Is a Star Trek Society Possible ?

[Pauln6]

Taking this back a notch - this is precisiely why a Star Trek utopia won't be happening any time soon. People's opinions are widely divided regarding the way limited resources are divided up. Until resources aren't limited, we're all going to be arguing and in some cases warring with eac other.

 

[T'Girl]

Every time I hear this line I invariably point out that a Sioux Indian nation COULD have been formed at the same time as the United States. So could a Choctaw nation, or a Navajo nation, or an Iroqouis nation, etc. Strictly speaking, each of these groups DID have their own sovereign nation before and after the Revolutionary War; what they didn't have was RECOGNITION by the United States, in which case their sovereignty meant exactly dick.

A Palestinian nation without recognition is as good as a Kurdish nation, or an independent tibet, or an independent Hawaii, or Argentina's claim on the falkland islands. The ability to claim something doesn't matter if the people who count--the people who have demonstrated a tendency to enter your claimed territory and boss you around--don't respect those claims. Therefore, Israel was able to become a nation because it made a claim on its own accord and was able to back it up with force. The Palestinians weren't; the Egyptians controlled half of their territory and the Jordanians controlled the other half, and that ended only when both were chased out by the Israelis.

Israel didn't make a claim on it own accord. The 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181, was to create simultaneously both a jewish state (Israel) and an arab state (Palestine), The Jews said yes, the Palestinian and arab leaders said no. Palestine would of been created by the UN out of a chunk of western Jordon, basically the west bank and a little bit more, but no gaza strip. Palestine would of been recognized by all UN member countries, including the United States.

In july of 2000, during a camp david meeting between Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, to negotiate a "final status settlement", President Clinton openly begged Chairman Arafat to declare a Palestinian state, Prime Minister Barak had already agreed to mutual recognize of each others countires. All arab countries, Britain and most other european countries would of recognize a Palestinian state as well

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said no.

 

[Pauln6]

Israel didn't make a claim on it own accord. The 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181, was to create simultaneously both a jewish state (Israel) and an arab state (Palestine), The Jews said yes, the Palestinian and arab leaders said no. Palestine would of been created by the UN out of a chunk of western Jordon, basically the west bank and a little bit more, but no gaza strip. Palestine would of been recognized by all UN member countries, including the United States.

In july of 2000, during a camp david meeting between Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, to negotiate a "final status settlement", President Clinton openly begged Chairman Arafat to declare a Palestinian state, Prime Minister Barak had already agreed to mutual recognize of each others countires. All arab countries, Britain and most other european countries would of recognize a Palestinian state as well

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said no.

Yes I think the impasse stemmed from the fact that the British made the arabs certain assurances in order to gain their support during WWII. Setting up Israel essentially involved pinching land that had been promised to them in exchange for their help.

What made it worse is that Roosevelt and Chamberlain (or was it Eden?)were allegedly part of the Christian sect that believes in the literal truth of Revelations i.e. that the region must be in the hands of the Jews so that the faithful can be raptured to Heaven. That was probably only one factor in the process but it adds another reason why the Muslims felt aggrieved I suppose.

 

[Kegg]

One of the big things about the Star Trek society is replicators. Machines that can transform matter into equivalent matter of any shape or size. The effect of such machines would, well, profoundly change the way society works and how we interact with that society. A moneyless society may not strike one as the most likely solution, but certainly economy as we understand it would no longer exist.

Sectarian issues can also be pushed aside if there's a bigger 'other'. If humans had to rally together to establish a place for our species in the universe there may well be a greater push towards world government as a necessity rather than merely a noble ideal - we band together or get stomped on by aliens. Our call. With replicators solving most of our societal and economic problems and aliens being the new 'Other' we unite against...

Well a Star Trek society may not result, but for anything remotely resembling one to work these two hypotheticals would need to exist.

What made it worse is that Roosevelt and Chamberlain were allegedly part of the Christian sect that believes in the literal truth of Revelations i.e. that the region must be in the hands of the Jews so that the faithful can be raptured to Heaven.

