The Utopian Federation: Restart

[Deimos Anomaly]

Because I saw this thread, and made a reply, but I neglected to notice that by the time I got in, the thread had already gone to hell. Of course my contribution immediately sank beneath the ongoing maelstrom, and it only got worse from there, with arguments about religion and all sorts of related issues and then devolution into personal attacks and flaming and eventual thread closure. Bummer.

Annyyywaaay, this was the premise:

According to Trek in the 23rd-24th centuries, humans have solved almost all most of our modern problems. They have eliminated poverty. Everybody gets along. There is no sexism. No Crime. No racism at all. People don't get sick.

"A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of 'things'. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions."

It's a complete Utopia. But they've never really explained exactly how they did it.

Does anyone even think it is really possible? Is it possible doing it Trek's way, or is it too unrealistic?

Is it a weird communist society as some claim? Can it be done without religion the way Gene claimed? Do we need a certain political ideology to make it happen?

How did they do it?

So if we can start over on this one...?

My own take was thus:

Drugs in the replicators?

Maybe the Vulcans ran some sort of deep black op on the human race, where they tweaked the genome a little and enmasse without mankind knowing, resulting in a kinder gentler utopian humanity. This might have been done with some sort of invisible nanites in the food, water, air, whatever.

I'm kinda thinking of what Smith said in the Matrix, about how mankind mentally rejected the "first matrix" which was designed as a utopia. See here:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxKYfTvZFb8[/yt]

Anyway, try to avoid the bloody death of a thread this time people. Please.

 

[Sindatur]

most people believe the root of most of our Social Ills is poverty.

Poor folks do drugs as a bandaid to not having everything they want. Folks sell drugs to make a living without having to go to a job. Etc, Etc

So, Star Trek, to me, presents itself as having solved a way to provide everyone's needs and desires through technology.

Personally, I don't believe it's possible to solve everyone's needs and desires. If you feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for everyone, there are still going to be those who want more (Bigger house, more possessions, more excitement, etc). Some people just are not happy with being happy, it becomes routine, they get bored and want something more.

 

[Sci]

Personally, I don't believe it's possible to solve everyone's needs and desires. If you feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for everyone, there are still going to be those who want more (Bigger house, more possessions, more excitement, etc). Some people just are not happy with being happy, it becomes routine, they get bored and want something more.

This is probably true, but I don't think we should underestimate how much happier and more functional society would be if we had an economic system that did meet everyone's basic needs for food, shelter, medical care, clothing, etc. A system that leaves no one behind may not be utopian, but it would sure produce a nobler and happier society than we have today.

 

[BillJ]

While it's fun to debate, I think the future postulated by Roddenberry would be impossible to obtain. Nor do I think I'd want to live in such a society. Earth of the future just seems to be mainly a storage area for humans who have little to no ambition. The folks who take to the stars are the ones who seek to escape the tedium on life on 24th Century Earth.

As much as it hurts us, I believe conflict and competition drives us to do greater things and are ingrained in humans. You eradicate those, you just leave a flock of sheep waiting for the first aggressor to come and pick them off.

 

[Sci]

While it's fun to debate, I think the future postulated by Roddenberry would be impossible to obtain. Nor do I think I'd want to live in such a society. Earth of the future just seems to be mainly a storage area for humans who have little to no ambition.

What makes you say that? Most of the time when we've seen civilian life on Earth, it's seemed pretty active -- people working to build underwater habitats and explore the ocean; people conducting scientific research; people running large vineyards or popular restaurants. We haven't seen much of life on Federated Earth, but what we have seen doesn't seem to want for ambition, even if it's no longer channeled into a desire for money and power.

As much as it hurts us, I believe conflict drives us to do greater things. You eradicate conflict, you just leave a flock of sheep waiting for the first aggressor to come and pick them off.

Because, of course, Earth is so famously helpless and soft in the Star Trek Universe.

 

[BillJ]

What makes you say that? Most of the time when we've seen civilian life on Earth, it's seemed pretty active -- people working to build underwater habitats and explore the ocean; people conducting scientific research; people running large vineyards or popular restaurants. We haven't seen much of life on Federated Earth, but what we have seen doesn't seem to want for ambition, even if it's no longer channeled into a desire for money and power.

All we've been shown are people who are connected to the heroes. Of course they aren't going to be shown as people living off the state laying around eating their replicated food, drinking synthehol and living fantasies on their personal holo-decks. By providing everything, you turn the masses into sheep. You make the masses docile.

It seems no one in the Star Trek universe has a lazy brother who sleeps on their couch or even knows anyone like that.

Because, of course, Earth is so famously helpless and soft in the Star Trek Universe.

Earth happened to be in the right place, at the right time. Or else they'd have been overran by the Klingons in Broken Bow.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Because, of course, Earth is so famously helpless and soft in the Star Trek Universe.

While it isn't soft Earth does tend to be helpless a good deal of the time, I mean it wasn't until Endgame that Starfleet kept a fleet nearby in case of attack.

