Even GR's ethos must be challenged with negativity of real world difficulties.
It's a more alien look. I find it more interesting that TNG's.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
Ok here's a "NEW" Vulcan : Look at the ears 
!
!
Ok here's a "NEW" Vulcan : Look at the ears
Those insidious bastards.
Also, I just to tap on something that was just mentioned a few posts back... Re socialm/captailism.
No. Just no. Star Trek does not depict a socialist future. As Picard said, we grow out of our infancy. The great thing about a Trek future, and it's a future we may likely head towards without any choice anyway, is that Capitalism and Socialism will freaking die of suffocation. Good.
We need not suffer under a dictator who tries to make everything "fair" by robbing individual successes, nor do we need that day-to-day back breaking grind to reach the top any more. Those modes and models become as antiquated as the barter system. You can push a button and make anything you want. You can break down anything else you want and get raw material back free. Nothing goes to waste! Wearing a pair of socks that forms a hole? Throw em back into your atomic-deconstructer and re-replicate new socks. Boom, blam! That's the world of Star Trek. That's how you get Utopia. People no longer have the need anymore and want for nothing.
I want Picard's winery. Or Kirk's bayside view.
I want whatever it was that the Fleming was carrying. I'm dying of Choriocytosis and I need naturally-occurring strobolin.
Not everything can be replicated. Even in Star Trek.
That's a dodge. At best. We're talking about the baselines here. My point still stands. It's not socialism and it's not capitalism.
As for the constantly changing Klingon look, I'd simply borrow a concept theologians introduced to reconcile seemingly incongruous statements about God and the afterlife and such found in different bible books: progressive revelation. If they can do it for matters they consider reality and the ultimate truth, why can't we for shows that were only made to entertain us (and earn them some money)? 
Last edited:
Just wanna cross post something someone said in the logic extremist thread:
###
###
Reason I post it is it related to this thread really well.
I don't necessarily think this is what is happening to Star Trek, there might be a massive cathartic re-affirmation of the Federation's ideals, in Discovery.
But it raises questions about the strain of perceptions that think of Roddenberry as a failed prophet - actually, his predictions of social progress seem well attested, and that kind of unrepentant modernism could be a good example for the world.
As I pointed out in a reply, the 1960s were an incredibly violent time, yet he came up with this then, and didn't feel that 60s society proved it was a pipe dream.
###
They are slowly backing away from Star Trek's radically progressive ethics, with each adaptation, aren't they?
Where once Earth was basically crime free by the 24th century, with the implication being that centuries of social progress had eliminated the roots of violence and poverty almost entirely.... Where Kirk talked of crime as being merely a social disease to be treated and no longer resented or punished for the gratification of the victim... Where once Vulcan was held to be a society bred to pacifism, which had abandoned passion and prejudice through reason after realizing it would destroy them... Where once the ethical position, was, quite rightly, that crime/violence can and should be eliminated, and is not 'inevitable'...
...slowly we now come toward today's public perception of crime/violence being inalienable from society.
This is all despite some pretty substantial evidence from the scientific community that this is not in fact the case, and the roots of violence are slowly dying out, with less and less casualties in war and crime with every passing year. Where Star Trek may have been at it's most prophetic when it believed wholesale in the elimination of social problems by the 24th century, each new adaptation seems, to me at least, to think of that view as being an archaic relic, despite the fact that it seems to be genuinely attested to by scholarship, and another example of foresight.
Vulcans, held to have undergone a reasoned rejection of prejudice, now have 'extremist' suicide bombers.
With each new adaptation, it seems we go further and further toward exceptional examples of prejudiced admirals and corrupt captains, and we have less and less of the Trek's prophetic belief in the ultimate triumph of naturalism - it seems more and more of the 21st century's present cynicism determines what is thought of as realistic - the war on terror, the race and crime problems in the United States, etc.
