Is a Star Trek Society Possible ?

[Joshua Howard]

Question. What are the principles that a "Star Trek society" is organized around? What, exactly, is Gene Roddenberry's vision?

Life in North America?

This continent has been rated in at least one report among the world's happiest locations. We live in a Nation (Canada or USA) of predominantly civilized chains of command, enjoy fairly generous social services, suffer from little crime or civil disorder, are tollerant and respectful toward diversity, and have access to technology at a surprisingly low price.

Much like life aboard a Starship with replicator technology, the average American may not boast extravagance, but most of us can obtain finished products in abundance and basic ameneties such as food, transportation, and communication without difficulty.

In all actuality, Star Trek suggests to a greater or lesser degree life as most of us know it, with a special focus on the positive elements of it. Thus, Roddenberry's vision is essentially a world wherein our present standard of life is maintained, and nolonger threatened by economic uncertainty and the worry caused by foreign conflict.

Compared to the industrial areas of China and the religious extremes of the Middle East, life for most us is already more utopian than we realize; it is the rest of the world that needs Roddenberry's vision the most.

 

[Mach5]

What, exactly, is Gene Roddenberry's vision?

I don't think GR himself gave it much thought... Hence all the inconsistencies about the use of money and such.

 

[Pauln6]

Question. What are the principles that a "Star Trek society" is organized around? What, exactly, is Gene Roddenberry's vision?

Life in North America?

This continent has been rated in at least one report among the world's happiest locations. We live in a Nation (Canada or USA) of predominantly civilized chains of command, enjoy fairly generous social services, suffer from little crime or civil disorder, are tollerant and respectful toward diversity, and have access to technology at a surprisingly low price.

Compared to the industrial areas of China and the religious extremes of the Middle East, life for most us is already more utopian than we realize; it is the rest of the world that needs Roddenberry's vision the most.

Well Roddenberry lived in America so it's not surprising that Trek resembles an American model. I'd love to see a Russian or Chinese version though!

I think the description of the USA that you postulate is rather idealised though. A significant number of people in America are racist, religiously, socially, and/or scientifically intolerant, there is a poor underclass, some states still execute people, and consumption of energy resources is way above a lot of other countries. Although the USA does have potential (and the current President's approach seems more in keeping with Star Trek ideals than the previous one) I think I'd probably agree that some of the Scandanavian countries are better examples.

Roddenberry knew that the only way to have utopia was to remove disputes over resources so they made the decision that humans could gain unlimited resources from space and later on from replicators. Actually, I think TOS was more realistic, sending the ships on mission to secure dilithium trade deals and medical treatments, with lots more potential for politicking. The bland assumption that replicators can produce anything from some unlimited energy source was too vague and convenient for my tastes. I would have assumed that transporters were very inefficient in terms of energy consumption. Mass use of replicators doesn't seem a good solution to resource management. Surely they can't simply replicate the massive amounts of metal they need to build ships? I would have liked to have seen issues like this being addressed.

 

[Myasishchev]

I like the notion of replicators and holodecks and no money. TNG-era Trek depicts a utopia, to be sure, but also an entitlement society of unmatched decadence, reliant upon enormous energy consumption, while species outside the Federation languish in varying degrees of poverty, oppression, and stagnation. I think that could potentially have been a rich vein to mine for allegory, although it only came up a few times, all (afaik) in Deep Space Nine, particularly the "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" two-parter.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I have to ask why no ?, isn't there a solution to any problem (you might not think there is but that's because you haven't found it)? why would it fail ?
Thanks
Maccyj

Because the underlying premise of the Star Trek society is--first of all--only limited to the context of Earth. In the 23rd century we see that Earth is a planet where there is no more disease, no war, no hunger or poverty, where the gap between rich and poor is either totally surmountable or totally irrelevant. It is a society where everyone has everything they need to become a stable self-actualized person, with mechanisms built into the system to catch and uplift them if and when they fail for whatever reason.

That this even works on EARTH is kind of amazing, in fact damned impressive and a testament to the organizational powers of the United Earth Government and humanity finally getting its priorities straight. But it must be understood that these conditions do not hold outside of Earth's orbit: poverty, disease, hunger and war DO exist all over the galaxy, sometimes in star systems not all that far from Earth. 23rd century Earth, therefore, is an oasis of stability in an unstable galaxy. How in the world could such a situation really be maintained?