F.D.R. and Neville Chaberlain? Well, no, we can reasonably say that if they were they did a fantastic job of hiding it as there's no evidence their religion leaned in this direction. They were also a little busy being dead when Israel was set up, which wasn't done at the behest of Britain - although settling the Jews there dates all the way back to World War I and the Balfour Declaration. The same Balfour who took a rather dire view on Ireland, ironically, but hey, it's funny how these various sectarian problems can intersect like that.

Balfour's appeal did include a Christian element, but more of a general Christian sentiment that the Jews were God's chosen people and not exactly that their occupation of Israel will bring the Rapture, which is a tenet of thought fairly unique to American theology.

 

[Pauln6]

What made it worse is that Roosevelt and Chamberlain were allegedly part of the Christian sect that believes in the literal truth of Revelations i.e. that the region must be in the hands of the Jews so that the faithful can be raptured to Heaven.

F.D.R. and Neville Chaberlain? Well, no, we can reasonably say that if they were they did a fantastic job of hiding it as there's no evidence their religion leaned in this direction. They were also a little busy being dead when Israel was set up, which wasn't done at the behest of Britain - although settling the Jews there dates all the way back to World War I and the Balfour Declaration. The same Balfour who took a rather dire view on Ireland, ironically, but hey, it's funny how these various sectarian problems can intersect like that.

Balfour's appeal did include a Christian element, but more of a general Christian sentiment that the Jews were God's chosen people and not exactly that their occupation of Israel will bring the Rapture, which is a tenet of thought fairly unique to American theology.

Tee hee - sorry, my history is flaky. The British administered Jerusalem for quite a while after WWII - I guess FDR and Chamberlain/Eden were involved in that process rather than setting up the state of Israel itself. I think the UN decision came about because the British were finding it increasingly hard to maintain control.

I only mentioned their religious leanings because I saw it in a documentary. I can't vouch for the basis of their allegations as I saw it a while ago but yes, the gist of it was that they both believed in Revelations. Whether that played any part in their political decisions is something drifting into the world of fantasy but it shouldn't be a surprise that the Muslim community thinks that religious bias was part of their motivation.

 

[Kegg]

The British administered Jerusalem for quite a while after WWII - I guess FDR and Chamberlain/Eden were involved in that process rather than setting up the state of Israel itself.

Not only was Chamberlain, you know, dead, he'd ceased to have any political relevance from 1940 when he'd ceased being Prime Minister. The only American who had any say in the matter was actually Harry S. Truman, rather than the (dead) Roosevelt, who decided to support Israel's statehood and so on.

I only mentioned their religious leanings because I saw it in a documentary. I can't vouch for the basis of their allegations as I saw it a while ago but yes, the gist of it was that they both believed in Revelations.

They were both conventional, orthodox Christians insofar as it was publicly known, yeah. That means believing in the books of the Bible, but it does not mean believing the book of Revelation says that the state of Israel has to exist for the apocalypse and end times to come.*

That's one particular interpretation of the book, and it's one that did not actually exist at the time Roosevelt and Chamberlain were alive - it's come since then, with the political reality of America supporting Israel and presenting a fresh religious justification for such.

Well, I've sort of veered way off the topic so I'll leave it at that.

*Which it doesn't, or at least not in a manner that it is a plainly evident reading. Given that a lot of it is actually about Turkey I wonder what end time evangelists make of that, but I disgress.

 

[Pauln6]

Thanks for that, my history isn't up to scratch and I saw the documentary about 2 years ago so my memory for the names of the architects isn't great. In addition, the makers of the documentary were no doubt pushing their own agenda, although the British decision to sieze control of the region is well-documented as is the fact that this was in breach of their earlier agreement with their wartime arab allies. It was most probably Truman that they placed in the frame for the US decision-making as you say. It's a divisive issue, and you've most people don't have access even to the kind of information we're discussing here so their opinions and prejudices are based on even more limited facts and supposition.

We're trying to examine if a Utopian Trekverse is a possibility. Trek plays around the edges of these divisive factors with its allegorical aliens but even the Trek writers say that they find it difficult to function in a world where all the Federation characters get along. It's human nature to argue and fight. Our favourite tv shows are about conflict. People are obsessed with scandal. Our news shows rarely tell us anything good. We're just a mean old species.

