...bulletin board moderators....
Star Trek and Human Progress
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
If you rewatch the scene you'll find your memory is faulty. According to LaForge it was the invention of the warp drive that allowed first contact with the Vulcans, and it is that first contact that caused humanity to realize they weren't alone in the universe, and that realization directly caused humans to fundamentally shift behavior.
Then we must define progress differently, you and I. Progress is by definition a good thing. If it's not good, it's not progress. For example, women gaining the right to vote in the US was progress. The equal rights amendment was progress. Increasing equality is progress. It is, by definition, a good thing. If it's a deep ditch or a dark pathway, then by definition, it's not progress. For example, repealing the 19th amendment would certainly be change, but it certainly wouldn't be progress.
This is something that would be quite interesting. How would the news of first contact have spread? And would people actually believe we had contacted extraterrestrial life, when that life looks just like humanity, but with up swept eyebrows, pointy ears and a greenish tinge?
Even if civilian use internet was still around at this point it would take a long time before anyone took those Montana wackos seriously. Even if you have 100 Vulcanian ships land in major population centers with cameras rolling and news coverage, It would take a long time before the entire population of earth would accept that it was real.
Not to mention what sort of test and experiments local fragments of the previous governments would do when they captured these aliens.
That is still relative based on our values. For many Prohibition was progress, for many others it wasn't.
I think that once we meet our first aliens and finally have it confirmed that we are indeed not alone in the universe, this will change the mindsets of quite a lot of people. Getting out of the solar system ourselves will add to that process.
People will see that all the petty things that separate us and we fight about don't really amount to a hill of beans when we contemplate our place in the universe. We're from a small planet in a backwater of a very common galaxy and we're not even the only sentient species. The galaxy doesn't revolve around us and we're not the pinnacle of creation. As that TNG episode pointed out, we're just a voice in a chorus.
Meeting aliens for the first time also underscores that we're all in the same small fragile lifeboat together and if we're going to get anywhere, it is in our best interests to unite as a species and stop fighting each other.
Of course, there will always be atavistic foot draggers, but they'll be the tinfoil hat brigade once critical mass is reached on newer perspectives.
We have to remember that just 400 years ago people believed in witches and burned those suspected of it at the stake. Two hundred and fifty years ago, they thought that draining a quantity of blood from people was a good way to cure illness - which is what ended killing George Washington - his doctor's "cure" for the flu.
People will see that all the petty things that separate us and we fight about don't really amount to a hill of beans when we contemplate our place in the universe. We're from a small planet in a backwater of a very common galaxy and we're not even the only sentient species. The galaxy doesn't revolve around us and we're not the pinnacle of creation. As that TNG episode pointed out, we're just a voice in a chorus.
Meeting aliens for the first time also underscores that we're all in the same small fragile lifeboat together and if we're going to get anywhere, it is in our best interests to unite as a species and stop fighting each other.
Of course, there will always be atavistic foot draggers, but they'll be the tinfoil hat brigade once critical mass is reached on newer perspectives.
We have to remember that just 400 years ago people believed in witches and burned those suspected of it at the stake. Two hundred and fifty years ago, they thought that draining a quantity of blood from people was a good way to cure illness - which is what ended killing George Washington - his doctor's "cure" for the flu.
But people will also work at something they loved and that makes them money. Joseph Sisko love of cooking doesn't preclude him making a comfortable living at it too.
Progress is defined as movement toward a destination or goal, nothing says that movement/goal will be positive.
And you can be moving forward toward something you were convinced will be fantastic, only to find upon arrival that you were mistaken.
Last edited:
TOS suggests that Mankind, entirely on its own, finally got its shit together and then reached for the stars. TNG, however, suggests that aliens came and visited us a decade after WW3, and then hand-held and spoon fed us the proper way to live. I must be Frank & Ernest, I prefer The Classic Series' approach to the premise of how a future like STAR TREK's might come about.
If aliens do exist and we're capable of interacting with them, in a meaningful way, there are going to be societal changes. It simply can't be helped. But it would not escape these aliens that Humanity benefitted from this 'relationship' infinitely more than they did. How that might register on their end, we can't know. It would be very humbling, that's for sure, when our movies, music and porn don't quite impress them the way they do ourselves.
If aliens do exist and we're capable of interacting with them, in a meaningful way, there are going to be societal changes. It simply can't be helped. But it would not escape these aliens that Humanity benefitted from this 'relationship' infinitely more than they did. How that might register on their end, we can't know. It would be very humbling, that's for sure, when our movies, music and porn don't quite impress them the way they do ourselves.
