Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

[horatio83]

But again, societies and cultures do change over time. Most (not all) would agree that certainly during the TOS time period money/compensation existed. There is no indication as to how long the "spirit of volunteerism" had existed (if it even did) prior to Encounter At Farpoint. In the time period of TNG-DS9-VOY you're only talking about a fourteen and a half year time interval in Human history, just as you can't tell how long the spirit of volunteerism had existed, you also don't know how long it will last.

Kirk didn't work as Starfleet captain because the pay has been so good that he could retire early or buy that nice apartment with a view over the San Francisco bay. He was actually pretty miserable while he lived there and had more luxuries than ever before: more living space, a comfortable desk job. And he was miserable again when he was in the Nexus, a happiness machine. Kirk worked and died (the very opposite of hedonism) as captain because it was his "first, best destiny".
You cannot state it more clearly via the biography of a fictional character that hedonism and happiness (in the sense of immediate fulfillment of your dreams) are not that important. Here is my favourite philosopher talking about the issue.

If I remember it correctly having witnessed the horrors on Tarsus IV made the guy become captain. And while these altruistic and idealistic motives were surely always present he became simply used to it over the time and didn't feel at ease doing anything else (TWOK, GEN), i.e. not only selfless and idealistic people tick like Kirk.

You come from a military background so tell me why people do this soldier job, only for the money or also because there are notions like honour, duty, serving the country and so on? The Kirks are not utopian, they are all around us. Every workaholic I personally know is addicted to the job and not the money that comes along with it (not to mention that working hard doesn't always lead to more income).

 

[Nightdiamond]

But how did Kassidy Yates worked to better herself and the rest of humanity? It looks like she was working as a freighter to get paid. She ended up helping the Maquis and going to prison for it.

Throw Harry Mud in the mix. What was his motivation? He didn't need to scheme and swindle people, but that's exactly the lifestyle he chose. Or Vash from TNG.

It's like they needed to add a sense of adventure to their lives or something.

Imagine after all the human struggling to free itself of poverty and want, feeling guilt because you can have all the food and knick knacks absolutely free from a dispenser

 

[horatio83]

Mudd was a crook and I hope that he would be viewed as this in any kind of society.
Trek never implied that there will be no power-hungry or greedy people anymore, it just showed a society in which this was not socially acceptable behaviour.

Your last paragraph shows what this is about, Puritanism, feeling guilty because you have not worked hard enough. If you feel guilty you have ample opportunities in the world of Trek to sustain this replicator paradise. You could e.g. enlist in Starfleet and take the night shift in engineering to exorcise your guilt feelings.
This is a serious point. Calvinism is about the paradox of freedom, predestination made people work like crazy, realize their fate so to say. And this lunatic stuff became the basic ideology of capitalism (back in the days). I have no idea how anybody could claim that the idea that people work to "better themselves and the rest of humanity" is more crazy than this.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

This is why I liked the uniforms from ENT. The show was in general trying to be the most realistic one which is IMO not per se an asset in fiction. Perhaps a slight lack of realism like in TOS and TNG is actually useful to make a Trek show good?

I wish the the uniforms from ENT could be used in a new TV show or movie; I think that they would work better than the current ones. But that's just me.

 

[sonak]

Mudd was a crook and I hope that he would be viewed as this in any kind of society.
Trek never implied that there will be no power-hungry or greedy people anymore, it just showed a society in which this was not socially acceptable behaviour.

Your last paragraph shows what this is about, Puritanism, feeling guilty because you have not worked hard enough. If you feel guilty you have ample opportunities in the world of Trek to sustain this replicator paradise. You could e.g. enlist in Starfleet and take the night shift in engineering to exorcise your guilt feelings.
This is a serious point. Calvinism is about the paradox of freedom, predestination made people work like crazy, realize their fate so to say. And this lunatic stuff became the basic ideology of capitalism (back in the days). I have no idea how anybody could claim that the idea that people work to "better themselves and the rest of humanity" is more crazy than this.

and of course we have tons of people now, who are financially secure who continue to work. Athletes, movie stars, successful CEOs, those who've inherited money, etc. Obviously, they get satisfaction, not from the MONEY, but about something from the job-authority, a sense of doing good, the socializing, because they have fun, because it lets them be creative, etc.

Again, the question: why would this be any different in the future? It would just be everyone in society in this position, rather than a few.

 

[tafkats]

A lot of his more fuzzy-minded ideas -- the whole "there is no commerce and no money" thing, which DS9 finally pretty much jettisoned -- were eyeroll-inducing, but don't necessarily qualify as his worst.

His biggest weakness was probably that he was a dirty old man. And he hurt Trek the most when he let the horndog parts of him overwhelm the enlightened parts. Luckily, others managed to rein him in before Marina Sirtis ended up having to spend seven years wearing an extra breast. (Or would it have been two extras? I can't remember.)