 

[sonak]

What makes you say that? Most of the time when we've seen civilian life on Earth, it's seemed pretty active -- people working to build underwater habitats and explore the ocean; people conducting scientific research; people running large vineyards or popular restaurants. We haven't seen much of life on Federated Earth, but what we have seen doesn't seem to want for ambition, even if it's no longer channeled into a desire for money and power.

All we've been shown are people who are connected to the heroes. Of course they aren't going to be shown as people living off the state laying around eating their replicated food, drinking synthehol and living fantasies on their personal holo-decks. By providing everything, you turn the masses into sheep. You make the masses docile.

It seems no one in the Star Trek universe has a lazy brother who sleeps on their couch or even knows anyone like that.

Because, of course, Earth is so famously helpless and soft in the Star Trek Universe.

Earth happened to be in the right place, at the right time. Or else they'd have been overran by the Klingons in Broken Bow.

I think it's the opposite. By removing the " struggle for survival" that modern capitalism is for all but the independently wealthy, you enable people to pursue their REAL ambitions rather than what they must settle for to provide for their basic needs.


I think people will strive for more when failure doesn't mean poverty.

 

[BillJ]

I think it's the opposite. By removing the " struggle for survival" that modern capitalism is for all but the independently wealthy, you enable people to pursue their REAL ambitions rather than what they must settle for to provide for their basic needs.

Now think about that for a moment.

What does the population of Earth look like in the 24th Century? Twenty-five billion? Fifty billion?

With replicators, holo-decks, weather control satellites and on and on. How many are really going to be needed to keep the planet functioning? No need for garbage men as the replicator cycles refuse into reuseable matter. No real need for police officers as security systems and transporters would nab most offenders. No crime? No need for jails. Most natural disasters can be controlled or predicted? No need for organizations like the Red Cross or FEMA. No wars? No real need for the military. No poverty? No need for charitable organizations.

Then you add in a lifespan of people living from 130 to 150 years of age. Is everyone going to write a novel? Climb Everest? Those things are no longer special when everyone is doing it. So you end up with 85 percent of your population having nothing to do from birth to death, except piddle around with no real goal and wait for death. In such a culture I would imagine religion would become bigger than ever as most try to find some meaning to their existence.

My wife talked me into going to church yesterday for the first time in years and when I hear people talk about utopian Earth I get the same glazed over look as I got when I listened to the preacher talk about heaven.

"There's no need and you get to do anything you want!", my question is if that's the case then what's the point of being there?

Need drives many of the things, good and bad, that we do. You eliminate need, you eliminate a key element of the human equation.

 

[Sci]

What makes you say that? Most of the time when we've seen civilian life on Earth, it's seemed pretty active -- people working to build underwater habitats and explore the ocean; people conducting scientific research; people running large vineyards or popular restaurants. We haven't seen much of life on Federated Earth, but what we have seen doesn't seem to want for ambition, even if it's no longer channeled into a desire for money and power.

All we've been shown are people who are connected to the heroes. Of course they aren't going to be shown as people living off the state laying around eating their replicated food, drinking synthehol and living fantasies on their personal holo-decks.

In other words, you have no actual evidence to back up your assertion.

By providing everything, you turn the masses into sheep. You make the masses docile.

You know, all I can say in response to this is that when people I know have been dead broke and in dire need of employment, they've typically had a much harder time being ambitious and assertive than they were when they knew they had a safety net of some sort.

People who are dead broke and in need of work are not "highly motivated;" they are often desperate, self-loathing, and psychologically spent. So I rather reject your notion that ending poverty somehow means ending accomplishment.

Because, of course, Earth is so famously helpless and soft in the Star Trek Universe.

Earth happened to be in the right place, at the right time. Or else they'd have been overran by the Klingons in Broken Bow.

Strange argument. You assert that Earth is helpless against foreign aggressors, and then dismiss direct empirical evidence that it is not.

 

[BillJ]

Strange argument. You assert that Earth is helpless against foreign aggressors, and then dismiss direct empirical evidence that it is not.

Earth didn't save it's own ass, the Vulcans saved them...

TOS: If we hadn't convinced them to let us take Klaang's corpse back to Kronos, Earth would most likely be facing a squadron of Warbirds by the end of the week.

It seems to me that the Vulcan's were running interference on Earth's behalf. Or else Earth and their one Warp Five starship would've become a Klingon asset.

 

[Sci]

Strange argument. You assert that Earth is helpless against foreign aggressors, and then dismiss direct empirical evidence that it is not.

Earth didn't save it's own ass, the Vulcans saved them...

When the Vulcans used diplomatic pressure to keep the Klingons from retaliating for the crash at Broken Bow, yes, that is true. (It is also true that this had nothing to do with Humans somehow lacking ambition -- it has to do with Earth having been a new space power and having not yet developed the infrastructure and fleet size necessary to defend against the Empire.)

Meanwhile, it's also true that when Earth was threatened by the Xindi two years later, Earth defended itself without Vulcan's assistance. And that by doing so, Earth saved Vulcan, because the entire galaxy was threatened by the expansion of the Sphere Builders' attempts to alter the fabric of space.

 

[RoJoHen]

Then you add in a lifespan of people living from 130 to 150 years of age. Is everyone going to write a novel? Climb Everest? Those things are no longer special when everyone is doing it. So you end up with 85 percent of your population having nothing to do from birth to death, except piddle around with no real goal and wait for death.