Behind the scenes (or at least, outside the lens of what we've been lead to believe) Earth would have to become a sort of planetary gated community, dealing with its undesirables quietly and decisively but also equitably on some level. Exile from Earth is probably a common punishment for malcontents, and just to make themselves feel better they might justify it under some sort of "community service" mandate that requires convicted criminals to move to some colony somewhere for a period of years, knowing good and damn well that said colonist is unlikely to return to Earth once he gets comfortable out there. The ability to export ones problems to the rest of the galaxy can keep Earth a kind of pristine paradise, but it also requires mechanisms to keep foreigners from importing their problems to Earth. Certainly a planet without war would have little use for arms control laws, which is bound to attract people like the Ferengi who like to be able to run black-market shipments through Earth ports, and right on the heels of the Ferengi come pissed off mercenaries and thugs who are their customers/enemies/competitors/partners. Simply bringing back arms control laws might make sense, but those laws would be aimed exclusively at foreigners anyway; taken to this conclusion, Earth becomes vaguely isolationist, strongly restricting the activities of non-humans who may or may not share their "evolved sensibilities" as Picard put it. But an isolationist world wouldn't be the centerpiece of the United Federation of Planets, nor would its space service be spending so much time seeking out new life and new civilizations, would it? Eventually, Starfleet's contact with alien worlds would attract the interest of people that Earth would rather not be associating with, and the problems humans had so carefully suppressed in their own society would be imported from other less-developed worlds.


To step back towards reality: I believe that 23rd century Earth is merely the logical conclusion of a technological evolution: the advent of fabrication/replication technology, an immediate consequence of the transporter. This alone is what lead to the end of poverty/disease/war on Earth, and this alone results in the dismantlement of Earth's existing class structure. To explain this concisely: matter replication technology--though cumbersome in the 23rd century--allows for the extremely cheap manufacture of goods using a handful of easy-to-purchase raw materials. It also allows for the recycling of old materials into new materials with similar ease. Add to this a global telecommunications network made possible by the inevitably huge girth of bandwidth at this time, and what do you have? You have a society where education is free, where energy is plentiful, and where the purchase of a single appliance can preclude the need to ever buy anything ever again. You no longer need to work a soul-killing nine to five job just to put food on the table, the fabricator in the garage and four drums of biomass can feed your entire family for a year. Your expenses are lower, which is good, because half of the stupid jobs you'd normally be doing are now being done by robots and the other half aren't necessary anymore because all the retail outlets are out of business.

And what can a person do that a replicator or a robot can't? A person can dream, a person can dance, a person can write songs or books or perform in plays, he can raise his children, or he can teach other people's children, he can explore the stars, he can design ships and houses, he can invent new machines, he can study, he can practice, he can plan, and when he wants to, he can rest. He can follow whatever creative pursuits he wants to follow, because the fundamentals of his survival--food, shelter and security--are cheaper than dirt, and no human ever needs to subject themselves to some shit job just to survive.

It is not "evolution" that brings this about. And unless they're the source of transporter technology, it's not even First Contact with the Vulcans either. The day humans learn to use technology to free themselves from the limitations of time and biology, THEN a Star Trek society becomes possible.

It could, of course, go the other way: with a handful of humans monopolizing the technology and using replicators to build products for pennies and then sell to everyone else for hundreds of dollars. I deeply suspect this is what's wrong with, say, Cardassian and Romulan societies and might explain why their governments are so hostile to humans.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Ok, so if you wanted to start a new society you'ld need to start away from current civilisation (which is possible), you'd need money and resources to do it, there are plenty of inhabitable islands(which you would have to buy) which could easily support humans with modern farming techniques, I don't think you could influence a current society but you definetly could create your own. You can setup an independant state it's been done just of the UK on an WW2 battery where there is a king and queen, you need your passport to visit the island and it has a 2 man army. So if you gathered enough people together to put time into various projects why couldn't you do it ?

