Fans Disenfranchised with Utopia?

[BigJake]

Do we, in our hearts, no longer believe in Utopia? Indeed, did we ever pledge ourselves - genuinely - to Gene Roddenberry's teachings?

Gene Roddenberry's "teachings"?

Dude. Much respect for the Great Bird of the Galaxy and all, but that's a bit overboard. Roddenberry didn't have any "teachings" or any cohesive utopian vision. "Gene's vision" was about making good television, and Star Trek's "optimism" was in the beginning just a matter of dramatic license -- Earth was to be kept off-screen and portrayed sympathetically so that we could cheer for the heroes, that was pretty much it. It was a good idea but it wasn't a transcendental calling.

TNG's "utopianism" and references to "paradise" (which as you can see a lot of people found obnoxious) was just an exaggeration of what went before, and while I personally do feel that it had a certain charm, overall it was not the best of dramatic ideas and it's not something I miss too terribly much.

(Also, the word you're looking for is "disenchanted.")

 

[2takesfrakes]

... the word you're looking for is "disenchanted."

 

[Gotham Central]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

Do we, in our hearts, no longer believe in Utopia? Indeed, did we ever pledge ourselves - genuinely - to Gene Roddenberry's teachings? Imagine that the Apollo Moon Landing did for the world what First Contact did in STAR TREK. It did, in some ways, by showing us how small, singular and fragile Earth is ... but not alot, unfortunately.

STAR TREK's positive message of Hope and Peace always made me a fan. I needn't tell you how the World is a pretty mean place and shows like STAR TREK, but STAR TREK specifically, was always a place where magic and a charming sort of innocense could still exist amongst adults.

The problem with Ideal Societies is getting everyone who lives in it to agree on what exactly the Ideal is. To racial separatists, the Ideal is one thing. To religious fundamentalists, it might be something very different. The same applies to Libertarians, Greens, Maoists, Socialists, or ethnic nationalists.

What is Ideal to some of these groups would be a dystopian nightmare society to others. IDIC itself would called genocide by racial separatists. We have to consider the possibility that one Ideal held by all humanity simultaneously everywhere may not be attainable.

Actually, one could argue that one of the reasons that Earth is more "utopian" in the future is that:

1) The bulk of the racist nationalist malcontents perished in WWIII.

2) The easy availability of advanced tech for space travel meant that those that survived and did not want to live on the new utopian United Earth had the option to simply leave and establish a separatist colony on some other world.

I've long believed that effective space travel and the discovery of habitable worlds might be the key to world peace. It would allow those that really can't stand the idea of a multi ethnic, secular, egalitarian society to strike out on their own. In essence it gives us the option of getting away from each other.

 

[PhoenixClass]

First off, I think idolizing Roddenberry is misguided and silly.

Secondly, the key aspect of my love for Star Trek is the portrayal of humanity. The ethics, morality and philosophy of these shows is something unique to the franchise.

Thus, I adore Roddenberry's vision. A socialist, atheistic, rational Earth where freedom and liberty are so respected is simply a heart warming vision. I get a little sad when I read some who wish Trek had more conflict or that humanity was less 'perfect' in its portrayal [which it never really is, even in TNG]. Star Trek's true strength is its portrayal of what we COULD be [not WILL be] and showing how we, as a species, could behave without the evils with which we currently shackle ourselves:

Hatred, homophobia, racism, religion, corruption, greed etc.

So, yes, I love Roddenberry's 'vision' but it was crafted over decades with the help of many. He deserves tremendous credit however, something about Star Treks 'goddy goody' humanity struck a real chord with millions and, for me, its not just about cool starships and funky aliens. There is a deeper representation within the franchise. I, for one, adore that.

Well said.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There are some things about Roddenberry's work that I respect, but certain other things I can live without. I don't agree with the crap about "no money" or "no mourning lost relatives" or anything like that. At some times in TNG's first couple of seasons it seemed like everyone was some kind of emotionless zombie, which is basically what you'd have to do to get rid of ALL conflict.

