So, a Freudian assumption. Makes sense.
I have a bit of a problem with La'an being bullied (And Spock in st2009)
- Thread starter hxclespaulplayer
- Start date
I'm out of this one. Have fun folks.
I've never met Rodenberry, but I don't recall reading he ever used the word 'utopia' for Trek's future. The term seems to have been injected and used by others... but I don't think Rodenberry himself used the term.
Rodenberry was said that he was purposefully vague of what humanity was like in the 23rd century because his political views at the time were unpopular.
The writers who 'never bought' into Gene's vision of Trek's future also never met Jacque Fresco nor did they have a good understanding of human behavior or how it is shaped/influenced - they largely pushed forth some well established myths that were passed on in society but nothing that was grounded in proper science (at least not when it came to that).
Some writers did correctly use the notion that behavior is influenced by environment, but unfortunately, those episodes were not as common as I would have liked.
Why the fuck would I laugh at your expense?
Of course I am genuinely curious. I often times and reading Dr. Dan Siegel's research on interpersonal neurobiology and parenting styles. I was curious as to your synthesize of the data. That's how research works.
I asked for the simple reason because one cannot tell whether a person is being sarcastic or not when writing online... and I try to not make assumptions about people's behavior online (plus, people behaved sarcastically online without actually making an indication they are being sarcastic, so asking me about a book seemed a bit out of the blue to me, and unusual).
I do not forget that a lot of people have not learned these things (that's why I responded to those posts), and the way some of them keep reiterating the premise that bad behavior is 'ingrained' into our biology needs to be addressed.
They keep repeating the same notion over and over (as you may have noticed from people in these forums too) which also gives rise to other problematic perceptions and behaviors that can arise.
Perhaps, but I think it would be nice to stop with the idea that 'exceptional people' can only arise from having endured hardship.
It also sends a wrong message that if you keep at it and work hard, good things will eventually happen (its a common delusion in the existing system)
The fact of the matter is that reality doesn't work like that (and Trek and UFP are supposed to be better than that) and in the present system, if you are born in poverty, or fall in it, chances are you won't be able to escape it because the system we have doesn't work like that.
Wouldn't you prefer to have a society actively create conditions where becoming exceptional is not only possible, but encouraged and the norm?
Imagine what it would be like if kids come up with some interesting ideas and adults don't tell them 'don't be naive', but instead, 'what an interesting idea... lets see if we can test it out to see if it works or not?'.
Nonsense. Have you heard of evolution? Are you familiar with animal behavior?
Competitiveness is a fundamental trait shared by all animals.
You have it exactly backwards, by the way. We have the ability to regulate our innate destructive impulses, with our social structures, at least to some degree. That leads to a better outcome than the alternative of no regulation of human behavior or pure anarchy, or so we believe. That means we are not absolutely beholden to our lesser natures so to speak, and we can sometimes rise above them.
I much prefer this approach, instead of the perfect evolved humanity BS that was being spewed in early TNG, it rang hollow as a teen when TNG first aired, and the older I get, the more out of touch it seems.
That's the 24th century where hummanity attains 'perfection' (except maybe when it comes to blatant hypocrisy towards certain Warrior societies who don't 100% follow Human social norms
)- and the TNG forum is down below... 
I would imagine if they had met him, they wouldn't have CARED. They are TV writers. "Tension is the mother of fiction." Literature/movies/TV need conflict and/or tension to be entertaining. Any first year writing class will tell you that. It's why EVERY SERIES AFTER TNG gave up on the notion of not having conflict between the crew. It's ridiculous to box in writers like that on the very thing that underpins storytelling. The reason they tossed what you see as the perfect UFP society in episodes like Journey to Babel is because they needed to create emotional conflict. Whether a society CAN be what you are advocating is frankly immaterial. It SHOULDN'T be for the sake of writing drama.
I think the difference is you are looking at it as "bad" behaviour, assigning a moral value to it, whereas others are looking at it as "instinctual" behavior, neither bad nor good, just biological processes bred in for the necessity of survival.
Wait a second, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
The UFP shown in "Journey to Babel" was anything but perfect. The Vulcan Ambassador could be a total prick. Delegates openly argued and got physical with each other.
"Journey to Babel" was dripping with emotional conflict from all pores.
Last edited:
Yet studies seem to show otherwise.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...sque-inequality-greed-human-nature-capitalism
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...an-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/
https://www.theguardian.com/science...nes-of-a-shocking-new-study-on-human-altruism
Non human animals in particular have displayed non-selfish tendencies on more than one occasion.
For humans, we seem to be 'fundamentally good'... but we live in a rotten system which warps our value system (which results in a 'value system disorder'.
And because so many behaviors can be seen in a lot of people from an early age, people assume its innate... when in fact its not.
Of course I'm aware of evolution.
But even evolution does NOT state anything about 'the survival of the fittest' nor does it support the premise of competition over cooperation.
Charles Darwin in fact never argued for the 'survival of the fittest'. In fact, he argued AGAINST it:
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/rela...test-has-evolved-try-survival-kindest-n730196
"Darwin’s research shows that “survival of the kindest” is more correct for explaining which species climb the evolutionary ladder efficiently and effectively.
According to biologists from Darwin to E. O. Wilson, cooperation has been more important than competition in humanity’s evolutionary success. Compassion is the reason for both the human race’s survival and its ability to continue to thrive as a species."