The problem, Maccy, is that food is expensive. Not expensive in terms of money, but expensive in terms of LABOR. It's hard to grow, or hard to catch, depending on what you're trying to eat. Even if you break away from the rest of organized society in true independence, your new society will end up spending ninety percent of its energy on obtaining sustenance for itself. As they develop better technology, their food-collection process becomes more efficient, and they can spend more energy on other things. The problem with this is, the people who control the food-collection technology have alot more spare energy than the people who run the technology. The controllers are necessary because they know how to develop and improve the technology and need to have time to keep working on improvements, which is something they cannot do if they're too busy running the tractors and thresher machines they spent all year inventing.

This is why capitalists exist: an ongoing investment in knowledge and technology that, in turn, empowers the rest of society. In theory, the presence of capitalists is a benefit to society as a whole, since an elite corps of thinkers who don't have to waste time in the Salt Mines now have time to think of ways to make the salt mines better. But then disproportionality and inefficiency sets in, and the elites spend much less time working on ways to improve society than they do enjoying the benefits of being in the elite. They spend less of their intellectual/financial profit on bettering society and alot more of it on simply pleasing themselves. And then you're screwed, because your new ideal society has developed once again into oligarchy.

The effort is doomed unless the technology to efficiently obtain food and shelter is available to every one of its members, as is the knowledge to use that technology without outside help. Only when the wok of survival is extremely easy does it make sense NOT to have a working class; if only small amounts of work are even needed, then EVERYONE can be a capitalist and EVERYONE can fully enjoy all that life has to offer, with complete freedom in all their affairs and total control of their fates. Without this fundamental building block, the breakaway society is just another developing country. It'll catch up to Mexico in another eighty years or so.

 

[Pauln6]

I'm watching a show called 'Last Chance to See' in the UK where Stephen Fry and Mark Cawardine are retracing the steps that Mark took with Douglas Adams 20 years ago tracking down some of the most endangered species in the world.

So far only one animal (the Northern White Rhino) might be extinct in the wild but what comes across repeatedly is that humans are trashing this world at an alarming rate partly in order to survive, partly to fund a lifestyle that isn't sustainable (e.g. slashing rain forest to set up palm oil plantations to produce bio-fuel for the western nations or killing rare animals for Chinese medicine), and partly due to territorial disputes. The expanding human population and decreasing animal population is a ticking time bomb.

I can get on my high horse because I don't drive, have never smoked or taken drugs, walk everywhere as long as it doesn't take longer than 90 minutes, exercise regualrly, don't eat red meat, and I have no children (and given the preceding lifestyle is it any wonder?). I do however waste precious electricity chatting on forums...

It's depressing. A Star Trek-style utopia can never exist until we accept that we're ALL collectively responsible for what happens everywhere else in the world. You might be able to live on your little Trekkie commune but global warming-induced droughts or starving locusts would still affect your crops. Humans, as I said, are too egocentric and I think it is going to take the Indians and Chinese too long to wise up and avoid making the same mistakes the West made. In a hundred years' time the Earth is going to be horrible and we'll be fighting over diverted (polluted) rivers. Yay.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I think any society archetype is possible on a small scale, including the one as seen in Star Trek. It's just when you try to introduce these concepts into a larger environment that you run into those inevitable troubles.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

No because people are basically tribal and susceptible to minimal group paradigms. Even if we could abolish poverty, currency, hunger, and disease, you'd still get rivalry and fights over philosophy, culture, religion, and land.

I agree with you and Myasishchev's ideas.

This short video clip of William Shatner being interviewed

taped just prior to Star Trek's NBC premiere in September 1966 on the set of the episode TOS "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"

tell what the Enterprise is really doing.
Even though one planet and a small solar system has this society setup many other societies would not be this way.

 

[Myasishchev]

I'm watching a show called 'Last Chance to See' in the UK where Stephen Fry and Mark Cawardine are retracing the steps that Mark took with Douglas Adams 20 years ago tracking down some of the most endangered species in the world.

So far only one animal (the Northern White Rhino) might be extinct in the wild but what comes across repeatedly is that humans are trashing this world at an alarming rate partly in order to survive, partly to fund a lifestyle that isn't sustainable (e.g. slashing rain forest to set up palm oil plantations to produce bio-fuel for the western nations or killing rare animals for Chinese medicine), and partly due to territorial disputes. The expanding human population and decreasing animal population is a ticking time bomb.