Thats the international Red Cross, The British Red Cross doing domestic work are almost exclusively part time volnteers
Like that In Flames' (Swedish band) album that revolves around human condition says: "We should have been so much more by now."
I think it would take a WW3 with the death of billions not millions, plus the landing of Vulcans for humans to get their shit together. The combination of straight, rich, white man privilege, and religious zealotry from the main groups; both Christians, Muslim, Judiaism, Hindus and political extremism from all sides would have to go.
If Solkar landed now, we would shoot him.
If Solkar landed now, we would shoot him.
Nobility and 'human nature' have nothing to do with it.
Majority of humans presently do work for money because they have no other choice in terms of survival.
The system we use (the monetary system) has conditioned many Humans into (mistakenly) thinking that only money is a good motivation for work.
Current system = forcing people to work so they can survive (fear based).
Of course you will have majority of people discarding non-paid work currently because they have to worry how they will survive and they were raised in a system that never presented them with any other options (its the only thing they know).
It has been demonstrated in some studies that motivation for work comes from different sources... money is only a good motivator for repetitive mind-numbing work ... all of which can be automated btw.
As for whether trek follows Human progress..
Depends... yes in some areas, in others no.
Trek has tried to show us a way of life that's for the most part opposite of what most Humans live in today.
To many, it would seem like a 'utopia'... but keep in mind that a person from the 11th century would probably also think that WE live in a 'utopia' (compared to them).
So no... what Trek created in the 24th century is not a 'utopia', just a lot better compared to what we have now, and is ALREADY attainable with the technology we have in circulation.
Flying cars are arguably not a representation of an advanced society.
At best they look like a fad.
Public transport (in the form of maglev trainsor capsules in vacuum tubes for instance as described by ET3) would be a far superior/efficient option when it comes to moving from one point to another.
In medical science, Trek is suspiciously absent of stem-cells and nanite technology.
Those technologies are expected to be widely used within the next 5 to 13 years. By 2063 or 2151 (Archer's time), those technologies and medical science would positively trounce ALL over what was actually shown.
Biological immortality is being studied and people like Ray Kurzweill have indicated they will be more than attainable by 2030 given faster than exponential developments in science and technology.
In Trek, to see Humans live a finite life expectancy (barring accidents and explosions that end up killing someone of NOT so natural causes such as ageing) especially after development of Warp drive (2063) is quite frankly ridiculous, unless it was provided as an option that people die... though that's unrealistic because most people (even when they say they wouldn't want to live indefinitely) end up clinging to as much of life as they could.
In Trek, I could possibly see a small minority of people opting to choose to live a finite life expectancy - and this would likely be accompanied by those who decided to reject the Federation way of life.
I'm afraid that would be the case as well.
Well, compared to how people lived in the 11th century, it is better in many ways. More food. Better ways to cure sickness and injuries.
Perhaps not.
War on any scale is devastating... and given we live in a day and age of global communications, observe that any conflict is currently transmitted over social networks like crazy and is meeting high levels of resistance from the general population.
Look at how many people are taking to the streets in various cities in Europe protesting against their own governments (not being transmitted via regular media).
It is usually NOT the general population instigating wars and conflicts around the world, it is the so-called 'elected officials' and 'leaders' who are uneducated in how the natural world works (that's not to say the general population doesn't suffer from the same problem - they do, which is why they think they need 'leaders' and 'politicians' in the first place and play into a non-functional system which elects incompetent individuals who start wars and conflicts).
So, WW3, if it got rid of majority of 'leaders', potentially the rich, etc., it might have given the social movement in the general population for Humanity to make the necessary shift with the arrival of the Vulcans (arrival of the Vulcans alone might prompt very different patterns of behavior... not necessarily violent ones - especially if these people are tired of war and killings - so why would you want to shoot an alien who for all intense and purposes didn't do anything harmful to you and has initiated peaceful first contact?).
As for religion... well, further taking the premise of living in a society of global communications, access to basic understanding of science and how the natural world works is spreading. If something like this occurred with Humanity in Trek prior to WW3 and even during, it would eventually phase out superstitions, and majority of religions as we understand them, because those kinds of way of thinking usually prevail in a world where the less a person knows of how the world works.
Compared to us, a person from the 11th century would think we live in a world far beyond their comprehension.
The living standard of a person in a 'developed country' and able to 'afford' it is far superior to how Humans lived in the 11th century of comparable 'status' level (I cringe at 'classes' in society - nothing more than nonsensical social stratification).