Where once Earth was basically crime free by the 24th century, with the implication being that centuries of social progress had eliminated the roots of violence and poverty almost entirely.... Where Kirk talked of crime as being merely a social disease to be treated and no longer resented or punished for the gratification of the victim... Where once Vulcan was held to be a society bred to pacifism, which had abandoned passion and prejudice through reason after realizing it would destroy them... Where once the ethical position, was, quite rightly, that crime/violence can and should be eliminated, and is not 'inevitable'...
...slowly we now come toward today's public perception of crime/violence being inalienable from society.
This is all despite some pretty substantial evidence from the scientific community that this is not in fact the case, and the roots of violence are slowly dying out, with less and less casualties in war and crime with every passing year. Where Star Trek may have been at it's most prophetic when it believed wholesale in the elimination of social problems by the 24th century, each new adaptation seems, to me at least, to think of that view as being an archaic relic, despite the fact that it seems to be genuinely attested to by scholarship, and another example of foresight.
Vulcans, held to have undergone a reasoned rejection of prejudice, now have 'extremist' suicide bombers.
With each new adaptation, it seems we go further and further toward exceptional examples of prejudiced admirals and corrupt captains, and we have less and less of the Trek's prophetic belief in the ultimate triumph of naturalism - it seems more and more of the 21st century's present cynicism determines what is thought of as realistic - the war on terror, the race and crime problems in the United States, etc.
###
Reason I post it is it related to this thread really well.
I don't necessarily think this is what is happening to Star Trek, there might be a massive cathartic re-affirmation of the Federation's ideals, in Discovery.
But it raises questions about the strain of perceptions that think of Roddenberry as a failed prophet - actually, his predictions of social progress seem well attested, and that kind of unrepentant modernism could be a good example for the world.
As I pointed out in a reply, the 1960s were an incredibly violent time, yet he came up with this then, and didn't feel that 60s society proved it was a pipe dream.
Just wanna cross post something someone said in the logic extremist thread:
###
They are slowly backing away from Star Trek's radically progressive ethics, with each adaptation, aren't they?
Where once Earth was basically crime free by the 24th century, with the implication being that centuries of social progress had eliminated the roots of violence and poverty almost entirely.... Where Kirk talked of crime as being merely a social disease to be treated and no longer resented or punished for the gratification of the victim... Where once Vulcan was held to be a society bred to pacifism, which had abandoned passion and prejudice through reason after realizing it would destroy them... Where once the ethical position, was, quite rightly, that crime/violence can and should be eliminated, and is not 'inevitable'...
...slowly we now come toward today's public perception of crime/violence being inalienable from society.
This is all despite some pretty substantial evidence from the scientific community that this is not in fact the case, and the roots of violence are slowly dying out, with less and less casualties in war and crime with every passing year. Where Star Trek may have been at it's most prophetic when it believed wholesale in the elimination of social problems by the 24th century, each new adaptation seems, to me at least, to think of that view as being an archaic relic, despite the fact that it seems to be genuinely attested to by scholarship, and another example of foresight.
Vulcans, held to have undergone a reasoned rejection of prejudice, now have 'extremist' suicide bombers.
With each new adaptation, it seems we go further and further toward exceptional examples of prejudiced admirals and corrupt captains, and we have less and less of the Trek's prophetic belief in the ultimate triumph of naturalism - it seems more and more of the 21st century's present cynicism determines what is thought of as realistic - the war on terror, the race and crime problems in the United States, etc.
###
Reason I post it is it related to this thread really well.
I don't necessarily think this is what is happening to Star Trek, there might be a massive cathartic re-affirmation of the Federation's ideals, in Discovery.
But it raises questions about the strain of perceptions that think of Roddenberry as a failed prophet - actually, his predictions of social progress seem well attested, and that kind of unrepentant modernism could be a good example for the world.
As I pointed out in a reply, the 1960s were an incredibly violent time, yet he came up with this then, and didn't feel that 60s society proved it was a pipe dream.
That's very fascinating and a good catch. I don't know if that's happening with trek either but it'll be something worth paying attention to as I watch.