How so? Destroying life forms that fill important ecological niches is dangerous, but adaptation should account for any hole made by the loss of (de facto) unfit life in the shorter rather than longer term. The only real problem is that the shorter term is still several thousand/ten thousand years, not something humans generally think of a short while, but it's still nothing apocalyptic.

My main ecological concern these days is that global warming will create some positive feedback loops, stop the thermohaline circulation, destroying oceanic oxygenation and giving them to anaerobic, sulfate-using life (H2S = greenhouse gas, also toxic), release methane from beneath the permafrost in the Siberian traps (CH4 = greenhouse gas), and within a few hundred or thousand years revisit the conditions of the P-T extinction, and turn us into Vulcan.

I don't eat red meat either, though. I've come to the conclusion that it is 1)ethically suspect and 2)economically and ecologically unsustainable in the aggregate, particularly if other civilizations (Earth ones, as opposed to Romulans ) get in on that sweet bacony action.

I'd eat me some replicated pig any day, though. Or long pig, for that matter.

In a hundred years' time the Earth is going to be horrible and we'll be fighting over diverted (polluted) rivers. Yay.

And a bunch of us will die, and balance will be restored to the force, and we'll learn our lesson, and Ra's al-Ghul will say he told us so.

Yes, I'm being a little facetious.

It could, of course, go the other way: with a handful of humans monopolizing the technology and using replicators to build products for pennies and then sell to everyone else for hundreds of dollars. I deeply suspect this is what's wrong with, say, Cardassian and Romulan societies and might explain why their governments are so hostile to humans.

This is a really brilliant, very salient point, dude.

My own thoughts on the subject usually focus on how the workers' paradise is energized. Making antimatter is expensive today, and will always be expensive with "conventional" means of creation (particle accelerators). I've never bought into the magical charge switcher, on the grounds that it is absolutely unbelievable. Even if it could work, I strongly doubt that somehow changing the nature of the quarks within a baryon is going to be much more of an energy-efficient process than banging protons into stuff.

At any rate, I'd love to know the energy consumption of the average replicator. I could probably work something out with the binding energies of the things they make (and then probably multiply times ten, although it's unclear how much waste heat the things make ). If the the replicator's principle of operation is making rearrangements on a subatomic level, the energies required become even more unmanageably large (Hiroshimas in the kitchen), so I do presume it's a purely chemical process, guided by what'sit-fields and such.

But I would, ballparking, put the energy consumption of the average Earther (including civilian replicators, holodecks, and transporter, if not Starfleet vessels and installations as well, which might be a significant drain on resources as well) as well over ten thousand times the energy consumption of the average American.

That's gotta come from somewhere. I don't think it's coming from nuclear fusion, either terrestrial or solar.

So, in my long-winded way, I wonder if you think that the energy (antimatter production/refining) resources of the Federation might be a significant factor in the development, or at least Earth and the core worlds' developments, of their utopian society.

I've pointed in the past to the Romulans' use of both obsolete (Balance of Terror) and weird, hazardous (various TNG and DS9 episodes) energy sources for their starships--it raised the question, to my mind at least, why are the Romulans using "impulse"-fusion and black hole power plants when they clearly have the technology (Enterprise Incident*) for annihilator reactors, which almost never stop time, mess with time, or serve as incubators for singularity-loving baby-things, and are generally portrayed as higher-performing.

*Assuming D-7s are antimatter-driven, which I believe they almost certainly are, since same- or at most next-generation scout ships use dilithium (TVH) and thus probably antimatter.

I wonder if it's correct to conceive of the Feds, their Klingon semi-puppets, and perhaps the Ferengi and (even) the Cardassians as resource rich (if tech poor in the latter case) in comparison to say, the Romulans, who are technologically advanced but seem to lack access to the good stuff, despite having the engineering knowledge to use it.

 

[T'Girl]

You might want to take a look at some of the small island nation/states located south of Hawaii (Google Earth). While not utopia, many have good lifes, stable populations, healthy economics. They're not world players and don't want to be, fishing, farming, cottage industry, their lifes revolve around family, socializing and church. Sometimes there's a elected magastrate, other islands have a chief. They're not isolated, kids go away to college - most come back and a major medical problem will require a plane trip.