EDIT: Just been watching a documentary about twins. It looks like as much as 50% of our behaviour could be down to our genes. I'm now even more certain that a Trekverse is never going to happen.

 

[T'Girl]

Are we discusing the Trek society of Kirk's era, the time of Picard or the war years during DS9? We know that Kirk's time was one of exploration and expansion, earth at least was establishing colonies. Earth may not have possessed a united government.

Picard's time may be the one that is most thought of as utopian, very optimistic, except on the frontier no wars, the land of plenty.

Sisko's world is a bit more troubling, a time of contention and war. The federation's expansion is running into the walls of other governments. There's one episode I remember where there's shown a civilian court being presided over by a uniformed star fleet officer, semi-scary.

Major wars change societies. Post war (WWII) america, japan and europe were very different than pre-war, how utopian is the post-DS9 federation and earth?

 

[Sci]

Are we discusing the Trek society of Kirk's era, the time of Picard or the war years during DS9? We know that Kirk's time was one of exploration and expansion, earth at least was establishing colonies. Earth may not have possessed a united government.

Um, no. TNG's "Attached" established quite explicitly -- and Star Trek: Enterprise backed it up in episodes like "The Forge" -- that the planetary state of United Earth was established by, at the latest, 2150 -- 116 years before the time of TOS. Further, the Federation was established in 2161.

And plenty of those colonies Kirk and Co. helped to established were Federation colonies rather than specifically United Earth colonies.

Sisko's world is a bit more troubling, a time of contention and war. The federation's expansion is running into the walls of other governments. There's one episode I remember where there's shown a civilian court being presided over by a uniformed star fleet officer, semi-scary.

I have no such memory. The only trials I remember were in "Dax" (a Bajoran trial presided over by a Bajoran matron) and the court martial in "Rules of Engagement," which was a Starfleet court martial presided over by a Vulcan admiral.

The closest I can think of to what you describe is "Dr. Bashir, I Presume?," where Dr. Bashir's father works out a plea bargain with a Starfleet admiral where he agrees to a term at a penal colony in return for Bashir getting to retain his Starfleet commission. There's no evidence that that admiral controlled the civilian judicial system, though, just that he controlled whether or not Dr. Bashir got to stay in Starfleet.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Every time you pay taxes and then that money is spent on some program like 'cash for clunkers' or 'a bailout' or ACORN, your rights are violated.

Ummm. No. We have free and fair, democratic elections every year. The majority of people in this country vote in legislators who support these programs. The majority of people support these programs. We are not subject to taxation without representation, and therefore no one's rights have been violated. (Well, except for the rights of residents of the District of Columbia and the territories, who don't get U.S. Representatives and Senators.)

Now, when Congress starts canceling elections and appropriates money without a democratic mandate every two years? Then our rights will have been violated, just like they were before the Revolution.

Just because someone is voted into office doesn't mean they get cart blanche to do whatever the hell they want.

Correct. They get authorization to do whatever they are legally empowered to do. None of the programs proposed by Obama have actually violated any Federal laws.

Which these programs are, just some bad idea to spend tax payer.

Except that none of them are illegal. And in point of fact, some of them--the bailout, for example--weren't even Obama's idea. Or are you not aware of the fact that the PRESIDENT doesn't write legislation for congress to vote on?

It's not right nor constitutional.

Exactly what part of the constitution do any of those programs violate?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Taking this back a notch - this is precisiely why a Star Trek utopia won't be happening any time soon. People's opinions are widely divided regarding the way limited resources are divided up. Until resources aren't limited, we're all going to be arguing and in some cases warring with eac other.