Thus, I adore Roddenberry's vision. A socialist, atheistic, rational Earth where freedom and liberty are so respected

I could handle the "rational" part, but not the other two. I would not, for example, want to live on an Earth where I was not allowed to practice my religion (alone or in groups), or where the government is so omnipresent as to decide for me what I must contribute.

Edit: What AirCommodore said. Utopia cannot exist, because there's no universal definition of one. You can have an Earth where people aren't actively trying to kill each other 24/7, for example (I'd like such an Earth), but try to take too many definitions of Utopia into account and you end up with unrelenting blandness.

 

[T'Girl]

2) The easy availability of advanced tech for space travel meant that those that survived and did not want to live on the new utopian United Earth had the option to simply leave and establish a separatist colony on some other world.

Conform or be cast out?

Seriously though, warp travel and colonies would serve as a pressure relief valve of sorts.

It would allow those that really can't stand the idea of a multi ethnic, secular, egalitarian society to strike out on their own.

As long as they could (if they choose) stay on Earth and be under no requirement to intellectually compromise their own beliefs by adopting the majority agreed upon way. The nonconformists in any society are essential, it can be uncomfortable sometimes having them and their opposing opinions out there for all to see and hear, but they are a necessary part of a free culture.

a multi ethnic, secular, egalitarian society

A multi-ethic, multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-orientation, multi-life-style society is something I would want to see in the future (or just here and now). However a solely secular society (if that's what you meant) would be the antithesis of all those "multi's" that I want to see.

In a world where there would hopefully (there's that word) be a place for all, to turn around and stipulate that the society had to be secular makes no sense.

Now of course there would be room for those who wished to lead a secular life, but there certain should not be a requirement for all to do so. Those who instead wish to celebrate a religious life would be a part as well, and they should no more be barred from political office, than they should from the public square.

Spirituality has nothing to do with one's belief in a deity.

I'll have to admit, I've never ran across anything like that before.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Conform or be cast out?

Subdivisions!

Those who instead wish to celebrate a religious life would be a part as well, and they should no more be barred from political office, than they should from the public square.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

 

[Starbreaker]

Gene Roddenberry was not L. Ron Hubbard. Star Trek is not, nor was it ever meant to be a religion. The utopia version of the future was very bold for the 1960's, but it just isn't realistic. There will always be class division, poverty, wars, and disasters.

 

[The Wormhole]

The utopia version of the future was very bold for the 1960's, but it just isn't realistic. There will always be class division, poverty, wars, and disasters.

But the whole utopia thing wasn't thought up until the 1980s with TNG. In TOS it's possible to believe Earth society is similar to contemporary times aside from all nations of Earth being a united world. And that isn't all that hard to believe, over time the nations of the planet have learned to get along and work together better than in the past. It's not too much of a leap to assume that someday all nations will stand united.

 

[T'Girl]

In the 1960's a big part of Roddenberry optimistic future was simply that we would survive to reach it. That Humanity wouldn't destroy ourselves in the next few years through nuclear war.

With the cold war decades behind us it is perhaps easy to lose realization of just how scared people were.

 

[JarodRussell]

FTL speed, time travel, beaming and the galaxy being overpopulated by humanoids isn't realistic either. So what is the problem with utopic ideas for a future society?

 

[SeerSGB]

The 24th century was a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Seemed devoid of passion. For a series about exploration, the TNG era seemed to be a lot about keeping the status.

I think Eddington hit on the head in DS9: ...Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their "rightful place" on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it."

FTL speed, time travel, beaming and the galaxy being overpopulated by humanoids isn't realistic either. So what is the problem with utopic ideas for a future society?

Cause it makes the stories hard to relate to for the viewer. Especially when the heroes are looking down on cultures/characters that could very well be proxies for the viewer.

 

[SPCTRE]

"no mourning lost relatives"

Huh?

 

[Nightdiamond]

Early TNG and some of TOS were very heavy handed on some Utopian ideas.

It went a little beyond just solving world hunger and getting along.

Beverly Crusher said 24th century humans weren't afraid of death. Uhura claimed that humans weren't offended by names and words anymore.