A example of the federation might be the Federated States of Micronesia, which isn't exactly a government, it a collection of the island nations. I've been there, it's nice. Their military is more of a small coast guard and a inter-island police force.

There are also some old hippie comunes fifty odd miles north-east of Seattle. Kind of money-less (have no money) societys, farms.

Life in North America?

This continent has been rated in at least one report among the world's happiest locations. We live in a Nation (Canada or USA) of predominantly civilized chains of command, enjoy fairly generous social services, suffer from little crime or civil disorder, are tollerant and respectful toward diversity, and have access to technology at a surprisingly low price.

Compared to the industrial areas of China and the religious extremes of the Middle East, life for most us is already more utopian than we realize; it is the rest of the world that needs Roddenberry's vision the most.

While imperfect, as far as utopia, right now on earth america is basically it. The long list of 'pro' far out weighs the compact list of 'con'. Both lists do exist.

While there is the potential to better ourselves, the opposite possiblity exists too.

Well Roddenberry lived in America so it's not surprising that Trek resembles an American model. I'd love to see a Russian or Chinese version though!

China. I've been there and outside the tourist spots too, no my friend, I don't think you'd love that version.

Originally Posted by Pauln6
I think the description of the USA that you postulate is rather idealised though.

---Referring to Joshua Howard's post ---

It possible to idealize the negative aspects of america too. Violence, immigation, polarizing politics, corporate culture, others too. I hold that there are far more positives than negatives.

I've never visited Scandanavian, it's hard to evaluate a group of countries by reading about them.


T'Girl.

 

[iluthradanar]

People need a reason to make a unified society work. Unfortunately trust is hard to come by. And too many leaders out that that don't deserve to lead.

Like one of my fave Kirk lines, in this case to Maab (Friday's Child) : "If you lead these people now, be sure you make the right decisions." Too many leaders couldn't care less about their people and never make the right decisions.

I always felt that if leaders would get together for the good of their nations without animosity toward other nations, then they might be able to discuss ways to make things better. If there were no hunger, we could fight disease. If we eradicated disease, we could build stations in space, and so on. But who will go first? I don't see it happening any time soon, sadly.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

With all that I am hope we do not get a 'Trekverse.

But the seeds for a totalitarian unaccommodating egocentric socialist uber-guberbent is being laid now with the idiot politicians we have in the Oval Office and Congress in the US and the general evilness of the UN... sure it could happen. And with super technology, it would only be worse. So God I hope not.

 

[Sci]

With all that I am hope we do not get a 'Trekverse.

But the seeds for a totalitarian unaccommodating egocentric socialist uber-guberbent is being laid now with the idiot politicians we have in the Oval Office and Congress in the US

Are you referring to the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, whose economic policies are chiefly formulated by Lawrence Summers, a former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Timothy Geithner, former President of the New York Federal Reserve? Perhaps you're referring to the well-known libertarian-leaning Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve? Or maybe you're talking about policies such as the large bailouts being sent to large corporations and banks to keep them from collapsing and thereby taking down American capitalism? Perhaps you're talking about President Obama's unwillingness to even demand a so-called "public option" in the health care insurance reform bill in the Senate -- and to his having already ruled out a Canadian- or British-style single-payer health care system?

That's really not so socialist, sorry.

As for totalitarian... Tell ya what. When those people protesting on the National Mall get shot for calling Obama a dictator -- you know, like what happened to the people who protested against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran this summer, in a country that is a genuine totalitarian system.... Then you can come to me claiming Obama's a totalitarian. Until then, there's nothing totalitarian about President Obama.

and the general evilness of the UN...

Tell me about it! I sure do hate an international organization that provides a neutral forum for diplomacy and cooperation between nations! And it's awful the way U.N. agencies like UNICEF, the World Health Organization, World Food Programme, Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Word Food Program go around saving millions upon millions of people every year! Just awful, all that.