^ Don't confuse simple ignorance with a difference of opinion. As I stated upthread, a post-scarcity society has the potential to degenerate into oligarchy if the mechanisms of production are again monopolized by a wealthy elite; the only way this can really happen is the intentional disempowerment of the majority to maintain the supremacy o the elite. Education, and a the proliferation of honesty and reason, can remedy this situation, especially in an age where access to education comes cheaply and a preference for knowledgeability and reason is encouraged.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Every time I hear this line I invariably point out that a Sioux Indian nation COULD have been formed at the same time as the United States. So could a Choctaw nation, or a Navajo nation, or an Iroqouis nation, etc. Strictly speaking, each of these groups DID have their own sovereign nation before and after the Revolutionary War; what they didn't have was RECOGNITION by the United States, in which case their sovereignty meant exactly dick.

A Palestinian nation without recognition is as good as a Kurdish nation, or an independent tibet, or an independent Hawaii, or Argentina's claim on the falkland islands. The ability to claim something doesn't matter if the people who count--the people who have demonstrated a tendency to enter your claimed territory and boss you around--don't respect those claims. Therefore, Israel was able to become a nation because it made a claim on its own accord and was able to back it up with force. The Palestinians weren't; the Egyptians controlled half of their territory and the Jordanians controlled the other half, and that ended only when both were chased out by the Israelis.

Israel didn't make a claim on it own accord.

Actually, they did. They interpreted the U.N. resolution as a broad mandate for sovereignty and then used military force to impose that sovereignty. Which, basically, is exactly what the United States did in 1776.

Had Israel been defeated in 1948, both the resolution and their declaration of independence would be irrelevant. It would be just another resolution re: middle eastern distributions that some such party refuses to honor (there are about a dozen of these relating to the Palestinians that the Israelis flatly ignore).

Posession is nine tenths of the law, even in international law. It isn't about what the law says as much as it is about one's ability to ENFORCE that law. That the United States is in clear violation of every Indian treaty ever signed is equally irrelevant since none of the dispossessed Indian tribes have the means to take back the land that was literally stolen right out from under them.

In july of 2000, during a camp david meeting between Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, to negotiate a "final status settlement", President Clinton openly begged Chairman Arafat to declare a Palestinian state, Prime Minister Barak had already agreed to mutual recognize of each others countires. All arab countries, Britain and most other european countries would of recognize a Palestinian state as well

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said no.

And I remember why, as Arafat publicly said that the state was being asked to declare would be non viable since Israel would still control huge swaths of it--often long corridors extending through the core of it, connecting settlements in the middle of the West Bank--and would reserve the right to enter the Palestinian state at any time for any reason. Basically, statehood in name only, and then as a reward for abandoning nearly all of the core Palestinian demands such as access to water supply, control of their own borders, representation the United Nations and some serious attempt to address the right of return. Barack and Clinton then got to turn around and say "See? They don't want peace," after Arafat walked away from what were essentially terms for surrender.

It's basically the same deal the U.S. made with the Choctaw in 1831, not long before the Trail of Tears.

 

[Steelworker]

After reading most of the posts in this thread it seems there is a general consensus that the major factors prohibiting the existence of a 'Star Trek Society' are...

Scarcity of resources: There must be provided for each human being sufficient food, shelter, clothing, and education, regardless of the ability or willingness of the individual to contribute to the whole.

Human divisiveness: Humans as a species must develop the ability and/or skills to atain a general state of peace, despite the seemingly inherent aggresion and desire for conflict in our species.

Everyone posting here seems to agree that a 'Star Trek Society' would be a fairly nice place to live, but many are pessimistic about it ever becoming a reality. Am I the only one who sees the humor in this?

Basicly, what I am hearing here is many posters saying 'I'd love it, but the rest of the species is far too primitive to allow it to happen'.

I think it -is- possible, and the fact that we have imagined it makes it attainable. Remember that there was a time in human history where life in anything larger than a 300 person tribe was inconcievable. I do not claim to know how long it will take to become a reality, but I am sure that the technological advances will happen before the sociological ones.

 

[Pauln6]

After reading most of the posts in this thread it seems there is a general consensus that the major factors prohibiting the existence of a 'Star Trek Society' are...

Scarcity of resources: There must be provided for each human being sufficient food, shelter, clothing, and education, regardless of the ability or willingness of the individual to contribute to the whole.

