I have a bit of a problem with La'an being bullied (And Spock in st2009)

[Charles Phipps]

TOS also has a way of contradicting itself more than not and the movies with the same cast said things that didn't mesh with TOS itself in terms of characters... also, back then, many things weren't shown on TV or couldn't be shown... and UFP wasn't really fleshed out (that's why other series like TNG started filling up the void).

Trek is still very much limited in aspects of the real world and in some cases trapped by the limited mindests of the writers who grew up in today's system (or in the case of TOS, writers who grew up back then - which was arguably worse).

Whoever wrote the notion that celebrating man for being a savage at heart should have had their head examined and did NOT know anything of behavioral science or how environment shapes behavior... they seemingly injected the notion that humans are bad from birth... effectively, that we are born like that and that the only reason Humans in the future didn't behave like that is because we fight against those impulses.
Such a gross misunderstanding.

But this also came from the people in 1960-ies USA that had a certain perspective of the world and where Uhura was almost treated as a glorified secretary and she wasn't really involved in any major decision making (though she WAS part of the main cast and had far more exposure for African Americans and women in general - which I suppose was considered 'progressive' for back then - the movies arguably gave Uhura a bit more prominent role because times have improved by that point since the 60-ies).
Nichols wanted to seemingly quit the show after the first season given how little she was given to do and the indignities she suffered at the time... and it seems it was because of a conversation she had with Dr. Martin Luther King that she remained on the show.

So, I'm not sure if TOS should be the best indication of these characters pasts because it seems like most episodes took place in their own alternate universes.

My take is you have a very TNG view of the Federation that wasn't the case in TOS or the DISCO and SNW period.

Basically, I don't think your opinion is WRONG but you are saying, "Ignore everything that contradicts my point. It should be this way, regardless of canon."

And the person who wrote the episode glorifying savagery was Gene Roddenberry.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I don't believe children in the 23rd century would do that. Like, in the present day, if I made a paper plane that didn't fly properly, someone might say "I can make my plane better than yours". But someone with more evolved sensibilities might say "Your center of gravity is off, and your wing tips need to be further back". Even children in the 23rd century don't do "I can run faster than you" or "My dad could lick your dad".

You must not have kids.

 

[Charles Phipps]

You must not have kids.

I'm actually familiar with the research he's citing and it's far from accepted.

 

[fireproof78]

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?'.

Every day I work to make such a system.

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).

Again, why would I be sarcastic?

You write full length essays about different aspects of technology and science but don't think it is worthy of being a book?

My turn: are you serious?

Good wirters would know how to work within the operational boundaries of an established universe to make compelling stories and enrich what is there.

Well, the operational boundaries of Star Trek is conflict, bullying and such aspects of human behavior as currently presented. So, they are working inside those boundaries.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

Aside from all the straw men here, which I'll just ignore, cooperative and competitive are not mutually exclusive opposites. Competitive behavior does not preclude other cooperative behavior, and vice versa.

The only pushback I'm making is against the notion that humans are not competitive. They most certainly are competitive, for one example when it comes to mate selection, just like pretty much all other animals. Humans are also clearly cooperative, or society would be impossible. We're both. I never said we weren't. What I did say is that we aren't just one of them.

"Competitiveness is a fundamental trait shared by all animals" does not mean that humans lack cooperative traits.

Contrast that with "Greed, selfishness, competitiveness... we ARE NOT born like this from the get go... these are LEARNED patterns of behavior that arise from the system and cultures in which we live," which is total bullshit, completely unsupported by your links (or anything else, for that matter).

 

[Deks]

Again, why would I be sarcastic?

You write full length essays about different aspects of technology and science but don't think it is worthy of being a book?

My turn: are you serious?

Quite serious.
Perhaps I'm ok writing smaller paragraphs as responses online rather than to compose them into a book.
That's just how I work.
Plus the fact I'm busy with academic studies prior to the summer right now is also another factor.

In fairness, I'm not really saying anything new that wasn't said before many times and that others aren't aware of.
I guess what I'm also trying to say is that I may see it as redundant to write a book about something that others have written about before explaining exactly the same things.