I would say in DS9 and Voyager, most of the crew's exposure to a criminal element, from what I remember, seemed to be from other cultures, ds9 especially. So I'm not sure about trek installments backing away from it.
Yeah, I am not entirely sure myself whether the impressions match the reality, but I made this reply at the time:
I think this is an excellent point - it's not that art isn't a reflection of the times as fireproof78 said - I agree with that - its more that TOS was already written in a time of great violence and possible nuclear war itself, but was prescient enough to know that all real metrics pointed to the elimination of violence, whenever reason triumphed - all periods of great massacre were idealistic, not naturalistic - the Nazis may have been good at using engineering, but Nazism was basically a dark age religion with irrational dogmas, it believed things that were already pseudoscience at the time - accepted ridiculous conspiracy theories about other ethnic groups - whiggish liberalism and natural realism always produced calmer societies, with steady progress, however flawed - and grand social experiments based on idealism and 'perfecting humanity' like the French Revolution, Russian Revolution and fascist regimes, led to your red terrors, gulags and holocausts.
So Star Trek prophetically predicted that a society could overcome all the social causes of violence and crime over time, through steady expansion of rights and literacy, science and reason, and the rejection of 'ideological perfection of society'. As far as I know, this is still the scholarly consensus. But you sometimes come across arguments saying that TOS and TNG were hopelessly idealistic, or are dated by their beliefs.
So, if each new adaptation of Star Trek feels that it has to retreat from this standpoint of 'big history', seeing the decline of social problems and violence, and instead make it's main 'good guy' societies, Earth and Vulcan, ever more violent, then what does this tell us? Perhaps exploring human problems with non-Federation societies was correct.
So Star Trek prophetically predicted that a society could overcome all the social causes of violence and crime over time, through steady expansion of rights and literacy, science and reason, and the rejection of 'ideological perfection of society'. As far as I know, this is still the scholarly consensus. But you sometimes come across arguments saying that TOS and TNG were hopelessly idealistic, or are dated by their beliefs.
So, if each new adaptation of Star Trek feels that it has to retreat from this standpoint of 'big history', seeing the decline of social problems and violence, and instead make it's main 'good guy' societies, Earth and Vulcan, ever more violent, then what does this tell us? Perhaps exploring human problems with non-Federation societies was correct.
Gene Coon primarily modeled the Klingons, metaphorically, on contemporary Russians, making the standoff between the species and the Federation representative of that between the Russians and the Americans during the then-ongoing Cold War. This view of the Klingons had their sociology theoretically aimed at "the collective good" rather than "individuality," as pointed out by Kor actor John Colicos. - Memory Alpha
If this is the case, then Roddenberry, much maligned here (or maybe Coon?), may have been at his most prophetic and correct when predicting a vastly improved human society - it might be one of the intangible factors which made Star Trek a phenomenon, rather than just another space opera - if so, what does it lose when it rejects it's ideals and conforms to the prevailing mood?
You are right. Star Trek isn't a socialist future. It shows us a post-scarcity society.
Exactly so.
This is one reason that we liked stuff like Star Trek then. It kind of went against the grain in some ways, because TV was pretty much a vast landscape of ideological and social conformity.
In 2017, as a high-investment product of a huge media company, Star Trek has become part of that landscape.
As a very "left wing" person who has been called socialist by many people I am often amazed at the tossing around of the word socialism, it seems very misunderstood. I wouldn't consider the federation as a socialist society. I wouldn't take a society that simply takes care of one another altruistically absent of capitalism, socialism. It seems a separate political mechanism altogether.
That 1980 point from a fan reminds me of a previous talk involving Spielberg and Lucas:
Steven Spielberg denies predicting 'Hollywood implosion'
From what I gathered, the point is that there's too much money in the system, and given that and competition, studios have to make more expensive movies and even TV shows targeted to a global audience. That means high marketing costs, lots of special effects and sometimes even A-listers to make the movie look expensive, and other means to justify high ticket prices or new costs like subscription (which doesn't include the cost of accessing the 'net). Given that, the movie and TV industries can become very volatile because of large amounts at risk and market saturation.