Human divisiveness: Humans as a species must develop the ability and/or skills to atain a general state of peace, despite the seemingly inherent aggresion and desire for conflict in our species.

Everyone posting here seems to agree that a 'Star Trek Society' would be a fairly nice place to live, but many are pessimistic about it ever becoming a reality. Am I the only one who sees the humor in this?

Basicly, what I am hearing here is many posters saying 'I'd love it, but the rest of the species is far too primitive to allow it to happen'.

I think it -is- possible, and the fact that we have imagined it makes it attainable. Remember that there was a time in human history where life in anything larger than a 300 person tribe was inconcievable. I do not claim to know how long it will take to become a reality, but I am sure that the technological advances will happen before the sociological ones.

That's a pretty good summary.

Another potential obstacle could be our genes. I was watching a program on twins which suggests that as much as 50% of human behaviour is dictated by our genes. So it could be the same genes that were so important to our survival as a primitive species are actually blocking our ability to join together as a species because they are counter-intuitive to our survival instincts.

To ensure a Star Trek utopia will we have to breed out our grumpy, competitive, aggressive genes? If so, that certainly won't be happening within the next 200 years without some artificial genetic tweaking. And if we do, does that mean that we will also lose our drive and ambition to explore space to the extent shown in Trek? Would we end up like the Eloi in the Time Machine instead; a united world of happy hedonists, prey to more aggressive species?

 

[Kegg]

Basicly, what I am hearing here is many posters saying 'I'd love it, but the rest of the species is far too primitive to allow it to happen'.

Hey now, I'm plenty primitive also. I just think the existence of a Star Trek society is dependant on things which either do not currently exist or we don't have evidence they exist - replicators and alien life, respectively. Even still I'm not convinced these factors = Star Trek! because reality is messy and unpleasant and some of humanity is almost as venal as I am.

 

[Steelworker]

One, I happen to think that replicators are not the only mechanism possible for providing all the basic survival needs of humanity, although they would be really cool...

Two, the discovery of alien intelligent life would most likely provide a means of uniting humanity by the mechanism of xenophobia, triggering an Us against Them reflex...

Does anyone have any other input on why this sort of society can/cannot ever exist?

 

[Kegg]

One, I happen to think that replicators are not the only mechanism possible for providing all the basic survival needs of humanity, although they would be really cool...

'Basic survival needs' aren't all of what replicators cover. They also cover all luxury interests, i.e. any material need. Providing basic survival material to all people need not result in a world incredibly more different than ours (if we're talking really basic - food, water, shelter) but unlimited supplies of anything is groundbreaking.

Two, the discovery of alien intelligent life would most likely provide a means of uniting humanity by the mechanism of xenophobia, triggering an Us against Them reflex...

That's pretty much what I said, yeah. If the aliens we meet aren't hostile, though, like the Vulcans, then the desire to progress to be a civilized culture in a wider galaxy might also play a role.

 

[Steelworker]

I think that providing even the most basic survival needs of every human actually will change the world considerably. Try to imagine the changes that might occur in our culture and our technology if every member of our species was guaranteed that their basic survival was provided for. As evidence that this is not just wishful thinking I offer the following...

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

 

[Kegg]

I think that providing even the most basic survival needs of every human actually will change the world considerably.

Just not as much as a replicator. Not even close. The difference is it sounds like at least a semi-feasible goal, while the replicator is quite literally the stuff of magic.

We'd still have substantively speaking a fairly similar economic system to the ones proposed or existing. Replicators shatter all of that.

 

[Steelworker]

Consider the ramifications of providing for the needs of every human being. Not just the direct benefits of improving quality of life for a huge number of our fellow men/women, but the indirect and unpredictable results. Think for a moment of the developments that may arise which we cannot predict. I know that sounds contradictory, but what I mean is that even though we cannot say exactly what will happen in terms of technological and sociological developments, we can be very sure that developments will happen, that cannot happen with things as they are now. How many possible Einsteins and Planks, how many Stephen Hawkings have we lost due to childhood mortality from lack of clean water and refrigeration for medicines?