 

[horatio83]

This is why I liked the uniforms from ENT. The show was in general trying to be the most realistic one which is IMO not per se an asset in fiction. Perhaps a slight lack of realism like in TOS and TNG is actually useful to make a Trek show good?

I wish the the uniforms from ENT could be used in a new TV show or movie; I think that they would work better than the current ones. But that's just me.

I also love them but would zippers look futuristic enough for the 23rd century? I doubt it, like all in ENT the uniform was made to look like something we can relate to in order to create a retro-feel.

 

[sonak]

A lot of his more fuzzy-minded ideas -- the whole "there is no commerce and no money" thing, which DS9 finally pretty much jettisoned -- were eyeroll-inducing, but don't necessarily qualify as his worst.

His biggest weakness was probably that he was a dirty old man. And he hurt Trek the most when he let the horndog parts of him overwhelm the enlightened parts. Luckily, others managed to rein him in before Marina Sirtis ended up having to spend seven years wearing an extra breast. (Or would it have been two extras? I can't remember.)

when did DS9 jettison it? They seemed to embrace it(with Jake referencing it) even while they were mocking it a little bit.

 

[horatio83]

Jake didn't seem to become a reporter because it payed so well. That kid wasted quite some years before he knew what kind of work to pursue and it didn't seem like his father urged him to earn a living. So yeah, the folks in DS9 still tick like Kirk and Picard.

 

[Melakon]

And Joseph Sisko didn't run a restaurant due to needing the money, but because he enjoyed it. Though it does make me wonder if his customers somehow "paid" for their meals or left some sort of gratuity. How do you reward good service when there's no money?

 

[I am not Spock]

DS9 always seemed to reject Roddenberry's idea of 'no money', thinking it was unrealistic, naive and/or stupid. Quite a few episodes mock the pomposity of Picard's 'we work to better ourselves' speech. Notably in 'In the Cards' (DS9)

The 'no conflict' idea of Roddenberry's, between crew members, is a dumb idea too. It removes all drama.

 

[robau]

And Joseph Sisko didn't run a restaurant due to needing the money, but because he enjoyed it. Though it does make me wonder if his customers somehow "paid" for their meals or left some sort of gratuity. How do you reward good service when there's no money?

By going back.

 

[Mr_Homn]

I've met plenty of retirees who are rich enough to live off the earnings of a successful career, who find themselves re-entering the work force to out of boredom or to stay busy or out of passion for something. I don't think it's too far fetched at all that people who live on an idyllic earth in the 24th century work or start a "business" just for the sheer fulfillment of it. (do I think the 24th century will actually be that way? hell no, but if we accept star trek's premise that 24th century earth is a utopia, I totally buy it)

Now, would people become custodians for the heck of it? Doubtful, but that's what advanced technology is for. Chefs, singers, artists, architects, archaeologists, scientists, teachers, tour guides, tailors, carpenters, mechanics, engineers? I could definitely see people working in those careers (among others) just for the satisfaction if they already live on an ideal earth.

I buy into the idea that in the star trek universe, people on earth in the 24th century work to better themselves. That Earth in the 24th century is for the most part a self contained paradise where people don't have to work if they don't want to, but there are plenty of people who do for the satisfaction and self fulfillment. For all the jobs that people don't want to do, the dirty jobs, there are plenty of non sentient robots and other forms of non sentient AI.

Outside of Earth/core federation planets, it's a whole different story. Money is an important thing on the frontier.

 

[MrArcas]

his later ideas seemed to be worse-the whole "evolved, enlightened Humanity" thing, plus the wacky idea that Starfleet wasn't military.

Hm. Just felt like this one needed response. First, I don't think Roddenberry ever saw Starfleet as not being military. They are clearly burdened with the job of Federation defense/security when needed, they have ranks, the take their orders from a centralized fleet command. It's all pretty military. But what they aren't is an analog to most modern (say, U.S.) defense organizations. Defense is part of their role, but not necessarily their primary duty. That's summed up in the start of ever show: to explore strange new worlds, to see out new life and new civilizations.

So Starfleet is NASA combined with the Navy combined with the Merchant Marine... and maybe a few other things as well. But their primary job is not "blasting bad guys", though they'll do it if required.

As Roddenberry created Trek and Starfleet, it seems odd to say he's off base in defining its character? It's kinda like saying that Lucas was wrong in making Han Solo a smuggler, or something? It's his futuristic, aspirational vision so there's no real "right and wrong" to be had there.

I'm just sayin'

 

[Nightdiamond]

I noticed the first few seasons of TNG and TOS had a heavier dose of utopia descriptions.

I don't think these ideas are worse or bad ideas, but a question of how realistic or rational the ideas are.

According to TOS, future humans don't get angry at insults anymore at all. They don't fear words.

The Neutral Zone (TNG), claims 24th century humans don't fear death, they're much more evolved than that.