All I'm really doing is quoting other established people who wrote on these subjects... I'm not sure that would be considered as viable reading material outside occasional forums.

Well, the operational boundaries of Star Trek is conflict, bullying and such aspects of human behavior as currently presented. So, they are working inside those boundaries.

Had the conflict and bullying came from outside Federation, it would have likely been more tangible/relevant to me.
If its coming from within the Federation, it seems less so given what we are told about the organisation and humans because the information seems to be contradicting what was established.

Yes, I'm aware of Trek contradicting itself... but that doesn't mean an effort shouldn't be made to try and change that going forward (but it seems no such effort is being made) to make the shows a lot more consistent.

 

[Deks]

Aside from all the straw men here, which I'll just ignore, cooperative and competitive are not mutually exclusive opposites. Competitive behavior does not preclude other cooperative behavior, and vice versa.

The only pushback I'm making is against the notion that humans are not competitive. They most certainly are competitive, for one example when it comes to mate selection, just like pretty much all other animals. Humans are also clearly cooperative, or society would be impossible. We're both. I never said we weren't. What I did say is that we aren't just one of them.

"Competitiveness is a fundamental trait shared by all animals" does not mean that humans lack cooperative traits.

Contrast that with "Greed, selfishness, competitiveness... we ARE NOT born like this from the get go... these are LEARNED patterns of behavior that arise from the system and cultures in which we live," which is total bullshit, completely unsupported by your links (or anything else, for that matter).

You know we could be here all day arguing against each other, and I have other (more relevant) things to focus my attention to rather than to debate with a random individual (who clearly ignores scientific data) online.

Point remains: I provided evidence which support my stance. You did nothing of the kind and keep posting what amounts to personal (and scientifically unsupported) opinions.

Good night.

 

[fireproof78]

In fairness, I'm not really saying anything new that wasn't said before many times and that others aren't aware of.
I guess what I'm also trying to say is that I may see it as redundant to write a book about something that others have written about before explaining exactly the same things.

All I'm really doing is quoting other established people who wrote on these subjects... I'm not sure that would be considered as viable reading material outside occasional forums.

The point of such a book would be to synthesize the material so that people can have more access rather than being told "Hey, google it." That's not helpful. Assuming what people do or do not know is dangerous. Providing a way to see what you are seeing rather than thinking that because it was written before it therefore needs no more comment. That's not how research or publication works, really.

You're selling yourself extremely short.

Yes, I'm aware of Trek contradicting itself... but that doesn't mean an effort shouldn't be made to try and change that going forward (but it seems no such effort is being made) to make the shows a lot more consistent.

It's not going to happen because Trek is consistently inconsistent. That is a feature, not a bug, owed in large part to the many hands participating to make it happen over the years. Star Trek has a humanity that is capable of choice and evolved in some senses, while struggling with conflict and assumption and the like in other places. The power that Trek illustrates is the power of choice. "We are killers. But we're not going to kill today!" As Kirk would say.

 

[ToddCam]

As much as the Federation is "post-scarcity" it really isn't. Maybe it is for food and housing and stuff like that, only so many people can achieve fame or renown. Have recognition as knowledgeable or talented. SNW pointed out that Uhura's exceptionalism getting her a billet on Enterprise can bring a sense of resentment from those who want it more. Starfleet's hierarchy is an example of competition itself. To quote a terrible episode of TNG, "The higher the fewer."

 

[Charles Phipps]

Interestingly, Star Fleet seems ridiculously counterproductive with the fact that such a tiny portion of people are allowed to study for membership.

 

[Noname Given]

Interestingly, Star Fleet seems ridiculously counterproductive with the fact that such a tiny portion of people are allowed to study for membership.

They only want the best of the best.

 

[ToddCam]

They only want the best of the best.

As Starfleet serves as the UFP's primary military body, just to fill the ranks would require lower standards than "the best of the best", whatever that means. Especially with Starfleet's seemingly high mortality rate. Whole ships disappear or vanish all the time, not to mention all the exploding consoles and shuttle accidents.