24th century human stopped distinguishing between the differences between gender, so male Starfleet officers were wearing skirts on duty.


Here's something interesting that I picked up after watching some episodes about money and humans:

Humans don't have a monetary system in the 24th century. As a result they don't carry any type of money.

Whenever they leave earth, they don't have anything to barter or purchase things with--they're helpless like Jake was. (In the Cards)

That implies humans would be isolated economically on earth, since if they left they would have no money whatsoever?

 

[T'Girl]

FTL speed, time travel, beaming and the galaxy being overpopulated by humanoids isn't realistic either. So what is the problem with utopic ideas for a future society?

Ahh, but whose example, whose version, of "utopia" will be the the one in place (Or the one enforced)?

Given a bit of time I could type out a manifesto of my personal vision of a wonderful future society, but I take it as a given that some would find issue with some aspect of it.

The problem with Roddenberry's version of utopia is that some of us have problems with it, parts of it.

... male Starfleet officers were wearing skirts on duty.

My current theory is that that those guys lost bar bets in Ten Forward.

That implies humans would be isolated economically on earth, since if they left they would have no money whatsoever?

Not just with societies outside the Federation, but also from other members of the Federation itself. Nog said that Humanity gave up currency, specifically Humanity and not the Federation in general.

Maybe the reason Humans solely go to Risa is that they can't vacation anywhere else in the Federation?

 

[JarodRussell]

FTL speed, time travel, beaming and the galaxy being overpopulated by humanoids isn't realistic either. So what is the problem with utopic ideas for a future society?

Cause it makes the stories hard to relate to for the viewer. Especially when the heroes are looking down on cultures/characters that could very well be proxies for the viewer.

Just like so many viewers are put off by science fiction in general.

If you don't like a TV show with optimistic and/or utopic views for society in the future, then why not just dislike it and watch something else? Like you do with every other show you don't like for various reasons?

I always liked the aspect that 24th century humans are "alien" to our current society. That was kinda the point. That was the point back in the 60s when they brought a black, asian and russian on board. Surely that put off A LOT of potential viewers.

 

[bbailey861]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

I simply prefer Roddenberry's view of the future circa 1966 vs. his view of the future circa 1987.

Also, I never watched Star Trek because of any 'Utopian Vision'. I watched it because I wanted to be like Captain Kirk. I wanted to have sex with alien woman that were dressed by William Ware Theiss, I wanted to have adventures out in space and beat the hell out of bad guys and win every single time, and I wanted to have friends like Spock and Bones. It wasn't until I was older that I appreciated the nuances of Trek (all the different Trek), appreciated some of the messages that were being brought forward, and scoffed at others. It isn't a religion. It's entertainment - great entertainment. It's been a great, great hobby and I still love it. Most of that stuff that came out of Roddenberry's mouth was designed to sell more product. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't be confused by it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

"no mourning lost relatives"

Huh?

TNG, "The Bonding"

 

[Greg Cox]

If you don't like a TV show with optimistic and/or utopic views for society in the future, then why not just dislike it and watch something else? Like you do with every other show you don't like for various reasons?

You know, there's probably an interesting show to be made about life in a futuristic utopia, but STAR TREK isn't it.

As I keep pointing out, STAR TREK was not essentially about life in an "utopian" Federation, it was about exploration and adventure on the far frontier, where danger, disease, and conflict were still very much part of the package. Last time I checked, the opening spiel did not go like this:

"Earth, far from now. This is the world of the 23rd Century, where peace and progress reign supreme and humanity is free to achieve its full potential. Its mission: to forge a better future throughout the United Federation of Planets!"

Again, that could be an interesting show, but that's not what TOS--or even the later shows--were really all about. IMHO.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yeah, pretty much. Everything in Star Trek exists to justify a captain having neato space adventures with his/her crew.

Federation? Not important in the slightest. Exists merely to legitimize Starfleet.

Starfleet? Exists to explain where the Enterprise came from, give the crew an easy common origin, etc.

Enterprise? Just a vehicle for captain and crew.

Gene's Vision™ is just window dressing.