To them it would seem like magic because they never grew up in such a world.
It is a similar problem when talking to some people about trying to imagine a world without capitalism or money.
Many are unable because they lived in this system for so long to the point where they don't know of anything else, and their way of thinking is extraordinarily limited to it because of lack of understanding of how the natural world works and our scientific and technical capabilities - the knowledge is there and mostly accessible (at least to those who can afford such access), but as you may be aware, most people are not prompted to educate themselves beyond what they were taught in schools, from their parents and cultures in which they grew up in.
I also wonder, would the Star Trek version of progress mean there is no serial killers or other such extreme criminals on Earth?
Crimes of passion, crimes of boredom, crimes for thrills, crimes for dominance, crimes to obtain something illegal in the society, crimes of envy, crimes of jealousy ...
Serial killers? Sure they'll still be with us, along with crime in general. The show makes clear that the future does include a prison system.
Serial killers? Sure they'll still be with us, along with crime in general. The show makes clear that the future does include a prison system.
Trek is very optimistic but not actually as flawless or utopian as some claim (or that it claims progress is easy or that there can't be setbacks). You have periods of better and worse relations with the Klingons, overall relations with the Ferengi aren't really good but not terrible (and individuals react in vary diverse ways), you have controversial treaties with for example the Cardassians (some Federation citizens being so upset at relocation being part of it they took up arms); some characters are at least for a time prejudiced against Klingons or Ferengi or Cardassians. The main characters more often focus on enjoying and working for the positive but they admit there are problems and sometimes not easy or clear solutions.
Progress does not mean human nature changes, we don't become perfect
Mr Suder is a psycho killer living on a Federation planet Betazed. His ability to murder was not the shock its the fact that he had no motive. So murder was not unheard of in the Federation.
This is why I like DS9 version of humanity, things have improved but humans are still human.
Its also a common critiscism of TNG, that it ignores the realities of life in favour of an idealised view of humanity. I prefer to rationalise that as being more about Picard in particular being an idealist and us seeing things from within the bubble he can directly control.
That's just how Humans would behave if they hadn't grown up with the notion of scarcity (which doesn't even exist in the real world and is artificially maintained through lack of relevant education) and forced to work for a living, not to mention if they were exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving (which is to what most of the global population - including those having a 'higher education' - is not exposed to today).
If anything, the way the Federation was described, all forms of crime and problems we have right now would fade away.
Now, if Humans with such education and knowledge (not to mention technology) were transplanted to other planets... WHY would such behaviors emerge there?
It doesn't make sense, because ALL colonists would be provided with the necessary tools and ability to generate abundance in what they need while building the colony... and the only reason the writers created such problems on some colonies was because they didn't know any better - they projected a lot of their own ignorance onto Trek.
How can a colony 'fail'? The Federation, or at least Starfleet would try sending assistance as soon as something went wrong to get the people back on track? Why would they abandon it? That doesn't track with the notion of how these people were portrayed... unless the colonists were idiots who decided to cut all ties and therefore not request any help - but again, such behavior would be unrealistic for them.
How many writers actually educated themselves about neuroscience and epigenetics?
Roddenberry was on the right track, but he either didn't have all the information at his disposal back then, or he had to adapt the show to make it 'relateble' to the people viewing it (hence why various elements that exist in our society, such as prisons, were portrayed on Trek - but that doesn't mean its an accurate portrayal).
So, no, his Humans in the 24th century (Picard included) were not ideal version of us... they were a result of exposure to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving along with not growing up in an environment where scarcity is artificially maintained and living in a different socio-economic system.
I'm not sure either you or I are qualified to make such a sweeping generalisation about an untested hypothesis.
Why? Has at any point in history there been any indication its possible to eliminate crime?
What about things they don't need, but want, which in fact are a much more pressing driver of crime than necessity?
Why wouldn't they? Given that in absolutely every empirically documented example of human society to date they have emerged pretty reliably?
The federation is a fictional example of a society further advanced than our own, but still flawed in many ways. Chief amongst those flaws is the reality of human nature, which acts not due to necessity but in the pursuit of status, following tribal instincts, sexual jealousy, passion. Humanity which commits crimes due to mental health issues which are shown to still be an issue beyond much of 24th century technology, and due to prejudice which is clearly still rampant in the federation.
We have no idea how much difference technology could make to those instincts and every possible indicator is that education can only go so far in helping
Compared to people living thousands of year in the past, the people living in the 11th century would seem to be living in a realm of wonder.