 

[Noname Given]

As Starfleet serves as the UFP's primary military body, just to fill the ranks would require lower standards than "the best of the best", whatever that means. Especially with Starfleet's seemingly high mortality rate. Whole ships disappear or vanish all the time, not to mention all the exploding consoles and shuttle accidents.

But, in this era - there's only 12 or so such ships crewed with a compliment of 203. <--- Not hard to replace those level of crewmembers.

 

[Kor]

Well there are all the enlisted crewmembers who didn't go to Starfleet Academy, doing the grunt work.

Kor

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well there are all the enlisted crewmembers who didn't go to Starfleet Academy, doing the grunt work.

Kor

Those Jefferies Tubes aren't going to clean themselves.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You know we could be here all day arguing against each other, and I have other (more relevant) things to focus my attention to rather than to debate with a random individual (who clearly ignores scientific data) online.

Point remains: I provided evidence which support my stance. You did nothing of the kind and keep posting what amounts to personal (and scientifically unsupported) opinions.

Good night.

A brief search of scientific literature that you could have easily made yourself is all that is needed to prove that humans instinctively exhibit competitive behavior when selecting mates.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28906068/:

Human mating strategies: from past causes to present consequences
Daniele Marzoli, Jan Havlíček , S Craig Roberts
Abstract
In both humans and nonhuman animals, mating strategies represent a set of evolutionary adaptations aimed at promoting individual fitness by means of reproduction with the best possible partners. Given this critical role, mating strategies influence numerous aspects of human life. In particular, between-sex divergence in the intensity of intrasexual competition could account for robust cross-cultural sex differences in psychology and behavior (e.g., personality, psychiatric disorders, social behavior, violence). [...]
​

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20636474/:

Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness
Maryanne L Fisher
Abstract
Evolutionary theory predicts that female intrasexual competition will occur when males of high genetic quality are considered to be a resource. It is probable that women compete in terms of attractiveness since this is one of the primary criteria used by men when selecting mates. [...]​

There, now I have provided scientific evidence for the glaringly obvious, that people compete when selecting mates and that this behavior is an evolutionary adaptation rather than socially learned behavior. Do I get a cookie?

 

[Charles Phipps]

I'm confused when competitiveness became a negative quality.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I don't believe children in the 23rd century would do that. Like, in the present day, if I made a paper plane that didn't fly properly, someone might say "I can make my plane better than yours". But someone with more evolved sensibilities might say "Your center of gravity is off, and your wing tips need to be further back". Even children in the 23rd century don't do "I can run faster than you" or "My dad could lick your dad".

It's not like that in Roddenberry's Star Trek Universe, the real one, but in these CBS things human beings will always be human beings and never evolve. Jan 6th, THE INSURRECTION where only 2 people died, lead to World War III and the age of the Supermen and more wars to come in the Star Trek universe. In this pessimistic Star Trek, humans are bound to destroy themselves, no matter what efforts are done to prevent it.

 

[fireproof78]

Do I get a cookie?

For sure.

It's not like that in Roddenberry's Star Trek Universe, the real one, but in these CBS things human beings will always be human beings and never evolve. Jan 6th, THE INSURRECTION where only 2 people died, lead to World War III and the age of the Supermen and more wars to come in the Star Trek universe. In this pessimistic Star Trek, humans are bound to destroy themselves, no matter what efforts are done to prevent it.

That was part of Gene's original part of Trek. Humanity had to get to the brink of destruction in order to "evolve." That's about as real as current Trek is, and neither of which are real.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Jan 6th, THE INSURRECTION where only 2 people died, lead to World War III and the age of the Supermen and more wars to come in the Star Trek universe.

That's not what SNW said. It didn't say that 1/6 led to WWIII. It showed 1/6 as one of several examples that were all part of a pattern of division, and it was that pattern of division that eventually resulted in WWIII.

Also, bullshit. 1/6 was about far more than just two people dying. Two people die in traffic accidents every minute. 1/6 was nothing like a traffic accident.

1/6 was an attempt to unconstitutionally interrupt the peaceful transition of power and to enforce with unlawful violence the false claim that the sitting president did not lose the election fair and square.

In other words, 1/6 was a not very well planned and executed attempt to steal the election by insurrection.