 

[Elim Garak]

In theory, I suppose so. In practice, I doubt it. We are such a fickle people that even progress and enlightenment are succeptible to backlash. So one step in that direction will invariably result in someone threatened by such change guilting the nation into taking three steps back. So in terms of future human society, I think Drew Karpyshyn (Mass Effect), Joe Straczynski (Babylon 5), and Matt Groening (Futurama) were a little closer to the mark. Jackasses will always find themselves in important positions they are not qualified for, and the internet will always be too slow, no amount of IDIC will change that.

As for GR's vision, given how different Motionless Picture and season 1 of TNG were from most of the rest of Trek, one could compare GR to John Lennon, Axl Rose, or Roger Waters, and the other principle creative forces of TOS as Paul McCartney, Slash, or David Gilmour. Once John, Axl, and Roger got the total creative freedom they always wanted, the end result was a far cry from the beautiful music they made with Paul, Slash, and David. I imagine their visions changed over time, but they all eccentrically insisted that their "current" vision was what they always thought from the beginning.

 

[Joshua Howard]

In the face of all the cynicism that tends to go around regarding our primitive and warlike behavioral patterns, it is only fair to drag up Gene's perspective on the matter:

"the much-maligned common man and common woman has an enormous hunger for brotherhood. They are ready for the 23rd century now, and they are light-years ahead of their petty governments and their visionless leaders."

- Gene Roddenberry

Personally, I have had to do some rethinking of my attitude toward alot of things. It is easy to embrace something like the UFP in Star Trek, because it isn't quite as personal as real world politics. Klingon rights are not ever as hard to discuss as Human rights.

With the 9/11 attacks overshadowing my teenage years, and being raised pretty traditionally, I started off with a certain biased hatred for liberals and disrespect for institutions such as the United Nations. I viewed both as enemies of my country's imperial dominance, and by extent, a threat to my person. The concept of listening to what Muslim leaders in foreign, non-westernized nations have to say has always been hard for me to accept. Whenever somebody suggests that Palestinians or Iranians have legitimate points too, there is a part of me that wants to blow my stack.

In real life, it is hard to learn to lower your shields. I am 21, and it is difficult for me to learn tollerance and accept globalism; it is much harder for someone who is older and has held preconceptions for a lifetime. Nevertheless, this matter of social evolution, I have found to be a very personal matter. Frequently, as evolved as I may claim to be, I have to stop and hit the reset button.

Nevertheless, it is promising that humanity is beginning to think about the concept of social evolution, even if sometimes we still blunder. There was a time when the world was ruled by gods and warriors, and the philosophy of peace was burried far deeper than it is today.

 

[Sci]

In theory, I suppose so. In practice, I doubt it. We are such a fickle people that even progress and enlightenment are succeptible to backlash. So one step in that direction will invariably result in someone threatened by such change guilting the nation into taking three steps back. So in terms of future human society, I think Drew Karpyshyn (Mass Effect), Joe Straczynski (Babylon 5), and Matt Groening (Futurama) were a little closer to the mark. Jackasses will always find themselves in important positions they are not qualified for, and the internet will always be too slow, no amount of IDIC will change that.

To be fair, we should probably bear in mind that even the Earth Alliance of Babylon 5 is a considerably brighter future than what we have today: The world is united, war on Earth seems to be a thing of the past, GLBT individuals are no longer oppressed (no one batted an eye at Marcus and Franklin pretending to be a married couple), sexism has been largely overcome (there are female E.A. Presidents and female Catholic Popes and no one bats an eye), and the warring races of the galaxy are eventually able to unite under the Interstellar Alliance.

In a lot of ways, actually, Babylon 5's idea of the future reminds me of ST TOS's -- it's not utopia, but it is noticeably, and significantly, better than what exists today.

Just like, frankly, life today is noticeably, significantly better today than it was one hundred years ago.

We may never reach a pseudo-utopia a la Star Trek, but that doesn't mean that life is hopeless and it'll never get better. We do have a better future ahead of us if we can make the right choices.

 

[Pauln6]

In the face of all the cynicism that tends to go around regarding our primitive and warlike behavioral patterns, it is only fair to drag up Gene's perspective on the matter:

"the much-maligned common man and common woman has an enormous hunger for brotherhood. They are ready for the 23rd century now, and they are light-years ahead of their petty governments and their visionless leaders."