I think you underestimate the potential of human imagination. Sure, you'll have people that coast through life never really having any real accomplishments (but at least they're healthy!). But you'll also have people taking their free time to do new and extraordinary things.

 

[BillJ]

So I rather reject your notion that ending poverty somehow means ending accomplishment.

I've yet to mention poverty in any of my posts.

When you end need in a society that doesn't have any use for 85 percent of its' population then you begin to breed a populace that is docile and lacks direction.

 

[Sci]

So I rather reject your notion that ending poverty somehow means ending accomplishment.

I've yet to mention poverty in any of my posts.

When you end need in a society that doesn't have any use for 85 percent of its' population then you begin to breed a populace that is docile and lacks direction.

Maybe.

Or maybe you create a population that finds its own reasons for existing, without needing society's approval/desire for them. Maybe you create a population of people who find their own direction and their own ambition, independent of the standards that were once set by society.

You may well find that, for many people, a life defined by the necessity of meeting material needs was itself a docile, directionless, meaningless life, and that an existence freed of such a tyranny of scarcity is one in which they are more assertive, more confident, more accomplished, and happier.

 

[BillJ]

You may well find that, for many people, a life defined by the necessity of meeting material needs was itself a docile, directionless, meaningless life, and that an existence freed of such a tyranny of scarcity is one in which they are more assertive, more confident, more accomplished, and happier.

This is one where we'll have to agree to disagree.

But what does society become when generation after generation sees that everything their hearts desire comes from a slot in the wall? What becomes of it when people can go anywhere, anytime by walking to another part of the house?

VINA: But they found it's a trap. Like a narcotic. Because when dreams become more important than reality, you give up travel, building, creating. You even forget how to repair the machines left behind by your ancestors. You just sit, living and reliving other lives left behind in the thought record.

Sounds alot like the holo-deck...

 

[BillJ]

Meanwhile, it's also true that when Earth was threatened by the Xindi two years later, Earth defended itself without Vulcan's assistance. And that by doing so, Earth saved Vulcan, because the entire galaxy was threatened by the expansion of the Sphere Builders' attempts to alter the fabric of space.

Without the extremely idiotic move by the Xindi to attack Earth with a smaller probe, Earth would've never seen their own destruction coming. Chalk that one up to bad writing.

Not to mention the fact that the Enterprise failed in the mission at least twice along the way (E2, Twilight).

 

[Sci]

You may well find that, for many people, a life defined by the necessity of meeting material needs was itself a docile, directionless, meaningless life, and that an existence freed of such a tyranny of scarcity is one in which they are more assertive, more confident, more accomplished, and happier.

This is one where we'll have to agree to disagree.

But what does society become when generation after generation sees that everything their hearts desire comes from a slot in the wall?

What makes you think mere material needs constitute their hearts' desires? Why do you think they would be satisfied with whatever the replicator gives them? What reason do you have to think they won't move on to more creative goals than the creation of mere objects?

What becomes of it when people can go anywhere, anytime by walking to another part of the house?

Actually, VOY seems to establish that home holosuites are uncommon, and that most holosuites are public establishments akin to modern movie theaters.

ETA:

Meanwhile, it's also true that when Earth was threatened by the Xindi two years later, Earth defended itself without Vulcan's assistance. And that by doing so, Earth saved Vulcan, because the entire galaxy was threatened by the expansion of the Sphere Builders' attempts to alter the fabric of space.

Without the extremely idiotic move by the Xindi to attack Earth with a smaller probe, Earth would've never seen their own destruction coming.

A function, again, of Humanity's limited reach in that era, not of lack of ambition or docility.

 

[BillJ]

Actually, VOY seems to establish that home holosuites are uncommon, and that most holosuites are public establishments akin to modern movie theaters.

Home video games were uncommon thirty-five years ago. As were home projectors. What makes you think that holo-tech can't or won't follow the same road?

 

[sonak]

You may well find that, for many people, a life defined by the necessity of meeting material needs was itself a docile, directionless, meaningless life, and that an existence freed of such a tyranny of scarcity is one in which they are more assertive, more confident, more accomplished, and happier.

This is one where we'll have to agree to disagree.

But what does society become when generation after generation sees that everything their hearts desire comes from a slot in the wall? What becomes of it when people can go anywhere, anytime by walking to another part of the house?

VINA: But they found it's a trap. Like a narcotic. Because when dreams become more important than reality, you give up travel, building, creating. You even forget how to repair the machines left behind by your ancestors. You just sit, living and reliving other lives left behind in the thought record.

Sounds alot like the holo-deck...

is there anything to back up your view that when people's needs are taken care of, they become sheep? I'm with Sci here. I think that makes no sense.

there's a quote that "a necessitous man is not free." When you're working 70 hours at a manual labor job to support three kids, you're somehow motivated more to strive?


And why do actors and musicians continue to produce work long after they're financially secure? By your argument, once they make a few million they should retire to sit at home and masturbate to internet porn.


I think people on Earth in the UFP would create art, debate philosophy, write poetry, travel, etc.