Don't take this the wrong way, but THAT is nonsense.
Humans don't have innate destructive impulses or lesser natures.
You assume A LOT about humans and most of this shows you have limited to no understanding of how human (or non human animal) behavior works.
I think the links I posted above should be sufficient to make my point, but if you choose to ignore them, that's up to you.
I phrased that inartfully. Allow me to rephrase, "The reason in episodes like Journey to Babel they tossed what you see as the perfect UFP society is because they needed to create emotional conflict." I'm saying exactly what you are, in Journey to Babel they ignore the "evolved UFP" guff to create tension and drama, because that's what writers are supposed to do. I hope that makes my intent clearer. My apologies.
The "evolved UPF stuff" didn't really exist in TOS. They did present Earth's culture as more humane and sensible than our own where addressing and solving major problems was concerned.
Humans have a plethora of innate tendencies, which require lifelong negotiation with the expectations of other human beings and their culture.
Making believe that you can "socialize people to be good" and achieve some kind of meaningful elimination of their selfishness, violence, and other troublesome desires is Sunday School stuff.
Humans have a plethora of innate tendencies, which require lifelong negotiation with the expectations of other human beings and their culture.
Making believe that you can "socialize people to be good" and achieve some kind of meaningful elimination of their selfishness, violence, and other troublesome desires is Sunday School stuff.
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time to answer all the assertions with care. I agree wholeheartedly. Especially now that I'm reading The Dawn of Everything, A New History of Humanity. David Graeber and David Wengrow spent a lot of their careers quashing some of our "theories" about the way things are and why. .
Good wirters would know how to work within the operational boundaries of an established universe to make compelling stories and enrich what is there.
What we've seen in Trek largely represents lack of effort to do just that and instead writers inject cheap drama into the mix to make things more interesting to the viewer (to me, its boring, unimaginative and lacks in a bit of logic and reason).
In fact, most of Trek is filled with so many plot holes that I have to wonder how these people became good writers in the first place.
People would fail for making such clumsy oversights... which makes this even more interesting because they are supposed to have a TEAM of writers (plural) to check if things work.
Either they are grossly incompetent or don't understand Trek that well (or consider the average viewer incredibly dumb).
And correct me if I'm wrong, but great writing is more than possible in Trek. We just don't see it happen that often (if you ask me).
'Good' or 'bad' I will agree are arbitrary descriptions that make little sense.
However, when I contrast what current human behavior (a direct consequence of living in capitalism) is doing to the planet at large (and each other), I have some serious misgivings about labeling it as a positive (especially when there is so much destruction of the Earth's biosphere, against non-human animals (that are sentient and feel similarly like we do - some exactly the same).
Scientists agree that our behavior is negatively impacting the environment ... and even ourselves. But apparently, people don't want to listen to them.
We already know that even young adults in the 23rd century engage in bullying behavior, such as Finnegan with Kirk at the Academy. It wouldn't surprise me if he behaved similarly when he was a kid.
In that era, people in general may strive to 'be better.' But they are still only human.
Kor
In that era, people in general may strive to 'be better.' But they are still only human.
Kor
So.... you want TV writers... to just eject the primary rule of writing that has been taught to literally every writer ever... to make things more interesting.... for you. I would HIGHLY encourage you to take a writing class to at least try to understand the process you are shitting on.
I hope if you have kids you are teaching them better.
Perhaps that one kid pushing NuSpock first in ST09 as "physical stimuli" was a bit much, but we already know from "Journey to Babel" that Spock's childhood Vulcan acquaintances "tormented" him. And then we saw that actually happening in "Yesteryear." No doubt they were echoing the disdainful attitudes of their own parents toward humans or 'emotional' species in general... attitudes that weren't uncommon among Vulcans since even prominent figures like T'Pau also had them. TOS Vulcans weren't all these noble paragons of logical IDIC-y virtue like Spock was.
Kor
Kor
The Federation of TOS was in some ways like the waning Galactic Republic in the Star Wars Prequel Era. Full of darkness and corrupt people but still willing to give it the old college try and fly the flag for galactic unity and democracy. As it should be. The Federation, especially in SNW and TOS, should be an idea more than an established institution. A work in progress that may never be completed but at least gives its member species something noble to shoot for.
And when characters like Dr. Tristan Adams, Captain Ronald Tracey and Harry Mudd fail and fail hard it's understandable. They're all human beings from a world that until 200 years earlier was still lobbing nuclear bombs at its inhabitants and 300 years prior was still fighting itself in wars over natural resources and the maintenance of political empires. They're not ideal people. They're just people.
And when characters like Dr. Tristan Adams, Captain Ronald Tracey and Harry Mudd fail and fail hard it's understandable. They're all human beings from a world that until 200 years earlier was still lobbing nuclear bombs at its inhabitants and 300 years prior was still fighting itself in wars over natural resources and the maintenance of political empires. They're not ideal people. They're just people.
My parents were millionaires and I was a greedy little ****.
I mean, come on. Finnegan - an adult Cadet at Starfleet Academy around 2250 - bullied and beat up on James T. Kirk. If Starfleet Academy can't keep its own Cadets from being giant pricks who prey on their fellow students then what hope do entire planets and species have?