- Gene Roddenberry

Personally, I have had to do some rethinking of my attitude toward alot of things. It is easy to embrace something like the UFP in Star Trek, because it isn't quite as personal as real world politics. Klingon rights are not ever as hard to discuss as Human rights.

With the 9/11 attacks overshadowing my teenage years, and being raised pretty traditionally, I started off with a certain biased hatred for liberals and disrespect for institutions such as the United Nations. I viewed both as enemies of my country's imperial dominance, and by extent, a threat to my person. The concept of listening to what Muslim leaders in foreign, non-westernized nations have to say has always been hard for me to accept. Whenever somebody suggests that Palestinians or Iranians have legitimate points too, there is a part of me that wants to blow my stack.

In real life, it is hard to learn to lower your shields. I am 21, and it is difficult for me to learn tollerance and accept globalism; it is much harder for someone who is older and has held preconceptions for a lifetime. Nevertheless, this matter of social evolution, I have found to be a very personal matter. Frequently, as evolved as I may claim to be, I have to stop and hit the reset button.

Nevertheless, it is promising that humanity is beginning to think about the concept of social evolution, even if sometimes we still blunder. There was a time when the world was ruled by gods and warriors, and the philosophy of peace was burried far deeper than it is today.

I think that this whole thread displays the reasons why Roddenberry's future of a united, peaceful Earth is a long way off but this response gives me the most hope so far. If you acknowlegdge your factionalism and try to overcome your prejudices then the world can come together. Sadly, not every prejudice is without foundation though!

Some of the other responses, such as the hilarious comment about the 'evilness' of the UN suggest an equally common, less enlightened viewpoint i.e. that anybody whose interests do not align directly with our own is our enemy to one extent or another. This a good example of a 'minimal group paradigm' that I mentioned at the start of the thread.

The USA is not universally well-regarded by the rest of the world either and to be frank, while I can acknowledge the nation's achievements and values overall, I personally find some right-wing politicians' ideals to be terrifying when I consider how powerful the USA is as a nation.

In the UK, we became very frustrated at the amount of money that poured in from the USA in support of the IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Why should US citizens have been so willing to fund killing troops and citizens to ensure the 'freedom' of one nation 'occupied' by another and yet be willing to fund a different 'occupying' nation e.g. Israel because the 'occupation' suits their purposes and/or religious ideals? (obviously, I'm using references to 'occupation' quite loosely here). Unless the world can become one nation, with everybody working to feed and clothe everybody else, these historical notions of 'ownership' will be problematic as hungry people want 'their' land back for farming or for religious purposes.

Tgirl looks to small nation states as a model for the Trekverse and on that scale it is possible to micro-manage your society if you have enough respect for your environment. The problem there is that global warming will affect plant and animal life the world over and even those peaceful societies may find their ecosystems collapsing before too long. Will they remain the same peaceful societies if they can no longer source enough food?

Every large nation has darker aspects to its policies (darker as they relate to Roddenberry's vision that is). What is going to bring us together in the short term is a desire to prevent global warming but it's looking increasingly as if advanced and developing nations are incapable of thinking far enough ahead to reach an agreement in time. If that fails, bring on the genetic supermen!

 

[FordSVT]

Seeing as we've never experience a post-scarcity society in actuality I'd say it's hard to determine for sure whether or not it could work. We don't even know enough about their economic system to judge it.

 

[T'Girl]

In the UK, we became very frustrated at the amount of money that poured in from the USA in support of the IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Why should US citizens have been so willing to fund killing troops and citizens to ensure the 'freedom' of one nation 'occupied' by another ...

Part of it was a harking back to when we ourselves broke away from a imperial power that by the 1960's no longer existed. Also I believe my countrymen were ignorant of the type of government the IRA were going to set up in Northern Ireland, and eventual all of Ireland. As I now understand it, much like Cuba.

... to ensure the 'freedom' of one nation 'occupied' by another and yet be willing to fund a different 'occupying' nation e.g. Israel because the 'occupation' suits their purposes and/or religious ideals?

In that case we saw the Israeli as the ones being attacked and an attempt at 'occupation' (slaughter), many of us still don't understand the Palestinians who have had numerous opportunities to form their own nation, but haven't. A Palestinian nation could of been formed in the same year as Israel.