We've probably seen part of this phenomenon in action through STD, which I read costs around $8 million per episode and required Netflix international sales to cover production costs. Similar can be seen in other media, from blockbuster movies tailored to target the Chinese market to increasing pressure to develop merchandise like expensive video games in a market where there are already too many games.
Given that, we should expect more produced changes in the way the franchise is depicted as more money is invested and an international audience (with many of its members not ST fans) is targeted.
Steven Spielberg denies predicting 'Hollywood implosion'
From what I gathered, the point is that there's too much money in the system, and given that and competition, studios have to make more expensive movies and even TV shows targeted to a global audience. That means high marketing costs, lots of special effects and sometimes even A-listers to make the movie look expensive, and other means to justify high ticket prices or new costs like subscription (which doesn't include the cost of accessing the 'net). Given that, the movie and TV industries can become very volatile because of large amounts at risk and market saturation.
We've probably seen part of this phenomenon in action through STD, which I read costs around $8 million per episode and required Netflix international sales to cover production costs. Similar can be seen in other media, from blockbuster movies tailored to target the Chinese market to increasing pressure to develop merchandise like expensive video games in a market where there are already too many games.
Given that, we should expect more produced changes in the way the franchise is depicted as more money is invested and an international audience (with many of its members not ST fans) is targeted.
I consider myself a socialist too, but I must admit that in the name of socialism, there have been a lot of attempts at 'social engineering', in which the "common good" was placed above the value of the individual. In TOS, Coon and Roddenberry explicitly rejected societies in which the individual life was not an "end in itself", but somehow became a "means". They had both fought some of the worst of these systems - in WW2 they fought Japan and Germany - and they modeled the Klingons on their worst experiences. With age, I still support the socialist candidate in British elections, but I'm aware that even within the Labour Party, there have been people who lost sight of the individual as an end in itself, over time, so I do so with wary caution. Recently someone argued to me that the point at which the divergence occurred was Plato and Aristotle - Plato was game for using art, education, etc, to 'sculpt' society, which unfortunately seems to always result in the individual becoming a means - Aristotle however was all about accepting the natural reality here and now and working with that - so he could be seen as the ancestor of "individual rights" being slowly won through democracy - the ancestor of the US Constitution's famous position of all people having right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". For a totalitarian, a human is merely a vector of ideology, and art merely a weapon - just as how the Cardassians, Romulans, etc, treat it.
I find your post well thought out and a compelling addition to the conversation, however to clarify I didn't mean to say I consider myself a socialist, just very far left having been ACCUSED of being socialist. Not that I have a problem with socialism ;(
I find your thoughts on democracy and the US constitutional rights and Aristotle very interesting.
Which is still a far sight better than when the previous few series weren't even able to accomplish that.
Thanks, I guess maybe calling myself socialist might be too strong, but basically, I support whichever candidate is most rationally for the good of the individual, and in my judgement, that is usually more a Jeremy Corbyn figure than a David Cameron, although not always. Communism produced horrors through ideology, but capitalism all too often produces horrors through indifference. Interestingly, at their most extreme, both tell the individual they need to sacrifice themselves for others, or to be guilty of who and what they are ("you shirker/scrounger") - I believe without irony that the individual should never have to feel it is a burden, convinced by a malicious system - as Bill just aptly said.
I find the whole Aristotle vs. Plato thing interesting - the idea is that Rosseau, Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and so on, were products of Plato's thinking, and that Aristotle produced the humanists - the history books seem to suggest that while they start out imperfect, the stable "life, liberty and happiness" democracies ultimately do more good than the attempts at sudden and radical transformation through ideology - as if the security of the individual and life is the ultimate basis of the success of a civic society - I guess I'm for democracy first and foremost, the rest comes naturally.
