrast to the hardcore conservatism of the original novel's author), and there were shows like Quincy, M.E. and MacGyver that frequently embraced socially activist themes like civil rights, environmentalism, fighting corporate abuse, etc. Although there were occasional shows that seemed to take a more conservative stance, like Battlestar Galactica (which treated any character who favored peacemaking with an enemy as a fool or a quisling), although even it was progressive in certain ways (like not oversexualizing its female characters with skimpy costuming like most of its contemporaries did, while frequently putting the men in skimpy outfits).
Maybe Discovery used the wrong kind of spore drive. 
When you’re not used to sitting at the helm, always beware of strange, alien plants.
Similar threads