Then you have the no need or want in the 24th century--humans had 'grown out their infancy'.

That sounds like humans are living in a virtual Eden getting all their needs provided for free.

And Starfleet is not the military- it is an exploration vessel that carries families and children, but will take care of military duties if necessary--with the children on board.

Is it realistic or utopian, or both?

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

According to TOS, future humans don't get angry at insults anymore at all. They don't fear words.

Are you sure about that? Scotty started a bar-room brawl over a Klingon insulting the Enterprise in Trouble With Tribbles...

 

[Third Nacelle]

I noticed the first few seasons of TNG and TOS had a heavier dose of utopia descriptions.

I don't think these ideas are worse or bad ideas, but a question of how realistic or rational the ideas are.

According to TOS, future humans don't get angry at insults anymore at all. They don't fear words.

The Neutral Zone (TNG), claims 24th century humans don't fear death, they're much more evolved than that.

Then you have the no need or want in the 24th century--humans had 'grown out their infancy'.

That sounds like humans are living in a virtual Eden getting all their needs provided for free.

And Starfleet is not the military- it is an exploration vessel that carries families and children, but will take care of military duties if necessary--with the children on board.

Is it realistic or utopian, or both?

I don't think of it as a utopia. A utopia by its very definition is stagnant and boring. I think Roddenberry's vision was of humanity working to constantly improving itself - striving toward perfection, even if perfection itself is unreachable.

And yes, the Federation does seem like an Eden by modern standards, but think of when it takes place. A lot of people seem to forget that Star Trek's setting is not 20 years in the future, not 50 years in the future, it's THREE CENTURIES in the future. A lot changes in 300 (or 400) years.

Most of our lives are like an Eden compared to life three hundred years ago. Our world is not perfect, but we have more freedoms and opportunities than ever, and we are (slowly) working toward equality. In many respects we in real life are living out Roddenberry's vision.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Are you sure about that? Scotty started a bar-room brawl over a Klingon insulting the Enterprise in Trouble With Tribbles...

Don't know about Scotty, but in one episode, after fake Lincoln unintentionally uses an offensive name for Uhura, she says she's not offended at all, and makes a statement that in their century, they've learned not to fear words.

It just seemed to suggest that the average 23d century human cant be offended by words and insults anymore.

I don't think of it as a utopia. A utopia by its very definition is stagnant and boring. I think Roddenberry's vision was of humanity working to constantly improving itself - striving toward perfection, even if perfection itself is unreachable.

And yes, the Federation does seem like an Eden by modern standards, but think of when it takes place. A lot of people seem to forget that Star Trek's setting is not 20 years in the future, not 50 years in the future, it's THREE CENTURIES in the future. A lot changes in 300 (or 400) years.

I agree too, that people have improved over time and have dumped at least some self destructive behaviors.

According to Trek, all humans have no prejudices, are unselfish, pacifist, and accepting.

What I find fascinating is that Trek is basically saying that 100% of humanity acts and thinks this way.

What could realistically cause a change like that to happen?

 

[horatio83]

WWIII plus first contact. The former opens up the ideological space, people are hungry for a new kind of society after the old one collapsed. The latter implies an alien gaze on all of humankind. Humans see themselves reflected in this gaze and perceive themselves more than before as one species. They might also feel shame which makes them wanna improve.

 

[Third Nacelle]

Are you sure about that? Scotty started a bar-room brawl over a Klingon insulting the Enterprise in Trouble With Tribbles...

Don't know about Scotty, but in one episode, after fake Lincoln unintentionally uses an offensive name for Uhura, she says she's not offended at all, and makes a statement that in their century, they've learned not to fear words.

It just seemed to suggest that the average 23d century human cant be offended by words and insults anymore.

I don't think of it as a utopia. A utopia by its very definition is stagnant and boring. I think Roddenberry's vision was of humanity working to constantly improving itself - striving toward perfection, even if perfection itself is unreachable.

And yes, the Federation does seem like an Eden by modern standards, but think of when it takes place. A lot of people seem to forget that Star Trek's setting is not 20 years in the future, not 50 years in the future, it's THREE CENTURIES in the future. A lot changes in 300 (or 400) years.

I agree too, that people have improved over time and have dumped at least some self destructive behaviors.

According to Trek, all humans have no prejudices, are unselfish, pacifist, and accepting.

What I find fascinating is that Trek is basically saying that 100% of humanity acts and thinks this way.

What could realistically cause a change like that to happen?

According to Trek? Or according to the offhand remarks of a character in Trek?

I would say most, but not all characters in Star Trek do seem less selfish, more pacifist, and in general more accepting than most modern people, but the bad qualities haven't disappeared entirely. There's still prejudice around (just look at the attitudes toward the Ferengi), selfishness (Harcourt Mudd, Cyrano Jones, Vash), and plenty of people willing to go to war.