Well, no. What we saw on screen is what was happening in the Star Trek universe.
It was a "accurate portrayal."
It is hardly a sweeping generalization when you understand that the environment and socio-economic system (part of the environments) prompts people to behave in a certain capacity.
Stress is generated by living in a society where you are forced to work for survival, because in the current system, without having a job, you cannot gain access to 'money' and ergo, no basic necessities of life... you keep wondering how you're going to survive... no time or the opportunity to focus on anything else... especially because re-education or education in general costs money to gain access to.
Stress is not the only thing generated by the system.
Not under current socio-economic system or systems like it that utilize money, because it generates crime by default.
It generates the sense of possession, and various wants (as shaped by society and culture), and if a person doesn't have money to gain access to something, they resort to crime to get it because they grew up in a society that told them they must have it (accumulation of material wealth and 'status' in society are often touted as important, but they are artificial constructs that mean nothing in the long run).
In case of basic necessities - people cannot survive without them, and if they have no money, crime will be their only recourse as means to gaining access.
Basic necessities and focus on establishing the colony would be primary priorities to these people. Basic necessities would evolve to encompass a lot of things btw.
Today, they mean clean air, clean water, quality food, quality clothing, quality education, quality transportation and quality housing.
They wouldn't emerge because these people think differently.
These Humans didn't grow up under the same conditions as people grow up in today. Ergo, same patterns of behavior would NOT emerge.
It is very clear that environment and culture shape Human behavior.
Human nature is largely a myth that was perpetuated through generations by people who wanted to describe Human behavior as generated by current environmental conditions... and the notion of 'human nature' is not really supported by modern neuroscience and epigenetics.
Trek tried to portray a society more advanced than our own... and no it wasn't perfect, but the 'flaws' they exhibited would not exist in that time frame under such environments (and it would still not be 'perfect').
Mental health issues being beyond 24th century technology is absurd.
Look at our technological progression.. it is faster than exponential... not linear. Most Humans think in a linear capacity, ergo, what the writers portrayed on Trek was a result of their own limitations in knowledge, and thinking that many things as they existed back when the shows were made would still exist hundreds of years later - which doesn't follow track.
Humanity radically changed in practically every aspect in just the last 100 years... there is no possible way that a collection of societies like the Federation would be static. Life doesn't stand still.
[/quote]
Instincts do not exist... again, they are an inadequate explanation of people who understand little of human biology and how environment impacts behavior.
For example, birds do not migrate due to instincts... they migrate because they are sensitive to shifts in the Earth's magnetic field.
It is a simple environmental stimulus on animal senses.
The same is happening to Humans... we react to environmental stimulus and our behavioral shaping begins in the womb (which is also an environment and depends on the mother's nutrition, does she smoke, drink, exercise, etc.).
Humans (like any other animal) are exposed to millions upon millions of little things, environmental stimuli which most people don't even notice - colors, shapes, sounds, the air we breathe, our perceptual angle, etc.
As for how much would technology make a difference... it would make a lot of difference... especially when coupled with exposure to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving.
Historically, science and technology (and their adoption have been the ONLY thing that improved lives of people and lifted them out of ignorance (which generates chaos and problems).
Prejudice existing in the Federation is highly unlikely because the Federation is comprised of over 150 different races.
Making assumptions about an entire race based on actions of the few would be utterly idiotic... this kind of thing ever being portrayed was plain stupid - it showcased current day attitude projection onto beings that were said to have evolved past this behavior repeatedly (and indeed, the only reason such projections took place was to increase the 'drama' with something that current day people could relate to).
I wouldn't necessarily agree... because, we saw various attitudes of TNG crew in early seasons and how they changed as the seasons progressed, the writers ended up reducing their personalities/responses in various areas to reactions of current day Humans - and that doesn't keep track for an interstellar alliance of over 150 races that based the Federation on mutual respect for diversity, tolerance, free exchange of technology, ideas, resources, etc.
Having prejudice in such a society would be catastrophic for the very survival of the Federation.
If anything, those kinds of differences would be settled within 10 or 20 years of the Federation's founding.
They might crop up from prospective NEW members, but not those already part of the Federation for some time - why would they have all those criteria otherwise so different species planets could become members in the first place?
It is to give them time for acclimatization from a socio-economic and social point of view (a transitional period if you will).
We even saw on TNG how 2 different planets applications for Federation membership was put on hold or refused because of social problems.
Similar threads
